HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem No. 2- DA 19-01, MUP 18-06, ADR 18-19, & PC AM 18-02
DATE: July 9, 2019
TO: Honorable Chairman and Planning Commission
FROM: Lisa Flores, Planning & Community Development Administrator
By: Tim Schwehr, Senior Management Analyst
SUBJECT: DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT NO. DA 19-01, MINOR USE PERMIT
NO. MUP 18-06, ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN REVIEW NO. ADR 18-19,
AND PLANNING COMMISSION ADMINISTRATIVE MODIFICATION NO.
PC AM 18-02 WITH A CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION UNDER THE
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) TO CONVERT
10,000 SQUARE FEET OF THE 38,761 SQUARE FOOT, SELF-
STORAGE BUILDING INTO A MULTITENANT FOOD HALL WITH AN
INCIDENTAL OUTDOOR DINING AREA AT 33–35 W. HUNTINGTON
DRIVE
Recommendation: Forward a Recommendation to the City Council
SUMMARY
The Applicant, Mr. Peter Lee of Northeast Development Enterprises II LLC, is
requesting approval of a Development Agreement and entitlements for an adaptive
reuse project to convert 10,000 square feet of the existing 38,761 square foot self-
storage building at 33-35 W. Huntington Drive into a multi-tenant Food Hall space.
Additionally, the applicant proposes a new 1,326 square foot incidental outdoor dining
area on the ground floor at the rear of the building. It is recommended that the Planning
Commission convey their comments and forward a recommendation to the City Council
to approve this project with a Categorical Exemption under CEQA subject to the
conditions listed in this staff report.
BACKGROUND
The Property is a 20,040 square foot lot, zoned, Central Business District (CBD), and is
developed with a 38,761 square foot, four-story building with a basement that was
constructed in 1949 - refer to Attachment No. 1 for an Aerial photo with Zoning
Information and Photos of the Subject Property. Each floor, including the basement
level, contains approximately 7,600 squa re feet of gross floor area. There is an existing
20 space surface parking lot at the north half of the lot. The building was originally
constructed as a commercial storage facility and has been in continuous operation as
commercial storage and/or self-storage since that time. The ground floor is split-level
DA 19-01, MUP 18-06, PC AM 18-02, & ADR 18-19
33-35 W. Huntington Drive
July 9, 2019
Page 2 of 27
with the lower half fronting on Huntington Drive and consisting of two small commercial
office units. The upper half of the first floor is accessed from the rear parking lot and
consists of individual self-storage units, the self-storage leasing office, and an empty
storage area that was most recently used by Rusnak Mercedes-Benz for parts and
inventory storage. The basement level is currently vacant and was most recently
occupied by Rusnak for parts storage. Floors 2 through 4 consist of individual self-
storage units that are leased to the public. A front and rear photo of the building is
included below as Figure 1.
Figure 1: Subject Property – front and rear
The subject property was originally acquired by the Arcadia Redevelopment Agency in
2006 as part of a Land Assembly and Development Agreement. The Redevelopment
project involving this property never materialized, and the building has since been
managed as a self -storage facility through a contract with Braun Management
Company. Following the dissolution of Redevelopment in 2012, a long Range Property
Management Plan (“LRPMP”) was adopted by the City in January of 2013. The LRPMP
established that the property at 33-35 W. Huntington Drive be used to temporarily store
parts for Rusnak on the basement and first floor until such time that their dealership
expansion project was complete. Floors 2 through 4 were approved to continue
operating as leasable self-storage units until Rusnak vacated the property. The Rusnak
development project was completed in July 2017, and their parts storage and inventory
operation relocated into their new development in August 2017. The LRPMP specifies
that the Successor Agency now move forward with the sale and diss olution of the
property at 33-35 W. Huntington Drive.
A Request for Proposals (“RFP”) for the Property was issued on June 7, 2017 to local
real estate developers, commercial brokers, and self -storage operators. The RFP
requested prospective buyers to submit a purchase price offer and a description of how
they intended to use the Property. Stated in the RFP was the Agency’s desire to
repurpose the ground floor of the building into a more active commercial use consistent
with the General Plan designation of the site and the vision for the Downtown Arcadia
commercial district. Five proposals were submitted in response to the RFP. Three of the
DA 19-01, MUP 18-06, PC AM 18-02, & ADR 18-19
33-35 W. Huntington Drive
July 9, 2019
Page 3 of 27
proposals were to continue the existing self-storage use on all levels, while leasing the
two small commercial units fronting Huntington Drive as either office or retail. One
submittal proposed to acquire and hold the Property with the long -term goal of
incorporating it into a future development project with other contiguous parcels on this
block. The final proposal was to repurpose the entire ground floor and the basement
and/or roof of the building to a multi-tenant Food Hall with residential lofts on floors 2
through 4.
The proposals were reviewed by staff, and then presented to the Successor Agency in a
study session on September 19, 2017. Following discussion, the Agency selected the
multi-tenant Food Hall as the preferred option, and directed staff to work with the
developer to refine the details of their pro posal. On February 6, 2018, a revised
proposal from the Buyer was presented to the Successor Agency in study session. The
revised proposal included using floors 2 through 4 as self-storage instead of converting
them to residential lofts. Following review of the revised proposal, the Successor
Agency directed staff to prepare a Purchase and Sale Agreement.
Figure 2: Aerial of Subject Property
On June 5, 2018, the Successor Agency formally approved the Purchase & Sale
Agreement with Northeast Development Enterprises II, LLC. The terms of the
Agreement included a purchase price of $3,250,000. Close of escrow conditions
included approval of development project entitlements and entering into a Development
Agreement to allow 10,000 square feet of the building to be used as a multi-tenant Food
Hall, and the continued operation of self-storage use on the basement level and on
DA 19-01, MUP 18-06, PC AM 18-02, & ADR 18-19
33-35 W. Huntington Drive
July 9, 2019
Page 4 of 27
floors 2 through 4. Following approval of the Purchase and Sale Agreement by the
Successor Agency, on June 19, 2018, the Oversight Board to the Successor Agency to
the Arcadia Redevelopment Agency reviewed and approved the Purchase and Sale
Agreement. The Purchase and Sale Agreement was signed and executed by the City
and the Buyer on October 16, 2018. In April 2019, the initial 180-day escrow period was
extended four additional months to August 14, 2019.
PROPOSAL
The Applicant proposes to convert the majority of the first floor of the Arcadia Self
Storage Building (7,037 square feet) and a portion of the rooftop area (approximately
2,962 square feet) into a multitenant Food Hall. W ithin this space, the Food Hall will
accommodate up to 10 vendors. The ground floor is initially proposed to have a
coffee/breakfast zone in the front of the building along Huntington Drive with 1 -to-2
vendors; a lunch/dinner area in the center and back of the ground floor with 4-to-6 food
vendors and one alcohol-related vendor; and one beer hall/alcohol vendor occupying
the roof with a potential small kitchen or separate food vendor on the roof as well . The
specific vendor mix, floor plan layouts, and number of tenants may be adjusted at the
Food Hall operator’s discretion based on market demand, provided the overall use of
the building remain a multitenant Food Hall. Including the outdoor seating area at the
rear of the building, the proposed floor plan has 11 sets of communal tables and
benches for seating on the ground floor. The roof floor plan proposes seven sets of
communal tables and benches.
Figure 3: Proposed Ground Floor Plan
DA 19-01, MUP 18-06, PC AM 18-02, & ADR 18-19
33-35 W. Huntington Drive
July 9, 2019
Page 5 of 27
Figure 4: Proposed Roof Plan
The Food Hall is requesting approval of operating hours of 7:00 AM to 12:00 AM
(Midnight), Sunday through Thursday, and 7:00 AM to 2:00 AM, Friday & Saturday. In
the project conditions of approval, staff is recommending extending the allowable
morning operating hours to begin at 6:00 AM each day, rather than 7:00 AM, to ensure
that coffee vendors, bakery tenants, and/or breakfast vendors are viable options for the
Food Hall. Actual operating hours will be based on the specific mix of tenants and
customer demand, but will not exceed the approved hours. The basement and floors 2
through 4 will continue to be utilized for self-storage with a small leasing office proposed
near the rear of the building on the ground floor level. Currently, the existing self-storage
business is open weekdays from 8:00 AM to 5:30 PM and weekends from 9:00 AM to
4:00 PM. The Applicant anticipates maintaining similar operating hours for the self -
storage business.
The proposed project requires approval of the following entitlements:
Minor Use Permit: A multitenant Food Hall (small restaurant uses) with alcoholic
beverage service is permitted by right in the CBD zone on a property that is more
than 300 feet from the nearest residential zoned property. However, the proposal
is subject to a Minor Use Permit for the proposed late night operating hours on
Fridays and Saturdays (i.e, between 12:00 midnight and 6:00 AM) and for the
proposed incidental outdoor dining area because it exceeds 12 seats.
Administrative Modification: To allow 20 parking spaces in lieu of 68 spaces
required for the proposed mix of uses.
Architectural Design Review: The Applicant proposes exterior changes to the
existing building consisting of a new storefront glass roll-up door system along
the Huntington Drive frontage and at the rear of the building, a new elevated
DA 19-01, MUP 18-06, PC AM 18-02, & ADR 18-19
33-35 W. Huntington Drive
July 9, 2019
Page 6 of 27
outdoor patio at the rear of the building, and cosmetic changes to the exterior
walls and building façade.
Development Agreement: The proposal includes a Development Agreement with
the City for several items related to the Successor Agency’s sale of the building
and the Applicant’s Food Hall proposal.
CEQA Determination: The proposed project has been determined to be
categorically exempt pursuant to Section 15303 of the CEQA Guidelines. Refer
to Attachment No. 8 for the Preliminary Exemption Assessment.
ANALYSIS
The Applicant’s proposal is to purchase the property at 33-35 W. Huntington Drive and
convert the ground floor of the building and a portion of the roof into a multitenant Food
Hall. This project was initially reviewed by the Arcadia Successor Agency through an
RFP to sell the property and the Applicant was chosen as the preferred buyer based in
part on the desirability of the proposed Food Hall use and the unique benefits it would
bring to the Downtown Arcadia commercial district, including the following:
1. Will create a unique destination in Downtown Arcadia.
2. Will create a new activity node that connects the historic core of Downtown
Arcadia to the new Le Meridien hotel development and to Santa Anita Park.
3. Will help to enact the goals and policies listed in the Arcadia General Plan related
to revitalizing Downtown Arcadia.
4. Will bring new customers and additional foot traffic to the area with positive
exposure and potential new customers for other businesses in Downtown
Arcadia.
In order to approve the proposed adaptive reuse project, a Minor Use Permit,
Administrative Modification for reduced on-site parking, Architectural Design Review,
and a Development Agreement are required. An analysis of each entitlement is
provided below.
Minor Use Permit
A multitenant Food Hall is classified as small restaurant uses with alcoholic beverage
service and is allowed by right in the CBD zone on the Subject Property, because it is
located greater than 300 feet from the nearest residentially zoned property. A Minor Use
Permit is required for the Food Hall to have late night operating hours on Friday and
Saturday nights (later than 12 Midnight) and for the incidental outdoor dining area to
have more than 12 seats (60 seats proposed).
DA 19-01, MUP 18-06, PC AM 18-02, & ADR 18-19
33-35 W. Huntington Drive
July 9, 2019
Page 7 of 27
The proposed Food Hall has been reviewed by all City departments and all department
comments and conditions have been incorporated into the project and recommended
conditions of approval. The proposed Food Hall will comply with all zoning, building and
safety, fire, L.A. County Health Department, Alcoholic Beverage Control Board, and
other requirements with the exception of providing the required number of on-site
parking spaces for which an Administrative Modification is requested.
A traffic study for the proposed project has been prepared by Gibson Transportation
Consulting, Inc. and is included as Attachment No. 5. The study evaluated the current
condition of the surrounding intersections and streets and the estimated traffic impacts
from the proposed Food Hall project. Based on the analysis, it was determined that the
proposed project will not have any traffic impacts that warrant mitigation or further study .
A separate parking study was also prepared by Gibson Transportation Consulting Inc.
for this project, and is discussed in the Administrative Modification section of the
analysis.
Consistent with the required findings for approval of a Minor Use Permit, t he proposed
Food Hall is consistent with and will help to achieve a large number of the goals and
policies of the Arcadia General Plan and the Downtown Arcadia Land Use Focus Area
specifically. These include goals and policies related to the following:
Encouraging redevelopment of underutilized p roperties with uses that better
complement the vision of the Downtown.
Promoting pedestrian connectivity and a walkability in the area; creating a
“park once” system in Downtown Arcadia and using shared parking public
parking lots and other creative approaches to parking.
Adjusting development standards to ensure that parking and zoning
regulations enhance redevelopment opportunities and do not preclude project
feasibility.
With approval of an Administrative Modification for reduced parking and the
corresponding parking measures and project conditions of approval, the proposal is
compatible with the existing and future land uses in the vicinity, and the project site can
accommodate the proposed Food Hall use with late night operating hours and 60 seat
incidental outdoor dining area. Based on the above analysis, the proposal is consistent
with the required findings for approval of a Minor Use Permit as outlined in the Findings
section of this staff report.
Administrative Modification (Parking)
There are currently 20 on-site parking spaces and the existing mix of land uses has a
parking requirement of 35 spaces per the parking standards of the Arcadia
Development Code. This includes the two units fronting Huntington Drive that were
formerly office spaces, but are now required to be used as retail or another allowable
DA 19-01, MUP 18-06, PC AM 18-02, & ADR 18-19
33-35 W. Huntington Drive
July 9, 2019
Page 8 of 27
use under the current Development Code. For parking purposes, the self-storage use is
classified as warehouse and/or general industrial use, both of which require 1 parking
space per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area for a total of 28 parking spaces for the
self-storage area (including the 25% transit reduction). In practice however, the current
self-storage use has a much lower parking demand , peaking at a maximum usage of 3-
to-5 parking spaces at a time based on Gibson Transportation Consultants parking
study and staff’s observations of the lot.
Existing Uses Size Code Req’d Parking Req’d
Storage 36,647 sf 1 per 1,000 sf 36.65
Retail (vacant) 2,114 sf 1 per 200 sf 10.57
(Transit Reduction) ¼-mile Metro Station 25% reduction (-11.81)
Total 35 spaces
Table 1: Parking Requirement of Existing Uses
Based on the proposed mix of uses, the Arcadia Municipal Code requires 68 p arking
spaces for the project. The Food Hall is calculated using a “small restaurant” parking
ratio of 1 space per 200 square feet of gross floor area . The incidental outdoor dining
area (Outdoor Patio) requires 1 parking space per 6 seats, and a conservative estimate
is that at most the proposed communal bench seating could accommodate is 60
patrons.
Proposed Uses Size Code Req’d Parking Req’d
Storage 31,230 sf 1 per 1,000 sf 31.23
Food Hall 10,000 sf 1 per 200 sf 50
Outdoor Patio 1,326 sf (60 seats) 1 per 6 seats 10
(Transit Reduction) ¼-mile Metro Station 25% reduction (-22.81)
Total 68 spaces
Table 2: Parking Requirement of Proposed Uses
To bring the property into compliance with current ADA requirements and solid waste
requirements, the Applicant proposes to add a van-accessible ADA parking space and
construct a new covered trash and recyclables enclosure at the north-end of the parking
lot. As part of this project, the Applicant is also proposing to eliminate the northern most
vehicular connection between the subject property and the adjacent property to the west
(Rod’s Grill) in order to maximize the number of on -site parking spaces. There is an
easement across the Rod’s Grill property near the south-end of the parking lot requiring
vehicular access to remain open to the subject property, but there is no formal
easement recorded on the subject property that requires vehicular access or a vehicular
connection at the north-end of these parking lots. The reconfigured parking lot would
increase the number of on-site parking from 20 spaces to 23 spaces.
DA 19-01, MUP 18-06, PC AM 18-02, & ADR 18-19
33-35 W. Huntington Drive
July 9, 2019
Page 9 of 27
Although staff appreciates the Applicant’s desire to maximize the number of on-site
parking spaces, staff is concerned about the impact to vehicular circulation for the
adjacent business (Rod’s Grill) of closing off the northern vehicular connection as this
would create a dead-end condition in their parking lot with no easy way for vehicles to
circulate and exit the site. Therefore, as a condition of approval for this project, it is
recommended that the Applicant revise their on -site parking to keep the 20 existing on-
site parking spaces and maintain the current vehicular connection open with Rod’s Grill
property and formalize this arrangement by recording an a ccess easement at this
location.
In lieu of providing the additional parking spaces on-site to comply with current parking
standards, as part of the Food Hall the Applicant has proposed to implement the
following parking measures:
Valet parking on Friday, Saturday, and Sundays from 5:00 PM - Close.
A requirement in their tenant leases that all tenants and staff must park off-site.
Leasing of parking in the adjacent Elk’s Lodge property or another nearby private
parking lot for use by employees, valet, and potentially patrons.
A $200,000 in lieu fee paid to the City to be used for public parking management
in the area or construction of a future public parking resource.
To help the City better determine the actual anticipated parking needs of the proposed
project and potential parking solutions including those proposed by the Applicant, the
City contracted with Gibson Transportation Consulting, Inc. to prepare a parking
analysis and recommendations memorandum for this project. As previously mentioned
in this report, the self-storage use parking requirement of over 25 spaces is in practice
significantly higher than the actual parking needs of this use. The Food Hall also is not a
typical restaurant use as it utilizes communal seating and smaller footprints for food
preparation and sales, and therefore has different parking needs than 10,000 square
feet of typical small restaurant spaces. As part of their analysis, Gibson surveyed
current parking conditions in the vicinity of the project site, estimated anticipated parking
needs of the proposed project, and recommended measures to consider implementing
to address any anticipated parking shortages on-site. The Gibson analysis and
recommendations memorandum is included as Attachment No. 4 to the staff report. The
most pertinent findings from the analysis are summarized as follows:
Gibson estimates a peak parking demand for the project of 59 parking spaces
occurring at 9:00 PM on weekdays, and 67 parking spaces occurring at 9:00 PM
and 10:00 PM on weekends.
During morning and lunchtime hours, Gibson estimates a peak parking demand of
40 spaces on weekdays and 36 spaces on weekends. The chart below shows the
estimated peak hourly parking demand for both weekdays and weekends.
DA 19-01, MUP 18-06, PC AM 18-02, & ADR 18-19
33-35 W. Huntington Drive
July 9, 2019
Page 10 of 27
Figure 5: Estimated peak parking based on 7,000sf restaurant, 3,000sf bar/gastropub, & 1,500sf coffee shop
Currently, there are approximately 120 curbside public parking spaces within a
one-to-two block distance of the project site and 224 public parking spaces in the
city-owned parking lot adjacent to the post office. The map below shows the
location and current time restrictions of these parking spaces.
Figure 6: Current Public Parking Restrictions
DA 19-01, MUP 18-06, PC AM 18-02, & ADR 18-19
33-35 W. Huntington Drive
July 9, 2019
Page 11 of 27
On weekday evenings starting at 5:00 PM, and all day on weekends, there is
currently adequate public parking in the vicinity of the site to accommodate the
additional parking needs of the Food Hall project.
On weekdays from 7:00 AM to 5:00 PM, public parking in the area is near full
occupancy and therefore may struggle to accommodate any extra demand for
public parking spaces created by the Food Hall unless other measures are also
implemented. More specifically, during this time-period, Gibson estimates the
proposed Food Hall and on-site self-storage business will have a peak parking
demand of approximately 40 to 45 spaces. With only 20 parking spaces on-site,
the Food Hall would therefore need to rely on public parking for an additional 20 to
25 spaces.
Gibson recommends consideration of a number of potential parking measures
concurrent with this project to create new public parking and/or free up additional
public parking, particularly during the weekday 7:00 AM to 5:00 PM time-period.
Using the parking strategies proposed by the Applicant, and the findings and
recommendations of the Gibson Parking Study, the Arcadia Commons Parking
Management Plan was prepared for this project and is included as Attachment No. 3 to
the staff report. The Parking Management Plan includes recommended items to
implement concurrent with opening of the Food Hall, including the following:
Add new curbside parking spaces along Santa Clara Street between Santa Anita
Avenue and Huntington Drive. Currently this entire section of Santa Clara Street
is red curbed with no curbside parking. There is room to add up to 48 new
curbside parking spaces on this street.
Add time-limits to all of the currently unrestricted Morlan Place curbside parking
spaces. These spaces are currently utilized predominately on an all-day basis by
employees of nearby businesses.
A requirement that the Food Hall operator lease off-site private parking at the
adjacent Elks Lodge property or another property in the vicinity of the subject
property for employee, valet use, and/or patron parking.
A $200,000 in lieu parking fee paid by the Applicant to the City for use towards
parking management, parking enforcement, and/or towards construction of a
future public parking resource in the Downtown Arcadia commercial district .
As part of a larger parking study and management plan for the Downtown Arcadia
commercial district, the City has already been considering the addition of new curbside
parking spaces onto Santa Clara Street, as well as potential time limits to curbside
parking on Morlan Place and other streets in Downtown Arcadia. The City Engineer has
reviewed all of the proposed measures in the Parking Management Plan and is in
agreement with implementing all of the proposed items as beneficial not only for this
DA 19-01, MUP 18-06, PC AM 18-02, & ADR 18-19
33-35 W. Huntington Drive
July 9, 2019
Page 12 of 27
specific project, but also for the Downtown Arcadia commercial district as a whole. The
Applicant has reviewed and is in agreement with all of the recommended items in the
Arcadia Commons Parking Management Plan. Where appropriate, these items have
also been included as recommended conditions of approval and/or in the Development
Agreement for this project.
Based on the above analysis, and the measures proposed to be implemented as part of
the Arcadia Commons Parking Management Plan, the proposed project is not
anticipated to result in any significant parking impacts. As such, the project is consistent
with the required finding for approval an Administrative Modification for reduced on -site
parking as securing an appropriate improvement of this parcel as outlined in the
Findings section of this staff report.
Architectural Design Review
The Applicant proposes exterior changes to the building consisting of new storefront
glass, a new incidental outdoor seating area, changes exterior paint colors of the
building, and on the rooftop the addition of decorative patio fixtures, overhead lighting,
safety railing, potted landscaping, and other decorative elements. These changes are
depicted on the elevations and renderings included as Attachment No. 2. The signage
shown on the plans and renderings is only conceptual and is subject to a separate
design review application. The Applicant is also considering adding a mural to the east
and/or west side of the building, which would also be subject to separate review at a
later date. The proposed changes to the building will create a unique and attractive
appearance that is consistent with a modern food hall aesthetic, the surrounding area,
and the City’s Architectural Design Guidelines.
Figure 7: Proposed Exterior Facade
Development Agreement
A Development Agreement is included as part of the proposed project to memorialize
several items related to the Successor-Agency’s sale of the building to the Applicant
based in part on the merits of their Food Hall proposal. Specifically, the Agreement
includes the following items:
DA 19-01, MUP 18-06, PC AM 18-02, & ADR 18-19
33-35 W. Huntington Drive
July 9, 2019
Page 13 of 27
The Agreement requires the new property owner to pay $200,000 to the City to
be used for future construction of public parking and/or public parking
enforcement and management in the area.
The Agreement requires that the Applicant open a minimum of 7,000 square feet
of the multitenant Food Hall no later than 30 months from close of escrow, or be
subject to liquidated damages for each day not in compliance with this
requirement.
The Agreement requires that once the Food Hall is open, the ground floor of the
building is to be continually operated as a multitenant Food Hall for a minimum
period of no less than 10 years from the date of initial opening. Continuous
operation is defined in the Agreement as open a minimum of four (4) days and
thirty (30) hours per week.
The Agreement requires that the City add and maintain time-limits on Morlan
Place curbside parking of no greater than four (4) hours on weekdays from 9:00
AM to 6:00 PM. The specific time restrictions on Morlan Place will still be set by
the City and may be adjusted in the future at the City’s discretion provided they
do not exceed a maximum of four hours.
The Applicant was selected by the Successor Agency as the preferred buyer for the
property based on the added value of the Food Hall. The Development Agreement
ensures that once the property sale transacts, the new owner will follow through with the
Food Hall proposal within a reasonable time-frame, and that once open the Food Hall
will remain in continuous operation for no less than 10 years. The Agreement only
requires that 7,000 square feet of Food Hall space open, rather than the full 10,000
square feet proposed, as there is a possibility that the roof level may be cost -prohibitive
to build out once a detailed structural analysis is completed and/or the miscellaneous
building and safety requirements are taken into account.
The $200,000 in-lieu parking impact fee was an amount proposed by the Applicant as
part of the initial discussions with the Successor Agency as a way to mitigate any
potential public parking impacts resulting from the Food Hall project. The in-lieu fee will
be deposited in a trust account and used by the City for additional parking enforcement
and parking management in the area, and/or towards construction of a future public
parking resource in Downtown Arcadia. The time restrictions on Morlan Place are
requested by the Applicant and included in the Development Agreement to ensure that
these spaces are not used by employees, Gold Line riders, or others on an all -day basis
during weekday business hours.
FINDINGS
The following are findings for each of the entitlements:
DA 19-01, MUP 18-06, PC AM 18-02, & ADR 18-19
33-35 W. Huntington Drive
July 9, 2019
Page 14 of 27
Minor Use Permit Findings
Section 9107.09.050 of the Development Code requires that the Planning Commission
may recommend approval a Minor Use Permit only if it first makes all of the following
findings:
1. The proposed use is consistent with the General Plan and any applicable
specific plan.
Facts to Support This Finding: The proposed Food Hall use with late night
operating hours and an incidental outdoor dining area with greater than 12 seats is
consistent with the Commercial Land Use Designation of the site, and the General
Plan’s Downtown Arcadia Land Use Focus Area, including the following goals and
policies:
Goal LU-10: A thriving Downtown, with healthy commercial areas supported by
high-quality, residential uses and supportive of the Metro Gold Line transit station.
Policy LU-10.2: Promote the Metro Gold Line Extension and establishment of
a transit station in Downtown Arcadia, and take full advantage of the
opportunities the Gold Line station will bring to Downtown and th e City as a
whole.
Policy LU-10.4: Establish commercial uses that complement the vision of the
Downtown core with opportunities for more intense, quality development at
key intersections that are unique from the regional offerings at the regional
mall.
Policy LU-10.10: Establish a “park once” system in Downtown with a
collection of shared surface and parking structures.
Policy LU-10.14: Create a high-quality pedestrian experience in Downtown
through the use of street trees, public art, street furniture, and public
gathering spaces. Using signage, art, and unique uses, entice and encourage
people to walk and explore the commercial core of Downtown.
Goal ED-2: Re-creation of Downtown as the social and symbolic “Heart of the
City”.
Policy ED-2.3: Adjust parking standards for Downtown to allow for shared
parking arrangements, use of public parking lots and structures, and reduced
parking requirements.
Policy ED-3.2: Promote the commercial reuse of key vacant commercial
properties within the City through a program of active solicitation of
prospective users, particularly in those retail sectors for which the City is
DA 19-01, MUP 18-06, PC AM 18-02, & ADR 18-19
33-35 W. Huntington Drive
July 9, 2019
Page 15 of 27
underserved and currently experiencing leakage of sales tax dollars, and
through the provision of appropriate development incentives.
Goal ED-4: Continued revitalization of public infrastructure and private properties
within the redevelopment project area
Policy ED-4.7: Adjust development standards as needed to ensure that
parking and zoning regulations enhance redevelopment opportunities and do
not preclude project feasibility.
2. The proposed uses are allowed within the applicable zone, subject to the
granting of a Minor Use Permit, and complies with all other applicable
provisions of the Development Code and the Municipal Code.
Facts to Support This Finding: The site is zoned CBD, Central Business District.
Per Arcadia Development Code Section 9102.05.020, Table 2-10, the proposed
Food Hall (small restaurants) with alcoholic beverage service and located greater
than 300 feet from any residentially zoned properties is permitted by-right. A Minor
Use Permit is required to approve the late night operating hours on Friday and
Saturday nights and the incidental outdoor dining area with more than 12 seats. The
late night operating hours and incidental outdoor dining area will comply with all
applicable code provisions and requirements. As a condition of approval, the Food
Hall will be required to have private security personnel monitor the rear parking lot
and outdoor dining area during evening and late night hours. With approval of the
proposed Administrative Modification for reduced on-site parking, the proposed uses
comply with all applicable provisions of the Development Code and the Arcadia
Municipal Code.
3. The design, location, size, and operating characteristics of the proposed
activity will be compatible with the existing and future land uses in the vicinity.
Facts to Support This Finding: The Food Hall with late night operating hours and
an incidental outdoor seating area with more than 12 seats is a commercial use
consistent with the CBD, Central Business District zoning of the property and is
consistent with the General Plan goals and policies for the Downtown Arcadia
District. All operating characteristics will be compatible with existing and fu ture land
uses in the vicinity. As a condition of approval, the Food Hall will be required to have
private security personnel monitor the rear parking lot and outdoor dining area
during evening hours. A parking analysis and traffic analysis were conducted fo r the
project by Gibson Transportation Consulting Inc. to evaluate the estimated parking
and traffic demands of the proposed uses and project. The traffic analysis finds no
significant impacts resulting from the project. With the parking measures included
with this proposal in the Arcadia Commons Parking Management Plan, there will be
adequate parking resources for the subject property and existing and future land
uses in the vicinity.
DA 19-01, MUP 18-06, PC AM 18-02, & ADR 18-19
33-35 W. Huntington Drive
July 9, 2019
Page 16 of 27
4. The site is physically suitable in terms of:
a. Its design, location, shape, size, and operating characteristics of the
proposed use in order to accommodate the use, and all fences,
landscaping, loading, parking, spaces, walls, yards, and other features
required to adjust the use with the land and uses in the neighborhood;
Facts to Support This Finding: The proposed Food Hall use includes parking
measures to ensure adequate parking resources for the subject property and
those in the immediate vicinity, including the late night operating hours and
incidental outdoor dining area with greater than 12 seats. A parking analysis and
traffic analysis were conducted for the project by Gibson Transportation
Consulting Inc. to evaluate the estimated parking and traffic demand of the uses
and project. The traffic analysis finds no significant impacts resulting from the
project. With the parking measures included with this proposal in the Arcadia
Commons Parking Management Plan, there will be adequate parking resources
for the subject property and existing and future land uses in the vicini ty. The site
and existing commercial building is physically suitable per design, location,
shape, size, and operating characteristics to accommodate the proposed
adaptive reuse project.
b. Streets and highways adequate in width and pavement type to
accommodate public and emergency vehicle (e.g., fire and medical) access.
Facts to Support This Finding: This is a midblock property with frontages on
Huntington Drive to the south and Morlan Place to the north. Both streets are
designated and designed with the capacity to accommodate both public and
emergency vehicles. These streets are adequate in width and pavement type to
carry the traffic that could be generated by the amended commercial uses. A
traffic analysis was conducted for the project by Gibson Transportation
Consulting Inc. to evaluate the estimated traffic demand of the uses and project.
The traffic analysis finds no significant impacts resulting from the project.
c. Public protection services (e.g., fire protection, police protection, etc.).
Facts to Support This Finding: The subject property is currently developed with
a commercial building that complies with all safety requirements. The proposed
adaptive reuse project will require extensive interior tenant improvements as well
as minor façade improvements. The required construction and the operation of
the building will comply with all public safety requirements needed to convert a
portion of this building into a multitenant Food Hall. The City’s Fire and Police
Departments have reviewed the proposal, including the late night operating hours
and incidental outdoor dining area with greater than 12 seats, and have no
objection to the project as there are adequate services in place to handle the
anticipated needs of this project.
DA 19-01, MUP 18-06, PC AM 18-02, & ADR 18-19
33-35 W. Huntington Drive
July 9, 2019
Page 17 of 27
d. The provision of utilities (e.g., potable water, schools, solid waste
collection and disposal, storm drainage, wastewater collection, treatment,
and disposal, etc.).
Facts to Support This Finding: The subject property currently includes water,
solid waste collection and disposal, and other utilities. The proposed project will
update existing on-site infrastructure to accommodate food and beverage uses,
and will include the addition of a new covered trash and recycling enclosure at
the north-end of the parking lot. There are adequate utilities to service the new
project and no additional impact to utilities from the proposed amendment.
5. The measure of site suitability shall be required to ensure that the type,
density, and intensity of use being proposed will not adversely affect the
public convenience, health, interest, safety, or general welfare, constitute a
nuisance, or be materially injurious to the improvements, persons, property,
or uses in the vicinity and zone in which the property is located.
Facts to Support This Finding: As a commercial use allowed in the CBD Zone,
the proposed Food Hall with late night operating hours and an incidental outdoor
dining area with greater than 12 seats is consistent with the character of the
commercial district. The size and operating characteristics of the Food Hall are
complementary and compatible with the uses and improvements in the vicinity. As a
condition of approval, the Food Hall will be required to provide private security
personnel to monitor the parking lot and outdoor dining area during evening hours.
With the proposed parking measures, the site is able to accommodate the Food Hall
use without being injurious to the improvements, persons, property, or uses in the
vicinity and zone in which the subject property is located. The proposal is also
consistent with the General Plan designation of the site and the goals and policies of
the Downtown Arcadia General Plan Land Use Focus Area. With the parking
measures included with this proposal in the Arcadia Commons Parking Management
Plan, there will be adequate parking resources for the subject property and existing
and future land uses in the vicinity.
Administrative Modification Findings
The proposed Administrative Modification is to allow 20 on-site parking spaces in lieu of
68 spaces required by the Development Code. Approval of the proposed Modification is
required in order to facilitate adaptive reuse of the existing building into a multitenant
Food Hall. Section 9107.05.050(B) of the Development Code requires that the Planning
Commission may recommend approval of an Administrative Modification only if it first
makes at least one of the following findings:
1. Promote uniformity of development;
2. Prevent an unreasonable hardship; or
DA 19-01, MUP 18-06, PC AM 18-02, & ADR 18-19
33-35 W. Huntington Drive
July 9, 2019
Page 18 of 27
3. Secure an appropriate improvement of a parcel
Based on its parking analysis and recommendations, the Arcadia Commons Parking
Management Plan has been prepared for the project that addresses potential parking
deficiencies and impacts to the area. The Parking Management Plan includes items that
will increase the efficient use of the on -site parking lot, increase the total number of
public parking spaces in the vicinity of the site , and with time-limits make use of the
public parking spaces more efficient, as well as other operational conditions of the
proposed Food Hall use that address potential impacts to surrounding properties and
public right-of-ways. The implementation of the specific measures in the Parking
Management Plan are required as part of the Development Agreement and/or in the
project’s conditions of approval. Due to the subject property’s location on Huntington
Drive, one of the City’s main commercial thoroughfares, and in the Downtown Arcadia
commercial district, the proposed Food Hall is a much more appropriate use of the site
as opposed to continuation as a light industrial use. Consistent with the City’s General
Plan goals and policies for the Downtown Arcadia commercial district, the proposed
adaptive reuse project utilizes shared parking strategies, public parking resources, and
other measures outlined in the Parking Management Plan to facilitate adaptive reuse of
the existing building and parcel with a more appropriate use for the site and the
surrounding commercial district. Based on the above, the proposed Administrative
Modification will secure an appropriate improvement of this parcel.
Architectural Design Review Findings
The proposed exterior changes to the building consist of new storefront glass along the
Huntington Drive frontage and at the rear of the building, a new exter ior patio at the rear
of the building, and cosmetic changes to the exterior walls of the building. Elevations
and renderings showing the proposed changes are included as Attachment No. 2.
Section 9107.19.050(F) of the Development Code requires that the Planning
Commission may recommend approval of a Design Review application, only if it first
makes all of the following findings that the proposed development will:
1. Be allowed within the subject zone;
2. Be in compliance with all of the applicable design review criteria identified
in the Development Code;
3. Be in keeping with the character of the neighborhood, in terms of the
structure(s) general appearance; and
4. Not be detrimental to the harmonious and orderly growth of the City.
The proposed exterior changes to the building consist of new storefront glass along the
Huntington Drive frontage and at the rear of the building, a new exterior patio at the rear
of the building, and cosmetic changes to the exterior walls of the building . Elevations
and renderings showing the proposed changes are included as Attachment No. 2. The
DA 19-01, MUP 18-06, PC AM 18-02, & ADR 18-19
33-35 W. Huntington Drive
July 9, 2019
Page 19 of 27
proposed project is allowed within the CBD Zone. The proposed changes are in
compliance with the design review criteria identified in the City’s Architectural Design
Guidelines and Development Code. The existing storefront has been dormant and
unproductive for many years, and the new design and aesthetic will assist in making this
a useful commercial space. The proposed design changes are also in keeping with the
character of the neighborhood, and will not be detrimental to the harmonious and
orderly growth of the City. The proposed design meets the prerequisite findings for
approval of Architectural Design Review No. ADR 18-19.
Development Agreement Findings
Section 9107.11.030(E) of the Development Code requires that the Planning
Commission may recommend approval of a Development Agreement to the City
Council only if it first makes all of the following findings:
1. The development agreement is in the best interests of the City;
Facts to Support This Finding: The proposed development agreement is
needed to ensure that following the sale of the subject property by the Successor
Agency to the Applicant, the ground floor of the existing self-storage building will
be transformed into a multitenant Food Hall per the Applicant’s proposed project.
The Applicant was chosen by the Successor Agency as the preferred buyer for this
property based in part on the positive benefits the Food Hall will bring to the area in
the form of increased customers, sales tax revenue, aesthetics, and overall vitality.
The development agreement also facilitates a $200,000 parking in -lieu fee paid by
the Applicant to the City to use towards public parking management and/or public
parking construction in the Downtown Arcadia commercial district. Finally, the
development agreement includes a provision that the City will add time -limits to the
Morlan Place curbside parking spaces, which is an item requested by the
Applicant/Buyer to provide assurance that Morlan Place public parking spaces will
not be used for all day parking by employees working in the area and/or Gold Line
riders. In summary, the development agreement allows for a unique destination
attraction in Downtown Arcadia that is beneficial to this commercial district and in
the best interests of the City as a whole.
2. The development agreement is consistent with the purpose, intent, goals,
policies, programs, and land use designations of the General Plan, any
applicable specific plan, this Development Code, and the Zoning Map;
Facts to support this Finding: The development agreement will allow for a Food
Hall project that meets the required findings for approval of a Minor Use Permit,
Administrative Modification, and Architectural Design application , per the
specifications of the Arcadia Development Code, and is an allowable use per the
CBD (Central Business District) Zoning of the project site. The development
agreement facilitates the adaptive reuse of the ground floor of an outdated light -
DA 19-01, MUP 18-06, PC AM 18-02, & ADR 18-19
33-35 W. Huntington Drive
July 9, 2019
Page 20 of 27
industrial storage building into a land use that is consistent and compatible with the
Commercial Land Use designation, as described below:
The Commercial designation is intended to permit a wide range of commercial
uses which serve both neighborhood and citywide markets. The designation
allows a broad array of commercial enterprises, including restaurants, durable
goods sales, food stores, lodging, professional offices, specialty shops, indoor
and outdoor recreational facilities, and entertainment uses.
Adjacent to Downtown, the Commercial designation is intended to encourage
small-scale office and neighborhood-serving commercial uses that complement
development in the Downtown Mixed Use areas. While the land use
designation provides the general parameters within which development mu st
take place, the Zoning Code or other land use regulatory document specifies
the type and intensity of uses that will be permitted in a given area. In the
Downtown area, for example, where properties are designated Commercial,
land use regulations might specify that restaurants and cafes are permitted, but
secondhand stores are not. The Zoning Code and other regulatory documents
also indicate permitted building height limits for specific properties
The proposed project and development agreement will also further the specific
General Plan goals and policies of the Downtown Arcadia Land Use Focus Area
and the Economic Development Element of the General Plan, including the
following items:
Goal LU-10: A thriving Downtown, with healthy commercial areas supported by
high-quality, residential uses and supportive of the Metro Gold Line transit station.
Policy LU-10.2: Promote the Metro Gold Line Extension and establishment of
a transit station in Downtown Arcadia, and take full advantage of the
opportunities the Gold Line station will bring to Downtown and the City as a
whole.
Policy LU-10.4: Establish commercial uses that complement the vision of the
Downtown core with opportunities for more intense, quality development at
key intersections that are unique from the regional offerings at the regional
mall.
Policy LU-10.10: Establish a “park once” system in Downtown with a
collection of shared surface and parking structures.
Policy LU-10.14: Create a high-quality pedestrian experience in Downtown
through the use of street trees, public art, street furniture, and public
gathering spaces. Using signage, art, and unique uses, entice and encourage
people to walk and explore the commercial core of Downtown.
DA 19-01, MUP 18-06, PC AM 18-02, & ADR 18-19
33-35 W. Huntington Drive
July 9, 2019
Page 21 of 27
Goal ED-2: Re-creation of Downtown as the social and symbolic “Heart of the
City”.
Policy ED-2.3: Adjust parking standards for Downtown to allow for shared
parking arrangements, use of public parking lots and structures, and reduced
parking requirements.
Policy ED-3.2: Promote the commercial reuse of key vacant commercial
properties within the City through a program of active solicitation of
prospective users, particularly in those retail sectors for which the City is
underserved and currently experiencing leakage of sales tax dollars, and
through the provision of appropriate development incentives.
Goal ED-4: Continued revitalization of public infrastructure and private properties
within the redevelopment project area
Policy ED-4.7: Adjust development standards as needed to ensure that
parking and zoning regulations enhance redevelopment opportunities and do
not preclude project feasibility.
3. The development agreement will promote the public convenience, health,
interest, safety, general welfare, and good land use practice;
Facts to support this Finding: The development agreement facilitates the
adaptive reuse of the ground floor of an outdated light -industrial storage building
into a Food Hall use that is more compatible and beneficial to the Downtown
Arcadia commercial district. The use will update the building to be in compliance
with all applicable health, safety, building, and other requirements. The
development agreement will facilitate the replacement of the current ground floor
self-storage use and the vacant commercial units fronting Huntington Drive with a n
active land use that is consistent with the Land Use Designation of the site and
General Plan goals and policies of the Downtown Arcadia Land Use Focus Area .
By converting the ground floor of an outdated light -industrial storage building into a
Food Hall, not only is the use more compatible and beneficial to the Downtow n
Arcadia commercial district, it also promotes the public convenience, interest and
general welfare, and is a good land use practice in li ne with the City’s General
Plan.
4. The project will be compatible with the uses authorized in, and the
regulations prescribed for, the zone in which the real property is located;
Facts to support this Finding: The project facilitated by the development
agreement is for a Food Hall (small restaurants) use with alcoholic beverage
service (which is allowed by right in the subject zone), late night operating hours,
and an incidental outdoor dining area with greater than 12 seats which is allowed
in the CBD Zone subject to approval of a Minor Use Permit. The existing self-
DA 19-01, MUP 18-06, PC AM 18-02, & ADR 18-19
33-35 W. Huntington Drive
July 9, 2019
Page 22 of 27
storage use will remain on floors 2 through 4 and the basement level as a
continuation of an existing legal-nonconforming use. With approval of the proposed
Administrative Modification for reduced on-site parking, the project complies with
all regulations prescribed for the subject property and zone.
5. The project will not adversely affect the orderly development of property or
the preservation of property values;
Facts to support this Finding: The project is anticipated to bring additional
customers and new businesses to the Downtown Arcadia commercial district. The
project is consistent with the shared parking strategies outlined in the Arcadia
General Plan for the Downtown Arcadia Land Use Focus Area. Based on the peak
operating hours and parking demands identified by Gibson Transportation
Consultants for the Food Hall and self-storage uses, and with the parking
measures included in the Arcadia Commons Parking Management Plan, including
the addition of new curbside parking spaces on Santa Clara Street and time limits
on Morlan Place, the project will not adversely impact development of other
property or the preservation of property values in the area.
6. The project will further important Citywide goals and policies that have been
officially recognized by the Council; and
Facts to support this Finding: The proposed project will further a large number
of the goals and policies stated in the Arcadia General Plan, which was officially
recognized by the City Council through their adoption of the General Plan in
November of 2010. These goals and policies include the following items:
Goal LU-10: A thriving Downtown, with healthy commercial areas supported by
high-quality, residential uses and supportive of the Metro Gold Line transit station.
Policy LU-10.2: Promote the Metro Gold Line Extension and establishment of
a transit station in Downtown Arcadia, and take full advantage of the
opportunities the Gold Line station will bring to Downtown and the City as a
whole.
Policy LU-10.4: Establish commercial uses that complement the vision of the
Downtown core with opportunities for more intense, quality development at
key intersections that are unique from the regional offerings at the regional
mall.
Policy LU-10.10: Establish a “park once” system in Downto wn with a
collection of shared surface and parking structures.
Policy LU-10.14: Create a high-quality pedestrian experience in Downtown
through the use of street trees, public art, street furniture, and public
DA 19-01, MUP 18-06, PC AM 18-02, & ADR 18-19
33-35 W. Huntington Drive
July 9, 2019
Page 23 of 27
gathering spaces. Using signage, art, and unique uses, entice and encourage
people to walk and explore the commercial core of Downtown.
Goal ED-2: Re-creation of Downtown as the social and symbolic “Heart of the
City”.
Policy ED-2.3: Adjust parking standards for Downtown to allow for shared
parking arrangements, use of public parking lots and structures, and reduced
parking requirements.
Policy ED-3.2: Promote the commercial reuse of key vacant commercial
properties within the City through a program of active solicitation of
prospective users, particularly in those retail sectors for which the City is
underserved and currently experiencing leakage of sales tax dollars, and
through the provision of appropriate development incentives.
Goal ED-4: Continued revitalization of public infrastructure and private properties
within the redevelopment project area
Policy ED-4.7: Adjust development standards as needed to ensure that
parking and zoning regulations enhance redevelopment opportunities and do
not preclude project feasibility.
7. The project will provide the City with important, tangible benefits beyond
those that may be required by the City through project conditions of
approval.
Facts to support this Finding: The development agreement for this project
ensures that following the sale of the Successor Agency property, the Applicant will
implement in a timely manner (30 months) the conversion of the ground floor of the
building into a multitenant Food Hall and that the Food Hall will remain in
continuous operation for a minimum of ten (10) years with operating hours of at
least four (4) days and thirty (30) hours per week. The development agreement
creates an enforceable mechanism for compliance with these requirements as
failure to meet these minimums will be grounds for liquidated damages paid by the
property owner to the City. In addition, the development agreement facilitates the
payment of a $200,000 in lieu parking impact fee t o be paid to the City. Finally,
through the development agreement the City agrees to add time-limits on Morlan
Place of no greater than four (4) continuous hours during weekday business hours
in order to free up additional public parking spaces for use by customers of the
nearby businesses, including the proposed Food Hall, which is an item that the
Applicant has stated is needed to ensure project viability. The above items cannot
be effectively implemented through project conditions of approval, and the
development agreement therefore makes the project feasible and provides
important, tangible benefits to the City.
DA 19-01, MUP 18-06, PC AM 18-02, & ADR 18-19
33-35 W. Huntington Drive
July 9, 2019
Page 24 of 27
Based on the above, the proposed project will satisfy each prerequisite finding to
approve Development Agreement No. DA 19-01.
Summary of Analysis Section & Findings
As detailed above, with inclusion of the Arcadia Commons Parking Management Plan
as part of the project, the proposed Food Hall is consistent with the Arcadia General
Plan, Development Code, and Design Guidelines. With approval of an Administrative
Modification for reduced parking and the corresponding parking measures and project
conditions of project approval, the proposal is compatible with the existing and future
land uses in the vicinity, and the project site can accommodate the proposed Food Hall
use. Based on the above analysis, the proposal is consistent with the required findings
for approval of a Minor Use Permit, Administrative Modification, Architectural Design
Review, and Development Agreement as outlined above.
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
If it is determined that the project would not result in any significant traffic, noise, air
quality, or water quality effects, and not involving the use of significant amounts of
hazardous substances where all necessary public services and facilities are available
and the surrounding area is not environmentally sensitive, then this project qualifies as
a Class 3 Categorical Exemption as a Conversion of Small Structure(s) per the
provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section
15303 of the CEQA Guidelines. Refer to Attachment No. 8 for the Preliminary
Exemption Assessment.
PUBLIC COMMENTS/NOTICE
Public hearing notices for this item were published in the Arcadia Weekly and mailed to
the owners of those properties that are located within 300 feet of the subject property on
June 27, 2019. In response to this notice, Staff received a public records request for
additional information on the project from Christopher Sutton, attorney for Manny
Romero, the owner of Rod’s Grill at 41 W. Huntington Drive. As of July 3, 2019 staff has
not received any further comments or correspondence from Mr. Sutton or Mr. Romero,
or other public comments on this project.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the Planning Commission convey the Commission’s comments
to the City Council and recommend that the City Council approve Development
Agreement No. DA 19-01, Minor Use Permit No. MUP 18-06, Planning Commission
Administrative Modification No. PC AM 18-02, and Architectural Design Review No.
ADR 18-19 and find that the project is Categorically Exempt under the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), subject to the following conditions of approval
below.
DA 19-01, MUP 18-06, PC AM 18-02, & ADR 18-19
33-35 W. Huntington Drive
July 9, 2019
Page 25 of 27
1. The use approved is limited to a 10,000 square foot multitenant Food Hall on the
ground floor and roof level consisting of small restaurant uses/food vendors, the
sale of alcoholic beverages for on-site consumption, late night operating hours,
and a 1,326 square foot outdoor seating area with seating for up to 60 patrons.
The approved use shall be operated and maintained in a manner that is
consistent with the proposal and plans submitted and approve d by Minor Use
Permit No. MUP 18-06. City Staff shall conduct periodic inspections, after which
the provisions of this Minor Use Permit, including the late night operating hours
and/or number of seats in the outdoor dining area, may be adjusted after due
notice to address any potential impacts it may have to the neighboring
properties/businesses. Any adjustments can be made by the Planning &
Community Development Administrator. The remainder of the building shall
continue to be used as self -storage.
2. The Food Hall operating hours shall not exceed Sunday—Thursday from 6:00
AM to 12:00 AM (midnight), and Friday & Saturday from 6:00 AM to 2:00 AM.
3. All employees shall be required to park off-site in order to allow the entire on-site
parking lot to be utilized by patrons of the Food Hall and patrons of the self-
storage facility.
4. Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the project, the Food Hall
operator shall enter into a lease to use the lower parking level of the adjacent
Elks Lodge property at 27 W. Huntington Drive (approximately 10-12 parking
spaces) or an equivalent number of parking spaces at another private property
within a ½ mile vicinity of the subject property for use by employees, valet
service, and/or customers. The Food Hall operator shall be required to
continuously maintain this lease, or an equivalent one, as an operating condition
of the Food Hall.
5. Prior to opening 50% or more of the Food Hall vendor spaces, the Food Hall
operator shall be required to begin providing security personnel to monitor
parking and security in the subject parking lot, outdoor dining area, and adjacent
private parking lots during specified evening and late night hours. Security
personnel shall initially shall be on-duty daily beginning at 5:00 PM and extending
until 30 minutes after close of the Food Hall, and then adjusted at the discretion
of the Planning & Community Development Administrator, or designee, as
determined to be needed to adequately monitor and enforce parking and public
safety.
6. The Applicant shall enter into a no-fee lease agreement to allow the City of
Arcadia to maintain its existing traffic-related mechanical equipment on the
rooftop of the building. This agreement shall be executed within 120 days of
approval of the proposed project.
DA 19-01, MUP 18-06, PC AM 18-02, & ADR 18-19
33-35 W. Huntington Drive
July 9, 2019
Page 26 of 27
7. Additional exterior lighting shall be added to the rear of the building and/or in the
rear parking lot to better illuminate the on-site parking during evening hours.
Details of the additional exterior lighting shall be submitted concurrently with
building permit plans for city review and permit issuance, and subject to city
design criteria, building and safety regulations, and other applicable requirements
8. The proposed on-site parking configuration shall be adjusted on the final building
plans to maintain the existing vehicular connection at the north end of the Subject
Property and the adjacent property at 41 W. Huntington Drive. The Food Hall
shall not fence or otherwise close off this connection unless written agreement is
obtained from the owner of the property at 41 W. Huntington Drive. Prior to
issuance of any building permits for the new Food Hall, a vehicular access
easement shall be recorded at the northwest corner of the Subject Property
consistent with the existing de facto vehicular connection.
9. Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy f rom the Building Division, the
Applicant/Property Owner shall upgrade the existing trash and recyclables
enclosure in compliance with Development Code Section 9103.01.130, subject to
review and approval by the Planning & Community Development Administrator,
or designee. The enclosure shall provide adequate room for a trash container, a
recycling container, and a 64-gallon organic recycling cart.
10. All City requirements regarding disabled access and facilities, oc cupancy limits,
building safety, health code compliance, emergency equipment, environmental
regulation compliance, and parking and site design shall be complied with by the
property owner/applicant to the satisfaction of the Building Official, City Enginee r,
Planning & Community Development Administrator, Fire Marshal, and Public
Works Services Director, or their respective designees, including but not limited
to those listed on the Public Works Services Department, Building Division, and
Fire Department review memorandums for this project and/or as otherwise
amended during plan-check review. The changes to the existing facility are
subject to building permits after having fully detailed plans submitted for plan
check review and approval by the aforementioned City officials.
11. Noncompliance with the plans, provisions and conditions of approval for DA 19-
01, MUP 18-06, PC AM 18-02, and/or ADR 18-19 shall be grounds for immediate
suspension or revocation of any approvals, which could result in the closing of
the Food Hall.
12. The applicant shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of Arcadia and
its officials, officers, employees, and agents from and against any claim, action,
or proceeding against the City of Arcadia, its officials, officers, employees or
agents to attack, set aside, void, or annul any approval or conditional approval of
the City of Arcadia concerning this project and/or land use decision, including but
not limited to any approval or conditional approval of the City Council, Planning
Commission, or City Staff, which action is brought within the time period provided
DA 19-01, MUP 18-06, PC AM 18-02, & ADR 18-19
33-35 W. Huntington Drive
July 9, 2019
Page 27 of 27
for in Government Code Section 66499.37 or other provision of law applicable to
this project or decision. The City shall promptly notify the applicant of any claim,
action, or proceeding concerning the project and/or land use decision and the
City shall cooperate fully in the defense of the matter. The City reserves the right,
at its own option, to choose its own attorney to represent the City, its officials,
officers, employees, and agents in the defense of the matter.
13. Approval of DA 19-01, MUP 18-06, PC AM 18-02, and ADR 18-19 shall not be of
effect unless on or before 60 calendar days after City Council adoption of the
Resolution and/or Ordinance, the Applicant/Property Owner have executed and
filed with the Planning & Community Development Administrator , or designee, an
Acceptance Form available from the Development Services Department to
indicate awareness and acceptance of these conditions of approval.
If any Planning Commissioner or other interested party has any questions or comments
regarding this matter prior to the July 9, 2019 hearing, please contact Tim Schwehr,
Senior Management Analyst at (626) 574-5409 or at Tschwehr@ArcadiaCA.gov.
Approved:
Lisa L. Flores
Planning & Community Development Administrator
Attachment No. 1: Aerial Photo and Zoning Information and Photos of the Subject
Property and Surrounding Properties
Attachment No. 2: Concept Design Plans, Project Description & Project Team
Attachment No. 3: Arcadia Commons Parking Management Plan
Attachment No. 4: Parking Analysis – Gibson Consultants
Attachment No. 5: Traffic Analysis – Gibson Consultants
Attachment No. 6: Development Agreement No. DA 19-01
Attachment No. 7: Oversight Board Approval Resolution and Purchase & Sale
Agreement
Attachment No. 8: Preliminary Exemption Assessment
Attachment No. 9: Public Works, Building, & Fire Requirement Memorandums
Attachment No. 1
Aerial Photo with Zoning Information and Photos of
the Subject Property and Vicinity
Overlays
Selected parcel highlighted
Parcel location within City of Arcadia
N/A
Property Owner(s):
Lot Area (sq ft):
Year Built:
Main Structure / Unit (sq. ft.):
CBD
Number of Units:
C 1.0
Property Characteristics
1949
38,761
0
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF ARCADIA CITY DON PENMAN
Site Address:33 W HUNTINGTON DR
Parcel Number: 5775-025-901
N/A
Zoning:
General Plan:
N/A
Downtown Overlay:
Downtown Parking Overlay:
Architectural Design Overlay:N/A
Yes
N/A
N/A
Residential Flex Overlay:
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Special Height Overlay:
Yes
Parking Overlay:
Racetrack Event Overlay:
This map is a user generated static output from an Internet mapping site and is for
reference only. Data layers that appear on this map may or may not be accurate, current,
or otherwise reliable.
Report generated 07-May-2019
Page 1 of 1
20,040
Subject property – Huntington Drive frontage
West of Subject Site – Rod’s Grill
East of Subject Site – Elks Lodge
South of Subject Site – Arcadia County Park
Subject Property – rear parking lot
North of Subject Site – Rusnak Service Center
Elks Lodge – rear parking lot
Rod’s Grill – rear parking lot
Existing parking lot connection with Rod’s Grill – north end
Existing parking lot connection with Rod’s Grill – south end
Subject Property –rear entrance and loading dock
Subject Property –front facade
Subject Property – east building wall
Subject Property – west building wall
Building Interior – Huntington Drive frontage
Building Interior – Self-storage office at rear of building
First floor self storage unit
Freight elevator
Basement level
Self storage units – floors 2 - 4
Roof level
Roof level – looking west
Roof level – looking east
Roof level – looking south
Attachment No. 2
Concept Design Plans, Project Description
& Project Team
What is ‘ARCADIA COMMONS’?
Arcadia Commons will become one of the most active
food halls in San Gabriel Valley. It will be an energetic,
dynamic space packed with close to 7-10 different
boutique food vendors on the ground and potentially
roof floors. The gastronomic choices will be entirely
focused on local, creative options and range in variety
from around the world.
It will draw inspiration from successful food halls/ social
spaces around the US, from Los Angeles’ own Grand
Central Market, Anaheim’s Meat Packing District, San
Diego’s Quarteryard, Philadelphia’s Reading Terminal
Market, and Brooklyn’s Berg’n and DeKalb Market Hall.
There is also the possibility of adding a rooftop
gastropub/ small plates establishment (pending structural
investigation) whose views of the San Gabriel mountains
and Arcadia Park would make it an instant destination
spot in Arcadia.
The second, third, and fourth floors currently occupied by
storage will be remain and the basement will be
converted into additional self-storage.
The ultimate goal of the project is not only to make a
great eating destination but also a place for community
to socialize and bond amongst friends and family.
Arcadia Commons will be a festive locale for food, drink,
and good cheer.
The possibility of Arcadia Commons becoming a social
landmark is what will allow the project to truly contribute
to the City’s culture and revitalize the historic,
pedestrian-friendly district that is Downtown Arcadia.
Project examples, top to bottom:
Grand Central Market, Meat
Packing District, Grand Central
Market exterior
Project examples, top to bottom:
Beer garden – Astoria, NY,
Reading Terminal Market –
Philadelphia, PA, DeKalb Market
Hall, Brooklyn
Project concept Architecture
1.Emphasize the social aspect.
Increase public space via rear
patio underneath loading dock
canopy. Activate rooftop.
2.Increase the porosity of both the
front and rear entrances by
making them completely open
during business hours.
3.Work off the massiveness and
beauty of the existing building.
An effort will be made where
possible to bring out notable
features like the rear canopy, the
mushroom columns, and the
unfinished concrete surfaces.
Food
1.Keep tenants local and regional
2.Variety – food type, $ to $$$
plates, to ethnicity
3.Place emphasis on the ‘discovery’
part of the gastronomic
experience
4.Experiment with short term
tenants/ pop-up restaurants to a
small degree to continually
create buzz
Aerial view from north
Roof deck
Dining porch
FOOD TYPES
Quartyard – San Diego Everson Royce Bar – Arts District LA The Standard – Downtown LA
AOC –
Beverly
Grove
The roof will be investigated
for its capacity to accept a
minor buildout to allow a small
tapas bar/ gastropub.
The goal would be an urban,
yet small scale and relaxed
environment.
The seating would be primarily
outdoors. The views into
Arcadia Park and San Gabriel
Mountains would be
remarkable and instantly make
the project a landmark in
Arcadia.
Father’s Office – Culver City
Successful food hall examples
What all of these projects have in common:
-communal seating areas
-small, local food vendors
-variety of food options
-adaptive re-use of historic industrial buildings
Berg’n – Brooklyn, NY with food vendors in background
Berg’n – Brooklyn, NY coffee stand
DeKalb Market Hall – Brooklyn, NY
Grand Central Market
Reading Terminal Market - Philadelphia
Grand Central Market – Los Angeles
Arcadia Commons - Project Team
Peter Lee – Project Manager
Peter is responsible for conceptual design, entitlements, financing, investor relations, and leasing, and marketing. He has over 9 years of
experience in real estate development + 8 years of architectural experience with stints abroad in Madrid, Spain and Seoul, Korea.
He most recently acted as asset manager for Diamond Development, a niche retail developer specializing in boutique Asian food tenants,
which holds a 500,000 sf retail/ land portfolio worth $300 million in Southern California. There he led all major leasing, financing,
entitlements, design/ construction, and operations. At Diamond Development, Peter completed over 20 landlord tenant improvements
as construction manager, led negotiations for leases with CVS, Trader Joe’s, Subway, and other regional retailers, and led entitlements
for 100,000 sf of retail and 500 residential units in Los Angeles and Irvine.
Prior to Diamond Development, he helped structure over $900 million in infrastructure deals in emerging markets during his time at
Samsung C+T in Seoul, Korea. He led due diligence, equity and debt financing for the bulk of PPP and energy projects in the company.
Peter started his real career investing in distressed debt with Total Companies in Los Angeles and shortly after co-founded Elemental
Development Group with David Chun in 2010 focusing on distressed residential opportunities in Highland Park.
He speaks fluent Spanish after his time as architect in charge for the Harvard LISE project in the Studio of Rafael Moneo, the 1996 Pritzker
Prize winner and designer of the Los Angeles Cathedral.
He was educated at University of Pennsylvania B.A., Harvard University M.Arch, and studied at University of Southern California’s
Masters of Real Estate Development program.
Peter Lee – Project Management
Diamond Jamboree Parcel 3 expansion – Irvine, CA
Conducted while at Diamond Development 2015-2016
Expansion to existing 115,000 sf shopping center that specializes in Asian food
tenants
Construction pending in summer 2018
$27,000,000 project cost
25,000sf restaurant/ retail + 500 parking spaces
Responsible for entitlements, technical consultant management (architect, civil,
traffic), leasing layout and strategy, and equity financing
Peter Lee – Project Management
Gaziantep HC PPP (Public Private Partnership), TURKEY
Conducted at Samsung C + T, Seoul, KOREA 2012-2014
$800 million USD total project cost
Financial close achieved 2017
Equity and debt financing from multi-lateral and Export/ Import banks like KEXIM,
IBRD, IFC
Negotiated shareholder agreements for $25 million USD equity investment
Due diligence on project, financial, and political risk
Peter Lee – Project Management
Aragonia Centro Comercial – Zaragoza, SPAIN
Conducted while architect at Estudio Rafael Moneo from 2001-2003
Ground-up 120,000 sq m mega-mixed use complex with 185-unit luxury hotel,
cinemas, retail
Programmatic studies, concept retail and residential design, parking layout, and
structural studies
Peter Lee – Project Management
Laboratory for Integrated Science and Engineering (LISE) for Harvard University - Cambridge, MA
Conducted while architect at Estudio Rafael Moneo from 2000-2003
Lead designer - 139,000 sf expansion of existing physics facilities
$125,000,000 project cost
Solely executed drawings through design development
David Chun – Architect / Designer
David Chun, AIA, is responsible for design strategy, design development, construction documents, and construction management. David
established Los Angeles-based Chun Studio in 2003 after working on significant projects at the offices of Richard Meier & Partners (Getty
Center), Skidmore Owings & Merrill, San Francisco (San Francisco Civic Center high-rise, Stanford University Business School, Electronic
Arts Campus), and Stanley Saitowitz | Natoma Architects and Marmol Radziner (custom single family residences).
Chun Studio’s portfolio includes a wide variety of building types from residential to retail, commercial properties to commun ity spaces.
The office is effective at synthesizing the complexities of budget, function, and the natural environment into coherent, aesthetically
stimulating, and emotionally rewarding architecture. He has completed scores of tenant improvements as architect in Los Angeles and
Orange Counties for both retail and restaurant businesses totaling over 300,000 sf.
David, in addition to his architectural work has been an active real estate developer since he co-founded Elemental Development Group
with Peter Lee closely after the 2008 financial crash to invest in residential properties in Highland Park. David has executed around 20
projects with Elemental, 100% of which were profitable.
David is currently developing ground up condos in West Adams area of Los Angeles.
He received his Master of Architecture at Harvard University and his Bachelor’s in Architecture and English Literature at University of
California, Berkeley.
David Chun – Architect / Designer
Gyenari
Culver City, California | 2009
A modern Korean BBQ restaurant, Gyenari required the renovation of a warehouse building. A
simple parti separates the bar/lounge area from the dining area and is bridged by a gentle ramp
that takes visitors over a water feature. The dining space sets the stage for a monumental backlit
mural of a mountainous landscape. The image is a deconstruction of a traditional Korean painting,
reinterpreted and reconstructed though a contemporary lens.
David Chun – Architect / Designer
Boarders
Arcadia, California | 2009
This 5,000 sf skateboard store was inspired by urban skate parks. The shell of the
building was primarily left raw and untouched, keeping structural steel, a metal-
deck ceiling, and concrete slabs exposed. Plywood wall panels serve as backdrops
for clothing displays. Only the storefront area is finished with drywall, its aesthetic
inspired by the undulating form of a skate ramp. This form is repeated in the ceiling
soffits that subdivide featured merchandise areas from the rest of the space.
Yuri
Hollywood, California | 2007
For this modern fast-food joint on the Melrose Avenue shopping strip, a brightly
lit acrylic light box stretches out to the street to draw in customers for a late
night sushi binge.
David Chun – Architect / Designer
Seasalt Fish Grill
Santa Monica, California | 2012
A casual restaurant in downtown Santa Monica, the concept is to provide fresh seafood at affordable
prices. The interior is designed to convey the idea of fresh fish by staging a fish market. Pike Place Fish
Market in Seattle served as the inspiration, from how food is displayed, to materials used, to lighting,
billboards, signage, and how food is ordered and delivered. These elements were identified and
recomposed to suit the context of the restaurant.
David Chen – Broker / Agent
David began his career in commercial real estate in New York where he was the development project manager for the 443 Greenwich
Street project. He managed all phases of the $350 million dollar, 280,000 sq. ft. project which included a high end residenti al
community, a boutique hotel, and ground floor retail located in Manhattan.
Continuing to expand on his knowledge of real estate, David became a real estate advisor at Alvarez & Marsal in San Francisco. David
advised private equity real estate firms, REITs, real estate operating companies, developers, and multi -national corporations all over the
world. Transferring to the Los Angeles market in 2013, David became the Real Estate Manager for the west coast real estate operations
of Pure Barre, a national gym chain. There he targeted corporate expansion in the California, Oregon, and Washington markets.
Prior to franchising Sperry Commercial - Pasadena, David worked as the Commercial Real Estate Director for KW Commercial, MacVaugh
& Co. and Coldwell Banker George Realty, focusing on the San Gabriel Valley and Downtown LA where he grew up. He currently
managed listings consisting of over 400,000 square feet and numerous buyers and tenants at any one time. His current office consists of
6 commercial agents and it is still growing.
David graduated from UCLA with a Bachelor of Arts in Economics with a Minor in East Asian Languages & Cultures in 2003, and f rom the
University of Southern California with a Master of Business Administration and Master of Real Estate Development in 2011. He is also
fluent in Mandarin Chinese and teaches Commercial Real Estate course at Pasadena City College, the Arcadia Association of Rea ltors and
West San Gabriel Valley Association of Realtors.
David is currently on the Board of Directors for the Asian Real Estate Association of America (AREAA), Board of Director of C ertified
Commercial Investment Member (CCIM) and Vice-Chairman of the Commercial Real Estate Committee at the Arcadia Association of
Realtors.
David Chen – Closed Deals
Boiling Point
Address: 18 W Green St
Pasadena CA
SF: 2,124 SF
Term: 10 years
With 20 locations in North America
and one in China, this Southern
California based restaurant chain has
continued to attract customers from
all demographics. This location is
their first concept store.
Hulunbuir Mongolian Hot Pot
Address: 55 W Green St
Pasadena CA
SF: 4,500 SF
Term: 10 years
This is the first location for this newly
titled restaurant chain in the west
coast. The ownership has over 500
locations worldwide and ranked in
the Top 10 restaurant chains in China.
We are currently searching for a
second location.
Bengees Ice Cream Crafters
Address: 901 E Del Mar Blvd
Pasadena CA
SF: 585 SF
Term: 5 years
This is the first location for the ice
cream shop that includes a large
selection of vegan and traditional ice
cream. They have a strong local
presence and we are looking for a
second location in the Los Angeles
area.
David Chen – Closed Deals
10 Below Ice Cream
Address: 232 E 2nd St
Los Angeles, CA
SF: 1,230 SF
Term: 10 years
This is the first location for this
innovative ice cream chain from NYC.
With 4 location in NYC, this location
will be the first of several in their
Greater Los Angeles expansion. We
are currently looking for additional
locations to expand.
Bengees Ice Cream Crafters
Address: 2134 Sunset Blvd
Los Angeles, CA
SF: 536 SF
Term: 10 years
This is the second location for this
ice cream concept that has been
proven in the Pasadena market for
the last year. We were able to reach
an agreement that benefits all parties
involved
Shandong Dumplings
Address: 80 N Fair Oaks Ave
Pasadena CA
SF: 2,561 SF
Term: 5 years
This is their second location in Los
Angeles. This long time staple in the
Hilton Plaza in San Gabriel has done
extremely well in the last ten years.
The new Pasadena location has done
exceptionally well since its opening
earlier this year.
David Chen – Tenant Rep
David Chen – Landlord Rep
101 S First Ave, Arcadia
2385 E Colorado Blvd, Pasadena
388 N Lemon Ave, Walnut
6940 Beach Blvd, Buena Park
507 N Azusa Ave, Azusa
The Source – 6940 Beach Blvd, Buena Park, CA
Square Feet - 356,509
Land Size SF – 499,999
Asking Rent - $2.00 - $10.00 NNN
Tenants – CGV Theaters, Gong Cha, Popeyes, Jamba Juice, Pizza Studio…
Attachment No. 3
Arcadia Commons Parking Management Plan
ARCADIA COMMONS PARKING MANAGEMENT PLAN
Project Summary
Arcadia Commons is a proposed 10,000 square foot Food Hall at 33 – 35 W. Huntington Drive. The
project consists of converting the ground floor and a portion of the rooftop of the existing Arcadia Self
Storage Building into a multitenant food hall. The project also includes a 1,350 square foot outdoor
seating area.
The project seeks to become one of the most active food halls in San Gabriel Valley with an energetic,
dynamic space packed with close to 7-10 different boutique food vendors on the ground and
potentially roof floors. The gastronomic choices are to be entirely focused on local, creative options
and range in variety from around the world. It is anticipated to draw inspiration from successful food
halls/ social spaces around the US, from Los Angeles’ own Grand Central Market, Anaheim’s Meat
Packing District, San Diego’s Quarteryard, Philadelphia’s Reading Terminal Market, and Brooklyn’s
Berg’n and DeKalb Market Hall. The rooftop gastropub/small plates establishment (pending
structural investigation) with views of the San Gabriel mountains and Arcadia Park would make the
food hall an instant destination spot in Arcadia. The second, third, fourth floors and basement are
proposed to remain as a self-storage facility.
The ultimate goal of the project is not only to make a great eating destination but also a place for
community to socialize and bond amongst friends and family. Arcadia Commons will be a festive
locale for food, drink, and good cheer. The possibility of Arcadia Commons becoming a social
landmark is what will allow the project to truly contribute to the City’s culture and revitalize the
historic, pedestrian-friendly district that is Downtown Arcadia.
On-site and Required Parking
Based on the proposed mix of uses, the Arcadia Municipal Code requires 68 parking spaces for the
project. There is currently an existing 20-space on-site surface parking lot at the rear of the building
that is proposed to be reconfigured to accommodate 23 parking spaces. However, based on the
limitations of the site resulting from it being developed in 1949 as a storage facility and at a time when
parking requirements were less than today’s standards, it is not feasible to provide the additional 45-
to-48 parking spaces required by today’s Development Code on-site.
Proposed Uses Size Code Req’d Parking Req’d
Storage 31,230 sf 1 per 1,000 sf 31.23
Food Hall 10,000 sf 1 per 200 sf 50
Outdoor Patio 1,326 sf (60 seats) 1 per 6 seats 10
(Transit Reduction) ¼-mile Metro Station 25% reduction (-22.81)
Total 68.42 = 68 spaces
In lieu of providing these additional parking spaces on-site, the Arcadia Commons Parking
Management Plan is proposed. This Parking Management Plan is based on the analysis and
recommendations from Gibson Parking Consultants, items included in the project’s Development
Agreement (DA 19-01), as well as proposed parking mitigation measures from the Food Hall operator.
Recognizing the inherent limitations of the project site, the goals and policies for Downtown Arcadia
as listed in the Arcadia General Plan, and the specifics of the proposed use, this Plan states that Parking
Management Action Items 1 – 6 (included on p. 3) are to be implemented by the City and the Applicant
prior to opening of the Food Hall. As part of a larger parking study and parking management plan
for the Downtown Arcadia commercial district, the City is already considering the above noted items
regarding adding new curbside parking spaces onto Santa Clara Street and time-limits to Morlan Place
and the city-owned parking lot. The City Engineer has reviewed all of the proposed measures in the
Food Hall Parking Management Plan and is in agreement with implementing these items as they will
be beneficial for not only this specific project, but for the Downtown Arcadia commercial district as a
whole.
Parking Management Plan Action Items
1. The City agrees to add new curbside parking spaces on Santa Clara Street between Santa Anita
Avenue and Huntington Drive. It is anticipated this will add up to 48 new curbside parking
spaces. The precise number of curbside spaces is to be determined at a later date based on the
specifics of the Santa Clara Street reconfiguration.
2. The City agrees to add time-limits of 4 hours or less on the currently unrestricted curbside
parking spaces on Morlan Place during weekday business hours of 9AM to 6PM. The exact
time limits (e.g., 30 minute, 2-hour, 4-hour, etc.) will remain at the discretion of the City, but
not exceed 4 hours of continuous parking.
3. As a condition of approval for the Project’s Minor Use Permit, the Food Hall operator agrees
to enter into and maintain a lease to use the lower parking level of the adjacent Elks Lodge
property at 27 W. Huntington Drive (approximately 10-12 parking spaces) or an equivalent
number of parking spaces at another private property within a ½ mile vicinity of the subject
property for use by employees, valet service, and/or customers.
4. As a stipulation in the Project’s Development Agreement, the Food Hall Operator agrees to
pay a $200,000 in lieu parking fee to the City to be used towards parking management and
enforcement in Downtown Arcadia, and/or towards construction of a future public parking
resource in this commercial district.
5. In order to allow for the entire on-site parking lot to be utilized by patrons of the food hall and
self-storage facility, the Food Hall operator shall require all self-storage staff and food hall
tenants/staff to park off-site, either in a privately leased parking lot or a public parking location
that is outside of the boundary indicated on the map on p. 4 of this plan.
6. Prior to tenanting 50% or more of the Food Hall, the Food Hall operator agrees to provide
parking lot security personnel during all evening and late night operating hours. Security
personnel shall be on-duty beginning at 5PM daily or as otherwise determined by the City to
be necessary following initial Food Hall opening, in order to properly monitor parking and
security in the subject parking lot and adjacent private parking lots and properties.
7. If valet parking service will be provided for the Food Hall, the Food Hall Operator shall first
prepare and submit a valet service parking plan to the City for review and approval. The valet
service parking plan shall indicate the location of the off-site parking lot that will be utilized
as well as other operational details of the valet service.
Attachment No. 4
Parking Study
MEMORANDUM
TO: Phil Wray and Tim Schwehr
City of Arcadia
FROM: Patrick A. Gibson, P.E., T.E., PTOE
Richard Gibson, LEED Green Associate
DATE: May 31, 2019
RE: Revised Parking Analysis for
Bekins Food Hall
Arcadia, California Ref: J1699
In consideration of the revised and refined site plan for the redevelopment (Revised Project)
of the existing Bekins Storage Facility (Bekins), Gibson Transportation Consulting, Inc. (GTC)
was asked to revise the shared parking model contained in Parking Analysis for Bekins Food
Hall, Arcadia, California (GTC, April 24, 2019) (Parking Analysis) to detail the shared parking
demands and assess the adequacy of the parking supply for the Revised Project.
REVISED PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The Revised Project proposes converting approximately 10,000 square feet (sf) of the existing
storage building into a variety of restaurant related uses, with the remaining portions of the
facility remaining as storage units. For the purposes of this analysis, it was assumed that the
Revised Project includes 31,239 sf of mini-warehouse storage facilities, 7,000 sf of fast casual
restaurant space (including a 1,500 sf outdoor dining patio with 56 seats), 3,000 sf of
bar/gastropub uses, 1,500 sf of coffee shop area, and 23 on-site parking spaces.
SHARED PARKING MODEL
Code requirements for parking spaces are based on single-use, stand-alone developments
and tend to require more parking than needed in mixed-use developments, where a portion
of the parking supply may be shared among uses with different peak demand times. To
determine the appropriate quantity of parking that would satisfy the demands of the Revised
Project, a shared parking model was created that considers the peak times of each use within
the development to determine the overall peak parking demand.
The parking demand rates for the Revised Project was developed using a two-step process.
The first step was to identify the breakdown of land uses (i.e., customer and employee-
generating land uses) within the Project. The second step involved calibrating the Shared
Parking, 2nd Edition (Urban Land Institute [ULI], and the International Council of Shopping
Centers [ICSC], 2005) model to replicate the current conditions at Bekins.
Mr. Phil Wray and Mr. Tim Schwehr
May 31, 2019
Page 2
Model Development Methodology
Shared Parking, 2nd Edition defines national averages to be used for parking demand rates for
various land uses and it suggests ranges of assumptions to be used for transit and internal capture.
The recommended methodology, however, states that the best way to measure the demand at a
particular project is to use local data to modify the national averages so that they reflect local
conditions.
Four key data sets were utilized in the model calibration: Code parking rates, national parking
demand rates and hourly demand patterns found in Parking Generation, 4th Edition (Institute of
Transportation Engineers, 2010), the amount of proposed active floor area, and anecdotal and
observed parking demands of the existing mini-warehouse uses.
Base Parking Rates. The base rates for the restaurant, bar/gastropub, and coffee shop uses were
taken from the Code requirements for each land use type or from Parking Generation, 4th Edition if
Code rates were not applicable. The base rate for the mini-warehouse use is based on parking
surveys conducted in December 2018 at the existing mini-warehouse that showed a maximum
demand of three parking spaces on a weekday and one parking space on a weekend day.
Active Floor Area. The shared parking model utilizes floor area as the metric to generate parking
demand for each land use. As described above, the model was developed using the proposed floor
area data.
The following floor areas were considered for the Project:
31,239 sf mini-warehouse
7,000 sf fast-casual restaurant space
o Includes a 1,500 sf outdoor patio with 56 seats
3,000 sf of Bar/Gastropub
1,500 sf of Coffee Shop
Parking Demand Ratio. The parking demand ratio is utilized by the model to generate parking
demand estimates for the selected land uses. The base rates were developed through ULI/ICSC’s
extensive nationwide research efforts. The ULI/ICSC methodology requires that each land use be
assigned a specific parking ratio; that is, the parking ratio for each land use if that land use were
located in a free-standing development. While the base rate does represent the typical average
use, adjustments to the demand rates may be necessary to achieve calibration to local conditions.
Time of Day. Time of day is one of the key assumptions of the shared parking model. This factor
reveals the hourly parking pattern of the analyzed land uses; essentially, the peak demands are
indicated by this factor. ULI/ICSC’s research efforts have yielded a comprehensive data set of
time of day factors for multiple land uses. As the demand for each land use fluctuates over the
course of the day, the ability to implement shared parking emerges. The time of day patterns use
the national average patterns in order to provide a conservative scenario unless the operating
hours of a particular land use is known, in which case the hourly patterns will be adjusted based
on proposed hours of operation. For example, the coffee shops in the Revised Project will close
by 8:00 PM each day; therefore, the hourly pattern of the coffee shop was adjusted to reflect the
earlier closing time than national averages.
Mr. Phil Wray and Mr. Tim Schwehr
May 31, 2019
Page 3
Weekday vs. Weekend. Each shared parking analysis measured the parking demand on a
weekday as well as on a weekend day (i.e., Saturday) because different land uses within a mixed-
use development have different weekday and weekend parking demand patterns.
Mode Split and Captive Market. Two factors that affect the overall parking demand at a particular
development are the number of visitors and employees that arrive by automobile and the number
of visitors that visit multiple venues within the development. The mode split accounts for the number
of visitors and employees that arrive by means other than the automobile (transit, walk, bicycle, taxi,
etc.) For this analysis, a mode split of 10% to 25% to account for the nearby Gold Line station was
assumed, along with a 5%-15% internal capture rate for restaurant and bar/gastropub patrons.
Seasonal Variation. Seasonal variations used in the model are derived from ULI/ICSC average
rates. The shared parking analysis summarized in this report projected parking demand over the
course of the year (i.e., each month), including the late December holiday season.
Automobile Occupancy. The Project’s shared parking analysis used the national averages for
automobile occupancy, i.e., the typical number of passengers in each vehicle parking at the site for
all land uses. No changes were made to the ULI/ICSC average rates. The shared parking model
applies these assumptions/inputs and considers each land use separately in order to identify the
peak parking demands of each component and the overall Project.
Shared Parking Model Results
Tables 1 and 2 and Charts 1 through 3 illustrate the results of the shared parking model for future
conditions with the Revised Project.
As shown in Table 1 and Charts 1 and 2, the parking model peak parking demand for the Revised
Project occurs at 9:00 PM on a December weekday (59 occupied spaces) and 9:00 PM on a
December weekend (67 occupied spaces). The weekday mid-day peak parking demand occurs
at 12:00 PM (40 occupied spaces). Table 2 and Chart 3 provide an hourly breakdown of parking
demand for the Revised Project on weekdays and weekends.
Based on the proposed on-site parking supply of 23 spaces, there would be parking deficits of 36
spaces during a weekday evening, 44 spaces during a Saturday evening, and 17 spaces during
a weekday mid-day.
PARKING MITIGATION EVALUATION
In order to identify mitigation measures to address the Revised Project’s parking deficit detailed
above, GTC evaluated several options for utilizing or increasing the local parking supply. Those
options, described in detail in the Parking Analysis, are necessary to provide adequate parking
for the Revised Project. Since the Revised Project parking demand peaks after 7:00 PM, when
the supply of public spaces in the area is currently underutilized, no additional measures should
be required.
TABLE 1SHARED PARKING DEMAND SUMMARYBEKINS FOOD HALLPEAK MONTH: DECEMBER -- PEAK PERIOD: 9 PM, WEEKENDProjected Parking Supply: 23 Stalls Weekday Weekend Weekday WeekendNon- Non- Peak Hr Peak Mo Estimated Peak Hr Peak Mo EstimatedBase Mode Captive Project Base Mode Captive Project Adj Adj Parking AdjAdj Parking Land Use Quantity Unit Rate Adj Ratio Rate Unit Rate Adj Ratio Rate Unit 9 PM December Demand 9 PM December DemandFast Casual Restaurant 7,000 sf GLA 4.00 0.90 0.95 3.42 /ksf GLA 4.00 0.90 0.95 3.42 /ksf GLA 0.60 1.00 14 0.90 1.00 22 Employee 1.00 0.90 1.00 0.90 /ksf GLA 1.00 0.90 1.00 0.90 /ksf GLA 0.80 1.00 5 1.00 1.00 6Bar/Gastropub 3,000 sf GLA 15.25 0.90 0.85 11.67 /ksf GLA 15.25 0.90 0.8511.67 /ksf GLA 1.00 1.00 35 1.00 1.00 35 Employee 1.25 1.00 1.00 1.25 /ksf GLA 1.25 1.00 1.00 1.25 /ksf GLA 1.00 1.00 4 1.00 1.00 4Mini-Warehouse 31,239 sf GLA 0.09 0.90 1.00 0.08 /ksf GLA 0.06 0.90 1.00 0.05 /ksf GLA 0.00 1.00 0 0.00 1.00 0 Employee 0.01 0.90 1.00 0.01 /ksf GLA 1.00 0.90 1.00 0.90 /ksf GLA 0.00 1.00 0 0.00 1.00 0Coffee Shop w/o Drive-Thru 1,500 sf GLA 15.00 0.90 1.00 13.50 /ksf GLA12.22 0.90 1.00 11.00 /ksf GLA 0.00 0.60 0 0.00 0.60 0 Employee 3.00 0.75 1.00 2.25 /ksf GLA 2.50 0.75 1.00 1.88 /ksf GLA 0.25 0.70 1 0.00 0.70 0ULI base data have been modified from default values.Customer 49 Customer 57Employee 10 Employee 10Reserved 0 Reserved 0Total 59 Total 67Shared Parking Reduction 49% 42%Project Data
TABLE 2PEAK MONTH SHARED PARKING SUMMARY FORBEKINS FOOD HALLDecemberWeekday Estimated Peak-Hour Parking DemandProjected Parking Supply: 23 StallsOverall Pk AM Peak Hr PM Peak Hr Eve Peak HrMonthly Adj.6 AM 7 AM 8 AM 9 AM 10 AM 11 AM 12 PM 1 PM 2 PM 3 PM 4 PM 5 PM 6 PM 7 PM 8 PM9 PM 10 PM 11 PM 12 AM9 PM 11 AM 5 PM 9 PMFast Casual Restaurant 100% 6 12 14 18 20 22 24 22 12 11 11 18 19 19 19 14 13 12 6 14 22 18 14 Employee 100% 3 5 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 5 5 6 6 6 6 5 4 4 2 5 6 6 5 Bar/Gastropub 100% - - - - - - - - - - - 9 12 18 26 35 35 35 35 35 - 9 35 Employee 100% - - - - - - - - - 2 2 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 - 3 4 Mini-Warehouse 100% - - 1 1 1 2 3 3 3 2 1 1 - - - - - - - - 2 1 - Employee 100% - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Coffee Shop w/o Drive-Thru 60% 7 9 12 8 7 5 5 3 2 3 6 6 5 4 2 - - - - - 5 6 - Employee 70% 1 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 - - - 1 3 2 1 Customer 13 21 27 27 28 29 32 28 17 16 18 34 36 41 47 49 48 47 41 49 29 34 49 Subtotal Demand by User TypeEmployee 4 8 9 9 9 9 8 8 8 9 9 11 10 11 11 10 8 8 6 10 9 11 10 Reserved - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - GRAND TOTAL DEMAND17 29 36 36 37 38 40 36 25 25 27 45 46 52 58 59 56 55 47 59 38 45 59 ULI base data have been modified from default values.59 38 45 59 Footnote(s):DecemberWeekend Estimated Peak-Hour Parking DemandOverall Pk AM Peak Hr PM Peak Hr Eve Peak HrMonthly Adj.6 AM 7 AM 8 AM 9 AM 10 AM 11 AM 12 PM 1 PM 2 PM 3 PM 4 PM 5 PM 6 PM 7 PM 8 PM9 PM 10 PM 11 PM 12 AM9 PM 11 AM 4 PM 9 PMFast Casual Restaurant 100% - - - - - 4 12 13 11 11 11 14 22 23 24 22 22 22 12 22 4 11 22 Employee 100% - 1 2 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 6 6 6 6 6 6 5 3 6 5 5 6 Bar/Gastropub 100% - - - - 4 5 7 9 11 12 12 7 9 18 26 35 35 35 35 35 5 12 35 Employee 100% - - - 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 2 2 4 Mini-Warehouse 100% - - - - 1 1 2 2 2 1 1 - - - - - - - - - 1 1 - Employee 100% - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Coffee Shop w/o Drive-Thru 60% - 10 9 8 6 6 4 3 2 2 4 5 4 3 - - - - - - 6 4 - Employee 70% 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 - - - - - 2 2 - Customer - 10 9 8 11 16 25 27 26 26 28 26 35 44 50 57 57 57 47 57 16 28 57 Subtotal Demand by User TypeEmployee 1 3 4 8 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 10 10 11 11 10 10 9 7 10 9 9 10 Reserved - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - GRAND TOTAL DEMAND1 13 13 16 20 25 34 36 35 35 37 36 45 55 61 67 67 66 54 67 25 37 67 ULI base data have been modified from default values.67 25 37 67
010203040506070Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Late DecParking StallsMonthCHART 1WEEKDAY MONTH-BY-MONTH ESTIMATED DEMANDParking Supply: 23 Stalls
01020304050607080Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Late DecParking StallsMonthCHART 2WEEKEND MONTH-BY-MONTH ESTIMATED DEMANDParking Supply: 23 Stalls
01020304050607080Parking StallsHourCHART 3PEAK MONTH DAILY PARKING DEMAND BY HOURWeekdayWeekendParking Supply: 23 Stalls
MEMORANDUM
TO: Phil Wray and Tim Schwehr
City of Arcadia
FROM: Patrick A. Gibson, P.E., T.E., PTOE
Richard Gibson, LEED Green Associate
DATE: April 24, 2019
RE: Parking Analysis for
Bekins Food Hall
Arcadia, California Ref: J1699
Gibson Transportation Consulting, Inc. (GTC) conducted an evaluation of the City of Arcadia
(City) Municipal Code (Code) requirements, shared parking demands, and adequacy of the
parking supply for the redevelopment (Project) of the existing Bekins Storage Facility (Bekins).
The traffic impact analysis results and methodology associated with the Project’s traffic study
are detailed in Draft Traffic Impact Study for the Bekins Food Hall Mixed-Use Development,
Arcadia, California (GTC, March 2019) (Traffic Study).
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The Project proposes converting approximately 10,000 square feet (sf) of the existing storage
building into a Food Hall, with the remaining portions of the facility remaining as storage units.
For the purposes of this analysis, it was assumed that the Project includes 31,230 sf of mini-
warehouse storage facilities, 11,500 sf of food hall uses (including a 1,500 sf outdoor patio
with 56 seats) and 23 on-site parking spaces.
Figure 1 depicts the site plan for the Project.
CODE REQUIREMENTS
The Code ordinance requires the following parking supply for the Project’s proposed land
uses:
Mini-Warehouse – one space per 1,000 sf
Restaurant, small – one space per 200 sf
Restaurant, Outdoor Patio – one space per six seats
Mr. Phil Wray and Mr. Tim Schwehr
April 24, 2019
Page 2
The Code also allows for reductions in the number of required parking spaces based on the
Project’s proximity to rail transit. Due to its location within 0.25 miles of the Gold Line station, the
Project will qualify for a 25% reduction in Code-required parking spaces.
As shown in Table 1, per the Code, a total of 69 parking spaces would be required for the Project.
The Project’s 23 on-site spaces represent a deficit of 46 parking spaces from Code requirements.
SHARED PARKING MODEL
Code requirements for parking spaces are based on single-use, stand-alone developments and
tend to require more parking than needed in mixed-use developments, where a portion of the
parking supply may be shared among uses with different peak demand times. To determine the
appropriate quantity of parking that would satisfy the demands of the Project, a shared parking
model was created that considers the peak times of each use within the development to determine
the overall peak parking demand.
The parking demand rate for the Project was developed using a two-step process. The first step
was to identify the breakdown of mini-warehouse and restaurant land uses (i.e., customer and
employee-generating land uses) within the Project. The second step involved calibrating the
Shared Parking, 2nd Edition (Urban Land Institute [ULI], and the International Council of Shopping
Centers [ICSC], 2005) model to replicate the current conditions at Bekins.
Model Development Methodology
Shared Parking, 2nd Edition defines national averages to be used for parking demand rates for
various land uses and it suggests ranges of assumptions to be used for transit and internal capture.
The recommended methodology, however, states that the best way to measure the demand at a
particular project is to use local data to modify the national averages so that they reflect local
conditions.
Three key data sets were utilized in the model calibration: Code parking rates, the amount of
proposed active floor area, and anecdotal parking demands of the existing mini-warehouse uses.
Base Parking Rates. The base rates for the food hall uses were taken from the Code requirements
for food-related land use type. The base rate for the mini-warehouse use is based on parking
surveys conducted in December 2018 at the existing mini-warehouse that showed a maximum
demand of three parking spaces on a weekday and one parking space on a weekend day.
Attachment A contains the parking occupancy surveys conducted in the area; Lot 57 is the Bekins
parking lot.
Active Floor Area. The shared parking model utilizes floor area as the metric to generate parking
demand for each land use. As described above, the model was developed using the proposed floor
area data.
Mr. Phil Wray and Mr. Tim Schwehr
April 24, 2019
Page 3
The following floor areas were considered for the Project:
31,230 sf mini-warehouse
11,500 sf fast-casual restaurant space
o Includes a 1,500 sf outdoor patio with 56 seats
Parking Demand Ratio. The parking demand ratio is utilized by the model to generate parking
demand estimates for the selected land uses. The base rates were developed through ULI/ICSC’s
extensive nationwide research efforts. The ULI/ICSC methodology requires that each land use be
assigned a specific parking ratio; that is, the parking ratio for each land use if that land use were
located in a free-standing development. While the base rate does represent the typical average
use, adjustments to the demand rates may be necessary to achieve calibration to local conditions.
Time of Day. Time of day is one of the key assumptions of the shared parking model. This factor
reveals the hourly parking pattern of the analyzed land uses; essentially, the peak demands are
indicated by this factor. ULI/ICSC’s research efforts have yielded a comprehensive data set of
time of day factors for multiple land uses. As the demand for each land use fluctuates over the
course of the day, the ability to implement shared parking emerges. The time of day patterns use
the national average patterns in order to provide a conservative scenario.
Weekday vs. Weekend. Each shared parking analysis measured the parking demand on a
weekday as well as on a weekend day (i.e., Saturday) because different land uses within a mixed-
use development have different weekday and weekend parking demand patterns.
Mode Split and Captive Market. Two factors that affect the overall parking demand at a particular
development are the number of visitors and employees that arrive by automobile and the number
of visitors that visit multiple venues within the development. The mode split accounts for the number
of visitors and employees that arrive by means other than the automobile (transit, walk, bicycle, taxi,
etc.) For this analysis, a mode split of 10% to account for the nearby Gold Line station was assumed
along with a 5% internal capture rate for restaurant patrons.
Seasonal Variation. Seasonal variations used in the model are derived from ULI/ICSC average
rates. The shared parking analysis summarized in this report projected parking demand over the
course of the year (i.e., each month), including the late December holiday season.
Automobile Occupancy. The Project’s shared parking analysis used the national averages for
automobile occupancy, i.e., the typical number of passengers in each vehicle parking at the site for
all land uses. No changes were made to the ULI/ICSC average rates. The shared parking model
applies these assumptions/inputs and considers each land use separately in order to identify the
peak parking demands of each component, as well as for the overall Project.
Shared Parking Model Results
Tables 2 and 3 and Charts 1 through 3 illustrate the results of the shared parking model for future
conditions with the Project.
As shown in Table 2 and Charts 1 and 2, the parking model peak parking demand for the Project
occurs at 12:00 PM on a July weekday (53 occupied spaces) and 8:00 PM on a July weekend (50
Mr. Phil Wray and Mr. Tim Schwehr
April 24, 2019
Page 4
occupied spaces). Table 3 and Chart 3 provide an hourly breakdown of parking demand for the
Project on weekdays and weekends.
The proposed on-site parking supply (23 spaces) compared to the projected peak parking
demand shows there would be a parking deficit of 30 spaces during a weekday mid-day and 27
spaces during a Saturday evening.
PARKING MITIGATION EVALUATION
In order to identify mitigation measures to address the Project’s parking deficit, as detailed in the
Code and demand analyses above, GTC evaluated a number of options for utilizing or increasing
the local parking supply including:
potential on-street parking space inventory increases that could be achieved along Santa
Clara Street and Morlan Place by reconfiguring those facilities
on-site parking supply increases
utilization of existing public and private parking facilities.
As detailed below, this evaluation included an assessment of the available roadway capacity and
operating conditions along Santa Clara Street and along Morlan Place, as well as an evaluation
of the existing demand for the on-street parking spaces on Santa Anita Avenue, Morlan Place,
and Huntington Drive and off-street private spaces in the immediate area around Bekins. In
addition, potential secondary traffic impacts that might result from the reconfiguration of Santa
Clara Street and/or Morlan Place were investigated.
Private Off-Street Parking Options
Reconfigurations. If the Bekins parking lot and the two adjacent parking lots were combined and
slightly reconfigured, approximately eight additional parking spaces could be provided among the
three parking lots. Figure 2 illustrates a conceptual design for these combined lots that would
require closing two driveways on Morlan Place but would provide more parking for all three
developments. This design would also require the cooperation of the three adjacent property
owners.
Leasing Private Lots. One potential source of additional parking supply that could be available
is the leasing of spaces at a nearby parking lot that is underutilized at the times when the Project
is heavily utilized. For example, the adjacent Elks Lodge lot is relatively underutilized before 4:00
PM, so a leasing agreement could allow the Project to use this lot to help accommodate its
breakfast and lunchtime demands. If the leased lots are not within a close vicinity of the Project,
they could be utilized for employee parking. During the evening, the available on-street parking
supply, along with the Project lot, can accommodate the Project’s parking demand and, thus,
leased lots would not be needed.
Valet Parking. The Project could utilize valet parking to increase the effective on-site parking
supply by stack parking vehicles in the drive aisles of the Bekins lot or Elks Lodge lot. Valets could
Mr. Phil Wray and Mr. Tim Schwehr
April 24, 2019
Page 5
also be utilized to park vehicles off-site in adjacent private parking lots that may be too far from
the Project to be considered convenient for patrons.
Employee Off-Site Parking. Whenever feasible, Project employees could be encouraged to park
off-site, either in the on-street public supply or in a privately leased parking lot, to leave the on-
site spaces for customers.
Public Parking Utilization
One potential source of additional parking supply for the Project is on-street and off-street public
parking spaces. Just east of the Project site, at the northeast corner of Santa Anita Avenue &
Huntington Drive, is a large public parking lot with approximately 224 public parking spaces.
Currently this lot is very well utilized from 9:00 AM to 3:00 PM on weekdays and does not have
enough vacant spaces to accommodate Project overflow demand during the day on weekdays.
After 3:00 PM on weekdays and all day on weekends, this lot has at least 45 vacant parking
spaces that could be utilized by Bekins patrons. In addition, the Downtown Parking Study
recommendations for this lot could develop additional parking supply through parking lot restriping
and/or relocating employee parking to less centrally located areas. It’s possible this lot could
provide additional parking for Project patrons in the future.
Tables 4 and 5 present a summary of the parking occupancy surveys taken in the area for on-
street and off-street parking, respectively. The parking occupancy survey worksheets are
provided in Attachment A.
Bekins Lot. As shown in Table 4, the current peak demand for the Bekins lot occurs between
11:00 AM and 12:00 PM on a weekday, when a total of three vehicles were observed in the
parking lot. The peak weekend demand was one parking space between 10:00 AM and 3:00 PM.
Even though the amount of mini-warehouse space will be reduced in the future, the shared
parking model maintained the observed peak demands of three weekday spaces and one
weekend space to provide for a conservative analysis of parking demands.
Elks Lodge Lot. As shown in Table 4, the Elks Lodge lot was fully occupied from 4:00 PM to 7:00
PM on a weekday and at 7:00 PM on a weekend day. This lot may be able to accommodate some
of Project demand during mid-day hours, but it appears to be fully occupied during the evening
hours.
Morlan Place. As shown in Table 5, parking utilization surveys conducted as part of the
Downtown Parking Study indicated that the existing demand for the on-street parking spaces
along Morlan Place was nearly 100% from 7:00 AM until 5:00 PM on weekdays and 70-80% from
8:00 AM until 4:00 PM on Saturday. The parking utilization surveys also indicated that the existing
demand for the on-street spaces decreased dramatically after 5:00 PM on weekdays and 4:00
PM on Saturday and that the daytime utilization of these spaces was primarily driven by area
employees, particularly from the Mercedes-Benz dealership. Relocating the Mercedes-Benz
dealership employees that currently utilize the on-street parking spaces on Morlan Place to Santa
Clara Street would allow the businesses located south/east of Morlan Place better utilization of
those on-street parking spaces during daytime hours.
Mr. Phil Wray and Mr. Tim Schwehr
April 24, 2019
Page 6
Huntington Drive. As shown in Table 5, the north side of Huntington Drive between Santa Anita
Avenue and Santa Clara Street provides 19 parking spaces with two-hour time restrictions.
According to the parking occupancy surveys, demand on this stretch of roadway never exceeds
more than 11 vehicles, resulting in a minimum of eight parking spaces available at all times. Peak
demand after 4:00 PM is only eight spaces, resulting in the availability of 11 parking spaces for
other uses after 4:00 PM.
Santa Anita Avenue. Between St Joseph Street and Huntington Drive, Santa Anita Avenue
provides approximately 40 parking spaces, mostly unrestricted. No parking is allowed on the west
side of Santa Anita Avenue between Santa Clara Street and Morlan Place and this section could
accommodate an additional seven vehicles if parking were allowed. According to the survey
results shown in Table 5 and Attachment A, these sections of Santa Anita Avenue are currently
underutilized, less than 50% occupied, and could provide at least 20 available parking spaces at
all times of day.
Santa Clara Street
Based on an assessment of the operating conditions and available roadway capacity on Santa
Clara Street, it appears that a substantial increase in curb parking could be achieved by reducing
portions of the roadway from two travel lanes to one travel lane in order to accommodate new on-
street parking spaces.
As shown in Figure 3, the proposed reconfiguration of Santa Clara Street could accommodate up
to 48 new on-street parking spaces. Based on the current pattern of daytime on-street parking
utilization in the area, it is anticipated that these new on-street parking spaces would be used by
the Mercedes-Benz dealership employees that currently utilize the 45 on-street parking spaces on
Morlan Place.
It is important to note that the lane configurations and associated traffic volumes at the
intersections of Santa Clara Street & Huntington Drive and Santa Clara Street & Santa Anita
Avenue would remain unchanged with this proposed reconfiguration. As such, this proposed
reconfiguration would not result in any secondary significant traffic impacts.
Morlan Place
Time Limits. Prior to implementation of the one-way configuration discussed below, parking on
Morlan Place could be controlled by installing time limits on the existing curb spaces. Currently,
most of the curb spaces are being utilized for long-term employee parking, mainly by Mercedes-
Benz employees. In order to free up the Morlan Place parking spaces for patrons of the local
establishments, a time-limit of two hours from 8:00 AM to 6:00 PM should be placed on both sides
of Morlan Place. This will prevent any long-term employee parking on Morlan Place and free up
the spaces for use by Project patrons as well as patrons of the other local businesses.
Reconfigured Right-of-Way. Based on an assessment of the operating conditions and available
roadway capacity on Morlan Place, it appears that the facility could be reconfigured from a two-
way street to a one-way street westbound/southbound in order to accommodate additional on-
street parking spaces on the north/west side of the street. The elimination of the
Mr. Phil Wray and Mr. Tim Schwehr
April 24, 2019
Page 7
northbound/eastbound travel lane (either full or partial) would allow the north/west side of the
street to be restriped with angled parking.
As shown in Figure 4 (Alternate 1), the proposed full reconfiguration of Morlan Place could
accommodate up to 23 new on-street parking spaces and would eliminate two-way traffic on
Morlan Place entirely. This represents an increase of 23 net new spaces along the north/west
side of the street. As shown in Alternate 2 (Figure 5), the proposed partial reconfiguration of
Morlan Place could accommodate up to 11 new on-street parking spaces and would retain two-
way traffic between Santa Anita Avenue and the Mercedes-Benz dealership service driveway on
the north/west side of Morlan Place. As shown in Figure 6 (Alternate 3), the proposed partial
reconfiguration of Morlan Place could accommodate up to seven new on-street parking spaces
and would retain two-way traffic between Santa Anita Avenue and the Mercedes-Benz dealership
service driveway on the north/west side and between Huntington Drive and the Mercedes-Benz
dealership sales driveway north of Huntington Drive.
Attachment B provides a summary of the traffic impacts associated with a Morlan Place one-way
conversion.
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDED OPTIONS
The Project proposes to convert a portion of the existing Bekins mini-warehouse building
into restaurant/food hall uses, with 23 parking spaces provided on-site.
The Code parking requirement for the Project is 69 spaces.
A shared parking demand model prepared for the Project projects a peak weekday
demand of 53 parking spaces during mid-day and a peak weekend demand of 50 parking
spaces during the evening.
Given an on-site parking supply of 23 spaces, there would be parking deficit of 30 spaces
on a weekday.
Adjacent available public parking is not adequate to accommodate the Project demands
without changes to design or operation.
The public parking lot at the northeast corner of Santa Anita Avenue & Huntington Drive
could provide up to 45 parking spaces after 3:00 PM on weekdays and all day on
weekends.
By shifting long-term employee parking to Santa Clara Street and limiting Morlan Place to
short-term parking through time limits, sufficient parking supply could be provided to meet
the peak demands of the Project. Additional on-street parking supply could be provided
by changing the operation of a portion of Morlan Place to one-way traffic flow.
The following options could help accommodate Project parking demand:
o Combine the Project parking lot with the two adjacent parking lots and re-stripe the
three lots to provide eight additional private parking spaces.
Mr. Phil Wray and Mr. Tim Schwehr
April 24, 2019
Page 8
o Reconfigure Santa Clara Street by removing two travel lanes along a portion of the
street and providing parking on both sides of the street, which will add 48 parking
spaces to the public inventory.
o Sign the Morlan Place parking spaces for two-hour parking from 10:00 AM to 6:00 PM
seven days a week to encourage long-term employee parking to shift to Santa Clara
Street.
o Convert Morlan Place to one-way from the Mercedes-Benz dealership service exit
westerly to Huntington Drive (Alternate 2) and provide angled parking on one side of
the street, which would increase total public parking supply on Morlan Place by
approximately 11 spaces to a total of 56 curb parking spaces.
o Restore parking to the west side of Santa Anita Avenue between Santa Clara Street
and Morlan Place, which would provide seven additional parking spaces, and restrict
the use of these spaces to two-hour parking between 10:00 AM and 6:00 PM on
weekdays.
o Encourage Project employees to park off-site either on public streets or in a nearby
leased private parking lot.
o Implement a valet parking plan for the Project that either parks vehicles off-site or stack
parks vehicles in the Project parking lot.
o Lease off-site private parking spaces for Project employee or patron usage. The Elks
Lodge lot provides an excellent opportunity for sharing prior to 4:00 PM. Lots further
away could be utilized for employee parking or valet parking storage.
TABLE 1VEHICULAR CODE PARKING REQUIREMENTSLand UseSize Code Requirement [a]Parking RequiredCity of Arcadia Parking Code RequirementProjectMini-Warehouse 31,230 sf 1.00 sp / 1,000 sf32 spacesRestaurant, Small 10,000 sf 1.00 sp / 200 sf50 spacesRestaurant, Small - Outdoor Patio56 seats 1.00 sp / 6 seats10 spaces(23) spaces69 spacesNotessf: square feet[a] Source: Arcadia Municipal Code (City of Arcadia) Section 9103.07.060, Off-Street Parking for Non-Residential Uses Requirements.25% Transit ReductionTOTAL PROJECT PARKING REQUIREMENT
TABLE 2SHARED PARKING DEMAND SUMMARYBEKINS FOOD HALLPEAK MONTH: JULY -- PEAK PERIOD: 12 PM, WEEKDAYProjected Parking Supply: 23 StallsWeekdayWeekendWeekdayWeekendNon-Non-Peak Hr Peak Mo Estimated Peak Hr Peak Mo EstimatedBase Mode Captive ProjectBase Mode Captive ProjectAdj Adj Parking Adj Adj Parking Land UseQuantity Unit Rate Adj Ratio Rate Unit Rate Adj Ratio Rate Unit 12 PM July Demand 8 PM July DemandFood Hall11,500 sf GLA4.00 0.90 0.95 3.42 /ksf GLA 4.00 0.90 0.95 3.42 /ksf GLA 1.00 0.98 39 1.00 0.98 39 Employee1.00 0.90 1.00 0.90 /ksf GLA 1.00 0.90 1.00 0.90 /ksf GLA 1.00 1.00 11 1.00 1.00 11Mini-Warehouse31,239 sf GLA0.09 0.90 1.00 0.08 /ksf GLA 0.06 0.90 1.00 0.05 /ksf GLA 1.00 1.00 3 0.00 1.00 0 Employee0.01 0.90 1.00 0.01 /ksf GLA 1.00 0.90 1.00 0.90 /ksf GLA 1.00 1.00 0 0.00 1.00 0ULI base data have been modified from default values.Customer42Customer39Employee11Employee11Reserved0Reserved0Total53Total50Shared Parking Reduction 13%18%Project Data
TABLE 3PEAK MONTH SHARED PARKING SUMMARY FORBEKINS FOOD HALLJulyWeekday Estimated Peak-Hour Parking DemandProjected Parking Supply: 23 StallsOverall Pk AM Peak Hr PM Peak Hr Eve Peak HrMonthly Adj.6 AM 7 AM 8 AM 9 AM 10 AM 11 AM 12 PM 1 PM 2 PM 3 PM 4 PM 5 PM 6 PM 7 PM 8 PM 9 PM 10 PM 11 PM 12 AM12 PM 11 AM 12 PM 6 PMFood Hall 98% 10 19 23 29 33 35 39 35 19 17 17 29 31 31 31 23 21 19 10 39 35 39 31 Employee100% 5 8 10 10 11 11 11 11 11 8 8 10 10 10 10 9 7 7 4 11 11 11 10 Mini-Warehouse100% - - 1 1 1 2 3 3 3 2 1 1 - - - - - - - 3 2 3 - Employee100% - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Customer 10 19 24 30 34 37 42 38 22 19 18 30 31 31 31 23 21 19 10 42 37 42 31 Subtotal Demand by User TypeEmployee 5 8 10 10 11 11 11 11 11 8 8 10 10 10 10 9 7 7 4 11 11 11 10 Reserved - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - GRAND TOTAL DEMAND15 27 34 40 45 48 53 49 33 27 26 40 41 41 41 32 28 26 14 53 48 53 41 ULI base data have been modified from default values.53 48 53 41 Footnote(s):JulyWeekend Estimated Peak-Hour Parking DemandOverall Pk AM Peak Hr PM Peak Hr Eve Peak HrMonthly Adj.6 AM 7 AM 8 AM 9 AM 10 AM 11 AM 12 PM 1 PM 2 PM 3 PM 4 PM 5 PM 6 PM 7 PM 8 PM 9 PM 10 PM 11 PM 12 AM8 PM 11 AM 5 PM 8 PMFood Hall 98% - - - - - 6 19 21 17 17 17 23 35 37 39 35 35 35 19 39 6 23 39 Employee100% - 2 3 6 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 11 11 11 11 11 11 9 5 11 8 11 11 Mini-Warehouse100% - - - - 1 1 2 2 2 1 1 - - - - - - - - - 1 - - Employee100% - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Customer - - - - 1 7 21 23 19 18 18 23 35 37 39 35 35 35 19 39 7 23 39 Subtotal Demand by User TypeEmployee - 2 3 6 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 11 11 11 11 11 11 9 5 11 8 11 11 Reserved - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - GRAND TOTAL DEMAND- 2 3 6 9 15 29 31 27 26 26 34 46 48 50 46 46 44 24 50 15 34 50 ULI base data have been modified from default values.50 15 34 50
0102030405060Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Late DecParking StallsMonthCHART 1WEEKDAY MONTH-BY-MONTH ESTIMATED DEMANDParking Supply: 23 Stalls
0102030405060Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Late DecParking StallsMonthCHART 2WEEKEND MONTH-BY-MONTH ESTIMATED DEMANDParking Supply: 23 Stalls
0102030405060Parking StallsHourCHART 3PEAK MONTH DAILY PARKING DEMAND BY HOURWeekdayWeekendParking Supply: 23 Stalls
8:00 AM 9:00 AM 10:00 AM 11:00 AM 12:00 PM 1:00 PM 2:00 PM 3:00 PM 4:00 PM 5:00 PM 6:00 PM 7:00 PMBekins Unmarked 20 0 2 2 3 3 2 1 1 2 2 0 0ADA40 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 5 5 4Unmarked 41 2 2 1 2 1 1 2 3 41 40 41 39Rsvd13 9 11 12 12 12 12 9 13 9 8 1 130-min 21 7 21 19 16 19 16 16 15 13 9 7 4Hdcp81 8 8 8 6 6 7 6 3 2 1 1Unmarked 212 111 197 206 197 204 190 190 164 143 106 67 53Bekins Unmarked 20 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0ADA40 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 4 4Unmarked 41 1 4 4 0 0 0 0 3 6 11 23 41Rsvd13 7 8 8 10 10 8 9 6 3 2 1 130-min 21 9 8 14 11 16 15 12 10 5 3 1 1Hdcp81 5 3 3 4 3 3 3 2 1 3 2Unmarked 212 97 139 159 168 174 179 147 119 89 89 81 59Public LotSaturdayOFF-STREET PARKING OCCUPANCY SURVEY RESULTSTABLE 4ElksTime of DayLot Space Type InventoryElksDay of WeekPublic LotThursday
8:00 AM 9:00 AM 10:00 AM 11:00 AM 12:00 PM 1:00 PM 2:00 PM 3:00 PM 4:00 PM 5:00 PM 6:00 PM 7:00 PMSt. Joseph Santa Clara West Unmarked 6 1 3 5 6 655566472-hr 7 0 3 5 3 44465011Unmarked 2 0 0 1 1 22212100Huntington Wheeler East Unmarked 6 0 2 0 2 00000000Wheeler Santa Clara East Unmarked 11 2 2 4 5 33553110Santa Clara St. Joseph East Unmarked 8 0 1 0 0 00001100Santa Anita Morlan North 2-hr (9a-6p) 13 4 7 6 5 31133354Morlan Santa Clara North 2-hr (9a-6p) 6 3 4 5 5 44444332Santa Anita End of Blck 9 West Loading 2 0 0 1 0 10121100" " " Unmarked 16 16 15 16 16 15 16 16 16 16 4 5 5End of Blck 9 Huntington West Unmarked 6 6 6 7 7 66776120Huntington End of Blck 13 East Unmarked 4 4 4 4 4 43331321End of Blck 13 Santa Anita East Unmarked 7 6 6 7 7 66776120St. Joseph Santa Clara West Unmarked 6 1 1 2 3 223567342-hr 7 0 0 2 4 33232242Unmarked 2 0 0 1 2 22221111Huntington Wheeler East Unmarked 6 1 1 0 0 00000000Wheeler Santa Clara East Unmarked 11 0 0 0 0 11110000Santa Clara St. Joseph East Unmarked 8 0 0 1 7 78641223Santa Anita Morlan North 2-hr (9a-6p) 13 3 0 3 4 32311401Morlan Santa Clara North 2-hr (9a-6p) 6 3 4 5 4 42311000Santa Anita End of Blck 9 West Loading 2 0 0 0 1 01100000" " " Unmarked 16 10 9 10 15 13 14 13 146766End of Blck 9 Huntington West Unmarked 6 3 4 5 4 43565443Huntington End of Blck 13 East Unmarked 4 2 4 4 4 44443443End of Blck 13 Santa Anita East Unmarked 6 6 6 7 7 66776124Santa Anita AvenueDay of WeekSaturdayThursdayMorlan Pl.Morlan Pl.Hutington DriveMorlan Pl.Santa Anita AvenueHutington DriveMorlan Pl.WestHuntingtonWheelerWestHuntingtonWheelerON-STREET PARKING OCCUPANCY SURVEY RESULTSTABLE 5InventorySpace TypeSide of StreetToFromTime of DayStreet
Attachment A
Parking Occupancy Surveys
WILTECOff-Street Parking Survey ResultsCLIENT: Gibson TransportationPROJECT: City of Arcadia Downtown Parking StudyDATE: Thursday December 13, 2018PERIOD: 8:00 AM - 8:00 PMBLOCKS: 9, 13 and 14Block No.Lot ID on AerialSPACE TYPEINVENTORY 800-900 900-1000 1000-1100 1100-1200 1200-100 100-200 200-300 300-400 400-500 500-600 600-700 700-8009------------13------------14 56 Hcpd 1000001000100Unmarked 2122237652114657 Unmarked 2002233211220058 Hcpd 4000000005554Unmarked 41221211234140413959 Hcpd 4022111232000Rsvd 4144444443311Unmarked 716 48516543474539383212 960 Hcpd 2000000000000Unmarked 21222376521146Mercedes Benz DealershipMercedes Benz Dealership6059585756
WILTECOff-Street Parking Survey ResultsCLIENT: Gibson TransportationPROJECT: City of Arcadia Downtown Parking StudyDATE: Saturday December 15, 2018PERIOD: 8:00 AM - 8:00 PMBLOCKS: 9, 13 and 14Block No.Lot ID on AerialSPACE TYPEINVENTORY 800-900 900-1000 1000-1100 1100-1200 1200-100 100-200 200-300 300-400 400-500 500-600 600-700 700-8009------------13------------14 56 Hcpd 1100010000100Unmarked 2191023711983242157 Unmarked 2000111111000058 Hcpd 4000000001144Unmarked 4114400003611234159 Hcpd 4000000000000Rsvd 4001111111111Unmarked 712886745582101960 Hcpd 2000100000010Unmarked 21001361274910106- 2 vehicles illegally parkedMercedes Benz DealershipMercedes Benz Dealership6059585756
WILTECOff-Street Parking Survey ResultsCLIENT: Gibson TransportationPROJECT: City of Arcadia Downtown Parking StudyDATE: Thursday December 13, 2018PERIOD: 8:00 AM - 8:00 PMBLOCKS: 15Block No.Lot ID on AerialSPACE TYPEINVENTORY 800-900 900-1000 1000-1100 1100-1200 1200-100 100-200 200-300 300-400 400-500 500-600 600-700 700-80015 78 Rsvd 1391112121212913981130-min 217 2119161916161513 9 7 4Hdcp 8188866763211Unmarked 212111 197 206 197 204 190 190 164 143 106 67 5379 Rsvd 212222222210030-min 4044422331100Unmarked 232222222200080 Rsvd 2222222221000Unmarked 939988998711081 Hdcp 412442233200086858483828079817893908988879192
Unmarked 556 38554539293137322218 882 Hdcp 2022210121002Unmarked 767676667357783 Hdcp 1000000000000Unmarked 707777777731184 Unmarked 703447433464485 Hdcp 1000010000000Unmarked 603224431422186 Unmarked 222223322200087 Hdcp 1000000000000Unmarked 835665334412288 Hdcp 1000000000100Rsvd 201002203310089 Unmarked 833333444422290 Hdcp 1000000000000Unmarked 15058109784542291 Hdcp 100000000000092 Hdcp 1000001000010Unmarked 402233345445293 Hdcp 2000111111000Rsvd 3023333332110Unmarked 297 2124252220212421 5 3 2
WILTECOff-Street Parking Survey ResultsCLIENT: Gibson TransportationPROJECT: City of Arcadia Downtown Parking StudyDATE: Saturday December 15, 2018PERIOD: 8:00 AM - 8:00 PMBLOCKS: 15Block No.Lot ID on AerialSPACE TYPEINVENTORY 800-900 900-1000 1000-1100 1100-1200 1200-100 100-200 200-300 300-400 400-500 500-600 600-700 700-80015 78 Rsvd 137881010896321130-min 21981411161512105311Hdcp 8153343332132Unmarked 21297 139 159 168 174 179 147 119 89 89 81 5979 Rsvd 200000000000030-min 4000010000000Unmarked 200000000000080 Rsvd 2000001000000Unmarked 900000000000081 Hdcp 400000000000086858483828079817893908988879192
Unmarked 5504353222322282 Hdcp 2122122210012Unmarked 767777775777783 Hdcp 1000000000000Unmarked 700222110000084 Unmarked 713646555223285 Hdcp 1000000000000Unmarked 612344542330086 Unmarked 201100100001187 Hdcp 1000000000000Unmarked 811000001000188 Hdcp 1000001000000Rsvd 200000001021189 Unmarked 812134332000090 Hdcp 1000000000000Unmarked 1500000000000091 Hdcp 100000000000092 Hdcp 1000000000000Unmarked 400001110111193 Hdcp 2000000000000Rsvd 3000000000000Unmarked 290491032342200
WILTECOn-Street Parking Survey ResultsCLIENT: Gibson TransportationPROJECT: City of Arcadia Downtown Parking StudyDATE: Thursday December 13, 2018PERIOD: 8:00 AM - 8:00 PMSTREET FROM TO SIDE OF STREET SPACE TYPE INVENTORY 800-900 900-1000 1000-1100 1100-1200 1200-100 100-200 200-300 300-400 400-500 500-600 600-700 700-800Colorado La Porte West Unmarked 4444444444000La Porte St. Joseph West Unmarked 5444444415100St. Joseph Santa Clara West Unmarked 6135665556647Santa Clara Wheeler West000000000000Wheeler Huntington West 2-hr 7035344465011Unmarked 2001122212100Huntington Alley West Unmarked 0000000000000Alley Huntington East Unmarked 0000000000000Huntington Wheeler East Unmarked 6020200000000Wheeler Santa Clara East Unmarked 11224533553110Santa Clara St. Joseph East Unmarked 8010000001100St. Joseph La Porte East Unmarked 7777776777110La Porte Colorado East Unmarked 00000000000002nd 1st North 2-hr (9a-6p) 231 10161210101011141012 91st Santa Anita North 2-hr (9a-6p) 153107 8107 9118 51315Santa Anita Morlan North 2-hr (9a-6p) 13476531133354Morlan Santa Clara North 2-hr (9a-6p) 6345544444332Santa Anita 1st South 2-hr (9a-6p) 151 10161210101011141012 91st 2nd South 2-hr (9a-6p) 6012113111000Santa Anita End of Blck 9 West Loading 2001010121100" " " Unmarked 1616 15 16 16 15 16 16 16 16 4 5 5End of Blck 9 Huntington West Unmarked 6667766776120Morlan Pl.Huntington End of Blck 13 East Unmarked 4444443331321End of Blck 13 Santa Anita East Unmarked 7667766776120Huntington Dr.Morlan Pl.Huntington Dr.Santa Anita AvenueNo Stopping AnytimeSanta Anita Avenue
WILTECOn-Street Parking Survey ResultsCLIENT: Gibson TransportationPROJECT: City of Arcadia Downtown Parking StudyDATE: Saturday December 15, 2018PERIOD: 8:00 AM - 8:00 PMSTREET FROM TO SIDE OF STREET SPACE TYPE INVENTORY 800-900 900-1000 1000-1100 1100-1200 1200-100 100-200 200-300 300-400 400-500 500-600 600-700 700-800Colorado La Porte West Unmarked 4444444444300La Porte St. Joseph West Unmarked 5533333333300St. Joseph Santa Clara West Unmarked 6112322356734Santa Clara Wheeler West000000000000Wheeler Huntington West 2-hr 7002433232242Unmarked 2001222221111Huntington Alley West Unmarked 0000000000000Alley Huntington East Unmarked 0000000000000Huntington Wheeler East Unmarked 6110000000000Wheeler Santa Clara East Unmarked 11000011110000Santa Clara St. Joseph East Unmarked 8001778641223Unmarked 525332210100024 min 2100000000010La Porte Colorado East Unmarked 00000000000002nd 1st North 2-hr (9a-6p) 232 1111111010 8 9 121215181st Santa Anita North 2-hr (9a-6p) 153610118121086245Santa Anita Morlan North 2-hr (9a-6p) 13303432311401Morlan Santa Clara North 2-hr (9a-6p) 6345442311000Santa Anita 1st South 2-hr (9a-6p) 1510 10 12 12 11 14 12 10 11 13 11 131st 2nd South 2-hr (9a-6p) 6000011211434Santa Anita End of Blck 9 West Loading 2000101100000" " " Unmarked 161091015131413146766End of Blck 9 Huntington West Unmarked 6345443565443Morlan Pl.Huntington End of Blck 13 East Unmarked 4244444443443End of Blck 13 Santa Anita East Unmarked 713 12 16 19 16 16 14 16 15 12 9 9Huntington Dr.Morlan Pl.Huntington Dr.Santa Anita AvenueNo Stopping AnytimeSanta Anita AvenueSt. Joseph La Porte East
Attachment B
Morlan Place Traffic Impact Analysis
Attachment B
Morlan Place Traffic Impact Analysis
In order to ensure that the proposed reconfiguration of Morlan Place to a one-way street would
not result in any secondary significant impacts at the signalized study intersections or require the
installation of a traffic signal at the unsignalized study intersections, GTC conducted an analysis
of the traffic shifts associated with the full reconfiguration of Morlan Place, as the full
reconfiguration alternative would result in the greatest shifting of traffic.
EXISTING WITH PROJECT WITH MORLAN PLACE RECONFIGURATION CONDITIONS
The Project-only morning and afternoon peak hour traffic volumes described in Chapter 5 and
Figure 8 of the Traffic Study were shifted to reflect the full reconfiguration of Morlan Place and are
shown in Figure B-1. These volumes were added to the existing morning and afternoon peak hour
traffic volumes shown in Figure 4 of the Traffic Study. The resulting volumes are shown in Figure
B-2 and represent Existing with Project with Morlan Place Reconfiguration Conditions (Year
2019).
Table B-1 summarizes the Existing with Project with Morlan Place Reconfiguration Conditions
(Year 2019) during the weekday morning and afternoon peak hours for the four signalized study
intersections. As shown, all four signalized study intersections would operate at level of service
(LOS) D or better during both the weekday morning and afternoon peak hours, and the proposed
full reconfiguration of Morlan Place would not result in significant impacts at any of the four
signalized study intersections. Therefore, no additional mitigation is required based on Existing
with Project with Morlan Place Reconfiguration Conditions.
FUTURE WITH PROJECT WITH MORLAN PLACE RECONFIGURATION CONDITIONS
The Project-only morning and afternoon peak hour traffic volumes shown in Figure B-1 were
added to the Future without Project morning and afternoon peak hour traffic volumes shown in
Figure 6 of the Traffic Study. The resulting volumes are shown in Figure B-3 and represent Future
with Project with Morlan Place Reconfiguration Conditions (Year 2020).
Table B-2 summarizes the Future with Project with Morlan Place Reconfiguration Conditions
(Year 2020) during the weekday morning and afternoon peak hours for the four signalized study
intersections. As shown, three of the four signalized study intersections would operate at LOS D
or better during both the weekday morning and afternoon peak hours, and the proposed full
reconfiguration of Morlan Place would not result in significant impacts at any of the four signalized
study intersections. The intersection of Santa Anita Avenue & Huntington Drive would operate at
LOS D during the morning peak hour and LOS E during the afternoon peak hour. The increase in
volume-to-capacity ratio at this location does not meet the significance criteria in the City;
therefore, no additional mitigation is required based on Future with Project with Morlan Place
Reconfiguration Conditions.
Detailed LOS worksheets are provided in Attachment 1.
UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTION ANALYSIS
Tables B-3 and B-4 summarize the weekday morning and afternoon peak hour delay and
corresponding LOS for the two unsignalized study intersections under Existing with Project with
Morlan Place Reconfiguration Conditions and Future with Project with Morlan Place
Reconfiguration Conditions.
As shown in Table B-3, one of the two unsignalized study intersections would operate at LOS D
or better during both the morning and afternoon peak hours under Existing with Project with
Morlan Place Reconfiguration Conditions. The intersection of Morlan Place & Huntington Drive
would operate at LOS F during the morning peak hour and at LOS C during the afternoon peak
hour.
As shown in Table B-4, both unsignalized study intersections would operate at LOS F during both
the morning and afternoon peak hours under Future with Project with Morlan Place
Reconfiguration Conditions.
As such, based on the LOS results detailed above, traffic signal warrant analyses were conducted
for the two unsignalized study intersections based on the signal warrant methodology described
in detail in Chapter 7 of the Traffic Study. Tables B-3 and B-4 summarize the results of the signal
warrant analysis under Existing with Project with Morlan Place Reconfiguration Conditions and
Future with Project with Morlan Place Reconfiguration Conditions, respectively. As shown, the
two unsignalized study intersections would not meet the warrant thresholds under Existing with
Project with Morlan Place Reconfiguration Conditions or Future with Project with Morlan Place
Reconfiguration Conditions. Therefore, the proposed reconfiguration of Morlan Place would not
require the installation of a traffic signal at either location.
The detailed signal warrant worksheets are provided in Attachment 2.
3
B-3
4
B-4
5
B-5
TABLE B-1EXISTING WITH MORLAN PLACE RECONFIGURATION CONDITIONS (YEAR 2019)INTERSECTION LEVELS OF SERVICE AND SIGNIFICANT IMPACTSExisting ConditionsExisting with Project with Morlan Place Reconfiguration ConditionsV/C LOS V/C LOS ∆ V/C Impact1. Santa Clara Street &AM 0.757 C 0.759 C 0.002 NOHuntington DrivePM 0.694 B 0.695 B 0.001 NO3. Santa Anita Avenue &AM 0.623 B 0.626 B 0.003 NOSanta Clara Street PM 0.676 B 0.679 B 0.003 NO5. Santa Anita Avenue &AM 0.738 C 0.744 C 0.006 NOHuntington DrivePM 0.798 C 0.808 D 0.010 NO6. Santa Anita Avenue &AM 0.663 B 0.667 B 0.004 NOColorado BoulevardPM 0.654 B 0.657 B 0.003 NONo. IntersectionPeak Hour6B-6
TABLE B-2FUTURE WITH PROJECT WITH MORLAN PLACE RECONFIGURATION CONDITIONS (YEAR 2020)INTERSECTION LEVELS OF SERVICE AND SIGNIFICANT IMPACTSFuture without Project ConditionsFuture with Project with Morlan Place Reconfiguration ConditionsV/C LOS V/C LOS ∆ V/C Impact1. Santa Clara Street & AM 0.819 D 0.820 D 0.001 NOHuntington DrivePM 0.755 C 0.758 C 0.003 NO3. Santa Anita Avenue &AM 0.699 B 0.701 C 0.002 NOSanta Clara Street PM 0.790 C 0.793 C 0.003 NO5. Santa Anita Avenue &AM 0.804 D 0.813 D 0.009 NOHuntington DrivePM 0.924 E 0.935 E 0.011 NO6. Santa Anita Avenue &AM 0.769 C 0.771 C 0.002 NOColorado BoulevardPM 0.736 C 0.741 C 0.005 NONo. IntersectionPeak Hour7B-7
TABLE B-3EXISTING WITH MORLAN PLACE RECONFIGURATION CONDITIONS (YEAR 2019)UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTION PEAK HOUR LEVELS OF SERVICEExisting ConditionsExisting with Project with Morlan Place Reconfiguration ConditionsDelay LOSMeets Signal WarrantsDelay LOSMeets Signal Warrants2. Morlan Place & A.M. 34.9 D 147.5 FHuntington Drive P.M. 13.3 B 21.0 C4. Santa Anita Avenue & A.M. 35.2 E 21.7 CMorlan Place / Wheeler Avenue P.M. 48.0 E 28.1 DNote:Intersections #2 and #4 are 2-way stop controlled.Reported delay is worst approach delay.NONONo. IntersectionPeak HourNONO8B-8
TABLE B-4FUTURE WITH PROJECT WITH MORLAN PLACE RECONFIGURATION CONDITIONS (YEAR 2020)UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTION PEAK HOUR LEVELS OF SERVICEFuture without Project ConditionsFuture with Project with Morlan Place Reconfiguration ConditionsDelay LOSMeets Signal WarrantsDelay LOSMeets Signal Warrants2. Morlan Place & A.M. 41.9 E 222.6 FHuntington Drive P.M. 15.3 C 30.4 D4. Santa Anita Avenue & A.M. 66.1 F 28.7 DMorlan Place / Wheeler Avenue P.M. Overflow N/A 81.1 FNote:Intersections #2 and #4 are 2-way stop controlled.Reported delay is worst approach delay.NONONo. IntersectionPeak HourNONO9B-9
Attachment 1
Level of Service Worksheets
Printed 3/4/2019
EXISTING WITH PROJECT CONDITIONS (YEAR 2019)
J1699 ‐ ARCADIA COMMONS
Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis
1. SANTA CLARA STREET & HUNTINGTON DRIVE
Through Lane Capacity: 1680 vph North/South Split Phase: Y
Left‐Turn Lane Capacity: 1680 vph East/West Split Phase: N
Double‐Left Penalty: 20 %Loss Time % per Cycle: 10%
Right‐Turn on Red: 50 %ITS Percentage: 0%
Overlapping Right Turn:
WEEKDAY MORNING PEAK HOUR
Approach Movement Lanes Capacity Volume V/C ICU Analysis
Right 2.00 3,360 770 0.227 *N/S 1: 0.403 *
Southbound Through 0.00 0 0 0.000 N/S 2: 0.000
Left 0.00 0 0 0.000 E/W 1: 0.026
Right 0.50 0 19 0.000 E/W 2: 0.256 *
Westbound Through 2.50 5,040 1,244 0.251 *
Left 0.00 0 0 0.000 V/C Ratio: 0.659
Right 2.00 3,360 593 0.176 * Loss Time: 0.100
Northbound Through 2.00 3,360 532 0.158 ITS: 0.000
Left 1.00 1,680 77 0.046
Right 0.00 0 0 0.000 ICU: 0.759
Eastbound Through 3.00 5,040 133 0.026
Left 1.00 1,680 8 0.005 *LOS: C
WEEKDAY AFTERNOON PEAK HOUR
Approach Movement Lanes Capacity Volume V/C ICU Analysis
Right 2.00 3,360 524 0.132 *N/S 1: 0.372 *
Southbound Through 0.00 0 0 0.000 N/S 2: 0.000
Left 0.00 0 0 0.000 E/W 1: 0.202
Right 0.50 0 20 0.000 E/W 2: 0.223 *
Westbound Through 2.50 5,040 869 0.176 *
Left 0.00 0 0 0.000 V/C Ratio: 0.595
Right 2.00 3,360 808 0.240 * Loss Time: 0.100
Northbound Through 2.00 3,360 659 0.196 ITS: 0.000
Left 1.00 1,680 119 0.071
Right 0.00 0 0 0.000 ICU: 0.695
Eastbound Through 3.00 5,040 1,020 0.202
Left 1.00 1,680 79 0.047 *LOS: B
* Critical Movement
Gibson Transportation Consulting, Inc.J1699‐G‐ICU ExP (Parking Mit).xlsm
Printed 3/4/2019
EXISTING WITH PROJECT CONDITIONS (YEAR 2019)
J1699 ‐ ARCADIA COMMONS
Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis
3. SANTA ANITA AVENUE & SANTA CLARA STREET
Through Lane Capacity: 1680 vph North/South Split Phase: N
Left‐Turn Lane Capacity: 1680 vph East/West Split Phase: N
Double‐Left Penalty: 20 %Loss Time % per Cycle: 10%
Right‐Turn on Red: 50 %ITS Percentage: 0%
Overlapping Right Turn:
WEEKDAY MORNING PEAK HOUR
Approach Movement Lanes Capacity Volume V/C ICU Analysis
Right 1.00 1,680 388 0.156 N/S 1: 0.256 *
Southbound Through 2.00 3,360 738 0.220 N/S 2: 0.237
Left 1.00 1,680 59 0.035 * E/W 1: 0.100
Right 0.50 0 57 0.000 E/W 2: 0.270 *
Westbound Through 0.50 1,680 145 0.120 *
Left 1.00 1,680 35 0.021 V/C Ratio: 0.526
Right 0.50 0 70 0.000 Loss Time: 0.100
Northbound Through 1.50 3,360 672 0.221 *ITS: 0.000
Left 1.00 1,680 29 0.017
Right 0.50 0 19 0.000 ICU: 0.626
Eastbound Through 0.50 1,680 113 0.079
Left 2.00 2,688 404 0.150 *LOS: B
WEEKDAY AFTERNOON PEAK HOUR
Approach Movement Lanes Capacity Volume V/C ICU Analysis
Right 1.00 1,680 199 0.058 N/S 1: 0.322 *
Southbound Through 2.00 3,360 761 0.226 N/S 2: 0.242
Left 1.00 1,680 136 0.081 * E/W 1: 0.167
Right 0.50 0 98 0.000 E/W 2: 0.257 *
Westbound Through 0.50 1,680 130 0.136 *
Left 1.00 1,680 74 0.044 V/C Ratio: 0.579
Right 0.50 0 67 0.000 Loss Time: 0.100
Northbound Through 1.50 3,360 743 0.241 *ITS: 0.000
Left 1.00 1,680 27 0.016
Right 0.50 0 35 0.000 ICU: 0.679
Eastbound Through 0.50 1,680 171 0.123
Left 2.00 2,688 324 0.121 *LOS: B
* Critical Movement
Gibson Transportation Consulting, Inc.J1699‐G‐ICU ExP (Parking Mit).xlsm
Printed 3/4/2019
EXISTING WITH PROJECT CONDITIONS (YEAR 2019)
J1699 ‐ ARCADIA COMMONS
Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis
5. SANTA ANITA AVENUE & HUNTINGTON DRIVE
Through Lane Capacity: 1680 vph North/South Split Phase: N
Left‐Turn Lane Capacity: 1680 vph East/West Split Phase: N
Double‐Left Penalty: 20 %Loss Time % per Cycle: 10%
Right‐Turn on Red: 50 %ITS Percentage: 0%
Overlapping Right Turn:
WEEKDAY MORNING PEAK HOUR
Approach Movement Lanes Capacity Volume V/C ICU Analysis
Right 1.00 1,680 81 0.027 N/S 1: 0.340
Southbound Through 2.00 3,360 692 0.206 *N/S 2: 0.372 *
Left 2.00 2,688 70 0.026 E/W 1: 0.189
Right 1.00 1,680 69 0.028 E/W 2: 0.272 *
Westbound Through 2.00 3,360 770 0.229 *
Left 1.00 1,680 84 0.050 V/C Ratio: 0.644
Right 1.00 1,680 110 0.040 Loss Time: 0.100
Northbound Through 2.00 3,360 1,054 0.314 ITS: 0.000
Left 2.00 2,688 447 0.166 *
Right 1.00 1,680 278 0.082 ICU: 0.744
Eastbound Through 2.00 3,360 467 0.139
Left 1.00 1,680 72 0.043 *LOS: C
WEEKDAY AFTERNOON PEAK HOUR
Approach Movement Lanes Capacity Volume V/C ICU Analysis
Right 1.00 1,680 88 0.013 N/S 1: 0.287 *
Southbound Through 2.00 3,360 652 0.194 N/S 2: 0.262
Left 2.00 2,688 148 0.055 * E/W 1: 0.421 *
Right 1.00 1,680 98 0.031 E/W 2: 0.253
Westbound Through 2.00 3,360 586 0.174
Left 1.00 1,680 144 0.086 * V/C Ratio: 0.708
Right 1.00 1,680 166 0.056 Loss Time: 0.100
Northbound Through 2.00 3,360 779 0.232 *ITS: 0.000
Left 2.00 2,688 183 0.068
Right 1.00 1,680 570 0.305 ICU: 0.808
Eastbound Through 2.00 3,360 1,124 0.335 *
Left 1.00 1,680 133 0.079 LOS: D
* Critical Movement
Gibson Transportation Consulting, Inc.J1699‐G‐ICU ExP (Parking Mit).xlsm
Printed 3/4/2019
EXISTING WITH PROJECT CONDITIONS (YEAR 2019)
J1699 ‐ ARCADIA COMMONS
Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis
6. SANTA ANITA AVENUE & COLORADO BOULEVARD
Through Lane Capacity: 1680 vph North/South Split Phase: N
Left‐Turn Lane Capacity: 1680 vph East/West Split Phase: N
Double‐Left Penalty: 20 %Loss Time % per Cycle: 10%
Right‐Turn on Red: 50 %ITS Percentage: 0%
Overlapping Right Turn:
WEEKDAY MORNING PEAK HOUR
Approach Movement Lanes Capacity Volume V/C ICU Analysis
Right 1.00 1,680 227 0.115 N/S 1: 0.241
Southbound Through 2.00 3,360 974 0.290 *N/S 2: 0.367 *
Left 2.00 2,688 94 0.035 E/W 1: 0.200 *
Right 0.50 0 118 0.000 E/W 2: 0.191
Westbound Through 1.50 3,360 387 0.150
Left 1.00 1,680 241 0.143 * V/C Ratio: 0.567
Right 0.50 0 118 0.000 Loss Time: 0.100
Northbound Through 2.50 5,040 918 0.206 ITS: 0.000
Left 1.00 1,680 129 0.077 *
Right 0.50 0 60 0.000 ICU: 0.667
Eastbound Through 1.50 3,360 130 0.057 *
Left 1.00 1,680 69 0.041 LOS: B
WEEKDAY AFTERNOON PEAK HOUR
Approach Movement Lanes Capacity Volume V/C ICU Analysis
Right 1.00 1,680 82 0.031 N/S 1: 0.292
Southbound Through 2.00 3,360 1,016 0.302 *N/S 2: 0.342 *
Left 2.00 2,688 172 0.064 E/W 1: 0.215 *
Right 0.50 1,680 134 0.080 E/W 2: 0.115
Westbound Through 1.50 1,680 100 0.060
Left 1.00 1,680 87 0.052 * V/C Ratio: 0.557
Right 0.50 0 206 0.000 Loss Time: 0.100
Northbound Through 2.50 5,040 944 0.228 ITS: 0.000
Left 1.00 1,680 68 0.040 *
Right 0.50 0 79 0.000 ICU: 0.657
Eastbound Through 1.50 3,360 469 0.163 *
Left 1.00 1,680 59 0.035 LOS: B
* Critical Movement
Gibson Transportation Consulting, Inc.J1699‐G‐ICU ExP (Parking Mit).xlsm
Printed 3/4/2019
FUTURE WITH PROJECT CONDITIONS (YEAR 2020)
J1699 ‐ ARCADIA COMMONS
Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis
1. SANTA CLARA STREET & HUNTINGTON DRIVE
Through Lane Capacity: 1680 vph North/South Split Phase: Y
Left‐Turn Lane Capacity: 1680 vph East/West Split Phase: N
Double‐Left Penalty: 20 %Loss Time % per Cycle: 10%
Right‐Turn on Red: 50 %ITS Percentage: 0%
Overlapping Right Turn:
WEEKDAY MORNING PEAK HOUR
Approach Movement Lanes Capacity Volume V/C ICU Analysis
Right 2.00 3,360 788 0.232 *N/S 1: 0.440 *
Southbound Through 0.00 0 0 0.000 N/S 2: 0.000
Left 0.00 0 0 0.000 E/W 1: 0.030
Right 0.50 0 19 0.000 E/W 2: 0.280 *
Westbound Through 2.50 5,040 1,368 0.275 *
Left 0.00 0 0 0.000 V/C Ratio: 0.720
Right 2.00 3,360 698 0.208 * Loss Time: 0.100
Northbound Through 2.00 3,360 565 0.168 ITS: 0.000
Left 1.00 1,680 133 0.079
Right 0.00 0 0 0.000 ICU: 0.820
Eastbound Through 3.00 5,040 152 0.030
Left 1.00 1,680 8 0.005 *LOS: D
WEEKDAY AFTERNOON PEAK HOUR
Approach Movement Lanes Capacity Volume V/C ICU Analysis
Right 2.00 3,360 536 0.135 *N/S 1: 0.396 *
Southbound Through 0.00 0 0 0.000 N/S 2: 0.000
Left 0.00 0 0 0.000 E/W 1: 0.224
Right 0.50 0 20 0.000 E/W 2: 0.262 *
Westbound Through 2.50 5,040 1,059 0.214 *
Left 0.00 0 0 0.000 V/C Ratio: 0.658
Right 2.00 3,360 876 0.261 * Loss Time: 0.100
Northbound Through 2.00 3,360 683 0.203 ITS: 0.000
Left 1.00 1,680 148 0.088
Right 0.00 0 0 0.000 ICU: 0.758
Eastbound Through 3.00 5,040 1,128 0.224
Left 1.00 1,680 81 0.048 *LOS: C
* Critical Movement
Gibson Transportation Consulting, Inc.J1699‐G‐ICU FP (Parking Mit).xlsm
Printed 3/4/2019
FUTURE WITH PROJECT CONDITIONS (YEAR 2020)
J1699 ‐ ARCADIA COMMONS
Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis
3. SANTA ANITA AVENUE & SANTA CLARA STREET
Through Lane Capacity: 1680 vph North/South Split Phase: N
Left‐Turn Lane Capacity: 1680 vph East/West Split Phase: N
Double‐Left Penalty: 20 %Loss Time % per Cycle: 10%
Right‐Turn on Red: 50 %ITS Percentage: 0%
Overlapping Right Turn:
WEEKDAY MORNING PEAK HOUR
Approach Movement Lanes Capacity Volume V/C ICU Analysis
Right 1.00 1,680 396 0.159 N/S 1: 0.282
Southbound Through 2.00 3,360 1,006 0.299 *N/S 2: 0.317 *
Left 1.00 1,680 65 0.039 E/W 1: 0.114
Right 0.50 0 67 0.000 E/W 2: 0.284 *
Westbound Through 0.50 1,680 151 0.130 *
Left 1.00 1,680 37 0.022 V/C Ratio: 0.601
Right 0.50 0 71 0.000 Loss Time: 0.100
Northbound Through 1.50 3,360 744 0.243 ITS: 0.000
Left 1.00 1,680 30 0.018 *
Right 0.50 0 19 0.000 ICU: 0.701
Eastbound Through 0.50 1,680 135 0.092
Left 2.00 2,688 414 0.154 *LOS: C
WEEKDAY AFTERNOON PEAK HOUR
Approach Movement Lanes Capacity Volume V/C ICU Analysis
Right 1.00 1,680 203 0.059 N/S 1: 0.426 *
Southbound Through 2.00 3,360 915 0.272 N/S 2: 0.289
Left 1.00 1,680 161 0.096 * E/W 1: 0.177
Right 0.50 0 107 0.000 E/W 2: 0.267 *
Westbound Through 0.50 1,680 135 0.144 *
Left 1.00 1,680 76 0.045 V/C Ratio: 0.693
Right 0.50 0 69 0.000 Loss Time: 0.100
Northbound Through 1.50 3,360 1,039 0.330 *ITS: 0.000
Left 1.00 1,680 28 0.017
Right 0.50 0 36 0.000 ICU: 0.793
Eastbound Through 0.50 1,680 185 0.132
Left 2.00 2,688 330 0.123 *LOS: C
* Critical Movement
Gibson Transportation Consulting, Inc.J1699‐G‐ICU FP (Parking Mit).xlsm
Printed 3/4/2019
FUTURE WITH PROJECT CONDITIONS (YEAR 2020)
J1699 ‐ ARCADIA COMMONS
Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis
5. SANTA ANITA AVENUE & HUNTINGTON DRIVE
Through Lane Capacity: 1680 vph North/South Split Phase: N
Left‐Turn Lane Capacity: 1680 vph East/West Split Phase: N
Double‐Left Penalty: 20 %Loss Time % per Cycle: 10%
Right‐Turn on Red: 50 %ITS Percentage: 0%
Overlapping Right Turn:
WEEKDAY MORNING PEAK HOUR
Approach Movement Lanes Capacity Volume V/C ICU Analysis
Right 1.00 1,680 96 0.035 N/S 1: 0.418 *
Southbound Through 2.00 3,360 772 0.230 N/S 2: 0.412
Left 2.00 2,688 246 0.092 * E/W 1: 0.229
Right 1.00 1,680 106 0.017 E/W 2: 0.295 *
Westbound Through 2.00 3,360 840 0.250 *
Left 1.00 1,680 98 0.058 V/C Ratio: 0.713
Right 1.00 1,680 159 0.065 Loss Time: 0.100
Northbound Through 2.00 3,360 1,095 0.326 *ITS: 0.000
Left 2.00 2,688 488 0.182
Right 1.00 1,680 291 0.082 ICU: 0.813
Eastbound Through 2.00 3,360 575 0.171
Left 1.00 1,680 76 0.045 *LOS: D
WEEKDAY AFTERNOON PEAK HOUR
Approach Movement Lanes Capacity Volume V/C ICU Analysis
Right 1.00 1,680 99 0.014 N/S 1: 0.348 *
Southbound Through 2.00 3,360 708 0.211 N/S 2: 0.287
Left 2.00 2,688 239 0.089 * E/W 1: 0.487 *
Right 1.00 1,680 292 0.129 E/W 2: 0.312
Westbound Through 2.00 3,360 746 0.222
Left 1.00 1,680 204 0.121 * V/C Ratio: 0.835
Right 1.00 1,680 193 0.054 Loss Time: 0.100
Northbound Through 2.00 3,360 869 0.259 *ITS: 0.000
Left 2.00 2,688 203 0.076
Right 1.00 1,680 622 0.332 ICU: 0.935
Eastbound Through 2.00 3,360 1,229 0.366 *
Left 1.00 1,680 152 0.090 LOS: E
* Critical Movement
Gibson Transportation Consulting, Inc.J1699‐G‐ICU FP (Parking Mit).xlsm
Printed 3/4/2019
FUTURE WITH PROJECT CONDITIONS (YEAR 2020)
J1699 ‐ ARCADIA COMMONS
Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis
6. SANTA ANITA AVENUE & COLORADO BOULEVARD
Through Lane Capacity: 1680 vph North/South Split Phase: N
Left‐Turn Lane Capacity: 1680 vph East/West Split Phase: N
Double‐Left Penalty: 20 %Loss Time % per Cycle: 10%
Right‐Turn on Red: 50 %ITS Percentage: 0%
Overlapping Right Turn:
WEEKDAY MORNING PEAK HOUR
Approach Movement Lanes Capacity Volume V/C ICU Analysis
Right 1.00 1,680 281 0.143 N/S 1: 0.280
Southbound Through 2.00 3,360 1,234 0.367 *N/S 2: 0.451 *
Left 2.00 2,688 161 0.060 E/W 1: 0.220 *
Right 0.50 0 153 0.000 E/W 2: 0.215
Westbound Through 1.50 3,360 404 0.166
Left 1.00 1,680 246 0.146 * V/C Ratio: 0.671
Right 0.50 0 120 0.000 Loss Time: 0.100
Northbound Through 2.50 5,040 990 0.220 ITS: 0.000
Left 1.00 1,680 141 0.084 *
Right 0.50 0 91 0.000 ICU: 0.771
Eastbound Through 1.50 3,360 159 0.074 *
Left 1.00 1,680 82 0.049 LOS: C
WEEKDAY AFTERNOON PEAK HOUR
Approach Movement Lanes Capacity Volume V/C ICU Analysis
Right 1.00 1,680 108 0.028 N/S 1: 0.359
Southbound Through 2.00 3,360 1,172 0.349 *N/S 2: 0.412 *
Left 2.00 2,688 198 0.074 E/W 1: 0.229 *
Right 0.50 1,680 240 0.143 E/W 2: 0.216
Westbound Through 1.50 1,680 135 0.080
Left 1.00 1,680 89 0.053 * V/C Ratio: 0.641
Right 0.50 0 210 0.000 Loss Time: 0.100
Northbound Through 2.50 5,040 1,228 0.285 ITS: 0.000
Left 1.00 1,680 106 0.063 *
Right 0.50 0 98 0.000 ICU: 0.741
Eastbound Through 1.50 3,360 493 0.176 *
Left 1.00 1,680 123 0.073 LOS: C
* Critical Movement
Gibson Transportation Consulting, Inc.J1699‐G‐ICU FP (Parking Mit).xlsm
HCM 2010 TWSC
2: Huntington Drive & Morlan Place 2/12/2019
2/12/2019 J1699 - Existing Conditions (2019) AM Synchro 8 Report
Page 1
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0.4
Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR
Vol, veh/h 19 609 1810 8 4 15
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Yield Yield Free Free Stop Stop
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 0 -- - 0 -
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 0 - 0 -
Grade, %- 0 0 - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, %2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 21 662 1967 9 4 16
Major/Minor Major2 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All - 0 1972 987
Stage 1 - - 1972 -
Stage 2 - - 0 -
Critical Hdwy - - 6.84 6.94
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - 5.84 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - ---
Follow-up Hdwy - - 3.52 3.32
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver - - 54 246
Stage 1 - - 94 -
Stage 2 - ---
Platoon blocked, %- -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - - 54 246
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - 54 -
Stage 1 - - 94 -
Stage 2 - ---
Approach WB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 0 34.9
HCM LOS D
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt WBT WBRSBLn1
Capacity (veh/h)- - 141
HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 0.146
HCM Control Delay (s) - - 34.9
HCM Lane LOS - - D
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - - 0.5
HCM 2010 TWSC
4: Santa Anita Avenue & Morlan Place/Wheeler Avenue 2/12/2019
2/12/2019 J1699 - Existing Conditions (2019) AM Synchro 8 Report
Page 2
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 1.7
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Vol, veh/h 8 4 11 11 1 42 27 816 29 45 657 31
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None
Storage Length - - -- - - 0 - - 0 - -
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 -- 0 -- 0 -- 0 -
Grade, %- 0 -- 0 -- 0 -- 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, %2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 9 4 12 12 1 46 29 887 32 49 714 34
Major/Minor Minor2 Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 1332 1806 374 1418 1807 459 748 0 0 918 0 0
Stage 1 829 829 - 961 961 - - - - - - -
Stage 2 503 977 - 457 846 -- - -- - -
Critical Hdwy 7.54 6.54 6.94 7.54 6.54 6.94 4.14 - - 4.14 - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6.54 5.54 - 6.54 5.54 -- - -- - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 6.54 5.54 - 6.54 5.54 -- - -- - -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.52 4.02 3.32 3.52 4.02 3.32 2.22 - - 2.22 - -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 112 78 623 97 78 549 856 - - 739 - -
Stage 1 331 383 - 275 333 -- - -- - -
Stage 2 519 327 - 553 377 -- - -- - -
Platoon blocked, %- -- -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 94 70 623 84 70 549 856 - - 739 - -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 94 70 - 84 70 -- - -- - -
Stage 1 320 358 - 266 322 -- - -- - -
Stage 2 458 316 - 500 352 -- - -- - -
Approach EB WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 35.2 24.4 0.3 0.6
HCM LOS E C
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT NBREBLn1WBLn1 SBL SBT SBR
Capacity (veh/h)856 - - 144 244 739 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.034 - - 0.174 0.241 0.066 - -
HCM Control Delay (s) 9.4 - - 35.2 24.4 10.2 - -
HCM Lane LOS A - - E C B - -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 - - 0.6 0.9 0.2 - -
HCM 2010 TWSC
2: Huntington Drive & Morlan Place 2/12/2019
5:00 pm 2/12/2019 J1699 - Existing Conditions (2019) PM Synchro 8 Report
Page 1
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0.8
Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR
Vol, veh/h 12 1585 878 3 4 56
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Yield Yield Free Free Stop Stop
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 0 -- - 0 -
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 0 - 0 -
Grade, %- 0 0 - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, %2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 13 1723 954 3 4 61
Major/Minor Major2 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All - 0 956 478
Stage 1 - - 956 -
Stage 2 - - 0 -
Critical Hdwy - - 6.84 6.94
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - 5.84 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - ---
Follow-up Hdwy - - 3.52 3.32
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver - - 256 534
Stage 1 - - 334 -
Stage 2 - ---
Platoon blocked, %- -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - - 256 534
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - 256 -
Stage 1 - - 334 -
Stage 2 - ---
Approach WB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 0 13.3
HCM LOS B
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt WBT WBRSBLn1
Capacity (veh/h)- - 498
HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 0.131
HCM Control Delay (s) - - 13.3
HCM Lane LOS - - B
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - - 0.4
HCM 2010 TWSC
4: Santa Anita Avenue & Morlan Place/Wheeler Avenue 2/12/2019
5:00 pm 2/12/2019 J1699 - Existing Conditions (2019) PM Synchro 8 Report
Page 2
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 4.4
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Vol, veh/h 11 5 37 25 10 77 23 706 46 45 781 29
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None
Storage Length - - -- - - 0 - - 0 - -
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 -- 0 -- 0 -- 0 -
Grade, %- 0 -- 0 -- 0 -- 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, %2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 12 5 40 27 11 84 25 767 50 49 849 32
Major/Minor Minor2 Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 1402 1830 440 1367 1820 409 880 0 0 817 0 0
Stage 1 963 963 - 842 842 - - - - - - -
Stage 2 439 867 - 525 978 -- - -- - -
Critical Hdwy 7.54 6.54 6.94 7.54 6.54 6.94 4.14 - - 4.14 - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6.54 5.54 - 6.54 5.54 -- - -- - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 6.54 5.54 - 6.54 5.54 -- - -- - -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.52 4.02 3.32 3.52 4.02 3.32 2.22 - - 2.22 - -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 100 76 565 106 77 592 764 - - 807 - -
Stage 1 274 332 - 325 378 -- - -- - -
Stage 2 567 368 - 504 327 -- - -- - -
Platoon blocked, %- -- -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 70 69 565 86 70 592 764 - - 807 - -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 70 69 - 86 70 -- - -- - -
Stage 1 265 312 - 314 366 -- - -- - -
Stage 2 457 356 - 432 307 -- - -- - -
Approach EB WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 34.1 48 0.3 0.5
HCM LOS D E
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT NBREBLn1WBLn1 SBL SBT SBR
Capacity (veh/h)764 - - 180 199 807 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.033 - - 0.32 0.612 0.061 - -
HCM Control Delay (s) 9.9 - - 34.1 48 9.7 - -
HCM Lane LOS A - - D E A - -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 - - 1.3 3.5 0.2 - -
HCM 2010 TWSC
2: Huntington Drive & Morlan Place 2/25/2019
5:00 pm 2/12/2019 J1699 - Existing With Project Conditions (2019) AM Synchro 8 Report
Page 1
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 5.2
Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR
Vol, veh/h 0 632 1810 8 36 30
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Yield Yield Free Free Stop Stop
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length - -- - 0 -
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 0 - 0 -
Grade, %- 0 0 - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, %2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 0 687 1967 9 39 33
Major/Minor Major2 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All - 0 1972 987
Stage 1 - - 1972 -
Stage 2 - - 0 -
Critical Hdwy - - 6.84 6.94
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - 5.84 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - ---
Follow-up Hdwy - - 3.52 3.32
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver - - 54 246
Stage 1 - - 94 -
Stage 2 - ---
Platoon blocked, %- -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - - 54 246
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - 54 -
Stage 1 - - 94 -
Stage 2 - ---
Approach WB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 0 147.5
HCM LOS F
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt WBT WBRSBLn1
Capacity (veh/h)- - 84
HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 0.854
HCM Control Delay (s) - - 147.5
HCM Lane LOS - - F
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - - 4.5
HCM 2010 TWSC
4: Santa Anita Avenue & Morlan Place/Wheeler Avenue 2/25/2019
5:00 pm 2/12/2019 J1699 - Existing With Project Conditions (2019) AM Synchro 8 Report
Page 2
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 1.3
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Vol, veh/h 0 0 0 11 1 42 71 816 29 45 657 40
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None
Storage Length - - -- - - 0 - - 0 - -
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 -- 0 -- 0 -- 0 -
Grade, %- 0 -- 0 -- 0 -- 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, %2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 0 0 0 12 1 46 77 887 32 49 714 43
Major/Minor Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 1512 1912 459 758 0 0 918 0 0
Stage 1 1057 1057 -- - -- - -
Stage 2 455 855 -- - -- - -
Critical Hdwy 6.84 6.54 6.94 4.14 - - 4.14 - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.84 5.54 -- - -- - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.84 5.54 -- - -- - -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.52 4.02 3.32 2.22 - - 2.22 - -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 111 67 549 849 - - 739 - -
Stage 1 295 300 -- - -- - -
Stage 2 606 373 -- - -- - -
Platoon blocked, %- -- -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 94 0 549 849 - - 739 - -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 94 0 -- - -- - -
Stage 1 268 0 -- - -- - -
Stage 2 566 0 -- - -- - -
Approach WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 21.7 0.7 0.6
HCM LOS C
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT NBRWBLn1 SBL SBT SBR
Capacity (veh/h)849 - - 274 739 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.091 - - 0.214 0.066 - -
HCM Control Delay (s) 9.7 - - 21.7 10.2 - -
HCM Lane LOS A - - C B - -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.3 - - 0.8 0.2 - -
HCM 2010 TWSC
2: Huntington Drive & Morlan Place 2/25/2019
5:00 pm 2/12/2019 J1699 - Existing With Project Conditions (2019) PM Synchro 8 Report
Page 1
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 2.9
Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR
Vol, veh/h 0 1603 878 0 55 86
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Yield Yield Free Free Stop Stop
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length - -- - 0 -
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 0 - 0 -
Grade, %- 0 0 - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, %2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 0 1742 954 0 60 93
Major/Minor Major2 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All - 0 954 476
Stage 1 - - 954 -
Stage 2 - - 0 -
Critical Hdwy - - 6.84 6.94
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - 5.84 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - ---
Follow-up Hdwy - - 3.52 3.32
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver - - 257 535
Stage 1 - - 335 -
Stage 2 - ---
Platoon blocked, %- -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - - 257 535
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - 257 -
Stage 1 - - 335 -
Stage 2 - ---
Approach WB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 0 21
HCM LOS C
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt WBT WBRSBLn1
Capacity (veh/h)- - 376
HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 0.408
HCM Control Delay (s) - - 21
HCM Lane LOS - - C
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - - 1.9
HCM 2010 TWSC
4: Santa Anita Avenue & Morlan Place/Wheeler Avenue 2/25/2019
5:00 pm 2/12/2019 J1699 - Existing With Project Conditions (2019) PM Synchro 8 Report
Page 2
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 2.4
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Vol, veh/h 0 0 0 25 10 77 63 706 46 45 781 42
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None
Storage Length - - -- - - 0 - - 0 - -
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 -- 0 -- 0 -- 0 -
Grade, %- 0 -- 0 -- 0 -- 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, %2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 0 0 0 27 11 84 68 767 50 49 849 46
Major/Minor Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 1451 1921 409 895 0 0 817 0 0
Stage 1 929 929 -- - -- - -
Stage 2 522 992 -- - -- - -
Critical Hdwy 6.84 6.54 6.94 4.14 - - 4.14 - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.84 5.54 -- - -- - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.84 5.54 -- - -- - -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.52 4.02 3.32 2.22 - - 2.22 - -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 122 66 592 754 - - 807 - -
Stage 1 345 344 -- - -- - -
Stage 2 560 322 -- - -- - -
Platoon blocked, %- -- -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 104 0 592 754 - - 807 - -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 104 0 -- - -- - -
Stage 1 314 0 -- - -- - -
Stage 2 526 0 -- - -- - -
Approach WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 28.1 0.8 0.5
HCM LOS D
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT NBRWBLn1 SBL SBT SBR
Capacity (veh/h)754 - - 275 807 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.091 - - 0.443 0.061 - -
HCM Control Delay (s) 10.3 - - 28.1 9.7 - -
HCM Lane LOS B - - D A - -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.3 - - 2.1 0.2 - -
HCM 2010 TWSC
2: Huntington Drive & Morlan Place 2/12/2019
5:00 pm 2/12/2019 J1699 - Future Without Project Conditions (2020) AM Synchro 8 Report
Page 1
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0.4
Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR
Vol, veh/h 19 730 1945 8 4 15
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Yield Yield Free Free Stop Stop
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 0 -- - 0 -
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 0 - 0 -
Grade, %- 0 0 - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, %2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 21 793 2114 9 4 16
Major/Minor Major2 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All - 0 2118 1060
Stage 1 - - 2118 -
Stage 2 - - 0 -
Critical Hdwy - - 6.84 6.94
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - 5.84 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - ---
Follow-up Hdwy - - 3.52 3.32
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver - - 43 220
Stage 1 - - 78 -
Stage 2 - ---
Platoon blocked, %- -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - - 43 220
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - 43 -
Stage 1 - - 78 -
Stage 2 - ---
Approach WB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 0 41.9
HCM LOS E
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt WBT WBRSBLn1
Capacity (veh/h)- - 118
HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 0.175
HCM Control Delay (s) - - 41.9
HCM Lane LOS - - E
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - - 0.6
HCM 2010 TWSC
4: Santa Anita Avenue & Morlan Place/Wheeler Avenue 2/12/2019
5:00 pm 2/12/2019 J1699 - Future Without Project Conditions (2020) AM Synchro 8 Report
Page 2
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 2.1
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Vol, veh/h 8 4 11 11 1 43 28 892 30 46 923 32
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None
Storage Length - - -- - - 0 - - 0 - -
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 -- 0 -- 0 -- 0 -
Grade, %- 0 -- 0 -- 0 -- 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, %2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 9 4 12 12 1 47 30 970 33 50 1003 35
Major/Minor Minor2 Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 1667 2184 519 1651 2185 501 1038 0 0 1002 0 0
Stage 1 1121 1121 - 1047 1047 - - - - - - -
Stage 2 546 1063 - 604 1138 -- - -- - -
Critical Hdwy 7.54 6.54 6.94 7.54 6.54 6.94 4.14 - - 4.14 - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6.54 5.54 - 6.54 5.54 -- - -- - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 6.54 5.54 - 6.54 5.54 -- - -- - -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.52 4.02 3.32 3.52 4.02 3.32 2.22 - - 2.22 - -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 63 45 502 65 45 515 665 - - 687 - -
Stage 1 220 280 - 244 303 -- - -- - -
Stage 2 490 298 - 452 275 -- - -- - -
Platoon blocked, %- -- -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 51 40 502 53 40 515 665 - - 687 - -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 51 40 - 53 40 -- - -- - -
Stage 1 210 260 - 233 289 -- - -- - -
Stage 2 424 285 - 402 255 -- - -- - -
Approach EB WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 66.1 36.1 0.3 0.5
HCM LOS F E
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT NBREBLn1WBLn1 SBL SBT SBR
Capacity (veh/h)665 - - 83 174 687 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.046 - - 0.301 0.344 0.073 - -
HCM Control Delay (s) 10.7 - - 66.1 36.1 10.7 - -
HCM Lane LOS B - - F E B - -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 - - 1.1 1.4 0.2 - -
HCM 2010 TWSC
2: Huntington Drive & Morlan Place 2/12/2019
5:00 pm 2/12/2019 J1699 - Future Without Project Conditions (2020) PM Synchro 8 Report
Page 1
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0.8
Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR
Vol, veh/h 12 1756 1069 3 4 57
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Yield Yield Free Free Stop Stop
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 0 -- - 0 -
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 0 - 0 -
Grade, %- 0 0 - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, %2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 13 1909 1162 3 4 62
Major/Minor Major2 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All - 0 1164 582
Stage 1 - - 1164 -
Stage 2 - - 0 -
Critical Hdwy - - 6.84 6.94
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - 5.84 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - ---
Follow-up Hdwy - - 3.52 3.32
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver - - 188 456
Stage 1 - - 259 -
Stage 2 - ---
Platoon blocked, %- -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - - 188 456
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - 188 -
Stage 1 - - 259 -
Stage 2 - ---
Approach WB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 0 15.3
HCM LOS C
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt WBT WBRSBLn1
Capacity (veh/h)- - 417
HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 0.159
HCM Control Delay (s) - - 15.3
HCM Lane LOS - - C
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - - 0.6
HCM 2010 TWSC
4: Santa Anita Avenue & Morlan Place/Wheeler Avenue 2/12/2019
5:00 pm 2/12/2019 J1699 - Future Without Project Conditions (2020) PM Synchro 8 Report
Page 2
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 15.6
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Vol, veh/h 11 5 38 26 10 79 23 1002 47 46 937 30
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None
Storage Length - - -- - - 0 - - 0 - -
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 -- 0 -- 0 -- 0 -
Grade, %- 0 -- 0 -- 0 -- 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, %2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 12 5 41 28 11 86 25 1089 51 50 1018 33
Major/Minor Minor2 Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 1735 2325 526 1777 2316 570 1051 0 0 1140 0 0
Stage 1 1135 1135 - 1165 1165 - - - - - - -
Stage 2 600 1190 - 612 1151 -- - -- - -
Critical Hdwy 7.54 6.54 6.94 7.54 6.54 6.94 4.14 - - 4.14 - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6.54 5.54 - 6.54 5.54 -- - -- - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 6.54 5.54 - 6.54 5.54 -- - -- - -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.52 4.02 3.32 3.52 4.02 3.32 2.22 - - 2.22 - -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 56 37 496 52 37 465 658 - - 609 - -
Stage 1 215 275 - 206 267 -- - -- - -
Stage 2 455 259 - 447 271 -- - -- - -
Platoon blocked, %- -- -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 31 33 496 38 33 465 658 - - 609 - -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 31 33 - 38 33 -- - -- - -
Stage 1 207 252 - 198 257 -- - -- - -
Stage 2 342 249 - 368 249 -- - -- - -
Approach EB WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 94.4 255.9 0.2 0.5
HCM LOS F F
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT NBREBLn1WBLn1 SBL SBT SBR
Capacity (veh/h)658 - - 93 99 609 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.038 - - 0.631 1.263 0.082 - -
HCM Control Delay (s) 10.7 - - 94.4 255.9 11.4 - -
HCM Lane LOS B - - F F B - -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 - - 3 8.7 0.3 - -
HCM 2010 TWSC
2: Huntington Drive & Morlan Place 2/25/2019
5:00 pm 2/12/2019 J1699 - Future With Project Conditions (2020) AM Synchro 8 Report
Page 1
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 7.3
Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR
Vol, veh/h 0 754 1945 0 36 30
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Yield Yield Free Free Stop Stop
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length - -- - 0 -
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 0 - 0 -
Grade, %- 0 0 - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, %2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 0 820 2114 0 39 33
Major/Minor Major2 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All - 0 2114 1056
Stage 1 - - 2114 -
Stage 2 - - 0 -
Critical Hdwy - - 6.84 6.94
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - 5.84 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - ---
Follow-up Hdwy - - 3.52 3.32
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver - - 44 222
Stage 1 - - 78 -
Stage 2 - ---
Platoon blocked, %- -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - - 44 222
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - 44 -
Stage 1 - - 78 -
Stage 2 - ---
Approach WB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 0 222.6
HCM LOS F
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt WBT WBRSBLn1
Capacity (veh/h)- - 69
HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 1.04
HCM Control Delay (s) - - 222.6
HCM Lane LOS - - F
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - - 5.4
HCM 2010 TWSC
4: Santa Anita Avenue & Morlan Place/Wheeler Avenue 2/25/2019
5:00 pm 2/12/2019 J1699 - Future With Project Conditions (2020) AM Synchro 8 Report
Page 2
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 1.4
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Vol, veh/h 0 0 0 11 1 43 72 892 30 46 923 41
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None
Storage Length - - -- - - 0 - - 0 - -
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 -- 0 -- 0 -- 0 -
Grade, %- 0 -- 0 -- 0 -- 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, %2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 0 0 0 12 1 47 78 970 33 50 1003 45
Major/Minor Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 1744 2290 501 1048 0 0 1002 0 0
Stage 1 1142 1142 -- - -- - -
Stage 2 602 1148 -- - -- - -
Critical Hdwy 6.84 6.54 6.94 4.14 - - 4.14 - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.84 5.54 -- - -- - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.84 5.54 -- - -- - -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.52 4.02 3.32 2.22 - - 2.22 - -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 78 39 515 660 - - 687 - -
Stage 1 266 273 -- - -- - -
Stage 2 510 272 -- - -- - -
Platoon blocked, %- -- -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 64 0 515 660 - - 687 - -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 64 0 -- - -- - -
Stage 1 235 0 -- - -- - -
Stage 2 473 0 -- - -- - -
Approach WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 28.7 0.8 0.5
HCM LOS D
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT NBRWBLn1 SBL SBT SBR
Capacity (veh/h)660 - - 211 687 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.119 - - 0.283 0.073 - -
HCM Control Delay (s) 11.2 - - 28.7 10.7 - -
HCM Lane LOS B - - D B - -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.4 - - 1.1 0.2 - -
HCM 2010 TWSC
2: Huntington Drive & Morlan Place 2/25/2019
5:00 pm 2/12/2019 J1699 - Future With Project Conditions (2020) PM Synchro 8 Report
Page 1
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 3.6
Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR
Vol, veh/h 0 1774 1069 0 56 88
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Yield Yield Free Free Stop Stop
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length - -- - 0 -
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 0 - 0 -
Grade, %- 0 0 - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, %2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 0 1928 1162 0 61 96
Major/Minor Major2 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All - 0 1162 580
Stage 1 - - 1162 -
Stage 2 - - 0 -
Critical Hdwy - - 6.84 6.94
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - 5.84 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - ---
Follow-up Hdwy - - 3.52 3.32
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver - - 188 458
Stage 1 - - 260 -
Stage 2 - ---
Platoon blocked, %- -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - - 188 458
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - 188 -
Stage 1 - - 260 -
Stage 2 - ---
Approach WB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 0 30.4
HCM LOS D
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt WBT WBRSBLn1
Capacity (veh/h)- - 294
HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 0.532
HCM Control Delay (s) - - 30.4
HCM Lane LOS - - D
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - - 2.9
HCM 2010 TWSC
4: Santa Anita Avenue & Morlan Place/Wheeler Avenue 2/25/2019
5:00 pm 2/12/2019 J1699 - Future With Project Conditions (2020) PM Synchro 8 Report
Page 2
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 4.7
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Vol, veh/h 0 0 0 26 10 79 64 1002 47 46 937 43
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None
Storage Length - - -- - - 0 - - 0 - -
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 -- 0 -- 0 -- 0 -
Grade, %- 0 -- 0 -- 0 -- 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, %2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 0 0 0 28 11 86 70 1089 51 50 1018 47
Major/Minor Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 1863 2419 570 1065 0 0 1140 0 0
Stage 1 1254 1254 -- - -- - -
Stage 2 609 1165 -- - -- - -
Critical Hdwy 6.84 6.54 6.94 4.14 - - 4.14 - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.84 5.54 -- - -- - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.84 5.54 -- - -- - -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.52 4.02 3.32 2.22 - - 2.22 - -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 65 32 465 650 - - 609 - -
Stage 1 232 242 -- - -- - -
Stage 2 505 267 -- - -- - -
Platoon blocked, %- -- -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 53 0 465 650 - - 609 - -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 53 0 -- - -- - -
Stage 1 207 0 -- - -- - -
Stage 2 464 0 -- - -- - -
Approach WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 81.1 0.6 0.5
HCM LOS F
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT NBRWBLn1 SBL SBT SBR
Capacity (veh/h)650 - - 159 609 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.107 - - 0.786 0.082 - -
HCM Control Delay (s) 11.2 - - 81.1 11.4 - -
HCM Lane LOS B - - F B - -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.4 - - 5 0.3 - -
Attachment 2
Signal Warrant Worksheets
Traffic Signal Warrant Input Sheet
Fill in all shaded cells.
Project Name: Bekins Food Hall
Analysis Scenario: Existing With Project Conditions (Year 2019) ‐ AM Peak Hour
Intersection Number: 4
Major Street Name: Santa Anita Avenue
Minor Street Name: Morlan Place
Intersection Number & Name as Displayed
4. SANTA ANITA AVENUE & MORLAN PLACE
Major Street Lanes: 2
Minor Street Lanes: 1
[a] Urban/Rural: Urban
4th 8th
Peak Highest Highest
Traffic Volumes Hour Hour Hour
Hourly Factor (% of Peak Hour): n/a 85% 60%
Major Street (Approach 1): 885 752 531
Major Street (Approach 2): 742 631 445
[b] Major Street Left‐Turns: 45 38 27
Minor Street (Higher Volume): 0 0 0
Major Street Pedestrian Crossing Volume:
Input Required
Value is automatically generated, but can be input manually if desired.
Default values. Can be altered if desired.
[a] Setting to "Rural" reduces minimum test volumes to 70% of "Urban" test volumes. This may be used when
major street speed exceeds 40 mph or in an isolated community of less than 10,000 residents.
[b] Major street left‐turn volume is added to minor street volume if a protected left‐turn signal phase is proposed.
Source: Section 4C of CA MUTCD
At an intersection with a high‐volume of left‐turn traffic from the major street, the signal warrant analysis may be performed
in a manner that considers the higher volume of the major‐street left‐turn volumes plus the higher volume minor street
approach as the "minor street" volume and both approaches of the major street minus the higher of the major‐street left‐
turn volume as "major street" volume.
EXISTING WITH PROJECT CONDITIONS (YEAR 2019) ‐ AM PEAK HOUR
Bekins Food Hall
Traffic Signal Warrant Analysis
Warrant 3, Peak Hour
4. SANTA ANITA AVENUE & MORLAN PLACE
Major Street Name: Santa Anita Avenue Vehicles per Hour (Peak Hour)
Minor Street Name: Morlan Place Major Street (Approach 1): 885
Major Street (Approach 2): 742
Major Street Lanes: 2 [a] Major Street Left‐Turns: 45
Minor Street Lanes: 1 Minor Street (Higher Volume): 0
[b] Urban/Rural: Urban
Vehicles per Hour (Peak Hour)
Major Street (Approach 1): 885 Minimum Major Street Volume: 510
Major Street (Approach 2): 742 Satisfied? YES
Total Major Street Volume: 1,627
Minimum Minor Street Volume: 121
Major Street Left Turns: 45 Satisfied? NO
Minor Street (Higher Volume): 0
Total Minor Street Volume: 45 Warrant 3 Satisfied?NO
[a] Major street left‐turn volume is added to minor street volume if a protected left‐turn signal phase is proposed.
[b] Setting to "Rural" reduces minimum test volumes to approximately 70% of "Urban" test volumes. This may be used
when major street speed exceeds 40 mph or in an isolated community of less than 10,000 residents.
[c]From California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, 2014 Edition; Caltrans.
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800
Minor Street ‐ Higher‐Volume Approach ‐VPHMajor Street ‐ Total of Both Approaches ‐ Vehicles per Hour
Figure 4C‐3. Warrant 3, Peak Hour [c]
2 or more lanes & 2 or more lanes
2 or more lanes & 1 lane
1 lane & 1 lane
Traffic Signal Warrant Input Sheet
Fill in all shaded cells.
Project Name: Bekins Food Hall
Analysis Scenario: Existing Conditions (Year 2019) ‐ PM Peak Hour
Intersection Number: 4
Major Street Name: Santa Anita Avenue
Minor Street Name: Morlan Place
Intersection Number & Name as Displayed
4. SANTA ANITA AVENUE & MORLAN PLACE
Major Street Lanes: 2
Minor Street Lanes: 1
[a] Urban/Rural: Urban
4th 8th
Peak Highest Highest
Traffic Volumes Hour Hour Hour
Hourly Factor (% of Peak Hour): n/a 85% 60%
Major Street (Approach 1): 868 738 521
Major Street (Approach 2): 794 675 476
[b] Major Street Left‐Turns: 45 38 27
Minor Street (Higher Volume): 0 0 0
Major Street Pedestrian Crossing Volume:
Input Required
Value is automatically generated, but can be input manually if desired.
Default values. Can be altered if desired.
[a] Setting to "Rural" reduces minimum test volumes to 70% of "Urban" test volumes. This may be used when
major street speed exceeds 40 mph or in an isolated community of less than 10,000 residents.
[b] Major street left‐turn volume is added to minor street volume if a protected left‐turn signal phase is proposed.
Source: Section 4C of CA MUTCD
At an intersection with a high‐volume of left‐turn traffic from the major street, the signal warrant analysis may be performed
in a manner that considers the higher volume of the major‐street left‐turn volumes plus the higher volume minor street
approach as the "minor street" volume and both approaches of the major street minus the higher of the major‐street left‐
turn volume as "major street" volume.
EXISTING CONDITIONS (YEAR 2019) ‐ PM PEAK HOUR
Bekins Food Hall
Traffic Signal Warrant Analysis
Warrant 3, Peak Hour
4. SANTA ANITA AVENUE & MORLAN PLACE
Major Street Name: Santa Anita Avenue Vehicles per Hour (Peak Hour)
Minor Street Name: Morlan Place Major Street (Approach 1): 868
Major Street (Approach 2): 794
Major Street Lanes: 2 [a] Major Street Left‐Turns: 45
Minor Street Lanes: 1 Minor Street (Higher Volume): 0
[b] Urban/Rural: Urban
Vehicles per Hour (Peak Hour)
Major Street (Approach 1): 868 Minimum Major Street Volume: 510
Major Street (Approach 2): 794 Satisfied? YES
Total Major Street Volume: 1,662
Minimum Minor Street Volume: 115
Major Street Left Turns: 45 Satisfied? NO
Minor Street (Higher Volume): 0
Total Minor Street Volume: 45 Warrant 3 Satisfied?NO
[a] Major street left‐turn volume is added to minor street volume if a protected left‐turn signal phase is proposed.
[b] Setting to "Rural" reduces minimum test volumes to approximately 70% of "Urban" test volumes. This may be used
when major street speed exceeds 40 mph or in an isolated community of less than 10,000 residents.
[c]From California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, 2014 Edition; Caltrans.
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800
Minor Street ‐ Higher‐Volume Approach ‐VPHMajor Street ‐ Total of Both Approaches ‐ Vehicles per Hour
Figure 4C‐3. Warrant 3, Peak Hour [c]
2 or more lanes & 2 or more lanes
2 or more lanes & 1 lane
1 lane & 1 lane
Traffic Signal Warrant Input Sheet
Fill in all shaded cells.
Project Name: Bekins Food Hall
Analysis Scenario: Future With Project Conditions (Year 2020) ‐ AM Peak Hour
Intersection Number: 4
Major Street Name: Santa Anita Avenue
Minor Street Name: Morlan Place
Intersection Number & Name as Displayed
4. SANTA ANITA AVENUE & MORLAN PLACE
Major Street Lanes: 2
Minor Street Lanes: 1
[a] Urban/Rural: Urban
4th 8th
Peak Highest Highest
Traffic Volumes Hour Hour Hour
Hourly Factor (% of Peak Hour): n/a 85% 60%
Major Street (Approach 1): 1,010 859 606
Major Street (Approach 2): 963 819 578
[b] Major Street Left‐Turns: 46 39 28
Minor Street (Higher Volume): 0 0 0
Major Street Pedestrian Crossing Volume:
Input Required
Value is automatically generated, but can be input manually if desired.
Default values. Can be altered if desired.
[a] Setting to "Rural" reduces minimum test volumes to 70% of "Urban" test volumes. This may be used when
major street speed exceeds 40 mph or in an isolated community of less than 10,000 residents.
[b] Major street left‐turn volume is added to minor street volume if a protected left‐turn signal phase is proposed.
Source: Section 4C of CA MUTCD
At an intersection with a high‐volume of left‐turn traffic from the major street, the signal warrant analysis may be performed
in a manner that considers the higher volume of the major‐street left‐turn volumes plus the higher volume minor street
approach as the "minor street" volume and both approaches of the major street minus the higher of the major‐street left‐
turn volume as "major street" volume.
FUTURE WITH PROJECT CONDITIONS (YEAR 2020) ‐ AM PEAK HOUR
Bekins Food Hall
Traffic Signal Warrant Analysis
Warrant 3, Peak Hour
4. SANTA ANITA AVENUE & MORLAN PLACE
Major Street Name: Santa Anita Avenue Vehicles per Hour (Peak Hour)
Minor Street Name: Morlan Place Major Street (Approach 1): 1,010
Major Street (Approach 2): 963
Major Street Lanes: 2 [a] Major Street Left‐Turns: 46
Minor Street Lanes: 1 Minor Street (Higher Volume): 0
[b] Urban/Rural: Urban
Vehicles per Hour (Peak Hour)
Major Street (Approach 1): 1,010 Minimum Major Street Volume: 510
Major Street (Approach 2): 963 Satisfied? YES
Total Major Street Volume: 1,973
Minimum Minor Street Volume: 100
Major Street Left Turns: 46 Satisfied? NO
Minor Street (Higher Volume): 0
Total Minor Street Volume: 46 Warrant 3 Satisfied?NO
[a] Major street left‐turn volume is added to minor street volume if a protected left‐turn signal phase is proposed.
[b] Setting to "Rural" reduces minimum test volumes to approximately 70% of "Urban" test volumes. This may be used
when major street speed exceeds 40 mph or in an isolated community of less than 10,000 residents.
[c]From California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, 2014 Edition; Caltrans.
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800
Minor Street ‐ Higher‐Volume Approach ‐VPHMajor Street ‐ Total of Both Approaches ‐ Vehicles per Hour
Figure 4C‐3. Warrant 3, Peak Hour [c]
2 or more lanes & 2 or more lanes
2 or more lanes & 1 lane
1 lane & 1 lane
Traffic Signal Warrant Input Sheet
Fill in all shaded cells.
Project Name: Bekins Food Hall
Analysis Scenario: Future with Project Conditions (Year 2020) ‐ PM Peak Hour
Intersection Number: 4
Major Street Name: Santa Anita Avenue
Minor Street Name: Morlan Place
Intersection Number & Name as Displayed
4. SANTA ANITA AVENUE & MORLAN PLACE
Major Street Lanes: 2
Minor Street Lanes: 1
[a] Urban/Rural: Urban
4th 8th
Peak Highest Highest
Traffic Volumes Hour Hour Hour
Hourly Factor (% of Peak Hour): n/a 85% 60%
Major Street (Approach 1): 1,091 927 655
Major Street (Approach 2): 1,026 872 616
[b] Major Street Left‐Turns: 46 39 28
Minor Street (Higher Volume): 0 0 0
Major Street Pedestrian Crossing Volume:
Input Required
Value is automatically generated, but can be input manually if desired.
Default values. Can be altered if desired.
[a] Setting to "Rural" reduces minimum test volumes to 70% of "Urban" test volumes. This may be used when
major street speed exceeds 40 mph or in an isolated community of less than 10,000 residents.
[b] Major street left‐turn volume is added to minor street volume if a protected left‐turn signal phase is proposed.
Source: Section 4C of CA MUTCD
At an intersection with a high‐volume of left‐turn traffic from the major street, the signal warrant analysis may be performed
in a manner that considers the higher volume of the major‐street left‐turn volumes plus the higher volume minor street
approach as the "minor street" volume and both approaches of the major street minus the higher of the major‐street left‐
turn volume as "major street" volume.
FUTURE WITH PROJECT CONDITIONS (YEAR 2020) ‐ PM PEAK HOUR
Bekins Food Hall
Traffic Signal Warrant Analysis
Warrant 3, Peak Hour
4. SANTA ANITA AVENUE & MORLAN PLACE
Major Street Name: Santa Anita Avenue Vehicles per Hour (Peak Hour)
Minor Street Name: Morlan Place Major Street (Approach 1): 1,091
Major Street (Approach 2): 1,026
Major Street Lanes: 2 [a] Major Street Left‐Turns: 46
Minor Street Lanes: 1 Minor Street (Higher Volume): 0
[b] Urban/Rural: Urban
Vehicles per Hour (Peak Hour)
Major Street (Approach 1): 1,091 Minimum Major Street Volume: 510
Major Street (Approach 2): 1,026 Satisfied? YES
Total Major Street Volume: 2,117
Minimum Minor Street Volume: 100
Major Street Left Turns: 46 Satisfied? NO
Minor Street (Higher Volume): 0
Total Minor Street Volume: 46 Warrant 3 Satisfied?NO
[a] Major street left‐turn volume is added to minor street volume if a protected left‐turn signal phase is proposed.
[b] Setting to "Rural" reduces minimum test volumes to approximately 70% of "Urban" test volumes. This may be used
when major street speed exceeds 40 mph or in an isolated community of less than 10,000 residents.
[c]From California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, 2014 Edition; Caltrans.
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800
Minor Street ‐ Higher‐Volume Approach ‐VPHMajor Street ‐ Total of Both Approaches ‐ Vehicles per Hour
Figure 4C‐3. Warrant 3, Peak Hour [c]
2 or more lanes & 2 or more lanes
2 or more lanes & 1 lane
1 lane & 1 lane
Attachment No. 5
Traffic Study
MEMORANDUM
TO: Phil Wray and Tim Schwehr
City of Arcadia
FROM: Patrick A. Gibson, P.E., T.E., PTOE
Richard Gibson, LEED Green Associate
DATE: May 31, 2019
RE: Revised Traffic Analysis for
Bekins Food Hall
Arcadia, California Ref: J1699
In consideration of the revised and refined site plan for the redevelopment (Revised Project)
of the existing Bekins Storage Facility (Bekins), Gibson Transportation Consulting, Inc. (GTC)
was asked to revise the trip generation estimates contained in Draft Traffic Impact Study for
the Bekins Food Hall Mixed-Use Development, Arcadia, California (GTC, March 2019) (Traffic
Study) to assess the Revised Project’s potential traffic impacts.
REVISED PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The Revised Project proposes converting approximately 10,000 square feet (sf) of the existing
storage building into a variety of restaurant related uses, with the remaining portions of the
facility remaining as storage units. For the purposes of this analysis, it was assumed that the
Revised Project includes 31,239 sf of mini-warehouse storage facilities, 7,000 sf of fast casual
restaurant space (including a 1,500 sf outdoor dining patio with 56 seats), 3,000 sf of
bar/gastropub uses, 1,500 sf of coffee shop area, and 23 on-site parking spaces.
REVISED PROJECT TRIP GENERATION
The number of trips expected to be generated by the Revised Project was estimated using
rates published in Trip Generation, 10th Edition (Institute of Transportation Engineers [ITE],
2017) compared to the Traffic Study trip generation estimates. The ITE trip generation rates
are based on surveys of similar land uses at sites around the country and are provided as
both daily rates and morning and afternoon peak hour rates. They calculate the number of
vehicle trips traveling to and from the Revised Project site based on the size of each land use
in the development.
Appropriate trip generation reductions to account for public transit usage, internal capture,
and pass-by trips were made in consultation with City staff. A 10% adjustment was made to
account for public transit usage/walk-ins. A pass-by reduction was also applied to the coffee
Mr. Phil Wray and Mr. Tim Schwehr
May 31, 2019
Page 2
shop (50%) and restaurant (20%) uses to account for Revised Project trips made as an
intermediate stop on the way from an origin to a primary trip destination without route diversion.
As shown in Table 1, after accounting for the adjustments above, the Revised Project is expected
to generate 873 trips on a typical weekday, including 67 morning peak hour trips (37 inbound
trips, 30 outbound trips) and 82 afternoon peak hour trips (50 inbound trips, 32 outbound trips).
The Revised Project will generate approximately 43 additional daily trips, including nine in the
morning peak hour (four inbound trips, five outbound trips) and nine in the afternoon peak hour
(nine inbound trips, zero outbound trips) when compared to the Traffic Study trip generation
estimates.
PROJECT TRIP DISTRIBUTION
If the additional trips generated by the Revised Project were distributed to the street system in the
same manner as in the Traffic Study, approximately two to four additional trips would be distributed
in each direction (north, south, east, west), resulting in a nominal increase in trips at the study
intersections. Based on the level of service results and the significant impact criteria detailed in the
Traffic Study, the small increase in trips at each intersection would not result in a significant impact
at any study intersection or change the results of the traffic signal warrant analysis conducted for
the two unsignalized study intersections.
CONCLUSION
Based on the trip generation estimates detailed above, the Revised Project would result in the same
traffic impacts as the project studied in the Traffic Study and, therefore, no additional analysis is
required.
In Out Total In Out Total
Trip Generation Rates [a]
Warehousing 150 1.74 77% 23% 0.17 27% 73% 0.19
Mini-Warehouse 151 1.51 60% 40% 0.10 47% 53% 0.17
General Office Building 710 9.74 86% 14% 1.16 16% 84% 1.15
Supermarket 850 106.78 60% 40% 3.82 51% 49% 9.24
High-Turnover (Sit-Down) Restaurant 932 112.18 55% 45% 9.94 62% 38% 9.77
Coffee Shop w/o Drive-Thru 936 282.30 51% 49% 79.91 50% 50% 28.23
Drinking Place 925 113.60 - - - 66% 34% 11.36
Trip Generation Estimates
Proposed Project
Mini-Warehouse 151 31,230 sf 47 213235
Transit/Walk Adjustment - 10% [b] (5)0000(1)(1)
Supermarket 850 5,000 sf 534 11 8 19 23 23 46
Transit/Walk Adjustment - 10% [b] (53) (1) (1) (2) (3) (2) (5)
Pass-By Adjustment - 40% [d] (192) (4) (3) (7) (8) (8) (16)
Restaurant 932 6,500 sf 729 36 29 65 40 24 64
Internal Capture - 5% [c] (36) (2) (1) (3) (2) (1) (3)
Transit/Walk Adjustment - 10% [b] (69) (3) (3) (6) (4) (2) (6)
Pass-By Adjustment - 20% [e] (125) (6) (5) (11) (7) (4) (11)
830 33 25 58 41 32 73
Revised Project
Restaurant 932 7,000 sf 785 39 31 70 42 26 68
Internal Capture - 5% [c] (39) (2) (2) (4) (2) (1) (3)
Transit/Walk Adjustment - 10% [b] (82) (4) (3) (7) (4) (3) (7)
Pass-By Adjustment - 20% [e] (181) (9) (7) (16) (10) (6) (16)
Mini-Warehouse 151 31,239 sf 47 213235
Transit/Walk Adjustment - 10% [b] (5)0000(1)(1)
Coffee Shop w/o Drive-Thru 936 1,500 sf 423 61 59 120 21 21 42
Internal Capture - 10% [c](42) (6) (6) (12) (2) (2) (4)
Transit/Walk Adjustment - 10% [b](47) (7) (7) (14) (2) (2) (4)
Pass-By Adjustment - 50% [e](256) (37) (36) (73) (13) (13) (26)
Drinking Place 925 3,000 sf 341 - - - 22 12 34
Internal Capture - 10% [c](34) - - - (2) (1) (3)
Transit/Walk Adjustment - 10% [b] (37) - - - (2) (1) (3)
873 37 30 67 50 32 82
43459909
Notes:
sf = square feet.
[a] Trip generation rates are from Trip Generation, 10th Edition (Institute of Transportation Engineers, 2017).
[b] Transit/walk adjustment of up to 10% is allowed for developments adjacent to the Metro Gold Line Arcadia Station.
[c] Internal capture adjustments account for person trips made between different components of a mixed-use development without using a vehicle.
[d] Per City of Arcadia, pass-by adjustment of 40% is allowed for supermarket space.
[e] Per City of Arcadia, pass-by adjustment of 20% is allowed for restaurant space.
TABLE 1
REVISED PROJECT TRIP GENERATION ESTIMATES
Land Use
ITE
Land
Use
Rate or Size Daily
Morning Peak Hour Afternoon Peak Hour
Total Existing Uses Trips
INCREASE/(DECREASE) IN PROJECT TRIPS
per 1,000 sf
per 1,000 sf
per 1,000 sf
per 1,000 sf
per 1,000 sf
per 1,000 sf
per 1,000 sf
Total Proposed Project Trips
DRAFTTRAFFIC IMPACT STUDYFOR THEBEKINS FOOD HALLMIXED-USE DEVELOPMENTARCADIA, CALIFORNIA
MARCH 2019
PREPARED FOR
CITY OF ARCADIA
PREPARED BY
DRAFT
TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY
FOR THE
BEKINS FOOD HALL
MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT
ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA
March 2019
Prepared for:
CITY OF ARCADIA
Prepared by:
GIBSON TRANSPORTATION CONSULTING, INC.
555 W. 5th Street, Suite 3375
Los Angeles, California 90013
(213) 683-0088
Ref: J1699
Table of Contents
1. Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 1
Project Description ....................................................................................................... 1
Study Area ................................................................................................................... 1
Organization of Report ................................................................................................. 2
2. Traffic Impact Analysis Methodology ................................................................................ 6
Study Scope and Methodology .................................................................................... 6
Significant Impact Criteria for Intersections ................................................................. 8
3. Existing Conditions ............................................................................................................. 11
Study Area .................................................................................................................. 11
Existing Street System ................................................................................................. 12
Existing Transit System ............................................................................................... 13
Existing Traffic Volumes and Levels of Service .......................................................... 14
4. Future Traffic Conditions .................................................................................................... 21
CEQA Guidelines Regarding Future Traffic Conditions .............................................. 21
Ambient Traffic Growth ................................................................................................ 22
Related Projects ........................................................................................................... 22
Future without Project Intersection Levels of Service ................................................. 24
5. Project Traffic ..................................................................................................................... 29
Project Description ....................................................................................................... 29
Project Trip Generation ................................................................................................ 29
Project Trip Distribution ................................................................................................ 30
Project Trip Assignment ............................................................................................... 30
6. Existing and Future with Project Conditions ...................................................................... 34
Existing with Project Conditions ................................................................................... 34
Future with Project Conditions ..................................................................................... 34
7. Unsignalized Intersection Analysis .................................................................................... 40
Intersection Levels of Service ...................................................................................... 40
Signal Warrant Analysis ............................................................................................... 41
8. Congestion Management Program Analysis ..................................................................... 45
Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines .............................................................................. 45
Arterial Intersection Analysis ....................................................................................... 46
Mainline Freeway Segment Analysis .......................................................................... 47
Public Transit System Analysis .................................................................................... 47
Table of Contents, cont.
9. Site Access and Circulation ............................................................................................... 48
Vehicular Access and Circulation ................................................................................ 48
Pedestrian Access and Circulation .............................................................................. 48
Bicycle Access and Circulation .................................................................................... 48
10. Summary and Conclusions ................................................................................................ 49
References
Appendix A: Traffic Counts
Appendix B: Intersection Lane Configurations
Appendix C: Traffic Impact Analysis of the Worst-Case Conditions
Appendix D: Level of Service Worksheets
Appendix E: Signal Warrant Worksheets
List of Figures
NO.
1 Project Site Plan ............................................................................................................ 3
2 Study Area & Analyzed Intersections ............................................................................ 4
3 Existing Transit Service ................................................................................................. 16
4 Existing Conditions (Year 2019) Peak Hour Traffic Volumes ........................................ 17
5 Related Project-Only Peak Hour Traffic Volumes ......................................................... 25
6 Future without Project Conditions (Year 2020) Peak Hour Traffic Volumes ................. 26
7 Project Trip Distribution ................................................................................................. 31
8 Project-Only Peak Hour Traffic Volumes ...................................................................... 32
9 Existing with Project Conditions (Year 2019)
Peak Hour Traffic Volumes ..................................................................................... 36
10 Future with Project Conditions (Year 2020) Peak Hour Traffic Volumes ...................... 37
List of Tables
NO.
1 List of Analyzed Intersections ....................................................................................... 5
2 Level of Service Definitions for Signalized and Unsignalized Intersections .................. 10
3 Existing Transit Service in Study Area .......................................................................... 18
4 Transit System Capacity Serving the Project Site ......................................................... 19
5 Existing Conditions (Year 2019) Intersection Levels of Service .................................... 20
6 Pending/Related Projects List ....................................................................................... 27
7 Future without Project Conditions (Year 2020)
Intersection Levels of Service ................................................................................. 28
8 Project Trip Generation Estimates ................................................................................ 33
9 Existing with Project Conditions (Year 2019)
Intersection Levels of Service and Significant Impacts ........................................... 38
10 Future with Project Conditions (Year 2020)
Intersection Levels of Service and Significant Impacts ........................................... 39
11 Existing with Project Conditions (Year 2019)
Unsignalized Intersection Peak Hour Levels of Service .......................................... 43
12 Future with Project Conditions (Year 2020)
Unsignalized Intersection Peak Hour Levels of Service .......................................... 44
Chapter 1
Introduction
This report presents the traffic impact study for the proposed mixed-use development (Project)
at 35 W. Huntington Drive (Project Site) in the City of Arcadia, California (City). The
methodology and base assumptions used in the analysis were established in consultation with
City staff.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The Project would redevelop the existing Bekins Storage Facility, converting 10,000-15,000
square feet (sf) into a Food Hall, with the remaining portions of the facility remaining as storage
units. For the purposes of this analysis, it was assumed that the Project includes 31,239 sf of
mini-warehouse storage facilities, 6,500 sf of fast-casual restaurant uses, 5,000 sf of grocery
store uses, and 23 on-site parking spaces. Vehicular access to the Project would be provided
via two driveways on Morlan Place.
The conceptual Project Site plan is shown in Figure 1.
STUDY AREA
The Study Area generally includes the area bounded by Colorado Boulevard to the north, 1st
Avenue to the east, Huntington Drive to the south, and San Rafael Road to the west. Detailed
traffic analyses were conducted at six key intersections within the Study Area. They are listed in
Table 1 and shown in Figure 2.
1
ORGANIZATION OF REPORT
This report is divided into 11 chapters, including this introduction. Chapter 2 describes the
methodology used to analyze intersection operating characteristics and assess significant traffic
impacts. Chapter 3 describes the existing circulation system, traffic volumes, and conditions in
the Study Area. The methodologies used to forecast future background traffic volumes are
described and applied in Chapter 4, which also includes an assessment of intersection
operating conditions of the existing street system after future traffic volume growth is
considered. Chapter 5 describes the procedure used to forecast Project traffic volumes and
distribution throughout the Study Area. Chapter 6 presents the intersection operating conditions
and potential traffic impacts associated with construction of the Project. Chapter 7 presents the
intersection operations of the unsignalized intersections and the signal warrant analysis.
Chapter 8 presents the regional Congestion Management Program analysis. Chapter 9
describes the site access and internal circulation. Chapter 10 summarizes the results of the
study. The Appendices contain supporting documentation, traffic counts and analysis
worksheets.
2
3
4
TABLE 1
LIST OF ANALYZED INTERSECTIONS
No. North/South Street East/West Street
1. Santa Clara Street Huntington Drive
2. [a] Morlan Place Huntington Drive
3. Santa Anita Avenue Santa Clara Street
4. [a] Santa Anita Avenue Morlan Place / Wheeler Avenue
5. Santa Anita Avenue Huntington Drive
6. Santa Anita Avenue Colorado Boulevard
Note: [a] Intersection is unsignalized.
5
Chapter 2
Traffic Impact Analysis Methodology
This chapter describes the various traffic scenarios analyzed, the methodologies used for
assessing intersection and street segment operating conditions, and significant traffic impact
criteria for the jurisdiction overseeing the analysis.
STUDY SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY
The scope of analysis for this study was developed in consultation with City staff. The base
assumptions and technical methodologies (i.e., trip generation, study locations, analysis
methodology, etc.) were identified as part of the study approach.
The traffic impact study evaluated the potential for impacts on the City street system
surrounding the site caused by traffic growth. The following analysis conditions are analyzed for
the Project:
Existing Conditions (Year 2019) – The analysis of existing traffic conditions provides a
basis for the assessment of existing future development conditions. The Existing
Conditions analysis includes a description of key area streets, traffic volumes, and
current operating conditions. Intersection turning movement counts for typical weekday
morning (7:00 AM to 9:00 AM) and afternoon (4:00 PM to 6:00 PM) peak periods were
conducted in January 2019 for two study intersections when local schools were in
session but prior to racing at Santa Anita Park (Race Track). At the direction of City staff,
traffic counts conducted at four study intersections in May 2018 and May 2011 for Traffic
Impact Study for the Santa Anita Inn Redevelopment Project in the City of Arcadia
(Kimley-Horn, April 2018) and 288 Santa Anita Avenue Project Traffic Impact Study, City
of Arcadia, California (RK Engineering Group, Inc., September 2018) were utilized for
the Project. Traffic counts for the Morlan Place intersections were conducted in January
2019. The traffic counts are provided in Appendix A.
In order to be conservative, the peak hour traffic volumes from 2011 and 2018 were
increased at a rate of 2% per year in order to represent the existing (Year 2019) traffic
volumes. Fieldwork (lane configurations, signal phasing, parking restrictions, etc.) for the
analyzed intersections was collected in January 2019. The existing lane configurations
at the analyzed intersections are provided in Appendix B.
6
Existing with Project Conditions (Year 2019) – This analysis projects the potential
intersection operating conditions that could be expected if the Project were built under
existing conditions. This analysis evaluates the potential Project-related traffic impacts
as compared to Existing Conditions.
Future without Project Conditions (Year 2020) – This analysis projects the future traffic
growth and intersection operating conditions that could be expected as a result of
regional growth and related projects in the City by Year 2020. The Future without Project
traffic conditions are projected by adding to the existing conditions the ambient traffic
growth, known related projects, and Arcadia General Plan (City of Arcadia, November
2010) (General Plan) allowances. This analysis provides the baseline conditions at full
buildout.
Future with Project Conditions (Year 2020) – This analysis projects the potential
intersection operating conditions that could be expected if the Project were built in the
projected buildout year. This analysis identifies the potential incremental impacts of the
Project at full buildout, prior to mitigation, on projected future traffic operating conditions
by adding the Project-generated traffic to the future without Project traffic forecasts.
Worst-Case Conditions – In order to analyze the worst-case conditions, a traffic impact
analysis without any trip generation adjustments was conducted. This analysis is
provided in Appendix C.
Signalized Intersection Capacity Analyses Methodology
The Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) methodology required by the City for intersection level
of service (LOS) analysis was used in this study. The ICU methodology determines the
intersection volume-to-capacity (V/C) ratio and corresponding LOS for the turning movements and
intersection characteristics at signalized intersections based on the definitions described in Table
2.
LOS categories range from excellent, nearly free-flow traffic at LOS A to stop-and-go conditions at
LOS F. LOS D is typically recognized as an acceptable service level in urban areas, although
many urbanized areas operate at LOS E or F.
Intersection capacity calculations were conducted to measure the LOS of the intersections using
an overall intersection capacity of 1,600 vehicles per hour per lane (vphpl) and by adding a factor
of 0.10 to account for the yellow interval clearance (loss time). At the direction of City staff, a
higher lane capacity of 1,680 vphpl was used for the four analyzed signalized intersections
7
because they are connected to the City’s Traffic Management Control system by way of fiber optic
cable, radio, and network computer technology.
Unsignalized Intersection Analysis Methodology
Based on direction from City staff, the unsignalized intersections were not analyzed for potential
significant impacts. Rather, the unsignalized intersections were evaluated to determine the need
for the installation of a traffic signal on the basis of LOS and a signal warrant analysis. The 2010
Highway Capacity Manual (Transportation Research Board, 2010) (HCM) methodology was
used to determine the worst-case intersection delay (the worst-case delay, in seconds, of a
vehicle passing through the intersection for any approach), which is used to determine the
intersection LOS according to the LOS definitions provided in Table 2. The analysis worksheets
for each scenario are provided in Appendix D. If an unsignalized intersection was projected to
operate at LOS E or F under the Future with Project Conditions, then the intersection was
further evaluated for the potential installation of a new traffic signal through a traffic signal
warrant analysis. Signal warrant analysis worksheets are provided in Appendix E.
If, based on the estimated delay, the resultant LOS is E or F in the Future with Project
Conditions, the intersection should be evaluated for the potential installation of a new traffic
signal through a traffic signal warrant analysis. It should be noted that the determination that an
unsignalized intersection meets the criteria of a traffic signal warrant does not in itself require
the installation of a signal. Rather, the decision on whether a traffic signal should be installed is
made by the City, taking into consideration other factors such as distance to adjacent signalized
intersections and interruption to traffic flow along the major street.
SIGNIFICANT IMPACT CRITERIA FOR INTERSECTIONS
The City has established threshold criteria used to determine the significant traffic impact of a
proposed project on the study intersections. A project’s impact at an intersection is considered
significant when one of the following thresholds is exceeded:
8
1. The increase in traffic demand generated by a proposed project equals or exceeds 2%
of the intersection’s capacity causing LOS E or F conditions, or
2. The increase in the V/C ratio is equal to or greater than 0.020 with the addition of
project traffic, worsening an intersection already projected to operate at LOS E or F
conditions before the project traffic is added.
For example, using these criteria a project would not have a significant impact at an intersection
if it is operating at LOS E or F after the addition of project traffic and the incremental change in
the V/C ratio is less than 0.020. If the intersection, however, is operating at a LOS E or F after
the addition of project traffic and the incremental change in the V/C ratio is 0.020 or greater, the
project would be considered to have a significant impact. A project is not considered to have a
significant impact if the intersection is projected to operate at LOS D or better after the addition
of project traffic, regardless of the volume of traffic added to the intersection or the incremental
change in the V/C ratio.
9
TABLE 2LEVEL OF SERVICE DEFINITIONS FOR SIGNALIZED AND UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONSLevel of ServiceSignalized Intersection Capacity UtilizationUnsignalized Intersection Delay (seconds/vehicle)DefinitionEXCELLENT. No Vehicle waits longer than one redlight and no approach phase is fully used.VERY GOOD. An occasional approach phase is fully utilized; many drivers begin to feel somewhatrestricted within groups of vehicles.GOOD. Occasionally drivers may have to wait through more than one red light; backups maydevelop behind turning vehicles.FAIR. Delays may be substantial during portions of the rush hours, but enough lower volume periodsoccur to permit clearing of developing lines, preventing excessive backups.POOR. Represents the most vehicles intersection approaches can accommodate; may be long linesof waiting vehicles through several signal cycles.FAILURE. Backups from nearby locations or on cross streets may restrict or prevent movement of vehicles out of the intersection approaches. Tremendous delays with continuously increasingqueue lengthsA< 0.600< 10.0B > 0.600 and < 0.700 > 10.0 and < 15.0C > 0.700 and < 0.800 > 15.0 and < 25.0D > 0.800 and < 0.900 > 25.0 and < 35.0E > 0.900 and < 1.000 > 35.0 and < 50.0F > 1.000 > 50.010
Chapter 3
Existing Conditions
A data collection effort was undertaken to develop a description of existing conditions in the
Study Area. The Existing Conditions analysis relevant to this study includes an assessment of
the existing street system, lane configurations, intersection traffic controls, signal phasing,
analyses of traffic volumes and current operating conditions, and evaluation of the existing
public transit service.
STUDY AREA
The Study Area was established by reviewing the existing intersection/corridor operations,
Project peak hour vehicle trip generation, the anticipated distribution of Project vehicular trips,
and the potential impacts of Project traffic.
A traffic analysis study area generally includes those intersections that are:
1. Immediately adjacent or in close proximity to the project site
2. In the vicinity of the project site that are documented to have current or projected future
adverse operational issues
3. In the vicinity of the project site that are forecast to experience a relatively greater
percentage of project-related vehicular turning movements (e.g., at freeway ramp
intersections).
The Study Area was established based on the above criteria, as well as peak hour Project trip
generation, the anticipated distribution of Project traffic, and the existing intersections/corridor
operations. It includes those intersections with the greatest potential to experience significant
traffic impacts due to the Project.
11
A total of six study intersections, including four signalized and two unsignalized, were selected
for analysis. This area is considered the traffic analysis Study Area. Figure 2 illustrates the
location of the Project Site in relation to the surrounding street system and the six study
intersections.
The six intersections selected for evaluation are:
1. Santa Clara Street & Huntington Drive
2. Morlan Place & Huntington Drive (Unsignalized Intersection)
3. Santa Anita Avenue & Santa Clara Street
4. Santa Anita Avenue & Morlan Place (Unsignalized Intersection)
5. Santa Anita Avenue & Huntington Drive
6. Santa Anita Avenue & Colorado Boulevard
EXISTING STREET SYSTEM
As shown in Figure 2, the six study intersections essentially follow the arterial streets and the
freeway connections in the City. The discussion below highlights the characteristics of the
existing street system serving the City.
Freeways
Primary regional access to the City site is provided by I-210, which generally runs in the east-west
direction through the City 0.5 miles north of the Project Site. In the vicinity of the Study Area, I-210
provides four travel lanes in each direction as well as a high-occupancy vehicle lane. Interchanges
that provide direct access to the Project Site include Baldwin Avenue and Santa Anita Avenue.
Roadways
The existing street system in the City consists of a regional roadway system including major and
primary arterials, as well as secondary arterials, collector streets and local streets offering sub-
12
regional and local access and circulation opportunities. These transportation facilities generally
provide two to four travel lanes and usually allow parking on either or both sides of the street.
Typically, the speed limits range between 25 and 40 miles per hour (mph).
Colorado Boulevard – Colorado Boulevard is a designated Collector Street west of
Santa Anita Avenue and a designated Enhanced Collector Street east of Santa Anita
Avenue in the General Plan. It is a two- to four-lane roadway that runs in the east-west
direction. It is located north of the Project Site. Parking is generally provided along both
sides of the street east of Santa Anita Avenue within the Study Area.
Santa Clara Street – Santa Clara Street is a designated Secondary Arterial west of
Santa Anita Avenue and a designated Enhanced Collector Street east of Santa Anita
Avenue in the General Plan. It is a four-lane roadway that runs in the northeast-
southwest direction before curving to the east-west direction and is located north of the
Project Site. Parking is generally not provided along the street within the Study Area.
Morlan Place – Morlan Place is a designated Local Road in the General Plan. It is a two-
lane roadway that runs in the northeast-southwest direction before curving to the east-
west direction and is located along the northern boundary of the Project Site. Parking is
generally provided along both sides of the street within the Study Area.
Huntington Drive – Huntington Drive is a designated Major Arterial one-way street west
of Colorado Place and a designated Primary Arterial Street east of Santa Anita Avenue
in the General Plan. It is a six-lane roadway that runs in the east-west direction west of
Santa Clara Street and in the northeast-southwest direction west of Santa Clara Street.
It is located along the southern boundary of the Project Site. Parking is generally
provided along the north side of the street west of Santa Anita Avenue and on both sides
of the street east of Santa Anita Avenue within the Study Area.
Santa Anita Avenue – Santa Anita Avenue is a Primary Arterial in the General Plan. It is
a four-lane roadway that runs in the north-south direction. It is located east of the Project
Site and parking is generally provided along both sides of the street north of Huntington
Drive within the Study Area.
EXISTING TRANSIT SYSTEM
The Study Area is served by bus lines operated by Los Angeles County Metropolitan
Transportation Authority (Metro) and Foothill Transit. Figure 3 illustrates the existing transit service
in the Study Area. The following provides a brief description of the bus lines providing service in
the Project vicinity:
13
Table 3 summarizes the transit lines operating in the Study Area for each of the service
providers in the region, the type of service (peak vs. off-peak, express vs. local), and frequency
of service, as described above. The average headways during the peak hour were estimated
using detailed trip and ridership data from April 2017 provided by Metro.
Table 4 summarizes the total available capacity of the Metro transit system (no data was readily
available for the Foothill Transit bus system) during the morning and afternoon peak hours
based on the frequency of service of each line, the standing capacity of each bus or train, and
the maximum peak hour load in each direction. As shown in Table 4, the Metro bus lines serving
the Study Area currently have available capacity for approximately 407 additional riders during
the morning peak hour and 347 additional riders during the afternoon peak hour. Foothill Transit
also provides additional ridership capacity.
Transit service in the vicinity of the Project site includes the Metro Gold Line, with a station at
Santa Clara Street & First Avenue. The station is located approximately 0.25 miles walking
distance from the Project. The Gold Line is well utilized but provides available transit capacity to
the employees and patrons of the Project.
EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES AND LEVELS OF SERVICE
This section presents the existing peak hour turning movement traffic volumes for the
intersections analyzed in the study and the analysis of the resulting operating conditions at each
intersection.
Existing Traffic Volumes
Intersection turning movement counts for typical weekday morning and afternoon peak periods
were conducted in January 2019 for two study intersections when local schools were in session,
but prior to racing at the Race Track. At the direction of City staff, traffic counts conducted in
May 2018 and May 2011 at four study intersections were utilized and grown at a rate of 2% per
year in order to represent the existing (Year 2019) traffic volumes shown in Figure 4. The
turning movement counts are provided in Appendix A.
14
The traffic volumes illustrated in Figure 4 were analyzed to determine the existing operating
conditions at the study intersections.
Existing Intersection Levels of Service
Table 5 summarizes the weekday morning and afternoon peak hour LOS analysis for the four
signalized study intersections under Existing Conditions (Year 2019). As shown in Table 5, all
four signalized study intersections operate at LOS C or better under Existing Conditions.
The LOS calculation worksheets are provided in Appendix D.
15
16
17
TABLE 3EXISTING TRANSIT SERVICE IN STUDY AREAMorning Peak Period Afternoon Peak PeriodMetro Bus ServiceNB/EB SB/WB NB/EB SB/WB79Downtown Los Angeles - Arcadia via Las Tunas Drive/Huntington DriveLocal 4:00 AM - 2:00 AM 27 24 27 34487Downtown Los Angeles - Sierra Madre Villa Station - El Monte StationExpress 5:30 AM - 11:00 PM 30 27 30 34Foothill Transit Bus ServiceNB/EB SB/WB NB/EB SB/WB187 Asuza - Arcadia - PasadenaLocal 5:30 A.M. - 11:30 P.M. 18181616Metro Rail ServiceNB/EB SB/WB NB/EB SB/WBGold East Los Angeles - AsuzaRail 5:00 A.M. - 2:00 A.M.7777NotesMetro: Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation AuthorityMorning Peak Period from 6:00 AM to 10:00 AM; Afternoon Peak Period from 3:00 PM to 7:00 PM.[a] Average headways are based on the total number of trips during the peak period as indicated in Metro ridership data from April, 2017.Provider, Route, and Service AreaService TypeHours of OperationAverage Headway (minutes) [a]18
TABLE 4TRANSIT SYSTEM CAPACITY SERVING THE PROJECT SITEMORNING PEAK HOURPeak Hour Ridership [b]Peak Load Average LoadNB/EB SB/WB NB/EB SB/WB NB/EB SB/WB NB/EB SB/WBMetro Bus Service79Downtown Los Angeles - Arcadia via Las Tunas Drive/Huntington Drive50 6 12 4 5 46 45 104 113487Downtown Los Angeles - Sierra Madre Villa Station - El Monte Station50 7 11 4 6 46449299Foothill Transit Bus Service187 Asuza - Arcadia - Pasadena 50Total Transit System CapacityAFTERNOON PEAK HOURPeak Hour Ridership [b]Peak Load Average LoadNB/EB SB/WB NB/EB SB/WB NB/EB SB/WB NB/EB SB/WBMetro Bus Service79Downtown Los Angeles - Arcadia via Las Tunas Drive/Huntington Drive507735474510679487Downtown Los Angeles - Sierra Madre Villa Station - El Monte Station50 14 8 8 5 42 45 84 79Foothill Transit Bus Service187 Asuza - Arcadia - Pasadena 50Total Transit System CapacityNotesMetro: Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority.[a] Capacity assumptions:Metro Bus - 40 seated / 50 standing.[b] Ridership information based on data from Metro for April 2017.347Provider, Route, and Service AreaCapacity per Trip[a]Average Remaining Capacity per TripRemaining Peak Hour Capacity407Provider, Route, and Service AreaCapacity per Trip[a]Average Remaining Capacity per TripRemaining Peak Hour CapacityInformation not availableInformation not available19
TABLE 5
EXISTING CONDITIONS (YEAR 2019)
INTERSECTION LEVELS OF SERVICE
Existing Conditions
V/C LOS
1. Santa Clara Street &A.M. 0.757 C
Huntington Drive P.M. 0.694 B
3. Santa Anita Avenue &A.M. 0.623 B
Santa Clara Street P.M. 0.676 B
5. Santa Anita Avenue &A.M. 0.738 C
Huntington Drive P.M. 0.798 C
6. Santa Anita Avenue &A.M. 0.663 B
Colorado Boulevard P.M. 0.654 B
No. Intersection Peak Hour
20
Chapter 4
Future Traffic Conditions
Estimates of future traffic conditions were developed to evaluate the traffic levels likely to be on
the local street system at the target Year 2020. This discussion details the assumptions used to
develop the Future Conditions (Year 2020).
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) GUIDELINES REGARDING FUTURE
TRAFFIC CONDITIONS
The forecast of future conditions was prepared in accordance with procedures outlined in Section
15130 of Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act, Chapter 3,
Title 14, California Code of Regulations (California Natural Resources Agency, amended July 27,
2007) (Guidelines). Specifically, Guidelines provides two options for developing the cumulative
traffic volume forecast:
“(A) A list of past, present, and probable future projects producing related or
cumulative impacts, including, if necessary, those projects outside the control of
the [lead] agency, or
“(B) A summary of projections contained in an adopted general plan or related
planning document, or in a prior environmental document which has been adopted
or certified, which described or evaluated regional or area wide conditions
contributing to the cumulative impact. Any such planning document shall be
referenced and made available to the public at a location specified by the lead
agency.”
As described in detail below, this analysis includes traffic growth both from future projects (Option
“A” above, the “Related Projects”) and from regional growth projections (Option “B” above, or
ambient growth). The Guidelines suggest that one option or the other be chosen, rather than both.
Accordingly, the traffic analysis provides a highly conservative estimate of Future without Project
traffic volumes.
21
AMBIENT TRAFFIC GROWTH
Existing traffic is expected to increase as a result of regional growth and development both
inside and outside the City. Based on the discussions with the City, an ambient growth factor of
2% was applied to the morning and afternoon peak hour volumes over a one-year period to
reflect the effects of regional growth by Year 2020. This growth factor accounts for increases in
traffic due to potential projects not yet proposed or projects outside the Study Area.
RELATED PROJECTS
In accordance with the CEQA requirements, this study also considered the effects of the Project in
relation to the Related Projects. With this information, the potential impact of the Project was,
therefore, evaluated within the context of the cumulative impact of all ongoing development.
The list of Related Projects is based on information provided by the City, as well as recent studies
of projects in the area. The Related Projects in the Study Area are detailed in Table 6. Though the
buildout years of many of these Related Projects are uncertain and may be well beyond the
buildout year of the Project, and notwithstanding that some may never be approved or developed,
they were all considered as part of this study and conservatively assumed to be completed by the
Project buildout Year 2020. Therefore, the traffic growth due to the development of Related
Projects considered in this analysis is highly conservative and, alone, provides an overestimation
of the actual traffic volume growth in the area than would likely occur in the next four years prior to
Project buildout. With the addition of the 2% per year ambient growth factor previously discussed,
the Future without Project cumulative condition is even more conservative.
Using these conservative assumptions, the potential traffic impacts of the Project were evaluated
within the context of the worst-case cumulative impact of all prospective development. The
development of estimated traffic volumes added to the study intersections as a result of Related
Projects involves the use of a three-step process: trip generation, trip distribution, and trip
assignment.
22
Trip Generation
Trip generation estimates for the Related Projects were calculated using a combination of
previous study findings and the trip generation rates contained in Trip Generation, 10th Edition
(Institute of Transportation Engineers, 2017). The Related Projects trip generation estimates
summarized in Table 6 are very conservative in that they do not in every case account for either
the trips generated by the existing uses to be removed or the likely use of other travel modes
(transit, bicycle, walk, etc.) Further, they do not in every case account for the internal capture
trips within a multi-use development, nor the interaction of trips between multiple Related
Projects within the area, in which one Related Project serves as the origin for a trip destined for
another Related Project.
Trip Distribution
The geographic distribution of the traffic generated by the Related Projects is dependent on
several factors. These include the type and density of the proposed land uses, the geographic
distribution of the population from which the employees/residents and potential patrons of the
proposed developments are drawn, and the location of these projects in relation to the
surrounding street system. These factors are considered along with logical travel routes through
the street system to develop a reasonable pattern of trip distribution.
Trip Assignment
The trip generation estimates for the Related Projects were assigned to the local street system
using the trip distribution pattern described above. Figure 5 shows the peak hour traffic volumes
associated with these Related Projects at the study intersections. These volumes were then
added to the existing traffic volumes after adjustment for ambient growth through the projected
buildout year of 2020. As discussed above, this is a conservative approach as many of the
Related Projects may be reflected in the ambient growth rate. These volumes represent the
Future without Project Conditions (i.e., existing traffic volumes added to ambient traffic growth and
Related Project traffic growth) for the six study intersections and are shown in Figure 6.
23
FUTURE WITHOUT PROJECT INTERSECTION LEVELS OF SERVICE
Table 7 summarizes the weekday morning and afternoon peak hour LOS results for each of the
study intersections under Future without Project Conditions. Table 7 indicates that three of the
four signalized study intersections are projected to operate at LOS D or better during both the
weekday morning and afternoon peak hours. The remaining intersection at Santa Anita Avenue
& Huntington Drive (Intersection #3) is projected to operate at LOS D in the morning peak hour
and LOS E in the afternoon peak hour.
24
25
26
TABLE 6PENDING/RELATED PROJECTS LISTTrip GenerationAM Peak HourPM Peak HourIn Out Total In Out Total1. Wheeler Mixed-Use Project 57 Wheeler Avenue Apartment 38 du 618 15 1934302959Retail 10,730 sfOffice7,210 sf2. Baldwin Shopping Plaza Expansion ProjecNE Corner of Baldwin/DuarteRetail8,418 sf446 - - - 21 14 35Restaurant3,000 sf(Retail)(6,930) sf3. Santa Anita Inn Redevelopment Project130 W. Huntington DriveHotel227 rooms 1,012 34 24 58 37 36 73(Hotel)(106) rooms4. Rusnak Arcadia Expansion Project55 W. Huntington DriveAuto Sales105,000sf67 16 5 21 6 8 145. Shops at Santa Anita (Caruso Project)285 W. Huntington DriveMixed-Use Project6. Westfield Santa Anita - Phase 2 (Target) Expansion400 S. Baldwin AvenueShopping Center229,057sf3,508 60 8 68 165 172 3367. Gold Line Foothill Extension - Phase 2A200 North First AvenueParking Garage300 spaces - 140 0 140 0 140 1408. Medical/General Office Project125 W. Huntingon Drive, 161 Colorado PlaceMedical Office36,436 sf1,866 113 34 147 55 131 186General Office23,219 sfRestaurant4,600 sf9. Santa Anita Medical Office Project205 N. Santa Anita AvenueMedical Office16,000 sf57830 8 3816415710. Santa Terisita Master PlanSE Corner of Royal Oaks/Sierra TerraceAssisted Living120 beds 99 (2) (3) (5) 8 1 9Skilled Nursing120 bedsTown Center7,200 sf11. Car Wash Project935 E. Huntington DriveAutomated Car Wash 3,600 sf510 - - - 26 25 5112.Apartment Project138 E. Olive AvenueApartment18du 120279741113. Huntington Oaks Shopping Center600 W. Huntington DriveFast Food Restaurants10,000 sf4,961 232 222 454 170 157 32714. Maintenance and Operations Yard1600 S. California AvenueParking Garage600 spaces 1,506 514 128 642 432 312 74415.Apartment/Retail ProjectEast of 5th, south of HuntingtonApartment154 du 736 (11) 56 45 56 11 67Retail 1,341 sf16. Pacific Plaza56 E Duarte Road17.8 E Duarte Road18. Lower Azusa Reclamation Project19. Pacific Arroyo Clarke Academy Expansion20. Hotel Indigo125 W. Huntingon Drive, 161 Colorado PlaceHotel175 rooms 1,811 63 46 109 72 64 136Restaurant2,500 sfCoffee Shop1,800 sf21. Mixed-Use57 Wheeler AvenueApartment38 du 1,462 51 51 102 75 53 128Retail 8,475 sfRestaurant7,700 sf22. Mixed-Use56 E Duarte RoadCondominiums37 du 1,722 63 59 122 90 63 153Commercial 19,360 sf23. Residential - Condominium501 N Santa AnitaCondominiums20du 146279741124. Residential - Condominium415 CaliforniaCondominiums20du 146279741125. Medical Office288 N Santa Anita AveMedical Office14,000 sf2,841 50 16 66 72 91 163Office 10,000Restaurant7,160 sf24,155 1,374 694 2,068 1,352 1,360 2,711Notessf: square feetdu: dwelling unitsDailyTotalsNo Project Address Land Use Size27
TABLE 7
FUTURE WITHOUT PROJECT CONDITIONS (YEAR 2020)
INTERSECTION LEVELS OF SERVICE
Future without Project
Conditions
V/C LOS
1. Santa Clara Street & A.M. 0.819 D
Huntington Drive P.M. 0.755 C
3. Santa Anita Avenue & A.M. 0.699 B
Santa Clara Street P.M. 0.790 C
5. Santa Anita Avenue & A.M. 0.804 D
Huntington Drive P.M. 0.924 E
6. Santa Anita Avenue & A.M. 0.769 C
Colorado Boulevard P.M. 0.736 C
No. Intersection Peak Hour
28
Chapter 5
Project Traffic
This chapter describes the assumptions and methodology used in developing the traffic volumes
associated with the proposed Project within the Study Area.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
As described in Chapter 1, the Project would redevelop the existing Bekins Storage Facility,
converting 10,000-15,000 sf into a Food Hall, with the remaining portions of the facility
remaining as storage units. For the purposes of this analysis, it was assumed that the Project
includes 31,239 sf of mini-warehouse storage facilities, 6,500 sf of fast-casual restaurant uses,
5,000 sf of grocery store uses, and 23 on-site parking spaces. Vehicular access to the Project
would be provided via two driveways on Morlan Place.
PROJECT TRIP GENERATION
The number of trips expected to be generated by the Project was estimated using rates
published in Trip Generation, 10th Edition. These rates are based on surveys of similar land
uses at sites around the country and are provided as both daily rates and morning and
afternoon peak hour rates. They relate the number of vehicle trips traveling to and from the
Project site to the size of development of each land use.
Appropriate trip generation reductions to account for public transit usage, internal capture, and
pass-by trips were made in consultation with City staff. A 10% adjustment was made to account
for public transit usage/walk-ins. A pass-by reduction was also applied to the retail and
restaurant uses to account for Project trips made as an intermediate stop on the way from an
origin to a primary trip destination without route diversion.
29
As shown in Table 8, after accounting for the adjustments above and the removal of the existing
uses currently on-site, the Project is expected to generate 739 new trips on a typical weekday,
including 49 morning peak hour trips (26 inbound trips, 23 outbound trips) and 63 afternoon
peak hour trips (38 inbound trips, 25 outbound trips).
PROJECT TRIP DISTRIBUTION
Similar to the trip distribution of traffic for the Related Projects described in Chapter 4, the
geographic distribution of trips generated by the Project is dependent on the location of
residential, employment and commercial centers to which patrons of the Project would be drawn,
characteristics of the street system serving the Project site, the location of the proposed
driveways, and existing traffic conditions.
Based on these considerations, traffic entering and exiting the Project was assigned to the
surrounding street system. The intersection-level trip distribution pattern for Project traffic at the
study intersections is shown in Figure 7. Generally, the pattern is as follows:
20% to/from the north
35% to/from the south
25% to/from the east
20% to/from the west
PROJECT TRIP ASSIGNMENT
The Project trip generation estimates summarized in Table 8 and the trip distribution pattern
shown in Figure 7 were used to assign the Project-generated traffic through the study
intersections. Figure 8 illustrates the net Project-only traffic volumes at the study intersections
during typical weekday morning and afternoon peak hours.
30
31
32
In Out Total In Out Total
Trip Generation Rates [a]
Warehousing 150 1.74 77% 23% 0.17 27% 73% 0.19
Mini-Warehouse 151 1.51 60% 40% 0.10 47% 53% 0.17
General Office Building 710 9.74 86% 14% 1.16 16% 84% 1.15
Supermarket 850 106.78 60% 40% 3.82 51% 49% 9.24
High-Turnover (Sit-Down) Restaurant 932 112.18 55% 45% 9.94 62% 38% 9.77
Trip Generation Estimates
Proposed Project
Mini-Warehouse 151 31,230 sf 47 213235
Transit/Walk Adjustment - 10% [b](5)0000(1)(1)
Supermarket 850 5,000 sf 534 11 8 19 23 23 46
Transit/Walk Adjustment - 10% [b](53) (1) (1) (2) (3) (2) (5)
Pass-By Adjustment - 40% [d](192) (4) (3) (7) (8) (8) (16)
Restaurant 932 6,500 sf 729 36 29 65 40 24 64
Internal Capture - 5% [c](36) (2) (1) (3) (2) (1) (3)
Transit/Walk Adjustment - 10% [b](69) (3) (3) (6) (4) (2) (6)
Pass-By Adjustment - 20% [e](125) (6) (5) (11) (7) (4) (11)
830 33 25 58 41 32 73
Existing Uses to be Removed
Warehousing 150 5,000 sf 9101011
Transit/Walk Adjustment - 10% [b](1)000000
Mini-Warehouse 151 28,761 sf 43 213235
Transit/Walk Adjustment - 10% [b](4)0000(1)(1)
General Office Building 710 5,000 sf 49 516156
Transit/Walk Adjustment - 10% [b](5) (1) 0 (1) 0 (1) (1)
917293710
739 26 23 49 38 25 63
Notes:
sf = square feet.
[a] Trip generation rates are from Trip Generation, 10th Edition (Institute of Transportation Engineers, 2017).
[b] Transit/walk adjustment of up to 10% is allowed for developments adjacent to the Metro Gold Line Arcadia Station.
[c] Internal capture adjustments account for person trips made between different components of a mixed-use development without using a vehicle.
[d] Per City of Arcadia, pass-by adjustment of 40% is allowed for supermarket space.
[e] Per City of Arcadia, pass-by adjustment of 20% is allowed for restaurant space.
per 1,000 sf
per 1,000 sf
TOTAL NET NEW PROJECT TRIPS
Total Proposed Project Trips
Total Existing Uses Trips
per 1,000 sf
per 1,000 sf
per 1,000 sf
TABLE 8
PROJECT TRIP GENERATION ESTIMATES
Land Use
ITE
Land
Use
Rate or Size Daily
Morning Peak Hour Afternoon Peak Hour
33
Chapter 6
Existing and Future with Project Conditions
This chapter describes the operating conditions at signalized intersections after addition of Project
traffic. The effects of Project traffic were measured based on both Existing Conditions and Future
without Project Conditions. The significant impact thresholds described in Chapter 2 were applied
to each signalized intersection.
EXISTING WITH PROJECT CONDITIONS
The Project-only morning and afternoon peak hour traffic volumes described in Chapter 5 and
shown in Figure 8 were added to the existing morning and afternoon peak hour traffic volumes
shown in Figure 4. The resulting volumes are illustrated in Figure 9 and represent Existing with
Project Conditions (Year 2019) after development of the Project under Existing Conditions.
Table 9 summarizes the Existing with Project Conditions during the weekday morning and
afternoon peak hours for the four signalized study intersections. As shown, all four signalized
intersections would operate at LOS D or better during both the weekday morning and afternoon
peak hours. The Project would cause the LOS at Intersection #5, Santa Anita Avenue &
Huntington Drive, to change from LOS C to LOS D during the afternoon peak hour. The Project
would not result in significant impacts at any of the four intersections. Therefore, no mitigation is
required based on Existing with Project Conditions.
FUTURE WITH PROJECT CONDITIONS
The Project-only morning and afternoon peak hour traffic volumes described in Chapter 5 and
shown in Figure 8 were added to the Future without Project morning and afternoon peak hour
traffic volumes shown in Figure 6. The resulting volumes are illustrated in Figure 10 and
34
represent Future with Project Conditions (Year 2020) after development of the Project under
Future without Project Conditions.
Table 10 summarizes the Future with Project Conditions during the weekday morning and
afternoon peak hours for the four signalized study intersections. As in Future without Project
Conditions, three of the four signalized intersections would operate at LOS D or better during
both the weekday morning and afternoon peak hours. The remaining intersection, Santa Anita
Avenue & Huntington Drive (Intersection #5), would operate at LOS D during the morning peak
hour and LOS E during the afternoon peak hour under Future with Project Conditions. The
addition of Project traffic would also cause the LOS at Intersection #3, Santa Anita Avenue &
Santa Clara Street, to change from LOS B to LOS C during the morning peak hour.
As described in Chapter 2, the City-wide target for acceptable peak hour LOS is LOS D except
at certain locations where LOS E is considered acceptable. The LOS of all four signalized study
intersections would be considered acceptable if operating at LOS E during either the morning or
afternoon peak hour. The Project would not result in significant impacts at any of the four
intersections. Therefore, no mitigation is required based on Future with Project Conditions.
35
36
37
TABLE 9EXISTING WITH PROJECT CONDITIONS (YEAR 2019)INTERSECTION LEVELS OF SERVICE AND SIGNIFICANT IMPACTSExisting Conditions Existing with Project ConditionsV/C LOS V/C LOS ∆ V/C Impact1. Santa Clara Street &AM 0.757 C 0.759 C 0.002 NOHuntington DrivePM 0.694 B 0.695 B 0.001 NO3. Santa Anita Avenue &AM 0.623 B 0.626 B 0.003 NOSanta Clara Street PM 0.676 B 0.679 B 0.003 NO5. Santa Anita Avenue &AM 0.738 C 0.740 C 0.002 NOHuntington DrivePM 0.798 C 0.803 D 0.005 NO6. Santa Anita Avenue &AM 0.663 B 0.667 B 0.004 NOColorado BoulevardPM 0.654 B 0.657 B 0.003 NONo. IntersectionPeak Hour38
TABLE 10FUTURE WITH PROJECT CONDITIONS (YEAR 2020)INTERSECTION LEVELS OF SERVICE AND SIGNIFICANT IMPACTSFuture without Project ConditionsFuture with Project ConditionsV/C LOS V/C LOS ∆ V/C Impact1. Santa Clara Street &AM 0.819 D 0.820 D 0.001 NOHuntington DrivePM 0.755 C 0.758 C 0.003 NO3. Santa Anita Avenue &AM 0.699 B 0.701 C 0.002 NOSanta Clara Street PM 0.790 C 0.793 C 0.003 NO5. Santa Anita Avenue &AM 0.804 D 0.809 D 0.005 NOHuntington DrivePM 0.924 E 0.930 E 0.006 NO6. Santa Anita Avenue &AM 0.769 C 0.771 C 0.002 NOColorado BoulevardPM 0.736 C 0.741 C 0.005 NONo. IntersectionPeak Hour39
Chapter 7
Unsignalized Intersection Analysis
As described in Chapter 2, the unsignalized intersections of Morlan Place & Huntington Drive
and Santa Anita Avenue & Morlan Place / Wheeler Avenue were analyzed using the HCM
methodology to determine the overall intersection delay under both Existing and Future
Conditions. The signal warrant analysis was conducted based on the guidelines set forth in
California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (Caltrans, 2014) (California MUTCD).
INTERSECTION LEVELS OF SERVICE
Tables 11 and 12 summarize the weekday morning and afternoon peak hour delay and
corresponding LOS for the two unsignalized intersections under Existing and Future Conditions.
As shown in Table 11, Morlan Place & Huntington Drive is anticipated to operate at LOS D or
better in the morning and afternoon peak hour under Existing and Existing with Project
Conditions. Santa Anita Avenue & Morlan Place / Wheeler Avenue is anticipated to operate at
LOS E during both the morning and afternoon peak hour under Existing Conditions. With the
addition of Project traffic, Santa Anita Avenue & Morlan Place / Wheeler Avenue is anticipated
to operate at LOS E during the morning peak hour and at LOS F during the afternoon peak hour
under Existing with Project Conditions.
As shown in Table 12, both unsignalized intersections are anticipated to operate at LOS E or
worse during either the morning and afternoon peak hour under Future Conditions, with and
without the addition of Project traffic.
Therefore, further traffic signal warrant analyses were conducted.
40
SIGNAL WARRANT ANALYSIS
The intersection was analyzed according to Warrant 3 (peak hour). The following methodology,
as quoted from the California MUTCD, was used to evaluate signal warrants at the intersection:
Warrant 3, Peak-Hour Vehicular Volume Warrant
Signal Warrant 3 is intended for use at a location where traffic conditions are such that
for a minimum of one hour of an average day, the minor-street traffic suffers undue delay
when entering or crossing the major street. Combined volumes for both approaches of
the major street are included while only the volume from the higher minor street
approach is included. At an intersection with a high volume of left-turn traffic from the
major street, the analysis may include the major street left-turn volumes plus the minor
street approach volume as the total “minor street” volume. The warrant is satisfied if
traffic volumes for any one hour of an average day exceed the plotted lines shown in the
following figure.
41
Tables 11 and 12 summarize the results of the signal warrant analysis under Existing and
Future Conditions, respectively. As shown, the two unsignalized intersections would not meet
the warrant thresholds under Existing or Future Conditions, with or without addition of Project
traffic. Therefore, a traffic signal is not required or recommended at either of these locations.
Detailed signal warrant worksheets are provided in Appendix E.
42
TABLE 11EXISTING WITH PROJECT CONDITIONS (YEAR 2019)UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTION PEAK HOUR LEVELS OF SERVICEExisting Conditions Existing with Project ConditionsDelay LOSMeets Signal WarrantsDelay LOSMeets Signal Warrants2. Morlan Place & A.M. 34.9 D 33.7 DHuntington Drive P.M. 13.3 B 13.4 B4. Santa Anita Avenue & A.M. 35.2 E 38.3 EMorlan Place / Wheeler Avenue P.M. 48.0 E 58.2 FNote:Intersections #2 and #4 are 2-way stop controlled.Reported delay is worst approach delay.NONONo. IntersectionPeak HourNONO43
TABLE 12FUTURE WITH PROJECT CONDITIONS (YEAR 2020)UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTION PEAK HOUR LEVELS OF SERVICEFuture without Project Conditions Future with Project ConditionsDelay LOSMeets Signal WarrantsDelay LOSMeets Signal Warrants2. Morlan Place & A.M. 41.9 E 39.8 EHuntington Drive P.M. 15.3 C 15.3 C4. Santa Anita Avenue & A.M. 66.1 F 85.0 FMorlan Place / Wheeler Avenue P.M. Overflow N/A 328.0 FNote:Intersections #2 and #4 are 2-way stop controlled.Reported delay is worst approach delay.NONONo. IntersectionPeak HourNONO44
Chapter 8
Congestion Management Program Analysis
This chapter presents an analysis of the regional transportation facilities in the vicinity of the
Project site, in accordance with the procedures outlined in 2010 Congestion Management
Program for Los Angeles County (Metro, 2010) (CMP).
TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS GUIDELINES
The CMP requires that traffic impact analyses be performed on three types of facilities:
Arterial Intersections
Mainline Freeway Segments
The Public Transit System
The CMP identifies specific arterial and freeway mainline locations for analysis.
Arterial Intersections
The CMP requires that a traffic impact analysis be performed for all CMP arterial monitoring
intersections where a project would add 50 or more trips during either the weekday morning or
afternoon peak hours. A detailed analysis is not required if the project adds fewer than 50 trips
to an arterial monitoring intersection. The CMP analysis uses the “Critical Movement Analysis
(CMA) – Planning” (Transportation Research Circular No. 212, Interim Materials on Highway
Capacity, Transportation Research Board, 1980) methodology to determine intersection V/C
ratio and LOS. A significant impact requiring mitigation occurs if project traffic causes an
45
incremental increase in intersection V/C ratio of 0.02 or greater to a facility projected to operate
at LOS F (V/C > 1.00) after the addition of project traffic.
Mainline Freeway Segments
The CMP requires that a traffic impact analysis be performed for all CMP mainline freeway
monitoring locations where a project would add 150 or more trips (in either direction) during the
weekday morning or afternoon peak hours. A detailed analysis is not required if the project adds
fewer than 150 trips to a mainline freeway monitoring location (in either direction) during either
the weekday morning or afternoon peak hour. The CMP analysis uses a demand-to-capacity
(D/C) ratio to determine facility LOS based on capacity identified in Appendix A of the CMP.
Similar to arterial monitoring intersections, a significant impact requiring mitigation occurs if
project traffic causes an incremental increase in freeway segment D/C ratio of 0.02 or greater to
a facility projected to operate at LOS F (D/C > 1.00) after the addition of project traffic.
Public Transit System
The CMP requires that a transit system analysis be performed to determine whether a project
would increase transit ridership beyond the current capacity of the transit system.
ARTERIAL INTERSECTION ANALYSIS
The CMP identifies the following two arterial monitoring intersections within 3.0 miles of the
Project Site:
Rosemead Boulevard & East Foothill Boulevard (2.3 miles northwest of the Project Site)
The arterial monitoring intersection is not a study intersection and is outside the boundaries of
the Study Area. The Project trips at this location were calculated based on the number of trips
traveling to or from the direction of the intersection based on Figure 8, conservatively assuming
there would be no diverging trips. Based on this methodology, the number of peak hour Project
trips expected at the arterial monitoring intersection is as follows:
46
Intersection Peak Hour Trips Requires CMP
Analysis? AM PM
Rosemead Boulevard & East Foothill Boulevard 2 3 No
The Project would not add 50 peak hour trips to the arterial monitoring intersection within the
Study Area. Therefore, no further analysis is required.
MAINLINE FREEWAY SEGMENT ANALYSIS
The CMP identifies one freeway mainline monitoring location at I-210 at Rosemead Boulevard,
approximately 2.3 miles from the Project Site. As shown in Table 8, the Project generates
substantially fewer than 150 peak hour trips. Since the Project would not add 150 peak hour
trips in either direction to the CMP mainline freeway monitoring location, further CMP freeway
segment analysis is not required.
PUBLIC TRANSIT SYSTEM ANALYSIS
Based on the trip generation estimates from Table 8, transit usage by Project patrons and
visitors is expected to reduce trip generation by approximately 10 morning peak hour trips and
12 afternoon peak hour trips. Section B.8.4 of the CMP suggests an average vehicle occupancy
(AVO) factor of 1.4 in order to estimate the number of person trips to and from the Project.
Therefore, the Project would result in an estimated increase of five person-trips during the
morning peak hour and seven person-trips during the afternoon peak hour.
As detailed in Chapter 2, the Study Area is served by the Gold Line and several established bus
transit routes, including both local and express service. Even with potential growth in transit
ridership by Year 2020, the Project’s peak hour transit ridership of only five trips in the morning
peak hour and seven trips in the afternoon peak hour can be easily accommodated within the
available capacity of the system as identified in Table 4. Therefore, the Project is not anticipated
to result in regional transit impacts.
47
Chapter 9
Site Access and Circulation
This chapter presents a summary of how vehicles, pedestrians, and bicycles would access and
circulate throughout the Project site.
VEHICULAR ACCESS AND CIRCULATION
Access to the Project Site surface parking lot would be provided via two driveways on Morlan
Place. The driveways would be designed to City standards under the review of City staff. The
Project driveways would be designed to minimize queuing on the adjacent street system in
order to avoid blocking through traffic.
PEDESTRIAN ACCESS AND CIRCULATION
Pedestrian access would be provided on Huntington Drive along the southern boundary of the
Project site. It would be completely separated from any vehicular access point and, therefore,
no pedestrian conflicts would occur.
BICYCLE ACCESS AND CIRCULATION
Visitors arriving by bicycle would utilize the vehicular driveways to access the bicycle parking
areas within the parking lot. In order to facilitate bicycle use, bicycle parking spaces would be
provided on-site, consistent with the Bicycle Parking Requirements in Arcadia Municipal Code
(City of Arcadia) (Code) Section 9103.07.150. No dedicated bicycle lanes currently exist on
Huntington Drive or Morlan Place.
48
Chapter 11
Summary and Conclusions
This study was undertaken to analyze the potential traffic impacts of the Bekins Food Hall Mixed-
Use Development Project on the local street system. The following summarizes the results of this
analysis:
The Project would redevelop the existing Bekins Storage Facility, converting 10,000-
15,000 sf into a Food Hall, with the remaining portions of the facility remaining as
storage units. For the purposes of this analysis, it was assumed that the Project includes
31,239 sf of mini-warehouse storage facilities, 6,500 sf of fast-casual restaurant uses,
5,000 sf of grocery store uses, and 23 on-site parking spaces. Vehicular access to the
Project would be provided via two driveways on Morlan Place.
A detailed traffic impact analysis was conducted of a total of six study intersections, four
signalized and two unsignalized. All four signalized study intersections currently operate at
LOS C or better during both the morning and afternoon peak hours under Existing
Conditions (Year 2019).
The Project is anticipated to generate a total of approximately 739 net new weekday trips,
including 49 net new morning peak hour trips and 63 net new afternoon peak hour trips.
Analysis of Existing with Project Conditions (Year 2019) indicates that the Project is not
anticipated to have a significant impact at any of the four signalized study intersections,
based on the City’s significance criteria. Thus, mitigation is not required.
One of the two unsignalized intersections currently operate at LOS D or better during
both peak hours. The unsignalized intersection of Santa Anita Avenue & Morlan Place /
Wheeler Avenue currently operates at LOS E during both peak hours under Existing
Conditions (Year 2019).
Signal warrant analyses conducted at both unsignalized intersections under Existing and
Future with Project Conditions concluded that the installation of a traffic signal is not
warranted at either intersection. Therefore, signal installation is not recommended.
Future traffic conditions in the Study Area were forecast for the Project buildout year of
2020. Analysis of projected Future with Project Conditions (Year 2020) indicates that the
Project is not anticipated to have significant impacts at any of the four signalized study
intersections, based on the City’s significance criteria. Thus, no mitigation is required.
49
Analysis of potential impacts on the regional transportation system conducted in
accordance with CMP guidelines determined that the Project would not have a significant
impact on the regional freeway or arterial system or the regional transit system.
50
References
2010 Congestion Management Program for Los Angeles County, Los Angeles County
Metropolitan Transportation Authority, 2010.
2010 Highway Capacity Manual, Transportation Research Board, 2010.
288 Santa Anita Avenue Project Traffic Impact Study, City of Arcadia, California, RK
Engineering Group, Inc., September 20, 2018.
Arcadia General Plan, City of Arcadia, November 2010.
Arcadia Municipal Code, City of Arcadia.
California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, California Department of Transportation,
2012.
Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act, Chapter 3, Title 14,
California Code of Regulations, California Natural Resources Agency, amended July 27, 2007.
Traffic Impact Study for the Santa Anita Inn Redevelopment Project in the City of Arcadia, Kimley-
Horn, April 2018.
Transportation Research Circular No. 212, Interim Materials on Highway Capacity, Transportation
Research Board, 1980.
Trip Generation, 10th Edition, Institute of Transportation Engineers, 2017.
Appendix A
Traffic Counts
WILTEC Phone: (626) 564-1944
INTERSECTION CAR/PED/BIKE TRAFFIC COUNT RESULTS SUMMARY
CLIENT: CITY OF ARCACIA
PROJECT: MORLAN PLACE
DATE: TUESDAY JANUARY 29, 2019
PERIOD: 4:00 PM TO 6:00 PM
INTERSECTION: N/S MORLAN PLACE
E/W HUNTINGTON DRIVE
CITY: ARCADIA
VEHICLE COUNTS
15 MIN COUNTS 1 2 3 3U 4 5 6 6U 7 8 9 9U 10 11
PERIOD SBRT SBTH SBLT SBUT WBRT WBTH WBLT WBUT NBRT NBTH NBLT NBUT EBRT EBTH
400-415 601011800000000315
415-430 800021670000000358
430-445 14 00011920000000366
445-500 11 00022000000000365
500-515 14 02102250000000383
515-530 12 01012390000000426
530-545 19 00002140000000411
545-600 14 00011740000000382
HOUR TOTALS 1 2 3 3U 4 5 6 6U 7 8 9 9U 10 11
PERIOD SBRT SBTH SBLT SBUT WBRT WBTH WBLT WBUT NBRT NBTH NBLT NBUT EBRT EBTH
400-500 39 010673900000001404
415-515 47 021578400000001472
430-530 51 031485600000001540
445-545 56 031387800000001585
500-600 59 031285200000001602
PEAK HOUR
3
878
881
0
56031
0
0
0000
12
HUNTINGTON DRIVE 1597
1585
0 MORLAN PLACE
PEDESTRIAN COUNTS BICYCLE COUNTS
15 MIN COUNTS NORTH EAST SOUTH WEST TOTAL 15 MIN COUNTS NORTH EAST SOUTH WEST TOTAL
PERIOD LEG LEG LEG LEG PERIOD LEG LEG LEG LEG
400-415 10001 400-415 10001
415-430 00000 415-430 10001
430-445 40004 430-445 10001
445-500 20002 445-500 00000
500-515 10001 500-515 10001
515-530 20002 515-530 20002
530-545 10001 530-545 10001
545-600 00000 545-600 00000
HOUR TOTALS NORTH EAST SOUTH WEST TOTAL HOUR TOTALS NORTH EAST SOUTH WEST TOTAL
PERIOD LEG LEG LEG LEG PERIOD LEG LEG LEG LEG
400-500 70007 400-500 30003
415-515 70007 415-515 30003
430-530 90009 430-530 40004
445-545 60006 445-545 40004
500-600 40004 500-600 40004
445-545
60
0
WILTEC Phone: (626) 564-1944
INTERSECTION CAR/PED/BIKE TRAFFIC COUNT RESULTS SUMMARY
CLIENT: CITY OF ARCACIA
PROJECT: MORLAN PLACE
DATE: TUESDAY JANUARY 29, 2019
PERIOD: 7:00 AM TO 9:00 AM
INTERSECTION: N/S MORLAN PLACE
E/W HUNTINGTON DRIVE
CITY: ARCADIA
VEHICLE COUNTS
15 MIN COUNTS 1 2 3 3U 4 5 6 6U 7 8 9 9U 10 11
PERIOD SBRT SBTH SBLT SBUT WBRT WBTH WBLT WBUT NBRT NBTH NBLT NBUT EBRT EBTH
700-715 00004390000000048
715-730 40104493000000074
730-745 100034900000000111
745-800 302104270000000231
800-815 700014000000000193
815-830 300044210000000137
830-845 901033840000000104
845-900 900023820000000128
HOUR TOTALS 1 2 3 3U 4 5 6 6U 7 8 9 9U 10 11
PERIOD SBRT SBTH SBLT SBUT WBRT WBTH WBLT WBUT NBRT NBTH NBLT NBUT EBRT EBTH
700-800 8031111800 0000000464
715-815 15 03181810 0000000609
730-830 14 02181738 0000000672
745-845 22 03181632 0000000665
800-900 28 0 1 0 10 1587 0000000562
PEAK HOUR
8
1810
1818
0
15031
0
1
0000
18
HUNTINGTON DRIVE 628
609
0 MORLAN PLACE
PEDESTRIAN COUNTS BICYCLE COUNTS
15 MIN COUNTS NORTH EAST SOUTH WEST TOTAL 15 MIN COUNTS NORTH EAST SOUTH WEST TOTAL
PERIOD LEG LEG LEG LEG PERIOD LEG LEG LEG LEG
700-715 20002 700-715 00000
715-730 00011 715-730 00000
730-745 00000 730-745 00000
745-800 20002 745-800 10001
800-815 20013 800-815 00000
815-830 10001 815-830 00000
830-845 30003 830-845 00000
845-900 20013 845-900 10001
HOUR TOTALS NORTH EAST SOUTH WEST TOTAL HOUR TOTALS NORTH EAST SOUTH WEST TOTAL
PERIOD LEG LEG LEG LEG PERIOD LEG LEG LEG LEG
700-800 40015 700-800 10001
715-815 40026 715-815 10001
730-830 50016 730-830 10001
745-845 80019 745-845 10001
800-900 800210 800-900 10001
715-815
19
0
WILTEC Phone: (626) 564-1944
INTERSECTION CAR/PED/BIKE TRAFFIC COUNT RESULTS SUMMARY
CLIENT: CITY OF ARCACIA
PROJECT: MORLAN PLACE
DATE: TUESDAY JANUARY 29, 2019
PERIOD: 7:00 AM TO 9:00 AM
INTERSECTION: N/S SANTA ANITA AVENUE
E/W MORLAN PLACE
CITY: ARCADIA
VEHICLE COUNTS
15 MIN COUNTS 1 2 3 3U 4 5 6 6U 7 8 9 9U 10 11
PERIOD SBRT SBTH SBLT SBUT WBRT WBTH WBLT WBUT NBRT NBTH NBLT NBUT EBRT EBTH
700-715 3 85 80220071510100
715-730 3 108 80131081813121
730-745 8 181 8 2 12 02022213000
745-800 6 175 13 2911021843031
800-815 10 154 9090101220314011
815-830 7 147 10 1 12 0 7 0 13 208 6172
830-845 12 152 12 0823081613102
845-900 14 135 13 17030613613110
HOUR TOTALS 1 2 3 3U 4 5 6 6U 7 8 9 9U 10 11
PERIOD SBRT SBTH SBLT SBUT WBRT WBTH WBLT WBUT NBRT NBTH NBLT NBUT EBRT EBTH
700-800 20 549 37 4 24 6 4 0 19 737 9252
715-815 27 618 38 4 31 4 5 0 24 789 23 1 6 3
730-830 31 657 40 5 42 1 11 0 29 816 26 1 11 4
745-845 35 628 44 3 38 3 12 0 35 756 26 2 11 6
800-900 43 588 44 2 36 2 14 0 39 708 36 3 9 5
PEAK HOUR
42
1
54
11
31 657 40 5
0
2
1 26 816 29
6
MORLAN PLACE 23
4
11 SANTA ANITA AVENUE
PEDESTRIAN COUNTS BICYCLE COUNTS
15 MIN COUNTS NORTH EAST SOUTH WEST TOTAL 15 MIN COUNTS NORTH EAST SOUTH WEST TOTAL
PERIOD LEG LEG LEG LEG PERIOD LEG LEG LEG LEG
700-715 02013 700-715 00000
715-730 03003 715-730 00000
730-745 02024 730-745 00000
745-800 117312 745-800 00044
800-815 11103 800-815 00022
815-830 253515 815-830 00000
830-845 01214 830-845 00011
845-900 01012 845-900 00000
HOUR TOTALS NORTH EAST SOUTH WEST TOTAL HOUR TOTALS NORTH EAST SOUTH WEST TOTAL
PERIOD LEG LEG LEG LEG PERIOD LEG LEG LEG LEG
700-800 187622 700-800 00044
715-815 278522 715-815 00066
730-830 4 9 11 10 34 730-830 00066
745-845 4 8 13 9 34 745-845 00077
800-900 386724 800-900 00033
730-830
733
872
WILTEC Phone: (626) 564-1944
INTERSECTION CAR/PED/BIKE TRAFFIC COUNT RESULTS SUMMARY
CLIENT: CITY OF ARCACIA
PROJECT: MORLAN PLACE
DATE: TUESDAY JANUARY 29, 2019
PERIOD: 4:00 PM TO 6:00 PM
INTERSECTION: N/S SANTA ANITA AVENUE
E/W MORLAN PLACE
CITY: ARCADIA
VEHICLE COUNTS
15 MIN COUNTS 1 2 3 3U 4 5 6 6U 7 8 9 9U 10 11
PERIOD SBRT SBTH SBLT SBUT WBRT WBTH WBLT WBUT NBRT NBTH NBLT NBUT EBRT EBTH
400-415 6 185 14 0 15 2 4 0 17 183 2551
415-430 7 173 5 1 14 23061261170
430-445 11 176 11 1 11 2 2 0 15 185 4191
445-500 11 198 13 2 22 0 7 0 10 171 3392
500-515 2 201 9 0 29 5 10 0 7 173 3491
515-530 5 206 7 2 15 3 6 0 14 177 3 2 10 1
530-545 3 200 10 1 18 19091522573
545-600 5 179 10 0 11 55071434151
HOUR TOTALS 1 2 3 3U 4 5 6 6U 7 8 9 9U 10 11
PERIOD SBRT SBTH SBLT SBUT WBRT WBTH WBLT WBUT NBRT NBTH NBLT NBUT EBRT EBTH
400-500 35 732 43 4 62 6 16 0 48 665 10 10 30 4
415-515 31 748 38 4 76 9 22 0 38 655 11 9 34 4
430-530 29 781 40 5 77 10 25 0 46 706 13 10 37 5
445-545 21 805 39 5 84 9 32 0 40 673 11 14 35 7
500-600 15 786 36 3 73 14 30 0 37 645 12 12 31 6
PEAK HOUR
77
10
112
25
29 781 40 5
0
0
10 13 706 46
11
MORLAN PLACE 53
5
37 SANTA ANITA AVENUE
PEDESTRIAN COUNTS BICYCLE COUNTS
15 MIN COUNTS NORTH EAST SOUTH WEST TOTAL 15 MIN COUNTS NORTH EAST SOUTH WEST TOTAL
PERIOD LEG LEG LEG LEG PERIOD LEG LEG LEG LEG
400-415 01135 400-415 01012
415-430 02024 415-430 01012
430-445 01012 430-445 01012
445-500 03238 445-500 00022
500-515 00426 500-515 00000
515-530 32106 515-530 00000
530-545 00213 530-545 00000
545-600 00145 545-600 00000
HOUR TOTALS NORTH EAST SOUTH WEST TOTAL HOUR TOTALS NORTH EAST SOUTH WEST TOTAL
PERIOD LEG LEG LEG LEG PERIOD LEG LEG LEG LEG
400-500 073919 400-500 03058
415-515 066820 415-515 02046
430-530 367622 430-530 01034
445-545 359623 445-545 00022
500-600 328720 500-600 00000
430-530
855
775
File Name : 01_ARC_Santa Anita_Colorado AM
Site Code : 10518316
Start Date : 5/15/2018
Page No : 1
City of Arcadia
N/S: Santa Anita Avenue
E/W: Colorado Boulevard
Weather: Clear
Groups Printed- Total Volume
Santa Anita Avenue
Southbound
Colorado Boulevard
Westbound
Santa Anita Avenue
Northbound
Colorado Boulevard
Eastbound
Start Time Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Int. Total
07:00 AM 22 126 19 167 42 58 38 138 22 153 5 180 9 13 7 29 514
07:15 AM 18 196 31 245 43 76 37 156 25 170 18 213 10 10 7 27 641
07:30 AM 16 243 64 323 63 126 25 214 35 189 23 247 19 34 13 66 850
07:45 AM 26 288 52 366 71 80 32 183 28 239 38 305 21 24 17 62 916
Total 82 853 166 1101 219 340 132 691 110 751 84 945 59 81 44 184 2921
08:00 AM 20 203 45 268 59 89 33 181 28 250 39 317 18 45 21 84 850
08:15 AM 30 216 62 308 42 84 26 152 34 217 15 266 10 24 7 41 767
08:30 AM 23 196 45 264 22 56 25 103 19 160 18 197 19 21 16 56 620
08:45 AM 24 220 43 287 22 44 25 91 20 153 10 183 13 25 6 44 605
Total 97 835 195 1127 145 273 109 527 101 780 82 963 60 115 50 225 2842
Grand Total 179 1688 361 2228 364 613 241 1218 211 1531 166 1908 119 196 94 409 5763
Apprch %8 75.8 16.2 29.9 50.3 19.8 11.1 80.2 8.7 29.1 47.9 23
Total %3.1 29.3 6.3 38.7 6.3 10.6 4.2 21.1 3.7 26.6 2.9 33.1 2.1 3.4 1.6 7.1
Santa Anita Avenue
Southbound
Colorado Boulevard
Westbound
Santa Anita Avenue
Northbound
Colorado Boulevard
Eastbound
Start Time Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Int. Total
Peak Hour Analysis From 07:00 AM to 08:45 AM - Peak 1 of 1
Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 07:30 AM
07:30 AM 16 243 64 323 63 126 25 214 35 189 23 247 19 34 13 66 850
07:45 AM 26 288 52 366 71 80 32 183 28 239 38 305 21 24 17 62 916
08:00 AM 20 203 45 268 59 89 33 181 28 250 39 317 18 45 21 84 850
08:15 AM 30 216 62 308 42 84 26 152 34 217 15 266 10 24 7 41 767
Total Volume 92 950 223 1265 235 379 116 730 125 895 115 1135 68 127 58 253 3383
% App. Total 7.3 75.1 17.6 32.2 51.9 15.9 11 78.9 10.1 26.9 50.2 22.9
PHF .767 .825 .871 .864 .827 .752 .879 .853 .893 .895 .737 .895 .810 .706 .690 .753 .923
Counts Unlimited
PO Box 1178
Corona, CA 92878
(951) 268-6268
File Name : 01_ARC_Santa Anita_Colorado AM
Site Code : 10518316
Start Date : 5/15/2018
Page No : 2
City of Arcadia
N/S: Santa Anita Avenue
E/W: Colorado Boulevard
Weather: Clear
Santa Anita Avenue Colorado Boulevard Colorado Boulevard Santa Anita Avenue
Right
223
Thru
950
Left
92
InOut Total
1079 1265 2344 Right116 Thru379 Left235 OutTotalIn334 730 1064 Left
125
Thru
895
Right
115
Out TotalIn
1243 1135 2378 Left68 Thru127 Right58 TotalOutIn727 253 980 Peak Hour Begins at 07:30 AM
Total Volume
Peak Hour Data
North
Peak Hour Analysis From 07:00 AM to 08:45 AM - Peak 1 of 1
Peak Hour for Each Approach Begins at:
07:30 AM 07:15 AM 07:30 AM 07:30 AM
+0 mins.16 243 64 323 43 76 37 156 35 189 23 247 19 34 13 66
+15 mins.26 288 52 366 63 126 25 214 28 239 38 305 21 24 17 62
+30 mins.20 203 45 268 71 80 32 183 28 250 39 317 18 45 21 84
+45 mins.30 216 62 308 59 89 33 181 34 217 15 266 10 24 7 41
Total Volume 92 950 223 1265 236 371 127 734 125 895 115 1135 68 127 58 253
% App. Total 7.3 75.1 17.6 32.2 50.5 17.3 11 78.9 10.1 26.9 50.2 22.9
PHF .767 .825 .871 .864 .831 .736 .858 .857 .893 .895 .737 .895 .810 .706 .690 .753
Counts Unlimited
PO Box 1178
Corona, CA 92878
(951) 268-6268
File Name : 01_ARC_Santa Anita_Colorado PM
Site Code : 10518316
Start Date : 5/15/2018
Page No : 1
City of Arcadia
N/S: Santa Anita Avenue
E/W: Colorado Boulevard
Weather: Clear
Groups Printed- Total Volume
Santa Anita Avenue
Southbound
Colorado Boulevard
Westbound
Santa Anita Avenue
Northbound
Colorado Boulevard
Eastbound
Start Time Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Int. Total
04:00 PM 36 203 14 253 24 19 29 72 18 248 35 301 21 89 25 135 761
04:15 PM 33 214 9 256 15 18 29 62 12 215 41 268 23 103 31 157 743
04:30 PM 29 197 15 241 16 32 25 73 13 224 40 277 18 112 18 148 739
04:45 PM 48 230 19 297 24 29 25 78 15 241 49 305 11 87 9 107 787
Total 146 844 57 1047 79 98 108 285 58 928 165 1151 73 391 83 547 3030
05:00 PM 41 244 17 302 31 33 44 108 19 250 59 328 22 117 15 154 892
05:15 PM 37 240 18 295 18 24 30 72 12 265 47 324 16 99 13 128 819
05:30 PM 48 236 26 310 16 23 34 73 18 185 42 245 11 130 19 160 788
05:45 PM 43 268 19 330 18 18 23 59 17 221 53 291 9 114 28 151 831
Total 169 988 80 1237 83 98 131 312 66 921 201 1188 58 460 75 593 3330
Grand Total 315 1832 137 2284 162 196 239 597 124 1849 366 2339 131 851 158 1140 6360
Apprch %13.8 80.2 6 27.1 32.8 40 5.3 79.1 15.6 11.5 74.6 13.9
Total %5 28.8 2.2 35.9 2.5 3.1 3.8 9.4 1.9 29.1 5.8 36.8 2.1 13.4 2.5 17.9
Santa Anita Avenue
Southbound
Colorado Boulevard
Westbound
Santa Anita Avenue
Northbound
Colorado Boulevard
Eastbound
Start Time Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Int. Total
Peak Hour Analysis From 04:00 PM to 05:45 PM - Peak 1 of 1
Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 05:00 PM
05:00 PM 41 244 17 302 31 33 44 108 19 250 59 328 22 117 15 154 892
05:15 PM 37 240 18 295 18 24 30 72 12 265 47 324 16 99 13 128 819
05:30 PM 48 236 26 310 16 23 34 73 18 185 42 245 11 130 19 160 788
05:45 PM 43 268 19 330 18 18 23 59 17 221 53 291 9 114 28 151 831
Total Volume 169 988 80 1237 83 98 131 312 66 921 201 1188 58 460 75 593 3330
% App. Total 13.7 79.9 6.5 26.6 31.4 42 5.6 77.5 16.9 9.8 77.6 12.6
PHF .880 .922 .769 .937 .669 .742 .744 .722 .868 .869 .852 .905 .659 .885 .670 .927 .933
Counts Unlimited
PO Box 1178
Corona, CA 92878
(951) 268-6268
File Name : 01_ARC_Santa Anita_Colorado PM
Site Code : 10518316
Start Date : 5/15/2018
Page No : 2
City of Arcadia
N/S: Santa Anita Avenue
E/W: Colorado Boulevard
Weather: Clear
Santa Anita Avenue Colorado Boulevard Colorado Boulevard Santa Anita Avenue
Right
80
Thru
988
Left
169
InOut Total
1110 1237 2347 Right131 Thru98 Left83 OutTotalIn830 312 1142 Left
66
Thru
921
Right
201
Out TotalIn
1146 1188 2334 Left58 Thru460 Right75 TotalOutIn244 593 837 Peak Hour Begins at 05:00 PM
Total Volume
Peak Hour Data
North
Peak Hour Analysis From 04:00 PM to 05:45 PM - Peak 1 of 1
Peak Hour for Each Approach Begins at:
05:00 PM 04:30 PM 04:30 PM 05:00 PM
+0 mins.41 244 17 302 16 32 25 73 13 224 40 277 22 117 15 154
+15 mins.37 240 18 295 24 29 25 78 15 241 49 305 16 99 13 128
+30 mins.48 236 26 310 31 33 44 108 19 250 59 328 11 130 19 160
+45 mins.43 268 19 330 18 24 30 72 12 265 47 324 9 114 28 151
Total Volume 169 988 80 1237 89 118 124 331 59 980 195 1234 58 460 75 593
% App. Total 13.7 79.9 6.5 26.9 35.6 37.5 4.8 79.4 15.8 9.8 77.6 12.6
PHF .880 .922 .769 .937 .718 .894 .705 .766 .776 .925 .826 .941 .659 .885 .670 .927
Counts Unlimited
PO Box 1178
Corona, CA 92878
(951) 268-6268
File Name : 04_ARC_Santa Anita_Santa Clara AM
Site Code : 10518316
Start Date : 5/15/2018
Page No : 1
City of Arcadia
N/S: Santa Anita Avenue
E/W: Santa Clara Street
Weather: Clear
Groups Printed- Total Volume
Santa Anita Avenue
Southbound
Santa Clara Street
Westbound
Santa Anita Avenue
Northbound
Santa Clara Street
Eastbound
Start Time Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Int. Total
07:00 AM 10 94 41 145 3 17 13 33 0 156 11 167 35 11 0 46 391
07:15 AM 14 132 68 214 9 28 13 50 2 160 16 178 39 10 2 51 493
07:30 AM 8 196 90 294 6 41 14 61 2 158 14 174 61 21 2 84 613
07:45 AM 12 228 135 375 11 32 8 51 7 171 18 196 116 31 6 153 775
Total 44 650 334 1028 29 118 48 195 11 645 59 715 251 73 10 334 2272
08:00 AM 15 149 77 241 5 35 16 56 8 164 15 187 136 31 6 173 657
08:15 AM 23 143 78 244 11 34 18 63 11 159 21 191 83 28 5 116 614
08:30 AM 16 129 65 210 8 27 12 47 7 125 7 139 58 26 8 92 488
08:45 AM 28 152 65 245 9 23 12 44 5 129 11 145 57 29 6 92 526
Total 82 573 285 940 33 119 58 210 31 577 54 662 334 114 25 473 2285
Grand Total 126 1223 619 1968 62 237 106 405 42 1222 113 1377 585 187 35 807 4557
Apprch %6.4 62.1 31.5 15.3 58.5 26.2 3.1 88.7 8.2 72.5 23.2 4.3
Total %2.8 26.8 13.6 43.2 1.4 5.2 2.3 8.9 0.9 26.8 2.5 30.2 12.8 4.1 0.8 17.7
Santa Anita Avenue
Southbound
Santa Clara Street
Westbound
Santa Anita Avenue
Northbound
Santa Clara Street
Eastbound
Start Time Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Int. Total
Peak Hour Analysis From 07:00 AM to 08:45 AM - Peak 1 of 1
Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 07:30 AM
07:30 AM 8 196 90 294 6 41 14 61 2 158 14 174 61 21 2 84 613
07:45 AM 12 228 135 375 11 32 8 51 7 171 18 196 116 31 6 153 775
08:00 AM 15 149 77 241 5 35 16 56 8 164 15 187 136 31 6 173 657
08:15 AM 23 143 78 244 11 34 18 63 11 159 21 191 83 28 5 116 614
Total Volume 58 716 380 1154 33 142 56 231 28 652 68 748 396 111 19 526 2659
% App. Total 5 62 32.9 14.3 61.5 24.2 3.7 87.2 9.1 75.3 21.1 3.6
PHF .630 .785 .704 .769 .750 .866 .778 .917 .636 .953 .810 .954 .728 .895 .792 .760 .858
Counts Unlimited
PO Box 1178
Corona, CA 92878
(951) 268-6268
File Name : 04_ARC_Santa Anita_Santa Clara AM
Site Code : 10518316
Start Date : 5/15/2018
Page No : 2
City of Arcadia
N/S: Santa Anita Avenue
E/W: Santa Clara Street
Weather: Clear
Santa Anita Avenue Santa Clara Street Santa Clara Street Santa Anita Avenue
Right380 Thru716 Left58
InOut Total
1104 1154 2258 Right56 Thru142 Left33 OutTotalIn237 231 468 Left
28
Thru
652
Right
68
Out TotalIn
768 748 1516 Left396 Thru111 Right19 TotalOutIn550 526 1076 Peak Hour Begins at 07:30 AM
Total Volume
Peak Hour Data
North
Peak Hour Analysis From 07:00 AM to 08:45 AM - Peak 1 of 1
Peak Hour for Each Approach Begins at:
07:30 AM 07:30 AM 07:30 AM 07:45 AM
+0 mins.8 196 90 294 6 41 14 61 2 158 14 174 116 31 6 153
+15 mins.12 228 135 375 11 32 8 51 7 171 18 196 136 31 6 173
+30 mins.15 149 77 241 5 35 16 56 8 164 15 187 83 28 5 116
+45 mins.23 143 78 244 11 34 18 63 11 159 21 191 58 26 8 92
Total Volume 58 716 380 1154 33 142 56 231 28 652 68 748 393 116 25 534
% App. Total 5 62 32.9 14.3 61.5 24.2 3.7 87.2 9.1 73.6 21.7 4.7
PHF .630 .785 .704 .769 .750 .866 .778 .917 .636 .953 .810 .954 .722 .935 .781 .772
Counts Unlimited
PO Box 1178
Corona, CA 92878
(951) 268-6268
File Name : 04_ARC_Santa Anita_Santa Clara PM
Site Code : 10518316
Start Date : 5/15/2018
Page No : 1
City of Arcadia
N/S: Santa Anita Avenue
E/W: Santa Clara Street
Weather: Clear
Groups Printed- Total Volume
Santa Anita Avenue
Southbound
Santa Clara Street
Westbound
Santa Anita Avenue
Northbound
Santa Clara Street
Eastbound
Start Time Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Int. Total
04:00 PM 26 159 38 223 17 17 18 52 5 189 20 214 68 36 8 112 601
04:15 PM 23 190 45 258 18 38 25 81 6 185 18 209 67 43 12 122 670
04:30 PM 32 158 47 237 13 32 27 72 6 180 25 211 72 46 11 129 649
04:45 PM 49 181 43 273 18 28 28 74 3 178 7 188 84 38 8 130 665
Total 130 688 173 991 66 115 98 279 20 732 70 822 291 163 39 493 2585
05:00 PM 22 209 48 279 21 37 20 78 6 173 20 199 77 41 7 125 681
05:15 PM 30 187 57 274 19 30 21 70 11 190 13 214 85 43 8 136 694
05:30 PM 23 195 48 266 16 30 26 72 5 155 14 174 77 40 6 123 635
05:45 PM 29 212 47 288 19 35 23 77 4 181 14 199 72 24 9 105 669
Total 104 803 200 1107 75 132 90 297 26 699 61 786 311 148 30 489 2679
Grand Total 234 1491 373 2098 141 247 188 576 46 1431 131 1608 602 311 69 982 5264
Apprch %11.2 71.1 17.8 24.5 42.9 32.6 2.9 89 8.1 61.3 31.7 7
Total %4.4 28.3 7.1 39.9 2.7 4.7 3.6 10.9 0.9 27.2 2.5 30.5 11.4 5.9 1.3 18.7
Santa Anita Avenue
Southbound
Santa Clara Street
Westbound
Santa Anita Avenue
Northbound
Santa Clara Street
Eastbound
Start Time Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Int. Total
Peak Hour Analysis From 04:00 PM to 05:45 PM - Peak 1 of 1
Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 04:30 PM
04:30 PM 32 158 47 237 13 32 27 72 6 180 25 211 72 46 11 129 649
04:45 PM 49 181 43 273 18 28 28 74 3 178 7 188 84 38 8 130 665
05:00 PM 22 209 48 279 21 37 20 78 6 173 20 199 77 41 7 125 681
05:15 PM 30 187 57 274 19 30 21 70 11 190 13 214 85 43 8 136 694
Total Volume 133 735 195 1063 71 127 96 294 26 721 65 812 318 168 34 520 2689
% App. Total 12.5 69.1 18.3 24.1 43.2 32.7 3.2 88.8 8 61.2 32.3 6.5
PHF .679 .879 .855 .953 .845 .858 .857 .942 .591 .949 .650 .949 .935 .913 .773 .956 .969
Counts Unlimited
PO Box 1178
Corona, CA 92878
(951) 268-6268
File Name : 04_ARC_Santa Anita_Santa Clara PM
Site Code : 10518316
Start Date : 5/15/2018
Page No : 2
City of Arcadia
N/S: Santa Anita Avenue
E/W: Santa Clara Street
Weather: Clear
Santa Anita Avenue Santa Clara Street Santa Clara Street Santa Anita Avenue
Right195 Thru735 Left133
InOut Total
1135 1063 2198 Right96 Thru127 Left71 OutTotalIn366 294 660 Left
26
Thru
721
Right
65
Out TotalIn
840 812 1652 Left318 Thru168 Right34 TotalOutIn348 520 868 Peak Hour Begins at 04:30 PM
Total Volume
Peak Hour Data
North
Peak Hour Analysis From 04:00 PM to 05:45 PM - Peak 1 of 1
Peak Hour for Each Approach Begins at:
05:00 PM 04:15 PM 04:00 PM 04:30 PM
+0 mins.22 209 48 279 18 38 25 81 5 189 20 214 72 46 11 129
+15 mins.30 187 57 274 13 32 27 72 6 185 18 209 84 38 8 130
+30 mins.23 195 48 266 18 28 28 74 6 180 25 211 77 41 7 125
+45 mins.29 212 47 288 21 37 20 78 3 178 7 188 85 43 8 136
Total Volume 104 803 200 1107 70 135 100 305 20 732 70 822 318 168 34 520
% App. Total 9.4 72.5 18.1 23 44.3 32.8 2.4 89.1 8.5 61.2 32.3 6.5
PHF .867 .947 .877 .961 .833 .888 .893 .941 .833 .968 .700 .960 .935 .913 .773 .956
Counts Unlimited
PO Box 1178
Corona, CA 92878
(951) 268-6268
Appendix B
Intersection Lane Configurations
Appendix C
Traffic Impact Analysis
of the Worst-Case Conditions
Appendix C
Traffic Impact Analysis
of the Worst-Case Conditions
In order to provide the most conservative analysis for the Project, a traffic impact analysis was
conducted without the benefit of the trip generation adjustments for public transit usage/walk-
ins, internal capture, and pass-by trips described in Chapter 5. This Appendix presents the
traffic impact analysis for the Project (Worst-Case) scenario.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
As described in Chapter 1, the Project would redevelop the existing Bekins Storage Facility,
converting 10,000-15,000 sf into a Food Hall, with the remaining portions of the facility
remaining as storage units. For the purposes of this analysis, it was assumed that the Project
includes 31,239 sf of mini-warehouse storage facilities, 6,500 sf of fast-casual restaurant uses,
5,000 sf of grocery store uses, and 23 on-site parking spaces. Vehicular access to the Project
would be provided via two driveways on Morlan Place.
TRIP GENERATION
As in Chapter 5, the number of trips expected to be generated by the Project (Worst-Case) was
estimated using rates published in Trip Generation, 10th Edition.
As shown in Table E-1, after accounting for the removal of the existing uses currently on-site,
the Project (Worst-Case) is expected to generate 1,209 new trips on a typical weekday,
including 77 morning peak hour trips (41 inbound trips, 36 outbound trips) and 103 afternoon
peak hour trips (62 inbound trips, 41 outbound trips).
C-1
TRIP ASSIGNMENT
The Project (Worst-Case) trip generation estimates summarized in Table E-1 and the trip
distribution pattern shown in Figure 7 were used to assign the Project (Worst-Case)-generated
traffic through the study intersections. Figure E-1 illustrates the net Project-only (Worst-Case)
traffic volumes at the study intersections during typical weekday morning and afternoon peak
hours.
PROJECT TRAFFIC
Existing with Project Conditions
The Project-only (Worst-Case) morning and afternoon peak hour traffic volumes shown in
Figure E-1 were added to the existing morning and afternoon peak hour traffic volumes shown
in Figure 4. The resulting volumes are illustrated in Figure E-2 and represent Existing with
Project (Worst-Case) Conditions (Year 2019) after development of the Project under Existing
Conditions.
Table E-2 summarizes the Existing with Project (Worst-Case) Conditions during the weekday
morning and afternoon peak hours for the four signalized study intersections. As shown, all four
signalized intersections would operate at LOS D or better during both the weekday morning and
afternoon peak hours. The Project (Worst-Case) would cause the LOS at Intersection #5, Santa
Anita Avenue & Huntington Drive, to change from LOS C to LOS D during the afternoon peak
hour. The Project would not result in significant impacts at any of the four intersections.
Therefore, no mitigation is required based on Existing with Project Conditions.
Future with Project Conditions
The Project-only (Worst-Case) morning and afternoon peak hour traffic volumes shown in
Figure E-1 were added to the Future without Project morning and afternoon peak hour traffic
volumes shown in Figure 6. The resulting volumes are illustrated in Figure E-3 and represent
C-2
Future with Project (Worst-Case) Conditions (Year 2020) after development of the Project
(Worst-Case) under Future without Project Conditions.
Table E-3 summarizes the Future with Project (Worst-Case) Conditions during the weekday
morning and afternoon peak hours for the four signalized study intersections. As in Future
without Project Conditions, three of the four signalized intersections would operate at LOS D or
better during both the weekday morning and afternoon peak hours. The remaining intersection,
Santa Anita Avenue & Huntington Drive (Intersection #5), would operate at LOS D during the
morning peak hour and LOS E during the afternoon peak hour under Future with Project (Worst-
Case) Conditions. The addition of Project (Worst-Case) traffic would also cause the LOS at
Intersection #3, Santa Anita Avenue & Santa Clara Street, to change from LOS B to LOS C
during the morning peak hour.
As described in Chapter 2, the City-wide target for acceptable peak hour LOS is LOS D except
at certain locations where LOS E is considered acceptable. The LOS of all four signalized study
intersections would be considered acceptable if operating at LOS E during either the morning or
afternoon peak hour. The Project (Worst-Case) would not result in significant impacts at any of
the four intersections. Therefore, no mitigation is required based on Future with Project (Worst-
Case) Conditions.
UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS
Tables E-4 and E-5 summarize the weekday morning and afternoon peak hour delay and
corresponding LOS for the two unsignalized intersections under Existing and Future Conditions.
As shown in Table E-4, Morlan Place & Huntington Drive is anticipated to operate at LOS D or
better in the morning and afternoon peak hour under Existing and Existing with Project (Worst-
Case) Conditions. Santa Anita Avenue & Morlan Place / Wheeler Avenue is anticipated to
operate at LOS E during both the morning and afternoon peak hour under Existing Conditions.
With the addition of Project (Worst-Case) traffic, Santa Anita Avenue & Morlan Place / Wheeler
Avenue is anticipated to operate at LOS E during the morning peak hour and at LOS F during
the afternoon peak hour under Existing with Project (Worst-Case) Conditions.
C-3
As shown in Table E-5, both unsignalized intersections are anticipated to operate at LOS E or
worse during either the morning and afternoon peak hour under Future Conditions, with and
without the addition of Project (Worst-Case) traffic.
Therefore, traffic signal warrant analyses were conducted.
LOS worksheets are provided in Attachment 1.
Signal Warrant Analyses
The intersections were analyzed using the same methodology described in Chapter 7. Tables
E-4 and E-5 summarize the results of the signal warrant analyses under Existing and Future
Conditions, respectively. As shown, the two unsignalized intersections would not meet the
warrant thresholds under Existing or Future Conditions, with or without addition of Project
(Worst-Case) traffic. Therefore, a traffic signal is not required or recommended at either of these
locations.
Detailed signal warrant worksheets are provided in Attachment 2.
CONGESTION MANAGEMENT PROGRAM (CMP) ANALYSIS
Based on the trip distribution patterns illustrated in Figure 7, the Project (Worst-Case) would add
a total of four trips during the morning peak hour and five trips during the afternoon peak hour to
the CMP arterial monitoring station at Rosemead Boulevard & East Foothill Boulevard.
Therefore, the Project’s (Worst-Case) CMP arterial intersection impacts are considered to be
less than significant and no further analysis is required.
The CMP identifies one freeway mainline monitoring location at I-210 at Rosemead Boulevard,
approximately 2.3 miles from the Project Site. As shown in Table E-1, the Project (Worst-Case)
generates fewer than 150 peak hour trips. Since the Project would not add 150 peak hour trips
in either direction to the CMP mainline freeway monitoring location, further CMP freeway
segment analysis is not required.
C-4
C-5
C-6
C-7
In Out Total In Out Total
Trip Generation Rates [a]
Warehousing 150 1.74 77%23%0.17 27%73%0.19
Mini-Warehouse 151 1.51 60%40%0.10 47%53%0.17
General Office Building 710 9.74 86%14%1.16 16%84%1.15
Supermarket 850 106.78 60%40%3.82 51%49%9.24
High-Turnover (Sit-Down) Restaurant 932 112.18 55%45%9.94 62%38%9.77
Trip Generation Estimates
Proposed Project
Mini-Warehouse 151 31,230 sf 47 2 1 3 2 3 5
Supermarket 850 5,000 sf 534 11 8 19 23 23 46
Restaurant 932 6,500 sf 729 36 29 65 40 24 64
1,310 49 38 87 65 50 115
Existing Uses to be Removed
Warehousing 150 5,000 sf 9 1 0 1 0 1 1
Mini-Warehouse 151 28,761 sf 43 2 1 3 2 3 5
General Office Building 710 5,000 sf 49 5 1 6 1 5 6
101 8 2 10 3 9 12
1,209 41 36 77 62 41 103
Notes:
sf = square feet.
[a] Trip generation rates are from Trip Generation, 10th Edition (Institute of Transportation Engineers, 2017).
per 1,000 sf
TABLE C-1
PROJECT (WORST-CASE) TRIP GENERATION ESTIMATES
Land Use
ITE
Land
Use
Rate or Size Daily
Morning Peak Hour Afternoon Peak Hour
per 1,000 sf
per 1,000 sf
TOTAL NET NEW PROJECT TRIPS
Total Proposed Project Trips
Total Existing Uses Trips
per 1,000 sf
per 1,000 sf
C-8
TABLE C-2
EXISTING WITH PROJECT (WORST-CASE) CONDITIONS (YEAR 2019)
INTERSECTION LEVELS OF SERVICE AND SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS
Existing Conditions Existing with Project Conditions
V/C LOS V/C LOS ∆ V/C Impact
1.Santa Clara Street &AM 0.757 C 0.760 C 0.003 NO
Huntington Drive PM 0.694 B 0.697 B 0.003 NO
3.Santa Anita Avenue &AM 0.623 B 0.627 B 0.004 NO
Santa Clara Street PM 0.676 B 0.681 B 0.005 NO
5.Santa Anita Avenue &AM 0.738 C 0.741 C 0.003 NO
Huntington Drive PM 0.798 C 0.807 D 0.009 NO
6.Santa Anita Avenue &AM 0.663 B 0.669 B 0.006 NO
Colorado Boulevard PM 0.654 B 0.660 B 0.006 NO
No.Intersection Peak
Hour
C-9
TABLE C-3
FUTURE WITH PROJECT (WORST-CASE) CONDITIONS (YEAR 2020)
INTERSECTION LEVELS OF SERVICE AND SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS
Future without Project
Conditions Future with Project Conditions
V/C LOS V/C LOS ∆ V/C Impact
1.Santa Clara Street &AM 0.819 D 0.821 D 0.002 NO
Huntington Drive PM 0.755 C 0.759 C 0.004 NO
3.Santa Anita Avenue &AM 0.699 B 0.703 C 0.004 NO
Santa Clara Street PM 0.790 C 0.794 C 0.004 NO
5.Santa Anita Avenue &AM 0.804 D 0.810 D 0.006 NO
Huntington Drive PM 0.924 E 0.934 E 0.010 NO
6.Santa Anita Avenue &AM 0.769 C 0.775 C 0.006 NO
Colorado Boulevard PM 0.736 C 0.744 C 0.008 NO
No.Intersection Peak
Hour
C-10
TABLE C-4
EXISTING WITH PROJECT (WORST-CASE) CONDITIONS (YEAR 2019)
UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTION PEAK HOUR LEVELS OF SERVICE
Existing Conditions Existing with Project
Conditions
Delay LOS Meets Signal
Warrants Delay LOS Meets Signal
Warrants
2.Morlan Place &A.M.34.9 D 33.1 D
Huntington Drive P.M.13.3 B 13.4 B
4.Santa Anita Avenue &A.M.35.2 E 43.6 E
Morlan Place / Wheeler Avenue P.M.48.0 E 71.3 F
Note:Intersections #2 and #4 are 2-way stop controlled.
Reported delay is worst approach delay.
NO NO
No.Intersection Peak Hour
NO NO
C-11
TABLE C-5
FUTURE WITH PROJECT (WORST-CASE) CONDITIONS (YEAR 2020)
UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTION PEAK HOUR LEVELS OF SERVICE
Future without Project Conditions Future with Project
Conditions
Delay LOS Meets Signal
Warrants Delay LOS Meets Signal
Warrants
2.Morlan Place &A.M.41.9 E 39.5 E
Huntington Drive P.M.15.3 C 15.4 C
4.Santa Anita Avenue &A.M.66.1 F 109.4 F
Morlan Place / Wheeler Avenue P.M.Overflow N/A 368.0 F
Note:Intersections #2 and #4 are 2-way stop controlled.
Reported delay is worst approach delay.
NO NO
No.Intersection Peak Hour
NO NO
C-12
Attachment 1
Level of Service Worksheets
Printed 3/21/2019
EXISTING WITH PROJECT (WORST CASE) CONDITIONS (YEAR 2019)
J1699 - ARCADIA COMMONS
Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis
1. SANTA CLARA STREET & HUNTINGTON DRIVE
Through Lane Capacity:1680 vph North/South Split Phase:Y
Left-Turn Lane Capacity:1680 vph East/West Split Phase:N
Double-Left Penalty:20 %Loss Time % per Cycle:10%
Right-Turn on Red:50 %ITS Percentage:0%
Overlapping Right Turn:
WEEKDAY MORNING PEAK HOUR
Approach Movement Lanes Capacity Volume V/C ICU Analysis
Right 2.00 3,360 770 0.227 *N/S 1:0.404 *
Southbound Through 0.00 0 0 0.000 N/S 2:0.000
Left 0.00 0 0 0.000 E/W 1:0.026
Right 0.50 0 19 0.000 E/W 2:0.256 *
Westbound Through 2.50 5,040 1,246 0.251 *
Left 0.00 0 0 0.000 V/C Ratio:0.660
Right 2.00 3,360 595 0.177 *Loss Time:0.100
Northbound Through 2.00 3,360 532 0.158 ITS:0.000
Left 1.00 1,680 77 0.046
Right 0.00 0 0 0.000 ICU:0.760
Eastbound Through 3.00 5,040 133 0.026
Left 1.00 1,680 8 0.005 *LOS:C
WEEKDAY AFTERNOON PEAK HOUR
Approach Movement Lanes Capacity Volume V/C ICU Analysis
Right 2.00 3,360 524 0.132 *N/S 1:0.373 *
Southbound Through 0.00 0 0 0.000 N/S 2:0.000
Left 0.00 0 0 0.000 E/W 1:0.202
Right 0.50 0 20 0.000 E/W 2:0.224 *
Westbound Through 2.50 5,040 871 0.177 *
Left 0.00 0 0 0.000 V/C Ratio:0.597
Right 2.00 3,360 811 0.241 *Loss Time:0.100
Northbound Through 2.00 3,360 659 0.196 ITS:0.000
Left 1.00 1,680 119 0.071
Right 0.00 0 0 0.000 ICU:0.697
Eastbound Through 3.00 5,040 1,020 0.202
Left 1.00 1,680 79 0.047 *LOS:B
* Critical Movement
Gibson Transportation Consulting, Inc.J1699-G-ICU ExP.xlsm
Printed 3/21/2019
EXISTING WITH PROJECT (WORST CASE) CONDITIONS (YEAR 2019)
J1699 - ARCADIA COMMONS
Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis
3. SANTA ANITA AVENUE & SANTA CLARA STREET
Through Lane Capacity:1680 vph North/South Split Phase:N
Left-Turn Lane Capacity:1680 vph East/West Split Phase:N
Double-Left Penalty:20 %Loss Time % per Cycle:10%
Right-Turn on Red:50 %ITS Percentage:0%
Overlapping Right Turn:
WEEKDAY MORNING PEAK HOUR
Approach Movement Lanes Capacity Volume V/C ICU Analysis
Right 1.00 1,680 388 0.156 N/S 1:0.257 *
Southbound Through 2.00 3,360 742 0.221 N/S 2:0.238
Left 1.00 1,680 59 0.035 *E/W 1:0.100
Right 0.50 0 57 0.000 E/W 2:0.270 *
Westbound Through 0.50 1,680 145 0.120 *
Left 1.00 1,680 36 0.021 V/C Ratio:0.527
Right 0.50 0 71 0.000 Loss Time:0.100
Northbound Through 1.50 3,360 676 0.222 *ITS:0.000
Left 1.00 1,680 29 0.017
Right 0.50 0 19 0.000 ICU:0.627
Eastbound Through 0.50 1,680 113 0.079
Left 2.00 2,688 404 0.150 *LOS:B
WEEKDAY AFTERNOON PEAK HOUR
Approach Movement Lanes Capacity Volume V/C ICU Analysis
Right 1.00 1,680 199 0.058 N/S 1:0.324 *
Southbound Through 2.00 3,360 769 0.229 N/S 2:0.245
Left 1.00 1,680 136 0.081 *E/W 1:0.168
Right 0.50 0 98 0.000 E/W 2:0.257 *
Westbound Through 0.50 1,680 130 0.136 *
Left 1.00 1,680 75 0.045 V/C Ratio:0.581
Right 0.50 0 68 0.000 Loss Time:0.100
Northbound Through 1.50 3,360 747 0.243 *ITS:0.000
Left 1.00 1,680 27 0.016
Right 0.50 0 35 0.000 ICU:0.681
Eastbound Through 0.50 1,680 171 0.123
Left 2.00 2,688 324 0.121 *LOS:B
* Critical Movement
Gibson Transportation Consulting, Inc.J1699-G-ICU ExP.xlsm
Printed 3/21/2019
EXISTING WITH PROJECT (WORST CASE) CONDITIONS (YEAR 2019)
J1699 - ARCADIA COMMONS
Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis
5. SANTA ANITA AVENUE & HUNTINGTON DRIVE
Through Lane Capacity:1680 vph North/South Split Phase:N
Left-Turn Lane Capacity:1680 vph East/West Split Phase:N
Double-Left Penalty:20 %Loss Time % per Cycle:10%
Right-Turn on Red:50 %ITS Percentage:0%
Overlapping Right Turn:
WEEKDAY MORNING PEAK HOUR
Approach Movement Lanes Capacity Volume V/C ICU Analysis
Right 1.00 1,680 81 0.029 N/S 1:0.341
Southbound Through 2.00 3,360 697 0.207 *N/S 2:0.373 *
Left 2.00 2,688 72 0.027 E/W 1:0.187
Right 1.00 1,680 67 0.026 E/W 2:0.268 *
Westbound Through 2.00 3,360 770 0.229 *
Left 1.00 1,680 84 0.050 V/C Ratio:0.641
Right 1.00 1,680 110 0.040 Loss Time:0.100
Northbound Through 2.00 3,360 1,055 0.314 ITS:0.000
Left 2.00 2,688 447 0.166 *
Right 1.00 1,680 235 0.057 ICU:0.741
Eastbound Through 2.00 3,360 461 0.137
Left 1.00 1,680 66 0.039 *LOS:C
WEEKDAY AFTERNOON PEAK HOUR
Approach Movement Lanes Capacity Volume V/C ICU Analysis
Right 1.00 1,680 88 0.016 N/S 1:0.290 *
Southbound Through 2.00 3,360 657 0.196 N/S 2:0.264
Left 2.00 2,688 150 0.056 *E/W 1:0.417 *
Right 1.00 1,680 99 0.031 E/W 2:0.246
Westbound Through 2.00 3,360 586 0.174
Left 1.00 1,680 144 0.086 *V/C Ratio:0.707
Right 1.00 1,680 166 0.056 Loss Time:0.100
Northbound Through 2.00 3,360 786 0.234 *ITS:0.000
Left 2.00 2,688 183 0.068
Right 1.00 1,680 527 0.280 ICU:0.807
Eastbound Through 2.00 3,360 1,112 0.331 *
Left 1.00 1,680 121 0.072 LOS:D
* Critical Movement
Gibson Transportation Consulting, Inc.J1699-G-ICU ExP.xlsm
Printed 3/21/2019
EXISTING WITH PROJECT (WORST CASE) CONDITIONS (YEAR 2019)
J1699 - ARCADIA COMMONS
Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis
6. SANTA ANITA AVENUE & COLORADO BOULEVARD
Through Lane Capacity:1680 vph North/South Split Phase:N
Left-Turn Lane Capacity:1680 vph East/West Split Phase:N
Double-Left Penalty:20 %Loss Time % per Cycle:10%
Right-Turn on Red:50 %ITS Percentage:0%
Overlapping Right Turn:
WEEKDAY MORNING PEAK HOUR
Approach Movement Lanes Capacity Volume V/C ICU Analysis
Right 1.00 1,680 227 0.115 N/S 1:0.241
Southbound Through 2.00 3,360 977 0.291 *N/S 2:0.368 *
Left 2.00 2,688 94 0.035 E/W 1:0.201 *
Right 0.50 0 118 0.000 E/W 2:0.191
Westbound Through 1.50 3,360 387 0.150
Left 1.00 1,680 242 0.144 *V/C Ratio:0.569
Right 0.50 0 119 0.000 Loss Time:0.100
Northbound Through 2.50 5,040 920 0.206 ITS:0.000
Left 1.00 1,680 130 0.077 *
Right 0.50 0 61 0.000 ICU:0.669
Eastbound Through 1.50 3,360 130 0.057 *
Left 1.00 1,680 69 0.041 LOS:B
WEEKDAY AFTERNOON PEAK HOUR
Approach Movement Lanes Capacity Volume V/C ICU Analysis
Right 1.00 1,680 82 0.031 N/S 1:0.293
Southbound Through 2.00 3,360 1,020 0.304 *N/S 2:0.345 *
Left 2.00 2,688 172 0.064 E/W 1:0.215 *
Right 0.50 1,680 134 0.080 E/W 2:0.115
Westbound Through 1.50 1,680 100 0.060
Left 1.00 1,680 88 0.052 *V/C Ratio:0.560
Right 0.50 0 207 0.000 Loss Time:0.100
Northbound Through 2.50 5,040 947 0.229 ITS:0.000
Left 1.00 1,680 69 0.041 *
Right 0.50 0 80 0.000 ICU:0.660
Eastbound Through 1.50 3,360 469 0.163 *
Left 1.00 1,680 59 0.035 LOS:B
* Critical Movement
Gibson Transportation Consulting, Inc.J1699-G-ICU ExP.xlsm
Printed 3/21/2019
FUTURE WITH PROJECT (WORST CASE) CONDITIONS (YEAR 2020)
J1699 - ARCADIA COMMONS
Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis
1. SANTA CLARA STREET & HUNTINGTON DRIVE
Through Lane Capacity:1680 vph North/South Split Phase:Y
Left-Turn Lane Capacity:1680 vph East/West Split Phase:N
Double-Left Penalty:20 %Loss Time % per Cycle:10%
Right-Turn on Red:50 %ITS Percentage:0%
Overlapping Right Turn:
WEEKDAY MORNING PEAK HOUR
Approach Movement Lanes Capacity Volume V/C ICU Analysis
Right 2.00 3,360 788 0.232 *N/S 1:0.440 *
Southbound Through 0.00 0 0 0.000 N/S 2:0.000
Left 0.00 0 0 0.000 E/W 1:0.030
Right 0.50 0 19 0.000 E/W 2:0.281 *
Westbound Through 2.50 5,040 1,370 0.276 *
Left 0.00 0 0 0.000 V/C Ratio:0.721
Right 2.00 3,360 700 0.208 *Loss Time:0.100
Northbound Through 2.00 3,360 565 0.168 ITS:0.000
Left 1.00 1,680 133 0.079
Right 0.00 0 0 0.000 ICU:0.821
Eastbound Through 3.00 5,040 152 0.030
Left 1.00 1,680 8 0.005 *LOS:D
WEEKDAY AFTERNOON PEAK HOUR
Approach Movement Lanes Capacity Volume V/C ICU Analysis
Right 2.00 3,360 536 0.135 *N/S 1:0.397 *
Southbound Through 0.00 0 0 0.000 N/S 2:0.000
Left 0.00 0 0 0.000 E/W 1:0.224
Right 0.50 0 20 0.000 E/W 2:0.262 *
Westbound Through 2.50 5,040 1,061 0.214 *
Left 0.00 0 0 0.000 V/C Ratio:0.659
Right 2.00 3,360 879 0.262 *Loss Time:0.100
Northbound Through 2.00 3,360 683 0.203 ITS:0.000
Left 1.00 1,680 148 0.088
Right 0.00 0 0 0.000 ICU:0.759
Eastbound Through 3.00 5,040 1,128 0.224
Left 1.00 1,680 81 0.048 *LOS:C
* Critical Movement
Gibson Transportation Consulting, Inc.J1699-G-ICU FP.xlsm
Printed 3/21/2019
FUTURE WITH PROJECT (WORST CASE) CONDITIONS (YEAR 2020)
J1699 - ARCADIA COMMONS
Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis
3. SANTA ANITA AVENUE & SANTA CLARA STREET
Through Lane Capacity:1680 vph North/South Split Phase:N
Left-Turn Lane Capacity:1680 vph East/West Split Phase:N
Double-Left Penalty:20 %Loss Time % per Cycle:10%
Right-Turn on Red:50 %ITS Percentage:0%
Overlapping Right Turn:
WEEKDAY MORNING PEAK HOUR
Approach Movement Lanes Capacity Volume V/C ICU Analysis
Right 1.00 1,680 396 0.159 N/S 1:0.283
Southbound Through 2.00 3,360 1,010 0.301 *N/S 2:0.319 *
Left 1.00 1,680 65 0.039 E/W 1:0.115
Right 0.50 0 67 0.000 E/W 2:0.284 *
Westbound Through 0.50 1,680 151 0.130 *
Left 1.00 1,680 38 0.023 V/C Ratio:0.603
Right 0.50 0 72 0.000 Loss Time:0.100
Northbound Through 1.50 3,360 748 0.244 ITS:0.000
Left 1.00 1,680 30 0.018 *
Right 0.50 0 19 0.000 ICU:0.703
Eastbound Through 0.50 1,680 135 0.092
Left 2.00 2,688 414 0.154 *LOS:C
WEEKDAY AFTERNOON PEAK HOUR
Approach Movement Lanes Capacity Volume V/C ICU Analysis
Right 1.00 1,680 203 0.059 N/S 1:0.427 *
Southbound Through 2.00 3,360 923 0.275 N/S 2:0.292
Left 1.00 1,680 161 0.096 *E/W 1:0.178
Right 0.50 0 107 0.000 E/W 2:0.267 *
Westbound Through 0.50 1,680 135 0.144 *
Left 1.00 1,680 77 0.046 V/C Ratio:0.694
Right 0.50 0 70 0.000 Loss Time:0.100
Northbound Through 1.50 3,360 1,043 0.331 *ITS:0.000
Left 1.00 1,680 28 0.017
Right 0.50 0 36 0.000 ICU:0.794
Eastbound Through 0.50 1,680 185 0.132
Left 2.00 2,688 330 0.123 *LOS:C
* Critical Movement
Gibson Transportation Consulting, Inc.J1699-G-ICU FP.xlsm
Printed 3/21/2019
FUTURE WITH PROJECT (WORST CASE) CONDITIONS (YEAR 2020)
J1699 - ARCADIA COMMONS
Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis
5. SANTA ANITA AVENUE & HUNTINGTON DRIVE
Through Lane Capacity:1680 vph North/South Split Phase:N
Left-Turn Lane Capacity:1680 vph East/West Split Phase:N
Double-Left Penalty:20 %Loss Time % per Cycle:10%
Right-Turn on Red:50 %ITS Percentage:0%
Overlapping Right Turn:
WEEKDAY MORNING PEAK HOUR
Approach Movement Lanes Capacity Volume V/C ICU Analysis
Right 1.00 1,680 96 0.036 N/S 1:0.418 *
Southbound Through 2.00 3,360 777 0.231 N/S 2:0.413
Left 2.00 2,688 248 0.092 *E/W 1:0.227
Right 1.00 1,680 104 0.016 E/W 2:0.292 *
Westbound Through 2.00 3,360 840 0.250 *
Left 1.00 1,680 98 0.058 V/C Ratio:0.710
Right 1.00 1,680 159 0.065 Loss Time:0.100
Northbound Through 2.00 3,360 1,096 0.326 *ITS:0.000
Left 2.00 2,688 488 0.182
Right 1.00 1,680 248 0.057 ICU:0.810
Eastbound Through 2.00 3,360 569 0.169
Left 1.00 1,680 70 0.042 *LOS:D
WEEKDAY AFTERNOON PEAK HOUR
Approach Movement Lanes Capacity Volume V/C ICU Analysis
Right 1.00 1,680 99 0.018 N/S 1:0.351 *
Southbound Through 2.00 3,360 713 0.212 N/S 2:0.288
Left 2.00 2,688 241 0.090 *E/W 1:0.483 *
Right 1.00 1,680 293 0.130 E/W 2:0.305
Westbound Through 2.00 3,360 746 0.222
Left 1.00 1,680 204 0.121 *V/C Ratio:0.834
Right 1.00 1,680 193 0.054 Loss Time:0.100
Northbound Through 2.00 3,360 876 0.261 *ITS:0.000
Left 2.00 2,688 203 0.076
Right 1.00 1,680 579 0.307 ICU:0.934
Eastbound Through 2.00 3,360 1,217 0.362 *
Left 1.00 1,680 139 0.083 LOS:E
* Critical Movement
Gibson Transportation Consulting, Inc.J1699-G-ICU FP.xlsm
Printed 3/21/2019
FUTURE WITH PROJECT (WORST CASE) CONDITIONS (YEAR 2020)
J1699 - ARCADIA COMMONS
Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis
6. SANTA ANITA AVENUE & COLORADO BOULEVARD
Through Lane Capacity:1680 vph North/South Split Phase:N
Left-Turn Lane Capacity:1680 vph East/West Split Phase:N
Double-Left Penalty:20 %Loss Time % per Cycle:10%
Right-Turn on Red:50 %ITS Percentage:0%
Overlapping Right Turn:
WEEKDAY MORNING PEAK HOUR
Approach Movement Lanes Capacity Volume V/C ICU Analysis
Right 1.00 1,680 281 0.143 N/S 1:0.281
Southbound Through 2.00 3,360 1,237 0.368 *N/S 2:0.453 *
Left 2.00 2,688 161 0.060 E/W 1:0.222 *
Right 0.50 0 153 0.000 E/W 2:0.215
Westbound Through 1.50 3,360 404 0.166
Left 1.00 1,680 247 0.147 *V/C Ratio:0.675
Right 0.50 0 121 0.000 Loss Time:0.100
Northbound Through 2.50 5,040 992 0.221 ITS:0.000
Left 1.00 1,680 142 0.085 *
Right 0.50 0 92 0.000 ICU:0.775
Eastbound Through 1.50 3,360 159 0.075 *
Left 1.00 1,680 82 0.049 LOS:C
WEEKDAY AFTERNOON PEAK HOUR
Approach Movement Lanes Capacity Volume V/C ICU Analysis
Right 1.00 1,680 108 0.028 N/S 1:0.360
Southbound Through 2.00 3,360 1,176 0.350 *N/S 2:0.414 *
Left 2.00 2,688 198 0.074 E/W 1:0.230 *
Right 0.50 1,680 240 0.143 E/W 2:0.216
Westbound Through 1.50 1,680 135 0.080
Left 1.00 1,680 90 0.054 *V/C Ratio:0.644
Right 0.50 0 211 0.000 Loss Time:0.100
Northbound Through 2.50 5,040 1,231 0.286 ITS:0.000
Left 1.00 1,680 107 0.064 *
Right 0.50 0 99 0.000 ICU:0.744
Eastbound Through 1.50 3,360 493 0.176 *
Left 1.00 1,680 123 0.073 LOS:C
* Critical Movement
Gibson Transportation Consulting, Inc.J1699-G-ICU FP.xlsm
HCM 2010 TWSC
2: Huntington Drive & Morlan Place 3/21/2019
5:00 pm 2/12/2019 J1699 - Existing (Worst) With Project Conditions (2019) AM Synchro 8 Report
Page 1
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0.4
Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR
Vol, veh/h 25 609 1810 8 4 20
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Yield Yield Free Free Stop Stop
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 0 - - - 0 -
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 0 - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 0 - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 27 662 1967 9 4 22
Major/Minor Major2 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All - 0 1972 987
Stage 1 - - 1972 -
Stage 2 - - 0 -
Critical Hdwy - - 6.84 6.94
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - 5.84 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy - - 3.52 3.32
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver - - 54 246
Stage 1 - - 94 -
Stage 2 - - - -
Platoon blocked, % - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - - 54 246
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - 54 -
Stage 1 - - 94 -
Stage 2 - - - -
Approach WB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 0 33.1
HCM LOS D
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt WBT WBRSBLn1
Capacity (veh/h) - - 154
HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 0.169
HCM Control Delay (s) - - 33.1
HCM Lane LOS - - D
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - - 0.6
HCM 2010 TWSC
4: Santa Anita Avenue & Morlan Place/Wheeler Avenue 3/21/2019
5:00 pm 2/12/2019 J1699 - Existing (Worst) With Project Conditions (2019) AM Synchro 8 Report
Page 2
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 2.7
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Vol, veh/h 21 4 29 11 1 42 48 816 29 45 657 45
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None
Storage Length - - - - - - 0 - - 0 - -
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 23 4 32 12 1 46 52 887 32 49 714 49
Major/Minor Minor2 Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 1384 1859 382 1464 1868 459 763 0 0 918 0 0
Stage 1 836 836 - 1007 1007 - - - - - - -
Stage 2 548 1023 - 457 861 - - - - - - -
Critical Hdwy 7.54 6.54 6.94 7.54 6.54 6.94 4.14 - - 4.14 - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6.54 5.54 - 6.54 5.54 - - - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 6.54 5.54 - 6.54 5.54 - - - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.52 4.02 3.32 3.52 4.02 3.32 2.22 - - 2.22 - -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 103 73 616 90 72 549 845 - - 739 - -
Stage 1 328 381 - 258 317 - - - - - - -
Stage 2 488 311 - 553 371 - - - - - - -
Platoon blocked, % - - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 84 64 616 73 63 549 845 - - 739 - -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 84 64 - 73 63 - - - - - - -
Stage 1 308 356 - 242 297 - - - - - - -
Stage 2 418 292 - 484 346 - - - - - - -
Approach EB WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 43.6 26.9 0.5 0.6
HCM LOS E D
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT NBREBLn1WBLn1 SBL SBT SBR
Capacity (veh/h) 845 - - 150 222 739 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.062 - - 0.391 0.264 0.066 - -
HCM Control Delay (s) 9.5 - - 43.6 26.9 10.2 - -
HCM Lane LOS A - - E D B - -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.2 - - 1.7 1 0.2 - -
HCM 2010 TWSC
2: Huntington Drive & Morlan Place 3/21/2019
5:00 pm 2/12/2019 J1699 - Existing (Worst) With Project Conditions (2019) PM Synchro 8 Report
Page 1
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0.9
Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR
Vol, veh/h 21 1585 878 3 4 62
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Yield Yield Free Free Stop Stop
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 0 - - - 0 -
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 0 - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 0 - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 23 1723 954 3 4 67
Major/Minor Major2 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All - 0 956 478
Stage 1 - - 956 -
Stage 2 - - 0 -
Critical Hdwy - - 6.84 6.94
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - 5.84 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy - - 3.52 3.32
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver - - 256 534
Stage 1 - - 334 -
Stage 2 - - - -
Platoon blocked, % - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - - 256 534
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - 256 -
Stage 1 - - 334 -
Stage 2 - - - -
Approach WB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 0 13.4
HCM LOS B
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt WBT WBRSBLn1
Capacity (veh/h) - - 501
HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 0.143
HCM Control Delay (s) - - 13.4
HCM Lane LOS - - B
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - - 0.5
HCM 2010 TWSC
4: Santa Anita Avenue & Morlan Place/Wheeler Avenue 3/21/2019
5:00 pm 2/12/2019 J1699 - Existing (Worst) With Project Conditions (2019) PM Synchro 8 Report
Page 2
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 7.8
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Vol, veh/h 25 5 58 25 10 77 54 706 46 45 781 51
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None
Storage Length - - - - - - 0 - - 0 - -
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 27 5 63 27 11 84 59 767 50 49 849 55
Major/Minor Minor2 Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 1481 1909 452 1435 1912 409 904 0 0 817 0 0
Stage 1 974 974 - 910 910 - - - - - - -
Stage 2 507 935 - 525 1002 - - - - - - -
Critical Hdwy 7.54 6.54 6.94 7.54 6.54 6.94 4.14 - - 4.14 - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6.54 5.54 - 6.54 5.54 - - - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 6.54 5.54 - 6.54 5.54 - - - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.52 4.02 3.32 3.52 4.02 3.32 2.22 - - 2.22 - -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 87 68 555 94 67 592 748 - - 807 - -
Stage 1 270 328 - 296 352 - - - - - - -
Stage 2 516 342 - 504 318 - - - - - - -
Platoon blocked, % - - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 58 59 555 70 58 592 748 - - 807 - -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 58 59 - 70 58 - - - - - - -
Stage 1 249 308 - 273 324 - - - - - - -
Stage 2 394 315 - 412 299 - - - - - - -
Approach EB WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 71.3 66.7 0.7 0.5
HCM LOS F F
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT NBREBLn1WBLn1 SBL SBT SBR
Capacity (veh/h) 748 - - 142 170 807 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.078 - - 0.674 0.716 0.061 - -
HCM Control Delay (s) 10.2 - - 71.3 66.7 9.7 - -
HCM Lane LOS B - - F F A - -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.3 - - 3.8 4.4 0.2 - -
HCM 2010 TWSC
2: Huntington Drive & Morlan Place 3/21/2019
5:00 pm 2/12/2019 J1699 - Future (Worst) With Project Conditions (2020) AM Synchro 8 Report
Page 1
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0.5
Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR
Vol, veh/h 25 730 1945 8 4 20
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Yield Yield Free Free Stop Stop
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 0 - - - 0 -
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 0 - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 0 - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 27 793 2114 9 4 22
Major/Minor Major2 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All - 0 2118 1060
Stage 1 - - 2118 -
Stage 2 - - 0 -
Critical Hdwy - - 6.84 6.94
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - 5.84 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy - - 3.52 3.32
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver - - 43 220
Stage 1 - - 78 -
Stage 2 - - - -
Platoon blocked, % - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - - 43 220
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - 43 -
Stage 1 - - 78 -
Stage 2 - - - -
Approach WB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 0 39.5
HCM LOS E
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt WBT WBRSBLn1
Capacity (veh/h) - - 130
HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 0.201
HCM Control Delay (s) - - 39.5
HCM Lane LOS - - E
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - - 0.7
HCM 2010 TWSC
4: Santa Anita Avenue & Morlan Place/Wheeler Avenue 3/21/2019
5:00 pm 2/12/2019 J1699 - Future (Worst) With Project Conditions (2020) AM Synchro 8 Report
Page 2
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 4.5
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Vol, veh/h 21 4 29 11 1 43 49 892 30 46 923 46
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None
Storage Length - - - - - - 0 - - 0 - -
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 23 4 32 12 1 47 53 970 33 50 1003 50
Major/Minor Minor2 Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 1720 2237 527 1696 2245 501 1053 0 0 1002 0 0
Stage 1 1128 1128 - 1092 1092 - - - - - - -
Stage 2 592 1109 - 604 1153 - - - - - - -
Critical Hdwy 7.54 6.54 6.94 7.54 6.54 6.94 4.14 - - 4.14 - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6.54 5.54 - 6.54 5.54 - - - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 6.54 5.54 - 6.54 5.54 - - - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.52 4.02 3.32 3.52 4.02 3.32 2.22 - - 2.22 - -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 58 42 496 60 41 515 657 - - 687 - -
Stage 1 218 278 - 229 289 - - - - - - -
Stage 2 460 283 - 452 270 - - - - - - -
Platoon blocked, % - - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 46 36 496 45 35 515 657 - - 687 - -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 46 36 - 45 35 - - - - - - -
Stage 1 200 258 - 211 266 - - - - - - -
Stage 2 383 260 - 386 250 - - - - - - -
Approach EB WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 109.4 42.5 0.6 0.5
HCM LOS F E
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT NBREBLn1WBLn1 SBL SBT SBR
Capacity (veh/h) 657 - - 86 154 687 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.081 - - 0.683 0.388 0.073 - -
HCM Control Delay (s) 11 - - 109.4 42.5 10.7 - -
HCM Lane LOS B - - F E B - -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.3 - - 3.3 1.7 0.2 - -
HCM 2010 TWSC
2: Huntington Drive & Morlan Place 3/21/2019
5:00 pm 2/12/2019 J1699 - Future (Worst) With Project Conditions (2020) PM Synchro 8 Report
Page 1
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0.9
Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR
Vol, veh/h 21 1756 1069 3 4 63
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Yield Yield Free Free Stop Stop
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 0 - - - 0 -
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 0 - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 0 - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 23 1909 1162 3 4 68
Major/Minor Major2 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All - 0 1164 582
Stage 1 - - 1164 -
Stage 2 - - 0 -
Critical Hdwy - - 6.84 6.94
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - 5.84 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy - - 3.52 3.32
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver - - 188 456
Stage 1 - - 259 -
Stage 2 - - - -
Platoon blocked, % - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - - 188 456
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - 188 -
Stage 1 - - 259 -
Stage 2 - - - -
Approach WB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 0 15.4
HCM LOS C
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt WBT WBRSBLn1
Capacity (veh/h) - - 420
HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 0.173
HCM Control Delay (s) - - 15.4
HCM Lane LOS - - C
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - - 0.6
HCM 2010 TWSC
4: Santa Anita Avenue & Morlan Place/Wheeler Avenue 3/21/2019
5:00 pm 2/12/2019 J1699 - Future (Worst) With Project Conditions (2020) PM Synchro 8 Report
Page 2
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 32.2
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Vol, veh/h 25 5 59 26 10 79 54 1002 47 46 937 52
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None
Storage Length - - - - - - 0 - - 0 - -
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 27 5 64 28 11 86 59 1089 51 50 1018 57
Major/Minor Minor2 Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 1814 2405 538 1844 2407 570 1075 0 0 1140 0 0
Stage 1 1147 1147 - 1232 1232 - - - - - - -
Stage 2 667 1258 - 612 1175 - - - - - - -
Critical Hdwy 7.54 6.54 6.94 7.54 6.54 6.94 4.14 - - 4.14 - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6.54 5.54 - 6.54 5.54 - - - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 6.54 5.54 - 6.54 5.54 - - - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.52 4.02 3.32 3.52 4.02 3.32 2.22 - - 2.22 - -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 49 33 488 46 33 465 644 - - 609 - -
Stage 1 212 272 - 188 248 - - - - - - -
Stage 2 414 241 - 447 264 - - - - - - -
Platoon blocked, % - - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver ~ 25 28 488 30 28 465 644 - - 609 - -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver ~ 25 28 - 30 28 - - - - - - -
Stage 1 193 250 - 171 225 - - - - - - -
Stage 2 292 219 - 349 242 - - - - - - -
Approach EB WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s $ 360.2 $ 368 0.5 0.5
HCM LOS F F
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT NBREBLn1WBLn1 SBL SBT SBR
Capacity (veh/h) 644 - - 68 83 609 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.091 - - 1.423 1.506 0.082 - -
HCM Control Delay (s) 11.2 - -$ 360.2 $ 368 11.4 - -
HCM Lane LOS B - - F F B - -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.3 - - 8.1 10 0.3 - -
Notes
~: Volume exceeds capacity $: Delay exceeds 300s +: Computation Not Defined *: All major volume in platoon
Attachment 2
Signal Warrant Worksheets
Printed 3/21/2019
EXISTING WITH PROJECT CONDITIONS (YEAR 2019) - AM PEAK HOUR (WORST-CASE)
Bekins Food Hall
Traffic Signal Warrant Analysis
Warrant 3, Peak Hour
2. HUNTINGTON DRIVE & MORLAN PLACE
Major Street Name: Huntington Drive Vehicles per Hour (Peak Hour)
Minor Street Name: Morlan Place Major Street (Approach 1):1,818
Major Street (Approach 2):634
Major Street Lanes: 3 [a] Major Street Left-Turns:25
Minor Street Lanes: 1 Minor Street (Higher Volume):0
[b] Urban/Rural: Urban
Vehicles per Hour (Peak Hour)
Major Street (Approach 1):1,818 Minimum Major Street Volume:510
Major Street (Approach 2):634 Satisfied?YES
Total Major Street Volume:2,452
Minimum Minor Street Volume:100
Major Street Left Turns:25 Satisfied?NO
Minor Street (Higher Volume):0
Total Minor Street Volume:25 Warrant 3 Satisfied?NO
[a]Major street left-turn volume is added to minor street volume if a protected left-turn signal phase is proposed.
[b]Setting to "Rural" reduces minimum test volumes to approximately 70% of "Urban" test volumes. This may be used
when major street speed exceeds 40 mph or in an isolated community of less than 10,000 residents.
[c]From California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, 2014 Edition; Caltrans.
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800
Minor Street -Higher-Volume Approach -VPHMajor Street -Total of Both Approaches -Vehicles per Hour
Figure 4C-3. Warrant 3, Peak Hour [c]
2 or more lanes & 2 or more lanes
2 or more lanes & 1 lane
1 lane & 1 lane
Gibson Transportation Consulting, Inc.J1699- 02 ExP AM Signal Warrant.xlsm
Printed 3/21/2019
FUTURE WITH PROJECT CONDITIONS (YEAR 2020) - AM PEAK HOUR (WORST CASE)
Bekins Food Hall
Traffic Signal Warrant Analysis
Warrant 3, Peak Hour
2. HUNTINGTON DRIVE & MORLAN PLACE
Major Street Name: Huntington Drive Vehicles per Hour (Peak Hour)
Minor Street Name: Morlan Place Major Street (Approach 1):1,953
Major Street (Approach 2):755
Major Street Lanes: 2 [a] Major Street Left-Turns:25
Minor Street Lanes: 1 Minor Street (Higher Volume):0
[b] Urban/Rural: Urban
Vehicles per Hour (Peak Hour)
Major Street (Approach 1):1,953 Minimum Major Street Volume:510
Major Street (Approach 2):755 Satisfied?YES
Total Major Street Volume:2,708
Minimum Minor Street Volume:100
Major Street Left Turns:25 Satisfied?NO
Minor Street (Higher Volume):0
Total Minor Street Volume:25 Warrant 3 Satisfied?NO
[a]Major street left-turn volume is added to minor street volume if a protected left-turn signal phase is proposed.
[b]Setting to "Rural" reduces minimum test volumes to approximately 70% of "Urban" test volumes. This may be used
when major street speed exceeds 40 mph or in an isolated community of less than 10,000 residents.
[c]From California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, 2014 Edition; Caltrans.
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800
Minor Street -Higher-Volume Approach -VPHMajor Street -Total of Both Approaches -Vehicles per Hour
Figure 4C-3. Warrant 3, Peak Hour [c]
2 or more lanes & 2 or more lanes
2 or more lanes & 1 lane
1 lane & 1 lane
Gibson Transportation Consulting, Inc.J1699- 02 FP AM Signal Warrant.xlsm
EXISTING WITH PROJECT CONDITIONS (YEAR 2019) - AM PEAK HOUR (WORST CASE)
Bekins Food Hall
Traffic Signal Warrant Analysis
Warrant 3, Peak Hour
4. SANTA ANITA AVENUE & MORLAN PLACE
Major Street Name: Santa Anita Avenue Vehicles per Hour (Peak Hour)
Minor Street Name: Morlan Place Major Street (Approach 1):893
Major Street (Approach 2):747
Major Street Lanes: 2 [a] Major Street Left-Turns:93
Minor Street Lanes: 1 Minor Street (Higher Volume):0
[b] Urban/Rural: Urban
Vehicles per Hour (Peak Hour)
Major Street (Approach 1):893 Minimum Major Street Volume:510
Major Street (Approach 2):747 Satisfied?YES
Total Major Street Volume:1,640
Minimum Minor Street Volume:118
Major Street Left Turns:93 Satisfied?NO
Minor Street (Higher Volume):0
Total Minor Street Volume:93 Warrant 3 Satisfied?NO
[a]Major street left-turn volume is added to minor street volume if a protected left-turn signal phase is proposed.
[b]Setting to "Rural" reduces minimum test volumes to approximately 70% of "Urban" test volumes. This may be used
when major street speed exceeds 40 mph or in an isolated community of less than 10,000 residents.
[c]From California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, 2014 Edition; Caltrans.
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800
Minor Street -Higher-Volume Approach -VPHMajor Street -Total of Both Approaches -Vehicles per Hour
Figure 4C-3. Warrant 3, Peak Hour [c]
2 or more lanes & 2 or more lanes
2 or more lanes & 1 lane
1 lane & 1 lane
EXISTING WITH PROJECT CONDITIONS (YEAR 2019) - PM PEAK HOUR (WORST-CASE)
Bekins Food Hall
Traffic Signal Warrant Analysis
Warrant 3, Peak Hour
4. SANTA ANITA AVENUE & MORLAN PLACE
Major Street Name: Santa Anita Avenue Vehicles per Hour (Peak Hour)
Minor Street Name: Morlan Place Major Street (Approach 1):877
Major Street (Approach 2):806
Major Street Lanes: 2 [a] Major Street Left-Turns:99
Minor Street Lanes: 1 Minor Street (Higher Volume):0
[b] Urban/Rural: Urban
Vehicles per Hour (Peak Hour)
Major Street (Approach 1):877 Minimum Major Street Volume:510
Major Street (Approach 2):806 Satisfied?YES
Total Major Street Volume:1,683
Minimum Minor Street Volume:112
Major Street Left Turns:99 Satisfied?NO
Minor Street (Higher Volume):0
Total Minor Street Volume:99 Warrant 3 Satisfied?NO
[a]Major street left-turn volume is added to minor street volume if a protected left-turn signal phase is proposed.
[b]Setting to "Rural" reduces minimum test volumes to approximately 70% of "Urban" test volumes. This may be used
when major street speed exceeds 40 mph or in an isolated community of less than 10,000 residents.
[c]From California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, 2014 Edition; Caltrans.
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800
Minor Street -Higher-Volume Approach -VPHMajor Street -Total of Both Approaches -Vehicles per Hour
Figure 4C-3. Warrant 3, Peak Hour [c]
2 or more lanes & 2 or more lanes
2 or more lanes & 1 lane
1 lane & 1 lane
Printed 3/21/2019
FUTURE WITH PROJECT CONDITIONS (YEAR 2020) - AM PEAK HOUR
Bekins Food Hall
Traffic Signal Warrant Analysis
Warrant 3, Peak Hour
4. SANTA ANITA AVENUE & MORLAN PLACE
Major Street Name: Santa Anita Avenue Vehicles per Hour (Peak Hour)
Minor Street Name: Morlan Place Major Street (Approach 1):1,015
Major Street (Approach 2):971
Major Street Lanes: 2 [a] Major Street Left-Turns:95
Minor Street Lanes: 1 Minor Street (Higher Volume):0
[b] Urban/Rural: Urban
Vehicles per Hour (Peak Hour)
Major Street (Approach 1):1,015 Minimum Major Street Volume:510
Major Street (Approach 2):971 Satisfied?YES
Total Major Street Volume:1,986
Minimum Minor Street Volume:100
Major Street Left Turns:95 Satisfied?NO
Minor Street (Higher Volume):0
Total Minor Street Volume:95 Warrant 3 Satisfied?NO
[a]Major street left-turn volume is added to minor street volume if a protected left-turn signal phase is proposed.
[b]Setting to "Rural" reduces minimum test volumes to approximately 70% of "Urban" test volumes. This may be used
when major street speed exceeds 40 mph or in an isolated community of less than 10,000 residents.
[c]From California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, 2014 Edition; Caltrans.
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800
Minor Street -Higher-Volume Approach -VPHMajor Street -Total of Both Approaches -Vehicles per Hour
Figure 4C-3. Warrant 3, Peak Hour [c]
2 or more lanes & 2 or more lanes
2 or more lanes & 1 lane
1 lane & 1 lane
Gibson Transportation Consulting, Inc.J1699- 04 FP AM Signal Warrant.xlsm
Printed 3/21/2019
FUTURE WITH PROJECT CONDITIONS (YEAR 2020) - PM PEAK HOUR (WORST CASE)
Bekins Food Hall
Traffic Signal Warrant Analysis
Warrant 3, Peak Hour
4. SANTA ANITA AVENUE & MORLAN PLACE
Major Street Name: Santa Anita Avenue Vehicles per Hour (Peak Hour)
Minor Street Name: Morlan Place Major Street (Approach 1):1,103
Major Street (Approach 2):1,035
Major Street Lanes: 2 [a] Major Street Left-Turns:99
Minor Street Lanes: 1 Minor Street (Higher Volume):0
[b] Urban/Rural: Urban
Vehicles per Hour (Peak Hour)
Major Street (Approach 1):1,103 Minimum Major Street Volume:510
Major Street (Approach 2):1,035 Satisfied?YES
Total Major Street Volume:2,138
Minimum Minor Street Volume:100
Major Street Left Turns:99 Satisfied?NO
Minor Street (Higher Volume):0
Total Minor Street Volume:99 Warrant 3 Satisfied?NO
[a]Major street left-turn volume is added to minor street volume if a protected left-turn signal phase is proposed.
[b]Setting to "Rural" reduces minimum test volumes to approximately 70% of "Urban" test volumes. This may be used
when major street speed exceeds 40 mph or in an isolated community of less than 10,000 residents.
[c]From California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, 2014 Edition; Caltrans.
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800
Minor Street -Higher-Volume Approach -VPHMajor Street -Total of Both Approaches -Vehicles per Hour
Figure 4C-3. Warrant 3, Peak Hour [c]
2 or more lanes & 2 or more lanes
2 or more lanes & 1 lane
1 lane & 1 lane
Gibson Transportation Consulting, Inc.J1699- 04 FP PM Signal Warrant Worksheet.xlsm
Appendix D
Level of Service Worksheets
Printed 3/4/2019
EXISTING CONDITIONS (YEAR 2019)
J1699 ‐ ARCADIA COMMONS
Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis
1. SANTA CLARA STREET & HUNTINGTON DRIVE
Through Lane Capacity: 1680 vph North/South Split Phase: Y
Left‐Turn Lane Capacity: 1680 vph East/West Split Phase: N
Double‐Left Penalty: 20 % Loss Time % per Cycle: 10%
Right‐Turn on Red: 50 % ITS Percentage: 0%
Overlapping Right Turn:
WEEKDAY MORNING PEAK HOUR
Approach Movement Lanes Capacity Volume V/C ICU Analysis
Right 2.00 3,360 770 0.227 * N/S 1: 0.402 *
Southbound Through 0.00 0 0 0.000 N/S 2: 0.000
Left 0.00 0 0 0.000 E/W 1: 0.026
Right 0.50 0 19 0.000 E/W 2: 0.255 *
Westbound Through 2.50 5,040 1,241 0.250 *
Left 0.00 0 0 0.000 V/C Ratio: 0.657
Right 2.00 3,360 589 0.175 * Loss Time: 0.100
Northbound Through 2.00 3,360 532 0.158 ITS: 0.000
Left 1.00 1,680 77 0.046
Right 0.00 0 0 0.000 ICU: 0.757
Eastbound Through 3.00 5,040 133 0.026
Left 1.00 1,680 8 0.005 * LOS: C
WEEKDAY AFTERNOON PEAK HOUR
Approach Movement Lanes Capacity Volume V/C ICU Analysis
Right 2.00 3,360 524 0.132 * N/S 1: 0.371 *
Southbound Through 0.00 0 0 0.000 N/S 2: 0.000
Left 0.00 0 0 0.000 E/W 1: 0.202
Right 0.50 0 20 0.000 E/W 2: 0.223 *
Westbound Through 2.50 5,040 865 0.176 *
Left 0.00 0 0 0.000 V/C Ratio: 0.594
Right 2.00 3,360 802 0.239 * Loss Time: 0.100
Northbound Through 2.00 3,360 659 0.196 ITS: 0.000
Left 1.00 1,680 119 0.071
Right 0.00 0 0 0.000 ICU: 0.694
Eastbound Through 3.00 5,040 1,020 0.202
Left 1.00 1,680 79 0.047 * LOS: B
* Critical Movement
Gibson Transportation Consulting, Inc. J1699‐G‐ICU Ex.xlsm
Printed 3/4/2019
EXISTING CONDITIONS (YEAR 2019)
J1699 ‐ ARCADIA COMMONS
Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis
3. SANTA ANITA AVENUE & SANTA CLARA STREET
Through Lane Capacity: 1680 vph North/South Split Phase: N
Left‐Turn Lane Capacity: 1680 vph East/West Split Phase: N
Double‐Left Penalty: 20 % Loss Time % per Cycle: 10%
Right‐Turn on Red: 50 % ITS Percentage: 0%
Overlapping Right Turn:
WEEKDAY MORNING PEAK HOUR
Approach Movement Lanes Capacity Volume V/C ICU Analysis
Right 1.00 1,680 388 0.156 N/S 1: 0.253 *
Southbound Through 2.00 3,360 730 0.217 N/S 2: 0.234
Left 1.00 1,680 59 0.035 * E/W 1: 0.099
Right 0.50 0 57 0.000 E/W 2: 0.270 *
Westbound Through 0.50 1,680 145 0.120 *
Left 1.00 1,680 34 0.020 V/C Ratio: 0.523
Right 0.50 0 69 0.000 Loss Time: 0.100
Northbound Through 1.50 3,360 665 0.218 * ITS: 0.000
Left 1.00 1,680 29 0.017
Right 0.50 0 19 0.000 ICU: 0.623
Eastbound Through 0.50 1,680 113 0.079
Left 2.00 2,688 404 0.150 * LOS: B
WEEKDAY AFTERNOON PEAK HOUR
Approach Movement Lanes Capacity Volume V/C ICU Analysis
Right 1.00 1,680 199 0.058 N/S 1: 0.319 *
Southbound Through 2.00 3,360 750 0.223 N/S 2: 0.239
Left 1.00 1,680 136 0.081 * E/W 1: 0.166
Right 0.50 0 98 0.000 E/W 2: 0.257 *
Westbound Through 0.50 1,680 130 0.136 *
Left 1.00 1,680 72 0.043 V/C Ratio: 0.576
Right 0.50 0 66 0.000 Loss Time: 0.100
Northbound Through 1.50 3,360 735 0.238 * ITS: 0.000
Left 1.00 1,680 27 0.016
Right 0.50 0 35 0.000 ICU: 0.676
Eastbound Through 0.50 1,680 171 0.123
Left 2.00 2,688 324 0.121 * LOS: B
* Critical Movement
Gibson Transportation Consulting, Inc. J1699‐G‐ICU Ex.xlsm
Printed 3/4/2019
EXISTING CONDITIONS (YEAR 2019)
J1699 ‐ ARCADIA COMMONS
Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis
5. SANTA ANITA AVENUE & HUNTINGTON DRIVE
Through Lane Capacity: 1680 vph North/South Split Phase: N
Left‐Turn Lane Capacity: 1680 vph East/West Split Phase: N
Double‐Left Penalty: 20 % Loss Time % per Cycle: 10%
Right‐Turn on Red: 50 % ITS Percentage: 0%
Overlapping Right Turn:
WEEKDAY MORNING PEAK HOUR
Approach Movement Lanes Capacity Volume V/C ICU Analysis
Right 1.00 1,680 81 0.029 N/S 1: 0.335
Southbound Through 2.00 3,360 684 0.204 * N/S 2: 0.370 *
Left 2.00 2,688 67 0.025 E/W 1: 0.187
Right 1.00 1,680 61 0.024 E/W 2: 0.268 *
Westbound Through 2.00 3,360 770 0.229 *
Left 1.00 1,680 84 0.050 V/C Ratio: 0.638
Right 1.00 1,680 110 0.040 Loss Time: 0.100
Northbound Through 2.00 3,360 1,041 0.310 ITS: 0.000
Left 2.00 2,688 447 0.166 *
Right 1.00 1,680 235 0.057 ICU: 0.738
Eastbound Through 2.00 3,360 461 0.137
Left 1.00 1,680 66 0.039 * LOS: C
WEEKDAY AFTERNOON PEAK HOUR
Approach Movement Lanes Capacity Volume V/C ICU Analysis
Right 1.00 1,680 88 0.016 N/S 1: 0.281 *
Southbound Through 2.00 3,360 643 0.191 N/S 2: 0.259
Left 2.00 2,688 144 0.054 * E/W 1: 0.417 *
Right 1.00 1,680 90 0.027 E/W 2: 0.246
Westbound Through 2.00 3,360 586 0.174
Left 1.00 1,680 144 0.086 * V/C Ratio: 0.698
Right 1.00 1,680 166 0.056 Loss Time: 0.100
Northbound Through 2.00 3,360 764 0.227 * ITS: 0.000
Left 2.00 2,688 183 0.068
Right 1.00 1,680 527 0.280 ICU: 0.798
Eastbound Through 2.00 3,360 1,112 0.331 *
Left 1.00 1,680 121 0.072 LOS: C
* Critical Movement
Gibson Transportation Consulting, Inc. J1699‐G‐ICU Ex.xlsm
Printed 3/4/2019
EXISTING CONDITIONS (YEAR 2019)
J1699 ‐ ARCADIA COMMONS
Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis
6. SANTA ANITA AVENUE & COLORADO BOULEVARD
Through Lane Capacity: 1680 vph North/South Split Phase: N
Left‐Turn Lane Capacity: 1680 vph East/West Split Phase: N
Double‐Left Penalty: 20 % Loss Time % per Cycle: 10%
Right‐Turn on Red: 50 % ITS Percentage: 0%
Overlapping Right Turn:
WEEKDAY MORNING PEAK HOUR
Approach Movement Lanes Capacity Volume V/C ICU Analysis
Right 1.00 1,680 227 0.115 N/S 1: 0.239
Southbound Through 2.00 3,360 969 0.288 * N/S 2: 0.364 *
Left 2.00 2,688 94 0.035 E/W 1: 0.199 *
Right 0.50 0 118 0.000 E/W 2: 0.191
Westbound Through 1.50 3,360 387 0.150
Left 1.00 1,680 240 0.143 * V/C Ratio: 0.563
Right 0.50 0 117 0.000 Loss Time: 0.100
Northbound Through 2.50 5,040 913 0.204 ITS: 0.000
Left 1.00 1,680 128 0.076 *
Right 0.50 0 59 0.000 ICU: 0.663
Eastbound Through 1.50 3,360 130 0.056 *
Left 1.00 1,680 69 0.041 LOS: B
WEEKDAY AFTERNOON PEAK HOUR
Approach Movement Lanes Capacity Volume V/C ICU Analysis
Right 1.00 1,680 82 0.031 N/S 1: 0.291
Southbound Through 2.00 3,360 1,008 0.300 * N/S 2: 0.340 *
Left 2.00 2,688 172 0.064 E/W 1: 0.214 *
Right 0.50 1,680 134 0.080 E/W 2: 0.115
Westbound Through 1.50 1,680 100 0.060
Left 1.00 1,680 85 0.051 * V/C Ratio: 0.554
Right 0.50 0 205 0.000 Loss Time: 0.100
Northbound Through 2.50 5,040 939 0.227 ITS: 0.000
Left 1.00 1,680 67 0.040 *
Right 0.50 0 77 0.000 ICU: 0.654
Eastbound Through 1.50 3,360 469 0.163 *
Left 1.00 1,680 59 0.035 LOS: B
* Critical Movement
Gibson Transportation Consulting, Inc. J1699‐G‐ICU Ex.xlsm
Printed 3/4/2019
EXISTING WITH PROJECT CONDITIONS (YEAR 2019)
J1699 ‐ ARCADIA COMMONS
Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis
1. SANTA CLARA STREET & HUNTINGTON DRIVE
Through Lane Capacity: 1680 vph North/South Split Phase: Y
Left‐Turn Lane Capacity: 1680 vph East/West Split Phase: N
Double‐Left Penalty: 20 % Loss Time % per Cycle: 10%
Right‐Turn on Red: 50 % ITS Percentage: 0%
Overlapping Right Turn:
WEEKDAY MORNING PEAK HOUR
Approach Movement Lanes Capacity Volume V/C ICU Analysis
Right 2.00 3,360 770 0.227 * N/S 1: 0.403 *
Southbound Through 0.00 0 0 0.000 N/S 2: 0.000
Left 0.00 0 0 0.000 E/W 1: 0.026
Right 0.50 0 19 0.000 E/W 2: 0.256 *
Westbound Through 2.50 5,040 1,244 0.251 *
Left 0.00 0 0 0.000 V/C Ratio: 0.659
Right 2.00 3,360 593 0.176 * Loss Time: 0.100
Northbound Through 2.00 3,360 532 0.158 ITS: 0.000
Left 1.00 1,680 77 0.046
Right 0.00 0 0 0.000 ICU: 0.759
Eastbound Through 3.00 5,040 133 0.026
Left 1.00 1,680 8 0.005 * LOS: C
WEEKDAY AFTERNOON PEAK HOUR
Approach Movement Lanes Capacity Volume V/C ICU Analysis
Right 2.00 3,360 524 0.132 * N/S 1: 0.372 *
Southbound Through 0.00 0 0 0.000 N/S 2: 0.000
Left 0.00 0 0 0.000 E/W 1: 0.202
Right 0.50 0 20 0.000 E/W 2: 0.223 *
Westbound Through 2.50 5,040 869 0.176 *
Left 0.00 0 0 0.000 V/C Ratio: 0.595
Right 2.00 3,360 808 0.240 * Loss Time: 0.100
Northbound Through 2.00 3,360 659 0.196 ITS: 0.000
Left 1.00 1,680 119 0.071
Right 0.00 0 0 0.000 ICU: 0.695
Eastbound Through 3.00 5,040 1,020 0.202
Left 1.00 1,680 79 0.047 * LOS: B
* Critical Movement
Gibson Transportation Consulting, Inc. J1699‐G‐ICU ExP.xlsm
Printed 3/4/2019
EXISTING WITH PROJECT CONDITIONS (YEAR 2019)
J1699 ‐ ARCADIA COMMONS
Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis
3. SANTA ANITA AVENUE & SANTA CLARA STREET
Through Lane Capacity: 1680 vph North/South Split Phase: N
Left‐Turn Lane Capacity: 1680 vph East/West Split Phase: N
Double‐Left Penalty: 20 % Loss Time % per Cycle: 10%
Right‐Turn on Red: 50 % ITS Percentage: 0%
Overlapping Right Turn:
WEEKDAY MORNING PEAK HOUR
Approach Movement Lanes Capacity Volume V/C ICU Analysis
Right 1.00 1,680 388 0.156 N/S 1: 0.256 *
Southbound Through 2.00 3,360 738 0.220 N/S 2: 0.237
Left 1.00 1,680 59 0.035 * E/W 1: 0.100
Right 0.50 0 57 0.000 E/W 2: 0.270 *
Westbound Through 0.50 1,680 145 0.120 *
Left 1.00 1,680 35 0.021 V/C Ratio: 0.526
Right 0.50 0 70 0.000 Loss Time: 0.100
Northbound Through 1.50 3,360 672 0.221 * ITS: 0.000
Left 1.00 1,680 29 0.017
Right 0.50 0 19 0.000 ICU: 0.626
Eastbound Through 0.50 1,680 113 0.079
Left 2.00 2,688 404 0.150 * LOS: B
WEEKDAY AFTERNOON PEAK HOUR
Approach Movement Lanes Capacity Volume V/C ICU Analysis
Right 1.00 1,680 199 0.058 N/S 1: 0.322 *
Southbound Through 2.00 3,360 761 0.226 N/S 2: 0.242
Left 1.00 1,680 136 0.081 * E/W 1: 0.167
Right 0.50 0 98 0.000 E/W 2: 0.257 *
Westbound Through 0.50 1,680 130 0.136 *
Left 1.00 1,680 74 0.044 V/C Ratio: 0.579
Right 0.50 0 67 0.000 Loss Time: 0.100
Northbound Through 1.50 3,360 743 0.241 * ITS: 0.000
Left 1.00 1,680 27 0.016
Right 0.50 0 35 0.000 ICU: 0.679
Eastbound Through 0.50 1,680 171 0.123
Left 2.00 2,688 324 0.121 * LOS: B
* Critical Movement
Gibson Transportation Consulting, Inc. J1699‐G‐ICU ExP.xlsm
Printed 3/4/2019
EXISTING WITH PROJECT CONDITIONS (YEAR 2019)
J1699 ‐ ARCADIA COMMONS
Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis
5. SANTA ANITA AVENUE & HUNTINGTON DRIVE
Through Lane Capacity: 1680 vph North/South Split Phase: N
Left‐Turn Lane Capacity: 1680 vph East/West Split Phase: N
Double‐Left Penalty: 20 % Loss Time % per Cycle: 10%
Right‐Turn on Red: 50 % ITS Percentage: 0%
Overlapping Right Turn:
WEEKDAY MORNING PEAK HOUR
Approach Movement Lanes Capacity Volume V/C ICU Analysis
Right 1.00 1,680 81 0.029 N/S 1: 0.339
Southbound Through 2.00 3,360 692 0.206 * N/S 2: 0.372 *
Left 2.00 2,688 70 0.026 E/W 1: 0.187
Right 1.00 1,680 65 0.026 E/W 2: 0.268 *
Westbound Through 2.00 3,360 770 0.229 *
Left 1.00 1,680 84 0.050 V/C Ratio: 0.640
Right 1.00 1,680 110 0.040 Loss Time: 0.100
Northbound Through 2.00 3,360 1,050 0.313 ITS: 0.000
Left 2.00 2,688 447 0.166 *
Right 1.00 1,680 235 0.057 ICU: 0.740
Eastbound Through 2.00 3,360 461 0.137
Left 1.00 1,680 66 0.039 * LOS: C
WEEKDAY AFTERNOON PEAK HOUR
Approach Movement Lanes Capacity Volume V/C ICU Analysis
Right 1.00 1,680 88 0.016 N/S 1: 0.286 *
Southbound Through 2.00 3,360 652 0.194 N/S 2: 0.262
Left 2.00 2,688 148 0.055 * E/W 1: 0.417 *
Right 1.00 1,680 96 0.030 E/W 2: 0.246
Westbound Through 2.00 3,360 586 0.174
Left 1.00 1,680 144 0.086 * V/C Ratio: 0.703
Right 1.00 1,680 166 0.056 Loss Time: 0.100
Northbound Through 2.00 3,360 777 0.231 * ITS: 0.000
Left 2.00 2,688 183 0.068
Right 1.00 1,680 527 0.280 ICU: 0.803
Eastbound Through 2.00 3,360 1,112 0.331 *
Left 1.00 1,680 121 0.072 LOS: D
* Critical Movement
Gibson Transportation Consulting, Inc. J1699‐G‐ICU ExP.xlsm
Printed 3/4/2019
EXISTING WITH PROJECT CONDITIONS (YEAR 2019)
J1699 ‐ ARCADIA COMMONS
Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis
6. SANTA ANITA AVENUE & COLORADO BOULEVARD
Through Lane Capacity: 1680 vph North/South Split Phase: N
Left‐Turn Lane Capacity: 1680 vph East/West Split Phase: N
Double‐Left Penalty: 20 % Loss Time % per Cycle: 10%
Right‐Turn on Red: 50 % ITS Percentage: 0%
Overlapping Right Turn:
WEEKDAY MORNING PEAK HOUR
Approach Movement Lanes Capacity Volume V/C ICU Analysis
Right 1.00 1,680 227 0.115 N/S 1: 0.241
Southbound Through 2.00 3,360 974 0.290 * N/S 2: 0.367 *
Left 2.00 2,688 94 0.035 E/W 1: 0.200 *
Right 0.50 0 118 0.000 E/W 2: 0.191
Westbound Through 1.50 3,360 387 0.150
Left 1.00 1,680 241 0.143 * V/C Ratio: 0.567
Right 0.50 0 118 0.000 Loss Time: 0.100
Northbound Through 2.50 5,040 918 0.206 ITS: 0.000
Left 1.00 1,680 129 0.077 *
Right 0.50 0 60 0.000 ICU: 0.667
Eastbound Through 1.50 3,360 130 0.057 *
Left 1.00 1,680 69 0.041 LOS: B
WEEKDAY AFTERNOON PEAK HOUR
Approach Movement Lanes Capacity Volume V/C ICU Analysis
Right 1.00 1,680 82 0.031 N/S 1: 0.292
Southbound Through 2.00 3,360 1,016 0.302 * N/S 2: 0.342 *
Left 2.00 2,688 172 0.064 E/W 1: 0.215 *
Right 0.50 1,680 134 0.080 E/W 2: 0.115
Westbound Through 1.50 1,680 100 0.060
Left 1.00 1,680 87 0.052 * V/C Ratio: 0.557
Right 0.50 0 206 0.000 Loss Time: 0.100
Northbound Through 2.50 5,040 944 0.228 ITS: 0.000
Left 1.00 1,680 68 0.040 *
Right 0.50 0 79 0.000 ICU: 0.657
Eastbound Through 1.50 3,360 469 0.163 *
Left 1.00 1,680 59 0.035 LOS: B
* Critical Movement
Gibson Transportation Consulting, Inc. J1699‐G‐ICU ExP.xlsm
Printed 3/4/2019
FUTURE WITHOUT PROJECT CONDITIONS (YEAR 2020)
J1699 ‐ ARCADIA COMMONS
Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis
1. SANTA CLARA STREET & HUNTINGTON DRIVE
Through Lane Capacity: 1680 vph North/South Split Phase: Y
Left‐Turn Lane Capacity: 1680 vph East/West Split Phase: N
Double‐Left Penalty: 20 % Loss Time % per Cycle: 10%
Right‐Turn on Red: 50 % ITS Percentage: 0%
Overlapping Right Turn:
WEEKDAY MORNING PEAK HOUR
Approach Movement Lanes Capacity Volume V/C ICU Analysis
Right 2.00 3,360 788 0.232 * N/S 1: 0.439 *
Southbound Through 0.00 0 0 0.000 N/S 2: 0.000
Left 0.00 0 0 0.000 E/W 1: 0.030
Right 0.50 0 19 0.000 E/W 2: 0.280 *
Westbound Through 2.50 5,040 1,365 0.275 *
Left 0.00 0 0 0.000 V/C Ratio: 0.719
Right 2.00 3,360 694 0.207 * Loss Time: 0.100
Northbound Through 2.00 3,360 565 0.168 ITS: 0.000
Left 1.00 1,680 133 0.079
Right 0.00 0 0 0.000 ICU: 0.819
Eastbound Through 3.00 5,040 152 0.030
Left 1.00 1,680 8 0.005 * LOS: D
WEEKDAY AFTERNOON PEAK HOUR
Approach Movement Lanes Capacity Volume V/C ICU Analysis
Right 2.00 3,360 536 0.135 * N/S 1: 0.394 *
Southbound Through 0.00 0 0 0.000 N/S 2: 0.000
Left 0.00 0 0 0.000 E/W 1: 0.224
Right 0.50 0 20 0.000 E/W 2: 0.261 *
Westbound Through 2.50 5,040 1,055 0.213 *
Left 0.00 0 0 0.000 V/C Ratio: 0.655
Right 2.00 3,360 870 0.259 * Loss Time: 0.100
Northbound Through 2.00 3,360 683 0.203 ITS: 0.000
Left 1.00 1,680 148 0.088
Right 0.00 0 0 0.000 ICU: 0.755
Eastbound Through 3.00 5,040 1,128 0.224
Left 1.00 1,680 81 0.048 * LOS: C
* Critical Movement
Gibson Transportation Consulting, Inc. J1699‐G‐ICU FB.xlsm
Printed 3/4/2019
FUTURE WITHOUT PROJECT CONDITIONS (YEAR 2020)
J1699 ‐ ARCADIA COMMONS
Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis
3. SANTA ANITA AVENUE & SANTA CLARA STREET
Through Lane Capacity: 1680 vph North/South Split Phase: N
Left‐Turn Lane Capacity: 1680 vph East/West Split Phase: N
Double‐Left Penalty: 20 % Loss Time % per Cycle: 10%
Right‐Turn on Red: 50 % ITS Percentage: 0%
Overlapping Right Turn:
WEEKDAY MORNING PEAK HOUR
Approach Movement Lanes Capacity Volume V/C ICU Analysis
Right 1.00 1,680 396 0.159 N/S 1: 0.279
Southbound Through 2.00 3,360 998 0.297 * N/S 2: 0.315 *
Left 1.00 1,680 65 0.039 E/W 1: 0.113
Right 0.50 0 67 0.000 E/W 2: 0.284 *
Westbound Through 0.50 1,680 151 0.130 *
Left 1.00 1,680 36 0.021 V/C Ratio: 0.599
Right 0.50 0 70 0.000 Loss Time: 0.100
Northbound Through 1.50 3,360 737 0.240 ITS: 0.000
Left 1.00 1,680 30 0.018 *
Right 0.50 0 19 0.000 ICU: 0.699
Eastbound Through 0.50 1,680 135 0.092
Left 2.00 2,688 414 0.154 * LOS: B
WEEKDAY AFTERNOON PEAK HOUR
Approach Movement Lanes Capacity Volume V/C ICU Analysis
Right 1.00 1,680 203 0.059 N/S 1: 0.423 *
Southbound Through 2.00 3,360 904 0.269 N/S 2: 0.286
Left 1.00 1,680 161 0.096 * E/W 1: 0.176
Right 0.50 0 107 0.000 E/W 2: 0.267 *
Westbound Through 0.50 1,680 135 0.144 *
Left 1.00 1,680 74 0.044 V/C Ratio: 0.690
Right 0.50 0 68 0.000 Loss Time: 0.100
Northbound Through 1.50 3,360 1,031 0.327 * ITS: 0.000
Left 1.00 1,680 28 0.017
Right 0.50 0 36 0.000 ICU: 0.790
Eastbound Through 0.50 1,680 185 0.132
Left 2.00 2,688 330 0.123 * LOS: C
* Critical Movement
Gibson Transportation Consulting, Inc. J1699‐G‐ICU FB.xlsm
Printed 3/4/2019
FUTURE WITHOUT PROJECT CONDITIONS (YEAR 2020)
J1699 ‐ ARCADIA COMMONS
Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis
5. SANTA ANITA AVENUE & HUNTINGTON DRIVE
Through Lane Capacity: 1680 vph North/South Split Phase: N
Left‐Turn Lane Capacity: 1680 vph East/West Split Phase: N
Double‐Left Penalty: 20 % Loss Time % per Cycle: 10%
Right‐Turn on Red: 50 % ITS Percentage: 0%
Overlapping Right Turn:
WEEKDAY MORNING PEAK HOUR
Approach Movement Lanes Capacity Volume V/C ICU Analysis
Right 1.00 1,680 96 0.036 N/S 1: 0.412 *
Southbound Through 2.00 3,360 764 0.227 N/S 2: 0.409
Left 2.00 2,688 243 0.090 * E/W 1: 0.227
Right 1.00 1,680 98 0.013 E/W 2: 0.292 *
Westbound Through 2.00 3,360 840 0.250 *
Left 1.00 1,680 98 0.058 V/C Ratio: 0.704
Right 1.00 1,680 159 0.065 Loss Time: 0.100
Northbound Through 2.00 3,360 1,082 0.322 * ITS: 0.000
Left 2.00 2,688 488 0.182
Right 1.00 1,680 248 0.057 ICU: 0.804
Eastbound Through 2.00 3,360 569 0.169
Left 1.00 1,680 70 0.042 * LOS: D
WEEKDAY AFTERNOON PEAK HOUR
Approach Movement Lanes Capacity Volume V/C ICU Analysis
Right 1.00 1,680 99 0.018 N/S 1: 0.341 *
Southbound Through 2.00 3,360 699 0.208 N/S 2: 0.284
Left 2.00 2,688 235 0.087 * E/W 1: 0.483 *
Right 1.00 1,680 284 0.125 E/W 2: 0.305
Westbound Through 2.00 3,360 746 0.222
Left 1.00 1,680 204 0.121 * V/C Ratio: 0.824
Right 1.00 1,680 193 0.054 Loss Time: 0.100
Northbound Through 2.00 3,360 854 0.254 * ITS: 0.000
Left 2.00 2,688 203 0.076
Right 1.00 1,680 579 0.307 ICU: 0.924
Eastbound Through 2.00 3,360 1,217 0.362 *
Left 1.00 1,680 139 0.083 LOS: E
* Critical Movement
Gibson Transportation Consulting, Inc. J1699‐G‐ICU FB.xlsm
Printed 3/4/2019
FUTURE WITHOUT PROJECT CONDITIONS (YEAR 2020)
J1699 ‐ ARCADIA COMMONS
Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis
6. SANTA ANITA AVENUE & COLORADO BOULEVARD
Through Lane Capacity: 1680 vph North/South Split Phase: N
Left‐Turn Lane Capacity: 1680 vph East/West Split Phase: N
Double‐Left Penalty: 20 % Loss Time % per Cycle: 10%
Right‐Turn on Red: 50 % ITS Percentage: 0%
Overlapping Right Turn:
WEEKDAY MORNING PEAK HOUR
Approach Movement Lanes Capacity Volume V/C ICU Analysis
Right 1.00 1,680 281 0.143 N/S 1: 0.279
Southbound Through 2.00 3,360 1,229 0.366 * N/S 2: 0.449 *
Left 2.00 2,688 161 0.060 E/W 1: 0.220 *
Right 0.50 0 153 0.000 E/W 2: 0.215
Westbound Through 1.50 3,360 404 0.166
Left 1.00 1,680 245 0.146 * V/C Ratio: 0.669
Right 0.50 0 119 0.000 Loss Time: 0.100
Northbound Through 2.50 5,040 985 0.219 ITS: 0.000
Left 1.00 1,680 140 0.083 *
Right 0.50 0 90 0.000 ICU: 0.769
Eastbound Through 1.50 3,360 159 0.074 *
Left 1.00 1,680 82 0.049 LOS: C
WEEKDAY AFTERNOON PEAK HOUR
Approach Movement Lanes Capacity Volume V/C ICU Analysis
Right 1.00 1,680 108 0.028 N/S 1: 0.358
Southbound Through 2.00 3,360 1,164 0.346 * N/S 2: 0.409 *
Left 2.00 2,688 198 0.074 E/W 1: 0.227 *
Right 0.50 1,680 240 0.143 E/W 2: 0.216
Westbound Through 1.50 1,680 135 0.080
Left 1.00 1,680 87 0.052 * V/C Ratio: 0.636
Right 0.50 0 209 0.000 Loss Time: 0.100
Northbound Through 2.50 5,040 1,223 0.284 ITS: 0.000
Left 1.00 1,680 105 0.063 *
Right 0.50 0 96 0.000 ICU: 0.736
Eastbound Through 1.50 3,360 493 0.175 *
Left 1.00 1,680 123 0.073 LOS: C
* Critical Movement
Gibson Transportation Consulting, Inc. J1699‐G‐ICU FB.xlsm
Printed 3/4/2019
FUTURE WITH PROJECT CONDITIONS (YEAR 2020)
J1699 ‐ ARCADIA COMMONS
Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis
1. SANTA CLARA STREET & HUNTINGTON DRIVE
Through Lane Capacity: 1680 vph North/South Split Phase: Y
Left‐Turn Lane Capacity: 1680 vph East/West Split Phase: N
Double‐Left Penalty: 20 % Loss Time % per Cycle: 10%
Right‐Turn on Red: 50 % ITS Percentage: 0%
Overlapping Right Turn:
WEEKDAY MORNING PEAK HOUR
Approach Movement Lanes Capacity Volume V/C ICU Analysis
Right 2.00 3,360 788 0.232 * N/S 1: 0.440 *
Southbound Through 0.00 0 0 0.000 N/S 2: 0.000
Left 0.00 0 0 0.000 E/W 1: 0.030
Right 0.50 0 19 0.000 E/W 2: 0.280 *
Westbound Through 2.50 5,040 1,368 0.275 *
Left 0.00 0 0 0.000 V/C Ratio: 0.720
Right 2.00 3,360 698 0.208 * Loss Time: 0.100
Northbound Through 2.00 3,360 565 0.168 ITS: 0.000
Left 1.00 1,680 133 0.079
Right 0.00 0 0 0.000 ICU: 0.820
Eastbound Through 3.00 5,040 152 0.030
Left 1.00 1,680 8 0.005 * LOS: D
WEEKDAY AFTERNOON PEAK HOUR
Approach Movement Lanes Capacity Volume V/C ICU Analysis
Right 2.00 3,360 536 0.135 * N/S 1: 0.396 *
Southbound Through 0.00 0 0 0.000 N/S 2: 0.000
Left 0.00 0 0 0.000 E/W 1: 0.224
Right 0.50 0 20 0.000 E/W 2: 0.262 *
Westbound Through 2.50 5,040 1,059 0.214 *
Left 0.00 0 0 0.000 V/C Ratio: 0.658
Right 2.00 3,360 876 0.261 * Loss Time: 0.100
Northbound Through 2.00 3,360 683 0.203 ITS: 0.000
Left 1.00 1,680 148 0.088
Right 0.00 0 0 0.000 ICU: 0.758
Eastbound Through 3.00 5,040 1,128 0.224
Left 1.00 1,680 81 0.048 * LOS: C
* Critical Movement
Gibson Transportation Consulting, Inc. J1699‐G‐ICU FP.xlsm
Printed 3/4/2019
FUTURE WITH PROJECT CONDITIONS (YEAR 2020)
J1699 ‐ ARCADIA COMMONS
Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis
3. SANTA ANITA AVENUE & SANTA CLARA STREET
Through Lane Capacity: 1680 vph North/South Split Phase: N
Left‐Turn Lane Capacity: 1680 vph East/West Split Phase: N
Double‐Left Penalty: 20 % Loss Time % per Cycle: 10%
Right‐Turn on Red: 50 % ITS Percentage: 0%
Overlapping Right Turn:
WEEKDAY MORNING PEAK HOUR
Approach Movement Lanes Capacity Volume V/C ICU Analysis
Right 1.00 1,680 396 0.159 N/S 1: 0.282
Southbound Through 2.00 3,360 1,006 0.299 * N/S 2: 0.317 *
Left 1.00 1,680 65 0.039 E/W 1: 0.114
Right 0.50 0 67 0.000 E/W 2: 0.284 *
Westbound Through 0.50 1,680 151 0.130 *
Left 1.00 1,680 37 0.022 V/C Ratio: 0.601
Right 0.50 0 71 0.000 Loss Time: 0.100
Northbound Through 1.50 3,360 744 0.243 ITS: 0.000
Left 1.00 1,680 30 0.018 *
Right 0.50 0 19 0.000 ICU: 0.701
Eastbound Through 0.50 1,680 135 0.092
Left 2.00 2,688 414 0.154 * LOS: C
WEEKDAY AFTERNOON PEAK HOUR
Approach Movement Lanes Capacity Volume V/C ICU Analysis
Right 1.00 1,680 203 0.059 N/S 1: 0.426 *
Southbound Through 2.00 3,360 915 0.272 N/S 2: 0.289
Left 1.00 1,680 161 0.096 * E/W 1: 0.177
Right 0.50 0 107 0.000 E/W 2: 0.267 *
Westbound Through 0.50 1,680 135 0.144 *
Left 1.00 1,680 76 0.045 V/C Ratio: 0.693
Right 0.50 0 69 0.000 Loss Time: 0.100
Northbound Through 1.50 3,360 1,039 0.330 * ITS: 0.000
Left 1.00 1,680 28 0.017
Right 0.50 0 36 0.000 ICU: 0.793
Eastbound Through 0.50 1,680 185 0.132
Left 2.00 2,688 330 0.123 * LOS: C
* Critical Movement
Gibson Transportation Consulting, Inc. J1699‐G‐ICU FP.xlsm
Printed 3/4/2019
FUTURE WITH PROJECT CONDITIONS (YEAR 2020)
J1699 ‐ ARCADIA COMMONS
Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis
5. SANTA ANITA AVENUE & HUNTINGTON DRIVE
Through Lane Capacity: 1680 vph North/South Split Phase: N
Left‐Turn Lane Capacity: 1680 vph East/West Split Phase: N
Double‐Left Penalty: 20 % Loss Time % per Cycle: 10%
Right‐Turn on Red: 50 % ITS Percentage: 0%
Overlapping Right Turn:
WEEKDAY MORNING PEAK HOUR
Approach Movement Lanes Capacity Volume V/C ICU Analysis
Right 1.00 1,680 96 0.036 N/S 1: 0.417 *
Southbound Through 2.00 3,360 772 0.230 N/S 2: 0.412
Left 2.00 2,688 246 0.092 * E/W 1: 0.227
Right 1.00 1,680 102 0.015 E/W 2: 0.292 *
Westbound Through 2.00 3,360 840 0.250 *
Left 1.00 1,680 98 0.058 V/C Ratio: 0.709
Right 1.00 1,680 159 0.065 Loss Time: 0.100
Northbound Through 2.00 3,360 1,091 0.325 * ITS: 0.000
Left 2.00 2,688 488 0.182
Right 1.00 1,680 248 0.057 ICU: 0.809
Eastbound Through 2.00 3,360 569 0.169
Left 1.00 1,680 70 0.042 * LOS: D
WEEKDAY AFTERNOON PEAK HOUR
Approach Movement Lanes Capacity Volume V/C ICU Analysis
Right 1.00 1,680 99 0.018 N/S 1: 0.347 *
Southbound Through 2.00 3,360 708 0.211 N/S 2: 0.287
Left 2.00 2,688 239 0.089 * E/W 1: 0.483 *
Right 1.00 1,680 290 0.128 E/W 2: 0.305
Westbound Through 2.00 3,360 746 0.222
Left 1.00 1,680 204 0.121 * V/C Ratio: 0.830
Right 1.00 1,680 193 0.054 Loss Time: 0.100
Northbound Through 2.00 3,360 867 0.258 * ITS: 0.000
Left 2.00 2,688 203 0.076
Right 1.00 1,680 579 0.307 ICU: 0.930
Eastbound Through 2.00 3,360 1,217 0.362 *
Left 1.00 1,680 139 0.083 LOS: E
* Critical Movement
Gibson Transportation Consulting, Inc. J1699‐G‐ICU FP.xlsm
Printed 3/4/2019
FUTURE WITH PROJECT CONDITIONS (YEAR 2020)
J1699 ‐ ARCADIA COMMONS
Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis
6. SANTA ANITA AVENUE & COLORADO BOULEVARD
Through Lane Capacity: 1680 vph North/South Split Phase: N
Left‐Turn Lane Capacity: 1680 vph East/West Split Phase: N
Double‐Left Penalty: 20 % Loss Time % per Cycle: 10%
Right‐Turn on Red: 50 % ITS Percentage: 0%
Overlapping Right Turn:
WEEKDAY MORNING PEAK HOUR
Approach Movement Lanes Capacity Volume V/C ICU Analysis
Right 1.00 1,680 281 0.143 N/S 1: 0.280
Southbound Through 2.00 3,360 1,234 0.367 * N/S 2: 0.451 *
Left 2.00 2,688 161 0.060 E/W 1: 0.220 *
Right 0.50 0 153 0.000 E/W 2: 0.215
Westbound Through 1.50 3,360 404 0.166
Left 1.00 1,680 246 0.146 * V/C Ratio: 0.671
Right 0.50 0 120 0.000 Loss Time: 0.100
Northbound Through 2.50 5,040 990 0.220 ITS: 0.000
Left 1.00 1,680 141 0.084 *
Right 0.50 0 91 0.000 ICU: 0.771
Eastbound Through 1.50 3,360 159 0.074 *
Left 1.00 1,680 82 0.049 LOS: C
WEEKDAY AFTERNOON PEAK HOUR
Approach Movement Lanes Capacity Volume V/C ICU Analysis
Right 1.00 1,680 108 0.028 N/S 1: 0.359
Southbound Through 2.00 3,360 1,172 0.349 * N/S 2: 0.412 *
Left 2.00 2,688 198 0.074 E/W 1: 0.229 *
Right 0.50 1,680 240 0.143 E/W 2: 0.216
Westbound Through 1.50 1,680 135 0.080
Left 1.00 1,680 89 0.053 * V/C Ratio: 0.641
Right 0.50 0 210 0.000 Loss Time: 0.100
Northbound Through 2.50 5,040 1,228 0.285 ITS: 0.000
Left 1.00 1,680 106 0.063 *
Right 0.50 0 98 0.000 ICU: 0.741
Eastbound Through 1.50 3,360 493 0.176 *
Left 1.00 1,680 123 0.073 LOS: C
* Critical Movement
Gibson Transportation Consulting, Inc. J1699‐G‐ICU FP.xlsm
HCM 2010 TWSC
2: Huntington Drive & Morlan Place 2/12/2019
2/12/2019 J1699 - Existing Conditions (2019) AM Synchro 8 Report
Page 1
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0.4
Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR
Vol, veh/h 19 609 1810 8 4 15
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Yield Yield Free Free Stop Stop
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 0 - - - 0 -
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 0 - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 0 - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 21 662 1967 9 4 16
Major/Minor Major2 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All - 0 1972 987
Stage 1 - - 1972 -
Stage 2 - - 0 -
Critical Hdwy - - 6.84 6.94
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - 5.84 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy - - 3.52 3.32
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver - - 54 246
Stage 1 - - 94 -
Stage 2 - - - -
Platoon blocked, % - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - - 54 246
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - 54 -
Stage 1 - - 94 -
Stage 2 - - - -
Approach WB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 0 34.9
HCM LOS D
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt WBT WBRSBLn1
Capacity (veh/h) - - 141
HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 0.146
HCM Control Delay (s) - - 34.9
HCM Lane LOS - - D
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - - 0.5
HCM 2010 TWSC
4: Santa Anita Avenue & Morlan Place/Wheeler Avenue 2/12/2019
2/12/2019 J1699 - Existing Conditions (2019) AM Synchro 8 Report
Page 2
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 1.7
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Vol, veh/h 8 4 11 11 1 42 27 816 29 45 657 31
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None
Storage Length - - - - - - 0 - - 0 - -
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 9 4 12 12 1 46 29 887 32 49 714 34
Major/Minor Minor2 Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 1332 1806 374 1418 1807 459 748 0 0 918 0 0
Stage 1 829 829 - 961 961 - - - - - - -
Stage 2 503 977 - 457 846 - - - - - - -
Critical Hdwy 7.54 6.54 6.94 7.54 6.54 6.94 4.14 - - 4.14 - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6.54 5.54 - 6.54 5.54 - - - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 6.54 5.54 - 6.54 5.54 - - - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.52 4.02 3.32 3.52 4.02 3.32 2.22 - - 2.22 - -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 112 78 623 97 78 549 856 - - 739 - -
Stage 1 331 383 - 275 333 - - - - - - -
Stage 2 519 327 - 553 377 - - - - - - -
Platoon blocked, % - - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 94 70 623 84 70 549 856 - - 739 - -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 94 70 - 84 70 - - - - - - -
Stage 1 320 358 - 266 322 - - - - - - -
Stage 2 458 316 - 500 352 - - - - - - -
Approach EB WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 35.2 24.4 0.3 0.6
HCM LOS E C
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT NBREBLn1WBLn1 SBL SBT SBR
Capacity (veh/h) 856 - - 144 244 739 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.034 - - 0.174 0.241 0.066 - -
HCM Control Delay (s) 9.4 - - 35.2 24.4 10.2 - -
HCM Lane LOS A - - E C B - -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 - - 0.6 0.9 0.2 - -
HCM 2010 TWSC
2: Huntington Drive & Morlan Place 2/12/2019
5:00 pm 2/12/2019 J1699 - Existing Conditions (2019) PM Synchro 8 Report
Page 1
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0.8
Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR
Vol, veh/h 12 1585 878 3 4 56
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Yield Yield Free Free Stop Stop
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 0 - - - 0 -
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 0 - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 0 - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 13 1723 954 3 4 61
Major/Minor Major2 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All - 0 956 478
Stage 1 - - 956 -
Stage 2 - - 0 -
Critical Hdwy - - 6.84 6.94
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - 5.84 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy - - 3.52 3.32
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver - - 256 534
Stage 1 - - 334 -
Stage 2 - - - -
Platoon blocked, % - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - - 256 534
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - 256 -
Stage 1 - - 334 -
Stage 2 - - - -
Approach WB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 0 13.3
HCM LOS B
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt WBT WBRSBLn1
Capacity (veh/h) - - 498
HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 0.131
HCM Control Delay (s) - - 13.3
HCM Lane LOS - - B
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - - 0.4
HCM 2010 TWSC
4: Santa Anita Avenue & Morlan Place/Wheeler Avenue 2/12/2019
5:00 pm 2/12/2019 J1699 - Existing Conditions (2019) PM Synchro 8 Report
Page 2
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 4.4
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Vol, veh/h 11 5 37 25 10 77 23 706 46 45 781 29
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None
Storage Length - - - - - - 0 - - 0 - -
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 12 5 40 27 11 84 25 767 50 49 849 32
Major/Minor Minor2 Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 1402 1830 440 1367 1820 409 880 0 0 817 0 0
Stage 1 963 963 - 842 842 - - - - - - -
Stage 2 439 867 - 525 978 - - - - - - -
Critical Hdwy 7.54 6.54 6.94 7.54 6.54 6.94 4.14 - - 4.14 - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6.54 5.54 - 6.54 5.54 - - - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 6.54 5.54 - 6.54 5.54 - - - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.52 4.02 3.32 3.52 4.02 3.32 2.22 - - 2.22 - -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 100 76 565 106 77 592 764 - - 807 - -
Stage 1 274 332 - 325 378 - - - - - - -
Stage 2 567 368 - 504 327 - - - - - - -
Platoon blocked, % - - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 70 69 565 86 70 592 764 - - 807 - -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 70 69 - 86 70 - - - - - - -
Stage 1 265 312 - 314 366 - - - - - - -
Stage 2 457 356 - 432 307 - - - - - - -
Approach EB WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 34.1 48 0.3 0.5
HCM LOS D E
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT NBREBLn1WBLn1 SBL SBT SBR
Capacity (veh/h) 764 - - 180 199 807 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.033 - - 0.32 0.612 0.061 - -
HCM Control Delay (s) 9.9 - - 34.1 48 9.7 - -
HCM Lane LOS A - - D E A - -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 - - 1.3 3.5 0.2 - -
HCM 2010 TWSC
2: Huntington Drive & Morlan Place 2/20/2019
5:00 pm 2/12/2019 J1699 - Existing With Project Conditions (2019) AM Synchro 8 Report
Page 1
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0.4
Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR
Vol, veh/h 23 609 1810 8 4 18
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Yield Yield Free Free Stop Stop
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 0 - - - 0 -
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 0 - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 0 - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 25 662 1967 9 4 20
Major/Minor Major2 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All - 0 1972 987
Stage 1 - - 1972 -
Stage 2 - - 0 -
Critical Hdwy - - 6.84 6.94
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - 5.84 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy - - 3.52 3.32
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver - - 54 246
Stage 1 - - 94 -
Stage 2 - - - -
Platoon blocked, % - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - - 54 246
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - 54 -
Stage 1 - - 94 -
Stage 2 - - - -
Approach WB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 0 33.7
HCM LOS D
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt WBT WBRSBLn1
Capacity (veh/h) - - 149
HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 0.16
HCM Control Delay (s) - - 33.7
HCM Lane LOS - - D
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - - 0.6
HCM 2010 TWSC
4: Santa Anita Avenue & Morlan Place/Wheeler Avenue 2/20/2019
5:00 pm 2/12/2019 J1699 - Existing With Project Conditions (2019) AM Synchro 8 Report
Page 2
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 2.2
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Vol, veh/h 16 4 23 11 1 42 40 816 29 45 657 40
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None
Storage Length - - - - - - 0 - - 0 - -
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 17 4 25 12 1 46 43 887 32 49 714 43
Major/Minor Minor2 Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 1365 1839 379 1447 1845 459 758 0 0 918 0 0
Stage 1 834 834 - 990 990 - - - - - - -
Stage 2 531 1005 - 457 855 - - - - - - -
Critical Hdwy 7.54 6.54 6.94 7.54 6.54 6.94 4.14 - - 4.14 - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6.54 5.54 - 6.54 5.54 - - - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 6.54 5.54 - 6.54 5.54 - - - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.52 4.02 3.32 3.52 4.02 3.32 2.22 - - 2.22 - -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 106 75 619 92 74 549 849 - - 739 - -
Stage 1 329 381 - 264 323 - - - - - - -
Stage 2 500 317 - 553 373 - - - - - - -
Platoon blocked, % - - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 88 66 619 77 66 549 849 - - 739 - -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 88 66 - 77 66 - - - - - - -
Stage 1 312 356 - 251 307 - - - - - - -
Stage 2 434 301 - 489 348 - - - - - - -
Approach EB WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 38.3 25.9 0.4 0.6
HCM LOS E D
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT NBREBLn1WBLn1 SBL SBT SBR
Capacity (veh/h) 849 - - 154 230 739 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.051 - - 0.304 0.255 0.066 - -
HCM Control Delay (s) 9.5 - - 38.3 25.9 10.2 - -
HCM Lane LOS A - - E D B - -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.2 - - 1.2 1 0.2 - -
HCM 2010 TWSC
2: Huntington Drive & Morlan Place 2/20/2019
5:00 pm 2/12/2019 J1699 - Existing With Project Conditions (2019) PM Synchro 8 Report
Page 1
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0.9
Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR
Vol, veh/h 18 1585 878 3 4 60
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Yield Yield Free Free Stop Stop
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 0 - - - 0 -
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 0 - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 0 - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 20 1723 954 3 4 65
Major/Minor Major2 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All - 0 956 478
Stage 1 - - 956 -
Stage 2 - - 0 -
Critical Hdwy - - 6.84 6.94
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - 5.84 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy - - 3.52 3.32
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver - - 256 534
Stage 1 - - 334 -
Stage 2 - - - -
Platoon blocked, % - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - - 256 534
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - 256 -
Stage 1 - - 334 -
Stage 2 - - - -
Approach WB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 0 13.4
HCM LOS B
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt WBT WBRSBLn1
Capacity (veh/h) - - 500
HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 0.139
HCM Control Delay (s) - - 13.4
HCM Lane LOS - - B
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - - 0.5
HCM 2010 TWSC
4: Santa Anita Avenue & Morlan Place/Wheeler Avenue 2/20/2019
5:00 pm 2/12/2019 J1699 - Existing With Project Conditions (2019) PM Synchro 8 Report
Page 2
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 6.1
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Vol, veh/h 20 5 50 25 10 77 42 706 46 45 781 42
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None
Storage Length - - - - - - 0 - - 0 - -
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 22 5 54 27 11 84 46 767 50 49 849 46
Major/Minor Minor2 Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 1450 1879 447 1409 1876 409 895 0 0 817 0 0
Stage 1 970 970 - 884 884 - - - - - - -
Stage 2 480 909 - 525 992 - - - - - - -
Critical Hdwy 7.54 6.54 6.94 7.54 6.54 6.94 4.14 - - 4.14 - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6.54 5.54 - 6.54 5.54 - - - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 6.54 5.54 - 6.54 5.54 - - - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.52 4.02 3.32 3.52 4.02 3.32 2.22 - - 2.22 - -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 92 71 559 99 71 592 754 - - 807 - -
Stage 1 272 330 - 307 362 - - - - - - -
Stage 2 536 352 - 504 322 - - - - - - -
Platoon blocked, % - - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 63 63 559 76 63 592 754 - - 807 - -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 63 63 - 76 63 - - - - - - -
Stage 1 255 310 - 288 340 - - - - - - -
Stage 2 418 331 - 420 302 - - - - - - -
Approach EB WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 52 58.2 0.5 0.5
HCM LOS F F
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT NBREBLn1WBLn1 SBL SBT SBR
Capacity (veh/h) 754 - - 154 181 807 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.061 - - 0.529 0.673 0.061 - -
HCM Control Delay (s) 10.1 - - 52 58.2 9.7 - -
HCM Lane LOS B - - F F A - -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.2 - - 2.6 4 0.2 - -
HCM 2010 TWSC
2: Huntington Drive & Morlan Place 2/12/2019
5:00 pm 2/12/2019 J1699 - Future Without Project Conditions (2020) AM Synchro 8 Report
Page 1
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0.4
Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR
Vol, veh/h 19 730 1945 8 4 15
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Yield Yield Free Free Stop Stop
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 0 - - - 0 -
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 0 - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 0 - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 21 793 2114 9 4 16
Major/Minor Major2 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All - 0 2118 1060
Stage 1 - - 2118 -
Stage 2 - - 0 -
Critical Hdwy - - 6.84 6.94
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - 5.84 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy - - 3.52 3.32
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver - - 43 220
Stage 1 - - 78 -
Stage 2 - - - -
Platoon blocked, % - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - - 43 220
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - 43 -
Stage 1 - - 78 -
Stage 2 - - - -
Approach WB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 0 41.9
HCM LOS E
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt WBT WBRSBLn1
Capacity (veh/h) - - 118
HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 0.175
HCM Control Delay (s) - - 41.9
HCM Lane LOS - - E
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - - 0.6
HCM 2010 TWSC
4: Santa Anita Avenue & Morlan Place/Wheeler Avenue 2/12/2019
5:00 pm 2/12/2019 J1699 - Future Without Project Conditions (2020) AM Synchro 8 Report
Page 2
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 2.1
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Vol, veh/h 8 4 11 11 1 43 28 892 30 46 923 32
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None
Storage Length - - - - - - 0 - - 0 - -
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 9 4 12 12 1 47 30 970 33 50 1003 35
Major/Minor Minor2 Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 1667 2184 519 1651 2185 501 1038 0 0 1002 0 0
Stage 1 1121 1121 - 1047 1047 - - - - - - -
Stage 2 546 1063 - 604 1138 - - - - - - -
Critical Hdwy 7.54 6.54 6.94 7.54 6.54 6.94 4.14 - - 4.14 - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6.54 5.54 - 6.54 5.54 - - - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 6.54 5.54 - 6.54 5.54 - - - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.52 4.02 3.32 3.52 4.02 3.32 2.22 - - 2.22 - -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 63 45 502 65 45 515 665 - - 687 - -
Stage 1 220 280 - 244 303 - - - - - - -
Stage 2 490 298 - 452 275 - - - - - - -
Platoon blocked, % - - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 51 40 502 53 40 515 665 - - 687 - -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 51 40 - 53 40 - - - - - - -
Stage 1 210 260 - 233 289 - - - - - - -
Stage 2 424 285 - 402 255 - - - - - - -
Approach EB WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 66.1 36.1 0.3 0.5
HCM LOS F E
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT NBREBLn1WBLn1 SBL SBT SBR
Capacity (veh/h) 665 - - 83 174 687 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.046 - - 0.301 0.344 0.073 - -
HCM Control Delay (s) 10.7 - - 66.1 36.1 10.7 - -
HCM Lane LOS B - - F E B - -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 - - 1.1 1.4 0.2 - -
HCM 2010 TWSC
2: Huntington Drive & Morlan Place 2/12/2019
5:00 pm 2/12/2019 J1699 - Future Without Project Conditions (2020) PM Synchro 8 Report
Page 1
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0.8
Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR
Vol, veh/h 12 1756 1069 3 4 57
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Yield Yield Free Free Stop Stop
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 0 - - - 0 -
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 0 - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 0 - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 13 1909 1162 3 4 62
Major/Minor Major2 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All - 0 1164 582
Stage 1 - - 1164 -
Stage 2 - - 0 -
Critical Hdwy - - 6.84 6.94
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - 5.84 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy - - 3.52 3.32
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver - - 188 456
Stage 1 - - 259 -
Stage 2 - - - -
Platoon blocked, % - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - - 188 456
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - 188 -
Stage 1 - - 259 -
Stage 2 - - - -
Approach WB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 0 15.3
HCM LOS C
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt WBT WBRSBLn1
Capacity (veh/h) - - 417
HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 0.159
HCM Control Delay (s) - - 15.3
HCM Lane LOS - - C
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - - 0.6
HCM 2010 TWSC
4: Santa Anita Avenue & Morlan Place/Wheeler Avenue 2/12/2019
5:00 pm 2/12/2019 J1699 - Future Without Project Conditions (2020) PM Synchro 8 Report
Page 2
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 15.6
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Vol, veh/h 11 5 38 26 10 79 23 1002 47 46 937 30
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None
Storage Length - - - - - - 0 - - 0 - -
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 12 5 41 28 11 86 25 1089 51 50 1018 33
Major/Minor Minor2 Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 1735 2325 526 1777 2316 570 1051 0 0 1140 0 0
Stage 1 1135 1135 - 1165 1165 - - - - - - -
Stage 2 600 1190 - 612 1151 - - - - - - -
Critical Hdwy 7.54 6.54 6.94 7.54 6.54 6.94 4.14 - - 4.14 - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6.54 5.54 - 6.54 5.54 - - - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 6.54 5.54 - 6.54 5.54 - - - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.52 4.02 3.32 3.52 4.02 3.32 2.22 - - 2.22 - -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 56 37 496 52 37 465 658 - - 609 - -
Stage 1 215 275 - 206 267 - - - - - - -
Stage 2 455 259 - 447 271 - - - - - - -
Platoon blocked, % - - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 31 33 496 38 33 465 658 - - 609 - -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 31 33 - 38 33 - - - - - - -
Stage 1 207 252 - 198 257 - - - - - - -
Stage 2 342 249 - 368 249 - - - - - - -
Approach EB WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 94.4 255.9 0.2 0.5
HCM LOS F F
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT NBREBLn1WBLn1 SBL SBT SBR
Capacity (veh/h) 658 - - 93 99 609 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.038 - - 0.631 1.263 0.082 - -
HCM Control Delay (s) 10.7 - - 94.4 255.9 11.4 - -
HCM Lane LOS B - - F F B - -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 - - 3 8.7 0.3 - -
HCM 2010 TWSC
2: Huntington Drive & Morlan Place 2/20/2019
5:00 pm 2/12/2019 J1699 - Future With Project Conditions (2020) AM Synchro 8 Report
Page 1
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0.4
Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR
Vol, veh/h 23 730 1945 8 4 18
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Yield Yield Free Free Stop Stop
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 0 - - - 0 -
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 0 - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 0 - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 25 793 2114 9 4 20
Major/Minor Major2 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All - 0 2118 1060
Stage 1 - - 2118 -
Stage 2 - - 0 -
Critical Hdwy - - 6.84 6.94
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - 5.84 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy - - 3.52 3.32
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver - - 43 220
Stage 1 - - 78 -
Stage 2 - - - -
Platoon blocked, % - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - - 43 220
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - 43 -
Stage 1 - - 78 -
Stage 2 - - - -
Approach WB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 0 40.1
HCM LOS E
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt WBT WBRSBLn1
Capacity (veh/h) - - 126
HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 0.19
HCM Control Delay (s) - - 40.1
HCM Lane LOS - - E
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - - 0.7
HCM 2010 TWSC
4: Santa Anita Avenue & Morlan Place/Wheeler Avenue 2/20/2019
5:00 pm 2/12/2019 J1699 - Future With Project Conditions (2020) AM Synchro 8 Report
Page 2
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 3.3
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Vol, veh/h 16 4 23 11 1 43 41 892 30 46 923 41
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None
Storage Length - - - - - - 0 - - 0 - -
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 17 4 25 12 1 47 45 970 33 50 1003 45
Major/Minor Minor2 Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 1700 2217 524 1679 2223 501 1048 0 0 1002 0 0
Stage 1 1126 1126 - 1075 1075 - - - - - - -
Stage 2 574 1091 - 604 1148 - - - - - - -
Critical Hdwy 7.54 6.54 6.94 7.54 6.54 6.94 4.14 - - 4.14 - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6.54 5.54 - 6.54 5.54 - - - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 6.54 5.54 - 6.54 5.54 - - - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.52 4.02 3.32 3.52 4.02 3.32 2.22 - - 2.22 - -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 60 43 498 62 43 515 660 - - 687 - -
Stage 1 218 278 - 234 294 - - - - - - -
Stage 2 471 289 - 452 272 - - - - - - -
Platoon blocked, % - - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 48 37 498 48 37 515 660 - - 687 - -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 48 37 - 48 37 - - - - - - -
Stage 1 203 258 - 218 274 - - - - - - -
Stage 2 397 269 - 391 252 - - - - - - -
Approach EB WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 85 39.7 0.5 0.5
HCM LOS F E
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT NBREBLn1WBLn1 SBL SBT SBR
Capacity (veh/h) 660 - - 88 162 687 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.068 - - 0.531 0.369 0.073 - -
HCM Control Delay (s) 10.8 - - 85 39.7 10.7 - -
HCM Lane LOS B - - F E B - -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.2 - - 2.3 1.6 0.2 - -
HCM 2010 TWSC
2: Huntington Drive & Morlan Place 2/20/2019
5:00 pm 2/12/2019 J1699 - Future With Project Conditions (2020) PM Synchro 8 Report
Page 1
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0.9
Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR
Vol, veh/h 18 1756 1069 3 4 61
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Yield Yield Free Free Stop Stop
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 0 - - - 0 -
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 0 - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 0 - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 20 1909 1162 3 4 66
Major/Minor Major2 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All - 0 1164 582
Stage 1 - - 1164 -
Stage 2 - - 0 -
Critical Hdwy - - 6.84 6.94
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - 5.84 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy - - 3.52 3.32
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver - - 188 456
Stage 1 - - 259 -
Stage 2 - - - -
Platoon blocked, % - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - - 188 456
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - 188 -
Stage 1 - - 259 -
Stage 2 - - - -
Approach WB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 0 15.3
HCM LOS C
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt WBT WBRSBLn1
Capacity (veh/h) - - 419
HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 0.169
HCM Control Delay (s) - - 15.3
HCM Lane LOS - - C
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - - 0.6
HCM 2010 TWSC
4: Santa Anita Avenue & Morlan Place/Wheeler Avenue 2/20/2019
5:00 pm 2/12/2019 J1699 - Future With Project Conditions (2020) PM Synchro 8 Report
Page 2
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 24.4
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Vol, veh/h 20 5 51 26 10 79 42 1002 47 46 937 43
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None
Storage Length - - - - - - 0 - - 0 - -
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 22 5 55 28 11 86 46 1089 51 50 1018 47
Major/Minor Minor2 Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 1783 2374 533 1818 2371 570 1065 0 0 1140 0 0
Stage 1 1142 1142 - 1206 1206 - - - - - - -
Stage 2 641 1232 - 612 1165 - - - - - - -
Critical Hdwy 7.54 6.54 6.94 7.54 6.54 6.94 4.14 - - 4.14 - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6.54 5.54 - 6.54 5.54 - - - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 6.54 5.54 - 6.54 5.54 - - - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.52 4.02 3.32 3.52 4.02 3.32 2.22 - - 2.22 - -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 52 34 491 49 34 465 650 - - 609 - -
Stage 1 213 273 - 195 255 - - - - - - -
Stage 2 430 248 - 447 267 - - - - - - -
Platoon blocked, % - - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 27 29 491 33 29 465 650 - - 609 - -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 27 29 - 33 29 - - - - - - -
Stage 1 198 251 - 181 237 - - - - - - -
Stage 2 311 230 - 356 245 - - - - - - -
Approach EB WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 231.8 $ 327.9 0.4 0.5
HCM LOS F F
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT NBREBLn1WBLn1 SBL SBT SBR
Capacity (veh/h) 650 - - 75 88 609 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.07 - - 1.101 1.42 0.082 - -
HCM Control Delay (s) 11 - - 231.8$ 327.9 11.4 - -
HCM Lane LOS B - - F F B - -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.2 - - 6.1 9.5 0.3 - -
Notes
~: Volume exceeds capacity $: Delay exceeds 300s +: Computation Not Defined *: All major volume in platoon
Appendix E
Signal Warrant Worksheets
Traffic Signal Warrant Input Sheet
Fill in all shaded cells.
Project Name: Bekins Food Hall
Analysis Scenario: Existing Conditions (Year 2019) ‐ AM Peak Hour
Intersection Number: 4
Major Street Name: Santa Anita Avenue
Minor Street Name: Morlan Place
Intersection Number & Name as Displayed
4. SANTA ANITA AVENUE & MORLAN PLACE
Major Street Lanes: 2
Minor Street Lanes: 1
[a] Urban/Rural: Urban
4th 8th
Peak Highest Highest
Traffic Volumes Hour Hour Hour
Hourly Factor (% of Peak Hour): n/a 85% 60%
Major Street (Approach 1): 872 741 523
Major Street (Approach 2): 733 623 440
[b] Major Street Left‐Turns: 45 38 27
Minor Street (Higher Volume): 0 0 0
Major Street Pedestrian Crossing Volume:
Input Required
Value is automatically generated, but can be input manually if desired.
Default values. Can be altered if desired.
[a] Setting to "Rural" reduces minimum test volumes to 70% of "Urban" test volumes. This may be used when
major street speed exceeds 40 mph or in an isolated community of less than 10,000 residents.
[b] Major street left‐turn volume is added to minor street volume if a protected left‐turn signal phase is proposed.
Source: Section 4C of CA MUTCD
At an intersection with a high‐volume of left‐turn traffic from the major street, the signal warrant analysis may be performed
in a manner that considers the higher volume of the major‐street left‐turn volumes plus the higher volume minor street
approach as the "minor street" volume and both approaches of the major street minus the higher of the major‐street left‐
turn volume as "major street" volume.
EXISTING CONDITIONS (YEAR 2019) ‐ AM PEAK HOUR
Bekins Food Hall
Traffic Signal Warrant Analysis
Warrant 3, Peak Hour
4. SANTA ANITA AVENUE & MORLAN PLACE
Major Street Name: Santa Anita Avenue Vehicles per Hour (Peak Hour)
Minor Street Name: Morlan Place Major Street (Approach 1): 872
Major Street (Approach 2): 733
Major Street Lanes: 2 [a] Major Street Left‐Turns: 45
Minor Street Lanes: 1 Minor Street (Higher Volume): 0
[b] Urban/Rural: Urban
Vehicles per Hour (Peak Hour)
Major Street (Approach 1): 872 Minimum Major Street Volume: 510
Major Street (Approach 2): 733 Satisfied? YES
Total Major Street Volume: 1,605
Minimum Minor Street Volume: 124
Major Street Left Turns: 45 Satisfied? NO
Minor Street (Higher Volume): 0
Total Minor Street Volume: 45 Warrant 3 Satisfied?NO
[a] Major street left‐turn volume is added to minor street volume if a protected left‐turn signal phase is proposed.
[b] Setting to "Rural" reduces minimum test volumes to approximately 70% of "Urban" test volumes. This may be used
when major street speed exceeds 40 mph or in an isolated community of less than 10,000 residents.
[c]From California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, 2014 Edition; Caltrans.
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800
Minor Street ‐ Higher‐Volume Approach ‐VPHMajor Street ‐ Total of Both Approaches ‐ Vehicles per Hour
Figure 4C‐3. Warrant 3, Peak Hour [c]
2 or more lanes & 2 or more lanes
2 or more lanes & 1 lane
1 lane & 1 lane
Traffic Signal Warrant Input Sheet
Fill in all shaded cells.
Project Name: Bekins Food Hall
Analysis Scenario: Existing Conditions (Year 2019) ‐ PM Peak Hour
Intersection Number: 4
Major Street Name: Santa Anita Avenue
Minor Street Name: Morlan Place
Intersection Number & Name as Displayed
4. SANTA ANITA AVENUE & MORLAN PLACE
Major Street Lanes: 2
Minor Street Lanes: 1
[a] Urban/Rural: Urban
4th 8th
Peak Highest Highest
Traffic Volumes Hour Hour Hour
Hourly Factor (% of Peak Hour): n/a 85% 60%
Major Street (Approach 1): 855 727 513
Major Street (Approach 2): 775 659 465
[b] Major Street Left‐Turns: 45 38 27
Minor Street (Higher Volume): 0 0 0
Major Street Pedestrian Crossing Volume:
Input Required
Value is automatically generated, but can be input manually if desired.
Default values. Can be altered if desired.
[a] Setting to "Rural" reduces minimum test volumes to 70% of "Urban" test volumes. This may be used when
major street speed exceeds 40 mph or in an isolated community of less than 10,000 residents.
[b] Major street left‐turn volume is added to minor street volume if a protected left‐turn signal phase is proposed.
Source: Section 4C of CA MUTCD
At an intersection with a high‐volume of left‐turn traffic from the major street, the signal warrant analysis may be performed
in a manner that considers the higher volume of the major‐street left‐turn volumes plus the higher volume minor street
approach as the "minor street" volume and both approaches of the major street minus the higher of the major‐street left‐
turn volume as "major street" volume.
EXISTING CONDITIONS (YEAR 2019) ‐ PM PEAK HOUR
Bekins Food Hall
Traffic Signal Warrant Analysis
Warrant 3, Peak Hour
4. SANTA ANITA AVENUE & MORLAN PLACE
Major Street Name: Santa Anita Avenue Vehicles per Hour (Peak Hour)
Minor Street Name: Morlan Place Major Street (Approach 1): 855
Major Street (Approach 2): 775
Major Street Lanes: 2 [a] Major Street Left‐Turns: 45
Minor Street Lanes: 1 Minor Street (Higher Volume): 0
[b] Urban/Rural: Urban
Vehicles per Hour (Peak Hour)
Major Street (Approach 1): 855 Minimum Major Street Volume: 510
Major Street (Approach 2): 775 Satisfied? YES
Total Major Street Volume: 1,630
Minimum Minor Street Volume: 120
Major Street Left Turns: 45 Satisfied? NO
Minor Street (Higher Volume): 0
Total Minor Street Volume: 45 Warrant 3 Satisfied?NO
[a] Major street left‐turn volume is added to minor street volume if a protected left‐turn signal phase is proposed.
[b] Setting to "Rural" reduces minimum test volumes to approximately 70% of "Urban" test volumes. This may be used
when major street speed exceeds 40 mph or in an isolated community of less than 10,000 residents.
[c]From California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, 2014 Edition; Caltrans.
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800
Minor Street ‐ Higher‐Volume Approach ‐VPHMajor Street ‐ Total of Both Approaches ‐ Vehicles per Hour
Figure 4C‐3. Warrant 3, Peak Hour [c]
2 or more lanes & 2 or more lanes
2 or more lanes & 1 lane
1 lane & 1 lane
Traffic Signal Warrant Input Sheet
Fill in all shaded cells.
Project Name: Bekins Food Hall
Analysis Scenario: Existing With Project Conditions (Year 2019) ‐ AM Peak Hour
Intersection Number: 4
Major Street Name: Santa Anita Avenue
Minor Street Name: Morlan Place
Intersection Number & Name as Displayed
4. SANTA ANITA AVENUE & MORLAN PLACE
Major Street Lanes: 2
Minor Street Lanes: 1
[a] Urban/Rural: Urban
4th 8th
Peak Highest Highest
Traffic Volumes Hour Hour Hour
Hourly Factor (% of Peak Hour): n/a 85% 60%
Major Street (Approach 1): 916 779 550
Major Street (Approach 2): 742 631 445
[b] Major Street Left‐Turns: 71 60 43
Minor Street (Higher Volume): 0 0 0
Major Street Pedestrian Crossing Volume:
Input Required
Value is automatically generated, but can be input manually if desired.
Default values. Can be altered if desired.
[a] Setting to "Rural" reduces minimum test volumes to 70% of "Urban" test volumes. This may be used when
major street speed exceeds 40 mph or in an isolated community of less than 10,000 residents.
[b] Major street left‐turn volume is added to minor street volume if a protected left‐turn signal phase is proposed.
Source: Section 4C of CA MUTCD
At an intersection with a high‐volume of left‐turn traffic from the major street, the signal warrant analysis may be performed
in a manner that considers the higher volume of the major‐street left‐turn volumes plus the higher volume minor street
approach as the "minor street" volume and both approaches of the major street minus the higher of the major‐street left‐
turn volume as "major street" volume.
EXISTING WITH PROJECT CONDITIONS (YEAR 2019) ‐ AM PEAK HOUR
Bekins Food Hall
Traffic Signal Warrant Analysis
Warrant 3, Peak Hour
4. SANTA ANITA AVENUE & MORLAN PLACE
Major Street Name: Santa Anita Avenue Vehicles per Hour (Peak Hour)
Minor Street Name: Morlan Place Major Street (Approach 1): 916
Major Street (Approach 2): 742
Major Street Lanes: 2 [a] Major Street Left‐Turns: 71
Minor Street Lanes: 1 Minor Street (Higher Volume): 0
[b] Urban/Rural: Urban
Vehicles per Hour (Peak Hour)
Major Street (Approach 1): 916 Minimum Major Street Volume: 510
Major Street (Approach 2): 742 Satisfied? YES
Total Major Street Volume: 1,658
Minimum Minor Street Volume: 116
Major Street Left Turns: 71 Satisfied? NO
Minor Street (Higher Volume): 0
Total Minor Street Volume: 71 Warrant 3 Satisfied?NO
[a] Major street left‐turn volume is added to minor street volume if a protected left‐turn signal phase is proposed.
[b] Setting to "Rural" reduces minimum test volumes to approximately 70% of "Urban" test volumes. This may be used
when major street speed exceeds 40 mph or in an isolated community of less than 10,000 residents.
[c]From California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, 2014 Edition; Caltrans.
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800
Minor Street ‐ Higher‐Volume Approach ‐VPHMajor Street ‐ Total of Both Approaches ‐ Vehicles per Hour
Figure 4C‐3. Warrant 3, Peak Hour [c]
2 or more lanes & 2 or more lanes
2 or more lanes & 1 lane
1 lane & 1 lane
Traffic Signal Warrant Input Sheet
Fill in all shaded cells.
Project Name: Bekins Food Hall
Analysis Scenario: Existing Conditions (Year 2019) ‐ PM Peak Hour
Intersection Number: 4
Major Street Name: Santa Anita Avenue
Minor Street Name: Morlan Place
Intersection Number & Name as Displayed
4. SANTA ANITA AVENUE & MORLAN PLACE
Major Street Lanes: 2
Minor Street Lanes: 1
[a] Urban/Rural: Urban
4th 8th
Peak Highest Highest
Traffic Volumes Hour Hour Hour
Hourly Factor (% of Peak Hour): n/a 85% 60%
Major Street (Approach 1): 868 738 521
Major Street (Approach 2): 815 693 489
[b] Major Street Left‐Turns: 63 54 38
Minor Street (Higher Volume): 0 0 0
Major Street Pedestrian Crossing Volume:
Input Required
Value is automatically generated, but can be input manually if desired.
Default values. Can be altered if desired.
[a] Setting to "Rural" reduces minimum test volumes to 70% of "Urban" test volumes. This may be used when
major street speed exceeds 40 mph or in an isolated community of less than 10,000 residents.
[b] Major street left‐turn volume is added to minor street volume if a protected left‐turn signal phase is proposed.
Source: Section 4C of CA MUTCD
At an intersection with a high‐volume of left‐turn traffic from the major street, the signal warrant analysis may be performed
in a manner that considers the higher volume of the major‐street left‐turn volumes plus the higher volume minor street
approach as the "minor street" volume and both approaches of the major street minus the higher of the major‐street left‐
turn volume as "major street" volume.
EXISTING CONDITIONS (YEAR 2019) ‐ PM PEAK HOUR
Bekins Food Hall
Traffic Signal Warrant Analysis
Warrant 3, Peak Hour
4. SANTA ANITA AVENUE & MORLAN PLACE
Major Street Name: Santa Anita Avenue Vehicles per Hour (Peak Hour)
Minor Street Name: Morlan Place Major Street (Approach 1): 868
Major Street (Approach 2): 815
Major Street Lanes: 2 [a] Major Street Left‐Turns: 63
Minor Street Lanes: 1 Minor Street (Higher Volume): 0
[b] Urban/Rural: Urban
Vehicles per Hour (Peak Hour)
Major Street (Approach 1): 868 Minimum Major Street Volume: 510
Major Street (Approach 2): 815 Satisfied? YES
Total Major Street Volume: 1,683
Minimum Minor Street Volume: 112
Major Street Left Turns: 63 Satisfied? NO
Minor Street (Higher Volume): 0
Total Minor Street Volume: 63 Warrant 3 Satisfied?NO
[a] Major street left‐turn volume is added to minor street volume if a protected left‐turn signal phase is proposed.
[b] Setting to "Rural" reduces minimum test volumes to approximately 70% of "Urban" test volumes. This may be used
when major street speed exceeds 40 mph or in an isolated community of less than 10,000 residents.
[c]From California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, 2014 Edition; Caltrans.
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800
Minor Street ‐ Higher‐Volume Approach ‐VPHMajor Street ‐ Total of Both Approaches ‐ Vehicles per Hour
Figure 4C‐3. Warrant 3, Peak Hour [c]
2 or more lanes & 2 or more lanes
2 or more lanes & 1 lane
1 lane & 1 lane
Traffic Signal Warrant Input Sheet
Fill in all shaded cells.
Project Name: Bekins Food Hall
Analysis Scenario: Future without Project Conditions (Year 2020) ‐ AM Peak Hour
Intersection Number: 4
Major Street Name: Santa Anita Avenue
Minor Street Name: Morlan Place
Intersection Number & Name as Displayed
4. SANTA ANITA AVENUE & MORLAN PLACE
Major Street Lanes: 2
Minor Street Lanes: 1
[a] Urban/Rural: Urban
4th 8th
Peak Highest Highest
Traffic Volumes Hour Hour Hour
Hourly Factor (% of Peak Hour): n/a 85% 60%
Major Street (Approach 1): 1,001 851 601
Major Street (Approach 2): 950 808 570
[b] Major Street Left‐Turns: 46 39 28
Minor Street (Higher Volume): 0 0 0
Major Street Pedestrian Crossing Volume:
Input Required
Value is automatically generated, but can be input manually if desired.
Default values. Can be altered if desired.
[a] Setting to "Rural" reduces minimum test volumes to 70% of "Urban" test volumes. This may be used when
major street speed exceeds 40 mph or in an isolated community of less than 10,000 residents.
[b] Major street left‐turn volume is added to minor street volume if a protected left‐turn signal phase is proposed.
Source: Section 4C of CA MUTCD
At an intersection with a high‐volume of left‐turn traffic from the major street, the signal warrant analysis may be performed
in a manner that considers the higher volume of the major‐street left‐turn volumes plus the higher volume minor street
approach as the "minor street" volume and both approaches of the major street minus the higher of the major‐street left‐
turn volume as "major street" volume.
FUTURE WITHOUT PROJECT CONDITIONS (YEAR 2020) ‐ AM PEAK HOUR
Bekins Food Hall
Traffic Signal Warrant Analysis
Warrant 3, Peak Hour
4. SANTA ANITA AVENUE & MORLAN PLACE
Major Street Name: Santa Anita Avenue Vehicles per Hour (Peak Hour)
Minor Street Name: Morlan Place Major Street (Approach 1): 1,001
Major Street (Approach 2): 950
Major Street Lanes: 2 [a] Major Street Left‐Turns: 46
Minor Street Lanes: 1 Minor Street (Higher Volume): 0
[b] Urban/Rural: Urban
Vehicles per Hour (Peak Hour)
Major Street (Approach 1): 1,001 Minimum Major Street Volume: 510
Major Street (Approach 2): 950 Satisfied? YES
Total Major Street Volume: 1,951
Minimum Minor Street Volume: 100
Major Street Left Turns: 46 Satisfied? NO
Minor Street (Higher Volume): 0
Total Minor Street Volume: 46 Warrant 3 Satisfied?NO
[a] Major street left‐turn volume is added to minor street volume if a protected left‐turn signal phase is proposed.
[b] Setting to "Rural" reduces minimum test volumes to approximately 70% of "Urban" test volumes. This may be used
when major street speed exceeds 40 mph or in an isolated community of less than 10,000 residents.
[c]From California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, 2014 Edition; Caltrans.
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800
Minor Street ‐ Higher‐Volume Approach ‐VPHMajor Street ‐ Total of Both Approaches ‐ Vehicles per Hour
Figure 4C‐3. Warrant 3, Peak Hour [c]
2 or more lanes & 2 or more lanes
2 or more lanes & 1 lane
1 lane & 1 lane
Traffic Signal Warrant Input Sheet
Fill in all shaded cells.
Project Name: Bekins Food Hall
Analysis Scenario: Future without Project Conditions (Year 2020) ‐ PM Peak Hour
Intersection Number: 4
Major Street Name: Santa Anita Avenue
Minor Street Name: Morlan Place
Intersection Number & Name as Displayed
4. SANTA ANITA AVENUE & MORLAN PLACE
Major Street Lanes: 2
Minor Street Lanes: 1
[a] Urban/Rural: Urban
4th 8th
Peak Highest Highest
Traffic Volumes Hour Hour Hour
Hourly Factor (% of Peak Hour): n/a 85% 60%
Major Street (Approach 1): 1,072 911 643
Major Street (Approach 2): 1,013 861 608
[b] Major Street Left‐Turns: 46 39 28
Minor Street (Higher Volume): 0 0 0
Major Street Pedestrian Crossing Volume:
Input Required
Value is automatically generated, but can be input manually if desired.
Default values. Can be altered if desired.
[a] Setting to "Rural" reduces minimum test volumes to 70% of "Urban" test volumes. This may be used when
major street speed exceeds 40 mph or in an isolated community of less than 10,000 residents.
[b] Major street left‐turn volume is added to minor street volume if a protected left‐turn signal phase is proposed.
Source: Section 4C of CA MUTCD
At an intersection with a high‐volume of left‐turn traffic from the major street, the signal warrant analysis may be performed
in a manner that considers the higher volume of the major‐street left‐turn volumes plus the higher volume minor street
approach as the "minor street" volume and both approaches of the major street minus the higher of the major‐street left‐
turn volume as "major street" volume.
FUTURE WITHOUT PROJECT CONDITIONS (YEAR 2020) ‐ PM PEAK HOUR
Bekins Food Hall
Traffic Signal Warrant Analysis
Warrant 3, Peak Hour
4. SANTA ANITA AVENUE & MORLAN PLACE
Major Street Name: Santa Anita Avenue Vehicles per Hour (Peak Hour)
Minor Street Name: Morlan Place Major Street (Approach 1): 1,072
Major Street (Approach 2): 1,013
Major Street Lanes: 2 [a] Major Street Left‐Turns: 46
Minor Street Lanes: 1 Minor Street (Higher Volume): 0
[b] Urban/Rural: Urban
Vehicles per Hour (Peak Hour)
Major Street (Approach 1): 1,072 Minimum Major Street Volume: 510
Major Street (Approach 2): 1,013 Satisfied? YES
Total Major Street Volume: 2,085
Minimum Minor Street Volume: 100
Major Street Left Turns: 46 Satisfied? NO
Minor Street (Higher Volume): 0
Total Minor Street Volume: 46 Warrant 3 Satisfied?NO
[a] Major street left‐turn volume is added to minor street volume if a protected left‐turn signal phase is proposed.
[b] Setting to "Rural" reduces minimum test volumes to approximately 70% of "Urban" test volumes. This may be used
when major street speed exceeds 40 mph or in an isolated community of less than 10,000 residents.
[c]From California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, 2014 Edition; Caltrans.
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800
Minor Street ‐ Higher‐Volume Approach ‐VPHMajor Street ‐ Total of Both Approaches ‐ Vehicles per Hour
Figure 4C‐3. Warrant 3, Peak Hour [c]
2 or more lanes & 2 or more lanes
2 or more lanes & 1 lane
1 lane & 1 lane
Traffic Signal Warrant Input Sheet
Fill in all shaded cells.
Project Name: Bekins Food Hall
Analysis Scenario: Future With Project Conditions (Year 2020) ‐ AM Peak Hour
Intersection Number: 4
Major Street Name: Santa Anita Avenue
Minor Street Name: Morlan Place
Intersection Number & Name as Displayed
4. SANTA ANITA AVENUE & MORLAN PLACE
Major Street Lanes: 2
Minor Street Lanes: 1
[a] Urban/Rural: Urban
4th 8th
Peak Highest Highest
Traffic Volumes Hour Hour Hour
Hourly Factor (% of Peak Hour): n/a 85% 60%
Major Street (Approach 1): 1,010 859 606
Major Street (Approach 2): 994 845 596
[b] Major Street Left‐Turns: 72 61 43
Minor Street (Higher Volume): 0 0 0
Major Street Pedestrian Crossing Volume:
Input Required
Value is automatically generated, but can be input manually if desired.
Default values. Can be altered if desired.
[a] Setting to "Rural" reduces minimum test volumes to 70% of "Urban" test volumes. This may be used when
major street speed exceeds 40 mph or in an isolated community of less than 10,000 residents.
[b] Major street left‐turn volume is added to minor street volume if a protected left‐turn signal phase is proposed.
Source: Section 4C of CA MUTCD
At an intersection with a high‐volume of left‐turn traffic from the major street, the signal warrant analysis may be performed
in a manner that considers the higher volume of the major‐street left‐turn volumes plus the higher volume minor street
approach as the "minor street" volume and both approaches of the major street minus the higher of the major‐street left‐
turn volume as "major street" volume.
FUTURE WITH PROJECT CONDITIONS (YEAR 2020) ‐ AM PEAK HOUR
Bekins Food Hall
Traffic Signal Warrant Analysis
Warrant 3, Peak Hour
4. SANTA ANITA AVENUE & MORLAN PLACE
Major Street Name: Santa Anita Avenue Vehicles per Hour (Peak Hour)
Minor Street Name: Morlan Place Major Street (Approach 1): 1,010
Major Street (Approach 2): 994
Major Street Lanes: 2 [a] Major Street Left‐Turns: 72
Minor Street Lanes: 1 Minor Street (Higher Volume): 0
[b] Urban/Rural: Urban
Vehicles per Hour (Peak Hour)
Major Street (Approach 1): 1,010 Minimum Major Street Volume: 510
Major Street (Approach 2): 994 Satisfied? YES
Total Major Street Volume: 2,004
Minimum Minor Street Volume: 100
Major Street Left Turns: 72 Satisfied? NO
Minor Street (Higher Volume): 0
Total Minor Street Volume: 72 Warrant 3 Satisfied?NO
[a] Major street left‐turn volume is added to minor street volume if a protected left‐turn signal phase is proposed.
[b] Setting to "Rural" reduces minimum test volumes to approximately 70% of "Urban" test volumes. This may be used
when major street speed exceeds 40 mph or in an isolated community of less than 10,000 residents.
[c]From California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, 2014 Edition; Caltrans.
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800
Minor Street ‐ Higher‐Volume Approach ‐VPHMajor Street ‐ Total of Both Approaches ‐ Vehicles per Hour
Figure 4C‐3. Warrant 3, Peak Hour [c]
2 or more lanes & 2 or more lanes
2 or more lanes & 1 lane
1 lane & 1 lane
Traffic Signal Warrant Input Sheet
Fill in all shaded cells.
Project Name: Bekins Food Hall
Analysis Scenario: Future with Project Conditions (Year 2020) ‐ PM Peak Hour
Intersection Number: 4
Major Street Name: Santa Anita Avenue
Minor Street Name: Morlan Place
Intersection Number & Name as Displayed
4. SANTA ANITA AVENUE & MORLAN PLACE
Major Street Lanes: 2
Minor Street Lanes: 1
[a] Urban/Rural: Urban
4th 8th
Peak Highest Highest
Traffic Volumes Hour Hour Hour
Hourly Factor (% of Peak Hour): n/a 85% 60%
Major Street (Approach 1): 1,113 946 668
Major Street (Approach 2): 1,026 872 616
[b] Major Street Left‐Turns: 64 54 38
Minor Street (Higher Volume): 0 0 0
Major Street Pedestrian Crossing Volume:
Input Required
Value is automatically generated, but can be input manually if desired.
Default values. Can be altered if desired.
[a] Setting to "Rural" reduces minimum test volumes to 70% of "Urban" test volumes. This may be used when
major street speed exceeds 40 mph or in an isolated community of less than 10,000 residents.
[b] Major street left‐turn volume is added to minor street volume if a protected left‐turn signal phase is proposed.
Source: Section 4C of CA MUTCD
At an intersection with a high‐volume of left‐turn traffic from the major street, the signal warrant analysis may be performed
in a manner that considers the higher volume of the major‐street left‐turn volumes plus the higher volume minor street
approach as the "minor street" volume and both approaches of the major street minus the higher of the major‐street left‐
turn volume as "major street" volume.
FUTURE WITH PROJECT CONDITIONS (YEAR 2020) ‐ PM PEAK HOUR
Bekins Food Hall
Traffic Signal Warrant Analysis
Warrant 3, Peak Hour
4. SANTA ANITA AVENUE & MORLAN PLACE
Major Street Name: Santa Anita Avenue Vehicles per Hour (Peak Hour)
Minor Street Name: Morlan Place Major Street (Approach 1): 1,113
Major Street (Approach 2): 1,026
Major Street Lanes: 2 [a] Major Street Left‐Turns: 64
Minor Street Lanes: 1 Minor Street (Higher Volume): 0
[b] Urban/Rural: Urban
Vehicles per Hour (Peak Hour)
Major Street (Approach 1): 1,113 Minimum Major Street Volume: 510
Major Street (Approach 2): 1,026 Satisfied? YES
Total Major Street Volume: 2,139
Minimum Minor Street Volume: 100
Major Street Left Turns: 64 Satisfied? NO
Minor Street (Higher Volume): 0
Total Minor Street Volume: 64 Warrant 3 Satisfied?NO
[a] Major street left‐turn volume is added to minor street volume if a protected left‐turn signal phase is proposed.
[b] Setting to "Rural" reduces minimum test volumes to approximately 70% of "Urban" test volumes. This may be used
when major street speed exceeds 40 mph or in an isolated community of less than 10,000 residents.
[c]From California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, 2014 Edition; Caltrans.
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800
Minor Street ‐ Higher‐Volume Approach ‐VPHMajor Street ‐ Total of Both Approaches ‐ Vehicles per Hour
Figure 4C‐3. Warrant 3, Peak Hour [c]
2 or more lanes & 2 or more lanes
2 or more lanes & 1 lane
1 lane & 1 lane
Attachment No. 6
Development Agreement 19-01
24347.00801\30639162.7
Recorded at request of: )
Clerk, City Council )
City of Arcadia )
)
When recorded return to: )
City of Arcadia )
240 West Huntington Drive )
Arcadia, CA 91066 )
Attention: City Clerk )
)
Exempt from Filing Fees, Government Code Section 6103
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT NO. DA 19-01
A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN
CITY OF ARCADIA
and
NORTHEAST DEVELOPMENT ENTERPRISES II
A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY
24347.00801\30639162.7
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT NO. DA 19-01
This Development Agreement (hereinafter “Agreement”) is dated as of the date it is
recorded with the Los Angeles County Recorder, and is entered into by and among the City of
Arcadia, a California municipal corporation (hereinafter “CITY”), and Northeast Development
Enterprises II, a California Limited Liability Company (hereinafter “OWNER”):
RECITALS
WHEREAS, CITY is authorized to enter into binding development agreements with
persons having legal or equitable interests in real property for the development of such property,
pursuant to Section 65864 et seq. of the Government Code; and
WHEREAS, OWNER is in the process of purchasing the Property, as defined in Section 1
below, and has requested CITY to enter into a development agreement and proceedings have been
taken in accordance with the rules and regulations of CITY to allow for the redevelopment of the
Property with a mixed use project consisting of self-storage uses and a multitenant food hall space;
and
WHEREAS, by electing to enter into this Agreement, CITY shall bind future City Councils
of CITY by the obligations specified herein and limit the future exercise of certain governmental
and proprietary powers of CITY; and
WHEREAS, the terms and conditions of this Agreement have undergone extensive review
by CITY and the City Council and have been found to be fair, just and reasonable; and
WHEREAS, the best interests of the citizens of the CITY and the public health, safety and
welfare will be served by entering into this Agreement; and
WHEREAS, all of the procedures of the California Environmental Quality Act have been
met with respect to the Project and the Agreement and City staff has determined that this Project
and Agreement and its implementing actions are exempt from environmental review pursuant to
the California Environmental Quality Act (Pub. Resources Code, § 21000 et seq.) and State CEQA
Guidelines (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15000 et seq.) section 15332 (In-fill Development Projects).
This exemption applies to those projects that occur on a site of no more than five acres, are
substantially surrounded by urban uses, and are consistent with applicable general plan policies
and zoning regulations.
WHEREAS, this Agreement and the Project are consistent with the CITY’s General Plan
and any Specific Plan applicable thereto; and
WHEREAS, all actions taken and approvals given by CITY have been duly taken or
approved in accordance with all applicable legal requirements for notice, public hearings, findings,
votes, and other procedural matters; and
WHEREAS, development of the Property in accordance with this Agreement will provide
substantial benefits to CITY and will further important policies and goals of CITY; and
3
24347.00801\30639162.7
WHEREAS, this Agreement will eliminate uncertainty in planning and provide for the
orderly development of the Property, ensure progressive installation of necessary improvements,
provide for public services appropriate to the development of the Project, and generally serve the
purposes for which development agreements under Sections 65864 et seq of the Government Code
are intended; and
WHEREAS, OWNER has incurred and will in the future incur substantial costs in order to
assure development of the Property in accordance with this Agreement; and
WHEREAS, OWNER has incurred and will in the future incur substantial costs in excess
of the generally applicable requirements in order to assure vesting of legal rights to develop the
Property in accordance with this Agreement.
TERMS AND CONDITIONS
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the above recitals and of the mutual covenants
hereinafter contained and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of
which is hereby acknowledged, the parties agree as follows:
1. DEFINITIONS AND EXHIBITS.
1.1 Definitions. The following terms when used in this Agreement shall be defined as
follows:
1.1.1 Agreement. This Development Agreement.
1.1.2 City. The City of Arcadia, a municipal corporation, organized and existing
pursuant to the laws of the State of California.
1.1.3 Development. The improvement of the Property for the purposes of
completing the structures, improvements and facilities comprising the Project including, but not
limited to: grading; the construction of infrastructure and public facilities related to the Project
whether located within or outside the Property; the construction of buildings and structures; and
the installation of landscaping. “Development” does not include the maintenance, repair,
reconstruction or redevelopment of any building, structure, improvement or facility after the
construction and completion thereof.
1.1.4 Development Approvals. All permits and other entitlements for use
subject to approval or issuance by CITY in connection with development of the Property including,
but not limited to:
(a) specific plans and specific plan amendments;
(b) tentative and final subdivision and parcel maps;
(c) conditional use permits, public use permits and plot plans;
(d) zoning;
4
24347.00801\30639162.7
(e) grading and building permits.
1.1.5 Development Exaction. Any requirement of CITY in connection with or
pursuant to any Land Use Regulation or Development Approval for the dedication of land, the
construction of improvements or public facilities, or the payment of fees in order to lessen, offset,
mitigate or compensate for the impacts of development on the environment or other public
interests.
1.1.6 Development Impact Fee. A monetary exaction other than a tax or special
assessment, whether established for a broad class of projects by legislation of general applicability
or imposed on a specific project on an ad hoc basis, that is charged by a local agency to the
applicant in connection with approval of a development project for the purpose of defraying all or
a portion of the cost of public facilities related to the development project, but does not include
park “in lieu” fees specified in Government Code Section 66477, fees for processing applications
for governmental regulatory actions or approvals, or fees collected under development agreements
adopted pursuant to Article 2.5 of the Government Code (commencing with Section 65864) of
Chapter 4. The term “Development Impact Fee” expressly includes the Parking Impact Fee and
any additional impact, public facilities or impact fee of the CITY as of the Effective Date of this
Agreement.
1.1.7 Development Plan. The Existing Development Approvals and the Existing
Land Use Regulations applicable to development of the Property.
1.1.8 Effective Date. The close of escrow date under the Purchase and Sale
Agreement.
1.1.9 Existing Development Approvals. All Development Approvals approved
or issued prior to the Effective Date. Existing Development Approvals includes the Approvals
incorporated herein as Exhibit “C” and all other Approvals which are a matter of public record on
the Effective Date.
1.1.10 Existing Land Use Regulations. All Land Use Regulations in effect on
the Effective Date. Existing Land Use Regulations includes the Regulations incorporated herein
as Exhibit “D” and all other Regulations which are a matter of public record on the Effective Date.
1.1.11 Food Hall. 7,000 to 10,000 gross square-feet of multitenant food hall space
and up to 1,500 square-feet of additional outdoor dining area that is open for business not less than
four (4) days and thirty (30) hours per week as further described in Exhibit “B” to this Agreement.
1.1.12 Food Hall Opening. The opening for business of a minimum of 7,000
gross square-feet of multitenant food hall space with operating hours of not less than four (4)
days and thirty (30) hours per week.
1.1.13 Land Use Regulations. All ordinances, resolutions, codes, rules,
regulations and official policies of CITY governing the development and use of land, including,
without limitation, the permitted use of land, the density or intensity of use, subdivision
requirements, the maximum height and size of proposed buildings, the provisions for reservation
5
24347.00801\30639162.7
or dedication of land for public purposes, and the design, improvement and construction standards
and specifications applicable to the development of the property. “Land Use Regulations” does
not include any CITY ordinance, resolution, code, rule, regulation or official policy, governing:
(a) the conduct of businesses, professions, and occupations;
(b) taxes and assessments;
(c) the control and abatement of nuisances;
(d) the granting of encroachment permits and the conveyance of rights
and interests which provide for the use of or the entry upon public property;
(e) the exercise of the power of eminent domain.
1.1.14 OWNER. The persons and entities listed as OWNER on page 1 of this
Agreement and their successors in interest to all or any part of the Property.
1.1.15 Mortgagee. A mortgagee of a mortgage, a beneficiary under a deed of trust
or any other security-device lender, and their successors and assigns.
1.1.16 Parking Impact Fee. A fee in the amount of $200,000 to be paid to the
City as a Development Impact Fee for public parking impacts resulting from the Project.
1.1.17 Project. The development of the Property with 7,000 to 10,000 gross
square-feet of multitenant food hall space and up to 1,500 square feet of additional outdoor dining
area as further described in Exhibit “B” to this Agreement.
1.1.18 Property. The real property described on Exhibit “A” to this Agreement.
1.1.19 Purchase and Sale Agreement. The Real Property Purchase and Sale
Agreement and Joint Escrow Instructions (Self-Storage Building/Northeast Development), dated
_____________, 2018 and entered into by and between the Successor Agency to the City of
Arcadia Redevelopment Agency and OWNER.
1.1.20 Reservations of Authority. The rights and authority excepted from the
assurances and rights provided to OWNER under this Agreement and reserved to CITY under
Section 3.6 of this Agreement.
1.1.21 Street Parking Restrictions. Time restrictions on public curbside parking
of no greater than four (4) continuous hours on weekdays from 9:00AM to 6:00PM for the entirety
of Morlan Place, a street in Arcadia adjacent to the Property.
1.1.22 Subsequent Development Approvals. All Development Approvals
required subsequent to the Effective Date in connection with development of the Property.
1.1.23 Subsequent Land Use Regulations. Any Land Use Regulations adopted
and effective after the Effective Date of this Agreement.
6
24347.00801\30639162.7
1.2 Exhibits. The following documents are attached to, and by this reference made a
part of, this Agreement:
Exhibit “A” — Legal Description of the Property.
Exhibit “B” — Project Description.
Exhibit “C” — Existing Development Approvals.
Exhibit “D” — Existing Land Use Regulations.
Exhibit “E” — Development Impact Fees.
2. GENERAL PROVISIONS.
2.1 Binding Effect of Agreement. The Property is hereby made subject to this
Agreement. Development of the Property is hereby authorized and shall be carried out only in
accordance with the terms of this Agreement.
2.2 Ownership of Property. OWNER represents and covenants that, as of the Effective
Date, OWNER shall be the owner of the fee simple title to the Property or a portion thereof. In
the event that OWNER fails to close escrow on the Property through the Purchase and Sale
Agreement, this Agreement shall be null and void.
2.3 Term. The initial term of this Agreement shall commence on the Effective Date
and shall continue for a period of ten (10) years thereafter unless this term is modified or extended
pursuant to the provisions of this Agreement.
2.4 Assignment.
2.4.1 Right to Assign. OWNER shall have the right to sell, transfer or assign the
Property in whole or in part (provided that no such partial transfer shall violate the Subdivision
Map Act, Government Code Section 66410 et seq.), to any person, partnership, joint venture, firm
or corporation at any time during the term of this Agreement; provided, however, that any such
sale, transfer or assignment shall include the assignment and assumption of the rights, duties and
obligations arising under or from this Agreement and be made in strict compliance with the
following conditions precedent:
(a) No sale, transfer or assignment of any right or interest under this
Agreement shall be made unless made together with the sale, transfer or assignment of all or a part
of the Property.
(b) Concurrent with any such sale, transfer or assignment, or within
fifteen (15) business days thereafter, OWNER shall notify CITY, in writing, of such sale, transfer
or assignment and shall provide CITY with an executed agreement, in a form reasonably
acceptable to CITY, by the purchaser, transferee or assignee and providing therein that the
purchaser, transferee or assignee expressly and unconditionally assumes all the duties and
obligations of OWNER under this Agreement.
7
24347.00801\30639162.7
Any sale, transfer or assignment not made in strict compliance with the foregoing
conditions shall constitute a default by Owner under this Agreement. Notwithstanding the failure
of any purchaser, transferee or assignee to execute the agreement required by Section 2.4.1(b), the
burdens of this Agreement shall be binding upon such purchaser, transferee or assignee, but the
benefits of this Agreement shall not inure to such purchaser, transferee or assignee until and unless
such agreement is executed.
2.4.2 Release of Transferring Owner. Notwithstanding any sale, transfer or
assignment, a transferring OWNER shall continue to be obligated under this Agreement unless
such transferring OWNER is given a release in writing by CITY, which release shall be provided
by CITY upon the full satisfaction by such transferring OWNER of the following conditions:
(a) OWNER no longer has a legal or equitable interest in all or any part
of the Property.
(b) OWNER is not then in default under this Agreement.
(c) OWNER has provided CITY with the notice and executed
agreement required under Section 2.4.1(b).
(d) The purchaser, transferee or assignee provides CITY with security
equivalent to any security previously provided by OWNER to secure performance of its
obligations hereunder.
2.4.3 Subsequent Assignment. Any subsequent sale, transfer or assignment after
an initial sale, transfer or assignment shall be made only in accordance with and subject to the
terms and conditions of this Section.
2.5 Amendment or Cancellation of Agreement. This Agreement may be amended or
canceled in whole or in part only by written consent of all parties in the manner provided for i n
Government Code Section 65868. This provision shall not limit any remedy of CITY or OWNER
as provided by this Agreement.
2.6 Termination. This Agreement shall be deemed terminated and of no further effect
upon the occurrence of any of the following events:
2.6.1 Expiration of the stated term of this Agreement as set forth in Section 2.3.
2.6.2 Entry of a final judgment setting aside, voiding or annulling the adoption of
the ordinance approving this Agreement.
2.6.3 The adoption of a referendum measure overriding or repealing the
ordinance approving this Agreement.
2.6.4 Completion of the Project in accordance with the terms of this Agreement
including issuance of all required occupancy permits and acceptance by CITY or applicable public
agency of all required dedications.
8
24347.00801\30639162.7
2.6.5 Termination of this Agreement based on any default of OWNER and
following the termination proceedings required by Section 6.4.
Termination of this Agreement shall not constitute termination of any other land
use entitlements approved for the Property. Upon the termination of this Agreement, no party shall
have any further right or obligation hereunder except with respect to any obligation to have been
performed prior to such termination or with respect to any default in the performance of the
provisions of this Agreement which has occurred prior to such termination or with respect to any
obligations which are specifically set forth as surviving this Agreement. Upon such termination,
any public facilities and services mitigation fees paid pursuant to Section 4.2 of this Agreement by
OWNER to CITY on which construction has not yet begun shall be refunded to OWNER by CITY.
2.7 Notices.
2.7.1 As used in this Agreement, “notice” includes, but is not limited to, the
communication of notice, request, demand, approval, statement, report, acceptance, consent,
waiver, appointment or other communication required or permitted hereunder.
2.7.2 All notices shall be in writing and shall be considered given either: (i) when
delivered in person to the recipient named below; or (ii) on the date of delivery shown on the return
receipt, after deposit in the United States mail in a sealed envelope as either registered or certified
mail with return receipt requested, and postage and postal charges prepaid, and addressed to the
recipient named below; or (iii) on the date of delivery shown in the records of the telegraph
company after transmission by telegraph to the recipient named below. All notices shall be
addressed as follows:
If to CITY:
City of Arcadia
240 West Huntington Drive
Arcadia, CA 91066
Attn: City Manager
Telephone: (626) 574-5401
Facsimile: (626) 446-5729
Copy to:
Best, Best & Krieger, LLP
2855 E. Guasti Road, Suite 400
Ontario, CA 91761
Attn: Arcadia City Attorney
Telephone: (909) 989-8584
Facsimile: (909) 944-1441
If to OWNER:
Northeast Development Enterprises II
c/o Peter Lee, Manager
1828 Lincoln Blvd, Unit #B
9
24347.00801\30639162.7
Santa Monica, CA 90404
Telephone: (310) 985-2133
Email: peterintaelee@gmail.com
2.7.3 Either party may, by notice given at any time, require subsequent notices to
be given to another person or entity, whether a party or an officer or representative of a party, or
to a different address, or both. Notices given before actual receipt of notice of change shall not be
invalidated by the change.
3. DEVELOPMENT OF THE PROPERTY.
3.1 Rights to Develop. Subject to the terms of this Agreement, OWNER shall have a
vested right to develop the Property in accordance with, and to the extent of, the Development
Plan. The Project shall remain subject to all Subsequent Development Approvals required to
complete the Project as contemplated by the Development Plan. Except as otherwise provided in
this Agreement, the permitted uses of the Property, the density and intensity of use, the maximum
height and size of proposed buildings, and provisions for reservation and dedication of land for
public purposes shall be those set forth in the Development Plan.
3.2 Effect of Agreement on Land Use Regulations. Except as otherwise provided under
the terms of this Agreement including the Reservations of Authority, the rules, regulations and
official policies governing permitted uses of the Property, the density and intensity of use of the
Property, the maximum height and size of proposed buildings, and the design, improvement and
construction standards and specifications applicable to development of the Property shall be the
Existing Land Use Regulations. In connection with any Subsequent Development Approval, CITY
shall exercise its discretion in accordance with the Development Plan, and as provided by this
Agreement including, but not limited to, the Reservations of Authority. CITY shall accept for
processing, review and action all applications for Subsequent Development Approvals, and such
applications shall be processed in the normal manner for processing such matters.
3.3 Timing of Development. The parties acknowledge that OWNER cannot at this time
predict when or the rate at which phases of the Property will be developed. Such decisions depend
upon numerous factors which are not within the control of OWNER, such as market orientation
and demand, interest rates, absorption, completion and other similar factors. Since the California
Supreme Court held in Pardee Construction Co. v. City of Camarillo (1984) 37 Ca1.3d 465, that
the failure of the parties therein to provide for the timing of development resulted in a later adopted
initiative restricting the timing of development to prevail over such parties’ agreement, it is the
parties’ intent to cure that deficiency by acknowledging and providing that OWNER shall have
the right to develop the Property in such order and at such rate and at such times as OWNER deems
appropriate within the exercise of its subjective business judgment, subject only to any timing or
phasing requirements set forth in the Development Plan or the Phasing Plan set forth in Section
3.4.
3.4 Phasing Plan. Development of the Property shall be subject to all timing and
phasing requirements established by the Development Plan. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the
Property shall be developed consistent with the Development Plan which shall provide that the
Food Hall component of the Project shall open for business (“Food Hall Opening”) not later than
10
24347.00801\30639162.7
thirty (30) months from the Close of Escrow under the Purchase and Sale Agreement entered into
by Successor Agency to the Arcadia Redevelopment Agency and OWNER, dated
_______________. OWNER shall demonstrate good faith efforts to enable the Food Hall Opening
to occur as reasonably early as possible. In the event that the Food Hall Opening has not occurred
within twelve (12) months from Close of Escrow, OWNER shall provide to CITY monthly written
updates regarding development status of the Property which can include but not be limited to,
progress reports for design, construction, and leasing. The Parties acknowledge that Owner has
incentive to open the Food Hall as soon as possible but there are factors, including those described
in Section 3.3, that are out of Owner’s control.
3.5 Food Hall Continuous Operation. Food Hall shall continuously operate of a
minimum of 7,000 gross square-feet of multitenant food hall space for ten (10) years from the date
of Food Hall Opening with operating hours of not less than four (4) days and thirty (30) hours per
week.
3.6 Street Parking Restrictions. Prior to Food Hall Opening, CITY agrees in good faith
to pursue restricting the parking, subject to following all procedural requirements of law.
Following the adoption of any parking restrictions, CITY will post and actively enforce, consistent
with existing practices and the law, curbside parking restrictions during regular weekday business
hours of 9:00 AM to 6:00 PM for the entirety of Morlan Place. These restrictions shall be
determined and adjusted at the sole discretion of the CITY, provided however, that they shall allow
for no greater than four (4) hours of continuous curbside parking during weekday business hours
for the entirety of Morlan Place. The Parties agree the Street Parking Restrictions will remain in
effect for ten (10) years from the date of Food Hall Opening provided the Food Hall remains in
compliance with the operating hours specified in Sec. 3.5 of this Agreement. Notwithstanding the
preceding sentence, Owner agrees and acknowledges that CITY is a public agency and must and
does retain its full and unfettered discretion as to future parking restrictions. Prior to making any
adjustments to the parking restrictions on Morlan Place, CITY will meet and confer with Owner
during the ten (10) year period, provided Owner is in compliance with the operating hours
requirements in Section 3.5, prior to adjusting the parking restrictions on Morlan Place.
3.7 Changes and Amendments. The parties acknowledge that refinement and further
development of the Project will require Subsequent Development Approvals and may demonstrate
that changes are appropriate and mutually desirable in the Existing Development Approvals. In
the event OWNER finds that a change in the Existing Development Approvals is necessary or
appropriate, OWNER shall apply for a Subsequent Development Approval to effectuate such
change and CITY shall process and act on such application in accordance with the Existing Land
Use Regulations, except as otherwise provided by this Agreement including the Reservations of
Authority. If approved, any such change in the Existing Development Approvals shall be
incorporated herein as an addendum to Exhibit “C”, and may be further changed from time to time
as provided in this Section. Unless otherwise required by law, as determined in CITY’s reasonable
discretion, a change to the Existing Development Approvals shall be deemed “minor” and not
require an amendment to this Agreement provided such change does not:
3.7.1 Alter the permitted uses of the Property as a whole; or,
3.7.2 Increase the density or intensity of use of the Property as a whole; or,
11
24347.00801\30639162.7
3.7.3 Increase the maximum height and size of permitted buildings; or,
3.7.4 Delete a requirement for the reservation or dedication of land for public
purposes within the Property as a whole; or,
3.7.5 Constitute a project requiring a subsequent or supplemental environmental
impact report pursuant to Section 21166 of the Public Resources Code.
3.8 Reservations of Authority.
3.8.1 Limitations, Reservations and Exceptions. Notwithstanding any other
provision of this Agreement, the following Subsequent Land Use Regulations shall apply to the
development of the Property.
(a) Processing fees and charges of every kind and nature imposed by
CITY to cover the estimated actual costs to CITY of processing applications for Development
Approvals or for monitoring compliance with any Development Approvals granted or issued.
Procedural regulations relating to hearing bodies, petitions, applications,
notices, findings, records, hearings, reports, recommendations, appeals and
any other matter of procedure.
(b) Regulations governing construction standards and specifications
including, without limitation, the CITY’s Building Code, Plumbing Code, Mechanical Code,
Electrical Code, Fire Code and Grading Code.
(c) Regulations imposing Development Exactions; provided, however,
that no such subsequently adopted Development Exaction shall be applicable to development of
the Property unless such Development Exaction is applied uniformly to development, either
throughout the CITY or within a defined area of benefit which includes the Property. No such
subsequently adopted Development Exaction shall apply if its application to the Property would
physically prevent development of the Property for the uses and to the density or intensity of
development set forth in the Development Plan. In the event any such subsequently adopted
Development Exaction fulfills the same purposes, in whole or in part, as the fees set forth in
Section 4 of this Agreement, CITY shall allow a credit against such subsequently adopted
Development Exaction for the fees paid under Section 4 of this Agreement to the extent such fees
fulfill the same purposes.
(d) Regulations which may be in conflict with the Development Plan
but which are reasonably necessary to protect the public health and safety. To the extent possible,
any such regulations shall be applied and construed so as to provide OWNER with the rights and
assurances provided under this Agreement.
(e) Regulations which are not in conflict with the Development Plan.
Any regulation, whether adopted by initiative or otherwise, limiting the rate or timing of
development of the Property shall be deemed to conflict with the Development Plan and shall
therefore not be applicable to the development of the Property.
12
24347.00801\30639162.7
(f) Regulations which are in conflict with the Development Plan
provided OWNER has given written consent to the application of such regulations to development
of the Property.
3.8.2 Subsequent Development Approvals. This Agreement shall not prevent
CITY, in acting on Subsequent Development Approvals, from applying Subsequent Land Use
Regulations which do not conflict with the Development Plan, nor shall this Agreement prevent
CITY from denying or conditionally approving any Subsequent Development Approval on the
basis of the Existing Land Use Regulations or any Subsequent Land Use Regulation not in conflict
with the Development Plan.
3.8.3 Modification or Suspension by State or Federal Law. In the event that
State or Federal laws or regulations, enacted after the Effective Date of this Agreement, prevent
or preclude compliance with one or more of the provisions of this Agreement, such provisions of
this Agreement shall be modified or suspended as may be necessary to comply with such State or
Federal laws or regulations, provided, however, that this Agreement shall remain in full force and
effect to the extent it is not inconsistent with such laws or regulations and to the extent such laws
or regulations do not render such remaining provisions impractical to enforce.
3.8.4 Intent. The parties acknowledge and agree that CITY is restricted in its
authority to limit its police power by contract and that the foregoing limitations, reservations and
exceptions are intended to reserve to CITY all of its police power which cannot be so limited. This
Agreement shall be construed, contrary to its stated terms if necessary, to reserve to CITY all such
power and authority which cannot be restricted by contract.
3.9 Public Works. If OWNER is required by this Agreement to construct any public
works facilities which will be dedicated to CITY or any other public agency upon completion, and
if required by applicable laws to do so, OWNER shall perform such work in the same manner and
subject to the same requirements as would be applicable to CITY or such other public agency
should it have undertaken such construction.
3.10 Provision of Real Property Interests by CITY. In any instance where OWNER is
required to construct any public improvement on land not owned by OWNER, OWNER shall at
its sole cost and expense provide or cause to be provided, the real property interests necessary for
the construction of such public improvements. In the event OWNER is unable, after exercising
reasonable efforts, including, but not limited to, the rights under Sections 1001 and 1002 of the
Civil Code, to acquire the real property interests necessary for the construction of such public
improvements, and if so instructed by OWNER and upon OWNER’S provision of adequate
security for costs CITY may reasonably incur, CITY shall negotiate the purchase of the necessary
real property interests to allow OWNER to construct the public improvements as required by this
Agreement and, if necessary, in accordance with the procedures established by law, use its power
of eminent domain to acquire such required real property interests. OWNER shall pay all costs
associated with such acquisition or condemnation proceedings. This section 3.8 is not intended by
the parties to impose upon the OWNER an enforceable duty to acquire land or construct any public
improvements on land not owned by OWNER, except to the extent that the OWNER elects to
proceed with the development of the Project, and then only in accordance with valid conditions
13
24347.00801\30639162.7
imposed by the CITY upon the development of the Project under the Subdivision Map Act or other
legal authority.
3.11 Regulation by Other Public Agencies. It is acknowledged by the parties that other
public agencies not within the control of CITY possess authority to regulate aspects of the
development of the Property separately from or jointly with CITY and this Agreement does not
limit the authority of such other public agencies.
3.12 Utilities. The Project shall be connected to all utilities necessary to provide
adequate water, sewer, gas, electric, and other utility service to the Project. OWNER shall contract
with the CITY for CITY-owned or operated utilities serving the Project for such prices and on
such terms as may be mutually agreed to between the parties.
3.13 Owner Attendance at City Meetings. OWNER agrees to have one or more of its
employees or consultants who are knowledgeable regarding this Agreement and the Project, such
that such person(s) can meaningfully respond to City questions regarding the progress of the
Project, attend meetings of the City governing body, when requested to do so by City.
3.14 PREVAILING WAGES
3.14.1 PUBLIC FUNDS: OWNER AND CITY ACKNOWLEDGE AND
AGREE THAT IT IS THE PARTIES INTENT THAT THE DEVELOPMENT PROJECT SHALL
BE FINANCED ENTIRELY BY THE OWNER AND THAT NO PUBLIC FUNDS OR IN-KIND
INCENTIVES SHALL BE PROVIDED.
3.14.2 RESPONSIBILITY. OWNER AGREES WITH CITY THAT OWNER
SHALL ASSUME ANY AND ALL RESPONSIBILITY AND BE SOLELY RESPONSIBLE
FOR DETERMINING WHETHER OR NOT LABORERS EMPLOYED RELATIVE TO THE
CONSTRUCTION OF THE PROJECT MUST BE PAID THE PREVAILING PER DIEM WAGE
RATE FOR THEIR LABOR CLASSIFICATION, AS DETERMINED BY THE STATE,
PURSUANT TO LABOR CODE SECTIONS 1720 ET SEQ., OR PURSUANT TO
APPLICABLE FEDERAL LAW.
3.14.3 WAIVERS AND RELEASES. OWNER, ON BEHALF OF ITSELF, ITS
SUCCESSORS AND ASSIGNS, WAIVES AND RELEASES CITY FROM ANY RIGHT OF
ACTION THAT MAY BE AVAILABLE TO ANY OF THEM PURSUANT TO STATE LABOR
CODE SECTION 1781 OR OTHER STATE OR FEDERAL LAW REGARDING PAYMENT
OF MINIMUM OR PREVAILING WAGE AMOUNTS. RELATIVE TO THE WAIVERS AND
RELEASES CONTAINED IN THIS SECTION 3.14.2 OWNER ACKNOWLEDGES THE
PROTECTIONS OF CIVIL CODE SECTION 1542, WHICH READS AS FOLLOWS:
A GENERAL RELEASE DOES NOT EXTEND TO CLAIMS
WHICH THE CREDITOR DOES NOT KNOW OR SUSPECT TO
EXIST IN HIS OR HER FAVOR AT THE TIME OF EXECUTING
THE RELEASE, WHICH IF KNOWN BY HIM OR HER MUST
HAVE MATERIALLY AFFECTED HIS OR HER SETTLEMENT
WITH THE DEBTOR.
14
24347.00801\30639162.7
3.14.4 INITIALS. BY INITIALING BELOW, OWNER KNOWINGLY AND
VOLUNTARILY WAIVES THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 1542 SOLELY IN
CONNECTION WITH THE WAIVERS AND RELEASES CONTAINED IN SECTION 3.14.2:
_________________
Initials of Authorized
OWNER Representative
4. PUBLIC BENEFITS.
4.1 Intent. The parties acknowledge and agree that development of the Property will
result in substantial public needs which will not be fully met by the Development Plan and further
acknowledge and agree that this Agreement confers substantial private benefits on OWNER which
should be balanced by commensurate public benefits. Accordingly, the parties intend to provide
consideration to the public to balance the private benefits conferred on OWNER by providing
more fully for the satisfaction of the public needs resulting from the Project.
4.2 Development Impact Fees.
4.2.1 Time of Payment. All Development Impact Fees, including the Parking
Impact Fee, shall be paid to CITY prior to the issuance of building permits.
5. REVIEW FOR COMPLIANCE.
5.1 Periodic Review. The Planning Director shall review this Agreement annually, on
or before the anniversary of the Effective Date, in order to ascertain the good faith compliance by
OWNER with the terms of the Agreement. OWNER shall submit an Annual Monitoring Report,
in a form acceptable to the Planning Director, within 30 days after written notice from the Planning
Director.
5.2 Special Review. The City Council may order a special review of compliance with
this Agreement at any time. The Planning Director shall conduct such special reviews.
5.3 Procedure.
5.3.1 During either a periodic review or a special review, OWNER shall be
required to demonstrate good faith compliance with the terms of the Agreement. The burden of
proof on this issue shall be on OWNER.
5.3.2 Upon completion of a periodic review or a special review, the Planning
Director shall submit a report to the City Council setting forth the evidence concerning good faith
compliance by OWNER with the terms of this Agreement and his or her recommended finding on
that issue.
5.3.3 If the City Council finds on the basis of substantial evidence that OWNER
has complied in good faith with the terms and conditions of this Agreement, the review shall be
concluded.
15
24347.00801\30639162.7
5.3.4 If the City Council makes a preliminary finding that OWNER has not
complied in good faith with the terms and conditions of this Agreement, the Council may modify
or terminate this Agreement as provided in Section 5.4 and Section 5.5. Notice of default as
provided under Section 6 of this Agreement shall be given to OWNER prior to or concurrent with,
proceedings under Section 5.4 and Section 5.5.
5.4 Proceedings Upon Modification or Termination. If, upon a finding under Section
5.3, CITY determines to proceed with modification or termination of this Agreement, CITY shall
give written and e-mail notice to OWNER of its intention so to do. The notice shall be given at
least ten (10) calendar days prior to the scheduled hearing and shall contain:
5.4.1 The time and place of the hearing;
5.4.2 A statement as to whether or not CITY proposes to terminate or to modify
the Agreement; and,
5.4.3 Such other information as is reasonably necessary to inform OWNER of the
nature of the proceeding.
5.5 Hearing on Modification or Termination. At the time and place set for the hearing
on modification or termination, OWNER shall be given an opportunity to be heard. OWNER shall
be required to demonstrate good faith compliance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement.
The burden of proof on this issue shall be on OWNER. If the City Council finds, based upon
substantial evidence, that OWNER has not complied in good faith with the terms or conditions of
the Agreement, the City Council may terminate this Agreement or modify this Agreement and
impose such conditions as are reasonably necessary to protect the interests of the CITY. The
decision of the City Council shall be final, subject only to judicial review pursuant to Section
1094.5 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
5.6 Certificate of Agreement Compliance. If, at the conclusion of a Periodic or Special
Review, OWNER is found to be in compliance with this Agreement, CITY shall, upon request by
OWNER, issue a Certificate of Agreement Compliance (“Certificate”) to OWNER stating that
after the most recent Periodic or Special Review and based upon the information known or made
known to the Planning Director and City Council that (1) this Agreement remains in effect and (2)
OWNER is not in default. The Certificate shall be in recordable form, shall contain information
necessary to communicate constructive record notice of the finding of compliance, shall state
whether the Certificate is issued after a Periodic or Special Review and shall state the anticipated
date of commencement of the next Periodic Review. OWNER may record the Certificate with the
County Recorder.
Whether or not the Certificate is relied upon by assignees or other transferees or OWNER,
CITY shall not be bound by a Certificate if a default existed at the time of the Periodic or Special
Review, but was concealed from or otherwise not known to the Planning Director or City Council.
6. DEFAULT AND REMEDIES.
16
24347.00801\30639162.7
6.1 Remedies in General. It is acknowledged by the Parties that CITY would not have
entered into this Agreement if it were to be liable in damages under this Agreement, or with respect
to this Agreement or the application thereof. In general, each of the Parties hereto may pursue any
remedy at law or equity available for the breach of any provision of this Agreement, except that
CITY shall not be liable in damages to OWNER, or to any successor in interest of OWNER, or to
any other person, and OWNER covenants not to sue for damages or claim any damages:
6.1.1 For any breach of this Agreement or for any cause of action which arises
out of this Agreement; or
6.1.2 For the taking, impairment or restriction of any right or interest conveyed
or provided under or pursuant to this Agreement; or
6.1.3 Arising out of or connected with any dispute, controversy or issue regarding
the application or interpretation or effect of the provisions of this Agreement.
6.2 Specific Performance. The parties acknowledge that money damages and remedies
at law generally are inadequate and specific performance and other non-monetary relief are
particularly appropriate remedies for the enforcement of this Agreement and should be available
to all parties for the following reasons:
6.2.1 Money damages are unavailable against CITY as provided in Section 6.1.
6.2.2 Due to the size, nature and/or scope of the Project, it may not be practical
or possible to restore the Property to its natural condition once implementation of this Agreement
has begun. After such implementation, OWNER may be foreclosed from other choices it may have
had to utilize the Property or portions thereof. OWNER has invested significant time and resources
and performed extensive planning and processing of the Project in agreeing to the terms of this
Agreement and will be investing even more significant time and resources in implementing the
Project in reliance upon the terms of this Agreement, and it is not possible to determine the sum
of money which would adequately compensate OWNER for such efforts.
6.3 Release. Except for nondamage remedies, including the remedy of specific
performance and judicial review as provided for in Section 5.5, OWNER, for itself, its successors
and assignees, hereby releases the CITY, its officers, agents and employees from any and all
claims, demands, actions, or suits of any kind or nature arising out of any liability, known or
unknown, present or future, including, but not limited to, any claim or liability, based or asserted,
pursuant to Article I, Section 19 of the California Constitution, the Fifth Amendment of the United
States Constitution, or any other law or ordinance which seeks to impose any other liability or
damage, whatsoever, upon the CITY because it entered into this Agreement or because of the terms
of this Agreement.
6.4 Termination or Modification of Agreement for Default of OWNER. Subject to the
provisions contained in Section 5.5, CITY may terminate or modify this Agreement for any failure
of OWNER to perform any material duty or obligation of OWNER under this Agreement, or to
comply in good faith with the terms of this Agreement (hereinafter referred to as “Default”);
provided, however, CITY may terminate or modify this Agreement pursuant to this Section only
17
24347.00801\30639162.7
after providing written notice to OWNER of default setting forth the nature of the default and the
actions, if any, required by OWNER to cure such default and, where the default can be cured,
OWNER has failed to take such actions and cure such default within 60 days after the effective
date of such notice or, in the event that such default cannot be cured within such 60 day period but
can be cured within a longer time, has failed to commence the actions necessary to cure such
default within such 60 day period and to diligently proceed to complete such actions and cure such
default.
6.4.1 Failure to Open Food Hall Default. As provided in Section 3.4 of this
Agreement, Food Hall Opening shall occur within thirty (30) months of Close of Escrow under
the Purchase and Sale Agreement between the OWNER and the Successor Agency to the Arcadia
Redevelopment Agency. Failure to open the Food Hall within the aforementioned time frame shall
be Default under this Agreement. If such Default occurs CITY shall be entitled to collect liquidated
damages from the OWNER in the amount of three hundred dollars ($300) for each day the Food
Hall is not open.
6.4.2 Failure to Continuously Operate Food Hall Default. As provided in Section
3.5 of this Agreement, Food Hall shall operate no less than four (4) days and thirty (30) hours per
week for a minimum of ten (10) years from the date of Food Hall Opening. Failure to comply
with the aforementioned time frames shall be Default under this Agreement. If such Default occurs
CITY shall not be required to continue posting Street Parking Restrictions and OWNER shall be
prohibited from using the ground floor of the building for any non-Food Hall uses other than a
small, 400 square foot or less self-storage leasing office until such time that the Development
Agreement is modified by mutual consent of the CITY and the OWNER.
6.5 Termination of Agreement for Default of CITY. OWNER may terminate this
Agreement only in the event of a default by CITY in the performance of a material term of this
Agreement and only after providing written notice to CITY of default setting forth the nature of
the default and the actions, if any, required by CITY to cure such default and, where the default
can be cured, CITY has failed to take such actions and cure such default within 60 days after the
effective date of such notice or, in the event that such default cannot be cured within such 60 day
period but can be cured within a longer time, has failed to commence the actions necessary to cure
such default within such 60 day period and to diligently proceed to complete such actions and cure
such default.
7. THIRD PARTY LITIGATION.
7.1 General Plan Litigation. CITY has determined that this Agreement is consistent
with its General Plan, and that the General Plan meets all requirements of law. OWNER has
reviewed the General Plan and concurs with CITY’s determination. CITY shall have no liability
in damages under this Agreement for any failure of CITY to perform under this Agreement or the
inability of OWNER to develop the Property as contemplated by the Development Plan of this
Agreement as the result of a judicial determination that on the Effective Date, or at any time
thereafter, the General Plan, or portions thereof, are invalid or inadequate or not in compliance
with law.
18
24347.00801\30639162.7
7.2 Third Party Litigation Concerning Agreement. OWNER shall defend, at its
expense, including attorneys’ fees, indemnify, and hold harmless CITY, its agents, officers and
employees from any claim, action or proceeding against CITY, its agents, officers, or employees
to attack, set aside, void, or annul the approval of this Agreement or the approval of any permit
granted pursuant to this Agreement. CITY shall promptly notify OWNER of any such claim, action
or proceeding, and CITY shall cooperate in the defense. If CITY fails to promptly notify OWNER
of any such claim, action or proceeding, or if CITY fails to cooperate in the defense, OWNER
shall not thereafter be responsible to defend, indemnify, or hold harmless CITY. CITY may in its
discretion participate in the defense of any such claim, action or proceeding.
7.3 Indemnity. In addition to the provisions of Sections 7.2 and 7.4, and any other
indemnity provided for herein,, OWNER shall indemnify and hold CITY, its officers, agents,
employees and independent contractors free and harmless from any liability whatsoever, based or
asserted upon any act or omission of OWNER, its officers, agents, employees, subcontractors and
independent contractors, for property damage, bodily injury, or death (OWNER’s employees
included) or any other element of damage of any kind or nature, relating to or in any way connected
with or arising from the activities contemplated hereunder, including, but not limited to, the study,
design, engineering, construction, completion, failure and conveyance of the public improvements,
save and except claims for damages arising through the sole active negligence or sole willful
misconduct of CITY. OWNER shall defend, at its expense, including attorneys’ fees, CITY, its
officers, agents, employees and independent contractors in any legal action based upon such
alleged acts or omissions. CITY may in its discretion participate in the defense of any such legal
action.
7.4 Environment Assurances. OWNER shall indemnify and hold CITY, its officers,
agents, and employees free and harmless from any liability, based or asserted, upon any act or
omission of OWNER, its officers, agents, employees, subcontractors, predecessors in interest,
successors, assigns and independent contractors for any violation of any federal, state or local law,
ordinance or regulation relating to industrial hygiene or to environmental conditions on, under or
about the Property, including, but not limited to, soil and groundwater conditions, and OWNER
shall defend, at its expense, including attorneys’ fees, CITY, its officers, agents and employees in
any action based or asserted upon any such alleged act or omission. CITY may in its discretion
participate in the defense of any such action.
7.5 Reservation of Rights. With respect to Sections 7.2, 7.3, and 7.4, CITY reserves the
right to either (1) approve the attorney(s) which OWNER selects, hires or otherwise engages to
defend CITY hereunder, which approval shall not be unreasonably withheld, or (2) conduct its
own defense, provided, however, that OWNER shall reimburse CITY forthwith for any and all
reasonable expenses incurred for such defense, including attorneys’ fees, upon billing and
accounting therefor.
7.6 Survival. The provisions of this Section 7 shall survive the termination of this
Agreement.
8. MORTGAGEE PROTECTION.
19
24347.00801\30639162.7
The Parties hereto agree that this Agreement shall not prevent or limit OWNER, in any
manner, at OWNER’s sole discretion, from encumbering the Property or any portion thereof or
any improvement thereon by any mortgage, deed of trust or other security device securing
financing with respect to the Property. CITY acknowledges that the lenders providing such
financing may require certain Agreement interpretations and modifications and agrees upon
request, from time to time, to meet with OWNER and representatives of such lenders to negotiate
in good faith any such request for interpretation or modification. CITY will not unreasonably
withhold its consent to any such requested interpretation or modification provided such
interpretation or modification is consistent with the intent and purposes of this Agreement. Any
Mortgagee of the Property shall be entitled to the following rights and privileges:
8.1 Neither entering into this Agreement nor a breach of this Agreement shall defeat,
render invalid, diminish or impair the lien of any mortgage on the Property made in good faith and
for value, unless otherwise required by law.
8.2 The Mortgagee of any mortgage or deed of trust encumbering the Property, or any
part thereof, which Mortgagee, has submitted a request in writing to the CITY in the manner
specified herein for giving notices, shall be entitled to receive written notification from CITY of
any default by OWNER in the performance of OWNER’s obligations under this Agreement.
8.3 If CITY timely receives a request from a mortgagee requesting a copy of any notice
of default given to OWNER under the terms of this Agreement, CITY shall provide a copy of that
notice to the Mortgagee within ten (10) days of sending the notice of default to OWNER. The
Mortgagee shall have the right, but not the obligation, to cure the default during the remaining cure
period allowed such party under this Agreement.
8.4 Any Mortgagee who comes into possession of the Property, or any part thereof,
pursuant to foreclosure of the mortgage or deed of trust, or deed in lieu of such foreclosure, shall
take the Property, or part thereof, subject to the terms of this Agreement. Notwithstanding any
other provision of this Agreement to the contrary, no Mortgagee shall have an obligation or duty
under this Agreement to perform any of OWNER’s obligations or other affirmative covenants of
OWNER hereunder, or to guarantee such performance; provided, however, that to the extent that
any covenant to be performed by OWNER is a condition precedent to the performance of a
covenant by CITY , the performance thereof shall continue to be a condition precedent to CITY’s
performance hereunder, and further provided that any sale, transfer or assignment by any
Mortgagee in possession shall be subject to the provisions of Section 2.4 of this Agreement.
9. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS.
9.1 Recordation of Agreement. This Agreement and any amendment or cancellation
thereof shall be recorded with the County Recorder by the City Clerk within the period required
by Section 65868.5 of the Government Code.
9.2 Entire Agreement. This Agreement sets forth and contains the entire understanding
and agreement of the parties, and there are no oral or written representations, understandings or
ancillary covenants, undertakings or agreements which are not contained or expressly referred to
herein. No testimony or evidence of any such representations, understandings or covenants shall
20
24347.00801\30639162.7
be admissible in any proceeding of any kind or nature to interpret or determine the terms or
conditions of this Agreement.
9.3 Severability. If any term, provision, covenant or condition of this Agreement shall
be determined invalid, void or unenforceable, the remainder of this Agreement shall not be affected
thereby to the extent such remaining provisions are not rendered impractical to perform taking into
consideration the purposes of this Agreement. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the provision of the
Public Benefits set forth in Section 4 of this Agreement, including the payment of the fees set forth
therein, are essential elements of this Agreement and CITY would not have entered into this
Agreement but for such provisions, and therefore in the event such provisions are determined to
be invalid, void or unenforceable, this entire Agreement shall be null and void and of no force and
effect whatsoever.
9.4 No Discrimination or Segregation. OWNER covenants by and for itself, himself
or herself, its, his or her heirs, executors, administrators, and assigns, and all Persons claiming
under or through it, him or her, and this Agreement is made and accepted upon and subject to the
following conditions:
9.4.1 Standards. That there shall be no discrimination against or segregation of
any Person or group of Persons, on account of any basis listed in subdivision (a) or (d) of Section
12955 of the Government Code, as those bases are defined in Sections 12926, 12926.1, subdivision
(m) and paragraph (1) of subdivision (p) of Section 12955, and Section 12955.2 of the Government
Code, in the sale, lease, sublease, transfer, use, occupancy, tenure, or enjoyment of the Property
nor shall the OWNER, itself, himself or herself, or any Person claiming under or through it, him
or her, establish or permit any such practice or practices of discrimination or segregation with
reference to the selection, location, number, use, or occupancy, of tenants, lessees, subtenants,
sublessees, or vendees in the Property.
9.4.2 Covenant Running With Land. The provisions of this Section 9.3 shall
be a covenant running with the land of the Property and binding on all successive owners and users
of the Property.
9.5 Interpretation and Governing Law. This Agreement and any dispute arising
hereunder shall be governed and interpreted in accordance with the laws of the State of California.
This Agreement shall be construed as a whole according to its fair language and common meaning
to achieve the objectives and purposes of the parties hereto, and the rule of construction to the
effect that ambiguities are to be resolved against the drafting party shall not be employed in
interpreting this Agreement, all parties having been represented by counsel in the negotiation and
preparation hereof.
9.6 Section Headings. All section headings and subheadings are inserted for
convenience only and shall not affect any construction or interpretation of this Agreement.
9.7 Singular and Plural. As used herein, the singular of any word includes the plural.
9.8 Joint and Several Obligations. If at any time during the term of this Agreement the
Property is owned, in whole or in part, by more than one OWNER, all obligations of such
21
24347.00801\30639162.7
OWNERS under this Agreement shall be joint and several, and the default of any such OWNER
shall be the default of all such OWNERS. Notwithstanding the foregoing, no OWNER of a single
lot which has been finally subdivided and sold to such OWNER as a member of the general public
or otherwise as an ultimate user shall have any obligation under this Agreement except as provided
under Section 4.
9.9 Time of Essence. Time is of the essence in the performance of .the provisions of
this Agreement as to which time is an element.
9.10 Waiver. Failure by a party to insist upon the strict performance of any of the
provisions of this Agreement by the other party, or the failure by a party to exercise its rights upon
the default of the other party, shall not constitute a waiver of such party’s right to insist and demand
strict compliance by the other party with the terms of this Agreement thereafter.
9.11 No Third Party Beneficiaries. This Agreement is made and entered into for the sole
protection and benefit of the parties and their successors and assigns. No other person shall have
any right of action based upon any provision of this Agreement.
9.12 Force Majeure. Neither party shall be deemed to be in default where failure or delay
in performance of any of its obligations under this Agreement is caused by floods, earthquakes,
other Acts of God, fires, wars, riots or similar hostilities, strikes and other labor difficulties beyond
the party’s control, (including the party’s employment force), government regulations, court
actions (such as restraining orders or injunctions), or other causes beyond the party’s control. If
any such events shall occur, the term of this Agreement and the time for performance by either
party of any of its obligations hereunder may be extended by the written agreement of the parties
for the period of time that such events prevented such performance, provided that the term of this
Agreement shall not be extended under any circumstances for more than five (5) years.
9.13 Mutual Covenants. The covenants contained herein are mutual covenants and also
constitute conditions to the concurrent or subsequent performance by the party benefited thereby
of the covenants to be performed hereunder by such benefited party.
9.14 Successors in Interest. The burdens of this Agreement shall be binding upon, and
the benefits of this Agreement shall inure to, all successors in interest to the parties to this
Agreement. All provisions of this Agreement shall be enforceable as equitable servitudes and
constitute covenants running with the land. Each covenant to do or refrain from doing some act
hereunder with regard to development of the Property: (a) is for the benefit of and is a burden upon
every portion of the Property; (b) runs with the Property and each portion thereof; and, (c) is
binding upon each party and each successor in interest during ownership of the Property or any
portion thereof.
9.15 Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed by the parties in counterparts,
which counterparts shall be construed together and have the same effect as if all of the parties had
executed the same instrument.
9.16 Jurisdiction and Venue. Any action at law or in equity arising under this Agreement
or brought by a party hereto for the purpose of enforcing, construing or determining the validity
22
24347.00801\30639162.7
of any provision of this Agreement shall be filed and tried in the Superior Court of the County of
Los Angeles, State of California, and the parties hereto waive all provisions of law providing for
the filing, removal or change of venue to any other court.
9.17 Project as a Private Undertaking. It is specifically understood and agreed by and
between the parties hereto that the development of the Project is a private development, that neither
party is acting as the agent of the other in any respect hereunder, and that each party is an
independent contracting entity with respect to the terms, covenants and conditions contained in
this Agreement. No partnership, joint venture or other association of any kind is formed by this
Agreement. The only relationship between CITY and OWNER is that of a government entity
regulating the development of private property and the owner of such property.
9.18 Further Actions and Instruments. Each of the parties shall cooperate with and
provide reasonable assistance to the other to the extent contemplated hereunder in the performance
of all obligations under this Agreement and the satisfaction of the conditions of this Agreement.
Upon the request of either party at any time, the other party shall promptly execute, with
acknowledgment or affidavit if reasonably required, and file or record such required instruments
and writings and take any actions as may be reasonably necessary under the terms of this
Agreement to carry out the intent and to fulfill the provisions of this Agreement or to evidence or
consummate the transactions contemplated by this Agreement.
9.19 Eminent Domain. No provision of this Agreement shall be construed to limit or
restrict the exercise by CITY of its power of eminent domain.
9.20 Agent for Service of Process. In the event OWNER is not a resident of the State of
California or it is an association, partnership or joint venture without a member, partner or joint
venturer resident of the State of California, or it is a foreign corporation, then in any such event,
OWNER shall file with the Planning Director, upon its execution of this Agreement, a designation
of a natural person residing in the State of California, giving his or her name, residence and
business addresses, as its agent for the purpose of service of process in any court action arising out
of or based upon this Agreement, and the delivery to such agent of a copy of any process in any
such action shall constitute valid service upon OWNER. If for any reason service of such process
upon such agent is not feasible, then in such event OWNER may be personally served with such
process out of this County and such service shall constitute valid service upon OWNER. OWNER
is amenable to the process so served, submits to the jurisdiction of the Court so obtained and waives
any and all objections and protests thereto. OWNER for itself, assigns and successors hereby
waives the provisions of the Hague Convention (Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial
and Extra Judicial Documents in Civil or Commercial Matters, 20 U.S.T. 361, T.I.A.S. No. 6638).
9.21 Authority to Execute. The person or persons executing this Agreement on behalf of
OWNER warrants and represents that he or she/they have the authority to execute this Agreement
on behalf of his or her/their corporation, partnership or business entity and warrants and represents
that he or she/they has/have the authority to bind OWNER to the performance of its obligations
hereunder.
[signatures on following page]
23
24347.00801\30639162.7
SIGNATURE PAGE
TO
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
NO. DA 19-01
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Development Agreement
on the last day and year set forth below.
CITY
CITY OF ARCADIA, a California municipal
corporation
By:
April Verlato
Mayor
Dated:
Attest:
By:
Gene Glasco
City Clerk
Approved as to legal form:
Best Best & Krieger LLP
By:
OWNER
NORTHEAST DEVELOPMENT
ENTERPRISES II, a California limited
liability company
By:
Its:
Dated:
Attachment No. 7
Oversight Board Resolution No. 43 and
Purchase & Sale Agreement for Subject Property
Attachment No. 8
Preliminary Exemption Assessment
Preliminary Exemption Assessment FORM “A”
PRELIMINARY EXEMPTION ASSESSMENT
1. Name or description of project: Development Agreement No. DA 19-01, Minor Use Permit No.
MUP 18-06, Planning Commission Administrative Modification
No. PC AM 18-02, & Architectural Design Review NO. ADR 18-
19 with a Categorical Exemption under the California Quality
Act ("CEQA") Section 15303 for an adaptive reuse project to
create 10,000 square feet of multi-tenant Food Hall at the
existing Arcadia Self Storage Building.
2. Project Location – Identify street
address and cross streets or
attach a map showing project site
(preferably a USGS 15’ or 7 1/2’
topographical map identified by
quadrangle name):
33-35 W. Huntington Drive, Arcadia CA 91006
(between Morlan Place and Santa Anita Avenue)
3. Entity or person undertaking
project:
A.
B. Other (Private)
(1) Name Northeast Development Enterprises II, LLC
(2) Address 830 Bilton Way
San Gabriel, CA 91776
4. Staff Determination:
The Lead Agency’s Staff, having undertaken and completed a preliminary review of this project in
accordance with the Lead Agency's "Local Guidelines for Implementing the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA)" has concluded that this project does not require further environmental
assessment because:
a. The proposed action does not constitute a project under CEQA.
b. The project is a Ministerial Project.
c. The project is an Emergency Project.
d. The project constitutes a feasibility or planning study.
e. The project is categorically exempt.
Applicable Exemption Class: 15303– Class 3 (Conversion of small structures)
f. The project is statutorily exempt.
Applicable Exemption:
g. The project is otherwise
exempt on the following
basis:
h. The project involves another public agency which constitutes the Lead Agency.
Name of Lead Agency:
Date:
June 3 , 2019
Staff:
Tim Schwehr, Senior Management Analyst
Attachment No. 9
Department Requirement Memorandums
DATE: January 14, 2019
TO: Tim Schwehr, Senior Management Analyst
FROM: Tiffany Lee, P.E., Associate Civil Engineer
SUBJECT: Plan Check Review Comments for 33-35 W. Huntington Dr., MUP 18-
06, ADR 18-19, AND PC AM 18-06
Water
A 16” welded steel water main on Huntington Dr. is available for water service
and connection to the existing water main shall be made by hot tapping method.
The Developer shall provide calculations prepared by a licensed Civil or
Mechanical Engineer to determine the maximum domestic demand and
maximum fire demand in order to verify the required water service size.
A Reduced Pressure Backflow Device shall be installed as meter services
protection for commercial uses
A separate water services and meters with Reduced Pressure Backflow Device
shall be installed for common area irrigation uses.
Fire protection requirements shall be as stipulated by the Arcadia Fire
Department and shall be conformed to Arcadia Standard Plan. All fire services
shall be isolated from domestic water services with approved back flow
prevention devices.
A Water Meter Clearance Application, filed with the Public Works Services
Department, shall be required prior to permit issuance.
New water service installations shall be by the Developer. Installation shall be
according to the specifications of the Public Works Services Department,
Engineering Division. Abandonment of existing water services, if necessary, shall
be by the Developer, according to Public Works Services Department,
Engineering Division specifications.
Sewer
The proposed project will be tied-in to the sewer main on Huntington Dr. which is
capable of meeting all anticipated demands of the improvements as described in
the information provided.
Developer shall utilize existing sewer lateral if possible.
No elevation available. If any drainage fixture elevation is lower than the
elevation of next upstream manhole cover (478.94’), an approved type of
backwater valve is required to be installed on the lateral behind the property line.
NPDES
Proposed project is subject to Industrial Waste requirements. Submit 2 sets of
plumbing plans. Grease Interceptor is required for restaurants.
Refuse
Please ensure that the enclosure has adequate room for trash bin, recycling bin
and organic recycling cart (64 gallons).
* * * BUILDING & SAFETY COMMENTS* * *
Application No: MUP 18-06, ADR 18-19, and PC AM 18-06
Case Planner: Tim Schwehr, Senior Management Analyst
Location: 33-35 Huntington Drive (APN: 5775-025-901)
Project: Alteration of an existing self-storage building to provide 15,000 square feet of multi-
tenant food hall space
Reviewed By: Kenneth Fields, CBO, CASp Date: 1/11/2019
SPECIFIC COMMENTS
1. Provide a minimum of one van accessible parking space as required by Table 11B-
208.2 located on the shortest accessible route of travel to an accessible entrance (as
near as practical to an accessible entrance). CBC§11B-208.2, §11B-208.3.1
2. At least one accessible route shall be provided within the site from accessible
parking spaces; public streets and sidewalks; and public transportation stops to the
accessible buildings or facilities entrances they serve. Where more than one route is
provided, all routes must be accessible. §11B-206.2.1
3. At least one accessible route shall connect accessible building or facility entrances
with all accessible spaces and elements within the building or facility. §11B -206.2.4
4. At least one accessible route shall connect each story in multi-story buildings and
facilities.
5. Detectable warnings (truncated domes) are required where a walk crosses or
adjoins a vehicular way. §11B-247.1.2.5
6. No fewer than two drinking fountains shall be provided. When provided, one drinking
fountain shall comply with 11B602.1 through 11B-602.6, 11B-602.8 and 11B-602.9
and one drinking fountain shall comply with 11B-602.7 and 11B602.9. §11B-211.2
7. The minimum number of restroom facilities shall be provided in accordance with
Table 422.1 of the California Plumbing Code based on occupant load. Accessibility
to the required toilet facilities shall not exceed one vertical story. §422.1, §422.4.1
8. The conversion of the self-storage building into a multi-tenant food hall changes the
occupancy group classification, and therefore the existing building must be made to
comply with the requirements of all applicable codes for the new occupancy
classification. Complete plans, calculations and other specifications shall be
submitted to Building Services for review, approval and subsequent permit issuance.
The plans, calculations and other specifications shall be prepared by an Architect or
Registered Civil/Structural Engineer licensed in the State of California who is
qualified to perform said work.
9. Guards shall be provided at the roof level where walking surfaces are located any
point within 36 inches horizontally to the edge of the open side. Guards shall be
adequate in strength and attachment in accordance with Section 1607.8. §1015.2
10. A grease interceptor shall be provided, and shall be sized in accordance with the
California Plumbing Code. §1014.1
GENERAL CONDITIONS
1. Shall comply with the latest adopted edition of the following codes as applicable:
a. California Building Code
b. California Electrical Code
c. California Mechanical Code
d. California Plumbing Code
e. California Energy Code
f. California Fire Code
g. California Green Building Standards Code
h. California Existing Building Code
i. Arcadia Municipal Code
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF BUILDING/CONSTRUCTION PERMITS
1. Plans shall be approved by City of Arcadia Building, Planning, and Fire Departments
as well as the Los Angeles County Health Department and any other applicable
agencies prior to the issuance of building permits for this project.