The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutPC Agenda Packet with Report 4-12-24 RdxSizeDocPLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA April 17, 2024 REGULAR MEETING – 6:30 PM COUNCIL CHAMBERS 11111 BROOKSHIRE AVE., DOWNEY, CA 1. CALL TO ORDER: A REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING - 6:30 PM 2. FLAG SALUTE 3. ROLL CALL: Lujan, Saikaly, Morales, Vice Chair Guerra, Chair Uva 4. PLANNING COMMISSIONER ANNOUNCEMENTS; REQUEST FOR FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS; AND CONFERENCE/MEETING REPORTS: 5. PRESENTATIONS: None 6. REPORT ON CITY COUNCIL ACTIONS 7. PUBLIC HEARINGS: A. PLN-23-00035 (General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Site Plan Review, Tentative Tract Map, Density Bonus) Location: 7360 Foster Bridge Boulevard Request: A request to for a General Plan Amendment and Zone Change to facilitate the construction a 33-unit multifamily residential townhome development. CEQA: Mitigated Negative Declaration Staff: Recommendation: Principal Planner, Alfonso Hernandez That the Planning Commission: 1. ADOPT PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 24-4024 RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND ZONE CHANGE (PLN-23-00035), THEREBY CHANGING THE GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION FROM LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TO MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL AND CHANGE TO THE ZONING DESIGNATION FROM R-1 (SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL) TO R-3-O (MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL OWNERSHIP) FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 7360 FOSTER BRIDGE BOULEVARD AND A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION WITH A MITIGATED MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM 2. ADOPT PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 24-4025 RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE A SITE PLAN REVIEW (PLN-23-00035) AND A DENSITY BONUS REQUEST THEREBY ALLOWING THE CONSTRUCTION OF A 33- UNIT RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM TOWNHOME OWNERSHIP DEVELOPMENT LOCATED AT 7360 FOSTER BRIDGE BOULEVARD 3. ADOPT PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 24-4026 RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 84168 (PLN-23- 00035) FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 7360 FOSTER BRIDGE BOULEVARD (APN NO.: 6358-015-058) 8. PUBLIC COMMENTS: CONSENT CALENDAR/ OTHER BUSINESS/ NON-AGENDA Persons wishing to address the Planning Commission on any item listed on the Agenda, other than public hearing items, may do so at this time. PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA April 17, 2024 It is requested, but not required, that you state your name, address, and subject matter upon which you wish to speak. Please limit your comments to no more than four (4) minutes. Pursuant to the Brown Act, no discussion or action, other than a brief response, referral to the City Planning staff or schedule for a subsequent agenda, shall be taken by the Planning Commission on any issue brought forth that is not listed on the Agenda. 9. CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS: None 10. OTHER BUSINESS: None 11. STAFF MEMBER COMMENTS 12. ADJOURNMENT Supporting documents are available at: www.downeyca.org; City Hall-City Clerk’s Department, 11111 Brookshire Avenue, Monday – Friday, 7:30 a.m. – 5:30 p.m. Video streaming of the meeting is available on the City’s website. In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), if special assistance is needed to participate in this meeting, complete the City’s Title II ADA Reasonable Accommodation Form located on the City’s website and at City Hall - City Clerk’s Department, 11111 Brookshire Avenue, Monday – Friday, 7:30 a.m. – 5:30 p.m., and submit to the City Clerk’s Department or contact (562) 904-7280 or TTY 7- 1-1, 48 business hours prior to the Planning Commission meeting. The City of Downey prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability in any of its program and services. For questions, concerns, complaints, or for additional information regarding the ADA, contact the City’s ADA/Section 504 Coordinator at ADACoordinator@downeyca.org; Phone: (562) 299-6619; or TTY at 7-1-1. In compliance with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, the City of Downey prohibits discrimination of any person in any of its program and services. If written language translation of City agendas or minutes, or for oral language interpretation at a City meeting is needed, contact (562) 299-6619, 48 business hours prior to the meeting. En cumplimiento con el Título VI de la Ley de Derechos Civiles, la Ciudad de Downey prohíbe la discriminación de cualquier persona en todos sus programas y servicios. En caso de necesitar una traducción escrita de los órdenes del día o las actas de las reuniones de la ciudad, o para solicitar un intérprete oral para una reunion de la ciudad, comuníquese con el (562) 299-6619 en el horario de atención comercial, 48 horas antes de la reunión. I, Ria Ioannidis, Planning Secretary, City of Downey, do hereby certify, under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing notice was posted pursuant to Government Code Section 54950 Et. Seq. and City of Downey Ordinance at the following locations: Downey City Hall, Downey City Library, and Barbara J. Riley Senior Center. Dated this 12th day of April, 2024 Ria Ioannidis Ria Ioannidis Planning Secretary NOTICE: SECTION 9806 – APPEALS Any person aggrieved or affected by any final determinations of the Commission concerning an application for action of an administrative nature, including a variance or a permit, or any condition or requirement thereon, or upon the failure of the Commission to make its findings and determinations within thirty (30) days after the closure of the hearing thereon, no later than fifteen (15) calendar days, (Exception: subdivisions. no later than ten (10) calendar days) after the date of the decision or of the Commission’s failure to make a determination, may file with the City Planner a written notice of appeal there from to the Council. Such appeal shall set forth specifically wherein it is claimed the Commission’s findings were in error, and wherein the decision of the Commission is not supported by the evidence in the matter, and wherein the public necessity, convenience, and welfare require the Commission’s decision to be reversed or modified STAFF REPORT PLANNING DIVISION DATE: APRIL 17, 2024 TO: PLANNING COMMISSION SUBMITTED/ REVIEWED BY: IRMA HUITRON, DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PREPARED BY: ALFONSO HERNANDEZ, PRINCIPAL PLANNER SUBJECT: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, ZONE CHANGE, SITE PLAN REVIEW, TENTATIVE TRACT MAP, DENSITY BONUS REQUEST TO FACILITATE THE DEVELOPMENT OF A NEW 33-UNIT RESIDENTIAL TOWNHOME CONDOMINIUM DEVELOPMENT (PLN-23-00035) LOCATION: 7360 FOSTER BRIDGE BOULEVARD (APN NO: 6358-015-058) ZONING: R-1 (SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL) GENERAL PLAN: LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL SUMMARY This is a request for a Site Plan Review (SPR) to construct a 33-unit residential condominium townhome ownership development on a 1.35-acre site. The applicant’s requests include consideration of a General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Site Plan Review, Tentative Tract Map, and Density Bonus. The project proposes to change the General Plan land use designation of the site to Medium Density Residential (MDR) and change its zoning classification to Multi- Family Residential Ownership Zone (R-3-O). The project is proposed at a density of 20.6 units/gross acre, includes five (5) different unit designs, all with three (3) bedrooms located within four (4) buildings. The maximum proposed height is thirty-six (36) feet, and no more than three (3) stories. Vehicular access to the project will be provided via two (2) driveway entrances. The primary entrance would be located at the northeastern corner of the project site off of Foster Bridge Boulevard with a twenty-six (26) foot width and would be accessible by vehicles and pedestrians while the driveway off of Suva Street be limited to westbound vehicular exit only. The project is designed with private open space, landscaping, and walls and fences. This project was previously scheduled for a public hearing on February 21, 2024, however that hearing was continued at the request of the applicant. Staff will provide a presentation with a detailed overview and analysis of the proposed project submitted by the applicant, The Olson Company, then a presentation by the applicant will be provided, and followed by a public hearing. The Planning Commission’s recommendation will be forwarded to the City Council for consideration. REQUESTS: 1. A request to amend the General Plan Land Use Designation from Low-Density Residential (LDR) to Medium Density Residential (MDR) General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Site Plan Review, Tentative Tract Map, Density Bonus - PLN-23-00035 April 17, 2024 - Page 2 2. A request to change the zone from Single-family Residential (R-1) to Multiple-family Residential Ownership (R-3-O) 3. A request for a Site Plan Review for the proposed development’s architectural design, site plan layout and configuration, circulation and landscaping and associated Density Bonus, Concession and Waiver requests. 4. A request to subdivide the property for townhome purposes to construct a total of thirty- three (33) residential ownership units, including thirty (30) market rate units and three (3) affordable units (Tentative Tract Map No. 84168). ENVIRONMENTAL: A Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) and the related Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) have been prepared in accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Article 6 of the California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 3. RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission: 1. ADOPT PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 24-4024 RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND ZONE CHANGE (PLN-23-00035), THEREBY CHANGING THE GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION FROM LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TO MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL AND CHANGE TO THE ZONING DESIGNATION FROM R-1 (SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL) TO R-3-O (MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL OWNERSHIP) FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 7360 FOSTER BRIDGE BOULEVARD AND A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION WITH A MITIGATED MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM 2. ADOPT PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 24-4025 RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE A SITE PLAN REVIEW (PLN-23-00035) AND A DENSITY BONUS REQUEST THEREBY ALLOWING THE CONSTRUCTION OF A 33-UNIT RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM TOWNHOME OWNERSHIP DEVELOPMENT LOCATED AT 7360 FOSTER BRIDGE BOULEVARD 3. ADOPT PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 24-4026 RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 84168 (PLN-23- 00035) FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 7360 FOSTER BRIDGE BOULEVARD (APN NO.: 6358-015-058) PROJECT APPROVAL AUTHORITY: • General Plan Amendment and Zone Change – Government Code Sections 65356 through 65355 and Section 65854 requires the Planning Commission to hold at least one (1) public hearing before a recommendation on a General Plan Amendment (GPA) and a Zone Change (ZC) to the City Council. Downey Municipal Code (DMC) Section 9834 authorizes the City Council to consider GPAs and ZCs upon recommendation of the Planning Commission. General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Site Plan Review, Tentative Tract Map, Density Bonus - PLN-23-00035 April 17, 2024 - Page 3 • Site Plan Review – Downey Municipal Code (DMC) Section 9820 requires all new structures and site improvements to be processed and heard by the Planning Commission. Final action is forwarded to the City Council for concurrent consideration as is required, per DMC Section 9802, when any portion of the application is at the discretion of the City Council. • Density Bonus Government Code Section 65915 allows the applicant to exceed the City’s density, request Concessions, and development standard Waivers dependent upon the level of affordability provided. Final action is forwarded to the City Council for concurrent consideration. • Subdivision/TTM – Government Code Sections 66452 and DMC Section 9922 requires subdivisions creating five (5) or more parcels to undergo processes for a Tentative Tract Map (TTM). The map must be reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission. Final action is forwarded to the City Council for concurrent consideration. BACKGROUND Site and Location The 1.35-acre project site is located in northwest Downey at the northwest corner of Foster Bridge Boulevard, Suva Street, and South Bluff Road, adjacent to the Rio Hondo River to the south. The City of Bell Gardens is located northwest of the site. The project site currently supports an operating church (“TLG House”). The site is developed with one 8,480 square-foot building, which was constructed in 1959. The building’s floor plan consists of a sanctuary, offices, and classrooms, and since its construction the building has not had any major upgrades or alterations. Surrounding uses include single family residential to the north, east, and southeast, a 28-unit multi-family residential development to the south, and self-storage to the west. The project site is located within the Single-Family Residential (R-1) zone, and is designated as Low Density Residential (LDR) by the City’s General Plan. City of Bell Gardens Subject Property R-1 Single Family Residences R-1 Multi-family Residences R-1 Single Family Residences R-1 Self Storage Facility General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Site Plan Review, Tentative Tract Map, Density Bonus - PLN-23-00035 April 17, 2024 - Page 4 Figure A – Vicinity Map and Surrounding Uses Figure B – Frontage at Intersection of Foster Bridge Boulevard and Bluff Road DISCUSSION General Plan Amendment and Zone Change The project includes a request to amend the General Plan Land Use Designation and Zoning designation for the property from the Low-Density Residential Land Use Designation with a corresponding R-1 zone, to the Medium-Density Residential Land Use Designation with the corresponding R-3-O zone, in order to facilitate the development of the proposed townhome condominium ownership project. Existing Proposed Figure C – Zoning (Existing and Proposed) R-3-O R-1 City of Bell Gardens City of Bell Gardens General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Site Plan Review, Tentative Tract Map, Density Bonus - PLN-23-00035 April 17, 2024 - Page 5 Existing Proposed Figure D – General Plan (Existing and Proposed) The current R-1 zoning and corresponding General Plan designation only allows typically for the development of detached single-family residential units at the maximum density of 8.9 housing units per acre, or roughly equivalent to a maximum of one housing unit for a standards 5,000 square foot lot. The proposed R-3-O zoning and corresponding Low-Density Residential General Plan Land Use Designation typically allows for a range of housing types that involves densities at 18 to 24 housing units per acre with a 1,815 square foot lot minimum per dwelling unit. The proposed R-3-O zone would allow for the development of attached and detached townhouse design condominium developments, provided the overall density is not exceeded. The R-3-O Zone is intended to provide for the development of ownership type housing in selected areas compatible with the neighborhood environment. Such areas are envisioned as being located and designed to be complementary to adjacent uses and providing sufficient opportunities for home ownership. General Plan Consistency The Downey General Plan is the basis for all local land use decisions. State law requires zoning and subdivisions to be consistent with the General Plan for approval. The purpose of the General Plan Land Use Element and Housing Element, two of the seven (7) elements required of the General Plan, is to address issues concerning the relationship between land uses and environmental quality, potential hazards, and social and economic objectives. The Land Use Element accompanied with the City’s recently adopted Housing Element constitutes the City’s official policy for the location of various uses, particularly housing developments, to ensure the City remains compliant with State Law and to ensure the orderly development of the City. A project is consistent with the General Plan if, considering all aspects of the proposed project, the project will further the goals, objectives and policies of the General Plan and not obstruct their attainment. As a part of meeting, the required findings listed in the Resolutions (Exhibits F, G, and H), must be supported with appropriate justification that the proposed project is consistent with the overall General Plan. In staff’s assessment of the project, and as described in the Resolutions, the policies and goals identified in the City’s recently adopted Housing Element Update are consistent with the project proposal. In particular, the Housing Element states that the City’s role is to facilitate the redevelopment of underutilized sites. This includes supporting the creation, adoption, and implementation of General Plan policies, zoning, and development standards and/or incentives to encourage the construction of various types of units. The proposed General Plan Amendment and Zone Change would fall under this description. Medium Density Low Density Open Space General Manufacturing General Manufacturing Low Density Open Space City of Bell Gardens City of Bell Gardens General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Site Plan Review, Tentative Tract Map, Density Bonus - PLN-23-00035 April 17, 2024 - Page 6 In addition, Housing Element law requires a quantification of each jurisdiction’s share of the regional housing need as established in the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) plan prepared by the jurisdiction’s Council of Governments. The California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD), in conjunction with the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), determine a projected housing need for the region covered by SCAG. The City of Downey has a RHNA of 6,525 housing units to accommodate in the current housing element period of 2021 - 2029. The RHNA is further broken down into specific affordability categories. The City is not obligated to build these units, instead the City is obligated for creating the policy framework to facilitate the construction of these units by private or non-profit developers. The City has designated various sites throughout the City that can potentially accommodate the City’s RHNA allocation of 6,525 units. This list of potential housing sites is known as the “sites inventory.” These sites are to be either rezoned or included in new overlay zones to allow for housing to be built on those sites. The City’s Housing Element Implementation Plan is currently underway and is expected to conclude by Spring of 2025. The “sites inventory” includes commercial properties located along Firestone Boulevard and Lakewood Avenue, among other street segments, and other sites such as the Stonewood Mall and Downey Landing which are located within Specific Plan areas. In addition, Planning procedures such as rezoning and General Plan Amendments are included in the Housing Element’s list of potential actions that may be taken to help facilitate the creation of housing units. The proposed project, if approved, would reduce the RHNA obligation. However, it should be noted that the subject property for this application is not included in the “sites inventory”, and the City did not previously consider the site when planning where to accommodate the City’s 6,525 RHNA obligation. It is also important to note that if sites currently in the “sites inventory” elect to not construct housing then the City is obligated to locate alternate potential sites to compensate for the loss of units that could have been built on that site. This obligation is required per the State’s “No Net Loss” law. Therefore, the project could potentially be considered to be included in the “site inventory” at later time which would require a separate analysis and action by the Planning Commission and the City Council. Within the current Housing Element period, 2021 – 2029, the City’s RHNA obligation of 6,525 has only been reduced by the creation of 17 market rate housing units not including ADUs. Aside from the proposed project, the City has four (4) other housing development applications currently under review. It should be noted that each of the four (4) applications face individual development constraints such as narrow lots which pose site plan layout challenges. Inclusionary Housing Ordinance (IHO) The proposed project would provide a total of three moderate income units as required per a combination of DMC Article I Chapter 5 (Inclusionary Housing) and California Government Code Section 65915 (Density Bonus). The City’s Inclusionary Housing Ordinance (IHO) was approved by City Council on April 12, 2022 and the applicant’s proposal is the first housing project to be considered under the City’s IHO. The IHO’s goal is to facilitate the construction of affordable housing units by requiring that a share of the units built are constructed, or a fee is paid, at the moderate affordability level. The amount of affordability units to be provided is calculated at a rate of 10% the amount of proposed units, not including Density Bonus units. The standard only applies, in the case of for-sale, to projects constructing ten (10) or more units. For this particular application the IHO requirement is 3.1 and rounded up to a total of four (4) units to be provided at moderate level affordability. However, via allowances provided per the State’s Density Bonus the IHO unit requirement is reduced to 3.1 units. Further details regarding Density Bonus allowances are provided in the following staff report section. Per the DMC, the applicant may elect to construct the IHO units, pay an in-lieu fee, or a combination of both. The applicant has proposed to General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Site Plan Review, Tentative Tract Map, Density Bonus - PLN-23-00035 April 17, 2024 - Page 7 construct three units and pay the fraction of .10 of a unit. The in-lieu fee amount to be paid is $25,848. Density Bonus At the request of the applicant, the project is exercising Density Bonus rights afforded by California’s Government Code Section 65915. This allows the applicant to construct an additional three units, or 5%, on top of the 30-units allowed per the DMC’s R-3-O zone. Although the 5% Density Bonus calculation results in an increase of two (2) units, the City’s baseline density of 30.82 must be rounded up per the state’s legislation allowing for the additional third unit. Traditionally, the 30.82 density calculation would be rounded down to 30 units per the DMC. In addition to the added units, the project is also allowed to include one Concession and various Waivers from the DMC. Specifically, the project is allowed these rights because at least 10% of the units are to be sold at moderate income levels. Concessions are allowed within the State’s Density Bonus Law dependent upon the affordability level provided for the project. The applicant is allowed to request only one Concession because they have elected to provide an affordability level of “moderate-income” for the respective three (3) IHO units. Concessions and Waivers The one requested Concession is a deviation from DMC Section 1503(c) pertaining to the IHO. The DMC details how to calculate the amount of required inclusionary housing units and the need to round up to the next whole number when a calculation results in a fraction. The applicant has requested a Concession to eliminate having to “round up”, and ultimately have the inclusionary amount requirement end in a fraction. This fraction amount results in a need to provide 3.1 inclusionary units. Without the Concession this calculation would result in a need to provide four (4) IHO units. Per the City’s IHO, the applicant may elect to construct, all or a portion, of the units or pay an in-lieu fee, for all or a portion of the units. With the Concession, the applicant has elected to construct three (3) IHO units and pay an in-lieu fee for the fractional amount of 10% of a unit, which would be a total of $26,341. The applicant has also requested seven (7) Waivers from the DMC. State Density Bonus law allows for an unlimited amount of Waiver requests. Per Density Bonus law, Waivers to development standards are limited to physical changes that would help better accommodate all the allowed units on the site. For example, a reduction to setbacks may be necessary to appropriately position a housing unit on the site. The requested Waivers are summarized below: Table 1 Summary of Requested Density Bonus Waivers DMC Requirement Deviation Section 9144. Definition for “Lot Area” Density calculated using the net lot size, which does not include certain easements. Applicant has request that density be calculated using gross lot size resulting in an increased allowable density. DMC Section 9312.08(a) Residential Zones Property Development Standards Setback Front Setback =15’ Ranges from 12.75’ to 14.25’ General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Site Plan Review, Tentative Tract Map, Density Bonus - PLN-23-00035 April 17, 2024 - Page 8 Table 1 Summary of Requested Density Bonus Waivers DMC Requirement Deviation Setback Rear Setback = 46’ Reduced Rear Setback = 37.5’ Setback Side Setback = 10’ Reduced Sideyard Setback = 5’ Height Maximum Height = 35’ Increased Height = 37.5’ *Increased height varies for each building, between 1’ to 2’-6” DMC Section 9710.02 Parking - R-3-O Zone Design Standards Two-car garage with side by side parking Applicant has requested that 15 of the 33 dwelling units (45%) be designed with enclosed tandem garage parking. DMC Section 9312.08(b)(10) Usable Open Space Private open space requires a 10’ x 10’ minimum dimension Applicant has requested to provide private open space in the form of patios for Buildings 1, 2, and 4, and in the form of balconies for units in Building 3 with varying non- conforming dimensions The applicant also proposes to deviate from the DMC pursuant to the less restrictive minimum mandatory parking standards allowed within the State’s Density Bonus Law. The Density Bonus parking standards require a minimum of 1.5 parking spaces per unit and no guest parking. The applicant’s proposal exceeds the Density Bonus parking requirements by providing a total of two spaces per unit and five guest parking spaces. A comparison table of the DMC, State Density Bonus Law parking standards, and the applicant’s proposal for on-site parking is provided below. Table 2 Parking Requirements DMC Requirement Density Bonus Law Proposed Section 9708. Residential Off-Street Parking Requirements. 2.0 covered spaces within a garage; plus 0.5 guest parking space per unit (Total: 83 spaces) 1.5 parking spaces per unit (Total: 49.5 spaces) 66 covered with each unit having a cover two car garage; 5 guest parking spaces (Total: 71 spaces) *Exceeds Density Bonus minimum parking standards Site Plan Review The Site Plan Review examines the proposed site changes, landscaping, and compliance with the Downey Municipal Code. The project includes the construction of 33 dwelling units. The proposed units will be located within four separate three-story buildings, with dwelling units ranging from 1,188 square feet to 1,792 square feet. Each dwelling unit will also include a two- car garage, and either a private patio or balcony. General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Site Plan Review, Tentative Tract Map, Density Bonus - PLN-23-00035 April 17, 2024 - Page 9 The project will also include 7,766 square feet of landscape area, 26’ wide drive-aisles, and five guest parking spaces (71 parking spaces overall). A copy of the proposed plans are attached as Exhibit C. A summary of the unit details is provided in the table below. Table 3 Project Components Unit Breakdown Unit Sizes Number of Bedrooms 3 units 1,188sf 3bd/3ba 12 units 1,477sf 3bed/3ba 5 units 1,600sf 3bed/2.5ba 10 units 1,657sf 3bed/3.5ba 3 units 1,792sf 3bed/3.5ba Total Units 33 Ingress/Egress Two (2) total driveways: • one (1) along Suva Street (exit only, right turn out/west) and • one (1) along Foster Bridge Road (both entry and exit)1 Note #1. A Condition of approval was added to Resolution No. 24-4025 to provide the installation of street markings indicating “Keep Clear” in front of the Foster Bridge Boulevard driveway entrance on the Southbound traffic lane. Various applicable development standards are summarized in Table 4: Table 4 – Development Standards Standard Zoning Code Standards Proposed Compliance Lot Coverage 50% 41.77% Yes Building Height 35 ft. / 3 stories 37.5 ft. / 3 stories No (Waiver) Setbacks: Front Rear (3 story building abutting an R-1) Street Side Side 15 ft. Min. 46 ft. Min. 7.5 ft. Min. 10 ft. Min. 12.75 ft. 37 ft. 6 in. 7.5 ft. 5 ft. No (Waiver) No (Waiver) Yes (Waiver) No (Waiver) Architecture The architectural style inspiration for the project is Spanish style. All buildings are designed to be consistent with one another in terms of architectural treatment, materials, color, and interior layout. The units fronting the street are designed to be oriented towards Foster Bridge Road and Suva Street, and the other units are oriented to the interior of the lot. The building materials include sand stucco siding painted white with wood like cement board accents selectively placed along the front elevations. Additional architectural features include exposed rafter tails, corbel trims around the windows, and traditional tile venting. Lastly, the roofing material will be clay tile. General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Site Plan Review, Tentative Tract Map, Density Bonus - PLN-23-00035 April 17, 2024 - Page 10 Front Elevation (Foster Bridge Blvd.) Front Elevation (Suva St.) Figure E – Project Colored Elevations Tract Map No. 84168 A Tentative Tract Map (TTM) is the corresponding subdivision application required for the creation of condominium developments consisting of five (5) or more units. The tract map defines the boundaries of common spaces and privately-owned airspace. Common spaces include the 26’ driveway and 20’ drive aisles throughout the site, common landscaped areas, paths, and guest parking areas. The private airspace areas outline the individual parcels that will be sold separately to individual parties. Each of these airspaces will be assigned an independent Assessor’s Parcel Number. The proposed placement of these airspace areas is deemed permanent and may not be modified at an administrative level. Modifications to the proposal would require submittal of a new map and approval from the Planning Commission. The TTM is attached as Exhibit B of Attachment H. As required per the Subdivision Map Act, the TTM was provided to the Downey Unified School District, Caltrans, and the Central Basin Municipal Water District in order to allow these agencies the opportunity to comment on the proposed map. None of the agencies provided comments. Park and Recreation Areas and Facilities (Quimby Act) Per the City’s Open Space Element of the General Plan and DMC Section 9931.8 as allowed by the Quimby Act, a subdivider shall dedicate a portion of land, or pay a fee, for the purposes of providing park and recreation facilities to serve future residents of such subdivisions. If the applicant were to elect to dedicate land, a total of 9,900 square feet would be required. Alternatively, these requirements may be met by providing sufficient amounts of open space on site via the DMC’s Credit for Private Open Space. However, the project does not propose open space and is requesting Density Bonus Waivers from providing such space as explained in the Density Bonus section. Therefore, the applicant has elected to pay an in-lieu fee. The purpose of the in-lieu fee is to collect funds for the City to later create and expand park lands or rehabilitate existing park and recreation facilities. The total applicable in-lieu (Quimby Act) fee for the 33-unit project is $34,264.56. Traffic Analysis General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Site Plan Review, Tentative Tract Map, Density Bonus - PLN-23-00035 April 17, 2024 - Page 11 A Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) was conducted for the project to analyze both existing conditions and potential traffic impacts. Regarding existing conditions, the TIA finds the intersections and street segments that will primarily serve the project to score Level of Service (LOS) grades of “acceptable” at a C or better, with the exception of the Suva and Guatemala intersection. The Suva and Guatemala intersection scores LOS grades at peak periods ranging from “acceptable”, grade D, to “approaches capacity”, grade E. These intersection and street segments along with their LOS are listed below. In addition, public comment, as summarized in the public comments section of this report and in Attachment K, indicate traffic congestion at greater levels than indicated in the TIA. Staff recently observed that existing conditions resembled what is indicated in the TIA. However, Staff finds through the TIA that the project is not forecasted to alter the current LOS of any of the intersections or street segments. Furthermore, the TIA indicates a minimal increase in trip generation coming and going to the site. Staff ultimately finds that the traffic conditions are a result of preexisting conditions specific to the nearby area and not a result of the project proposal. Therefore, Staff is unable to deem the project will create or significantly contribute as a major impact to the nearby area. Figure F - Existing Roadway Segment Daily Capacity Analysis Notes: (1) See Table 1. (2) The County of Los Angeles roadway maximum capacity at Level of Service "E" (see Table 1). (3) ADT = Average Daily Traffic Volume. (4) V/C = Volume to Capacity Ratio. (5) LOS = Level of Service (Based on the Level of Service standards on Table 1). Figure G - Existing Intersection Level of Service Notes: (1) AWS = All Way Stop; TS = Traffic Signal (2) Delay is shown in seconds/vehicle. For intersections with traffic signal or all way stop control, overall average intersection delay and LOS are shown. (3) LOS = Level of Service Aside for LOS, the site will generate a total daily net increase of 158 trips, with an additional 10 trips at AM peak times and 13 additional trips at PM peak times. This means within any 15-minute interval between the hours of 7am and 9am (for AM peak periods) the highest expected traffic volume will be 10 additional vehicles entering or existing the site and between 4pm and 6pm (for PM peak periods) a maximum of an additional 13 vehicles would be the highest volume entering General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Site Plan Review, Tentative Tract Map, Density Bonus - PLN-23-00035 April 17, 2024 - Page 12 or exiting the site. All other 15-minute intervals between those times would be less than the estimated peak trips. Considering the potential increase of traffic during peak times, as well as concerns expressed regarding there being heavier traffic than what was indicated in the TIA, Public Works Department Staff will adjust the timing of the traffic signal at Suva Street and Bluff Road/Foster Bridge Boulevard to accommodate clearing up to an additional 14 vehicles from the queue during any single cycle of the signal beginning on April 15, 2024. The Public Work Department will evaluate the timing of the signal and re-adjust, as needed, to ensure that traffic flow is optimized. In addition to the adjustment to the timing, the traffic signal at Suva Street and Bluff Road/Foster Bridge Boulevard is in the City’s plan over the next two to five years for full upgrade to the signal poles, traffic and pedestrian signal heads, safety lights, controls, and equipment cabinet. The new traffic signal and equipment would result in better operations and fewer maintenance call-outs to replace parts. In addition, a new traffic signal will provide an upgrade to safety with larger, more visible traffic and pedestrian signal heads, and improved signal and safety lighting for pedestrian and vehicular traffic. Condition No. 74 (Attachment G-Exhibit A) has been included to alleviate potential southbound queuing at the Foster Bridge Boulevard and Bluff Road Intersection, which will require a revision to the attahed plans. As initially presented by the applicant, the project driveway along Suva Street was proposed for emergency vehicles only. With staff’s proposed condition of approval, the driveway will now also serve northbound right turn exits only as well. The exit only will now alleviate approximately 30% of traffic exiting the site away from the Foster Bridge Boulevard and Bluff Road intersection. In addition to the TIA, Staff also looked at data collected from the City’s Traffic Calming Program. The program was adopted in 2010 and is intended to layout steps for addressing traffic calming requests and complaints. The steps include the following: (1) Traffic calming request is submitted to the City, (2) Petition prepared and sent to requestor, (3) Stage 1 traffic calming study performed, (4) Stage 1 traffic calming measure(s) implemented as appropriate, (5) Follow-up evaluation, (6)Conduct Stage 2 traffic calming study (if issue was not resolved), and (7) City Council approval (if necessary) and implement Stage 2 traffic calming measure. The data generated helps inform Staff of potential improvements that can be made to alleviate the existing conditions. With regard to nearby intersections and street segments, the City’s Public Works Committee met on March 21, 2024 to discuss the Traffic Calming Program in general (Attachment I) as well as touched on the potential measures to traffic infrastructure on Suva Street and Guatemala Avenue. One point of interest was speeding that occurs on these street segments. Potential remediations include Stage 1 traffic calming measures, such as signs and pavement markings, and Stage 2 traffic calming measures, such as speed humps and bulb-outs. Following completion of traffic studies for the addition of speed humps on Guatemala Avenue between Lubec Street and Coolgrove Drive, Staff is currently preparing petitions to be circulated to residents along this stretch for support of a speed hump installation project. If the project has adequate support from the residents (67%), the project would proceed as a capital improvement project to take place between July 2024 and February 2025. Traffic issues burdening these street segments are not directly, or entirely a result, of the proposed project therefore any necessary modifications are taken on by the City. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE The Development Review Committee (DRC) discussed and evaluated the project as it pertains to Planning, Police, Fire, Public Works, and Building and Safety matters. Each Department or Division evaluated the project and provided conditions of approval in the attached Resolution No. General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Site Plan Review, Tentative Tract Map, Density Bonus - PLN-23-00035 April 17, 2024 - Page 13 4025 to ensure the site design features and project have the least impacts to the surrounding community while ensuring that the project meets current municipal code requirements. PUBLIC INPUT Public Notice: On April 4, 2024, a public hearing notice was published in the Downey Patriot and was mailed to all tenants and property owners within 500 feet of the subject property (Attachment J). The DMC only requires that property owners be notified, but Staff also provided notification of the public hearing to the addresses located within 500-feet of the project site. Notification was also sent to all interested parties that previously provided their contact information, as well as outside agencies. Staff recommended to the applicant that they install a sign on the property advising the nearby community of the upcoming public hearing, however the applicant opted not to install the sign. On Sunday, April 7, 2024, City staff installed five (5), 24-inch by 36-inch poster board signs printed with a copy of the April 17, 2024 Planning Commission public hearing notice. City staff understands that the public has previously expressed concerns regarding the notification of any public hearings regarding the proposed project, and as such the posting of the signs at the project site and nearby area was completed with a ten-day advance notice of the scheduled hearing. Three of those signs were posted at each side of the project site (Suva Street, Bluff Road, and Foster Bridge Blvd) with the consent of the on-site’s pastor, and two other signs were posted in parkway areas, at the entry points of the Treasure Island neighborhood (Attachment J). Community Outreach: City staff encouraged the applicant to conduct community outreach, including a community meeting, while City staff conducted its evaluation of the project. The applicant verbally communicated to staff that their preferred option would be door-to-door visits to meet and inform residents of the proposed project. Staff received several calls from concerned residents of the Treasure Island neighborhood. Staff again encouraged the applicant to conduct a community outreach meeting so that the neighborhood could learn more about the proposed design and layout of the project while staff was still evaluating the project. The applicant informed City staff verbally several times that a community meeting was not their preferred option for conducting outreach and that they would continue with the door-to-door outreach approach. After the March 6, 2024 continued Planning Commission public hearing, staff once again met with the applicant to encourage them to host a community meeting to listen and potentially address the community concerns. In late March 2024, the applicant informed staff that the Olson Company (the applicant) held a community meeting at a community center located in the City of Bell Gardens and that several community members voiced concerns regarding the project. Despite requests by City staff, a written summary of the concerns has not been provided to staff. Public Comments: As of the preparation of this report, staff received written correspondence from three individuals stating opposition to the project due to concerns related to impacts to privacy, traffic, and street parking. A copy of the previous public comments is included in Attachment K. In addition to written comments, a total of 18 individuals either previously provided public comment at a past Planning Commission meeting or shared their thoughts directly with Staff. A general summary of the public comments/concerns received to date are provided below. In Opposition • Traffic concerns • Cleanliness of Treasure Island Park • Project is incompatible with single family housing, • Project should be built elsewhere • There is better utilization of the site (i.e. parks and recreation) • Parking congestion, especially for guests due to potential special occasions hosted at townhomes General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Site Plan Review, Tentative Tract Map, Density Bonus - PLN-23-00035 April 17, 2024 - Page 14 • Lack of parking to accommodate each unit • Current dangers for pedestrians due to existing traffic conditions including speeding when streets are not congested • Health concerns related to added vehicle congestion • Believes traffic study misrepresents actual traffic conditions • Density and over development of the site • Garage use for storage is difficult to enforce • Sense of community lost with loss of church • Misrepresentations provided from applicant when canvasing area • Over population in the area • School enrollment/overcrowding • Will alter quality of life • The Treasure Island neighborhood has historical significance • Current traffic conditions impact people exiting their homes • Will potentially negatively affect property values • Congestion makes it difficult for first responders to access the area In Favor • Development of site would eliminate activate the site • May potentially raise nearby property values Lastly, the City of Bell Gardens staff verbally expressed concern regarding the potential impacts of the project and City staff requested that a written summary be provided for further evaluation. However, the City staff has not received any further comments. Alternative Housing Development Scenarios The applicant has provided Attachment L, which includes a cover letter and attachment letter detailing the applicant’s analysis of what they believe are the residential development rights of the property under its current land use and zoning designation. The applicant indicated that their intent in providing such information is to demonstrate that the applicant’s proposed project is consistent with the residential density currently permitted by-right under State Density Bonus and Accessory Development Unit law. The City commissioned an independent peer review of the applicant’s letters and associated analyses which are included as Attachment M. This information is being provided to the Planning Commission to ensure the Commission has the background necessary to deliberate on the General Plan Land Use Designation change requested by the applicant. The City-initiated peer review memo (Attachment M) provides an analysis of the development scenarios utilizing the application of R-1 zoning, State Density Bonus law and provisions related to allowable accessory dwelling units and junior accessory dwelling units which would render a total of 39 dwelling units. The peer review memo further describes development scenarios using SB9 or SB4 provisions, if the low-density land use designation and single-family (R-1) zoning would remained unchanged. The applicant also provided within Attachment L, a summary that describes the potential development of the site using SB 4 provisions. The City’s commissioned peer review memo summarizes that such development would require that the project meet very specific criteria regarding the provision of a very high percentage of housing unit affordability levels and the applicability of prevailing wages requirements. The Planning Commission has been provided with three Resolutions (Attachments F, G, and H) for consideration which describes the merits of the project being proposed, with the applicant’s request for a General Plan Amendment and Zone change to allow a medium density project General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Site Plan Review, Tentative Tract Map, Density Bonus - PLN-23-00035 April 17, 2024 - Page 15 (MDR) land use designation with the corresponding zone (R-3-O). For clarity, the applicant’s proposal does not include a proposal to develop the site utilizing R-1 or low-density standards. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS The City reviewed the environmental impacts of the proposed project pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). A Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) was prepared and made available for a thirty (30) day public review period November 22, 2023 to December 22, 2023. The following comments were submitted to the City of Downey during the public review period: 1. Patricia Horsley – Environmental Planner, Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts, December 13, 2023 2. Lourdes Almazan – Glencliff Drive Resident, November 28, 2023 A copy of the Final Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND), Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP), and Comments/Response to Comments and errata are attached as Exhibit A of Attachment E. The public comments and responses are available for decision-makers for their review and consideration prior to making their decision whether to approve the proposed project. Although the State Guidelines Section 15088 does not require a City to prepare written responses to the comments received, the City elected to prepare written responses with the intent of providing a comprehensive and meaningful evaluation of the proposed project. Pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines: • None of the comments provide substantial evidence that the Project will have significant environmental effects which would require preparation of an Environmental Impact Report. • None of the information in the letters or responses constitute the type of significant new information that requires recirculation of the MND for further public review under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15073.5 Recirculation of a Negative Declaration Prior to Adoption. • None of this new material indicates that the Project will result in a significant new environmental impact not previously disclosed in the Project MND. • None of this information indicates that there would be a substantial increase in the severity of a previously identified environmental impact that will not be mitigated, or that there would be any of the other circumstances requiring recirculation described in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15073.5. The draft Mitigated Negative Declaration found potentially significant impacts of (1) Aesthetics (2) Biological Resources (3) Cultural Resources (4) Geology and Soils (5) Hazards and Hazardous Materials, (6) Noise and (6) Tribal Cultural Resources. However, no impacts would be generated as they relate to greenhouse gases, land use/planning, population/housing, traffic, agriculture, mineral resources, public services/recreation, utilities, air quality, water quality, and wildfires. Although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there would be no significant effect in this case because mitigation measures have been prepared and incorporated into Resolution No. 24-4024. An MND was prepared and with the inclusion of the proposed mitigation measures as described in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) adverse impacts are mitigated to the maximum extent feasible and below a level of significance. General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Site Plan Review, Tentative Tract Map, Density Bonus - PLN-23-00035 April 17, 2024 - Page 16 Tribal Consultation The IS/MND included a preliminary draft historical/archaeological resources survey memorandum as Appendix C-1. This report was considered preliminary as it did not contain a formal written response from the State Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) regarding cultural resources listed in their archives. However, the City did receive extensive information on local archaeological/Native American tribal resources from Gabrieleno tribal representatives during the City’s Native American Consultation Process per SB 18 and AB 52, as outlined in Sections 4.5 and 4.18 of the IS/MND. On December 6, 2023, Appendix C-1 was revised to include a final historical/archaeological resources survey report which included NAHC archival information. This additional information supports the analysis and conclusions in the IS/MND that the site and immediate surrounding area do not contain identified historical or cultural resources or artifacts. However, information from local tribal representatives still indicates Native American tribal resources may be present in the project area. Therefore, the IS/MND recommended Mitigation Measures CUL-1 to retain a project archaeologist and TCR-1 through TCR-3 as recommended by the Gabrieleno tribe in their consultation with the City to address tribal monitoring of grading, disposition of unanticipated resources during grading, and treating human remains if found during grading. The additional information in the revised Appendix C-1 does not change the analysis, conclusions, or mitigation in the IS/MND. CONCLUSION The Planning Commission is advised to listen to staff’s and the applicant’s presentations, open the public hearing, take public testimony, and deliberate on the merits of the proposed project and staff’s analysis as further described in the three Resolutions (No.24-1024, 24-4025, 24-4026). As proposed and with staff’s recommended conditions of approval, the project complies with the goals, policies, and programs outlined in the City’s General Plan and Housing Element. Findings to support the General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Site Plan Review, and Tentative Tract Map (PLN-23-00035) have been included in the Planning Commission Resolutions Nos. 24-4024, 24-4025, and 24-4026. Furthermore, staff is concluding that all findings required for a recommendation of approval can be made in a positive manner. As such, staff is recommending that the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council approve the application (PLN-23- 00035). The Planning Commission’s recommendation will be forwarded to the City Council for consideration. ATTACHMENTS: A. Vicinity Map B. Colored Renderings C. Submitted Project Plans dated April 17, 2024 D. Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) E. CEQA Documents • Exhibit A - Response to comments/Final MND Memo- Addendum Materials • Exhibit B – Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) • Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) • Exhibit C - Appendices • (Location: https://lf.downeyca.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=1006877&dbid=0&repo=Dow ney) F. Draft Resolution No. 24-4024 – General Plan Amendment (GP) and Zone Change (ZC) • Exhibit A – Conditions of Approval General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Site Plan Review, Tentative Tract Map, Density Bonus - PLN-23-00035 April 17, 2024 - Page 17 • Exhibit B – Existing and Proposed Zoning Designation • Exhibit C – Existing and Proposed General Plan Designation • Exhibit D – Mitigation, Monitoring, and Reporting Program G. Draft Resolution No. 24-4025 – Site Plan Review and Density Bonus • Exhibit A - Conditions of Approval H. Draft Resolution No. 24-4026 – Tentative Tract Map No. 84168 • Exhibit A - Conditions of Approval • Exhibit B – Tentative Tract Map No. 84168 I. Traffic Calming Program PW Committee Report March 21, 2024 J. Public Noticing K. Public Comments L. Applicant’s (Olson Co.) Density, R-1, and SB 4 Information M. Peer Review Memo - Density, R-1, SB 9, SB 4 Analysis Attachment A Location Aerial Photograph Subject Property Architecture + Planning17911 Von Karman Ave,Suite 200Irvine, CA 92614949.851.2133ktgy.com The Olson Company3010 Old Ranch Parkway, Suite 100Seal Beach, CA 90704 1 1 . 0 1 . 2 0 2 3 # D O W N E Y - F O S T E R B R I D G E & B L U F F D O W N E Y , C A 2 0 2 2 - 0 9 2 5 P l o t D a t e : 1 s t P l a n n i n g S u b m i t t a l S e t : 0 5 . 1 0 . 2 0 2 3 2 n d P l a n n i n g S u b m i t t a l S e t : 0 8 . 0 4 . 2 0 2 3 N T S A 1 . 1 V I E W 1 R E N D E R I N G A T F O S T E R B R I D G E B L V D . Architecture + Planning17911 Von Karman Ave,Suite 200Irvine, CA 92614949.851.2133ktgy.com The Olson Company3010 Old Ranch Parkway, Suite 100Seal Beach, CA 90704 1 1 . 0 1 . 2 0 2 3 # D O W N E Y - F O S T E R B R I D G E & B L U F F D O W N E Y , C A 2 0 2 2 - 0 9 2 5 P l o t D a t e : 1 s t P l a n n i n g S u b m i t t a l S e t : 0 5 . 1 0 . 2 0 2 3 2 n d P l a n n i n g S u b m i t t a l S e t : 0 8 . 0 4 . 2 0 2 3 N T S A 1 . 2 V I E W 1 R E N D E R I N G A T F O S T E R B R I D G E ( N O T R E E S ) Architecture + Planning17911 Von Karman Ave,Suite 200Irvine, CA 92614949.851.2133ktgy.com The Olson Company3010 Old Ranch Parkway, Suite 100Seal Beach, CA 90704 1 1 . 0 1 . 2 0 2 3 # D O W N E Y - F O S T E R B R I D G E & B L U F F D O W N E Y , C A 2 0 2 2 - 0 9 2 5 P l o t D a t e : 1 s t P l a n n i n g S u b m i t t a l S e t : 0 5 . 1 0 . 2 0 2 3 2 n d P l a n n i n g S u b m i t t a l S e t : 0 8 . 0 4 . 2 0 2 3 N T S A 1 . 3 V I E W 2 R E N D E R I N G A T S U V A S T R E E T Architecture + Planning17911 Von Karman Ave,Suite 200Irvine, CA 92614949.851.2133ktgy.com The Olson Company3010 Old Ranch Parkway, Suite 100Seal Beach, CA 90704 1 1 . 0 1 . 2 0 2 3 # D O W N E Y - F O S T E R B R I D G E & B L U F F D O W N E Y , C A 2 0 2 2 - 0 9 2 5 P l o t D a t e : 1 s t P l a n n i n g S u b m i t t a l S e t : 0 5 . 1 0 . 2 0 2 3 2 n d P l a n n i n g S u b m i t t a l S e t : 0 8 . 0 4 . 2 0 2 3 N T S A 1 . 4 V I E W 2 R E N D E R I N G A T S U V A S T R E E T ( N O T R E E S ) Architecture + Planning17911 Von Karman Ave,Suite 200Irvine, CA 92614949.851.2133ktgy.com The Olson Company3010 Old Ranch Parkway, Suite 100Seal Beach, CA 90704 0 8 . 0 3 . 2 0 2 3 # D O W N E Y - F O S T E R B R I D G E & B L U F F D O W N E Y , C A 2 0 2 2 - 0 9 2 5 P l o t D a t e : 1 s t P l a n n i n g S u b m i t t a l S e t : 0 5 . 1 0 . 2 0 2 3 2 n d P l a n n i n g S u b m i t t a l S e t : 0 7 . 2 6 . 2 0 2 3 B U I L D E R / D E V E L O P E R : T H E O L S O N C O M P A N Y 3 0 1 0 O L D R A N C H P A R K W A Y S U I T E 1 0 0 S E A L B E A C H , C A 9 0 7 0 4 A R C H I T E C T : K T G Y G R O U P , I N C 1 7 9 1 1 V O N K A R M A N A V E S U I T E 2 0 0 I R V I N E , C A 9 2 6 1 4 C I V I L : A R S 7 2 6 3 W . G A L E N D R I V E H E R R I M A N , U T 8 4 0 9 6 L A N D S C A P E : P R O F E S S I O N A L D E S I G N A S S O C I A T E S 1 7 9 3 W . A R R O W H I G H W A Y U P L A N D , C A 9 1 7 8 6 D O W N E Y F O S T E R B R I D G E & B L U F F D O W N E Y , C A L I F O R N I A N T S A 0 . 0 0 8 . 0 4 . 2 0 2 3 D a t e S t a m p e d : A p r i l 1 7 , 2 0 2 4 A t t a c h m e n t C Architecture + Planning17911 Von Karman Ave,Suite 200Irvine, CA 92614949.851.2133ktgy.com The Olson Company3010 Old Ranch Parkway, Suite 100Seal Beach, CA 90704 0 8 . 0 3 . 2 0 2 3 # D O W N E Y - F O S T E R B R I D G E & B L U F F D O W N E Y , C A 2 0 2 2 - 0 9 2 5 P l o t D a t e : 1 s t P l a n n i n g S u b m i t t a l S e t : 0 5 . 1 0 . 2 0 2 3 2 n d P l a n n i n g S u b m i t t a l S e t : 0 8 . 0 4 . 2 0 2 3 N T S A 0 . 1 S H E E T I N D E X S H E E T I N D E X A R C H I T E C T U R E C O V E R S H E E T S H E E T I N D E X A R C H I T E C T U R A L S I T E P L A N B L D G . 1 ( 1 3 P L E X ) C O M P O S I T E - E X T E R I O R E L E V A T I O N S B L D G . 1 ( 1 3 P L E X ) C O M P O S I T E - E X T E R I O R E L E V A T I O N S B L D G . 1 ( 1 3 P L E X ) C O M P O S I T E - B U I L D I N G P L A N S B L D G . 1 ( 1 3 P L E X ) C O M P O S I T E - B U I L D I N G P L A N S B L D G . 2 ( 9 P L E X ) C O M P O S I T E - E X T E R I O R E L E V A T I O N S B L D G . 2 ( 9 P L E X ) C O M P O S I T E - B U I L D I N G P L A N S B L D G . 2 ( 9 P L E X ) C O M P O S I T E - B U I L D I N G P L A N S B L D G . 3 ( 5 P L E X ) C O M P O S I T E - E X T E R I O R E L E V A T I O N S B L D G . 3 ( 5 P L E X ) C O M P O S I T E - B U I L D I N G P L A N S B L D G . 4 ( 6 P L E X ) C O M P O S I T E - E X T E R I O R E L E V A T I O N S B L D G . 4 ( 6 P L E X ) C O M P O S I T E - B U I L D I N G P L A N S P L A N 1 & 5 - U N I T P L A N P L A N 2 & 4 - U N I T P L A N P L A N 2 A L T - U N I T P L A N P L A N 3 - U N I T P L A N A 0 . 0 A 0 . 1 A 1 . 0 A 2 . 0 A 2 . 1 A 2 . 2 A 2 . 3 A 3 . 0 A 3 . 1 A 3 . 2 A 4 . 0 A 4 . 1 A 5 . 0 A 5 . 1 A 6 . 0 A 6 . 1 A 6 . 2 A 6 . 3 L A N D S C A P E C O L O R E D L A N D S C A P E C O N C E P T U A L P L A N C O N C E P T U A L L A N D S C A P E P L A N P L A N T P A L E T T E I M A G E R Y C O N C E P T U A L O P E N S P A C E & T R A S H P I C K U P P L A N C O N C E P T U A L W A L L S & F E N C E S P L A N C O N C E P T U A L E X T E R I O R L I G H T I N G L 1 L 2 L 3 L 4 L 5 L 9 C I V I L S I T E P L A N D O W N E Y F O S T E R B R I D G E V E S T I N G T E N T A T I V E T R A C T M A P V E S T I N G T E N T A T I V E T R A C T M A P C O N C E P T U A L G R A D I N G P L A N 1 C 1 C 2 C 3 E L E C T R I C A L E L E C T R I C A L S I T E P L A N P H O T O M E T R I C S I T E P L A N L I G H T F I X T U R E C U T S H E E T S E S 1 E S 2 E S 3 0 8 . 0 4 . 2 0 2 3 D a t e S t a m p e d : A p r i l 1 7 , 2 0 2 4 A t t a c h m e n t C S S S SSUVA STREET F O S T E R B R I D G E B L V D B L U F F R O A D R I O H O N D O B I K E P A T H 2 0 ' R e a r S e t b a c k EXISTING SLOPE E A S E M E N T E X I S T I N G S T R E E T E A S E M E N T REARSIDE C O R N E R S I D E FRONT 12'-9" Front Setback 5' Side Setback 7 . 5 ' S t r e e t S e t b a c k G a t e d E n t r y E V A O n l y E x i s t i n g P o l e a n d Q u e e n s P o s t Fire HydrantFire H y d r a n t 25.0' 37.5' 1 0 . 0 ' 2 6 . 0 ' 3.0' 9 . 7 ' 8.3' 1 0 . 8 ' 14.3'9.0'25.0' P r o p o s e d T r a n s f o r m e r L o c a t i o n Comm o n & Private O . S . (See L-s c a p e ) 5.0'BLDG 3BLDG 2 BLDG 4 B L D G 1 11.4'20.0' 10. 0 ' 8 . 0 ' 14.2'13.9'12.9' 2 . 4 ' 1 1 . 0 ' 1 2 . 0 ' 9 . 7 ' 6 . 9 ' 7 . 5 ' 2 0 . 0 ' 22.5' 15. 0 ' Project M a r q u e e 41.5'41.8'41.8'42.8'34.0'32.0'15.9'32.0'21.0'P1P5P2ALT P2P4P3 9 . 0 ' 2 0 . 0 ' R e s i d e n t i a l R e s i d e n t i a l AUAUAU C O N C E P T U A L S I T E P L A N 0 3 0 6 0 1 5 S I T E S U M M A R Y A P N : 6 3 5 8 - 0 1 5 - 0 5 8 A d d r e s s : 7 3 6 0 F o s t e r B r i d g e B l v d C i t y : D o w n e y , C A C o u n t y : L o s A n g e l e s C o u n t y Z o n i n g : R - 1 6 0 0 0 G e n e r a l P l a n D e s i g n a t i o n : L o w D e n s i t y R e s i d e n t i a l R - 3 - O D E V E L O P M E N T S T A N D A R D S M a x D e n s i t y : 1 8 1 5 s f / u n i t ( 2 4 d u / a c ) f o r l o t s g r e a t e r t h a n 1 5 , 0 0 0 s f C o v e r a g e : 5 0 % M a x B l d g H e i g h t : 3 s t o r i e s ( 3 5 ' m a x ) S e t b a c k s F r o n t Y a r d : 1 5 ' S i d e Y a r d : 5 ' ( 1 0 ' i f a b u t s R - 1 Z o n e ) S t r e e t S i d e : 7 . 5 ' R e a r Y a r d M i n . S e t b a c k s : R - 1 Z o n e - t w e n t y f e e t ( 2 0 ′ ) f o r a o n e ( 1 ) s t o r y b u i l d i n g , t h i r t y f e e t ( 3 0 ′ ) f o r a t w o ( 2 ) s t o r y b u i l d i n g , a n d f o r t y - s i x f e e t ( 4 6 ′ ) f o r a t h r e e s t o r y b u i l d i n g . A b u t s a f u l l y d e d i c a t e d p u b l i c a l l e y - n o s e t b a c k r e q u i r e d f o r a o n e ( 1 ) s t o r y b u i l d i n g , t e n f e e t ( 1 0 ′ ) f o r a t w o ( 2 ) s t o r y b u i l d i n g , a n d t w e n t y - s i x f e e t ( 2 6 ′ ) f o r a t h r e e ( 3 ) s t o r y b u i l d i n g . A b u t s a n o t h e r R - 3 Z o n e - t e n f e e t ( 1 0 ′ ) f o r a o n e ( 1 ) s t o r y b u i l d i n g , f i f t e e n f e e t ( 1 5 ′ ) f o r a t w o ( 2 ) s t o r y b u i l d i n g , a n d t w e n t y f e e t ( 2 0 ′ ) f o r a t h r e e ( 3 ) s t o r y b u i l d i n g . M i n D i s t a n c e B e t w e e n B l d g s : 1 0 ' M i n U s a b l e O S : 2 0 0 s f / u n i t ( m i n . 1 5 ' d i m ) P a r k i n g : 2 . 5 s p / u n i t M i n P a r k i n g D i m s : 1 0 ' x 2 0 ' S t a t e D e n s i t y B o n u s P a r k i n g S t a n d a r d s 2 b d : 1 . 5 s p / u n i t 3 b d : 1 . 5 s p / u n i t 4 b d : 2 . 5 s p / u n i t S I T E S U M M A R Y S i t e A r e a : ± 1 . 3 a c ( ± 5 5 , 9 6 1 s f ) U n i t s : 3 u n i t s - P l a n 1 – 1 1 8 8 s f - 3 b d / 3 b a , t a n d e m ( n e w n a r r o w i n t e r l o c k ) 2 u n i t s - P l a n 2 a l t – 1 4 7 7 s f - 3 b e d / 3 b a , t a n d e m ( s t a n d a l o n e 1 6 ' p l a n t y p e ) 1 0 u n i t s - P l a n 2 – 1 4 7 7 s f - 3 b e d / 3 b a , t a n d e m ( t y p . i n t e r l o c k ) 5 u n i t s - P l a n 3 – 1 6 0 0 s f - 3 b e d / 2 . 5 b a + f l e x , s x s ( 3 5 ' d e e p ) 1 0 u n i t s - P l a n 4 – 1 6 5 7 s f - 3 b e d + f l e x / 3 . 5 b a , s x s ( t y p . i n t e r l o c k ) 3 u n i t s - P l a n 5 – 1 7 9 2 s f - 3 b e d + f l e x / 3 . 5 b a , s x s ( n e w n a r r o w i n t e r l o c k ) 3 3 u n i t s - T o t a l A U - A c c e s s i b l e U n i t D e n s i t y : ± 2 5 . 4 d u / a c P a r k i n g P r o v i d e d : 6 6 s p a c e s - G a r a g e s 5 s p a c e s - G u e s t 7 1 s p a c e s - T o t a l O p e n S p a c e P r o v i d e d : S e e L a n d s c a p e D w g . S h e e t L - 4 Architecture + Planning17911 Von Karman Ave,Suite 200Irvine, CA 92614949.851.2133ktgy.com The Olson Company3010 Old Ranch Parkway, Suite 100Seal Beach, CA 90704 0 8 . 0 3 . 2 0 2 3 # D O W N E Y - F O S T E R B R I D G E & B L U F F D O W N E Y , C A 2 0 2 2 - 0 9 2 5 P l o t D a t e : 1 s t P l a n n i n g S u b m i t t a l S e t : 0 5 . 1 0 . 2 0 2 3 2 n d P l a n n i n g S u b m i t t a l S e t : 0 8 . 0 4 . 2 0 2 3 A 1 . 0 0 8 . 0 4 . 2 0 2 3 D a t e S t a m p e d : A p r i l 1 7 , 2 0 2 4 A t t a c h m e n t C 121011 3 1 8 1 3 1 4 1 6 1 7 2 1 1 5 19 1 9 8'-1"9'-1"8'-1"9'-1"8'-1" 6 1 8 2 P4RP2RP2 P 4 P 4 R P 2 R P 2 A L T R P 2 P 4 P 2 P 4 P 2 P 4 736'-3" 38'-6" OVERALL M A T E R I A L S L E G E N D S t u c c o S t u c c o S c a l l o p e d S i l l T r i m S p a n i s h ' S ' R o o f T i l e S t u c c o W a l l G u a r d r a i l ( W . O . ) S t u c c o S i l l T r i m ( 1 " x 3 " H ) S t u c c o R e c e s s / R e v e a l a t W i n d o w s / D o o r s S t u c c o D e c o r a t i v e F o a m E a v e S t u c c o B a t t e r e d R e c e s s M e t a l J u l i e t R a i l i n g ( W . O . ) S t u c c o F i n i a l / F a u x C h i m n e y ( W . O . ) D e c o r a c t i v e F i b e r g l a s s E n t r y D o o r V i n y l W i n d o w s S l o p e d S t u c c o S i l l F i b e r C e m e n t B o a r d T r i m & P a n e l a t B a y W i n d o w ( W . O . ) S i m u l a t e d W o o d C o r b e l s ( W . O . ) E x p o s e d D e c o r a t i v e T r u s s T a i l s S t u c c o A r c h S t u c c o D e c o r a t i v e F o a m C o r b e l S t u c c o F u r r i n g S e c t i o n a l M e t a l G a r a g e D o o r D e c o r a t i v e E x t e r i o r L i g h t s & R a i s e d N u m b e r A d d r e s s M e t a l U t i l i t y D o o r D e c o r a t i v e S t u c c o / M e t a l S c u p p e r a t D e c k s ( W . O . ) L i n e o f P a t i o W a l l s ( W . O . - S e e L a n d s c a p e P l a n s f o r H e i g h t a n d L o c a t i o n ) 5 6 4 3 2 1 7 1 3 1 2 1 1 1 0 8 1 7 1 6 1 5 1 4 1 8 2 1 2 4 2 3 2 2 1 9 9 2 0 2 0 1 3 5224 F R O N T 0 4 8 1 6 2 . 0 B U I L D I N G 1 B U I L D I N G E L E V A T I O N Architecture + Planning17911 Von Karman Ave,Suite 200Irvine, CA 92614949.851.2133ktgy.com The Olson Company3010 Old Ranch Parkway, Suite 100Seal Beach, CA 90704 0 8 . 0 3 . 2 0 2 3 # D O W N E Y - F O S T E R B R I D G E & B L U F F D O W N E Y , C A 2 0 2 2 - 0 9 2 5 P l o t D a t e : 1 s t P l a n n i n g S u b m i t t a l S e t : 0 5 . 1 0 . 2 0 2 3 2 n d P l a n n i n g S u b m i t t a l S e t : 0 7 . 2 6 . 2 0 2 3 R E A R 0 8 . 0 4 . 2 0 2 3 D a t e S t a m p e d : A p r i l 1 7 , 2 0 2 4 A t t a c h m e n t C 2 2 L E F T 0 4 8 1 6 2 . 1 B U I L D I N G 1 E L E V A T I O N Architecture + Planning17911 Von Karman Ave,Suite 200Irvine, CA 92614949.851.2133ktgy.com The Olson Company3010 Old Ranch Parkway, Suite 100Seal Beach, CA 90704 0 8 . 0 3 . 2 0 2 3 # D O W N E Y - F O S T E R B R I D G E & B L U F F D O W N E Y , C A 2 0 2 2 - 0 9 2 5 P l o t D a t e : 1 s t P l a n n i n g S u b m i t t a l S e t : 0 5 . 1 0 . 2 0 2 3 2 n d P l a n n i n g S u b m i t t a l S e t : 0 7 . 2 6 . 2 0 2 3 R I G H T 0 8 . 0 4 . 2 0 2 3 D a t e S t a m p e d : A p r i l 1 7 , 2 0 2 4 A t t a c h m e n t C 2 1 2 ' - 2 " 42'-9"3'-6"48'-9"2'-6"SECOND FLOORFIRST FLOOR 0 4 8 1 6 2 . 2 B U I L D I N G 1 B U I L D I N G P L A N Architecture + Planning17911 Von Karman Ave,Suite 200Irvine, CA 92614949.851.2133ktgy.com The Olson Company3010 Old Ranch Parkway, Suite 100Seal Beach, CA 90704 0 8 . 0 4 . 2 0 2 3 # D O W N E Y - F O S T E R B R I D G E & B L U F F D O W N E Y , C A 2 0 2 2 - 0 9 2 5 P l o t D a t e : 1 s t P l a n n i n g S u b m i t t a l S e t : 0 5 . 1 0 . 2 0 2 3 2 n d P l a n n i n g S u b m i t t a l S e t : 0 8 . 0 4 . 2 0 2 3 0 8 . 0 4 . 2 0 2 3 D a t e S t a m p e d : A p r i l 1 7 , 2 0 2 4 A t t a c h m e n t C 4:1 2 4:1 2 4 : 1 2 4 : 1 2 4 : 1 2 4 : 1 2 4 : 1 2 4 : 1 2 5:12 5:12 5:12 6.5:12 5:12 5:125:12 5:12 5:12 5:12 5:12 5:12 6.5:12 6.5:12 6.5:12 6.5:12 6.5:12 6.5:12 6.5:12 5:12 5:12 5:12 THIRD FLOOR 0 4 8 1 6 2 . 3 B U I L D I N G 1 B U I L D I N G P L A N Architecture + Planning17911 Von Karman Ave,Suite 200Irvine, CA 92614949.851.2133ktgy.com The Olson Company3010 Old Ranch Parkway, Suite 100Seal Beach, CA 90704 0 8 . 0 4 . 2 0 2 3 # D O W N E Y - F O S T E R B R I D G E & B L U F F D O W N E Y , C A 2 0 2 2 - 0 9 2 5 P l o t D a t e : 1 s t P l a n n i n g S u b m i t t a l S e t : 0 5 . 1 0 . 2 0 2 3 2 n d P l a n n i n g S u b m i t t a l S e t : 0 8 . 0 4 . 2 0 2 3 ROOF PLAN 0 8 . 0 4 . 2 0 2 3 D a t e S t a m p e d : A p r i l 1 7 , 2 0 2 4 A t t a c h m e n t C M A T E R I A L S L E G E N D S t u c c o S t u c c o S c a l l o p e d S i l l T r i m S p a n i s h ' S ' R o o f T i l e S t u c c o W a l l G u a r d r a i l ( W . O . ) S t u c c o S i l l T r i m ( 1 " x 3 " H ) S t u c c o R e c e s s / R e v e a l a t W i n d o w s / D o o r s S t u c c o D e c o r a t i v e F o a m E a v e S t u c c o B a t t e r e d R e c e s s M e t a l J u l i e t R a i l i n g ( W . O . ) S t u c c o F i n i a l / F a u x C h i m n e y ( W . O . ) D e c o r a c t i v e F i b e r g l a s s E n t r y D o o r V i n y l W i n d o w s S l o p e d S t u c c o S i l l F i b e r C e m e n t B o a r d T r i m & P a n e l a t B a y W i n d o w ( W . O . ) S i m u l a t e d W o o d C o r b e l s ( W . O . ) E x p o s e d D e c o r a t i v e T r u s s T a i l s S t u c c o A r c h S t u c c o D e c o r a t i v e F o a m C o r b e l S t u c c o F u r r i n g S e c t i o n a l M e t a l G a r a g e D o o r D e c o r a t i v e E x t e r i o r L i g h t s & R a i s e d N u m b e r A d d r e s s M e t a l U t i l i t y D o o r D e c o r a t i v e S t u c c o / M e t a l S c u p p e r a t D e c k s ( W . O . ) L i n e o f P a t i o W a l l s ( W . O . - S e e L a n d s c a p e P l a n s f o r H e i g h t a n d L o c a t i o n ) 5 6 4 3 2 1 7 1 3 1 2 1 1 1 0 8 1 7 1 6 1 5 1 4 1 8 2 1 2 4 2 3 2 2 1 9 9 2 0 37'-6" OVERALL 1 2 1 1 3 1 8 1 3 1 4 1 6 1 5 1 9 1 0 1 6 P 4 R P 2 R P 2 P 2 P 4 R P 2 P 2 P 4 P 4 R 2 8 1 7 1 8 2 1 6 7 8'-1"9'-1"8'-1" 2 4 5 2 0 F R O N T 0 4 8 1 6 3 . 0 B U I L D I N G 2 B U I L D I N G E L E V A T I O N Architecture + Planning17911 Von Karman Ave,Suite 200Irvine, CA 92614949.851.2133ktgy.com The Olson Company3010 Old Ranch Parkway, Suite 100Seal Beach, CA 90704 0 8 . 0 3 . 2 0 2 3 # D O W N E Y - F O S T E R B R I D G E & B L U F F D O W N E Y , C A 2 0 2 2 - 0 9 2 5 P l o t D a t e : 1 s t P l a n n i n g S u b m i t t a l S e t : 0 5 . 1 0 . 2 0 2 3 2 n d P l a n n i n g S u b m i t t a l S e t : 0 7 . 2 6 . 2 0 2 3 R E A R 0 8 . 0 4 . 2 0 2 3 D a t e S t a m p e d : A p r i l 1 7 , 2 0 2 4 A t t a c h m e n t C 2 2 0 4 8 1 6 3 . 1 B U I L D I N G 2 E L E V A T I O N Architecture + Planning17911 Von Karman Ave,Suite 200Irvine, CA 92614949.851.2133ktgy.com The Olson Company3010 Old Ranch Parkway, Suite 100Seal Beach, CA 90704 0 8 . 0 3 . 2 0 2 3 # D O W N E Y - F O S T E R B R I D G E & B L U F F D O W N E Y , C A 2 0 2 2 - 0 9 2 5 P l o t D a t e : 1 s t P l a n n i n g S u b m i t t a l S e t : 0 5 . 1 0 . 2 0 2 3 2 n d P l a n n i n g S u b m i t t a l S e t : 0 7 . 2 6 . 2 0 2 3 R I G H T L E F T 0 8 . 0 4 . 2 0 2 3 D a t e S t a m p e d : A p r i l 1 7 , 2 0 2 4 A t t a c h m e n t C 1 4 7 ' - 8 " 42'-9" 46'-7" 2'-6"1'-4" S E C O N D F L O O R F I R S T F L O O R 0 4 8 1 6 3 . 2 B U I L D I N G 2 B U I L D I N G P L A N Architecture + Planning17911 Von Karman Ave,Suite 200Irvine, CA 92614949.851.2133ktgy.com The Olson Company3010 Old Ranch Parkway, Suite 100Seal Beach, CA 90704 0 8 . 0 4 . 2 0 2 3 # D O W N E Y - F O S T E R B R I D G E & B L U F F D O W N E Y , C A 2 0 2 2 - 0 9 2 5 P l o t D a t e : 1 s t P l a n n i n g S u b m i t t a l S e t : 0 5 . 1 0 . 2 0 2 3 2 n d P l a n n i n g S u b m i t t a l S e t : 0 8 . 0 4 . 2 0 2 3 0 8 . 0 4 . 2 0 2 3 D a t e S t a m p e d : A p r i l 1 7 , 2 0 2 4 A t t a c h m e n t C 4 : 1 2 4 : 1 2 4 : 1 2 4 : 1 2 4 : 1 2 4 : 1 2 5:12 5:12 5:12 6.5:12 6.5:12 6.5:126.5:12 6.5:12 5:12 5:12 5:12 5:12 6.5:12 6.5:12 6.5:12 5:12 5:12 5:12 T H I R D F L O O R 0 4 8 1 6 3 . 3 B U I L D I N G 2 B U I L D I N G P L A N Architecture + Planning17911 Von Karman Ave,Suite 200Irvine, CA 92614949.851.2133ktgy.com The Olson Company3010 Old Ranch Parkway, Suite 100Seal Beach, CA 90704 0 8 . 0 4 . 2 0 2 3 # D O W N E Y - F O S T E R B R I D G E & B L U F F D O W N E Y , C A 2 0 2 2 - 0 9 2 5 P l o t D a t e : 1 s t P l a n n i n g S u b m i t t a l S e t : 0 5 . 1 0 . 2 0 2 3 2 n d P l a n n i n g S u b m i t t a l S e t : 0 8 . 0 4 . 2 0 2 3 R O O F P L A N 0 8 . 0 4 . 2 0 2 3 D a t e S t a m p e d : A p r i l 1 7 , 2 0 2 4 A t t a c h m e n t C 36'-0" P 3 P 3 P 3 P 3 P 3 1 2 4 3 1 2 3 9 1 3 2 6 7 1 1 1 6 1 7 1 8 8'-1"9'-1"8'-1" M A T E R I A L S L E G E N D S t u c c o S t u c c o S c a l l o p e d S i l l T r i m S p a n i s h ' S ' R o o f T i l e S t u c c o W a l l G u a r d r a i l ( W . O . ) S t u c c o S i l l T r i m ( 1 " x 3 " H ) S t u c c o R e c e s s / R e v e a l a t W i n d o w s / D o o r s S t u c c o D e c o r a t i v e F o a m E a v e S t u c c o B a t t e r e d R e c e s s M e t a l J u l i e t R a i l i n g ( W . O . ) S t u c c o F i n i a l / F a u x C h i m n e y ( W . O . ) D e c o r a c t i v e F i b e r g l a s s E n t r y D o o r V i n y l W i n d o w s S l o p e d S t u c c o S i l l F i b e r C e m e n t B o a r d T r i m & P a n e l a t B a y W i n d o w ( W . O . ) S i m u l a t e d W o o d C o r b e l s ( W . O . ) E x p o s e d D e c o r a t i v e T r u s s T a i l s S t u c c o A r c h S t u c c o D e c o r a t i v e F o a m C o r b e l S t u c c o F u r r i n g S e c t i o n a l M e t a l G a r a g e D o o r D e c o r a t i v e E x t e r i o r L i g h t s & R a i s e d N u m b e r A d d r e s s M e t a l U t i l i t y D o o r D e c o r a t i v e S t u c c o / M e t a l S c u p p e r a t D e c k s ( W . O . ) L i n e o f P a t i o W a l l s ( W . O . - S e e L a n d s c a p e P l a n s f o r H e i g h t a n d L o c a t i o n ) 5 6 4 3 2 1 7 1 3 1 2 1 1 1 0 8 1 7 1 6 1 5 1 4 1 8 2 1 2 4 2 3 2 2 1 9 9 2 0 2 3 5 2 0 22 F R O N T 0 4 8 1 6 4 . 0 B U I L D I N G 3 B U I L D I N G E L E V A T I O N Architecture + Planning17911 Von Karman Ave,Suite 200Irvine, CA 92614949.851.2133ktgy.com The Olson Company3010 Old Ranch Parkway, Suite 100Seal Beach, CA 90704 0 8 . 0 3 . 2 0 2 3 # D O W N E Y - F O S T E R B R I D G E & B L U F F D O W N E Y , C A 2 0 2 2 - 0 9 2 5 P l o t D a t e : 1 s t P l a n n i n g S u b m i t t a l S e t : 0 5 . 1 0 . 2 0 2 3 2 n d P l a n n i n g S u b m i t t a l S e t : 0 7 . 2 6 . 2 0 2 3 R E A R L E F T R I G H T 0 8 . 0 4 . 2 0 2 3 D a t e S t a m p e d : A p r i l 1 7 , 2 0 2 4 A t t a c h m e n t C 1 0 8 ' - 5 1 / 2 " 35'-8"1'-10" 37'-6" 4:124:12 5:12 5:12 5:12 5:12 5:12 5:12 S E C O N D F L O O R F I R S T F L O O R 0 4 8 1 6 4 . 1 B U I L D I N G 3 B U I L D I N G P L A N Architecture + Planning17911 Von Karman Ave,Suite 200Irvine, CA 92614949.851.2133ktgy.com The Olson Company3010 Old Ranch Parkway, Suite 100Seal Beach, CA 90704 0 8 . 0 4 . 2 0 2 3 # D O W N E Y - F O S T E R B R I D G E & B L U F F D O W N E Y , C A 2 0 2 2 - 0 9 2 5 P l o t D a t e : 1 s t P l a n n i n g S u b m i t t a l S e t : 0 5 . 1 0 . 2 0 2 3 2 n d P l a n n i n g S u b m i t t a l S e t : 0 8 . 0 4 . 2 0 2 3 THIRD FLOOR ROOF PLAN 0 8 . 0 4 . 2 0 2 3 D a t e S t a m p e d : A p r i l 1 7 , 2 0 2 4 A t t a c h m e n t C P 1 P 1 P 5 P 1 P 5 1 2 3 1 9 1 3 2 6 1 6 1 7 1 8 P 5 7 8 1 0 1 1 1 7 1 8 2 1 8'-1"9'-1"8'-1" 36'-6" M A T E R I A L S L E G E N D S t u c c o S t u c c o S c a l l o p e d S i l l T r i m S p a n i s h ' S ' R o o f T i l e S t u c c o W a l l G u a r d r a i l ( W . O . ) S t u c c o S i l l T r i m ( 1 " x 3 " H ) S t u c c o R e c e s s / R e v e a l a t W i n d o w s / D o o r s S t u c c o D e c o r a t i v e F o a m E a v e S t u c c o B a t t e r e d R e c e s s M e t a l J u l i e t R a i l i n g ( W . O . ) S t u c c o F i n i a l / F a u x C h i m n e y ( W . O . ) D e c o r a c t i v e F i b e r g l a s s E n t r y D o o r V i n y l W i n d o w s S l o p e d S t u c c o S i l l F i b e r C e m e n t B o a r d T r i m & P a n e l a t B a y W i n d o w ( W . O . ) S i m u l a t e d W o o d C o r b e l s ( W . O . ) E x p o s e d D e c o r a t i v e T r u s s T a i l s S t u c c o A r c h S t u c c o D e c o r a t i v e F o a m C o r b e l S t u c c o F u r r i n g S e c t i o n a l M e t a l G a r a g e D o o r D e c o r a t i v e E x t e r i o r L i g h t s & R a i s e d N u m b e r A d d r e s s M e t a l U t i l i t y D o o r D e c o r a t i v e S t u c c o / M e t a l S c u p p e r a t D e c k s ( W . O . ) L i n e o f P a t i o W a l l s ( W . O . - S e e L a n d s c a p e P l a n s f o r H e i g h t a n d L o c a t i o n ) 5 6 4 3 2 1 7 1 3 1 2 1 1 1 0 8 1 7 1 6 1 5 1 4 1 8 2 1 2 4 2 3 2 2 1 9 9 2 0 1 3 5 2 0 7 R E A R 0 4 8 1 6 5 . 0 B U I L D I N G 4 B U I L D I N G E L E V A T I O N Architecture + Planning17911 Von Karman Ave,Suite 200Irvine, CA 92614949.851.2133ktgy.com The Olson Company3010 Old Ranch Parkway, Suite 100Seal Beach, CA 90704 0 8 . 0 3 . 2 0 2 3 # D O W N E Y - F O S T E R B R I D G E & B L U F F D O W N E Y , C A 2 0 2 2 - 0 9 2 5 P l o t D a t e : 1 s t P l a n n i n g S u b m i t t a l S e t : 0 5 . 1 0 . 2 0 2 3 2 n d P l a n n i n g S u b m i t t a l S e t : 0 7 . 2 6 . 2 0 2 3 F R O N T R I G H T L E F T 0 8 . 0 4 . 2 0 2 3 D a t e S t a m p e d : A p r i l 1 7 , 2 0 2 4 A t t a c h m e n t C 9 9 ' - 5 " 41'-6"6" 44'-0" 2'-0" 6:126:126:126:12 6:126:126:12 6:12 6:12 6:12 4 : 1 2 4 : 1 2 4:124:12 S E C O N D F L O O R F I R S T F L O O R 0 4 8 1 6 5 . 1 B U I L D I N G 4 B U I L D I N G P L A N Architecture + Planning17911 Von Karman Ave,Suite 200Irvine, CA 92614949.851.2133ktgy.com The Olson Company3010 Old Ranch Parkway, Suite 100Seal Beach, CA 90704 0 8 . 0 4 . 2 0 2 3 # D O W N E Y - F O S T E R B R I D G E & B L U F F D O W N E Y , C A 2 0 2 2 - 0 9 2 5 P l o t D a t e : 1 s t P l a n n i n g S u b m i t t a l S e t : 0 5 . 1 0 . 2 0 2 3 2 n d P l a n n i n g S u b m i t t a l S e t : 0 8 . 0 4 . 2 0 2 3 THIRD FLOOR ROOF PLAN 0 8 . 0 4 . 2 0 2 3 D a t e S t a m p e d : A p r i l 1 7 , 2 0 2 4 A t t a c h m e n t C 2 - C A R G A R A G E 2 0 ' X 2 0 ' C L R . F L E X / O F F I C E 1 0 ' - 8 " x 1 2 ' - 4 " P O W D E R P L A N 5 E N T R Y 2 0 ' - 8 " 1 1 ' - 2 " 3 2 ' - 0 " 2'-0"41'-6" 43'-6" 2 - C A R T A N D E M G A R A G E 1 0 ' X 3 5 ' C L R . U P 1 5 R U P 1 5 R P L A N 1 E N T R Y C L O S E T DROP ZONEOPT. 42'-0" 35'-1 1/2" 1 0 ' - 6 1 / 2 " V E S T . / D R O P Z O N E L I V I N G 1 5 ' - 9 " x 1 0 ' - 9 " K I T C H E N 1 6 ' - 4 " x 1 0 ' - 0 " B E D 3 1 0 ' - 4 " x 1 0 ' - 7 " P A N T R Y B A T H 3 L I V I N G 1 1 ' - 3 " x 1 1 ' - 6 " K I T C H E N 1 0 ' - 7 " x 1 2 ' - 0 " B A T H 3 B E D 3 1 0 ' - 7 " x 1 0 ' - 0 " 1'-6"40'-8"1'-4" 43'-6" 2 0 ' - 8 " 1 1 ' - 2 " 3 2 ' - 0 " D N 1 5 R U P 1 7 R U P 1 7 R D I N I N G 1 2 ' - 0 " x 8 ' - 2 " D N 1 5 R K I T C H E N 1 6 ' - 4 " x 1 0 ' - 0 " D E N 1 2 ' - 9 " x 1 0 ' - 7 " PANTRY P O W D E R V E S T I B U L E O P T . D R . 44'-0" PRIMARY BED12'-0" x 11'-4"PRIMARY BED11'-3" x 11'-0"BED 210'-8" x 10'-0"BED 210'-7" x 9'-6"BATH 2 BATH 2LAUNDRYLAUNDRYPRIMARYBATHPRIMARYBATHW.I.C.W.I.C.40'-8"1'-6"43'-6"11'-2"32'-0"DN17RDN17RLINEN 20'-8"1'-4"LOW LIN./OPT. FULL HT.OPT. LIN.OPT. W.I.C. P 1 - G R O S S A R E A 1 S T F L O O R 1 1 6 S Q . F T . 2 N D F L O O R 5 5 8 S Q . F T . 3 R D F L O O R 5 1 4 S Q . F T . T O T A L L I V I N G 1 1 8 8 S Q . F T . G A R A G E 4 6 0 S Q . F T . P 5 - G R O S S A R E A 1 S T F L O O R 3 2 4 S Q . F T . 2 N D F L O O R 7 5 8 S Q . F T . 3 R D F L O O R 7 1 0 S Q . F T . T O T A L L I V I N G 1 7 9 2 S Q . F T . P O R C H 1 6 S Q . F T . G A R A G E 4 5 1 S Q . F T . S E C O N D F L O O R F I R S T F L O O R THIRD FLOOR 0 2 4 8 6 . 0 P L A N 1 & 5 Architecture + Planning17911 Von Karman Ave,Suite 200Irvine, CA 92614949.851.2133ktgy.com The Olson Company3010 Old Ranch Parkway, Suite 100Seal Beach, CA 90704 0 8 . 0 3 . 2 0 2 3 # D O W N E Y - F O S T E R B R I D G E & B L U F F D O W N E Y , C A 2 0 2 2 - 0 9 2 5 P l o t D a t e : 1 s t P l a n n i n g S u b m i t t a l S e t : 0 5 . 1 0 . 2 0 2 3 2 n d P l a n n i n g S u b m i t t a l S e t : 0 7 . 2 6 . 2 0 2 3 S E C O N D F L O O R - D E N O P T I O N 0 8 . 0 4 . 2 0 2 3 D a t e S t a m p e d : A p r i l 1 7 , 2 0 2 4 A t t a c h m e n t C 2 - C A R G A R A G E 2 0 ' X 2 0 ' C L R . B E D 3 1 0 ' - 1 1 " x 1 0 ' - 2 " B A T H 3 P L A N 4 E N T R Y W . I . C . 2 0 ' - 9 1 / 2 " 1 1 ' - 1 1 / 2 " 3 2 ' - 1 " 2'-6"42'-9" 45'-3" 2 - C A R T A N D E M G A R A G E 1 0 ' x 3 5 ' C L R . U P 1 5 R U P 1 5 R P L A N 2 E N T R Y 1 0 ' - 6 1 / 2 " 20'-0" 2 0 ' - 2 1 / 2 " L I V I N G 1 5 ' - 4 " x 1 5 ' - 1 0 " K I T C H E N 1 1 ' - 8 " x 1 5 ' - 2 " F L E X S P A C E 9 ' - 7 " x 9 ' - 5 " P O W D E R L I V I N G 1 5 ' - 4 " x 1 5 ' - 3 " K I T C H E N 1 1 ' - 8 " x 1 4 ' - 1 0 " PANTRY UTILITY B A T H 3 B E D 3 1 0 ' - 0 " x 9 ' - 1 1 " 9"42'-0"2'-6" 45'-3" 1 6 ' - 0 1 / 2 " 1 5 ' - 1 0 1 / 2 " 3 2 ' - 1 " D N 1 5 R D N 1 5 R U P 1 7 R U P 1 7 R PANTRY UTILITY O P T . B E V E R A G E B A R F L E X 1 0 ' - 1 1 " x 1 0 ' - 2 " B A T H 3 P L A N 4 E N T R Y U P 1 5 R PRIMARY BED10'-11" x 14'-9"PRIMARY BED10'-11" x 13'-9"BED 210'-0" x 10'-1"BED 210'-0" x 10'-1"BATH 2BATH 2LAUNDRYLAUNDRYPRIMARYBATHPRIMARYBATHW.I.C.W.I.C.2'-6"42'-0"9"45'-3"16'-0 1/2"15'-10 1/2"32'-1"DN17RDN17R LIN.LIN.OPT. STACKW/D/LIN.OPT. STACKW/D/LIN. P 2 - G R O S S A R E A 1 S T F L O O R 1 4 7 S Q . F T . 2 N D F L O O R 6 9 1 S Q . F T . 3 R D F L O O R 6 4 0 S Q . F T . T O T A L L I V I N G 1 4 7 7 S Q . F T . P O R C H 8 S Q . F T . G A R A G E 4 2 5 S Q . F T . P 4 - G R O S S A R E A 1 S T F L O O R 3 3 1 S Q . F T . 2 N D F L O O R 6 8 9 S Q . F T . 3 R D F L O O R 6 3 8 S Q . F T . T O T A L L I V I N G 1 6 5 7 S Q . F T . P O R C H 1 9 S Q . F T . G A R A G E 4 5 0 S Q . F T . S E C O N D F L O O R F I R S T F L O O R THIRD FLOOR 0 2 4 8 A 6 . 1 P L A N 2 & 4 Architecture + Planning17911 Von Karman Ave,Suite 200Irvine, CA 92614949.851.2133ktgy.com The Olson Company3010 Old Ranch Parkway, Suite 100Seal Beach, CA 90704 0 8 . 0 3 . 2 0 2 3 # D O W N E Y - F O S T E R B R I D G E & B L U F F D O W N E Y , C A 2 0 2 2 - 0 9 2 5 P l o t D a t e : 1 s t P l a n n i n g S u b m i t t a l S e t : 0 5 . 1 0 . 2 0 2 3 2 n d P l a n n i n g S u b m i t t a l S e t : 0 7 . 2 6 . 2 0 2 3 F I R S T F L O O R / O P T F L E X B A R 0 8 . 0 4 . 2 0 2 3 D a t e S t a m p e d : A p r i l 1 7 , 2 0 2 4 A t t a c h m e n t C 2 - C A R T A N D E M G A R A G E 1 0 ' X 3 5 ' C L R . P L A N 2 A L T E N T R Y 41'-9" 1 5 ' - 1 0 1 / 2 " 2'-6" 44'-3" U P 1 5 R 35'-2 1/2" 1 5 ' - 3 1 / 2 " L I V I N G 1 5 ' - 4 " x 1 5 ' - 3 " K I T C H E N 1 1 ' - 8 " x 1 4 ' - 1 0 " PANTRY UTILITY B A T H 3 B E D 3 1 0 ' - 0 " x 9 ' - 1 1 " 44'-3" 1 5 ' - 1 0 1 / 2 " D N 1 5 R U P 1 7 R PRIMARY BED10'-11" x 13'-9"BED 210'-0" x 12'-7"BATH 2LAUNDRYPRIMARYBATH44'-3"15'-10 1/2"DN17RW.I.C. P 2 A L T - G R O S S A R E A 1 S T F L O O R 1 4 7 S Q . F T . 2 N D F L O O R 6 9 1 S Q . F T . 3 R D F L O O R 6 4 0 S Q . F T . T O T A L L I V I N G 1 4 7 7 S Q . F T . D E C K 8 S Q . F T . G A R A G E 5 1 7 S Q . F T . 0 2 4 8 A 6 . 2 P L A N 2 A L T Architecture + Planning17911 Von Karman Ave,Suite 200Irvine, CA 92614949.851.2133ktgy.com The Olson Company3010 Old Ranch Parkway, Suite 100Seal Beach, CA 90704 0 8 . 0 3 . 2 0 2 3 # D O W N E Y - F O S T E R B R I D G E & B L U F F D O W N E Y , C A 2 0 2 2 - 0 9 2 5 P l o t D a t e : 1 s t P l a n n i n g S u b m i t t a l S e t : 0 5 . 1 0 . 2 0 2 3 2 n d P l a n n i n g S u b m i t t a l S e t : 0 7 . 2 6 . 2 0 2 3 S E C O N D F L O O R F I R S T F L O O R THIRD FLOOR 0 8 . 0 4 . 2 0 2 3 D a t e S t a m p e d : A p r i l 1 7 , 2 0 2 4 A t t a c h m e n t C 2 - C A R G A R A G E 2 0 ' X 2 0 ' C L R . F L E X U P 1 5 R 2 1 ' - 0 " 35'-0" A C C E S S I B L E B A T H P L A N 3 E N T R Y 2 0 ' - 5 " 20'-0" O P T . D R L O T 2 3 K I T C H E N 2 0 ' - 0 " x 9 ' - 1 1 " P O W D E R L I V I N G 1 4 ' - 0 " x 1 2 ' - 0 " D N 1 5 R 2 1 ' - 0 " 34'-0"2'-6" 37'-6" P A N T R Y D I N I N G 1 4 ' - 0 " x 8 ' - 2 " D E C K 1'-0" BED 210'-1" x 10'-0"BED 310'-1" x 9'-6"PRIMARYBED12'-4" x 10'-10"PRIMARYBATHW.I.C.BATH 2 21'-0"34'-0"DN17R LAUNDRY P 3 - G R O S S A R E A 1 S T F L O O R 2 7 6 S Q . F T . 2 N D F L O O R 6 7 0 S Q . F T . 3 R D F L O O R 6 5 3 S Q . F T . T O T A L L I V I N G 1 6 0 0 S Q . F T . G A R A G E 4 6 7 S Q . F T . D E C K 7 6 S Q . F T . 0 2 4 8 A 6 . 3 P L A N 3 Architecture + Planning17911 Von Karman Ave,Suite 200Irvine, CA 92614949.851.2133ktgy.com The Olson Company3010 Old Ranch Parkway, Suite 100Seal Beach, CA 90704 0 8 . 0 3 . 2 0 2 3 # D O W N E Y - F O S T E R B R I D G E & B L U F F D O W N E Y , C A 2 0 2 2 - 0 9 2 5 P l o t D a t e : 1 s t P l a n n i n g S u b m i t t a l S e t : 0 5 . 1 0 . 2 0 2 3 2 n d P l a n n i n g S u b m i t t a l S e t : 0 7 . 2 6 . 2 0 2 3 S E C O N D F L O O R F I R S T F L O O R THIRD FLOOR 0 8 . 0 4 . 2 0 2 3 D a t e S t a m p e d : A p r i l 1 7 , 2 0 2 4 A t t a c h m e n t C Pr i v a t e Y a r d To w n h o u s e Re s i d e n c e Pa t i o w / Lo w W a l l Si d e w a l k Fo s t e r B r i d g e A v e . Si d e w a l k 13 1 ' - 0 " A p r o x i m a t e D i s t a n c e 17 5 ' - 0 " A p r o x i m a t e D i s t a n c e A7.01 FOSTER BRIDGE AVE.SITE SECTIONS Ar c h i t e c t u r e + P l a n n i n g 17 9 1 1 V o n K a r m a n A v e , Su i t e 2 0 0 Ir v i n e , C A 9 2 6 1 4 94 9 . 8 5 1 . 2 1 3 3 kt g y . c o m Th e O l s o n C o m p a n y 30 1 0 O l d R a n c h P a r k w a y , S u i t e 1 0 0 Se a l B e a c h , C A 9 0 7 0 4 02 . 2 6 . 2 0 2 4 # DO W N E Y - F O S T E R B R I D G E & B L U F F DO W N E Y , C A 2 0 2 2 - 0 9 2 5 Pl o t D a t e : 1s t P l a n n i n g S u b m i t t a l S e t : 0 5 . 1 0 . 2 0 2 3 2n d P l a n n i n g S u b m i t t a l S e t : 0 8 . 0 4 . 2 0 2 3 04 8 1 6 At t a c h m e n t C Attachment C Attachment C Attachment C Attachment C Date Stamped: April 17, 2024 Attachment C Date Stamped: April 17, 2024 Attachment C Date Stamped: April 17, 2024 Attachment C Date Stamped: April 17, 2024 Attachment C Date Stamped: April 17, 2024 Attachment C Date Stamped: April 17, 2024 Attachment C D a t e S t a m p e d : A p r i l 1 7 , 2 0 2 4 A t t a c h m e n t C prepared by Bryan Crawford Giancarlo Ganddini, PE, PTP GANDDINI GROUP, INC. 555 Parkcenter Drive, Suite 225 Santa Ana, California 92705 714.795.3100 | ganddini.com Project No. 19658 7360 FOSTER BRIDGE RESIDENTIAL PROJECT TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION ANALYSIS (REVISED) City of Downey November 15, 2023 7360 Foster Bridge Residential Project Traffic And Circulation Analysis (Revised) i 19658 TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................................................................ IV 1. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................................................... 1 Purpose .............................................................................................................................................................................. 1 Project Description .......................................................................................................................................................... 1 Scope of Analysis ............................................................................................................................................................. 1 Study Area ............................................................................................................................................................. 2 Analysis Scenarios ................................................................................................................................................ 2 2. METHODOLOGY ................................................................................................................................................... 5 Intersection Delay Analytical Methodology ............................................................................................................. 5 Performance Standards ...................................................................................................................................... 5 Roadway Segment Capacity Analytical Methodology ........................................................................................... 6 3. EXISTING CONDITIONS ...................................................................................................................................... 8 Existing Roadway System .............................................................................................................................................. 8 Pedestrian Facilities ......................................................................................................................................................... 8 Bicycle Routes .................................................................................................................................................................. 8 Transit Facilities ................................................................................................................................................................ 9 General Plan Context ..................................................................................................................................................... 9 Existing Traffic Volumes ................................................................................................................................................ 9 Existing Levels of Service .............................................................................................................................................. 9 Existing Traffic Signal Warrants ................................................................................................................................... 9 4. PROJECT FORECASTS ....................................................................................................................................... 23 Project Trip Generation .............................................................................................................................................. 23 Project Trip Distribution and Assignment .............................................................................................................. 23 5. FUTURE VOLUME FORECASTS ...................................................................................................................... 31 Other Development ..................................................................................................................................................... 31 Ambient Growth ........................................................................................................................................................... 31 Analysis Scenario Volume Forecasts ....................................................................................................................... 31 Existing Plus Ambient Growth Plus Cumulative ....................................................................................... 31 Existing Plus Ambient Growth Plus Cumulative Plus Project ................................................................ 31 6. FUTURE OPERATIONAL ANALYSIS ............................................................................................................... 40 Existing Plus Ambient Growth Plus Cumulative ................................................................................................... 40 Existing Plus Ambient Growth Plus Cumulative Plus Project............................................................................ 40 Future Traffic Signal Warrant Analysis ................................................................................................................... 40 7. SITE ACCESS AND CIRCULATION .................................................................................................................. 46 Project Design Features .............................................................................................................................................. 46 8. CONGESTION MANAGEMENT PROGRAM ................................................................................................. 47 Criteria for Requiring a Traffic Impact Analysis for CMP ................................................................................... 47 CMP Transit Impact Review ...................................................................................................................................... 47 9. CONCLUSIONS .................................................................................................................................................... 49 Project Trip Generation .............................................................................................................................................. 49 Forecast Levels of Service .......................................................................................................................................... 49 Congestion Management Program .......................................................................................................................... 49 7360 Foster Bridge Residential Project Traffic And Circulation Analysis (Revised) ii 19658 APPENDICES Appendix A Glossary Appendix B Scoping Agreement Appendix C Volume Count Worksheets Appendix D Level of Service Worksheets Appendix E Traffic Signal Warrant Graphs LIST OF TABLES Table 1. County of Los Angeles Roadway Segment Daily Capacities .................................................................... 7 Table 2. Existing Roadway Segment Daily Capacity Analysis ................................................................................ 11 Table 3. Existing Intersection Level of Service .......................................................................................................... 12 Table 4. Existing Trip Generation .................................................................................................................................. 24 Table 5. Project Trip Generation ................................................................................................................................... 25 Table 6. Project Trip Generation Comparison ........................................................................................................... 26 Table 7. Other Development Trip Generation .......................................................................................................... 32 Table 8. Existing Plus Ambient Growth Plus Cumulative Roadway Segment Daily Capacity Analysis ................................................................................................................................................................ 42 Table 9. Existing Plus Ambient Growth Plus Cumulative Intersection Level of Service ................................ 43 Table 10. Existing Plus Ambient Growth Plus Cumulative Plus Project Roadway Segment Daily Capacity Analysis .............................................................................................................................................. 44 Table 11. Existing Plus Ambient Growth Plus Cumulative Plus Project Intersection Level of Service.................................................................................................................................................................. 45 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Project Location Map .......................................................................................................................................... 3 Figure 2. Site Plan .................................................................................................................................................................. 4 Figure 3. Existing Lane Geometry and Intersection Traffic Controls .................................................................... 13 Figure 4. Existing Pedestrian Facilities .......................................................................................................................... 14 Figure 5. County of Los Angeles Bikeways Map ........................................................................................................ 15 Figure 6. Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority System Map ....................................... 16 Figure 7. City of Downey Circulation Plan .................................................................................................................. 17 Figure 8. City of Downey Roadway Cross-Sections ................................................................................................. 18 Figure 9. City of Bell Gardens Circulation Plan .......................................................................................................... 19 Figure 10. City of Bell Gardens Roadway Cross-Sections ......................................................................................... 20 7360 Foster Bridge Residential Project Traffic And Circulation Analysis (Revised) iii 19658 Figure 11. Existing AM Peak Hour Intersection Turning Movement Volumes ..................................................... 21 Figure 12. Existing PM Peak Hour Intersection Turning Movement Volumes ..................................................... 22 Figure 13. Existing Trip Distribution ................................................................................................................................ 27 Figure 14. Project Trip Distribution .................................................................................................................................. 28 Figure 15. Project AM Peak Hour Intersection Turning Movement Volumes ...................................................... 29 Figure 16. Project PM Peak Hour Intersection Turning Movement Volumes ...................................................... 30 Figure 17. Other Development Location Map .............................................................................................................. 33 Figure 18. Other Development AM Peak Hour Intersection Turning Movement Volumes ............................. 34 Figure 19. Other Development PM Peak Hour Intersection Turning Movement Volumes .............................. 35 Figure 20. Existing Plus Ambient Growth Plus Cumulative AM Peak Hour Intersection Turning Movement Volumes ......................................................................................................................................... 36 Figure 21. Existing Plus Ambient Growth Plus Cumulative PM Peak Hour Intersection Turning Movement Volumes ......................................................................................................................................... 37 Figure 22. Existing Plus Ambient Growth Plus Cumulative Plus Project AM Peak Hour Intersection Turning Movement Volumes ......................................................................................................................... 38 Figure 23. Existing Plus Ambient Growth Plus Cumulative Plus Project PM Peak Hour Intersection Turning Movement Volumes ......................................................................................................................... 39 7360 Foster Bridge Residential Project Traffic And Circulation Analysis (Revised) iv 19658 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The 1.3-acre project site is located at 7360 Foster Bridge Boulevard in the City of Downey. The project site is currently developed with an 8,480 square foot church which is proposed to be demolished. The proposed project involves construction of a new multifamily residential development with a total of 33 dwelling units. The proposed project is anticipated to be constructed and fully operational by year 2025. The project involves a Zone Change from R-1 to R-3 and General Plan Amendment (GPA) to change the General Plan land use designation from LDR (Low Density Residential) to MDR (Medium Density Residential). The project site is proposed to provide one full access driveway on Foster Bridge Boulevard and will have gated entry. An emergency vehicle access only driveway is proposed on Suva Street. Existing Conditions The existing roadway segments currently operate within acceptable Levels of Service. The study intersections currently operate at acceptable Levels of Service during the peak hours for existing conditions. Project Trip Generation The existing land uses currently generate approximately 64 daily trips, including 3 trips during the AM peak hour and 4 trips during the PM peak hour. The proposed project is forecast to generate approximately 222 daily trips, including 13 trips during the AM peak hour and 17 trips during the PM peak hour. The proposed project is forecast to generate approximately 158 additional daily trips compared to existing project site uses, including 10 additional trips during the AM peak hour and 13 additional trips during the PM peak hour. Forecast Levels of Service For Existing Plus Ambient Growth Plus Cumulative traffic conditions, the study roadway segments are projected to operate at acceptable Levels of Service, except for the following roadway segment that is projected to operate at unacceptable Levels of Service, without improvements:  Paramount Boulevard, East of Suva Street Although this roadway segment is projected to operate at an unacceptable Level of Service, the intersection of Suva Street at Paramount Boulevard (Int. #4) is projected to operate within acceptable Levels of Service during the peak hours. Two through lanes along Paramount Boulevard are maintained through the intersection of Suva Street. Thus, since the roadway segment acts as a free-flowing corridor between points of conflict (intersections), and the point of conflict (Suva Street at Paramount Boulevard – Intersection # 4) is projected to operate at acceptable Levels of Service during the peak hours, improvements are not recommended along this roadway segment. In addition, the project is forecast to add a relatively negligible number of trips per day along this segment such that no appreciable change in the volume-to-capacity ratio is expected for Existing Plus Ambient Growth Plus Cumulative Plus Project conditions. 7360 Foster Bridge Residential Project Traffic And Circulation Analysis (Revised) v 19658 The study intersections are forecast to operate within acceptable Levels of Service during the peak hours for Existing Plus Ambient Growth Plus Cumulative and Existing Plus Ambient Growth Plus Cumulative Plus Project conditions; no intersection improvements are recommended. Congestion Management Program The proposed project would result in no operational CMP impact as it does not meet the thresholds requiring a traffic impact analysis for CMP purposes and no further CMP analysis is warranted. A transit impact review was conducted for compliance with the CMP requirements and found that the proposed project is forecast to have a nominal impact on transit demand. 7360 Foster Bridge Residential Project Traffic And Circulation Analysis (Revised) 1 19658 1. INTRODUCTION This section describes the purpose of this traffic and circulation analysis, project location, proposed development, and study area. Figure 1 shows the project location map. Figure 2 illustrates the project site plan. Although this is a technical report, every effort has been made to write the report clearly and concisely. To assist the reader with those terms unique to transportation engineering, a glossary of terms is provided in Appendix A PURPOSE The purpose of this study is to evaluate the potential for transportation impacts resulting from development of the proposed project both in the context of the City of Downey’s discretionary authority for conformance with locally established operational standards. Assessment of the project’s vehicle miles traveled (VMT) impact is evaluated in a separate document for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Although this is a technical report, effort has been made to write the report clearly and concisely. A glossary is provided in to assist the reader with terms related to transportation engineering. This study was prepared in consultation with City of Downey staff and in accordance with the procedures and methodologies for assessing transportation impacts established by the City. To assess the project’s conformance with local operational standards, this study evaluates the project’s effect on traffic operations and, if necessary, identifies recommended improvements or corrective measures to alleviate operational deficiencies substantially caused or worsened by the proposed project. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The 1.3-acre project site is located at 7360 Foster Bridge Boulevard in the City of Downey. The project site is currently developed with an 8,480 square foot church which is proposed to be demolished. The proposed project involves construction of a new multifamily residential development with a total of 33 dwelling units. The proposed project is anticipated to be constructed and fully operational by year 2025. The project involves a Zone Change from R-1 to R-3 and General Plan Amendment (GPA) to change the General Plan land use designation from LDR (Low Density Residential) to MDR (Medium Density Residential). The project site is proposed to provide one full access driveway on Foster Bridge Boulevard and will have gated entry. An emergency vehicle access only driveway is proposed on Suva Street. SCOPE OF ANALYSIS The scope of this analysis was determined in consultation with City of Downey staff as documented in the City-approved scoping agreement provided in Appendix B. 1 7360 Foster Bridge Residential Project Traffic And Circulation Analysis (Revised) 2 19658 Study Area Based on the study intersections identified in the approved scoping agreement, the study area consists of the following study intersections and roadway segments within the City of Downey: Study Intersections Jurisdiction 1. Suva Street (NS) at Scout Avenue (EW) Bell Gardens 2. Suva Street (NS) at Bluff Road/Foster Bridge Boulevard (EW) Downey 3. Suva Street (NS) at Guatemala Avenue (EW) Downey 4. Suva Street (NS) at Paramount Boulevard (EW) Downey 5. Foster Bridge Boulevard (NS) at Project Driveway (EW) Downey Notes: (NS) = north-south roadway; (EW) = east-west roadway Study Roadway Segments Jurisdiction 1. Suva Street, between Scout Avenue and Bluff Road Downey 2. Suva Street, between Bluff Road and Guatemala Avenue Downey 3. Scout Avenue, west of Suva Street Bell Gardens 4. Paramount Boulevard, east of Suva Street Downey 4. Paramount Boulevard, west of Suva Street Downey 5. Foster Bridge Boulevard, north of Bluff Road Downey Analysis Scenarios In accordance with City of Downey requirements, the following scenarios are analyzed for weekday AM and PM peak hour conditions:  Existing (2023);  Existing Plus Ambient Growth Plus Cumulative (2025); and  Existing Plus Ambient Growth Plus Cumulative Plus Project (2025). 2 F i g u r e 1 P r o j e c t L o c a t i o n M a p 7 3 6 0 F o s t e r B r i d g e R e s i d e n t i a l P r o j e c t T r a f f i c A n d C i r c u l a t i o n A n a l y s i s 1 9 6 5 8 N 1 S i t e SCOUT AVE FOSTER BRIDG E BLVD BLUFF RD G U A T E M A L A A V E S U V A S T PAR A M O UN T B L VD 2 3 4 Study Intersection Legend#Project Driveway# 5 3 Figure 2 Site Plan 7360 Foster Bridge Residential Project Traffic And Circulation Analysis 19658 N 4 7360 Foster Bridge Residential Project Traffic And Circulation Analysis (Revised) 5 19658 2. METHODOLOGY This section discusses the analysis methodologies used to assess transportation facility performance as adopted by the respective jurisdictional agencies. In the absence of published traffic study guidelines from the City of Downey, the City generally follows the County of Los Angeles guidelines. Accordingly, this analysis has been performed based on the Los Angeles County Public Works Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines (July 23, 2020). INTERSECTION DELAY ANALYTICAL METHODOLOGY The methodology used to assess the performance of intersections is known as the intersection delay methodology based on the procedures contained in the Highway Capacity Manual. The methodology compares the traffic volume using the intersection to the capacity of the intersection to calculate the delay associated with the traffic control at the intersection. The intersection delay is then correlated to a performance measure known as Level of Service based on the following thresholds: Level of Service Intersection Control Delay (Seconds / Vehicle) Signalized Intersection Unsignalized Intersection A ≤ 10.0 ≤ 10.0 B > 10.0 to ≤ 20.0 > 10.0 to ≤ 15.0 C > 20.0 to ≤ 35.0 > 15.0 to ≤ 25.0 D > 35.0 to ≤ 55.0 > 25.0 to ≤ 35.0 E > 55.0 to ≤ 80.0 > 35.0 to ≤ 50.0 F > 80.0 > 50.0 Source: Highway Capacity Manual (Transportation Research Board, 7th Edition). Level of Service is used to qualitatively describe the performance of a roadway facility, ranging from Level of Service A (free-flow conditions) to Level of Service F (extreme congestion and system failure). Intersection delay analysis was performed using the Vistro software. If the paved lane width of a shared through/right turn lane is wide enough to permit a separate right turn, it is common practice for a right turn lane to be considered “de facto.” To function as a de facto right turn lane there must be sufficient width for right turning vehicles to travel outside the through lane. This analysis uses a minimum lane width of 20 feet from curb to lane stripe. Additionally, a de facto right turn lane was only considered where on-street parking is prohibited near the intersection approach. Performance Standards The City of Downey General Plan Circulation Element has established LOS D as the minimum acceptable Level of Service at intersections and roadway segments. If a project is forecast to result in a substantial operational deficiency, recommended corrective measures will be identified that would reduce the project’s effect to a level that does not exceed the specified deficiency criteria. Corrective measures can be in many forms, including the construction of physical improvements (e.g., addition of travel lanes, traffic control modifications, etc.) or the implementation of transportation demand management measures. 5 7360 Foster Bridge Residential Project Traffic And Circulation Analysis (Revised) 6 19658 ROADWAY SEGMENT CAPACITY ANALYTICAL METHODOLOGY The technique used to assess the capacity needs of the roadway is known as the Volume to Capacity Ratio. Roadway segment operations were evaluated using daily volume to daily capacity ratios, (V/C). The average daily traffic volumes of the study roadways were compared with the county standards by roadway classification. General volume to capacity ratio ranges used for the purposes of estimating overall daily performance along the study roadway segments are as follows in conformance with the City of Downey General Plan: 0.00– 0.80 = Acceptable Capacity. This represents a range of free flow to stable flow, where the unrestricted speed and freedom to maneuver begins to become more limited by the increase in traffic. In general, the driver experiences only minor inconvenience, and traffic flow is quick but light during off-peak hours. 0.81 – 1.00 = Approaches Capacity. This represents high-density but stable flow, where speed and freedom to maneuver are restricted. In general, the driver experiences a degree of inconvenience during peak hours, and traffic flow is slow but steady during peak hours. 1.00 + = Potentially Exceeds Capacity. This is used to define forced or breakdown flow during peak hours. This condition exists wherever the amount of traffic exceeds the amount which can reasonably be handled by the roadway. In general, the driver experiences a high degree of inconvenience, and traffic flow is extremely slow with stop-and-go flow and traffic queues begin to form. This condition is typical of the breakdown in flow which occurs when an accident is present on the roadway. A roadway segment is considered to operate within an acceptable level when the average daily traffic volume is below the daily roadway capacity. Table 1 shows the daily roadway capacities by roadway classification as established in the County of Los Angeles General Plan Update.1 The roadway segment capacity thresholds represent the theoretical maximum two-way average daily traffic volumes that any given roadway is able to accommodate within one day, given typical peak hour characteristics. Generally, roadway segment analysis is performed for planning purposes to determine where potential capacity issues may occur during peak hours and is affected by such factors as the number of intersections (spacing, configuration and control features), degree of access control, roadway grades, design geometrics (horizontal and vertical alignments), sight distance, vehicle mix (truck and bus traffic), and bicycle/pedestrian traffic. Roadway segments benefit from on-going traffic signal progression timing adjustments that maximize green time during peak traffic demands. In the cases where the roadway segment potentially exceeds daily capacity, further evaluation of peak hour operations should be considered. As intersections are typically the most constrained points along a roadway segment, a roadway segment may be considered to operate acceptably if the intersections on both ends of the roadway segment operate acceptably during peak hours, even if the average daily traffic volume exceeds the theoretical capacity. 1 Programmatic Traffic Impact Study County of Los Angeles General Plan Update (Iteris, June 10, 2014) 6 A B C D E Major Highway 6 32,400 37,800 43,200 48,600 54,000 Major Highway 8 43,200 50,400 57,600 64,800 72,000 Secondary Highway 4 21,600 25,200 28,800 32,400 36,000 Limited Secondary Highway 4 21,600 25,200 28,800 32,400 36,000 Limited Secondary Highway 2 10,800 12,600 14,400 16,200 18,000 Parkway 2+Varies Varies Varies Varies Varies Collector 2 9,000 10,500 12,000 13,500 15,000 Local St 2 1,500 1,750 2,000 2,250 2,500 Expressway 4 26,400 30,800 35,200 39,600 44,000 Expressway 8 52,800 61,600 70,400 79,200 88,000 Volume Level to of Capacity Service Ratio A 0.000 - 0.600 B 0.601 - 0.700 C 0.701 - 0.800 D 0.801 - 0.900 E 0.901 - 1.000 F >1.000 Notes: (2) Average Daily Traffic Volumes (1) Source: Programmatic Traffic Impact Study County of Los Angeles General Plan Update (Iteris, June 10, 2014); Table 4: Roadway Classifications. (3) These roadway capacities are "rule of thumb" estimates for planning purposes. The Level of Service "E" volumes are estimated maximum daily capacity for respective classifications. Maximum Two-Way Traffic Volume (ADT)1,2 Level of Service Table 1 County of Los Angeles Roadway Segment Daily Capacities Roadway Classification Number of Lanes 7360 Foster Bridge Residential Project Traffic and Circulation Analysis 196587 7360 Foster Bridge Residential Project Traffic And Circulation Analysis (Revised) 8 19658 3. EXISTING CONDITIONS EXISTING ROADWAY SYSTEM Figure 3 identifies the lane geometry and intersection traffic controls for Existing conditions based on a field survey of the study area. Regional access to the project area is provided by the Interstate 5 freeway approximately 0.9 miles northeast of the project site and the I-710 freeway approximately 1.80 miles west of the project site. The key north-south roadways providing local circulation are Suva Street and Foster Bridge Boulevard. The key east-west roadways providing local circulation are Scout Avenue, Bluff Road, Guatemala Avenue, and Paramount Boulevard. Suva Street is a 2-lane undivided roadway in the study area. Suva Street is classified as a Collector north of Paramount Boulevard to the City of Downey boundary and unclassified south of Paramount Boulevard in the City of Downey Circulation Plan. The City of Bell Gardens also classifies Suva Street as a Collector north of the City boundary. On-street parking is generally permitted in the project area. No bicycle facilities are provided in the study area, Sidewalks are provided on both sides of the roadway north of Paramount Boulevard and not provided south of Paramount Boulevard. Foster Bridge Boulevard is a 2-lane undivided roadway in the study area. Foster Bridge Boulevard is classified as a Collector in the City of Downey Circulation Plan. On-street parking is generally permitted in the project area. No bicycle facilities are provided in the study area. Sidewalks are provided on both sides of the roadway. Scout Avenue is a 4-lane undivided roadway in the study area. Scout Avenue is classified as an Avenue in the City of Bell Gardens Circulation Plan. On-street parking is generally permitted in the project area. No bicycle facilities are provided in the study area. Sidewalks are provided on the north side of the roadway. Bluff Road is a 2-lane undivided roadway in the study area. Bluff Road is classified as a Collector east of Suva Street and is not classified west of Bluff Road in the City of Downey Circulation Plan. On-street parking is generally prohibited in the project area. No bicycle facilities are provided in the study area. Sidewalks are provided on both sides of the roadway west of Suva Street and not provided east of Suva Street. Guatemala Avenue is a 2-lane undivided roadway in the study area. Guatemala Avenue is not classified in the City of Downey Circulation Plan. On-street parking is generally permitted in the project area. No bicycle facilities are provided in the study area. Sidewalks are intermittently provided on the north side of the roadway east of Suva Street and generally not provided west of Suva Street and on the south side of the roadway east of Suva Street. Paramount Boulevard is a 4-lane divided roadway in the study area. Paramount Boulevard is classified as a Major Arterial in the City of Downey Circulation Plan. On-street parking is prohibited in the project area. No bicycle facilities are provided in the study area. Sidewalks are provided on both sides of the roadway. PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES Existing pedestrian facilities in the project vicinity are shown on Figure 4. BICYCLE ROUTES No on-street bicycle facilities are provided in the project area. The County of Los Angeles Bikeways Map is depicted on Figure 5, and shows the Rio Hondo bike path just south of the project site with bike path access points located on the southern boundary of Bluff Road near the project site. 8 7360 Foster Bridge Residential Project Traffic And Circulation Analysis (Revised) 9 19658 TRANSIT FACILITIES Figure 6 shows the existing transit routes available in the project vicinity. As shown on Figure 6, Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority Route 265 services Paramount Boulevard. GENERAL PLAN CONTEXT Figure 7 shows the City of Downey Circulation Plan roadway classifications map. This figure shows the nature and extent of arterial and collector highways that are needed to adequately serve the ultimate development depicted by the Land Use Element of the General Plan. The City of Downey standard roadway cross-sections are illustrated on Figure 8. Figure 9 shows the City of Bell Gardens Circulation Plan roadway classifications map. This figure shows the nature and extent of arterial and collector highways that are needed to adequately serve the ultimate development depicted by the Land Use Element of the General Plan. The City of Bell Gardens standard roadway cross-sections are illustrated on Figure 10. EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES Figure 11 and Figure 12 show the Existing AM and PM peak hour intersection turning movement volumes. Existing peak hour intersection volumes are based upon AM peak period and PM peak period intersection turning movement counts obtained in August 2023 during typical weekday conditions when schools were in session. The weekday AM peak period was counted between 7:00 AM and 9:00 AM and the weekday PM peak period was counted between 4:00 PM and 6:00 PM; these periods capture the peak times for commuter traffic when the roadway system is typically experiencing peak demand. The actual peak hour within each two-hour count period is determined based on the sum of the four consecutive 15-minute periods with the highest total volume. Thus, the weekday PM peak hour at one intersection may be 4:45 PM to 5:45 PM if those four consecutive 15-minute periods have the highest total volume and may vary at other intersections. Intersection turning movement count worksheets are provided in Appendix C. Existing average daily traffic volumes have been based 24-hour roadway segment counts obtained by Ganddini Group, Inc. in August 2023 (see Appendix C) for the roadway segments that have been analyzed in this report as part of the roadway segment analysis. EXISTING LEVELS OF SERVICE The roadway segment Levels of Service for Existing conditions are shown in Table 2. As shown in Table 2, the existing roadway segments currently operate within acceptable Levels of Service. The intersection Levels of Service for existing conditions are shown in Table 3. Existing intersection Level of Service worksheets are provided in Appendix D. As shown in Table 3, the study intersections currently operate within acceptable Levels of Service during the peak hours for existing conditions. EXISTING TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANTS The application of traffic control devices is governed by Federal standards adopted by the State of California and contained in the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (California Department of Transportation, 2014 Edition) [“CA MUTCD”]. Part 4C – Traffic Control Signal Needs Studies of the CA MUTCD contains a series of warrants, or criteria, which serve to determine whether installation of a traffic signal is justified at a particular location. The CA MUTCD states that a traffic control signal should not be installed unless one or more warrants are satisfied. Application of the traffic signal warrants should be based 9 7360 Foster Bridge Residential Project Traffic And Circulation Analysis (Revised) 10 19658 on engineering judgement and satisfaction of one or more traffic signal warrants shall not in itself require the installation of a traffic signal. The unsignalized study intersection of Suva Street and Guatemala Avenue was evaluated for the potential need to install a traffic signal using the CA MUTCD peak hour traffic signal warrant graphs (Warrant 3). Peak hour traffic signal warrant worksheets are provided in Appendix E. For existing conditions, a traffic signal does not appear to be warranted at the intersection of Suva Street/Guatemala Avenue based on the CA MUTCD peak hour traffic signal warrant graphs (Warrant 3). 10 Lanes Capacity2 Scout Ave to Bluff Road 2 15,000 6,354 0.42 Acceptable A Bluff Road to Guatemala Ave 2 15,000 11,972 0.80 Acceptable C Scout Ave West of Suva St 4 36,000 7,036 0.20 Acceptable A East of Suva St 4 36,000 35,660 0.99 Approaches Capacity E West of Suva St 4 36,000 33,234 0.92 Approaches Capacity E Foster Bridge Blvd North of Bluff Road 2 15,000 4,094 0.27 Acceptable A Notes: (1) See Table 1. (2) The County of Los Angeles roadway maximum capacity at Level of Service "E" (see Table 1). (3) ADT = Average Daily Traffic Volume. (4) V/C = Volume to Capacity Ratio. (5) LOS = Level of Service (Based on the Level of Service standards on Table 1). Table 2 Existing Roadway Segment Daily Capacity Analysis Classification Suva St Collector Collector Roadway Segment Standards1 V/C4Existing ADT3RoadwaySegment LOS5Capacity Threshold Ave Major Arterial Major Arterial Collector Paramount Blvd 7360 Foster Bridge Residential Project Traffic and Circulation Analysis 1965811 Delay2 LOS3 Delay2 LOS3 1. Suva St at Scout Ave AWS 16.9 C 11.6 B 2. Suva St at Bluff Rd/Foster Bridge Blvd TS 15.9 B 12.8 B 3. Suva St at Guatemala Ave AWS 19.6 E 28.0 D 4. Suva St at Paramount Blvd TS 20.8 C 34.6 C Notes: (1) AWS = All Way Stop; TS = Traffic Signal (2) (3) LOS = Level of Service ID Table 3 Existing Intersection Level of Service Traffic Control1 AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Delay is shown in seconds/vehicle. For intersections with traffic signal or all way stop control, overall average intersection delay and LOS are shown. Study Intersection 7360 Foster Bridge Residential Project Traffic and Circulation Analysis 1965812 F i g u r e 3 E x i s t i n g L a n e G e o m e t r y a n d I n t e r s e c t i o n T r a f f i c C o n t r o l s 7 3 6 0 F o s t e r B r i d g e R e s i d e n t i a l P r o j e c t T r a f f i c A n d C i r c u l a t i o n A n a l y s i s 1 9 6 5 8 N 1 S i t e SCOUT AVE FOSTER BRIDG E BLVD BLUFF RD G U A T E M A L A A V E S U V A S T PAR A M O UN T B L VD 2 3 4 5 1 S u v a S t ( N S ) / S c o u t A v e ( E W ) 3 S u v a S t ( N S ) / G u a t e m a l a A v e ( E W ) 4 S u v a S t ( N S ) / P a r a m o u n t B l v d ( E W ) 5 F o s t e r B r i d g e B l v d ( N S ) / P r o j e c t D w y ( E W ) S u v a S t ( N S ) / B l u f f R d ( E W ) 2 Foster B r i d g e Blvd A W S S T O P A W S S T O P STOP AWS#U #D LegendE x i s t i n g L a n e #-Lane Undivided Roadway #-Lane Divided Roadway Stop Sign All Way Stop Traffic Signal 2U 2U2U 2 U 2 U 2 U 2 U 2 U 2 U 2 U 4 D 4 D 4U 4U d d D e F a c t o R i g h t T u r n L a n e 1 3 F i g u r e 4 E x i s t i n g P e d e s t r i a n F a c i l i t i e s 7 3 6 0 F o s t e r B r i d g e R e s i d e n t i a l P r o j e c t T r a f f i c A n d C i r c u l a t i o n A n a l y s i s 1 9 6 5 8 N S i t e SCOUT AVE FOST ER BRIDGE BL VD B L U F F R D S U V A S T Sidewalk LegendCross Walk 1 4 F i g u r e 5 C o u n t y o f L o s A n g e l e s B i k w a y s M a p 7 3 6 0 F o s t e r B r i d g e R e s i d e n t i a l P r o j e c t T r a f f i c A n d C i r c u l a t i o n A n a l y s i s 1 9 6 5 8 N S i t e SCOUT AVE FOSTER BRIDG E BLVD BLUFF RD G U A T E M A L A A V E S U V A S T PAR A M O UN T B L VD Existing Bikeway Path LegendBike Path Access PointSource: County of Los Angeles 1 5 Figure 6 Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority System Map 7360 Foster Bridge Residential Project Traffic And Circulation Analysis 19658 Source: L.A. Metro N Site 16 Figure 7 City of Downey Circulation Plan 7360 Foster Bridge Residential Project Traffic And Circulation Analysis 19658 N Source: City of Downey Site 17 Figure 8 City of Downey Roadway Cross-Sections 7360 Foster Bridge Residential Project Traffic And Circulation Analysis 19658 Source: City of Downey 18 Figure 9 City of Bell Gardens Circulation Plan 7360 Foster Bridge Residential Project Traffic And Circulation Analysis 19658 Source: City of Bell Gardens Site 19 Figure 10 City of Bell Gardens Roadway Cross-Sections 7360 Foster Bridge Residential Project Traffic And Circulation Analysis 19658 Source: City of Bell Gardens 20 F i g u r e 1 1 E x i s t i n g A M P e a k H o u r I n t e r s e c t i o n T u r n i n g M o v e m e n t V o l u m e s 7 3 6 0 F o s t e r B r i d g e R e s i d e n t i a l P r o j e c t T r a f f i c A n d C i r c u l a t i o n A n a l y s i s 1 9 6 5 8 N 1 S i t e SCOUT AVE FOSTER BRIDG E BLVD BLUFF RD G U A T E M A L A A V E S U V A S T PAR A M O UN T B L VD 2 3 4 Study Intersection Legend#Project Driveway# 5 S u v a S t ( N S ) / B l u f f R d ( E W ) 1 1 8 8 3 2 Foster B r i d g e Blvd 1 S u v a S t ( N S ) / S c o u t A v e ( E W ) 137831 73651101 0 2 5 8 1 6 0 1 2 7 3 5 1 3 S u v a S t ( N S ) / G u a t e m a l a A v e ( E W ) 121934 973011541 0 6 2 7 1 3 4 2 0 1 2 4 4 S u v a S t ( N S ) / P a r a m o u n t B l v d ( E W ) 161734 200251671 0 5 1 1 2 1 9 1 3 1 1 0 0 1 3 1 5 F o s t e r B r i d g e B l v d ( N S ) / P r o j e c t D w y ( E W ) 0178 1890 0 0 2218214 22375 2 0 4 1 1 1 0 6 2 1 F i g u r e 1 2 E x i s t i n g P M P e a k H o u r I n t e r s e c t i o n T u r n i n g M o v e m e n t V o l u m e s 7 3 6 0 F o s t e r B r i d g e R e s i d e n t i a l P r o j e c t T r a f f i c A n d C i r c u l a t i o n A n a l y s i s 1 9 6 5 8 N 1 S i t e SCOUT AVE FOSTER BRIDG E BLVD BLUFF RD G U A T E M A L A A V E S U V A S T PAR A M O UN T B L VD 2 3 4 Study Intersection Legend#Project Driveway# 5 S u v a S t ( N S ) / B l u f f R d ( E W ) 2 1 9 9 5 2 Foster B r i d g e Blvd 1 S u v a S t ( N S ) / S c o u t A v e ( E W ) 1631085 717335 2 3 8 8 2 4 2 1 3 6 1 5 3 S u v a S t ( N S ) / G u a t e m a l a A v e ( E W ) 1234512 134410131 7 5 3 6 1 2 1 4 2 6 9 2 4 S u v a S t ( N S ) / P a r a m o u n t B l v d ( E W ) 564 20528161 9 6 1 1 3 2 2 4 1 4 1 2 6 3 1 7 6 5 F o s t e r B r i d g e B l v d ( N S ) / P r o j e c t D w y ( E W ) 0187 2060 0 0 0259180 114253 0 0 2 5 0 0 5 2 2 7360 Foster Bridge Residential Project Traffic And Circulation Analysis (Revised) 23 19658 4. PROJECT FORECASTS This section describes how project trip generation, trip distribution, and trip assignment forecasts were developed. The forecast project volumes are illustrated on figures contained in this section. PROJECT TRIP GENERATION Table 4 and Table 5 show the existing land uses and project trip generation for potential church and residential uses based upon trip generation rates obtained from the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual (11th Edition, 2021). Based on review of the ITE land use descriptions, trip generation rates for Church (ITE Land Use Code 560) and Multi-Family Housing (Low-Rise) (ITE Land Use Code 220) were determined to adequately represent the existing land use and proposed project and were used for calculating the project trip generation forecasts. The existing land use and project trip generation forecasts were determined by multiplying the trip generation rates by the land use quantities. As shown in Table 4, the existing land uses currently generate approximately 64 daily trips, including 3 trips during the AM peak hour and 4 trips during the PM peak hour. As shown in Table 5, the proposed project is forecast to generate approximately 222 daily trips, including 13 trips during the AM peak hour and 17 trips during the PM peak hour. As shown in Table 6, the proposed project is forecast to generate approximately 158 additional daily trips compared to existing project site uses, including 10 additional trips during the AM peak hour and 13 additional trips during the PM peak hour. PROJECT TRIP DISTRIBUTION AND ASSIGNMENT Figure 13 and Figure 14 show the existing and forecast directional distribution patterns for the project generated trips. The existing and project trip distribution patterns are based on review of existing volume data, surrounding land uses, and the local and regional roadway facilities in the project vicinity. The project-generated AM and PM peak hour intersection turning movement volumes are shown on Figure 15 and Figure 16. 23 % In % Out Rate % In % Out Rate Church ITE 560 TSF 62% 38% 0.32 44% 56% 0.49 7.60 In Out Total In Out Total Church 8.480 TSF 2 1 3 2 2 4 64 Notes: (1) ITE = Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation Manual (11th Edition, 2021);### = Land Use Code (2) TSF = Thousand Square Feet Table 4 Existing Trip Generation Trip Generation Rates Land Use Source1 Unit2 AM Peak Hour Daily PM Peak Hour Trips Generated Land Use Quantity Unit 2 AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Daily 7360 Foster Bridge Residential Project Traffic and Circulation Analysis 1965824 % In % Out Rate % In % Out Rate Multi-Family Housing (Low-Rise) ITE 220 DU 24% 76% 0.40 63% 37% 0.51 6.74 In Out Total In Out Total Multi-Family Housing (Low-Rise)33 DU 3 10 13 11 6 17 222 Notes: (1) ITE = Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation Manual (11th Edition, 2021); ### = Land Use Code (2) DU = Dwelling Units Table 5 Project Trip Generation Trip Generation Rates Land Use Source1 Unit2 AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Daily Trips Generated Land Use Quantity Unit 2 AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Daily 7360 Foster Bridge Residential Project Traffic and Circulation Analysis 1965825 In Out Total In Out Total Existing Land Use1 2 1 3 2 2 4 64 Proposed Project2 3 10 13 11 6 17 222 Net New Trips +1 +9 +10 +9 +4 +13 +158 Notes: (1) See Table 4. (2) See Table 5. Table 6 Project Trip Generation Comparison Trips Generated Land Use AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Daily 7360 Foster Bridge Residential Project Traffic and Circulation Analysis 1965826 F i g u r e 1 3 E x i s t i n g T r i p D i s t r i b u t i o n 7 3 6 0 F o s t e r B r i d g e R e s i d e n t i a l P r o j e c t T r a f f i c A n d C i r c u l a t i o n A n a l y s i s 1 9 6 5 8 N S i t e SCOUT AVE FOSTER BRIDG E BLVD BLUFF RD G U A T E M A L A A V E S U V A S T PAR A M O UN T B L VD 1 0 % 5 % 5 % 5 % 5 % 5 % 5 % 4 0 % 1 0 % 3 5 % 3 0 % 2 0 % 5 % 1 0 % 6 0 % 25%10%15% 1 0 % 5 % 45 % 55 % 9 0 % 4 0 % Percent To/From Project Legend10% 2 7 F i g u r e 1 4 P r o j e c t T r i p D i s t r i b u t i o n 7 3 6 0 F o s t e r B r i d g e R e s i d e n t i a l P r o j e c t T r a f f i c A n d C i r c u l a t i o n A n a l y s i s 1 9 6 5 8 N S i t e SCOUT AVE FOSTER BRIDG E BLVD BLUFF RD G U A T E M A L A A V E S U V A S T PAR A M O UN T B L VD 2 5 % 2 5 % 5 0 % 30%25%5% 2 0 % 10 0 % Percent To/From Project Legend10% 8 0 % 2 8 F i g u r e 1 5 P r o j e c t A M P e a k H o u r I n t e r s e c t i o n T u r n i n g M o v e m e n t V o l u m e s 7 3 6 0 F o s t e r B r i d g e R e s i d e n t i a l P r o j e c t T r a f f i c A n d C i r c u l a t i o n A n a l y s i s 1 9 6 5 8 N 1 S i t e SCOUT AVE FOSTER BRIDG E BLVD BLUFF RD G U A T E M A L A A V E S U V A S T PAR A M O UN T B L VD 2 3 4 Study Intersection Legend#Project Driveway# 5 S u v a S t ( N S ) / B l u f f R d ( E W ) 0 3 4 2 Foster B r i d g e Blvd 1 S u v a S t ( N S ) / S c o u t A v e ( E W ) 310 000 0 0 1 0 0 0 3 S u v a S t ( N S ) / G u a t e m a l a A v e ( E W ) 020 030 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 S u v a S t ( N S ) / P a r a m o u n t B l v d ( E W ) 000 301 1 0 0 0 0 1 5 F o s t e r B r i d g e B l v d ( N S ) / P r o j e c t D w y ( E W ) 30 01 2 7 002 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 9 F i g u r e 1 6 P r o j e c t P M P e a k H o u r I n t e r s e c t i o n T u r n i n g M o v e m e n t V o l u m e s 7 3 6 0 F o s t e r B r i d g e R e s i d e n t i a l P r o j e c t T r a f f i c A n d C i r c u l a t i o n A n a l y s i s 1 9 6 5 8 N 1 S i t e SCOUT AVE FOSTER BRIDG E BLVD BLUFF RD G U A T E M A L A A V E S U V A S T PAR A M O UN T B L VD 2 3 4 Study Intersection Legend#Project Driveway# 5 S u v a S t ( N S ) / B l u f f R d ( E W ) 0 1 2 2 Foster B r i d g e Blvd 1 S u v a S t ( N S ) / S c o u t A v e ( E W ) 200 010 0 0 3 0 0 0 3 S u v a S t ( N S ) / G u a t e m a l a A v e ( E W ) 060 010 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 S u v a S t ( N S ) / P a r a m o u n t B l v d ( E W ) 000 201 3 0 0 0 0 3 5 F o s t e r B r i d g e B l v d ( N S ) / P r o j e c t D w y ( E W ) 100 02 1 3 006 400 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 7360 Foster Bridge Residential Project Traffic And Circulation Analysis (Revised) 31 19658 5. FUTURE VOLUME FORECASTS This section describes how future volume forecasts for each analysis scenario were developed. Forecast study area volumes are illustrated on figures contained in this section. OTHER DEVELOPMENT To account for trips generated by future development, trips generated by other development projects in the Cities of Downey, Bell Gardens, Pico, Rivera, Commerce, and Montebello were added to the study area as provided by each City Planning Department staff. Table 7 shows the trip generation summary for other development projects. Figure 17 shows the other development location map. Figure 18 and Figure 19 show the forecast AM and PM peak hour intersection turning movement volumes for trips generated by other developments. AMBIENT GROWTH To account for ambient growth on roadways, existing traffic volumes were increased by a growth rate of 0.2- percent per year over a two-year period for Cumulative [Opening Year (2025)] conditions; this equates to a total growth factor of approximately 1.004. The ambient growth rate was conservatively applied to all movements at the study intersections. ANALYSIS SCENARIO VOLUME FORECASTS Existing Plus Ambient Growth Plus Cumulative Existing Plus Ambient Growth Plus Cumulative volume forecasts were derived by adding the other development generated trips to Existing volumes with ambient growth. Existing Plus Ambient Growth Plus Cumulative AM and PM peak hour intersection turning movement volumes are shown on Figure 20 and Figure 21. Existing Plus Ambient Growth Plus Cumulative Plus Project Existing Plus Ambient Growth Plus Cumulative Plus Project volume forecasts were derived by adding project generated trips to Existing Plus Ambient Growth Plus Cumulative volumes. Existing Plus Ambient Growth Plus Cumulative Plus Project AM and PM peak hour intersection turning movement volumes are shown on Figure 22 and Figure 23. 31 In Out Total In Out Total City of Downey Commercial ITE 821 59.500 TSF 64 39 103 151 157 308 4,017 - Pass-By (40% PM)-- -- -- -60 -63 -123 -123 Fast-Food Restaurant w/ Drive-Thru Window ITE 221 6.508 TSF 148 142 290 112 103 215 3,042 - Pass-By (50% AM, 55% PM)-74 -71 -145 -62 -57 -119 -264 Subtotal 138 110 248 141 140 281 6,672 City of Pico Rivera PR1 8101 Rosemead Blvd Office ITE 710 68.837 TSF 92 13 105 17 82 99 746 City of Commerce Existing Warehousing - Passenger Cars 29 13 41 9 37 45 653 - Trucks 7 12 19 16 3 19 276 Proposed Light Industriall/Warehousing [a] 296.166 TSF - Passenger Cars 97 15 112 16 87 103 746 - Trucks 1 1 2 4 3 7 140 Difference - Passenger Cars 69 3 71 8 51 58 94 - Trucks -6 -11 -17 -12 0 -12 -136 Subtotal 63 -9 55 -4 51 47 -42 293 114 408 154 273 427 7,376 Notes: (2) TSF = Thousand Square Feet Table 7 Other Development Trip Generation Map ID Land Use Source1 AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour DailyAddress (1) ITE = Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation Manual (11th Edition, 2021); ### = Land Use Code C1 7400 Slauson Ave3 [a] = 7400 Slauson Ave Focused Traffic Assessment (Urban Crossroads, January 4, 2023). Quantity2 7201 Firestone BlvdD1 Total 7360 Foster Bridge Residential Project Traffic and Circulation Analysis 1965832 Other DevelopmentOther Development Legend N ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Figure 17 Other Development Locaon Map 7360 Foster Bridge Residenal Project Traffic And Circulaon Analysis 19658 MA I N S T Site 5 33 F i g u r e 1 8 O t h e r D e v e l o p m e n t A M P e a k H o u r I n t e r s e c t i o n T u r n i n g M o v e m e n t V o l u m e s 7 3 6 0 F o s t e r B r i d g e R e s i d e n t i a l P r o j e c t T r a f f i c A n d C i r c u l a t i o n A n a l y s i s 1 9 6 5 8 N 1 S i t e SCOUT AVE FOSTER BRIDG E BLVD BLUFF RD G U A T E M A L A A V E S U V A S T PAR A M O UN T B L VD 2 3 4 Study Intersection Legend#Project Driveway# 5 S u v a S t ( N S ) / B l u f f R d ( E W ) 0 0 0 2 Foster B r i d g e Blvd 1 S u v a S t ( N S ) / S c o u t A v e ( E W ) 000 030 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 S u v a S t ( N S ) / G u a t e m a l a A v e ( E W ) 000 030 0 0 3 2 0 0 4 S u v a S t ( N S ) / P a r a m o u n t B l v d ( E W ) 002 800 0 1 5 0 0 8 0 5 F o s t e r B r i d g e B l v d ( N S ) / P r o j e c t D w y ( E W ) 00 00 0 0 000 030 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 4 F i g u r e 1 9 O t h e r D e v e l o p m e n t P M P e a k H o u r I n t e r s e c t i o n T u r n i n g M o v e m e n t V o l u m e s 7 3 6 0 F o s t e r B r i d g e R e s i d e n t i a l P r o j e c t T r a f f i c A n d C i r c u l a t i o n A n a l y s i s 1 9 6 5 8 N 1 S i t e SCOUT AVE FOSTER BRIDG E BLVD BLUFF RD G U A T E M A L A A V E S U V A S T PAR A M O UN T B L VD 2 3 4 Study Intersection Legend#Project Driveway# 5 S u v a S t ( N S ) / B l u f f R d ( E W ) 0 0 0 2 Foster B r i d g e Blvd 1 S u v a S t ( N S ) / S c o u t A v e ( E W ) 020 010 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 S u v a S t ( N S ) / G u a t e m a l a A v e ( E W ) 222 010 0 0 1 0 0 0 4 S u v a S t ( N S ) / P a r a m o u n t B l v d ( E W ) 000 200 0 9 0 2 1 5 6 5 F o s t e r B r i d g e B l v d ( N S ) / P r o j e c t D w y ( E W ) 00 00 0 0 020 010 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 5 F i g u r e 2 0 E x i s t i n g P l u s A m b i e n t G r o w t h P l u s C u m u l a t i v e A M P e a k H o u r I n t e r s e c t i o n T u r n i n g M o v e m e n t V o l u m e s 7 3 6 0 F o s t e r B r i d g e R e s i d e n t i a l P r o j e c t T r a f f i c A n d C i r c u l a t i o n A n a l y s i s 1 9 6 5 8 N 1 S i t e SCOUT AVE FOSTER BRIDG E BLVD BLUFF RD G U A T E M A L A A V E S U V A S T PAR A M O UN T B L VD 2 3 4 Study Intersection Legend#Project Driveway# 5 S u v a S t ( N S ) / B l u f f R d ( E W ) 1 1 8 9 3 2 Foster B r i d g e Blvd 1 S u v a S t ( N S ) / S c o u t A v e ( E W ) 138831 73681101 0 2 5 8 1 6 1 1 2 7 3 5 1 3 S u v a S t ( N S ) / G u a t e m a l a A v e ( E W ) 121944 973051551 0 6 2 7 1 6 6 2 0 1 2 4 4 S u v a S t ( N S ) / P a r a m o u n t B l v d ( E W ) 161736 209251681 0 5 1 1 4 0 9 1 3 1 1 1 2 1 3 2 5 F o s t e r B r i d g e B l v d ( N S ) / P r o j e c t D w y ( E W ) 0179 1900 0 0 2219215 22414 3 0 4 1 1 1 0 4 3 6 F i g u r e 2 1 E x i s t i n g P l u s A m b i e n t G r o w t h P l u s C u m u l a t i v e P M P e a k H o u r I n t e r s e c t i o n T u r n i n g M o v e m e n t V o l u m e s 7 3 6 0 F o s t e r B r i d g e R e s i d e n t i a l P r o j e c t T r a f f i c A n d C i r c u l a t i o n A n a l y s i s 1 9 6 5 8 N 1 S i t e SCOUT AVE FOSTER BRIDG E BLVD BLUFF RD G U A T E M A L A A V E S U V A S T PAR A M O UN T B L VD 2 3 4 Study Intersection Legend#Project Driveway# 5 S u v a S t ( N S ) / B l u f f R d ( E W ) 2 2 0 0 5 2 Foster B r i d g e Blvd 1 S u v a S t ( N S ) / S c o u t A v e ( E W ) 1641105 717535 2 3 8 8 2 4 3 1 3 6 1 5 3 S u v a S t ( N S ) / G u a t e m a l a A v e ( E W ) 1434814 135413132 7 5 3 6 1 3 1 4 2 6 9 2 4 S u v a S t ( N S ) / P a r a m o u n t B l v d ( E W ) 564 20828162 9 6 1 1 4 6 2 4 1 6 1 2 8 3 1 8 3 5 F o s t e r B r i d g e B l v d ( N S ) / P r o j e c t D w y ( E W ) 0188 2070 0 0 0262181 114283 0 0 2 5 0 0 5 3 7 F i g u r e 2 2 E x i s t i n g P l u s A m b i e n t G r o w t h P l u s C u m u l a t i v e P l u s P r o j e c t A M P e a k H o u r I n t e r s e c t i o n T u r n i n g M o v e m e n t V o l u m e s 7 3 6 0 F o s t e r B r i d g e R e s i d e n t i a l P r o j e c t T r a f f i c A n d C i r c u l a t i o n A n a l y s i s 1 9 6 5 8 N 1 S i t e SCOUT AVE FOSTER BRIDG E BLVD BLUFF RD G U A T E M A L A A V E S U V A S T PAR A M O UN T B L VD 2 3 4 Study Intersection Legend#Project Driveway# 5 S u v a S t ( N S ) / B l u f f R d ( E W ) 1 1 9 2 7 2 Foster B r i d g e Blvd 1 S u v a S t ( N S ) / S c o u t A v e ( E W ) 141841 73681101 0 2 5 8 1 6 2 1 2 7 3 5 1 3 S u v a S t ( N S ) / G u a t e m a l a A v e ( E W ) 121964 973081551 0 6 2 7 1 6 6 2 0 1 2 4 4 S u v a S t ( N S ) / P a r a m o u n t B l v d ( E W ) 161736 212251691 0 6 1 1 4 0 9 1 3 1 1 1 2 1 3 3 5 F o s t e r B r i d g e B l v d ( N S ) / P r o j e c t D w y ( E W ) 3179 1901 2 7 2219217 32414 3 0 4 1 1 1 0 6 3 8 F i g u r e 2 3 E x i s t i n g P l u s A m b i e n t G r o w t h P l u s C u m u l a t i v e P l u s P r o j e c t A M P e a k H o u r I n t e r s e c t i o n T u r n i n g M o v e m e n t V o l u m e s 7 3 6 0 F o s t e r B r i d g e R e s i d e n t i a l P r o j e c t T r a f f i c A n d C i r c u l a t i o n A n a l y s i s 1 9 6 5 8 N 1 S i t e SCOUT AVE FOSTER BRIDG E BLVD BLUFF RD G U A T E M A L A A V E S U V A S T PAR A M O UN T B L VD 2 3 4 Study Intersection Legend#Project Driveway# 5 S u v a S t ( N S ) / B l u f f R d ( E W ) 2 Foster B r i d g e Blvd2 2 0 1 7 1 S u v a S t ( N S ) / S c o u t A v e ( E W ) 1661105 717635 2 3 8 8 2 4 6 1 3 6 1 5 3 S u v a S t ( N S ) / G u a t e m a l a A v e ( E W ) 1435414 135414132 7 5 3 6 1 3 1 4 2 6 9 2 4 S u v a S t ( N S ) / P a r a m o u n t B l v d ( E W ) 564 21028163 9 9 1 1 4 6 2 4 1 6 1 2 8 3 1 8 6 5 F o s t e r B r i d g e B l v d ( N S ) / P r o j e c t D w y ( E W ) 10188 2072 1 3 0262187 154283 0 0 2 5 0 0 5 3 9 7360 Foster Bridge Residential Project Traffic And Circulation Analysis (Revised) 40 19658 6. FUTURE OPERATIONAL ANALYSIS Detailed intersection Level of Service calculation worksheets for each of the following analysis scenarios are provided in Appendix D. EXISTING PLUS AMBIENT GROWTH PLUS CUMULATIVE Table 8 shows the roadway segment capacity analysis for Existing Plus Ambient Growth Plus Cumulative conditions. As shown in Table 8, the study roadway segments are forecast to operate within acceptable Levels of Service for Existing Plus Ambient Growth Plus Cumulative conditions, except for the following roadway segment that is forecast to potentially exceed capacity:  Paramount Boulevard, East of Suva Street Although this roadway segment is projected to operate at an unacceptable Level of Service, the intersection of Suva Street at Paramount Boulevard (Int. #4) is projected to operate within acceptable Levels of Service during the peak hours (see Table 9). Two through lanes along Paramount Boulevard are maintained through the intersection of Suva Street. Thus, since the roadway segment acts as a free-flowing corridor between points of conflict (intersections), and the point of conflict (Suva Street at Paramount Boulevard – Intersection # 4) is projected to operate at acceptable Levels of Service during the peak hours, improvements are not recommended along this roadway segment. Intersection Levels of Service for Existing Plus Ambient Growth Plus Cumulative are shown in Table 9. As shown in Table 9, the study intersections are forecast to operate within acceptable Levels of Service during the peak hours for Existing Plus Ambient Growth Plus Cumulative conditions; no intersection improvements are recommended. EXISTING PLUS AMBIENT GROWTH PLUS CUMULATIVE PLUS PROJECT Table 10 shows the roadway segment capacity analysis for Existing Plus Ambient Growth Plus Cumulative Plus Project conditions. As shown in Table 10, the study roadway segments are forecast to operate within acceptable Levels of Service for Existing Plus Ambient Growth Plus Cumulative Plus Project conditions, except for the following roadway segment that is forecast to potentially exceed capacity:  Paramount Boulevard, East of Suva Street Improvements are not recommended along this roadway segment even though the roadway segment due to acceptable peak hour operations at the adjacent points of conflict (Suva Street/Paramount Boulevard intersection) as previously described. In addition, the project is forecast to add a relatively negligible number of trips per day along this segment such that no appreciable change in the volume-to-capacity ratio is expected for Existing Plus Ambient Growth Plus Cumulative Plus Project conditions. Intersection Levels of Service for Existing Plus Ambient Growth Plus Cumulative Plus Project are shown in Table 11. As shown in Table 11, the study intersections are forecast to operate within acceptable Levels of Service during the peak hours for Existing Plus Ambient Growth Plus Cumulative Plus Project conditions; no intersection improvements are recommended. FUTURE TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANT ANALYSIS The unsignalized study intersection of Suva Street and Guatemala Avenue was evaluated for the potential need to install a traffic signal using the CA MUTCD peak hour traffic signal warrant graphs (Warrant 3). Peak hour traffic signal warrant worksheets are provided in Appendix E. 40 7360 Foster Bridge Residential Project Traffic And Circulation Analysis (Revised) 41 19658 For all future conditions evaluated, a traffic signal does not appear to be warranted at the intersection of Suva Street/Guatemala Avenue based on the CA MUTCD peak hour traffic signal warrant graphs (Warrant 3). 41 Lanes Capacity2 Existing Existing Plus Ambient Growth Cumulative Existing Plus Ambient Growth Plus Cumulative Scout Ave to Bluff Road 2 15,000 6,354 6,379 22 6,401 0.43 Acceptable A Bluff Road to Guatemala Ave 2 15,000 11,972 12,020 22 12,042 0.80 Approaches Capacity D Scout Ave West of Suva St 4 36,000 7,036 7,064 0 7,064 0.20 Acceptable A East of Suva St 4 36,000 35,660 35,803 480 36,283 1.01 Potentially Exceeds Capacity F West of Suva St 4 36,000 33,234 33,367 408 33,775 0.94 Approaches Capacity E Foster Bridge Blvd North of Bluff Road 2 15,000 4,094 4,110 0 4,110 0.27 Acceptable A Notes: (1) See Table 1. (2) The County of Los Angeles roadway maximum capacity at Level of Service "E" (see Table 1). (3) ADT = Average Daily Traffic Volume. (4) Ambient Growth Rate of 0.2% per year. (5) V/C = Volume to Capacity Ratio. (6) LOS = Level of Service (Based on the Level of Service standards on Table 1). Table 8 Existing Plus Ambient Growth Plus Cumulative Roadway Segment Daily Capacity Analysis Classification Roadway Segment Standards1 Roadway Segment LOS6Capacity Threshold Collector Suva St Collector Collector V/C5 ADT3 Ave Paramount Blvd Major Arterial Major Arterial 7360 Foster Bridge Residential Project Traffic and Circulation Analysis 1965842 Delay2 LOS3 Delay2 LOS3 1. Suva St at Scout Ave AWS 17.1 C 11.7 B 2. Suva St at Bluff Rd/Foster Bridge Blvd TS 16.0 B 12.8 B 3. Suva St at Guatemala Ave AWS 20.3 E 29.1 D 4. Suva St at Paramount Blvd TS 20.9 C 38.6 D Notes: (1) AWS = All Way Stop; TS = Traffic Signal (2) (3) LOS = Level of Service ID Study Intersection Traffic Control1 Delay is shown in seconds/vehicle. For intersections with traffic signal or all way stop control, overall average intersection delay and LOS are shown. Table 9 Existing Plus Ambient Growth Plus Cumulative Intersection Level of Service AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour 7360 Foster Bridge Residential Project Traffic and Circulation Analysis 1965843 Lanes Capacity2 Existing Plus Ambient Growth Plus Cumulative4 Project Existing Plus Ambient Growth Plus Cumulative Plus Project Scout Ave to Bluff Road 2 15,000 6,401 52 6,453 0.43 Acceptable A Bluff Road to Guatemala Ave 2 15,000 12,042 73 12,115 0.81 Approaches Capacity D Scout Ave West of Suva St 4 36,000 7,064 50 7,114 0.20 Acceptable A East of Suva St 4 36,000 36,283 50 36,333 1.01 Potentially Exceeds Capacity F West of Suva St 4 36,000 33,775 51 33,826 0.94 Approaches Capacity E Foster Bridge Blvd North of Bluff Road 2 15,000 4,110 151 4,261 0.28 Acceptable A Notes: (1) See Table 1. (2) The County of Los Angeles roadway maximum capacity at Level of Service "E" (see Table 1). (3) ADT = Average Daily Traffic Volume. (4) See Table 8. (5) V/C = Volume to Capacity Ratio. (6) LOS = Level of Service (Based on the Level of Service standards on Table 1). Classification Table 10 Existing Plus Ambient Growth Plus Cumulative Plus Project Roadway Segment Daily Capacity Analysis Capacity Threshold Paramount Blvd Major Arterial Major Arterial Collector Suva St Collector Collector Ave SegmentRoadway Roadway Segment Standards1 ADT3 V/C5 LOS6 7360 Foster Bridge Residential Project Traffic and Circulation Analysis 1965844 Delay2 LOS3 Delay2 LOS3 1. Suva St at Scout Ave AWS 17.4 C 11.8 B 2. Suva St at Bluff Rd/Foster Bridge Blvd TS 16.1 B 12.9 B 3. Suva St at Guatemala Ave AWS 20.7 E 29.6 D 4. Suva St at Paramount Blvd TS 21.0 C 39.7 D 5. Foster Bridge Blvd at Project Dwy CSS 9.7 C 9.9 A Notes: (1) AWS = All Way Stop; TS = Traffic Signal; CSS = Cross Street Stop (2) (3) LOS = Level of Service Delay is shown in seconds/vehicle. For intersections with traffic signal or all way stop control, overall average intersection delay and LOS are shown. For intersections with cross street stop control, Level of Service is based on average delay of the worst minor street approach or major street left turn movement. Table 11 Existing Plus Ambient Growth Plus Cumulative Plus Project Intersection Level of Service Traffic Control1 AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour ID Study Intersection 7360 Foster Bridge Residential Project Traffic and Circulation Analysis 1965845 7360 Foster Bridge Residential Project Traffic And Circulation Analysis (Revised) 46 19658 7. SITE ACCESS AND CIRCULATION This section includes a description of project improvements necessary to provide site access and an evaluation of site access and circulation. PROJECT DESIGN FEATURES  Construct the Foster Bridge Boulevard (NS) at Project Driveway (EW) (#5) to provide one inbound lane and one outbound lane with eastbound stop-control. This analysis also assumes the project shall comply with the following conditions as part of the City of Downey standard development review process:  A construction work site traffic control plan shall comply with State standards set forth in the California Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices and shall be submitted to the City for review and approval prior to the issuance of a grading permit or start of construction. The plan shall identify any roadway, sidewalk, bike route, or bus stop closures and detours as well as haul routes and hours of operation. All construction-related trips shall be restricted to off-peak hours to the extent possible.  All on-site and off-site roadway design, traffic signing and striping, and traffic control improvements relating to the proposed project shall be constructed in accordance with applicable State/Federal engineering standards and to the satisfaction of the City of Downey.  Site-adjacent roadways shall be constructed or repaired at their ultimate half-section width, including landscaping and parkway improvements in conjunction with development, or as otherwise required by the City of Downey.  Adequate off-street parking shall be provided to the satisfaction of City of Downey.  Adequate emergency vehicle access shall be provided to the satisfaction of the Downey Fire Department.  The final grading, landscaping, and street improvement plans shall demonstrate that sight distance requirements are met in accordance with applicable City of Downey sight distance standards. 46 7360 Foster Bridge Residential Project Traffic And Circulation Analysis (Revised) 47 19658 8. CONGESTION MANAGEMENT PROGRAM This section provides analysis of the project impacts at County facilities in accordance with typical Los Angeles County Congestion Management Program (CMP) requirements. CRITERIA FOR REQUIRING A TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS FOR CMP The Los Angeles County 2010 CMP provides the following thresholds for requiring a CMP-compliant traffic impact analysis:  All CMP arterial monitoring intersections, including monitored freeway on or off-ramp intersections, where the proposed project will add 50 or more trips during either the AM or PM weekday peak hours (of adjacent street traffic)  If CMP arterial segments are being analyzed rather than intersections, the study area must include all segments where the proposed project will add 50 or more peak hour trips (total of both directions).  Mainline freeway monitoring locations were the project will add 150 or more trips, in either direction, during either the AM or PM weekday peak hours. As previously shown in Table 6, the proposed project is forecast to generate approximately 10 new AM peak hour trips and 13 new PM peak hour trips, which are distributed to/from the project site. The project will not add 50 or more peak hour trips to CMP intersections or 150 or more peak hour trips to the freeway network since the project generates less than this threshold in total during each peak hour. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in a CMP impact as it does not meet the thresholds requiring a traffic impact analysis for CMP purposes and no further CMP traffic analysis is warranted. CMP TRANSIT IMPACT REVIEW The Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority 2010 Congestion Management Program, Appendix D - Guidelines for CMP Transportation Impact Analysis, utilizes a conversion factor based on the daily and AM and PM peak hour trip generation to provide for a transit analysis. The conversion is as follows:  Multiply the total trips generated by 1.4 to convert vehicle trips to person trips;  For each time period, multiply the result by one of the following factors: 3.5% of Total Person Trips Generated for most cases, except: 10% primarily Residential within 1/4 mile of a CMP transit center 15% primarily Commercial within 1/4 mile of a CMP transit center 7% primarily Residential within 1/4 mile of a CMP multi-modal transportation center 9% primarily Commercial within 1/4 mile of a CMP multi-modal transportation center 5% primarily Residential within 1/4 mile of a CMP transit corridor 7% primarily Commercial within 1/4 mile of a CMP transit corridor 0% if no fixed route transit services operate within one mile of the project Accordingly, the proposed project-generated transit trips are calculated as follows:  Daily: ((158 trips x 1.4) x 0.035) ≈ 8  Morning Peak Hour: ((10 trips x 1.4) x 0.035) ≈ 1  Evening Peak Hour: ((13 trips x 1.4) x 0.035) ≈ 1 47 7360 Foster Bridge Residential Project Traffic And Circulation Analysis (Revised) 48 19658 The proposed project is forecast to generate approximately one (1) transit trip during the AM and PM peak hour. Based on the existing transit services available in the project vicinity and the relatively low transit trip generation, the proposed project is forecast to have a nominal impact on transit demand. 48 7360 Foster Bridge Residential Project Traffic And Circulation Analysis (Revised) 49 19658 9. CONCLUSIONS This section summarizes the findings and mitigation measures (if any) identified in previous sections of this study. PROJECT TRIP GENERATION The existing land uses currently generate approximately 64 daily trips, including 3 trips during the AM peak hour and 4 trips during the PM peak hour. The proposed project is forecast to generate approximately 222 daily trips, including 13 trips during the AM peak hour and 17 trips during the PM peak hour. The proposed project is forecast to generate approximately 158 additional daily trips compared to existing project site uses, including 10 additional trips during the AM peak hour and 13 additional trips during the PM peak hour. FORECAST LEVELS OF SERVICE For Existing Plus Ambient Growth Plus Cumulative traffic conditions, the study roadway segments are projected to operate at acceptable Levels of Service, except for the following roadway segment that is projected to operate at unacceptable Levels of Service, without improvements:  Paramount Boulevard, East of Suva Street Although this roadway segment is projected to operate at an unacceptable Level of Service, the intersection of Suva Street at Paramount Boulevard (Int. #4) is projected to operate within acceptable Levels of Service during the peak hours (see Table 9). Two through lanes along Paramount Boulevard are maintained through the intersection of Suva Street. Thus, since the roadway segment acts as a free-flowing corridor between points of conflict (intersections), and the point of conflict (Suva Street at Paramount Boulevard – Intersection # 4) is projected to operate at acceptable Levels of Service during the peak hours, improvements are not recommended along this roadway segment. In addition, the project is forecast to add a relatively negligible number of trips per day along this segment such that no appreciable change in the volume-to-capacity ratio is expected for Existing Plus Ambient Growth Plus Cumulative Plus Project conditions. The study intersections are forecast to operate within acceptable Levels of Service during the peak hours for Existing Plus Ambient Growth Plus Cumulative and Existing Plus Ambient Growth Plus Cumulative Plus Project conditions; no intersection improvements are recommended. CONGESTION MANAGEMENT PROGRAM The proposed project would result in no operational CMP impact as it does not meet the thresholds requiring a traffic impact analysis for CMP purposes and no further CMP analysis is warranted. A transit impact review was conducted for compliance with the CMP requirements and found that the proposed project is forecast to have a nominal impact on transit demand. 49 APPENDICES Appendix A Glossary Appendix B Scoping Agreement Appendix C Volume Count Worksheets Appendix D Level of Service Worksheets Appendix E Traffic Signal Warrant Graphs Apx-1 APPENDIX A GLOSSARY Apx-2 ACRONYMS AC Acres ADT Average Daily Traffic Caltrans California Department of Transportation DU Dwelling Unit ICU Intersection Capacity Utilization GFA Gross Floor Area LOS Level of Service PCE Passenger Car Equivalent SP Service Population TSF Thousand Square Feet V/C Volume/Capacity VMT Vehicle Miles Traveled TERMS ACTUATED SIGNAL CONTROL: A type of traffic signal control in which display of each phase depends on whether the corresponding phase detector has registered a service call or the phase is on recall. ACTUATION: Detection of a roadway user that is forwarded to the signal controller. AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC: The average 24-hour volume for a stated period divided by the number of days in that period. For example, Annual Average Daily Traffic is the total volume during a year divided by 365 days. BANDWIDTH: The number of seconds of green time available for through traffic in a signal progression. BOTTLENECK: A point of constriction along a roadway that limits the amount of traffic that can proceed downstream from its location. CALL: An indication within a signal controller that a particular phase is waiting for service, either through actuation from a roadway user or phase recall. CAPACITY: The maximum number of vehicles that can be reasonably expected to pass through a roadway facility during a specified period. CHANNELIZATION: The separation of conflicting traffic movements by use of pavement markings, raised curbs, or other suitable means to facilitate free flow movement. CLEARANCE INTERVAL: Equal to the yellow plus all-red time, if any, when a traffic signal changes between phases (i.e., the amount of time between the end of a green light from one movement to the beginning of a green light for the next). COORDINATED SIGNAL CONTROL: A type of traffic signal control in which non-coordinated phases associated with minor movements are constrained such that the coordinated phases are served at a specific time during the signal cycle, thus maintaining the efficient progression of traffic flow along the major roadway. CONTROL DELAY: The portion of delay attributed to the intersection traffic control (such as a traffic signal or stop sign). It includes initial deceleration, queue move-up time, stopped delay, and final acceleration delay. CORDON: An imaginary boundary line around or across a study area across which vehicles, persons, or other information can be collected for survey and analytical purposes. Apx-3 CORNER SIGHT DISTANCE: The minimum sight distance required by the driver of a vehicle to cross or enter the lanes of the major roadway without requiring approaching traffic traveling at a given speed to radically alter their speed or trajectory. CYCLE: A complete sequence of signal indications for all phases. CYCLE LENGTH: The total time for a traffic signal to complete one full cycle. DAILY CAPACITY: A theoretical value representing the daily traffic volume that will typically result in a peak hour volume equal to the capacity of the roadway. DELAY: The total additional travel time experienced by a roadway user (driver, passenger, bicyclist, or pedestrian) beyond that required to travel at a desired speed. DENSITY: The number of vehicles occupying in a unit length of the through traffic lanes of a roadway at any given instant. Usually expressed in vehicles per mile. DETECTOR: A device used to count or determine the presence of a roadway user. DESIGN SPEED: A speed used for purposes of designing horizontal and vertical alignments of a highway. DIRECTIONAL SPLIT: The percent of two-way traffic traveling in a specified direction. DIVERSION: The rerouting of traffic from a normal path of travel between two points, such as to avoid congestion or perform a secondary trip. FREE FLOW: Traffic flow that is unaffected by a traffic control and/or or upstream or downstream conditions. GAP: Time or distance between two vehicles measured from rear bumper of the front vehicle to front bumper of the second vehicle. GAP ACCEPTANCE: The method by which a driver accepts an available gap in traffic to enter or cross the road. HEADWAY: Time or distance between two successive vehicles measured from same point on both vehicles (i.e., front bumper to front bumper). LEVEL OF SERVICE: A grading scale of quantitative performance measures representing the quality of service of a transportation facility or service from an average traveler’s perspective. LOOP DETECTOR: A vehicle detector consisting of a loop of wire embedded in the roadway, energized by alternating current and producing an output circuit closure when passed over by a vehicle. MULTI-MODAL: More than one mode, such as automobile, transit, bicycle, and pedestrian. OFFSET: The time interval between the beginning of a traffic signal cycle at one intersection and the beginning of signal cycle an adjacent intersection. PLATOON: A set of vehicles traveling at similar speed and moving as a general group with clear separation between other vehicles ahead and behind. PASSENGER CAR EQUIVALENT: A metric used to assess the impact of larger vehicles, such as trucks, recreational vehicles, and buses, by converting the traffic volume of larger vehicles to an equivalent number of passenger cars. Apx-4 PEDESTRIAN CLEARANCE INTERVAL: Also known as the “Flashing Don’t Walk” interval, it signals the end of pedestrian entry into the crosswalk following the “Walk” indication and provides time for pedestrians who have already entered the crosswalk to finishing crossing. PEAK HOUR: The hour within a day in which the maximum volume occurs. PEAK HOUR FACTOR: The peak hour volume divided by the four times the peak 15-minute flow rate. PHASE: In traffic signals, the green, yellow, and red clearance intervals assigned to a specified traffic movement. PRETIMED SIGNAL: A traffic signal operation in which the cycle length, phasing sequence, and phasing times are predetermined and fixed, regardless of actual demand for any given traffic movement. Also known as a fixed time signal. PROGRESSION: The coordinated movement of vehicles through signalized intersections along a corridor. QUEUE: The number of vehicles waiting at a service area such as a traffic signal, stop sign, or access gate. QUEUE LENGTH: The length of vehicle queue, typically expressed in feet, waiting at a service area such as a traffic signal, stop sign, or access gate. RECALL: A signal phasing operation in which a specified phase places a call to the signal controller each time a conflicting phase is served, thus ensuring the specified phase will be serviced again. SEMI-ACTUATED CONTROL: A type of traffic signal control in which only the minor movements are provided detection. SIGHT DISTANCE: The continuous length of roadway visible to a driver or roadway user. STACKING DISTANCE: The length of area available behind a service area, such as a traffic signal or gate, for vehicle queuing to occur. STOPPING SIGHT DISTANCE: The minimum distance required by the driver of a vehicle traveling at a given speed to bring the vehicle to a stop after an object on the road becomes visible, including reaction and response time. TRIP OR TRIP END: The one-directional movement of a person or vehicle. Every trip has an origin and a destination at its respective ends (i.e., trip ends). In terms of site trip generation, the same vehicle entering and exiting a site generates two trips: one inbound trip and one outbound trip. TRIP GENERATION RATE: The rate at which a land use generates trips per the specified land use variable, such per dwelling unit or per thousand square feet. TRUCK: A heavy motor vehicle generally used for transporting goods. VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED: A measure of the amount and distance of automobile travel essentially calculated as the sum of each trip times the trip length. Apx-5 APPENDIX B SCOPING AGREEMENT Apx-6 transportation ■noise ■ air quality | GANDDINI GROUP 555 Parkcenter Drive, Suite 225, Santa Ana, California 92705 714 795 3100 | ganddini.com MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING TO: CITY OF DOWNEY FROM:Bryan Crawford, Senior Transportation Planner | GANDDINI GROUP, INC. DATE: August 9, 2023 SUBJECT:7360 Foster Bridge Residential Project Traffic and Circulation Analysis Scoping Agreement The purpose of this traffic study scoping document is to outline the proposed traffic analysis parameters and assumptions for review/concurrence by City of Downey staff. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Figure 1 shows the project location map. The project site is located at 7360 Foster Bridge Boulevard in the City of Downey. Figure 2 illustrates the project site plan. The 1.3-acre project site is currently developed with an 8,480 square foot church which is proposed to be demolished. The proposed project involves construction of a new multifamily residential development with a total of 33 dwelling units. The proposed project is anticipated to be constructed and fully operational by year 2025. The project involves a Zone Change from R-1 to R-3 and General Plan Amendment (GPA) to change the General Plan land use designation from LDR (Low Density Residential) to MDR (Medium Density Residential). The project site is proposed to provide one full access driveway on Foster Bridge Boulevard and will have gated entry. An emergency vehicle access only driveway is proposed on Suva Street. PROJECT TRIP GENERATION Table 1 and Table 2 show the existing land uses and project trip generation for potential church and residential uses based upon trip generation rates obtained from the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual (11th Edition, 2021). Based on review of the ITE land use descriptions, trip generation rates for Church (ITE Land Use Code 560) and Multi-Family Housing (Low-Rise) (ITE Land Use Code 220) were determined to adequately represent the existing land use and proposed project and were used for calculating the project trip generation forecasts. The existing land use and project trip generation forecasts were determined by multiplying the trip generation rates by the land use quantities. As shown in Table 1, the existing land uses currently generate approximately 64 daily vehicle trips, including 3 vehicle trips during the AM peak hour and 4 vehicle trips during the PM peak hour. As shown in Table 2, the proposed project is forecast to generate approximately 222 daily vehicle trips, including 13 vehicle trips during the AM peak hour and 17 vehicle trips during the PM peak hour. Apx-7 7360 Foster Bridge Residential Project Traffic and Circulation Analysis Scoping Agreement August 9, 2023 7360 Foster Bridge Residential Project Traffic and Circulation Analysis Scoping Agreement 2 19370 As shown in Table 3, the proposed project is forecast to generate approximately 158 additional daily vehicle trips compared to existing project site uses, including 10 additional vehicle trips during the AM peak hour and 13 additional vehicle trips during the PM peak hour. PROJECT TRIP DISTRIBUTION Figure 3 to Figure 5 illustrate the forecast outbound and inbound directional distribution patterns of project- generated trips. STUDY AREA Intersections identified for analysis typically include signalized intersections at which a project is forecast to contribute 50 or more trips during the AM or PM peak hours. The proposed project does not generate 50 or more trips during the AM or PM peak hour and would not meet this threshold for intersections in the neighboring City of Bell Gardens. The study area is proposed to consist of the following five (5) study intersections, even if the project may not contribute 50 or more trips during either peak hour. Study Intersections (Figure 1) 1.Suva Street (NS) at Scout Avenue (EW) 2. Suva Street (NS) at Bluff Road/Foster Bridge Boulevard (EW) 3. Suva Street (NS) at Guatemala Avenue (EW) 4. Suva Street (NS) at Paramount Boulevard (EW) 5. Foster Bridge Blvd (NS) at Project Driveway (EW) Study Roadway Segments 1.Suva Street, between Scout Avenue and Bluff Road 2. Suva Street, between Bluff Road and Guatemala Avenue 3. Scout Avenue, west of Suva Street 4. Paramount Boulevard, east of Suva Street 5. Paramount Boulevard, west of Suva Street 6. Foster Bridge Boulevard, north of Bluff Road TRAFFIC COUNTS New intersection turning movement counts will be obtained at the study intersections during the AM peak period (7:00 AM – 9:00 AM) and PM peak period (4:00 PM – 6:00 PM) on a typical weekday (Tuesday, Wednesday, or Thursday) while schools are in session. ANALYSIS SCENARIOS The traffic study shall evaluate the following analysis scenarios for weekday AM and PM peak hour conditions: Existing [2023] Existing Plus Ambient Growth Plus Cumulative [2025] Existing Plus Ambient Growth Plus Cumulative Plus Project [2025] Apx-8 7360 Foster Bridge Residential Project Traffic and Circulation Analysis Scoping Agreement August 9, 2023 7360 Foster Bridge Residential Project Traffic and Circulation Analysis Scoping Agreement 3 19370 ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY To assess the performance of an intersection, the City of Downey uses the intersection delay method based on procedures contained in the Highway Capacity Manual (Transportation Research Board, 7th Edition). The methodology considers the traffic volume and distribution of movements, traffic composition, geometric characteristics, and signalization details to calculate the average control delay per vehicle and corresponding Level of Service (LOS). Control delay is defined as the portion of delay attributed to the intersection traffic control (such as a traffic signal or stop sign) and includes initial deceleration, queue move-up time, stopped delay, and final acceleration delay. The intersection control delay is then correlated to Level of Service based on the following thresholds: Level of Service Intersection Control Delay (Seconds / Vehicle) Signalized Intersection Unsignalized Intersection A ≤ 10.0 ≤ 10.0 B > 10.0 to ≤ 20.0 > 10.0 to ≤ 15.0 C > 20.0 to ≤ 35.0 > 15.0 to ≤ 25.0 D > 35.0 to ≤ 55.0 > 25.0 to ≤ 35.0 E > 55.0 to ≤ 80.0 > 35.0 to ≤ 50.0 F > 80.0 > 50.0 Source: Transportation Research Board, Highway Capacity Manual (7th Edition). Level of Service is used to qualitatively describe the performance of a roadway facility, ranging from Level of Service A (free-flow conditions) to Level of Service F (extreme congestion and system failure). At intersections with traffic signal or all way stop control, Level of Service is determined by the average control delay for the overall intersection. At intersections with cross street stop control (i.e., one- or two-way stop control), Level of Service is determined by the average control delay for the worst individual approach. The analysis will be performed in accordance with the Los Angeles County Public Works Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines, July 23, 2020. Intersection Level of Service analysis shall be performed using the Vistro software. PERFORMANCE STANDARDS City of Downey The City of Downey General Plan Circulation has established LOS D as the minimum acceptable Level of Service at intersections and roadway segments. OPERATIONAL THRESHOLDS If a project is forecast to result in a substantial operational deficiency, recommended corrective measures will be identified that would reduce the project’s effect to a level that does not exceed the specified deficiency criteria. Corrective measures can be in many forms, including the construction of physical improvements (e.g., addition of travel lanes, traffic control modifications, etc.) or the implementation of transportation demand management measures. Apx-9 7360 Foster Bridge Residential Project Traffic and Circulation Analysis Scoping Agreement August 9, 2023 7360 Foster Bridge Residential Project Traffic and Circulation Analysis Scoping Agreement 4 19370 FORECASTING METHODOLOGY Ambient Growth Rate To account for area-wide ambient growth, the Opening Year Conditions will include a 0.2% annual growth for 2 years (total growth factor = 1.004) over the 2023 base volumes. The ambient growth rate is based on Exhibit D-1 (RSA 21) from Appendix D of the Congestion Management Program for Los Angeles County. Other Cumulative Projects A list of pending and approved cumulative development projects will be obtained from the Cities of Downey, Pico Rivera, Commerce, Montebello, and Bell Gardens staff. This list will be narrowed down to include projects within a 1.5-mile radius of the project site. Trip forecasts for other development projects within the project study area will be determined based on the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), Trip Generation Manual, 11th Edition, 2021 and will be added to existing roadway volumes for the Opening Year scenario. SITE ACCESS AND ON-SITE CIRCULATION A review of site access and on-site circulation needs will be provided, including site access traffic controls, lane configurations, and recommendations will be provided to maintain adequate circulation. CONGESTION MANAGEMENT PROGRAM The Los Angeles County 2010 CMP provides the following thresholds for requiring a CMP-compliant traffic impact analysis: All CMP arterial monitoring intersections, including monitored freeway on or off-ramp intersections, where the proposed project will add 50 or more trips during either the AM or PM weekday peak hours (of adjacent street traffic) If CMP arterial segments are being analyzed rather than intersections, the study area must include all segments where the proposed project will add 50 or more peak hour trips (total of both directions). Mainline freeway monitoring locations were the project will add 150 or more trips, in either direction, during either the AM or PM weekday peak hours. The study area does not include any CMP monitoring intersections, does not contribute 50 or more trips during either the AM or PM weekday peak hours, and does not contribute 150 or more peak hour trips to a mainline freeway monitoring location. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in a CMP impact as it does not meet the thresholds requiring a traffic impact analysis for CMP purposes. VEHICLES MILES TRAVELED (VMT) ANALYSIS A separate VMT screening assessment will be performed for the project. CONCLUSION We appreciate the opportunity to provide this scoping document for your review. Should you have any questions or comments regarding the proposed scope, please contact Bryan Crawford at (714) 795-3100 x 104 or bryan@ganddini.com. Apx-10 % In % Out Rate % In % Out Rate Church ITE 560 TSF 62% 38% 0.32 44% 56% 0.49 7.60 In Out Total In Out Total Church 8.480 TSF 2 1 3 2 2 4 64 Notes: (1) ITE = Institute of Transportation Engineers, Trip Generation Manual, 11th Edition, 2021; ### = Land Use Code (2) TSF = Thousand Square Feet Trips Generated Land Use Quantity Unit 2 AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Daily AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Daily Table 1 Existing Trip Generation Trip Generation Rates Land Use Source1 Unit2 7360 Foster Bridge Residential Project Scoping Agreement 19658 Apx-11 % In % Out Rate % In % Out Rate Multi-Family Housing (Low-Rise) ITE 220 DU 24% 76% 0.40 63% 37% 0.51 6.74 In Out Total In Out Total Multi-Family Housing (Low-Rise)33 DU 3 10 13 11 6 17 222 Table 2 Project Trip Generation Trip Generation Rates Land Use Source1 Unit2 AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Daily Trips Generated Land Use Quantity Unit 2 AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Daily 7360 Foster Bridge Residential Project Scoping Agreement 19658 Apx-12 In Out Total In Out Total Existing Land Use1 2 1 3 2 2 4 64 Proposed Project2 3 10 13 11 6 17 222 Net New Trips +1 +9 +10 +9 +4 +13 +158 Notes: (1) See Table 1 (2) See Table 2 Trips Generated Land Use AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Daily Table 3 Project Trip Generation Comparison 7360 Foster Bridge Residential Project Scoping Agreement 19658 Apx-13 F i g u r e 1 P r o j e c t L o c a t i o n M a p 7 3 6 0 F o s t e r B r i d g e R e s i d e n t i a l P r o j e c t S c o p i n g A g r e e m e n t 1 9 6 5 8 N 1 S i t e SCOUT AVE FOSTER BRIDG E BLVD BLUFF RD G U A T E M A L A A V E S U V A S T PARA M O UNT B LVD 2 3 4 Study Intersection Legend#Project Driveway# 5 A p x - 1 4 Figure 2 Site Plan 7360 Foster Bridge Residential Project Scoping Agreement 19658 N Apx-15 F i g u r e 3 E x i s t i n g T r i p D i s t r i b u t i o n 7 3 6 0 F o s t e r B r i d g e R e s i d e n t i a l P r o j e c t S c o p i n g A g r e e m e n t 1 9 6 5 8 N S i t e SCOUT AVE FOSTER BRIDG E BLVD BLUFF RD G U A T E M A L A A V E S U V A S T PAR A M O UN T B L VD 1 0 % 5 % 5 % 5 % 5 % 5 % 5 % 4 0 % 1 0 % 3 5 % 3 0 % 2 0 % 5 % 1 0 % 6 0 % 25%10%15% 1 0 % 5 % 45 % 55 % 9 0 % 4 0 % Percent To/From Project Legend10% A p x - 1 6 F i g u r e 4 P r o j e c t T r i p D i s t r i b u t i o n 7 3 6 0 F o s t e r B r i d g e R e s i d e n t i a l P r o j e c t S c o p i n g A g r e e m e n t 1 9 6 5 8 N S i t e SCOUT AVE FOSTER BRIDG E BLVD BLUFF RD G U A T E M A L A A V E S U V A S T PARA M O UNT B LVD 2 5 % 2 5 % 5 0 % 30%25%5% 2 0 % 10 0 % Percent To/From Project Legend10% 8 0 % A p x - 1 7 To: Edwin Norris <enorris@downeyca.org>, Kent Norton <knorton@migcom.com>, Bob Prasse <bprasse@migcom.com>, "Alfonso S. Hernandez" <ashernandez@downeyca.org> Edwin, Attached is the revised scoping agreement based on our meeting earlier today for your review. [Quoted text hidden] 19658sco_2023-0809.pdf 767K Bryan Crawford <bryan@ganddini.com>Fri, Aug 18, 2023 at 6:02 PM To: Edwin Norris <enorris@downeyca.org>, Kent Norton <knorton@migcom.com>, Bob Prasse <bprasse@migcom.com>, "Alfonso S. Hernandez" <ashernandez@downeyca.org> Edwin, Can I get a status update on the review and approval of the scoping agreement? Specifically the study intersections and roadway segments. Thanks. [Quoted text hidden] Edwin Norris <enorris@downeyca.org>Mon, Aug 21, 2023 at 11:43 AM To: Bryan Crawford <bryan@ganddini.com>, Kent Norton <knorton@migcom.com>, Bob Prasse <bprasse@migcom.com>, "Alfonso S. Hernandez" <ashernandez@downeyca.org> I’ll have a response to you this morning. My apologies for the delay. [Quoted text hidden] image001.jpg 12K Edwin Norris <enorris@downeyca.org>Mon, Aug 21, 2023 at 3:59 PM To: Bryan Crawford <bryan@ganddini.com>, Kent Norton <knorton@migcom.com>, Bob Prasse <bprasse@migcom.com>, "Alfonso S. Hernandez" <ashernandez@downeyca.org> Good afternoon, Bryan – I reviewed the scoping document and my only comment is that the City actually follows the ICU intersection analysis methodology per the LA County CMP guidelines vs. the HCM delay methodology as you indicate on pg. 3 of the document. Otherwise, the document looks fine. Thanks again for the opportunity to review. Gmail - Downey-Foster Bridge Rd Residential Project No 17005.00 https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=62aeb8b5c5&view=pt&search=a... 7 of 9 10/2/2023, 10:38 PM Apx-18 Bryan Crawford <bryan@ganddini.com>Mon, Aug 21, 2023 at 4:06 PM To: Edwin Norris <enorris@downeyca.org> Cc: Kent Norton <knorton@migcom.com>, Bob Prasse <bprasse@migcom.com>, "Alfonso S. Hernandez" <ashernandez@downeyca.org> Edwin, The County of Los Angeles no longer uses the ICU methodology as they have converted over to the HCM Methodology for LOS analysis. Per the Los Angeles County Public Works Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines (July 23, 2020), Section 4.1.4.1 - Level of Service and Queueing Methodology: "Intersection level of service (LOS) and queueing methodologies from the latest edition of the Transportation Research Board Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) should be used to evaluate the operation of the project driveways and nearby intersections. For individual isolated intersection analysis, the use of software packages such as Synchro, Vistro, or HCS that implement the HCM methodologies is acceptable." [Quoted text hidden] Edwin Norris <enorris@downeyca.org>Mon, Aug 21, 2023 at 4:59 PM To: Bryan Crawford <bryan@ganddini.com> Cc: Kent Norton <knorton@migcom.com>, Bob Prasse <bprasse@migcom.com>, "Alfonso S. Hernandez" <ashernandez@downeyca.org> Hi Bryan – understood. Since that is the case, please proceed with the HCM methodology as originally proposed. Thanks. [Quoted text hidden] image001.jpg 12K Gmail - Downey-Foster Bridge Rd Residential Project No 17005.00 https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=62aeb8b5c5&view=pt&search=a... 9 of 9 10/2/2023, 10:38 PM Apx-19 APPENDIX C VOLUME COUNT WORKSHEETS Apx-20 CITY: Downey PROJECT: AM Period EB WB PM Period EB WB 0:00 0 9 12:00 40 36 0:15 6 3 12:15 43 28 0:30 1 2 12:30 34 35 0:45 1 8 3 17 25 12:45 31 148 36 135 283 1:00 2 5 13:00 37 38 1:15 2 4 13:15 45 37 1:30 2 1 13:30 49 27 1:45 2 8 7 17 25 13:45 50 181 29 131 312 2:00 7 5 14:00 52 37 2:15 6 4 14:15 54 30 2:30 7 1 14:30 84 53 2:45 5 25 2 12 37 14:45 84 274 66 186 460 3:00 4 5 15:00 94 70 3:15 0 3 15:15 83 46 3:30 3 7 15:30 80 62 3:45 4 11 4 19 30 15:45 86 343 60 238 581 4:00 7 12 16:00 78 71 4:15 8 3 16:15 96 63 4:30 9 10 16:30 115 76 4:45 20 44 24 49 93 16:45 106 395 71 281 676 5:00 10 15 17:00 104 74 5:15 27 17 17:15 103 55 5:30 19 24 17:30 96 68 5:45 29 85 33 89 174 17:45 106 409 68 265 674 6:00 13 17 18:00 111 42 6:15 20 20 18:15 83 56 6:30 22 32 18:30 74 54 6:45 32 87 31 100 187 18:45 59 327 39 191 518 7:00 26 47 19:00 56 50 7:15 53 49 19:15 36 38 7:30 69 59 19:30 38 37 7:45 61 209 69 224 433 19:45 29 159 23 148 307 8:00 54 44 20:00 39 25 8:15 35 41 20:15 29 10 8:30 34 40 20:30 26 9 8:45 33 156 35 160 316 20:45 23 117 11 55 172 9:00 30 29 21:00 21 23 9:15 35 26 21:15 21 29 9:30 23 18 21:30 23 21 9:45 18 106 27 100 206 21:45 13 78 15 88 166 10:00 30 40 22:00 14 16 10:15 36 25 22:15 8 10 10:30 34 37 22:30 10 17 10:45 30 130 28 130 260 22:45 2 34 6 49 83 11:00 29 32 23:00 6 9 11:15 33 27 23:15 10 14 11:30 31 42 23:30 10 11 11:45 42 135 33 134 269 23:45 3 29 4 38 67 Total Vol.1004 1051 2055 2494 1805 4299 EB WB Combined 3498 2856 6354 Split %48.9% 51.1%32.3%58.0% 42.0%67.7% Peak Hour 7:15 7:00 7:15 16:30 16:15 16:15 Volume 237 224 458 428 284 705 P.H.F.0.86 0.81 0.88 0.93 0.93 0.92 Thursday, August 24, 2023 SC4157 ADT2 Suva east of Scout.Prepared by AimTD LLC tel. 714 253 7888 Daily Totals AM PM cs@aimtd.com Tell. 714 253 7888 Apx-21 CITY: Downey PROJECT: AM Period EB WB PM Period EB WB 0:00 5 15 12:00 67 68 0:15 6 8 12:15 79 61 0:30 3 6 12:30 78 67 0:45 1 15 9 38 53 12:45 78 302 76 272 574 1:00 2 7 13:00 67 68 1:15 4 5 13:15 79 87 1:30 2 8 13:30 83 61 1:45 2 10 9 29 39 13:45 103 332 64 280 612 2:00 6 7 14:00 107 73 2:15 6 6 14:15 118 65 2:30 8 2 14:30 154 97 2:45 6 26 7 22 48 14:45 132 511 128 363 874 3:00 5 4 15:00 151 122 3:15 1 5 15:15 121 106 3:30 8 10 15:30 136 117 3:45 7 21 5 24 45 15:45 137 545 136 481 1026 4:00 10 12 16:00 142 132 4:15 12 4 16:15 157 142 4:30 17 12 16:30 172 134 4:45 24 63 23 51 114 16:45 170 641 124 532 1173 5:00 17 16 17:00 169 122 5:15 35 22 17:15 170 131 5:30 29 37 17:30 151 135 5:45 27 108 33 108 216 17:45 164 654 131 519 1173 6:00 26 31 18:00 186 92 6:15 38 40 18:15 150 102 6:30 53 58 18:30 121 112 6:45 63 180 69 198 378 18:45 109 566 95 401 967 7:00 60 86 19:00 101 90 7:15 109 83 19:15 80 83 7:30 167 112 19:30 58 74 7:45 148 484 129 410 894 19:45 62 301 61 308 609 8:00 124 101 20:00 67 56 8:15 75 102 20:15 61 42 8:30 81 81 20:30 60 41 8:45 65 345 68 352 697 20:45 44 232 35 174 406 9:00 68 59 21:00 32 42 9:15 63 46 21:15 28 54 9:30 57 50 21:30 45 52 9:45 55 243 56 211 454 21:45 23 128 36 184 312 10:00 56 60 22:00 25 38 10:15 68 57 22:15 17 32 10:30 73 56 22:30 23 31 10:45 71 268 47 220 488 22:45 8 73 18 119 192 11:00 63 54 23:00 8 17 11:15 69 44 23:15 14 23 11:30 57 86 23:30 13 19 11:45 77 266 70 254 520 23:45 6 41 8 67 108 Total Vol.2029 1917 3946 4326 3700 8026 EB WB Combined 6355 5617 11972 Split %51.4% 48.6%33.0%53.9% 46.1%67.0% Peak Hour 7:15 7:30 7:15 16:30 15:45 16:30 Volume 548 444 973 681 544 1192 P.H.F.0.82 0.86 0.87 0.99 0.96 0.97 Thursday, August 24, 2023 SC4157 ADT1 Suva east of Bluff.Prepared by AimTD LLC tel. 714 253 7888 Daily Totals AM PM cs@aimtd.com Tell. 714 253 7888 Apx-22 CITY: Downey PROJECT: AM Period NB SB PM Period NB SB 0:00 1 5 12:00 43 52 0:15 5 3 12:15 46 27 0:30 5 3 12:30 38 36 0:45 5 16 4 15 31 12:45 51 178 41 156 334 1:00 3 4 13:00 38 48 1:15 3 4 13:15 52 37 1:30 2 3 13:30 61 44 1:45 1 9 9 20 29 13:45 67 218 32 161 379 2:00 6 2 14:00 64 80 2:15 3 2 14:15 57 41 2:30 6 4 14:30 74 60 2:45 5 20 3 11 31 14:45 78 273 73 254 527 3:00 2 5 15:00 90 84 3:15 1 7 15:15 73 58 3:30 5 5 15:30 83 70 3:45 8 16 9 26 42 15:45 83 329 69 281 610 4:00 16 12 16:00 69 63 4:15 7 10 16:15 77 60 4:30 15 22 16:30 87 71 4:45 24 62 35 79 141 16:45 94 327 59 253 580 5:00 20 23 17:00 93 66 5:15 34 25 17:15 79 63 5:30 25 35 17:30 89 66 5:45 35 114 31 114 228 17:45 74 335 74 269 604 6:00 14 26 18:00 77 46 6:15 25 26 18:15 68 60 6:30 28 33 18:30 68 60 6:45 41 108 43 128 236 18:45 44 257 30 196 453 7:00 31 54 19:00 50 54 7:15 51 48 19:15 45 46 7:30 82 81 19:30 52 34 7:45 117 281 100 283 564 19:45 33 180 25 159 339 8:00 70 91 20:00 37 32 8:15 48 52 20:15 35 21 8:30 45 63 20:30 38 23 8:45 44 207 36 242 449 20:45 33 143 23 99 242 9:00 32 32 21:00 35 27 9:15 28 30 21:15 37 26 9:30 26 30 21:30 25 19 9:45 20 106 31 123 229 21:45 20 117 13 85 202 10:00 30 53 22:00 17 14 10:15 42 28 22:15 16 13 10:30 29 40 22:30 12 14 10:45 39 140 31 152 292 22:45 8 53 6 47 100 11:00 28 33 23:00 5 5 11:15 43 34 23:15 17 20 11:30 36 47 23:30 18 10 11:45 44 151 40 154 305 23:45 7 47 7 42 89 Total Vol.1230 1347 2577 2457 2002 4459 NB SB Combined 3687 3349 7036 Split %47.7% 52.3%36.6%55.1% 44.9%63.4% Peak Hour 7:15 7:30 7:30 16:45 14:45 16:30 Volume 320 324 641 355 285 612 P.H.F.0.68 0.81 0.74 0.92 0.85 0.96 Thursday, August 24, 2023 SC4157 ADT2 Scout south of Suva.Prepared by AimTD LLC tel. 714 253 7888 Daily Totals AM PM cs@aimtd.com Tell. 714 253 7888 Apx-23 CITY: Downey PROJECT: AM Period NB SB PM Period NB SB 0:00 43 83 12:00 211 246 0:15 37 59 12:15 206 236 0:30 26 59 12:30 224 233 0:45 31 137 56 257 394 12:45 194 835 244 959 1794 1:00 32 43 13:00 243 242 1:15 24 34 13:15 182 232 1:30 19 35 13:30 262 223 1:45 19 94 41 153 247 13:45 234 921 235 932 1853 2:00 34 27 14:00 307 264 2:15 40 30 14:15 250 243 2:30 23 27 14:30 307 279 2:45 36 133 25 109 242 14:45 341 1205 313 1099 2304 3:00 31 21 15:00 346 261 3:15 27 19 15:15 294 293 3:30 49 29 15:30 304 313 3:45 48 155 34 103 258 15:45 290 1234 338 1205 2439 4:00 58 37 16:00 335 333 4:15 88 29 16:15 347 378 4:30 112 48 16:30 344 383 4:45 127 385 60 174 559 16:45 315 1341 359 1453 2794 5:00 119 83 17:00 296 379 5:15 165 64 17:15 336 363 5:30 204 98 17:30 291 367 5:45 190 678 104 349 1027 17:45 308 1231 352 1461 2692 6:00 153 113 18:00 303 357 6:15 204 130 18:15 323 362 6:30 225 149 18:30 264 331 6:45 241 823 207 599 1422 18:45 246 1136 277 1327 2463 7:00 310 254 19:00 249 260 7:15 359 314 19:15 235 252 7:30 341 313 19:30 173 257 7:45 316 1326 323 1204 2530 19:45 225 882 196 965 1847 8:00 343 294 20:00 206 144 8:15 251 217 20:15 178 93 8:30 253 249 20:30 182 57 8:45 251 1098 251 1011 2109 20:45 132 698 64 358 1056 9:00 230 172 21:00 165 161 9:15 179 208 21:15 158 162 9:30 210 183 21:30 177 169 9:45 203 822 221 784 1606 21:45 147 647 137 629 1276 10:00 174 218 22:00 138 154 10:15 208 168 22:15 107 130 10:30 208 190 22:30 86 130 10:45 156 746 200 776 1522 22:45 93 424 103 517 941 11:00 203 208 23:00 63 94 11:15 193 207 23:15 64 108 11:30 196 220 23:30 63 92 11:45 205 797 240 875 1672 23:45 58 248 71 365 613 Total Vol.7194 6394 13588 10802 11270 22072 NB SB Combined 17996 17664 35660 Split %52.9% 47.1%38.1%48.9% 51.1%61.9% Peak Hour 7:15 7:15 7:15 16:00 16:15 16:15 Volume 1359 1244 2603 1341 1499 2801 P.H.F.0.95 0.96 0.97 0.99 0.98 0.96 Thursday, August 24, 2023 SC4157 ADT4 Paramount north of Suva.Prepared by AimTD LLC tel. 714 253 7888 Daily Totals AM PM cs@aimtd.com Tell. 714 253 7888 Apx-24 CITY: Downey PROJECT: AM Period NB SB PM Period NB SB 0:00 42 76 12:00 196 240 0:15 33 54 12:15 185 232 0:30 23 53 12:30 209 230 0:45 30 128 47 230 358 12:45 186 776 235 937 1713 1:00 27 38 13:00 216 229 1:15 22 29 13:15 180 218 1:30 17 26 13:30 237 229 1:45 15 81 35 128 209 13:45 218 851 234 910 1761 2:00 32 24 14:00 295 254 2:15 32 27 14:15 244 238 2:30 22 25 14:30 292 273 2:45 30 116 19 95 211 14:45 332 1163 343 1108 2271 3:00 28 20 15:00 322 273 3:15 26 16 15:15 271 273 3:30 40 24 15:30 287 306 3:45 42 136 26 86 222 15:45 284 1164 306 1158 2322 4:00 46 29 16:00 318 328 4:15 69 27 16:15 329 369 4:30 96 43 16:30 324 381 4:45 103 314 44 143 457 16:45 281 1252 354 1432 2684 5:00 98 73 17:00 254 359 5:15 135 54 17:15 322 351 5:30 166 85 17:30 279 338 5:45 158 557 90 302 859 17:45 281 1136 346 1394 2530 6:00 132 105 18:00 264 346 6:15 175 119 18:15 273 324 6:30 185 139 18:30 223 303 6:45 205 697 200 563 1260 18:45 210 970 268 1241 2211 7:00 279 241 19:00 220 247 7:15 311 297 19:15 204 254 7:30 329 315 19:30 167 236 7:45 283 1202 352 1205 2407 19:45 209 800 193 930 1730 8:00 312 320 20:00 197 140 8:15 206 231 20:15 156 78 8:30 224 248 20:30 165 59 8:45 202 944 251 1050 1994 20:45 126 644 61 338 982 9:00 203 173 21:00 151 147 9:15 155 206 21:15 148 136 9:30 187 189 21:30 165 156 9:45 174 719 218 786 1505 21:45 139 603 127 566 1169 10:00 156 204 22:00 123 145 10:15 168 169 22:15 102 120 10:30 171 192 22:30 84 116 10:45 137 632 194 759 1391 22:45 93 402 93 474 876 11:00 184 194 23:00 64 87 11:15 172 191 23:15 62 90 11:30 175 219 23:30 63 84 11:45 176 707 232 836 1543 23:45 50 239 69 330 569 Total Vol.6233 6183 12416 10000 10818 20818 NB SB Combined 16233 17001 33234 Split %50.2% 49.8%37.4%48.0% 52.0%62.6% Peak Hour 7:15 7:15 7:15 15:45 16:15 16:00 Volume 1235 1284 2519 1255 1463 2684 P.H.F.0.94 0.91 0.98 0.96 0.96 0.95 Thursday, August 24, 2023 SC4157 ADT4 Paramount south of Suva.Prepared by AimTD LLC tel. 714 253 7888 Daily Totals AM PM cs@aimtd.com Tell. 714 253 7888 Apx-25 CITY: Downey PROJECT: AM Period EB WB PM Period EB WB 0:00 2 4 12:00 19 20 0:15 1 4 12:15 32 27 0:30 2 1 12:30 35 25 0:45 0 5 4 13 18 12:45 35 121 20 92 213 1:00 0 2 13:00 25 19 1:15 2 1 13:15 32 30 1:30 0 6 13:30 30 28 1:45 0 2 1 10 12 13:45 44 131 24 101 232 2:00 0 2 14:00 37 35 2:15 0 3 14:15 42 22 2:30 1 2 14:30 44 32 2:45 0 1 1 8 9 14:45 37 160 38 127 287 3:00 1 0 15:00 49 44 3:15 0 2 15:15 25 41 3:30 3 3 15:30 45 41 3:45 2 6 1 6 12 15:45 41 160 55 181 341 4:00 1 1 16:00 51 47 4:15 2 1 16:15 44 55 4:30 1 2 16:30 50 50 4:45 3 7 2 6 13 16:45 53 198 39 191 389 5:00 8 1 17:00 50 43 5:15 3 4 17:15 57 45 5:30 4 11 17:30 42 45 5:45 4 19 8 24 43 17:45 54 203 53 186 389 6:00 6 7 18:00 54 30 6:15 9 15 18:15 50 29 6:30 13 20 18:30 47 32 6:45 21 49 34 76 125 18:45 40 191 34 125 316 7:00 22 28 19:00 37 24 7:15 35 36 19:15 34 31 7:30 50 32 19:30 25 31 7:45 65 172 49 145 317 19:45 25 121 29 115 236 8:00 47 53 20:00 16 21 8:15 28 44 20:15 22 20 8:30 39 28 20:30 23 18 8:45 23 137 30 155 292 20:45 17 78 14 73 151 9:00 26 20 21:00 4 11 9:15 16 16 21:15 8 10 9:30 26 25 21:30 14 16 9:45 22 90 22 83 173 21:45 7 33 15 52 85 10:00 15 14 22:00 5 16 10:15 17 22 22:15 8 18 10:30 25 14 22:30 12 5 10:45 26 83 14 64 147 22:45 1 26 7 46 72 11:00 25 18 23:00 1 6 11:15 22 19 23:15 3 8 11:30 19 31 23:30 1 5 11:45 30 96 29 97 193 23:45 1 6 4 23 29 Total Vol.667 687 1354 1428 1312 2740 EB WB Combined 2095 1999 4094 Split %49.3% 50.7%33.1%52.1% 47.9%66.9% Peak Hour 7:15 7:30 7:30 16:30 15:45 15:45 Volume 197 178 368 210 207 393 P.H.F.0.76 0.84 0.81 0.92 0.94 0.98 Thursday, August 24, 2023 SC4157 ADT1 Foster Bridge west of Bluff.Prepared by AimTD LLC tel. 714 253 7888 Daily Totals AM PM cs@aimtd.com Tell. 714 253 7888 Apx-26 T218 DATE:LOCATION:PROJECT #:SC4157 Thu, Aug 24, 23 NORTH & SOUTH:LOCATION #:2 EAST & WEST:CONTROL:STOP ALL NOTES:AM ▲ PM N MD ◄ W E ► OTHER S OTHER ▼ NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL NB SB EB WB TTL LANES:0 2 0 0 2 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 7:00 AM 6 7 18 1 16 3 0 7 7 31 15 1 112 0 0 0 0 0 7:15 AM 6 11 34 6 15 2 3 13 5 28 20 1 144 0 0 0 0 0 7:30 AM 25 12 45 4 26 12 9 20 23 32 27 0 235 0 0 0 0 0 7:45 AM 54 16 47 1 14 32 40 13 44 42 27 0 330 0 0 0 0 0 8:00 AM 17 19 34 1 18 5 21 19 38 35 9 0 216 0 0 0 0 0 8:15 AM 14 17 17 3 18 4 3 15 9 25 15 1 141 0 0 0 0 0 8:30 AM 9 15 21 1 11 5 5 12 29 23 16 1 148 0 0 0 0 0 8:45 AM 14 10 20 3 11 0 0 10 10 15 18 2 113 0 0 0 0 0 VOLUMES 145 107 236 20 129 63 81 109 165 231 147 6 1,439 0 0 0 0 0 APPROACH %30%22%48%9%61%30%23%31%46%60%38%2% APP/DEPART 488 /194 212 /525 355 /365 384 /355 0 BEGIN PEAK HR VOLUMES 102 58 160 12 73 51 73 65 110 137 83 1 925 APPROACH %32%18%50%9%54%38%29%26%44%62%38%0% PEAK HR FACTOR 0.684 0.723 0.639 0.801 0.701 APP/DEPART 320 /132 136 /320 248 /237 221 /236 0 4:00 PM 4 19 46 2 11 1 0 30 3 49 22 0 187 0 0 0 0 0 4:15 PM 2 24 51 6 13 0 1 39 7 40 21 2 206 0 0 0 0 0 4:30 PM 8 15 64 5 13 0 1 46 8 50 26 0 236 0 0 0 0 0 4:45 PM 8 30 56 4 14 0 2 46 9 36 32 3 240 0 0 0 0 0 5:00 PM 4 26 63 2 13 2 1 39 10 43 30 1 234 0 0 0 0 0 5:15 PM 3 17 59 2 21 3 3 42 8 34 20 1 213 0 0 0 0 0 5:30 PM 11 16 62 6 10 3 3 29 5 51 15 2 213 0 1 0 0 1 5:45 PM 7 21 46 7 22 4 12 53 11 41 25 2 251 0 0 0 0 0 VOLUMES 47 168 447 34 117 13 23 324 61 344 191 11 1,780 0 1 0 0 1 APPROACH %7%25%68%21%71%8%6%79%15%63%35%2% APP/DEPART 662 /203 164 /522 408 /804 546 /251 0 BEGIN PEAK HR VOLUMES 23 88 242 13 61 5 7 173 35 163 108 5 923 APPROACH %7%25%69%16%77%6%3%80%16%59%39%2% PEAK HR FACTOR 0.939 0.760 0.943 0.908 0.961 APP/DEPART 353 /100 79 /259 215 /428 276 /136 0 Scout NORTH SIDE Suva WEST SIDE EAST SIDE Suva SOUTH SIDE Scout INTERSECTION TURNING MOVEMENT COUNTS PREPARED BY: AimTD LLC. tel: 714 253 7888 cs@aimtd.com Downey Scout Suva U-TURNS Scout Scout Suva Suva AM 7:15 AM PM 4:30 PM Apx-27 376 76 246 54 TOTAL 397 164 13 117 34 PM 203 212 63 129 20 AM 194 3 8 4 5 4 6 9 3 0 60 6 25 1 35 5 6 1 1 1 7 1 4 7 1 9 1 3 3 8 TO T A L PM AM 2 3 1 3 4 4 5 7 5 10 4 23 81 A M P M T O T A L 43 3 32 4 10 9 22 6 61 16 5 3 6 5 8 0 4 1 , 1 6 9 76 3 40 8 35 5 525 AM 145 107 236 488 522 PM 47 168 447 662 1,047 TOTAL 192 275 683 1,150 215 56 134 25 TOTAL 232 79 5 61 13 PM 100 136 51 73 12 AM 132 2 2 1 2 7 6 4 9 7 37 2 13 6 23 6 1 5 6 8 3 1 0 8 1 9 1 TO T A L PM AM AM 7:15 AM 8:45 AM 1 3 7 1 6 3 3 0 0 80 7 73 #N/A A M P M T O T A L 23 8 17 3 65 PM 4:30 PM 5:45 PM 14 5 35 11 0 2 3 7 4 2 8 6 6 5 46 3 21 5 24 8 320 AM 102 58 160 320 259 PM 23 88 242 353 579 Total 125 146 402 673 AimTD LLC TURNING MOVEMENT COUNTS Scout Su v a S u v a Downey SC4157 ALL HOURS Scout Scout Scout Su v a S u v a PEAK HOUR Apx-28 T218 DATE:LOCATION:PROJECT #:SC4157 Thu, Aug 24, 23 NORTH & SOUTH:LOCATION #:1 EAST & WEST:CONTROL:SIGNAL NOTES:AM ▲ PM N MD ◄ W E ► OTHER S OTHER ▼ NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL NB SB EB WB TTL LANES:0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 7:00 AM 1 0 1 15 0 1 0 23 2 0 50 8 101 0 0 0 0 0 7:15 AM 0 0 0 22 0 0 0 52 0 0 44 4 122 0 0 0 0 0 7:30 AM 0 0 3 42 0 0 0 72 1 0 66 15 199 0 0 0 0 0 7:45 AM 1 0 0 26 0 1 0 58 1 0 69 14 170 0 0 0 0 0 8:00 AM 1 0 1 21 0 1 1 55 2 2 39 9 132 0 0 0 0 0 8:15 AM 0 0 0 13 0 0 0 35 1 0 41 17 107 0 0 0 0 0 8:30 AM 0 0 1 9 0 1 1 33 0 0 33 20 98 0 0 0 0 0 8:45 AM 3 0 1 11 0 0 1 32 1 1 30 8 88 0 0 0 0 0 VOLUMES 6 0 7 159 0 4 3 360 8 3 372 95 1,017 0 0 0 0 0 APPROACH %46%0%54%98%0%2%1%97%2%1%79%20% APP/DEPART 13 /98 163 /11 371 /526 470 /382 0 BEGIN PEAK HR VOLUMES 2 0 4 111 0 2 1 237 4 2 218 42 623 APPROACH %33%0%67%98%0%2%0%98%2%1%83%16% PEAK HR FACTOR 0.500 0.673 0.829 0.789 0.783 APP/DEPART 6 /43 113 /6 242 /352 262 /222 0 4:00 PM 1 0 0 13 0 0 1 80 0 0 67 18 180 0 0 0 0 0 4:15 PM 0 0 0 22 0 0 0 92 0 0 70 17 201 0 0 0 0 0 4:30 PM 0 0 0 15 0 0 2 108 0 0 67 18 210 0 0 0 0 0 4:45 PM 0 0 0 13 0 0 0 107 2 0 69 18 209 0 0 0 0 0 5:00 PM 0 0 1 13 0 2 3 105 1 0 69 10 204 0 0 0 0 0 5:15 PM 0 0 1 9 0 1 3 105 0 0 54 34 207 0 0 0 0 0 5:30 PM 0 0 0 11 0 1 1 98 1 0 75 16 203 0 0 0 0 0 5:45 PM 0 0 1 14 0 1 0 97 1 1 64 14 193 0 0 0 0 0 VOLUMES 1 0 3 110 0 5 10 792 5 1 535 145 1,607 0 0 0 0 0 APPROACH %25%0%75%96%0%4%1%98%1%0%79%21% APP/DEPART 4 /155 115 /6 807 /905 681 /541 0 BEGIN PEAK HR VOLUMES 0 0 2 50 0 3 8 425 3 0 259 80 830 APPROACH %0%0%100%94%0%6%2%97%1%0%76%24% PEAK HR FACTOR 0.500 0.883 0.991 0.963 0.988 APP/DEPART 2 /88 53 /3 436 /477 339 /262 0 Bluff NORTH SIDE Suva WEST SIDE EAST SIDE Suva SOUTH SIDE Bluff INTERSECTION TURNING MOVEMENT COUNTS PREPARED BY: AimTD LLC. tel: 714 253 7888 cs@aimtd.com Downey Bluff Suva U-TURNS Bluff Bluff Suva Suva AM 7:15 AM PM 4:30 PM Apx-29 278 9 0 269 TOTAL 253 115 5 0 110 PM 155 163 4 0 159 AM 98 4 7 0 6 8 1 1 , 1 5 1 92 3 54 1 38 2 9 5 1 4 5 2 4 0 3 7 2 5 3 5 9 0 7 TO T A L PM AM 3 1 4 13 10 3 A M P M T O T A L 1, 1 5 2 79 2 36 0 13 5 8 5 2 6 9 0 5 1 , 4 3 1 1, 1 7 8 80 7 37 1 11 AM 6 0 7 13 6 PM 1 0 3 4 17 TOTAL 7 0 10 17 166 5 0 161 TOTAL 131 53 3 0 50 PM 88 113 2 0 111 AM 43 2 6 2 3 3 9 6 0 1 48 4 26 2 22 2 4 2 8 0 1 2 2 2 1 8 2 5 9 4 7 7 TO T A L PM AM AM 7:15 AM 8:45 AM 2 0 2 9 8 1 #N/A A M P M T O T A L 66 2 42 5 23 7 PM 4:30 PM 5:45 PM 7 3 4 3 5 2 4 7 7 8 2 9 67 8 43 6 24 2 6 AM 2 0 4 6 3 PM 0 0 2 2 9 Total 2 0 6 8 AimTD LLC TURNING MOVEMENT COUNTS Bluff Su v a S u v a Downey SC4157 ALL HOURS Bluff Bluff Bluff Su v a S u v a PEAK HOUR Apx-30 T218 DATE:LOCATION:PROJECT #:SC4157 Thu, Aug 24, 23 NORTH & SOUTH:LOCATION #:1 EAST & WEST:CONTROL:SIGNAL NOTES:AM ▲ PM N MD ◄ W E ► OTHER S OTHER ▼ NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL NB SB EB WB TTL LANES:0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 7:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 21 0 0 28 0 49 0 0 1 0 1 7:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 35 0 0 35 0 71 0 0 0 0 0 7:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 50 0 0 31 0 81 0 0 0 1 1 7:45 AM 1 0 0 0 0 2 0 64 0 0 46 0 113 0 0 1 0 1 8:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 47 0 0 51 0 100 0 0 0 0 0 8:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 27 0 0 44 0 72 0 0 0 0 0 8:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 38 0 0 28 0 67 0 0 0 0 0 8:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 21 0 0 29 0 52 0 0 1 0 1 VOLUMES 1 0 0 0 0 6 3 303 0 0 292 0 609 0 0 3 1 4 APPROACH %100%0%0%0%0%100%1%98%0%0%100%0% APP/DEPART 1 /3 6 /0 309 /304 293 /302 0 BEGIN PEAK HR VOLUMES 1 0 0 0 0 4 1 188 0 0 172 0 368 APPROACH %100%0%0%0%0%100%1%99%0%0%99%0% PEAK HR FACTOR 0.250 0.500 0.731 0.848 0.807 APP/DEPART 1 /1 4 /0 190 /189 173 /178 0 4:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 49 0 0 47 0 97 0 0 1 0 1 4:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 43 0 0 55 0 99 0 0 0 0 0 4:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 49 0 0 49 0 98 0 0 1 1 2 4:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 50 0 0 37 0 91 0 0 1 0 1 5:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 50 0 0 43 0 93 0 0 0 0 0 5:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 55 0 0 43 0 99 0 0 2 1 3 5:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 42 0 0 44 0 87 0 0 0 0 0 5:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 52 0 0 52 0 106 0 0 0 1 1 VOLUMES 0 0 0 0 0 4 6 390 0 0 370 0 778 0 0 5 3 8 APPROACH %0%0%0%0%0%100%1%97%0%0%99%0% APP/DEPART 0 /6 4 /0 401 /393 373 /379 0 BEGIN PEAK HR VOLUMES 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 199 0 0 182 0 389 APPROACH %0%0%0%0%0%100%1%98%0%0%99%0% PEAK HR FACTOR 0.000 0.250 0.890 0.836 0.909 APP/DEPART 0 /2 2 /0 203 /201 184 /186 0 Bluff NORTH SIDE Foster Bridge WEST SIDE EAST SIDE Foster Bridge SOUTH SIDE Bluff AM 7:30 AM PM 5:00 PM U-TURNS Bluff Bluff Foster Bridge Foster Bridge INTERSECTION TURNING MOVEMENT COUNTS PREPARED BY: AimTD LLC. tel: 714 253 7888 cs@aimtd.com Downey Bluff Foster Bridge Apx-31 10 10 0 0 TOTAL 9 4 4 0 0 PM 6 6 6 0 0 AM 3 2 9 3 3 7 3 6 6 6 68 1 37 9 30 2 0 0 0 2 9 2 3 7 0 6 6 2 TO T A L PM AM 0 0 0 9 6 3 A M P M T O T A L 69 3 39 0 30 3 0 0 0 3 0 4 3 9 3 6 9 7 71 0 40 1 30 9 0 AM 1 0 0 1 0 PM 0 0 0 0 0 TOTAL 1 0 0 1 6 6 0 0 TOTAL 3 2 2 0 0 PM 2 4 4 0 0 AM 1 1 7 3 1 8 4 3 5 7 36 4 18 6 17 8 0 0 0 1 7 2 1 8 2 3 5 4 TO T A L PM AM AM 7:30 AM 8:45 AM 0 0 0 3 2 1 #N/A A M P M T O T A L 38 7 19 9 18 8 PM 5:00 PM 5:45 PM 0 0 0 1 8 9 2 0 1 3 9 0 39 3 20 3 19 0 0 AM 1 0 0 1 0 PM 0 0 0 0 0 Total 1 0 0 1 Bluff Bluff Bluff Fo s t e r B r i d g e F o s t e r B r i d g e PEAK HOUR AimTD LLC TURNING MOVEMENT COUNTS Bluff Fo s t e r B r i d g e F o s t e r B r i d g e Downey SC4157 ALL HOURS Apx-32 T218 DATE:LOCATION:PROJECT #:SC4157 Thu, Aug 24, 23 NORTH & SOUTH:LOCATION #:3 EAST & WEST:CONTROL:STOP ALL NOTES:AM ▲ PM N MD ◄ W E ► OTHER S OTHER ▼ NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL NB SB EB WB TTL LANES:0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 7:00 AM 13 4 1 1 4 25 5 42 17 1 44 2 159 0 0 0 0 0 7:15 AM 15 5 3 0 2 26 17 61 25 0 49 0 203 0 0 0 0 0 7:30 AM 27 5 3 1 5 31 16 95 45 4 48 0 280 0 0 0 0 0 7:45 AM 31 5 4 0 11 49 38 85 42 2 45 2 314 0 0 0 0 0 8:00 AM 33 12 3 3 2 18 26 60 42 6 51 2 258 0 0 0 0 0 8:15 AM 29 7 1 0 5 17 16 43 14 6 53 0 191 0 0 0 0 0 8:30 AM 29 2 3 1 3 15 9 48 25 3 38 1 177 0 0 0 0 0 8:45 AM 16 5 2 0 4 15 9 43 13 2 37 1 147 0 0 0 0 0 VOLUMES 193 45 20 6 36 196 136 477 223 24 365 8 1,729 0 0 0 0 0 APPROACH %75%17%8%3%15%82%16%57%27%6%92%2% APP/DEPART 258 /189 238 /283 836 /503 397 /754 0 BEGIN PEAK HR VOLUMES 106 27 13 4 20 124 97 301 154 12 193 4 1,055 APPROACH %73%18%9%3%14%84%18%55%28%6%92%2% PEAK HR FACTOR 0.760 0.617 0.836 0.886 0.840 APP/DEPART 146 /128 148 /186 552 /318 209 /423 0 4:00 PM 21 8 1 3 1 22 37 87 23 1 106 1 311 0 0 0 0 0 4:15 PM 31 6 3 0 4 16 31 81 40 2 93 0 307 0 0 0 0 0 4:30 PM 15 8 3 0 5 27 29 112 38 1 89 1 328 0 0 0 0 0 4:45 PM 17 6 5 8 8 26 26 106 30 5 82 5 324 0 0 0 0 0 5:00 PM 12 13 2 4 7 15 47 97 32 3 91 1 324 0 0 0 0 0 5:15 PM 31 9 2 2 6 24 32 95 31 3 83 5 323 0 0 0 0 0 5:30 PM 24 10 4 2 4 14 35 96 32 5 91 2 319 0 0 0 0 0 5:45 PM 30 5 3 1 5 17 18 104 31 4 88 2 308 0 0 0 0 0 VOLUMES 181 65 23 20 40 161 255 778 257 24 723 17 2,544 0 0 0 0 0 APPROACH %67%24%9%9%18%73%20%60%20%3%95%2% APP/DEPART 269 /337 221 /321 1,290 /821 764 /1,065 0 BEGIN PEAK HR VOLUMES 75 36 12 14 26 92 134 410 131 12 345 12 1,299 APPROACH %61%29%10%11%20%70%20%61%19%3%93%3% PEAK HR FACTOR 0.732 0.786 0.943 0.971 0.990 APP/DEPART 123 /182 132 /169 675 /436 369 /512 0 Guatemala NORTH SIDE Suva WEST SIDE EAST SIDE Suva SOUTH SIDE Guatemala INTERSECTION TURNING MOVEMENT COUNTS PREPARED BY: AimTD LLC. tel: 714 253 7888 cs@aimtd.com Downey Guatemala Suva U-TURNS Guatemala Guatemala Suva Suva AM 7:15 AM PM 4:30 PM Apx-33 459 357 76 26 TOTAL 526 221 161 40 20 PM 337 238 196 36 6 AM 189 3 9 7 7 6 4 1 , 1 6 1 1, 8 1 9 1, 0 6 5 75 4 8 1 7 2 5 3 6 5 7 2 3 1 , 0 8 8 TO T A L PM AM 2 4 2 4 4 8 39 1 25 5 13 6 A M P M T O T A L 1, 2 5 5 77 8 47 7 48 0 25 7 22 3 5 0 3 8 2 1 1 , 3 2 4 2, 1 2 6 1, 2 9 0 83 6 283 AM 193 45 20 258 321 PM 181 65 23 269 604 TOTAL 374 110 43 527 280 216 46 18 TOTAL 310 132 92 26 14 PM 182 148 124 20 4 AM 128 2 0 9 3 6 9 5 7 8 93 5 51 2 42 3 4 1 2 1 6 1 9 3 3 4 5 5 3 8 TO T A L PM AM AM 7:15 AM 8:45 AM 1 2 1 2 2 4 23 1 13 4 97 #N/A A M P M T O T A L 71 1 41 0 30 1 PM 4:30 PM 5:45 PM 28 5 13 1 15 4 3 1 8 4 3 6 7 5 4 1, 2 2 7 67 5 55 2 186 AM 106 27 13 146 169 PM 75 36 12 123 355 Total 181 63 25 269 AimTD LLC TURNING MOVEMENT COUNTS Guatemala Su v a S u v a Downey SC4157 ALL HOURS Guatemala Guatemala Guatemala Su v a S u v a PEAK HOUR Apx-34 T218 DATE:LOCATION:PROJECT #:SC4157 Thu, Aug 24, 23 NORTH & SOUTH:LOCATION #:4 EAST & WEST:CONTROL:SIGNAL NOTES:AM ▲ PM N MD ◄ W E ► OTHER S OTHER ▼ NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL NB SB EB WB TTL LANES:1 2 0 1 2 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 7:00 AM 14 263 2 1 227 26 40 1 11 3 4 7 599 0 0 0 0 0 7:15 AM 20 291 0 2 269 43 58 3 24 3 4 9 726 1 1 0 0 2 7:30 AM 35 292 2 2 271 40 45 4 41 3 3 4 742 0 0 0 0 0 7:45 AM 25 254 4 1 290 32 52 11 54 8 5 10 746 0 0 0 0 0 8:00 AM 25 284 3 8 270 16 45 7 48 2 5 11 724 0 3 0 0 3 8:15 AM 9 194 3 3 197 17 51 6 32 2 0 5 519 0 1 0 0 1 8:30 AM 15 208 1 2 230 17 39 1 15 1 1 5 535 2 1 0 0 3 8:45 AM 7 194 1 1 231 19 53 2 19 1 4 4 536 0 0 0 0 0 VOLUMES 150 1,980 16 20 1,985 210 383 35 244 23 26 55 5,127 3 6 0 0 9 APPROACH %7%92%1%1%90%9%58%5%37%22%25%53% APP/DEPART 2,146 /2,424 2,215 /2,255 662 /65 104 /383 0 BEGIN PEAK HR VOLUMES 105 1,121 9 13 1,100 131 200 25 167 16 17 34 2,938 APPROACH %9%91%1%1%88%11%51%6%43%24%25%51% PEAK HR FACTOR 0.938 0.963 0.838 0.728 0.985 APP/DEPART 1,235 /1,359 1,244 /1,284 392 /43 67 /252 0 4:00 PM 23 288 7 4 284 45 45 6 44 0 2 2 750 0 0 0 0 0 4:15 PM 24 301 4 4 328 46 44 5 39 2 3 2 802 0 0 0 0 0 4:30 PM 26 295 3 2 337 44 49 10 40 1 0 0 807 3 0 0 0 3 4:45 PM 23 248 10 4 314 41 67 7 38 2 1 0 755 0 0 0 0 0 5:00 PM 11 239 4 4 327 48 54 12 30 1 2 3 735 1 0 0 0 1 5:15 PM 38 279 5 6 323 34 54 10 24 3 0 3 779 1 0 0 0 1 5:30 PM 23 245 11 6 308 53 40 6 29 1 1 6 729 0 0 0 0 0 5:45 PM 24 250 7 4 314 34 55 9 30 1 0 3 731 1 0 0 0 1 VOLUMES 192 2,145 51 34 2,535 345 408 65 274 11 9 19 6,088 6 0 0 0 6 APPROACH %8%90%2%1%87%12%55%9%37%28%23%49% APP/DEPART 2,388 /2,572 2,914 /2,826 747 /150 39 /540 0 BEGIN PEAK HR VOLUMES 96 1,132 24 14 1,263 176 205 28 161 5 6 4 3,114 APPROACH %8%90%2%1%87%12%52%7%41%33%40%27% PEAK HR FACTOR 0.951 0.948 0.879 0.536 0.965 APP/DEPART 1,252 /1,341 1,453 /1,432 394 /66 15 /275 0 Paramount NORTH SIDE Suva WEST SIDE EAST SIDE Suva SOUTH SIDE Paramount INTERSECTION TURNING MOVEMENT COUNTS PREPARED BY: AimTD LLC. tel: 714 253 7888 cs@aimtd.com Downey Paramount Suva U-TURNS Paramount Paramount Suva Suva AM 7:15 AM PM 4:00 PM Apx-35 5,129 555 4,520 54 TOTAL 4,996 2,914 345 2,535 34 PM 2,572 2,215 210 1,985 20 AM 2,424 1 0 4 3 9 1 4 3 92 3 54 0 38 3 5 5 1 9 7 4 2 6 9 3 5 TO T A L PM AM 2 3 1 1 3 4 79 1 40 8 38 3 A M P M T O T A L 10 0 65 35 51 8 27 4 24 4 6 5 1 5 0 2 1 5 1, 4 0 9 74 7 66 2 2,255 AM 150 1,980 16 2,146 2,826 PM 192 2,145 51 2,388 5,081 TOTAL 342 4,125 67 4,534 2,697 307 2,363 27 TOTAL 2,700 1,453 176 1,263 14 PM 1,341 1,244 131 1,100 13 AM 1,359 6 7 1 5 8 2 52 7 27 5 25 2 3 4 4 3 8 1 7 6 2 3 TO T A L PM AM AM 7:15 AM 8:45 AM 1 6 5 2 1 40 5 20 5 20 0 #N/A A M P M T O T A L 53 28 25 PM 4:00 PM 5:45 PM 32 8 16 1 16 7 4 3 6 6 1 0 9 78 6 39 4 39 2 1,284 AM 105 1,121 9 1,235 1,432 PM 96 1,132 24 1,252 2,716 Total 201 2,253 33 2,487 AimTD LLC TURNING MOVEMENT COUNTS Paramount Su v a S u v a Downey SC4157 ALL HOURS Paramount Paramount Paramount Su v a S u v a PEAK HOUR Apx-36 APPENDIX D LEVEL OF SERVICE WORKSHEETS Apx-37 EXISTING Apx-38 Intersection Analysis Summary 10/13/2023Report File: G:\...\AME.pdf Scenario 1 Existing AM Peak HourVistro File: G:\...\AME.vistro Dowey Foster Bridge Residential V/C, Delay, LOS: For two-way stop, these values are taken from the movement with the worst (highest) delay value. For all other control types, they are taken for the whole intersection. C20.80.705WB RightHCM 7th EditionSignalizedSuva St (NS) at Paramount Blvd (EW)4 C19.60.822SB ThruHCM 7th EditionAll-way stopSuva St (NS) at Guatemala Ave (EW)3 B15.90.632SWB ThruHCM 7th EditionSignalizedSuva St (NS) at Bluff Rd (EW)2 C16.90.628SB RightHCM 7th EditionAll-way stopSuva St (NS) at Scout Ave (EW)1 LOSDelay (s/veh)V/CWorst MvmtMethodControl TypeIntersection NameID 10/13/20231 Scenario 1: 1 Existing AM Peak Hour Dowey Foster Bridge Residential Version 2022 (SP 0-8) Generated with Apx-39 0.628Volume to Capacity (v/c): CLevel Of Service: 16.9Delay (sec / veh): 15 minutesAnalysis Period: HCM 7th EditionAnalysis Method: All-way stopControl Type: Intersection 1: Suva St (NS) at Scout Ave (EW) Intersection Level Of Service Report YesYesYesYesCrosswalk 0.000.000.000.00Grade [%] 30.0030.0025.0025.00Speed [mph] 0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00Exit Pocket Length [ft] 000000000000No. of Lanes in Exit Pocket 100.00100.00100.00100.00100.00100.00100.00100.00100.00100.00100.00100.00Entry Pocket Length [ft] 000000000000No. of Lanes in Entry Pocket 12.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.00Lane Width [ft] RightThruLeftRightThruLeftRightThruLeftRightThruLeftTurning Movement Lane Configuration WestboundEastboundSouthboundNorthboundApproach Name Intersection Setup 0000Pedestrian Volume [ped/h] 731041722883146157931041118195Total Analysis Volume [veh/h] 1826457213639232603049Total 15-Minute Volume [veh/h] 1.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.0000Other Adjustment Factor 0.70100.70100.70100.70100.70100.70100.70100.70100.70100.70100.70100.7010Peak Hour Factor 517312160581021106573183137Total Hourly Volume [veh/h] 000000000000Other Volume [veh/h] 000000000000Existing Site Adjustment Volume [veh/h] 000000000000Pass-by Trips [veh/h] 000000000000Diverted Trips [veh/h] 000000000000Site-Generated Trips [veh/h] 000000000000In-Process Volume [veh/h] 1.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.0000Growth Factor 2.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.00Heavy Vehicles Percentage [%] 1.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.0000Base Volume Adjustment Factor 517312160581021106573183137Base Volume Input [veh/h] Name Volumes 10/13/20232 Scenario 1: 1 Existing AM Peak Hour Dowey Foster Bridge Residential Version 2022 (SP 0-8) Generated with Apx-40 CIntersection LOS 16.90Intersection Delay [s/veh] BCCCApproach LOS 12.1515.3519.5619.10Approach Delay [s/veh] 17.8419.7850.2363.80108.6695.1095th-Percentile Queue Length [ft] 0.710.792.012.554.353.8095th-Percentile Queue Length [veh] Movement, Approach, & Intersection Results 0.190.210.410.480.630.59Degree of Utilization, x 499459554477564532Capacity per Entry Lane [veh/h] Lanes Intersection Settings 10/13/20233 Scenario 1: 1 Existing AM Peak Hour Dowey Foster Bridge Residential Version 2022 (SP 0-8) Generated with Apx-41 0.632Volume to Capacity (v/c): BLevel Of Service: 15.9Delay (sec / veh): 15 minutesAnalysis Period: HCM 7th EditionAnalysis Method: SignalizedControl Type: Intersection 2: Suva St (NS) at Bluff Rd (EW) Intersection Level Of Service Report YesYesYesCrosswalk NoNoNoCurb Present 0.000.000.00Grade [%] 25.0025.0025.00Speed [mph] 0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00Exit Pocket Length [ft] 000000000000No. of Lanes in Exit Pocket 100.00100.00100.00100.00100.00100.00100.00100.00100.00100.00100.00100.00Entry Pocket Length [ft] 000000000000No. of Lanes in Entry Pocket 12.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.00Lane Width [ft] RightThruLeftLeft2RightThruLeftLeft2Right2RightThruLeftTurning Movement Lane Configuration EastboundSouthboundNorthboundApproach Name Intersection Setup 10/13/20234 Scenario 1: 1 Existing AM Peak Hour Dowey Foster Bridge Residential Version 2022 (SP 0-8) Generated with Apx-42 000Bicycle Volume [bicycles/h] 000v_ab, Corner Pedestrian Volume [ped/h] 000v_ci, Inbound Pedestrian Volume along the le 000v_co, Outbound Pedestrian Volume along th 000v_di, Inbound Pedestrian Volume crossing th 000v_do, Outbound Pedestrian Volume crossing 000000000000Local Bus Stopping Rate [/h] 000000000000On-Street Parking Maneuver Rate [/h] NoNoNoNoNoNoPresence of On-Street Parking 5031530311220542783Total Analysis Volume [veh/h] 1010176005513701Total 15-Minute Volume [veh/h] 1.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.0000Other Adjustment Factor 0.78300.78300.78300.78300.78300.78300.78300.78300.78300.78300.78300.7830Peak Hour Factor 4021423711172422182Total Hourly Volume [veh/h] 000000000000Right Turn on Red Volume [veh/h] 000000000000Other Volume [veh/h] 000000000000Existing Site Adjustment Volume [veh/h] 000000000000Pass-by Trips [veh/h] 000000000000Diverted Trips [veh/h] 000000000000Site-Generated Trips [veh/h] 000000000000In-Process Volume [veh/h] 1.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.0000Growth Factor 0.00Proportion of CAVs [%] 2.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.00Heavy Vehicles Percentage [%] 1.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.0000Base Volume Adjustment Factor 4021423711172422182Base Volume Input [veh/h] Name Volumes 10/13/20235 Scenario 1: 1 Existing AM Peak Hour Dowey Foster Bridge Residential Version 2022 (SP 0-8) Generated with Apx-43 0Pedestrian Clearance [s] 0Pedestrian Walk [s] 0Pedestrian Signal Group Exclusive Pedestrian Phase 1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00I, Upstream Filtering Factor 0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0Detector Length [ft] 0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0Detector Location [ft] NoNoNoPedestrian Recall NoNoNoMaximum Recall NoNoNoMinimum Recall 0.02.00.00.00.02.00.00.00.00.02.00.0l2, Clearance Lost Time [s] 0.02.00.00.00.02.00.00.00.00.02.00.0l1, Start-Up Lost Time [s] NoNoNoRest In Walk 0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0Delayed Vehicle Green [s] 010000100000100Pedestrian Clearance [s] 050005000050Walk [s] 0.03.00.00.00.03.00.00.00.00.03.00.0Vehicle Extension [s] 019000190000190Split [s] 0.01.00.00.00.01.00.00.00.00.01.00.0All red [s] 0.03.00.00.00.03.00.00.00.00.03.00.0Amber [s] 012000012000001200Maximum Green [s] 010000100000100Minimum Green [s] ------------Lead / Lag Auxiliary Signal Groups 040006000020Signal Group PermissPermissPermissPermissPermissPermissPermissPermissPermissPermissPermissPermissControl Type Phasing & Timing 6.00Lost time [s] SingleBandPermissive Mode Lead Green - Beginning of First GreenOffset Reference 0.0Offset [s] Fully actuatedActuation Type Time of Day Pattern IsolatedCoordination Type 60Cycle Length [s] -Signal Coordination Group NoLocated in CBD Intersection Settings 10/13/20236 Scenario 1: 1 Existing AM Peak Hour Dowey Foster Bridge Residential Version 2022 (SP 0-8) Generated with Apx-44 3.5299.83219.7295th-Percentile Queue Length [ft/ln] 0.143.998.7995th-Percentile Queue Length [veh/ln] 1.9655.46127.2350th-Percentile Queue Length [ft/ln] 0.082.225.0950th-Percentile Queue Length [veh/ln] NoNoYesCritical Lane Group BBBLane Group LOS 16.4611.7315.83d, Delay for Lane Group [s/veh] 0.020.400.77X, volume / capacity Lane Group Results 1.001.001.00PF, progression factor 1.001.001.00Rp, platoon ratio 0.000.000.00d3, Initial Queue Delay [s] 0.020.341.80d2, Incremental Delay [s] 1.001.001.00I, Upstream Filtering Factor 0.110.110.11k, delay calibration 16.4311.4014.03d1, Uniform Delay [s] 412773719c, Capacity [veh/h] 169918641720s, saturation flow rate [veh/h] 0.010.170.32(v / s)_i Volume / Saturation Flow Rate 0.180.370.37g / C, Green / Cycle 91818g_i, Effective Green Time [s] 2.002.002.00l2, Clearance Lost Time [s] 2.002.002.00l1_p, Permitted Start-Up Lost Time [s] 4.004.004.00L, Total Lost Time per Cycle [s] 484848C, Cycle Length [s] CCCLane Group Lane Group Calculations 10/13/20237 Scenario 1: 1 Existing AM Peak Hour Dowey Foster Bridge Residential Version 2022 (SP 0-8) Generated with Apx-45 ABBBicycle LOS 1.5702.0692.112I_b,int, Bicycle LOS Score for Intersection 11.5511.5511.55d_b, Bicycle Delay [s] 619619619c_b, Capacity of the bicycle lane [bicycles/h] 200020002000s_b, Saturation Flow Rate of the bicycle lane AABCrosswalk LOS 1.6951.9312.391I_p,int, Pedestrian LOS Score for Intersection 16.0716.0716.07d_p, Pedestrian Delay [s] 0.000.000.00M_CW, Crosswalk Circulation Area [ft²/ped] 0.000.000.00M_corner, Corner Circulation Area [ft²/ped] 9.09.09.0g_Walk,mi, Effective Walk Time [s] Other Modes 0.632Intersection V/C BIntersection LOS 15.94d_I, Intersection Delay [s/veh] BBBApproach LOS 16.4611.7315.83d_A, Approach Delay [s/veh] BBBBBBBBBBBBMovement LOS 16.4616.4616.4616.4611.7311.7311.7311.7315.8315.8315.8315.83d_M, Delay for Movement [s/veh] Movement, Approach, & Intersection Results 10/13/20238 Scenario 1: 1 Existing AM Peak Hour Dowey Foster Bridge Residential Version 2022 (SP 0-8) Generated with Apx-46 YesYesCrosswalk NoNoCurb Present 0.000.00Grade [%] 25.0025.00Speed [mph] 0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00Exit Pocket Length [ft] 00000000No. of Lanes in Exit Pocket 100.00100.00100.00100.00100.00100.00100.00100.00Entry Pocket Length [ft] 00000000No. of Lanes in Entry Pocket 12.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.00Lane Width [ft] Right2RightThruLeftRight2RightThruLeftTurning Movement Lane Configuration SouthwestboundWestboundApproach Name Intersection Setup 10/13/20239 Scenario 1: 1 Existing AM Peak Hour Dowey Foster Bridge Residential Version 2022 (SP 0-8) Generated with Apx-47 00Bicycle Volume [bicycles/h] 00v_ab, Corner Pedestrian Volume [ped/h] 00v_ci, Inbound Pedestrian Volume along the le 00v_co, Outbound Pedestrian Volume along th 00v_di, Inbound Pedestrian Volume crossing th 00v_do, Outbound Pedestrian Volume crossing 00000000Local Bus Stopping Rate [/h] 00000000On-Street Parking Maneuver Rate [/h] NoNoNoNoPresence of On-Street Parking 402401530142Total Analysis Volume [veh/h] 1060011035Total 15-Minute Volume [veh/h] 1.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.0000Other Adjustment Factor 0.78300.78300.78300.78300.78300.78300.78300.7830Peak Hour Factor 301881420111Total Hourly Volume [veh/h] 00000000Right Turn on Red Volume [veh/h] 00000000Other Volume [veh/h] 00000000Existing Site Adjustment Volume [veh/h] 00000000Pass-by Trips [veh/h] 00000000Diverted Trips [veh/h] 00000000Site-Generated Trips [veh/h] 00000000In-Process Volume [veh/h] 1.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.0000Growth Factor 0.00Proportion of CAVs [%] 2.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.00Heavy Vehicles Percentage [%] 1.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.0000Base Volume Adjustment Factor 301881420111Base Volume Input [veh/h] Name Volumes 10/13/202310 Scenario 1: 1 Existing AM Peak Hour Dowey Foster Bridge Residential Version 2022 (SP 0-8) Generated with Apx-48 0Pedestrian Clearance [s] 0Pedestrian Walk [s] 0Pedestrian Signal Group Exclusive Pedestrian Phase 1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00I, Upstream Filtering Factor 0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0Detector Length [ft] 0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0Detector Location [ft] NoNoPedestrian Recall NoNoMaximum Recall NoNoMinimum Recall 0.00.02.00.00.00.02.00.0l2, Clearance Lost Time [s] 0.00.02.00.00.00.02.00.0l1, Start-Up Lost Time [s] NoNoRest In Walk 0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0Delayed Vehicle Green [s] 0010000100Pedestrian Clearance [s] 00500050Walk [s] 0.00.03.00.00.00.03.00.0Vehicle Extension [s] 0022000190Split [s] 0.00.01.00.00.00.01.00.0All red [s] 0.00.03.00.00.00.03.00.0Amber [s] 001200001200Maximum Green [s] 0010000100Minimum Green [s] --------Lead / Lag Auxiliary Signal Groups 001000080Signal Group PermissivePermissivePermissivePermissivePermissivePermissivePermissivePermissiveControl Type Phasing & Timing 6.00Lost time [s] SingleBandPermissive Mode Lead Green - Beginning of First GreenOffset Reference 0.0Offset [s] Fully actuatedActuation Type Time of Day Pattern IsolatedCoordination Type 60Cycle Length [s] -Signal Coordination Group NoLocated in CBD Intersection Settings 10/13/202311 Scenario 1: 1 Existing AM Peak Hour Dowey Foster Bridge Residential Version 2022 (SP 0-8) Generated with Apx-49 112.4664.8795th-Percentile Queue Length [ft/ln] 4.502.5995th-Percentile Queue Length [veh/ln] 62.4836.0450th-Percentile Queue Length [ft/ln] 2.501.4450th-Percentile Queue Length [veh/ln] YesYesCritical Lane Group BBLane Group LOS 19.9618.45d, Delay for Lane Group [s/veh] 0.660.36X, volume / capacity Lane Group Results 1.001.00PF, progression factor 1.001.00Rp, platoon ratio 0.000.00d3, Initial Queue Delay [s] 2.020.53d2, Incremental Delay [s] 1.001.00I, Upstream Filtering Factor 0.110.11k, delay calibration 17.9517.92d1, Uniform Delay [s] 371415c, Capacity [veh/h] 18641510s, saturation flow rate [veh/h] 0.130.10(v / s)_i Volume / Saturation Flow Rate 0.200.18g / C, Green / Cycle 109g_i, Effective Green Time [s] 2.002.00l2, Clearance Lost Time [s] 0.002.00l1_p, Permitted Start-Up Lost Time [s] 4.004.00L, Total Lost Time per Cycle [s] 4848C, Cycle Length [s] CCLane Group Lane Group Calculations 10/13/202312 Scenario 1: 1 Existing AM Peak Hour Dowey Foster Bridge Residential Version 2022 (SP 0-8) Generated with Apx-50 Movement, Approach, & Intersection Results d_M, Delay for Movement [s/veh]18.45 18.45 18.45 18.45 19.96 19.96 19.96 19.96 Movement LOS B B B B B B B B d_A, Approach Delay [s/veh]18.45 19.96 Approach LOS B B d_I, Intersection Delay [s/veh]15.94 Intersection LOS B Intersection V/C 0.632 Other Modes g_Walk,mi, Effective Walk Time [s]9.0 9.0 M_corner, Corner Circulation Area [ft²/ped]0.00 0.00 M_CW, Crosswalk Circulation Area [ft²/ped]0.00 0.00 d_p, Pedestrian Delay [s]16.07 16.07 I_p,int, Pedestrian LOS Score for Intersection 1.837 1.817 Crosswalk LOS A A s_b, Saturation Flow Rate of the bicycle lane 2000 2000 c_b, Capacity of the bicycle lane [bicycles/h]619 743 d_b, Bicycle Delay [s]11.55 9.57 I_b,int, Bicycle LOS Score for Intersection 1.799 1.957 Bicycle LOS A A ----------------Ring 4 ----------------Ring 3 --------------86Ring 2 -------------1042Ring 1 Sequence 10/13/202313 Scenario 1: 1 Existing AM Peak Hour Dowey Foster Bridge Residential Version 2022 (SP 0-8) Generated with Apx-51 0.822Volume to Capacity (v/c): CLevel Of Service: 19.6Delay (sec / veh): 15 minutesAnalysis Period: HCM 7th EditionAnalysis Method: All-way stopControl Type: Intersection 3: Suva St (NS) at Guatemala Ave (EW) Intersection Level Of Service Report NoNoNoNoCrosswalk 0.000.000.000.00Grade [%] 25.0025.0025.0025.00Speed [mph] 0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00Exit Pocket Length [ft] 000000000000No. of Lanes in Exit Pocket 100.00100.00100.00100.00100.00100.00100.00100.00100.00100.00100.00100.00Entry Pocket Length [ft] 000000100000No. of Lanes in Entry Pocket 12.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.00Lane Width [ft] RightThruLeftRightThruLeftRightThruLeftRightThruLeftTurning Movement Lane Configuration WestboundEastboundSouthboundNorthboundApproach Name Intersection Setup 0000Pedestrian Volume [ped/h] 1482451532126183358115523014Total Analysis Volume [veh/h] 376148324690291574Total 15-Minute Volume [veh/h] 1.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.0000Other Adjustment Factor 0.84000.84000.84000.84000.84000.84000.84000.84000.84000.84000.84000.8400Peak Hour Factor 124204132710615430197419312Total Hourly Volume [veh/h] 000000000000Other Volume [veh/h] 000000000000Existing Site Adjustment Volume [veh/h] 000000000000Pass-by Trips [veh/h] 000000000000Diverted Trips [veh/h] 000000000000Site-Generated Trips [veh/h] 000000000000In-Process Volume [veh/h] 1.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.0000Growth Factor 2.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.00Heavy Vehicles Percentage [%] 1.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.0000Base Volume Adjustment Factor 124204132710615430197419312Base Volume Input [veh/h] Name Volumes 10/13/202314 Scenario 1: 1 Existing AM Peak Hour Dowey Foster Bridge Residential Version 2022 (SP 0-8) Generated with Apx-52 CIntersection LOS 19.60Intersection Delay [s/veh] BBDBApproach LOS 11.9613.0625.5613.87Approach Delay [s/veh] 32.2935.2628.02209.4453.9795th-Percentile Queue Length [ft] 1.291.411.128.382.1695th-Percentile Queue Length [veh] Movement, Approach, & Intersection Results 0.310.330.280.820.43Degree of Utilization, x 578529664575578Capacity per Entry Lane [veh/h] Lanes Intersection Settings 10/13/202315 Scenario 1: 1 Existing AM Peak Hour Dowey Foster Bridge Residential Version 2022 (SP 0-8) Generated with Apx-53 0.705Volume to Capacity (v/c): CLevel Of Service: 20.8Delay (sec / veh): 15 minutesAnalysis Period: HCM 7th EditionAnalysis Method: SignalizedControl Type: Intersection 4: Suva St (NS) at Paramount Blvd (EW) Intersection Level Of Service Report YesYesYesYesCrosswalk NoNoNoNoCurb Present 0.000.000.000.00Grade [%] 40.0040.0025.0025.00Speed [mph] 0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00Exit Pocket Length [ft] 000000000000No. of Lanes in Exit Pocket 100.00100.00115.00100.00100.00225.00100.00100.00100.00100.00100.00100.00Entry Pocket Length [ft] 001001000000No. of Lanes in Entry Pocket 12.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.00Lane Width [ft] RightThruLeftRightThruLeftRightThruLeftRightThruLeftTurning Movement Lane Configuration WestboundEastboundSouthboundNorthboundApproach Name Intersection Setup 10/13/202316 Scenario 1: 1 Existing AM Peak Hour Dowey Foster Bridge Residential Version 2022 (SP 0-8) Generated with Apx-54 0000Bicycle Volume [bicycles/h] 0000v_ab, Corner Pedestrian Volume [ped/h] 0000v_ci, Inbound Pedestrian Volume crossing mi 0000v_co, Outbound Pedestrian Volume crossing 0000v_di, Inbound Pedestrian Volume crossing m 0000v_do, Outbound Pedestrian Volume crossing 000000000000Local Bus Stopping Rate [/h] 000000000000On-Street Parking Maneuver Rate [/h] NoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoPresence of On-Street Parking 1331117139113810717025203351716Total Analysis Volume [veh/h] 33279322852742651944Total 15-Minute Volume [veh/h] 1.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.0000Other Adjustment Factor 0.98500.98500.98500.98500.98500.98500.98500.98500.98500.98500.98500.9850Peak Hour Factor 1311100139112110516725200341716Total Hourly Volume [veh/h] 000000000000Right Turn on Red Volume [veh/h] 000000000000Other Volume [veh/h] 000000000000Existing Site Adjustment Volume [veh/h] 000000000000Pass-by Trips [veh/h] 000000000000Diverted Trips [veh/h] 000000000000Site-Generated Trips [veh/h] 000000000000In-Process Volume [veh/h] 1.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.0000Growth Factor 0.00Proportion of CAVs [%] 2.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.00Heavy Vehicles Percentage [%] 1.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.0000Base Volume Adjustment Factor 1311100139112110516725200341716Base Volume Input [veh/h] Name Volumes 10/13/202317 Scenario 1: 1 Existing AM Peak Hour Dowey Foster Bridge Residential Version 2022 (SP 0-8) Generated with Apx-55 0Pedestrian Clearance [s] 0Pedestrian Walk [s] 0Pedestrian Signal Group Exclusive Pedestrian Phase 1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00I, Upstream Filtering Factor 0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0Detector Length [ft] 0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0Detector Location [ft] NoNoNoNoNoNoPedestrian Recall NoNoNoNoNoNoMaximum Recall NoNoNoNoNoNoMinimum Recall 0.02.02.00.02.02.00.02.00.00.02.00.0l2, Clearance Lost Time [s] 0.02.02.00.02.02.00.02.00.00.02.00.0l1, Start-Up Lost Time [s] NoNoNoNoRest In Walk 0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0Delayed Vehicle Green [s] 07007001700170Pedestrian Clearance [s] 050050050050Walk [s] 0.03.03.00.03.03.00.03.00.00.03.00.0Vehicle Extension [s] 028110281102600260Split [s] 0.01.01.00.01.01.00.01.00.00.01.00.0All red [s] 0.03.03.00.03.03.00.03.00.00.03.00.0Amber [s] 012012001201200120001200Maximum Green [s] 0107010701000100Minimum Green [s] --Lead--Lead------Lead / Lag Auxiliary Signal Groups 047083020060Signal Group PermissPermissProtPerPermissPermissProtPerPermissPermissPermissPermissPermissPermissControl Type Phasing & Timing 6.00Lost time [s] SingleBandPermissive Mode Lead Green - Beginning of First GreenOffset Reference 0.0Offset [s] Fully actuatedActuation Type Time of Day Pattern IsolatedCoordination Type 65Cycle Length [s] -Signal Coordination Group NoLocated in CBD Intersection Settings 10/13/202318 Scenario 1: 1 Existing AM Peak Hour Dowey Foster Bridge Residential Version 2022 (SP 0-8) Generated with Apx-56 336.39343.343.29246.06246.5128.71239.6931.3995th-Percentile Queue Length [ft/ln] 13.4613.730.139.849.861.159.591.2695th-Percentile Queue Length [veh/ln] 215.90221.341.83146.73147.0715.95141.9817.4450th-Percentile Queue Length [ft/ln] 8.648.850.075.875.880.645.680.7050th-Percentile Queue Length [veh/ln] YesNoNoNoNoYesYesNoCritical Lane Group CCABBBCBLane Group LOS 25.7925.379.8115.9215.9112.8223.0814.45d, Delay for Lane Group [s/veh] 0.930.920.040.700.700.260.640.11X, volume / capacity Lane Group Results 1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00PF, progression factor 1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00Rp, platoon ratio 0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00d3, Initial Queue Delay [s] 6.125.740.041.111.100.335.030.33d2, Incremental Delay [s] 1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00I, Upstream Filtering Factor 0.110.110.110.110.110.110.500.50k, delay calibration 19.6719.649.7714.8114.8112.4918.0614.11d1, Uniform Delay [s] 664689362817819414621640c, Capacity [veh/h] 180118706231865187075915151613s, saturation flow rate [veh/h] 0.340.340.020.310.310.140.260.04(v / s)_i Volume / Saturation Flow Rate 0.370.370.520.440.440.520.350.35g / C, Green / Cycle 2424342929342323g_i, Effective Green Time [s] 2.002.000.002.002.000.002.002.00l2, Clearance Lost Time [s] 0.000.000.000.000.000.002.002.00l1_p, Permitted Start-Up Lost Time [s] 4.004.004.004.004.004.004.004.00L, Total Lost Time per Cycle [s] 6565656565656565C, Cycle Length [s] CCLCCLCCLane Group Lane Group Calculations 10/13/202319 Scenario 1: 1 Existing AM Peak Hour Dowey Foster Bridge Residential Version 2022 (SP 0-8) Generated with Apx-57 Movement, Approach, & Intersection Results d_M, Delay for Movement [s/veh]14.45 14.45 14.45 23.08 23.08 23.08 12.82 15.92 15.92 9.81 25.55 25.79 Movement LOS B B B C C C B B B A C C d_A, Approach Delay [s/veh]14.45 23.08 15.65 25.42 Approach LOS B C B C d_I, Intersection Delay [s/veh]20.75 Intersection LOS C Intersection V/C 0.705 Other Modes g_Walk,mi, Effective Walk Time [s]9.0 9.0 9.0 9.0 M_corner, Corner Circulation Area [ft²/ped]0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 M_CW, Crosswalk Circulation Area [ft²/ped]0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 d_p, Pedestrian Delay [s]24.13 24.13 24.13 24.13 I_p,int, Pedestrian LOS Score for Intersection 1.755 2.027 2.972 3.260 Crosswalk LOS A B C C s_b, Saturation Flow Rate of the bicycle lane 2000 2000 2000 2000 c_b, Capacity of the bicycle lane [bicycles/h]677 677 738 738 d_b, Bicycle Delay [s]14.23 14.23 12.94 12.94 I_b,int, Bicycle LOS Score for Intersection 1.672 2.216 2.594 2.602 Bicycle LOS A B B B ----------------Ring 4 ----------------Ring 3 ------------876-Ring 2 ------------432-Ring 1 Sequence 10/13/202320 Scenario 1: 1 Existing AM Peak Hour Dowey Foster Bridge Residential Version 2022 (SP 0-8) Generated with Apx-58 Intersection Analysis Summary 10/13/2023Report File: G:\...\PME.pdf Scenario 1 Existing PM Peak HourVistro File: G:\...\PME.vistro Dowey Foster Bridge Residential V/C, Delay, LOS: For two-way stop, these values are taken from the movement with the worst (highest) delay value. For all other control types, they are taken for the whole intersection. C34.60.781WB RightHCM 7th EditionSignalizedSuva St (NS) at Paramount Blvd (EW)4 D28.00.934SB ThruHCM 7th EditionAll-way stopSuva St (NS) at Guatemala Ave (EW)3 B12.80.485WB LeftHCM 7th EditionSignalizedSuva St (NS) at Bluff Rd (EW)2 B11.60.444NB LeftHCM 7th EditionAll-way stopSuva St (NS) at Scout Ave (EW)1 LOSDelay (s/veh)V/CWorst MvmtMethodControl TypeIntersection NameID 10/13/20231 Scenario 1: 1 Existing PM Peak Hour Dowey Foster Bridge Residential Version 2022 (SP 0-8) Generated with Apx-59 0.444Volume to Capacity (v/c): BLevel Of Service: 11.6Delay (sec / veh): 15 minutesAnalysis Period: HCM 7th EditionAnalysis Method: All-way stopControl Type: Intersection 1: Suva St (NS) at Scout Ave (EW) Intersection Level Of Service Report YesYesYesYesCrosswalk 0.000.000.000.00Grade [%] 30.0030.0025.0025.00Speed [mph] 0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00Exit Pocket Length [ft] 000000000000No. of Lanes in Exit Pocket 100.00100.00100.00100.00100.00100.00100.00100.00100.00100.00100.00100.00Entry Pocket Length [ft] 000000000000No. of Lanes in Entry Pocket 12.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.00Lane Width [ft] RightThruLeftRightThruLeftRightThruLeftRightThruLeftTurning Movement Lane Configuration WestboundEastboundSouthboundNorthboundApproach Name Intersection Setup 0000Pedestrian Volume [ped/h] 5631425292243618075112170Total Analysis Volume [veh/h] 116363236945212842Total 15-Minute Volume [veh/h] 1.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.0000Other Adjustment Factor 0.96100.96100.96100.96100.96100.96100.96100.96100.96100.96100.96100.9610Peak Hour Factor 5611324288233517375108163Total Hourly Volume [veh/h] 000000000000Other Volume [veh/h] 000000000000Existing Site Adjustment Volume [veh/h] 000000000000Pass-by Trips [veh/h] 000000000000Diverted Trips [veh/h] 000000000000Site-Generated Trips [veh/h] 000000000000In-Process Volume [veh/h] 1.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.0000Growth Factor 2.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.00Heavy Vehicles Percentage [%] 1.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.0000Base Volume Adjustment Factor 5611324288233517375108163Base Volume Input [veh/h] Name Volumes 10/13/20232 Scenario 1: 1 Existing PM Peak Hour Dowey Foster Bridge Residential Version 2022 (SP 0-8) Generated with Apx-60 BIntersection LOS 11.60Intersection Delay [s/veh] ABBBApproach LOS 9.8611.1211.3112.95Approach Delay [s/veh] 5.966.2244.3718.6437.6757.0695th-Percentile Queue Length [ft] 0.240.251.770.751.512.2895th-Percentile Queue Length [veh] Movement, Approach, & Intersection Results 0.070.080.380.200.340.44Degree of Utilization, x 555533664577655646Capacity per Entry Lane [veh/h] Lanes Intersection Settings 10/13/20233 Scenario 1: 1 Existing PM Peak Hour Dowey Foster Bridge Residential Version 2022 (SP 0-8) Generated with Apx-61 0.485Volume to Capacity (v/c): BLevel Of Service: 12.8Delay (sec / veh): 15 minutesAnalysis Period: HCM 7th EditionAnalysis Method: SignalizedControl Type: Intersection 2: Suva St (NS) at Bluff Rd (EW) Intersection Level Of Service Report YesYesYesCrosswalk NoNoNoCurb Present 0.000.000.00Grade [%] 25.0025.0025.00Speed [mph] 0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00Exit Pocket Length [ft] 000000000000No. of Lanes in Exit Pocket 100.00100.00100.00100.00100.00100.00100.00100.00100.00100.00100.00100.00Entry Pocket Length [ft] 000000000000No. of Lanes in Entry Pocket 12.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.00Lane Width [ft] RightThruLeftLeft2RightThruLeftLeft2Right2RightThruLeftTurning Movement Lane Configuration EastboundSouthboundNorthboundApproach Name Intersection Setup 10/13/20234 Scenario 1: 1 Existing PM Peak Hour Dowey Foster Bridge Residential Version 2022 (SP 0-8) Generated with Apx-62 000Bicycle Volume [bicycles/h] 000v_ab, Corner Pedestrian Volume [ped/h] 000v_ci, Inbound Pedestrian Volume along the le 000v_co, Outbound Pedestrian Volume along th 000v_di, Inbound Pedestrian Volume crossing th 000v_do, Outbound Pedestrian Volume crossing 000000000000Local Bus Stopping Rate [/h] 000000000000On-Street Parking Maneuver Rate [/h] NoNoNoNoNoNoPresence of On-Street Parking 200034308317482620Total Analysis Volume [veh/h] 1000110821442660Total 15-Minute Volume [veh/h] 1.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.0000Other Adjustment Factor 0.98800.98800.98800.98800.98800.98800.98800.98800.98800.98800.98800.9880Peak Hour Factor 200034258317282590Total Hourly Volume [veh/h] 000000000000Right Turn on Red Volume [veh/h] 000000000000Other Volume [veh/h] 000000000000Existing Site Adjustment Volume [veh/h] 000000000000Pass-by Trips [veh/h] 000000000000Diverted Trips [veh/h] 000000000000Site-Generated Trips [veh/h] 000000000000In-Process Volume [veh/h] 1.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.0000Growth Factor 0.00Proportion of CAVs [%] 2.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.00Heavy Vehicles Percentage [%] 1.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.0000Base Volume Adjustment Factor 200034258317282590Base Volume Input [veh/h] Name Volumes 10/13/20235 Scenario 1: 1 Existing PM Peak Hour Dowey Foster Bridge Residential Version 2022 (SP 0-8) Generated with Apx-63 0Pedestrian Clearance [s] 0Pedestrian Walk [s] 0Pedestrian Signal Group Exclusive Pedestrian Phase 1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00I, Upstream Filtering Factor 0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0Detector Length [ft] 0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0Detector Location [ft] NoNoNoPedestrian Recall NoNoNoMaximum Recall NoNoNoMinimum Recall 0.02.00.00.00.02.00.00.00.00.02.00.0l2, Clearance Lost Time [s] 0.02.00.00.00.02.00.00.00.00.02.00.0l1, Start-Up Lost Time [s] NoNoNoRest In Walk 0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0Delayed Vehicle Green [s] 010000100000100Pedestrian Clearance [s] 050005000050Walk [s] 0.03.00.00.00.03.00.00.00.00.03.00.0Vehicle Extension [s] 020000210000210Split [s] 0.01.00.00.00.01.00.00.00.00.01.00.0All red [s] 0.03.00.00.00.03.00.00.00.00.03.00.0Amber [s] 012000012000001200Maximum Green [s] 010000100000100Minimum Green [s] ------------Lead / Lag Auxiliary Signal Groups 040006000020Signal Group PermissPermissPermissPermissPermissPermissPermissPermissPermissPermissPermissPermissControl Type Phasing & Timing 6.00Lost time [s] SingleBandPermissive Mode Lead Green - Beginning of First GreenOffset Reference 0.0Offset [s] Fully actuatedActuation Type Time of Day Pattern IsolatedCoordination Type 60Cycle Length [s] -Signal Coordination Group NoLocated in CBD Intersection Settings 10/13/20236 Scenario 1: 1 Existing PM Peak Hour Dowey Foster Bridge Residential Version 2022 (SP 0-8) Generated with Apx-64 0.62123.14127.8995th-Percentile Queue Length [ft/ln] 0.024.935.1295th-Percentile Queue Length [veh/ln] 0.3468.4171.0550th-Percentile Queue Length [ft/ln] 0.012.742.8450th-Percentile Queue Length [veh/ln] NoNoYesCritical Lane Group BBBLane Group LOS 14.4512.3212.93d, Delay for Lane Group [s/veh] 0.010.640.69X, volume / capacity Lane Group Results 1.001.001.00PF, progression factor 1.001.001.00Rp, platoon ratio 0.000.000.00d3, Initial Queue Delay [s] 0.010.991.34d2, Incremental Delay [s] 1.001.001.00I, Upstream Filtering Factor 0.110.110.11k, delay calibration 14.4411.3311.59d1, Uniform Delay [s] 266693643c, Capacity [veh/h] 141418631712s, saturation flow rate [veh/h] 0.000.240.26(v / s)_i Volume / Saturation Flow Rate 0.120.320.32g / C, Green / Cycle 41212g_i, Effective Green Time [s] 2.002.002.00l2, Clearance Lost Time [s] 2.002.002.00l1_p, Permitted Start-Up Lost Time [s] 4.004.004.00L, Total Lost Time per Cycle [s] 373737C, Cycle Length [s] CCCLane Group Lane Group Calculations 10/13/20237 Scenario 1: 1 Existing PM Peak Hour Dowey Foster Bridge Residential Version 2022 (SP 0-8) Generated with Apx-65 ABBBicycle LOS 1.5632.2792.005I_b,int, Bicycle LOS Score for Intersection 6.015.455.45d_b, Bicycle Delay [s] 862916916c_b, Capacity of the bicycle lane [bicycles/h] 200020002000s_b, Saturation Flow Rate of the bicycle lane AABCrosswalk LOS 1.6691.9572.198I_p,int, Pedestrian LOS Score for Intersection 10.6510.6510.65d_p, Pedestrian Delay [s] 0.000.000.00M_CW, Crosswalk Circulation Area [ft²/ped] 0.000.000.00M_corner, Corner Circulation Area [ft²/ped] 9.09.09.0g_Walk,mi, Effective Walk Time [s] Other Modes 0.485Intersection V/C BIntersection LOS 12.80d_I, Intersection Delay [s/veh] BBBApproach LOS 14.4512.3212.93d_A, Approach Delay [s/veh] BBBBBBBBBBBBMovement LOS 14.4514.4514.4514.4512.3212.3212.3212.3212.9312.9312.9312.93d_M, Delay for Movement [s/veh] Movement, Approach, & Intersection Results 10/13/20238 Scenario 1: 1 Existing PM Peak Hour Dowey Foster Bridge Residential Version 2022 (SP 0-8) Generated with Apx-66 YesYesCrosswalk NoNoCurb Present 0.000.00Grade [%] 25.0025.00Speed [mph] 0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00Exit Pocket Length [ft] 00000000No. of Lanes in Exit Pocket 100.00100.00100.00100.00100.00100.00100.00100.00Entry Pocket Length [ft] 00000000No. of Lanes in Entry Pocket 12.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.00Lane Width [ft] Right2RightThruLeftRight2RightThruLeftTurning Movement Lane Configuration SouthwestboundWestboundApproach Name Intersection Setup 10/13/20239 Scenario 1: 1 Existing PM Peak Hour Dowey Foster Bridge Residential Version 2022 (SP 0-8) Generated with Apx-67 00Bicycle Volume [bicycles/h] 00v_ab, Corner Pedestrian Volume [ped/h] 00v_ci, Inbound Pedestrian Volume along the le 00v_co, Outbound Pedestrian Volume along th 00v_di, Inbound Pedestrian Volume crossing th 00v_do, Outbound Pedestrian Volume crossing 00000000Local Bus Stopping Rate [/h] 00000000On-Street Parking Maneuver Rate [/h] NoNoNoNoPresence of On-Street Parking 50201223051Total Analysis Volume [veh/h] 1050111013Total 15-Minute Volume [veh/h] 1.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.0000Other Adjustment Factor 0.98800.98800.98800.98800.98800.98800.98800.9880Peak Hour Factor 50199223050Total Hourly Volume [veh/h] 00000000Right Turn on Red Volume [veh/h] 00000000Other Volume [veh/h] 00000000Existing Site Adjustment Volume [veh/h] 00000000Pass-by Trips [veh/h] 00000000Diverted Trips [veh/h] 00000000Site-Generated Trips [veh/h] 00000000In-Process Volume [veh/h] 1.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.0000Growth Factor 0.00Proportion of CAVs [%] 2.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.00Heavy Vehicles Percentage [%] 1.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.0000Base Volume Adjustment Factor 50199223050Base Volume Input [veh/h] Name Volumes 10/13/202310 Scenario 1: 1 Existing PM Peak Hour Dowey Foster Bridge Residential Version 2022 (SP 0-8) Generated with Apx-68 0Pedestrian Clearance [s] 0Pedestrian Walk [s] 0Pedestrian Signal Group Exclusive Pedestrian Phase 1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00I, Upstream Filtering Factor 0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0Detector Length [ft] 0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0Detector Location [ft] NoNoPedestrian Recall NoNoMaximum Recall NoNoMinimum Recall 0.00.02.00.00.00.02.00.0l2, Clearance Lost Time [s] 0.00.02.00.00.00.02.00.0l1, Start-Up Lost Time [s] NoNoRest In Walk 0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0Delayed Vehicle Green [s] 0010000100Pedestrian Clearance [s] 00500050Walk [s] 0.00.03.00.00.00.03.00.0Vehicle Extension [s] 0019000200Split [s] 0.00.01.00.00.00.01.00.0All red [s] 0.00.03.00.00.00.03.00.0Amber [s] 001200001200Maximum Green [s] 0010000100Minimum Green [s] --------Lead / Lag Auxiliary Signal Groups 001000080Signal Group PermissivePermissivePermissivePermissivePermissivePermissivePermissivePermissiveControl Type Phasing & Timing 6.00Lost time [s] SingleBandPermissive Mode Lead Green - Beginning of First GreenOffset Reference 0.0Offset [s] Fully actuatedActuation Type Time of Day Pattern IsolatedCoordination Type 60Cycle Length [s] -Signal Coordination Group NoLocated in CBD Intersection Settings 10/13/202311 Scenario 1: 1 Existing PM Peak Hour Dowey Foster Bridge Residential Version 2022 (SP 0-8) Generated with Apx-69 58.9317.5595th-Percentile Queue Length [ft/ln] 2.360.7095th-Percentile Queue Length [veh/ln] 32.749.7550th-Percentile Queue Length [ft/ln] 1.310.3950th-Percentile Queue Length [veh/ln] YesYesCritical Lane Group BBLane Group LOS 12.9215.06d, Delay for Lane Group [s/veh] 0.470.15X, volume / capacity Lane Group Results 1.001.00PF, progression factor 1.001.00Rp, platoon ratio 0.000.00d3, Initial Queue Delay [s] 0.770.18d2, Incremental Delay [s] 1.001.00I, Upstream Filtering Factor 0.110.11k, delay calibration 12.1514.88d1, Uniform Delay [s] 444375c, Capacity [veh/h] 18611586s, saturation flow rate [veh/h] 0.110.04(v / s)_i Volume / Saturation Flow Rate 0.240.12g / C, Green / Cycle 94g_i, Effective Green Time [s] 2.002.00l2, Clearance Lost Time [s] 0.002.00l1_p, Permitted Start-Up Lost Time [s] 4.004.00L, Total Lost Time per Cycle [s] 3737C, Cycle Length [s] CCLane Group Lane Group Calculations 10/13/202312 Scenario 1: 1 Existing PM Peak Hour Dowey Foster Bridge Residential Version 2022 (SP 0-8) Generated with Apx-70 Movement, Approach, & Intersection Results d_M, Delay for Movement [s/veh]15.06 15.06 15.06 15.06 12.92 12.92 12.92 12.92 Movement LOS B B B B B B B B d_A, Approach Delay [s/veh]15.06 12.92 Approach LOS B B d_I, Intersection Delay [s/veh]12.80 Intersection LOS B Intersection V/C 0.485 Other Modes g_Walk,mi, Effective Walk Time [s]9.0 9.0 M_corner, Corner Circulation Area [ft²/ped]0.00 0.00 M_CW, Crosswalk Circulation Area [ft²/ped]0.00 0.00 d_p, Pedestrian Delay [s]10.65 10.65 I_p,int, Pedestrian LOS Score for Intersection 1.780 1.772 Crosswalk LOS A A s_b, Saturation Flow Rate of the bicycle lane 2000 2000 c_b, Capacity of the bicycle lane [bicycles/h]862 808 d_b, Bicycle Delay [s]6.01 6.59 I_b,int, Bicycle LOS Score for Intersection 1.649 1.895 Bicycle LOS A A ----------------Ring 4 ----------------Ring 3 --------------86Ring 2 -------------1042Ring 1 Sequence 10/13/202313 Scenario 1: 1 Existing PM Peak Hour Dowey Foster Bridge Residential Version 2022 (SP 0-8) Generated with Apx-71 0.934Volume to Capacity (v/c): DLevel Of Service: 28.0Delay (sec / veh): 15 minutesAnalysis Period: HCM 7th EditionAnalysis Method: All-way stopControl Type: Intersection 3: Suva St (NS) at Guatemala Ave (EW) Intersection Level Of Service Report NoNoNoNoCrosswalk 0.000.000.000.00Grade [%] 25.0025.0025.0025.00Speed [mph] 0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00Exit Pocket Length [ft] 000000000000No. of Lanes in Exit Pocket 100.00100.00100.00100.00100.00100.00100.00100.00100.00100.00100.00100.00Entry Pocket Length [ft] 000000100000No. of Lanes in Entry Pocket 12.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.00Lane Width [ft] RightThruLeftRightThruLeftRightThruLeftRightThruLeftTurning Movement Lane Configuration WestboundEastboundSouthboundNorthboundApproach Name Intersection Setup 0000Pedestrian Volume [ped/h] 9326141236761324141351234812Total Analysis Volume [veh/h] 2374391933104343873Total 15-Minute Volume [veh/h] 1.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.0000Other Adjustment Factor 0.99000.99000.99000.99000.99000.99000.99000.99000.99000.99000.99000.9900Peak Hour Factor 9226141236751314101341234512Total Hourly Volume [veh/h] 000000000000Other Volume [veh/h] 000000000000Existing Site Adjustment Volume [veh/h] 000000000000Pass-by Trips [veh/h] 000000000000Diverted Trips [veh/h] 000000000000Site-Generated Trips [veh/h] 000000000000In-Process Volume [veh/h] 1.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.0000Growth Factor 2.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.00Heavy Vehicles Percentage [%] 1.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.0000Base Volume Adjustment Factor 9226141236751314101341234512Base Volume Input [veh/h] Name Volumes 10/13/202314 Scenario 1: 1 Existing PM Peak Hour Dowey Foster Bridge Residential Version 2022 (SP 0-8) Generated with Apx-72 DIntersection LOS 28.04Intersection Delay [s/veh] BBECApproach LOS 11.7612.3939.5518.01Approach Delay [s/veh] 23.8723.8117.86303.14104.8495th-Percentile Queue Length [ft] 0.950.950.7112.134.1995th-Percentile Queue Length [veh] Movement, Approach, & Intersection Results 0.240.240.190.930.62Degree of Utilization, x 544507680588605Capacity per Entry Lane [veh/h] Lanes Intersection Settings 10/13/202315 Scenario 1: 1 Existing PM Peak Hour Dowey Foster Bridge Residential Version 2022 (SP 0-8) Generated with Apx-73 0.781Volume to Capacity (v/c): CLevel Of Service: 34.6Delay (sec / veh): 15 minutesAnalysis Period: HCM 7th EditionAnalysis Method: SignalizedControl Type: Intersection 4: Suva St (NS) at Paramount Blvd (EW) Intersection Level Of Service Report YesYesYesYesCrosswalk NoNoNoNoCurb Present 0.000.000.000.00Grade [%] 40.0040.0025.0025.00Speed [mph] 0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00Exit Pocket Length [ft] 000000000000No. of Lanes in Exit Pocket 100.00100.00115.00100.00100.00225.00100.00100.00100.00100.00100.00100.00Entry Pocket Length [ft] 001001000000No. of Lanes in Entry Pocket 12.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.00Lane Width [ft] RightThruLeftRightThruLeftRightThruLeftRightThruLeftTurning Movement Lane Configuration WestboundEastboundSouthboundNorthboundApproach Name Intersection Setup 10/13/202316 Scenario 1: 1 Existing PM Peak Hour Dowey Foster Bridge Residential Version 2022 (SP 0-8) Generated with Apx-74 0000Bicycle Volume [bicycles/h] 0000v_ab, Corner Pedestrian Volume [ped/h] 0000v_ci, Inbound Pedestrian Volume crossing mi 0000v_co, Outbound Pedestrian Volume crossing 0000v_di, Inbound Pedestrian Volume crossing m 0000v_do, Outbound Pedestrian Volume crossing 000000000000Local Bus Stopping Rate [/h] 000000000000On-Street Parking Maneuver Rate [/h] NoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoPresence of On-Street Parking 1821309152511739916729212465Total Analysis Volume [veh/h] 46327462932542753121Total 15-Minute Volume [veh/h] 1.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.0000Other Adjustment Factor 0.96500.96500.96500.96500.96500.96500.96500.96500.96500.96500.96500.9650Peak Hour Factor 1761263142411329616128205465Total Hourly Volume [veh/h] 000000000000Right Turn on Red Volume [veh/h] 000000000000Other Volume [veh/h] 000000000000Existing Site Adjustment Volume [veh/h] 000000000000Pass-by Trips [veh/h] 000000000000Diverted Trips [veh/h] 000000000000Site-Generated Trips [veh/h] 000000000000In-Process Volume [veh/h] 1.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.0000Growth Factor 0.00Proportion of CAVs [%] 2.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.00Heavy Vehicles Percentage [%] 1.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.0000Base Volume Adjustment Factor 1761263142411329616128205465Base Volume Input [veh/h] Name Volumes 10/13/202317 Scenario 1: 1 Existing PM Peak Hour Dowey Foster Bridge Residential Version 2022 (SP 0-8) Generated with Apx-75 0Pedestrian Clearance [s] 0Pedestrian Walk [s] 0Pedestrian Signal Group Exclusive Pedestrian Phase 1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00I, Upstream Filtering Factor 0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0Detector Length [ft] 0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0Detector Location [ft] NoNoNoNoNoNoPedestrian Recall NoNoNoNoNoNoMaximum Recall NoNoNoNoNoNoMinimum Recall 0.02.02.00.02.02.00.02.00.00.02.00.0l2, Clearance Lost Time [s] 0.02.02.00.02.02.00.02.00.00.02.00.0l1, Start-Up Lost Time [s] NoNoNoNoRest In Walk 0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0Delayed Vehicle Green [s] 07007001700170Pedestrian Clearance [s] 050050050050Walk [s] 0.03.03.00.03.03.00.03.00.00.03.00.0Vehicle Extension [s] 028110281102600260Split [s] 0.01.01.00.01.01.00.01.00.00.01.00.0All red [s] 0.03.03.00.03.03.00.03.00.00.03.00.0Amber [s] 012012001201200120001200Maximum Green [s] 0107010701000100Minimum Green [s] --Lead--Lead------Lead / Lag Auxiliary Signal Groups 047083020060Signal Group PermissPermissProtPerPermissPermissProtPerPermissPermissPermissPermissPermissPermissControl Type Phasing & Timing 6.00Lost time [s] SingleBandPermissive Mode Lead Green - Beginning of First GreenOffset Reference 0.0Offset [s] Fully actuatedActuation Type Time of Day Pattern IsolatedCoordination Type 65Cycle Length [s] -Signal Coordination Group NoLocated in CBD Intersection Settings 10/13/202318 Scenario 1: 1 Existing PM Peak Hour Dowey Foster Bridge Residential Version 2022 (SP 0-8) Generated with Apx-76 580.72564.633.63252.99254.1625.33254.586.8895th-Percentile Queue Length [ft/ln] 23.2322.590.1510.1210.171.0110.180.2895th-Percentile Queue Length [veh/ln] 393.94384.832.02151.92152.8014.07153.123.8250th-Percentile Queue Length [ft/ln] 15.7615.390.086.086.110.566.120.1550th-Percentile Queue Length [veh/ln] YesNoNoNoNoYesYesNoCritical Lane Group FFABBBCBLane Group LOS 57.0151.749.6015.7415.7313.2024.9814.31d, Delay for Lane Group [s/veh] 1.071.050.040.720.720.250.670.03X, volume / capacity Lane Group Results 1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00PF, progression factor 1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00Rp, platoon ratio 0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00d3, Initial Queue Delay [s] 37.0031.730.051.171.160.335.910.08d2, Incremental Delay [s] 1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00I, Upstream Filtering Factor 0.110.110.110.110.110.110.500.50k, delay calibration 20.0120.019.5614.5714.5712.8719.0714.23d1, Uniform Delay [s] 689719363833839393605600c, Capacity [veh/h] 179218706061856187067415281542s, saturation flow rate [veh/h] 0.410.400.020.320.320.150.270.01(v / s)_i Volume / Saturation Flow Rate 0.390.390.540.450.450.540.340.34g / C, Green / Cycle 2525352929352222g_i, Effective Green Time [s] 2.002.000.002.002.000.002.002.00l2, Clearance Lost Time [s] 0.000.000.000.000.000.002.002.00l1_p, Permitted Start-Up Lost Time [s] 4.004.004.004.004.004.004.004.00L, Total Lost Time per Cycle [s] 6565656565656565C, Cycle Length [s] CCLCCLCCLane Group Lane Group Calculations 10/13/202319 Scenario 1: 1 Existing PM Peak Hour Dowey Foster Bridge Residential Version 2022 (SP 0-8) Generated with Apx-77 Movement, Approach, & Intersection Results d_M, Delay for Movement [s/veh]14.31 14.31 14.31 24.98 24.98 24.98 13.20 15.73 15.74 9.60 53.96 57.01 Movement LOS B B B C C C B B B A D E d_A, Approach Delay [s/veh]14.31 24.98 15.54 53.89 Approach LOS B C B D d_I, Intersection Delay [s/veh]34.63 Intersection LOS C Intersection V/C 0.781 Other Modes g_Walk,mi, Effective Walk Time [s]9.0 9.0 9.0 9.0 M_corner, Corner Circulation Area [ft²/ped]0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 M_CW, Crosswalk Circulation Area [ft²/ped]0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 d_p, Pedestrian Delay [s]24.13 24.13 24.13 24.13 I_p,int, Pedestrian LOS Score for Intersection 1.744 2.041 3.014 3.339 Crosswalk LOS A B C C s_b, Saturation Flow Rate of the bicycle lane 2000 2000 2000 2000 c_b, Capacity of the bicycle lane [bicycles/h]677 677 738 738 d_b, Bicycle Delay [s]14.23 14.23 12.93 12.93 I_b,int, Bicycle LOS Score for Intersection 1.584 2.233 2.630 2.802 Bicycle LOS A B B C ----------------Ring 4 ----------------Ring 3 ------------876-Ring 2 ------------432-Ring 1 Sequence 10/13/202320 Scenario 1: 1 Existing PM Peak Hour Dowey Foster Bridge Residential Version 2022 (SP 0-8) Generated with Apx-78 EXISTING PLUS AMBIENT GROWTH PLUS CUMULATIVE Apx-79 Intersection Analysis Summary 10/13/2023Report File: G:\...\AMEAC.pdf Scenario 2 Existing Plus Ambient Growth Plus Cumulative AM Peak HourVistro File: G:\...\AME.vistro Dowey Foster Bridge Residential V/C, Delay, LOS: For two-way stop, these values are taken from the movement with the worst (highest) delay value. For all other control types, they are taken for the whole intersection. C20.90.716WB RightHCM 7th EditionSignalizedSuva St (NS) at Paramount Blvd (EW)4 C20.30.835SB ThruHCM 7th EditionAll-way stopSuva St (NS) at Guatemala Ave (EW)3 B16.00.634SWB ThruHCM 7th EditionSignalizedSuva St (NS) at Bluff Rd (EW)2 C17.10.637SB RightHCM 7th EditionAll-way stopSuva St (NS) at Scout Ave (EW)1 LOSDelay (s/veh)V/CWorst MvmtMethodControl TypeIntersection NameID 10/13/20231 Scenario 2: 2 Existing Plus Ambient Growth Plus Cumulative AM Peak Hour Dowey Foster Bridge Residential Version 2022 (SP 0-8) Generated with Apx-80 0.637Volume to Capacity (v/c): CLevel Of Service: 17.1Delay (sec / veh): 15 minutesAnalysis Period: HCM 7th EditionAnalysis Method: All-way stopControl Type: Intersection 1: Suva St (NS) at Scout Ave (EW) Intersection Level Of Service Report YesYesYesYesCrosswalk 0.000.000.000.00Grade [%] 30.0030.0025.0025.00Speed [mph] 0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00Exit Pocket Length [ft] 000000000000No. of Lanes in Exit Pocket 100.00100.00100.00100.00100.00100.00100.00100.00100.00100.00100.00100.00Entry Pocket Length [ft] 000000000000No. of Lanes in Entry Pocket 12.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.00Lane Width [ft] RightThruLeftRightThruLeftRightThruLeftRightThruLeftTurning Movement Lane Configuration WestboundEastboundSouthboundNorthboundApproach Name Intersection Setup 0000Pedestrian Volume [ped/h] 731041723083146157971041118197Total Analysis Volume [veh/h] 1826457213639242603049Total 15-Minute Volume [veh/h] 1.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.0000Other Adjustment Factor 0.70100.70100.70100.70100.70100.70100.70100.70100.70100.70100.70100.7010Peak Hour Factor 517312161581021106873183138Total Hourly Volume [veh/h] 000000000000Other Volume [veh/h] 000000000000Existing Site Adjustment Volume [veh/h] 000000000000Pass-by Trips [veh/h] 000000000000Diverted Trips [veh/h] 000000030000Site-Generated Trips [veh/h] 000000000000In-Process Volume [veh/h] 1.00401.00401.00401.00401.00401.00401.00401.00401.00401.00401.00401.0040Growth Factor 2.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.00Heavy Vehicles Percentage [%] 1.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.0000Base Volume Adjustment Factor 517312160581021106573183137Base Volume Input [veh/h] Name Volumes 10/13/20232 Scenario 2: 2 Existing Plus Ambient Growth Plus Cumulative AM Peak Hour Dowey Foster Bridge Residential Version 2022 (SP 0-8) Generated with Apx-81 CIntersection LOS 17.15Intersection Delay [s/veh] BCCCApproach LOS 12.2115.4820.0019.38Approach Delay [s/veh] 17.9519.8951.1064.45112.1397.0495th-Percentile Queue Length [ft] 0.720.802.042.584.493.8895th-Percentile Queue Length [veh] Movement, Approach, & Intersection Results 0.200.210.420.480.640.60Degree of Utilization, x 497456551475562529Capacity per Entry Lane [veh/h] Lanes Intersection Settings 10/13/20233 Scenario 2: 2 Existing Plus Ambient Growth Plus Cumulative AM Peak Hour Dowey Foster Bridge Residential Version 2022 (SP 0-8) Generated with Apx-82 0.634Volume to Capacity (v/c): BLevel Of Service: 16.0Delay (sec / veh): 15 minutesAnalysis Period: HCM 7th EditionAnalysis Method: SignalizedControl Type: Intersection 2: Suva St (NS) at Bluff Rd (EW) Intersection Level Of Service Report YesYesYesCrosswalk NoNoNoCurb Present 0.000.000.00Grade [%] 25.0025.0025.00Speed [mph] 0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00Exit Pocket Length [ft] 000000000000No. of Lanes in Exit Pocket 100.00100.00100.00100.00100.00100.00100.00100.00100.00100.00100.00100.00Entry Pocket Length [ft] 000000000000No. of Lanes in Entry Pocket 12.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.00Lane Width [ft] RightThruLeftLeft2RightThruLeftLeft2Right2RightThruLeftTurning Movement Lane Configuration EastboundSouthboundNorthboundApproach Name Intersection Setup 10/13/20234 Scenario 2: 2 Existing Plus Ambient Growth Plus Cumulative AM Peak Hour Dowey Foster Bridge Residential Version 2022 (SP 0-8) Generated with Apx-83 000Bicycle Volume [bicycles/h] 000v_ab, Corner Pedestrian Volume [ped/h] 000v_ci, Inbound Pedestrian Volume along the le 000v_co, Outbound Pedestrian Volume along th 000v_di, Inbound Pedestrian Volume crossing th 000v_do, Outbound Pedestrian Volume crossing 000000000000Local Bus Stopping Rate [/h] 000000000000On-Street Parking Maneuver Rate [/h] NoNoNoNoNoNoPresence of On-Street Parking 5031530811221542803Total Analysis Volume [veh/h] 1010177005513701Total 15-Minute Volume [veh/h] 1.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.0000Other Adjustment Factor 0.78300.78300.78300.78300.78300.78300.78300.78300.78300.78300.78300.7830Peak Hour Factor 4021424111173422192Total Hourly Volume [veh/h] 000000000000Right Turn on Red Volume [veh/h] 000000000000Other Volume [veh/h] 000000000000Existing Site Adjustment Volume [veh/h] 000000000000Pass-by Trips [veh/h] 000000000000Diverted Trips [veh/h] 000003000000Site-Generated Trips [veh/h] 000000000000In-Process Volume [veh/h] 1.00401.00401.00401.00401.00401.00401.00401.00401.00401.00401.00401.0040Growth Factor 0.00Proportion of CAVs [%] 2.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.00Heavy Vehicles Percentage [%] 1.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.0000Base Volume Adjustment Factor 4021423711172422182Base Volume Input [veh/h] Name Volumes 10/13/20235 Scenario 2: 2 Existing Plus Ambient Growth Plus Cumulative AM Peak Hour Dowey Foster Bridge Residential Version 2022 (SP 0-8) Generated with Apx-84 0Pedestrian Clearance [s] 0Pedestrian Walk [s] 0Pedestrian Signal Group Exclusive Pedestrian Phase 1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00I, Upstream Filtering Factor 0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0Detector Length [ft] 0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0Detector Location [ft] NoNoNoPedestrian Recall NoNoNoMaximum Recall NoNoNoMinimum Recall 0.02.00.00.00.02.00.00.00.00.02.00.0l2, Clearance Lost Time [s] 0.02.00.00.00.02.00.00.00.00.02.00.0l1, Start-Up Lost Time [s] NoNoNoRest In Walk 0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0Delayed Vehicle Green [s] 010000100000100Pedestrian Clearance [s] 050005000050Walk [s] 0.03.00.00.00.03.00.00.00.00.03.00.0Vehicle Extension [s] 019000190000190Split [s] 0.01.00.00.00.01.00.00.00.00.01.00.0All red [s] 0.03.00.00.00.03.00.00.00.00.03.00.0Amber [s] 012000012000001200Maximum Green [s] 010000100000100Minimum Green [s] ------------Lead / Lag Auxiliary Signal Groups 040006000020Signal Group PermissPermissPermissPermissPermissPermissPermissPermissPermissPermissPermissPermissControl Type Phasing & Timing 6.00Lost time [s] SingleBandPermissive Mode Lead Green - Beginning of First GreenOffset Reference 0.0Offset [s] Fully actuatedActuation Type Time of Day Pattern IsolatedCoordination Type 60Cycle Length [s] -Signal Coordination Group NoLocated in CBD Intersection Settings 10/13/20236 Scenario 2: 2 Existing Plus Ambient Growth Plus Cumulative AM Peak Hour Dowey Foster Bridge Residential Version 2022 (SP 0-8) Generated with Apx-85 3.54101.85221.2395th-Percentile Queue Length [ft/ln] 0.144.078.8595th-Percentile Queue Length [veh/ln] 1.9756.58128.3350th-Percentile Queue Length [ft/ln] 0.082.265.1350th-Percentile Queue Length [veh/ln] NoNoYesCritical Lane Group BBBLane Group LOS 16.5211.7515.85d, Delay for Lane Group [s/veh] 0.020.410.77X, volume / capacity Lane Group Results 1.001.001.00PF, progression factor 1.001.001.00Rp, platoon ratio 0.000.000.00d3, Initial Queue Delay [s] 0.020.341.81d2, Incremental Delay [s] 1.001.001.00I, Upstream Filtering Factor 0.110.110.11k, delay calibration 16.5011.4114.04d1, Uniform Delay [s] 411775721c, Capacity [veh/h] 169918641721s, saturation flow rate [veh/h] 0.010.170.32(v / s)_i Volume / Saturation Flow Rate 0.180.380.38g / C, Green / Cycle 91818g_i, Effective Green Time [s] 2.002.002.00l2, Clearance Lost Time [s] 2.002.002.00l1_p, Permitted Start-Up Lost Time [s] 4.004.004.00L, Total Lost Time per Cycle [s] 494949C, Cycle Length [s] CCCLane Group Lane Group Calculations 10/13/20237 Scenario 2: 2 Existing Plus Ambient Growth Plus Cumulative AM Peak Hour Dowey Foster Bridge Residential Version 2022 (SP 0-8) Generated with Apx-86 ABBBicycle LOS 1.5702.0782.116I_b,int, Bicycle LOS Score for Intersection 11.6211.6211.62d_b, Bicycle Delay [s] 617617617c_b, Capacity of the bicycle lane [bicycles/h] 200020002000s_b, Saturation Flow Rate of the bicycle lane AABCrosswalk LOS 1.6951.9342.395I_p,int, Pedestrian LOS Score for Intersection 16.1416.1416.14d_p, Pedestrian Delay [s] 0.000.000.00M_CW, Crosswalk Circulation Area [ft²/ped] 0.000.000.00M_corner, Corner Circulation Area [ft²/ped] 9.09.09.0g_Walk,mi, Effective Walk Time [s] Other Modes 0.634Intersection V/C BIntersection LOS 15.97d_I, Intersection Delay [s/veh] BBBApproach LOS 16.5211.7515.85d_A, Approach Delay [s/veh] BBBBBBBBBBBBMovement LOS 16.5216.5216.5216.5211.7511.7511.7511.7515.8515.8515.8515.85d_M, Delay for Movement [s/veh] Movement, Approach, & Intersection Results 10/13/20238 Scenario 2: 2 Existing Plus Ambient Growth Plus Cumulative AM Peak Hour Dowey Foster Bridge Residential Version 2022 (SP 0-8) Generated with Apx-87 YesYesCrosswalk NoNoCurb Present 0.000.00Grade [%] 25.0025.00Speed [mph] 0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00Exit Pocket Length [ft] 00000000No. of Lanes in Exit Pocket 100.00100.00100.00100.00100.00100.00100.00100.00Entry Pocket Length [ft] 00000000No. of Lanes in Entry Pocket 12.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.00Lane Width [ft] Right2RightThruLeftRight2RightThruLeftTurning Movement Lane Configuration SouthwestboundWestboundApproach Name Intersection Setup 10/13/20239 Scenario 2: 2 Existing Plus Ambient Growth Plus Cumulative AM Peak Hour Dowey Foster Bridge Residential Version 2022 (SP 0-8) Generated with Apx-88 00Bicycle Volume [bicycles/h] 00v_ab, Corner Pedestrian Volume [ped/h] 00v_ci, Inbound Pedestrian Volume along the le 00v_co, Outbound Pedestrian Volume along th 00v_di, Inbound Pedestrian Volume crossing th 00v_do, Outbound Pedestrian Volume crossing 00000000Local Bus Stopping Rate [/h] 00000000On-Street Parking Maneuver Rate [/h] NoNoNoNoPresence of On-Street Parking 402411530142Total Analysis Volume [veh/h] 1060011035Total 15-Minute Volume [veh/h] 1.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.0000Other Adjustment Factor 0.78300.78300.78300.78300.78300.78300.78300.7830Peak Hour Factor 301891420111Total Hourly Volume [veh/h] 00000000Right Turn on Red Volume [veh/h] 00000000Other Volume [veh/h] 00000000Existing Site Adjustment Volume [veh/h] 00000000Pass-by Trips [veh/h] 00000000Diverted Trips [veh/h] 00000000Site-Generated Trips [veh/h] 00000000In-Process Volume [veh/h] 1.00401.00401.00401.00401.00401.00401.00401.0040Growth Factor 0.00Proportion of CAVs [%] 2.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.00Heavy Vehicles Percentage [%] 1.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.0000Base Volume Adjustment Factor 301881420111Base Volume Input [veh/h] Name Volumes 10/13/202310 Scenario 2: 2 Existing Plus Ambient Growth Plus Cumulative AM Peak Hour Dowey Foster Bridge Residential Version 2022 (SP 0-8) Generated with Apx-89 0Pedestrian Clearance [s] 0Pedestrian Walk [s] 0Pedestrian Signal Group Exclusive Pedestrian Phase 1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00I, Upstream Filtering Factor 0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0Detector Length [ft] 0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0Detector Location [ft] NoNoPedestrian Recall NoNoMaximum Recall NoNoMinimum Recall 0.00.02.00.00.00.02.00.0l2, Clearance Lost Time [s] 0.00.02.00.00.00.02.00.0l1, Start-Up Lost Time [s] NoNoRest In Walk 0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0Delayed Vehicle Green [s] 0010000100Pedestrian Clearance [s] 00500050Walk [s] 0.00.03.00.00.00.03.00.0Vehicle Extension [s] 0022000190Split [s] 0.00.01.00.00.00.01.00.0All red [s] 0.00.03.00.00.00.03.00.0Amber [s] 001200001200Maximum Green [s] 0010000100Minimum Green [s] --------Lead / Lag Auxiliary Signal Groups 001000080Signal Group PermissivePermissivePermissivePermissivePermissivePermissivePermissivePermissiveControl Type Phasing & Timing 6.00Lost time [s] SingleBandPermissive Mode Lead Green - Beginning of First GreenOffset Reference 0.0Offset [s] Fully actuatedActuation Type Time of Day Pattern IsolatedCoordination Type 60Cycle Length [s] -Signal Coordination Group NoLocated in CBD Intersection Settings 10/13/202311 Scenario 2: 2 Existing Plus Ambient Growth Plus Cumulative AM Peak Hour Dowey Foster Bridge Residential Version 2022 (SP 0-8) Generated with Apx-90 113.6265.1895th-Percentile Queue Length [ft/ln] 4.542.6195th-Percentile Queue Length [veh/ln] 63.1236.2150th-Percentile Queue Length [ft/ln] 2.521.4550th-Percentile Queue Length [veh/ln] YesYesCritical Lane Group CBLane Group LOS 20.0918.52d, Delay for Lane Group [s/veh] 0.660.36X, volume / capacity Lane Group Results 1.001.00PF, progression factor 1.001.00Rp, platoon ratio 0.000.00d3, Initial Queue Delay [s] 2.060.53d2, Incremental Delay [s] 1.001.00I, Upstream Filtering Factor 0.110.11k, delay calibration 18.0317.99d1, Uniform Delay [s] 370414c, Capacity [veh/h] 18641510s, saturation flow rate [veh/h] 0.130.10(v / s)_i Volume / Saturation Flow Rate 0.200.18g / C, Green / Cycle 109g_i, Effective Green Time [s] 2.002.00l2, Clearance Lost Time [s] 0.002.00l1_p, Permitted Start-Up Lost Time [s] 4.004.00L, Total Lost Time per Cycle [s] 4949C, Cycle Length [s] CCLane Group Lane Group Calculations 10/13/202312 Scenario 2: 2 Existing Plus Ambient Growth Plus Cumulative AM Peak Hour Dowey Foster Bridge Residential Version 2022 (SP 0-8) Generated with Apx-91 Movement, Approach, & Intersection Results d_M, Delay for Movement [s/veh]18.52 18.52 18.52 18.52 20.09 20.09 20.09 20.09 Movement LOS B B B B C C C C d_A, Approach Delay [s/veh]18.52 20.09 Approach LOS B C d_I, Intersection Delay [s/veh]15.97 Intersection LOS B Intersection V/C 0.634 Other Modes g_Walk,mi, Effective Walk Time [s]9.0 9.0 M_corner, Corner Circulation Area [ft²/ped]0.00 0.00 M_CW, Crosswalk Circulation Area [ft²/ped]0.00 0.00 d_p, Pedestrian Delay [s]16.14 16.14 I_p,int, Pedestrian LOS Score for Intersection 1.838 1.818 Crosswalk LOS A A s_b, Saturation Flow Rate of the bicycle lane 2000 2000 c_b, Capacity of the bicycle lane [bicycles/h]617 741 d_b, Bicycle Delay [s]11.62 9.64 I_b,int, Bicycle LOS Score for Intersection 1.799 1.959 Bicycle LOS A A ----------------Ring 4 ----------------Ring 3 --------------86Ring 2 -------------1042Ring 1 Sequence 10/13/202313 Scenario 2: 2 Existing Plus Ambient Growth Plus Cumulative AM Peak Hour Dowey Foster Bridge Residential Version 2022 (SP 0-8) Generated with Apx-92 0.835Volume to Capacity (v/c): CLevel Of Service: 20.3Delay (sec / veh): 15 minutesAnalysis Period: HCM 7th EditionAnalysis Method: All-way stopControl Type: Intersection 3: Suva St (NS) at Guatemala Ave (EW) Intersection Level Of Service Report NoNoNoNoCrosswalk 0.000.000.000.00Grade [%] 25.0025.0025.0025.00Speed [mph] 0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00Exit Pocket Length [ft] 000000000000No. of Lanes in Exit Pocket 100.00100.00100.00100.00100.00100.00100.00100.00100.00100.00100.00100.00Entry Pocket Length [ft] 000000100000No. of Lanes in Entry Pocket 12.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.00Lane Width [ft] RightThruLeftRightThruLeftRightThruLeftRightThruLeftTurning Movement Lane Configuration WestboundEastboundSouthboundNorthboundApproach Name Intersection Setup 0000Pedestrian Volume [ped/h] 1482471932126185363115523114Total Analysis Volume [veh/h] 376258324691291584Total 15-Minute Volume [veh/h] 1.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.0000Other Adjustment Factor 0.84000.84000.84000.84000.84000.84000.84000.84000.84000.84000.84000.8400Peak Hour Factor 124206162710615530597419412Total Hourly Volume [veh/h] 000000000000Other Volume [veh/h] 000000000000Existing Site Adjustment Volume [veh/h] 000000000000Pass-by Trips [veh/h] 000000000000Diverted Trips [veh/h] 002300030000Site-Generated Trips [veh/h] 000000000000In-Process Volume [veh/h] 1.00401.00401.00401.00401.00401.00401.00401.00401.00401.00401.00401.0040Growth Factor 2.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.00Heavy Vehicles Percentage [%] 1.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.0000Base Volume Adjustment Factor 124204132710615430197419312Base Volume Input [veh/h] Name Volumes 10/13/202314 Scenario 2: 2 Existing Plus Ambient Growth Plus Cumulative AM Peak Hour Dowey Foster Bridge Residential Version 2022 (SP 0-8) Generated with Apx-93 CIntersection LOS 20.27Intersection Delay [s/veh] BBDBApproach LOS 12.1113.2226.7114.04Approach Delay [s/veh] 33.1836.6128.68218.4054.9995th-Percentile Queue Length [ft] 1.331.461.158.742.2095th-Percentile Queue Length [veh] Movement, Approach, & Intersection Results 0.310.340.280.840.44Degree of Utilization, x 573528659572573Capacity per Entry Lane [veh/h] Lanes Intersection Settings 10/13/202315 Scenario 2: 2 Existing Plus Ambient Growth Plus Cumulative AM Peak Hour Dowey Foster Bridge Residential Version 2022 (SP 0-8) Generated with Apx-94 0.716Volume to Capacity (v/c): CLevel Of Service: 20.9Delay (sec / veh): 15 minutesAnalysis Period: HCM 7th EditionAnalysis Method: SignalizedControl Type: Intersection 4: Suva St (NS) at Paramount Blvd (EW) Intersection Level Of Service Report YesYesYesYesCrosswalk NoNoNoNoCurb Present 0.000.000.000.00Grade [%] 40.0040.0025.0025.00Speed [mph] 0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00Exit Pocket Length [ft] 000000000000No. of Lanes in Exit Pocket 100.00100.00115.00100.00100.00225.00100.00100.00100.00100.00100.00100.00Entry Pocket Length [ft] 001001000000No. of Lanes in Entry Pocket 12.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.00Lane Width [ft] RightThruLeftRightThruLeftRightThruLeftRightThruLeftTurning Movement Lane Configuration WestboundEastboundSouthboundNorthboundApproach Name Intersection Setup 10/13/202316 Scenario 2: 2 Existing Plus Ambient Growth Plus Cumulative AM Peak Hour Dowey Foster Bridge Residential Version 2022 (SP 0-8) Generated with Apx-95 0000Bicycle Volume [bicycles/h] 0000v_ab, Corner Pedestrian Volume [ped/h] 0000v_ci, Inbound Pedestrian Volume crossing mi 0000v_co, Outbound Pedestrian Volume crossing 0000v_di, Inbound Pedestrian Volume crossing m 0000v_do, Outbound Pedestrian Volume crossing 000000000000Local Bus Stopping Rate [/h] 000000000000On-Street Parking Maneuver Rate [/h] NoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoPresence of On-Street Parking 1341129139115710717125212371716Total Analysis Volume [veh/h] 34282322892743653944Total 15-Minute Volume [veh/h] 1.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.0000Other Adjustment Factor 0.98500.98500.98500.98500.98500.98500.98500.98500.98500.98500.98500.9850Peak Hour Factor 1321112139114010516825209361716Total Hourly Volume [veh/h] 000000000000Right Turn on Red Volume [veh/h] 000000000000Other Volume [veh/h] 000000000000Existing Site Adjustment Volume [veh/h] 000000000000Pass-by Trips [veh/h] 000000000000Diverted Trips [veh/h] 0800150008200Site-Generated Trips [veh/h] 000000000000In-Process Volume [veh/h] 1.00401.00401.00401.00401.00401.00401.00401.00401.00401.00401.00401.0040Growth Factor 0.00Proportion of CAVs [%] 2.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.00Heavy Vehicles Percentage [%] 1.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.0000Base Volume Adjustment Factor 1311100139112110516725200341716Base Volume Input [veh/h] Name Volumes 10/13/202317 Scenario 2: 2 Existing Plus Ambient Growth Plus Cumulative AM Peak Hour Dowey Foster Bridge Residential Version 2022 (SP 0-8) Generated with Apx-96 0Pedestrian Clearance [s] 0Pedestrian Walk [s] 0Pedestrian Signal Group Exclusive Pedestrian Phase 1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00I, Upstream Filtering Factor 0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0Detector Length [ft] 0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0Detector Location [ft] NoNoNoNoNoNoPedestrian Recall NoNoNoNoNoNoMaximum Recall NoNoNoNoNoNoMinimum Recall 0.02.02.00.02.02.00.02.00.00.02.00.0l2, Clearance Lost Time [s] 0.02.02.00.02.02.00.02.00.00.02.00.0l1, Start-Up Lost Time [s] NoNoNoNoRest In Walk 0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0Delayed Vehicle Green [s] 07007001700170Pedestrian Clearance [s] 050050050050Walk [s] 0.03.03.00.03.03.00.03.00.00.03.00.0Vehicle Extension [s] 028110281102600260Split [s] 0.01.01.00.01.01.00.01.00.00.01.00.0All red [s] 0.03.03.00.03.03.00.03.00.00.03.00.0Amber [s] 012012001201200120001200Maximum Green [s] 0107010701000100Minimum Green [s] --Lead--Lead------Lead / Lag Auxiliary Signal Groups 047083020060Signal Group PermissPermissProtPerPermissPermissProtPerPermissPermissPermissPermissPermissPermissControl Type Phasing & Timing 6.00Lost time [s] SingleBandPermissive Mode Lead Green - Beginning of First GreenOffset Reference 0.0Offset [s] Fully actuatedActuation Type Time of Day Pattern IsolatedCoordination Type 65Cycle Length [s] -Signal Coordination Group NoLocated in CBD Intersection Settings 10/13/202318 Scenario 2: 2 Existing Plus Ambient Growth Plus Cumulative AM Peak Hour Dowey Foster Bridge Residential Version 2022 (SP 0-8) Generated with Apx-97 340.54347.243.27249.68250.1228.50248.6532.5195th-Percentile Queue Length [ft/ln] 13.6213.890.139.9910.001.149.951.3095th-Percentile Queue Length [veh/ln] 219.15224.411.81149.44149.7715.83148.6718.0650th-Percentile Queue Length [ft/ln] 8.778.980.075.985.990.635.950.7250th-Percentile Queue Length [veh/ln] YesNoNoNoNoYesYesNoCritical Lane Group CCABBBCBLane Group LOS 25.9925.539.8415.9415.9412.8523.8514.58d, Delay for Lane Group [s/veh] 0.930.930.040.710.710.260.660.11X, volume / capacity Lane Group Results 1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00PF, progression factor 1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00Rp, platoon ratio 0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00d3, Initial Queue Delay [s] 6.355.930.041.141.140.335.500.35d2, Incremental Delay [s] 1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00I, Upstream Filtering Factor 0.110.110.110.110.110.110.500.50k, delay calibration 19.6319.609.8014.8014.8012.5218.3514.23d1, Uniform Delay [s] 668694359822824413617638c, Capacity [veh/h] 180118706141865187075415141618s, saturation flow rate [veh/h] 0.340.340.020.310.310.140.270.04(v / s)_i Volume / Saturation Flow Rate 0.370.370.530.440.440.530.350.35g / C, Green / Cycle 2424342929342323g_i, Effective Green Time [s] 2.002.000.002.002.000.002.002.00l2, Clearance Lost Time [s] 0.000.000.000.000.000.002.002.00l1_p, Permitted Start-Up Lost Time [s] 4.004.004.004.004.004.004.004.00L, Total Lost Time per Cycle [s] 6565656565656565C, Cycle Length [s] CCLCCLCCLane Group Lane Group Calculations 10/13/202319 Scenario 2: 2 Existing Plus Ambient Growth Plus Cumulative AM Peak Hour Dowey Foster Bridge Residential Version 2022 (SP 0-8) Generated with Apx-98 Movement, Approach, & Intersection Results d_M, Delay for Movement [s/veh]14.58 14.58 14.58 23.85 23.85 23.85 12.85 15.94 15.94 9.84 25.73 25.99 Movement LOS B B B C C C B B B A C C d_A, Approach Delay [s/veh]14.58 23.85 15.68 25.59 Approach LOS B C B C d_I, Intersection Delay [s/veh]20.93 Intersection LOS C Intersection V/C 0.716 Other Modes g_Walk,mi, Effective Walk Time [s]9.0 9.0 9.0 9.0 M_corner, Corner Circulation Area [ft²/ped]0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 M_CW, Crosswalk Circulation Area [ft²/ped]0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 d_p, Pedestrian Delay [s]24.13 24.13 24.13 24.13 I_p,int, Pedestrian LOS Score for Intersection 1.756 2.032 2.981 3.284 Crosswalk LOS A B C C s_b, Saturation Flow Rate of the bicycle lane 2000 2000 2000 2000 c_b, Capacity of the bicycle lane [bicycles/h]677 677 738 738 d_b, Bicycle Delay [s]14.23 14.23 12.94 12.94 I_b,int, Bicycle LOS Score for Intersection 1.675 2.233 2.610 2.612 Bicycle LOS A B B B ----------------Ring 4 ----------------Ring 3 ------------876-Ring 2 ------------432-Ring 1 Sequence 10/13/202320 Scenario 2: 2 Existing Plus Ambient Growth Plus Cumulative AM Peak Hour Dowey Foster Bridge Residential Version 2022 (SP 0-8) Generated with Apx-99 Intersection Analysis Summary 10/13/2023Report File: G:\...\PMEAC.pdf Scenario 2 Existing Plus Ambient Growth Plus Cumulative PM Peak HourVistro File: G:\...\PME.vistro Dowey Foster Bridge Residential V/C, Delay, LOS: For two-way stop, these values are taken from the movement with the worst (highest) delay value. For all other control types, they are taken for the whole intersection. D38.60.795WB RightHCM 7th EditionSignalizedSuva St (NS) at Paramount Blvd (EW)4 D29.10.945SB ThruHCM 7th EditionAll-way stopSuva St (NS) at Guatemala Ave (EW)3 B12.80.488WB LeftHCM 7th EditionSignalizedSuva St (NS) at Bluff Rd (EW)2 B11.70.450NB LeftHCM 7th EditionAll-way stopSuva St (NS) at Scout Ave (EW)1 LOSDelay (s/veh)V/CWorst MvmtMethodControl TypeIntersection NameID 10/13/20231 Scenario 2: 2 Existing Plus Ambient Growth Plus Cumulative PM Peak Hour Dowey Foster Bridge Residential Version 2022 (SP 0-8) Generated with Apx-100 0.450Volume to Capacity (v/c): BLevel Of Service: 11.7Delay (sec / veh): 15 minutesAnalysis Period: HCM 7th EditionAnalysis Method: All-way stopControl Type: Intersection 1: Suva St (NS) at Scout Ave (EW) Intersection Level Of Service Report YesYesYesYesCrosswalk 0.000.000.000.00Grade [%] 30.0030.0025.0025.00Speed [mph] 0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00Exit Pocket Length [ft] 000000000000No. of Lanes in Exit Pocket 100.00100.00100.00100.00100.00100.00100.00100.00100.00100.00100.00100.00Entry Pocket Length [ft] 000000000000No. of Lanes in Entry Pocket 12.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.00Lane Width [ft] RightThruLeftRightThruLeftRightThruLeftRightThruLeftTurning Movement Lane Configuration WestboundEastboundSouthboundNorthboundApproach Name Intersection Setup 0000Pedestrian Volume [ped/h] 5631425392243618275114171Total Analysis Volume [veh/h] 116363236946212943Total 15-Minute Volume [veh/h] 1.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.0000Other Adjustment Factor 0.96100.96100.96100.96100.96100.96100.96100.96100.96100.96100.96100.9610Peak Hour Factor 5611324388233517575110164Total Hourly Volume [veh/h] 000000000000Other Volume [veh/h] 000000000000Existing Site Adjustment Volume [veh/h] 000000000000Pass-by Trips [veh/h] 000000000000Diverted Trips [veh/h] 000000010020Site-Generated Trips [veh/h] 000000000000In-Process Volume [veh/h] 1.00401.00401.00401.00401.00401.00401.00401.00401.00401.00401.00401.0040Growth Factor 2.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.00Heavy Vehicles Percentage [%] 1.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.0000Base Volume Adjustment Factor 5611324288233517375108163Base Volume Input [veh/h] Name Volumes 10/13/20232 Scenario 2: 2 Existing Plus Ambient Growth Plus Cumulative PM Peak Hour Dowey Foster Bridge Residential Version 2022 (SP 0-8) Generated with Apx-101 BIntersection LOS 11.68Intersection Delay [s/veh] ABBBApproach LOS 9.8811.1711.3813.06Approach Delay [s/veh] 5.986.2444.8518.7038.2958.2395th-Percentile Queue Length [ft] 0.240.251.790.751.532.3395th-Percentile Queue Length [veh] Movement, Approach, & Intersection Results 0.070.080.380.200.340.45Degree of Utilization, x 553532662576653645Capacity per Entry Lane [veh/h] Lanes Intersection Settings 10/13/20233 Scenario 2: 2 Existing Plus Ambient Growth Plus Cumulative PM Peak Hour Dowey Foster Bridge Residential Version 2022 (SP 0-8) Generated with Apx-102 0.488Volume to Capacity (v/c): BLevel Of Service: 12.8Delay (sec / veh): 15 minutesAnalysis Period: HCM 7th EditionAnalysis Method: SignalizedControl Type: Intersection 2: Suva St (NS) at Bluff Rd (EW) Intersection Level Of Service Report YesYesYesCrosswalk NoNoNoCurb Present 0.000.000.00Grade [%] 25.0025.0025.00Speed [mph] 0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00Exit Pocket Length [ft] 000000000000No. of Lanes in Exit Pocket 100.00100.00100.00100.00100.00100.00100.00100.00100.00100.00100.00100.00Entry Pocket Length [ft] 000000000000No. of Lanes in Entry Pocket 12.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.00Lane Width [ft] RightThruLeftLeft2RightThruLeftLeft2Right2RightThruLeftTurning Movement Lane Configuration EastboundSouthboundNorthboundApproach Name Intersection Setup 10/13/20234 Scenario 2: 2 Existing Plus Ambient Growth Plus Cumulative PM Peak Hour Dowey Foster Bridge Residential Version 2022 (SP 0-8) Generated with Apx-103 000Bicycle Volume [bicycles/h] 000v_ab, Corner Pedestrian Volume [ped/h] 000v_ci, Inbound Pedestrian Volume along the le 000v_co, Outbound Pedestrian Volume along th 000v_di, Inbound Pedestrian Volume crossing th 000v_do, Outbound Pedestrian Volume crossing 000000000000Local Bus Stopping Rate [/h] 000000000000On-Street Parking Maneuver Rate [/h] NoNoNoNoNoNoPresence of On-Street Parking 200034338317582650Total Analysis Volume [veh/h] 1000110821442660Total 15-Minute Volume [veh/h] 1.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.0000Other Adjustment Factor 0.98800.98800.98800.98800.98800.98800.98800.98800.98800.98800.98800.9880Peak Hour Factor 200034288317382620Total Hourly Volume [veh/h] 000000000000Right Turn on Red Volume [veh/h] 000000000000Other Volume [veh/h] 000000000000Existing Site Adjustment Volume [veh/h] 000000000000Pass-by Trips [veh/h] 000000000000Diverted Trips [veh/h] 000001000020Site-Generated Trips [veh/h] 000000000000In-Process Volume [veh/h] 1.00401.00401.00401.00401.00401.00401.00401.00401.00401.00401.00401.0040Growth Factor 0.00Proportion of CAVs [%] 2.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.00Heavy Vehicles Percentage [%] 1.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.0000Base Volume Adjustment Factor 200034258317282590Base Volume Input [veh/h] Name Volumes 10/13/20235 Scenario 2: 2 Existing Plus Ambient Growth Plus Cumulative PM Peak Hour Dowey Foster Bridge Residential Version 2022 (SP 0-8) Generated with Apx-104 0Pedestrian Clearance [s] 0Pedestrian Walk [s] 0Pedestrian Signal Group Exclusive Pedestrian Phase 1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00I, Upstream Filtering Factor 0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0Detector Length [ft] 0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0Detector Location [ft] NoNoNoPedestrian Recall NoNoNoMaximum Recall NoNoNoMinimum Recall 0.02.00.00.00.02.00.00.00.00.02.00.0l2, Clearance Lost Time [s] 0.02.00.00.00.02.00.00.00.00.02.00.0l1, Start-Up Lost Time [s] NoNoNoRest In Walk 0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0Delayed Vehicle Green [s] 010000100000100Pedestrian Clearance [s] 050005000050Walk [s] 0.03.00.00.00.03.00.00.00.00.03.00.0Vehicle Extension [s] 020000210000210Split [s] 0.01.00.00.00.01.00.00.00.00.01.00.0All red [s] 0.03.00.00.00.03.00.00.00.00.03.00.0Amber [s] 012000012000001200Maximum Green [s] 010000100000100Minimum Green [s] ------------Lead / Lag Auxiliary Signal Groups 040006000020Signal Group PermissPermissPermissPermissPermissPermissPermissPermissPermissPermissPermissPermissControl Type Phasing & Timing 6.00Lost time [s] SingleBandPermissive Mode Lead Green - Beginning of First GreenOffset Reference 0.0Offset [s] Fully actuatedActuation Type Time of Day Pattern IsolatedCoordination Type 60Cycle Length [s] -Signal Coordination Group NoLocated in CBD Intersection Settings 10/13/20236 Scenario 2: 2 Existing Plus Ambient Growth Plus Cumulative PM Peak Hour Dowey Foster Bridge Residential Version 2022 (SP 0-8) Generated with Apx-105 0.62124.49129.7295th-Percentile Queue Length [ft/ln] 0.024.985.1995th-Percentile Queue Length [veh/ln] 0.3469.1672.0750th-Percentile Queue Length [ft/ln] 0.012.772.8850th-Percentile Queue Length [veh/ln] NoNoYesCritical Lane Group BBBLane Group LOS 14.5212.3312.95d, Delay for Lane Group [s/veh] 0.010.640.69X, volume / capacity Lane Group Results 1.001.001.00PF, progression factor 1.001.001.00Rp, platoon ratio 0.000.000.00d3, Initial Queue Delay [s] 0.010.991.35d2, Incremental Delay [s] 1.001.001.00I, Upstream Filtering Factor 0.110.110.11k, delay calibration 14.5111.3411.60d1, Uniform Delay [s] 266697646c, Capacity [veh/h] 141818631712s, saturation flow rate [veh/h] 0.000.240.26(v / s)_i Volume / Saturation Flow Rate 0.120.320.32g / C, Green / Cycle 41212g_i, Effective Green Time [s] 2.002.002.00l2, Clearance Lost Time [s] 2.002.002.00l1_p, Permitted Start-Up Lost Time [s] 4.004.004.00L, Total Lost Time per Cycle [s] 373737C, Cycle Length [s] CCCLane Group Lane Group Calculations 10/13/20237 Scenario 2: 2 Existing Plus Ambient Growth Plus Cumulative PM Peak Hour Dowey Foster Bridge Residential Version 2022 (SP 0-8) Generated with Apx-106 ABBBicycle LOS 1.5632.2842.010I_b,int, Bicycle LOS Score for Intersection 6.085.525.52d_b, Bicycle Delay [s] 858912912c_b, Capacity of the bicycle lane [bicycles/h] 200020002000s_b, Saturation Flow Rate of the bicycle lane AABCrosswalk LOS 1.6691.9602.201I_p,int, Pedestrian LOS Score for Intersection 10.7310.7310.73d_p, Pedestrian Delay [s] 0.000.000.00M_CW, Crosswalk Circulation Area [ft²/ped] 0.000.000.00M_corner, Corner Circulation Area [ft²/ped] 9.09.09.0g_Walk,mi, Effective Walk Time [s] Other Modes 0.488Intersection V/C BIntersection LOS 12.83d_I, Intersection Delay [s/veh] BBBApproach LOS 14.5212.3312.95d_A, Approach Delay [s/veh] BBBBBBBBBBBBMovement LOS 14.5214.5214.5214.5212.3312.3312.3312.3312.9512.9512.9512.95d_M, Delay for Movement [s/veh] Movement, Approach, & Intersection Results 10/13/20238 Scenario 2: 2 Existing Plus Ambient Growth Plus Cumulative PM Peak Hour Dowey Foster Bridge Residential Version 2022 (SP 0-8) Generated with Apx-107 YesYesCrosswalk NoNoCurb Present 0.000.00Grade [%] 25.0025.00Speed [mph] 0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00Exit Pocket Length [ft] 00000000No. of Lanes in Exit Pocket 100.00100.00100.00100.00100.00100.00100.00100.00Entry Pocket Length [ft] 00000000No. of Lanes in Entry Pocket 12.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.00Lane Width [ft] Right2RightThruLeftRight2RightThruLeftTurning Movement Lane Configuration SouthwestboundWestboundApproach Name Intersection Setup 10/13/20239 Scenario 2: 2 Existing Plus Ambient Growth Plus Cumulative PM Peak Hour Dowey Foster Bridge Residential Version 2022 (SP 0-8) Generated with Apx-108 00Bicycle Volume [bicycles/h] 00v_ab, Corner Pedestrian Volume [ped/h] 00v_ci, Inbound Pedestrian Volume along the le 00v_co, Outbound Pedestrian Volume along th 00v_di, Inbound Pedestrian Volume crossing th 00v_do, Outbound Pedestrian Volume crossing 00000000Local Bus Stopping Rate [/h] 00000000On-Street Parking Maneuver Rate [/h] NoNoNoNoPresence of On-Street Parking 50202223051Total Analysis Volume [veh/h] 1051111013Total 15-Minute Volume [veh/h] 1.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.0000Other Adjustment Factor 0.98800.98800.98800.98800.98800.98800.98800.9880Peak Hour Factor 50200223050Total Hourly Volume [veh/h] 00000000Right Turn on Red Volume [veh/h] 00000000Other Volume [veh/h] 00000000Existing Site Adjustment Volume [veh/h] 00000000Pass-by Trips [veh/h] 00000000Diverted Trips [veh/h] 00000000Site-Generated Trips [veh/h] 00000000In-Process Volume [veh/h] 1.00401.00401.00401.00401.00401.00401.00401.0040Growth Factor 0.00Proportion of CAVs [%] 2.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.00Heavy Vehicles Percentage [%] 1.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.0000Base Volume Adjustment Factor 50199223050Base Volume Input [veh/h] Name Volumes 10/13/202310 Scenario 2: 2 Existing Plus Ambient Growth Plus Cumulative PM Peak Hour Dowey Foster Bridge Residential Version 2022 (SP 0-8) Generated with Apx-109 0Pedestrian Clearance [s] 0Pedestrian Walk [s] 0Pedestrian Signal Group Exclusive Pedestrian Phase 1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00I, Upstream Filtering Factor 0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0Detector Length [ft] 0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0Detector Location [ft] NoNoPedestrian Recall NoNoMaximum Recall NoNoMinimum Recall 0.00.02.00.00.00.02.00.0l2, Clearance Lost Time [s] 0.00.02.00.00.00.02.00.0l1, Start-Up Lost Time [s] NoNoRest In Walk 0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0Delayed Vehicle Green [s] 0010000100Pedestrian Clearance [s] 00500050Walk [s] 0.00.03.00.00.00.03.00.0Vehicle Extension [s] 0019000200Split [s] 0.00.01.00.00.00.01.00.0All red [s] 0.00.03.00.00.00.03.00.0Amber [s] 001200001200Maximum Green [s] 0010000100Minimum Green [s] --------Lead / Lag Auxiliary Signal Groups 001000080Signal Group PermissivePermissivePermissivePermissivePermissivePermissivePermissivePermissiveControl Type Phasing & Timing 6.00Lost time [s] SingleBandPermissive Mode Lead Green - Beginning of First GreenOffset Reference 0.0Offset [s] Fully actuatedActuation Type Time of Day Pattern IsolatedCoordination Type 60Cycle Length [s] -Signal Coordination Group NoLocated in CBD Intersection Settings 10/13/202311 Scenario 2: 2 Existing Plus Ambient Growth Plus Cumulative PM Peak Hour Dowey Foster Bridge Residential Version 2022 (SP 0-8) Generated with Apx-110 59.7317.6695th-Percentile Queue Length [ft/ln] 2.390.7195th-Percentile Queue Length [veh/ln] 33.189.8150th-Percentile Queue Length [ft/ln] 1.330.3950th-Percentile Queue Length [veh/ln] YesYesCritical Lane Group BBLane Group LOS 13.0115.14d, Delay for Lane Group [s/veh] 0.470.15X, volume / capacity Lane Group Results 1.001.00PF, progression factor 1.001.00Rp, platoon ratio 0.000.00d3, Initial Queue Delay [s] 0.780.18d2, Incremental Delay [s] 1.001.00I, Upstream Filtering Factor 0.110.11k, delay calibration 12.2314.96d1, Uniform Delay [s] 443374c, Capacity [veh/h] 18611586s, saturation flow rate [veh/h] 0.110.04(v / s)_i Volume / Saturation Flow Rate 0.240.12g / C, Green / Cycle 94g_i, Effective Green Time [s] 2.002.00l2, Clearance Lost Time [s] 0.002.00l1_p, Permitted Start-Up Lost Time [s] 4.004.00L, Total Lost Time per Cycle [s] 3737C, Cycle Length [s] CCLane Group Lane Group Calculations 10/13/202312 Scenario 2: 2 Existing Plus Ambient Growth Plus Cumulative PM Peak Hour Dowey Foster Bridge Residential Version 2022 (SP 0-8) Generated with Apx-111 Movement, Approach, & Intersection Results d_M, Delay for Movement [s/veh]15.14 15.14 15.14 15.14 13.01 13.01 13.01 13.01 Movement LOS B B B B B B B B d_A, Approach Delay [s/veh]15.14 13.01 Approach LOS B B d_I, Intersection Delay [s/veh]12.83 Intersection LOS B Intersection V/C 0.488 Other Modes g_Walk,mi, Effective Walk Time [s]9.0 9.0 M_corner, Corner Circulation Area [ft²/ped]0.00 0.00 M_CW, Crosswalk Circulation Area [ft²/ped]0.00 0.00 d_p, Pedestrian Delay [s]10.73 10.73 I_p,int, Pedestrian LOS Score for Intersection 1.781 1.773 Crosswalk LOS A A s_b, Saturation Flow Rate of the bicycle lane 2000 2000 c_b, Capacity of the bicycle lane [bicycles/h]858 805 d_b, Bicycle Delay [s]6.08 6.66 I_b,int, Bicycle LOS Score for Intersection 1.649 1.896 Bicycle LOS A A ----------------Ring 4 ----------------Ring 3 --------------86Ring 2 -------------1042Ring 1 Sequence 10/13/202313 Scenario 2: 2 Existing Plus Ambient Growth Plus Cumulative PM Peak Hour Dowey Foster Bridge Residential Version 2022 (SP 0-8) Generated with Apx-112 0.945Volume to Capacity (v/c): DLevel Of Service: 29.1Delay (sec / veh): 15 minutesAnalysis Period: HCM 7th EditionAnalysis Method: All-way stopControl Type: Intersection 3: Suva St (NS) at Guatemala Ave (EW) Intersection Level Of Service Report NoNoNoNoCrosswalk 0.000.000.000.00Grade [%] 25.0025.0025.0025.00Speed [mph] 0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00Exit Pocket Length [ft] 000000000000No. of Lanes in Exit Pocket 100.00100.00100.00100.00100.00100.00100.00100.00100.00100.00100.00100.00Entry Pocket Length [ft] 000000100000No. of Lanes in Entry Pocket 12.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.00Lane Width [ft] RightThruLeftRightThruLeftRightThruLeftRightThruLeftTurning Movement Lane Configuration WestboundEastboundSouthboundNorthboundApproach Name Intersection Setup 0000Pedestrian Volume [ped/h] 9326141336761334171361435214Total Analysis Volume [veh/h] 2374391933104344884Total 15-Minute Volume [veh/h] 1.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.0000Other Adjustment Factor 0.99000.99000.99000.99000.99000.99000.99000.99000.99000.99000.99000.9900Peak Hour Factor 9226141336751324131351434814Total Hourly Volume [veh/h] 000000000000Other Volume [veh/h] 000000000000Existing Site Adjustment Volume [veh/h] 000000000000Pass-by Trips [veh/h] 000000000000Diverted Trips [veh/h] 000100010222Site-Generated Trips [veh/h] 000000000000In-Process Volume [veh/h] 1.00401.00401.00401.00401.00401.00401.00401.00401.00401.00401.00401.0040Growth Factor 2.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.00Heavy Vehicles Percentage [%] 1.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.0000Base Volume Adjustment Factor 9226141236751314101341234512Base Volume Input [veh/h] Name Volumes 10/13/202314 Scenario 2: 2 Existing Plus Ambient Growth Plus Cumulative PM Peak Hour Dowey Foster Bridge Residential Version 2022 (SP 0-8) Generated with Apx-113 DIntersection LOS 29.12Intersection Delay [s/veh] BBECApproach LOS 11.8512.4841.3118.61Approach Delay [s/veh] 24.0924.2318.13312.89110.4995th-Percentile Queue Length [ft] 0.960.970.7312.524.4295th-Percentile Queue Length [veh] Movement, Approach, & Intersection Results 0.250.250.200.940.63Degree of Utilization, x 539504677586602Capacity per Entry Lane [veh/h] Lanes Intersection Settings 10/13/202315 Scenario 2: 2 Existing Plus Ambient Growth Plus Cumulative PM Peak Hour Dowey Foster Bridge Residential Version 2022 (SP 0-8) Generated with Apx-114 0.795Volume to Capacity (v/c): DLevel Of Service: 38.6Delay (sec / veh): 15 minutesAnalysis Period: HCM 7th EditionAnalysis Method: SignalizedControl Type: Intersection 4: Suva St (NS) at Paramount Blvd (EW) Intersection Level Of Service Report YesYesYesYesCrosswalk NoNoNoNoCurb Present 0.000.000.000.00Grade [%] 40.0040.0025.0025.00Speed [mph] 0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00Exit Pocket Length [ft] 000000000000No. of Lanes in Exit Pocket 100.00100.00115.00100.00100.00225.00100.00100.00100.00100.00100.00100.00Entry Pocket Length [ft] 001001000000No. of Lanes in Entry Pocket 12.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.00Lane Width [ft] RightThruLeftRightThruLeftRightThruLeftRightThruLeftTurning Movement Lane Configuration WestboundEastboundSouthboundNorthboundApproach Name Intersection Setup 10/13/202316 Scenario 2: 2 Existing Plus Ambient Growth Plus Cumulative PM Peak Hour Dowey Foster Bridge Residential Version 2022 (SP 0-8) Generated with Apx-115 0000Bicycle Volume [bicycles/h] 0000v_ab, Corner Pedestrian Volume [ped/h] 0000v_ci, Inbound Pedestrian Volume crossing mi 0000v_co, Outbound Pedestrian Volume crossing 0000v_di, Inbound Pedestrian Volume crossing m 0000v_do, Outbound Pedestrian Volume crossing 000000000000Local Bus Stopping Rate [/h] 000000000000On-Street Parking Maneuver Rate [/h] NoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoPresence of On-Street Parking 1901330172511889916829216465Total Analysis Volume [veh/h] 47332462972542754121Total 15-Minute Volume [veh/h] 1.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.0000Other Adjustment Factor 0.96500.96500.96500.96500.96500.96500.96500.96500.96500.96500.96500.9650Peak Hour Factor 1831283162411469616228208465Total Hourly Volume [veh/h] 000000000000Right Turn on Red Volume [veh/h] 000000000000Other Volume [veh/h] 000000000000Existing Site Adjustment Volume [veh/h] 000000000000Pass-by Trips [veh/h] 000000000000Diverted Trips [veh/h] 6152090002000Site-Generated Trips [veh/h] 000000000000In-Process Volume [veh/h] 1.00401.00401.00401.00401.00401.00401.00401.00401.00401.00401.00401.0040Growth Factor 0.00Proportion of CAVs [%] 2.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.00Heavy Vehicles Percentage [%] 1.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.0000Base Volume Adjustment Factor 1761263142411329616128205465Base Volume Input [veh/h] Name Volumes 10/13/202317 Scenario 2: 2 Existing Plus Ambient Growth Plus Cumulative PM Peak Hour Dowey Foster Bridge Residential Version 2022 (SP 0-8) Generated with Apx-116 0Pedestrian Clearance [s] 0Pedestrian Walk [s] 0Pedestrian Signal Group Exclusive Pedestrian Phase 1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00I, Upstream Filtering Factor 0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0Detector Length [ft] 0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0Detector Location [ft] NoNoNoNoNoNoPedestrian Recall NoNoNoNoNoNoMaximum Recall NoNoNoNoNoNoMinimum Recall 0.02.02.00.02.02.00.02.00.00.02.00.0l2, Clearance Lost Time [s] 0.02.02.00.02.02.00.02.00.00.02.00.0l1, Start-Up Lost Time [s] NoNoNoNoRest In Walk 0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0Delayed Vehicle Green [s] 07007001700170Pedestrian Clearance [s] 050050050050Walk [s] 0.03.03.00.03.03.00.03.00.00.03.00.0Vehicle Extension [s] 028110281102600260Split [s] 0.01.01.00.01.01.00.01.00.00.01.00.0All red [s] 0.03.03.00.03.03.00.03.00.00.03.00.0Amber [s] 012012001201200120001200Maximum Green [s] 0107010701000100Minimum Green [s] --Lead--Lead------Lead / Lag Auxiliary Signal Groups 047083020060Signal Group PermissPermissProtPerPermissPermissProtPerPermissPermissPermissPermissPermissPermissControl Type Phasing & Timing 6.00Lost time [s] SingleBandPermissive Mode Lead Green - Beginning of First GreenOffset Reference 0.0Offset [s] Fully actuatedActuation Type Time of Day Pattern IsolatedCoordination Type 65Cycle Length [s] -Signal Coordination Group NoLocated in CBD Intersection Settings 10/13/202318 Scenario 2: 2 Existing Plus Ambient Growth Plus Cumulative PM Peak Hour Dowey Foster Bridge Residential Version 2022 (SP 0-8) Generated with Apx-117 640.95619.104.12258.77259.9325.33258.676.8895th-Percentile Queue Length [ft/ln] 25.6424.760.1610.3510.401.0110.350.2895th-Percentile Queue Length [veh/ln] 435.19422.452.29156.27157.1414.07156.193.8250th-Percentile Queue Length [ft/ln] 17.4116.900.096.256.290.566.250.1550th-Percentile Queue Length [veh/ln] YesNoNoNoNoYesYesNoCritical Lane Group FFABBBCBLane Group LOS 65.7159.269.7416.0716.0513.2125.2814.31d, Delay for Lane Group [s/veh] 1.091.070.050.730.730.250.680.03X, volume / capacity Lane Group Results 1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00PF, progression factor 1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00Rp, platoon ratio 0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00d3, Initial Queue Delay [s] 45.7039.250.051.261.250.336.130.08d2, Incremental Delay [s] 1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00I, Upstream Filtering Factor 0.110.110.110.110.110.110.500.50k, delay calibration 20.0120.019.6914.8114.8112.8719.1614.23d1, Uniform Delay [s] 688719362827833393605600c, Capacity [veh/h] 179018706071856187066715271541s, saturation flow rate [veh/h] 0.420.410.030.330.330.150.270.01(v / s)_i Volume / Saturation Flow Rate 0.390.390.540.450.450.540.340.34g / C, Green / Cycle 2525352929352222g_i, Effective Green Time [s] 2.002.000.002.002.000.002.002.00l2, Clearance Lost Time [s] 0.000.000.000.000.000.002.002.00l1_p, Permitted Start-Up Lost Time [s] 4.004.004.004.004.004.004.004.00L, Total Lost Time per Cycle [s] 6565656565656565C, Cycle Length [s] CCLCCLCCLane Group Lane Group Calculations 10/13/202319 Scenario 2: 2 Existing Plus Ambient Growth Plus Cumulative PM Peak Hour Dowey Foster Bridge Residential Version 2022 (SP 0-8) Generated with Apx-118 Movement, Approach, & Intersection Results d_M, Delay for Movement [s/veh]14.31 14.31 14.31 25.28 25.28 25.28 13.21 16.06 16.07 9.74 61.97 65.71 Movement LOS B B B C C C B B B A E E d_A, Approach Delay [s/veh]14.31 25.28 15.85 61.85 Approach LOS B C B E d_I, Intersection Delay [s/veh]38.61 Intersection LOS D Intersection V/C 0.795 Other Modes g_Walk,mi, Effective Walk Time [s]9.0 9.0 9.0 9.0 M_corner, Corner Circulation Area [ft²/ped]0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 M_CW, Crosswalk Circulation Area [ft²/ped]0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 d_p, Pedestrian Delay [s]24.13 24.13 24.13 24.13 I_p,int, Pedestrian LOS Score for Intersection 1.746 2.046 3.024 3.358 Crosswalk LOS A B C C s_b, Saturation Flow Rate of the bicycle lane 2000 2000 2000 2000 c_b, Capacity of the bicycle lane [bicycles/h]677 677 738 738 d_b, Bicycle Delay [s]14.23 14.23 12.93 12.93 I_b,int, Bicycle LOS Score for Intersection 1.584 2.241 2.642 2.828 Bicycle LOS A B B C ----------------Ring 4 ----------------Ring 3 ------------876-Ring 2 ------------432-Ring 1 Sequence 10/13/202320 Scenario 2: 2 Existing Plus Ambient Growth Plus Cumulative PM Peak Hour Dowey Foster Bridge Residential Version 2022 (SP 0-8) Generated with Apx-119 EXISTING PLUS AMBIENT GROWTH PLUS CUMULATIVE PLUS PROJECT Apx-120 Intersection Analysis Summary 10/13/2023Report File: G:\...\AMEACP.pdf Scenario 4 Existing Plus Ambient Growth Plus Cumulative Plus Project AM Peak HourVistro File: G:\...\AME.vistro Dowey Foster Bridge Residential V/C, Delay, LOS: For two-way stop, these values are taken from the movement with the worst (highest) delay value. For all other control types, they are taken for the whole intersection. B11.00.003EB LeftHCM 7th EditionTwo-way stopFoster Bridge Blvd (NS) at Project Dwy (EW)5 C21.00.720WB RightHCM 7th EditionSignalizedSuva St (NS) at Paramount Blvd (EW)4 C20.70.843SB ThruHCM 7th EditionAll-way stopSuva St (NS) at Guatemala Ave (EW)3 B16.10.641SWB ThruHCM 7th EditionSignalizedSuva St (NS) at Bluff Rd (EW)2 C17.40.640SB RightHCM 7th EditionAll-way stopSuva St (NS) at Scout Ave (EW)1 LOSDelay (s/veh)V/CWorst MvmtMethodControl TypeIntersection NameID 10/13/20231 Scenario 4: 4 Existing Plus Ambient Growth Plus Cumulative Plus Project AM Peak Hour Dowey Foster Bridge Residential Version 2022 (SP 0-8) Generated with Apx-121 0.640Volume to Capacity (v/c): CLevel Of Service: 17.4Delay (sec / veh): 15 minutesAnalysis Period: HCM 7th EditionAnalysis Method: All-way stopControl Type: Intersection 1: Suva St (NS) at Scout Ave (EW) Intersection Level Of Service Report YesYesYesYesCrosswalk 0.000.000.000.00Grade [%] 30.0030.0025.0025.00Speed [mph] 0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00Exit Pocket Length [ft] 000000000000No. of Lanes in Exit Pocket 100.00100.00100.00100.00100.00100.00100.00100.00100.00100.00100.00100.00Entry Pocket Length [ft] 000000000000No. of Lanes in Entry Pocket 12.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.00Lane Width [ft] RightThruLeftRightThruLeftRightThruLeftRightThruLeftTurning Movement Lane Configuration WestboundEastboundSouthboundNorthboundApproach Name Intersection Setup 0000Pedestrian Volume [ped/h] 731041723183146157971041120201Total Analysis Volume [veh/h] 1826458213639242603050Total 15-Minute Volume [veh/h] 1.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.0000Other Adjustment Factor 0.70100.70100.70100.70100.70100.70100.70100.70100.70100.70100.70100.7010Peak Hour Factor 517312162581021106873184141Total Hourly Volume [veh/h] 000000000000Other Volume [veh/h] 000000000000Existing Site Adjustment Volume [veh/h] 000000000000Pass-by Trips [veh/h] 000000000000Diverted Trips [veh/h] 000100030013Site-Generated Trips [veh/h] 000000000000In-Process Volume [veh/h] 1.00401.00401.00401.00401.00401.00401.00401.00401.00401.00401.00401.0040Growth Factor 2.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.00Heavy Vehicles Percentage [%] 1.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.0000Base Volume Adjustment Factor 517312160581021106573183137Base Volume Input [veh/h] Name Volumes 10/13/20232 Scenario 4: 4 Existing Plus Ambient Growth Plus Cumulative Plus Project AM Peak Hour Dowey Foster Bridge Residential Version 2022 (SP 0-8) Generated with Apx-122 CIntersection LOS 17.38Intersection Delay [s/veh] BCCCApproach LOS 12.2615.5920.1819.89Approach Delay [s/veh] 18.0620.0051.8264.88113.13101.2495th-Percentile Queue Length [ft] 0.720.802.072.604.534.0595th-Percentile Queue Length [veh] Movement, Approach, & Intersection Results 0.200.210.420.480.640.61Degree of Utilization, x 494454549473559528Capacity per Entry Lane [veh/h] Lanes Intersection Settings 10/13/20233 Scenario 4: 4 Existing Plus Ambient Growth Plus Cumulative Plus Project AM Peak Hour Dowey Foster Bridge Residential Version 2022 (SP 0-8) Generated with Apx-123 0.641Volume to Capacity (v/c): BLevel Of Service: 16.1Delay (sec / veh): 15 minutesAnalysis Period: HCM 7th EditionAnalysis Method: SignalizedControl Type: Intersection 2: Suva St (NS) at Bluff Rd (EW) Intersection Level Of Service Report YesYesYesCrosswalk NoNoNoCurb Present 0.000.000.00Grade [%] 25.0025.0025.00Speed [mph] 0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00Exit Pocket Length [ft] 000000000000No. of Lanes in Exit Pocket 100.00100.00100.00100.00100.00100.00100.00100.00100.00100.00100.00100.00Entry Pocket Length [ft] 000000000000No. of Lanes in Entry Pocket 12.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.00Lane Width [ft] RightThruLeftLeft2RightThruLeftLeft2Right2RightThruLeftTurning Movement Lane Configuration EastboundSouthboundNorthboundApproach Name Intersection Setup 10/13/20234 Scenario 4: 4 Existing Plus Ambient Growth Plus Cumulative Plus Project AM Peak Hour Dowey Foster Bridge Residential Version 2022 (SP 0-8) Generated with Apx-124 000Bicycle Volume [bicycles/h] 000v_ab, Corner Pedestrian Volume [ped/h] 000v_ci, Inbound Pedestrian Volume along the le 000v_co, Outbound Pedestrian Volume along th 000v_di, Inbound Pedestrian Volume crossing th 000v_do, Outbound Pedestrian Volume crossing 000000000000Local Bus Stopping Rate [/h] 000000000000On-Street Parking Maneuver Rate [/h] NoNoNoNoNoNoPresence of On-Street Parking 5031530813221562803Total Analysis Volume [veh/h] 1010177015514701Total 15-Minute Volume [veh/h] 1.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.0000Other Adjustment Factor 0.78300.78300.78300.78300.78300.78300.78300.78300.78300.78300.78300.7830Peak Hour Factor 4021424112173442192Total Hourly Volume [veh/h] 000000000000Right Turn on Red Volume [veh/h] 000000000000Other Volume [veh/h] 000000000000Existing Site Adjustment Volume [veh/h] 000000000000Pass-by Trips [veh/h] 000000000000Diverted Trips [veh/h] 000003010200Site-Generated Trips [veh/h] 000000000000In-Process Volume [veh/h] 1.00401.00401.00401.00401.00401.00401.00401.00401.00401.00401.00401.0040Growth Factor 0.00Proportion of CAVs [%] 2.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.00Heavy Vehicles Percentage [%] 1.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.0000Base Volume Adjustment Factor 4021423711172422182Base Volume Input [veh/h] Name Volumes 10/13/20235 Scenario 4: 4 Existing Plus Ambient Growth Plus Cumulative Plus Project AM Peak Hour Dowey Foster Bridge Residential Version 2022 (SP 0-8) Generated with Apx-125 0Pedestrian Clearance [s] 0Pedestrian Walk [s] 0Pedestrian Signal Group Exclusive Pedestrian Phase 1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00I, Upstream Filtering Factor 0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0Detector Length [ft] 0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0Detector Location [ft] NoNoNoPedestrian Recall NoNoNoMaximum Recall NoNoNoMinimum Recall 0.02.00.00.00.02.00.00.00.00.02.00.0l2, Clearance Lost Time [s] 0.02.00.00.00.02.00.00.00.00.02.00.0l1, Start-Up Lost Time [s] NoNoNoRest In Walk 0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0Delayed Vehicle Green [s] 010000100000100Pedestrian Clearance [s] 050005000050Walk [s] 0.03.00.00.00.03.00.00.00.00.03.00.0Vehicle Extension [s] 019000490000490Split [s] 0.01.00.00.00.01.00.00.00.00.01.00.0All red [s] 0.03.00.00.00.03.00.00.00.00.03.00.0Amber [s] 012000012000001200Maximum Green [s] 010000100000100Minimum Green [s] ------------Lead / Lag Auxiliary Signal Groups 040006000020Signal Group PermissPermissPermissPermissPermissPermissPermissPermissPermissPermissPermissPermissControl Type Phasing & Timing 6.00Lost time [s] SingleBandPermissive Mode Lead Green - Beginning of First GreenOffset Reference 0.0Offset [s] Fully actuatedActuation Type Time of Day Pattern IsolatedCoordination Type 115Cycle Length [s] -Signal Coordination Group NoLocated in CBD Intersection Settings 10/13/20236 Scenario 4: 4 Existing Plus Ambient Growth Plus Cumulative Plus Project AM Peak Hour Dowey Foster Bridge Residential Version 2022 (SP 0-8) Generated with Apx-126 3.55102.82222.5795th-Percentile Queue Length [ft/ln] 0.144.118.9095th-Percentile Queue Length [veh/ln] 1.9757.12129.3250th-Percentile Queue Length [ft/ln] 0.082.285.1750th-Percentile Queue Length [veh/ln] NoNoYesCritical Lane Group BBBLane Group LOS 16.5811.7715.89d, Delay for Lane Group [s/veh] 0.020.410.78X, volume / capacity Lane Group Results 1.001.001.00PF, progression factor 1.001.001.00Rp, platoon ratio 0.000.000.00d3, Initial Queue Delay [s] 0.020.351.83d2, Incremental Delay [s] 1.001.001.00I, Upstream Filtering Factor 0.110.110.11k, delay calibration 16.5511.4314.06d1, Uniform Delay [s] 410776722c, Capacity [veh/h] 169918631720s, saturation flow rate [veh/h] 0.010.170.33(v / s)_i Volume / Saturation Flow Rate 0.180.380.38g / C, Green / Cycle 91818g_i, Effective Green Time [s] 2.002.002.00l2, Clearance Lost Time [s] 2.002.002.00l1_p, Permitted Start-Up Lost Time [s] 4.004.004.00L, Total Lost Time per Cycle [s] 494949C, Cycle Length [s] CCCLane Group Lane Group Calculations 10/13/20237 Scenario 4: 4 Existing Plus Ambient Growth Plus Cumulative Plus Project AM Peak Hour Dowey Foster Bridge Residential Version 2022 (SP 0-8) Generated with Apx-127 ABBBicycle LOS 1.5702.0812.119I_b,int, Bicycle LOS Score for Intersection 11.680.140.14d_b, Bicycle Delay [s] 61518461846c_b, Capacity of the bicycle lane [bicycles/h] 200020002000s_b, Saturation Flow Rate of the bicycle lane AABCrosswalk LOS 1.6951.9372.398I_p,int, Pedestrian LOS Score for Intersection 16.2016.2016.20d_p, Pedestrian Delay [s] 0.000.000.00M_CW, Crosswalk Circulation Area [ft²/ped] 0.000.000.00M_corner, Corner Circulation Area [ft²/ped] 9.09.09.0g_Walk,mi, Effective Walk Time [s] Other Modes 0.641Intersection V/C BIntersection LOS 16.10d_I, Intersection Delay [s/veh] BBBApproach LOS 16.5811.7715.89d_A, Approach Delay [s/veh] BBBBBBBBBBBBMovement LOS 16.5816.5816.5816.5811.7711.7711.7711.7715.8915.8915.8915.89d_M, Delay for Movement [s/veh] Movement, Approach, & Intersection Results 10/13/20238 Scenario 4: 4 Existing Plus Ambient Growth Plus Cumulative Plus Project AM Peak Hour Dowey Foster Bridge Residential Version 2022 (SP 0-8) Generated with Apx-128 YesYesCrosswalk NoNoCurb Present 0.000.00Grade [%] 25.0025.00Speed [mph] 0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00Exit Pocket Length [ft] 00000000No. of Lanes in Exit Pocket 100.00100.00100.00100.00100.00100.00100.00100.00Entry Pocket Length [ft] 00000000No. of Lanes in Entry Pocket 12.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.00Lane Width [ft] Right2RightThruLeftRight2RightThruLeftTurning Movement Lane Configuration SouthwestboundWestboundApproach Name Intersection Setup 10/13/20239 Scenario 4: 4 Existing Plus Ambient Growth Plus Cumulative Plus Project AM Peak Hour Dowey Foster Bridge Residential Version 2022 (SP 0-8) Generated with Apx-129 00Bicycle Volume [bicycles/h] 00v_ab, Corner Pedestrian Volume [ped/h] 00v_ci, Inbound Pedestrian Volume along the le 00v_co, Outbound Pedestrian Volume along th 00v_di, Inbound Pedestrian Volume crossing th 00v_do, Outbound Pedestrian Volume crossing 00000000Local Bus Stopping Rate [/h] 00000000On-Street Parking Maneuver Rate [/h] NoNoNoNoPresence of On-Street Parking 902451530142Total Analysis Volume [veh/h] 2061011035Total 15-Minute Volume [veh/h] 1.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.0000Other Adjustment Factor 0.78300.78300.78300.78300.78300.78300.78300.7830Peak Hour Factor 701921420111Total Hourly Volume [veh/h] 00000000Right Turn on Red Volume [veh/h] 00000000Other Volume [veh/h] 00000000Existing Site Adjustment Volume [veh/h] 00000000Pass-by Trips [veh/h] 00000000Diverted Trips [veh/h] 40300000Site-Generated Trips [veh/h] 00000000In-Process Volume [veh/h] 1.00401.00401.00401.00401.00401.00401.00401.0040Growth Factor 0.00Proportion of CAVs [%] 2.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.00Heavy Vehicles Percentage [%] 1.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.0000Base Volume Adjustment Factor 301881420111Base Volume Input [veh/h] Name Volumes 10/13/202310 Scenario 4: 4 Existing Plus Ambient Growth Plus Cumulative Plus Project AM Peak Hour Dowey Foster Bridge Residential Version 2022 (SP 0-8) Generated with Apx-130 0Pedestrian Clearance [s] 0Pedestrian Walk [s] 0Pedestrian Signal Group Exclusive Pedestrian Phase 1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00I, Upstream Filtering Factor 0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0Detector Length [ft] 0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0Detector Location [ft] NoNoPedestrian Recall NoNoMaximum Recall NoNoMinimum Recall 0.00.02.00.00.00.02.00.0l2, Clearance Lost Time [s] 0.00.02.00.00.00.02.00.0l1, Start-Up Lost Time [s] NoNoRest In Walk 0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0Delayed Vehicle Green [s] 0010000100Pedestrian Clearance [s] 00500050Walk [s] 0.00.03.00.00.00.03.00.0Vehicle Extension [s] 0047000190Split [s] 0.00.01.00.00.00.01.00.0All red [s] 0.00.03.00.00.00.03.00.0Amber [s] 001200001200Maximum Green [s] 0010000100Minimum Green [s] --------Lead / Lag Auxiliary Signal Groups 001000080Signal Group PermissivePermissivePermissivePermissivePermissivePermissivePermissivePermissiveControl Type Phasing & Timing 6.00Lost time [s] SingleBandPermissive Mode Lead Green - Beginning of First GreenOffset Reference 0.0Offset [s] Fully actuatedActuation Type Time of Day Pattern IsolatedCoordination Type 115Cycle Length [s] -Signal Coordination Group NoLocated in CBD Intersection Settings 10/13/202311 Scenario 4: 4 Existing Plus Ambient Growth Plus Cumulative Plus Project AM Peak Hour Dowey Foster Bridge Residential Version 2022 (SP 0-8) Generated with Apx-131 119.5765.4595th-Percentile Queue Length [ft/ln] 4.782.6295th-Percentile Queue Length [veh/ln] 66.4336.3650th-Percentile Queue Length [ft/ln] 2.661.4550th-Percentile Queue Length [veh/ln] YesYesCritical Lane Group CBLane Group LOS 20.4818.58d, Delay for Lane Group [s/veh] 0.690.36X, volume / capacity Lane Group Results 1.001.00PF, progression factor 1.001.00Rp, platoon ratio 0.000.00d3, Initial Queue Delay [s] 2.310.53d2, Incremental Delay [s] 1.001.00I, Upstream Filtering Factor 0.110.11k, delay calibration 18.1718.05d1, Uniform Delay [s] 369414c, Capacity [veh/h] 18581511s, saturation flow rate [veh/h] 0.140.10(v / s)_i Volume / Saturation Flow Rate 0.200.18g / C, Green / Cycle 109g_i, Effective Green Time [s] 2.002.00l2, Clearance Lost Time [s] 0.002.00l1_p, Permitted Start-Up Lost Time [s] 4.004.00L, Total Lost Time per Cycle [s] 4949C, Cycle Length [s] CCLane Group Lane Group Calculations 10/13/202312 Scenario 4: 4 Existing Plus Ambient Growth Plus Cumulative Plus Project AM Peak Hour Dowey Foster Bridge Residential Version 2022 (SP 0-8) Generated with Apx-132 Movement, Approach, & Intersection Results d_M, Delay for Movement [s/veh]18.58 18.58 18.58 18.58 20.48 20.48 20.48 20.48 Movement LOS B B B B C C C C d_A, Approach Delay [s/veh]18.58 20.48 Approach LOS B C d_I, Intersection Delay [s/veh]16.10 Intersection LOS B Intersection V/C 0.641 Other Modes g_Walk,mi, Effective Walk Time [s]9.0 9.0 M_corner, Corner Circulation Area [ft²/ped]0.00 0.00 M_CW, Crosswalk Circulation Area [ft²/ped]0.00 0.00 d_p, Pedestrian Delay [s]16.20 16.20 I_p,int, Pedestrian LOS Score for Intersection 1.841 1.826 Crosswalk LOS A A s_b, Saturation Flow Rate of the bicycle lane 2000 2000 c_b, Capacity of the bicycle lane [bicycles/h]615 1764 d_b, Bicycle Delay [s]11.68 0.34 I_b,int, Bicycle LOS Score for Intersection 1.799 1.966 Bicycle LOS A A ----------------Ring 4 ----------------Ring 3 --------------86Ring 2 -------------1042Ring 1 Sequence 10/13/202313 Scenario 4: 4 Existing Plus Ambient Growth Plus Cumulative Plus Project AM Peak Hour Dowey Foster Bridge Residential Version 2022 (SP 0-8) Generated with Apx-133 0.843Volume to Capacity (v/c): CLevel Of Service: 20.7Delay (sec / veh): 15 minutesAnalysis Period: HCM 7th EditionAnalysis Method: All-way stopControl Type: Intersection 3: Suva St (NS) at Guatemala Ave (EW) Intersection Level Of Service Report NoNoNoNoCrosswalk 0.000.000.000.00Grade [%] 25.0025.0025.0025.00Speed [mph] 0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00Exit Pocket Length [ft] 000000000000No. of Lanes in Exit Pocket 100.00100.00100.00100.00100.00100.00100.00100.00100.00100.00100.00100.00Entry Pocket Length [ft] 000000100000No. of Lanes in Entry Pocket 12.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.00Lane Width [ft] RightThruLeftRightThruLeftRightThruLeftRightThruLeftTurning Movement Lane Configuration WestboundEastboundSouthboundNorthboundApproach Name Intersection Setup 0000Pedestrian Volume [ped/h] 1482471932126185367115523314Total Analysis Volume [veh/h] 376258324692291584Total 15-Minute Volume [veh/h] 1.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.0000Other Adjustment Factor 0.84000.84000.84000.84000.84000.84000.84000.84000.84000.84000.84000.8400Peak Hour Factor 124206162710615530897419612Total Hourly Volume [veh/h] 000000000000Other Volume [veh/h] 000000000000Existing Site Adjustment Volume [veh/h] 000000000000Pass-by Trips [veh/h] 000000000000Diverted Trips [veh/h] 002300060020Site-Generated Trips [veh/h] 000000000000In-Process Volume [veh/h] 1.00401.00401.00401.00401.00401.00401.00401.00401.00401.00401.00401.0040Growth Factor 2.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.00Heavy Vehicles Percentage [%] 1.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.0000Base Volume Adjustment Factor 124204132710615430197419312Base Volume Input [veh/h] Name Volumes 10/13/202314 Scenario 4: 4 Existing Plus Ambient Growth Plus Cumulative Plus Project AM Peak Hour Dowey Foster Bridge Residential Version 2022 (SP 0-8) Generated with Apx-134 CIntersection LOS 20.69Intersection Delay [s/veh] BBDBApproach LOS 12.1513.2627.4314.14Approach Delay [s/veh] 33.3336.7628.74224.1255.8895th-Percentile Queue Length [ft] 1.331.471.158.962.2495th-Percentile Queue Length [veh] Movement, Approach, & Intersection Results 0.310.340.280.840.44Degree of Utilization, x 571526658572572Capacity per Entry Lane [veh/h] Lanes Intersection Settings 10/13/202315 Scenario 4: 4 Existing Plus Ambient Growth Plus Cumulative Plus Project AM Peak Hour Dowey Foster Bridge Residential Version 2022 (SP 0-8) Generated with Apx-135 0.720Volume to Capacity (v/c): CLevel Of Service: 21.0Delay (sec / veh): 15 minutesAnalysis Period: HCM 7th EditionAnalysis Method: SignalizedControl Type: Intersection 4: Suva St (NS) at Paramount Blvd (EW) Intersection Level Of Service Report YesYesYesYesCrosswalk NoNoNoNoCurb Present 0.000.000.000.00Grade [%] 40.0040.0025.0025.00Speed [mph] 0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00Exit Pocket Length [ft] 000000000000No. of Lanes in Exit Pocket 100.00100.00115.00100.00100.00225.00100.00100.00100.00100.00100.00100.00Entry Pocket Length [ft] 001001000000No. of Lanes in Entry Pocket 12.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.00Lane Width [ft] RightThruLeftRightThruLeftRightThruLeftRightThruLeftTurning Movement Lane Configuration WestboundEastboundSouthboundNorthboundApproach Name Intersection Setup 10/13/202316 Scenario 4: 4 Existing Plus Ambient Growth Plus Cumulative Plus Project AM Peak Hour Dowey Foster Bridge Residential Version 2022 (SP 0-8) Generated with Apx-136 0000Bicycle Volume [bicycles/h] 0000v_ab, Corner Pedestrian Volume [ped/h] 0000v_ci, Inbound Pedestrian Volume crossing mi 0000v_co, Outbound Pedestrian Volume crossing 0000v_di, Inbound Pedestrian Volume crossing m 0000v_do, Outbound Pedestrian Volume crossing 000000000000Local Bus Stopping Rate [/h] 000000000000On-Street Parking Maneuver Rate [/h] NoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoPresence of On-Street Parking 1351129139115710817225215371716Total Analysis Volume [veh/h] 34282322892743654944Total 15-Minute Volume [veh/h] 1.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.0000Other Adjustment Factor 0.98500.98500.98500.98500.98500.98500.98500.98500.98500.98500.98500.9850Peak Hour Factor 1331112139114010616925212361716Total Hourly Volume [veh/h] 000000000000Right Turn on Red Volume [veh/h] 000000000000Other Volume [veh/h] 000000000000Existing Site Adjustment Volume [veh/h] 000000000000Pass-by Trips [veh/h] 000000000000Diverted Trips [veh/h] 18001511011200Site-Generated Trips [veh/h] 000000000000In-Process Volume [veh/h] 1.00401.00401.00401.00401.00401.00401.00401.00401.00401.00401.00401.0040Growth Factor 0.00Proportion of CAVs [%] 2.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.00Heavy Vehicles Percentage [%] 1.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.0000Base Volume Adjustment Factor 1311100139112110516725200341716Base Volume Input [veh/h] Name Volumes 10/13/202317 Scenario 4: 4 Existing Plus Ambient Growth Plus Cumulative Plus Project AM Peak Hour Dowey Foster Bridge Residential Version 2022 (SP 0-8) Generated with Apx-137 0Pedestrian Clearance [s] 0Pedestrian Walk [s] 0Pedestrian Signal Group Exclusive Pedestrian Phase 1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00I, Upstream Filtering Factor 0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0Detector Length [ft] 0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0Detector Location [ft] NoNoNoNoNoNoPedestrian Recall NoNoNoNoNoNoMaximum Recall NoNoNoNoNoNoMinimum Recall 0.02.02.00.02.02.00.02.00.00.02.00.0l2, Clearance Lost Time [s] 0.02.02.00.02.02.00.02.00.00.02.00.0l1, Start-Up Lost Time [s] NoNoNoNoRest In Walk 0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0Delayed Vehicle Green [s] 07007001700170Pedestrian Clearance [s] 050050050050Walk [s] 0.03.03.00.03.03.00.03.00.00.03.00.0Vehicle Extension [s] 028110281102600260Split [s] 0.01.01.00.01.01.00.01.00.00.01.00.0All red [s] 0.03.03.00.03.03.00.03.00.00.03.00.0Amber [s] 012012001201200120001200Maximum Green [s] 0107010701000100Minimum Green [s] --Lead--Lead------Lead / Lag Auxiliary Signal Groups 047083020060Signal Group PermissPermissProtPerPermissPermissProtPerPermissPermissPermissPermissPermissPermissControl Type Phasing & Timing 6.00Lost time [s] SingleBandPermissive Mode Lead Green - Beginning of First GreenOffset Reference 0.0Offset [s] Fully actuatedActuation Type Time of Day Pattern IsolatedCoordination Type 65Cycle Length [s] -Signal Coordination Group NoLocated in CBD Intersection Settings 10/13/202318 Scenario 4: 4 Existing Plus Ambient Growth Plus Cumulative Plus Project AM Peak Hour Dowey Foster Bridge Residential Version 2022 (SP 0-8) Generated with Apx-138 341.01347.743.26249.45249.8928.75252.0332.5495th-Percentile Queue Length [ft/ln] 13.6413.910.139.9810.001.1510.081.3095th-Percentile Queue Length [veh/ln] 219.52224.791.81149.27149.6015.97151.2018.0850th-Percentile Queue Length [ft/ln] 8.788.990.075.975.980.646.050.7250th-Percentile Queue Length [veh/ln] YesNoNoNoNoYesYesNoCritical Lane Group CCABBBCBLane Group LOS 26.0325.579.8315.9215.9112.8524.1114.60d, Delay for Lane Group [s/veh] 0.930.930.040.710.710.260.670.11X, volume / capacity Lane Group Results 1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00PF, progression factor 1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00Rp, platoon ratio 0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00d3, Initial Queue Delay [s] 6.395.970.041.141.130.335.670.35d2, Incremental Delay [s] 1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00I, Upstream Filtering Factor 0.110.110.110.110.110.110.500.50k, delay calibration 19.6419.609.7914.7814.7812.5218.4414.25d1, Uniform Delay [s] 668694359822824413616637c, Capacity [veh/h] 180118706141865187075415131618s, saturation flow rate [veh/h] 0.340.340.020.310.310.140.270.04(v / s)_i Volume / Saturation Flow Rate 0.370.370.530.440.440.530.350.35g / C, Green / Cycle 2424342929342323g_i, Effective Green Time [s] 2.002.000.002.002.000.002.002.00l2, Clearance Lost Time [s] 0.000.000.000.000.000.002.002.00l1_p, Permitted Start-Up Lost Time [s] 4.004.004.004.004.004.004.004.00L, Total Lost Time per Cycle [s] 6565656565656565C, Cycle Length [s] CCLCCLCCLane Group Lane Group Calculations 10/13/202319 Scenario 4: 4 Existing Plus Ambient Growth Plus Cumulative Plus Project AM Peak Hour Dowey Foster Bridge Residential Version 2022 (SP 0-8) Generated with Apx-139 Movement, Approach, & Intersection Results d_M, Delay for Movement [s/veh]14.60 14.60 14.60 24.11 24.11 24.11 12.85 15.91 15.92 9.83 25.77 26.03 Movement LOS B B B C C C B B B A C C d_A, Approach Delay [s/veh]14.60 24.11 15.65 25.63 Approach LOS B C B C d_I, Intersection Delay [s/veh]20.98 Intersection LOS C Intersection V/C 0.720 Other Modes g_Walk,mi, Effective Walk Time [s]9.0 9.0 9.0 9.0 M_corner, Corner Circulation Area [ft²/ped]0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 M_CW, Crosswalk Circulation Area [ft²/ped]0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 d_p, Pedestrian Delay [s]24.13 24.13 24.13 24.13 I_p,int, Pedestrian LOS Score for Intersection 1.756 2.035 2.981 3.289 Crosswalk LOS A B C C s_b, Saturation Flow Rate of the bicycle lane 2000 2000 2000 2000 c_b, Capacity of the bicycle lane [bicycles/h]677 677 738 738 d_b, Bicycle Delay [s]14.23 14.23 12.94 12.94 I_b,int, Bicycle LOS Score for Intersection 1.675 2.239 2.611 2.613 Bicycle LOS A B B B ----------------Ring 4 ----------------Ring 3 ------------876-Ring 2 ------------432-Ring 1 Sequence 10/13/202320 Scenario 4: 4 Existing Plus Ambient Growth Plus Cumulative Plus Project AM Peak Hour Dowey Foster Bridge Residential Version 2022 (SP 0-8) Generated with Apx-140 0.003Volume to Capacity (v/c): BLevel Of Service: 11.0Delay (sec / veh): 15 minutesAnalysis Period: HCM 7th EditionAnalysis Method: Two-way stopControl Type: Intersection 5: Foster Bridge Blvd (NS) at Project Dwy (EW) Intersection Level Of Service Report NoNoNoCrosswalk 0.000.000.00Grade [%] 25.0025.0025.00Speed [mph] 0.000.000.000.000.000.00Exit Pocket Length [ft] 000000No. of Lanes in Exit Pocket 100.00100.00100.00100.00100.00100.00Entry Pocket Length [ft] 000000No. of Lanes in Entry Pocket 12.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.00Lane Width [ft] RightLeftRightThruThruLeftTurning Movement Lane Configuration EastboundSouthboundNorthboundApproach Name Intersection Setup 000Pedestrian Volume [ped/h] 7212001883Total Analysis Volume [veh/h] 21050471Total 15-Minute Volume [veh/h] 1.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.0000Other Adjustment Factor 0.95000.95000.95000.95000.95000.9500Peak Hour Factor 7211901793Total Hourly Volume [veh/h] 000000Other Volume [veh/h] 000000Existing Site Adjustment Volume [veh/h] 000000Pass-by Trips [veh/h] 000000Diverted Trips [veh/h] 721003Site-Generated Trips [veh/h] 000000In-Process Volume [veh/h] 1.00401.00401.00401.00401.00401.0040Growth Factor 2.002.002.002.002.002.00Heavy Vehicles Percentage [%] 1.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.0000Base Volume Adjustment Factor 0001891780Base Volume Input [veh/h] Name Volumes 10/13/202321 Scenario 4: 4 Existing Plus Ambient Growth Plus Cumulative Plus Project AM Peak Hour Dowey Foster Bridge Residential Version 2022 (SP 0-8) Generated with Apx-141 BIntersection LOS 0.27d_I, Intersection Delay [s/veh] AAAApproach LOS 9.700.000.12d_A, Approach Delay [s/veh] 0.880.880.000.000.130.1395th-Percentile Queue Length [ft/ln] 0.040.040.000.000.010.0195th-Percentile Queue Length [veh/ln] ABAAAAMovement LOS 9.3410.970.000.000.007.63d_M, Delay for Movement [s/veh] 0.010.000.000.000.000.00V/C, Movement V/C Ratio Movement, Approach, & Intersection Results 000Number of Storage Spaces in Median NoTwo-Stage Gap Acceptance 000Storage Area [veh] NoFlared Lane StopFreeFreePriority Scheme Intersection Settings 10/13/202322 Scenario 4: 4 Existing Plus Ambient Growth Plus Cumulative Plus Project AM Peak Hour Dowey Foster Bridge Residential Version 2022 (SP 0-8) Generated with Apx-142 Intersection Analysis Summary 10/13/2023Report File: G:\...\PMEACP.pdf Scenario 4 Existing Plus Ambient Growth Plus Cumulative Plus Project PM Peak HourVistro File: G:\...\PME.vistro Dowey Foster Bridge Residential V/C, Delay, LOS: For two-way stop, these values are taken from the movement with the worst (highest) delay value. For all other control types, they are taken for the whole intersection. B11.30.002EB LeftHCM 7th EditionTwo-way stopFoster Bridge Blvd (NS) at Project Dwy (EW)5 D39.70.799WB RightHCM 7th EditionSignalizedSuva St (NS) at Paramount Blvd (EW)4 D29.60.948SB ThruHCM 7th EditionAll-way stopSuva St (NS) at Guatemala Ave (EW)3 B12.90.494WB LeftHCM 7th EditionSignalizedSuva St (NS) at Bluff Rd (EW)2 B11.80.454NB LeftHCM 7th EditionAll-way stopSuva St (NS) at Scout Ave (EW)1 LOSDelay (s/veh)V/CWorst MvmtMethodControl TypeIntersection NameID 10/13/20231 Scenario 4: 4 Existing Plus Ambient Growth Plus Cumulative Plus Project PM Peak Hour Dowey Foster Bridge Residential Version 2022 (SP 0-8) Generated with Apx-143 0.454Volume to Capacity (v/c): BLevel Of Service: 11.8Delay (sec / veh): 15 minutesAnalysis Period: HCM 7th EditionAnalysis Method: All-way stopControl Type: Intersection 1: Suva St (NS) at Scout Ave (EW) Intersection Level Of Service Report YesYesYesYesCrosswalk 0.000.000.000.00Grade [%] 30.0030.0025.0025.00Speed [mph] 0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00Exit Pocket Length [ft] 000000000000No. of Lanes in Exit Pocket 100.00100.00100.00100.00100.00100.00100.00100.00100.00100.00100.00100.00Entry Pocket Length [ft] 000000000000No. of Lanes in Entry Pocket 12.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.00Lane Width [ft] RightThruLeftRightThruLeftRightThruLeftRightThruLeftTurning Movement Lane Configuration WestboundEastboundSouthboundNorthboundApproach Name Intersection Setup 0000Pedestrian Volume [ped/h] 5631425692243618375114173Total Analysis Volume [veh/h] 116364236946212943Total 15-Minute Volume [veh/h] 1.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.0000Other Adjustment Factor 0.96100.96100.96100.96100.96100.96100.96100.96100.96100.96100.96100.9610Peak Hour Factor 5611324688233517675110166Total Hourly Volume [veh/h] 000000000000Other Volume [veh/h] 000000000000Existing Site Adjustment Volume [veh/h] 000000000000Pass-by Trips [veh/h] 000000000000Diverted Trips [veh/h] 000300020022Site-Generated Trips [veh/h] 000000000000In-Process Volume [veh/h] 1.00401.00401.00401.00401.00401.00401.00401.00401.00401.00401.00401.0040Growth Factor 2.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.00Heavy Vehicles Percentage [%] 1.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.0000Base Volume Adjustment Factor 5611324288233517375108163Base Volume Input [veh/h] Name Volumes 10/13/20232 Scenario 4: 4 Existing Plus Ambient Growth Plus Cumulative Plus Project PM Peak Hour Dowey Foster Bridge Residential Version 2022 (SP 0-8) Generated with Apx-144 BIntersection LOS 11.75Intersection Delay [s/veh] ABBBApproach LOS 9.9111.2511.4313.16Approach Delay [s/veh] 6.006.2645.8318.7438.7059.1495th-Percentile Queue Length [ft] 0.240.251.830.751.552.3795th-Percentile Queue Length [veh] Movement, Approach, & Intersection Results 0.070.080.390.200.350.45Degree of Utilization, x 551530660574652643Capacity per Entry Lane [veh/h] Lanes Intersection Settings 10/13/20233 Scenario 4: 4 Existing Plus Ambient Growth Plus Cumulative Plus Project PM Peak Hour Dowey Foster Bridge Residential Version 2022 (SP 0-8) Generated with Apx-145 0.494Volume to Capacity (v/c): BLevel Of Service: 12.9Delay (sec / veh): 15 minutesAnalysis Period: HCM 7th EditionAnalysis Method: SignalizedControl Type: Intersection 2: Suva St (NS) at Bluff Rd (EW) Intersection Level Of Service Report YesYesYesCrosswalk NoNoNoCurb Present 0.000.000.00Grade [%] 25.0025.0025.00Speed [mph] 0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00Exit Pocket Length [ft] 000000000000No. of Lanes in Exit Pocket 100.00100.00100.00100.00100.00100.00100.00100.00100.00100.00100.00100.00Entry Pocket Length [ft] 000000000000No. of Lanes in Entry Pocket 12.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.00Lane Width [ft] RightThruLeftLeft2RightThruLeftLeft2Right2RightThruLeftTurning Movement Lane Configuration EastboundSouthboundNorthboundApproach Name Intersection Setup 10/13/20234 Scenario 4: 4 Existing Plus Ambient Growth Plus Cumulative Plus Project PM Peak Hour Dowey Foster Bridge Residential Version 2022 (SP 0-8) Generated with Apx-146 000Bicycle Volume [bicycles/h] 000v_ab, Corner Pedestrian Volume [ped/h] 000v_ci, Inbound Pedestrian Volume along the le 000v_co, Outbound Pedestrian Volume along th 000v_di, Inbound Pedestrian Volume crossing th 000v_do, Outbound Pedestrian Volume crossing 000000000000Local Bus Stopping Rate [/h] 000000000000On-Street Parking Maneuver Rate [/h] NoNoNoNoNoNoPresence of On-Street Parking 2000343387175142650Total Analysis Volume [veh/h] 1000110822444660Total 15-Minute Volume [veh/h] 1.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.0000Other Adjustment Factor 0.98800.98800.98800.98800.98800.98800.98800.98800.98800.98800.98800.9880Peak Hour Factor 2000342887173142620Total Hourly Volume [veh/h] 000000000000Right Turn on Red Volume [veh/h] 000000000000Other Volume [veh/h] 000000000000Existing Site Adjustment Volume [veh/h] 000000000000Pass-by Trips [veh/h] 000000000000Diverted Trips [veh/h] 000001040620Site-Generated Trips [veh/h] 000000000000In-Process Volume [veh/h] 1.00401.00401.00401.00401.00401.00401.00401.00401.00401.00401.00401.0040Growth Factor 0.00Proportion of CAVs [%] 2.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.00Heavy Vehicles Percentage [%] 1.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.0000Base Volume Adjustment Factor 200034258317282590Base Volume Input [veh/h] Name Volumes 10/13/20235 Scenario 4: 4 Existing Plus Ambient Growth Plus Cumulative Plus Project PM Peak Hour Dowey Foster Bridge Residential Version 2022 (SP 0-8) Generated with Apx-147 0Pedestrian Clearance [s] 0Pedestrian Walk [s] 0Pedestrian Signal Group Exclusive Pedestrian Phase 1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00I, Upstream Filtering Factor 0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0Detector Length [ft] 0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0Detector Location [ft] NoNoNoPedestrian Recall NoNoNoMaximum Recall NoNoNoMinimum Recall 0.02.00.00.00.02.00.00.00.00.02.00.0l2, Clearance Lost Time [s] 0.02.00.00.00.02.00.00.00.00.02.00.0l1, Start-Up Lost Time [s] NoNoNoRest In Walk 0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0Delayed Vehicle Green [s] 010000100000100Pedestrian Clearance [s] 050005000050Walk [s] 0.03.00.00.00.03.00.00.00.00.03.00.0Vehicle Extension [s] 022000190000190Split [s] 0.01.00.00.00.01.00.00.00.00.01.00.0All red [s] 0.03.00.00.00.03.00.00.00.00.03.00.0Amber [s] 012000012000001200Maximum Green [s] 010000100000100Minimum Green [s] ------------Lead / Lag Auxiliary Signal Groups 040006000020Signal Group PermissPermissPermissPermissPermissPermissPermissPermissPermissPermissPermissPermissControl Type Phasing & Timing 6.00Lost time [s] SingleBandPermissive Mode Lead Green - Beginning of First GreenOffset Reference 0.0Offset [s] Fully actuatedActuation Type Time of Day Pattern IsolatedCoordination Type 60Cycle Length [s] -Signal Coordination Group NoLocated in CBD Intersection Settings 10/13/20236 Scenario 4: 4 Existing Plus Ambient Growth Plus Cumulative Plus Project PM Peak Hour Dowey Foster Bridge Residential Version 2022 (SP 0-8) Generated with Apx-148 0.63126.48132.7995th-Percentile Queue Length [ft/ln] 0.035.065.3195th-Percentile Queue Length [veh/ln] 0.3570.2673.7750th-Percentile Queue Length [ft/ln] 0.012.812.9550th-Percentile Queue Length [veh/ln] NoNoYesCritical Lane Group BBBLane Group LOS 14.6612.3313.00d, Delay for Lane Group [s/veh] 0.010.640.70X, volume / capacity Lane Group Results 1.001.001.00PF, progression factor 1.001.001.00Rp, platoon ratio 0.000.000.00d3, Initial Queue Delay [s] 0.010.981.37d2, Incremental Delay [s] 1.001.001.00I, Upstream Filtering Factor 0.110.110.11k, delay calibration 14.6411.3411.64d1, Uniform Delay [s] 266703651c, Capacity [veh/h] 142618611710s, saturation flow rate [veh/h] 0.000.240.27(v / s)_i Volume / Saturation Flow Rate 0.120.320.32g / C, Green / Cycle 41212g_i, Effective Green Time [s] 2.002.002.00l2, Clearance Lost Time [s] 2.002.002.00l1_p, Permitted Start-Up Lost Time [s] 4.004.004.00L, Total Lost Time per Cycle [s] 383838C, Cycle Length [s] CCCLane Group Lane Group Calculations 10/13/20237 Scenario 4: 4 Existing Plus Ambient Growth Plus Cumulative Plus Project PM Peak Hour Dowey Foster Bridge Residential Version 2022 (SP 0-8) Generated with Apx-149 ABBBicycle LOS 1.5632.2912.020I_b,int, Bicycle LOS Score for Intersection 5.116.796.79d_b, Bicycle Delay [s] 957798798c_b, Capacity of the bicycle lane [bicycles/h] 200020002000s_b, Saturation Flow Rate of the bicycle lane AABCrosswalk LOS 1.6701.9632.205I_p,int, Pedestrian LOS Score for Intersection 10.8810.8810.88d_p, Pedestrian Delay [s] 0.000.000.00M_CW, Crosswalk Circulation Area [ft²/ped] 0.000.000.00M_corner, Corner Circulation Area [ft²/ped] 9.09.09.0g_Walk,mi, Effective Walk Time [s] Other Modes 0.494Intersection V/C BIntersection LOS 12.89d_I, Intersection Delay [s/veh] BBBApproach LOS 14.6612.3313.00d_A, Approach Delay [s/veh] BBBBBBBBBBBBMovement LOS 14.6614.6614.6614.6612.3312.3312.3312.3313.0013.0013.0013.00d_M, Delay for Movement [s/veh] Movement, Approach, & Intersection Results 10/13/20238 Scenario 4: 4 Existing Plus Ambient Growth Plus Cumulative Plus Project PM Peak Hour Dowey Foster Bridge Residential Version 2022 (SP 0-8) Generated with Apx-150 YesYesCrosswalk NoNoCurb Present 0.000.00Grade [%] 25.0025.00Speed [mph] 0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00Exit Pocket Length [ft] 00000000No. of Lanes in Exit Pocket 100.00100.00100.00100.00100.00100.00100.00100.00Entry Pocket Length [ft] 00000000No. of Lanes in Entry Pocket 12.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.00Lane Width [ft] Right2RightThruLeftRight2RightThruLeftTurning Movement Lane Configuration SouthwestboundWestboundApproach Name Intersection Setup 10/13/20239 Scenario 4: 4 Existing Plus Ambient Growth Plus Cumulative Plus Project PM Peak Hour Dowey Foster Bridge Residential Version 2022 (SP 0-8) Generated with Apx-151 00Bicycle Volume [bicycles/h] 00v_ab, Corner Pedestrian Volume [ped/h] 00v_ci, Inbound Pedestrian Volume along the le 00v_co, Outbound Pedestrian Volume along th 00v_di, Inbound Pedestrian Volume crossing th 00v_do, Outbound Pedestrian Volume crossing 00000000Local Bus Stopping Rate [/h] 00000000On-Street Parking Maneuver Rate [/h] NoNoNoNoPresence of On-Street Parking 70203223051Total Analysis Volume [veh/h] 2051111013Total 15-Minute Volume [veh/h] 1.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.0000Other Adjustment Factor 0.98800.98800.98800.98800.98800.98800.98800.9880Peak Hour Factor 70201223050Total Hourly Volume [veh/h] 00000000Right Turn on Red Volume [veh/h] 00000000Other Volume [veh/h] 00000000Existing Site Adjustment Volume [veh/h] 00000000Pass-by Trips [veh/h] 00000000Diverted Trips [veh/h] 20100000Site-Generated Trips [veh/h] 00000000In-Process Volume [veh/h] 1.00401.00401.00401.00401.00401.00401.00401.0040Growth Factor 0.00Proportion of CAVs [%] 2.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.00Heavy Vehicles Percentage [%] 1.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.0000Base Volume Adjustment Factor 50199223050Base Volume Input [veh/h] Name Volumes 10/13/202310 Scenario 4: 4 Existing Plus Ambient Growth Plus Cumulative Plus Project PM Peak Hour Dowey Foster Bridge Residential Version 2022 (SP 0-8) Generated with Apx-152 0Pedestrian Clearance [s] 0Pedestrian Walk [s] 0Pedestrian Signal Group Exclusive Pedestrian Phase 1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00I, Upstream Filtering Factor 0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0Detector Length [ft] 0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0Detector Location [ft] NoNoPedestrian Recall NoNoMaximum Recall NoNoMinimum Recall 0.00.02.00.00.00.02.00.0l2, Clearance Lost Time [s] 0.00.02.00.00.00.02.00.0l1, Start-Up Lost Time [s] NoNoRest In Walk 0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0Delayed Vehicle Green [s] 0010000100Pedestrian Clearance [s] 00500050Walk [s] 0.00.03.00.00.00.03.00.0Vehicle Extension [s] 0019000220Split [s] 0.00.01.00.00.00.01.00.0All red [s] 0.00.03.00.00.00.03.00.0Amber [s] 001200001200Maximum Green [s] 0010000100Minimum Green [s] --------Lead / Lag Auxiliary Signal Groups 001000080Signal Group PermissivePermissivePermissivePermissivePermissivePermissivePermissivePermissiveControl Type Phasing & Timing 6.00Lost time [s] SingleBandPermissive Mode Lead Green - Beginning of First GreenOffset Reference 0.0Offset [s] Fully actuatedActuation Type Time of Day Pattern IsolatedCoordination Type 60Cycle Length [s] -Signal Coordination Group NoLocated in CBD Intersection Settings 10/13/202311 Scenario 4: 4 Existing Plus Ambient Growth Plus Cumulative Plus Project PM Peak Hour Dowey Foster Bridge Residential Version 2022 (SP 0-8) Generated with Apx-153 61.5717.8895th-Percentile Queue Length [ft/ln] 2.460.7295th-Percentile Queue Length [veh/ln] 34.219.9350th-Percentile Queue Length [ft/ln] 1.370.4050th-Percentile Queue Length [veh/ln] YesYesCritical Lane Group BBLane Group LOS 13.1915.28d, Delay for Lane Group [s/veh] 0.480.15X, volume / capacity Lane Group Results 1.001.00PF, progression factor 1.001.00Rp, platoon ratio 0.000.00d3, Initial Queue Delay [s] 0.810.19d2, Incremental Delay [s] 1.001.00I, Upstream Filtering Factor 0.110.11k, delay calibration 12.3815.09d1, Uniform Delay [s] 442372c, Capacity [veh/h] 18581585s, saturation flow rate [veh/h] 0.110.04(v / s)_i Volume / Saturation Flow Rate 0.240.12g / C, Green / Cycle 94g_i, Effective Green Time [s] 2.002.00l2, Clearance Lost Time [s] 0.002.00l1_p, Permitted Start-Up Lost Time [s] 4.004.00L, Total Lost Time per Cycle [s] 3838C, Cycle Length [s] CCLane Group Lane Group Calculations 10/13/202312 Scenario 4: 4 Existing Plus Ambient Growth Plus Cumulative Plus Project PM Peak Hour Dowey Foster Bridge Residential Version 2022 (SP 0-8) Generated with Apx-154 Movement, Approach, & Intersection Results d_M, Delay for Movement [s/veh]15.28 15.28 15.28 15.28 13.19 13.19 13.19 13.19 Movement LOS B B B B B B B B d_A, Approach Delay [s/veh]15.28 13.19 Approach LOS B B d_I, Intersection Delay [s/veh]12.89 Intersection LOS B Intersection V/C 0.494 Other Modes g_Walk,mi, Effective Walk Time [s]9.0 9.0 M_corner, Corner Circulation Area [ft²/ped]0.00 0.00 M_CW, Crosswalk Circulation Area [ft²/ped]0.00 0.00 d_p, Pedestrian Delay [s]10.88 10.88 I_p,int, Pedestrian LOS Score for Intersection 1.787 1.785 Crosswalk LOS A A s_b, Saturation Flow Rate of the bicycle lane 2000 2000 c_b, Capacity of the bicycle lane [bicycles/h]957 798 d_b, Bicycle Delay [s]5.11 6.79 I_b,int, Bicycle LOS Score for Intersection 1.649 1.898 Bicycle LOS A A ----------------Ring 4 ----------------Ring 3 --------------86Ring 2 -------------1042Ring 1 Sequence 10/13/202313 Scenario 4: 4 Existing Plus Ambient Growth Plus Cumulative Plus Project PM Peak Hour Dowey Foster Bridge Residential Version 2022 (SP 0-8) Generated with Apx-155 0.948Volume to Capacity (v/c): DLevel Of Service: 29.6Delay (sec / veh): 15 minutesAnalysis Period: HCM 7th EditionAnalysis Method: All-way stopControl Type: Intersection 3: Suva St (NS) at Guatemala Ave (EW) Intersection Level Of Service Report NoNoNoNoCrosswalk 0.000.000.000.00Grade [%] 25.0025.0025.0025.00Speed [mph] 0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00Exit Pocket Length [ft] 000000000000No. of Lanes in Exit Pocket 100.00100.00100.00100.00100.00100.00100.00100.00100.00100.00100.00100.00Entry Pocket Length [ft] 000000100000No. of Lanes in Entry Pocket 12.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.00Lane Width [ft] RightThruLeftRightThruLeftRightThruLeftRightThruLeftTurning Movement Lane Configuration WestboundEastboundSouthboundNorthboundApproach Name Intersection Setup 0000Pedestrian Volume [ped/h] 9326141336761334181361435814Total Analysis Volume [veh/h] 2374391933105344894Total 15-Minute Volume [veh/h] 1.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.0000Other Adjustment Factor 0.99000.99000.99000.99000.99000.99000.99000.99000.99000.99000.99000.9900Peak Hour Factor 9226141336751324141351435414Total Hourly Volume [veh/h] 000000000000Other Volume [veh/h] 000000000000Existing Site Adjustment Volume [veh/h] 000000000000Pass-by Trips [veh/h] 000000000000Diverted Trips [veh/h] 000100020282Site-Generated Trips [veh/h] 000000000000In-Process Volume [veh/h] 1.00401.00401.00401.00401.00401.00401.00401.00401.00401.00401.00401.0040Growth Factor 2.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.00Heavy Vehicles Percentage [%] 1.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.0000Base Volume Adjustment Factor 9226141236751314101341234512Base Volume Input [veh/h] Name Volumes 10/13/202314 Scenario 4: 4 Existing Plus Ambient Growth Plus Cumulative Plus Project PM Peak Hour Dowey Foster Bridge Residential Version 2022 (SP 0-8) Generated with Apx-156 DIntersection LOS 29.56Intersection Delay [s/veh] BBECApproach LOS 11.8912.5241.9919.05Approach Delay [s/veh] 24.2124.3418.19316.30114.6595th-Percentile Queue Length [ft] 0.970.970.7312.654.5995th-Percentile Queue Length [veh] Movement, Approach, & Intersection Results 0.250.250.200.950.64Degree of Utilization, x 537502675584602Capacity per Entry Lane [veh/h] Lanes Intersection Settings 10/13/202315 Scenario 4: 4 Existing Plus Ambient Growth Plus Cumulative Plus Project PM Peak Hour Dowey Foster Bridge Residential Version 2022 (SP 0-8) Generated with Apx-157 0.799Volume to Capacity (v/c): DLevel Of Service: 39.7Delay (sec / veh): 15 minutesAnalysis Period: HCM 7th EditionAnalysis Method: SignalizedControl Type: Intersection 4: Suva St (NS) at Paramount Blvd (EW) Intersection Level Of Service Report YesYesYesYesCrosswalk NoNoNoNoCurb Present 0.000.000.000.00Grade [%] 40.0040.0025.0025.00Speed [mph] 0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00Exit Pocket Length [ft] 000000000000No. of Lanes in Exit Pocket 100.00100.00115.00100.00100.00225.00100.00100.00100.00100.00100.00100.00Entry Pocket Length [ft] 001001000000No. of Lanes in Entry Pocket 12.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.00Lane Width [ft] RightThruLeftRightThruLeftRightThruLeftRightThruLeftTurning Movement Lane Configuration WestboundEastboundSouthboundNorthboundApproach Name Intersection Setup 10/13/202316 Scenario 4: 4 Existing Plus Ambient Growth Plus Cumulative Plus Project PM Peak Hour Dowey Foster Bridge Residential Version 2022 (SP 0-8) Generated with Apx-158 0000Bicycle Volume [bicycles/h] 0000v_ab, Corner Pedestrian Volume [ped/h] 0000v_ci, Inbound Pedestrian Volume crossing mi 0000v_co, Outbound Pedestrian Volume crossing 0000v_di, Inbound Pedestrian Volume crossing m 0000v_do, Outbound Pedestrian Volume crossing 000000000000Local Bus Stopping Rate [/h] 000000000000On-Street Parking Maneuver Rate [/h] NoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoPresence of On-Street Parking 19313301725118810316929218465Total Analysis Volume [veh/h] 48332462972642754121Total 15-Minute Volume [veh/h] 1.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.0000Other Adjustment Factor 0.96500.96500.96500.96500.96500.96500.96500.96500.96500.96500.96500.9650Peak Hour Factor 1861283162411469916328210465Total Hourly Volume [veh/h] 000000000000Right Turn on Red Volume [veh/h] 000000000000Other Volume [veh/h] 000000000000Existing Site Adjustment Volume [veh/h] 000000000000Pass-by Trips [veh/h] 000000000000Diverted Trips [veh/h] 9152093104000Site-Generated Trips [veh/h] 000000000000In-Process Volume [veh/h] 1.00401.00401.00401.00401.00401.00401.00401.00401.00401.00401.00401.0040Growth Factor 0.00Proportion of CAVs [%] 2.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.00Heavy Vehicles Percentage [%] 1.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.0000Base Volume Adjustment Factor 1761263142411329616128205465Base Volume Input [veh/h] Name Volumes 10/13/202317 Scenario 4: 4 Existing Plus Ambient Growth Plus Cumulative Plus Project PM Peak Hour Dowey Foster Bridge Residential Version 2022 (SP 0-8) Generated with Apx-159 0Pedestrian Clearance [s] 0Pedestrian Walk [s] 0Pedestrian Signal Group Exclusive Pedestrian Phase 1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00I, Upstream Filtering Factor 0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0Detector Length [ft] 0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0Detector Location [ft] NoNoNoNoNoNoPedestrian Recall NoNoNoNoNoNoMaximum Recall NoNoNoNoNoNoMinimum Recall 0.02.02.00.02.02.00.02.00.00.02.00.0l2, Clearance Lost Time [s] 0.02.02.00.02.02.00.02.00.00.02.00.0l1, Start-Up Lost Time [s] NoNoNoNoRest In Walk 0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0Delayed Vehicle Green [s] 07007001700170Pedestrian Clearance [s] 050050050050Walk [s] 0.03.03.00.03.03.00.03.00.00.03.00.0Vehicle Extension [s] 028110281102600260Split [s] 0.01.01.00.01.01.00.01.00.00.01.00.0All red [s] 0.03.03.00.03.03.00.03.00.00.03.00.0Amber [s] 012012001201200120001200Maximum Green [s] 0107010701000100Minimum Green [s] --Lead--Lead------Lead / Lag Auxiliary Signal Groups 047083020060Signal Group PermissPermissProtPerPermissPermissProtPerPermissPermissPermissPermissPermissPermissControl Type Phasing & Timing 6.00Lost time [s] SingleBandPermissive Mode Lead Green - Beginning of First GreenOffset Reference 0.0Offset [s] Fully actuatedActuation Type Time of Day Pattern IsolatedCoordination Type 65Cycle Length [s] -Signal Coordination Group NoLocated in CBD Intersection Settings 10/13/202318 Scenario 4: 4 Existing Plus Ambient Growth Plus Cumulative Plus Project PM Peak Hour Dowey Foster Bridge Residential Version 2022 (SP 0-8) Generated with Apx-160 656.44633.784.12258.76259.9126.42261.166.8895th-Percentile Queue Length [ft/ln] 26.2625.350.1610.3510.401.0610.450.2895th-Percentile Queue Length [veh/ln] 445.62432.442.29156.26157.1214.68158.063.8250th-Percentile Queue Length [ft/ln] 17.8217.300.096.256.280.596.320.1550th-Percentile Queue Length [veh/ln] YesNoNoNoNoYesYesNoCritical Lane Group FFABBBCBLane Group LOS 68.2461.539.7416.0716.0513.2125.4714.31d, Delay for Lane Group [s/veh] 1.091.080.050.730.730.260.690.03X, volume / capacity Lane Group Results 1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00PF, progression factor 1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00Rp, platoon ratio 0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00d3, Initial Queue Delay [s] 48.1941.480.051.261.250.356.260.08d2, Incremental Delay [s] 1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00I, Upstream Filtering Factor 0.110.110.110.110.110.110.500.50k, delay calibration 20.0520.059.6914.8114.8012.8619.2114.24d1, Uniform Delay [s] 686717362828834395605599c, Capacity [veh/h] 178918706071856187066915271541s, saturation flow rate [veh/h] 0.420.410.030.330.330.150.270.01(v / s)_i Volume / Saturation Flow Rate 0.380.380.540.450.450.540.340.34g / C, Green / Cycle 2525352929352222g_i, Effective Green Time [s] 2.002.000.002.002.000.002.002.00l2, Clearance Lost Time [s] 0.000.000.000.000.000.002.002.00l1_p, Permitted Start-Up Lost Time [s] 4.004.004.004.004.004.004.004.00L, Total Lost Time per Cycle [s] 6565656565656565C, Cycle Length [s] CCLCCLCCLane Group Lane Group Calculations 10/13/202319 Scenario 4: 4 Existing Plus Ambient Growth Plus Cumulative Plus Project PM Peak Hour Dowey Foster Bridge Residential Version 2022 (SP 0-8) Generated with Apx-161 Movement, Approach, & Intersection Results d_M, Delay for Movement [s/veh]14.31 14.31 14.31 25.47 25.47 25.47 13.21 16.06 16.07 9.74 64.34 68.24 Movement LOS B B B C C C B B B A E E d_A, Approach Delay [s/veh]14.31 25.47 15.84 64.23 Approach LOS B C B E d_I, Intersection Delay [s/veh]39.72 Intersection LOS D Intersection V/C 0.799 Other Modes g_Walk,mi, Effective Walk Time [s]9.0 9.0 9.0 9.0 M_corner, Corner Circulation Area [ft²/ped]0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 M_CW, Crosswalk Circulation Area [ft²/ped]0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 d_p, Pedestrian Delay [s]24.13 24.13 24.13 24.13 I_p,int, Pedestrian LOS Score for Intersection 1.746 2.052 3.025 3.362 Crosswalk LOS A B C C s_b, Saturation Flow Rate of the bicycle lane 2000 2000 2000 2000 c_b, Capacity of the bicycle lane [bicycles/h]677 677 738 738 d_b, Bicycle Delay [s]14.23 14.23 12.93 12.93 I_b,int, Bicycle LOS Score for Intersection 1.584 2.246 2.645 2.830 Bicycle LOS A B B C ----------------Ring 4 ----------------Ring 3 ------------876-Ring 2 ------------432-Ring 1 Sequence 10/13/202320 Scenario 4: 4 Existing Plus Ambient Growth Plus Cumulative Plus Project PM Peak Hour Dowey Foster Bridge Residential Version 2022 (SP 0-8) Generated with Apx-162 0.002Volume to Capacity (v/c): BLevel Of Service: 11.3Delay (sec / veh): 15 minutesAnalysis Period: HCM 7th EditionAnalysis Method: Two-way stopControl Type: Intersection 5: Foster Bridge Blvd (NS) at Project Dwy (EW) Intersection Level Of Service Report NoNoNoCrosswalk 0.000.000.00Grade [%] 25.0025.0025.00Speed [mph] 0.000.000.000.000.000.00Exit Pocket Length [ft] 000000No. of Lanes in Exit Pocket 100.00100.00100.00100.00100.00100.00Entry Pocket Length [ft] 000000No. of Lanes in Entry Pocket 12.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.00Lane Width [ft] RightLeftRightThruThruLeftTurning Movement Lane Configuration EastboundSouthboundNorthboundApproach Name Intersection Setup 000Pedestrian Volume [ped/h] 31221819811Total Analysis Volume [veh/h] 10154493Total 15-Minute Volume [veh/h] 1.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.0000Other Adjustment Factor 0.95000.95000.95000.95000.95000.9500Peak Hour Factor 31220718810Total Hourly Volume [veh/h] 000000Other Volume [veh/h] 000000Existing Site Adjustment Volume [veh/h] 000000Pass-by Trips [veh/h] 000000Diverted Trips [veh/h] 3120010Site-Generated Trips [veh/h] 000000In-Process Volume [veh/h] 1.00401.00401.00401.00401.00401.0040Growth Factor 2.002.002.002.002.002.00Heavy Vehicles Percentage [%] 1.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.0000Base Volume Adjustment Factor 0002061870Base Volume Input [veh/h] Name Volumes 10/13/202321 Scenario 4: 4 Existing Plus Ambient Growth Plus Cumulative Plus Project PM Peak Hour Dowey Foster Bridge Residential Version 2022 (SP 0-8) Generated with Apx-163 BIntersection LOS 0.29d_I, Intersection Delay [s/veh] AAAApproach LOS 9.900.000.40d_A, Approach Delay [s/veh] 0.410.410.000.000.460.4695th-Percentile Queue Length [ft/ln] 0.020.020.000.000.020.0295th-Percentile Queue Length [veh/ln] ABAAAAMovement LOS 9.4111.340.000.000.007.68d_M, Delay for Movement [s/veh] 0.000.000.000.000.000.01V/C, Movement V/C Ratio Movement, Approach, & Intersection Results 000Number of Storage Spaces in Median NoTwo-Stage Gap Acceptance 000Storage Area [veh] NoFlared Lane StopFreeFreePriority Scheme Intersection Settings 10/13/202322 Scenario 4: 4 Existing Plus Ambient Growth Plus Cumulative Plus Project PM Peak Hour Dowey Foster Bridge Residential Version 2022 (SP 0-8) Generated with Apx-164 APPENDIX E TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANT GRAPHS Apx-165 California Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devlces WARRANT 3, PEAK HOUR (Urban Areas) Traffic Conditions =Existing - AM Peak Hour Major Street Name =Suva Street Total of Both Approaches (VPH) =761 Number of Approach Lanes on Major Street =1 Minor Street Name =Guatemala Avenue High Volume Approach (VPH) =148 Number of Approach Lanes On Minor Street =1 SIGNAL WARRANT NOT SATISFIED * Note: 150 vph applies as the lower threshold volume for a minor-street approach with two or more lanes and 100 vph applies as the lower threshold volume for a minor-street approach with one lane. Mi n o r S t r e e t - H i g h e r - V o l u m e A p p r o a c h - V P H 76 1 148 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 Major Street - Total of Both Approaches - Vehicles Per Hour (VPH) 1 Lane (Major) & 1 Lane (Minor) 2+ Lanes (Major) & 1 Lane (Minor) OR 1 Lane (Major) & 2+ Lanes (Minor) 2+ Lanes (Major) & 2+ Lanes (Minor) Major Street Approaches Minor Street Approaches *150 *100 Urban - E AM.xls Sect. 4C.06 Apx-166 California Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devlces WARRANT 3, PEAK HOUR (Urban Areas) Traffic Conditions =Existing - PM Peak Hour Major Street Name =Suva Street Total of Both Approaches (VPH) =1044 Number of Approach Lanes on Major Street =1 Minor Street Name =Guatemala Avenue High Volume Approach (VPH) =132 Number of Approach Lanes On Minor Street =1 SIGNAL WARRANT NOT SATISFIED * Note: 150 vph applies as the lower threshold volume for a minor-street approach with two or more lanes and 100 vph applies as the lower threshold volume for a minor-street approach with one lane. Mi n o r S t r e e t - H i g h e r - V o l u m e A p p r o a c h - V P H 10 4 4 132 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 Major Street - Total of Both Approaches - Vehicles Per Hour (VPH) 1 Lane (Major) & 1 Lane (Minor) 2+ Lanes (Major) & 1 Lane (Minor) OR 1 Lane (Major) & 2+ Lanes (Minor) 2+ Lanes (Major) & 2+ Lanes (Minor) Major Street Approaches Minor Street Approaches *150 *100 JN19658_Signal Warrant 3 - Urban.xls Sect. 4C.06 Apx-167 California Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devlces WARRANT 3, PEAK HOUR (Urban Areas) Traffic Conditions =Existing Plus Ambient Growth Plus Cumualtive - AM Peak Hour Major Street Name =Suva Street Total of Both Approaches (VPH) =767 Number of Approach Lanes on Major Street =1 Minor Street Name =Guatemala Avenue High Volume Approach (VPH) =150 Number of Approach Lanes On Minor Street =1 SIGNAL WARRANT NOT SATISFIED * Note: 150 vph applies as the lower threshold volume for a minor-street approach with two or more lanes and 100 vph applies as the lower threshold volume for a minor-street approach with one lane. Mi n o r S t r e e t - H i g h e r - V o l u m e A p p r o a c h - V P H 76 7 150 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 Major Street - Total of Both Approaches - Vehicles Per Hour (VPH) 1 Lane (Major) & 1 Lane (Minor) 2+ Lanes (Major) & 1 Lane (Minor) OR 1 Lane (Major) & 2+ Lanes (Minor) 2+ Lanes (Major) & 2+ Lanes (Minor) Major Street Approaches Minor Street Approaches *150 *100 Urban - EAC AM.xls Sect. 4C.06 Apx-168 California Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devlces WARRANT 3, PEAK HOUR (Urban Areas) Traffic Conditions =Existing Plus Ambient Growth Plus Cumualtive - PM Peak Hour Major Street Name =Suva Street Total of Both Approaches (VPH) =1056 Number of Approach Lanes on Major Street =1 Minor Street Name =Guatemala Avenue High Volume Approach (VPH) =132 Number of Approach Lanes On Minor Street =1 SIGNAL WARRANT NOT SATISFIED * Note: 150 vph applies as the lower threshold volume for a minor-street approach with two or more lanes and 100 vph applies as the lower threshold volume for a minor-street approach with one lane. Mi n o r S t r e e t - H i g h e r - V o l u m e A p p r o a c h - V P H 10 5 6 132 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 Major Street - Total of Both Approaches - Vehicles Per Hour (VPH) 1 Lane (Major) & 1 Lane (Minor) 2+ Lanes (Major) & 1 Lane (Minor) OR 1 Lane (Major) & 2+ Lanes (Minor) 2+ Lanes (Major) & 2+ Lanes (Minor) Major Street Approaches Minor Street Approaches *150 *100 Urban - EAC PM.xls Sect. 4C.06 Apx-169 California Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devlces WARRANT 3, PEAK HOUR (Urban Areas) Traffic Conditions =Existing Plus Ambient Growth Plus Cumualtive Plus Project - AM Peak Hour Major Street Name =Suva Street Total of Both Approaches (VPH) =772 Number of Approach Lanes on Major Street =1 Minor Street Name =Guatemala Avenue High Volume Approach (VPH) =150 Number of Approach Lanes On Minor Street =1 SIGNAL WARRANT NOT SATISFIED * Note: 150 vph applies as the lower threshold volume for a minor-street approach with two or more lanes and 100 vph applies as the lower threshold volume for a minor-street approach with one lane. Mi n o r S t r e e t - H i g h e r - V o l u m e A p p r o a c h - V P H 77 2 150 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 Major Street - Total of Both Approaches - Vehicles Per Hour (VPH) 1 Lane (Major) & 1 Lane (Minor) 2+ Lanes (Major) & 1 Lane (Minor) OR 1 Lane (Major) & 2+ Lanes (Minor) 2+ Lanes (Major) & 2+ Lanes (Minor) Major Street Approaches Minor Street Approaches *150 *100 Urban - EACP AM.xls Sect. 4C.06 Apx-170 California Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devlces WARRANT 3, PEAK HOUR (Urban Areas) Traffic Conditions =Existing Plus Ambient Growth Plus Cumualtive Plus Project - PM Peak Hour Major Street Name =Suva Street Total of Both Approaches (VPH) =1063 Number of Approach Lanes on Major Street =1 Minor Street Name =Guatemala Avenue High Volume Approach (VPH) =132 Number of Approach Lanes On Minor Street =1 SIGNAL WARRANT NOT SATISFIED * Note: 150 vph applies as the lower threshold volume for a minor-street approach with two or more lanes and 100 vph applies as the lower threshold volume for a minor-street approach with one lane. Mi n o r S t r e e t - H i g h e r - V o l u m e A p p r o a c h - V P H 10 6 3 132 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 Major Street - Total of Both Approaches - Vehicles Per Hour (VPH) 1 Lane (Major) & 1 Lane (Minor) 2+ Lanes (Major) & 1 Lane (Minor) OR 1 Lane (Major) & 2+ Lanes (Minor) 2+ Lanes (Major) & 2+ Lanes (Minor) Major Street Approaches Minor Street Approaches *150 *100 Urban - EACP PM.xls Sect. 4C.06 Apx-171 GANDDINI GROUP INC. 714.795.3100 | ganddini.com To: Alfonso Hernandez, Principal Planner, City of Downey From: Kent Norton, Senior Env. Planner, MIG Riverside Subject: Foster Bridge & Bluff Residential Project – Response to Comments/Final MND/ Addendum Materials Date: January 9, 2024 On November 22, 2023 the City of Downey issued an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) for a 30-day local public review period to comply with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). As part of the CEQA process, the State Clearinghouse (SCH) issued the following tracking number for this project: 2023110053. The following information is considered a Response to Comments document for the IS/MND as well as an addendum as it provides supplemental information that merely clarifies and does not change the analysis or conclusions in the IS/MND. 1.Notice of Intent/Availability Circulation The original NOI/A was issued for the project on November 21, 2023 but City staff noted several minor corrections were needed so a revised NOI/A was issued and filed with the State Clearinghouse on November 22, 2023. Any written comments received on the IS /MND from November 21 through December 22 have been responded to in this memorandum (see below) 2.Response to Comments The public comment period ended on December 22, 2023 and the City re received two (2) written comments on the IS/MND, one from a concerned City resident living near the project and one from the Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts (LACSD). The following provides the comments received and provides responses to those comments as appropriate. 2.A Email from the Almazan Family dated November 28, 2023 Comment 1: We are the Almazan family living in the island next to the proposed project and we’d like to share our opinion and concerns on the matter. We have lived on Glencliff Drive for the past 27 years, small quaint neighborhood and want to keep it that way. We believe the amount of homes planned to be built is excessive for the small piece of land. This will greatly increase rush hour traffic for a gated community, which means we won’t have access to it but they will have access to our streets and leave their excess vehicles in front of our homes. With the average three bedroom home we very much doubt this new community will have enough parking spaces for their residents. Everyone knows people use their garages for storage rather than their cars, so where do you think they park? Even if restrictions are imposed, they eventually end up in nearby streets. We have seen this happen in too many neighborhoods. We hope the city of Downey takes our concerns serio Attachment E - (Exhibit A) City of Downey Response to Comments/Final MND Memo Foster Bridge & Bluff Project 2 MIG, Inc. protects the quality of life we have here rather than the monetary gain for the city. Sincerely, Javier and Maria Almazan. Response 1: It should first be noted the most recent changes to the State CEQA Guidelines Appendix G (Initial Study Checklist) eliminated consideration of traffic congestion (level of service) on local roadways and intersections, as well as parking provisions, as potential environmental impact issues to be evaluated in an Initial Study. However, these issues still remain as planning and engineering considerations during the City’s development review process, in addition to the CEQA process. The City reviews all development plans to assure they provide the minimum parking spaces required by the City Municipal Code, as well as adopted state and regional standards.. 2.B Letter from Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts dated December 13, 2023 Comment 1: Patricia Horsley, an environmental planner with the facilities planning department of the Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts (LACSD), requested the following information be incorporated into the IS/MND: The proposed project is located within the jurisdictional boundaries of District No. 2. We offer the following comments regarding sewerage service: 1. The wastewater flow originating from the proposed project will discharge to a local sewer line, which is not maintained by the Districts, for conveyance to the Districts’ Montebello Trunk, located in Florence Place at Toler Avenue. The Districts’ 21 -inch diameter trunk sewer has a capacity of 4.0 million gallons per day (mgd) and conveyed a peak flow of 1.1 mgd when last measured in 2016. 2. The expected increase in average wastewater flow from the project, described in the NOI as 33-unit townhouse, is 8,156 gallons per day, after the church on the project site is demolished. For a copy of the Districts’ average wastewater generation factors, go to www.lacsd.org, under Services, then Wastewater Program and Permits and select Will Serve Program, and click on the Table 1, Loadings for Each Class of Land Use link. 3. The wastewater generated by the proposed project will be treated at the A.K. Warren Water Resource Facility (Warren Facility), formerly known as the Joint Water Pollution Control Plant, located in the City of Carson, which has a capacity of 400 mgd and currently processes an average flow of 243.1 mgd. 4. The Districts are empowered by the California Health and Safety Code to charge a fee to connect facilities (directly or indirectly) to the Districts’ Sewerage System or to increase the strength or quantity of wastewater discharged from connected facilit ies. This connection fee is used by the Districts for its capital facilities. Payment of a connection fee may be required before this project is permitted to discharge to the Districts’ Sewerage System. For more information and a copy of the Connection Fee Information Sheet, go to www.lacsd.org, under Services, then Wastewater (Sewage) and select Rates & Fees. In determining the impact to the Sewerage System and applicable connection fees, the Districts will determine the user category (e.g. Condominium, Single Family Home, etc.) that best represents the actual or anticipated Attachment E - (Exhibit A) City of Downey Response to Comments/Final MND Memo Foster Bridge & Bluff Project 3 MIG, Inc. use of the parcel(s) or facilities on the parcel(s) in the development. For more specific information regarding the connection fee application procedure and fees, please contact the Districts’ Wastewater Fee Public Counter at (562) 908 -4288, extension 2727. 5. In order for the Districts to conform to the requirements of the Federal Clean Air Act (CAA), the capacities of the Districts’ wastewater treatment facilities are based on the regional growth forecast adopted by the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). Specific policies included in the development of the SCAG regional growth forecast are incorporated into clean air plans, which are prepared by the South Coast and Antelope Valley Air Quality Management Districts in order to improve air quality in the South Coast and Mojave Desert Air Basins as mandated by the CAA. All expansions of Districts’ facilities must be sized and service phased in a manner that will be consistent with the SCAG regional growth forecast for the counties of Los Angeles, Orange, San Bernardino, Riverside, Ventura, and Imperial. The available capacity of the Districts’ treatment facilities will, therefore, be limited to levels associated with the approved growth identified by SCAG. As such, this letter does not constitute a guarantee of wastewater service but is to advise the City that the Districts intend to provide this service up to the levels that are legally permitted and to inform the City of the currently existing capacity and any proposed expansion of the Distric ts’ facilities. Response 1: This information is hereby incorporated into Section 4.19, Utilities (c. Wastewater) of the IS/MND. It does not change the determination of impact significance in Section 4.19.c regarding sewer systems (i.e., less than significant impact with regulatory compliance including the permits and processes outlined above in the LACSD letter). This additional information does not change the analysis or conclusions (no mitigation) in the IS/MND regarding wastewater/sewer systems. 3. Traffic and Circulation Analysis (Revised) An updated Traffic and Circulation Analysis was prepared for the project by Ganddini Group, Inc. dated Nov 15, 2023 (original dated October 13, 2023). The updated report was included as Appendix H-2 of the IS/MND. It should be noted the most recent changes to the State CEQA Guidelines Appendix G (Initial Study Checklist) eliminated consideration of traffic congestion (level of service) on local roadways and intersections, as well as parking, as potential environmental impact issues to be evaluated in an Initial Study. However, these issues still remain as planning and engineering considerations during the City’s development review process, in addition to the CEQA process. 4. Final Historical/Archaeological Resources Survey Report The IS/MND included a preliminary (draft) historical/archaeological resources survey memorandum prepared by CRM TECH dated October 13, 2023 as Appendix C-1. This report was considered preliminary as it did not contain a formal written response from the State Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) regarding cultural resources listed in their archives. However, the City did receive extensive information on local archaeological/Native American tribal resources from Gabrieleno tribal representatives during the City’s Native American Consultation Process per SB 18 and AB 52, as outlined in Sections 4.5 and 4.18 of the IS/MND. Attachment E - (Exhibit A) City of Downey Response to Comments/Final MND Memo Foster Bridge & Bluff Project 4 MIG, Inc. On December 6, 2023, CRM TECH issued a revised (final) historical/archaeological resources survey report which included NAHC archival information. This additional information supports the analysis and conclusions in the IS/MND that the site and immediate surrounding area do not contain identified historical or cultural resources or artifacts. However, information from local tribal representatives still indicates Native American tribal resources may be present in the project area. Therefore, the IS/MND recommended Mitigation Measures CUL-1 to retain a project archaeologist and TCR-1 through TCR-3 as recommended by the Gabrieleno tribe in their consultation with the City to address tribal monitoring of grading, disposition of unanticipated resources during grading, and treating human remains if found during grading. The additional information in the revised CRM TECH report does not change the analysis, conclusions, or mitigation in the IS/MND. 5. Revised Noise Mitigation Measure NOI-4 During circulation of the draft IS/MND for public review, MIG and City staff realized a modification to Mitigation Measure NOI-1 was needed regarding the extent of the noise wall to reduce construction noise impacts. The measure outlined in the IS/MND incorrectly indicated the noise barrier would need to extend around the entire site. However, the noise assessment determined the barrier was only needed along the north boundary of the site adjacent to the closest sensitive receptor (one single family residence). The noise study concluded City noise standards would not be exceeded at other sensitive receptor locations around the site without the barrier. Mitigation Measure NOI-4 is hereby modified as shown below (deleted text is shown in strikeout, added text is shown underlined): NOI-4: Implement Construction Activity Noise Control Measures. The following measures shall apply to project construction activities: a. Demolition: Activities shall be sequenced to take advantage of existing shielding/noise reduction provided by existing buildings or parts of buildings and methods that minimize noise and vibration, such as sawing concrete blocks, prohibiting on -site hydraulic breakers, crushing or other pulverization activities, shall be employed during project construction. b. Demolition, Site Preparation, Grading, and Foundation Work: During all demolition, site preparation, grading, and structure foundation work activities, a physical noise barrier shall be installed and maintained around the site perimeter to the maximum extent feasible given site constraints and access requirements along the north boundary of the project site. The noise barrier shall extend to a height of eight (8) feet above grade. Potential barrier options capable of reducing construction noise levels could include, but are not limited to: i. A concrete, wood, or other barrier installed at-grade (or mounted to structures located at-grade, such as a K-Rail), and consisting of a solid material (i.e., free of openings or gaps other than weep holes) that has a minimum rated transmission loss value of 20 dB. Attachment E - (Exhibit A) City of Downey Response to Comments/Final MND Memo Foster Bridge & Bluff Project 5 MIG, Inc. ii. Commercially available acoustic panels or other products such as acoustic barrier blankets that have a minimum sound transmission class (STC) or transmission loss value of 20 dB. iii. Any combination of noise barriers and commercial products capable of achieving required construction noise reductions during demolition, site preparation, grading, and structure foundation work activities. The noise barrier may be removed following the completion of building foundation work (i.e., it is not necessary once framing and typical vertical building construction begins provided no other grading, foundation, etc. work is still occurring on -site). Again, the noise study determined the noise barrier was only needed along the north boundary of the site to comply with the City’s noise requirements. Therefore, this change does not result in any significant noise impacts and no significant changes to the analysis of project noise impacts. This change will be reflected in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) described below. 6. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) As described above, the noise study determined the noise barrier proposed in Mitigation Measure NOI-4 was only needed along the north boundary of the site, rather than the entire site, to comply with the City’s noise requirements. Therefore, the corrected measure will be incorporated into the final IS/MND and MMRP (see attached). 7. Conclusion This additional information, updated reports, and responses to written comments on the IS/MND do not substantially change the data, analyses, conclusions, or mitigation measures considered in the IS/MND (i.e., they do not identify any significant environmental impacts). The only minor revision needed to the “draft” IS/MND is a modification to Mitigation Measure NOI-4 regarding the extent of the noise wall to reduce construction noise impacts. Therefore, there are no “substantial revisions” to the IS/MND required and no need to recirculate the IS/MND for additional public review per CEQA Guidelines Section 15073.5. Attachments: Comment Email 2.A and Letter 2.B Revised Archaeo/Hist Report (Appdx C-1, 12-6-23) Mitigation Monitoring Program (1-9-24) Attachment E - (Exhibit A) Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan 1 City of Downey – Foster Bridge and Bluff Community Residential Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Progra m Project: Foster Bridge and Bluff Community Residential Project (VTTM 84168) Date: January 9, 2024 Impact Category/ Mitigation Measures Implementation Timing Responsible Monitoring Party Monitoring/ Reporting Method Compliance Verification AESTHETICS AES-1: Enhanced Landscaping. Prior to issuance of the first occupancy permit, the developer shall install enhanced landscaping along the northern boundary of the site. Its purpose is to substantially block views and lighting from the project site onto the residence at 7336 Foster Bridge Boulevard just north of the site. The design and location of this enhanced landscaping, primarily trees, shall be the responsibility of the City Planning Department. Prior to issuance of the first certificate of occupancy Developer and landscaping contractor City Planning staff verify installation prior to COO issued BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Nesting Bird Survey. To the extent feasible, construction activities shall be scheduled to avoid the nesting season. If construction activities are scheduled to take place outside the nesting season, all impacts to nesting birds protected under the MBTA and California Fish and Game Code must be avoided. The nesting season for most birds in Los Angeles County extends from February 1 through September 1. If it is not possible to schedule construction activities between September 1 and January 31, then a pre-construction survey for nesting birds will be conducted by a qualified biologist to ensure that no nests would be disturbed during project implementation. This survey will be conducted no more than 5 days prior to the initiation of any site disturbance activities and equipment mobilization, including tree, shrub, or vegetation removal, fence installation, grading, etc. If project activities are delayed by more than 5 days, an additional nesting bird survey will be performed. During this survey, the biologist will inspect all trees and other potential nesting habitats (e.g., trees and shrubs) in and immediately adjacent to the impact area for nests. Active nesting is present if a bird is building a nest, sitting in a nest, a nest has eggs or chicks in it, or adults are observed carrying food to the nest. The results of the survey(s) will be documented. If an active nest is found sufficiently close to work areas to be disturbed by these activities, the qualified biologist will determine the extent of a construction-free buffer zone to be established around the nest (typically up to 300 feet for raptors and up to 100 feet for other species), to ensure that no nests of species protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and California Fish and Game Code will be disturbed during project implementation. Within the buffer zone, no site disturbance and mobilization of heavy equipment, including but not limited to equipment staging, fence installation, clearing, grubbing, vegetation removal, demolition, and grading will be permitted until the chicks have fledged. No more than 3 days prior to the start of any ground disturbance City Planning Department Written proof of survey prior to issuance of a grading permit Attachment E (Exhibit B) Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan 2 City of Downey – Foster Bridge and Bluff Community Residential Project Impact Category/ Mitigation Measures Implementation Timing Responsible Monitoring Party Monitoring/ Reporting Method Compliance Verification A qualified biologist is an individual who has a degree in biological sciences or related resource management with a minimum of two seasonal years post- degree experience conducting surveys for nesting birds. During or following academic training, the qualified biologist will have achieved a high level of professional experience and knowledge in biological sciences and special- status species identification, ecology, and habitat requirements. CULTURAL RESOURCES CUL-1: Unanticipated Resources. In the event that archaeological resources (sites, features, or artifacts) are exposed during construction activities of the project, all construction work occurring within 100 feet of the find shall immediately stop until a qualified archaeologist, meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards, can evaluate the significance of the find and determine whether or not additional study is warranted. Depending upon the significance of the find under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA: 14 CCR 15064.5(f): PRC Section 21083.2), the archaeologist may simply record the find and allow work to continue. However, if the discovery proves significant under CEQA, additional work, such as preparation of an archaeological treatment plan, testing, or data recovery, may be warranted. During and after grading City Planning Department, project archaeologist, and consulting tribe(s) to determine disposition of any unique archeological resources City Planning Department to document continued consultation as needed with tribal representatives GEOLOGY/SOILS/PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES GEO-1: Supplemental Geotechnical Report. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the project proponent shall retain a qualified geotechnical consultant to prepare a supplemental geotechnical investigation as recommended by the “Geotechnical Due-Diligence Investigation” prepared by Albus & Associates, Inc. dated February 6, 2023. The supplemental report shall be certified by the City Engineer as adequate for the purposes of design, permitting, and construction. Prior to issuance of a grading permit Qualified engineer shall submit a supplemental geotechnical report to the City Engineering Department City Engineer shall sign off on the supplemental report prior to issuance of the permit GEO-2: Conduct Paleontological Sensitivity Training for Construction Personnel. The project proponent must retain a professional paleontologist, who meets the qualifications set forth by the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology, to conduct a Paleontological Sensitivity Training for construction personnel before commencement of excavation activities. The training would include a handout and would focus on how to identify paleontological resources that may be encountered during earthmoving activities, and the procedures to be followed in such an event; the duties of paleontological monitors; notification and other procedures to follow upon discovery of resources; and the general steps a qualified professional paleontologist would follow in conducting a salvage investigation if one is necessary. Prior to the start of grading or clearing the site Developer shall retain a qualified paleontologist to conduct training of grading and clearing staff regarding paleontological resources Project paleontologist shall prepare a brief report to the City Planning Department summarizing their training efforts. GEO-3: Conduct Periodic Paleontological Spot Checks During Grading and Earth-Moving Activities. The project proponent must retain a During grading Project paleontologist shall Project paleontologist shall Attachment E (Exhibit B) Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan 3 City of Downey – Foster Bridge and Bluff Community Residential Project Impact Category/ Mitigation Measures Implementation Timing Responsible Monitoring Party Monitoring/ Reporting Method Compliance Verification professional paleontologist, who meets the qualifications set forth by the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology, to conduct periodic Paleontological Spot Checks beginning at depths below six feet from the surface to determine if construction excavations extend into older Quaternary deposits. After the initial Paleontological Spot Check, further periodic checks would be conducted at the discretion of the qualified paleontologist. If the qualified paleontologist determines that construction excavations have extended into the older Quaternary deposits, construction monitoring for Paleontological Resources are required. The project proponent must retain a qualified paleontological monitor, who would work under the guidance and direction of a professional paleontologist, who meets the qualifications set forth by the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology. The paleontological monitor must be present during all construction excavations (e.g., grading, trenching, or clearing/grubbing) into the older Pleistocene alluvial deposits. Multiple earth- moving construction activities may require multiple paleontological monitors. The frequency of monitoring is based on the rate of excavation and grading activities, proximity to known paleontological resources and/or unique geological features, the materials being excavated (native versus artificial fill soils), and the depth of excavation, and if found, the abundance and type of paleontological resources and/or unique geological features encountered. Full-time monitoring can be reduced to part-time inspections if determined adequate by the qualified professional paleontologist. conduct unannounced checks of project clearing and grading to assure proper procedures of GEO- 2 are being followed prepare a brief report to the City Planning Department summarizing the results of their monitoring efforts GEO-4: Cease Ground-Disturbing Activities and Implement Treatment Plan if Paleontological Resources Are Encountered. In the event that paleontological resources and or unique geological features are unearthed during ground-disturbing activities, ground-disturbing activities the paleontological monitor may halt or divert away from the vicinity of the find so that the find can be evaluated. A buffer area of at least 50 feet must be established around the find where construction activities are not allowed to continue until an appropriate paleontological treatment plan is approved by the project proponent and the City. Work is allowed to continue outside of the buffer area. The project proponent and City would coordinate with a professional paleontologist, who meets the qualifications set forth by the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology, to develop an appropriate treatment plan for the resources. Treatment may include implementation of paleontological salvage excavations to remove the resource along with subsequent laboratory processing and analysis or preservation in place. At the paleontologist’s discretion and to reduce construction delay, the grading and excavation contractor would assist in removing rock samples for initial processing. During grading If summoned to the site or observes paleontological resources, the project paleontologist shall immediately halt grading to evaluate the find and determine appropriate action based on the find and notify the City Planning Department immediately of the discovery Once notified, the Planning Department shall monitor any recovery activities in consultation with the project paleontologist GEO-5: Prepare Report Upon Completion of Monitoring Services. If paleontological resources are found, upon completion of the activities identified under Mitigation Measure GEO-4, the professional paleontologist Within 45 days of the Paleontologist shall prepare a summary report of monitoring The Planning Department shall confirm in email or Attachment E (Exhibit B) Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan 4 City of Downey – Foster Bridge and Bluff Community Residential Project Impact Category/ Mitigation Measures Implementation Timing Responsible Monitoring Party Monitoring/ Reporting Method Compliance Verification would prepare a report summarizing the results of the monitoring and salvaging efforts, the methodology used in these efforts, and a description of the fossils collected and their significance. The report would be submitted to the project proponent, the City, the Natural History Museums of Los Angeles County, and representatives of other appropriate or concerned agencies to signify the satisfactory completion of the project and required mitigation measures. completion of grading activities, any resources found, and the disposition of any resources writing the receipt of the project paleontologist’s report(s). HAZARDS/HAZARDOUS MATERIALS HAZ-1: Inadvertent Hazmat Discovery. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the project proponent shall retain a qualified environmental professional (QEP) experienced with remediating hazardous materials from infill urban construction sites. The QEP must be on-call and summoned to the site immediately if any potentially hazardous materials are found during grading. Grading must be halted within 100 feet of an area that appears to contain hazardous materials. The QEP will halt grading as necessary to effectively identify the potential contaminated materials, including directing any sampling and laboratory testing that may be required. If soils are found to be contaminated at levels that are only slightly in excess of applicable residential standards, the QEP shall exercise professional discretion and have the option to coordinate with the grading contractor and developer to either remove contaminated soil and/or mix the contaminated soil with clean soil from either onsite or offsite to dilute any contaminants to below applicable exposure standards for residential development. Remediated areas must be retested to assure potential contaminant levels are below applicable residential standards. The results of any testing shall be provided to the City or other agencies as appropriate and no further action is needed. Any contaminated soil that must be removed from the site shall be done by a licensed contractor and hauled to a landfill approved for such materials. This measure shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the City Community Development Department. Prior to issuance of a grading permit During grading Developer shall retain a QEP and provide written proof to the City Planning Department Upon notification or observing the discovery of any unknown materials during grading, the Project QEP shall halt work in that area and determine the identify of the material(s). If any hazardous materials are found, the QEP will coordinate with the City, developer, and LA County Fire Department, Health Hazardous Materials Division (CUPA) if necessary to determine the appropriate disposition for the materials. HAZ-2: ACMs and LBP Survey. Prior to demolition of any structures on the project site, the developer shall retain qualified licensed environmental contractor(s) to survey the existing onsite church building and any related structures for asbestos-containing materials (ACMs) and Lead-Based Paints Prior to issuance of a demolition permit Developer shall retain qualified personnel to survey the church buildings Developer shall document results of ACM and LBP survey and what, if Attachment E (Exhibit B) Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan 5 City of Downey – Foster Bridge and Bluff Community Residential Project Impact Category/ Mitigation Measures Implementation Timing Responsible Monitoring Party Monitoring/ Reporting Method Compliance Verification (LBPs). If the survey finds the presence of any ACMs or LBPs on the site, the contractor(s) shall follow all relevant guidance from affected regulatory agencies (e.g., CalEPA, SCAQMD, DTSC, County Health Department, etc.) in terms of safe removal and disposal of the contaminated materials as appropriate. The contractor(s) shall prepare and submit a final report to the City Community Development Department within 30 days after completion of demolition/removal for ACMs and LBPs on the project site. for ACMs and LBP and conduct appropriate remediation of such materials are found any, remediation was conducted. Demolition permit shall not be issued until the City Planning Department concurs with its findings NOISE NOI-1: Notify Residential Land Uses of Planned Construction Activities. This notice shall be provided at least two (2) weeks prior to the start of any construction activities, describe the noise control measures to be implemented by the project, and include the name and phone number of the designated contact for the project proponent and the City of Downey responsible for handling construction-related noise complaints (per MM NOI- 5). This notice shall be provided to the owner/occupants of residential dwelling units within 500 feet of construction work areas. At least two (2) weeks prior to the start of any construction activities Developer shall provide verifiable notice to local residential neighbors within 200 feet of the project boundaries of the start of construction Developer shall provide copies of notices, mailing lists, methods of delivery, and confirmation of receiving the notices NOI-2: Restrict Work Hours. All construction-related work activities, including material deliveries, shall be subject to the requirements of City Municipal Code Section 4.50.100. Construction activities, including deliveries, shall occur only during the hours of 7 AM to 7 PM Monday to Friday and 9 AM to 6 PM on Saturday, Sunday, and holidays. The project proponent representative and/or its contractor shall post a sign at all entrances to the construction site informing contractors, subcontractors, other workers, etc. of this requirement During any construction- related activities on the site Developer shall certify to the City they are enforcing the City’s work hour restrictions, post appropriate signs, and place work hour limits on construction plans City Inspectors as appropriate to monitor work hour limits as necessary NOI-3: Construction Equipment Selection, Use, and Noise Control Measures. The following measures shall apply to construction equipment used at the project site: a. Contractors shall use the smallest size equipment capable of safely completing work activities. b. Construction staging shall occur as far away from residential land uses as possible given site and active work constraints. c. Electric hook-ups shall be provided for stationary equipment (e.g., pumps, compressors, welding sets). If it is not feasible to provide an electric hook- up, the project proponent shall ensure mitigation measures 3a and 3d are implemented. d. All stationary noise generating equipment shall be shielded and located as far as possible from residential land uses given site and active work constraints. Shielding may consist of existing vacant structures or a three- Prior to and during any construction activities on the site Developer shall certify in writing they will implement these procedures during all work activities. Notes shall be placed on construction plans to this effect and initialed by all sub- contractors City Inspectors shall verify this compliance with unannounced inspections during work activities Attachment E (Exhibit B) Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan 6 City of Downey – Foster Bridge and Bluff Community Residential Project Impact Category/ Mitigation Measures Implementation Timing Responsible Monitoring Party Monitoring/ Reporting Method Compliance Verification or four-sided enclosure provided the structure/enclosure breaks the line of sight between the equipment and the receptor and provides for proper ventilation and equipment operation. e. Heavy equipment engines shall be equipped with standard noise suppression devices such as mufflers, engine covers, and engine/mechanical isolators, mounts, and be maintained in accordance with manufacturer’s recommendations during active construction activities. f. Pneumatic tools shall include a suppression device on the compressed air exhaust. g. No radios or other amplified sound devices shall be audible beyond the property line of the construction site. NOI-4: Implement Construction Activity Noise Control Measures. The following measures shall apply to project construction activities: a. Demolition: Activities shall be sequenced to take advantage of existing shielding/noise reduction provided by existing buildings or parts of buildings and methods that minimize noise and vibration, such as sawing concrete blocks, prohibiting on-site hydraulic breakers, crushing or other pulverization activities, shall be employed during project construction. b. Demolition, Site Preparation, Grading, and Foundation Work: During all demolition, site preparation, grading, and structure foundation work activities, a physical noise barrier shall be installed and maintained around the site perimeter to the maximum extent feasible given site constraints and access requirements along the north boundary of the project site*. The noise barrier shall extend to a height of eight (8) feet above grade. Potential barrier options capable of reducing construction noise levels could include, but are not limited to: i. A concrete, wood, or other barrier installed at-grade (or mounted to structures located at-grade, such as a K-Rail), and consisting of a solid material (i.e., free of openings or gaps other than weep holes) that has a minimum rated transmission loss value of 20 dB. ii. Commercially available acoustic panels or other products such as acoustic barrier blankets that have a minimum sound transmission class (STC) or transmission loss value of 20 dB. iii. Any combination of noise barriers and commercial products capable of achieving required construction noise reductions during demolition, site preparation, grading, and structure foundation work activities. During all project construction activities as appropriate Developer shall certify to the City these measures will be implemented by all contractors and sub-contractors on the site City Inspectors shall verify this compliance with unannounced inspections during work activities Attachment E (Exhibit B) Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan 7 City of Downey – Foster Bridge and Bluff Community Residential Project Impact Category/ Mitigation Measures Implementation Timing Responsible Monitoring Party Monitoring/ Reporting Method Compliance Verification iv. The noise barrier may be removed following the completion of building foundation work (i.e., it is not necessary once framing and typical vertical building construction begins provided no other grading, foundation, etc. work is still occurring on-site). NOI-5: Prepare a Construction Noise Complaint Plan. The project proponent shall prepare a Construction Noise Complaint Plan that shall: a. Identify the name and/or title and contact information (including phone number and email) for a designated project and City representative responsible for addressing construction-related noise issues. b. Includes procedures describing how the designated project representative will receive, respond, and resolve construction noise complaints. c. At a minimum, upon receipt of a noise complaint, the project representative shall notify the City contact, identify the noise source generating the complaint, determine the cause of the complaint, and take steps to resolve the complaint. Prior to issuance of any permit for any construction activities Developer, in consultation with their noise consultant, shall prepare a CNCP for review and approval by the City Planning Department The City Planning Department shall approve the CNCP prior to issuance of any work permits for the project Tribal Cultural Resources TCR-1: Tribal Monitor. The project applicant/lead agency shall retain a Native American Monitor from or approved by the Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation. The monitor shall be retained prior to the commencement of any “ground-disturbing activity” for the subject project at all project locations (i.e., both on-site and any off-site locations that are included in the project description/definition and/or required in connection with the project, such as public improvement work). “Ground-disturbing activity” shall include, but is not limited to, demolition, pavement removal, potholing, auguring, grubbing, tree removal, boring, grading, excavation, drilling, and trenching. A copy of the executed monitoring agreement shall be submitted to the lead agency prior to the commencement of any ground-disturbing activity, or the issuance of any permit necessary to commence a ground-disturbing activity. The monitor will complete daily monitoring logs that will provide descriptions of the relevant ground-disturbing activities, the type of construction activities performed, locations of ground-disturbing activities, soil types, cultural-related materials, and any other facts, conditions, materials, or discoveries of significance to the Tribe. Monitor logs will identify and describe any discovered TCRs, including but not limited to, Native American cultural and historical artifacts, remains, places of significance, etc., (collectively, tribal cultural resources, or “TCR”), as well as any discovered Native American (ancestral) human remains and burial goods. Copies of monitor logs will be Prior to issuance of a grading permit During grading Developer shall submit written verification of NA tribal monitoring agreement(s) Tribal monitor(s) to observe grading and confirm completion to the City Planning Department Planning Department verify signed agreement(s) in place Planning Department confirm receipt of tribal completion notice Attachment E (Exhibit B) Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan 8 City of Downey – Foster Bridge and Bluff Community Residential Project Impact Category/ Mitigation Measures Implementation Timing Responsible Monitoring Party Monitoring/ Reporting Method Compliance Verification provided to the project applicant/lead agency upon written request to the Tribe. On-site tribal monitoring shall conclude upon the latter of the following (1) written confirmation to the Kizh from a designated point of contact for the project applicant/lead agency that all ground-disturbing activities and phases that may involve ground-disturbing activities on the project site or in connection with the project are complete; or (2) a determination and written notification by the Kizh to the project applicant/lead agency that no future, planned construction activity and/or development/construction phase at the project site possesses the potential to impact Kizh TCRs. TCR-2: Unanticipated Discoveries. Upon discovery of any Tribal Cultural Resources (TCRs), all construction activities in the immediate vicinity of the discovery shall cease (i.e., not less than the surrounding 50 feet) and shall not resume until the discovered TCR has been fully assessed by the Kizh monitor and/or Kizh archaeologist. The Kizh will recover and retain all discovered TCRs in the form and/or manner the Tribe deems appropriate, in the Tribe’s sole discretion, and for any purpose the Tribe deems appropriate, including for educational, cultural and/or historic purposes. During grading Tribal monitor(s) and/or archaeologist communicate discovery of resources within one hour of discovery to Planning Department Planning Department confirm tribal notification and consult with monitoring tribe as to the disposition of the discovered resource TCR-3: Human Remains. Native American human remains are defined in PRC 5097.98 (d)(1) as an inhumation or cremation, and in any state of decomposition or skeletal completeness. Funerary objects, called associated grave goods in Public Resources Code Section 5097.98, are also to be treated according to this statute. If Native American human remains and/or grave goods are discovered or recognized on the project site, then Public Resource Code 5097.9 as well as Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 shall be followed. Human remains and grave/burial goods shall be treated alike per California Public Resources Code section 5097.98(d)(1) and (2). Preservation in place (i.e., avoidance) is the preferred manner of treatment for discovered human remains and/or burial goods. Any discovery of human remains/burial goods shall be kept confidential to prevent further disturbance. During grading Tribal monitor(s) and/or archaeologist communicate discovery of remains within one hour of discovery to Planning Department Planning Department confirm tribal notification and consult with monitoring tribe as to the disposition of the discovered remains * This minor change was made to correct an inaccurate statement in the draft IS/MND noise section that the proposed constructio n noise barrier was needed around the entire site since the noise study determined the barrier was actually needed only on the north side of the site to meet City noise standards. This change is documented in the Final IS/MND Memo dated January 9, 2024. Attachment E (Exhibit B) Foster Bridge and Bluff Residential Project Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Lead Agency: City of Downey Community Development Department 11111 Brookshire Avenue Downey, California 92041 Contact: Alfonso Hernandez ashernandez@downeyca.org Applicant: The Olson Company 3020 Old Ranch Parkway, Suite 100 Seal Beach, California 90740 Contact: Steven Armanino sarmanino@theolsonco.com Prepared by: MIG, Inc. 1650 Spruce Street, Suite 106 Riverside, CA 92507 Contact: Kent Norton knorton@migcom.com Public Review Draft November 21, 2023 - This document is designed for double -sided printing.- Foster Bridge and Bluff Residential Project i City of Downey Table of Contents 1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 1 1.1 – Purpose of CEQA .................................................................................................... 1 1.2 – Public Comments .................................................................................................... 2 1.3 – Availability of Materials ............................................................................................ 3 1.4 -- History of the Site …………………………………………………………..……………..3 2 Project Description................................................................................................................... 5 2.1 – Project Title ............................................................................................................. 5 2.2 – Lead Agency Name and Address ............................................................................ 5 2.3 – Contact Person and Phone Number ........................................................................ 5 2.4 – Project Sponsor’s Name and Address ..................................................................... 5 2.5 – Project Location....................................................................................................... 5 2.6 – General Plan Land Use Designation ........................................................................ 6 2.7 – Zoning District ......................................................................................................... 6 2.8 – Surrounding Land Uses ........................................................................................... 6 2.9 – Environmental Setting ............................................................................................. 7 2.10 – Project Description .................................................................................................. 7 2.11 – Required Approvals ............................................................................................... 10 2.12 – Other Public Agency Whose Approval is Required ................................................ 10 3 Environmental Determination ................................................................................................. 33 3.1 – Environmental Factors Potentially Affected ........................................................... 33 3.2 – Determination ........................................................................................................ 33 4 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts ..................................................................................... 35 4.1 – Aesthetics .............................................................................................................. 35 4.2 – Agriculture and Forest Resources ......................................................................... 38 4.3 – Air Quality .............................................................................................................. 40 4.4 – Biological Resources ............................................................................................. 48 4.5 – Cultural Resources ................................................................................................ 51 4.6 – Energy ................................................................................................................... 53 4.7 – Geology and Soils ................................................................................................. 55 4.8 – Greenhouse Gas Emissions .................................................................................. 60 4.9 – Hazards and Hazardous Materials......................................................................... 65 4.10 Hydrology and Water Quality ................................................................................. 70 4.11 – Land Use and Planning ......................................................................................... 76 4.12 – Mineral Resources ................................................................................................ 77 4.13 – Noise ..................................................................................................................... 78 4.14 Population and Housing ........................................................................................ 90 4.15 Public Services ...................................................................................................... 91 4.16 Recreation ............................................................................................................. 95 4.17 Transportation and Traffic ..................................................................................... 96 4.18 – Tribal Cultural Resources .................................................................................... 101 4.19 – Utilities and Service Systems .............................................................................. 105 4.20 – Wildfire ................................................................................................................ 112 4.21 – Mandatory Findings of Significance ..................................................................... 114 5 Mitigation Summary ............................................................................................................. 119 6 References ......................................................................................................................... 126 6.1 List of Preparers .................................................................................................. 126 6.2 Persons and Organizations Consulted ................................................................ 126 6.3 Bibliography ........................................................................................................ 127 Table of Contents ii Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Public Review Draft November 2023 List of Tables Table 2.8-1 Existing Land Uses ........................................................................................................... 6 Table 2.10-1 Project Construction Activities ....................................................................................... 10 Table 4.3-1 South Coast Air Basin (Non-Desert) Attainment Status ................................................... 41 Table 4.3-2 Regional Construction Emissions.................................................................................... 43 Table 4.3-3 Regional Operational Emissions ..................................................................................... 44 Table 4.3-4 LST Construction Emissions ........................................................................................... 45 Table 4.3-5 LST Operational Emissions............................................................................................. 46 Table 4.8-1 Project Greenhouse Gas Emissions ............................................................................... 62 Table 4.8-2 Project Consistency with Key GHG Reducing Attributes (2022 Scoping Plan) ................ 63 Table 4.13-1 Potential Project Construction Equipment Noise Levels ................................................ 81 Table 4.13-2 Caltrans’ Vibration Criteria for Building Damage ........................................................... 86 Table 4.13-3 Vibration Criteria for Human Response ......................................................................... 86 Table 4.13-4 Potential Project Construction Vibration Levels ............................................................. 87 Table 4.14-1 SCAG Growth Projections for Downey .......................................................................... 90 Table 4.15-1 Local School Enrollments.............................................................................................. 93 Table 4.15-2 School Capacities vs. Projected Enrollment .................................................................. 93 Table 4.17-1 Project Trip Generation ................................................................................................. 98 Table 4.17-2 Range of Local Daily Trip Screening Thresholds in the Region 103 Table 4.17-3 Daily Trip Threshold that Exceed GHG Emissions Threshold ..................................... 100 Table 4.19-1 Projected City Water Demand and Supply (acre -feet/year) ......................................... 106 Table 4.19-2 Single Dry Year Supply and Demand Scenario ........................................................... 110 Table 4.19-3 Multiple Dry Year Supply and Demand Scenario ........................................................ 110 List of Exhibits Exhibit 1 Regional Location ............................................................................................................... 11 Exhibit 2 Project Area Map ................................................................................................................ 13 Exhibit 3 Site Photographs................................................................................................................. 15 Exhibit 4 General Plan Designations .................................................................................................. 19 Exhibit 5 Zoning Designations ........................................................................................................... 21 Exhibit 6 Conceptual Site Plan ........................................................................................................... 23 Exhibit 7 Project Elevations ............................................................................................................... 25 Exhibit 8 Open Space Plan ................................................................................................................ 27 Exhibit 9 Landscape Plan .................................................................................................................. 29 Exhibit 10 Wall and Fence Plan ......................................................................................................... 31 List of Appendices Appendix A Air Quality & GHG & Energy Impact Report Appendix B Biological Resources Information Appendix C Cultural Resources Assessment Appendix D Geotechnical Report Appendix E Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Appendix F Preliminary Low Impact Development Plan Appendix G Noise and Vibration Analysis Appendix H Traffic Study Appendix I Tribal Consultation Information Appendix J Utility Information Appendix K Project Plans iii This Page is Intentionally Left Blank. Foster Bridge and Bluff Residential Project 1 City of Downey 1 Introduction The City of Downey (“Lead Agency” or “City”) received an application from The Olson Company (“project proponent”) to construct a 33-unit townhouse development (the “project” or “proposed project”) on a 1.29-acre site located at 7360 Foster Bridge Boulevard (Assessor’s Parcel Number: 6358-015-058) in the northwestern portion of the City of Downey, California. The application for the Foster Bridge and Bluff Community Residential P roject includes Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 84168, a General Plan Amendment, a Zone Change, and a Site Plan Review analyzing the architecture, landscaping, circulation of the new proposed design, and demolition of the existing onsite church and parking lot. The project requires review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Public Resources Code Sections 21000 et seq.) and the CEQA Guidelines (14 California Code of Regulations Sections 15000, et seq.). This Initial Study was prepared to assess the short -term, long-term, and cumulative environmental impacts that could result from approval of the proposed project. This report was prepared to comply with CEQA Guidelines Section 15063 (d) which requires an Initial Study to include the following: ▪ A description of the project, including the location of the project (see Section 2) ▪ Identification of the environmental setting (see Section 2.10) ▪ Identification of environmental effects by use of a checklist, matrix, or other methods, provided that entries on the checklist or other form are briefly explained to indicate that there is some evidence to support the entries (see Section 4) ▪ Discussion of ways to mitigate significant effects identified, if any (see Section 4) ▪ Examination of whether the project is compatible with existing zoning, plans, and other applicable land use controls (see Section 4.1 1) ▪ The name(s) of the person(s) who prepared or participated in the preparation of the Initial Study (see Section 6) 1.1 – Purpose of CEQA CEQA is intended to implement the following: “The Legislature finds and declares as follows: a) The maintenance of a quality environment for the people of this state now and in the future is a matter of statewide concern. b) It is necessary to provide a high-quality environment that at all times is healthful and pleasing to the senses and intellect of man. c) There is a need to understand the relationship between the maintenance of high -quality ecological systems and the general welfare of the people of the state, including their enjoyment of the natural resources of the state. d) The capacity of the environment is limited, and it is the intent of the Legislature that the government of the state take immediate steps to identify any critical thresholds for the health and safety of the people of the state and take all coordinated actions necessary to prevent such thresholds being reached. e) Every citizen has a responsibility to contribute to the preservation and enhancement of the environment. f) The interrelationship of policies and practices in the management of natural resources and waste disposal requires systematic and concerted efforts by public and private interests to enhance environmental quality and to control environmental pollution. 1 – Introduction 2 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Public Review Draft November 2023 g) It is the intent of the Legislature that all agencies of the state government which regulate activities of private individuals, corporations, and public agencies which are found to affect the quality of the environment, shall regulate such activities so that major consideration is given to preventing environmental damage, while providing a decent home and satisfying living environment for every Californian. The Legislature further finds and declares that it is the policy of the State to: a) Develop and maintain a high -quality environment now and in the future, and take all action necessary to protect, rehabilitate, and enhance the environmental quality of the state. b) Take all action necessary to provide the people of this state with clean air and water, enjoyment of aesthetic, natural, scenic, and historic environmental qualities, and freedom from excessive noise. c) Prevent the elimination of fish or wildlife species due to man's activities, insure that fish and wildlife populations do not drop below self -perpetuating levels, and preserve for future generations representations of all plant and animal communities and examples of the major periods of California history. d) Ensure that the long -term protection of the environment, consistent with the provision of a decent home and suitable living environment for every Californian, shall be the guiding criterion in public decisions. e) Create and maintain conditions under which man and nature can exist in productive harmony to fulfill the social and economic requirements of present and future generations. f) Require governmental agencies at all levels to develop standards and procedures necessary to protect environmental quality. g) Require governmental agencies at all levels to consider qualitative factors as well as economic and technical factors and long -term benefits and costs, in addition to short -term benefits and costs and to consider alternatives to proposed actions affectin g the environment.” A concise statement of legislative policy, with respect to public agency consideration of projects for some form of approval, is found in CEQA Section 21002 significant effects. The Legislature further finds and declares that in the event specific economic , social, or other conditions make such project alternatives or such mitigation measures infeasible, individual projects may be approved in spite of one or more significant effects thereof. 1.2 – Public Comments Written comments from all public agencies and individuals are invited regarding the information contained in this IS/MND. Such comments should explain any perceived deficiencies in the assessment of impacts, identify the information that is purportedly lacking in the Initial Study or indicate where the information may be found. All comments on the IS/MND must be provided before the close of the 30 - day public review period and are to be submitted to: Alfonso Hernandez, Principal Planner Community Development Department City of Downey 11111 Brookshire Avenue Downey, California 90241 Phone: (562) 904-7154 Email: asherhandez@downeyca.org Following a 30-day period of circulation and public review of the IS/MND, all written comments will be considered by the City of Downey prior to taking action on the project adopting the IS/MND. 1 – Introduction Foster Bridge and Bluff Residential Project 3 City of Downey 1.3 – Availability of Materials All materials related to the preparation of this Initial Study are available for public review at the City Hall, The Columbia Space Center, the City Library, and the Barbara J. Riley Center or available on the City’s website homepage: https://www.downeyca.org/our-city/departments/community-development/housing- division/public-document-review To request an appointment to review these materials at City Hall, please contact Alfonso Hernandez, Principal Planner, via telephone at (562) 904-7154 or via email at asherhandez@downeyca.org City Hall – 11111 Brookshire Avenue, Downey, Ca. 90241 Columbia Space Center – 12400 Columbia Way, Downey, CA 90242 City Library – 11121 Brookshire Ave #586, Downey, CA 90241 Barbara J. Riley Center – 7810 Quill Dr, Downey, CA 90242 1.4 – History of the Site The project site was undeveloped or in agricultural use between 1896 and 1902. From the 1920s to the mid-1950s, it was developed with agricultural orchards and a rural farmhouse. The existing church was developed in stages, beginning in the late -1950s and expanded to its current configuration with a paved asphalt parking lot around it by 1989. The construction of the church coincides with the time when the Rio Hondo River was realigned and channelized to the southeast of the site, rerouting it from its original course northeast of the site. Today, the church parking lot sits approximately 4 -6 feet higher in elevation than the adjoining residence to the north. It is likely that fill material originating from the river channelization process was placed on the site at that time, raising its elevation. 1 – Introduction 4 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Public Review Draft November 2023 This Page is Intentionally Left Blank. Foster Bridge and Bluff Residential Project 5 City of Downey 2 Project Description 2.1 – Project Title Foster Bridge and Bluff Community Residential Project (VTTM 84168) 2.2 – Lead Agency Name and Address City of Downey Community Development Department 11111 Brookshire Avenue Downey, California 92041 2.3 – Contact Person and Phone Number Alfonso Hernandez, Principal Planner ashernandez@downeyca.org Phone: (562) 904-7154 2.4 – Project Sponsor’s Name and Address The Olson Company 3020 Old Ranch Parkway, Suite 100 Seal Beach, California 90740 Contact: Steven Armanino sarmanino@theolsonco.com (562) 596-4770 2.5 – Project Location The project site is located on 1.29 acres at the northwest corner of Foster Bridge Boulevard and Suva Street in the northwestern portion of the City of Downey (See Exhibit 1, Regional Context Map). South Bluff Road also runs along the southeast point of the property forming a five -legged intersection (See Exhibit 2, Project Vicinity Map ). The site is adjacent to the Rio Hondo River and Trail (across South Bluff Road) to the south. The City of Bell Gardens is located northwest of the site and the self-storage facility northwest of the site is divided between the two cities . The site is located 0.9 mile west of the I- 5 Freeway and 1.8 miles east of the I -710 Freeway. Various views of the project site and surrounding area are provided in Exhibit 3, Site Photographs. Address: 7360 Foster Bridge Boulevard Latitude/Longitude: 33o 57’ 57” North / 118o 08’ 11” West Assessor Parcel Number: 6358-015-058 TRS Listing: Township 2 South Range 12 West Section 00 (Lot 40)(SBBM) USGS 7.5” Topographic Map: Southgate Thomas Bros. Map: LA County, Page 706 (Downey) 2 – Project Description 6 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Public Review Draft November 2023 2.6 – General Plan Land Use Designation The Land Use Element of the City’s General Plan designates the project site as Low Density Residential (LDR) which allows up to 8.9 dwelling units/acre. The project is requesting a General Plan Amendment to change the site’s land use designation to Medium Density Residential (MDR) which allows up to 24 units/acre. The density of the proposed project is 20.6 units per gross acre (See Exhibit 4, General Plan Designations). 2.7 – Zoning District The City of Downey Municipal Code (CDMC) zoning regulations designate the project site as R-1 6,000 which is a single-family detached residential designation. The project proposes to change the site’s zoning designation to Multi-Family Residential Ownership Zone (R-3-0). The project also includes a density Bonus for three moderate income level townhouse units in addition to 30 market rate townhouse units. The density of the project as proposed is 20.6 units per gross acre while the R -3-O zone allows up to approximately 22 units/acre. According to the City Zoning Code, the R -3-O zone is intended to provide “for the development of multiple -family ownership type housing in selected areas compatible with the neighborhood environment. Such areas are envisioned as being located and designed to be complementary to adjacent uses and providing sufficient opportunities for ownership in multiple -family housing” (See Exhibit 5, Zoning Designations). 2.8 – Existing and Surrounding Land Uses The project site currently supports an operating church (“TLG I House”) with a parking lot but no school or pre-school uses. Adjacent land uses include single family homes to the north and across Foster Bridge Boulevard to the east, the Rio Hondo Channel to the southeast, apartments to the southwest across Suva Street, and a self-storage facility to the northwest. Surrounding uses are summarized in Table 2.8-1 (Existing Land Uses). The locations of surrounding land uses are shown in Exhibit 2, Project Area Map, and views of the site and surrounding area are shown in Exhibit 3, Site Photographs. The self-storage facility to the northwest is split between Downey and the City of Bell Gardens to the west. Table 2.8-1 Existing Land Uses Direction General Plan Designation Zoning District Existing Land Use Project Site Existing Proposed Low Density Residential (LDR) Medium Density Residential (MDR) R-1-6,000 R-3-0 Church Townhomes North Low Density Residential (LDR) R-1-6,000 SFR homes South Low Density Residential (LDR) Open Space (OS) R-1-6,000 R-1-6,000 Apartments Rio Hondo River East Low Density Residential (LDR) R-1-6,000 SFR homes West Low Density Residential (LDR) R-1-6,000 Self Storage Sources: Google Earth, City General Plan and Zoning maps SFR = single family residential 2 – Project Description Foster Bridge and Bluff Residential Project 7 City of Downey 2.9 – Environmental Setting The City of Downey occupies approximately 12.8 square miles and is located in the southeastern part of Los Angeles County. The City is surrounded by the cities of Pico Rivera to the north, Santa Fe Springs to the northeast, Norwalk to the east, Bellflower and Paramount to the south, South Gate to the southwest and west, and Commerce to the northwest. The City of Downey is located approximately 13 miles northeast of the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach. There are four freeways that provide direct access to Downey: Interstate I-605 (San Gabriel River Freeway), which crosses the eastern portion of the City; I-5 (Santa Ana Freeway), which crosses the northern portion of the City; the I -105 intersection, which crosses the southern part of the City; and I -710 (Long Beach Freeway), which does not cross the City but is located west of the City and accessible via three major streets: Florence Avenue, Firestone Boulevard, and Imperial Highway (City of Downey 2005). The City is generally bounded by the Rio Hondo River channel to the west, Telegraph Road to the north, the San Gabriel River channel to the east, and Gardendale Street and Foster Road to the south. Most of the City was developed during the housing boom in the 1950s and 1960s. The City is a fully developed community with older buildings and very few vacant properties. Since residential uses occupy more than half of the City’s land area, Downey is known mainly as a bedroom community. However, the City also provides a mix of other land uses such as open space, commercial, and manufacturing. Residential uses are located throughout the City but predominantly located to the north, east, and west. Commercial uses are scattered throughout the north, east, south, and west portions of the City, while manufacturing uses are primarily concentrated in the southeastern portion of the City. The City and the project site are within the South Coast Air Basin which has experienced poor air quality over the years due to climate and weather conditions and decades of growth (i.e., urban development and increased vehicle use). Air quality in the Basin is monitored by the South Coast Air Quality Management District. The City is situated on a broad alluvial valley largely built up by sedimentation from runoff out of the San Gabriel Mountains, including from the nearby Rio Hondo River just south east of the site. The City is fully urbanized, and does not support native plants or animals although some animals may travel along the Rio Hondo River channel just southeast of the project site, especially at night. The area only has wildlife that is very tolerant of human activity such as small to medium -sized mammals, reptiles, and song birds. The project area is urbanized and has a low risk from wildfires although smaller localized urban fires may still occur. The surrounding area does contain some commercial and industrial uses which result in some risks from hazardous materials, transportation accidents, etc. Noise levels in the City are generally moderate depending on distance from nearby freeways and rail lines. Public services and utilities in the City are provided by a number of agencies, mainly the City and County (e.g., police, fire, wastewater treatment, flood control), as well as some private companies (water, solid waste collection). 2.10 – Project Description The Foster Bridge and Bluff Community Project in the City of Downey proposes 33 multi -family townhouses on 1.29 acres at the northwest corner of Foster Bridge Boulevard and Suva Street. South Bluff Road also runs along the southeast point of the property forming a five -legged intersection. The proposed gated townhouse development is adjacent to the Rio Hond o River and Trail (across South 2 – Project Description 8 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Public Review Draft November 2023 Bluff Road) to the south. The project site slopes gently down to the east with elevations ranging from 140 feet above mean sea level (amsl) along the western boundary down to 133 feet amsl along the eastern boundary. At present 83% of the site is covered by impervious surfaces. Land use approvals/entitlements for the project include: • Vesting Tentative Tract Map 84168 to establish 33 condominium units and a Site Plan review to consider the project's architecture and improvements ; • General Plan Amendment from Low Density Residential (LDR, up to 8.9 units/acre) to Medium Density Residential (MDR, up to 24 units/acre); • Zone Change from R-1 6,000 to Multi-Family Residential Ownership Zone (R-3-0); and • Density Bonus for three moderate income level units in addition to the 30 market rate units. • Site Plan Review for review of the architecture, landscaping, and circulation of the site. The density of the proposed project is 20.6 units per gross acre while the R-3-O zone allows up to approximately 22 units/acre. According to the City Zoning Code, the R -3-O zone is intended to provide “for the development of multiple -family ownership type housing in selected areas compatible with the neighborhood environment. Such areas are envisioned as being located and designed to be complementary to adjacent uses and providing sufficient opportunities for ownership in multiple -family housing”. The layout of the project site is shown in Exhibit 6, Site Plan. It should be noted that 30 of the proposed townhomes will be market rate units while 3 of the units will quali fy for the City’s density bonus under its inclusionary zoning program for affordable housing. Architecture Construction of the proposed project includes the demolition of the existing onsite church and parking lot. The proposed multi-family townhouse development includes five different unit designs. Plan 1 is a 1188 square foot (sq. ft.), 3-bedroom, 3-bathroom, tandem townhouse. Three of the new units will use this plan type, all of which will be located in Building 4 of the proposed project. Plan 2 is a 1477 sq. ft. 3-bedroom, 3-bathroom tandem townhouse. Twelve of the proposed units will utilize this plan type, all of which will be located in Buildings 1 and 2, facing Foster Bridge Boulevard and Suva Street respectively. Two of those 12 units will utilize an alternate design (Plan 2alt) where the units do not “interlock” with the neighboring Plan 4 townhouses. This is visualized in Exhibit 6, Site Plan. The other 10 units do, however, interlock with their surrounding units. All five of the units located in Building 3 in the center of the development will utilize Plan 3 ; a 1600 sq. ft. 3-bedroom, 2.5-bathroom townhouse. Plan 4 is a 1657 sq. ft. 3-bedroom, 3.5-bathroom townhouse. These 10 units feature an “interlock” layout and will interlock with Plan 2 units in Buildings 1 and 2. Plan 5 is a 1792 sq. ft. 3 bedroom, 3.5 bathroom townhouse. All three of the units utilizing this design will be located in Building 4 and will interlock with Plan 1 units also a part of the structure. The layout and building locations of the project are shown in Exhibit 6, Site Plan. The maximum building height for the proposed project is 36 feet, or 3 stories. The height and appearance of design features of the proposed townhouses are shown in Exhibit 7, Building Elevations. Circulation and Parking Vehicle access to the project will be provided via two gated entrances developed during project construction. The gated entrance located at the northeastern corner of the project site off of Foster Bridge Boulevard will be 26 f eet wide and is accessible by vehicles and pedestrians. The entrance provides access to a roadway within the development that splits in and weaves throughout the project site. The roadway will border the north side of Building 4 and will run along the western side of building one, splitting again. One branch will narrow to 25 feet and run west, providing vehicle access to 2 – Project Description Foster Bridge and Bluff Residential Project 9 City of Downey Buildings 2 and 3. The original roadway meets the south gated entrance facing Suva Street. This gate is only accessible to emergency vehicles and is typically closed. There will be 71 total parking spaces provided (2.5 spaces/unit), 66 of those spaces are garage spaces, and the remaining 5 being guest spaces. Vehicle access in and around the project site is shown in Exhibit 6, Site Plan. Open Space and Landscaping Total open space area within the project site will be 6,958 sq uare feet with 4,389 square feet of that will consisting of private open spaces. These include uncovered patios and yards, covered front porches, and uncovered and covered decks. The remaining 2,569 sq uare feet of open space will constitute common space, which will be divided into two areas; Open Space A and B. Open Space A will be located at the northwestern corner of the project site and will be 192 sq uare feet in size. Open Space B will take up the central walkways intersecting Buildings 3 and 4 and will be 2,377 sq uare feet in size. Approximately 7,772 square feet of the project site will be landscaped. Landscaping of the project area will include trees, shrubbery, and groundcover. The open space layout is shown in Exhibit 8, Open Space Plan. The proposed landscaping and layout is shown in Exhibit 9, Landscape Plan. Walls and Fences Walls and fencing in and around the project would consist of two types, as well as pilasters connecting the structures. • Along the eastern perimeter of the project site, a six-foot tall block wall as measured from the highest adjacent grade. Block walls will also feature adjacent to both gated entrances to the development at the planned south and the northeastern gated vehicle entrances. The gated entrance located at the northeastern corner of the project site off of Foster Bridge Boulevard is a community gate accessible by vehicle s and pedestrians. The gate located at the south of the proposed project off of Suva Street is only accessible to emergency vehicles and is typically closed. Both gates will be connected to the block walls by pilasters. • Four-foot. tall stucco block walls are included for private patios. These walls are featured at all private patios at Buildings 1, 2, 4, and one additional private patio at the easternmost unit of Building 3. The project will also include a three-foot high community entry sign monument with night lights and medium sized boulders will feature at the southern corner of the proposed project, at the intersection of Bluff Road, Foster Bridge Boulevard, and Suva Street. The location of the various walls and fencing are shown on Exhibit 10, Wall and Fence Plan. Utilities Water and sewer services are provided by the City of Downey. Electrical services would be provided by Southern California Edison. All utility connections will be located underground. Grading and Construction Project construction will involve site preparation, grading, building construction, paving, and architectural coating construction activities. Project construction is assumed to begin in early -2024 and last approximately 12 months. Construction will first involve demolition of the existing onsite church and parking lot. Development will then involve grading, building construction, paving, and application of architectural coatings. Table 2.10-1 (Project Construction Activities) shows the length of time to complete the various phases of construction along with a list of typical equipment to be used during each phase. The project engineer and the grading plan indicate earthwork on the site will be generally 2 – Project Description 10 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Public Review Draft November 2023 balanced with little onsite cut and fill anticipated. The grading plan indicates there will be 7,000 cubic yards (cy) of over-excavation due to the presence of unconsolidated fill. Other earthwork will involve 2,500 cy of cut/fill and approximately 4,500 cy will need to be imported after removal and compaction of the unconsolidated fill materials. Table 2.10-1 Project Construction Activities Construction Phase Duration (Days)(A) Typical Equipment Used(B) Demolition 20 Dozer, Tractor/Loader/Backhoe, Concrete/Industrial Saw Site Preparation 2 Grader, Dozer, Tractor/Loader/Backhoe Grading 4 Grader, Dozer, Backhoe Building Construction 200 Crane, Forklift, Backhoe, Generator, Welder Paving 10 Paver, Roller, Paving Equipment Architectural Coating 10 Air Compressor Source: MIG 2023a (A) Days refers to total active workdays in the construction phase, not calendar days. (B) The typical equipment list does not reflect all equipment that would be used during the construction phase. Not all equipment would operate eight hours per day each workday. 2.11 – Required Approvals The City of Downey is the only land use authority for this project requiring the following approvals: • Vesting Tentative Tract Map 84168 • General Plan Amendment • Zone Change • Density Bonus • Site Plan Review • Mitigated Negative Declaration 2.12 – Other Public Agencies Whose Approval is Required None. 2 – Project Description Foster Bridge and Bluff Residential Project 11 City of Downey 2 – Project Description Foster Bridge and Bluff Residential Project (17005) 12 City of Downey This Page is Intentionally Left Blank. 2 – Project Description Foster Bridge and Bluff Residential Project 13 City of Downey Exhibit 1 Project Area Map 2 – Project Description 14 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Public Review Draft November 2023 This Page is Intentionally Left Blank. Foster Bridge and Bluff Residential Project 15 City of Downey Exhibit 2 Site Photographs 2 – Project Description 16 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Public Review Draft November 2023 Foster Bridge and Bluff Residential Project 17 City of Downey 2 – Project Description 18 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Public Review Draft November 2023 This Page Intentionally Left Blank. Foster Bridge and Bluff Residential Project 19 City of Downey Exhibit 3 General Plan Designations 2 – Project Description 20 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Public Review Draft November 2023 This Page is Intentionally Left Blank. Foster Bridge and Bluff Residential Project 21 City of Downey Exhibit 4 Zoning Designations 2 – Project Description 22 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Public Review Draft November 2023 This Page Intentionally Left Blank. Foster Bridge and Bluff Residential Project 23 City of Downey Exhibit 5 Conceptual Site Plan 2 – Project Description 24 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Public Review Draft November 2023 This Page Intentionally Left Blank. 2 – Project Description Foster Bridge and Bluff Residential Project 25 City of Downey Exhibit 6 Project Elevations 2 – Project Description 26 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Public Review Draft November 2023 This Page Intentionally Left Blank. 2 – Project Description Foster Bridge and Bluff Residential Project 27 City of Downey Exhibit 7 Project Elevations 2 – Project Description 28 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Public Review Draft November 2023 This Page Intentionally Left Blank. Foster Bridge and Bluff Residential Project 29 City of Downey Exhibit 8 Project Elevations 2 – Project Description 30 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Public Review Draft November 2023 This Page Intentionally Left Blank. Foster Bridge and Bluff Residential Project 31 City of Downey Exhibit 9 Project Elevations 2 – Project Description 32 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Public Review Draft November 2023 This Page Intentionally Left Blank. Foster Bridge and Bluff Residential Project (17005) 33 City of Downey 3 Environmental Determination 3.1 – Environmental Factors Potentially Affected The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a ‘Potentially Significant Impact’ or ‘Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated’ as indicated by the checklist analysis on the following pages. Aesthetics □ Agriculture / Forest Resources □ Air Quality / Energy Biological Resources Cultural/Tribal Resources Geology / Soils/ Paleo □ Greenhouse Gas Emissions Hazards / Hazardous Materials □ Hydrology / Water Quality □ Land Use / Planning □ Mineral Resources Noise □ Population / Housing □ Public Services / Recreation □ Wildfire □ Transportation/Traffic □ Utilities / Service Systems Mandatory Findings of Significance 3.2 – Determination □ I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION would be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there would not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION would be prepared. □ I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. □ I find that the proposed project MAY have a ‘potentially significant impact’ or ‘potentially significant unless mitigated’ impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. □ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. 3 – Determination 34 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Public Review Draft November 2023 This Page is Intentionally Left Blank. Foster Bridge and Bluff Residential Project (17005) 35 City of Downey 4 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts 4.1 – Aesthetics Except as provided in Public Resources Code Section 21099, would the Project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? □ □ □ b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within view from a state scenic highway? □ □ □ c) In non-urbanized areas, substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from a publicly accessible vantage point). If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality? □ □ □ d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? □ □ □ a) No Impact. Scenic vistas can be impacted by development in two ways. First, a structure may be constructed that blocks the view of a vista. Second, the vista itself may be altered (i.e., development on a scenic hillside). There are no scenic vistas identified in the City of Downey General Plan (Downey Vision 2025).1 The proposed project is located on a developed site within a fully developed area visually dominated by residential land uses and surface streets. Th e project site is not considered to be within or to comprise a portion of a scenic vista. The project site is comprised of one parcel that is developed with a church and parking lot that will be demolished as part of project construction with 33 townhouse units organized in four buildings with a maximum height of 36 feet (3 stories). See Exhibit 3, Site Photographs, Exhibit 6, Site Plan, and Exhibit 7, Building Elevations. 4 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts 36 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Public Review Draft November 2023 The project will be a gated community with an automated gated entry at the northeast corner of the site off of Foster Bridge Boulevard. The site is bounded by single family residential uses adjacent to the north and across Foster Bridge Boulevard to the east. There is also an apartment complex southwest of the site across Suva Street. The general area has views of the San Gabriel Mountains approximately 15 miles to the north when the air is clear. The Rio Hondo Channel is southeast of the site across Bluff Road but is a concrete channel at this location so it provides limited views. However, there is a multi - use trail along the west side of the channel for bicyclists and pedestrians. The site currently contains a one-story church building and surface parking lot so the new project townhouse buildings will incrementally reduce public views to the north from Suva Street and private views from the apartment complex southwest of the project site. However, the evaluation of impacts to scenic vistas under CEQA only addresses views from public locations such as roads, sidewalks, and public facilities such as parks. Due to the lack of scenic public views and vistas in the surrounding area, the proposed project would result in no significant impacts with respect to views of a scenic vista. b) No Impact. The Project is not adjacent to a designated state scenic highway or eligible state scenic highway as identified on the California Scenic Highway Mapping System 2. The streets in the project vicinity are not listed in the City of Downey General Plan for consideration as scenic highways. The closest State scenic highway is the Angeles Crest Highway (State Route 2), located approximately 20 miles north of the project site.2 The project site is located in a fully developed, urbanized area, and contains no scenic resources. Therefore, no impact to scenic resources visible from a state scenic highway would occur. c) Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. The project site is in an urban area. The Land Use Element of the City’s General Plan indicates the project site currently has a General Plan land use designation of Low Density Residential (LDR) which allows up to 8.9 units/acre. Under this designation, up to 11 units could currently be built on the project site. The project is requesting a General Plan Amendment to change the site’s land use designation to Medium Density Residential (MDR) which allows up to 24 units/acre while the density of the proposed project is 20.6 units/acre. The zoning designation of the site is R-1 6,000 which is a single-family detached residential designation. The project proposes to change the site’s zoning designation to Multi -Family Residential Ownership Zone (R-3-0). According to the City Zoning Code, the R-3-O zone is intended to provide “for the development of multiple -family ownership type housing in selected areas compatible with the neighborhood environment. Such areas are envisioned as being located and designed to be complementary to adjacent uses and provid ing sufficient opportunities for ownership in multiple -family housing”. This owner-occupied townhouse project is also proposed as a buffer between the owner- occupied single family uses to the north and east to the rental apartments to the southwest and the non- residential light industrial uses to the west. The site is bounded by low density single family residential uses adjacent to the north and across Foster Bridge Boulevard to the east. There is also an apartment complex southwest of the site across Suva Street. The single-family homes are mainly one-story structures while the apartment buildings are two- story structures. The project would be consistent with local General Plan and zoning designations with approval of the General Plan Amendment and Zone Change. The only potential area of visual conflict would be with the single -family residence to the north due to its close proximity to the project site (45 feet from the residence to the northern -most building). The Project Landscape Plan (Exhibit 9) shows shrubs to be planted along the northern perimeter wall, however, these may not be tall enough to block views of the new 3 -story buildings from the adjacent residence. Therefore, Mitigation Measure AES -1 is recommended to help minimize any visual impacts from the project on the adjacent residence s. 4 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Foster Bridge and Bluff Residential Project 37 City of Downey With the proposed entitlements, the proposed project would not conflict with the applicable General Plan or zoning requirements regulating the height, setbacks, open space, and other aesthetic aspects of development. The proposed project site is located in an urbanized area and there are no regulations governing scenic quality in the City of Downey. With implementation of Mitigation Measure AES-1, visual impacts of the project would be reduced to less than significant levels. d) Less Than Significant Impact. Excessive or inappropriately directed lighting can adversely impact night-time views by reducing the ability to see the night sky and stars. Glare can be caused by unshielded or misdirected lighting sources. Reflective surfaces (e.g., polished metal) can also cause glare. Impacts associated with glare range from simple nuisance to potentially dangerous situations (e.g., if glare is directed into the eyes of motorist s). There are lighting sources adjacent to the project site, including free-standing streetlights, light fixtures on buildings, and pole -mounted lights. The proposed project includes exterior security lighting and interior building lighting throughout the site. The following City of Downey Municipal Code (CDMC) sections deal with various forms of lighting: Section 9520, Outdoor Lighting; Section 9933.5, Street Lighting; and Section 9624, Lighting and Design Standards. These CDMC sections require outdoor lighting to be arranged so as to reflect light away from any other property. The proposed project would be required to comply with these requirements. Complying with these regulations would make the project’s lighting impacts less than significant. In addition, implementation of Mitigation Measure AES-1 will further reduce potential lighting conflicts due to the proximity of the northern -most building of the Project to the existing residence just north of the project site. Sources of daytime glare are typically concentrated in commercial areas and are often associated with retail uses with extensive glass surfaces. Glare results from development that contain s reflective materials such as hi-efficiency window glass, highly polished surfaces, and expanses of pavement. The proposed project site is located in an area that developed mainly with residential uses. The proposed townhomes include design features that would result in minimal use of glare -inducing materials. With regulatory compliance (i.e., CDMC), potential reflective glare impacts of the project would be less than significant and no mitigation is required. Mitigation Measures AES-1 Enhanced Landscaping. Prior to issuance of the first occupancy permit, the developer shall install enhanced landscaping along the northern boundary of the site . Its purpose is to substantially block views and lighting from the project site onto the residence at 7336 Foster Bridge Boulevard just north of the site. Th e design and location of this enhanced landscaping, primarily trees, shall be the responsibility of the City Planning Department. 4 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts 38 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Public Review Draft November 2023 4.2 – Agriculture and Forest Resources In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Department of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state’s inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment project; and forest carbon measurement methodology provided in F orest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board. Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? □ □ □ b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? □ □ □ c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104 (g))? □ □ □ d) Result in loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non -forest use? □ □ □ e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non -forest use? □ □ □ a) No Impact. The proposed project is located in a fully developed, largely residential, suburbanized area that does not contain any agricultural or forest uses. The map of Important Farmland in California (2023) prepared by the Department of Conservation does not identify the project site as containing Prime 4 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Foster Bridge and Bluff Residential Project 39 City of Downey Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance.3 The City of Downey is located in an area that is mapped as “Urban and Built-Up Land” with no land considered as Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance within the City. In addition, the General Plan does not identify any areas for agriculture use within the City. Therefore, there would be no conversion of Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, and Farmland of Statewide Importance to a non -agricultural use as a result of this project. No impact would occur. b) No Impact. No Williamson Act (agricultural preserve) contracts through Los Angeles County are active for the project site.4 In addition, the project site is zoned for residential uses which does not permit agricultural uses. Therefore, there would be no conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract. No impact would occur. c) No Impact. CEQA Section 12220(g) identifies forest land as land that can support 10-percent native tree cover of any species, including hardwoods, under natural conditions, and that allows for management of one or more forest resources, including timber, aesthetics, fish and wildlife, biodiversity, water quality, recreation, and other public benefits. The project site and surrounding properties are not currently being managed or used for forest land as identified in CEQA Section 12220(g). The project site has already been graded and developed with a church and parking lot with no substantial native vegetation onsite. Therefore, developing this project would have no impact on any timberland zoning. d) No Impact. The project site is land that has been previously developed with a church with limited ornamental landscaping; thus, there would be no loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non - forest use as a result of this project. No impact would occur. e) No Impact. The site has been previously developed for a church within an urban/suburban environment. The project site is surrounded by residential uses and a self-storage facility. None of the surrounding uses contain existing forest resources. Therefore, development of this project would not change the existing environment in a manner that would result in the conversion of forest land to a non- forest use. No impact would occur. 4 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts 40 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Public Review Draft November 2023 4.3 – Air Quality Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the Project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? □ □ □ b) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the Project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard? □ □ □ c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? □ □ □ d) Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people? □ □ □ An Air Quality Impact Report5 was prepared for the proposed project by MIG, dated September 20, 2023 (Appendix A). The report estimates the potential air quality emissions for the proposed project and evaluates project emissions against applicable South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD)-recommended California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) significa nce thresholds for construction and operation. A Vehicle Miles Traveled Screening Assessment6 was prepared for the proposed project by Ganddini Group, dated November 15, 2023 (Appendix H) that provided trip generation data for the Air Quality Study. a) Less than Significant Impact. The proposed project is located within the South Coast Air Basin (Basin), where efforts to attain state and federal air quality standards are governed by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). Both the State of California and the federal government have established health-based ambient air quality standards (AAQS) for seven air pollutants (known as criteria pollutants). These pollutants include ozone (O3), carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), sulfur dioxide (SO2), inhalable particulate matter with a diameter of 10 microns or less (PM10), fine particulate matter with a diameter of 2.5 microns or less (PM 2.5), and lead (Pb). The state has also established AAQS for additional pollutants. The AAQS are designed to protect the health and welfare of the populace within a reasonable margin of safety. Where the state and federal standards differ, California AAQS (CAAQS) are more stringent than the national AAQS (NAAQS). The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA), California Air Resources Board (CARB), and the SCAQMD assess the air quality of an area by measuring and monitoring the amount of pollutants 4 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Foster Bridge and Bluff Residential Project 41 City of Downey in the ambient air and comparing pollutant levels against NAAQS and CAAQS. Based on these comparisons, regions are classified into one of the following categories: • Attainment. A region is “in attainment” if monitoring shows ambient concentrations of a specific pollutant are less than or equal to NAAQS or CAAQS. In addition, an area that has been re - designated from nonattainment to attainment is classified as a “maintenance area” for 10 years to ensure that the air quality improvements are sustained. • Nonattainment. If the NAAQS or CAAQS are exceeded for a pollutant, the region is designated as nonattainment for that pollutant. It is important to note that some NAAQS and CAAQS require multiple exceedances of the standard in order for a region to be classified as nona ttainment. Federal and state laws require nonattainment areas to develop strategies, plans, and control measures to reduce pollutant concentrations to levels that meet, or attain, standards. • Unclassified. An area is unclassified if the ambient air monitoring data is incomplete and does not support a designation of attainment or nonattainment. Table 4.3-1 (South Coast Air Basin - Non-Desert - Attainment Status), summarizes the Basin’s attainment status for criteria air pollutants. The Basin is currently in nonattainment for state and federal ozone, state PM10, and state and federal PM2.5 standards. Table 4.3-1 South Coast Air Basin (Non-Desert) Attainment Status Pollutant State Designation Federal Designation O3 (1-hr) Nonattainment Nonattainment O3 (8-hr) Nonattainment Nonattainment PM10 Nonattainment Attainment (Maintenance) PM2.5 Nonattainment Nonattainment CO Attainment Attainment (Maintenance) NO2 Attainment Attainment SO2 Attainment Attainment Pb -- Nonattainment (Partial) Hydrogen Sulfide Attainment -- Sulfates Attainment -- Vinyl Chloride Attainment -- Sources: Table 2, MIG 2023a, SCAQMD, 2018 A project that conflicts with or obstructs the implementation of the SCAQMD South Coast Air Basin 2022 Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) could hinder implementation of the AQMP, delay efforts to meet attainment deadlines, and/or interfere with SCAQMD efforts to maintain compliance with, and attainment of, applicable air quality standards. Pursuant to the methodology provided in Chapter 12 o f the SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook7, consistency with the AQMP is affirmed if the project: 1) Is consistent with the growth assumptions in the AQMP; and 2) Does not increase the frequency or severity of an air quality standard, violation, or cause a new one. Consistency Criterion 1 refers to the growth forecasts and associated assumptions included in the 2022 AQMP. The 2022 AQMP was designed to achieve attainment for all criteria air pollutants within the Basin while still accommodating growth in the region. P rojects that are consistent with the AQMP growth 4 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts 42 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Public Review Draft November 2023 assumptions would not interfere with attainment of air quality standards, because this growth is included in the projections used to formulate the AQMP. The proposed project would generate approximately 33 new residential units. The existing General Plan would allow 12 units on the 1.29 -acre site (8.9 units/acre max.). The project proposes 33 units which is 22 more units than would be allowed under the existing General Plan and zoning. The SCAG 2020 RTP/SCS growth projections for the City of Downey are +1,500 new households and +5,900 residents between 2016 and 2045 (SCAG, 2020). The incremental growth that would result from the project represents 1.5% of City growth anticipated by SCAG over the next 20 years. Therefore, the growth represented by he proposed project would not exceed the growth assumptions contained in the AQMP. Consistency Criterion 2 refers to the CAAQS. In developing its CEQA significance thresholds, the SCAQMD considered the emission levels at which a project’s individual emissions would be cumulatively considerable (SCAQMD, 2003; page D-3). As shown in Table 4.3-2 (Regional Construction Emissions), in Section 4.3(b) below, the proposed project would not generate construction or operational emissions in excess of SCAQMD criteria air pollutant thresholds. For the reasons described above, the proposed project would not conflict with the SCAQMD 2022 AQMP. b) Less than Significant Impact. A project may have a significant impact if project -related emissions exceed federal, state, or regional standards or thresholds, or if project -related emissions would substantially contribute to existing or projected air quality violations. The proposed project would generate both short-term construction emissions and long -term operational emissions. As described in more detail below, the proposed project would not generate emissions levels that exceed SCAQMD - recommended pollutant thresholds. Construction Emissions Construction of the proposed project would generate equipment exhaust and dust emissions from demolition activities, ground disturbing activities such as site preparation and grading, and the use of gasoline- and diesel-fuel combustion in on- and off-site heavy duty construction equipment, worker vehicle trips, vendor vehicle trips, and haul truck trips, ground disturbing activities. The proposed project’s potential construction emissions were modeled using CalEEMod, Version 2022.1.1. The project grading plan indicates there will be 7,000 cubic yards (cy) of over -excavation due to the presence of unconsolidated fill on the site. Other earthwork will involve 2,500 cy of cut/fill and approximately 4,500 cy will need to be imported after removal and compaction of the unconsolidated fill materials. The construction phases, duration, and the type and amount of equipment used during construction was generated using CalEEMod default assumptions, and modified to reflect the following project-specific characteristics: • The demolition of approximately 8,480 square -foot of existing building square footage (i.e., existing onsite church) was added to the model run; • Fugitive dust control measures were incorporated into the model consistent with requirements contained in SCAQMD Rule 403, Fugitive Dust. The proposed project’s maximum daily unmitigated construction emissions are shown in Table 4.3-2, Regional Construction Emissions. As shown in Table 4.3-2, the proposed project’s maximum daily unmitigated construction emissions would be well below the SCAQMD’s regional pollutant thresholds for all pollutants. Therefore, the construction of the proposed project would not generate construction - related emissions that exceed SCAQMD CEQA thresholds. Construction impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation is required. However, it should be noted the project is still required to comply with a variety of SCAQMD rules and regulations on construction emissions (e.g., Rule 403 regarding fugitive dust). 4 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Foster Bridge and Bluff Residential Project 43 City of Downey Table 4.3-2 Regional Construction Emissions Season and Year Maximum Daily Emissions (lbs./day) ROG NOX CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5 Summer 2024 1.2 9.7 12.0 <0.1 0.7 0.4 Winter 2024 33.0 16.1 17.0 <0.1 3.6 2.1 SCAQMD CEQA Threshold 75 100 550 150 150 55 Threshold Exceeded? No No No No No No Source: MIG, 2023 (see Appendix A) and SCAQMD 2020. Operational Emissions Once operational, the proposed project would generate emissions from the following sources: • “Area” Sources. The proposed project would generate emissions from small area sources, including landscaping equipment, the use of consumer products (e.g., paints, cleaners, and fertilizers) that result in the evaporation of chemicals into the atmosphere during product us e. • Mobile Sources. The proposed project would generate emissions from vehicles traveling to and from the project site. The proposed project’s operational emissions were also estimated using CalEEMod, V. 2022.1.1. The modeling is based on the project’s first full year of operations (assumed to be 2025), using default data assumptions generated by CalEEMod, modified as neces sary to reflect the following project-specific context, information, and details: • Project-specific land use information (i.e., lot acreage, building square footage, etc.) was applied to the model; • Project-specific weekday trip generation rates were applied to the model (Ganddini Group, 2023). • Area Sources: Hearths were updated to be electric to reflect the project’s all electric building design. • Energy Use and Consumption: Natural gas consumption was removed and electricity annual consumption was increased using the U.S. Energy Information Administration (US EIA) energy conversion calculator to reflect the project’s all electric building design. N atural gas water and space heating sources were removed since the project would be all -electric (US EIA 2023). The proposed project’s maximum daily unmitigated operational emissions are shown in Table 4.3-3 (Regional Operational Emissions). As shown in Table 4.3-3, the proposed project’s maximum daily, unmitigated operational criteria air pollutant emissions would be well below the SCAQMD’s - recommended regional criteria air pollutant thresholds. Therefore, project operation would not generate criteria air pollutant emissions levels that exceed SCAQMD regional CEQA thresholds. This impact would be less than significant and no mitigation is required. 4 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts 44 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Public Review Draft November 2023 Table 4.3-3 Regional Operational Emissions Emission Source Maximum Daily Pollutant Emissions (Pounds Per Day)(A) ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5 Area Sources 1.4 <0.1 1.9 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 Energy Demand(B) 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mobile Sources 0.8 0.6 6.2 <0.1 1.3 0.3 Total Daily Emissions(C) 2.1 0.6 8.0 <0.1 1.3 0.3 SCAQMD CEQA Threshold 55 55 550 150 150 55 Threshold Exceeded? No No No No No No Source: Table 4, MIG, 2023a (see Appendix A) (A) Emissions presented are worst-case emissions and may reflect summer or winter emissions levels. Maximum daily ROG, CO, SOX emissions occur during the summer. Maximum daily NOX emissions occur during the winter. In general, due to rounding, there is no difference between summer and winter PM10 and PM2.5 emissions levels for the purposes of this table (B) Energy demand related air quality emissions estimated to be 0 due to the project being all-electric. (C) Totals may not equal due to rounding. Cumulative Impacts The Basin is currently designated non -attainment for State and/or federal standards for ozone, PM10, and PM2.5. As discussed in the preceding subsections, the proposed project would not result in construction or operational emissions of criteria air pollutants that exceed SCAQMD thresholds of significance. In developing its CEQA significance thresholds, the SCAQMD considered the emission levels at which a project’s individual emissions would be cumulatively considerable. The SCAQMD considers projects that result in emissions that exceed its CEQA significance thresholds to result in individual impacts that are cumulatively considerable and significant. Since the proposed project would not individually exceed any SCAQMD CEQA significance thresholds, it would also not result in a cumulatively considerable increase in regulated, nonattainment pollutants. c) Less than Significant Impact. The proposed project would generate both short -term construction emissions and long-term operational emissions that could impact sensitive residential receptors located near the project; however, as described in more detail below, the proposed project would not generate short-term or long-term emissions that exceed SCAQMD-recommended localized significance thresholds or result in other substantial pollutant concentrations. In addition to regional CEQA thresholds, the SCAQMD has also developed Local Significance Thresholds (LSTs) that represent the maximum emissions from a project that are expected to cause or contribute to an exceedance of the most stringent applicable feder al or state ambient air quality standards, which would result in significant adverse localized air quality impacts. Construction Emissions The project’s maximum daily construction emissions are compared against the SCAQMD’s - recommended LSTs thresholds in Table 4.3-4 (LST Construction Emissions). Consistent with the SCAQMD’s LST methodology, the emissions included in the construction LST analysis are on -site emissions only. The LST thresholds are for source receptor area (SRA) 5, the SRA in which the proposed project is located, and are conservat ively based on a receptor distance of 25 meters (82 feet), the closest LST receptor distance thresholds recommended for use by the SCAQMD, and a project size of 1.0 acre. These thresholds are considered conservative because the proposed project size is approximately 1.3 acres. 4 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Foster Bridge and Bluff Residential Project 45 City of Downey As shown in Table 4.3-4 (LST Construction Emissions), the proposed project’s construction emissions would not exceed the SCAQMD’s recommended construction LSTs. Project construction, therefore, would not generate criteria air pollutant emissions levels that exceed SCAQMD local CEQA thresholds. Impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation is required. However, it should be noted the project is still required to comply with a variety of SCAQMD rules and regulations on construction emissions (e.g., Rule 403 regarding fugitive dust). Table 4.3-4 LST Construction Emissions Construction Phase(A) Maximum Daily Emissions (Pounds per Day) NOX CO PM10 PM2.5 Demolition 16.1 17.0 1.2 0.7 Site Preparation 13.7 13.4 3.2 1.8 Grading 15.9 16.1 3.6 2.0 Building Construction 9.7 12.0 0.7 0.4 Paving 5.0 7.3 0.4 0.3 Architectural Coating 0.9 1.5 0.1 <0.1 SCAQMD LST Threshold(B) 83 673 5 4 Threshold Exceeded? No No No No Source: Table 5, MIG 2023a (see Appendix A) and SCAQMD 2009 (A) Emissions presented are worst-case emissions and may reflect summer or winter emission levels. In general, due to rounding, there is no difference between summer and winter emission levels for the purposes of this table. (B) The LST thresholds are conservatively based on 1.0-acre project size and 25-meter receptor distance for SRA 5. Operational Emissions Typically, operations related to LSTs become a concern when there are substantial on -site stationary or on-site mobile sources (e.g., heavy duty or idling trucks) that could impact surrounding receptors, which is not the case for the proposed project. Nonetheless, the proposed project’s maximum daily operational emissions are compared against the SCAQMD’s -recommended LSTs in Table 4.3-4 and 4.3-5. The project’s maximum daily operational emissions are compared against the SCAQMD’s - recommended LSTs in Table 4.3-5 (LST Operational Emissions). Consistent with the SCAQMD’s LST methodology, the emissions included in the operational LST analysis are onsite emissions only, and the LST thresholds against which these onsite emissions are compared are based on the project size, in acres. The LST thresholds are for SRA 11 (South San Gabriel Valley), the SRA in which the project is located and are based on a receptor distance of 82 feet (approximately 25 meters), the closest LST receptor distance threshold recommended for use by the SCAQMD. As shown in Table 4.3-5, proposed project’s on-site operational emissions would not exceed the SCAQMD’s recommended operational LSTs. Project operation, therefore, would not generate criteria air pollutant emissions levels that exceed SCAQMD local CEQA thresholds. Impacts will be less than significant and no mitigation is required. 4 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts 46 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Public Review Draft November 2023 Table 4.3-5 LST Operational Emissions Emissions Maximum Daily Emissions (Pounds per Day)(A) NOX CO PM10(B) PM2.5(B) Area Sources 1.0 6.1 0.1 0.1 Energy Sources 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Mobile Sources(A) 2.3 24.7 <0.1 <0.1 Total Emissions(B) 3.3 30.8 0.1 0.1 SCAQMD LST Threshold(C) 121 1,031 2 2 Threshold Exceeded? No No No No Source: MIG 2023 (see Appendix A). (A) Mobile source emissions estimates reflect potential onsite vehicle emissions only and were derived by assuming 2% of operational mobile source emissions in Table 4 will occur onsite. (B) Emissions presented are worst-case emissions and may reflect summer or winter emissions levels. In general, due to rounding, there is no difference between summer and winter emissions levels for the purposes of this table. (C) LST threshold is based on a 2.0-acre project size and 25-meter (82-foot) receptor distance. Sensitive Air Quality Receptors/Health Risks The SCAQMD identifies sensitive receptors as populations more susceptible to the effects of air pollution than the general population. Some people are more affected by air pollution than others. Sensitive air quality receptors include specific subsets of t he general population that are susceptible to poor air quality and the potential adverse health effects associated with poor air quality. Both CARB and the SCAQMD consider residences, schools, parks and playgrounds, childcare centers, athletic facilities, long-term health care facilities, rehabilitation centers, convalescent centers, and retirement homes to be sensitive air quality land uses and receptors (SCAQMD 2017a; CARB 2005). The potential sensitive air quality receptors adjacent or in close proximity to the perimeter of the project area (i.e., within 1,250 feet) include: • The single-family residential land uses on Foster Bridge Boulevard that border or are in close proximity to the project site (the closest of which is adjacent to the northern property line); • Other single-family residences southeast of the project along Guatemala Avenue; • The Rio Hondo Bike Path, which is approximately 120 feet south of the project site, that runs adjacent to Bluff Road; • Suva Elementary School, approximately 1,250 feet northwest of the project site. In addition to criteria air pollutants, the U.S. EPA and CARB have classified certain pollutants as Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAPs) (by U.S. EPA) or Toxic Air Contaminants (TACs) (by CARB), respectively. These pollutants can cause severe health effects at very low concentrations (non-cancer effects), and many are suspected or confirmed carcinogens (i.e., can cause cancer). People exposed to HAPs/TACs at sufficient concentrations and durations may have an increased chance of getting cancer or experiencing other serious health effects. These health effects can include damage to the immune system, as well as neurological, reproductive (e.g., reduced fertility), developmental, respiratory, and/or other health problems. 4 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Foster Bridge and Bluff Residential Project 47 City of Downey A portion of the PM10 and PM2.5 emissions generated during construction of the project would be diesel particulate matter, or DPM, a known TAC. The proposed project’s construction activities would not expose adjacent residential receptors to substantial levels of DPM that would pose a substantial adverse health risk for several reasons. First, the proposed project does not involve substantial earthmoving or grading activities that would require large amounts of heavy-duty equipment associated with the highest DPM emissions. This is because the proposed project site is already developed and only approximately 1.3 acres in size. Second, potential long -term adverse health risks from DPM are evaluated assuming a co nstant exposure to emissions over a 70 -year lifetime, 24 hours a day, seven days a week, with increased risks generally associated with increased proximity to emissions sources. Since construction activities would only generate DPM emissions on an intermit tent, short-term basis (lasting approximately 12 months), DPM emissions from construction activities would be unlikely to result in adverse health effects to existing sensitive receptors that exceed the SCAQMD’s significance criteria. In 2019, the SCAQMD established the following thresholds of significance for projects that generate TAC emissions: Maximum Incremental Cancer Risk ≥ 10 in 1 million; Cancer Burden > 0.5 excess cancer cases (in areas ≥ 1 in 1 million); Chronic & Acute Hazard Index ≥ 1.0 (projec t increment). There is no current evidence to suggest the presence of asbestos -containing materials (ACMs) in the existing church building. However, if ACMs were present, then demolition, removal, and transport of building materials containing ACMs could result in airborne emissions of asbestos resulting in exposure of workers or the environment to a hazardous material. In accordance with Section 112 of the Federal Clean Air Act, the U.S. EPA establishes National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP). If necessary, the project would comply with SCAQMD Rule 1403, which is the enforcing rule of the Asbestos NESHAP, and sets forth requirement s for asbestos surveying, notification, removal procedures, and storage, disposal, and land filling requirements for asbestos containing waste materials. Regulatory compliance with SCAQMD Rule 1403 would ensure the proposed project does not expose sensitive receptors to asbestos containing material s. For additional information on ACMs and other impacts related to hazardous materials, see Section 4.9, Hazards and Hazardous Materials. CO Hotspot Analysis A CO hotspot is an area of localized CO pollution that is caused by severe vehicle congestion on major roadways, typically near high volume intersections. Several screening procedures have been developed by air districts throughout the state to assess whether a project may result in a CO impact. For example, the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) developed a screening threshold in 2010 which states that any project involving an intersection experiencing 44,000 vehicles per hour would require detailed analysis. Additionally, the SCAQMD’s 2003 AQMP and 1992 Federal Attainment Plan for Carbon Monoxide demonstrated that CO levels were below the CAAQS at an intersection with a daily traffic volume of up to approximately 100,000 vehicles per day. The proposed project would add approximately 331 new vehicle trips to the roadway system per day (see Appendix G). The worst-case hourly intersection volume in the project vicinity would be relatively unaffected by the project, which is projected to add a total of 20 trips during the AM peak hour and 25 trips during the PM peak hour. This is well below the BAAQMD screening threshold, and surrounding roadway segments would not have traffic volumes exceeding 100,000 vehicles per day. The proposed project would not cause intersection volumes to exceed any daily (100,000) or hourly (44,000) screening vehicle volumes maintained by the SCAQMD and other regional air districts and, therefore, would not result in significant CO concentrations. Impacts would be less than significant and mitigation is not required. d) Less than Significant Impact. According to the SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook, land uses associated with odor complaints include agricultural operations, wastewater treatment plants, landfills, and certain industrial operations (such as manufacturing uses that produce chemicals, pape r, etc.). The proposed project does not include such sources but would result in the construction of a new townhome 4 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts 48 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Public Review Draft November 2023 facility that could generate odors related to vehicle parking and refuse collection (e.g., oils, lubricants, fuel vapors, short-term waste odors). These activities would not generate sustained odors that would affect substantial numbers of people. Potential impact with respect to odors wou ld be less than significant. 4.4 – Biological Resources Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? □ □ □ b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? □ □ □ c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? □ □ □ d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? □ □ □ 4 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Foster Bridge and Bluff Residential Project 49 City of Downey e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? □ □ □ f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? □ □ □ a ) Less Than Significant Impact. The project site is a developed property occupied by a church and parking lot in the far northwest corner of the City. The project site and surrounding area are fully developed and not identified as critical habitat for any threatened or endangered species of plant or animal. The California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB)8 shows no record of any occurrence of any sensitive plant, animal, terrestrial natural community, or aquatic community on the project site9 or in the immediate surrounding area, including the Rio Hondo Channel. The most current CNDDB data for the Southgate USGS 7.5-minute quadrangle indicates there are four listed or otherwise sensitive plant species present in the surrounding region, including several species typical of vernal pool habitat. The CNDDB list also shows ten listed or protected animal species in the region, including burrowing owl and several bird species found in riparian habitat (Appendix B). The site contains no vegetation, habitat, or resources that would support any of these listed, sensitive, or protected species of plants or animals. Landscaping currently exists onsite, including a number of mature landscaped Ficus and palm trees. However, ornamental vegetation is not typically native habitat for any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species. The only plants onsite are landscaped or non-native weedy species. The site is completely covered with man-made structures/surfaces and there are no drainage features, wetlands, or water features present. The only wildlife on site would be those native species tolerant of regular human activity including small mammals, reptiles, and songbirds. Considering the highly developed nature of the project site and lack of native habitat, it is reasonable to conclude the proposed project would not result in any significant impacts to sensitive species or their habitats. The highly disturbed nature of the site and surrounding habitat would not provide substantial habitat for any of the sensitive species known to occur within one mile of the project site. Therefore, the proposed project would not have a substantial adverse effect on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special -status species in local or regional plans by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). Impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation is required. b) No Impact. As outlined in Threshold 4.4.a above, no natural or man-made water features occur within the project site and no riparian vegetation is present on or adjacent to the site, including the nearby concrete-lined Rio Hondo Channel, that could provide habitat for wildlife.10 Therefore, the project would not have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the CDFW or USFWS. No impact would occur. 4 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts 50 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Public Review Draft November 2023 c) No Impact. As outlined in Threshold 4.4.a above, no wetlands occur on the project site.11 Therefore, the project would not have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. No impact would occur. d) Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. According to the General Plan, the City does not maintain any designated wildlife corridors and the project site is surrounded by developed residential and industrial properties. The Federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA; 16 USC Sections 703–711) and California Fish and Game Code (CFGC) Sections 3503, 3503.5, and 3513 extend protection to a number of avian species that may occur on or in the vicinity of the project site. The project site contains a number of landscaped trees (mainly Ficus and palms) that may possibly provide habitat for nesting birds. The project plan calls for all trees and vegetation to be removed from the site. If the onsite vegetation contained nests for avian species protected by these regulations, there is a potential for a significant impact in this regard. Therefore, Mitigation Measure BIO-1 (nesting bird survey) has been recommended to determine if any onsite vegetation contains nesting birds and if present, restricts construction activities until young birds have fledged from the next. This measure will ensure impacts to nesting/migratory birds are less than significant. With mitigation incorporated, impacts to wildlife corridors or migrating animals would be less than significant. e) Less than Significant Impact. The only biological resource on the site is the existing trees and landscaping, and the City has no local regulation regarding removal of these materials. Construction of the proposed project would result in the removal of non-native landscaping shrubs and tree species from the site. Development of the proposed project will install new landscaping and trees on the site. Therefore, the project will not conflict with any local regulations related to trees or other biological resources. Impacts would be less than significant. f) No Impact. No Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan or other biological plan are associated with the project site or the immediate surrounding urbanized area.12 Therefore, the project would not conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan. No impact would occur. Mitigation Measures BIO-1 Nesting Bird Survey. To the extent feasible, construction activities shall be scheduled to avoid the nesting season. If construction activities are scheduled to take place during the nesting season, all impacts to nesting birds protected under the MBTA and California Fish and Game Code must be avoided. The nesting season for most birds in Los Angeles County extends from February 1 through September 1. If it is not possible to schedule construction activities between September 1 and January 31, then a pre-construction survey for nesting birds will be conducted by a qualified biologist to ensure that no nests would be disturbed during project implementation. Th is survey will be conducted no more than 5 days prior to the initiation of any site disturbance activities and equipment mobilization, including tree, shrub, or vegetation removal, fence installation, grading, etc. If project activities are delayed by more than 5 days, an additional nesting bird survey will be performed. During this survey, the biologist will inspect all trees and other potential nesting habitats (e.g., trees and shrubs) in and immediately adjacent to the impact area for nests. Active nesting is present if a bird is building a nest, sitting in a nest, a nest 4 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Foster Bridge and Bluff Residential Project 51 City of Downey has eggs or chicks in it, or adults are observed carrying food to the nest. The results of the survey(s) will be documented. If an active nest is found sufficiently close to work areas to be disturbed by these activities, the qualified biologist will determine the extent of a construction -free buffer zone to be established around the nest (typically up to 300 feet for raptors an d up to 100 feet for other species), to ensure that no nests of species protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and California Fish and Game Code will be disturbed during project implementation. Within the buffer zone, no site disturbance and mo bilization of heavy equipment, including but not limited to equipment staging, fence installation, clearing, grubbing, vegetation removal, demolition, and grading will be permitted until the chicks have fledged. A qualified biologist is an individual who has a degree in biological sciences or related resource management with a minimum of two seasonal years post -degree experience conducting surveys for nesting birds. During or following academic training, the quali fied biologist will have achieved a high level of professional experience and knowledge in biological sciences and special-status species identification, ecology, and habitat requirements. 4.5 – Cultural Resources Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in Section 15064.5? □ □ □ b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5? □ □ □ c) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outsides of formal cemeteries? □ □ □ a) Less than Significant Impact. In the 1800’s, Downey was one of many towns to spring up in the Los Angeles Basin. The city derived its name from John Gately Downey, an Irish immigrant who had come to California during the 1849 Gold Rush. He helped build the economic foundation of Southern California which transitioned from open cattle range to an agricultural district of small farms. In November 1859, Downey and his former drugstore partner, James McFarland, bought the 17,602 -acre Rancho Santa Gertrudes. In 1873, a 96-acre parcel of the plot became the central district of a community called “Downey City” as a result of the favorable climate, fertile soil, and abundant water sources. In April of 1874, the Southern Pacific Railroad was extended through Downey which brought new residents from back East and delivered agricultural and other goods throughout the country. By 4 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts 52 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Public Review Draft November 2023 the early 1900’s, the downtown Downey area contained a Sunkist packing plant, a department store, banks, restaurants and mercantile shops. Downey remained largely agrarian until the development of the local aircraft industry during the post -World War II years, with light industry and tract homes replacing orange groves. The city was one of the first suburban “planned communities” with quality homes, schools and retail centers. By the beginning of the 21st century, Downey provided a balance of housing, commerce, and jobs for local residents and employees. A Cultural Resources Assessment (CRA) was prepared for the project site 13 by CRM TECH dated October 13, 2023 that included historic and archaeological resources According to the General Plan1 and the CRA13, the project area has no facilities that satisfy any of the criteria for historic resources defined in CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5. The CRA noted that components of the onsite church building were constructed from the late 1950’s to 1989, so it was at least possible that the structure may have historical value. To answer that question, CRM TECH undertook a preliminary evaluation of the church building and determined it did not meet the criteria for a historical resource under CEQA CRM TECH concluded the site did not have any structures eligible for listing in the National or California Registers under any of the significance criteria. Therefore, the project would not result in an adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in CEQA Section 15064.5. During its historical assessment, CRM TECH documented the architectural features of the church building using the required California Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) Form 523 to help determine if a property meets the defined criteria of historical, architectural, archeological, or cultural significance. The DPR 523 Form is designed to collect enough information to make a preliminary determination of eligibility. The form collects basic information such as location, classification, function, a brief physical description and evaluation of the property’s integrity and associations. With this documentation, potential impacts to historical resources will be less than significant and no mitigation is required. b) Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. A Cultural Resources Assessment (CRA) was prepared for the project site by CRM TECH that included the evaluation of archaeological resources. The draft CRA indicated that no cultural resource surveys have been conducted in the project area, but Native American tribes have occupied the Los Angeles Basin for thousands of years. Given the developed, urbanized nature of the project site and vicinity, previously undiscovered archaeological resources are not anticipated to be uncovered during project grading. However, it should be noted that local Native American tribes, most notably the Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians-Kizh Nation, have expressed concern regarding the likelihood of finding tribal artifacts or resources during grading generally anywhere within their traditional tribal boundaries which includes the City of Downey (see also Section 4.18, Tribal Cultural Resources). In the event that archaeological resources , most likely related to the Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians-Kizh Nation, are discovered during ground-disturbing activities, Mitigation Measure CUL-1 has been recommended to ensure that buried archaeological and/or tribal resources are properly treated if found during project grading. With implementation of the recommended mitigation, potential impacts to archaeological resources would be less than significant. c) Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. No known human remains are anticipated to be located on or beneath the project site. However, in the unlikely event that human remains are uncovered during ground disturbing activities, the contractor is required to halt work in the immediate area of the find and to notify the County Coroner, in accordance with Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5, who must then determine whether the remains are of forensic interest. If the Coroner, with the aid of a supervising archaeologist, determines that the remains are or appear to be of a Native American, they must contact the Native American Heritage Commission for further investigations and proper recovery of such remains, if necessary. Mitigation Measure CUL-1 will help ensure that human 4 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Foster Bridge and Bluff Residential Project 53 City of Downey remains are properly treated in accordance with existing regulations. With incorporation of mitigation, impacts related to the discovery of buried human remains would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures CUL-1 Unanticipated Resources. In the event that archaeological resources (sites, features, or artifacts) are exposed during construction activities of the project, all construction work occurring within 100 feet of the find shall immediately stop until a qualified archaeologist, meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards, can evaluate the significance of the find and determine whether or not additional study is warranted. Depending upon the significance of the find under the California Environmental Qua lity Act (CEQA: 14 CCR 15064.5(f): PRC Section 21083.2), the archaeologist may simply record the find and allow work to continue. However, if the discovery proves significant under CEQA, additional work, such as preparation of an archaeological treatment p lan, testing, or data recovery, may be warranted. 4.6 – Energy Would the Project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation? □ □ □ b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency? □ □ □ An Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Analysis was prepared for the proposed project by MIG, dated September 20, 2023 (see Appendix A). The report estimates the potential energy usage and greenhouse gas emissions for the proposed project and evaluates project emissions against applicable South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD)-recommended California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) significance thresholds for construction and operation. a) Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project consists of the demolition of an existing church and parking lot and construction of a 33-unit townhouse project. Construction activities associated with the proposed project would require the use of heavy -duty, off-road equipment and construction-related vehicle trips that would combust fuel, primarily diesel and gasoline. Heavy -duty construction equipment would be required to comply with CARB’s airborne toxic control measures, which restrict heavy -duty diesel vehicle idling to five minutes. It is estimated that construction activities would consume approximately 19,871 gallons of diesel fuel to power on-site, off-road heavy-duty construction equipment. Worker, vendor, and haul truck trips during construction activities are anticipated to consume 3,802 gallons of gasoline, 1.137 gallons of diesel, and 894 kilo-Watt hours (kWh) of electricity. 4 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts 54 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Public Review Draft November 2023 Once operational, the proposed project would consume energy for vehicle trips, electricity, and water and wastewater conveyance. As estimated using CalEEMod, the proposed building s would consume approximately 396 megawatt-hours (mWh) of electricity per year. Operational vehicle trips are anticipated to consume approximately 3,804 gallons of diesel and 23,191 gallons of gasoline from operational mobile sources on an annual basis. The proposed project would not consume natural gas as the project is planned to be all electric. Electricity and gasoline fuel consumption are energy sources necessary to operate and maintain the proposed project in a safe manner. Lighting is essential for safety and security and, due to the all - electric design of the building s, electricity is also needed for heating, cooking, and other temperature - controlled activities. Due to energy efficiency standards being improved over time, the new structures would be more efficient in its energy consumption than the existing structures. In addition, the proposed project includes the use of solar photovoltaic (PV) panels to be provided on all townhomes. Electricity, and gasoline fuel consumption are energy sources necessary to operate and maintain the proposed residential project in a safe manner. Lighting is essential for safety and security as well as heating and other temperature -controlled activities since it will be an all-electric project. Due to energy efficiency standards being improved over time, the new structures would be more efficient in its energy consumption than the existing structures. In addition, the proposed project includes elements th at support modes of transportation that would result in less gasoline consumption than transportation by single-occupancy gasoline-powered cars. For example, the CalGreen Code requires new residential units to be wired so that electric vehicle charging equipment be installed by new homeowners if so desired. The proposed project would be built to the latest CalGreen Code and State Title 24 energy conservation standards and would be more energy efficient than the existing structures at the site and would not conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy. For example, the development will have photovoltaic solar panels on the roofs of the units to replace electricity from other sources. In addition, the project will be all electric so there will be no consumption of natural gas, and each unit will be wired to support electric vehicle charging equipment. In these ways, the proposed project would not conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan adopted for the purposes of increasing the amount of renewable energy or energy efficiency because no such plan is in place in the project area. In these ways energy consumption impacts of the project will be reduced to the level equal or greater than that required by the CalGreen Code. For these reasons, the proposed project would not result in the wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary use of energy resources. This impact would thus be less than significant and no mitigation is required. b) Less Than Significant Impact. As previously discussed, the project would be constructed and operated consistent with the energy conservation requirements of the CalGreen Code and State Title 24 energy conservation standards. In addition, the City of Downey does not have its own Climate Action Plan (CAP) or other plan that directly addresses energy conservation. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan adopted for the purposes of increasing the amount of renewable energy or energy efficiency because no such plan is in place in the project area. This impact would be less than significant and no mitigation is required. 4 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Foster Bridge and Bluff Residential Project 55 City of Downey 4.7 – Geology, Soils, and Paleontological Resources Would the Project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. □ □ □ ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? □ □ □ iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? □ □ □ iv) Landslides? □ □ □ b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? □ □ □ c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the Project, and potentially result in on - or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? □ □ □ d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1997), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property? □ □ □ 4 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts 56 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Public Review Draft November 2023 e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? □ □ □ f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? □ □ □ A Geotechnical Investigation 14 was prepared by Albus & Associates, dated February 6, 2023 (Geotechnical Report, Appendix D) and a Paleontological Resources Assessment Report 13 was prepared by CRM TECH dated October 13, 2023 (Appendix C). The information in this section is largely taken from those reports unless otherwise noted. a.i) Less Than Significant Impact. No active faults have been identified at the ground surface within the City of Downey as identified in the General Plan Safety Element, nor have any Alquist -Priolo Earthquake Fault zones been designated.15 The project Geotechichnical Report indicates “no active faults are known to project through or immediately adjacent the subject site and the site do es not lie within an "Earthquake Fault Zone" as defined by the State of California in Earthquake Fault Zoning Act (page 6, Albus 2023). Table 3.1 in the Geotechnical Report indicates the following faults are the closest to the project site: Puente Hills (0.1 mile); Elsinore (5.4 miles); Elysian Park (6.6 miles); and Newport Inglewood (9 miles). Although there are several faults in the immediate surrounding region, t he Geotechnical Report found the risk from onsite fault rupture to be negligible. Therefore, impacts related to earthquake faults and ground rupture would be less than significant. a.ii) Less Than Significant Impact. Potential impacts from strong seismic ground shaking include injury or loss of life and property damage. The Geotechnical Report found the peak ground acceleration i at the site is 0.834g ii which is considered strong. The City lies within the Los Angeles Basin and underlying geologic formations consist largely of ancient marine and river deposits which are typically sandy and silty-sandy soils. The proposed project lies in the far northwest corner of the City on relatively flat terrain next to the Rio Hondo Channel. The Geotechnical Report indicates there is two to six feet of unconsolidated artificial fill beneath the project site from deposition of excavated soils when the Rio Hondo Channel was realigned. In its current condition, the site may be susceptible to ground failure during strong seismic events. However, The Geotechnical Report also indicate s that standard excavation and compaction of the soil to applicable engineering standards in the CBC will eliminate this potential for ground failure on the site. Compliance with these regulatory standards is not considered unique mitigation. The project site is subject to strong seismic ground shaking, as are virtually all properties in Southern California. The 2022 California Building Code (California Building Code [CBC], California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Volume 2, as adopted by the City of Downey Municipal Code (CDMC), Chapter 16.05, contains seismic safety provisions with the aim of preventing building collapse during a design earthquake, so that occupants would be able to evacuate after the earthquake. The proposed townhomes would be subject to the seismic design criteria of the 2022 CBC. Adherence to these regulatory requirements would reduce the potential for building collapse during an earthquake, thereby i The mapped Maximum Considered Earthquake Geometric Mean (MCEG) ii The term “g” means onsite groundshaking could reach about 83% of the force of gravity exerted horizontally on project buildings. 4 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Foster Bridge and Bluff Residential Project 57 City of Downey minimizing injury and loss of life. Although structures may be damaged during earthquakes, adherence to seismic design requirements would minimize damage to property within the structure because the structure is designed not to collapse. The CBC is intende d to provide minimum requirements to prevent major structural failure and loss of life. Adherence to existing regulations would reduce the risk of loss, injury, and death. Therefore, impacts due to strong ground shaking would be less than significant and no mitigation is required. a.iii) Less Than Significant Impact. The Geotechnical Report indicates there is two to six feet of unconsolidated fill beneath the project site from deposition of excavated soils when the Rio Hondo Channel was realigned. The grading plan indicates there will be 7,000 cubic yards (cy) of over - excavation due to the presence of unconsolidated fill. Other earthwork will involve 2,500 cy of cut/fill and approximately 4,500 cy will need to be imported after removal and compaction of the unconsolidated fill materials. Liquefaction is a phenomenon that occurs when soil undergoes transformation from a solid state to a liquefied condition due to the effects of increased pore -water pressure. This typically occurs where susceptible soils (particularly the medium sand to silt range) are located over a high groundwater table (less than 50 feet in depth), and in an area subject to strong groun dshaking. Affected soils lose their strength during liquefaction and foundation failure can occur. The City’s General Plan Safety Element indicates the project area is considered to be in a liquefaction zone. The Geotechnical Report found no groundwater beneath the project area to the subsurface exploration depth of 51.5 feet. However, CDMG 16 Special Report 034 suggests that historic high groundwater in the immediate area could be as shallow as 9 feet below the ground surface. After additional research by Arbus using online groundwater well data from the Los Angeles County Public Works Department, two wells were found in proximity to the project site. Data from these wells was from 1950 to 2011 and the recorded depths to groundwater in both wells indicate that groundwater has remained below a depth of 50 feet in this area since 1950 (i.e., 70-80 feet). Therefore, the Geotechnical Report concluded that groundwater beneath the site w as expected to be at least 50 feet or more in depth. The Geotechnical Report indicates the site and surrounding area have not been subject to historic occurrence of liquefaction, or local geological, geotechnical, and groundwater conditions . Therefore, there is no potential for permanent ground displacement that would trigger the need for mitigation as defined in Public Resources Code Section 2693(c). The site exhibits a very low seismic settlement potential and liquefaction would not be significant to the proposed development. Therefore, impacts due to seismically induced ground failure or liquefaction would be less than significant. a.iv) No Impact. The Geotechnical Report indicates the project site is located in a suburbanized area that is relatively flat and there is no potential for landslides . Therefore, there will be no impacts to the proposed project site and no mitigation is required. b) Less Than Significant Impact. The project site currently supports a church and parking lot and underlying soils are completely covered by development. However, the project has the potential to expose surficial soils to wind and water erosion during construction activities. Wind erosion would be minimized through soil stabilization measures required by South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) Rule 403 (Fugitive Du st), such as daily watering which will minimize the potential for wind erosion. For more information on dust control, see Threshold 4.3, Air Quality. With regulatory compliance, project construction will not have significant impacts relative to wind erosion. 4 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts 58 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Public Review Draft November 2023 Water erosion would be prevented through the City’s standard erosion control practices required pursuant to the California Building Code and the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES), such as silt fencing or sandbags. Following project co nstruction, the site would be covered completely by paving, structures, and landscaping. Therefore, impacts related to soil erosion would be less than significant with implementation of existing regulations once construction is complete. c) Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. Impacts related to liquefaction and landslides are discussed in Sections 4.7.a and 4.7.b. above and both were determined to be less than significant. Lateral spreading is the downslope movement of surface sediment due to liquefaction in a subsurface layer. The downslope movement is due to gravity and earthquake shaking combined. Such movement can occur on slope gradients of as little as one degree. Late ral spreading typically damages pipelines, utilities, bridges, and structures. Lateral spreading of the ground surface during a seismic activity usually occurs along the weak shear zones within a liquefiable soil layer and has been observed to generally take place toward a free face (e.g., retaining wall, slope, or channel) and to lesser extent on ground surfaces with a very gentle slope. Due to the absence of any channel within or near the project site, and the subsurface soil conditions that are not conducive to liquefaction, the potential for lateral spread occurring on the project site is considered to be less than significant (page 7, Geotechnical Report). The project engineer indicates earthwork on the site will be generally balanced with little onsite cut and fill anticipated. However, there may be a small amount of import or export of soil because the exact amount is not yet known. This is because the site is underlain by an unknown amount of unconsolidated fill. The City requires a comprehensive geotechnical investigation of a development site prior to issuing grading permits. In addition, the project is required to be constructed in accordance with the requirements of the 2022 CBC. The CBC includes a requirement that any City -approved recommendations contained in the soils report be made conditions of the building permit. The project Geotechnical Report indicated it was prepared for only feasibility purposes and recommended a supplemental Geotech nical report be prepared to determine site specific project grading, design, permitting, and construction parameters. Preparation of that supplemental report is addressed in Mitigation Measure GEO-1. Compliance with site specific geotechnical recommendations of the original and supplemental Geotech nical Reports (see Mitigation Measure GEO-1) and current CBC regulations would limit hazard impacts arising from potentially unstable soils to less than significant levels. d) Less than Significant Impact. According to the project Geotechnical Report, near surface soils have a “very low” medium expansion potential. The project would comply with all recommendations provided in the project Geotechnical Report upon application for grading and building permits. Less than significant impacts would occur. e) No Impact. The project proposes to connect the existing municipal wastewater system to an eight- inch sewer main line in Suva Street along the southern boundary of the site. The project would connect to this system and would not require use of septic tanks; therefore, no impact would occur . f) Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. Given the urbanized nature of the project site and vicinity, previously recorded paleontological resources are not anticipated to be uncovered during project construction activities. However, in the event that previously undiscovered paleontological resources are discovered during ground -disturbing activities, Mitigation Measures GEO-2 through GEO- 4 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Foster Bridge and Bluff Residential Project 59 City of Downey 5 have been recommended to ensure that paleontological resources are properly treated. With implementation of the recommended mitigation, impacts to paleontological resources would be reduced to be less than significant levels. Mitigation Measures GEO-1 Supplemental Geotechnical Report. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the project proponent shall retain a qualified geotechnical consultant to prepare a supplemental geotechnical investigation as recommended by the “Geotechnical Due-Diligence Investigation” prepared by Albus & Associates, Inc. dated February 6, 2023. The supplemental report shall be certified by the City Engineer as adequate for the purposes of design, permitting, and construction. GEO-2 Conduct Paleontological Sensitivity Training for Construction Personnel. If excavation below 6’ is required, the project proponent must retain a professional paleontologist, who meets the qualifications set forth by the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology, to conduct a Paleontological Sensitivity Training for construction personnel before commencement of excavation activities. The training would include a handout and would focus on how to identify paleontological resources that may be encountered durin g earthmoving activities, and the procedures to be followed in such an event; the duties of paleontological monitors; notification and other procedures to follow upon discovery of resources , and the general steps a qualified professional paleontologist would follow in conducting a salvage investigation if one is necessary. GEO-3 Conduct Periodic Paleontological Spot Checks During Grading and Earth -Moving Activities. If excavation below 6’ is required, the project proponent must retain a professional paleontologist, who meets the qualifications set forth by the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology, to conduct periodic Paleontological Spot Checks beginning at depths below six feet from the surface to determine if construction e xcavations extend into older Quaternary deposits. After the initial Paleontological Spot Check, further periodic checks would be conducted at the discretion of the qualified paleontologist. If the qualified paleontologist determines that construction excavations have extended into the older Quaternary deposits, construction monitoring for Paleontological Resources are required. The project proponent must retain a qualified paleontological monitor, who would work under the guidance and direction of a professional paleontologist, who meets the qualifications set forth by the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology. The paleontological monitor must be present during all construction excavations (e.g., grading, trenching, or clearing/grubbing) into the older Pleistocene alluvial deposits. Multiple earth -moving construction activities may require multiple paleontological monitors. The frequency of monitoring is based on the rate of excavation and grading activities, proximity to known paleontological resources and/or unique geological features, the materials being excavated (native versus artificial fill soils), and the depth of excavation, and if found, the abundance and type of paleontological resources and/or unique geological features encountered. Full -time monitoring can be reduced to part-time inspections if determined adequate by the qualified professional paleontologist. Monitoring shall terminate when grading and trenching activities on the site have been completed. GEO-4 Cease Ground-Disturbing Activities and Implement Treatment Plan if Paleontological Resources Are Encountered. In the event that paleontological resources and or unique geological features are unearthed during ground-disturbing activities, the paleontological monitor may halt or divert work away from the vicinity of the find so that the find can be 4 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts 60 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Public Review Draft November 2023 evaluated. A buffer area of at least 50 feet must be established around the find where construction activities are not allowed to continue until an appropriate paleontological treatment plan is approved by the project proponent and the City. Work is allowed to continue outside of the buffer area. The project proponent and City would coordinate with a professional paleontologist, who meets the qualifications set forth by the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology, to develop an appropriate treatment plan for the resources. Treatment may include implementation of paleontological salvage excavations to remove the resource along with subsequent laboratory processing and analysis or preservation in place. At the paleontologist’s discretion and to reduce construction delay, the grading and excavation contractor would assist in removing rock samples for initial processing. GEO-5 Prepare Report Upon Completion of Monitoring Services. If paleontological resources are found, upon completion of the activities identified under Mitigation Measure GEO-4, the professional paleontologist would prepare a report summarizing the results of the monitoring and salvaging efforts, the methodology used in these efforts, and a description of the fossils collected and their significance. The report would be submitted to the project proponent, the City, the Natural History Museums of Los Angeles County, and representatives of other appropriate or concerned agencies to signify the satisfactory completion of the project and required mitigation measures. 4.8 – Greenhouse Gas Emissions Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? □ □ □ b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? □ □ □ An Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Analysis was prepared for the proposed project by MIG, dated September 20, 2023 (Appendix A). The report estimates the potential energy usage and greenhouse gas emissions for the proposed project and evaluates project emissions against applicable South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD)-recommended California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) significance thresholds for construction and operation. a) Less than Significant Impact. Background Information Gases that trap heat in the atmosphere and affect regulation of the Earth’s temperature are known as GHGs. GHG that contribute to climate change are a different type of pollutant than criteria or hazardous 4 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Foster Bridge and Bluff Residential Project 61 City of Downey air pollutants because climate change is global in scale, both in terms of causes and effects.17 Some GHG are emitted to the atmosphere naturally by biological and geological processes such as evaporation (water vapor), aerobic respiration (carbon dioxide), and off -gassing from low oxygen environments such as swamps or exposed permafrost (methane); h owever, GHG emissions from human activities such as fuel combustion (e.g., carbon dioxide) and refrigerants use (e.g., hydrofluorocarbons) significantly contribute to overall GHG concentrations in the atmosphere, climate regulation, and global climate change. The 1997 United Nations’ Kyoto Protocol international treaty set targets for reductions in emissions of four specific GHGs – carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and sulfur hexafluoride – and two groups of gases – hydrofluorocarbons and perfluorocarbons. These GHG are the primary GHG emitted into the atmosphere by human activities. The six most common GHG’s are carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), sulfur hexafluoride (SF6), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), and perfluorocarbons (PFCs). GHG emissions from human activities contribute to overall GHG concentrations in the atmosphere and the corresponding effects of global climate change (e.g., rising temperatures, increased severe weather events such as drought and flooding). GHGs can remain in the atmosphere long after they are emitted. The potential for a GHG to absorb and trap heat in the atmosphere is considered its global warming potential (GWP). The reference gas for measuring GWP is CO 2, which has a GWP of one. By comparison, CH4 has a GWP of 25, which means that one molecule of CH 4 has 25 times the effect on global warming as one molecule of CO 2. Multiplying the estimated emissions for non-CO2 GHGs by their GWP determines their carbon dioxide equivalent (CO 2e), which enables a project’s combined global warming potential to be expressed in terms of mass CO2 emissions (referred to as CO2 equivalents, or CO2e). GHG Significance Thresholds The proposed project is located within the South Coast Air Basin, under the jurisdiction of the SCAQMD. In order to provide guidance to local lead agencies on determining the significance of GHG emissions in their CEQA documents, the SCAQMD convened the first GHG Significance Threshold Working Group (Working Group) meeting on April 30, 2008. To date, the Working Group has convened a total of 15 times, with the last meeting taking place on September 28, 2010. Based on the last Working Group meeting, the SCAQMD identified an interim, tiered approach for evaluating GHG emissions intent on capturing 90 percent of development projects where the SCAQMD is not the lead agency. The following describes the basic structure of the SCAQMD’s tiered, interim GHG significance thresholds: • Tier 1 consists of evaluating whether or not the project qualifies for applicable CEQA exemptions. • Tier 2 consists of determining whether or not a project is consistent with a greenhouse gas reduction plan. If a project is consistent with a greenhouse gas reduction plan, it would not have a significant impact. • Tier 3 consists of using screening values at the discretion of the Lead Agency; however, the Lead Agency should be consistent for all projects within its jurisdiction. The following thresholds were proposed for consideration: o 3,000 MTCO2e per year for all land use types; or o 3,500 MTCO2e per year for residential; 1,400 MTCO2e per year for commercial; 3,000 MTCO2e per year for mixed use projects. • Tier 4 has three options for projects that exceed the screening values identified in Tier 3: o Option 1: Reduce emissions from business-as-usual by a certain percentage (currently undefined); or o Option 2: Early implementation of applicable AB 32 Scoping Measures; or o Option 3: For plan-level analyses, analyze a project’s emissions against an efficiency value of 6.6 MTCO2e/year/service population by 2020 and 4.1 MTCO2e/year/service 4 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts 62 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Public Review Draft November 2023 population by 2035. For project-level analyses, analyze a project’s emissions against an efficiency value of 4.8 and 3.0 MTCO 2e/year/service population for the 2020 and 2035 calendar years, respectively. This analysis uses the SCAQMD’s interim Tier 3 GHG threshold to evaluate the proposed project’s GHG emissions levels. The proposed project would generate GHG emissions from both short -term construction and long-term operational activities. Construction Emissions Construction activities would generate GHG emissions primarily from equipment fuel combustion as well as worker, vendor, and haul trips to and from the project site during demolition, site preparation, grading, building construction, paving, and architectu ral coating activities. Construction activities would cease to emit GHG upon completion, unlike operational emissions that would be continuous year after year over the life of the project. The SCAQMD recommends amortizing construction GHG emissions over a 30-year period and including them with operational emissions estimates. This normalizes construction emissions so that they can be grouped with operational emissions and compared to appropriate thresholds, plans, etc. Operational Emissions Once operational, the proposed project would generate GHG emissions from area, stationary, mobile, water/wastewater, and solid waste sources. The proposed project’s potential GHG emissions were estimated using CalEEMod, V.2022.1.1 using project information if available or CalEEMod default assumptions when project-specific data was not available. The proposed project’s unmitigated GHG emissions for construction and operation are shown in Table 4.8-1 (Project Greenhouse Gas Emissions). Table 4.8-1 Project Greenhouse Gas Emissions GHG Emissions Source GHG Emissions (MTCO2e Per Year) Operations Area 3 Energy 93 Mobile 232 Refrigerants <1 Solid Waste 8 Water/Wastewater 4 Subtotal(A) Construction Total Construction Emissions 240 Average Annual Emissions (30-Year Lifetime)(B) 8 Total Project Emissions(A) 348 SCAQMD Tier 3 Screening Threshold 3,000 SCAQMD Tier 3 Threshold Exceeded? No Project-Specific GHG Threshold(C) 1,800 Project-Specific Threshold Exceeded? No Source: MIG 2023a (Appendix B) and SCAQMD, 2010. 4 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Foster Bridge and Bluff Residential Project 63 City of Downey (A) Construction emissions value has been averaged over a 30-year assumed project lifetime (B) Totals may not equal due to rounding. (C) Calculated based on State post-2020 GHG emission targets since it is now 2023 As shown in Table 4.8-1, the proposed project’s potential increase in GHG emissions would be well below the SCAQMD’s recommended GHG emissions threshold. Furthermore, the proposed project’s GHG emissions would also be below an adjusted project-specific GHG emissions goal of 1,800 MTCO2e per year, which takes into account post 2020 GHG emissions targets towards which the state is currently working. The 1,800 MTCO2e per year goal was developed by taking the SCAQMD’s Tier 3 threshold of 3,000 MTCO2e per year, which was the threshold to reduce emissions back to 1990 levels and reducing it by 40 percent (3,000 MTCO 2e/yr. * (1 - 0.6) = 1,800 MTCO2e/yr.). This reduction is consistent with the GHG reductions required by the year 2025 to meet GHG reductions required under Senate Bill 32 (to reduce GHG emissions to levels 40% below 1990 levels by 2030). This linear reduction approach oversimplifies the threshold development process. The City of Downey is not adopting nor proposing to use 1,800 MTCO 2e as a CEQA GHG threshold for general use; rather, it is only intended to provide additional context and information on the magnitude of the proposed project’s GHG emissions. Finally, the proposed project’s estimated emissions are presented as gross emissions with no credit applied rather than the net change. For these reasons, the proposed project would therefore not generate GHG emissions that exceed SCAQMD CEQA thresholds. Impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation is required. b) No Impact. The proposed project would not conflict with or otherwise obstruct implementation of a plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purposes of reducing GHG emissions, including the California Air Resources Board (CARB) 2022 Climate Change Scoping Plan (2022 Scoping Plan ), the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) 2020 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (2020 RTP/SCS). Appendix D to CARB’s 2022 Scoping Plan Update identifies potential actions that could be undertaken at a local level to support the State’s climate goals. In addition to providing guidance to local lead agencies on long -term climate planning (e.g., developing a qualified climate action plan), this appendix also provides a list of key GHG reducing attributes for residential and mixed-use developments - projects that exhibit these attributes represent growth that is consistent with State’s GHG reduction goals. Table 4.8-2 (Project Consistency with Key GHG Reducing Attributes - 2022 Scoping Plan), evaluates project consistency with these attributes. Table 4.8-2 Project Consistency with Key GHG Reducing Attributes (2022 Scoping Plan) Priority Area Key Project Attribute Project Consistency Transportation Electrification Provides electric vehicle (EV) charging infrastructure that, at a minimum, meets the most ambitious voluntary standard in the California Green Building Standards Code (CalGreen Code) at the time of project approval. Consistent. The proposed project would meet the minimum code compliance specified in the 2022 CalGreen Code. VMT Reduction Is located on infill sites that are surrounded by existing urban uses and reuses or redevelops previously undeveloped or underutilized land that is presently served by existing utilities and essential public services (e.g., transit, streets, water, sewer). Consistent. The proposed project would add approximately 33 units on an infill site that is served by existing utilities. 4 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts 64 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Public Review Draft November 2023 Priority Area Key Project Attribute Project Consistency Does not result in the loss or conversion of natural and working lands. Consistent. The proposed project site is already developed; it would not result in the loss or conversion of natural or working lands. Consists of transit-supportive densities (minimum of 20 residential dwelling units per acre), or Is in proximity to existing transit stops (within a half mile), or Satisfies more detailed and stringent criteria specified in the region’s SCS. Consistent. The proposed project would result in a development intensity of approximately 25.4 dwelling units per acre, which meets the criteria. Reduces parking requirements by: • Eliminating parking requirements or including maximum allowable parking ratios (i.e., the ratio of parking spaces to residential units or square feet), or • Providing residential parking supply at a ratio of less than one parking space per dwelling unit, or • For multifamily residential development, requiring parking costs to be unbundled from costs to rent or own a residential unit. Inconsistent. The proposed project would not incorporate parking reduction. At least 20 percent of units included are affordable to lower-income residents. Inconsistent. The proposed project would only designate up to 3 units as affordable to lower- income residents. Results in no net loss of existing affordable units. Consistent. The proposed project would not result in the net loss of existing affordable units. Building Decarbonization Uses all-electric appliances without any natural gas connections and does not use propane or other fossil fuels for space heating, water heating, or indoor cooking. Consistent. The proposed project would be an all-electric design. The project would not include natural gas plumbing nor use fossil fuels for space heating, water heating, or indoor cooking. Source: Table 8, MIG 2023a, CARB 2022, Appendix D, Table 3; and TAG 2023 As shown in Table 4.8-2, the proposed project would be consistent with most of the Key GHG Reducing Attributes identified in the 2022 Scoping Plan, except for electric vehicle infrastructure, parking reductions, and low-income housing provisions. This inconsistency does not necessarily imply that the project would result in a potentially significant impact, because consistency with the project attributes is simply a qualitative means by which to assess whether or not a project would clearly be consistent with the State’s climate goals (CARB 2022, pg. 23). In fact, Appendix D to the 2022 Scoping Plan provides that, “Lead agencies may determine, with adequate additional supporting evidence, that projects that incorporate some, but not all, of the key project attributes are consistent with the State’s climate goals” (CARB 2022, pgs. 23 and 24). The proposed project would provide some VMT reductions because it would be located on an infill site, not result in the loss of natural or working lands, and have transit - supportive densities (i.e., greater than 20 dwelling units per acre), and would not install, nor us e, natural gas or fossil fuels for space heating, water heating, or indoor c ooking. Therefore, based on these 4 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Foster Bridge and Bluff Residential Project 65 City of Downey qualitative criteria and the magnitude of the project’s overall GHG emissions levels (less than 350 metric tons of CO2e per year) the growth proposed by the project would be consistent with the State’s long - term GHG emission reduction goals. As described above, the proposed project would not result in significant GHG emissions nor conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purposes of reducing GHG emissions. There will be no impact and no mitigation required. 4.9 – Hazards and Hazardous Materials Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? □ □ □ b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? □ □ □ c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? □ □ □ d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? □ □ □ e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the Project result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the Project area? □ □ □ 4 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts 66 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Public Review Draft November 2023 Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact f) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? □ □ □ g) Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires? □ □ □ A Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA)18 was performed by SCS Engineers, dated January 31, 2023 (Appendix E). The information on hazardous materials in this section is largely taken from the ESA. a) Less than Significant Impact. The project could result in a significant hazard to the public if it includes the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials or places housing near a facility, which routinely transports, uses, or disposes of hazardous materials. The project is located within an area dominated by residential uses and surface streets. The project would not place housing near any hazardous materials facilities. The routine use, transport, or disposal of hazardous materials is primarily associated with industrial uses, which require such materials for manufacturing operations or produce hazardous wastes as by-products of production applications. The project, which is a residential use, does not propose or facilitate any activity involving significant use, routine transport, or disposal of hazardous substances. Construction of the project would require the use and transport of hazardous materials such as asphalt, paints, and other solvents. Construction activities could also produce hazardous wastes associated with the use of such products. Construction would require ordinary construction activities and would not require a substantial or uncommon ly high amount of hazardous materials to complete. All hazardous materials are required to be utilized and transported in accordance with their labeling pursuant to federal and state law. Routine construction practices include good housekeeping measures to prevent/contain/clean-up spills and contamination from fuels, solvents, concrete wastes, and other waste materials. Impacts related to construction would be less than significant. With regard to project operation, widely used hazardous materials common at residential uses include paints and other solvents, cleaners, and pesticides. Operation of the proposed project would also involve the use of cleaning solutions for daily operation and paints for routine maintenance and re - coating of structures. The remnants of these and other products are disposed of as household hazardous waste (HHW) that includes used dead batte ries, electronic wastes, and other wastes that are prohibited or discouraged from being disposed of at local landfills. Through compliance with existing regulations, use of common household hazardous materials and their disposal does not present a substantial health risk to the community. Therefore, impacts associated with the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials or wastes would be less than significant. b) Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. The project is a residential development proposed within an existing residential-zoned area of the City of Downey. The proposed project would 4 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Foster Bridge and Bluff Residential Project 67 City of Downey have limited use of hazardous materials , mainly HHW as part of the operations of the proposed residential use. The Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) completed by SCS Engineers (SCS) in 2023 concluded that no known hazards we re present on the project site. Regarding the history of the site, the ESA indicated excess soil from realignment of the nearby Rio Hondo Channel was deposited on the site which raised its elevation by several feet. as described below: The property was undeveloped or agricultural land between 1896 and 1902. Between the 1920s and the mid-1950s, it was developed with agricultural orchards and a rural farmhouse. The church was developed in stages, beginning in the late -1950s, expanded to its current configuration with a paved asphalt parking lot around it by 1989. The construction of the church coincides with the time when the Rio Hondo was channelized to the southeast, rerouting it from its original course to the west of the Property. Today, the church parking lot sits approximately 4 -6 feet higher in elevation than the adjoining residence to the north. It is likely that virgin fill material originating from the river channelization process was placed on the Property at that time, raising its elevation. In SCS’ opinion, given the likely origin of this fill material, it does not represent an environmental concern. It is also SCS’ opinion that, without specific evidence of pesticide storage or mismanagement on the Property, past use for agricultural purposes does not represent a significant environmental concern and collection and analysis of soil samples for pesticides is unwarranted. Our opinion is further supported by the fact that fill material, likely placed on the Property during the river channelization, and former agricultural orchard soil is now 4 -6 feet below current grade. The ESA found no indications of aboveground or underground storage tanks or other potential contamination on the site. However, due to past activities on the site and in the surrounding area, it is possible that unanticipated hazardous materials may be found during demolition or grading of the site. Therefore, Mitigation Measure HAZ-1 is recommended to monitor grading by qualified personnel to assure there will be no release of or health risks from the unanticipated release of subsurface hazardous materials during grading. According to the SCAQMD, demolition of older buildings and structures may pose a hazard regarding asbestos containing materials and lead -based paint. It should be noted that Asbestos Containing Materials and lead based paint do not represent a significant public health hazard when they are left undisturbed, however, site development requires demolition of the existing church building prior to grading. Asbestos-Containing Materials (ACMs). ACMs were used on a widespread basis in building construction prior to and into the 1980s. The ESA indicated that construction on the existing church building began in the late 1950’s and continued through 1989. Typical sources of ACMs include transite (water) pipes, roofing materials and roof penetrating mastic, and vinyl floor tiles. If ACMs are present, site demolition could result in airborne emissions of asbestos resulting in exposure of workers or the environment to a hazardous material. In accordance with Section 112 of the Federal Clean Air Act, the U.S. EPA establishes National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP). If necessary, the project would comply with SCAQMD Rule 1403, which is the enforcing rule of the Asbestos NESHAP, and sets forth requirement s for asbestos surveying, notification, removal procedures, and storage, and disposal requirements for ACMs. Regulatory compliance with SCAQMD Rule 1403 would ensure the proposed project does not expose sensitive receptors to ACMs. If present, ACMs would need to be removed by a licensed contractor prior to general onsite demolition and the start of grading. Lead Based Paint (LBP). According to the California Department of Toxic Substances, exposure of construction workers to LBP during demolition of older structures is of concern, similar to that of exposure to asbestos. Exposure of surrounding land uses to lead from demolition acti vities is 4 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts 68 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Public Review Draft November 2023 generally not a concern because such activities do not result in appreciable emissions of lead. The primary emitters of lead are industrial processes. Improper disposal of lead -based paint could contaminate soil and subsurface groundwater in and under landfills not properly equipped to handle hazardous levels of this material. Due to the age of the existing onsite building, a survey needs to be conducted prior to any demolition on the site to determine whether or not the church building contains ACMs and/or LBP. In this regard, Mitigation Measure HAZ-2 is recommended to be implemented prior to any demolition activities. Mitigation Measures HAZ-1 Inadvertent Hazmat Discovery. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the project proponent shall retain a qualified environmental professional (QEP) experienced with remediating hazardous materials from infill urban construction sites. The QEP must be on -call and summoned to the site immediately if any potentially hazardous materials are found during grading. Grading must be halted within 100 feet of an area that appears to contain hazardous materials. The QEP will ha lt grading as necessary to effectively identify the potential contaminated materials, including directing any sampling and laboratory testing that may be required. If soils are found to be contaminated at levels that are only slightly in excess of applicable residential standards, the QEP shall exercise professional discretion and have the option to coordinate with the grading contractor and developer to either remove contaminated soil and/or mix the contaminated soil with clean soil from either onsite or offsite to dilute any contaminants to below applicable exposure standards for residential development. Remediated areas must be retested to assure potential contaminant levels are below applicable residential standards. The results of any testing shall be provided to the C ity or other agencies as appropriate . Any contaminated soil that must be removed from the site shall be done by a licensed contractor and hauled to a landfill approved for such materials. This measure shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the City Community Development Department. HAZ-2 ACMs and LBP Survey. Prior to demolition of any structures on the project site, the developer shall retain qualified licensed environmental contractor(s) to survey the existing onsite church building and any related structures for asbestos-containing materials (ACMs) and Lead-Based Paints (LBPs). If the survey finds the presence of any ACMs or LBPs on the site, the contractor(s) shall follow all relevant guidance from affected regulatory agencies (e.g., CalEPA, SCAQMD, DTSC, County Health Department, etc.) in terms of safe removal and disposal of the contaminated materials as appropriate. The contractor(s) shall prepare and submit a final report to the City Community Development Department within 30 days after completion of demolition/removal for ACMs and LBPs on the project site. With implementation of Mitigation Measures HAZ-1 and HAZ-2, the proposed project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment . With mitigation, project impacts would be reduced to less than significant levels. c) Less than Significant Impact. One school, Suva Elementary School, is located approximately 1,000 feet west of the project site. The project is residential in nature and would not emit hazardous 4 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Foster Bridge and Bluff Residential Project 69 City of Downey emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste . Therefore, impacts are considered to be less than significant and no mitigation is required. d) No Impact. The project is not located on a site listed on the state Cortese List, a compilation of various sites throughout the state that have been compromised due to soil or groundwater contamination from past uses.19 Based upon review of the Cortese List, the project site is not: ▪ listed as a hazardous waste and substance site by the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC),20 ▪ listed as a leaking underground storage tank (LUFT) site by the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB),21 ▪ listed as a hazardous solid waste disposal site by the SWRCB,22 ▪ currently subject to a Cease and Desist Order (CDO) or a Cleanup and Abatement Order (CAO) as issued by the SWRCB,23 or ▪ developed with a hazardous waste facility subject to corrective action by the DTSC.24 Based on available evidence, n o impacts would occur in relation to hazardous material sites. e) No Impact. The proposed project is not located within two miles of any public or private airport.25 The closest public or private airport facility to the project is the San Gabriel Valley Airport located approximately 10 miles to the northeast of the site in the City of El Monte. No impact would occur with regard to safety hazards or excessive airport noise. f) Less Than Significant Impact. The City of Downey provides an emergency response plan and emergency preplacement plan for residents and businesses in the City. The project site has direct access to two local streets, Foster Bridge Road and Suva Street, although Suva Street provides east - west connection through the northern part of the City and Bell Gardens to the west. The I -5 Freeway (0.8-mile to the east) and the I-710 Freeway (1.8 miles to the west) provide regional access for the project area. The proposed project does not propose or result in any permanent lane closures or reconfiguration of existing streets. Therefore, the proposed project would not impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. As such, a less than significant impact would occur. g) No Impact. The proposed project is located in a completely urbanized area. The project site is not located within a fire hazard zone, as identified on the latest Fire Hazard Severity Zone (FHSZ) maps prepared by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CALFIRE).26 In addition, the project is located in a Local Responsibility Area (LRA) and would be served by the City of Downey Fire Department, and further supported by the Los Angeles County Fire Department s hould wildfires occur. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in an increased fire threat to the community. The project would not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires. Therefore, no impact would occur. 4 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts 70 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Public Review Draft November 2023 4.10 Hydrology and Water Quality Would the Project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality? □ □ □ b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin? □ □ □ c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would: i) result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site; □ □ □ ii) substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on - or off-site; □ □ □ iii) create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff; or □ □ □ iv) impede or redirect flood flows? □ □ □ d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation? □ □ □ e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan? □ □ □ 4 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Foster Bridge and Bluff Residential Project 71 City of Downey A Preliminary Low Impact Development (LID) Plan27 was prepared by Advanced Civil Group, Inc. dated June 6, 2023 (Appendix F). The information in this section is largely taken from the LID Plan. a) Less than Significant Impact. A project normally would have an impact on surface water quality if discharges associated with the project would create pollution, contamination, or nuisance as defined in Water Code Section 13050, or that cause regulatory standards to be violated as defined in the applicable National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) stormwater permit or Water Quality Control Plan for the receiving water body. A significant impact could occur if the p roposed project would discharge water that does not meet th e quality standards of the agencies that regulate surface water quality and water discharge into stormwater drainage systems. Significant impacts could also occur if the project does not comply with all applicable regulations with regard to surface water q uality as governed by the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). These regulations include preparation of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) to reduce potential water quality impacts during construction activity (Downey Municipal Code Section 6.30.050) and the implementation of post-construction best management practices (BMPs) such as detention basins, infiltration ponds, porous pavement, sand and organic filters, etc. Long-term impacts are addressed by preparation of a Low Impact Development (LID) Plan per the requirements of the County of Los Angeles National Pollution Discharge Elimination Permit (Order No. R4 -2012-0175-A01) issued by the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board (LARWQCB) under the NPDES. Construction Impacts Three general sources of potential short -term, construction-related stormwater pollution associated with the project include: 1) the handling, storage, and disposal of construction materials containing pollutants; 2) the maintenance and operation of constr uction equipment; and 3) earth-moving activities which, when not controlled, may generate soil erosion via storm runoff or mechanical equipment. All new development projects equal to one acre or more are subject to Los Angeles County NPDES Permit No. CAS004001. The proposed project would disturb approximately 1.3 gross acres of land and therefore would be subject to NPDES permit requirements during construction activities. In addition, pursuant to Municipal Code Section 6.30.050, a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) would be prepared and submitted for the proposed project. All construction projects must apply Best Management Practices (BMPs) that include drainage controls such as detention ponds, dikes, filter berms, and down drains to prevent offsite runoff, and utilizing plastic covering to prevent erosion. Compliance with City discharge requirements would ensure that construction of the project would not violate any water quality standards or discharge requirements, or otherwise substantially degrade water quality. The SWPPP and implementation of BMPs is considered regulatory compliance and not mitigation under CEQA. With regulatory compliance, construction -related water quality impacts of the project would be less than significant. Operational Impacts In addition, the proposed project would not generate hazardous wastewater that would require any special waste discharge permits. All wastewater associated with the proposed interior plumbing systems of the proposed townhomes would be discharged into the local sewer system for treatment at the regional wastewater treatment plant.28 Impacts associated with operation of the proposed project would be less than significant with implementation of existing regulations. The LARWQCB has jurisdiction over this project site which is located in the Los Angeles River watershed and the Rio Hondo sub -watershed (Rio Hondo Reaches 2 and 1) which flow into Los Angeles River Reaches 2 and 1 before draining into the Pacific Ocean. Rio Hondo Reach 2 and Reach 1 are not susceptible to hydromodification or any sediment related issues per latest State 303d list. Therefore, 4 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts 72 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Public Review Draft November 2023 the project is exempt from hydromodification requirements for any sediment related issues per latest State 303d list. A LID Plan was prepared for the project site using the County of Los Angeles Department of Public Works Low Impact Development Standards Manual dated February 2014 . The LID Manual complies with the requirements of the NPDES Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) Permit for stormwater and non-stormwater discharges from the MS4 within the coastal watersheds of Los Angeles County (CAS004001, Order No. R4 - 2012-0175). Construction of the proposed project would increase impervious areas on the project site from 78% to 87%. The approximately 1.22-net acre site would be redeveloped with 33 condominiums and associated pavement, parking, and landscaping. Runoff from the developed site would result in increased potential water contamination from urban pollutants that are commonly found in surface parking lots, ornamental landscape planters and from atmospheric buildup on rooftops. According to the LID Plan, the site drains to the southwest into existing storm down drains along Suva Street which then drain southeasterly 0.1 mile into the City MS4 storm drainage system via the MTD 956 storm drain line into the Rio Hondo Channel. The Rio Hondo Channel then flows southwest to the confluence with the Los Angeles River about 3 miles downstream. The Los Angeles River then flows southerly 13 miles to the Pacific Ocean. The proposed project will generally be drained via area drains as well as curb and gutter flows along the drive isle and alleys of the property to drop inlet catch basins located in the southwest and northeast. Storm water runoff flows will generally drain in a southwesterly direction towards Suva Street . The LID Plan determined that post-development peak stormwater runoff discharge rates would be slightly higher than the existing rate for the site. This slight increase in flow rate is attributed to the proposed increase in impervious surfaces on the site that would occur as a result of the project. The LID Plan indicates the developed condition of the site would have a Storm Water Quality Design Volume (SWQDv) of 3,213 cubic feet (cf) which would need to be accommodated by BMPs designed into the project plan. BMPs for the project were evaluated according to the hierarchy recommended in the County LID Manual: from Infiltration; Bioretention; Rainfall Storage and Reuse; then finally to Biofiltration. An infiltration BMP is feasible for the project so the other BMPs were not required. The LID Plan treated runoff from the site as one Drainage Area. Onsite runoff would be collected by an onsite storm drain system which would direct low flows to a deep infiltration drywell (30 feet or greater in depth) and an underground storage system (USS, either pipes or a chamber) located near the center of the property. The drywell and USS are designed to mitigate discharge of untreated low flow runoff and the USS will help temporarily detain runoff so it can infiltrate over time. According to the LIP Plan, the drywell and USS have been designed to detain and infiltrate the SWQDv (3,213 cf) in accordance with County LID Design Manual requirements. Flows greater than the SWQDv will bypass this system and will discharge directly to Suva Street via an under sidewalk drain. All of the proposed drainage improvements will be installed and managed by the developer until a homeowners association (HOA) can be formed for the condominiums that can take over the maintenance responsibilities. The project would be able to maintain runoff equal or less than the Los Angeles County allowable flow rates so no adverse effects would occur to the downstream storm drain system. In addition, the proposed BMP’s would satisfy the City’s water quality requirements which would reduce the post - developed flow rates further as well as significantly reduce the pollutants generated from the project. 4 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Foster Bridge and Bluff Residential Project 73 City of Downey With this project design and compliance with existing water quality regulations, impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation is required. b) Less than Significant Impact. If the project removes an existing groundwater recharge area or substantially reduces runoff that results in groundwater recharge such that existing wells would no longer be able to operate, a potentially significant impact could occur. Project-related grading would not reach the depth of the groundwater table (estimated in the Geotechnical Report as at least 50 feet and more likely 70 -80 feet below the ground surface). Therefore, no direct disturbance of groundwater is anticipated. The proposed building footprints and pavement areas would increase impervious surface coverage on the site from 78% to 87%, thereby incrementally reducing the total amount of potential infiltration onsite. However, infiltration of irrigation water through soil would ensure continued groundwater recharge in Downey as impervious surfaces slowly increase over time. The project site is not utilized for groundwater recharge and would consist of approximately 13% of landscaped areas or soft-bottom surfaces that would allow for infiltration. Because this site is not managed for groundwater supplies and would provide landscaped areas for continued infiltration, this change in infiltration would not have a significant effect on groundwater table level. Groundwater impacts related to development of the proposed project would therefore be less than significant and no mitigation is required. c.i) Less than Significant Impact. Potentially significant impacts to the existing drainage pattern of the site or area could occur if development of the project results in substantial on - or off-site erosion or siltation. The site drains into a storm drain system that drains into the Rio Hondo Channel, then to Rio Hondo that connects into the Los Angeles River Reach 2 and then Reach 1 and then to Pacific Ocean. Rio Hondo Reach 2 and Reach 1 are currently listed in the federal Clean Water Act 303(d) list due to impairment of cyanide, copper, lead, pH, toxicity, trash, zinc, and coliform bacteria. The site is already developed with a church, parking lot, and landscaping. Construction of the proposed project would slightly increase impervious areas on the project site (currently 78% to 87% for the project) The approximately 1.3-acre site would be redeveloped with 33-unit townhouses and associated pavement, parking, and landscaping. Runoff from the redeveloped site would result in increased potential water contamination from urban pollutants that are commonly found in surface parking lots, ornamental landscape planters and from atmospheric buildup on rooftops. Section 4.10.a above describes the onsite drainage and water quality system planned for the center of the site. Runoff would then drain into existing storm drains along Suva Street and Foster Bridge Boulevard. The post-developed drainage pattern of the project site would generally maintain the existing drainage patterns, with runoff ultimately discharging to the Rio Hondo Channel, the Los Angeles River, then finally to the Pacific Ocean. Therefore, the drainage pattern would not be substantially altered in a manner that could cause increases in erosion on - or off-site. Erosion and siltation reduction measures would be implemented during construction through implementation of a SWPPP (see Section 4.10.a above). At the completion of construction, the site would consist of impervious surfaces or improved landscaped areas so it would therefore not be prone to substantial erosion. No streams cross the project site so the project would not alter any stream course. Impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation is required. c.ii) Less than Significant Impact. As discussed in Section 4.10.c.i above, a river or stream does not lie within the proposed project site. Additionally, the project would not lead to a substantial alteration of existing drainage patterns in the area. The project site is located in Flood Zone X which is “an area 4 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts 74 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Public Review Draft November 2023 determined to be outside the 100 -year flood hazard area” according to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) Map Number 06037C1810F dated September 26, 2008. Therefore, the project site has less than significant impacts related to flooding and no mitigation is required. c.iii) Less than Significant Impact. Construction of the proposed project would increase the net area of impervious surfaces on the site so incremental increased discharges to the City’s existing storm drain system would likely occur. However, an onsite storm drain catch basin system would direct runoff to a drywell and underground storage system in the center of the site (see Section 4.10.a above). Storm water from the site that is not captured would then drain south and east into storm drains along Suva Street and Foster Bridge Boulevard, respectively. The post-developed drainage pattern of the project site would generally maintain the existing drainage patterns, with runoff ultimately discharging to the Pacific Ocean. Permits to connect to the existing storm drainage system would be obtained prior to co nstruction. All drainage plans are subject to City review and approval, and these requirements would apply to the proposed project. Therefore, project runoff is not expected to impact local storm drain capacity. The proposed residential use does not have t he potential to generate significant amounts of polluted runoff and therefore would not result in substantial pollutant loading such that treatment control BMPs would be required to protect downstream water quality. Post-construction Infiltration BMP’s would also ensure the project would not result in substantial pollutant loading. Therefore, impacts related to the proposed project would be less than significant and no mitigation is required. c.iv) No Impact. As discussed in Section 4.10.c.i above, the flood maps prepared by the Federal Emergency Management Agency show the project site is located in Zone X, which is an area determined to be outside the 100 -year flood hazard area.29 Therefore, the project is not located within a 100-year flood floodplain and would not impede or redirect flood flows. Impacts would be less than significant. d) Less than Significant Impact. As discussed in Section 4.10.c.iv above, the project site is not located within a 100-year flood floodplain so no direct flooding impacts would occur. The project site is also not subject to tsunami due to its elevation (minimum 133 feet above mean sea level) and distance from the ocean (17.1 miles to the southwest and 14.5 miles to the south). As noted in Section 4.7.iv, the project site has not been identified in an area susceptible to landslides, thus the potential for mudflow is relatively low because the project does not lie in a landslide hazard zone. The Safety Element of the City’s 2005 General Plan (“Downey Vision 2025”) does not identify any specific upstream reservoirs or water impoundments whose failure could result in inundation of the site. GP Goal 5.6 is to “minimize potential adverse impacts from flooding” and GP Policy is to “protect life and property from flooding hazards”. To that end, GP Program 5.6.1.3 encourages the City to “Mitigate hazards from possible dam or levee failure, including the raising of bridges and levees along rivers, including in areas outside the City”. A major earthquake could create a seiche, or a standing seismic wave, in bodies of water, and the violent movement of water could cause a dam or levee to fail catastrophically. The only large upstream body of water is the Santa Fe Dam basin in the City of Montebello. The project is located approximately 14 miles southwest and downstream of the Santa Fe Dam along the Rio Hondo Channel. 4 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Foster Bridge and Bluff Residential Project 75 City of Downey According to the California Dam Breach Inundation Map website30, even if the Santa Fe basin were full at the time of a large earthquake or other event that caused a dam failure, flood waters down the Rio Hondo Channel would not be expected to reach the City of Downey or the project site. The Los Angeles County Public Works Department operates and maintains a state -of-the-art ALERT computer system to monitor meteorological conditions in the County and Southern California in real time, i.e., as they occur. The system includes a network of fi eld sensors that monitor and receive precipitation amounts including rainfall data from the Corps of Engineers' Los Angeles Telemetry System. These systems allow for system level real time checks that provide for emergency management planning. The City of Downey likewise operates an Emergency Management system in the event of dam failures. The proposed project does not include modifications to a dam system or levees that would alter the hazard planning completed by the City of Downey. With adherence to existing policies, regulations, and ord inances, the proposed project would have a less than significant impact related to dam or levee failures and no mitigation is required. e) Less than Significant Impact. The LARWQCB’s Basin Plan is designed to preserve and enhance surface and groundwater quality and protect the beneficial uses of all regional waters. Specifically, the Basin Plan: (i) designates beneficial uses for surface and ground waters, (ii) sets narrative and numerical objectives that must be attained or maintained to protect the designated beneficial uses and conform to the state's anti-degradation policy, and (iii) describe s implementation programs to protect all waters in the region. Development of the project would be required to adhere to requirements of the water quality control plan, including all existing regulation and permitting requirements. This would include the incorporation of best management practices (BMPs) to protect water quality during construction and operational periods. Development of the project would also be subject to all existing water quality regulations and programs, including all applicable construction permits. Existing General Plan policies related to water quality would also be applicable to the project. Impleme ntation of these policies, in conjunction with compliance with existing regulatory programs, would ensure that surface and groundwater quality impacts related to the project would be less than significant. The City’s water supply is primarily extracted from the Central (groundwater) Basin which is a sub -basin of the Coastal Plain of Los Angeles pursuant to DWR Bulletin 118, Basin Number 4 -11.04. Pursuant to the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act of 2014 (SGMA), the Central Basin was named as an adjudicated groundwater basin and is exempt from the requirements of developing a Groundwater Sustainability Plan and subsequently was designated a very -low-priority basin in DWR’s 2019 SGMA Basin Prioritization report. In compliance with SGMA, the Central Basin Watermaster (which is the Water Replenishment District of Southern California and the Central Basin Water Rights Panel) submits its Annual Report to DWR. Therefore, the project would not affect the quality o r quantity of groundwater or its management. Impact would be less than significant and no mitigation is required. 4 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts 76 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Public Review Draft November 2023 4.11 – Land Use and Planning a) No Impact. The project site is currently developed with a church and its parking lot. There are single family residences to the north (adjacent) and east (across Foster Bridge Boulevard), a self-storage facility adjacent to the west, and apartments to the southwest across Suva Street. The project will be a gated townhouse community so surrounding residents would not be able to walk through the property as they can at present. However, there are sidewalks on both sides of Foster Bridge Boulevard and Suva Street so local residents will still have access to the surrounding neighborhoods if needed or desired. Therefore, the new land use would not physically divide the existing commun ity. In addition, the project does not involve construction of any roadway, flood control channel, or other structure that would physically divide any portion of the community. Therefore, no impact would occur. b) Less than Significant Impact. The two primary land use plans that apply to the project site, and that can avoid environmental effects of land development, are the City General Plan and zoning code. The Land Use Element of the City’s General Plan indicates the project site currently has a land use designation of Low Density Residential (LDR) which allows up to 8.9 units/acre. The project is requesting a General Plan Amendment to change the site’s land use designation to Medium Density Residential (MDR) which allows up to 24 units/acre. The density of the proposed project is 20.6 units per gross acre. Similarly, the City of Downey Municipal Code (CDMC) zoning regulations designate the project site as R-1 6,000 which is a single-family detached residential designation. The project proposes to change the site’s zoning designation to Multi -Family Residential Ownership Zone (R-3-0). It should be noted the site is currently developed with a church and its parking lot which are allowed uses within the residential land use categories of the General Plan and residential zoning districts. The density of the project as proposed is 20.6 units per gross acre while the R -3-O zone allows up to approximately 22 units/acre. According to the City Zoning Code, the R -3-O zone is intended to provide “for the development of multiple -family ownership type housing in selected areas compatible with the neighborhood environment. The Zoning Code states…”such areas are intended to be complementary with adjacent uses and provide sufficient opportunities for ownership in multiple -family housing”. The project is also consistent with the development standards of the adjacent residential categories/zones (e.g., height, setbacks, etc.). The project also does not include any features that would circumvent any mitigating policies in the Downey General Plan , as outlined in other sections of this IS/MND. Since the proposed use is considered to be compatible with surrounding uses under the General Plan and zoning, Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Physically divide an established community? □ □ □ b) Cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? □ □ □ 4 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Foster Bridge and Bluff Residential Project 77 City of Downey the proposed project is not expected to result in any significant land use impacts and no mitigation is required. 4.12 – Mineral Resources Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? □ □ □ b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? □ □ □ a) No Impact. The project site is in a completely urbanized area within the City of Downey. According to the California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology Resources, no known mineral resources exist in the City of Downey.31 No loss of availability of a known mineral resource would occur. Therefore, no impact would occur. b) No Impact. The project site is located in a completely urbanized area within the City of Downey. There are no mineral extraction or process facilities on or near the site.32 No mineral resources are known to exist within the vicinity of the project site. No known mineral resources have been identified by the Downey General Plan EIR or in any other plan. Therefore, no impact would occur. 4 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts 78 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Public Review Draft November 2023 4.13 – Noise Would the Project result in: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? □ □ □ b) Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? □ □ □ c) For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the Project expose people residing or working in the Project area to excessive noise levels? □ □ □ A Noise and Vibration Analysis33 was prepared for the proposed project by MIG, dated September 22, 2023 (Appendix D). The information in this section is based on that Noise Study (MIG 2023b). Existing Noise Environment The proposed project is located in northern Downey, in an area classified and designated as Residential (R-1) by the City’s Zoning Code and Low Density Residential by the Land Use Chapter of the City’s General Plan. The City’s General Plan identifies vehicular traffic, aircraft overflights, and trains as the dominant noise sources in the City. The existing noise environment in the project vicinity consists primarily of vehicles along Foster Bridge Boulevard and Suva Street, overhead air traffic, construction power tools, and residential noises such as stereos and pedestrians. Ambient noise monitoring was conducted on the project site including one long-term and two short-term measurement locations. The long-term monitoring was conducted near the center of the site while the short-term monitoring was conducted along the northern boundary and the northeast boundary of the site to effectively characterize ambient noise levels near the closest existing residential uses (i.e., to the north and northeast). Typical ambient noise levels at the project site ranged from approximately 55 to 60 dBA during the daytime and 47 to 57 dBA during the evening and nighttime. It should be noted the project site is not located within any airport planning boundaries or proximate to any private airport facilities. 4 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Foster Bridge and Bluff Residential Project 79 City of Downey Sensitive Receptors Some people are especially sensitive to noise and are given special consideration when evaluating noise impacts from projects. These groups of people include children, the elderly, and individuals with hearing impairments or unusual sensitivity to noise . Structures that house these persons or places where they gather are defined as “sensitive receptors”. Noise sensitive receptors are buildings or areas where unwanted sound or increases in sound may have an adverse effect on people or land uses. Residential areas, hospitals, schools, and parks are examples of noise receptors that could be sensitive to changes in existing environmental noise levels. Sensitive single-family residential receptors could be within 25 feet of work areas for short periods of time (e.g., site grading along the north property boundary), at which distance construction equipment may reach 89 dBA Leq. Project construction in the middle of the site would be at least 100 feet from sensitive single-family residential receptors to the north (adjacent to the site) and east (across Foster Bridge Boulevard) as well as the multi-family residential complex to the south (across Suva Street). Regulatory Setting The City’s Municipal Code and General Plan Safety Element establish the following standards applicable to construction noise, operational noise, and noise/land use compatibility. ▪ Construction Noise: Municipal Code Section 4606.5 exempts construction, repair or remodeling equipment and devices and other related construction noise sources shall be exempted from the provisions of this chapter provided a valid permit for such construction, repair, or remodeling shall have been obtained from the City. In any circumstance other than emergency work, no repair or remodeling shall take place between the hours of 9:00 p.m. of one day and 7:00 a.m. of the following day, and no repair or remode ling shall exceed eighty- five (85) db(A) across any property boundary at any time during the course of a twenty -four (24) hour day. ▪ Operational Noise: Municipal Code Section 4606.3 Subsection (b) states that if the alleged noise source is of a continuous nature and cannot reasonably be discontinued for a time period wherein the ambient noise level can be determined, the maximum permissible steady noise level by sound sources across the property boundary of any land use cited below may be less, but not greater than (for residential land use): o Daytime (7:00 AM – 10:00 PM): 55 dBA Leq o Nighttime (10:00 PM – 7:00 AM): 45 dBA Leq Municipal Code Section 4606.3 adjusts these standards in the hours between 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m., the noise levels permitted in Subsection (b) of this section may be adjusted by the inclusion of the following factors when applicable: o Noise source operated 12 minutes per hour or less + 5 db(A) o Noise source operated 3 minutes per hour or less + 10 db(A) o Noise source operated 1 minute per hour or less + 15 db(A) ▪ Noise/Land Use Compatibility: The City’s General Plan Noise Chapter establishes a noise land use compatibility goal for residential uses of 60 CNEL. 4 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts 80 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Public Review Draft November 2023 a) Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. The proposed project would generate noise during construction and operation of the proposed facilities. The following analysis evaluates if the project would: ▪ Generate a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of the standards established in: o City of Downey Municipal Code Section 4606.3 (Maximum Permissible Noise Levels by Sound Sources Across Property Boundaries) or Section 4606.5 (Construction Projects); or o The City of Downey General Plan; or ▪ Generate excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels; or ▪ Expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive airport-related noise levels. An analysis of these potential project noise impacts is provided below. Short-Term Construction Noise The proposed project involves construction activities including demolition, site preparation, grading, building construction, paving and architectural coating in an existing residential area of the City. Construction activities are anticipated to begin early -2024 and may last approximately 12 months in total. In general, construction activities would involve the use of worker vehicles, delivery trucks, dump trucks, and heavy-duty construction equipment such as (but not limited to) backhoes, tractors, loaders, graders, excavators, rollers, cranes, material lifts, generators, and air compressors. These types of construction activities would generate noise and vibration from the following sources: ▪ Heavy equipment operations at different work areas. Some heavy equipment would consist of mobile equipment such as a loader and excavator that would move around work areas; other equipment would consist of stationary equipment (e.g., cranes or material hoi sts/lifts) that would generally operate in a fixed location until work activities are complete. Heavy equipment generates noise from engine operation, mechanical systems, and components (e.g., fans, gears, propulsion of wheels or tracks), and other sources such as back-up alarms. Mobile equipment generally operates at different loads, or power outputs, and produces higher or lower noise levels depending on the operating load. Stationary equipment generally operates at a steady power output that produces a constant noise level. ▪ Vehicle trips, including worker, vendor, and haul truck trips. These trips would occur on Suva Street and Foster Bridge Boulevard and other local roads used to access the site. Typical construction equipment noise levels at different distances are shown in Table 4 .13-1 (Potential Project Construction Equipment Noise Levels ). With regard to construction noise, demolition, site preparation, and grading phases typically result in the highest temporary noise levels due to the use of heavy-duty equipment such as dozers, excavators, graders, loaders, and trucks. Construction noise impacts generally occur when construction activities occur in areas immediately adjoining noise sensitive land uses, during noise sensitive times of the day, or when construction durations last over extended periods of time. Construction activities associated with the proposed project would last approximately 12 months. Construction activities would occur in close proximity to the adjacent residential property north of the project site and to the residential properties east of the site across Foster Bridge Boulevard. As shown in Table 4.13-1, worst case hourly construction equipment noise levels are predicted to be approximately 83 dBA Leq and 90 dBA Lmax, respectively, at 50 feet; however, the magnitude of the 4 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Foster Bridge and Bluff Residential Project 81 City of Downey project’s temporary and periodic increase in ambient noise levels would depend on the nature of the construction activity (i.e., demolition, building construction, grading) and the distance between the construction activity and sensitive receptors/outdoor use areas. Sensitive residential receptors could be within 25 feet of work areas for short periods of time (e.g., site grading along the property boundary), at which distance construction equipment may reach 89 dBA Leq. Project construction in the middle of the site would be at least 100 feet from sensitive receptors to the north and east. At this distance (100 feet), equipment could reach 77 dBA Leq. The concurrent operation of a dozer, backhoe, and delivery truck at the same time and in the same general area could produce a combined noise level of approximately 80 dBA Leq on a short -term basis (less than an hour) at 100 feet. Table 4.13-1 Potential Project Construction Equipment Noise Levels Typical Equipment Noise Level at 50 feet (Lmax)(A) Percent Usage Factor(B) Predicted Equipment Noise Levels (Leq)(C) 25 Feet 50 Feet 75 Feet 100 Feet 150 Feet 200 Feet 250 Feet Bulldozer 85 40 87 81 77 75 71 69 67 Backhoe 80 40 82 76 72 70 66 64 62 Compact Roller 80 20 79 73 69 67 63 61 59 Concrete Mixer 85 40 87 81 77 75 71 69 67 Concrete Saw 90 20 89 83 79 77 73 71 69 Crane 85 16 83 77 74 71 67 65 63 Delivery Truck 84 40 86 80 76 74 70 68 66 Generator 82 50 85 79 75 73 69 67 65 Grader 85 40 87 81 77 75 71 69 67 Paver 85 50 88 82 78 76 72 70 68 Sources: Table 4, MIG 2023b, Caltrans, 2013 and FHWA, 2010. (A) Lmax noise levels based on manufacturer’s specifications. (B) Usage factor refers to the amount (percent) of time the equipment produces noise over the time period (C) Estimate does not account for any atmospheric or ground attenuation factors. Calculated noise levels based on Caltrans, 2013: Leq (hourly) = Lmax at 50 feet – 20log (D/50) + 10log (UF), where: Lmax = reference Lmax from manufacturer or other source; D = distance of interest; UF = usage fraction or fraction of time period of interest equipment is in use. Although project construction may temporarily increase noise levels near the site, it is not anticipated to result in physical harm (e.g., temporary or permanent hearing loss or damage) to any sensitive noise receptor because receptors would not be continuously expo sed to elevated construction noise levels (i.e., noise levels would return to ambient conditions when construction ceases for the day) and the construction noise levels presented above are exterior noise levels, whereas receptors would be likely to be inside buildings. Residential construction in California typically provides at least 12 dBA of exterior 4 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts 82 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Public Review Draft November 2023 to interior noise attenuation with windows open and 20 dBA of exterior to interior noise attenuation with windows closediii. Physiological effects occur when the human ear is subjected to prolonged exposure to high noise environments. For example, to protect workers from noise -induced hearing loss, the U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) limits worker noise exposure to 90 dBA as averaged over an 8-hour time period (29 CFR 1910.95). Similarly, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) recommends workers limit noise exposure to no more than 85 dBA over an 8 -hour period to protect against noise-induced hearing loss (NIOSH, 1998). As shown in Table 4.13-1, potential worst-case hourly noise level estimates for any single piece of equipment would be approximately 89 dBA L eq at 25 feet and 77 dBA Leq at 100 feet. Although hourly construction noise levels may approach 89 dBA Leq for one or two hours, such noise levels would not be sustained over an 8 -hour period (due to movement of equipment and changes in operations that occur during daily construction activities). Therefore, at worst -case, noise from construction activities may pose a temporary interference or annoyance effect on nearby sensitive receptors but would not result in adverse physiological effects on human receptors in the surrounding area. The City’s Municipal Code (Section 4606.5) limits construction activities to the hours of 7 AM to 9 PM and establishes that construction noise shall not exceed 85 dBA across any property boundary at any time of day. As discussed above, the project’s potential construction noise levels would range from approximately 77 dBA L eq to 89 dBA Leq depending on the specific equipment in use and the distance between the equipment and adjacent residential properties. Since the proposed project has the potential to exceed the City’s construction noise limit established in the CDMC, Mitigation Measures NOI-1 through NOI-5 are required to reduce construction noise to less than significant levels. These five mitigation measures would provide advanced notice of construction activities to surrounding residential properties, limit construction hours per City Municipal Code requirements, limit noise from stationary and other construction equipment, and reduce temporary construction no ise impacts by a minimum of 5 to 10 dBs, which would lower the project’s potential construction noise levels at nearby residential property lines to less than 85 dBA L eq as required by the City’s Municipal Code. The proposed project would comply with the City’s applicable construction noise control provisions and implement other mitigation measures to reduce the potential for project construction activities to result in a substantial temporary increase in ambient noise levels. With implementation of these measures, potential construction-related noise impacts on nearby sensitive receptors will be reduced to less than significant levels. Long-term Operational Noise Project Operation (Onsite Noise Sources) The project site and surrounding properties are all designated Residential (R-1, 6,000 square feet minimum lot size) by the City’s zoning code. Municipal Code Section 4606.3 establishes the maximum permissible noise level that may intrude into adjacent property lines. The code establishes maximum permissible noise levels for residential land uses of 55 dBA L eq for daytime hours (7:00 AM to 10:00 PM) and 45 dBA Leq for nighttime hours (10:00 PM – 7:00 AM). The existing daytime ambient noise iii The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Noise Guidebook and supplement (2009a, 2009b) includes information on noise attenuation provided by building materials and different construction techniques. As a reference, a standard exterio r wall consisting of 5/8-inch siding, wall sheathing, fiberglass insulation, two by four wall studs on 16 -inch centers, and 1/2-inch gypsum wall board with single strength windows provides approximately 35 dBs of attenuation between exterior and interior noise l evels, provided windows do not occupy more than 30% of the exterior wall space. 4 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Foster Bridge and Bluff Residential Project 83 City of Downey levels at the project site ranged from 55.8 to 58.9 dBA L eq, which is above the City’s permissible daytime noise levels (55 dBA L eq). Nighttime (10 PM to 7 AM) ambient noise levels ranged from 47.2 to 57.2 dBA, which are all above the City’s permissible nighttime noise level (45 dBA L eq). The existing residential land uses at and near the site generate noise from vehicle parking activities, waste collection activities, landscaping activities, stationary heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) equipment, and, for the existing use of the project site, religious service and education activities (e.g., community masses, after-school gatherings, etc.). The proposed project would involve similar noise generating sources and activities as the existing land uses; however, the amount of mechanical equipment and the intensity of parking would be greater than existing land uses on the site. Although the proposed project could increase the amount of noise sources and noise -generating activities compared to existing conditions, the project would have a limited potential to generate significant on-site noise levels. In general, residential land uses (including the proposed multi -family townhome land uses) are not a substantial noise-generating land use because they do not involve substantial noise-generating activities during the nighttime, mechanical equipment associated with garage door openers, residential amenities, and other building systems are typically enclos ed within closets, sheds, and/or equipment rooms, and HVAC equipment is typically screened from public view by landscaping, fences, or walls and, therefore, shielded from adjacent propert ies. Once constructed, the proposed project’s primary on-site noise generating activities will be parking, human activity, and HVAC equipment. The site design indicates each unit would have two garage parking spaces. Circulation onsite would provide access to Foster Bridge Boulevard on the no rtheastern part of the site and Suva Street on the south part of the site. Onsite vehicle travel would occur at very ow speeds and thus would not produce significantly high noise levels. The project’s small ground level HVAC units would be rated to condition individual townhome spaces that would be approximately 1,100 to 1,800 square feet in size. Small, individual residential HVAC units can produce a noise level up to 75 dBA at a distance of 3 feet. At their closest, these HVAC units would be approximately 6 feet from the eastern and western property lines. The project would also include a six-foot-tall concrete masonry unit wall along the western and northern perimeter. Based on distance and the six-foot barrier, uncontrolled HVAC noise levels would be approximately 11 dBA lower due to attenuation at the adjacent commercial property line on the western part of the site, which would reduce HVAC noise to levels be below the City’s noise limit of 65 dBA for commercial land uses. The project would not include any HVAC units facing the northern property line. Nonetheless , the six-foot barrier would provide approximately 5 dBA of noise attenuation for this receptor. Residential land uses to the east of the project site are at least 50 feet from any HVAC units facing the eastern side of the site and also contain a six-foot-tall perimeter wall that would limit HVAC noise transmission into these properties. In addition, HVAC equipment does not operate continuously and would not affect ambient noise levels when the equipment is not in use. For these reasons, potential HVAC equipment would not generate noise levels in excess of the City’s 45 dBA L eq nighttime noise standard at any shared residential property line, or otherwise result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project. The proposed project would also include an approximately 192 square foot pet station open area in the northwestern portion of the site. This area would be shielded by the six -foot barrier along the western and northern sections of the site perimeter, providing approxima tely 5 dBA of noise attenuation for the adjacent residential receptor to the north of the site. This area would generate similar noise levels to other nearby existing residential land uses, and thus would not substantially increase ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project. 4 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts 84 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Public Review Draft November 2023 For the reasons outlined above, the proposed project would not generate onsite noise levels that exceed City standards or otherwise result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project. This impact would be less than significant and no mitigation is required. Project Operation (Off-Site Vehicle Trip Noise) The Project Traffic and Circulation Analysis Scoping Agreement indicates the proposed project will result in a net increase of 158 daily vehicle trips (Ganddini Group, 2023). In general, it takes a doubling of traffic to increase traffic noise volumes by 3 dBA (Caltrans, 2013). Although the current average daily traffic volume on Foster Bridge Boulevard is not known, the area surrounding the project site is developed with residential land uses and traffic volumes on Foster Bridge Boulevard and other roadways used to access the project site are assumed to be at least 1,000 vehicle trips per day. The addition of 158 passenger cars to the roadway system would not result in a doubling of traffic on any roadway segment at or in the vicinity of the project site and, therefore, would result in a less than 3 dBA increase in noise levels on local roads used to access the project site. The proposed project would therefore not result in a substantial, permanent increase in noise levels along the roadways used to access the proposed project as compared to existing or future conditions. This impact would be less than significant and no mitigation is required. Other Planning Considerations (Noise / Land Use Compatibility) In 2015, the California Supreme Court in California Building Industry Association v. Bay Area Air Quality Management District, 62 Cal.4th 369 ruled that CEQA review is focused on a project’s impact on the environment “and not the environment’s impact on the project.” Per this ruling, a Lead Agency is not required to analyze how existing conditions might impact a project’s existing or future population except where specifically required by CEQA . However, a Lead Agency may elect to disclose information relevant to a project even if it not is considered an impact under CEQA. Furthermore, the City’s General Plan sets noise standards for receiving land uses which require evaluation for consistency and compliance even if such evaluation is not required by CEQA to be identified as a physical impact of a project. The City’s General Plan Noise Chapter establishes a noise and land use compatibility goal for residential uses of 60 dBA CNEL. Noise monitoring conducted at the project site indicates daytime hourly ambient noise levels at the site ranged from approximately 55 to 60 dBA L eq. The long-term ambient noise data indicated a CNEL of 60.9 dBA, which would exceed the City’s General Plan acceptable noise levels for residential land use. However, the proposed project would have noise levels less than 70 dBA, which is within the “conditionally acceptable” range for a residential land use. The City’s General Plan Noise Chapter states that in order for new construction or development to be conditionally acceptable, noise insulation features such as conventional construction with closed windows and fresh air supply systems or air conditioning need to be included in the design. As mentioned previously, the proposed project would include HVAC units for each individual townhome unit. Typical building construction provides an exterior-to-interior noise reduction of approximately 12 dBA with windows open and approximately 20 dBA with windows closed. iv With windows closed, interior noise levels would be approximately 40.9 dBA, which is less than the interior acceptable noise level (45 dBA) for residential land use. Daily noise exposure at the project is, therefore, considered to be within the City’s noise and land use compatibility conditionally acceptable level of 70 CNEL. In addition, interior iv The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Noise Guidebook and supplement (2009a, 2009b) includes information on noise attenuation provided by building materials and different construction techniques. As a reference, a standard exterio r wall consisting of 5/8-inch siding, wall sheathing, fiberglass insulation, two by four wall studs on 16 -inch centers, and 1/2-inch gypsum wall board with single strength windows provides approximately 35 dBs of attenuation between exterior and interior noise levels. Increasing window space may also decrease attenuation, with a reduction of 10 dBs possible if windows occupy 30% of the exterior wall façade. 4 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Foster Bridge and Bluff Residential Project 85 City of Downey noise exposure would be less than 45 CNEL with windows closed and use of the project’s HVAC system. Therefore, the proposed project is considered compatible with the exterior ambient noise environment in the project area and no exterior or interior noise design features are required to protect project residents from significant noise impacts. Cumulative Impacts The Noise Study determined that project noise impacts during construction (with mitigation) and operation (without mitigation) would be less than significant (i.e., within City standards). Surrounding cities and the County have similar types of noise stand ards, and new development projects are required to document their potential offsite noise impacts and, if they are significant, to mitigate those impacts to less than significant levels (i.e., to within the locally established standards). Like the City of Downey, the surrounding communities have similar requirements to review impacts and mitigate when necessary under CEQA. It should also be noted that the ambient noise levels in many of these communities already exceed their established noise standards. As long as the City continues to require an evaluation of impacts and mitigation when necessary under CEQA, it is not expected that this project will make a significant contribution to cumulatively considerable noise impacts in the surrounding region, and no mitigation other than the recommended project level mitigation is required. Conclusion As detailed above, the proposed project would not generate temporary or permanent noise levels that would exceed the City’s standards or otherwise result in a substantial increase in ambient noise levels with the incorporation of mitigation measures. The refore, the proposed project would not result in a substantial, adverse noise -related effect on the environment, including cumulative impacts. With implementation of the recommended mitigation for construction activities, noise -related impacts of the project will be less than significant. b) Less Than Significant Impact. Vibration is the movement of particles within a medium or object such as the ground or a building. Vibration sources are usually characterized as continuous, such as factory machinery, or transient, such as explosions. As is the case with airborne sound, g roundborne vibrations may be described by amplitude and frequency; however, unlike airborne sound, there is no standard way of measuring and reporting amplitude. Vibration amplitudes can be expressed in terms of velocity (inches per second) or discussed in dB units in order to compress the range of numbers required to describe vibration. Vibration impacts to buildings are usually discussed in terms of peak particle velocity (PPV) in inches per second (in/sec). PPV represents the maximum instantaneous positive or negative peak of a vibration signal and is most appropriate for evaluating the potential for building damage. Vibration can impact people, structures, and sensitive equipment. The primary concern related to vibration and people is the potential to an noy those working and residing in the area. Vibration with high enough amplitudes can damage structures (such as crack plaster or destroy windows). Groundborne vibration can also disrupt the use of sensitive medical and scientific instruments, such as electron microscopes. Groundborne noise is noise generated by vibrating building surfaces such as floors, walls, and ceilings that radiate noise inside buildings subjected to an external source of vibration. The vibration level, the acoustic radiation of the v ibrating element, and the acoustical absorption of the room are all factors that affect potential groundborne noise generation. Caltrans’ Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual provides a summary of vibration human responses and structural damage criteria that have been reported by researchers, organizations, and governmental agencies. These thresholds are summar ized in Table 4.13-2 (Caltrans’ Vibration Threshold Criteria for Building Damage ), and Table 4.13-3 (Caltrans’ Vibration Threshold Criteria for Human Response ). 4 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts 86 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Public Review Draft November 2023 Table 4.13-2 Caltrans’ Vibration Criteria for Building Damage Structural Integrity Maximum PPV (in/sec) Transient Continuous Historic and some older buildings 0.50 0.12 to 0.2 Older residential structures 0.50 0.30 New residential structures 1.00 0.50 Modern industrial and commercial structures 2.00 0.50 Source: Table 5, MIG 2023b, Caltrans, 2020 Table 4.13-3 Vibration Criteria for Human Response Human Response Maximum PPV (in/sec) Transient Continuous Slightly perceptible 0.035 0.012 Distinctly perceptible 0.24 0.035 Strongly perceptible 0.90 0.10 Severe/Disturbing 2.0 0.7 (at 2 Hz) to 0.17 (at 20 Hz) Very disturbing -- 3.6 (at 2 Hz) to 0.4 (at 20 Hz) Source: Table 6, MIG 2023b, Caltrans, 2020 Construction activities have the potential to result in varying degrees of ground vibration, depending on the specific construction equipment used and activities involved. Vibration generated by construction equipment spreads through the ground and diminishes with increases in distance. The effects of ground vibration may be imperceptible at low levels, result in low rumbling sounds and detectable vibrations at moderate levels and can disturb human activities such as sleep and vibration sensitive equipment at high levels. Ground vibration can also potentially damage the foundations and exteriors of existing structures even if it does not result in a negative human response. Pile drivers and other pieces of high impact construction equipment are generally the primary cause o f construction-related vibration impacts. The use of such equipment is generally limited to sites where there are extensive layers of very hard materials (e.g., compacted soils, bedrock) that must be loosened and/or penetrated to achieve grading and foundation design requirements. The need for such methods is usually determined through site - specific geotechnical investigations that identify the subsurface materials within the grading envelope, along with foundation design recommendations and the constructio n methods needed to safely permit development of a site. Pile driving equipment is not anticipated to be required at the proposed project site. Construction vibration impacts generally occur when construction activities occur in close proximity to buildings and vibration -sensitive areas, during evening or nighttime hours, or when construction activities last extended periods of time. Although pote ntial heavy equipment operations at the site for all demolition, site preparation, grading, and paving activities would not last more than approximately 45 days, construction activities would occur in close proximity to an adjacent residential property to the north. The ground-borne vibration levels generated by the type of equipment that would be used to construct the proposed project are shown in Table 4.13-4 (Potential Project Construction Vibration Levels). 4 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Foster Bridge and Bluff Residential Project 87 City of Downey Table 4.13-4 Potential Project Construction Vibration Levels Equipment Peak Particle Velocity (in/sec) (A) 25 feet 50 feet 100 feet 200 feet Small bulldozer 0.003 0.001 0.001 0.000 Jackhammer 0.035 0.016 0.008 0.004 Loaded truck 0.076 0.035 0.017 0.008 Large bulldozer 0.089 0.042 0.019 0.009 Vibratory Roller 0.21 0.098 0.046 0.021 Sources: Table 7, MIG 2023b, Caltrans, 2020 and FTA, 2018 (A) Estimated PPV calculated as: PPV(D)=PPV(ref)*(25/D)^1.1 where PPV(D)= Estimated PPV at distance; PPVref= Reference PPV at 25 ft; D= Distance from equipment to receiver; and n= ground attenuation rate (1.1 for dense compacted hard soils). As shown in Table 4.13-4, the vibration levels associated with typical construction equipment are dependent on the type of equipment used. For structural damage, the use of typical equipment during construction activities (e.g., bulldozer, jack hammer, trucks etc.) would produce PPV levels up to 0.098 in/sec at 50 feet. These PPV values are well below Caltrans’ guidelines standards for potential structural damage for the types of buildings in and adjacent to the Plan Area, which consist of modern residential structures (0.5 PPV for continuous vibration sources , see Table 4.13-2). For human annoyance and interference responses, the use of typical equipment (e.g., bulldozer, jack hammer, trucks, etc.) during construction could produce vibration levels near the project site (within 50 feet) that exceed Caltrans’ perceptible vibration detection threshold (0.012 PPV, see Table 4.13-3). Specific vibration-generating equipment, such as vibratory rollers which may be used during paving activities, could produce vibration levels at 50 feet that would be more pronounced and perceptible but still below Caltrans’ guidelines for structural damage to modern residential structures (0.50 PPV for continuous vibra tion sources). The above vibration estimates represent potential vibration levels based on typical equipment operations and assume there is no change in elevation between work areas and receptor locations and no change in subsurface conditions that may affect vibration t ransmission through soil media and structures. As discussed above, the proposed project does not have the potential to result in structural damage to buildings near work areas; however, construction -related groundborne vibrations have the potential to be perceptible at buildings within approximately 200 feet of typical construction work areas and 400 feet of construction work areas involving a vibratory roller . Although some vibration associated with construction activities may be felt by nearby residential properties that surround the site, this potential vibration effect would not be excessive because it would occur during daytime hours only (when residential properties would be less sensitive to perceived vibrations, be infrequent (occurring only when equipment is in full operation, not idling or in low power modes), be intermittent (equipment would not operate in the same location every day and would move around the site so that properties are not exposed to continuous peak vibration levels), and would no t damage buildings or structures at any point. For these reasons, project construction activities would not generate excessive groundborne vibration or noise levels. This impact would be less than significant. Once operational, the proposed project would not have any large equipment that would generate vibration. This impact would be less than significant and no mitigation required. 4 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts 88 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Public Review Draft November 2023 c) Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project is not located within two miles of any public or private airport or within an airport land use plan. The closest public or private airport facility to the project is the San Gabriel Valley Airport located approximately 10 miles to the northeast of the site in the City of El Monte. No impact would occur with regard to excessive airport noise. Impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation is required. Mitigation Measuresv To reduce potential noise levels from project construction activities, the project proponent shall: NOI-1 Notify Residential Land Uses of Planned Construction Activities. This notice shall be provided at least two (2) weeks prior to the start of any construction activities, describe the noise control measures to be implemented by the project, and include the name and phone number of the designated contact for the project proponent and the City of Downey responsible for handling construction -related noise complaints (per MM NOI-5). This notice shall be provided to the owner/occupants of residential dwelling units within 500 feet of construction work areas. NOI-2 Restrict Work Hours. All construction-related work activities, including material deliveries, shall be subject to the requirements of City Municipal Code Section 4.50.100. Construction activities, including deliveries, shall occur only during the hours of 7 AM to 7 PM Monday to Friday and 9 AM to 6 PM on Saturday. No construction is to occur on Sunday and holidays. The project proponent representative and/or its contractor shall post a sign at all entrances to the construction site informing contractors, subcontractors, other workers, etc. of this requirement. NOI-3 Construction Equipment Selection, Use, and Noise Control Measures . The following measures shall apply to construction equipment used at the project site: a. Contractors shall use the smallest size equipment capable of safely completing work activities. b. Construction staging shall occur as far away from residential land uses as possible given site and active work constraints. c. Electric hook-ups shall be provided for stationary equipment (e.g., pumps, compressors, welding sets). If it is not feasible to provide an electric hook -up, the project proponent shall ensure mitigation measures 3a and 3d are implemented. d. All stationary noise generating equipment shall be shielded and located as far as possible from residential land uses given site and active work constraints. Shielding may consist of existing vacant structures or a three -or four-sided enclosure provided the structure/enclosure breaks the line of sight between the equipment and the receptor and provides for proper ventilation and equipment operation. e. Heavy equipment engines shall be equipped with standard noise suppression devices such as mufflers, engine covers, and engine/mechanical isolators, mounts, and be maintained in accordance with manufacturer’s recommendations during active construction activities. f. Pneumatic tools shall include a suppression device on the compressed air exhaust. v The project Noise Study recommended one mitigation measure (NOI-1) with five related actions. However, this document separates that one measure into five (NOI-1 through NOI-5) so the City will be better able to monitor implementation of the various required actions 4 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Foster Bridge and Bluff Residential Project 89 City of Downey g. No radios or other amplified sound devices shall be audible beyond the property line of the construction site. NOI-4 Implement Construction Activity Noise Control Measures . The following measures shall apply to project construction activities: a. Demolition: Activities shall be sequenced to take advantage of existing shielding/noise reduction provided by existing buildings or parts of buildings , and methods that minimize noise and vibration, such as sawing concrete blocks, prohibiting on-site hydraulic breakers, crushing or other pulverization activities, shall be employed during project construction. b. Demolition, Site Preparation, Grading, and Foundation Work: During all demolition, site preparation, grading, and structure foundation work activities, a physical noise barrier shall be installed and maintained around the site perimeter to the maximum extent feasible given site constraints and access requirements. The noise barrier shall extend to a height of eight (8) feet above grade. Potential barrier options capable of reducing construction noise levels could include, but are not limited to: i. A concrete, wood, or other barrier installed at -grade (or mounted to structures located at-grade, such as a K-Rail), and consisting of a solid material (i.e., free of openings or gaps other than weep holes) that has a minimum rated transmission loss value of 20 dB. ii. Commercially available acoustic panels or other products such as acoustic barrier blankets that have a minimum sound transmission class (STC) or transmission loss value of 20 dB. iii. Any combination of noise barriers and commercial products capable of achieving the required construction noise reductions of 20 dB during demolition, site preparation, grading, and structure foundation work activities. The noise barrier may be removed following the completion of building foundation work (i.e., it is not necessary once framing and typical vertical building construction begins provided no other grading, foundation, etc. work is still occurring on -site). NOI-5 Prepare a Construction Noise Complaint Plan. The project proponent shall prepare a Construction Noise Complaint Plan that shall: a. Identify the name and/or title and contact information (including phone number and email) for a designated project and City representative responsible for addressing construction-related noise issues. b. Includes procedures describing how the designated project representative will receive, respond, and resolve construction noise complaints. c. At a minimum, upon receipt of a noise complaint, the project representative shall notify the City contact, identify the noise source generating the complaint, determine the cause of the complaint, and take steps to resolve the complaint. 4 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts 90 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Public Review Draft November 2023 4.14 Population and Housing Would the Project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? □ □ □ b) Displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? □ □ □ a) Less than Significant Impact. The project site currently contains a church and parking lot but has no residential units or residents. The project proposes 33 multi-family residential townhouse units within a gated community. According to the California Department of Finance, the City of Downey has 3.02 persons per household.34 Therefore, the project could generate approximately 100 additional residents in the City. According to the Southern California Association of Governments’ (SCAG) 2024 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS), the number of households in the City is expected to increase by 1,500 units between 2016 and 2045 (from 32,600 to 324,100 units) or +4.6% as shown in Table 4.14-1 (SCAG Growth Projections for Downey). Similarly, the City’s population is expected to increase by 5,900 persons between 2016 and 2045 (113,300 to 119,200 persons) or +5.2%. The project represents approximately 2.2% of the total anticipated housing growth and 1.7% of the total anticipated population growth for the City over that time period. The new housing added by the project is well within the anticipated SCAG overall and annual growth projections for the City. Therefore, the project would not induce substantial unplanned population growth in the area. The project is not proposing any new expanded infrastructure that could accommodate additional growth in the area that is not already possible with existing infrastructure or beyond that anticipated by SCAG and the City. Impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation is required. Table 4.14-1 SCAG Growth Projections for Downey Demographic 2016 2045 Total Growth1 Annual Growth2 Population 113,300 119,200 +5,900 persons +5.2% +204 persons +0.18%/year Housing 32,600 34,100 1,500 units +4.6% +255 units +0.78%/year Source: 2024 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS), 1 difference between 2016 and 2045 figures divided by 2016 (beginning year) figure 2 total growth divided by number of years evaluated (2016 to 2045 or 29 years) 4 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Foster Bridge and Bluff Residential Project 91 City of Downey b) No Impact. The project site is located in a largely residential area of the City. The project site currently contains a church and no residential structures or residents. The proposed project would demolish the church and add 33 multi -family townhouse units with an estimated occupancy of 100 persons. As demonstrated in Threshold 4.13.a above, the project would not add unplanned population or housing to the City and no existing residential units will be lost by project development. Therefore, the project will have no impacts regarding the loss of existi ng residences. 4.15 Public Services Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environ mental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Fire protection? □ □ □ b) Police protection? □ □ □ c) Schools? □ □ □ d) Parks? □ □ □ e) Other public facilities? □ □ □ a) Less Than Significant Impact. Fire services in the City are provided by the Downey Fire Department (DFD). DFD has four fire districts each served by its own station. The project site is located in Fire District 3 and would be served by Fire Station #3 (9900 Paramount Boulevard), located approximately 1.1 miles south of the project site. The estimated response time from Station #3 to the project site is estimated to be approximately two minutes assuming an average speed of 35 miles per hour. Additionally, DFD has automatic aid agreements with the Cities of Santa Fe Springs and Montebello and the County of Los Angeles. The agreement provides coverage at fires by the closest unit regardless of the jurisdictional boundary. The project site has an existing church that is within and served by the DFD. Once the project is occupied, the new townhouse neighborhood would continue to be served by DFD. As previously discussed in Section 3.14, Population and Housing, the project would result in a population of 100 residents but is not expected to induce substantial or unanticipated unplanned population growth in the City. The project site currently supports an existing church and it is likely calls for fire or emergency medical service to the townhouse project would incrementally increase compared to the existing church. Due to its small size, it is anticipated that the project would be adequately served by existing DFD facilities, equipment, and personnel, and not result in a significant increase in the demand for DFD 4 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts 92 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Public Review Draft November 2023 services. The DFD will derive a portion of property tax revenues from increased property taxes on the project site that will offset incremental demand for DFD services. In addition, technical fire prevention activities such as building plan checks to make sure fire code requirements are met, proposed fire sprinkler systems, fire alarm systems, and compliance with emergency access and evacuation requirements would reduce the impacts associated with the proposed project. All site plans for the proposed project would, as part of the City of Downey’s standard review process, be subject to approval and site -specific conditions of approval to ensure compliance with all applicable fire code standards . No new or expanded fire protection facilities would be required as a result of this project because it will not induce a substantial population increase that was not anticipated under the City’s General Plan. Furthermore, the proposed project does not propose to use hazardous materials or engage in hazardous activities that would require new or modified fire protection equipment to meet potential emergency demand. Review of project plans and implementation of standard conditions of approval for fire protection are considered regulatory compliance and not unique mitigation under CEQA. Therefore, project impacts associated with the construction or expansion of fire protection facilities would be less than significant and no mitigation is required. b) Less Than Significant Impact. Police services in the City are provided by the Downey Police Department (DPD), except for properties owned by the County of Los Angeles in the southwest part of the City, which are patrolled by the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department. The DPD station at 10911 Brookshire Avenue would service the project site and is located approximately 1 mile to the northwest. The estimated response times to service calls for DPD are 1 to 2 minutes for emergency calls and 5 to 8 minutes for nonemergency calls. DPD has 138 sworn officers and responds to an average of 1,000 service calls per month. Additionally, DPD has mutual ai d agreements with all cities in Los Angeles County, with the exception of the City of Los Angeles. The agreement establishes a reciprocal law enforcement status between other cities and the City of Downey (City of Downey 2005). The project site is already within the DPD service area, and once operational, the project would continue to be served by DPD. As previously discussed in Section 3.14, Population and Housing, the project would result in 100 new City residents but would not induce substantial unplanned population growth in the City. The project site currently supports an existing church so calls for DPD services to the project site would likely increase in comparison to the existing condition. The proposed residential development would not result in any unique or more extensive crime problems that cannot be handled with the existing level of police resources. Overall, it is anticipated that the project wo uld be adequately served by existing DPD facilities, equipment, and personnel. The DPD will derive a portion of property tax revenues from increased property taxes on the project site that will help pay for D PD services. Therefore, project impacts associated with the construction or expansion of police protection facilities would be less than significant and no mitigation is required. c) Less than Significant Impact. The project site is served by the Downey Unified School District (DUSD). The project site is within the attendance areas of the three schools35 shown in Table 4.15-1 (Local School Enrollments), along with their enrollments over the past three school years36. Table 43.15- 1 indicates that State enrollment figures for DUSD have been declining for the past three years at the elementary level but have remained relatively constant over the past three years at the middle and high school levels. In addition, a comparison of the capacities of the schools serving the project area and their projected enrollments is shown in Table 4.15 -2 (School Capacities vs. Projected Enrollment). Table 4.15-2 indicates that the highest projected enrollment for the three project -area schools, as shown in the District’s 2022 Facility Master Plan37, is within each school’s estimated student capacity for at least the immediate future. 4 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Foster Bridge and Bluff Residential Project 93 City of Downey Table 4.15-1 Local School Enrollments School/Address Grades School Year Student Enrollment 2020-2021 2021-2022 2022-2023 Price Elementary School 9525 Tweedy Lane, Downey K-5 844 734 779 Griffiths Middle School 9633 Tweedy Lane, Downey 6-8 1,298 1,301 1,296 Warren High School 8141 De Palma Street, Downey 9-12 3,469 3,451 3,437 Total Project Area District-Wide K-12 K-12 5,611 22,216 5,486 22,261 5,512 22,359 Source: DUSD website 2023, California Dept. of Education DataQuest database 2023 Table 4.15-2 School Capacities vs. Projected Enrollment School/Address Grades Estimated Number of Students Estimated Capacity Lowest Projected Enrollment Highest Projected Enrollment Price Elementary School 9525 Tweedy Lane, Downey K-5 821 742 801 Griffiths Middle School 9633 Tweedy Lane, Downey 6-8 1,500 1,264 1,295 Warren High School 8141 De Palma Street, Downey 9-12 4,014 3,527 3,782 Total Project Area District-Wide K-12 K-12 6,335 25,466 5,533 22,512 5,878 21,492 Source: DUSD website 2023, Table 17, DUSD Facility Master Plan 2022. Development impact fees may be levied for residential construction, pursuant to Education Code Section 17620 and California Government Code Section 65995 and DUSD has currently established impact fees of $4.79 per square foot for residential development as of 2022. As stated in California Government Code Section 65996, payment of school impact fees in accordance with California Government Code Section 65995 and/or Education Code Section 17620 is deemed to constitute full and complete mitigation for potential impact s to schools caused by development. Payment of established development impact fees is considered full mitigation under CEQA. Since the proposed project involves a General Plan Amendment and Zone Change, the developer may also choose to enter into a voluntary negotiated fee agreement (called a “mutual benefit agreement”) in lieu of statutory developer fees. The impact fee process is considered regulatory compliance and not project mitigation under CEQA. 4 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts 94 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Public Review Draft November 2023 The City of Downey requires school impact fees to be paid to DUSD by the developer prior to issuance of building permits. These fees would help to fund future needs in the district with relation to the provision of new or physically altered District facilities. For these reasons, impacts related to the need for new school facilities as a result of implementing the proposed project would be less than significant with regulatory compliance. d) Less Than Significant Impact. Demand for park and recreational facilities is generally the direct result of residential development. The City has approximately 117 acres of parkland in 12 park sites. The closest City park to the project site is Treasure Island Park. This park has approximately 4.7 linear acres along the west side of the Rio Hondo Channel with turf, walking path, and a playground. This park is 800 feet east of the project site at the eastern end of South Bluff Road. Based on a 2020 population of 114,360 residents, the City provides its residents and workers with approximately 1.02 acres per thousand residents. In addition, there are County parks in the surrounding area that also provide recreational facilities and open spaces for the region. The State Quimby Act recommends a ratio of 3.0 acres of parkland per thousand residents as a minimum standard for new development. As previously discussed in Section 3.14(a), Population and Housing, the project is expected to generate approximately 100 new City residents. Therefore, the proposed project should provide 0.3 acres of public parkland or pay the equivalent in in-lieu park DIF fees to the City to meet the Quimby Act standardvi. According to the project plans, the project proposes to provide a total of 6,958 square feet (0.16-acre) of private recreation/open space for its residents. This figure includes 2,569 square feet of “public” spaces (but only for project residents) and 4,389 square feet of private spaces such as uncovered private patio/yard spaces, covered private front porch space, and covered and uncovered decks. Since all of this recreational space is private, the project proponent would be responsible for paying the City’s established in-lieu park fee. The provision of adequate recreation and open space for project residents is considered regulatory compliance and not unique mitigation under CEQA. The City’s Parks and Open Space Master Plan38 (2016) indicates that its park in-lieu fees have been minimal for several years which generally reflects largely built -out housing conditions in the City. With the project design and payment of the City’s in -lieu park fee, the project’s impacts regarding recreational facilities would be less than significant and no mitigation is required. e) Less Than Significant Impact. As previously mentioned in Section 3.14(a), Population and Housing, the project would add an estimated 100 residents to the City but would not induce substantial or unanticipated population growth in the City. Population growth as a result of the project is well within SCAG’s overall growth projections for the City and would not result in a substantial increase in population. As such, the project would result in an incremental but not substantial increase in patronage at libraries, community centers, and other public facilities. Therefore, impacts associated with other public facilities would be less than significant and no mitigation is required. vi 33 townhomes X 3.01 persons/household or unit = 100 residents divided by 3 acres/1000 residents = 0.3 acre for the proposed p roject 4 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Foster Bridge and Bluff Residential Project 95 City of Downey 4.16 Recreation Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? □ □ □ b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? □ □ □ a) Less than Significant Impact. See discussion in Threshold 4.15(d). The City has 117 acres of parkland in 12 parks. The closest park to the project site is Treasure Island Park with 4.7 linear acres along the west side of the Rio Hondo Channel . The project is expected to generate approximately 100 new City residents, so the proposed project should provide 0.3 acres or 13,068 square feet to meet the Quimby Act standard (3 acres per thousand residents). The project proposes a total of 6,958 square feet (0.16-acre) of private recreation/open space for its residents and the Quimby Act requirement would be 0.3 acre of public recreation/open space. The project proponent would thus be responsible for paying the City’s in-lieu park fee. The provision of adequate recreation and open space for project residents is considered regulatory compliance and not unique mitigation under CEQA. Since the project has only a small amount of internal recreational area, it is likely project residents will use Treasure Island Park as well as other City parks for recreational activities. The City of Downey maintains and operates the existing neighborhood parks and the County maintains and operates regional parks and other recreational facilities in the surrounding region. The small number of new residents would only represent an incremental increase in local and regional park use. The project will pay the City’s in-lieu park fee for the difference of onsite vs. required park and open space land as noted above. It is not likely such incremental use would result in the need to reconstruct or upgrade existing park facilities. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant with payment of the City’s in -lieu park fee. b) Less than Significant Impact. As discussed in Section 4.16(a) above, the project is expected to generate approximately 100 new City residents . The proposed project should provide 0.3 acres or 13,068 square feet to meet the Quimby Act standard. The project proposes a total of 6,958 square feet (0.16-acre) of recreation/open space for its residents and the Quimby Act requirement would be 0.3 acre of recreation/open space. The applicant would thus be responsible for paying the City’s in -lieu park fees to cover the difference. The provision of adequate recreation and open space for project residents is considered regulatory compliance and not unique mitigation under CEQA. The project does not include removal of any existing City of Downey recreational facility or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation is required. 4 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts 96 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Public Review Draft November 2023 4.17 Transportation and Traffic Would the Project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Conflict with program plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities? □ □ □ b) Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b)? □ □ □ c) Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? □ □ □ d) Result in inadequate emergency access? □ □ □ A Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Screening Assessment39 was prepared for the proposed project by the Ganddini Group dated November 15, 2023 (Appendix G). The information in this section is largely taken from that assessment. a) Less than Significant Impact. Prior to the passage of California Senate Bill 743 (SB 743) in 2013, the analysis of transportation impacts in CEQA documents was Level of Service (LOS) or congestion on public streets and intersections. This type of analysis was to assure the local street grid network functioned well and allowed for efficient movement of vehicles. The current focus of traffic analyses for CEQA is to encourage active transportation (e.g., pedestrians, bicyclists, etc.) and transit, and to limit increases in Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) to better balance traffic on a regional basis. An important part of this analysis is to determine if a proposed action is consistent with both the vehicular and non-vehicular aspects of the Circulation Element of the General Plan. Pedestrian Access The streets adjacent to the project site, Suva Street, Foster Bridge Boulevard, and South Bluff Road, all have sidewalks on both sides of the street. Project construction will include constructing new sidewalks along the project frontage of these adjacent streets. Therefore, project impacts on pedestrian access will be less than significant and no mitigation is required. Bicycle Access According to Exhibit 2.6-1 in the City’s Master Plan of Parks and Open Space 38, the City has a network of Class II and Class III bike lanes within the City, and there are also regional Class I bike paths along the San Gabriel River and Rio Hondo channels bordering the City to the southeast and northwest, respectively. There is currently a Class III bike lane along Suva Street (adjacent to 4 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Foster Bridge and Bluff Residential Project 97 City of Downey the project site) that runs from the City limit just west of the site east to Paramount Boulevard. This bike lane then connects to another Class III bike lane along Tweedy Lane/Rivers Avenue to the southwest. These two bike lanes then connect to other bike lanes throughout the City. The project will not remove or have any impacts on existing bicycle lanes. Therefore, impacts will be less than significant and no mitigation is required. Transit Services Transit services are provided within the City of Downey and to the Los Angeles region by the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority40 (MTA or Metro). The following Metro bus lines are located within a mile of the project site: • Route 110 operates along Garfield Avenue in the vicinity of the project site. At its closest this line is 0.75 mile northwest of the site; • Route 111 operates along Florence Boulevard in the vicinity of the project site. At its closest this line is 0.6 mile southwest of the site; and • Line 265 along Paramount Boulevard in the vicinity of the project site. At its closest this line is 0.7 mile southeast of the site. The closest bus stops are located on Garfield Avenue near Loveland Street serving Line 110, on Florence Avenue near Scout Avenue serving Route 111, and on Paramount Boulevard at Suva Street serving Line 265. Development of the project would not conflict with the existing bus routes or bus stops. Impacts to transit would be less-than-significant. In addition, Metrolink41 commuter rail service to the City is available via the C Line (formerly the “Green Line”) at the Lakewood Boulevard Station located approximately 3.6 miles south of the project site, as well as the Norwalk Station located approximately 4 miles southeast of the project site. Therefore, the project will not conflict with the program plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities. Impacts will be less than significant and no mitigation is required. b) Less than Significant Impact. Following the passage of California Senate Bill 743 (SB 743) in 2013, the State of California’s Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) was tasked with developing new guidelines for evaluating transportation impacts under CEQA. These guidelines were intended to shift the performance metric from automobile d elay and level of service (LOS) to one that would promote the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions and the development of multimodal and diverse transportation networks. As a result, OPR determined that the CEQA guidelines would use vehicle miles traveled (VMT) as the primary metric for evaluating environmental and transportation impacts. In December 2018, OPR published the revised CEQA Guidelines incorporating the transition to VMT, along with the Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA (December 2018) to assist with the implementation of the revised CEQA Guidelines. In 2020, the County of Los Angeles adopted the Los Angeles County Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines 42 based on OPR’s Technical Advisory. The City of Downey has not established VMT analysis guidelines at this time; therefore, the project VMT impact has been assessed based on available guidance from the County of Los Angeles, OPR Technical Advisory, and consideration of implementation policies established by other jurisdictions in the Southern California region. 4 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts 98 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Public Review Draft November 2023 Trip Generation The VMT Assessment estimated trip generation for the existing church and proposed residential uses based upon trip generation rates obtained from the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual43 Based on review of the ITE land use descriptions, trip generation rates for Church (ITE Land Use Code 560) and Multi-Family Housing (Low-Rise) (ITE Land Use Code 220) were determined to best represent the existing land use and proposed project uses in terms of trip generation forecasts. The VMT Assessment determined the existing land use generates approximately 64 daily trips, including 3 trips during the AM peak hour and 4 trips during the PM peak hour. In addition, the proposed project will generate approximately 222 daily trips, including 13 trips during the AM peak hour and 17 trips during the PM peak hour. When combined, the proposed project will result in a “net” increase of approximately 158 additional daily trips compared to the existing use, including 10 additional trips during the AM peak hour and 13 additional trips during the PM peak hour - see Table 4.17-1 (Project Trip Generation). As shown in Table 4.17-1, the proposed project will result in a “net” generation of 10 AM Peak Hour trips, 13 PM Peak Hour trips, and 158 total daily trips. Table 4.17-1 Project Trip Generation Land Use1 Trips Generated AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Daily In Out Total In Out Total Existing 2 1 3 2 2 4 64 Proposed 3 10 13 11 6 17 222 Net New Trips +1 +9 +10 +9 +4 +13 +158 Source: Table 3, Ganddini Group, 2023 1 Existing land use is church (ITE 560) while proposed use is 33 townhomes (ITE 220) VMT Screening Assessment According to the LA County TIA Guidelines, certain types of projects, because of their size, nature, or location, are exempt from the requirement of preparing a traffic impact analysis. The County Guidelines establish screening thresholds for certain types of projects that may be presumed to cause a less than significant VMT impact based on substantial evidence provided in OPR’s 2018 Technical Advisory. The County TIA Guidelines specify the following four screening steps: 1) Non -Retail Project Trip Generation Screening; 2) Retail Project Site Plan Screening; 3) Proximity to Transit Based Screening; and 4) Residential Land Use Based Screening. The VMT Screening Assessment evaluated the proposed project and found that, for various reasons, it did not meet any of the four screening criteria. Daily Trip Thresholds During the project evaluation of LA County VMT Screening Thresholds, the VMT Assessment noted that the County’s non-retail trip generation threshold was based on extrapolation of categorical exemption criteria rather than consideration of the actual potential for VMT impacts and is very low compared to historical screening thresholds for determining the need to prepare a traffic impact analysis. Historically, the County of Los Angeles, and subsequently the City of Downey, used a trip generation threshold of peak hour trips for determining the need to prepare a traffic impact analysis. For residential uses, 50 peak hour trips would roughly equate to 500 daily trips. Accordingly, several jurisdictions in the region have developed higher daily trip thresholds for small projects based on the intent and stated goals of SB 743 to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. 4 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Foster Bridge and Bluff Residential Project 99 City of Downey The VMT Assessment found a number of other jurisdictions in the region that have established their own daily trip thresholds for screening small residential projects. The daily trip thresholds of these sample jurisdictions generally range from 250 to 500 daily trips, as shown in Table 4.17-2 (Daily Screening Thresholds Established by Other Jurisdictions in the Region). It must be noted that the OPR Technical Advisory recommended thresholds are based on the Categorical Exemption for 10,000 square foot additions to existing structures; from this, the OPR Technical Advisory calculated a 110 daily trip threshold based on 10,000 square feet of office use. There are many uses, however, that would result in substantially higher trips than the 110 daily trip threshold recommended by the OPR Technical Advisory. Based on the intent and stated goals of SB 743 to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, some jurisdictions have adopted daily trip thresholds based on GHG emissions rather than extrapolation of categorical exemption criteria. For example , the City of Redlands CEQA Assessment VMT Analysis Guidelines and County of Riverside Transportation Analysis Guidelines for Level of Service [and] Vehicle Miles Traveled (December 2020) include the documentation used to establish substantial evidence for GHG emissions-based trip thresholds for screening small projects (see Attachment A in Appendix A). In addition, the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) threshold of 3,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide emissions (MTCO2e) per year is the most stringent GHG threshold in the region, the City of Redlands and County of Riverside have established small project thresholds by evaluating the significance of mobile source emissions associated with VMT generated by various land uses using the California Emissions Estimate Model (CalEEMod). Table 4.17-2 (Range of Local Daily Trip Screening Thresholds in the Region), shows a number of jurisdictions in the region have thresholds for small multi - family residential projects that range from 250 -500 average daily trips or 147-299 units. In either case, the proposed project is below any of these locally established standards. In addition, the VMT Assessment presented the results of a similar GHG-based emissions analysis for a multi-family housing (low-rise) project in the City of Downey (similar to the proposed project) using the updated ITE Trip Generation Manual trip generation rates and CalEEMod defaults (see Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Analysis5- Appendix A). Table 4.17-3 (Daily Trip Threshold that Exceed the GHG Emissions Threshold) estimates it would take approximately 321 dwelling units of low-rise multi-family housing to generate 2,164 daily trips that would exceed the GHG emissions threshold established by the SCAQMD. Therefore, multi-family housing (low-rise) projects with 320 dwelling units or less, like the proposed project, would not exceed the SCAQMD threshold for GHG emissions and could be presumed to result in a less than significant VMT impact using the GHG emissions approach for establishing daily trip thresholds for small projects. It is noted that the analysis and thresholds shown in Tables 4.17 -2 and 4.17-3 are not intended to establish policy or precedent for the City of Downey, but rather to demonstrate potential screening criteria in light of those established by other jurisdictions in the region. For purposes of this analysis, the proposed project would result in a less than significant VMT impact using a daily trip threshold of 250 daily trips which is at the low end of the thresholds adopted by the other jurisdictions reviewed as shown in Table 4.17-2. The VMT Assessment concluded the proposed project will generate fewer than 250 new daily trips (gross or net). Based on review of the daily trip screening thresholds for small projects established by other jurisdictions in the region and taking into account the evaluation of GHG emissions thresholds established by SCAQMD, the proposed project will have a less than significant VMT impact and no mitigation is required. 4 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts 100 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Public Review Draft November 2023 Table 4.17-2 Range of Local Daily Trip Screening Thresholds in the Region Jurisdiction Local Daily Trip Screening Threshold Average Daily Traffic Dwelling Units City of Los Angeles 250 -- City of Irvine 250 -- City of Newport Beach 300 -- City of Long Beach 500 -- City of Perris 500 --- City of Redlands1 Multi-Family (low rise) Multi-Family (mid-rise) 370 – 4,243 -- -- 232 299 County of Riverside1 Multi-Family (low rise) Multi-Family (mid-rise) -- -- 147 194 Proposed Project (Downey)2 158 33 Source: Table 4, Ganddini 2023 1 Emissions would not exceed SCAQMD threshold of 3,000 MTCO2e emissions per year based on CalEEMod analysis 2 Net trips based on analysis in Table 4.7-1 Table 4.17-3 Daily Trip Threshold that Exceeds the GHG Emissions Threshold Land Use Quantity1 Total CO2e (MT/yr)2 CO2e Threshold (MT/yr) Daily Trip Rate3 Size that Triggers Threshold Daily Trips that Trigger Threshold Condo/Townhouse 100 DU 955 3,000 6.74 321 DU 2,164 Source: Table 5, Ganddini Group, 2023 c) No Impact. A significant impact would occur if the project substantially increased an existing hazardous design feature or introduced incompatible uses to the existing traffic pattern. It should first be noted the street layout around the project site is somewhat unusual in that two adjacent collector streets (Suva Street and Foster Bridge Boulevard) are separated at the southern end of the site by a small segment of a third street (South Bluff Road). This alignment results in a skewed intersection with 5 approaches instead of the typical 4 approaches. In addition, instead of all the approaches being at 90o to each other, 3 approaches are at approximately 60o and two approaches are at 120o. However, the intersection does have 4-way stop control which allows this intersection to operate in an acceptable manner even with the additional skewed approach (see Exhibit 2 to see the skewed nature of this intersection). The project proposes a gated entry with a 26 -foot driveway at the north end of the site from Foster Bridge Boulevard, and an “emergency vehicle access” (EVA) with a gate and Knox box for emergency responder access if needed at the south end of the project at Suva Street. These two access points will be connected by a slightly curved 26-foot wide drive aisle. The design of the project access points and onsite road comply with all applicable City regulations. Furthermore, the project does not involve changes in the alignments of Suva Street, Foster Bridge Boulevard, or South Bluff Road, nor does it create hazardous geometric design features. 4 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Foster Bridge and Bluff Residential Project 101 City of Downey The project would not construct any new roadways, modify any existing roadway or intersection geometries (i.e., the skewed intersection was a pre-existing condition), or result in temporary road closures during construction or any permanent road closures. Any and all site adjacent road or intersection improvements required are within the public right-of-way and would be required to comply with standards set forth by the City to ensure that the project does not introduce an incompatible design feature that would impede operations on project-adjacent roadways or intersection(s). Therefore, no impact would occur and no mitigation is required. d) Less than Significant Impact. A significant impact would occur if the design of the project would not satisfy emergency access requirements of the Downey Fire Department or Police Department, or in any other way threaten the ability of emergency vehicles to access and serve the project site or adjacent uses. As discussed above, access to the project site is proposed via two 26-foot wide driveways - one a public gated access to Foster Bridge Boulevard and one for emergency vehicles only to Suva Street. The driveway widths are sufficient to provide access to fire and emergency vehicles are consistent with the California Fire Code requiring a minimum of 18 feet. All access features are subject to and must satisfy the City of Downey design requirements, including the Fire Department’s requirements. Therefore, the project would result in less than significant impacts with regard to emergency access and no mitigation is required. 4.18 – Tribal Cultural Resources Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a Cultural Native American tribe, and that is: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code Section 5020.1(k), or □ □ □ b) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resource Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe. □ □ □ 4 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts 102 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Public Review Draft November 2023 a) Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. A significant impact would occur if the proposed project would cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource (TCR) listed or eligible for listing in the California Resources of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code Section 5020.1(k). When available, results of the cultural resources records research conducted at the South -Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC), a part of the California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS), are expected to confirm that there are no known tribal cultural or historic resources within the project boundaries, and possibly even up to a one-half mile radius from the project site. A Cultural Resources Assessment (CRA) was prepared for the project site by CRM TECH dated October 13, 2023 that included archival archaeological research (Appendix C). In addition, the Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians - Kizh Nation has indicted the project area has a definite potential to contain tribal cultural resources (TCRs) as stated in their consultation correspondence (Appendix I): “Due to the project site being located within and around a perennial Community (Suvangna ,Nakaungna), adjacent to sacred water courses and major traditional trade routes, there is a high potential to impact Tribal Cultural Resources still present within th e soil from the thousands of years of prehistoric activities that occurred within and around these Tribal Cultural landscapes. Therefore, to avoid impacting or destroying Tribal Cultural Resources that may be inadvertently unearthed during the project's ground disturbing activities and pursuant to our consultation, we have provided to the Lead Agency substantial evidence that the proposed project may have a significant impact on our TCRs.” As discussed in Section 4.5, Cultural Resources, Mitigation Measure CUL-1 was recommended to address potential impacts to archaeological resources but Mitigation Measures TCR -1 through TCR-3 were specifically recommended by the Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians - Kizh Nation to help prevent any adverse changes in the significance of a tribal cultural or historical resource as defined in CEQA §15064.5. With the recommended mitigation measures (i.e., CUL-1 and TCR-1 through TCR-3), potential impacts to TCRs are reduced to less than significant levels. b) Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. Government Code §§ 65352.3 and 65562.5 (SB 18); and Public Resources Code §§ 21073, 21074, 21080.3.1, 21080.3.2, 21082.3, 21083.09, 21084.2, and 21084.3 (AB 52) provide that a project that may cause a substantial adverse change to a defined Tribal Cultural Resource (TCR) can result in a significant effect on the environment. AB 52 requires tribes interested in development projects within a traditionally and culturally aff iliated geographic area to notify a lead agency of such interest and to request notification of future projects subject to CEQA prior to determining if a negative declaration, mitigated negative declaration, or environmental impact report is required for a project. The Lead Agency is required to notify tribes within 14 days of deeming a development application complete subject to CEQA to notify the requesting tribe as an invitation to consult on the project. AB 52 identifies examples of mitigation measures that would avoid or minimize impacts to TCR. The bill makes the above provisions applicable to projects that have a notice of preparation or a notice of intent to adopt a negative declaration/mitigated negative declaration circulated on or after July 1, 2015. Section 4.5(b), Cultural Resources, indicates that according to the General Plan1 and the CRA13, the project area has no facilities that satisfy any of the criteria for a historic resource defined in CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5. However, the onsite church building was constructed from the late 1950’s to 1989, so CRM TECH considered it possible that structure may have historical value. Therefore, CRM TECH undertook a preliminary evaluation of the church building and determined it did not meet any established criteria for historical resources under CEQA. As previously stated, CRM TECH concluded the site did not have any structures or resources eligible for listing in the National or California Registers 4 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Foster Bridge and Bluff Residential Project 103 City of Downey under any of the significance criteria. Therefore, the project would not result in an adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in CEQA Section15064.5. Although there is no indication of TCRs on or in the immediate vicinity of the project site, AB 52 is clear in stating that it is the responsibility of the Public Agency (i.e., Lead Agency) to consult with Native American tribes early in the CEQA process to allow tribal governments, lead agencies, and project proponents to discuss the appropriate level of environment review, identify and address potential adverse impacts to TCRs, and reduce the potential for delay and conflict in the environmental review process (see Public Resources Code Section 2108.3.2). Specifically, governmen t-to-government consultation may provide “tribal knowledge” of the project area that can be used in identifying TCRs that cannot be obtained through other investigative means. In addition, projects that involve a General Plan Amendment (such as the proposed project) also require separate or combined notification in compliance with SB 18. Th at law requires a 90-day review period in which the local tribal group representatives have to indicate if they want to consult on a particular development project. The City of Downey submitted AB 52 notifications on May 1, 2023 and SB 18 notifications on August 7, 2023 to the following tribal governments that have traditional/cultural habitation or resources in the project area: • Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians - Kizh Nation (Andrew Salas, Chairperson) • Gabrieleno/Tongva San Gabriel Band of Mission Indians (Anthony Morales, Chairperson) • Gabrielino Tongva Indians of California Tribal Council (Robert Dorame, Chairperson) • Gabrielino /Tongva Nation (Sandonne Goad, Chairperson ) • Gabrielino-Tongva Tribe (Charles Alvarez) The AB 52 and SB 18 notices were submitted to tribal cultural representatives via emailed letters instead of certified mail as recently agreed to by the local tribal representatives (Appendix I). The City received one response letter from the Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians - Kizh Nation (GBMI-KN) which recommended mitigation language but did not identify any tribal cultural resources actually on the project site. At the time this IS/MND was circulated for public review, the tribal notification periods for both AB 52 and SB 18 had closed (September 6, 2023 and July 30, 2023, respectively). The City has received no other responses from the Native American community concerning the proposed project. However, despite the heavy disturbances of the project area that may have displaced or destroyed archaeological resources relating to TCRs on the surface, local tribal groups including GBMI-KN consider it still possible that intact tribal cultural resources exist at depth. Therefore, Mitigation Measure CUL-1 outlined in Section 4.5, Cultural Resources, and Mitigation Measures TCR-1 through TCR-3 outlined in this section, are recommended to address the potential for any previously undiscovered archaeological and tribal cultural resources encountered during project grading. Incorporation of these mitigation measures will ensure that potential impacts to buried TCRs are less than significant through requirements for halting work (if necessary), allowing for monitoring of grading by an archaeologist and tribal monitors, evaluation, salvage, curation, and reporting . It should be noted the following mitigation measures were recommended in correspondence received from the GBMI-KN during the project’s Native American consultation period. Mitigation Measures TCR-1 Tribal Monitor. The project applicant/lead agency shall retain a Native American Monitor from or approved by the Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation. The monitor shall be retained prior to the commencement of any “ground -disturbing activity” for the 4 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts 104 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Public Review Draft November 2023 subject project at all project locations (i.e., both on -site and any off-site locations that are included in the project description/definition and/or required in connection with the project, such as public improvement work). “Ground -disturbing activity” shall include, but is not limited to, demolition, pavement removal, potholing, auguring, grubbing, tree removal, boring, grading, excavation, drilling, and trenching. A copy of the executed monitoring agreement shall be submitted to the lead agency prior to the commencement of any ground -disturbing activity, or the issuance of any permit necessary to commence a ground-disturbing activity. The monitor will complete daily monitoring logs that will provide descriptions of the relevant ground-disturbing activities, the type of construction activities performed, locations of ground-disturbing activities, soil types, cultural-related materials, and any other facts, conditions, materials, or discoveries of significance to the Tribe. Monitor logs will identify and describe any discovered TCRs, including but not limited to, Native American cultural and historical artifacts, remains, places of significance, etc., (collectively, tribal cultural resources, or “TCR”), as well as any discovered Native American (ancestral) human remains and burial goods. Copies of monitor logs will be provided to the project applicant/lead agency upon written request to the Tribe. On-site tribal monitoring shall conclude upon the latter of the following (1) written confirmation to the Kizh from a designated point of contact for the project applicant/lead agency that all ground-disturbing activities and phases that may involve ground -disturbing activities on the project site or in connection with the project are complete; or (2) a determination and written notification by the Kizh to the project applicant/lead agency that no future, planned construction activity and/or development/con struction phase at the project site possesses the potential to impact Kizh TCRs. TCR-2 Unanticipated Discoveries. Upon discovery of any Tribal Cultural Resources (TCRs), all construction activities in the immediate vicinity of the discovery shall cease (i.e., not less than the surrounding 50 feet) and shall not resume until the discovered TCR has been fully assessed by the Kizh monitor and/or Kizh archaeologist. The Kizh will recover and retain all discovered TCRs in the form and/or manner the Tribe deems appropriate, in the Tribe’s sole discretion, and for any purpose the Tribe deems appropriate, including for educational, cultural and/or historic purposes. TCR-3 Human Remains. Native American human remains are defined in PRC 5097.98 (d)(1) as an inhumation or cremation, and in any state of decomposition or skeletal completeness. Funerary objects, called associated grave goods in Public Resources Code Section 5097.98, are also to be treated according to this statute. If Native American human remains and/or grave goods are discovered or recognized on the project site, then Public Resource Code 5097.9 as well as Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 shall be followed. Human remains and grave/burial goods shall be treated alike per California Public Resources Code section 5097.98(d)(1) and (2). Preservation in place (i.e., avoidance) is the preferred manner of treatment for discovered human remains and/or burial goods. A ny discovery of human remains/burial goods shall be kept confidential to prevent further disturbance. 4 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Foster Bridge and Bluff Residential Project 105 City of Downey 4.19 – Utilities and Service Systems Would the Project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects? □ □ □ b) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the Project an d reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years? □ □ □ c) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the Project that it has adequate capacity to serve the Project’s Projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments? □ □ □ d) Generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals? □ □ □ e) Comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste? □ □ □ a) Less than Significant Impact. The project would require water, wastewater collection and treatment, storm water drainage, electrical power, natural gas, and telecommunication services. An analysis of impacts related to these services is provided below. Water A Water Demand Study44 was prepared for the project by Alan Short, PE dated May 8, 2023. The project site currently contains a church, parking lot, and landscaping. The proposed project would include the development of 33 condominium units and would increase the intensity of uses on the project site, resulting in increased water use. For this analysis, all of the project water use was considered new and 4 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts 106 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Public Review Draft November 2023 no deduction or reduction was calculated for existing water use by the church. Therefore, the following are conservative estimates for project water use. As discussed in Section 3.10(b), the project would increase the amount of impervious surfaces on the project site from 78 to 87 percent. Pursuant to the City’s Municipal Code Section 5707, the project has prepared a Low Impact Development (LID) plan to comply with City efforts to retain stormwater runoff generated from new construction projects. The project Water Demand Study assumed 33 multi-family residential units with 3-bedrooms each and with a maximum occupancy of 6 persons per unit. Expected water demand could either be 200 gallons per day (gpd) per bedroom or 48 gpd per person. Therefore, the Water Study used the higher daily rate (per bedroom) which indicated the project would consume 19,800 gpd of water per day which is equivalent to 196 gpd per person per day. The Water Study estimated the project would consume 7.2 million gallons per year or 22.2 acre-feet/year (AFY)vii. The project site is within the water service boundaries of the City which is responsible for the production and distribution of the City's water supply and the maintenance of all water system facilities. The City had 23,631 connections in 2020 and supplied 14,449 acre-feet (AF) of water that year. According to the City’s 2020 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP), the reliable quantities of projected water supply and demand for Year 2025 through Year 2045 are shown in Table 4.19-1 (Projected City Water Demand and Supply), from the UWMP. Table 4.19-1 indicates that water demand is projected to increase by 3.6% over the next 20 years, while water supplies are projected to increase by 4.1% over the same period. The projection of supplies assumes no imported water from CBMWD is purchased but use of recycled water from CBMWD is expected to increase by 16.4% over that time period. The proposed project’s annual water consumption of 1,349,303 gallons per year equals 4.1 acre -feet/year which represents 0.025% of the projected water supply in the City by 2025 and 0.024% by 2045. According to the UWMP supply/demand data in Table 4.19 -1, the estimated water consumption of the proposed project is well within the Utility Division’s projected water supply for 2025 and 2045 and would not, therefore, significantly impact existing water service. Table 4.19-1 Projected City Water Demand and Supply (acre-feet/year) Water Users1/Supplies 2025 2030 2035 2040 20451 2020-2045 Demand2 Single Family 7,573 7,637 7,704 7,774 7,842 +3.5% Multi-Family 3,204 3,233 3,261 3,290 3,319 +3.6% Commercial 2,701 2,725 2,749 2,773 2,797 +3.6% Industrial 759 766 773 779 786 +3.6% Government 429 433 437 440 444 +3.5% Landscape 143 145 146 147 148 +3.5% Losses 892 900 908 916 924 +3.6% Other 128 130 131 132 133 +3.9% Sub-Total 15,828 15,969 16,109 16,251 16,393 +3.6% Supplies3 Groundwater-Central Basin 15,829 15,969 16,109 16,251 16,393 +3.6% Imported Water-CBMWD 0 0 0 0 0 0 Recycled Water-CBMWD 730 770 815 850 850 +16.4% Sub-Total 16,559 16,739 16,924 17,101 17,243 +4.1% Difference (supply/demand) +731 +4.6% +770 +4.8% +815 +5.1% +850 +5.2% +850 +5.2% -- +0.5% Source: Tables 4-2 and 6-9, UWMP 2022 1 UWMP lists 2045 as an “optional” calculation vii One AF = approx. 326,000 gallons 4 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Foster Bridge and Bluff Residential Project 107 City of Downey 2 Retail use for potable and non-potable water not including recycled water demand 3 Represents the “reasonably available volume” for each supply category The Water Study and project plans indicate the project will connect to an 8 -inch water line in Suva Street and a 10-inch water line in Foster Bridge Boulevard. The project site would be developed in compliance with the California Green Building Code which implements water efficiency standards for appliances and fixtures that further reduce project water usage. For these reasons, the proposed project would not require or result in the construction of new water facilities. Impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation is required. Wastewater The proposed project would generate sewage which would be collected by the City’s local sewer pipe system45 and transferred to the Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County (SDLAC) for treatment and disposal. The City’s Public Works Department, through its Utilities Division, manages the City’s local sewer collection system which delivers local sewage to larger sewer trunk lines managed by the SDLAC. The wastewater is then treated and discharged by SDLAC facilities. The City is located within the jurisdictional boundaries of SDLAC District No. 2. The County operates 11 wastewater treatment facilities, 10 of which are classified as water reclamation plants. Wastewater generated by the City is treated at the Joint Water Pollution Control Plant (JWPCP) in Carson. Serving over 4.8 million residents, businesses and industries, the JWPCP currently provides primary and secondary treatment with a design capacity of 400 million gallons per day (MGD) of wastewater and currently treats an average of 260 MGD. All solids from the Joint Outfall System are processed at this plant and anaerobically digested to produce methane gas. The methane gas is then burned in the Total Energy Facility to produce enough electrical power to run the entire plant. After treatment, the effluent is chlorinated and discharged offshore through two ocean outfalls46. A Sewer Study prepared for the project indicated it would generate a sewage flow of 0.02 cubic feet per second (cfs) (Appendix J). These wastes can be accommodated by the existing 10-inch line in Suva Street just south of the site. In addition, the CalEEMod air quality computer model estimate d the project would generate approximately 5,371 gallons of wastewater per day or 0.005 MGD (see Attachment A in Appendix J). This amount of wastewater represents much less than 0.0017% of the 260 MGD daily treatment volume of the JWPCP. Although the proposed project would include construction of onsite water and wastewater distribution and collection facilities necessary to serve the development (i.e., pipes, valves, meters, etc.), Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board wastewater treatment requirements , as well as State Water Resources Control Board Division of Drinking Water potable water treatment requirements , are more applicable to the service providers rather than the proposed project itself. The City Public Works Department, through its Utilities Division, and the SCLAC are required to treat wastewater in accordance with federal, state and local regulations. For example, sewage generated by the proposed project would be treated in accordance with applicable waste discharge requirements prior to being discharged. Both the City of Downey and the County of Los Angeles are subject to compliance with State Water Resources Control Board Order No. 2006 -0003-DWQ, Statewide General Waste Discharge Requirements for Sanitary Sewer Systems, as amended. State Water Resources Control Board Order No. 2006-0003-DWQ establishes performance criteria and effluent limitations to ensure that treated effluent discharges do not violate basin plan objectives for receiving waters. The order ensures that the City and the SDLAC properly maintain and manage sewer systems and reduce 4 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts 108 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Public Review Draft November 2023 frequency and severity of sanitary sewer overflows and their potential impacts on public health, safety, and the environment. The water and sewer fees paid by the project proponent would be used by the utility providers, at least in part, to fund projects and programs necessary to meet their regulatory obligation with respect to treatment requirements, treatment capacity, and supply reliability. Based on the above, the potential impact with respect to wastewater treatment requirements would be less than significant and no mitigation is required. Stormwater Construction of the proposed project would increase the net area of impervious surfaces on the site; therefore, increased discharges to the City’s existing storm drain system would likely occur. As described under Sections 4.10(a) and 4.10(c), the drainage patterns of the site would not subs tantially change relative to existing conditions. The existing church on the project site would be replaced with 33 condominium units and associated pavement, parking, and landscaping. If not controlled, runoff from the developed site would result in increased potential water contamination from urban pollutants that are commonly found in surface parking lots, ornamental landscape planters , and from atmospheric buildup on rooftops. After onsite water treatment, the proposed project would drain toward Suva Street and Foster Bridge Boulevard to the City’s existing storm drain system. In accordance with the current Los Angeles Municipal NPDES permit, the project proponent would be required to prepare and comply with a Low Impact Development (LID) Plan (Appendix F) which would reduce the peak volume of stormwater runoff discharged into the City’s storm drain system and would ensure that stormwater is retained onsite to the extent feasible. As such, the proposed project would not require the construction or expansion of off -site storm water drainage facilities, as the project would not contribute a substantial amount of new stormwater runoff relative to existing conditions. Impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation is required. Electric Power The project site would be serviced by Southern California Edison (SCE). The project site would connect to the existing power grid via existing underground lines within the Suva Street and Foster Bridge Boulevard rights-of-way. New electrical connections to the project site would be installed via underground lines. Although the project would require new electrical line tie-ins for service, it would not result in the need for new electrical substations or electrical generating facilities. SCE conditions of service would apply to the proposed project which is considered regulatory compliance and not mitigation under CEQA. Therefore, the project would have a less than significant impact on electric systems and no mitigation is required . Natural Gas The Southern California Gas Company (Gas Company) provide s natural gas services to the project area. However, the project is proposed to be all-electric so it will have no impacts on natural gas supplies or service. Telecommunication Facilities The project site is supported by telecommunication services for a variety of providers. Cable and wireless telephone services are provided to the City by Verizon. Fiber optic cables and high-speed 4 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Foster Bridge and Bluff Residential Project 109 City of Downey connections for television and internet services are provided to the City by Time Warner. The project site would be required to comply with all Federal, State , and local regulations for installation and wiring of telecommunications to the project. With adherence to existing City and state Electrical, Building and Safety code requirements, the project would have a less than significant impact on telecommunications facilities and no mitigation is required . b) Less than Significant Impact. As discussed in Section 4.18(a), the proposed project operation is anticipated to require approximately 7,164 gallons of water per day, or 8.0 AFY. The proposed project would connect to municipal water service provided by the City ’s Public Works Department through its Utilities Division. Water Code Section 10910-10915 requires the preparation of a water supply assessment (WSA) demonstrating sufficient water supplies for any subdivision that involves the construction of more than 500 dwelling units, or the equivalent thereof. As the project includes 33 townhouse units it is below the established thresholds, and no WSA is required. However, to better characterize the potential water use of the project, a Water Demand Study was prepared and its results are described below. The City of Downey extracts groundwater from the Central Basin which is located in Los Angeles County, approximately 20 miles southeasterly of downtown Los Angeles. Groundwater in the Central Basin provides a substantial portion of the water supply needed by residents and industries in the overlying area. In the Central Basin Judgment of 1965 (Central Basin Judgment), the Superior Court fixed allowable withdrawals from the Central Basin at a level that was greater than the amount of water returned to the Central Basin through natural replenishment. The City was one of the original parties involved in the Central Basin Judgment and has acquired additional water rights since that time. Additionally, the 2014 Sustainable Groundwater Management Act directed DWR to establish initial groundwater basin priorities for the basins identified and defined in DWR’s Bulletin 118. DWR finalized the basin prioritization in June 2014 through the California Statewide Groundwater Elevation Monitoring (CASGEM) program. The CASGEM basin prioritization program is being used by DWR to focus resources towards implementing legislation to require all groundwater basins be monitored for seasonal and long‐term groundwater elevation trends. DWR plans to evaluate the status of groundwater level monitoring in “High” or “Medium” priority groundwater basins. If DWR determines that groundwater levels in all or part of a High or Medium Priority basin are not being monitor ed, DWR will work cooperatively with local entities to establish a monitoring program. Compliance with DWR requirements allows the basin monitoring entities to be eligible to receive state water grants or loans. City 2020 Urban Water Management Plan The following is summarized from the City’s 2020 UWMP which is also discussed in Section 4.19(a). The Downey Water Utilities Division of the Public Works Department is a Public Water System and is regulated by the State Water Resources Control Board. It would provide water to the proposed project. The City provides water service to an area with a 2020 population of 112,068 and is projected to have a population of 117,081 by 2045. The City’s main water supply source is treated groundwater pumped from the Central Basin, and the Central Basin Municipal Water District (CBMWD) is the City’s wholesale water supplier. Supplemental imported water can also be purchased from the CBMWD for emergencies in the event that system demands exceed the production capacity of the City’s groundwater wells and recycled water supplies from CBMWD. The Central Basin is one of two groundwater sub-basins in the Coastal Plain of the Los Angeles County Groundwater Basin. It is comprised of Quaternary-age sediments (less than 1.8 million years old) of gravel, sand, silt, and clay that were deposited from the erosion of nearby hills and mountains, and from 4 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts 110 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Public Review Draft November 2023 historical beaches and shallow ocean floors that covered the area in the past. Central Basin covers approximately 270 square miles and its storage capacity is approximately 13.8 million acre-feet (AF)viii. Drought Resiliency State law requires UWMPs to address drought conditions based on single -year and multiple years scenarios. According to the UWMP, the City has already started to reduce its reliance on imported water supplies from 2015 to 2010. In addition, the City is projected to continue reducing its reliance on imported water supplies through 2045 (p. 1-7, UWMP 2020). The City maintains connections to imported water that can be purchased from MWD through CBMWD for emergencies. Water quality from MWD relating to supply reliability is addressed separately in MWD’s 2020 Regional Urban Water Management Plan. UWMP states that the City’s water supplies sources have been sufficient in meeting the City’s historical water demands during an average year, a single dry year, and a five consecutive year drought (p. 7-7, UWMP 2020). In addition, Table 4.19-2 (Single Dry Year Supply and Demand Scenario), and Table 4.19-3 (Multiple Dry Year Supply and Demand Scenario ), shows the City’s water supplies will be resilient through either drought scenarios through 2045. Table 4.19-2 Single Dry Year Supply and Demand Scenario Supply and Demand 2025 2030 2035 2040 20451 Total Supply 17,243 17,430 17,623 17,807 17,956 Total Demand 17,243 17,430 17,623 17,807 17,956 Difference 0 0 0 0 0 Source: Table 7-3, UWMP 2022 1 UWMP lists 2045 as an “optional” calculation Table 4.19-3 Multiple Dry Year Supply and Demand Scenario Year Supply/ Demand Acre-Feet/Year 2025 2030 2035 2040 20451 1st Year Total Supply 18,653 18,854 19,063 19,262 19,423 Todal Demand 18,653 18,854 19,063 19,262 19,423 Difference 0 0 0 0 0 2nd Year Total Supply 19,015 19,221 19,434 19,637 19,801 Todal Demand 19,015 19,221 19,434 19,637 19,801 Difference 0 0 0 0 0 3rd Year Total Supply 19,086 19,293 19,506 19,710 19,875 Todal Demand 19,086 19,293 19,506 19,710 19,875 Difference 0 0 0 0 0 4th Year Total Supply 17,417 17,605 17,800 17,986 18,136 Todal Demand 17,417 17,605 17,800 17,986 18,136 Difference 0 0 0 0 0 5th Year Total Supply 15,366 15,532 15,704 15,868 16,000 Todal Demand 15,366 15,532 15,704 15,868 16,000 Difference 0 0 0 0 0 Source: Table 7-4, UWMP 2020 viii one AF is equivalent to 326,000 gallons 4 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Foster Bridge and Bluff Residential Project 111 City of Downey In addition to drought resilience, the UWMP explains the City’s Water Shortage Contingency Plan which is a detailed approach to how the City intends to act, or respond, in the case of an actual water shortage contingency. The City will still manage water supplies to minimize the adverse impacts of water shortages. The City’s plan for water usage during periods of shortage is designed to incorporate six standard water shortage levels corresponding to progressive ranges from up to a 10, 20, 30, 40, and 50 percent shortage, and greater than a 50 percent shortage. For each declared water supply shortage level, customers will be required to reduce their consumption by the percentage specified in the corresponding water supply shortage level. To augment future supplies, the City will consider groundwater storage, leased water, and imported water may be used more extensively as discussed in the UWMP. The proposed project would also be required to pay development impact fees to offset any project impacts to existing infrastructure and fund future expansion. Further, the project site would be developed in compliance with the California Green Building Code (which implements water efficiency standards for appliances and fixtures), which would further reduce water usage. For these reasons, impacts would be considered less than significant. c) Less than Significant Impact. As previously discussed in Section 4.18(a), the proposed project would connect to water service provided by the City’s Water Utility Division and would deliver sewage into the City’s sewer collection system operated and maintained by the City’s Public Works Department and treated by the LACSD. Wastewater generated from the project would be treated at the Joint Water Pollution Control Plant (JWPCP). As described in Section 4.18(a) the amount of wastewater generated by the proposed project would be relatively small compared to current and would not exceed the current capacity of this wastewater plant. As such, impacts would be less than significant. d) Less than Significant Impact. Significant impacts could occur if wastes from the proposed project would exceed the existing permitted landfill capacity or violates federal, state, and local statutes and regulations. Solid waste disposal services for the project site would be provided by Athens Services (Athens). Athens offers waste and recycling collection, green waste recycling programs, organic waste composting, special waste transportation, and transfer and materials recovery services to the City as well as many other areas in Southern California. The project proposes 33 townhomes that could generate approximately 100 new residents. Based on the default CalEEMod solid waste generation rates, the proposed project would generate approximately 48 tons of solid waste per year (see Attachment A in Appendix A). This estimate is equal to 96,000 pounds per year, 263 pounds per day for the project, or 2.63 pounds per day per person. S olid waste generated by the proposed project would be collected by Athens and transported to a local or regional landfill operated by Waste Management under contract to Los Angeles County . The increase in solid waste generation from implementation of the proposed project would be minimal compared to the remaining capacity of the area landfills . Regional landfills in the Los Angeles area are anticipated to have sufficient capacity to accommodate the minor increase in solid waste generation attributable to the proposed project. Locally, the Downey Area Recycling and Transfer (DART) Center, operated by Athens, is located on 6.2 acres at 9770 Washburn Road in Downey and accepts municipal waste from the City. This landfill is regulated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the applicable state laws. This facility buries trash and garbage below secured and stratified layers of dirt and isolating material – it accepts tire, solid waste, hazardous waste, and inert material waste. 4 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts 112 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Public Review Draft November 2023 According to the CalRecycle Website, t he DART facility47 currently has a daily permitted capacity of 5,000 tons per day. The project is expected to generate approximately 48 tons per year of waste which represents one percent or a negligible amount of the landfill’s daily disposal rate. Additionally, Article V, Chapter 8 (Ordinance No. 09 -1252) of the Downey Municipal Code requires that 100% of inert debris and at least 50% of the remaining construction and demolition debris generated during a construction or demolition project be diverted from landfil l disposal. The City of Downey has been required to reclaim or recycle at least 50% of domestic waste since 2000 according to the California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989. Required compliance with this regulation would reduce the project’s solid waste generation once occupied. In addition to the DART facility, the combined remaining capacities at the County’s landfills would be adequate to accommodate the proposed project. For these reasons, solid waste impacts resulting from the construction and operation /occupancy of the proposed project would be considered less than significant and no mitigation is required. e) Less than Significant Impact. The project proponent is required to comply with all local, state, and federal requirements for integrated waste management (e.g., recycling, green waste) and solid waste disposal. The project would be required to comply with the City’s Recycling and Waste Handling Requirement for construction and demolition debris, which requires at least 75% of all building and demolition materials to be recycle d. Athens Services currently transports all of Downey’s recycling to a Material Recovery Facility, where recyclable materials are sorted and then diverted from local landfills. The proposed residential use would not generate hazardous waste of any kind. Downey commercial and residential uses that are serviced by Athens Services are already in compliance with AB 341. Therefore, a less than significant impact would occur. 4.20 – Wildfire If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? □ □ □ b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire? □ □ □ 4 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Foster Bridge and Bluff Residential Project 113 City of Downey c) Require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment? □ □ □ d) Expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes? □ □ □ a) No Impact. The proposed project is located in an area that is fully developed and not considered a high fire-threat area. No native vegetation occurs on the project site, and the street trees located along Foster Bridge Boulevard and Suva Street are maintained by the City of Downey Public Works Department and therefore would not contribute significantly to fire threat. The proposed project would be served by the City of Downey Fire Department, and further supported by the Los Angeles County Fire Department under a “mutual aid” agreement should fires occur. The project site is not located within a very high or high fire hazard zone, as identified on the latest Fire Hazard Severity Zone (FHSZ) maps prepared by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CALFIRE). Further, the project site and surrounding area is not identified as being within or near any State Responsibility Area (SRA) on CALFIRE maps.48 Therefore, the project would not substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan and no impact would occur. b) No Impact. As discussed above, the project site is not located within a fire hazard zone, as identified on the latest FHSZ maps prepared by CALFIRE. There are no wildland conditions in the urbanized area where the project site is located. Therefore, the project would not exacerbate wildfire risks, thereby exposing project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire. No impact would occur. c) No Impact. The project site is not located within or near any State Responsibility Areas. As a result, none of the project improvements would exacerbate fire risk or would result in a temporary or ongoing impact from wildfires requiring the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment . No impact would occur. d) No Impact. The project site is not located within or near any State Responsibility Areas. The project site is also not located in a FEMA 100 -year flood floodplain. No impact would occur. 4 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts 114 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Public Review Draft November 2023 4.21 – Mandatory Findings of Significance Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? □ □ □ b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? □ □ □ c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? □ □ □ a) Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. The proposed project would not significantly impact any scenic vistas, scenic resources, or the visual character of the area, as discussed in Section 4.1, Aesthetics, and would not result in excessive light or glare. The project site is located within a suburbanized area with no significant natural habitat onsite. The project would not significantly impact any sensitive plants, plant communities, fish, wildlife, or habitat for any sensitive species after incorporation of Mitigation Measure BIO-1, as discussed in Section 4.4. Adverse impacts to archeological and historic resources would be less than significant with implementation of Mitigation Measures CUL-1 and TCR-1 through TCR-3. Adverse impacts to paleontological resources would be less than significant with implementation of Mitigation Measures GEO-2 through GEO-5. With the implementation of these mitigation measures, the proposed project would not have a significant adverse impact with respect to the degradation of the quality of the environment . The proposed project would not restrict the levels of fish and wildlife below sustaining levels or threaten to eliminate a plant or wildlife community. No sensitive species are known to occupy the proposed project site. No rare or endangered plants or animals are known to occur on the project site or would be removed as a result of the proposed project. b) Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. Cumulative impacts can result from the interactions of environmental changes resulting from one proposed project with changes resulting from other past, present, and future projects that affect the same resources, utilities and infrastructure systems, public services, transportation network elements, air basin, watershed, or other physical conditions. Such impacts could be short -term and temporary, usually consisting of overlapping construction impacts, as well as long term, due to the permanent land use c hanges and operational 4 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Foster Bridge and Bluff Residential Project 115 City of Downey characteristics involved with the project. Cumulative impacts would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated, as further discussed herein. Aesthetics Impacts related to aesthetics at the project -level have no potential for cumulative impacts because impacts are limited to on -site conditions and include no component that could result in similar impacts over time or space. Therefore, no cumulative impacts related to this topic would occur. Agricultural Resources The analysis provided in Section 4.2 found that no individual impacts would occur; therefore, the project could not contribute considerably to local agricultural or forestry. Air Quality The analysis provided in Section 4.3 related to air quality (criteria pollutants) and sensitive receptors (local significance thresholds) found that impacts would be less than significant with regulatory compliance and no mitigation was required. That section also determined the project would not contribute considerably to cumulative air quality impacts in the region. The project would have no other air quality impacts. Biological Resources The analysis provided in Section 4.4 found that no individual impacts to sensitive species would occur with implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-1. With mitigation, the project would not contribute considerably to regional impacts on migratory birds or any sensitive species. The project would have no other impacts on biological resources. Cultural Resources Loss of on-site archaeological resources could reduce or eliminate important information relevant to the County of Los Angeles and the City of Downey. In Section 4.5, impacts related to historical and archaeological resources were found to be potentially significant and require mitigation to reduce to less than significant levels. Therefore, the project could contribute considerably to significant localized cumulative impacts in this topic area. Mitigation Measures CUL-1 and TCR-1 through TCR-3 are incorporated into the project requiring evaluation of any discovered potential cultural or archaeological resources, the uniqueness of the sample, and appropriate steps to preserve or curate the artifact. This would eliminate any potential loss of important local cultural or archaeological information that may be buried under the project site. Therefore, the project would have no contribution to a cumulative loss of important local or regional archaeological knowledge. Energy The analysis provided in Section 4.6 related to energy found that impacts would be less than significant. Therefore, the project would not contribute to cumulative energy impacts. Geology and Soils Impacts related to geology at the project -level will be mitigated by Mitigation Measure GEO-1. Section 4.7 concluded the project impacts have no potential for cumulative impacts because impacts are limited to on-site conditions and include no component that could result in similar impacts over time or space. Loss of onsite paleontological resources could reduce or eliminate important information relevant to the County of Los Angeles and the City of Downey. Impacts related to paleontological resources were found to be potentially significant and require mitigation to reduce to less than significant levels. Therefore, the project could contribute considerably to significant localized cumulative impacts in this topic area. Mitigation Measures GEO-2 through GEO-5 are incorporated into the project requiring evaluation of any discovered potential paleontological resources, the uniqueness of the sample, and appropriate steps to 4 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts 116 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Public Review Draft November 2023 preserve or curate the artifact. This would eliminate any potential loss of important local cultural or paleontological information that may be buried under the project site. Therefore, the project would have no contribution to a cumulative loss of important local or regional paleontological knowledge. No other cumulative impacts related to this topic would occur. Greenhouse Gas Emissions As discussed in Section 4.8, climate change is the result of numerous, cumulative sources of greenhouse gas emissions all over the world. The project would not contribute considerably to global climate change. Hazardous Materials The analysis provided in Section 4.9(a-f) related to hazards and hazardous materials found that impacts would be less than significant with implementation of Mitigation Measure HAZ-1 to address unanticipated hazardous materials that may be found during grading, and Mitigation Measure HAZ-2 to determine if the existing church contains asbestos -containing materials or lead-based paint prior to demolition. Compliance with these measures and all applicable regulations related to the disposal and storage of household waste would ensure that impacts would be less than significant. Therefore, the project would not contribute to localized or regional cumulative impacts related to hazardous materials. Airport Hazards Section 4.9(g) indicates impacts related to airport hazards at the project -level have no potential for cumulative impacts because impacts are limited to on -site conditions and include no component that could result in similar impacts over time or space. Therefore, no cumulative impacts related to this topic would occur. Wildfires The analysis provided in Section 4.9(h) and Section 4.20 found that no individual, local, or regional impacts would occur; therefore, no cumulative impacts related to this topic would occur. Groundwater Levels The analysis provided in Section 4.10 (a) found that less than significant local, or regional impacts would occur; therefore, while the project would contribute to individual, localized or regional cumulative impacts, the project contribution would not be considerable. Drainage/Water Quality The analysis provided in Section 4.10, found that less than significant individual, local, or regional impacts would occur; therefore, while the project would contribute to individual, localized or regional cumulative impacts, the project contribution would not be considerable. Flooding The analysis provided in Section 4.10, found that no regional impacts would occur; therefore, no cumulative impacts related to this topic would occur. Land Use and Planning The analysis provided in Section 4.11 related to Land Use and Planning found that impacts would be less than significant even with implementation of a General Plan Amendment and Zone Change. While the project would contribute to incremental localized or regional cumulative impacts, the project’s contribution would not be considerable. 4 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Foster Bridge and Bluff Residential Project 117 City of Downey Mineral Resources The analysis provided in Section 4.1 2 related to mineral resources found that impacts there would be no impact; therefore, while the project would contribute to localized or regional cumulative impacts, the project contribution would not be considerable. Noise The project is not a substantial source of operational noise, as discussed in Section 4.1 3(a), and therefore would not contribute considerably to noise levels in the immediate vicinity of the project. The project would contribute to temporary increases in noise levels in the immediate project vicinity during construction activities, however, these would be reduced to less than significant through incorporation of Mitigation Measures NOI-1 through NOI-5. The project would increase traffic in the project area; however, project traffic-related noise would not be discernible to the public and therefore would have no considerable contribution to cumulative traffic -related noise. With mitigation incorporated, the project would not contribute considerably to regional noise impacts. The project would have no other impacts related to noise. Population and Housing The analysis provided in Section 4.1 4 related to Population and Housing found that no impacts would result; therefore, no cumulative impacts related to this topic would occur. Public Services The analysis provided in Section 4.15 related to Public Services found that impacts would be less than significant; therefore, while the project would contribute to localized cumulative impacts, the project contribution would not be considerable. Recreation The analysis provided in Section 4.1 6 related to Recreation found that impacts would be less than significant; therefore, while the project would contribute to localized cumulative impacts, the project contribution would not be considerable. Traffic and Transportation The analysis provided in Section 4.17 found impacts related to transportation to be less than significant. The project’s contribution to cumulative impacts to local and regional transportation facilities would not be considerable. Tribal Cultural Resources Loss of on-site tribal cultural resources could reduce or eliminate important information relevant to the County of Los Angeles and the City of Downey. Section 4.18 indicates impacts related to tribal cultural resources were found to be potentially significant and require mitigation to reduce to less than significant levels. Therefore, the project could contribute considerably to significant localized cumulative impacts in this topic area. Mitigation Measures CUL-1 and TCR-1 through TCR-3 are incorporated into the project requiring evaluation of any discovered potential archaeological or tribal cultural resources, coordinating with local tribal groups for monitoring, determining the uniqueness of any resources discovered, and appropriate steps to preserve or curate the artifact. This would eliminate any potential loss of important local archaeological or tribal cultural information that may be buried under the project site; therefore, the project would have no contribution to a cumulative loss of important local or regional archaeological or tribal cultural knowledge. 4 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts 118 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Public Review Draft November 2023 Utilities and Service Systems The analysis provided in Section 4.19 related to Utilities and Service Systems found that impacts would be less than significant; therefore, while the project would contribute to localized or regional cumulative impacts, the project contribution would not be considerable. Wildfire The analysis provided in Section 4.20 related to wildfire found that impacts would not occur. Therefore, the project would not contribute to local or regional cumulative impacts. c) Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. Based on the analysis of the project’s impacts in the responses to items 4.1 through 4.20, there is no indication that this project would result in substantial adverse effects on human beings. Section 4.9, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, recommended Mitigation Measure HAZ-1 to address unanticipated hazardous materials that may be found during grading, and Mitigation Measure HAZ-2 to determine if the existing church contains asbestos-containing materials or lead -based paint prior to demolition. In addition, Section 4.13, Noise, recommended Mitigation Measures NOI-1 through NOI-5 to preclude any significant noise impacts during project construction . The analysis herein concludes that direct and indirect environmental effects on humans would be less than significant with implementation of the recommended mitigation measures and regulatory compliance. Foster Bridge and Bluff Residential Project (17005) 119 City of Downey 5 Mitigation Summary Aesthetics AES-1 Enhanced Landscaping. Prior to issuance of the first occupancy permit, the developer shall install enhanced landscaping along the northern boundary of the site. Its purpose is to substantially block views and lighting from the project site onto the residence at 7336 Foster Bridge Boulevard just north of the site. The design and location of this enhanced landscaping, primarily trees, shall be the responsibility of the City Planning Department. Biological Resources BIO-1 Nesting Bird Survey. To the extent feasible, construction activities shall be scheduled to avoid the nesting season. If construction activities are scheduled to take place during the nesting season, all impacts to nesting birds protected under the MBTA and California Fish and Game Code must be avoided. The nesting season for most birds in Los Angeles County extends from February 1 through September 1. If it is not possible to schedule construction activities between September 1 and January 31, then a pre-construction survey for nesting birds will be conducted by a qualified biologist to ensure that no nests would be disturbed during project implementation. Th is survey will be conducted no more than 5 days prior to the initiation of any site disturbance activities and equipment mobilization, including tree, shrub, or vegetation removal, fence installation, grading, etc. If project activities are delayed by more than 5 days, an additional nesting bird survey will be performed. During this survey, the biologist will inspect all trees and other potential nesting habitats (e.g., trees and shrubs) in and immediately adjacent to the impact area for nests. Active nesting is present if a bird is building a nest, sitting in a nest, a nest has eggs or chicks in it, or adults are observed carrying food to the nest. The results of the survey(s) will be documented. If an active nest is found sufficiently close to work areas to be disturbed by these activities, the qualified biologist will determine the extent of a construction -free buffer zone to be established around the nest (typically up to 300 feet for raptors an d up to 100 feet for other species), to ensure that no nests of species protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and California Fish and Game Code will be disturbed during project implementation. Within the buffer zone, no site disturbance and mob ilization of heavy equipment, including but not limited to equipment staging, fence installation, clearing, grubbing, vegetation removal, demolition, and grading will be permitted until the chicks have fledged. A qualified biologist is an individual who has a degree in biological sciences or related resource management with a minimum of two seasonal years post -degree experience conducting surveys for nesting birds. During or following academic training, the quali fied biologist will have achieved a high level of professional experience and knowledge in biological sciences and special-status species identification, ecology, and habitat requirements. 5 – Mitigation Summary 120 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Public Review Draft November 2023 Cultural Resources CUL-1 Unanticipated Resources. In the event that archaeological resources (sites, features, or artifacts) are exposed during construction activities of the project, all construction work occurring within 100 feet of the find shall immediately stop until a qualified archaeologist, meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s Professio nal Qualification Standards, can evaluate the significance of the find and determine whether or not additional study is warranted. Depending upon the significance of the find under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA: 14 CCR 15064.5(f): PRC Section 21083.2), the archaeologist may simply record the find and allow work to continue. However, if the discovery proves significant under CEQA, additional work, such as preparation of an archaeological treatment plan, testing, or data recovery, may be warranted. Geology/Soils/Paleontological Resources GEO-1 Supplemental Geotechnical Report. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the project proponent shall retain a qualified geotechnical consultant to prepare a supplemental geotechnical investigation as recommended by the “Geotechnical Due -Diligence Investigation” prepared by Albus & Associates, Inc. dated February 6, 2023. The supplemental report shall be certified by the City Engineer as adequate for the purposes of design, permitting, and construction. GEO-2 Conduct Paleontological Sensitivity Training for Construction Personnel. If excavation below 6’ is required , the project proponent must retain a professional paleontologist, who meets the qualifications set forth by the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology, to conduct a Paleontological Sensitivity Training for construction personnel before commencement of excavation activities. The tra ining would include a handout and would focus on how to identify paleontological resources that may be encountered during earthmoving activities, and the procedures to be followed in such an event; the duties of paleontological monitors; notification and other procedures to follow upon discovery of resources; and the general steps a qualified professional paleontologist would follow in conducting a salvage investigation if one is necessary. GEO-3 Conduct Periodic Paleontological Spot Checks During Grading and Earth-Moving Activities. If excavation below 6’ is required , the project proponent must retain a professional paleontologist, who meets the qualifications set forth by the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology, to conduct periodic Paleontological Spot Checks beginning at depths below six feet from the surface to determine if construction e xcavations extend into older Quaternary deposits. After the initial Paleontological Spot Check, further periodic checks would be conducted at the discretion of the qualified paleontologist. If the qualified paleontologist determines that construction excavations have extended into the older Quaternary deposits, construction monitoring for Paleontological Res ources are required. The project proponent must retain a qualified paleontological monitor, who would work under the guidance and direction of a professional paleontologist, who meets the qualifications set forth by the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology. The paleontological monitor must be present during all construction excavations (e.g., grading, trenching, or clearing/grubbing) into the older Pleistocene alluvial deposits. Multiple earth -moving construction activities may require multiple paleontologica l monitors. The frequency of monitoring is based on the rate of excavation and grading activities, proximity to known paleontological resources and/or unique geological features, the materials being excavated (native versus artificial fill soils), and the depth of excavation, and if found, the 5 – Mitigation Summary Foster Bridge and Bluff Residential Project 121 City of Downey abundance and type of paleontological resources and/or unique geological features encountered. Full-time monitoring can be reduced to part-time inspections if determined adequate by the qualified professional paleontologist. Monitoring shall terminate when grading and trenching activities on the site have been completed. GEO-4 Cease Ground-Disturbing Activities and Implement Treatment Plan if Paleontological Resources Are Encountered. In the event that paleontological resources and or unique geological features are unearthed during ground -disturbing activities, the paleontological monitor may halt or divert work away from the vicinity of the find so that the find can be evaluated. A buffer area of at least 50 feet must be established around the find where construction activities are not allowed to continue until an appropriate paleontological treatment plan is approved by the project proponent and the City. Work is allowed to continue outside of the buffer area. The project proponent and City would coordinate with a professional paleontologist, who meets the qualifications set forth by the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology, to develop an appropriate treatment plan for the resources. Treatment may include implementation of paleontological salvage excavations to remove the resource along with subsequent laboratory processing and analysis or preservation in place. At the paleontologist’s discretion and to reduce construction delay, the grading and excavation contractor would assist in removing rock samples for initial processing. GEO-5 Prepare Report Upon Completion of Monitoring Services. If paleontological resources are found, upon completion of the activities identified under Mitigation Measure GEO-4, the professional paleontologist would prepare a report summarizing the results of the monitoring and salvaging efforts, the methodology use d in these efforts, and a description of the fossils collected and their significance. The report would be submitted to the project proponent, the City, the Natural History Museums of Los Angeles County, and representatives of other appropriate or concerned agencies to signify the satisfactory completion of the project and required mitigation measures. Hazards/Hazardous Materials HAZ-1 Inadvertent Hazmat Discovery. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the project proponent shall retain a qualified environmental professional (QEP) experienced with remediating hazardous materials from infill urban construction sites. The QEP must be on-call and summoned to the site immediately if any potentially hazardous materials are found during grading. Grading must be halted within 100 feet of an area that appears to contain hazardous materials. The QEP will ha lt grading as necessary to effectively identify the potential contaminated materials, including directing any sampling and laboratory testing that may be required. If soils are found to be contaminated at levels that are only slightly in excess of applicable residential standards, the QEP shall exercise professional discretion and have the option to coordinate with the grading contractor and developer to either remove contaminated soil and/or mix the contaminated soil with clean soil from either onsite or offsite to dilute any contaminants to below applicable exposure standards for residential development. Remediated areas must be retested to assure potential contaminant levels are below applicable residential standards. The results of any testing shall be provided to the C ity or other agencies as appropriate and no further action is needed. Any contaminated soil that must be removed from the site shall be done by a licensed contractor and hauled to 5 – Mitigation Summary 122 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Public Review Draft November 2023 a landfill approved for such materials. This measure shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the City Community Development Department. HAZ-2 ACMs and LBP Survey. Prior to demolition of any structures on the project site, the developer shall retain qualified licensed environmental contractor(s) to survey the existing onsite church building and any related structures for asbestos-containing materials (ACMs) and Lead-Based Paints (LBPs). If the survey finds the presence of any ACMs or LBPs on the site, the contractor(s) shall follow all relevant guidance from affected regulatory agencies (e.g., CalEPA, SCAQMD, DTSC, County Health Department, etc.) in terms of safe removal and disposal of the contaminated materials as appropriate. The contractor(s) shall prepare and submit a final report to the City Community Development Department within 30 days after completion of demolition/removal for ACMs and LBPs on the project site. Noise NOI-1 Notify Residential Land Uses of Planned Construction Activities. This notice shall be provided at least two (2) weeks prior to the start of any construction activities, describe the noise control measures to be implemented by the project, and include the name and phone number of the designated contact for the project proponent and the City of Downey responsible for handling construction -related noise complaints (per MM NOI-5). This notice shall be provided to the owner/occupants of residential dwelling units within 500 feet of construction work areas. NOI-2 Restrict Work Hours. All construction-related work activities, including material deliveries, shall be subject to the requirements of City Municipal Code Section 4.50.100. Construction activities, including deliveries, shall occur only during the hours of 7 AM to 7 PM Monday to Friday and 9 AM to 6 PM on Saturday. No construction is to occur on Sunday and holidays. The project proponent representative and/or its contractor shall post a sign at all entrances to the construction site informing contractors, subcontractors, other workers, etc. of this requirement. NOI-3 Construction Equipment Selection, Use, and Noise Control Measures. The following measures shall apply to construction equipment used at the project site: a. Contractors shall use the smallest size equipment capable of safely completing work activities. b. Construction staging shall occur as far away from residential land uses as possible given site and active work constraints. c. Electric hook-ups shall be provided for stationary equipment (e.g., pumps, compressors, welding sets). If it is not feasible to provide an electric hook -up, the project proponent shall ensure mitigation measures 3a and 3d are implemented. d. All stationary noise generating equipment shall be shielded and located as far as possible from residential land uses given site and active work constraints. Shielding may consist of existing vacant structures or a three -or four-sided enclosure provided the structure/enclosure breaks the line of sight between the equipment and the receptor and provides for proper ventilation and equipment operation. e. Heavy equipment engines shall be equipped with standard noise suppression devices such as mufflers, engine covers, and engine/mechanical isolators, 5 – Mitigation Summary Foster Bridge and Bluff Residential Project 123 City of Downey mounts, and be maintained in accordance with manufacturer’s recommendations during active construction activities. f. Pneumatic tools shall include a suppression device on the compressed air exhaust. g. No radios or other amplified sound devices shall be audible beyond the property line of the construction site. NOI-4 Implement Construction Activity Noise Control Measures. The following measures shall apply to project construction activities: a. Demolition: Activities shall be sequenced to take advantage of existing shielding/noise reduction provided by existing buildings or parts of buildings and methods that minimize noise and vibration, such as sawing concrete blocks, prohibiting on-site hydraulic breakers, crushing or other pulverization activities, shall be employed during project construction. b. Demolition, Site Preparation, Grading, and Foundation Work: During all demolition, site preparation, grading, and structure foundation work activities, a physical noise barrier shall be installed and maintained around the site perimeter to the maximum extent feasible given site constraints and access requirements. The noise barrier shall extend to a height of eight (8) feet above grade. Potential barrier options capable of reducing construction noise levels could include, but are not limited to: i. A concrete, wood, or other barrier installed at -grade (or mounted to structures located at-grade, such as a K-Rail), and consisting of a solid material (i.e., free of openings or gaps other than weep holes) that has a minimum rated transmission loss value of 20 dB. ii. Commercially available acoustic panels or other products such as acoustic barrier blankets that have a minimum sound transmission class (STC) or transmission loss value of 20 dB. iii. Any combination of noise barriers and commercial products capable of achieving required construction noise reductions during demolition, site preparation, grading, and structure foundation work activities. iv. The noise barrier may be removed following the completion of building foundation work (i.e., it is not necessary once framing and typical vertical building construction begins provided no other grading, foundation, etc. work is still occurring on-site). NOI-5 Prepare a Construction Noise Complaint Plan. The project proponent shall prepare a Construction Noise Complaint Plan that shall: a. Identify the name and/or title and contact information (including phone number and email) for a designated project and City representative responsible for addressing construction-related noise issues. b. Includes procedures describing how the designated project representative will receive, respond, and resolve construction noise complaints. 5 – Mitigation Summary 124 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Public Review Draft November 2023 c. At a minimum, upon receipt of a noise complaint, the project representative shall notify the City contact, identify the noise source generating the complaint, determine the cause of the complaint, and take steps to resolve the complaint. Tribal Cultural Resources TCR-1 Tribal Monitor. The project applicant/lead agency shall retain a Native American Monitor from or approved by the Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation. The monitor shall be retained prior to the commencement of any “ground -disturbing activity” for the subject project at all project locations (i.e., both on -site and any off-site locations that are included in the project description/definition and/or required in connection with the project, such as public improvement work). “Ground -disturbing activity” shall include, but is not limited to, demolition, pavement removal, potholing, auguring, grubbing, tree removal, boring, grading, excavation, drilling, and trenching. A copy of the executed monitoring agreement shall be submitted to the lead agency prior to the commencement of any ground -disturbing activity, or the issuance of any permit necessary to commence a ground-disturbing activity. The monitor will complete daily monitoring logs that will provide descriptions of the relevant ground-disturbing activities, the type of construction activities performed, locations of ground-disturbing activities, soil types, cultural-related materials, and any other facts, conditions, materials, or discoveries of significance to the Tribe. Monitor logs will identify and describe any discovered TCRs, including but not limited to, Native American cultural and historical artifacts, remains, places of significance, etc., (collectively, tribal cultural resources, or “TCR”), as well as any discovered Native American (ancestral) human remains and burial goods. Copies of monitor logs will be provided to the project applicant/lead agency upon written request to the Tribe. On-site tribal monitoring shall conclude upon the latter of the following (1) written confirmation to the Kizh from a designated point of contact for the project applicant/lead agency that all ground-disturbing activities and phases that may involve ground -disturbing activities on the project site or in connection with the project are complete; or (2) a determination and written notification by the Kizh to the project applicant/lead agency that no future, planned construction activity and/or development/con struction phase at the project site possesses the potential to impact Kizh TCRs. TCR-2 Unanticipated Discoveries. Upon discovery of any Tribal Cultural Resources (TCRs), all construction activities in the immediate vicinity of the discovery shall cease (i.e., not less than the surrounding 50 feet) and shall not resume until the discovered TCR has been fully assessed by the Kizh monitor and/or Kizh archaeologist. The Kizh will recover and retain all discovered TCRs in the form and/or manner the Tribe deems appropriate, in the Tribe’s sole discretion, and for any purpose the Tribe deems appropriate, including for educational, cultural and/or historic purposes. TCR-3 Human Remains. Native American human remains are defined in PRC 5097.98 (d)(1) as an inhumation or cremation, and in any state of decomposition or skeletal completeness. Funerary objects, called associated grave goods in Public Resources Code Section 5097.98, are also to be treated according to this statute. If Native American human remains and/or grave goods are discovered or recognized on the project site, then Public Resource Code 5097.9 as well as Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 shall be followed. Human 5 – Mitigation Summary Foster Bridge and Bluff Residential Project 125 City of Downey remains and grave/burial goods shall be treated alike per California Public Resources Code section 5097.98(d)(1) and (2). Preservation in place (i.e., avoidance) is the preferred manner of treatment for discovered human remains and/or burial goods. Any dis covery of human remains/burial goods shall be kept confidential to prevent further disturbance. Foster Bridge and Bluff Residential Project (17005) 126 City of Downey 6 References 6.1 List of Preparers City of Downey (Lead Agency) Community Development Department 11111 Brookshire Avenue Downey, California 90241 (562) 904-7154 • Irma Huitron, Community Development Director • Edwin Norris, Deputy Director of Public Works • Alfonso Hernandez, Principal Planner MIG (Environmental Analysis) 1650 Spruce Street, Suite 106 Riverside, California 92507 951-787-9222 ▪ Bob Prasse, Director of Environmental Services ▪ Kent Norton, AICP, REPA, Senior Project Manager ▪ Chris Dugan, Director of Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Noise Services ▪ Phillip Gleason, Senior Environmental Analyst ▪ Cameron Hile, Senior Analyst ▪ William Deeman, ACES Technical Analyst ▪ Betty Kempton, Ph.D, Senior Biologist Ganddini Group (Transportation) 555 Parkcenter Drive, Suite 225 Santa Ana, California 92705 (714) 795-3100 ▪ Giancarlo Ganddini, PE, PTP, Principal ▪ Bryan Crawford, Senior Transportation Planner CRM TECH (Cultural Resources) 1016 East Cooley Drive, Suite A/B Colton, California 92507 (909) 824-6400 • Michael Hogan, Principal Investigator • Bai “Tom” Tang, Principal Investigator 6.2 Persons and Organizations Consulted ▪ N/A 6 – References Foster Bridge and Bluff Residential Project (17005) 127 City of Downey 6.3 Bibliography 1 City of Downey. Downey General Plan (Downey Vision 2025). https://www.downeyca.org/our- city/departments/community-development/planning/general-plan- map#:~:text=The%20General%20Plan%2C%20Downey%20Vision%202025%2C%20is%20a,add ress%20further%20changes%20in%20the%20City%20of%20Downey [Accessed July 2023]. 2 California Department of Transportation. California State Scenic Highways: State Scenic Highway Map. https://dot.ca.gov/programs/design/lap -landscape-architecture-and-community-livability/lap- liv-i-scenic-highways [Accessed July 2023]. 3 California Department of Conservation. Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program. ftp://ftp.consrv.ca.gov/pub/dlrp/FMMP/pdf/2010/los10.pdf [Accessed July 2023]. 4 California Department of Conservation. Williamson Act Program. ftp://ftp.consrv.ca.gov/pub/dlrp/wa/ [Accessed July 2023]. 5 MIG, Inc. Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Analysis for the Townhome Community Residential Project at 7360 Foster Bridge Blvd. in Downey, CA. September 20, 2023 (Appendix A). 6 Ganddini Group. 7360 Foster Bridge Residential Project Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Screening Assessment. November 15, 2023 (Appendix H) 7 South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) 1993. Air Quality Analysis Handbook. Diamond Bar, CA. 1993. http://www.aqmd.gov/home/regulations/ceqa/air-quality-analysis- handbook. [Accessed July 2023]. 8 California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB). Website accessed August 3, 2023](Appendix B). 9 California Department of Fish and Wildlife. RareFind 5 Database. http://www.dfg.ca.gov/biogeodata/cnddb/mapsanddata.asp [Accessed July 2023]. 10 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. FWS Critical Habitat for Threatened & Endangered Species. http://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/report/table/critical-habitat.html [Accessed July 2023]. 11 United States Fish and Wildlife Service. National Wetlands Inventory. https://www.fws.gov/wetlands/data/mapper.html [Accessed July 2023]. 12 California Department of Fish and Wildlife. Natural Community Conservation Planning. http://www.dfg.ca.gov/habcon/nccp/ [Accessed July 2023]. 13 CRM TECH. Preliminary Draft, Cultural Resources Assessment and Paleontological Assessment, Foster Bridge and Bluff Residential Project, City of Downey, CA. October 13, 2023 (Appendix C) 14 Albus Associates. Geotechnical Due Diligence Investigation, Proposed Multi -Family Residential Development, 7360 Foster Bridge Boulevard, Downey, California . February 6, 2023 (Appendix D). 15 City of Downey. Downey General Plan Safety Element. Figure SCS-2: Earthquake Faults. 2005. 16 California Division of Mines and Geology (CDMG). Seismic Hazard Zone Report for the South Gate 7.5-Minute Quadrangles, Los Angeles County, California. Seismic Hazard Zone Report 034. 1998. 17 United States Environmental Protection Agency. Frequently Asked Questions About Global Warming and Climate Change. Back to Basics. April 2009. 6 - References 128 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Public Review Draft November 2023 18 SCS Engineers. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, 7360 Foster Bridge Boulevard, Downey, California. January 31, 2023 (Appendix E) 19 California Environmental Protection Agency. Cortese List Data Resources. http://www.calepa.ca.gov/sitecleanup/corteselist/ [Accessed July 2023]. 20 California Department of Toxic Substances Control. DTSC’s Hazardous Waste and Substances Site List – Site Cleanup (Cortese List). http://www.dtsc.ca.gov/SiteCleanup/Cortese_List.cfm [Accessed July 2023]. 21 California State Water Resources Control Board. GeoTracker. https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/ [Accessed July 2023]. 22 California State Water Resources Control Board. Sites Identified with Waste Constituents Above Hazardous Waste Levels Outside the Waste Management Unit. http://www.calepa.ca.gov/files/2016/10/SiteCleanup -CorteseList-CurrentList.pdf [Accessed July 2023]. 23 California State Water Resources Control Board. List of Active CDO and CAO. http://www.calepa.ca.gov/sitecleanup/corteselist/ [Accessed July 2023]. 24 California Department of Toxic Substances Control. Cortese List: Section 65962.5(a). https://www.calepa.ca.gov/sitecleanup/corteselist/section -65962-5a/ [Accessed July 2023]. 25 AirNav, LLC. Airport Information. http://www.airnav.com [Accessed July 2023]. 26 California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CalFIRE). Fire Hazard Severity Zones Maps. https://osfm.fire.ca.gov/divisions/wildfire -planning-engineering/wildland-hazards-building- codes/fire-hazard-severity-zones-maps/. [Accessed July 2023]. 27 Advanced Civil Group, Inc. Preliminary Low Impact Development (LID) Plan. June 6, 2023 (Appendix F) 28 Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County. Joint Outfall System Water Reclamation Plants. http://www.lacsd.org/wastewater/wwfacilities/joint_outfall_system_wrp/default.asp [Accessed July 2023]. 29 Federal Emergency Management Agency. Flood Insurance Rate Map. Map Number 06037C1810F. September 26, 2008. https://msc.fema.gov/portal/home. [Accessed July 2023]. 30 California Department of Water Resources (DWR), Division of Safety of Dams (DSOD), California Dam Breach Inundation Maps https://fmds.water.ca.gov/maps/damim/ [website accessed 9-22-23] 31 California Department of Conservation Division of Mines: Open Data and Maps CNRA. https://maps- cnra-cadoc.opendata.arcgis.com/ [Accessed July 2023]. 32 California Department of Conservation Division of Mines: Open Data and Maps CNRA. https://maps- cnra-cadoc.opendata.arcgis.com/ [Accessed July 2023]. 33 MIG, Inc. Noise and Vibration Analysis for Townhome Community Residential Project at 7360 Foster Bridge Boulevard in Downey, CA. September 22, 2023 (Appendix G). 34 California Department of Finance. Population and Housing Estimates. https://www.dof.ca.gov/Forecasting/Demographics/Estimates/E -5/ [Accessed July 2023]. 35 Downey Unified School District Website [accessed 9 -21-23] https://web.dusd.net/ 6 – References Foster Bridge and Bluff Residential Project (17005) 129 City of Downey 36 California Department of Education. DataQuest database [Website accessed 9-22-23] https://dq.cde.ca.gov/dataquest/dqcensus/enrgrdlevels.aspx?cds=1964451&agglevel=District&yea r=2020-21&ro=y 37 Downey Unified School District. Facility Master Plan. 2022 [Website accessed 9-23-23] https://web.dusd.net/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/DUSD_FacilitiesMasterPlan.pdf 38 City of Downey. Parks and Open Space Master Plan. 2016. 39 Ganddini Group. 7360 Foster Bridge Residential Project Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Screening Assessment. November 15, 2023 (Appendix H). 40 Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority . Website, maps and schedules [Website accessed 9-23-23] https://www.metro.net/riding/guide/ 41 Metrolink Website [Accessed 9-24-23] https://metrolinktrains.com/rider-info/general-info/maps/ 42 Los Angeles County Public Works Department. Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines. July 23, 2020. 43 Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE). Trip Generation Manual (11th Edition, 2021). 44 Alan Short, PE. Water Demand Study for City of Downey, Tentative Tract No. 84168, 7360 Foster Bridge Blvd. May 8, 2023a (Appendix J) 45 Tetra Tech. City of Downey Sewer System Management Plan. May 2023. 46 Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County [Website accessed 9 -23-23] https://www.lacsd.org/services/wastewater-sewage/facilities/joint-water-pollution-control-plant 47 CalRecycle Website, Solid Waste Information System (SWIS) database [Accessed 9 -25-23] https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/SolidWaste/SiteActivity/Details/3649?siteID=1111 48 California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. California State Responsibility Areas Map. https://www.arcgis.com/home/item.html?id=5ac1dae3cb2544629a845d9a19e83991 [Accessed July 2023]. Attachment E (Exhibit D) – IS/MND APPENDICES Hyperlink to IS/MND APPENDICES (please copy and paste link if not redirected): https://lf.downeyca.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=1006877&dbid=0&repo=Downey RESOLUTION NO. 24-4024 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DOWNEY RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL (1) APPROVE A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND ZONE CHANGE (PLN-23-00035), THEREBY CHANGING THE GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION FROM LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TO MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL AND CHANGING THE ZONING DESIGNATION FROM R-1 (SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL) TO R-3-O (MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL OWNERSHIP) AT 7360 FOSTER BRIDGE BOULEVARD AND (2) ADOPT A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM FOR THE PROJECT THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DOWNEY DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The Planning Commission of the City of Downey does hereby find, determine, and declare that: A. On March 20, 2023, the applicant, Steve Armanino (a representative of the Olson Company), submitted a request for a Site Plan Review, Tentative Tract Map, Density Bonus, General Plan Amendment, and Zone Change, to construct a new 33-unit townhome condominium ownership development at 7360 Foster Bridge Boulevard (“Project”). B. On April 20, 2023, the applicant was issued a letter deeming the application incomplete. C. On June 14, 2023, upon review of partially submitted materials, the applicant was issued a subsequent letter deeming the application incomplete. D. On September 18, 2023, upon review of partially submitted materials, the applicant was issued a subsequent letter deeming the application incomplete. E. On February 14, 2024, upon review of newly submitted supporting documents, the applicant was issued a subsequent letter deeming the application incomplete. F. On March 28, 2024, upon review of all required materials submitted, the applicant was issued a letter deeming the application complete. G. On April 4, 2024, a notice of public hearing for a General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Site Plan Review, Tentative Tract Map, Density Bonus, and Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration was sent to all tenants and property owners within 500-feet of the subject site, as well as to interested parties and outside agencies, and the public hearing notice was published in Downey Patriot. H. The Project is required to undergo an environmental review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the state CEQA Guidelines. Through its consultant, the City prepared an Initial Study leading to a Mitigated Negative Declaration (“IS/MND”) for the Project. On November 22, 2023, in accordance with the requirement of the California Environmental Quality Act, a Resolution No. 24-4024 Downey Planning Commission PLN-23-00035 – 7360 Foster Bridge Boulevard April 17, 2024 - Page 2 Notice of Intent to adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration was submitted to the Los Angeles County Recorder’s Office. The Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Project reflects the City’s independent judgment and analysis as lead agency for the Project. I. Based on the IS/MND, the Project would have no impact or a less than significant impact on the following environmental issue areas: Agriculture and Forestry Resources, Air Quality, Energy, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Hydrology and Water Quality, Land Use and Planning, Mineral Resources, Population and Housing, Public Services, Recreation, Transportation, Utilities and Service Systems, and Wildfire. The Project’s impacts on the following issue areas would be less than significant with the implementation of mitigation: Aesthetics, Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, Geology, Soils, and Paleontological Resources, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Noise and Tribal Cultural Resources. All impacts would be less than significant after mitigation. J. The Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on April 17, 2024, and after fully considering all oral and written testimony, facts, and opinions offered at the aforesaid public hearing adopted this resolution. SECTION 2. In accordance with California Public Resources Code Section 21091 and State CEQA Guidelines Section 15073, the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Project was circulated for a 30-day public review and comment period from November 22, 2024 through December 22, 2024. The City initiated a 30-day public comment period by filing a Notice of Completion and Intent with the State Office of Planning and Research. The document was available for public review at the City of Downey City Hall, City Library, Barbara J. Riley Community Center, Columbia Space Center, on the City’s website, and at the State Office of Planning and Research State Clearinghouse webpage (SCH Number 2023110530). At the completion of the comment period, comments from a member of the public and one public agency were received and incorporated as part of the Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (“Final IS/MND”) and are incorporated herein by reference. The mitigation measures set forth in the MND are fully enforceable and will be implemented using the related Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, accompanying the Final IS/MND in order to avoid or minimize adverse environmental impacts identified therein. SECTION 3. Having considered all of the oral and written evidence presented to it at said public hearing regarding the General Plan Amendment, and in accordance with Downey Municipal Code Section 9834.08, the Planning Commission further finds, determines, and declares that: A. The proposed General Plan Amendment is consistent with all other goals, policies, programs, and land uses of applicable elements of the General Plan. The application is found to achieve the policies and goals identified in the City’s recently adopted Housing Element Update. In particular, the Housing Element states that the City’s role is to facilitate the redevelopment of underutilized sites. This includes supporting the creation, adoption, and implementation of General Plan policies, zoning, and development standards and/or incentives to encourage the construction of various types of housing units. The proposed General Plan Amendment and Zone Change promote these practices. In addition, the following goals, policies, and programs are promoted by the application: Resolution No. 24-4024 Downey Planning Commission PLN-23-00035 – 7360 Foster Bridge Boulevard April 17, 2024 - Page 3 Land Use Element Policy 1.1.2. Provide an appropriate amount of land area to absorb the City’s future growth. Program 1.1.2.1. Identify areas to absorb population growth and support additional housing. Policy 1.4.3. Promote home ownership. Program 1.4.3.1. Promote ownership-based housing, such as condominiums, townhouses, and planned unit developments. Housing Element Goal 1. Encourage a variety of housing types to meet the existing and future needs of City residents. Policy 1.1. Accommodate a variety of housing types to meet the needs of all residents. Policy 1.2. Encourage and facilitate a range of housing to accommodate the City’s share of regional housing and special housing needs. Policy 1.5 Encourage infill development and recycling of land to provide adequate residential sites Goal 2. Assist in the development of adequate housing and provide resources to meet the needs of low- and moderate-income and special needs households. Policy 2.1 Facilitate housing development of affordable to lower-income households by providing technical assistance, regulatory incentives and concessions, and financial resources as funding permits. Policy 2.2 Encourage the inclusion of housing affordable to lower-income households when reviewing proposals for new housing developments. Goal 3. Address and where legally possible, remove governmental constraints to the maintenance, improvement, and development of housing, including housing for all income levels and housing for persons with disabilities. Policy 3.2 Utilize density bonuses, fee reductions, or other regulatory incentives, as available and appropriate, to minimize the effect of governmental constraints. B. The proposed General Plan Amendment will not adversely affect surrounding properties or the surrounding environment. The proposed development has been found, per the technical evidence, to not hold the capability of generating impacts that significantly alter existing conditions. Rather any impacts related to the nearby area are currently established and not a result of the application. The most prominent existing impact within the nearby area is traffic. The Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) drafted as part of the project review also reveals that existing conditions will not be exacerbated by the proposed project. It should be noted that the TIA does find that one of the intersections, Suva and Guatemala, currently operates at an unacceptable level of service of “E”. Therefore, it is evident that impacts are present and preexisting. The TIA further finds that even with the project the same level of service grade will remain. The City has conducted and continues to conduct analysis of the surrounding traffic conditions in an effort to achieve acceptable levels of service, and is exploring implementing modifications to signaling. Studies conducted as part of the IS/MND that reflect less than significant impacts include, but are not limited to, air quality, water quality, and energy. Resolution No. 24-4024 Downey Planning Commission PLN-23-00035 – 7360 Foster Bridge Boulevard April 17, 2024 - Page 4 The matter of privacy has also been raised by nearby residents, and it has been found that the third story level of the development does have the capability of seeing directly into adjacent neighboring lots more so than what would be expected of other neighboring properties. Privacy mitigations have been established in the recommended Conditions of Approval found in Planning Commission Resolution No. 24-4025. More specifically, prior to issuance of the first certificate of occupancy, the developer shall install enhanced landscaping along the northern boundary of the site. Its purpose is to substantially block views and lighting from the project site onto the residence at 7336 Foster Bridge Boulevard just north of the site. The City’s Planning Division shall be responsible for ensuring that the design and location of this enhanced landscaping, primarily trees, is included in the landscaped plans and is installed prior to the issuance of the first certificate of occupancy. C. The proposed General Plan Amendment promotes the public health, safety, and general welfare and serves the goals and purposes of Article IX of the Downey Municipal Code (Land Use). As stated in Section 3.A of this resolution, the City’s Housing Element within the General Plan holds goals, policies, and programs advocating for the development of new housing. The City, through the Housing Element, and the State of California identify housing as a priority. In addition, a variety of state policies place the responsibility for facilitating new housing in the hands of local governments. Efforts to facilitate new housing, as outlined in the Housing Element, come in the form of land use practices such as general plan amendments and zone changes. Therefore, a finding can be made that the application serves the goals and purpose of the General Plan. In addition, it is widely recognized that the creation of housing is found to be in the interest of public health, safety, and general welfare. D. The proposed General Plan Amendment will not conflict with provisions of Article IX of the Downey Municipal Code, including the City’s subdivision ordinance, although, the amendment will facilitate a housing development that surpasses the Downey Municipal Code (DMC) prescribed density and development standards. The additional allowances are allowed per State Density Bonus Law. In addition, the lot does conform to the minimum requirements for the corresponding R-3-O zone with applicable concession and waivers. Lastly, the Tentative Tract Map is processed in compliance with the provisions of the Subdivision Map Act. SECTION 4. Having considered all of the oral and written evidence presented to it at said public hearing regarding the Zone Change, and in accordance with Downey Municipal Code Section 9830.06, the Planning Commission further finds, determines, and declares that: A. The zone change is necessary and desirable for the development of the community in harmony with the objectives of the General Plan and Chapter 8 of Article IX of the Downey Municipal Code and is in the interests or furtherance of the public health, safety, and general welfare. The application is found to achieve the policies and goals identified in the City’s recently adopted Housing Element Update. In particular, the Housing Element states that the City’s role is to facilitate the redevelopment of underutilized sites. This includes supporting the creation, adoption, and implementation of General Plan policies, zoning, and development standards and/or incentives to encourage the construction of various types of housing units. The proposed General Plan Amendment and Zone Change promote these practices. In addition, the State of California and the City have identified the need for housing in general and at affordable levels as a priority. The creation of housing is found to be in the interest of public health, safety, and general welfare. Resolution No. 24-4024 Downey Planning Commission PLN-23-00035 – 7360 Foster Bridge Boulevard April 17, 2024 - Page 5 B. The zone change will be compatible and complementary to existing conditions and adjoining property in the surrounding area. Changing the zoning from R-1 to R-3-O has been found, per the technical evidence, to not generate impacts that significantly alter existing conditions. Rather any impacts related to the nearby area are currently established and not a result of the application. Traffic impact are chiefly among cause for concern, but are found to be a less than significant impact pertaining to the traffic generated by the project. A traffic impact analysis drafted for the project found that traffic generated by the project will be minimal, generating a daily net increase 158 trips, with an additional 10 trips at AM peak times and 13 additional trips at PM peak times. This means within any 15-minute interval between the hours of 7am and 9am (for AM peak periods), the highest expected traffic volume will be 10 additional vehicles entering or existing the site, and between 4pm and 6pm (for PM peak periods) a maximum of an additional 13 vehicles would be the highest volume entering or exiting the site. All other 15-minute intervals between those times would be less than the estimated peak trips. This increased trip generation is not found to alter the level of service of the nearby intersections and road segments. Additional studies conducted as part of the IS/MND that reflect less than significant impacts include, but are not limited to, air quality, water quality, and energy. The technical evidence supports the statement that the project is compatible and complimentary. With regard to compatibility with adjoining property, a mix of uses currently exists within the nearby vicinity although the area is designated as single family residential. Nearby uses include a 28-unit multiple family residential property to the south and light industrial uses to the west and further south. Furthermore, the creation of townhome ownership housing units will provide a housing type that is consistent with the General Plan goal of providing a variety of housing opportunity types. C. The site location and configuration with streets on three sides may not present the best site plan layout to facilitate the requested project design with the strict adherence to all applicable property development standards. However, State Law pertaining to Density Bonus allowances of a Concession and various Waivers would permit the development of the site as prescribed in the Downey Municipal Code. Per the DMC, the total lot size is sufficient enough to accommodate 30-units and the applicant has exercised State Density Bonus rights that would allow for the development of a total of 33-units with the application of waivers of various City development standards. Compliance with State Density Bonus law would deem the development is of an appropriate size for the subject site. Therefore, this finding can be made in the affirmative. D. The site properly relates to streets and highways designed and fully improved to carry the type and quantity of traffic that is expected to be generated in the area, and utilities exist or are planned which will adequately serve the property as rezoned. Changing the zoning from R-1 to R-3-O has been found, per technical studies, to not generate impacts that significantly alter existing conditions. Increased traffic is not found to alter the level of service of the nearby intersections and road segments. It should be noted that the nearby intersection of Suva and Guatemala operates at an unacceptable service level of “E”, and again the proposed project does not alter that service level grade. Alternatively, the City has begun analyzing potential improvements to raise the level of service grade to acceptable levels. E. The proposed zone change is in general conformance with the General Plan and General Plan land use designation for the parcel. The Zone Change is filed in conjunction with a Resolution No. 24-4024 Downey Planning Commission PLN-23-00035 – 7360 Foster Bridge Boulevard April 17, 2024 - Page 6 General Plan Amendment that will make both the zoning and General Plan consistent and conforming. SECTION 5. Based upon the findings set forth in Sections 1 through 4 of this Resolution, the Planning Commission of the City of Downey hereby recommends that the City Council approve a General Plan Amendment and Zone Change (PLN-23-00035), subject to recommended conditions of approval attached hereto as Exhibit ‘A’, and update the General Plan Map to modify the designation to MDR, as outlined in Exhibit B of this Resolution, and update the Zoning Map to rezone the subject property to R-3-O, as outlined in Exhibit C of this Resolution. SECTION 6. The Planning Commission of the City of Downey further recommends that the City Council adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration and the related Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Project outlined in Exhibit D of this Resolution. SECTION 7. The Secretary shall certify the adoption of this Resolution. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 17th day of April, 2024. Carrie Uva, Chair City Planning Commission I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing is a true copy of a Resolution adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Downey at a regular meeting thereof, held on the 17th day of April, 2024, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: APPROVED AS TO FORM: _______________________ John M. Funk City Attorney CERTIFICATE OF ATTESTATION AND ORIGINALITY I, Ria Ioannidis, Recording Secretary, do hereby attest to and certify that the foregoing Resolution is the original resolution adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Downey at a regular meeting held on April 17, 2024. Ria Ioannidis Recording Secretary Resolution No. 24-4024 Downey Planning Commission PLN-23-00035 – 7360 Foster Bridge Boulevard April 17, 2024 - Page 7 PLN-23-00035 (GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND ZONE CHANGE) EXHIBIT A - CONDITIONS PLANNING 1) The approval of this General Plan Amendment and Zone (PLN-23-00035) allows for a modification to the City’s General Plan Designation from Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential and modification to the City’s Zoning Map from Single Family Residential to Multiple Family Residential for property located at 7360 Foster Bridge Boulevard. 2) This resolution, Resolution No. 24-2024, shall run concurrently with Resolutions No. 24- 2025 and 24-2026 and is equally subject to the Conditions of approval set forth in said resolutions. 3) Failure to carry out the approvals and Conditions of Approval detailed in Resolution Nos. 24-4025 and 24-4026 shall render this resolution null and void. Resolution No. 24-4024 Downey Planning Commission PLN-23-00035 – 7360 Foster Bridge Boulevard April 17, 2024 - Page 8 EXHIBIT B – GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT MAP Existing General Plan Land Use Designation Proposed General Plan Land Use Designation Low Density Residential Medium Density Residential Low Density Residential Resolution No. 24-4024 Downey Planning Commission PLN-23-00035 – 7360 Foster Bridge Boulevard April 17, 2024 - Page 9 EXHIBIT C – ZONE CHANGE MAP Existing Zoning Proposed Zoning R-1 R-1 R-3-O Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan 1 City of Downey – Foster Bridge and Bluff Community Residential Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Progra m Project: Foster Bridge and Bluff Community Residential Project (VTTM 84168) Date: January 9, 2024 Impact Category/ Mitigation Measures Implementation Timing Responsible Monitoring Party Monitoring/ Reporting Method Compliance Verification AESTHETICS AES-1: Enhanced Landscaping. Prior to issuance of the first occupancy permit, the developer shall install enhanced landscaping along the northern boundary of the site. Its purpose is to substantially block views and lighting from the project site onto the residence at 7336 Foster Bridge Boulevard just north of the site. The design and location of this enhanced landscaping, primarily trees, shall be the responsibility of the City Planning Department. Prior to issuance of the first certificate of occupancy Developer and landscaping contractor City Planning staff verify installation prior to COO issued BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Nesting Bird Survey. To the extent feasible, construction activities shall be scheduled to avoid the nesting season. If construction activities are scheduled to take place outside the nesting season, all impacts to nesting birds protected under the MBTA and California Fish and Game Code must be avoided. The nesting season for most birds in Los Angeles County extends from February 1 through September 1. If it is not possible to schedule construction activities between September 1 and January 31, then a pre-construction survey for nesting birds will be conducted by a qualified biologist to ensure that no nests would be disturbed during project implementation. This survey will be conducted no more than 5 days prior to the initiation of any site disturbance activities and equipment mobilization, including tree, shrub, or vegetation removal, fence installation, grading, etc. If project activities are delayed by more than 5 days, an additional nesting bird survey will be performed. During this survey, the biologist will inspect all trees and other potential nesting habitats (e.g., trees and shrubs) in and immediately adjacent to the impact area for nests. Active nesting is present if a bird is building a nest, sitting in a nest, a nest has eggs or chicks in it, or adults are observed carrying food to the nest. The results of the survey(s) will be documented. If an active nest is found sufficiently close to work areas to be disturbed by these activities, the qualified biologist will determine the extent of a construction-free buffer zone to be established around the nest (typically up to 300 feet for raptors and up to 100 feet for other species), to ensure that no nests of species protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and California Fish and Game Code will be disturbed during project implementation. Within the buffer zone, no site disturbance and mobilization of heavy equipment, including but not limited to equipment staging, fence installation, clearing, grubbing, vegetation removal, demolition, and grading will be permitted until the chicks have fledged. No more than 3 days prior to the start of any ground disturbance City Planning Department Written proof of survey prior to issuance of a grading permit Attachment F (Exhibit D) Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan 2 City of Downey – Foster Bridge and Bluff Community Residential Project Impact Category/ Mitigation Measures Implementation Timing Responsible Monitoring Party Monitoring/ Reporting Method Compliance Verification A qualified biologist is an individual who has a degree in biological sciences or related resource management with a minimum of two seasonal years post- degree experience conducting surveys for nesting birds. During or following academic training, the qualified biologist will have achieved a high level of professional experience and knowledge in biological sciences and special- status species identification, ecology, and habitat requirements. CULTURAL RESOURCES CUL-1: Unanticipated Resources. In the event that archaeological resources (sites, features, or artifacts) are exposed during construction activities of the project, all construction work occurring within 100 feet of the find shall immediately stop until a qualified archaeologist, meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards, can evaluate the significance of the find and determine whether or not additional study is warranted. Depending upon the significance of the find under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA: 14 CCR 15064.5(f): PRC Section 21083.2), the archaeologist may simply record the find and allow work to continue. However, if the discovery proves significant under CEQA, additional work, such as preparation of an archaeological treatment plan, testing, or data recovery, may be warranted. During and after grading City Planning Department, project archaeologist, and consulting tribe(s) to determine disposition of any unique archeological resources City Planning Department to document continued consultation as needed with tribal representatives GEOLOGY/SOILS/PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES GEO-1: Supplemental Geotechnical Report. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the project proponent shall retain a qualified geotechnical consultant to prepare a supplemental geotechnical investigation as recommended by the “Geotechnical Due-Diligence Investigation” prepared by Albus & Associates, Inc. dated February 6, 2023. The supplemental report shall be certified by the City Engineer as adequate for the purposes of design, permitting, and construction. Prior to issuance of a grading permit Qualified engineer shall submit a supplemental geotechnical report to the City Engineering Department City Engineer shall sign off on the supplemental report prior to issuance of the permit GEO-2: Conduct Paleontological Sensitivity Training for Construction Personnel. The project proponent must retain a professional paleontologist, who meets the qualifications set forth by the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology, to conduct a Paleontological Sensitivity Training for construction personnel before commencement of excavation activities. The training would include a handout and would focus on how to identify paleontological resources that may be encountered during earthmoving activities, and the procedures to be followed in such an event; the duties of paleontological monitors; notification and other procedures to follow upon discovery of resources; and the general steps a qualified professional paleontologist would follow in conducting a salvage investigation if one is necessary. Prior to the start of grading or clearing the site Developer shall retain a qualified paleontologist to conduct training of grading and clearing staff regarding paleontological resources Project paleontologist shall prepare a brief report to the City Planning Department summarizing their training efforts. GEO-3: Conduct Periodic Paleontological Spot Checks During Grading and Earth-Moving Activities. The project proponent must retain a During grading Project paleontologist shall Project paleontologist shall Attachment F (Exhibit D) Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan 3 City of Downey – Foster Bridge and Bluff Community Residential Project Impact Category/ Mitigation Measures Implementation Timing Responsible Monitoring Party Monitoring/ Reporting Method Compliance Verification professional paleontologist, who meets the qualifications set forth by the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology, to conduct periodic Paleontological Spot Checks beginning at depths below six feet from the surface to determine if construction excavations extend into older Quaternary deposits. After the initial Paleontological Spot Check, further periodic checks would be conducted at the discretion of the qualified paleontologist. If the qualified paleontologist determines that construction excavations have extended into the older Quaternary deposits, construction monitoring for Paleontological Resources are required. The project proponent must retain a qualified paleontological monitor, who would work under the guidance and direction of a professional paleontologist, who meets the qualifications set forth by the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology. The paleontological monitor must be present during all construction excavations (e.g., grading, trenching, or clearing/grubbing) into the older Pleistocene alluvial deposits. Multiple earth- moving construction activities may require multiple paleontological monitors. The frequency of monitoring is based on the rate of excavation and grading activities, proximity to known paleontological resources and/or unique geological features, the materials being excavated (native versus artificial fill soils), and the depth of excavation, and if found, the abundance and type of paleontological resources and/or unique geological features encountered. Full-time monitoring can be reduced to part-time inspections if determined adequate by the qualified professional paleontologist. conduct unannounced checks of project clearing and grading to assure proper procedures of GEO- 2 are being followed prepare a brief report to the City Planning Department summarizing the results of their monitoring efforts GEO-4: Cease Ground-Disturbing Activities and Implement Treatment Plan if Paleontological Resources Are Encountered. In the event that paleontological resources and or unique geological features are unearthed during ground-disturbing activities, ground-disturbing activities the paleontological monitor may halt or divert away from the vicinity of the find so that the find can be evaluated. A buffer area of at least 50 feet must be established around the find where construction activities are not allowed to continue until an appropriate paleontological treatment plan is approved by the project proponent and the City. Work is allowed to continue outside of the buffer area. The project proponent and City would coordinate with a professional paleontologist, who meets the qualifications set forth by the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology, to develop an appropriate treatment plan for the resources. Treatment may include implementation of paleontological salvage excavations to remove the resource along with subsequent laboratory processing and analysis or preservation in place. At the paleontologist’s discretion and to reduce construction delay, the grading and excavation contractor would assist in removing rock samples for initial processing. During grading If summoned to the site or observes paleontological resources, the project paleontologist shall immediately halt grading to evaluate the find and determine appropriate action based on the find and notify the City Planning Department immediately of the discovery Once notified, the Planning Department shall monitor any recovery activities in consultation with the project paleontologist GEO-5: Prepare Report Upon Completion of Monitoring Services. If paleontological resources are found, upon completion of the activities identified under Mitigation Measure GEO-4, the professional paleontologist Within 45 days of the Paleontologist shall prepare a summary report of monitoring The Planning Department shall confirm in email or Attachment F (Exhibit D) Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan 4 City of Downey – Foster Bridge and Bluff Community Residential Project Impact Category/ Mitigation Measures Implementation Timing Responsible Monitoring Party Monitoring/ Reporting Method Compliance Verification would prepare a report summarizing the results of the monitoring and salvaging efforts, the methodology used in these efforts, and a description of the fossils collected and their significance. The report would be submitted to the project proponent, the City, the Natural History Museums of Los Angeles County, and representatives of other appropriate or concerned agencies to signify the satisfactory completion of the project and required mitigation measures. completion of grading activities, any resources found, and the disposition of any resources writing the receipt of the project paleontologist’s report(s). HAZARDS/HAZARDOUS MATERIALS HAZ-1: Inadvertent Hazmat Discovery. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the project proponent shall retain a qualified environmental professional (QEP) experienced with remediating hazardous materials from infill urban construction sites. The QEP must be on-call and summoned to the site immediately if any potentially hazardous materials are found during grading. Grading must be halted within 100 feet of an area that appears to contain hazardous materials. The QEP will halt grading as necessary to effectively identify the potential contaminated materials, including directing any sampling and laboratory testing that may be required. If soils are found to be contaminated at levels that are only slightly in excess of applicable residential standards, the QEP shall exercise professional discretion and have the option to coordinate with the grading contractor and developer to either remove contaminated soil and/or mix the contaminated soil with clean soil from either onsite or offsite to dilute any contaminants to below applicable exposure standards for residential development. Remediated areas must be retested to assure potential contaminant levels are below applicable residential standards. The results of any testing shall be provided to the City or other agencies as appropriate and no further action is needed. Any contaminated soil that must be removed from the site shall be done by a licensed contractor and hauled to a landfill approved for such materials. This measure shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the City Community Development Department. Prior to issuance of a grading permit During grading Developer shall retain a QEP and provide written proof to the City Planning Department Upon notification or observing the discovery of any unknown materials during grading, the Project QEP shall halt work in that area and determine the identify of the material(s). If any hazardous materials are found, the QEP will coordinate with the City, developer, and LA County Fire Department, Health Hazardous Materials Division (CUPA) if necessary to determine the appropriate disposition for the materials. HAZ-2: ACMs and LBP Survey. Prior to demolition of any structures on the project site, the developer shall retain qualified licensed environmental contractor(s) to survey the existing onsite church building and any related structures for asbestos-containing materials (ACMs) and Lead-Based Paints Prior to issuance of a demolition permit Developer shall retain qualified personnel to survey the church buildings Developer shall document results of ACM and LBP survey and what, if Attachment F (Exhibit D) Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan 5 City of Downey – Foster Bridge and Bluff Community Residential Project Impact Category/ Mitigation Measures Implementation Timing Responsible Monitoring Party Monitoring/ Reporting Method Compliance Verification (LBPs). If the survey finds the presence of any ACMs or LBPs on the site, the contractor(s) shall follow all relevant guidance from affected regulatory agencies (e.g., CalEPA, SCAQMD, DTSC, County Health Department, etc.) in terms of safe removal and disposal of the contaminated materials as appropriate. The contractor(s) shall prepare and submit a final report to the City Community Development Department within 30 days after completion of demolition/removal for ACMs and LBPs on the project site. for ACMs and LBP and conduct appropriate remediation of such materials are found any, remediation was conducted. Demolition permit shall not be issued until the City Planning Department concurs with its findings NOISE NOI-1: Notify Residential Land Uses of Planned Construction Activities. This notice shall be provided at least two (2) weeks prior to the start of any construction activities, describe the noise control measures to be implemented by the project, and include the name and phone number of the designated contact for the project proponent and the City of Downey responsible for handling construction-related noise complaints (per MM NOI- 5). This notice shall be provided to the owner/occupants of residential dwelling units within 500 feet of construction work areas. At least two (2) weeks prior to the start of any construction activities Developer shall provide verifiable notice to local residential neighbors within 200 feet of the project boundaries of the start of construction Developer shall provide copies of notices, mailing lists, methods of delivery, and confirmation of receiving the notices NOI-2: Restrict Work Hours. All construction-related work activities, including material deliveries, shall be subject to the requirements of City Municipal Code Section 4.50.100. Construction activities, including deliveries, shall occur only during the hours of 7 AM to 7 PM Monday to Friday and 9 AM to 6 PM on Saturday, Sunday, and holidays. The project proponent representative and/or its contractor shall post a sign at all entrances to the construction site informing contractors, subcontractors, other workers, etc. of this requirement During any construction- related activities on the site Developer shall certify to the City they are enforcing the City’s work hour restrictions, post appropriate signs, and place work hour limits on construction plans City Inspectors as appropriate to monitor work hour limits as necessary NOI-3: Construction Equipment Selection, Use, and Noise Control Measures. The following measures shall apply to construction equipment used at the project site: a. Contractors shall use the smallest size equipment capable of safely completing work activities. b. Construction staging shall occur as far away from residential land uses as possible given site and active work constraints. c. Electric hook-ups shall be provided for stationary equipment (e.g., pumps, compressors, welding sets). If it is not feasible to provide an electric hook- up, the project proponent shall ensure mitigation measures 3a and 3d are implemented. d. All stationary noise generating equipment shall be shielded and located as far as possible from residential land uses given site and active work constraints. Shielding may consist of existing vacant structures or a three- Prior to and during any construction activities on the site Developer shall certify in writing they will implement these procedures during all work activities. Notes shall be placed on construction plans to this effect and initialed by all sub- contractors City Inspectors shall verify this compliance with unannounced inspections during work activities Attachment F (Exhibit D) Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan 6 City of Downey – Foster Bridge and Bluff Community Residential Project Impact Category/ Mitigation Measures Implementation Timing Responsible Monitoring Party Monitoring/ Reporting Method Compliance Verification or four-sided enclosure provided the structure/enclosure breaks the line of sight between the equipment and the receptor and provides for proper ventilation and equipment operation. e. Heavy equipment engines shall be equipped with standard noise suppression devices such as mufflers, engine covers, and engine/mechanical isolators, mounts, and be maintained in accordance with manufacturer’s recommendations during active construction activities. f. Pneumatic tools shall include a suppression device on the compressed air exhaust. g. No radios or other amplified sound devices shall be audible beyond the property line of the construction site. NOI-4: Implement Construction Activity Noise Control Measures. The following measures shall apply to project construction activities: a. Demolition: Activities shall be sequenced to take advantage of existing shielding/noise reduction provided by existing buildings or parts of buildings and methods that minimize noise and vibration, such as sawing concrete blocks, prohibiting on-site hydraulic breakers, crushing or other pulverization activities, shall be employed during project construction. b. Demolition, Site Preparation, Grading, and Foundation Work: During all demolition, site preparation, grading, and structure foundation work activities, a physical noise barrier shall be installed and maintained around the site perimeter to the maximum extent feasible given site constraints and access requirements along the north boundary of the project site*. The noise barrier shall extend to a height of eight (8) feet above grade. Potential barrier options capable of reducing construction noise levels could include, but are not limited to: i. A concrete, wood, or other barrier installed at-grade (or mounted to structures located at-grade, such as a K-Rail), and consisting of a solid material (i.e., free of openings or gaps other than weep holes) that has a minimum rated transmission loss value of 20 dB. ii. Commercially available acoustic panels or other products such as acoustic barrier blankets that have a minimum sound transmission class (STC) or transmission loss value of 20 dB. iii. Any combination of noise barriers and commercial products capable of achieving required construction noise reductions during demolition, site preparation, grading, and structure foundation work activities. During all project construction activities as appropriate Developer shall certify to the City these measures will be implemented by all contractors and sub-contractors on the site City Inspectors shall verify this compliance with unannounced inspections during work activities Attachment F (Exhibit D) Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan 7 City of Downey – Foster Bridge and Bluff Community Residential Project Impact Category/ Mitigation Measures Implementation Timing Responsible Monitoring Party Monitoring/ Reporting Method Compliance Verification iv. The noise barrier may be removed following the completion of building foundation work (i.e., it is not necessary once framing and typical vertical building construction begins provided no other grading, foundation, etc. work is still occurring on-site). NOI-5: Prepare a Construction Noise Complaint Plan. The project proponent shall prepare a Construction Noise Complaint Plan that shall: a. Identify the name and/or title and contact information (including phone number and email) for a designated project and City representative responsible for addressing construction-related noise issues. b. Includes procedures describing how the designated project representative will receive, respond, and resolve construction noise complaints. c. At a minimum, upon receipt of a noise complaint, the project representative shall notify the City contact, identify the noise source generating the complaint, determine the cause of the complaint, and take steps to resolve the complaint. Prior to issuance of any permit for any construction activities Developer, in consultation with their noise consultant, shall prepare a CNCP for review and approval by the City Planning Department The City Planning Department shall approve the CNCP prior to issuance of any work permits for the project Tribal Cultural Resources TCR-1: Tribal Monitor. The project applicant/lead agency shall retain a Native American Monitor from or approved by the Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation. The monitor shall be retained prior to the commencement of any “ground-disturbing activity” for the subject project at all project locations (i.e., both on-site and any off-site locations that are included in the project description/definition and/or required in connection with the project, such as public improvement work). “Ground-disturbing activity” shall include, but is not limited to, demolition, pavement removal, potholing, auguring, grubbing, tree removal, boring, grading, excavation, drilling, and trenching. A copy of the executed monitoring agreement shall be submitted to the lead agency prior to the commencement of any ground-disturbing activity, or the issuance of any permit necessary to commence a ground-disturbing activity. The monitor will complete daily monitoring logs that will provide descriptions of the relevant ground-disturbing activities, the type of construction activities performed, locations of ground-disturbing activities, soil types, cultural-related materials, and any other facts, conditions, materials, or discoveries of significance to the Tribe. Monitor logs will identify and describe any discovered TCRs, including but not limited to, Native American cultural and historical artifacts, remains, places of significance, etc., (collectively, tribal cultural resources, or “TCR”), as well as any discovered Native American (ancestral) human remains and burial goods. Copies of monitor logs will be Prior to issuance of a grading permit During grading Developer shall submit written verification of NA tribal monitoring agreement(s) Tribal monitor(s) to observe grading and confirm completion to the City Planning Department Planning Department verify signed agreement(s) in place Planning Department confirm receipt of tribal completion notice Attachment F (Exhibit D) Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan 8 City of Downey – Foster Bridge and Bluff Community Residential Project Impact Category/ Mitigation Measures Implementation Timing Responsible Monitoring Party Monitoring/ Reporting Method Compliance Verification provided to the project applicant/lead agency upon written request to the Tribe. On-site tribal monitoring shall conclude upon the latter of the following (1) written confirmation to the Kizh from a designated point of contact for the project applicant/lead agency that all ground-disturbing activities and phases that may involve ground-disturbing activities on the project site or in connection with the project are complete; or (2) a determination and written notification by the Kizh to the project applicant/lead agency that no future, planned construction activity and/or development/construction phase at the project site possesses the potential to impact Kizh TCRs. TCR-2: Unanticipated Discoveries. Upon discovery of any Tribal Cultural Resources (TCRs), all construction activities in the immediate vicinity of the discovery shall cease (i.e., not less than the surrounding 50 feet) and shall not resume until the discovered TCR has been fully assessed by the Kizh monitor and/or Kizh archaeologist. The Kizh will recover and retain all discovered TCRs in the form and/or manner the Tribe deems appropriate, in the Tribe’s sole discretion, and for any purpose the Tribe deems appropriate, including for educational, cultural and/or historic purposes. During grading Tribal monitor(s) and/or archaeologist communicate discovery of resources within one hour of discovery to Planning Department Planning Department confirm tribal notification and consult with monitoring tribe as to the disposition of the discovered resource TCR-3: Human Remains. Native American human remains are defined in PRC 5097.98 (d)(1) as an inhumation or cremation, and in any state of decomposition or skeletal completeness. Funerary objects, called associated grave goods in Public Resources Code Section 5097.98, are also to be treated according to this statute. If Native American human remains and/or grave goods are discovered or recognized on the project site, then Public Resource Code 5097.9 as well as Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 shall be followed. Human remains and grave/burial goods shall be treated alike per California Public Resources Code section 5097.98(d)(1) and (2). Preservation in place (i.e., avoidance) is the preferred manner of treatment for discovered human remains and/or burial goods. Any discovery of human remains/burial goods shall be kept confidential to prevent further disturbance. During grading Tribal monitor(s) and/or archaeologist communicate discovery of remains within one hour of discovery to Planning Department Planning Department confirm tribal notification and consult with monitoring tribe as to the disposition of the discovered remains * This minor change was made to correct an inaccurate statement in the draft IS/MND noise section that the proposed constructio n noise barrier was needed around the entire site since the noise study determined the barrier was actually needed only on the north side of the site to meet City noise standards. This change is documented in the Final IS/MND Memo dated January 9, 2024. Attachment F (Exhibit D) RESOLUTION NO. 24-4025 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DOWNEY RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE A SITE PLAN REVIEW (PLN-23-00035) AND A DENSITY BONUS APPLICATION, THEREBY ALLOWING THE CONSTRUCTION OF A 33-UNIT RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM OWNERSHIP TOWNHOUSE DEVELOPMENT LOCATED AT 7360 FOSTER BRIDGE BOULEVARD THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DOWNEY DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The Planning Commission of the City of Downey does hereby find, determine, and declare that: A.On March 20, 2023, the applicant, Steve Armanino (a representative of the Olson Company), submitted a request for a Site Plan Review, Tentative Tract Map, Density Bonus, General Plan Amendment, and Zone Change, to construct a new 33-unit townhome development at 7360 Foster Bridge Boulevard (“Project”). B.On April 20, 2023, the applicant was issued a letter deeming the application incomplete. C.On June 14, 2023, upon review of partially submitted materials, the applicant was issued a subsequent letter deeming the application incomplete. D.On September 18, 2023, upon review of partially submitted materials, the applicant was issued a subsequent letter deeming the application incomplete. E.On February 14, 2024, upon review of newly submitted supporting documents, the applicant was issued a subsequent letter deeming the application incomplete. F.On March 28, 2024, upon review of all required materials submitted, the applicant was issued a letter deeming the application complete. G.The Project is required to undergo an environmental review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the state CEQA Guidelines. Through its consultant, the City prepared an Initial Study leading to a Mitigated Negative Declaration (“IS/MND”) for the Project. On November 22, 2023, in accordance with the requirement of the California Environmental Quality Act, a Notice of Intent to adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration was submitted to the Los Angeles County Recorder’s Office. The Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Project reflects the City’s independent judgment and analysis as lead agency for the Project. H. Based on the IS/MND, the Project would have no impact or a less than significant impact on the following environmental issue areas: Agriculture and Forestry Resources, Air Quality, Energy, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Hydrology and Water Quality, Land Use and Planning, Mineral Resources, Population and Housing, Public Services, Recreation, Transportation, Utilities and Service Resolution No. 24-4025 Downey Planning Commission PLN-23-00035 – 7360 Foster Bridge Boulevard April 17, 2024 - Page 2 Systems, and Wildfire. The project’s impacts on the following issue areas would be less than significant with the implementation of mitigation: Aesthetics, Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, Geology, Soils, and Paleontological Resources, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Noise and Tribal Cultural Resources. All impacts would be less than significant after mitigation. I. On April 4, 2024, a notice of public hearing for a General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Site Plan Review, Tentative Tract Map, Density Bonus, and Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration was sent to all tenants and property owners within 500’ of the subject site, as well as to interested parties and outside agencies, and the public hearing notice was published in Downey Patriot. J. The Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on April 17, 2024, and after fully considering all oral and written testimony, facts, and opinions offered at the aforesaid public hearing adopted this resolution. At the same hearing, the Planning Commission took the following actions: (1) recommend the City Council approve a General Plan Amendment to modify the General Plan Designation form Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential, Zone Change from Single Family Residential to Medium Density Residential, and IS/MND for property located at 7360 Foster Bridge Boulevard (Resolution No. 24-4024) and (2) recommend the City Council approve Tentative Tract Map No. 84168 for townhome purposes on property located at 7360 Foster Bridge Boulevard (Resolution No. 24-4026) SECTION 3. Having considered all of the oral and written evidence presented to it at said public hearings regarding a Density Bonus Application, the Planning Commission further finds, determines and declares that the proposal complies with the provisions of the California Density Bonus Law, Government Code Sections 65915 - 65918. Furthermore, specific written findings, such as those outlined in DMC Section 9512.24(b), are no longer applicable for the recommended approval of a Density Bonus application per Government Code Sections 65915 – 65918. SECTION 4. Having considered all of the oral and written evidence presented to it at said public hearings regarding the Site Plan Review, and in accordance with Downey Municipal Code Section 9820.08, the Planning Commission finds that: A. The site plan is consistent with the goals and polices embodied in the General Plan and other applicable plans and policies adopted by the City Council. In addition, the project’s objective to revitalize the site helps achieve various long-term goals. Specifically, the following policies are promoted by the Site Plan Review: Land Use Element Policy 1.4.3. Promote home ownership. Program 1.4.3.1. Promote ownership-based housing, such as condominiums, townhouses, and planned unit developments. The project includes 33 separate townhomes exclusively for sale. Of the 33-units, 30 will be sold at market rate prices and three will be sold at at-least an affordable level of moderate-income levels. The moderate-income affordability units are required to maintain their affordability level for a minimum of 55 years. Resolution No. 24-4025 Downey Planning Commission PLN-23-00035 – 7360 Foster Bridge Boulevard April 17, 2024 - Page 3 Housing Element Goal 1. Encourage a variety of housing types to meet the existing and future needs of City residents. Policy 1.1. Accommodate a variety of housing types to meet the needs of all residents. Policy 1.2. Encourage and facilitate a range of housing to accommodate the City’s share of regional housing and special housing needs. Policy 1.5 Encourage infill development and recycling of land to provide adequate residential sites As previously stated, the project involves the sale of townhomes with three of the units to be sold at an affordability level of moderate-income. These three units, along with the other 30 market rate units, will reduce the City’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) of 6,525 units needed between 2021 – 2029 in order for the State to achieve sustainable housing levels. Since 2021, the City has only reduced the City’s RHNA by 17 market rate units and only a total of four other housing projects are proposed in separate applications. It should be noted that these separate applications each have respective development constraints that may render the projects infeasible. Lastly, the project proposes to recycle an existing in-fill site with a land use that may be described as meeting the end of its life cycle. Goal 2. Assist in the development of adequate housing and provide resources to meet the needs of low- and moderate-income and special needs households. Policy 2.2 Encourage the inclusion of housing affordable to lower-income households when reviewing proposals for new housing developments. Goal 3. Address and where legally possible, remove governmental constraints to the maintenance, improvement, and development of housing, including housing for all income levels and housing for persons with disabilities. Policy 3.2 Utilize density bonuses, fee reductions, or other regulatory incentives, as available and appropriate, to minimize the effect of governmental constraints. The project will provide three units at an affordable level of moderate-income. Moderate- income housing is required for compliance with the City’s Inclusionary Housing Ordinance, which requires residential ownership projects of this size to provide 10% of the proposed units as affordable units. In addition, the applicants propose to exercise State Density Bonus Allowances that require the project to provide at least 5% of the units as moderate- income units. Design Element Policy 8.1.1 – Promote architectural design of the highest quality. Policy 8.2.2 – Promote the upgrading of properties. The proposed architecture is a significant upgrade to the existing facilities on site. The redevelopment of this site has the potential of serving as an example of higher quality architecture for future developments within the city. B. The proposed development is in accordance with the purposes and objectives of Article IX of the Downey Municipal Code (Land Use) and the zone in which the site is located. The application for a Site Plan Review is made in conjunction with an application for a Resolution No. 24-4025 Downey Planning Commission PLN-23-00035 – 7360 Foster Bridge Boulevard April 17, 2024 - Page 4 General Plan Amendment and Zone Change to modify the site from Low Density Residential and Single-Family zoning (R-1) to Medium Density Residential and Multiple Family Residential zoning (R-3). The purpose of the R-3 zone, as stated in the Downey Municipal Code, “is intended to provide for the development of multiple-family residential living areas compatible with the neighborhood environment and outdoor recreation potential of the community. Such areas are envisioned as being located and designed to be complementary to adjacent uses and at the same time provide suitable space for multiple-family living quarters.” The proposed application is in full conformance with the objective stated above. C. The proposed development’s site plan and its design features, including architecture and landscaping, will integrate harmoniously and enhance the character and design of the site, the immediate neighborhood, and the surrounding areas of the City. The proposed design of the project will integrate harmoniously with this area by providing aesthetically pleasing architecture and landscaping. The renovations to the site serve as a significant upgrade from the existing facilities. In addition, the streetscape will be enhanced as well as the transition from the street onto the site through the proposed landscaping, pedestrian access, and upgraded driveway and driveway approach. D. The site plan and location of the buildings, parking areas, signs, landscaping, luminaries, and other site features indicate that proper consideration has been given to both the functional aspects of the site development, such as automobile and pedestrian circulation, and the visual effects of the development from the view of the public streets. The site design and overall integration of the landscaping, building orientation, and driveway access is well-envisioned by the applicant. The landscaping around the front building façades creates an attractive transitional buffer between the residences and the public right of way and streets, on both Suva Street and Foster Bridge Boulevard. Exterior light lamps are carefully placed on the garage entrance and the front porch to ensure both vehicles and pedestrians are able to move around the site in a safe manner. E. The proposed development will improve the community appearance by preventing extremes of dissimilarity or monotony in new construction or in alterations of facilities. The proposed project reflects true Spanish style architecture, and reflects a high quality of architectural design. In addition, the proposed architectural style is neither dissimilar nor monotonous from other buildings in the area, and this project will upgrade the overall appearance of the site and, in turn, improve the community appearance. The proposed architectural design is described within the City R-1 Design Guidelines as a historically established Downey Characteristic style. Lastly, this proposed development will be keeping with the quality of design of recently approved projects within the city, but will not mimic those improvements. F. The site plan and design considerations shall tend to upgrade property in the immediate neighborhood and surrounding areas with an accompanying betterment of conditions affecting the public health, safety, comfort, and welfare. The proposed architecture is a significant upgrade to the existing facilities on site in the sense that it will be a newer development with major emphasis placed on building treatment and landscaping. In addition, goals and policies within the General Plan’s Housing Element are found to be consistent with the proposed project, and the creation of additional housing is categorized as a positive effect to public welfare. Lastly, conditions of approval such as privacy screening and construction hours are incorporated to avoid affects to the immediate neighborhood and surrounding areas. Resolution No. 24-4025 Downey Planning Commission PLN-23-00035 – 7360 Foster Bridge Boulevard April 17, 2024 - Page 5 G. The proposed development’s site plan and its design components will include graffiti- resistant features and materials in accordance with the requirements of Section 4960 of Chapter 10 of Article IV of the Downey Municipal Code. The project has been conditioned to meet the requirements specified in Section 4960 of the Downey Municipal Code. Section 4960 discusses the installation of anti-graffiti materials or concealment of graffiti, and the appropriate allotted time limit for the removal of graffiti. SECTION 5. Based upon the findings set forth in Sections 1 through 4 of this Resolution, the Planning Commission of the City of Downey hereby recommends the City Council approve the Site Plan Review (PLN-23-00035) and Density Bonus for the Project, subject to conditions of approval attached hereto as Exhibit ‘A’, which are necessary to preserve the health, safety, and general welfare of the community and enable the Planning Commission to make the findings set forth in the previous sections. The conditions are fair and reasonable for the accomplishment of these purposes. SECTION 6. The Secretary shall certify the adoption of this Resolution. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 17th day of April, 2024. Carrie Uva, Chair City Planning Commission I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing is a true copy of a Resolution adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Downey at a regular meeting thereof, held on the 17th day of April, 2024, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: APPROVED AS TO FORM: _______________________ John M. Funk City Attorney CERTIFICATE OF ATTESTATION AND ORIGINALITY I, Ria Ioannidis, Recording Secretary, do hereby attest to and certify that the foregoing Resolution is the original resolution adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Downey at a regular meeting held on April 17, 2024. Ria Ioannidis Recording Secretary Resolution No. 24-4025 Downey Planning Commission PLN-23-00035 – 7360 Foster Bridge Boulevard April 17, 2024 - Page 6 PLN-23-00035 (SITE PLAN REVIEW AND DENSITY BONUS) EXHIBIT A - CONDITIONS PLANNING 1) The approval of this Site Plan Review and Density Bonus (PLN-23-00035) allows for the construction of a of 33-unit townhome development to be located at 7360 Foster Bridge Boulevard. 2) This resolution, Resolution No. 24-2025, shall run concurrently with Resolutions No. 24- 2024 and 24-2026 and is equally subject to the Conditions of Approval set forth in said resolutions. 3) Failure to carry out the project details and Conditions of Approval detailed in Resolution Nos. 24-4024 and 24-4026 shall render this resolution null and void. 4) The site shall remain in substantial conformance with this request and the approved set of plans. 5) This permit shall not be construed to mean any waiver of applicable and appropriate zoning regulations, or any Federal, State, County, and City laws and regulations. Unless otherwise expressly specified, all other requirements of the City of Downey Municipal Code shall apply. 6) The Owner/Applicant agrees, as a condition of approval of this resolution, to indemnify, defend and hold harmless, at Applicant's expense, City and City's agents, officers and employees from and against any claim, action or proceeding commenced within the time period provided in Government Code Section 66499.37 to attack, review, set aside, void or annul the approval of this resolution, to challenge the determination made by City under the California Environmental Quality Act or to challenge the reasonableness, legality or validity of any condition attached hereto. City shall promptly notify Applicant of any such claim, action or proceeding to which City receives notice, and City will cooperate fully with Applicant in the defense thereof. Applicant shall reimburse the City for any court costs and attorney's fees that the City may be required to pay as a result of any such claim, action or proceeding. City may, in its sole discretion, participate in the defense of any such claim, action or proceeding, but such participation shall not relieve Applicant of the obligations of this condition. 7) The Community Development Director is authorized to make minor modifications to the approved preliminary plans or any of the conditions if such modifications shall achieve substantially the same results as would strict compliance with said plans and conditions. Any major modifications may be subject to Planning Commission review and approval. 8) Prior to the final of any building permits or occupancy of any of the units, the Final Tract Map shall be approved by the City and recorded with the County of Los Angeles. 9) Construction hours shall be limited to 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday through Saturday. There shall be no construction activities on the site outside of these hours. Resolution No. 24-4025 Downey Planning Commission PLN-23-00035 – 7360 Foster Bridge Boulevard April 17, 2024 - Page 7 10) All exterior lights on the property shall be LED and shall be directed, positioned, and/or shielded such that they do not illuminate surrounding properties and the public right-of- way. 11) Exterior lights shall be un-switched and photo-sensor controlled. Lights shall be on from dusk until dawn. Porch, patio, and deck lights for the individual units shall be excluded from this condition. 12) There shall be no roof-mounted equipment including, but not limited to, HVAC equipment. All exterior HVAC equipment shall be ground mounted or located within a balcony and screened from view. There shall be no window or wall mounted HVAC equipment. This condition shall not be interpreted to restrict photovoltaic panels mounted to the roof. 13) The applicant shall comply with the art in public places requirements set forth in Downey Municipal Code 8950 et seq. This shall include payment of all required fees prior to the issuance of building permits. Should the applicant exercise their right to install public art on site, the public art application (including payment of all deposits) shall be submitted prior to the issuance of building permits. 14) The applicant shall provide a comprehensive landscape plan incorporating drought tolerant landscaping in all landscape areas of the site at Building Permit Plan check submittal. All landscape and irrigation shall be installed in advance of the issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy issuance, and shall be permanently maintained, in perpetuity. Deviations from this Condition are subject to review and approval by the Community Development Director. 15) The applicant shall provide a screening plan with a plan check submittal for review and approval. Plans shall reflect the screening of all utility equipment including, but not limited to panels, meters, piping, fire lines, and transformers by either landscaping or a decorative laser cut metal panels. Utility closets shall be an acceptable form of screening for electrical panels and meters. The final selection of plants or design of decorative panels and utility closets shall be approved by the Community Development Director as part of the plan check permit process. 16) Utility closest(s) shall be designed to be complementary with the architectural style of the building, and shall be incorporated into the project plans submitted for Building Permit plan check review. 17) All above grade back-flow preventers and check valves shall be painted a distinguishing color as required by the Fire, Public Works, and/or Community Development Department and screened from view from the public right-of-way by either landscaping or a decorative laser cut metal panels. The final selection of plants or design decorative panels shall be approved by the Community Development Director prior to installation. 18) Both project driveway entries shall designed with enhanced paving (pavers or stamped color concrete). The Community Development Director shall review and approve final enhanced paving prior to the applicant submitting plans for Permits and Plan Check. 19) Design and placement of mailboxes shall be reviewed and approved by the Community Development Director prior to submitting plans for Permit and Plan Check, and shall be Resolution No. 24-4025 Downey Planning Commission PLN-23-00035 – 7360 Foster Bridge Boulevard April 17, 2024 - Page 8 the U.S. Post Office requirements. The design of a centralized mail location shall be architecturally compatible with the building’s architectural Spanish style. 20) All attic venting shall be architecturally consistent with the buildings. Dormer vents and/or turbine vents shall not be permitted. 21) Prior to the recording of the Final Tract Map, the applicant shall pay all Park in-lieu fees, as required by Municipal Code Section 9931.8. 22) Wall and fence heights shall comply with the approved plan set and future changes and modifications shall comply with DMC Section 9520, or an updated DMC code section at the time of installation. Wall and fence design shall be consistent with the approved architecture of the main dwelling structures. 23) All buildings and walls shall either be finished with graffiti resistant materials or the applicant and/or homeowner’s association shall paint over any graffiti applied to any surface of the property. If electing to use graffiti resistant materials, prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director, that the finished materials will comply with this requirement. 24) Any graffiti applied to the site shall be removed or painted over within 48 hours. Graffiti that is painted over shall not result in visible painting patches. The walls and building shall be left uniform color and finish after any graffiti is painted over. 25) All construction related machinery, materials, and equipment shall be stationed on-site and outside of the public right-of-way. All activity requiring work on the public right-of-way shall be required to obtain an encroachment permit from the Public Works Department. A construction layout plan outlining all construction operations (on- or off-site) shall be submitted to the Community Development Director and Building Official for review prior to the start of any grading, including but not limited to accommodations for employee parking and equipment and material staging. A construction phasing plan, shall be incorporated or be provided separately to ensure that all conditions of approval can be met and with minimal disruption to the adjacent residential uses and not relying on street parking. A proposal to construct in phases shall be pre-approved by the Community Development Director in coordination with the City’s Building Official and Public Works Director. 26) The Applicant must incorporate a copy of this Exhibit A, Conditions of Approval, into the approved set of building plans. 27) The applicant shall comply with all mitigation measures outlined in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP), as established by the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration and Resolution No. 24-4024, at all times. A copy of the MMRP shall be incorporated into the approved set of building plans. 28) Any bollards installed on-site for permanent use must be decorative in nature and shall be approved by the Community Development Director prior to installation. 29) Prior to the submittal of plans into Building and Safety Plan Check, the applicant and the property owner shall sign an affidavit of Acceptance of Conditions, as provided by the City of Downey. Resolution No. 24-4025 Downey Planning Commission PLN-23-00035 – 7360 Foster Bridge Boulevard April 17, 2024 - Page 9 30) Any violation of any of the conditions imposed is subject to the issuance of an Administrative Citation pursuant to the DMC. Density Bonus 31) This permit shall grant the right to construct an additional three (3) units as allowed per State Density Bonus Law for a total of thirty-three (33) units for the development. Units shall be maintained at a moderate income affordability level. a) A Density Bonus Housing Agreement to memorialize the provision of moderate- income level housing, and the granting of the requested concession and waivers shall be executed and recorded between the City of Downey and the Developer prior to the issuance of building permits. Said Agreement shall be recorded against the “moderate-income” inclusionary housing units, in perpetuity, as identified in the project plans. 32) The permit shall grant one (1) concession as defined by the State Density Bonus law. The concession is also follows: a) Deviation from DMC Section 1503(c) pertaining to Inclusionary Housing and need to round up when calculating the Inclusionary Housing unit requirement. The code section details how to calculate the amount of required inclusionary housing units and the need to round up to the next whole number when a calculation results in a fraction. The applicant has requested a Concession to eliminate having to “round up”, and ultimately have the inclusionary amount requirement end in a fraction. This fraction amount results in a need to provide 3.1 inclusionary units, instead of the required 4 units. With the Concession, the applicant has elected to construct three inclusionary housing units and pay an in-lieu fee for the fractional amount of 10% of a unit, which would be a total of $26,341. 33) The permit shall grant seven (7) waivers as defined by the State Density Bonus Law. The Downey Municipal Code Sections, Code Requirements, and granted waivers are as follows: Table 1 Summary of Requested Density Bonus Waivers DMC Requirement Deviation Section 9144. Definition for “Lot Area” Density calculated using the net lot size, which does not include certain easements. Applicant has request that density be calculated using gross lot size resulting in an increased allowable density. DMC Section 9312.08(a) Residential Zones Property Development Standards Setback Front Setback =15’ Ranges from 12.75’ to 14.25’ Setback Rear Setback = 46’ Reduced Rear Setback = 37.5’ Resolution No. 24-4025 Downey Planning Commission PLN-23-00035 – 7360 Foster Bridge Boulevard April 17, 2024 - Page 10 Table 1 Summary of Requested Density Bonus Waivers DMC Requirement Deviation Setback Side Setback = 10’ Reduced Sideyard Setback = 5’ Height Maximum Height = 35’ Increased Height = 37.5’ *Increased height varies for each building, between 1’ to 2’-6” DMC Section 9710.02 Parking - R-3-O Zone Design Standards Two-car garage with side by side parking Applicant has requested that 15 of the 33 dwelling units (45%) be designed with tandem garage parking. DMC Section 9312.08(b)(10) Usable Open Space Private open space requires a 10’ x 10’ minimum dimension Applicant has requested to provide private open space in the form of patios for Buildings 1, 2, and 4, and in the form of balconies for units in Building 3. The private open space provided varies in dimensions Inclusionary Housing 34) The applicant shall be required to provide a minimum of three (3) moderate-income level units, and provide an in-lieu payment for the remaining inclusionary housing requirement of .10 units as allowed per a combination of the City’s Inclusionary Housing Ordinance (IHO) and the applicant’s requested Density Bonus Concession detailed in Condition # 34 and No. 37 of this Resolution. 35) The applicant shall be required to pay an IHO in-lieu fee in the amount equal to .10 of a unit. The total fee required shall be $26,341. 36) Prior to issuance of a grading permit and/or building permit a standard City Affordability Control Covenant must be approved and executed by the Community Development Director, and recorded with the Los Angeles County Recorder’s Office by the applicant against the title of each inclusionary unit. a) If the Final Map has not been recorded at the time of issuance of a grading permit and/or building permit, an overall Interim Affordability Control Covenant shall be recorded against the residential development, and shall be replaced by separate recorded Affordability Control Covenants for each unit prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for such units. 37) All inclusionary housing units must be constructed and occupied concurrently with or prior to the construction and occupancy of market-rate units. In phased developments, inclusionary units may be constructed and occupied in proportion to the number of units in each phase of the residential development. 38) Inclusionary units produced under this chapter must be legally restricted to occupancy by households of moderate-income levels for a minimum of fifty-five (55) years. Resolution No. 24-4025 Downey Planning Commission PLN-23-00035 – 7360 Foster Bridge Boulevard April 17, 2024 - Page 11 Covenant, Conditions, and Restrictions 39) Prior to the approval of the final map, all organizational documents for the project, including any covenants, conditions, and restrictions (CC&Rs), shall be submitted to and approved by the Community Development Department and City Attorney's Office. Costs for such review shall be borne by the subdivider. 40) CC&Rs submitted to the City for review shall contain a table itemizing each of the requirements identified herein and the page/paragraph where they are addressed in the CC&Rs. 41) The approved CC&Rs shall be recorded with County Recorder’s Office concurrent with the Final Map. A copy of the final documents shall be submitted to the Community Development Department after recordation. 42) The applicant shall provide a plan for initiating the HOA administration in advance of the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy to ensure the HOA is viable upon occupancy of the project’s unit(s). No dwelling unit in the development shall be sold or a Certificate of Occupancy issued, unless a homeowner’s association has been legally formed with the right to assess all units which are jointly owned or benefitted to operate and maintain all other mutually available features of the development including, but not limited to, public and private open space, amenities, landscaping, private street, and utilities. 43) The CC&Rs shall include, but are not be limited to, the following provisions: a) The City shall be included as a party to the CC&Rs for enforcement purposes of those CC&R provisions in which the City has interest as reflected in the following provisions. However, the City shall not be obligated to enforce the CC&Rs. b) The requirement that association bylaws be established. c) Provisions for effective establishment, operation, management, use, repair, and maintenance of all common areas and facilities including open space, landscaped areas, roof decks, walls and fences, private roadways (i.e., walkways, sidewalks, paseos, driveways), lighting, and furnishings, awnings, trash enclosures, water quality management plan BMPs and private utilities, if any, shall be established in the CC&Rs. d) Private open space areas within the common area shall be illustrated on a “Private Open Space Exhibit” and shall be made part of the CC&Rs and shall specify those portions of the open space area that are allocated for private use. The CC&Rs shall include provisions for authorized uses and structures, access, maintenance, and restrictions in the private use areas to minimize noise and light disruptions to adjacent properties. e) Membership in the homeowner’s association shall be inseparable from ownership in individual units. f) Architectural controls shall be provided and may include, but not be limited to, provisions regulating architectural features, exterior finishes, roof materials, fences and walls, balconies, roof decks, accessory structures such as patios, sunshades, Resolution No. 24-4025 Downey Planning Commission PLN-23-00035 – 7360 Foster Bridge Boulevard April 17, 2024 - Page 12 trellises, gazebos, awnings, exterior mechanical equipment, television and radio antenna, consistent with the DMC. g) Maintenance standards shall be provided for applicable items listed in Section C above in CC&Rs. Examples of maintenance standards are shown below. i) All common area landscaping and private areas visible from any public way shall be properly maintained such that they are evenly cut, evenly edged, and free of debris and weeds. All trees and shrubs shall be trimmed so they do not impede vehicular or pedestrian traffic. Trees shall be pruned so they do not intrude into neighboring properties and shall be maintained so they do not have droppings or create other nuisances to neighboring properties. All trees shall also be root pruned to eliminate exposed surface roots and damage to sidewalks, driveways, and structures. ii) All private drives, sidewalks, and open space areas shall be maintained so that they are safe for users. Significant pavement cracks, pavement distress, excessive slab settlement, abrupt vertical variations, and debris on travel ways shall be removed or repaired promptly. iii) Common areas shall be maintained in such a manner as to avoid the reasonable determination of a duly authorized official of the City that a public nuisance has been created by the absence of adequate maintenance such as to be detrimental to public health, safety, or general welfare. h) Homeowner’s association approval of exterior improvements requiring a building permit shall be obtained prior to requesting a building permit from the Community Development Department. All plans for exterior improvements shall conform to requirements set forth by the City and the CC&Rs. i) All trash receptacles to be stored in the garages of the units (except during pick up day). j) Require all garages be maintained in a manner to accommodate two vehicles at all times, k) The approved Site Plan shall be made part of the CC&Rs and shall be enforced by the homeowner’s association with regard to, but not limited to, circulation, egress/ingress, fire access, and parking. In addition to the exhibit, provisions regarding parking shall be included in the CC&Rs, including the following: i) A total of seventy-one (71) parking spaces shall be available onsite. At a minimum, a total of sixty-six (66) parking spaces shall be available onsite permanently maintained at a rate of two garage spaces per dwelling unit. An additional minimum of five (5) unassigned guest spaces shall be permanently provided on site. Any changes to the parking shall be subject to the review and approval by the Community Development Department in accordance with the DMC. ii) Residents shall not store or park any non-motorized vehicles, trailers or Resolution No. 24-4025 Downey Planning Commission PLN-23-00035 – 7360 Foster Bridge Boulevard April 17, 2024 - Page 13 motorized vehicles that exceed seven (7) feet high, seven (7) feet wide, and nineteen (19) feet long in any parking space, driveway, or private street area except for the purpose of loading, unloading, making deliveries or emergency repairs except that the homeowner’s association may adopt rules and regulations to authorize exceptions. iii) Residents shall park vehicles in garage spaces. Storage of personal items may occur in the garages only to the extent that vehicles may still be parked within the required garage spaces. iv) Shall prohibit parking in any of the drive-aisles. v) The homeowner’s association shall be responsible for monitoring and enforcing all parking regulations on private property. The proposed CC&Rs shall include provisions requiring the association to develop and adopt an enforcement program for parking regulations within the development which may include measures for fire access and enforcement by a private security company. l) Provisions for enforcing individual trash cart placement at designated curb areas as shown on the approved “Trash Pick-up Plan” no earlier than noon on the day before scheduled collections and removed within twelve (12) hours of collection. m) Maintenance of all common areas, driveways, etc., shall be by the homeowner’s association. n) Television and radio antennas shall be installed in accordance with the requirements of the DMC. o) The homeowner’s association shall be required to file the names, addresses, and telephone numbers of at least one (1) member of the homeowner’s association Board and, where applicable, a manager of the project before January 1st of each year with the Community Development Department for the purpose o f contacting the association in the case of emergency or in those cases where the City has an interest in CC&R violations. p) The homeowner’s association shall be responsible for establishing and following procedures for providing access to public utilities for maintenance of their facilities within the project area, subject to those agencies' approval. q) No amendment to alter, modify, terminate, or change the homeowner’s association's obligation to maintain the common areas and the project perimeter wall or other CC&R provisions in which the City has an interest, as noted above, or to alter, modify, terminate, or change the City's right to enforce maintenance of the common areas and maintenance of the project perimeter wall, shall be permitted without the prior written approval of the Community Development Department. Homebuyer Notification 44) Prior to issuance of Temporary Certificate of Occupancy, Certificate of Occupancy, or sale Resolution No. 24-4025 Downey Planning Commission PLN-23-00035 – 7360 Foster Bridge Boulevard April 17, 2024 - Page 14 of any unit, whichever comes first, the subdivider shall submit to the Community Development Department for review and approval a homebuyer notification document that includes, but is not limited to, the notifications listed below. The notification document shall be signed by each homebuyer prior to final inspection and occupancy, and a copy of each signed notification shall be provided to the Community Development Department prior to final inspection and/or issuance of each Certificate of Occupancy. a) A notice regarding units that are adjacent to aboveground utilities or structures (such as light standards and fire hydrants) identifying the type of structure and their locations. b) A notice indicating that any use of a residence for a business shall be subject to the City's Home Occupation Ordinance and will require zoning clearance and a business license. c) A notice explaining the easements, facilities, amenities, and dedications that will be provided and indicating all on-site driveways and common areas are to be maintained by the homeowner’s association. d) A notice stating trash bins shall be placed in designated curb areas as shown on the approved “Trash Pick-up Plan” no earlier than twelve (12) hours prior to the scheduled collections and removed within twelve (12) hours of collection. e) A notice explaining and providing a copy of the approved “Parking Plan” and related CC&Rs provisions. TRACT MAP 45) The Tract Map shall be recorded with Los Angeles County Recorder’s office within one (1) year of this date, April 17, 2024. Time extensions, not to exceed one (1) year, may be granted and approved by the Community Development Director if a written request is received by the within thirty (30) days prior to expiration. 46) The Final Map shall be submitted for review, processing, and recording at least ninety (90) days prior to the expiration of the Tentative Map. 47) The final map shall be recorded in accordance with the approved Tentative Tract Map, date stamped April 17, 2024, and to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director. 48) Prior to recordation of the Final Map, current ownership evidence such as updated preliminary title reports and deeds shall be submitted for review. 49) Prior to the recording of the Final Tract Map, the applicant shall pay all Park in-lieu fees, as required by Municipal Code Section 9931.8. 50) All conditions of approval herein, as applicable, shall be satisfied prior to recordation of a final map or as otherwise specified herein. 51) In the event the project Site Plan Review project becomes expired, at the expense of the applicant the Community Development Director shall have cause and authority to revert Resolution No. 24-4025 Downey Planning Commission PLN-23-00035 – 7360 Foster Bridge Boulevard April 17, 2024 - Page 15 the lot back to its original subdivision state at the property owners expense. BUILDING 52) All construction shall comply with the current California Building Code, as adopted by the City of Downey. 53) Prior to the commencement of construction, the applicant shall obtain all required permits. Additionally, the applicant shall obtain all necessary inspections and permit final prior to occupancy of the units. FIRE 54) The following conditions related to Fire Department review shall not be construed to constitute complete review and/or approval by Downey Fire Department. 55) Adequate information related to structure dimensions, proposed street length, a detailed turn radius at vehicle access points, and fire/life safety features shall be submitted for Fire Department review as part of the Building plan check submittal. 56) A comprehensive fire access plan shall be submitted showing locations of fire hydrants, radius of culdesacs, and road widths for all areas within the proposed site shall be submitted to the Fire Department for review and approval by the Chief of Fire. [CA Fire Code, Appendix D] 57) Deferred automatic fire sprinkler plan submittal required for new Residential Group R occupancy. Automatic fire sprinkler system design, installation, and testing shall be per NFPA 13D or 13R based on the building construction type, height, fire separation, etc. [CFC § 903.2.8; DMC 3318] . Any changes to the proposed fire sprinkler design shall be reviewed and approved by the City of Downey Fire Chief and Public Works Director. 58) Premises shall be appropriately addressed. An approved address identification shall be provided that is legible and placed in a position that is visible from the street/road. Sizing shall be approved and at a minimum meet requirement of CA Fire Code [CA Fire Code §505.1] 59) Smoke alarms shall be installed in Residential Group R occupancies on the ceiling or wall or each separate sleeping areas, rooms used for sleeping, in each story within the dwelling [CA Fire Code §907.2.11.2] 60) Carbon monoxide detection shall be installed in R-occupancies dwelling units in the following locations: (1) Outside each separate sleeping area in the immediate vicinity of bedroom, (2) On every occupiable level of the dwelling unit, (3) where fuel-burning equipment is located [915.2.1] 61) Project construction shall comply with requirements set forth in the CA Building and Residential Codes for egress, construction type and height, etc. PUBLIC WORKS Resolution No. 24-4025 Downey Planning Commission PLN-23-00035 – 7360 Foster Bridge Boulevard April 17, 2024 - Page 16 62) The owner/applicant hereby consents to the annexation of the property into the Downey City Lighting Maintenance District in accordance with Division 15 of the Streets and Highways Code, and to incorporation or annexation into a new or existing Benefit Assessment or Municipal Improvement District in accordance with Division 10 and Division 12 of the Streets and Highways Code and/or Division 2 of the Government Code of the State of California. a) The owner/applicant shall install Light-Emitting Diode (LED) streetlights on Foster Bridge Boulevard and Suva Street. The applicant shall provide a site plan showing the location of the proposed streetlights. b) The owner/applicant shall hire an appropriate licensed contractor to perform said off-site street light improvements. c) The applicant shall provide an off-site streetlight improvement plan showing the location of the proposed streetlights and electrical conduits, service cabinet and SCE feed point 63) The owner/applicant shall install all new proposed utilities underground. 64) The owner/applicant shall be required to complete a construction & demolition (C&D) waste management plan per Article V, Chapter 8 of the Downey Municipal Code. 65) Broken, uneven, or sub-standard sidewalk, driveway, pavement, curb and gutter along the property frontage on Suva Street and Foster Bridge Boulevard shall be replaced to the satisfaction of the Department of Public Works. Contact the Public Works Inspection Office at (562) 904-7110 to have these areas identified just prior to applying for a Public Works Excavation Permit. The owner/applicant shall obtain all necessary plan approvals and permits and shall provide that the standards of improvements, construction materials, and methods of construction shall be in conformance with the Standard Plans and Specification for Public Works Construction and as modified by the City of Downey’s Standard Plans and Specifications. 66) The owner/applicant shall submit public improvement plan(s) for review and approval by Public Works Department. 67) Proposed public improvements shall comply with the latest edition of Standard Plans and Specifications for Public Works Construction, the City of Downey standards, and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). 68) The owner/applicant shall obtain permits from the Public Works Department for all improvements within the public right of way at least two weeks prior to commencing work. Contact Brian Aleman, Associate Civil Engineer, at (562) 904-7110 for information. 69) The owner/applicant shall remove all Underground Service Alert (USA) temporary pavement markings immediately following the completion of the work / Final permit inspection. 70) The applicant shall be responsible for the installation of street markings indicating “Keep Clear” in front of the Foster Bridge Boulevard driveway entrance on the Southbound traffic lane. It shall be the responsibility of the applicant, and/or the owner, and/or the Home Resolution No. 24-4025 Downey Planning Commission PLN-23-00035 – 7360 Foster Bridge Boulevard April 17, 2024 - Page 17 Owner’s Association to maintain such markings subject to obtaining an Encroachment Permit from the Public Works Department. The City may evaluate and request re-paintings or modifications based on the City’s traffic impact assessments at the sole cost of the applicant, and/or the owner, and/or the Home Owner’s Association. 71) The owner /applicant shall construct all driveway approaches as wide as the driveway or parking aisle they serve. All driveways serving as Fire Access shall have a minimum curb return radius of 28’ at its approach. Radius returns shall be submitted on public improvements plan(s) for review and approval by the Public Works Department. 72) The driveway approach along Suva Street shall be designated for right turns only when exiting onto Suva Street. At the owner's expense, signs shall be installed on-site and in the right-of-way indicating the turn restrictions to the motorist, prior to the issuance of the first certificate of occupancy. The locations of the signs shall be incorporated into the off- site improvements plan and approved by the Public Works Director, and designee, before issuance of a building permit. 73) The applicant, and/or the owner, and/or the Home Owner’s Association, shall be responsible for the installation of any traffic remediation devices on or off-site to prevent illegal left turns from the Suva Street exit. This shall apply in the present or the future if it is later deemed necessary by the Public Work Department. Any remediation services shall be installed and maintained at the sole cost of the applicant, and/or the owner, and/or the Home Owner’s Association. 74) The owner/applicant shall pave, with a 1.5-inch grind and overlay, the westbound lane on Suva Street and Foster Bridge Boulevard from the centerline of the street to the gutter along the property frontage. Pavement shall be to the standards of the Department of Public Works and with the appropriate permits and fees paid. 75) The facility design must provide for refuse/recycle enclosure with roof cover (location, size), should an enclosure is constructed in the present or the future, and would be subject to plan check review and permits. 76) If individual trash receptacles are proposed for each unit, trash receptacles shall be stored inside a specially designated space inside the garage. 77) The owner/applicant shall provide that all construction graffiti created as part of this project in the public right of way to be removed. 78) The owner/applicant shall submit an engineered grading plan and/or hydraulic calculations and site drainage plan for the site (prepared and sealed by a Registered Civil Engineer in the State of California) for approval by the Engineering Division and Building and Safety Division. All lot(s) shall not has less than one (1%) percent gradient on any asphalt or non-paved surface, or less than one quarter (1/4%) percent gradient on any concrete surface. Provide the following information on plans: topographic site information, including elevations, dimensions/location of existing/proposed public improvements adjacent to project (i.e. street, sidewalk, parkway and driveway widths, catch basins, pedestrian ramps); the width and location of all existing and proposed easements, the dimensions and location of proposed dedications; (for alley dedications, show elevations of the four corners of the dedication and centerline of alley, existing and proposed underground utility connections); the location, depth and dimensions of potable water, reclaimed water and Resolution No. 24-4025 Downey Planning Commission PLN-23-00035 – 7360 Foster Bridge Boulevard April 17, 2024 - Page 18 sanitary sewer lines; chemical and hazardous material storage, if any, including containment provisions; and the type of existing use, including the gross square footage of the building, and it disposition. 79) The owner/applicant shall install pavement, which consists of a minimum section of 4” thick aggregate base, and a minimum 2-1/2” thick asphalt concrete pavement. 80) Any utilities and/or above-ground utility structures that are in conflict with the development shall be relocated at the owner/applicant's expense. The owner/applicant shall coordinate the relocation with the utility owner and a proper Public Works permit will need to be pulled. 81) The owner/applicant shall furnish and install a new (min. 1-inch) dedicated potable water service line, meter, and meter box for each unit. 82) The owner/applicant shall furnish and install a (min. 1-inch) dedicated water service line, meter, and meter box for the landscaping irrigation system. 83) The owner/applicant shall furnish and install the public potable water improvements, including extension and/or replacement of existing mains and associated facilities, necessary to provide adequate fire flow and pressure to the site. 84) The owner/applicant shall install a sewer main and sewer lateral (to the front property line) for each unit in the subdivision and shall provide that the design and improvements of sewers shall be to the standards of the City Engineering Division. The owner/applicant and/or HOA is responsible for the maintenance and repair of said on-site private sewer system. Septic systems are not acceptable. 85) The owner/applicant is responsible for coordinating with and making the proper payment to the City and County Sanitation District of Los Angeles County for all sanitary sewer connection and capacity charges. 86) The owner/applicant shall provide separate sewer improvement plan sets for review and approval from the City of Downey Engineering Division prior to the start of construction. 87) The owner/applicant shall furnish and install dedicated fire protection lateral(s) including backflow devices, fire department connections, and other appurtenances as required by the Department of Public Works and the Downey Fire Department. Such improvements may include the removal and/or replacement of existing fire hydrants, laterals, backflow devices, and associated facilities with new facilities to current Downey standards and materials. Backflow devices, fire department connections, and associated appurtenances are to be located on private property and shall be readily accessible for emergency and inspection purposes. Backflow devices shall be screened from street view by providing sufficient landscaping to hide them. 88) The owner/ applicant shall confirm the availability of adequate fire flow and pressure in accordance with the Department of Public Works and Downey Fire Department requirements. 89) The owner/applicant shall retrofit existing fire hydrant(s) in accordance to the latest Fire Department and Department of Public Works standards including but not limited to furnishing and installation of a new riser, fire hydrant head, and associated fittings. Resolution No. 24-4025 Downey Planning Commission PLN-23-00035 – 7360 Foster Bridge Boulevard April 17, 2024 - Page 19 90) The owner/ applicant shall furnish and install backflow device(s) in accordance with the Department of Public Works and the State and County Department of Health Services requirements. 91) The owner/applicant shall provide and record utility easement(s) for access to, and inspection and maintenance of, public water lines, meters and appurtenances, and backflow devices. 92) Owner or tenant must establish accounts with the City Cashier prior to the City activating and the tenant using any fire and potable water service and meter. 93) The owner/applicant shall provide separate water improvement plan sets for review and approval from the City of Downey Utilities Division consisting of the following: a) Potable Water Improvement Plans (all City-owned potable water and fire service lateral improvements) Final City approved potable water main improvement plans shall be submitted on mylars and shall be signed and stamped by a State of California licensed civil engineer. Improvement plans for potable main improvement shall be both plan and profile. 94) Upon completion of water improvements, the owner/applicant shall submit red-lined construction plans to City noting all changes to the plan and profile of all water improvements installed. Such changes shall be incorporated into a final record drawing mylar which shall be signed and stamped by the original engineer and/or architect of record and submitted to the City along with digital files (AutoCAD – latest edition). 95) The Applicant shall comply with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System NPDES); Ordinance 1142 of the Downey Municipal Code (DMC); and the Low Impact Development (LID) Plan. Furthermore, the applicant shall be required to Certify and append Public Works standard “Attachment A” to all construction and grading plans as required by the LACoDPW Storm Water Quality Management Plan (SQMP). 96) Owner/applicant shall comply with the Low Impact Development requirements. The owner/applicant shall provide a separate Low Impact Development plan and report for review and approval from the City of Downey Engineering Division 97) If any hazardous material is encountered on the site that has the potential to reach the groundwater supply, the owner/applicant shall secure a permit for the State Regional Water Quality Control Board. 98) If any hazardous material is encountered on the site, the owner/applicant shall secure an ID number from the EPA. 99) Submit an addressing plan for review and approval by the Community Development Department, Police and Fire Departments prior to submitting plans into plan check or obtaining permits. Resolution No. 24-4025 Downey Planning Commission PLN-23-00035 – 7360 Foster Bridge Boulevard April 17, 2024 - Page 20 100) Provide proof establishing that the Tract Map was created in accordance with subdivision requirements (deed prior to City incorporation with current metes and bounds description, City subdivision action, or other proof). 101) The owner/applicant shall provide that no easements of any type be granted over any portion of the subdivision to any agency, utility, or organization (private or public), except to the City of Downey prior to the recordation of the tract or parcel map. The owner/applicant shall grant easements in the name of the City, including: a) Vehicular easements b) Walkway easements c) Drainage easements d) Utility easements 102) The filed map shall comply with the latest edition of the state subdivision Map Act, the City of Downey Municipal Code, and all the applicable state and local laws. Prior to recordation, the Applicant shall: a) Prepare a map under the direction of a Registered Civil Engineer authorized to practice land surveying or a Licensed Land Surveyor. The map must be processed through the Dept. of Public Works prior to being filed with the County Recorder. b) A preliminary Title Report (or a chain of title) prepared by the title company for the subdivision is required to show all fee interest holders and encumbrances. An updated title report shall be provided (not older than 90 days) before the final tract/parcel map is released for filing with the County Recorder. c) Monumentation of the tract/parcel map boundaries, street centerline, and lot boundaries is required for a map based on a record of survey. In the absence of such record, a licensed land surveyor shall set up all the missing monumentation. d) Upon City Council approval, the final tract/parcel map shall be filed by the Engineer of Record with the Los Angeles County Public Works Department for its recordation. One (1) Mylar copy of the filed map shall be submitted to the City Dept. of Public Works prior to the Certificate of Occupancy. e) Certificate of Occupancy is contingent upon the completion of the public improvements required in these conditions. If the improvements are not completed prior to the approval of the map, the owner/applicant must enter into a subdivision agreement and post a necessary Faithful and Performance Bond in the amount estimated by the Public Works Dept. guaranteeing the completion of the improvements. f) The City reserves the right to impose any new plan check and/or permit fees approved by the City Council subsequent to the Planning Commission’s tentative approval of this map. g) Any required property in the form of easement, fee simple or irrevocable offer, and any right-of-way vacation in the form accepted by the city engineer shall be shown on the map. Resolution No. 24-4025 Downey Planning Commission PLN-23-00035 – 7360 Foster Bridge Boulevard April 17, 2024 - Page 21 103) The owner/applicant shall submit a recorded mylar copy of the final map, a digital AutoCAD format file (AutoCAD 2012 or later) and scanned, uncompressed TIFF images of final map on a portable media for city’s GIS system data updates and maintenance. 104) The owner/applicant shall obtain all necessary plan approvals and permits. Downey (Foster Bridge & Bluff) 33 Townhomes – Inclusionary Housing Plan Last Revised: 2/23/24 Introduction This Inclusionary Housing Plan for the Foster Bridge & Bluff 33 townhome development (the Project) proposed by Olson Urban Housing, LLC (Olson) is required pursuant to Downey Municipal Code Sections 1507 and 9512.22. The Community Development Director must approve the Inclusionary Housing Plan prior to deeming the Project complete for hearing. This plan provides the inclusionary housing details required for Downey’s Community Development Director’s review and approval. Affordable Housing Covenant Prior to issuance of a grading permit or building permit, whichever is requested first, a standard City affordability control covenant must be approved and executed by the Community Development Director, executed by the applicant, and recorded against the title of each inclusionary unit. For residential subdivisions, if subdivision into individual property parcels has not been finalized at the time of issuance of a grading permit or building permit, an overall interim affordability control covenant shall be recorded against the residential development, and shall be replaced by separate recorded affordability control covenants for each unit prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for such units. Project Summary As part of the Downey (Foster Bridge & Bluff) community, and subject to final City approval, Olson will construct 33 attached three-story townhomes. Three of these homes will be set aside for moderate income families at or below 120% of Area Median Income for LA County, as published annually by State HCD, less the applicable utility allowance provided by LA County, updated annually. Required Plan Elements: Number of Affordable Units – 3 Location of Affordable Units – See attached depiction below, showing units 29, 31, and 32 in building 4 as the income restricted units Structure Configuration – Attached Affordable Home Size – 3 bedroom / 3 bathroom (1,182 square feet) Market Rate Home Sizes – Range from 3 bed / 3 bath to 3 bedroom + den / 3.5 bath (1,489 – 1,781 sf) Income Limit on Affordable Homes – Buyers must make less than 120% of LA County Area Median Income (AMI), i.e., moderate income households Method to advertise availability of Inclusionary Units - In accordance with the City of Downey’s Affordable Housing Policies and Procedures, Olson will work with Downey Housing and Community Development staff to establish a sales procedure that will initially market the affordable homes to Downey residents and those who work in Downey, subject to all applicable Fair Housing Laws. For example, the townhomes could be advertised in a local newspaper or posted on another agreed upon media source, for a period of 15 calendar days following the Phase 2 affordable sales release, which would give Downey residents (or those who work in Downey) a head start in submitting their application for purchase . Following that 15 day priority period, the affordable housing buyer pool would be opened to the general public. The final marketing procedure will be agreed to as part of the affordable housing covenant to be signed by Olson and the City of Downey, and recorded prior to issuance of building permits or grading permit. Phasing Plan - The location of the three affordable homes are in Phase II (located within building 4) per the DRE/Construction phasing map below, in units 29, 31, and 32. The affordable homes will be built right after Building 1 (facing Foster Bridge) is complete. Building 1 needs to be constructed first, as it contains the model homes and sales office. Market rate homes in buildings 2 and 3 will be constructed in Phase III. Modifications (Waivers) and Concessions Requested under State Density Bonus Law Pursuant to SDBL (Govt. Code Section 65915), because the Project will provide at least 10 percent of its base maximum units as inclusionary units, the Project may include the following benefits: 1. A five percent density bonus over the maximum allowed residential density; 2. One mandatory concession/incentive;3. Waivers of development standards that would physically preclude the construction of the Project; and 4. Applicable mandatory maximum residential parking standards. Please note that under SDBL, in order to encourage the development of housing, and affordable housing in particular, SDBL defines a "density bonus" as an increase over the City's "otherwise maximum allowable gross residential density" as of the date of the application. (Gov. Code Section 65915(f)). Downey Municipal Code Section 9128 defines gross density as “the total number of dwelling units divided by the total (gross) area of the site.” As such, the Project utilizes SDBL’s gross residential density definition, consistent with Gov. Code Section 65915(f). The proposed ten percent moderate income units also result in a five percent density bonus. The R-3-O zone in Downey calculates density using 1,815 per unit, and is calculated as follows: Allowable Density 1.29 ac (Gross) x 43,560 = 56,029 (gross SF per TTM) / 1,815 = 30.86 (base density) 30.86 x 1.05 (density bonus) = 32.413 Round up to 33 units total. Utilization of net density would physically preclude the Project, as proposed since it would result in a base density of 29.51 dwelling units. Government Code Section 65915(f) requires the use of gross density in State Density Bonus Law projects, such as this one. Further, Government Code Section 65915(r) requires the City to maximize the production of housing units. Please see attached recent Technical Advisory Letters from the California Department of Housing and Community Development to the cities of Watsonville and Agoura, respectively, mandating the use of gross density in State Density Bonus Law projects. Affordable Requirement 30.86 (base density) x ten percent (inclusionary affordable requirement) = 3.086 units. 3 affordable units will be provided on site, and a 0.086 fractional unit is proposed to be paid as an in lieu fee as discussed, with Staff and the City Attorney’s office. As noted below, Olson will pay the fractional lieu fee and use the one concession allowed under SB1818, to facilitate the 3 moderate units + fractional in lieu fee to meet the density bonus threshold of 10% moderate income units. Note: Olson proposes to comply with the State Density Bonus Law requirement of ten percent moderate income units on-site, consistent with the City of Downey’s Inclusionary Housing Requirement. As shown in Table 2.8 of the City's Housing Element, the City has a Regional Housing Needs Allocation ("RHNA") of 915 moderate-income units and 2,585 above-moderate income units. The Project, with its density bonus, would help the City achieve its housing goals. Incentives/Concessions Because the Project provides ten percent of its base maximum units for low income households, it may access one concession/incentive.1 A concession is defined to include, among other things, “reduction in site development standards or a modification of zoning code requirements or architectural design requirements,” including a reduction in setbacks and square footage requirements, and “[o]ther regulatory incentives or concessions proposed by the developer or the city, county, or city and county that result in identifiable and actual cost reductions to provide for affordable housing costs."2 As indicated above, the Project would pay a fractional in lieu fee for the 0.086 moderate income dwelling unit. Providing an in lieu fee for the less than 0.10 dwelling unit would make the Project more financially feasible and thereby reduce the cost of providing affordable housing. 1 Govt. Code Section 65915(d)(2)(A). 2 Govt. Code Section 65915(k). Modifications/Waivers In addition to a limited number on concessions/incentives, SDBL specifies that a project may access a waiver from “any development standard that will have the effect of physically precluding the construction of a development . . . at the densities or with the concessions or incentives permitted by this section.”3 Waivers are separate from and additional to concessions/incentives, are unlimited, and approval is required if the standard would preclude development of the Project at its permitted density and with its incentives/concessions incorporated. 3 Govt. Code Section 65915(e)(1). Front Setback along Suva Street – Waiver Request The front yard required setback per Downey Municipal Code (Section 9312.08 Table 9.3.4) under the R3O zone is 15’. However, based on difficult site geometry and movement in the building elevation, the front setback is varied, with a minimum setback of 12.9’ as depicted on the site plan. Providing a 15 foot front yard setback would result in the reduction of nine dwelling units facing Suva Street. Olson requests relief through a waiver under SDBL to allow for this reduced setback, given that without the waiver of the front yard setback, a significant number of dwelling units would face elimination. Rear Setback to Adjacent R-1 Use – Waiver Request As noted under rear yard minimum setbacks in Downey Municipal Code (Section 9312.08 Table 9.3.4), if an R-3 community abuts an R-1 zoned property, the setback from a three-story building to the property line is 46’. The site plan has been carefully designed to maximize the rear yard setback, with landscape buffering at the property line. However, providing the full 46 foot rear yard setback would cause the loss of at least six dwelling units. The Project would provide a minimum rear yard setback of 37.5’. Olson requests relief under a waiver to allow for this reduced setback. Without the waiver the Project would not achieve the allowable density and the affordable housing Project would be infeasible. Side Yard Setback Adjacent to R-1 Zoned Property – Waiver Request Olson requests a waiver for a reduced side yard setback (DMC Section 9312.08). The interior side setback along the storage is typically five foot minimum in the R3O zone, but there is a footnote in Table 9.3.4 that requires the interior side yard setback to be ten feet when abutting an R1 zone. While a storage use is typically commercial, the storage facility is located within an underlying R1 zone. If the Project were to provide a ten foot side yard setback adjacent to the storage use, at least three dwelling units would be lost, along with private open space, important amenities for the Project. Private and Common Open Space – Waiver Request The community open space design provides a combination of common and private open space areas. While sufficient space is provided (6,958 provided with 6,600 required – see sheet L.4), it does not meet the minimum dimension specified in Downey Municipal Code (Section 9312.08(b)(10)) which is 15’ for common and 10’ for private open space. Therefore, Olson requests a waiver under SDBL of the minimum open space dimensions. Private open spaces include a combination of front patios and second floor balconies on some of the interior units, which enhance the community and promote indoor-outdoor living. The common area features a network of landscaped paseos which provide an attractively landscaped interior, while providing pedestrian connections from front entries to the public streets. If the Project were to provide the required minimum dimensions for the open space, the Project would lose approximately 6 dwelling units. Building Height – Waiver Request Olson requests a waiver under the SDBL to allow an increase in height of structures to a maximum of 40’ above the lowest adjacent grade in lieu of the R-3-0 (R3 ownership) height limit of 35 feet. The five foot increase in height requested is due to grade transitions along Foster Bridge Road and Suva Street which create steps in the building to address grade, and to allow room for HVAC equipment inside the attic spaces. The proposed three-story townhomes are set back 37.5’ from the northerly property line which is shared with an adjacent single family home, thereby creating sufficient distance from this use. If the Project were to be reduced to 35 feet in height, the top level of the Project’s buildings would need to be eliminated, thereby physically precluding the Project as proposed. Olson has thus far identified the need for four modifications/waivers and one concession:  Waivers o Front Yard Setback on Suva Street – 15’ (reduce to 12.9’ min) o Rear Setback Reduction at North property line – 46’ (reduce to 37.5’ min) o Waiver of Common (15’) and Private Open Space (10’) minimum dimensions o Building height waiver, increasing the maximum height from 35’ to 40’.  Concession - Payment of affordable in lieu fee for fractional unit Olson may also require further waivers through the City's application review and approval process prior to the City determining the application is complete. Gross Density Pursuant to Government Code Sections 65915(f) and 65915(r), no waiver is necessary to deviate from the City’s net density calculation. This position is further endorsed by the California Department of Housing and Community Development’s Technical Assistance Letters to the cities of Watsonville and Agoura. Nevertheless, while not required pursuant to State Law, Olson conservatively requests a waiver of the City’s net density provision in the Downey Municipal Code and requests the use of gross density. Without relief from the development standard, the Project would be precluded from developing several dwelling units. Mandatory Parking Reduction Pursuant to Govt. Code Section 65915(p), the Project is entitled to an applicable maximum parking requirement of one space per zero to one bedroom unit, 1.5 spaces per two to three bedroom units, and 2.5 parking spaces for the four bedroom units, inclusive of all guest parking. The Project is entirely three bedroom units, requiring 49.5 parking spaces (1.5 x 33), rounded to 50 parking spaces, per SDBL. The Project would provide 66 garage parking spaces and five guest parking spaces, exceeding SDBL’s parking requirements by 21 parking spaces. Any 4th bedroom options that are selected by buyers would increase the minimum parking requirement by one space per unit. Please note that ample additional street parking for guests is available along the Project frontage on Foster Bridge Blvd. & Suva Street. Master Affordable Housing Covenant The Inclusionary Housing Plan terms will be formalized in a master covenant between the City of Downey and Olson (or affiliated Olson ownership entity), which will be recorded, and released upon the successful sale of the three affordable homes to qualified moderate-income buyers. RESOLUTION NO. 24-4026 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DOWNEY RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 84168 (PLN-23-00035) FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 7360 FOSTER BRIDGE BOULEVARD (APN NO.: 6358-015-058) THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DOWNEY DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The Planning Commission of the City of Downey does hereby find, determine and declare that: A.On March 20, 2023, the applicant, Steve Armanino (a representative of the Olson Company), submitted a request for a Site Plan Review, Tentative Tract Map, Density Bonus, General Plan Amendment, and Zone Change, to construct a new 33-unit townhome development at 7360 Foster Bridge Boulevard (“Project”). B.On April 20, 2023, the applicant was issued a letter deeming the application incomplete. C.On June 14, 2023, upon review of partially submitted materials. the applicant was issued a subsequent letter deeming the application incomplete. D.On September 18, 2023, upon review of partially submitted materials, the applicant was issued a subsequent letter deeming the application incomplete. E.On February 14, 2024, upon review of newly submitted supporting documents, the applicant was issued a subsequent letter deeming the application incomplete. F.On March 28, 2024, upon review of all required materials submitted, the applicant was issued a letter deeming the application complete. G.The Project is required to undergo an environmental review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the state CEQA Guidelines. Through its consultant, the City prepared an Initial Study leading to a Mitigated Negative Declaration (“IS/MND”) for the Project. On November 22, 2023, in accordance with the requirement of the California Environmental Quality Act, a Notice of Intent to adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration was submitted to the Los Angeles County Recorder’s Office. The Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Project reflects the City’s independent judgment and analysis as lead agency for the Project. H. Based on the IS/MND, the Project would have no impact or a less than significant impact on the following environmental issue areas: Agriculture and Forestry Resources, Air Quality, Energy, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Hydrology and Water Quality, Land Use and Planning, Mineral Resources, Population and Housing, Public Services, Recreation, Transportation, Utilities and Service Systems, and Wildfire. The Project’s impacts on the following issue areas would be less than significant with the implementation of mitigation: Aesthetics, Biological Resolution No. 24-4026 Downey Planning Commission PLN-23-00035 – 7360 Foster Bridge Boulevard (Tentative Tract Map) April 17, 2024 - Page 2 Resources, Cultural Resources, Geology, Soils, and Paleontological Resources, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Noise and Tribal Cultural Resources. All impacts would be less than significant after mitigation. I. On April 4, 2024, a notice of public hearing for a General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Site Plan Review, Tentative Tract Map, Density Bonus, and Initial Study/Mitigate Negative Declaration was sent to all tenants and property owners within 500’ of the subject site, as well as to interested parties and outside agencies, and the notice was published in Downey Patriot. J. The Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on April 17, 2024, and after fully considering all oral and written testimony, facts, and opinions offered at the aforesaid public hearing adopted this resolution. At the same hearing, the Planning Commission took the following actions: (1) Recommend that the City Council approve a General Plan Amendment to modify the General Plan Designation from Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential, Zone Change from Single Family Residential to Medium Density Residential, and adopt an IS/MND for the property located at 7360 Foster Bridge Boulevard (Resolution No. 24-4024) and (2) recommend that the City Council approve a Site Plan Review and Density Bonus to construct a 33-unit residential condominium townhome ownership development for property located at 7360 Foster Bridge Boulevard (Resolution No. 24-4025) SECTION 2. Having considered all of the oral and written evidence presented to it at said public hearing regarding the Tentative Tract Map (TTM), the Planning Commission further finds, determines, and declares that: A. The proposed map is consistent with applicable general and specific plans. The map most closely helps promote Policy 1.4.3. relating to promoting home ownership and detail below. In addition, the tract map is filed in conjunction with a General Plan Amendment which if approved would render the proposed map in full compliance with the City’s General Plan. Policy 1.4.3 – Promote home Ownership Program 1.4.3.1. Promote ownership-based housing, such as condominiums, townhouses, and planned unit developments. The above policy is applicable to and promoted by the proposed map because the project involves the construction of townhomes. Thus, the General Plan must encourage the proposed map because in order to establish common ownership property of housing such as townhomes, a tentative tract map must be accompanied and approved. B. The design or improvements of the proposed subdivision are consistent with applicable general and specific plans. Specifically, the project will increase housing inventory and will do so on a residentially zoned site with under-utilized density. The following policy is promoted by the proposed tentative tract map: Policy 2.2 – Encourage infill development and recycling of land to provide adequate residential sites. Resolution No. 24-4026 Downey Planning Commission PLN-23-00035 – 7360 Foster Bridge Boulevard (Tentative Tract Map) April 17, 2024 - Page 3 The TTM promotes the above policy by utilizing an already developed lot (with a religious institution) to create dwelling units on a residentially zoned lot that is not developed with housing units. In addition, the project also helps the site reach its appropriate density capacity under the City’s Multiple Family Residential zone. The project site is ideal for this type of construction due to the proposed zoning, general plan designation modifications, and available infrastructure. C. The site is physically suitable for the type of development. The site can be described as regular (in-terms of shape or slope) when developed as a whole and as a townhome/condominium subdivision. Other types of subdivisions do present complications due to the sites diamond shaped irregular configuration. The site holds characteristics common for properties with similar uses and similar infrastructure. Lastly, the proposed site plan provides appropriate life and safety Building Code and Fire Code regulations. D. The site is physically suitable for the proposed density of the development. The subject property is approximately 1.35 acres, and is allowed a maximum density of 30 units per the City’s R-3 zone. This is also consistent with density policy set forth in the City’s General Plan. The site will accommodate three additional units per allowances provided in California Density Bonus Law. E. The design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements is not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure wildlife or their habitat. The project site is in an urban setting surrounded by urban uses. There are also no known wildlife habitats within the City. In addition, the subject property is an already developed lot. Therefore, the proposed map and development will not cause or contribute to impacts not already existing on the site or in the general area. In addition, environmental impacts related to, but not limited to, biological resources, noise, traffic, light, and aesthetics have been have been identified as less than significant per the findings of a Mitigated Negative Declaration conducted for the project. F. The design of the subdivision or type of improvements is not likely to cause serious public health problems. The design of the project has been carefully laid out to avoid conditions that could result in serious public health problems. Pedestrian circulation is separated from vehicle traffic with the use of walkways that connect all entrances to the units. The site layout works best to facilitate vehicle movement while maximizing pedestrian safety. Accordingly, the functional aspects of the site development from the view of the public street have been properly considered in the development proposal. Furthermore, the proposed development has been found, per technical studies, to not hold the capability of generating impacts that significantly alter existing conditions. Rather any impacts related to the nearby area are currently established and not a result of the application. G. The design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of property with the proposed subdivision. The review of the Tentative Tract Map and title report reflect no such easements within the subject property. Overhead utility lines are located across the street along both street frontages, but are located on the Resolution No. 24-4026 Downey Planning Commission PLN-23-00035 – 7360 Foster Bridge Boulevard (Tentative Tract Map) April 17, 2024 - Page 4 public right-of-way. SECTION 3. Based upon the findings set forth in Sections 1 and 2 of this Resolution, the Planning Commission of the City of Downey hereby recommends the City Council approve Tentative Tract Map No. 84168, subject to conditions of approval attached hereto as Exhibit ‘A’, which are necessary to preserve the health, safety and general welfare of the community and enable the Planning Commission to make the findings set forth in the previous sections. The conditions are fair and reasonable for the accomplishment of these purposes. SECTION 4. The Secretary shall certify the adoption of this Resolution. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 17th day of April, 2024. Carrie Uva, Chair City Planning Commission I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing is a true copy of a Resolution adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Downey at a regular meeting thereof, held on the 17th day of April, 2024, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: APPROVED AS TO FORM: _______________________ John M. Funk City Attorney CERTIFICATE OF ATTESTATION AND ORIGINALITY I, Ria Ioannidis, Recording Secretary, do hereby attest to and certify that the foregoing Resolution is the original resolution adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Downey at a regular meeting held on April 17, 2024. Ria Ioannidis Recording Secretary Resolution No. 24-4026 Downey Planning Commission PLN-23-00035 – 7360 Foster Bridge Boulevard (Tentative Tract Map) April 17, 2024 - Page 5 PLN-23-00035 (TENTATIVE TRACT MAP) EXHIBIT A - CONDITIONS PLANNING 1) The approval of Tentative Tract Map No. 84168 (PLN-23-00035) allows for the subdivision of airspace and common interest ownership for a 33-unit residential condominium townhome ownership development on a property located at 7360 Foster Bridge Boulevard. 2) Tentative Tact Map No. 84168 is associated with a General Plan Amendment and Zone Change as outlined in Resolution No. 24-4024 and a Site Plan Review and Density Bonus as outlined in Resolution No. 24-4025. This resolution, Resolution No. 24-2026, shall run concurrently with Resolutions No. 24-2024 and 24-2025 and is equally subject to the Conditions of Approval set forth in said Resolutions. 3) Failure to carry out the approvals and Conditions of Approval detailed in Resolution Nos. 24-4024 and 24-4025 shall render this Resolution null and void. 4) Major deviations or exceptions from this plan shall not be permitted without the approval of the City of Downey Planning Commission. Minor administrative adjustments may be approved subject to the approval of the Director of Public Works. 5) Approval of Tentative Tract Map No. 84168 shall not be construed to mean any waiver of applicable and appropriate zoning regulations, or any Federal, State, County, and City laws and regulations. Unless otherwise expressly specified, all other requirements of the City of Downey Municipal Code shall apply. 6) The Owner/Applicant agrees, as a condition of approval of this resolution, to indemnify, defend and hold harmless, at Applicant's expense, City and City's agents, officers and employees from and against any claim, action or proceeding commenced within the time period provided in Government Code Section 66499.37 to attack, review, set aside, void or annul the approval of this resolution, to challenge the determination made by City under the California Environmental Quality Act or to challenge the reasonableness, legality or validity of any condition attached hereto. City shall promptly notify Applicant of any such claim, action or proceeding to which City receives notice, and City will cooperate fully with Applicant in the defense thereof. Applicant shall reimburse the City for any court costs and attorney's fees that the City may be required to pay as a result of any such claim, action or proceeding. City may, in its sole discretion, participate in the defense of any such claim, action or proceeding, but such participation shall not relieve Applicant of the obligations of this condition. 7) The Community Development Director is authorized to make minor modifications to the approved preliminary plans described in the accompanying Resolutions or any of the conditions if such modifications shall achieve substantially the same results as would strict compliance with said plans and conditions. 8) Prior to the issuance of building and/or grading permits, the Final Tract Map No. 84168 shall be approved by the City and recorded with the Los Angeles County Recorder. Tentative Tract Map No. 84168 shall not become effective until the Downey City Council Resolution No. 24-4026 Downey Planning Commission PLN-23-00035 – 7360 Foster Bridge Boulevard (Tentative Tract Map) April 17, 2024 - Page 6 approves the Final Tract Map, and said Map is recorded with the Los Angeles County Recorder. 9) Prior to the recording of the Final Tract Map, the applicant shall pay all Park in-lieu fees, as required by Municipal Code Section 9931.8. 10) The Tract Map shall be recorded with Los Angeles County Recorder’s office within one (1) year of this date, April 17, 2024. Time extensions, not to exceed one (1) year, may be granted and approved by the Community Development Director if a written request is received by the within thirty (30) days prior to expiration. 11) The Final Map shall be submitted for review, processing, and recording at least ninety (90) days prior to the expiration of the Tentative Map. 12) The final map shall be recorded in accordance with the approved Tentative Tract Map, date stamped April 17, 2024, and to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director. 13) Prior to recordation of the Final Map, current ownership evidence such as updated preliminary title reports and deeds shall be submitted for review. 14) All conditions of approval herein, as applicable, shall be satisfied prior to recordation of a final map or as otherwise specified herein. 15) In the event the project Site Plan Review project becomes expired, at the expense of the applicant the Community Development Director shall have cause and authorize to revert the lot back to its original subdivision state at the property owner’s expense. PREPARED BY: ALAN R. SHORT, P.E. 726.3 W Galen Drive Herriman, UT 84096 (949)586-5200AI.ANSHORTPE@GMAIL.COM fll__gfk{ ALAN R. SHORT, P.E. R.C.E. 30873, EXPIRES 3/31/24 s.oo• ' 0, ·"' 0, ·"' ..,. - . -"' - ------ DEVELOPER: THE OLSON COMPANY 3010 OLD RANCH PARKWAY, SUITE 100 SEAL BEACH, CALIFORNIA 90740-2750 (562)596-4770 ATTENTION: MR. STEVE ARMANINO 7 0--iq N_ao·s2·20"--� 12.2.93•-- / 28 0 �1 --- I ) I --- -ii""--------1 □□ □I I I -\ I I I ' I 3 -\ I I FF=137.71 \ PAD=137.0 □ 10• STEP ' I 5 -\ al I C I r z FF=138.54 □ G) PAD=137.8 □ � 10• SIEP 7 □ I I I -I 9 7.5 I FF 139.37 ' PA =138.7 10 1 1 □ □ FF=140.20 PAD=139.5 12 13 I I I "'"'"' I'"' �N - 0z I r I I I I I I 71 0 U) I ---1 fTl :::;{] I lgi 10 C) fTl I m � 10I N Scale 1" 20' VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT No. 84168 SITE PLAN DOWNEY FOSTER BRIDGE 1/10/24 SHEET 1 OF 1 Date Stamped April 17, 2024 Attachment H (Exhibit B) LEGAL DESCRIPTION: TENTATIVE TRACT No. 84168 A VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP FIRST AMERICAN TITLE COMPANY ORDER NUMBER: OSA-6878682 (2) Real property in the City of Downey, County of Los Angeles, State of California, described as follows: THAT PORTION OF THE RANCHO SANTA GERTRUDES, CONVEYED BY DEED RECORDED IN BOOK 2282 PAGE 196 OF DEEDS, AND ALSO THE MOST WESTERLY PORTION OF THE LAND CONVEYED TO JOHN G. DOWNEY AND JAMES MACFARLAND TO JOHN MCELRATH BY DEED RECORDED IN BOOK 18 PAGE 609 OF DEEDS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY, IN THE CITY OF DOWNEY, FOR CONDOMINIUM PURPOSES IN THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, THAT LIES WESTERLY OF THE COUNTY ROAD AND BEING FURTHER DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT AN ANGLE POINT IN THE CENTER LINE OF THE COUNTY ROAD, AS SHOWN ON COUNTY SURVEYOR'S MAP NO. 7286 MARKED STATION 31-97-7 /10 ON SAID MAP; THENCE ALONG SAID CENTER LINE NORTH 2' oo· 40" WEST 720.06 FEET TO AN ANGLE POINT IN SAID ROAD; THENCE NORTH 57' 53' 1 O" WEST ALONG SAID CENTER LINE 100 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 15' 30' 58" WEST ALONG THE WESTERLY LINE OF THE LAND CONVEYED BY DEED RECORDED IN BOOK 2282 PAGE 196 OF DEEDS, 645.49 FEET TO THE MOST WESTERLY CORNER OF THE LAND CONVEYED TO SAID MCELRATH; THENCE ALONG THE SOUTHWESTERLY LINE OF THE LAND CONVEYED TO SAID MCELRATH, SOUTH 58" 20' 1 O" EAST 333.08 FEET; THENCE NORTH 2' oo· 40" WEST 24.03 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. EXCEPT THEREFROM SAID LAND THAT PORTION THEREOF CONVEYED TO THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES BY DEED RECORDED IN BOOK 143 PAGE 91 OF DEEDS, AND ANY PORTION THEREOF INCLUDED WITHIN THE LAND CONVEYED TO SAID COUNTY, BY DEED RECORDED IN BOOK 16 PAGE 74 Of DEEDS. ALSO EXCEPT THAT PORTION OF SAID LAND LYING NORTHWESTERLY OF THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED LINE: BEGINNING AT THE NORTHWESTERLY TERMINUS OF THE CENTER LINE OF THAT STRIP OF LAND, 40 FEET WIDE, DESCRIBED IN DEED TO COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES RECORDED IN BOOK 143 PAGE 91 OF DEEDS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY, THENCE SOUTH 25' 19' 43" WEST 622.19 FEET TO THE MOST NORTHERLY CORNER OF TRACT NO. 3327, AS SHOWN ON MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 36 PAGE 38 OF MAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY, AS CONDEMNED FOR FLOOD CONTROL CHANNEL BY FINAL DECREE OF CONDEMNATION ENTERED IN CASE NO. 590754, SUPERIOR COURT. ALSO EXCEPT THAT PORTION OF SAID LAND LYING NORTHERLY OF A LINE, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT AN ANGLE POINT IN THE CENTER LINE OF THE COUNTY ROAD AS SHOWN ON COUNTY SURVEYOR'S MAP NO. 7286 MARKED STATION 31-97-7 /10 ON SAID MAP; THENCE ALONG SAID CENTER LINE NORTH T oo· 40" WEST 350.85 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE NORTH 79' 25' 35" WEST TO THE NORTHWESTERLY LINE OF SAID LAND. EXCEPTING THEREFROM THAT PORTION OF LAND CONVEYED TO SHIKA, INC. IN GRANT DEEDRECORDED JULY 16, 1979 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 1979-774544 IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER. EXISTING EASEMENTS: [lJ An easement for Pipe Lines and incidental purposes, recorded in Book 6559 of Deeds, Page 298. In Favor of: San Antonio Irrigation Company Affects: as described therein The location of the easement cannot be determined from record infonmation. [±] An easement for Public Road and Highway Purposes and incidental purposes, recorded as Book 37685, Page 200 of Official Records. In Favor of: County of Los Angeles Affects: as described therein [fil An easement for Public Road and Highway Purposes and incidental purposes, recorded April 13, 1953 as Book 41461, Page 175 of Official Records. In Favor of: County of Los Angeles Affects: as described therein []] An easement for Public Road and Highway Purposes and incidental purposes, recorded May 14, 1969 as Book D-4369, Page 126 of Official Records. In Favor of: City of Downey Affects: as described therein [2J An easement shown or dedicated on the Assessor Map. For: SLOPE and incidental purposes. D WLY R/W 10' ---EXISTING ROA EASEMENT & PROPOSED ROAD DEDICA v-- TION VARIES 8'-5' I I 30' VARIES 22'-25' 50' 40' 20' 13' 7' ELY R/W SLY R/W 1 o· 60' 30' 20' 30' 20' 1 o· NLY R/W -L--------..r-"\ --� �--rr -------::1-� --�� -r'C.-- N.T.S. 2' N.T.S. ----�--I ' � == --_..,."""""----== == ""�-J I. ------�--� FOSTER BRIDGE BLVD. SECTION A-A PUBLIC UTILITY & ACCESS EASEMENT 24' I 20• 2' I PROPOSED AC PAVEMENT PRIVATE DRIVE SECTION C-C N.T.S. 2' N.T.S. 1 -�=====�a:-==��.�J I�-. -----�-� SUVA STREET SECTION B-B PUBLIC UTILITY & ACCESS EASEMENT 30' 26' PROPOSED AC PAVEMENT PRIVATE DRIVE SECTION D-D PROPOSED 6" CURB & GUTTER 2' N.T.S. GENERAL NOTES 1.EXISTING LAND USE: CHURCH 2.PROPOSED LAND USE: 33 MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUMS. 3.EXISITING GENERAL PLAN:LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL 4.PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN:MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL 5.EXISTING ZONING:R-1 6000 6.PROPOSED ZONING:R-3-0 7.WATER SERVICE PROVIDED BY: CITY OF DOWNEY. 8.SEWER SERVICE PROVIDED BY: CITY OF DOWNEY. 9.ALL PROPOSED UTILITIES ARE TO BE UNDERGROUND (OTHER THAN FOR TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION PURPOSES AND EXISTING POLE LINES). 10.ELECTRIC SERVICE PROVIDED BY: SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON. 11.GAS SERVICE PROVIDED BY: NONE 12.TELEPHONE SERVICE PROVIDED BY: VERIZON. 13.CABLE TELEVISION PROVIDED BY: TIME WARNER. 14.PROJECT IS WITHIN THE DOWNEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT. 15.STREET IMPROVEMENTS SHOWN HEREON SHALL MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CITY OF DOWNEY. 16.ALL LOTS SHALL BE HOMEOWNER OR HOMEOWNER ASSOCIATION MAINTAINED. 17.PROPERTY IS LOCATED WITHIN FLOOD ZONE "X", (AREAS OF MINIMAL HAZARD), PER FIRM MAP NUMBER 06037C1810F, EFFECTIVE DATE SEPTEMBER 26, 2008. 18.ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBERS:6358-015-058 19.PARKING PROVIDED: 66 ENCLOSED (2 PER UNIT IN GARAGE) 5 GUEST 71 TOTAL DENSl1Y CALCULATIONS: PROPOSED CONDMINIUMS: NET LOT AREA: PROPOSED DENSITY: 33 UNITS 1.22 AC 27.1 DU/AC PROPOSED LOT AREA: GROSS AREA = 56,029 SF -1 .29 AC FOSTER BRIDGE BLVD. ROAD DEDICATION = NET AREA - LOT 1 = 2,755 SF - 53,274 SF - 53,274 SF - 0.07 AC 1.22 AC 1.22 AC PROPER1Y ADDRESS: 7360 FOSTER BRIDGE BOULEVARD DOWNEY, CA 90240 PUBLIC UTILITY & ACCESS EASEMENT 35.5' 22.5' 9' PARKING PROPOSED AC PAVEMENT PRIVATE DRIVE SECTION E-E I 2' I VICINl1Y MAP NTS THOMAS GUIDE: 706, A-1 DEVELOPER: THE OLSON COMPANY 3020 OLD RANCH PARKWAY, SUITE 100 SEAL BEACH, CALIFORNIA 90740-2750 (562)596-4770 ATTENTION: MR. STEVE ARMANINO PREPARED BY: No. 30873 EXP. 3/31/24 ►7263 W Galen Drive Herriman, UT 84096(949)586-5200Al.ANSHORTPE@GMAIL.COM ALAN R. SHORT, P .E. ()j{M�ck+- ALAN R. SHORT, P.E. R.C.E. 30873, EXPIRES 3/31/24 STATEMENT OF OWNERSHIP: DATE: 11/1/23 WE, THE UNDERSIGNED, DO HEREBY STATE THAT WE ARE THE RECORD OWNERS OF THE PROPERTY COMPRISING THIS VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP AND THAT WE HAVE CONSENTED TO THE FILING OF SAID MAP. LORDS GRACE OF DOWNEY CHURCH CORPORATION ATTN: JEREMIAH KERKHOFF p.miah 1972@gmail.com BY: _____________ _ DATE: EXISTING ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBERS: 6358 -015-058 SCALE: DATE: GROSS AREA: CONTOUR: TOTAL LOTS: 1" = 20' 11/1/23 ±1.46 AC 1 • 1 NUMBERED VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 84168 SHEET C1 OF 3 Date Stamped April 17, 2024 Attachment H (Exhibit B) -- ' \31\.A-9 / _,., I \ \ \ fG \ \ \ \ JJ 136.17 IJS.10 Jo 136.50 FS 1 J{30 Gf:135� ) I I I I I 111+I I -_-_-'...l / " II,'-'"' "' 11 u,a --------- -- 137.38 1 FS \ D FF=137.71 PAD=137.0 137.38FS -'"'"I a>-., �11 a m C r 10" STEP 138.21 5 FS 139.04 FS9 FF 139.37 PA =138.7 10 139.37 FS 10• STEP 11 139.37 FS FF=1 40.20 139.87 PAD=139.5 FS 12 140.20 I I I I I 1 " gW\0 . ��\t· g \0\911'1..I zoW \ jJi� ; \ 11'\..' . .. VI I � VI PROP SED 10' ROAD DEDICATIO m � VI A 20 LEGNED: ---- 0 FF= 207.50 PAD= 206.8 ---s--- -w- ---s--- EX,._ FH -,---- �� c)�- FDC c) TC FL FS 1 Scale 1 ,, N TENTATIVE TRACT BOUNDARY FINISHED FLOOR EL EVATION PROPOSED PAD ELEVATION EXISTING SEWER MAIN EXISTING WATER MAIN EXISTING STREET LIGHT PROPOSED PRIVATE SEWER LINE PROPOSED PRIVATE SEWER CLEANOUT EXI STING FIRE HYDRANT PROPOSED FIRE HYDRANT PROPOSED WATER METER PROPOSED FDC TOP OF CURB ELEVATION FLOW LINE ELEVATION FINISHED SURFACE ELEVATION PROPOSED LOT NUMBER 40 60 20' PREPARED BY: No. 30873 EXP. 3/31/24 ALAN R. SHORT, P.E. ►7263 W Galen Drive Hemman, UT 84096(949)586-5200AIANSHORTPEOGMAIL.COM (}J�f� DATE: 1/10/24 ALAN R. SHORT, P.E. R.C.E. 30873, EXP IRES 3/31/24 VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 84168 1/10/24 SHEET C2 OF 3 Date Stamped April 17, 2024 Attachment H (Exhibit B) ..-' / _.., I \ \ \ \ \ --... \ \ \ \ \ --... G= IJ5.2o FS .30 136.50 FS i 1 l 11 1 �I I I I I I I s",1'�--11 I I =:,,;-c-11 I I 134.9 ff FG II " I,'-"'"'Ii,,a - --------� \ - 137.38 1 FS 137.38 FS 137.38 3 FS FF=137.71 PAD=137.0 137.38 10" STEP FS 138.21 5 FS m C r 138.21 FS "'" I ._,..,0)11 a z FF=138.54 PAD=137.8 --... / � 10" STEP -"'" I a,-.,I :..11 a " In' :,;: I :..,a " I A :,;: I i:i 0 -"'" I "'"" �11 10 -"'" I "'""I "' II 10 " I,' y.; I"' 139.04 FS 8 139.04 FS9 FF 139.37 PA =138.7 10 139.37 FS 10• STEP 11 139.37 FS ;'5 �gW \�i-�� \ \g\l'I.. \0 . I � II I'S ,;,,.ioW \;'?i�i� ,,5.\ 11'\..-l - I I / I rn � 10 • • / LEGNED: ---- FF= 207.50 PAD= 206.8 TC FL FS TG INV 1 Scale 1" N TENTATIVE TRACT BOUNDARY FINISHED FLOOR ELEVATION PROPOSED PAD ELEVATION PROPOSED AREA DRAIN LINE TOP OF CURB ELEVATION FLOW LINE ELEVATION FINISHED SURFACE ELEVATION TOP OF GRATE EL EVATION INVERT ELEVATION PROPOSED LOT NUMBER 20' EARTHWORK SUMMARY: CUT FILL CUT/FILL 2,500 CY 0 CY OVER-EXCAVATION 7,000 CY 7,000 CY SHRINKAGE (20%) 1,750 CY SUBSIDENCE (0.2') -400 CY EXPORT TOTAL PREPARED BY: 350 CY 9,100 CY 9,100 CY ALAN R. SHORT, P.E. ►7263 W Galen Drive Hemman, UT 84096(949)586-5200AIANSHORTPEOGMAIL.COM (}J�f� DATE: 1/10/24 ALAN R. SHORT, P.E. R.C.E. 30873, EXPIRES 3/31/24 CONCEPTUAL GRADING PLAN VESTING TENTATIVE TRA CT NO. 84168 1/10/24 SHEET C3 OF 3 Date Stamped April 17, 2024 Attachment H (Exhibit B) AGENDA PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE MEETING Thursday March 21, 2024 4:00 P.M. City Council Chambers, City Hall 11111 Brookshire Avenue Downey, CA 90241 I. CALL TO ORDER: THE REGULAR PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE MEETING – 4:00 P.M FLAG SALUTE ROLL CALL Dania Janczak, Dist. 1 Machell Brookens, Dist. 1 Beth Gendreau, Dist. 2 Elvira Meraz, Dist. 2 Sue Saikaly, Dist. 3 Mia Vasquez, Dist. 3 Rodolfo Sandoval III, Dist. 4 John Wilhite, Dist. 4 Alfred Tovar, Dist. 5 Lissette Rivera, Dist. 5 II. PUBLIC COMMENT ON REGULAR MEETING AGENDA AND NON -AGENDA ITEMS This portion provides an opportunity for the public to address the Public Works Committee on items within the jurisdiction of the Committee and either listed or not listed on the agenda. It is requested, but not required, that you state your name, address and subject matter upon which you wish to speak. Please limit your comments to no more than 3 minutes. Pursuant to the Brown Act, no discussion or action, other than a brief response, referral to Ci ty staff or schedule for a subsequent agenda, shall be taken by the Public Works Committee on any issue brought forth under this section. III. CONSENT CALENDAR 1. Approval of Minutes for February 15, 2024 IV. OLD BUSINESS None V. NEW BUSINESS 1. Report regarding the City’s traffic calming program. VI. PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE COMMUNICATIONS VII. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS VIII. NEXT MEETING: April 18, 2024 – City Council Chambers, City Hall Public Works Committee March 21, 2024 Page 2 In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), if special assistance is needed to participate in this meeting, complete the City’s Title II ADA Reasonable Accommodation Form located on the City’s website and at City Hall - City Clerk’s Department, 11111 Brookshire Avenue, Monday – Friday, 7:30 a.m. – 5:30 p.m., and submit to the City Clerk’s Department or contact (562) 904-7280 or TTY 7-1-1, 48 business hours prior to the City Council meeting. The City of Downey prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability in any of its program and services. For questions, concerns, complaints, or for additional information regarding the ADA, contact the City’s ADA/Section 504 Coordinator at ADACoordinator@downeyca.org: Phone: (562) 299-6619; or TTY at 7-1-1. In compliance with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, the City of Downey prohibits discrimination of any person in any of its program and services. If written language translation of City agendas or minutes, or for oral language interpretation at a City meeting is needed, contact the City Clerk's Office at (562) 904-7280, or (562) 299-6619, 48 business hours prior to the meeting. En cumplimiento con el Título VI de la Ley de Derechos Civiles, la Ciudad de Downey prohíbe la discriminación de cualquier persona en todos sus programas y servicios. En caso de necesitar una traducción escrita de las órdenes del día o las actas de las reuniones de la ciudad, o para solicitar un intérprete oral para una reunión de la ciudad, comuníquese a la oficina de la Secretaria de la ciudad al (562) 904-7280, o al (562) 299-6619, en el horario de atención comercial, 48 horas antes de la reunión. I, Brianna Mendez, City of Downey, do hereby certify, under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing notice was posted pursuant to Government Code Section 54950 Et. Seq., at the following locations: Downey City Hall, Downey City Library, and Barbara J. Riley Senior Center. Dated this 18th day of March 2024 Brianna Mendez Engineering Division Secretary Department of Public Works Item No. TO: CHAIR AND MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE FROM: OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS BY: MATTHEW BAUMGARDNER, P.E., DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS/CITY ENGINEER DATE: MARCH 21, 2024 SUBJECT: REPORT REGARDING THE CITY’S TRAFFIC CALMING PROGRAM EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Public Works Committee will receive and file a report on the City’s Traffic Calming Program and its effectiveness in addressing traffic-related requests and complaints received from residents. RECOMMENDATION That the Public Works Committee receive and file a report on the City’s Traffic Calming Program. BACKGROUND In 2010, the City adopted a Traffic Calming Program (see Attachment A) in response to the public interest of addressing neighborhood traffic intrusion, primarily consisting of excessive travel speeds and cut-through traffic occurring on residential streets. Traffic calming is defined by the Institute of Transportation Engineers as the “combination of mainly physical measures that reduce the negative effects of motor vehicle use, alter driver behavior, and improve conditions for non-motorized users”. The City expands this definition to include non-physical measures such as educational programs and enhanced enforcement. Neighborhood traffic calming measures are an attempt to enhance traffic and pedestrian safety as well as preserve neighborhood ch aracter and livability. The City’s Traffic Calming Program includes several potential measures grouped into two stages for the purpose of addressing excessive travel speeds, cut -through traffic, increased volume, and safety. When properly implemented, the measures should be effective, self-enforcing, and also generate positive feedback and acceptance from the public. The Traffic Calming Program is a framework and, as such, the program may be modified over time to incorporate advancements in technology shou ld they become available. ANALYSIS REPORT REGARDING THE CITY’S TRAFFIC CALMING PROGRAM MARCH 21, 2024 PAGE 2 Traffic Calming Program There are seven steps to the traffic calming process and are described by the following: Step Description 1 Traffic calming request is submitted to the City 2 Petition prepared and sent to requestor 3 Stage 1 traffic calming study performed 4 Stage 1 traffic calming measure(s) implemented as appropriate. 5 Follow-up evaluation 6 Conduct Stage 2 traffic calming study (if issue was not resolved) 7 City Council approval (if necessary) and implement Stage 2 traffic calming measure Once a traffic calming request is received, a Stage 1 traffic calming study is initially performed. The traffic calming study consists of the collection of traffic volume and speed data on the given street and comparison of the data to the criteria in the Traffic Calming Program defining the minimum thresholds for the implementation of traffic calming measures as appropriate. Specifically, the criteria require a minimum daily traffic volume of 1,000 vehicles per day (VPD) and an 85th percentile speed of 35 miles per hour (MPH) or greater. An additional consideration is that if 40% or greater of the traffic volume on a given street block is cut-through as verified through a license plate study or other means, then the given street would also qualify for traffic calming. If the aforementioned criteria are met, the City will proceed with the implementation of Stage 1 Traffic Calming measure(s), which consist of the following: • Neighborhood Watch Program • Radar speed trailer deployment • Enhanced Traffic enforcement actions by the Downey Police Department • Signage and pavement markings • Semi-permanent Vehicle Speed Feedback Sign deployment Regardless of whether the criteria are met, staff automatically refers speeding complaints to the Downey Police Department. For focused enforcement against speed violators as well as the deployment of the speed awareness trailer at the given location as an interim measure. The Stage 1 traffic calming measures are considered easily and quickly implementable, and the majority of these measures are relatively inexpensive and do not require an elaborate consensus-building process. Following the implementation of the Stage 1 measure, an evaluation is conducted within six months to determine the effectiveness of the measure which typically consists of speed measurement, visual observations and/or discussions with residents. If the follow-up evaluation proves the measure is effective in terms of reducing speeds and/or cut -through traffic, the process will end. If the evaluation proves the Stage 1 measure was not effective in reducing speeding and/or cut-through traffic, the City will conduct a Stage 2 Traffic Calming study. REPORT REGARDING THE CITY’S TRAFFIC CALMING PROGRAM MARCH 21, 2024 PAGE 3 A Stage 2 Traffic Calming study includes verification that the residential street in question is subject to the statewide 25-MPH statutory speed limit and the street must be classified as a local road as defined by the California Vehicle Code (CVC). In addition, because some Stage 2 measures may have adverse impacts in terms of aesthetics and changes in traffic patterns, even for the residents themselves, it is at times perceived that these more extensive measures could lower property values. Therefore, a petition prepared by the City must be circulated among the residential properties on the block demonstrating that the majority (75%) of the occupants of the properties support the Stage 2 traffic calming measure and are aware of the aforementioned potential adverse effects that may result. The Downey Police and Fire Departments are then consulted to determine if the proposed traffic calming measure will adversely impact their respective operations. Other factors are also taken into consideration, such as the potential diversion of traffic to a parallel street, which may result following the implementation of some of the Stage 2 measures. Stage 2 traffic calming measures include permanent physical modifications to the street and, hence, are more expensive to implement. Stage 2 traffic calming measures include the following devices: • Speed humps • Speed tables • Turn restrictions • Mini roundabouts • Curb extensions, chokers and chicanes • Diverters • Cul-de-sacs or street closure Physical Stage 2 traffic calming devices should be located a minimum of 25 feet from driveways, manholes, drain inlets, water valves, street monuments, fire hydrants and other appurtenances and should not be installed where they will inhibit drainage, trash collection, street sweeping, street repair, access, visibility or otherwise negatively affect any existing characteristics of the street. Because the majority of the Stage 2 measures are costly to implement and budgets are limited, a prioritization system is included in the Traffic Calming Program should multiple requests be received concurrently. The following criteria are considered when assigning a priority to a given Stage 2 measure implementation: • Speed • Volume/cut-through traffic • Crash history • Pedestrian traffic • Unique conditions REPORT REGARDING THE CITY’S TRAFFIC CALMING PROGRAM MARCH 21, 2024 PAGE 4 Traffic calming requests can be prioritized in other ways as well independently of the aforementioned criteria. For instance, all things being equal, a street with 27% of the vehicles traveling above 35 MPH would be prioritized above a street with only 18% of the vehicles traveling above the 35 MPH threshold. The final step in the traffic calming process is approval by the City Council. This step is required primarily because of the formal bidding process which would typically apply to the Stage 2 traffic calming measures because of their construction cost. Once the construction cost is awarded by the City Council, the Stage 2 traffic calming measure is constructed. The implementation of Stage 2 measures may also be vetted through the Public Works Committee in order to gain acceptance if the proposed measure is subject to any potential controversy in the community. Area Example To demonstrate the implementation of the City’s Traffic Calming Program, City will be focusing on the area generally bound by Suva Street, Paramount Boulevard, Gallatin Road and the Rio Hondo Channel. Th City has received several traffic-related requests/complaints and as such, a combination of engineering- and enforcement-related Stage 1 and 2 traffic calming measures have been implemented recently by the Public Works and Downey Police Departments to address traffic-related requests/complaints as described in the following sections: Public Works Engineering Actions Public Works Engineering measures implemented in this area in response to the complaints received include: • Installation of vehicle speed feedback signs; • Centerline striping; • 25 MPH speed limit signs; and • Supplementary pavement markings. As an example of effectiveness in reducing speeds, vehicle feedback signs on Tweedy Lane and Horley Avenue have resulted in reductions of up to 18 percent. While the measures have been observed to be relatively effective in addressing the complaints received, a second traffic calming study was ordered along Guatemala and it was determined that speed humps on Guatemala Avenue between Suva Street and Lubec Street may be necessary to address speeding. This measure is currently under evaluation and the next step is the petition process. Public Works staff will prepare a petition and it will be circulated among the residents to gage support for the installation of speed humps before taking additional steps. A summary of requests/complaints received by the Public Works Department within the aforementioned area over the past four years and measures taken to address the issues is provided in Attachment B and are shown on the location map in Attachment C. REPORT REGARDING THE CITY’S TRAFFIC CALMING PROGRAM MARCH 21, 2024 PAGE 5 Enforcement Actions In addition to the engineering measures implemented by the Public Works Department, the Downey Police Department has been regularly enforcing traffic laws in this area. For instance, a total of 161 citations were issued within the past year for unsafe operation of the vehicle, as follows: • 159 Stop Sign Violations • 1 Unsafe Backing • 1 Speeding It should be noted that a proposed 33-unit townhome development is being proposed in the area, at 7360 Foster Bridge Boulevard. City staff is evaluating the project’s traffic study, to determine if any other measures should be taken to address the additional traffic, beyond those already identified in the area. Those will be provided when the project is submitted to the Planning Commission for consideration. However, additional measures can be evaluated in the future as necessary through the City’s Traffic Calming Program in response to requests received from the community if the traffic speeding and cut - through issues persist following the opening of the proposed residential development. CITY COUNCIL PRIORITIES Quality of Life, Safety & Infrastructure FISCAL IMPACT None. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: City of Downey Traffic Calming Policy Attachment B: Traffic-related request list Attachment C: Locations of traffic-related requests received NEIGHBORHOOD TRAFFIC CALMING PROGRAM January 2010 Attachment A Table of Contents What is Traffic Calming? What are Traffic Calming Measures? The Neighborhood Traffic Calming Process Step 1 — Report the Problem Step 2 — Neighborhood Consensus Step 3 — Data Collection Step 4 — Stage 1 Traffic Calming Step 5 — Follow-up Analysis Step 6 — Stage 2 Traffic Calming Step 7 — City Council Approval Funding Prioritization General Pros and Cons of Stage 2 Traffic Calming What is Traffic Calming? Downey residents have expressed concern about speeding and cut-through traffic in residential neighborhoods. In response to public interest, the city has developed a Neighborhood Traffic Calming Program. The Institute of Transportation Engineers defines “traffic calming” as “the combination of mainly physical measures that reduce the negative effects of motor vehicle use, alter driver behavior, and improve conditions for non-motorized street users.” The City of Downey also expands this definition to include non-physical measures such as educational programs and enhanced enforcement. What are Traffic Calming Measures? Neighborhood traffic calming measures are an attempt to enhance traffic and pedestrian safety and preserve neighborhood character and livability. In an effort to simplify this program, the City of Downey has presented those measures most likely to be recommended by staff for implementation in Downey. Many measures would be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to construct and in most cases come with an extremely high price tag. For simplicity, these measures have been left out of this policy. Additional measures may be investigated as each specific concern is raised within a neighborhood. In addition, new ideas and the advancement of technology ma y make additional measures available in the future. This program is intended to be a guide for traffic calming in Downey and will be modified as needed in the future. Measures included in this program are described in more detail later in this document, but can generally be used to address problems with speeding, cut-through traffic, increased volume, and safety. When traffic calming measures are properly implemented, the measures should be effective and self-enforcing and should also generate positive public feedback and acceptance. The Neighborhood Traffic Calming Process The Neighborhood Traffic Calming Program (Program) is not intended to replace on- going activities to reduce speeding on residential streets. The Program is an attempt to formalize current activities, in addition to providing a mechanism for residents to document their support for both existing and possible future efforts to reduce speeding and cut-through vehicles on their street. This Program is a framework, and should advancements in technology become available, the Program may be modified to incorporate such advancements. There are seven steps to the traffic calming process, as described in detail below. The traffic calming process is also illustrated through the flow chart in Figu re One. STEP 1 — Report the Problem If you feel as though you have a speeding or traffic problem on your residential street, the first step is to report the problem to City of Downey Traffic Engineering staff at (562) 904-7108 or by submitting an on-line service request at www.downeyca.org. City staff will note your complaint and provide a Traffic Calming Request Form. This form is also available at www.downeyca.org under ‘Government’ followed by ‘Public Works’. Upon receipt of the Traffic Calming Request Form, City staff will evaluate the complaint to determine the nature of the problem, and make sure that the location meets the first traffic calming criteria as described in the following paragraph. The City will not implement this Program on “arterial” or “residential collector” streets, unless the arterial or collector street is located within a residential area as defined by Section 515 of the California Vehicle Code (CVC). Otherwise, staff will refer concerns on these streets to the Police Department for traffic enforcement and/or will address these concerns as part of on-going efforts to improve traffic flow and vehiclular safety throughout the community. STEP 2 — Project Area and Neighborhood Consensus After receiving the Traffic Calming Request Form, City staff will review the concern(s) and determine the proper project area. Based on the project area, a p etition will be prepared and forwarded to the requestor. The requestor is responsible to circulate the petition and obtain signatures from 75% of the occupants of the properties within the project area, confirming the property occupants’ consensus of the neighborhood speeding and/or intrusion issue. After obtaining the required number of signatures, the petition must be returned to City staff within 90 days of issuance. Once returned, City staff will review and confirm adequate signatures have been submitted. If the petition contains the required number of signatures, City staff will proceed with th e preparation of a Basic Traffic Calming Study. If the petition requirement is not satisfied, the matter will still be referred to the Police Department for focused enforcement against speed violators. STEP 3 — Basic Traffic Calming Study Once City staff initiates the Basic Traffic Calming Study, staff will collect vehicle speed and vehicle volume data. After collection, the data will be compared to established thresholds and prioritized based on severity of speeding or traffic volume. The intent of the Program is to address the worst problems throughout the community through a prioritization of the traffic calming requests received in accordance with the table included under the “Priority” section below. Thresholds may be adjusted to maintain responsiveness in addressing the worst problems within the community. The following data will be collected through the Basic Traffic Calming Study: Speeding Threshold: If 15% of the vehicles driving on the roadway were traveling at speeds above 35 miles per hour, the street would be eligible for traffic calming. Volume/Cut-through Problem Threshold: In some cases, the reported problem relates to the volume of traffic on the residential street, instead of the speed. In general, if the given street has a daily traffic volume of at least 1,000 vehicles per day and more than 40% of the traffic volume on the given street block is verified as cut-through traffic through a license plate survey, then the street would be eligible for traffic calming. Other Issues: Some traffic problems cannot be categorized as either speeding or cut -through related problems. City staff will evaluate on a case-by-case basis if a unique issue warrants traffic calming. Priority: Streets eligible for traffic calming will be prioritized for implementation based upon the severity of the traffic conditions, taking into consideration the following factors: speeding, volume, cut-through traffic, crash history, proximity to pedestrian generators (i.e., schools, parks, community centers) and unique roadway conditions. Priority points will be assigned per the following table: Speed 2 points for each MPH difference between the 85th percentile speed and the posted or prima facie speed limit Volume/Cut-through traffic 1 point for each 500 vehicles over 1,000 vehicles per day; 5 points if 40-65% or more of the Average Daily Traffic (ADT) on the street is cut-through traffic between arterials or major roadways; 10 points if higher than 65% Crash history 5 points for each speed-related crash in the past 3 years Pedestrian Generators 5 points for each school, park or trail access, library or (15 points max.) community center along the street; 3 points if within 1 block; 2 points if within 2 blocks Unique Conditions (15 points max.) 5 points for proximity to a neighborhood business district or existing/planned transit hub; 5 points for evidence of crashes or speeding, such as long skid marks or broken glass; 5 points for missing sidewalk section; 5 points for unique roadway geometry that substantially restricts visibility; 5 points for a high crash rate Traffic Calming requests may be prioritized in other ways as well, independently of the criteria in the above table. For instance, all things being equal, a street with 27% of the vehicles traveling above 35 mph would be prioritized above a street with only 18% of the vehicles traveling above the 35 mph threshold. If the criteria are not met as a result of the Basic Traffic Calming Study, the matter will still be referred to the Police Department for focused enforcement against speed violators. STEP 4 — Stage 1 Traffic Calming If the location exceeds the thresholds identified above, city staff will first suggest possible solutions that do not involve the use of physical controls or impediments on the roadway system. These are primarily education and enforcement based measures called Stage 1 Traffic Calming. These include: Neighborhood Watch Program — Sometimes residents of a given neighborhood contribute significantly to a speeding problem. In this case, a grassroots citizen-driven awareness campaign can be very effective. Through a Neighborhood Watch Program, issues such as speeding and intrusion can be discussed among residents, particularly when local traffic is the source of the concern. Through this forum, such issues can be discussed on a regular basis. In addition, neighborhood residents may distribute fliers among the residents in the neighborhood to spread the word about driving appropriately through the particular neighborhood. Radar Speed Trailer Deployment — This trailer is a temporary device that is primarily used to inform motorists that they may be exceeding the posted or prima facie speed limit, in an effort to educate motorists to drive in a more prudent manner. Traffic Enforcement Actions — This is traditional enforcement activity on the part of the Police Department’s traffic enforcement officers. The intent is to modify behavior to result in a safer situation for all drivers and neighbors. Traffic Signing and Pavement Markers — Traffic Engineering staff will review all of the traffic signing and pavement markings in the area. If necessary, staff will install additional signage (i.e., speed limit or advisory signs) or striping (i.e., centerlines or edge striping) and/or replace faded signs and markings. When appropriate, changes and additions will be reviewed with interested neighbors. Please note that “STOP” signs are intended to assign the right-of-way at an intersection and have been found to be ineffective as speed deterrents and, therefore, are not intended for use as traffic calming devices. Semi-Permanent Radar Speed Sign Deployment — This is a semi-permanent device that is primarily used to inform motorists that they may be exceeding the posted or prima facie speed limit, in an effort to educate motorists to drive in a more prudent manner. Report Offending Motorists to Traffic Engineering Section — If residents observe offending speeding motorists on a regular basis, the license plate number of the vehicle can be reported to the City’s Traffic Engineering Section. A letter will then be issued by the City Traffic Engineer to the registered owner of the offending motorist, bringing the matter to the attention of the owner of the vehicle and to urge the owner to refrain from driving at excessive speeds. STEP 5 — Follow-up Evaluation After one or more Stage 1 traffic calming measures have been implemented, City staff will observe the area, generally between three to six months after the implementation. Based on these observations, discussion with residents, and follow-up data collection, when appropriate, staff will determine the effectiveness of the traffic calming measure. If the measures were deemed successful, and the thresholds identified in Step 3 are no longer exceeded the traffic calming process will end. If the location continues to exceed the thresholds for speed and/or cut-through traffic, City staff will proceed to analyze possible Stage 2 traffic calming methods. In the meantime, the location will be referred to the Police Department for appropriate enforcement, if such enforcement is not already being conducted. STEP 6 — Stage 2 Traffic Calming If the Stage 1 measures are deemed unsuccessful, City staff will conduct a Stage 2 Traffic Calming Study to suggest possible solutions to the problem. The solutions could involve physical modifications of the street intended to control traffic speeds and/or volumes. These are called Stage 2 Traffic Calming methods. Engineering experience and judgment, along with neighborhood involvement, will be a large part of the Stage 2 Traffic Calming Study process. The following criteria must be met before a Stage 2 Traffic Calming Study will be conducted and Stage 2 measures considered: 1. The street must have a posted or prima facie speed limit of 25 mph. 2. The street must be classified by FHWA as a local road as defined by Section 515 of CA Vehicle Code (CVC). In addition, the installation of any of the below Stage 2 Traffic Calming measures will require the circulation of a petition. If the Traffic Calming Study suggests the installation of any of the below Stage 2 measures, a petition will be prepared and forwarded to the requestor. The requestor is responsible for circulating the petition in the project area and obtaining signatures from 75% of the residential properties within the project area. The petition shall also demonstrate that 100% of the occupants of the properties located within 100 feet of the proposed traffic calming device support its installation. After obtaining the required number of signatures, the petition must be returned to City staff within 90 days of issuance. Once returned, City staff will review and confirm the adequate number of signatures have been submitted. Possible Stage 2 measures include: • Speed Humps – Speed humps are approximately 12 feet in width and vary from 2.5 to 4 inches in height. This raised pavement serves to physically force motorists to reduce their speed. In order to be effective, speed humps should be placed no further than 300 feet apart. • Speed Tables – These are similar to speed humps with 4 to 6 foot flat sections along the top. Speed tables are generally used at crosswalk locations. In order to make their presence known to motorists and other roadway users , both speed humps and speed tables require the installation of signage and roadway markings. • Mini-Roundabouts – This device is a raised circular island in the middle of a residential neighborhood intersection. Direct straight-through movements are obstructed by the raised island causing traffic to move to the right (counter clockwise) and around the circle. Yield signs that serve to alert motorists to the need to slow their speed entering the intersection normally control the intersection approaches. These devices are not advisable where high pedestrian activity is expected. • Curb Extensions, Chokers, and Chicanes – These measures narrow the roadway by extending raised curbs into the street. These can be done at street entries and exits as well as mid-block locations. The narrower street generally results in reduced traffic speeds and provides pedestrians with shorter crossing distances. These devices are currently in place on Downey Avenue at its intersections with 2nd, 3rd, 4th, and 5th Streets. These devices may hinder drainage and may result in very expensive installations, including the relocation of drainage inlet structures. • Street Closures and Cul-de-sacs – This is the complete barricade or termination of a street. • Diverters – These devices are raised areas placed across a four-way intersection that prohibit through movements and force turns at approaches. Diverters can be considered on residential neighborhood streets where excessive/cut-through traffic is occurring on a regular basis. • Other measures – As a result of new technologies, urban planning, or other advancements in traffic calming policies and measures, additional measures may be developed in the future. If included in a Traffic Calming Study, these measures will be fully discussed and evaluated within the proposed study. IMPLEMENTATION REQUIREMENTS FOR STAGE 2 MEASURES The following general criteria must be met to consider the installation of any Stage 2 traffic calming measure: • Installation must not result in traffic diversion to oth er neighborhood streets. • At least 75% of all dwelling units and 100% of the dwelling units within 100 feet of the proposed device shall support the installation through the aforementioned petition process. • Devices shall be located a minimum of 25 feet from driveways, manholes, drain inlets, water valves, street monuments, fire hydrants, and other appurtenances. • Devices shall not be installed where they will inhibit drainage, trash collection, street sweeping, street repair, access, visibility, or otherwise negatively affect existing circumstances. • Downey Police and Fire Departments must approve the plan to assure that the possible affect on emergency response and/or access are balanced by the positive impact the measure will have on traffic and pedestrian safety. STEP 7 — City Council Approval Once City staff and the neighborhood agree on an appropriate solution(s) as detailed in the Stage 2 Traffic Calming Study, the Study and proposed solution(s) will be presented to the City Council for final approval. This process will include a formal Public Hearing. Funding Along with the Stage 2 Study, the City Council will be presented with funding options for the project. 50% of the cost for the installation of any Stage 2 Traffic Calming measure will be the responsibility of the affected residents within the project area, with the remaining 50% to be funded by the City. In addition, the City will bear the responsibility of the permanent maintenance cost of the measures. Funding for the other aspects of the Program will come from general and grant funds and will be included in existing operating budgets. Current budgets are anticipated to cover the initial implementation of the Program. In future years, increased funding for traffic studies, enforcement activities, and other Program costs will be included in annual budget requests from impacted departments. As described above, residential assessments will be required to fund 50% of Stage 2 Traffic Calming measures. Prioritization For the most part, City staff will evaluate project areas, initiate petitions, conduct traffic studies, implement Stage 1 measures, evaluate Stage 1 measures, and complete and present Traffic Calming Studies to the City Council on an on-going basis. Should several requests be submitted at the same time, City staff will prioritize requests based on the severity of the problem. As mentioned above, with all things being equal, a street with 27% of the vehicles traveling above 35 mph would be prioritized above a street with only 18% of the vehicles traveling above the 35 mph threshold. In addition, City staff may consider accident history, proximity to schools or parks, pedestrian traffic, and other related circumstances when prioritizing requests. As discussed previously, this Program does not replace existing activities and will not limit staff from initiating enforcement or other activities in response to public safety concerns raised by residents. General Pros and Cons of Stage 2 Traffic Calming Before the City decides to consider pursuing Stage 2 Traffic Calming actions, it is important that the benefits and disadvantages be carefully considered. While Stage 2 actions can be successful, they can also result in problems more significant than the original concern. This section will describe the general pros and cons of the Stage 2 Traffic Calming tools described previously. In most cases, the benefits are predictable, while the disadvantages can be much more unexpected. Consequently, a greater emphasis has been placed on the potential problems so that decisions can be made in a fully informed manner. Benefits Traffic Calming Measures Often Achieve the Desired Result Physical actions such as the installation of speed humps, mini roundabouts, street closures, etc. are often times successful in forcing traffic to behave in an intended fashion. In certain situations, they can achieve the desired result by utilizing a one -time capital expenditure and generally low ongoing maintenance costs. Permanence Stage 2 traffic calming actions are generally viewed as much more permanent solutions than Stage 1 actions. In most instances, the alternative approach to the desired result involves repetitive and costly ongoing Stage 1 traffic calming actions. There are significant potential benefits to utilizing Stage 2 traffic calming actions, which is why several neighboring communities have implemented Stage 2 actions, with other communities exploring their possible use. Accident and Crash Reduction One of the goals of traffic calming is the reduction in the severity and number of vehicular crashes and vehicular and pedestrian/bicycle crashes. Safety can be enhanced through increased driver awareness of other street users and reductions in volumes, speeds, and vehicle, pedestrian, or bike conflicts. Increased Neighborhood Property Values There is potential that a well-designed traffic-calming project can increase neighborhood property values. Disadvantages Impacts on Emergency Response Vehicles and Response Times Emergency vehicles will be impacted when certain Stage 2 mitigation measures are installed. The same reason the City would install Stage 2 measures, to slow traffic, is the same reason not to install them, delays to emergency vehicles. As mentioned above, these impacts will be fully investigated and discussed before a proposed Traffic Calming Study recommendation is presented to the City Council. Diverting the “Problem” Traffic to Another Neighborhood Street Another concern has been the realization that in many instances, implementing traffic calming tools would be likely to move the problem rather than solve the problem. In virtually all instances, the traffic being controlled by physical traffic calming tools will not disappear or make major changes in its travel patterns. In most instances, the placing of impediments on a particular neighborhood street will merely divert some or all of that traffic to other neighborhood streets. Everyone is Inconvenienced Enforcement and education efforts, aimed at controlling speeds or influencing driver behavior, impact primarily the irresponsible drivers - usually a relatively small percentage of the driving population. On the other hand, physical traffic calming measures create delay and inconvenience for all drivers using the particular street. Benefits Sometimes Very Localized While speed humps are generally very effective in reducing speed in the immediate vicinity of the humps, they often result in higher speeds between the humps as drivers try to “make up” for the delay at the humps. Consequently, while using the speed humps to lower the average speed, it is likely that the top speeds on the street will increase. This result has been clearly documented in many studies regarding the use of speed humps or non-warranted stop signs for speed control. Maintenance Impacts for Heavy Vehicles Speed humps can significantly increase the cost of maintaining heavy vehicles. While not readily quantifiable, this is an important consideration related to the maintenance cost for fire engines, refuse trucks, street sweepers, etc. This is an especially serious concern for vehicles that will be subject to the traffic calming actions on a continual or repeated basis. Impacts on Other Road Users All measures are designed to be acceptably safe for all users, assuming that these users are attentive as they proceed down the street. Speed humps and mini roundabouts are two of the most popular traffic calming measures. Bicyclists can traverse speed humps at typical cycling speeds without slowin g down. However, if the bicyclists is careless (e.g., riding with no hands, not watching the road, no lights at night, etc.), the bicyclist might unexpectedly encounter a hump and be caught off balance. Mini roundabouts force drivers to the right at intersections, toward (but not into) the crosswalks and pedestrians sometimes feel that their safety is being compromised. Traffic accidents could increase due to driver unfamiliarity with these devices. These disadvantages for various user groups need to be c onsidered along with the recognized benefits of overall traffic speed and volume reduction that result from a traffic calming project. Visual Impacts, Noise Impacts, and Aesthetic Concerns Actions such as speed humps and diverters most often pose no opportunity for the incorporation of aesthetics and can certainly have negative visual impacts. Additionally, virtually all Stage 2 traffic-calming devices require reflective devices, signs, and striping, which negatively affect the aesthetics of a neighborhood and could negatively influence property values. Since these devices are intended to pose obstacles to cars, they must be very well signed, marked, and lit in order to minimize potential safety problems and potential liability exposure. While the signing, marking and lighting are clearly justified for those reasons, they certainly negatively affect neighborhood aesthetics. Noise in the area of traffic calming devices, such as speed humps, can increase due to the deceleration and acceleration of vehicles. There is also usually noise created by the vehicle traversing a speed hump. SOLAR-POWERED VEHICLE SPEED FEEDBACK SIGN Tr a f f i c - R e l a t e d R e q u e s t L i s t Da t e Lo c a t i o n De s c r i p t i o n 1 Sp e e d i n g p r o b l e m a l l d a y , n o s i d e w a l k - r e q u e s t a " S L O W DO W N C H I L D R E N A T P L A Y " o r S T O P s i g n a t t h e f o l l o w i n g as a p : H o r l e y A v e ( n / s ) a t F i n e v a l e A v e C l e a r g r o v e D r & H o r l e y Av e 1 0 0 9 5 0 1 2 / 1 3 / 1 9 Ho r l e y A v e : fr o m S h a d y o a k D r t o C l e a r g r o v e D r In s t a l l e d d o u b l e y e l l o w c e n t e r l i n e a l o n g t h e h o r i z o n t a l c u r v e s 2 0 0 9 5 1 1 2 / 1 3 / 1 9 In t e r s e c t i o n o f : Ho r e l y A v e a n d C o o l g r o v e D r In s t a l l e d “ S t o p ” s i g n s a n d m a r k i n g s a t t h e n o r t h b o u n d a n d s o u t h b o u n d a p p r o a c h e s 3 0 0 9 5 6 3 / 1 8 / 2 0 Co o l g r o v e D r : fr o m T w e e d y L n t o G u a t e m a l a A v e In s t a l l e d a n e w " S p e e d L i m i t 2 5 " s i g n a t 7 8 3 5 C o o l g r o v e D r In s t a l l e d a n e w " S p e e d L i m i t 2 5 " s i g n a t 7 6 1 2 C o o l g r o v e D r 4 0 0 8 7 3 1 0 / 1 5 / 1 8 Gu a t e m a l a A v e : fr o m D i n s d a l e S t t o B a n g l e S t In s t a l l e d y e l l o w c e n t e r l i n e Re p l a c e d 4 e x i s t i n g " S p e e d L i m i t 2 5 " s i g n s w i t h l a r g e r s i z e d s i g n s In s t a l l e d 4 n e w " S p e e d L i m i t 2 5 " s i g n s In s t a l l e d " 2 5 " w h i t e p a i n t m a r k i n g s o n r o a d w a y a d j a c e n t t o t h e 8 n e w " S p e e d L i m i t 2 5 " s i g n s 5 0 0 9 4 4 1 0 / 3 1 / 1 9 Gu a t e m a l a A v e : fr o m S u v a S t t o B a n g l e R d In s t a l l e d " 2 5 " w h i t e p a i n t m a r k i n g s o n r o a d w a y a d j a c e n t t o t h e " S p e e d L i m i t 2 5 " s i g n n o r t h o f S u v a S t In s t a l l e d " 2 5 " w h i t e p a i n t m a r k i n g s o n r o a d w a y a d j a c e n t t o t h e " S p e e d L i m i t 2 5 " s i g n a t S h a d y O a k D r In s t a l l e d " 2 5 " w h i t e p a i n t m a r k i n g s o n r o a d w a y a d j a c e n t t o t h e " S p e e d L i m i t 2 5 " s i g n s o u t h o f A l d e r d a l e S t 6 Gu a t e m a l a A v e : fr o m S u v a S t t o L u b e c S t Pr o p o s e d i n s t a l l a t i o n o f s p e e d h u m p s . 7 0 1 0 0 8 1 2 / 2 2 / 2 1 Tw e e d y L n : fr o m S u v a S t t o G a l l a t i n R d In s t a l l e d y e l l o w c e n t e r l i n e 8 0 1 0 8 8 9 / 2 2 / 2 2 Tw e e d y L a n e : fr o m G a l l a t i n R o a d t o B a n g l e R o a d In s t a l l e d y e l l o w c e n t e r l i n e o n T w e e d y L n f r o m G a l l a t i n R d t o B a n g l e R d In s t a l l e d a n e w " S p e e d L i m i t 2 5 " s i g n n o r t h o f G a l l a t i n R d In s t a l l e d a n e w " S p e e d L i m i t 2 5 " s i g n s o u t h o f B o t a n y S t 9 0 4 1 3 2 1 1 / 1 6 / 2 3 In t e r s e c t i o n o f : Tw e e d y L n a n d S u v a S t In s t a l l e d a n e w " S p e e d L i m i t 3 0 " s i g n 10 0 4 1 3 1 1 1 / 1 6 / 2 3 In t e r s e c t i o n o f : Tw e e d y L n a n d G a l l a t i n R d In s t a l l e d a n e w " S p e e d L i m i t 3 0 " s i g n 11 Tw e e d y L n : fr o m S u v a S t t o L u b e c S t In s t a l l e d S p e e d F e e d b a c k S i g n f o r n o r t h b o u n d t r a f f i c , i n f r o n t o f G r i f f i t h M i d d l e S c h o o l In s t a l l e d S p e e d F e e d b a c k S i g n f o r s o u t h b o u n d t r a f f i c , i n f r o n t o f M a u d e P r i c e E l e m e n t a r y S c h o o l Co m p l a i n t En g i n e e r i n g Wo r k O r d e r 3 Re s i d e n t i s r e q u e s t i n g m o r e s t o p s i g n s n e a r c o o l g r o v e a n d a sk i p l i n e . D o t o c o n s t a n t s p e e d i n g i n t h i s a r e a . 2 Re s i d e n t r e p o r t e d s p e e d i n g w a s c o n c e r n i n h i s n e i g h b o r h o o d of T w e e d y L n b e t w e e n G a l l a t i i n a n d S u v a . H e w o u l d l i k e f o r th e c i t y t o i n s t a l l s p e e d h u m p s a n d s p e e d r a d a r s i g n s i n h i s ne i g h b o r h o o d . 4 Ca r s r a c e d o w n t h i s s t r e e t , e s p e c i a l l y a t n i g h t . I s i t p o s s i b l e t o ad d a s p e e d b u m p t o d e t e r p e o p l e f r o m s p e e d i n g ? ATTACHMENT B BELL GARDENS BOTANY ST 600 OOLGROVE DR 7502 7822CLEARGRO\ :R BRIDGE BLY)DR 7824 78687500 CALMCREST DR CALMCREST DR SUVSUVASTSUVAsr NOf 7400 7431 7906 LUBEC ST7402 3OTTOST 7329 05DINSDALEST 7300 7426 N.T.S GRIFFITHMIDDLESCHOOL MAUDE PRIC ELEM SCHOOL Installed yellow centerline Proposed speed humps installation 7400 CIRO ST and markings at the northbound and southbound approaches 7600 SHADYOAK DR Installed new "Speed Limit 30" o,s'9n Installed south facing speed feedback sign in front of Griffith Middle School and north facing speed feedback sign in front of Maude Price Elementary School Installed "25 white roadway paint markings adjacent to the sign north of Suva St,at Shady Oak Dr,and south of Alderdale St Installed yellow centerline Installed new "Speed Limit 25"sign north of Gallatin j Rd and south of Botany St Installed new "Speed Limit 30" sign OTTO ST 7514 7528 GL£NCUFF DR Installed “Stop"signs Installed double yellow centerline 7527 GAINSFORD ST 7300 73391 §(o> DACOSTA 7750 |—Installed yellow centerline Installed 8 larger sized "Speed Limit 25"signs and "25”white roadway paint markings adjacent to signs %/< 7402 7447 IVO ST DANVERS ST Installed new *1 "Speed Limit 25"sign J at 7835 Coolgrove Dr H and 7612 Coolgrove Dr J ALDERDALE ST 78107706 CITY OF DOWNEYDEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS ENGINEERING DIVISION LOCATIONS OF TRAFFIC-RELATED REQUESTS RECEIVED Attachment C DINSDALE | GAINSFORD ST 7515 7528 City of Downey Official Notice of Public Hearing 11111 BROOKSHIRE AVENUE POST OFFICE BOX 7016 DOWNEY, CALIFORNIA 90241-7016 April 4, 2024 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning Commission of the City of Downey will conduct a public hearing on Wednesday, April 17, 2024, at 6:30 p.m. to consider the following request: A request to construct a 33-unit townhome development on a 1.29-acre site located at in the northwestern portion of the City of Downey. The subject site is currently designated as Low Density Residential and zoned R-1 (Single Family Residential). The application includes requests for a General Plan Amendment to a Medium Density Residential land use designation and a Zone Change to the R-3 (Multiple Family Residential) zone in order to facilitate the development of the proposed multifamily townhome development. The project includes a request for a State Density Bonus, with total of 31 base units and two additional density bonus units. The project is eligible for a State Density Concession and the applicant is also requesting various development standard Waivers pursuant to State Density Bonus Law. The project application includes Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 84168 to establish separate parcels for townhome subdivision purposes. PROJECT LOCATION: 7360 Foster Bridge Boulevard APPLICATION TYPE: General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Site Plan Review, Tentative Tract Map, and Density Bonus (PLN-23-00035) APPLICANT: Steven Armanino, The Olson Company PROPERTY OWNER: Lords Grace of Downey Church Corp In accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impacts was prepared for the proposed project and was made available on the City’s website: https://www.downeyca.org/our-city/departments/community- development/planning/ environmental -documents. All interested parties are invited to submit written comments and/or to attend and give testimony. The agenda and staff report, which provides a detailed description and analysis of this project, will be posted to the City Boards and Commission Meetings page of the City’s website (http://www.downeyca.org) on the Friday prior to the public hearing. NOTE: STATE GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 65009 NOTICE: If you challenge the proposed actions in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the Planning Division at, or prior to, the public hearing. In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, contact the City Clerk’s Department at 562-904-7280 or the California Relay Service at 711. Notification at least 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make arrangements to assure accessibility. The City of Downey does not discriminate on the basis of disability in admission to, access to, or operations of its programs, services or activities. Questions, concerns, complaints or requests for additional information regarding the Americans with Disabilities Act may be forwarded to the City’s ADA/Section 504 Coordinator at 11111 Brookshire Avenue, Downey, CA 90241, ADACoordiantor@downeyca.org, Phone: 562-299-6619, Fax: 562-923-6388, and California Relay 711. If you have any questions concerning this application, please contact Principal Planner Alfonso Hernandez at (562) 904-7154, or at ashernandez@downeyca.org. Public Hearing Notice Signs Posted On-Site on April 7, 2024 City Staff LEGEND: - Total of five (5) 24-inch by 36-inch Public Hearing Notice Signs Posted by City Staff on April 7, 2024 Public Hearing Notice Signs Posted On-Site on April 7, 2024 City Staff 1 Alfonso S. Hernandez From:Lourdes Almazan <rsenio@msn.com> Sent:Tuesday, November 28, 2023 10:38 PM To:Alfonso S. Hernandez Subject:Foster Bridge and Bluff Residential Project To whom it may concern, We are the Almazan family living in the island next to the proposed project and we’d like to share our opinion and concerns on the matter. We have lived on Glencliff Drive for the past 27 years and have enjoyed living in this small quaint neighborhood and want to keep it that way. We believe the amount of homes planned to be built is excessive for the small piece of land. This will greatly increase rush hour traffic, which is already bad. The plan is for a gated community, which means we won’t have access to it but they will have access to our streets and leave their excess vehicles in front of our homes. The average three bedroom home has about three to four vehicles. We very much doubt this new community will have enough parking space for their residents. Everyone knows people use their garages for storage rather than their cars, so where do you think these new residents are going to park? Even if restrictions are imposed they eventually end up in nearby streets. We have seen this happen in too many neighborhoods. We hope the city of Downey takes our concerns seriously when making a decision and protects the quality of life we have here rather than the monetary gain for the city. Sincerely, Javier and Maria Almazan Sent from my iPad Attachment K February 21, 2024 TO: Downey Planning Commission 11111 Brookshire Avenue Downey, Ca 90240 From: Melissa Covarrubias 7318 Finevale Drive Downey, CA 90240 RE: Opposition to Proposed Development on Former Church Lot at 7360 Foster Bridge Boulevard Dear Members of the Downey Planning Commission, I am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposed project that aims to construct 33 units on the former church lot located 7360 Foster Bridge Boulevard, Downey, CA. While I understand the importance of urban development, I believe this particular proposal raises significant concerns that warrant careful reconsideration. The conversion of the former church lot into a residential complex of such scale may have detrimental effects on the surrounding community. The traffic as a result of this development is extremely concerning. The area already suffers from severe congestion during the morning and evening rush hours as the Foster Bridge and Suva Street Bridge is the only route from this area into the city. The bridge is a two-lane road not rated for this volume of traffic, the wear and tear of the infrastructure is not factored into this project. The noise and light pollution coming from this development will negatively impact the quality of life of the adjacent neighborhood. The City of Downey prides itself in providing a peaceful and serene living environment for its residents and a development of this size will eliminate that for tbd residents of the area known as "The Island." I urge the Planning Commission to consider alternative development plans that respect the existing community and address the concerns of the local residents. I kindly request that you take into account the voice of the community members who will be directly impacted by this development. It is essential to ensure that any proposed changes align with the values and needs of the residents who call this neighborhood home. Attachment K Thank you for your attention to this matter. I trust that the Planning Commission will carefully weigh the potential consequences of this project and make decisions that prioritize the well-being and cohesion of our community. Sincerely , /74/, UM d',J/dIll IEt Melissa Covarrubias Attachment K March 6, 2024 To: City of Downey Planning Department I am writing regarding the The Lord's Grace Church and the potential building of the townhomes by the Olson Company, I am a resident of the Island and the TLG church is directly behind my home. For the past several months my neighbors and I have been visited by the public relations representative, Diane Ripley, of the Olson Company. Our homes were focused upon because we are within 750 ft.of the potential construction. We were informed that the new townhomes were planning to be 3 stories (which included a garage), would be close to our property line, and would have windows overlooking our 5 to 6 ft. fences. She informed us that the Olson company wanted to help us with our privacy issues. When these visits first began I went to the planning department and was told by the principal planner, Alfonso Hernandez, that when the project was further along and the re-zoning issue was discussed the neighbors within the 75 Oft. radius would be informed by a letter and invited to the meeting In January 2024 the visits to my home and fellow neighbors from the Diane Ripley increased. She conveyed that the Olson Company wanted to offer us $2000 for trees or structures to help protect our privacy. Prior to these visits many of the residents told her that we were against the building of the townhornes for many reasons and we were not interested in speaking with her. Shortly after, many of the residents were mailed letters, received Fed-ex letters, and even phorle calls from various members of the Olson Company asking for us to meet with them to see how they could help us. We were very clear that we wanted to speak with the planning department and attend the meeting regarding the re-zoning This meeting has been postponed many times per the builders request. Since that time many other residents of the Island, Suva Street, the surrounding neighborhoods off of Guatemala, and some Bell Gardens residents have signed petitions and raised many concerns about this project. Some of the' concerns are as follows: Attachment K 1.Traffic–. Increased traffic during peak weekday hours. Suva now gets backed up and can take up to 30 minutes to get to Paramount. This witt rnean more traffic for the side residential streets off Guatemala which are already impacted. Many of the residents have already requested speed bumps for the current traffic situation 2. Bridge Safety-–Ttle bridge that enters to the Island on Suva/Foster bridge is over 70 years old. When it was originally built there was not as much traffic or heavy vehicles traveling across it. The potential of 33 townhomes can add anywhere of two to four cars per household. That means more traffic and wear and tear on the bridge. Also, we have to take nto account emergency vehicles traveling over the bridge as well as school buses, some which transport special needs children. 3. Parking– The townhomes will be built with two car garages. If the residents have more than two cars or visitors the cars will be parked on Bluff Road and on or near Treasure Island Park. 4. Schools–Traffic to the local schools of Maude Price and Griffiths will be increased. TIle streets in front of both schools are narrow. Many students are dropped off by car or walk. The increase in vehicles and children entering and exiting the school can be dangerous for children and will cause more traffie back during school drop off and pick up hours This project will have rnany implications for the residents of northwest Downey. Thank you Jennifer Weed Concerned Citizen Attachment K 1 Irma Huitron From:John Reekstin <jreekstin@theolsonco.com> Sent:Tuesday, February 13, 2024 4:16 PM To:Irma Huitron Cc:Steven Armanino; John Reekstin Subject:Current Development Rights for 7630 Foster Bridge Attachments:20240213160559653.pdf Hello Irma - attached in a cover letter and attachment letter detailing our analysis of the residential development rights of the property under its current land use and zoning designation. Our intent is to demonstrate that Olson's proposed development is consistent with the residential density currently permitted by right under State Density Bonus and Accessory Development Unit law. Thanks so much for your consideration of this information. John John Reekstin Senior Vice-President/Community Development The Olson Company 562-331-9358 DISCLAIMER: Information in this message and its attachments may be privileged or confidential. It is for the exclusive u se of the intended recipient(s). If you are not one of the intended recipients, you are hereby informed that any use, disclosure, distribution, and/or copying of this information is strictly prohibited. If you receive this message in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete all copies of this message. We recommend that you scan your incoming Emails. We cannot accept responsibility for any transmitted viruses. RECEIVED FEB 1 3 2024 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT February 12, 2024 Ms. Irma Huitron Director of Community Development City of Downey Community Development Dept. 1 1 1 1 1 Brookshire Avenue Downey, California 90241 Re:7360 Foster Bridge Boulevard – 33 Unit Condominium Development (PLN 23- 00035/Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 84168, General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Site Plan Review, Density Bonus) Dear Irma: The following is a summary of our understanding of the land use rights for the property located at 7360 Foster Bridge Boulevard based on the current General Plan and zoning designation. The following City Municipal Code-compliant density analysis utilizes State Density Bonus Law (SDBL) and Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) law demonstrating that up to 52 dwelling units would be permitted without the need for a General Plan Amendment or zone change. In addition, as you may be aware AB 1287 was recently enacted by the State allowing the “stacking” of density bonuses given the provision of the required percentage of affordable units, which could potentially yield a significant number of additional units on the subject site. The gross lot area of the site is 56,029 square feet. Per SDBL, gross lot area is used for density calculations. Maximum allowable density pursuant to SDBL “... means the greatest number of units allowed under the zoning ordinance, specific plan, or land use element of the general plan, or, if a range of density is permitted, means the greatest number of units allowed by the specific zoning range, specific plan, or and land use element of the general plan applicable to the project.” The Land Use Element of the GeneraI Plan provides a density of 8.9 dwelling units per acre and this is also confirmed with the Housing Element. Even though the R-1 density is one du/6,000 sf, as stated above, when using SDBL, the greatest amount of units allowed either of the General Plan or zoning is used. Here, the project would have at least ten percent moderate income units pursuant to the requirements of the City’s Inclusionary Housing Ordinance, yielding a five percent density bonus. The 56,029 sf gross lot area translates to approximately 1.286 acres. Multiplied by 8.9 dwelling units per acre this equals a base density of 11.45 dwelling units rounded to 12 dwelling units as the base density as pennitted under SDBL. With a five percent moderate income density bonus added to 11.45 dwelling units for ten percent moderate income units, this equals 12.02 dwelling units. Since SDBL rounds up, this equals 13 dwelling units. 3010 Old Ranch Parkway Suite 100; Seal Beach, CA 90740-2751; (562) 596-4770 RECEIVED FEB 1 3 2024 HI,PFXFI!!!EFIITY DEV.ELOPMNT yI one ADU and one Junior ADU (“JADU”) per dwelling unit. Applying this, the project site would accommodate 39 dwelling units. Further, in addition to the one ADU and JADU state law permits one additional detached ADU per single-family residence. This would result in 13 additional ADUs for a total of 52 dwelling units, 3/4 of which would be rental units – all using the current greatest amount of density permitted under the City’s General Plan applicable to the site. The total parking requirement under this scenario would be 33 spaces, per SDBL (2.5 spaces per single-family unit) and ADU law (no additional parking required). See the below chart for a summary of this scenario. I„ ,dditi,„ t, thes, dw,lli„, „„it,. G„/„.m,„t c,d, s„ti,. 65852.2r,+W® Parking Requle For-Sale / Rental # UnitsBuildin 13 34For-SaleSFD Attached ADU Rental 13 0 13JADU 0Rental RentalDetached ADU 13 0 TOTAL:52 34 Should you have any questions or would like to discuss prior to the Planning Commission hearing on the Project, please feel free to reach out to me directly. Sincerely, Senior Vice-President, Community Development The Olson Company 3010 Old Ranch Parkway Suite 100; Seal Beach, CA 90740-2751; (562) 596-4770 RECEIVED FEB 1 3 2024 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT February 13, 2024 Ms. Irma Huitron Director of Community Development City of Downey Community Development Dept. 1 1111 Brookshire Avenue Downey, California 90241 Re:7360 Foster Bridge Boulevard -- 33 Unit Condominium Development (PLN 23- 00035/Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 84168, General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Site Plan Review, Density Bonus) Dear Irma: Attached we have provided an analysis of the current development rights for 7360 Foster Bridge Boulevard under State Density Borius Law (SDBL) and Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) law that would not require any change to the General Plan designation or zoning for the site. We are providing this information to demonstrate that Olson’s proposed development, although requiring a General Plan Amendment and zone change, is consistent with the number of residential units permitted under State law based on the site’s current land use and zoning designations. As you know, with the much-appreciated assistance of staff, Olson is proposing a well-designed community that is significantly less dense and much better parked than what is permitted by law under the existing land use designations for the property. In fact, the 52-unit development plan outlined in the attached letter only requires the provision of 33 parking spaces, while Olson’s proposed 33-unit townhome community provides a total of 71 parking spaces. In addition, as you may be aware AB 1287 was recently enacted by the State allowing the “stacking” of density bonuses given the provision of the required percentage of affordable units, which could potentially yield a significant number of additional units on the subject site. We appreciate staffs willingness to review the attached letter as you prepare the staff report for the Public Hearing with the Planning Commission and incorporation of your conclusions related to the analysis as you deem appropriate. Please let me know if I can provide any further information that would be helpfbl to you. S J:hn Reekstin Senior Vice-President, Community Development The Olson Company 3010 Old Ranch Parkway Suite 100; Seal Beach, CA 90740-2751; (562) 596-4770 1 Irma Huitron From:John Reekstin <jreekstin@theolsonco.com> Sent:Tuesday, February 27, 2024 9:08 AM To:Irma Huitron Cc:Alfonso S. Hernandez; Steven Armanino; John Reekstin Subject:SB 4 - Potential Use of Foster Bridget Property Good morning Irma – in addition to the information previously sent re: the potential incorporation of ADU and JADU units if the property is developed under the current General Plan land use designation, we are also providing the below summary of the potential development of the site, by right, under the provisions of SB 4 since the property is currently owned by a religious institution. Please let me know if you have any questions or need further information. Have a great day. John John Reekstin Senior Vice-President/Community Development The Olson Company 562-331-9358 Assuming the project meets all the qualifying criteria, such as no one living there now, no earthquake fault, no industrial uses, no floodway/flood zone, etc., and there is a deal with the church (which obviously there is), and the project would be 100 percent affordable (low income with up to 20 percent moderate income, and up to five percent housing for the church), the base density is up to 30 du/ac since this is the density that the City uses to accommodate low income housing (Gov’t Code Section 65913.16(j)(1)(A)). The site consists of approximately 56,029 sf, or 1.286 acres. At 30 d u/ac this equals 38.58 du for the project site, rounded to 39 du. The project site is eligible for density bonus even though it is on SFR zoned land (Gov’t Code Section 65913.16(j)(1)(C). Let’s say there would be 15 percent (i.e., six units) VLI for a 50 percent density bonus, this would equal 20 more units for 59 du. And if there were an additional 15 percent (i.e., six units) moderate income, the stacked density bonus would allow 79 du. As a result, there could be 79 dwelling units with only six VLI and six moderate income units. This density does not include any potential accessory dwelling units. With respect to other development standards, SB 4 allows one story in height above the height limit in district (but also subject to SDBL waivers and incentives that could allow more height to accommodate the density) (Gov’t Code Section 65913.16(j)(1)(A)). For parking, there needs to be at least one parking space per dwelling unit (Gov’t Code Section 65913.16(k)), and there could be State Density Bonus Law waivers, incentives or additional parking relief. An SB 4 project is exempt from CEQA (Gov’t Code Section 65913.16(l)(7)). It is also by-right (Gov’t Code Section 65913.16(h)). DISCLAIMER: Information in this message and its attachments may be privileged or confidential. It is for the exclusive use of the intended recipient(s). If you are not one of the intended recipients, you are hereby informed that any use, disclosure, distribution, and/or copying of this information is strictly prohibited. If you receive this message in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete all copies of this message. We recommend that you scan your incoming Emails. We cannot accept responsibility for any transmitted viruses. DENSITY ANALYSIS OF 7360 FOSTER BRIDGE BOULEVARD Summary The City of Downey has received a request from The Olson Company (Applicant) to construct a 33-unit condominium development at property located 7360 Foster Bridge Boulevard (Subject Property). At the request of the City of Downey (City), Sagecrest Planning + Environmental (Sagecrest) has prepared the following density analysis. The Applicant proposed to construct 33 condominium units on the subject site, which would exceed the maximum allowable development of 13 units, including base density and density bonus units, exclusive of ADUs and JADUs. Furthermore, the City’s zoning code does not permit condominiums within any of the R-1 zoned properties. Notwithstanding the density limit, if 100% of the units meet the affordability requirements and the applicant is a qualified developer under SB 4, they could propose up to 71 units. Background The Subject Site is an approximate 56,029 square foot parcel that is improved with an 8,480 square foot church. The Subject Site has a General Plan Land Use Designation of Low Density Residential (LDR) and is zoned R-1 6,000 (Single-Family Residential Zone, 6,000 square foot minimum lot size). According to Downey Municipal Code (DMC) §9312.02, the purpose of R-1 zone is to “provide for the development of single-family residential areas and to designate appropriately located areas for family living at designated population densities. The provisions of this zone are intended to ensure that the residential character of such areas will be stabilized and maintained. They are further intended to provide a basis for the planning of related amenities, such as parks, schools, public utilities, streets and highways, and other community facilities.” Permitted uses in the R-1 zones include single family residences, but multi-family dwellings, including apartments and condominiums, are not permitted. Base Zoning Under the R-1 6,000 zone, the property could be subdivided into single family residential lots with a minimum lot size of 6,000 square feet. The calculation of the maximum number of dwelling units under the zoning is as follows: 56,029 square feet ÷ 6,000 square feet = 9.3 Rounding this number down (as a partial unit could not be built), nine single-family homes could be built under the current zoning. In addition to the nine base units, each parcel would also be allowed one ADU and one JADU as discussed below. It is important to note that ADUs are not considered part of the density calculation as Government Code §65852.2(a)(1)(C) and §68582.2(a)(11) clarify that ADUs are an accessory use to the primary use of a property and do not contribute to the allowable density. Density Bonus Government Code §65915 et. seq. contains the State Density Bonus Law, which could be utilized to increase the number of units allowed on the Subject Site. Unfortunately, DMC §9512, which lists the City’s density bonus regulations, is no longer consistent with State law and would not be applicable. To determine the allowed density bonus, we must first determine the base density for the Subject Property. Government Code §65915(o)(6) defines base density as “the greatest number of units allowed under the zoning ordinance, specific plan, or land use element of the general plan, or, if a range of density is permitted, means the greatest number of units allowed by the specific zoning range, specific plan, or land use element of the general plan applicable to the project. Density shall be determined using dwelling units per acre.” The LDR General Plan designation allows up to 8.9 dwelling units per acre. The calculation of the maximum number of dwelling units under the General Plan is as follows: 1.29 acres (43560 square feet per acre) x 8.9 dwelling units per acre = 11.5 Unlike determining density under standard zoning, when a project includes a density bonus, Government Code §65915(f)(5) requires the City to round up fractional units to the next whole number. This results in the zoning allowing ten units and the General Plan allowing 12 units. Given the General Plan allows a higher density, the number of density bonus units would be calculated from the 12 base units. The applicant has stated they would provide 10% of the units for moderate income to qualify for the density bonus. Per Government Code §65915(f)(4), they would be entitled to a 5% density bonus (in addition to any concessions/invectives, parking reductions, and development standard waivers). The calculation of the increase in density is as follows: 12 units (base density) x .05 = 0.6 density bonus units. 12 units (base density) + 0.6 density bonus units = 12.6 total units The 12.6 total units allowed would be rounded up to 13 units allowed on the Subject Property. Accessory Dwelling Units Government Code §65852.2 regulates ADUs and Government Code §65852.22 regulates JADUs. DMC §9514 includes the City’s ADU regulations; however this code is no longer consistent with State law and would not be applicable. The applicant has stated they would be allowed “one ADU and one Junior ADU (“JADU”) per dwelling unit.” Additionally, the applicant states “Further, in addition to the one ADU and JADU state law permits one additional detached ADU per single-family residence.” Sagecrest notes that this statement is an incorrect interpretation of State ADU law. Government Code 65852.2(a)(1)(D)(iii) allows one ADU that is within or attached to the primary dwelling unit or is detached from primary dwelling unit. The ADU must be located on the same parcel as primary dwelling unit. The ADU may be rented separately from the primary dwelling but cannot be conveyed or sold separately from the primary dwelling. In addition to ADUs, Government Code §65852.22(a)(1) allows one JADU per single family residential parcel. The JADU must be constructed within the building envelope of the existing or proposed single family residence and cannot be conveyed or sold separately from the primary residence. Furthermore, if a JADU is provided, the property owner shall live in either the primary residence or the JADU. As previously noted, State law defines ADUs and JADUs as accessory uses to the primary use of a property and do not contribute to the allowable density. The ADU and JADU would be required to be conveyed with the primary unit of the parcel. These units cannot be used to determine base density and would not increase the allowable density bonus. This distinction is important since the ADUs and JADUs include additional regulations on ownership, owner occupancy, and conveyance of the units. Nevertheless, if the Subject Property is divided into 13 parcels, each parcel could have the primary unit, ADU, and a JADU bringing the total number of dwellings to 39. SB 9 Even though the applicant did not specify they would pursue SB 9 application; however, City Staff’s analysis referenced the State Law and Sagecrest would be remiss not to provide additional analysis. SB 9 added §65852.21 to the California Government Code. This law allows the development of two residential units on a parcel zoned for single family residential. SB 9 also added §66411.7 to the Government Code, which allows the ministerial subdivision of single-family parcels into two lot (each with the ability to build two dwelling units). The latter of these statues require the property owner to live on one of the parcels for at least three years and cannot be a party to another SB 9 development on an adjacent lot. Furthermore, Government Code §65852.21(f) states if a property owner utilizes both §6585.21 and §66411.7 to allow four units, the City no longer is required to permit ADUs or JADUs on the property. Due to these restrictions, it is unlikely the Applicant would have a benefit from SB 9 as it would limit the development to four dwelling units. Notwithstanding this, future property owners could take advantage of the provisions of SB 9 after the Subject Property is subdivided into individual lots. SB 4 The Subject Property is improved with an existing religious facility, thus would be eligible for benefits of SB 4, which provides a streamline ministerial process for housing developments. The allowed density for projects is the greater of the permitted density per zoning or the density deemed appropriate to accommodate housing for lower income households (also referred to as default density standards). For the City of Downey, this default density is 30 dwelling units per acre1. Under this scenario, the base density for the Project Site would be 39 units. 1.29 acres (43560 square feet per acre) x 30 dwelling units per acre = 38.7 SB 4 requires 100% of the units, exclusive of the manager’s unit, to be reserved for very-low- and low- income households, except for 20% of the units may be reserved for moderate income households and 5% may be for the staff of the church (Government Code §65913.16(c)(9)). Since the zoning for the site is residential, the applicant would be eligible for density increase permitted under Government Code §65915. The Project site is not within a very-low VMT area or within ½ mile of a major transit stop, as such would not be eligible for unlimited density. If the applicant provides all the units for either very-low or low- income households, however, they will qualify for an 80% density bonus (Government Code §65915(f)(3)(D)(i)). The calculation of the increase in density is as follows: 39 units (base density) x .80 = 31.2 density bonus units. 39 units (base density) + 32 density bonus units = 71 total units To qualify for SB 4, the Applicant must meet one of the following: 1. Local public agencies such as cities, counties, housing authorities, and other public entities authorized to develop or operate affordable housing; 2. A nonprofit corporation, a limited partnership in which a managing general partner is a nonprofit corporation, or a limited liability company in which a managing member is a nonprofit corporation which, at the time the application is submitted, owns or manages property that has a welfare exemption under the state tax code; 3. A developer that contracts with a nonprofit corporation that has received a welfare exemption under the state tax code for properties intended to be sold to low-income families with a zero- interest rate loan; or 4. A developer that the religious institution or independent institution of education has contracted with before to construct housing or other improvements to real property. As part of the housing development, the church may remain, or be incorporated into the project provided the square footage of nonresidential space does not exceed what was previously permitted. 1 https://www.hcd.ca.gov/community-development/housing-element/housing-element- memos/docs/defaultdensity2020censusupdate.pdf Additionally, SB 4 sets development standards, triggers for prevailing wage requirements, and limitations on City review timeframes.