HomeMy WebLinkAboutFood Hall Parking Analysis - Full Report
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: August 29, 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 7,200 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 32,912 sf of mini-warehouse storage facilities, 4,000 sf of fast casual
restaurant space (including an outdoor dining patio with 60 seats), 2,000 sf of bar/gastropub
uses, 1,200 sf of coffee shop area, and 20 to 24 on-site parking spaces.
CODE REQUIREMENTS
The Arcadia Municipal Code (Code) 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
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 qualifies for a 25% reduction in Code-required parking spaces.
Mr. Phil Wray and Mr. Tim Schwehr
August 29, 2019
Page 2
As shown in Table 1, the Project requires a total of 54 parking spaces per the Code. The Project’s
20 to 24 on-site spaces represent a deficit of 30 to 34 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 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 were 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 Revised 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.
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 at the existing mini-warehouse in December 2018 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 Revised Project:
32,912 sf mini-warehouse
4,000 sf fast-casual restaurant space
o Includes a 1,326 sf outdoor patio with 60 seats
Mr. Phil Wray and Mr. Tim Schwehr
August 29, 2019
Page 3
2,000 sf of Bar/Gastropub
1,200 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.
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 Revised 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 Revised Project.
Shared Parking Model Results
Tables 2 and 3 and Charts 1A through 3B illustrate the results of the shared parking model for
future conditions with the Revised Project.
Mr. Phil Wray and Mr. Tim Schwehr
August 29, 2019
Page 4
As shown in Table 2 and Charts 1A, 1B, 2A, and 2B, the parking model peak parking demand for
the Revised Project occurs at 9:00 PM on a December weekday (39 occupied spaces) and 9:00
PM on a December weekend (43 occupied spaces). The weekday mid-day peak parking demand
occurs at 12:00 PM (27 occupied spaces). Table 3 and Charts 3A and 3B provide an hourly
breakdown of parking demand for the Revised Project on weekdays and weekends.
The previous project generated a peak parking demand of 59 weekday parking spaces and 67
peak weekend parking spaces. Thus, the Revised Project represents a peak parking reduction of
approximately one-third from the previous project.
Based on the proposed on-site parking supply of 20 to 24 spaces, there would be parking deficits
of 15 to 19 spaces during a weekday evening, 19 to 23 spaces during a Saturday evening, and
three to seven 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 better utilizing or even increasing the local parking
supply. The following options, described in detail in the Parking Analysis, were the most likely to
have a positive effect on the Study Area parking conditions:
Private Off-Street Parking Options
Leasing Private Lots. One potential source of additional parking supply could be the leasing of
spaces at a nearby parking lot that is underutilized at the times when the Revised Project is heavily
utilized. If the leased lots are not within a close vicinity of the Revised Project, they could be
utilized for employee parking. During the evening, the available on-street parking supply, along
with the Revised Project lot, can accommodate the Revised Project’s parking demand and, thus,
leased lots would not be needed.
Elks Lodge Lot. The adjacent Elks Lodge lot is relatively underutilized before 4:00 PM, so a
leasing agreement could allow the Revised Project to use this lot to help accommodate its
breakfast and lunchtime demands. 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.
Valet Parking. The Revised 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 also be utilized to park vehicles off-site in adjacent private parking lots that may be
too far from the Revised Project to be considered convenient for patrons.
Employee Off-Site Parking. Whenever feasible, Revised Project employees could be
encouraged to park off-site, either in the on-street public supply or in a privately leased parking
lot, in order to leave the on-site spaces for customers.
Mr. Phil Wray and Mr. Tim Schwehr
August 29, 2019
Page 5
Public Parking Utilization
One potential source of additional parking supply for the Revised Project is on-street and off-
street public parking spaces.
Santa Anita Avenue & Huntington Drive Lot. Just east of the Revised 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 Revised
Project overflow demand during the day on weekdays. After 3:00 PM on weekdays and all day on
weekends, however, this lot has at least 45 vacant parking spaces that could be utilized by Bekins
patrons. In addition, the recommendations for this lot detailed in Parking Study for Downtown
Arcadia, Arcadia, California (Gibson Transportation Consulting, Inc., May 2019) (Downtown
Parking Study) 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 Revised Project patrons in the future.
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, 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.
Huntington Drive. 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.
Morlan Place. 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.
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 Revised Project patrons as well as patrons of the other local
businesses, allowing the businesses located south/east of Morlan Place better utilization of those
on-street parking spaces during daytime hours.
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
Mr. Phil Wray and Mr. Tim Schwehr
August 29, 2019
Page 6
achieved by reducing portions of the roadway from two travel lanes to one travel lane in order to
accommodate new on-street parking spaces. The potential 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.
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDED OPTIONS
The Revised Project proposes to convert a portion of the existing Bekins mini-warehouse
building into restaurant/food hall uses and provide 20 to 24 parking spaces on-site.
The Code parking requirement for the Revised Project is 54 spaces.
A shared parking demand model prepared for the Revised Project projects a peak
weekday demand of 39 parking spaces during the evening and a peak weekend demand
of 43 parking spaces during the evening.
Given an on-site parking supply of 20 to 24 spaces, there would be parking deficit of 15 to
19 spaces on a weekday and 19 to 23 spaces on a weekend.
Adjacent available public parking is not adequate to accommodate the Revised 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 more
than meet the peak demands of the Revised Project.
The following options could help accommodate Revised Project parking demand:
o Reconfigure Santa Clara Street by removing two travel lanes along a portion of the
street and provide 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.
Mr. Phil Wray and Mr. Tim Schwehr
August 29, 2019
Page 7
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 Revised 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 Revised Project that either parks vehicles
off-site or stack parks vehicles in the on-site parking lot during peak times of the
week.
TABLE 1VEHICULAR CODE PARKING REQUIREMENTSLand Use Size Code Requirement [a]Parking RequiredCity of Arcadia Parking Code RequirementProjectMini-Warehouse 32,912 sf 1.00 sp / 1,000 sf 25% Transit Reduction 24.68 spacesRestaurant, Small 5,849 sf 1.00 sp / 200 sf 25% Transit Reduction 21.93 spacesRestaurant, Small - Outdoor Patio 60 seats 1.00 sp / 6 seats 25% Transit Reduction 7.50 spaces54 spacesNotessf: square feet[a] Source: Arcadia Municipal Code (City of Arcadia) Section 9103.07.060, Off-Street Parking for Non-Residential Uses Requirements.TOTAL PROJECT PARKING REQUIREMENT
TABLE 2SHARED PARKING DEMAND SUMMARYBEKINS FOOD HALLPEAK MONTH: DECEMBER -- PEAK PERIOD: 9 PM, WEEKENDProjected Parking Supply: 20 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 4,000 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 8 0.90 1.00 12 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 3 1.00 1.00 4Bar/Gastropub 2,000 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 24 1.00 1.00 24 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 3 1.00 1.00 3Mini-Warehouse 32,912 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 1,200 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 32 Customer 36Employee 7 Employee 7Reserved 0 Reserved 0Total 39 Total 43Shared Parking Reduction 51% 46%Project Data
TABLE 3PEAK MONTH SHARED PARKING SUMMARY FORBEKINS FOOD HALLDecemberWeekday Estimated Peak-Hour Parking DemandProjected Parking Supply: 20 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 10 AM 5 PM 9 PMFast Casual Restaurant 100% 3 7 8 10 12 12 14 12 7 6 6 10 11 11 11 8 8 7 3 8 12 10 8 Employee 100% 2 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 1 3 4 3 3 Bar/Gastropub 100% - - - - - - - - - - - 6 8 12 18 24 24 24 24 24 - 6 24 Employee 100% - - - - - - - - - 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 - 2 3 Mini-Warehouse 100% - - 1 1 1 2 3 3 3 2 1 1 - - - - - - - - 1 1 - Employee 100% - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Coffee Shop w/o Drive-Thru 60% 6 7 10 6 6 4 4 3 2 2 4 5 4 3 2 - - - - - 6 5 - Employee 70% 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 - - - 1 2 2 1 Customer 9 14 19 17 19 18 21 18 12 10 11 22 23 26 31 32 32 31 27 32 19 22 32 Subtotal Demand by User TypeEmployee 3 5 5 5 6 6 6 6 6 7 7 7 6 7 7 7 5 5 4 7 6 7 7 Reserved - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - GRAND TOTAL DEMAND12 19 24 22 25 24 27 24 18 17 18 29 29 33 38 39 37 36 31 39 25 29 39 ULI base data have been modified from default values.39 25 29 39 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 1 PM 9 PMFast Casual Restaurant 100% - - - - - 2 7 8 6 6 6 8 12 13 14 12 12 12 7 12 2 8 12 Employee 100% - 1 1 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 2 4 3 3 4 Bar/Gastropub 100% - - - - 2 4 5 6 7 8 8 5 6 12 18 24 24 24 24 24 4 6 24 Employee 100% - - - 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 3 Mini-Warehouse 100% - - - - 1 1 2 2 2 1 1 - - - - - - - - - 1 2 - Employee 100% - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Coffee Shop w/o Drive-Thru 60% - 8 7 6 5 5 3 3 2 2 4 4 3 2 - - - - - - 5 3 - Employee 70% 1 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 - - - - - 2 1 - Customer - 8 7 6 8 12 17 19 17 17 19 17 21 27 32 36 36 36 31 36 12 19 36 Subtotal Demand by User TypeEmployee 1 3 3 6 7 7 6 6 6 6 6 7 7 8 8 7 7 6 5 7 7 6 7 Reserved - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - GRAND TOTAL DEMAND1 11 10 12 15 19 23 25 23 23 25 24 28 35 40 43 43 42 36 43 19 25 43 ULI base data have been modified from default values.43 19 25 43
01020304050607080Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Late DecParking StallsMonthCHART 1AWEEKDAY MONTH-BY-MONTH ESTIMATED DEMANDParking Supply: 20 Stalls
01020304050607080Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Late DecParking StallsMonthCHART 1BWEEKDAY MONTH-BY-MONTH ESTIMATED DEMANDParking Supply: 24 Stalls
01020304050607080Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Late DecParking StallsMonthCHART 2AWEEKEND MONTH-BY-MONTH ESTIMATED DEMANDParking Supply: 20 Stalls
01020304050607080Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Late DecParking StallsMonthCHART 2BWEEKEND MONTH-BY-MONTH ESTIMATED DEMANDParking Supply: 24 Stalls
01020304050607080Parking StallsHourCHART 3APEAK MONTH DAILY PARKING DEMAND BY HOURWeekdayWeekendParking Supply: 20 Stalls
01020304050607080Parking StallsHourCHART 3BPEAK MONTH DAILY PARKING DEMAND BY HOURWeekdayWeekendParking Supply: 24 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: 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