The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My Public Portal About2015.179 (10-06-15)RESOLUTION NO. 2015.179 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LYNWOOD APPROVING THE ADDENDUM TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS. FOR THE YVONNE BURKE -JOHN D. HAM PARK COMMUNITY CENTER WHEREAS, in 2005, the City of Lynwood prepared and certified an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) that analyzed the potential environmental impacts associated with the Ham Park Replacement Project; and WHEREAS, while the community center is the same use and would be located in approximately the same location as originally proposed and analyzed. in the EIR for Ham Park, the size of the proposed community center has been increased from 5,000 square feet to 8,680 square feet; and WHEREAS, Bonterra /Psomas prepared an Addendum to analyze the potential differences between the impacts evaluated in the Ham Park EIR and those that would be associated with the currently proposed (larger) community center; and WHEREAS, the Addendum also serves as documentation of project compliance with the. California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (California Public Resources Code § §21000 et seq.) and the State CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations, Title 14, § §15000 et seq.); and WHEREAS, the analysis, prepared by Bonterra /Psomas, shows that there would be no new significant adverse environmental impacts resulting from the larger community center, nor would there be any substantial increase in the severity of any previously identified environmental impact; and WHEREAS, this Addendum has been prepared pursuant to Section 15164 of the State CEQA Guidelines to a previously certified EIR and that based upon the analysis of the Addendum none of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for a preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LYNWOOD DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, DECLARE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. That the City Council approves the Addendum to the Final/'Z' Environmental Impact Report attached hereto as Exhibit A. Section 2. That the City Council approves Traffic Impact Analysis for the Yvonne Burke -John D. Ham Park attached hereto as Exhibit B. Section 3. That this Resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this 6th day of October, 2015. ATTEST: --- A!I r---- Maria Quinonez, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: David A. Garcia, City Attorney APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: J. Arnoldo Beltran, City Manager William E. Stracker, P.E Director Public Works/ City Engineer [THIS SPACE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK] 2 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) ) SS. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) I, the undersigned, City Clerk -of the City of Lynwood, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Lynwood at a regular meeting held on the 6th day of October, 2015. AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS ALATORRE, SANTILLAN -BEGS AND SOLACHE NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE ABSTAIN: NONE i STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) ) SS. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) CASTRO, HERNANDEZ, I, the undersigned, City Clerk of the City of Lynwood, and the Clerk of the City Council of said City, do hereby certify that the above foregoing is a full, true and correct copy of Resolution No. 2015.179 on file in my office and that said Resolution was adopted on, the date and by the vote therein stated. Dated this 6th day of October, 2015. 3 Balancing the Natural and Built Environment EXHIBIT "K Addendum to the Final EIR Prepared for City of Lynwood 11330 Bullis Road Lynwood, California 90262 (310) 603 -0220 Prepared by BonTerra Psomas 225 South Lake Avenue, Suite 1000 Pasadena, California 91 101 (626) 351 -2000 September 2015 www.Psomas.com Addendum to the Final EIR for the Ham Park Replacement Project Prepared for: City of Lynwood 11330 Bullis Road Lynwood, California 90262 (310) 603 -0220 Prepared by: BonTerra Psomas 225 South Lake Avenue, Suite 1000 Pasadena, California 91101 (626) 351 -2000 September 2015 Yvonne Burke — John D. Ham Park Community Center Section Page Section1.0 Introduction ........................................................................... ..............................1 Section 2.0 Project Background .............................................................. ..............................2 Section 3.0 Project Description ............................................................... ..............................3 Section 4.0 CEQA Requirements ............................................................. ..............................4 Section5.0 Project Impacts ...................................................................... ..............................6 5.1 Land Use and Planning ................... 5.2 Population and Housing ............................................... ..............................7 5.3 Traffic and Circulation .................................................. ..............................7 5.4 Air Quality .................................................................... ...............:..............9 5.5 Noise .......................................................................... .............................10 5.6 Geology and Soils ....................................................... .............................12 5.7 Water and Hydrology .................................................. .............................12 5.8 Public Service and Utilities ......................................... .............................13 5.9 Visual Quality and Aesthetics ..................................... .............................14 5.10 Human Health and Hazardous Materials .................... .............................15 5.11 Biological Resources .................................................. .............................16 5.12 Cultural Resources ..................................................... .............................16 5.13 Recreation .................................................................. .............................17 5.14 Energy ........................................................................ .............................17 5.15 Mineral Resources ...................................................... .............................18 5.16 Agricultural and Forest Resources ............................. .............................18 5.17 Greenhouse Gas Emissions ....................................... .............................19 Section6.0 Findings ................................................................................ .............................21 Section7.0 Conclusions .......................................................................... .............................23 Section8.0 References ............................................................................ .............................24 Section9.0 Preparers ............................................................................... .............................26 9.1 Bonterra Psomas ........................................................ .............................25 HAProjects \3LYNU0001 \Ham Park Addendum -092415.docx i Table of Contents TABLES Table 1 Existing Traffic Conditions ............................ 2 Projected Traffic Conditions ......................... EXHIBITS Exhibit 1 Project Location 2 Proposed Site Plan 3 Proposed Community Center 4 Ham Park Replacement Project Site Plan APPENDICES Appendix A Traffic Analysis Yvonne Burke — John D. Ham Park Communitv Center Page ........... 8 ...........8 HAProjects\3LYN \J0001 \Ham Park Addendum- 092415.docx 11 Table of Contents Yvonne Burke — John D. Ham Park Community Center SECTION 1.0 INTRODUCTION This Addendum has been prepared to address the potential environmental impacts associated with the proposed community center that would be constructed at the Yvonne Burke — John D. Ham Park located at 11832 Atlantic Avenue in the City of Lynwood. This Addendum also serves as documentation of project compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (California Public Resources Code § §21000 et seq.) and the State CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations, Title 14, § §15000 et seq.). H: \Projects \3LYNU0001 \Ham Park Addendum- 092415.docx 1 Addendum to the Final EIR for the Ham Park Replacement Project Yvonne Burke — John D. Ham Park Communitv Center SECTION 2.0 PROJECT BACKGROUND Ham Park was originally located at the southwest corner of Martin Luther King Boulevard and Wright Road, west of the Long Beach Freeway (Interstate [I] 710) and north of the Century Freeway (1 -105). This park site was acquired by the Lynwood Unified School District in 2004 for the construction of the Marco Antonio Firebaugh High School. Ham Park was then relocated to its current site, east of Atlantic Avenue and south of 1 -105. The replacement park was developed in 2008 and currently includes a baseball field, a soccer field, exercise stations, open fields, a tot lot, a basketball court, picnic areas, walking paths, a restroom building, and a parking lot. There is also an outdoor storage area and storage trailer on the site. Figure 1 is an aerial photograph showing existing uses on and near Ham Park. The City of Lynwood, as Lead Agency, prepared an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (SCH No. 2004061141) for the Ham Park Replacement Project, which was certified by the City in early 2005. The EIR indicated that the Ham Park project would result in adverse impacts on Population and Housing, Air Quality, Noise, Water and Hydrology, Public Services and Utilities, Visual Quality /Aesthetics, and Human Health and Hazardous Materials. Implementation of the recommended mitigation measures in the EIR would reduce project impacts to less than significant levels. This previous EIR considered the impacts associated with the construction of a 5,000- square -foot community center as part of the park replacement project. However, then - available funds only allowed for the construction of a nine -acre park and outdoor recreational facilities (Phase 1) and precluded construction of the community center inside the park (Phase 2). In addition, there is a one -acre portion of the park site (located west of Atlantic Avenue) that also remains undeveloped and is yet to be improved with recreational facilities. This park parcel will be developed and a park maintenance building will be constructed under Phase 3. The City has recently obtained a Proposition 84 Grant and a Los Angeles County Regional Park Grant and, coupled with City funds, is now ready to build the community center, as part of the park's Phase 2 development. H:\Projectsl3LYN\J0001\Ham Park Addendum- 092415.docx 2 Addendum to the Final EIR for the Ham Park Replacement Project Yvonne Burke — John D. Ham Park Community Center SECTION 3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The City of Lynwood is proposing the construction of a community center at Ham Park. The community centerwould be located on an approximate 1.1 -acre area at Ham Park, east of Atlantic Avenue and just south of a tot lot, a paved walkway, and rows of trees. This area currently is covered with turf grass and is part of the open fields at the park. The proposed community center building would be a 1 -story, 25 -foot high concrete block structure with approximately 8,680 square feet of floor area. The center would include a game room, three multi - purpose rooms, staff offices, a kitchen, a concession area, a storage room, an equipment room, security offices, restrooms, and an outdoor performance courtyard /event space. The structure would be surrounded by paved outdoor areas and landscaped areas, with the courtyard enclosed by a block wall and security gate. Figure 2 shows the proposed site plan. The project has been designed to meet Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEEDTM) Silver certification. It would include energy and water conservation features (such as the use of daylighting and solar panels on the roof, water efficient fixtures, and drought - tolerant landscaping materials). Figure 3 shows bird's eye views of the proposed community center from Atlantic Avenue towards the south and from Virginia Avenue towards the north. Construction is anticipated to start in late 2015, with completion by Fall 2016. The community center would be used for after school programs, recreational activities for kids, and other youth programs. It would be staffed by two persons each day, with additional recreational staff during scheduled activities. In addition, there are two security personnel stationed at the park. The number of center users would vary depending on the program offered and its participants. While the community center is the same use and would be located in approximately the same location as originally proposed and analyzed in the EIR for Ham Park, the size of the proposed community center has been increased from 5,000 square feet to 8,680 square feet. HAProjects \3LYNU0001 \Ham Park Addendum- 092415.docx 3 Addendum to the Final EIR for the Ham Park Replacement Project r 0 I Josephine St M Josephine St Proposed Site Plan Ham Park Community Center N s Map Not To Scale C .> \Lj } ¢� Lavinia Ave _ M zjj y...__St �Itland F LaSt c Source: City of Lynwood 2015 Figure 2 P S O M A S (Rev: 09/17/15 LEW) R:1 Projects\ 3LYNW0001 1GraphicslAddendum\Ex2_Site Plan 20150917.pdf r l t :i Proposed Site Plan Ham Park Community Center N s Map Not To Scale C .> \Lj } ¢� Lavinia Ave _ M zjj y...__St �Itland F LaSt c Source: City of Lynwood 2015 Figure 2 P S O M A S (Rev: 09/17/15 LEW) R:1 Projects\ 3LYNW0001 1GraphicslAddendum\Ex2_Site Plan 20150917.pdf -;411V All�l e { � Y '� # _{. _ � yi �, Uzi$' ' ✓ � F6 �' Fri ,�!"�2'��L `, �`y � P� '"�#"r ll;l Oil p sr s $ 1 � �. .o s� . ............«.. .. _ ... _wM..�._ e� .„s �.. ._.... -.... .ac_,i... ... a€.em,..,.....,.... ..... ., _ ..gym Bird's Eye View Looking South yJ•f .,fey -'.y `. ILI�lYn s.j ' { NOR e�s_C s Bird's Eye View Looking North Proposed Community Center Figure 3 Ham Park Community Center P S ®M A S (Rev: 09/17/15 LEW) R:\ Projects \3LYN\J 0001\ Graphics\Addendum \Ex3_Community Center 20150917.pdf Yvonne Burke — John D. Ham Park Community Center SECTION 4.0 CEQA REQUIREMENTS Section 15164(a) of the State CEQA Guidelines states that "the lead agency or responsible agency shall prepare an addendum to a previously certified EIR if some changes or additions are necessary but none of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred ". Section 15162(a) of the CEQA Guidelines states the following: (a) When an EIR has been certified or a negative declaration adopted for a project, no subsequent EIR shall be prepared for that project unless the lead agency determines, on the basis of substantial evidence in the light of the whole record, one or more of the following: (1) Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; (2) Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or Negative Declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; or (3) New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was certified as complete or the Negative Declaration was adopted, shows any of the following: (A) The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR or negative declaration; (B) Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the previous EIR; (C) Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible, and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative; or (D) Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative. Section 15163 of the State CEQA Guidelines states that if "any of the conditions described in Section 15162 would require the preparation of a Subsequent EIR, and only minor additions or changes would be necessary to make the previous EIR adequately apply to the project in the changed situation ", a Supplemental EIR may be prepared. HAProjects \3LYNU0001 \Ham Park Addendum -092415.docx 4 Addendum to the Final EIR for the Ham Park Replacement Project Yvonne Burke — John D. Ham Park Community Center As indicated above, the construction of a community center was part of the Ham Park Replacement Project that was addressed in the Ham Park EIR. The purpose of this Addendum is to analyze the potential differences between the impacts evaluated in the Ham Park EIR and those that would be associated with the currently proposed (larger) community center. By evaluating the impacts of the proposed community center under each environmental issue and comparing the impacts with those identified in the Ham Park EIR, the City would be able to determine if new environmental impacts that have not been previously analyzed in the Ham Park EIR would occur and if the impacts of the proposed community center would be more severe than the impacts identified in the previous EIR (or if the other conditions described in Section 15162 of the State CEQA Guidelines have occurred) such that a Subsequent or Supplemental EIR is necessary, or if an Addendum is adequate and may be adopted by the City. H: \Projects \3LYN\J0001 \Ham Park Addendum -09241 5.docx 5 Addendum to the Final EIR for the Ham Park Replacement Project Yvonne Burke — John D. Ham Park Community Center SECTION 5.0 PROJECT IMPACTS The Ham Park Replacement Project included the demolition of existing residential and commercial land uses on Atlantic Avenue south of 1 -105 and the development of a soccer field, a baseball field, an approximate 5,000 square -foot community building, picnic tables with shelters, walking and biking trails, a tot lot, and 3 surface parking lots with approximately 195 parking spaces. The site plan for the proposed Ham Park Replacement Project, as evaluated in the previous EIR, is shown in Figure 4. As shown, the soccer field would be located at the northern section of the park site and the baseball field would be located at the southern portion of the site. The community center would be constructed at the center of the park, along with picnic areas at scattered locations along the pedestrian walkways and trails meandering throughout the park site. The impacts of this original proposal were analyzed in the Ham Park EIR and are summarized by issue area below. The impacts of the proposed community center are then analyzed and a comparison of the impacts of the previous and current community center proposals is provided. Changes in impacts or new impacts associated with the increase in the community center size are discussed. Applicable mitigation measures are also identified. W-11MI'Lli WK Impacts Analvzed in the Ham Park EIR The Ham Park project would replace existing residential and commercial land uses (including 14 single - family residences, 24 multi - family residences, and 17 commercial businesses) on the site with a community park. The proposed park is consistent with the Open Space designation of the site in the City's Land Use Plan. The park would also not conflict with applicable goals and policies in the Lynwood General Plan. No conflict with the City's zoning ordinance and other regional plans and policies would occur with the park project. The proposed park would also not result in land use incompatibility. No significant adverse impacts. were identified regarding land use and planning. Community Center Impacts The proposed community center would be located on an open field at an existing park and the community center would complement the recreational uses at the park. No impacts related to the division of established communities would occur. The community center would implement the City's General Plan goal to provide a variety of recreational opportunities to residents. The site is designated as Open Space in the City's Land Use Plan (where parks and recreation centers are allowable uses) and is zoned Central Business and Residential. No conflict with applicable land use plans and policies would occur with the community center. Comparison of Impacts Impacts associated with changes in existing land uses occurred when the park was built and no change in land use would occur with the community center. The increase in the size of the community center would not result in a change or increase in impacts related to land use and planning. Thus, impacts would be the same as discussed in the previous EIR. Also, no new impact related to land use and planning would occur with the larger facility. HAProjects \3LYNl10001 \Ham Park Addendum -092415.docx 6 Addendum to the Final EIR for the Ham Park Replacement Project FREEWAY EMSAKMENT Ham Park Replacement Project Site Plan Ham Park Community Center N s Map Not To Scale 'MeEWAY EMB,gKMENT Josephine St Lavinia Ave Source: City of Lynwood 2015 Figure 4 P S O M A S (Rev: 09/17/15 LEW) R:\ Projects \3LYN \J0001\ Graphics\ Addendum \Ex4_Replacement_20150917.pdf Yvonne Burke — John D. Ham Park Community Center 5.2 POPULATION AND HOUSING Impacts Analyzed in the Ham Park EIR The Ham Park project would displace 38 households with approximately 187 residents, tenants, and property owners. All displaced residents, tenants and property owners would be provided with relocation assistance and payments in accordance with the California Relocation Act. The project would also lead to the demolition of 38 residential dwelling units and 17 commercial businesses with approximately 128 employees. The park project would include the construction of replacement housing and the relocation of commercial establishments in the project area. This would bring the area's population, housing stock, and employment base back to levels existing before the displacements occurred. Mitigation measures for displacement impacts were provided to reduce impacts to less than significant levels. Community Center Impacts The proposed community center would be located on an open field at an existing park. No resident, household, housing, or business displacement would occur as a result of the community center. In addition to the two security personnel at the park, there would be two employees at the community center, with additional staff coming in for specific activities and programs. No adverse impacts on population and housing will occur. Comparison of Impacts Impacts associated with the displacement of existing land uses occurred before the park was built, and no additional displacement would occur with the community center. Thus, mitigation for displacement impacts is no longer necessary. The increase in the size of the community center would not result in a change or increase in impacts related to housing and population. Thus, impacts would be the same as discussed in the previous EIR. Also, no new impact related to population and housing would occur with the larger facility. 5.3 TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION Impacts Analyzed in the Ham Park EIR Existing residential and commercial uses on the park site were estimated to generate approximately 1,565 vehicle trips, with 183 AM peak hour trips and 241 PM peak hour trips. The Ham Park project would generate approximately 256 daily trips, with 10 AM peak hour trips and 50 PM peak hour trips. This represented a reduction of approximately 1,309 daily trips. The community center itself was projected to generate 114 daily vehicle trips, with 8 AM peak hour trips and 8 PM peak hour trips. The proposed park would not contribute to the degradation of traffic operations at area intersections due to anticipated decreases in vehicle trips to and from the site. No significant adverse impacts to traffic and circulation would occur but mitigation measures for traffic safety and operational efficiency were recommended. Community Center Impacts The proposed community center is estimated to generate 294 daily vehicle trips, with 25 AM peak hour trips and 29 PM peak hour trips. Traffic counts conducted on September 16, 2015, indicate that two of the three signalized intersections near Ham Park currently operate at a level of service (LOS) E during the AM peak hour. Table 1 provides the LOS analysis for area intersections. H: \Projects %3LYNU0001 \Ham Park Addendum -092415.docx 7 Addendum to the Final EIR for the Ham Park Replacement Project Yvonne Burke — John D. Ham Park Community Center TABLE 1 EXISTING TRAFFIC CONDITIONS No. Intersection Existing 2015 Traffic AM Capacity ( %) PM Capacity N 1 Atlantic Ave /Fernwood Ave E 86.1 B 62.6 2 Atlantic Ave /Agnes Ave C 64.9 B 59.7 3 Atlantic Ave /Carlin Ave E 86.0 C 71.1 Source: Psomas 2015. A significant impact based on Los Angeles County Congestion Management Program (CMP) definition occurs when the proposed project increases traffic demand on a CMP facility by two percent of capacity, or causes an LOS of "F ". Based on the previous EIR, a significant adverse traffic impact is also introduced when an LOS letter downgrade occurs for existing LOS of "A" through "E ". The traffic analysis in Appendix A indicates ambient traffic growth would slightly change the capacity utilization and LOS of these intersections, but none of the intersections would operate at LOS F. With the addition of project - generated vehicle trips, capacity utilization would also increase, but LOS would remain the same. Table 2 provides the LOS and capacity with and without the project. TABLE 2 PROJECTED TRAFFIC CONDITIONS No. Intersection 2016 Without Project 2016 With Project Net ( %), Change (AMIPM) Significant Traffic Impact. (Yes hNo) LOS (AM /PM) Capacity ( %) (AM /PM) LOS (AM /PM) Capacity ( %) (AM /PM) 1 Atlantic Ave /Fernwood Ave E/C 88.6/64.2 E/C 88.7/64.4 0.1/0.2 N 2 Atlantic Ave /Agnes Ave C/B 67.1/61.6 C/B 67.3/61.6 0.2/0.0 N 3 Atlantic Ave /Carlin Ave E/D 88.8/73.1 E/D 89.0/73.4 0.2/0.3 N Source: Psomas 2015 As shown, the change in capacity is well below 2 percent. Also, no intersection would operate at LOS F. In addition, no downgrade in the existing operating LOS would occur at any of the signalized intersections. Thus, the proposed community center would not result in a significant adverse impact on traffic (Please see Appendix A for the full traffic analysis). Comparison of Impacts The trip generation from the community center (114 daily vehicle trips) as estimated in the previous EIR, has not occurred since the center was not built. As such, an estimated 294 vehicle trips would be added to existing traffic volumes at local streets and intersections. The increase in the size of the community center would increase the daily trip generation of Ham Park. Using the latest Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Handbook (9th Edition), the trip generation of a 5,000- square -foot center is 169 daily vehicle trips. With the increase in square footage, 125 more vehicle trips will be generated by the larger facility. While the center's 294 trips HAProjectsl3LYN00001 %Ham Park Addendum -092415.docx 8 Addendum to the Final EIR for the Ham Park Replacement Project Yvonne Burke — John D. Ham Park Community Center would be 180 vehicle trips more than that discussed in the previous EIR, this is mainly due to the use of different trip generation factors. Based on the analysis of traffic impacts on the current roadway network and area intersections, the proposed community center would not cause a degradation of levels of service that would represent significant adverse impact, as discussed above and detailed in Appendix A. This finding reflects the findings in the previous EIR. Also, no new impact related to traffic and circulation would occur with the larger facility. Mitigation in the Ham Park EIR related to signalized crosswalks at the intersection of Atlantic and Agnes Avenues, compliance with the California Manual for Uniform Traffic - Control Devices (MUTCD), optimized signal timing, and wayfinding signage have been implemented. No additional mitigation is needed for the proposed community center. 5.4 AIR QUALITY Impacts Analyzed in the Ham Park EIR The Ham Park project would generate demolition and construction - related short-term emissions and would generate long -term vehicular emissions. Construction emissions would exceed the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) thresholds for nitrogen oxides (NOx) and respirable particulate matter with a diameter of 10 microns or less (PM10). Mitigation for construction emissions was provided to reduce impacts to less than significant levels. Due to the decrease in area traffic volumes, long -term air quality impacts to recreational users (relating the vehicle emissions, toxic emissions, and objectionable odors) would be less than significant. Community Center Impacts The proposed community center would generate construction - related short-term emissions and long -term vehicular emissions. Limited pollutant emissions would be generated due to the relatively small size of the proposed community center. The project would need to comply with SCAQMD Rule 403 for dust control to reduce PM10 emissions and with the California Air Resources Board (CARB) regulation requiring equipment idling to be no more than 5 minutes to reduce NOx emissions. Impacts would be less than significant after mitigation. Long -term emissions would be minimal due to the size of the center and the limited number of vehicle trips it would generate. In addition, use of the community center would not expose people to toxic emissions or objectionable odors. Long -term impacts would be less than significant. Comparison of Impacts Air quality impacts associated with the community center were estimated in the previous EIR and determined to be less than significant after mitigation. Construction activities would now be confined to the community center building alone; thus, a decrease in daily construction activity and associated pollutant emissions would occur over the estimates in the previous EIR. And while the increase in the size of the community center would increase its air quality impacts, the emissions from building construction (of 3,860 square feet of additional floor area) is expected to be relatively minimal. Also, operational emissions from vehicle traffic and energy consumption would increase with the larger facility, but at negligible amounts (due to minor increase in daily vehicle trips, as discussed above). No substantial increase in air quality impacts would occur with the proposed community center. Also, no new impact related to air quality would occur with the larger facility. HAProjects \3LYNW0001 \Ham Park Addendum -092415.docx 9 Addendum to the Final EIR for the Ham Park Replacement Project Yvonne Burke — John D. Ham Park Community Center The previous EIR's mitigation measures (as modified in s+F�ut for deleted text and in italics for added text to reflect existing regulations) would be implemented by the project: MM 5.4.1 Dust control during grading activities on the site shall implement best available control measures (BACMs) eXGeeding the minims rn dUSt +F„t in accordance with the requirements of SCAQMD Rule 403. Construction activity BACMs shall include: • Water areas with active grading twice daily to reduce dust emissions. • Cover all haul trucks or maintain at least two feet of freeboard. • Pave or apply water four times daily to all unpaved parking or staging areas. • Sweep or wash any site access points within 30 minutes of any visible dirt deposition on any public roadway. • Cover or water twice daily any on -site stockpiles of debris, dirt, or other dusty materials. • Suspend all operations on any unpaved surface if winds exceed 25 mph. • Hydroseed or otherwise stabilize any cleared areas which is to remain inactive for more than 96 hours after clearing is completed. • Water subject property daily to reduce dust emissions. MM 5.4.2 Demolition a construction activities shall include implementation of BACMs, such as: Emissions • Require 90 -day low -NOx tune -ups for off -road equipment or as required by manufacturer's specifications. • Limit allowable idling to 10 5 minutes for trucks and heavy equipment. Off -Site Impacts • Encourage carpooling for construction workers. • Limit lane closures to off -peak travel periods. • Park construction vehicles off traveled roadways. • Wet down or cover dirt hauled off -site. • Wash or sweep access points daily. • Encourage receipt of materials during non -peak traffic hours. • Sandbag construction sites for erosion control. 5.5 NOISE Impacts Analyzed in the Ham Park EIR The Ham Park project would generate demolition and construction - related short-term noise and would generate long -term vehicular and stationary noise. Due to the presence of noise - sensitive H: \Pro1ects \3LYN00001\Ham Park Addendum -092415.docx 10 Addendum to the Final EIR for the Ham Park Replacement Project Yvonne Burke - John D. Ham Park Community Center receptors (e.g., residences) near the site, mitigation measures for construction noise impacts and for operational noise impacts to adjacent residences were provided. These measures included compliance with the City's construction time limits; a masonry wall along the southern park boundary; and time limits on large events at the park. Impacts were expected to be less than significant after mitigation. No adverse noise impacts on park users were expected from adjacent vehicle traffic and land uses. Community Center Impacts The proposed community center would generate construction - related short-term noise and long -term vehicular and stationary noise. Construction noise may affect the nearest residences across Virginia Avenue; however, implementation of the applicable mitigation measures would ensure that impacts would be less than significant. The community center would also generate long -term noise impacts from vehicle trips to and from the center, but this noise would not result in any discernible increase in ambient noise levels due to the limited number of trips as compared to existing traffic volumes on area streets. Indoor activities at the community center are not expected to result in noise that would impact adjacent residences, although the use of the outdoor courtyard by large groups or events may generate noise during the late evening and early morning hours. The project would need to implement the same mitigation measures in the previous EIR to reduce noise impacts. Impacts would be less than significant after mitigation. Comparison of Impacts Noise impacts associated with the community center were evaluated in the previous EIR and no change in noise impacts would occur. The increase in the size of the community center would allow a larger group of people to use the facility, but would not result in a significant increase in noise impacts. Also, no new impact related to noise would occur with the larger facility. The previous EIR's mitigation measures (as modified in °+F�u-t for deleted text and in italics for added text to apply to the community center) would be implemented by the project: MM 5.5 -1 Demolition a construction activities on the project site shall comply with City regulations on time limits for construction activity. A slight modification of the allowable times for demolition aPA construction activities is recommended to preclude late construction (7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. Monday through Saturday) and to limit the types of construction activities on weekends. MM 5.5 -2 The following measures shall be implemented to reduce noise impacts on adjacent residences: • Use of the baseball OF °^^^°F field OF outdoor courtyard at the community center building by large groups shall be confined to the daylight hours and shall not begin too early in the day. Reoern ended heum of operation are • An 8 -foot high masonry wall shall be constructed along the southern boundary of the site to separate the baseball field and the closest parking area from the side and rear yards of the nearest homes along Virginia Avenue. HAProjectsNKYNU0001 \Ham Park Addendum -092415.docx Addendum to the Final EIR for the Ham Park Replacement Project Yvonne Burke — John D. Ham Park Community Center The baseball field is now located at the northern end of the park to reduce noise impacts on residences to the south. This has made the 2nd bullet under Mitigation Measure 5.5 -2 unnecessary. 5.6 GEOLOGY AND SOILS Impacts Analyzed in the Ham Park EIR There are no earthquake faults, steep slopes, or perched groundwater conditions on or near the site. The Ham Park project would involve grading activities and site improvements and park users would be exposed to on -site geologic and seismic conditions. The structures and infrastructure built as part of the proposed park would have to comply with pertinent building standards and seismic design criteria to ensure structural integrity and to reduce groundshaking hazards. No significant adverse impacts regarding the local geology are anticipated. Community Center Impacts There are no major geologic or seismic hazards in the project area. The proposed community center would be exposed to on -site geologic and seismic conditions and would have to comply with pertinent building standards and seismic design criteria. Impacts would be less than significant. Comparison of Impacts Impacts on soils and geology associated with the community center were evaluated in the EIR and no change in these impacts would occur. The increase in the size of the community center would not increase impacts related to geology and soils. Thus, impacts would be the same as discussed in the previous EIR. Also, no new impact related to geology and soils would occur with the larger facility. 5.7 WATER AND HYDROLOGY Impacts Analyzed in the Ham Park EIR The project site and the surrounding area is relatively flat, and there are no surface water bodies on or near the project site. Runoff from the project area is conveyed into storm drains and eventually discharged into the Los Angeles River. The Ham Park project would generate stormwater pollutants during demolition, construction and operation. The project would have to implement mitigation for compliance with the requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Permit for Construction Activity and for urban stormwater pollutant mitigation. Impacts would be less than significant after mitigation. The change in drainage patterns would be internal to the site and no changes to the flows within rivers, streams, or channels were expected. The proposed park would not create flood or inundation hazards to park visitors or adjacent uses. No adverse impacts related to flooding were expected with the park project. Community Center Impacts No change in runoff volumes or rates would occur with the proposed community center, as stormwater would continue to primarily percolate into adjacent pervious areas at the park. No flooding or exposure to flood hazards would be created by the proposed community center. HAProjectsMYNW0001\Ham Paris Addendum -092415.docx 12 Addendum to the Final EIR for the Ham Park Replacement Project Yvonne Burke — John D. Ham Park Community Center Construction of the community center would generate stormwater pollutants, and compliance with the NPDES Construction General Permit requirements would be necessary. The community center would also generate stormwater pollutants during its operation from vehicles coming to and from the park to use the community center. However, no parking area is proposed as part of the community center. Rather, the existing parking lot on Atlantic Avenue would be used by center staff and users. This parking lot features pervious pavers for stormwater pollution control, and no additional stormwater pollutant mitigation is needed. Impacts from the community center would be less than significant with compliance with the NPDES General Permit for Construction Activity. Comparison of Impacts Stormwater impacts associated with the community center were evaluated in the previous EIR. The increase in the size of the community center would not result in a significant increase in impacts on water or hydrology. Thus, impacts would be the same as discussed in the previous EIR. Also, no new impact related to water and hydrology would occur with the larger facility. The previous EIR's mitigation measure for stormwater pollution control during construction would be implemented by the project: MM 5.7 -1 The proposed project shall comply with the NPDES General Permit for Construction Activity, which requires projects on one acre or more to notify the SWRCB and implement a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) for construction activities. 5.8 PUBLIC SERVICE AND UTILITIES Impacts Analyzed in the Ham Park EIR The Los Angeles County Fire Department, Los Angeles County Sheriffs Department, and Lynwood Unified School District provide public services to the City of Lynwood and the park site. The Ham Park project would create a demand for fire protection and police protection services and utilities, replacing the demands generated by existing land uses on the site. The project could result in the conduct of criminal activities at the park site, and mitigation measures to maintain public safety and security at the park were provided to reduce impacts to less than significant levels. These mitigation measures included review of the site plan and building plans by the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department and the Los Angeles County Fire Department; park closure from dusk to dawn; and the provision of security personnel at the park. Impacts would be less than significant after mitigation. The park project would lead to a decrease in fire protection demand, and no demand for schools would be generated by the park due to the demolition and displacement of existing residential and commercial land uses. The park would reduce demands for water, sewer, storm drainage, and solid waste disposal services and other utilities. However, potential impacts to the Metropolitan Water District's (MWD's) West Coast Feeder may occur, and mitigation to protect this feeder was provided in the EIR. Impacts would be less than significant after mitigation. HAProjectsQLYNW0001 \Ham Park Addendum- 09241 5.docx 13 Addendum to the Final EIR for the Ham Park Replacement Project Yvonne Burke — John D. Ham Park Communitv Center Community Center Impacts The proposed community center would generate a demand for fire protection and police protection services. The mitigation measure calling for review of the proposed site plan and building plans by the Los Angeles County Sheriffs Department and the Los Angeles County Fire Department remains applicable for the project. Mitigation related to facility closure and security services are also needed at the community center. Impacts on fire protection and police protection services would be less than significant after mitigation. The proposed community center would generate a demand for water, sewer, storm drainage, and solid waste disposal services and other utilities. This demand would be met by connecting to existing utility infrastructure that serves the park and adjacent developments. Due to the limited size of the community center, this demand would be less than significant. The easement for the West Coast Feeder at the northern end of the park has been protected and is not located near the site for the community center. No impact on this feeder would occur. Comparison of Impacts Impacts associated with the demand for public services and utilities would occur with the community center, as analyzed in the Ham Park EIR. The increase in the size of the community center would not result in a significant increase in the demand for public services and utilities. Thus, impacts would be the same as discussed in the previous EIR. Also, no new impact related to public services and utilities would occur with the larger facility. The previous EIR's mitigation measures remain applicable to the project. MM 5.8.1 The City shall provide the LA County Sheriffs Department and the LA County Fire Department with opportunities to review the site plan and building plans for the proposed park, to recommend measures to deter criminal elements and prevent the creation of a fire hazard and provide access for emergency vehicles. This mitigation measure has been completed as part of the plan check process. MM 5.8.3 The City shall contract with a professional security provider for the patrol of the park during select times to monitor and discourage the conduct of criminal activity. The mitigation for limiting park hours is currently being implemented as part of the mitigation for on -site security personnel at the park. The same security personnel at the park would serve the community center. The community center has an entry gate and would generally be closed during the nighttime hours. Since plan check has been completed and security measures are in place, no mitigation measures need to be implemented for the community center. Also, no additional measures are necessary. 5.9 VISUAL QUALITY AND AESTHETICS Impacts Analyzed in the Ham Park EIR The Ham Park project would alter the visual quality of the site from an urbanized area with a mix of residential and commercial structures to parkland with more open and unobtrusive views. The alteration of views from adjacent residential and commercial land uses would not result in adverse visual quality /aesthetic impacts. New light sources would be created by the park and the HAProjectsIKYN00001 \Ham Park Addendum -092415.docx 14 Addendum to the Final EIR for the Ham Park Replacement Project Yvonne Burke — John D. Ham Park Community Center community center; a mitigation measure was provided to reduce light impacts on adjacent residences to less than significant levels. Community Center Impacts The proposed community center would change the visual quality of a grassy field to a one -story concrete masonry building surrounded by paved areas and landscaping. The community center would also include new light sources for outdoor security and interior lighting that would be visible from doors and windows. However, the building would be surrounded by trees and would be separated from adjacent land uses by several hundred feet of open fields to the north and south and by existing streets to the west and east. At this time, there are existing light standards (e.g., field lights) at the northern section of the park but not at the site for the community center. Thus, increases in lighting levels would occur with the proposed community center. The mitigation measure for controlling light spillover to adjacent residences would be implemented for the project. Impacts would be less than significant after mitigation. Comparison of Impacts Impacts associated with changes in visual quality would occur with the community center, as analyzed in the Ham Park EIR. New light sources would also be introduced by the community center, as analyzed in the Ham Park EIR. The increase in the size of the community center would not result in a significant increase in impacts on aesthetics and light and glare. Visual quality impacts would be the same as discussed in the previous EIR. Also, no new impact related to visual quality and aesthetics would occur with the larger facility. The previous EIR's mitigation measure for controlling light spillover (as modified in ° +r�z:t for deleted text to apply to the community center) would be implemented by the project: MM 5.9 -1 The lighting plan for the proposed park shall be designed to prevent spillover impacts on adjacent residential land uses. This may include: • Direction of lights into the site; PFOViSiGR of light shields foF light standaFds at the game fields and paFkmRg Io • Use of low -level lighting along walkways or around the community building; PF0ViSien of +Foos and shFuhs along the pe meter of the parking areas the preje6t site to p en4 an site lighting from n affeati� jaGeR Fees i d ertaes; Limits on the time and duration of use of the baseball d r fie! �rrc�cricvurr- 'crnv -�v cccrrrcrav d WiRg the nighttime hey ors 5.10 HUMAN HEALTH AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Impacts Analyzed in the Ham Park EIR The Ham Park project would include the removal of hazardous materials (i.e., lead -based paint and asbestos in existing buildings and paint, solvents and chemicals used in auto repair) from existing structures and land uses. Mitigation was provided to comply with applicable hazardous material regulations, including SCAQMD Rule 1403 and Cal -OSHA regulations, to reduce impacts to less than significant levels. HAProjects \3LYN\J0001 \Ham Paris Addendum -092415.docx 15 Addendum to the Final EIR for the Ham Park Replacement Project Yvonne Burke — John D. Ham Park Community Center The proposed park would not create any public hazards. Community Center Impacts The proposed community center would not require the demolition of existing structures that store or use hazardous materials. Hazardous materials use, storage, and disposal during construction and maintenance activities for the community center would be conducted in compliance with applicable regulations. Impacts would be less than significant. Comparison of Impacts Impacts associated with hazardous materials in previous land uses were mitigated when the existing structures were demolished and prior to the construction of the park. No hazardous materials are present on the grassy field where the community center is proposed. The increase in the size of the community center would not result in an increase in impacts on human health or hazardous materials. Thus, impacts would be the same as discussed in the previous EIR. Also, no new impact related to human health and hazardous materials would occur with the larger facility. 5.11 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Impacts Analyzed in the Ham Park EIR Palm trees, cypress trees, and other introduced /ornamental landscaping plants, trees, shrubs, and grass were found throughout the proposed park site. There were no sensitive biological resources or wetlands at the existing residential and commercial developments, and construction of the proposed park would not affect sensitive plants or animal habitats. Impacts related to the removal of introduced /ornamental landscaping plant materials would be less than significant. Community Center Impacts The proposed community center would include the removal of existing turf grass and four small trees to be replaced with the proposed building, along with the planting of sycamore trees and other landscaping materials around the building. Impacts on biological resources would be less than significant. Comparison of Impacts Impacts associated with the removal of existing plants (as discussed in the Ham Park EIR) occurred when the park was built and the impacts of the community center would be limited to the removal of turf grass and small trees that were planted as part of park construction. The increase in the size of the community center would not result in an increase in impacts on sensitive biological resources. Thus, impacts would be the same as discussed in the previous EIR. Also, no new impact related to biological resources would occur with the larger facility. 5.12 CULTURAL RESOURCES Impacts Analyzed in the Ham Park EIR The existing residential and commercial structures on the site were not considered historic resources by the City of Lynwood. Also, no archeological or paleontological resources were anticipated to be present within the site, based on previous disturbance associated with the long - H: \Projects \3LYMJ0001 \Ham Park Addendum -092415.docx 16 Addendum to the Final EIR for the Ham Park Replacement Project Yvonne Burke — John D. Ham Park Community Center term urbanized nature of the area. Demolition and grading activities for the park project would not disrupt or disturb cultural resources. No impacts on cultural resources would occur. Community Center Impacts The proposed community center would include grading and excavation at the central section of Ham Park for the construction of the building foundation, floor slab, utility connections, and associated improvements. Since the underlying soils were heavily disturbed by previous development and park construction, no impacts to cultural resources would occur. Comparison of Impacts Impacts on cultural resources associated with the community center were evaluated in the EIR, and no change in these impacts would occur. The increase in the size of the community center would not increase impacts related to cultural resources. Thus, impacts would be the same as discussed in the previous EIR. Also, no new impact related to cultural resources would occur with the larger facility. 5.13 RECREATION Impacts Analyzed in the Ham Park EIR The project was not expected to create an additional or direct demand on parks and recreational facilities in the City or to displace any existing recreational facilities. No adverse impacts would occur. Community Center Impacts The proposed community center would displace an open field at Ham Park, but there are open fields to the south that would remain. The center would also complement the recreational uses at the park. Impacts would be less than significant. Comparison of Impacts The community center was part of the park project that was analyzed in the Ham Park EIR. Thus, impacts would be the same as discussed in the previous EIR. Also, no new impact related to recreation would occur with the larger facility. 5.14 ENERGY Impacts Analyzed in the Ham Park EIR Energy use at the proposed park would be less than the demand created by the existing residential and commercial uses on the project site. No adverse impacts on energy resources would occur with the park project. Community Center Impacts The proposed community center would require energy sources, but the project has been designed to achieve LEED Silver certification. This involves the implementation of energy conservation measures beyond the requirements of the California Green Building Standards (CalGreen) Code. H: \Projects \3LYN\J0001\Ham Park Addendum- 092415.docx 17 Addendum to the Final EIR for the Ham Park Replacement Project Yvonne Burke — John D. Ham Park Community Center For one, solar panels would be provided on the roof to partially meet the building's energy demands. Impacts on energy would be less than significant. Comparison of Impacts The community center was part of the park project that was analyzed in the Ham Park EIR. Thus, impacts would be the same as discussed in the previous EIR. The increase in the size of the community center would not result in a significant increase in energy demand, when coupled with the energy conservation measures incorporated into the proposed community center. Also, no new impact related to energy would occur with the larger facility. 6.16 MINERAL RESOURCES Impacts Analyzed in the Ham Park EIR Demand for aggregate resources associated with construction of Ham Park would be limited to what would be needed for the community center, parking areas, and pedestrian pathways. This demand would represent a' minor amount of the total demand generated by construction activities in the City of Lynwood or the County of Los Angeles and the available resources in the San Gabriel Valley region. Impacts on mineral resources were considered less than significant. Community Center Impacts The proposed community center would require aggregate resources for construction. This demand would be limited due to the relatively small size of the proposed building, and impacts on mineral resources would be less than significant. Comparison of Impacts The community center was part of the park project, that was analyzed in the Ham Park EIR. Thus, impacts would be the same as discussed in the previous EIR. The increase in the size of the community center would not result in a significant increase in the demand for mineral resources. Also, no new impact related to mineral resources would occur with the larger facility. 6.16 AGRICULTURAL AND FOREST RESOURCES Impacts Analyzed in the Ham Park EIR There are no areas designated as Farmland in the City of Lynwood. Therefore, the Ham Park project would have no impacts on agricultural resources. Community Center Impacts The proposed community center would be located on a grassy field and would have no impact on agricultural land or activities. Also, there are no forests on or near the site. No impacts on agricultural and forest resources would occur. Comparison of Impacts The community center was part of the park project that was analyzed in the Ham Park EIR. Thus, impacts would be the same as discussed in the previous EIR. The increase in the size of the HAPro1ects \3LYNW0001\Ham Park Addendum -092415.docx 18 Addendum to the Final EIR for the Ham Park Replacement Project Yvonne Burke — John D. Ham Park Community Center community center would not result in a change in impacts to agricultural or forest resources. Also, no new impact related to agricultural and forest resources would occur with the larger facility. 5.17 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS Impacts Analyzed in Ham Park EIR At the time of certification of the Ham Park EIR (2005), a Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions analysis was not part of the required CEQA Checklist. Thus, impacts associated with GHG emissions were not addressed in the EIR. In March 2008, amendments to the State CEQA Guidelines required the analysis and mitigation of the effects of GHG emissions in CEQA documents. Community Center Impacts The proposed community center would generate GHG emissions associated with vehicle trips to and from the center, energy and water use, and solid waste generation and disposal. These emissions would be relatively minor when compared to the GHG emissions generated by the City of Lynwood, the County of Los Angeles, and the State of California. GHG emissions from the community center would have no direct effect on global climate change. In addition, the community center has been designed to include solar panels on the roof and would implement various energy and water conservation measures to achieve LEED Silver certification. Thus, it would reduce its GHG emissions and would be consistent with current plans and policies for GHG reduction. Impacts would be less than significant. Comparison of Impacts A 2010 decision by the Fourth District of the California Court of Appeals confirms that, after an initial EIR is certified, CEQA establishes a presumption against additional environmental review (San Diego Navy Broadway Complex Coalition v. City of San Diego, 185 Cal App 41h 924 [2010]). In this case, the court held that the City of San Diego was not required to prepare a subsequent EIR (SEIR) regarding the potential impact of a redevelopment project on global climate change because the City action did not constitute a discretionary approval that would provide it with the authority to address the project's impact on that environmental issue. This finding has been reaffirmed in the 2011 case, Citizens for Responsible Equitable Environmental Development v. City of San Diego,' and a 2014 decision by the Sixth District Court of Appeals in Citizens Against Airport Pollution v. City of San Jose. Thus, while no GHG analysis was provided in the Ham Park EIR, GHG emissions and global climate change are not "new information" since these effects have been generally known for quite some time. Therefore, impacts related to GHG emissions from the proposed community center would not be considered new information under Section 21166 of CEQA. Also, the community center would implement a component of the previously approved Ham Park Replacement Project and does not include other uses beyond what was previously authorized. Since the first and second conditions have not occurred (i.e., that the community center would not result in substantial changes to the Ham Park project and that there have not been substantial changes in circumstances, such that new or more severe environmental impacts require major revisions to the previous EIR), the issue is simply whether GHG emissions constitute "new 1 Citizens for Responsible Equitable Environmental Development v. City of San Diego (2011) 196 Cal. App. 4tn 515. HAProjectsl3LYNU0001 \Ham Park Addendum- 092415.docx 19 Addendum to the Final EIR for the Ham Park Replacement Project Yvonne Burke — John D. Ham Park Community Center information" under Section 15162(a) of the State CEQA Guidelines. As noted above, a factual finding can be made by the City that GHG emissions do not constitute new information. Therefore, no further analysis of GHG emissions is required for the proposed community center that may require preparation of a Supplemental or Subsequent EIR. HAPmjects \3LYN\J0001 \Ham Park Addendum -092415.docx 20 Addendum to the Final EIR for the Ham Park Replacement Project Yvonne Burke — John D. Ham Park Community Center SECTION 6.0 FINDINGS The proposed community center would be larger than the community center previously planned and analyzed in the EIR for the Ham Park Replacement Project. The analysis above shows that there would be no new significant adverse environmental impacts resulting from the larger community center, nor would there be any substantial increase in the severity of any previously identified environmental impact. The potential impacts associated with the proposed community center would be the same as the anticipated levels analyzed in the previous EIR. Specifically, the proposed community center would have the same potentially significant impacts on the following environmental issues: • Air Quality • Noise • Water and Hydrology • Public Services and Utilities • Visual Quality and Aesthetics Impacts on Population and Housing [resident, household and business displacement] and on Human Health and Hazardous Materials [presence of hazardous materials] have occurred and been mitigated. Similar to the original findings, implementation of the recommended mitigation measures in the EIR would reduce project impacts to less than significant levels. Applicable mitigation measures for potentially significant adverse impacts, as identified in the Ham Park EIR and modified to apply to the proposed community center, are listed below: MM 5.4.1 Dust control during grading activities on the site shall implement best available control measures (BACMs) in accordance with the requirements of SCAQMD Rule 403. Construction activity BACMs shall include: • Water project site twice daily to reduce dust emissions. • Cover all haul trucks or maintain at least two feet of freeboard. • Sweep or wash any site access points within 30 minutes of any visible dirt deposition on any public roadway. • Cover or water twice daily any on -site stockpiles of debris, dirt, or other dusty materials. • Suspend all operations on any unpaved surface if winds exceed 25 mph. • Hydroseed or otherwise stabilize any cleared areas which is to remain inactive for more than 96 hours after clearing is completed. MM 5.4.2 Construction activities shall include implementation of BACMs, such as: Emissions • Require 90 -day low -NOx tune -ups for off -road equipment or as required by manufacturer's specifications. H1Pro1ectsl3LYN00001 \Ham Park Addendum- 092415.docx 21 Addendum to the Final EIR for the Ham Park Replacement Project Yvonne Burke — John D. Ham Park Community Center • Limit allowable idling to 5 minutes for trucks and heavy equipment. Off -Site Impacts • Encourage carpooling for construction workers. • Limit lane closures to off -peak travel periods. • Park construction vehicles off traveled roadways. • Wet down or cover dirt hauled off -site. • Wash or sweep access points daily. • Encourage receipt of materials during non -peak traffic hours. • Sandbag construction sites for erosion control. MM 5.5 -1 Construction activities on the project site shall comply with City regulations on time limits for construction activity. A slight modification of the allowable times for construction activities is recommended to preclude late construction (7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. Monday through Saturday) and to limit the types of construction activities on weekends. MM 5.5 -2 The following measures shall be implemented to reduce noise impacts on adjacent residences: Use of the outdoor courtyard at the community center building by large groups shall be confined to the daylight hours and shall not begin too early in the day. MM 5.7 -1 The proposed project shall comply with the NPDES General Permit for Construction Activity, which requires projects on one acre or more to notify the SWRCB and implement a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) for construction activities. MM 5.8 -1 The City shall provide the LA County Sheriffs Department and the LA County Fire Department with opportunities to review the site plan and building plans for the proposed park, to recommend measures to deter criminal elements and prevent the creation of a fire hazard and provide access for emergency vehicles. (completed) MM 5.8 -3 The City shall contract with a professional security provider for the patrol of the park during select times to monitor and discourage the conduct of criminal activity. (ongoing) MM 5.9 -1 The lighting plan for the proposed park shall be designed to prevent spillover impacts on adjacent residential land uses. This may include: • Direction of lights into the site • Use of low -level lighting along walkways or around the community building No significant adverse impacts are expected to occur after the implementation of these mitigation measures. HAProjects\3LYN\J0001 \Ham Park Addendum -092415.docx 22 Addendum to the Final EIR for the Ham Park Replacement Project Yvonne Burke — John D. Ham Park Community Center SECTION 7.0 CONCLUSIONS The potential environmental impacts of the proposed community center have been previously analyzed as part of an earlier CEQA document: the EIR for the Ham Park replacement Project (SCH No. 2004061141). The previous EIR determined that impacts would be less than significant or would be mitigated to less than significant levels, and this earlier CEQA document has been certified pursuant to the State CEQA Guidelines. As the foregoing analysis demonstrates that the proposed community center would not result in any of the conditions set forth in Sections 15162 to 15163 of the State CEQA Guidelines that would require a supplement to the EIR or a subsequent EIR. Specifically: 1. No substantial changes are proposed in the project which would require major revisions in the EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. As this Addendum indicates, the construction and operation of the larger community center would not result in any environmental impacts not previously addressed in the Ham Park EIR. 2. No substantial changes would occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken that would require major revisions of the Ham Park EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. The physical and environmental circumstances discussed in the EIR with respect to the project site are not substantially different today. Where changed conditions have occurred due to park construction, they do not present new impacts or would not be adversely affected by the project. Also, there is no new information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was certified as complete, that shows any of the following: (a) the project would have any significant effects not discussed in the EIR; (b) the significant effects described in the EIR would be substantially more severe than shown in the EIR; (c) mitigation measures or alternatives found in the EIR to be infeasible would in fact be feasible; or (d) any mitigation measures or alternatives are considerably different than those analyzed in the EIR. The information in the EIR regarding the environmental impacts, environmental circumstances, mitigation measures, and alternatives relating to the community center have not changed. While not previously analyzed, impacts on GHG emissions would be less than significant and would not require mitigation. Thus, the previous EIR is still applicable to the proposed community center, as changed. Based on the foregoing, the EIR, as augmented by this Addendum, adequately analyzes the impacts of the proposed community center. No changes to the analysis and findings related to the environmental issues addressed in the Ham Park EIR are needed for the proposed community center. Only minor technical changes and additions (with regards to the size of the community center), which are documented in this Addendum to the earlier CEQA document, are needed to make the previous documentation adequate to cover the proposed community center (State CEQA Guidelines §15164). Therefore, in accordance with Sections 15162 through 15164 of the State CEQA Guidelines, this Addendum to the previously approved EIR is the appropriate environmental documentation for the proposed community center. In taking action on any of the approvals needed by the community center, the City of Lynwood, as the decision - making body, must consider the whole of the data presented in the previous Ham Park EIR and this Addendum to the EIR. HAProjectsMYW0001\Ham Park Addendum -092415.docx 23 Addendum to the Final EIR for the Ham Park Replacement Project Yvonne Burke — John D. Ham Park Community Center SECTION 8.0 REFERENCES Citizens Against Airport Pollution v. City of San Jose, et al. 227 Cal. App. 4th 788 (61h Dist. 2014). Citizens for Responsible Equitable Environmental Development v. City of San Diego 196 Cal. App. 4th 515 (2011). Lynwood, City of. 2015a (June 5). Project Manual Phase 11 - Yvonne Burke — John D Ham Park Community Center Bid Set Submittal. Lynwood, CA: the City. 2015b (May 28). Yvonne Burke — John D Ham Park Community Center, RFP for Construction and Inspection Services, Pre - Proposal Meeting Presentation. Lynwood, CA: the City. 2015c (August 3). Yvonne Burke — John D Ham Park Phase ll: Community Center Bid Set Submittal. Lynwood, CA: the City. 2009. City of Lynwood Land Use Plan. Lynwood, CA: the City. 2005 (January). Draft and Final Environmental Impact Report for the Proposed Ham Park Replacement Project. Lynwood, CA: the City. 2003 (August). City of Lynwood General Plan. Lynwood, CA: the City. 1994. City of Lynwood Zoning Map. Lynwood, CA: the City. Psomas. 2015 (September). Technical Memorandum: Traffic Impact Analysis for the proposed 8,680-square-foot Community Center in Ham Park. Santa Ana, CA: Psomas. San Diego Navy Broadway Complex Coalition v. City of San Diego, 185 Cal App 4th 924 (2010). South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). 1976 (May, as amended through 2005). Rule 403: Fugitive Dust. Diamond Bar, CA: SCAQMD. http:/ /www.aqmd.gov /docs /default- source/ rule - book/rule -iv /rule- 403.pdf ?sfvrsn =4. HAProjects \3LYNW0001 \Ham Park Addendum -092415.docx 24 Addendum to the Final EIR for the Ham Park Replacement Project SECTION 9.0 PREPARERS 9.1 BONTERRA PSOMAS 225 South Lake Avenue, Suite 1000 Pasadena, California 91101 (626) 351 -2000 Principal -in- Charge ...................... ............................... Project Manager ........................... ............................... Word Processor ........................... ......................s........ Technical Editor ........................... ............................... Graphics Specialist ...................... ............................... Yvonne Burke — John D. Ham Park Community Center ....................... Kathleen Brady, AICP ........... I.......... Josephine Alido, AICP ..... ............................... Sheryl Krystal ............... ..........................Julia Black ...... ............................... Laura Wrenn HAProjectsl3LYNU0001 \Ham Park Addendum -092415.docx 25 Addendum to the Final EIR for the Ham Park Replacement Project APPENDIX A 10:7x1 [ow_1 ill /_1W&I!;? EXHIBIT "B" To: Lorry Hempe, City of Lynwood From: Arief Naftali, PE, TE cc: Josephine Alido Date: September 24, 2015 Traffic Impact Analysis for the proposed 8,680 - square -foot Community Re: Center in Ham Park Introduction and Background In 2005, the City of Lynwood prepared and certified an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) that analyzed the potential environmental impacts associated with the Ham Park Replacement Project. The project site consisted of approximately 10 acres of land bounded on the east by Virginia Avenue; on the north by the Century Freeway (Interstate 105 or I -105); on the south by parcels located mid -block between Niland Avenue and Alvada Street; and on the west by Atlantic Avenue. The project site also included a small area bordered by Atlantic Avenue to the east; the alley off Atlantic Avenue to the west; Agnes Avenue to the north; and Lavinia Avenue to the south. As part of the EIR, traffic impact analysis was prepared for the proposed project that included facilities consisting of a soccer, baseball fields and a 5,000 square -feet communitycenter. The soccer and baseball fields have been constructed as part of Phase 1 of the park replacement project and a new community center with an occupying floor area of 8,680 square feet (in lieu of the originally planned 5,000 square feet) is slated for construction in late 2015 and to be completed in 2016, considered as Phase II of the project. Objective In accordance with CEQA guidelines, the objective of this Technical Memorandum is to verify that no significant traffic load and capacity impact will be introduced to the existing adjacent intersections and along Atlantic Avenue as a result of the planned Community Center construction. Consistent with the previous EIR, a significant impact at intersections is determined based on the following thresholds based on Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) methodology: Level -of- Service LOS ICU Capacity A % <55 B 55 < % <64 C 64 < % <73 D 73 < % <82 E 82 < % <91 F 91 <% The City of Lynwood and the County of Los Angeles consider LOS "D" or better during morning (AM) or afternoon (PM) peak hours as the acceptable level of service. A significant impact based on Los Angeles County Congestion Management Program (CMP) definition occurs when the proposed project increases traffic demand on a CMP facility by 2% of capacity, or causes an LOS of "F ". Based on the previous EIR, a significant adverse traffic impact is also introduced when an LOS letter downgrade occurs for existing LOS of "A" through "E ". Methodology, Project Trip Generation and Distribution Updates The previous EIR assumed the following trips would be generated by the overall park replacement project scope at the time. ORIGINAL LAND USE TRIP GENERATION 2005 Property Type Area Peak Hour Trip Daily Trips AM PM Soccer Field Baseball Field ' 1 21 71 Baseball Field 17 1 21 71 Community Center 5,000 square-feet 8 8 114 Total 10 50 256 A change in the number of trips will be caused by a slightly larger Community Center building currently being proposed at the park and using the latest Trip Generation Handbook. As shown, approximately 10 to 12 more vehicle trips will occur during peak hours with the 8,680- square -foot community center than those with a 5,000 - square -foot center. LAND USE TRIP GENERATION (2015) Property Type Area Peak Hour Trip Daily Trips AM PM Soccer Field , .' ° =Hips been built` °.. Baseball Field ' Has been built` ` Community Center (Land Use 495 of ITE Trip Generation Handbook, 9th Edition) 5,000 square feet 15 17 169 8,680 square feet 25 29 294 During AM Peak Hour, 57% of trips are categorized as incoming amounting to 14 trips, with the remaining 11 trips considered as outgoing. During PM Peak Hour, 48% of the trips are considered incoming amounting to 14 trips, with the remaining 15 considered as outgoing trips. This traffic impact update focuses on three (3) adjacent signalized intersections near Ham Park along Atlantic Avenue, from north to south; at Fernwood Avenue, Agnes Avenue and Carlin Avenue. Consistent with the previous EIR, the Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) methodology is being used to analyze capacity and Level -of- Service for the signalized intersections. The trip distribution percentages from the proposed new Community Center are shown below 50% 4 06/, 0 Z A A to 7, ationalfi'* Inc -JbseO�ir�o Aulc,Zone' C) 4 0 */WzZ' 30% 4 10% N � � R 04P 20%20% New, C Q4 U111111U, Ly 30% 4 q Center a ell ✓ YV0111W va, AV 5-- P10 6). Kingdom Hall of DvaWl Witnesses th Lynwood trs Market /6 10%, Q-200 15%— 20%30% ATH Nationiffink, Inc fV 2 5 O/q fj 2 Rubio's Tire Shop > tvd3 St Cfilrk S! Al I rue Vine Wsionor Janie P A Elementary S Proposed Trip Distribution from the New Community Center at Ham Park The corresponding project trip volumes are shown in Exhibit 2 of the Appendix. Existing 2015 Traffic Conditions Existing AM /PM peak hour counts were conducted on Wednesday, September 16, 2015 as enclosed in Exhibit 1 in the Appendix. Level of Service (LOS) analysis of the Existing Traffic Condition yields the following: No. Intersections Existing 2015 Traffic AM Capacity PM Capacity 1 Atlantic /Femwood Avenue E 86.1 B 62.6 2 Atlantic/Agnes Avenue C 64.9 B 59.7 3 Atlantic /Carlin Avenue E 86.0 C 71.1 As shown, two signalized intersections (Atlantic /Femwood Avenue and Atlantic/ Carlin Avenue) are operating at LOS "E" during morning peak hour. Opening Year (2016) Traffic In obtaining "Opening Year", 2016 traffic volumes, an ambient growth of 1.05% was applied to the existing traffic volumes based on the 2010 Los Angeles County Congestion Management Program. Ambient growth projection for the area is 5.2% between 2015 and 2020. The resulting traffic volumes under "Without" and "With" project scenarios are enclosed in Exhibits 3 and 4, in the Appendix. LOS analysis for both scenarios are as follow: Scenario 1: Without Project No. Signalized Intersections Opening Year without Pro'ect AM Capacity %) PM Capacity (% 1 Atlantic /Femwood Avenue E 88.6 C 64.2 2 Atlantic/Agnes Avenue C 67.1 B 61.6 3 Atlantic/ Carlin Avenue E 88.8 D 73.1 Scenario 2: With Project No. Signalized` Intersections Opening Year with Project AM Capacity PM Capacity 1 Atlantic /Femwood Avenue E 88.7 C 64.4 2 Atlantic/Agnes Avenue C 67.3 B 61.6 3 Atlantic /Carlin Avenue E 89.0 D 73.4 LOS worksheets used to perform the aforementioned analysis are also included in the Appendix. Conclusion Based on the analysis above, the proposed 8,680 - square -foot Community Center would not cause a change in capacity by anywhere close to 2 %, nor would it cause an intersection to operate at LOS "F" or a downgrade from the existing operating LOS to any of the signalized intersections, as shown below: Therefore, no significant traffic impact is expected to ensue from the proposed Community Center development in the existing Ham Park. In addition, the incremental increase in trip generation due to the proposed larger facility would not result in significant adverse impacts related to traffic and circulation. Com arson No. Signalized Net Significant Without With Intersections Project Capacity Project Capacity ( %) Traffic AM/PM P.) AM/PM N Change Impact LOS LOS AM/PM AM/PM (Y/ N) 1 Atlantic /FemwoodAvenue F/C 88.6/64.2 F/C 88.7/64.4 0.1/0.2 N- 2 Atlantic/ Agnes Avenue C/B 67.1/61.6 C/B 67.3/61.6 0.2/0.0 N 3 Atlantic /Carlin Avenue F/D 88.8/73.1 F/D 89.0/73.4 0.2/0.3 N Therefore, no significant traffic impact is expected to ensue from the proposed Community Center development in the existing Ham Park. In addition, the incremental increase in trip generation due to the proposed larger facility would not result in significant adverse impacts related to traffic and circulation. Appendices Exhibit 1: Existing Lane Geometry and Volumes Exhibit 2: Project Trip Volumes Exhibit 3: Opening Year Volumes Without Project Exhibit 4: Opening Year Volumes With Project Level of Service (LOS) Worksheets Q U FF BOO QS - - -__ N{y0 po s bbd ^ry�\�oP q� ago LF / 4 �16 !3j s0 "1 ti \bry ^y JQS faH1Nf S�ffT T Q Q Q N' ✓OSEPy1Nf ygtil P,,Rk SyfET Q 4GNES q�E' 3/5 i" -1 s 5/ 1g1/ "o 3 Q Al C New N z �MMUN /Ty eIV�R (q bylq A� LAWNIq Ale LEGEND: OS SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS %X /XX AM/PM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES (RT) RIGHT TURN VOLUME NII,AND STREET Q U 2 Q c ALVgQA STREET Q c3= ti CLARK STREET Q Q U GgRCIN ,y ^�� CLARK STREET 237150 ART 1�41�22 ) s 19 '22a `1 / 11%134 �F EXISTING LANE GEOMETRICS AND VOLUME EXHIBIT 1 PS lkwAl S DATE: 09 -21 -15 REVISED ON: JOB No:3LYNO0100 SHEET 1 OF 1 Q FfRh�pO ^\ � OS _ FfRNWppp s� A�, � A s JpSfPyTNE Q S�ffT ? Q Q 2 N �pSfPy�yf yqM PgRk Safer 7 f`314 s Q / H / � N \ / Cpy�kFW CFN�R Ty LEGEND: `A�NTAAV f OS SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS LAWN'A AVE XX/XX AM /PM PROJECT TRIP VOLUMES - -a- OUTGOING TRIPS INCOMING TRIPS NILAND STREET Q CARL,. � Q T/, s ALVADA STREET 7�7 z S� b b\ 1 CLARK STREET Q Q U U \ CLARK STREET ° C <il, PROJECT TRIP VOLUME EXHIBIT 2 PS 0 M AS DATE: 09 -21 -15 REVISED ON: JOB No:3LYN00100 SHEET 1 OF 1 LEGEND: OSIGNALIZED MERSEC11ONs KK/NOf AY/PM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES OPENING YEAR 2016 WITHOUT PROJECT EXHIBIT 3 ® M AS DATE: 09 -21 -15 REVISED ON: JOB No:3LYN00100 SHEET 1 OF 1 LAO L 133HS OOLOONAI£:ON 90P :NO O3SIA36 SL —LZ -60 :31VO ® S d -V ilGIHX3 133POad HLYA 9 WZ S1i3r1 ONINUO i� sy g a[s ar s [rtr Qst lei .J �3a[s YOYAIY a ^S ^tI v{�a n` �lS �►'11N 53MIGA HMH MY3d Md/MY XX/XX SNOLLO3SMNI Q3 MIS OS 'aN3033 a _ s ape[ a a 4 \� Cb Intersection Capacity Utilization Existing 2015 Traffic AM 3: Atlantic Ave & Carlin Ave 9/22/2015 Lane Configurations 58.0 Permitted O tion s 272.3 p, O.' -117.2 ' Wal 67.0 t Minimum (s) 45.2 _ Volume (vph) - 267 191. 119 41 182 243 94 816 6, 111 - 784 .234 Pedestrians. _ _ Combined (s) 73.5 ; �F Intersection Capacity Utilization 86.0 % ICU Level of Service E Ped Button Pedestrian Timing (s) Free Right , No No No �` No Ideal Flow 1.900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 19100 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lost Time (s) 6.0 6.0 , . 6.,0'. - 60' 6.0 4.0 6.6 '6. 6.5 6.6-1-, 4.0 Minimum Green (s) 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0. 4.0 10.0 10.0 4.0 10.0 10.0 4.0 Refr.Cycle"Length (s) 120 120 " 120; 120 ° °'12- 0 °_ 120. 120, 120 .: 120 120 120' =120 Volume Combined (vph) 267 191 119 41 425 0 94 821 0 111 1018 0 Lane _Utilization Factor 1.00 0:95 1.00::1.00 0.95 „ 1.00 1.06 0.91 1.00 _F 1.00 0.96 1.00 Turnin Factor vph) g ( 0.95 1.00 0.85 0.95 0.91 0.85 0 95 1. 1 0 0 0 85 0 95 0.97 8 0.85 .. .. _ _ Saturated Flow (vph)" 1805 3.618 1.615 1805 3307 , :. 0 1805 5170 - 0 � 1805 � 3493 Ped Intf Time (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ,_ Pedestrian Freque_ncy ( °lo) ` 0.00 0.00 0.00 ��_ 0.00 Protected Option Allowed Yes Yes Yes Yes Reference Time (s) 17.8 6.3 , 8.8 2.7 15.4 0.0 6.2 19.1 G.,0 7.4 35.0 0.0 Adj Reference Time (s) 23.8 16.0 16.0 16.0 21.4 0.0 16.5 25.6 0.0 16.5 41.5 0.0 Permitted Option , Adj Saturation A (vph) 120 1809 120 1654 120 1723 120 1746 Reference Time A (s) 266.3 6.3 40.9 15.4 93 7 °19.1 110.7 35.0, Adj Saturation 6-(vph NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Reference Time B (s) _NA NA - NA' NA �° NA NA= NA NA_ Reference Time (s) 266.3 40.9 93.7 110.7 Ad-j---R e- f 6 -re'- n 'c"e Time -(s) 272.3 46.9 1:00.2 117.2. Split Option Ref Time Combined (s) 17 8 . - 6.3 '2.7 _15 4 6.2 19.1 7.4 _ 35.0 Ref Time Seperate (s) 17.8 6.3 2.7 6.6 6.2 18.9 7.4 26.9 Reference Time (s)" ' "17.,8- 17.8 15.4 15 4 19.1 `19.1 �� 35.0 `' 35.0 . Adj Reference Time (s) 23.8 23.8 21.4 21.4 25.6 25.6 41.5 41.5 Protected Option (s) 45.2 58.0 Permitted O tion s 272.3 p, O.' -117.2 . Split Option (s) 45.2 67.0 Minimum (s) 45.2 _ 58.0 1:03.1 Rht T nruT sEBRrr 7 s) 16.0 Adj Reference Time (s)'' . Cross Thru Ref Time (s) 41.5 Oncoming Left Ref Time�(9 p.0 _ Combined (s) 73.5 ; �F Intersection Capacity Utilization 86.0 % ICU Level of Service E Reference Times and Phasing Options do not represent an optimized timing plan Atlantic Avenue 9/1/2015 Existing 2015 Traffic Synchro 9 Report Psomas Page 1 Intersection Capacity Utilization Existing 2015 Traffic AM 6: Atlantic Ave & Agnes Ave 9/22/2015 Lane Configurations I 65.3 r 24.0 +T r '� ti., Minimum (s) 24.0 ti� Volume (vph) 181 0 77 5 3 7 43" 1274 1 7 1015 96 Pedestrians Ped Button Pedestrian Timing (s) Free Right No No No No Ideal Flow 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lost Time (s) 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 6.5 6.5 4.0 6.5 6.5 4.0 Minimum Green (s) 8.0 4.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 10.0 10.0 4.0 10.0 10.0 4.0 Refr Cycle Length (s) 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 Volume Combined (vph) 181 0 77 0 8 7 43 1275 0 7 1111 0 Lane Utilization Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 , 0.95 1.00 Turning Factor (vph) 0.95 1.00 0.85 0.95 0.97 0.85 0.95 1.00 0_.85 0.95 0.99 0.85 Saturated Flow (vph) 1805 0 1615 0 1841 1615 1805 3617 0 1805 3571 0 Ped Intf Time (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Pedestrian Frequency ( %) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Protected Option Allowed No No Yes Yes Reference Time (s) 5.7 0.5 2.9 42.3 0.0 0.5 37.3 0.0 Adj Reference Time (s) 13.0 13.0 16.5 48.8 0.0 16.5 43.8 0.0 Permitted Option Adj Saturation A (vph) 120 0 0 174 120 1809 120 1785 Reference Time A (s) 180.5 0.0 0.0 5.5 42.9 42.3 7.0 37.3 Adj Saturation B (vph 0 0 0 0 NA NA NA NA Reference .Time B (s) 20.0 0.0 8.3 8.5 NA NA NA ' NA Reference Time (s) 20.0 5.5 42.9 37.3 Adj Reference Time (s) 24.0 13.0 49.4 43.8 Split Option Ref Time Combined (s) 12.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 29 42.3 0.5 37.3 Ref Time Seperate (s) 12.0 0.0 0.3 0.2 2.9 423 0.5 34.1 Reference Time (s) 12.0 12.0 0.5 0.5 423 42.3 37.3 37.3 Adj Reference Time (s) 16.0 16.0 13.0 13.0 48.8 48.8 43.8 43.8 Protected Option (s) NA 65.3 Permitted Option (s) 24.0 49.4 Split Option (s) 29.0 92.6 Minimum (s) 24.0 49.4 73.4 Adj Reference Time (s) 13.0 13.0 Cross Thru Ref Time (s) 43.8 48.8 Oncoming Left Ref Time (93.0 _ 16.0 Combined (s) 69.8 77.8 Intersection Capacity Utilization 64.9% ICU Level of Service C Reference Times and Phasing Options do not represent an optimized timing plan. Atlantic Avenue 9/1/2015 Existing 2015 Traffic Synchro 9 Report Psomas Page 2 Intersection Capacity Utilization Existing 2015 Traffic AM 9: Atlantic Ave & Fernwood Ave 9/22/2015 Lane Configurations Volume (vph) 70 135 50 104 163 40 ' 76 1271 155 30 ` 972 44 Pedestrians Ped Button Pedestrian Timing (s) Free Right No No No No Ideal Flow 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lost Time,(s) 5.5 5.5 4.0 5.5 5.5 4.0. 6.5 6.5, 4.0 6.5 6.5 4.0 Minimum Green (s) 8.0 8.0 4.0 8.0 8.0 4.0 10.0 10.0 4.0 10.0 10.0 4.0 Refr Cycle Length (s) 120 -'--'12G '120 120 12o' 120 , 120. 120- 120. 120, 120 Volume Combined (vph) 70 185 0 104 203 0 76 1426 0 30 1016 0 Lane Utilization Factor 1.00 100 1.00 1.00 1.00- 1.00 ° < 1.00 , ; 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1:00 Turning actor (vph) g (p) 0.95 0.96 0.85 0.95 0.97 0.85 0.95 0.98 0.85 0.95 0.9 9 0.85 Saturated Flow (vph), 1805 1823 - 0 1805 1.844_ , 0 :1805 3559. 0 1805 7 3594 0 Ped Intf Time (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Pedestrian Frequency ( %) 0:00 -0.00 -0.00 - 0.00 Protected Option Allowed Yes Yes Yes Yes Reference Time°(s) ' 4.7-- 12.2 -0.0 _ 6.9 132 0.0 . 5.1 '48.1 . 0.0, 2.0 33 9- 0.0 Adj Reference Time (s) 13.5 17.7 0.0 13.5 18.7 0.0 16.5 54.6 0.0 16.5 40.4 0.0 Permitted Option Adj Saturation A (vph) 120 1823 120 1844 120 1779 120 1797 Reference Time A (s) 60.8 12.2. 103.7 , 13.2 75.8- 48 1�° 29.9 33.9 Adj Saturation B (vph NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Reference Tirne B'(s) NA - NA ' NA a° NA "NA -- '� NA -° NA ° NA Reference Time (s) 69.8 103.7 75.8 33.9 AdtReferenceTime (s) 753.- 109.2 82.3 ' °40.4 Split Option Ref Time Co mb ined (s) 4,7, 12.2 , 6.9° 13.2 5.,1 48A 2.0 33.9 Ref Time Seperate (s) 4.7 8.9 6.9 10.6 5.1 42.9 2.0 32.5 Reference Time (s) o .11 12 2 12 2 _ ° 13.2 .13 2 -48-'l- ,48.1 e 33.9 � 33.9 Adj Reference Time (s) 17.7 17.7 18.7 18.7 54.6 54.6 40.4 40.4 Protected Option (s) 32.2 71.1 Permitted Option-(s) 1--09'-.- 2 � � ` 82.3 Split Option (s) WA 95.0 Minimum (' s) 32.2 71.1 1033 `. Cross Thru Ref Time (s) Oncoming Left Ref Time (s) Combined (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization 86.1% ICU Level of Service E Reference Times and Phasing Options do not represent an optimized timing plan. Atlantic Avenue 9/1/2015 Existing 2015 Traffic Synchro 9 Report Psomas Page 3 Intersection Capacity Utilization Existing 2015 Traffic PM 3: Atlantic Ave & Carlin Ave 9/22/2015 NfV v ni nt 77 ' EBL`,EBT 48.2 s` ERR , WBL " 1NBT , WBRF - NBC NBT 58.4 Minimum (s) Lane Configurations I 'fit r 0 ttl I tt Volume (vph) 228 102 134 23 122 150 104 848 20 140 578 157 Pedestrians Ped Button Pedestrian Timing (s) Free Right No No No No Ideal Flow 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lost Time (s) 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 4.0 6.5 6.5 4.0 6.5 6.5 4.0 Minimum Green (s) 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 4.0 10.0 10.0 4.0 10.0 10.0 4.0 Refr Cycle Length (s) 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 Volume Combined (vph) 228 102 134 23 272 0 104 868 0 140 735 0 Lane Utilization Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.91 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Turning Factor (vph) 0.95 1.00 0.85 0.95 0.92 0.85 0.95 1.00 0.85 0.95 0.97 0.8_5 Saturated Flow (vph) 1805 3618 1615 1805 3318 0 .1805 5158 0 1805 3502 0 Ped Intf Time (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Pedestrian Frequency ( %) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Protected Option Allowed Yes Yes Yes Yes Reference Time (s) 15.2 3.4 10.0 1.5 9.8 0.0 6.9 20.2 0.0 9.3 25.2 0.0 Adj Reference Time (s) 21.2 16.0 16.0 16.0 16.0 0.0 16.5 26.7 0.0 16.5 31.7 0.0 Permitted Option Adj Saturation A (vph) 120 1809 120 1659 120 1719 120 1751 Reference Time A (s) 227.4 • 3.4 22.9 9.8 103.7 20.2 139.6 25.2 Adj Saturation B (vph NA NA 0 33.18 NA NA NA NA Reference Time B (s) NA NA 9.5 9.8 NA NA NA NA Reference Time (s) 227.4 9.8 103.7 139.6 Adj Reference Time (s) 233.4 16.0 110.2 146.1 Split Option Ref Time Combined (s) 15.2 3.4 1.5 9.8 6.9 20.2 9.3 25.2 Ref Time Seperate (s) 15.2 3.4 1.5 4.4 6.9 19.7 9.3 19.8 Reference Time (s) 15.2 15.2 9.8 9.8 20.2 20.2 25.2 252 Adj Reference Time (s) 21.2 21.2 16.0 16.0 26.7 26.7 31.7 31.7 Protected Option (s) 37.2 48.2 Permitted Option (s) 233.4 146.1 Split Option (s) 37.2 58.4 Minimum (s) 37.2 48.2 85.3 Adj Reference Time (s) 16.0 Cross Thru Ref Time (s) 317 Oncoming Left Ref Time (9�.0 Combined (s) 63.7 Intersection Capacity Utilization 71.1% ICU Level of Service C Reference Times and Phasing Options do not represent an optimized timing plan. Atlantic Avenue 9/1/2015 Existing 2015 Traffic Synchro 9 Report Psomas Page 1 Intersection Capacity Utilization Existing 2015 Traffic PM 6: Atlantic Ave & Agnes Ave 9/22/2015 Lane Configurations NA 58.7 r 17.3 4 F 22.3 +T Minimum (s) 1 0 Volume,(vph) 80' `, 0 69 13 5 9 48 1073 4 ` 9 776 49 Pedestrians Ped Button Pedestrian Timing (s) Free-Right No - No No -_ No Ideal Flow 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lost-Tim (s' _ 5.0. 4.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 6.5 6.5 4.0 6.5 6.5 ' 4.0 Minimum Green (s) 8.0 4.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 10.0 10.0 4.0 10.0 1.0.0 4.0 Refr -Cycle Length ,(s), 120 120 120 120 120 120 "120' 1'20 ° 120 120 120-- 120 Volume Combined (vph) 80 0 69 0 18 9 48 1077 0 9 825 0 Lane Utilization Factor A.00 '1:00 , 1.00„ 1_.00 1.00 - 1.00 '1,00 ` - 6* -06' 1.00. 1.00 0.95_ - 1.00 Turnin Factor v h)' 9 (P) 1.00 0..85 0.95 0.96 0.85 0.95 1.00 0 .85 0.95 0.99 0.85 Saturated Flow (vph) ' 1805 ' - 0 1615 _ 0 1831 1615' 1.805 ` . 3616 0 '-1 805 3585 0 Ped Intf Time (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Pedestrian Frequency ( %) 0.00 0.00 -0:00 y 0,00" Protected Option Allowed No No Yes Yes Reference Time (s) a_ °. 5:1 0.7 3.2 '35.7 .` 070 0.6 -_ 27.6 0.0 Adj Reference Time (s) 13.0 13.0 16.5 42.2 0.0 16.5 34.1 0.0 Permitted Option Adj Saturation A (vph) 120 0 0 154 120 1808 120 1793 Reference Time'A (s) 79.8 0.0 0.0 14 0 47.9 35.7- 9.0, 27.6 Adi Saturation B (vp- h 0 0 0 0 NA NA NA- NA Reference Time B'(s) 13.3 0.0 8.9: 9.2 NA NA _ NA - NAB : Reference Time (s) 13.3 9.2 47.9 27.6 Adj Reference Time,, (s),' , 17,3 14.2 _` 54.47 M-1 Split Option Ref Time Combined --(s) 5 3 0.0 0.0'- 1.2 , 32 - 35 7 0.6' 21.6 Ref Time Seperate (s) 5.3 0.0 0.9 0.3 3.2 35.6 0.6 26.0 Reference Time (s) 5.3 -5.3 X1.2, - , 1.2 ,. , 35.7 -X35.7 . .27.6-- 27.6 - Adj Reference Time (s) 9.3 9.3 _ 13.0 13.0 _ 42.2 42.2 _ _. 34.1 34.1 Protected Option (s) NA 58.7 Permitted Option (s) 17.3 54.4 Split Option (s) 22.3 76.4 Minimum (s) 17.3 54.4 71.7 Adj Reference Time, (s), 13.0 13,0 Cross Thru Ref Time (s) 34.1 42.2 Oncoming_Left Ref_ Time (9Pi.0 u Combined (s) 66.1 64.6 t nfeitton 'mrra : �- Intersection Capacity Utilization 59.7% ICU Level of Service B Reference Times and Phasing Options do not represent an optimized timing plan. Atlantic Avenue 9/1/2015 Existing 2015 Traffic Synchro 9 Report Psomas Page 2 Intersection Capacity Utilization Existing 2015 Traffic PM 9: Atlantic Ave & Fernwood Ave 9/22/2015 � --► 'fit � �-- � � � /� �"' �, "� _� _ _ .____ _ �- M,ovemen EBL EBT . EBR° 'WBL °- .WBT1NBR }; ttVBL =NBT NBR': SBL SBT , ST R Lane Configurations 27.0 T Permitted Option (s) Vi + Split Option (s) 27.0 +T Minimu '(s) _ m 17.3 tT+ Volume (vph) 42 _ 44 51 57 55 31 82 1001 42 46 759 47 Pedestrians Ped Button Pedestrian Timing (s) Free Right No No No No Ideal Flow 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lost Time (s) 5.5 5.5 4.0 5.5 '5.5 4.0 6.5 6.5 4.0 - 6.5 6.5 40 Minimum Green (s) 8.0 8.0 4.0 8.0 8.0 4.0 10.0 10.0 4.0 10.0 16.0 4.0 Refr Cycle Length (s) 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120. 120 120 120 120 Volume Combined (vph) 42 95 0 57 86 0 82 1043 0 46 806 0 Lane Utilization Factor 1.00 1:00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 ` -1.00 0.96 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Turning Factor (vph) 0.95 0.92 0._85 0.95 0.95 _ 0.85 0.95 0.99 0.85 0.95 0.99 0.85 Saturated Flow (vph) 1805 1147 0 1805 1797 0 1805 3596 0 1805 3586 0 Ped Intf Time (s) 0.0 0.0 b.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Pedestrian Frequ ency ( %) 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Protected Option Allowed Yes Yes Yes Yes Reference Time (s) 2.8 6.5 0.0 3.8 5.7 0.0 5.5 34:8 0.0 3.1 27.0 0.0 Adj Reference Time (s) 13.5 13.5 0.0 13.5 13.5 0.0 16.5 41.3 0.0 16.5 33.5 0.0 Permitted Option Adj Saturation A (vph) 120 1747 120 1797 120 1798 120 1793 Reference Time A (s) 41.9 6.5 56.8 5.7 � 81.8 34.8 = 45.9 ' 27.0 Adj Saturation B (vph 0 1747 0 1797 NA NA NA NA Reference Time B (s) 10.8 - 6.5 11.8 5.7 NA NA N_ A NA Reference Time (s) 10.8 11.8 81.8 45.9 Adj-Reference -Time (s) 16.3 17.3 88.3 52.4 Split Option Ref Time Combined (s) 2.8 6.5 3.8 5.7 5.5 34.8 3.1 27.0 Ref Time Seperate (s) 2.8 3.0 3.8 3.7 5.5 33.4 3.1 25.4 Reference Time (s) 6.5 6.5 5.7, 5.7 34.8 34.8 27.0 27.0 Adj Reference Time (s) 13.5 13.5 13.5 13.5 41.3 41.3 33.5 33.5 Protected Option (s) 27.0 57.8 Permitted Option (s) 17.3 88.3 Split Option (s) 27.0 74..8 Minimu '(s) _ m 17.3 57.8 75.1 Adj Reference Time (s) Cross Thru Ref Time (s) Oncoming Left_ Ref Time (s) Combined (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization 62.6% ICU Level of Service B Reference Times and Phasing Options do not represent an optimized timing plan. Atlantic Avenue 9/1/2015 Existing 2015 Traffic Synchro 9 Report Psomas Page 3 Intersection Capacity Utilization Opening Year (2016) Traffic without Project AM 3: Atlantic Ave & Carlin Ave 9/22/2015 Lane Configurations+, 59.7 Permitted Option (s) 285.2 123.2 _= _ Split Option (s) 46.8 69.7 Minimum (s) ` 46 8 P.. 59.7 `106.5 . w Rjgl T t 3 _ j Adt Referenc e Time (s) 16.0 Cross Thru Ref Time (s) 43.2 Volume (vph) 280 204' 43 191 255 99 856: 6 117 823 246 Pedestrians _ Ped Button Pedestrian Timing (s) Free -Right No No No No Ideal Flow 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lost Time (s) 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 4.0 ' 6.5 6.5 . - 4.0 ° - 6.6 - - 6.5 - - -- - - 4.0 Minimum Green (s) 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 4.0 10.0 10.0 4.0 10.0 10.0 4.0 Refr Cycle Length (s). 120 120 120 120 . 120 � 120 ; 120 120 _ --120 120 , 120 _ 120 Volume Combined (vph) 280 201 125 43 446 0 99 862 0 117 1069 0 Lane'Utilization Factor : 1:00 0:95 1.0-0 1.00 0.95 1.00' 1.00 �� 0.91 " 1.00 1.00 0:96_ _ 1 :00 Turning actor (vph g (p) 0.95 1.00 0.85 0_.95 0 .91 _,. 0.85 0.95 1.00 0.85 0.95 0.97 0.85 Saturated Flow (vph) 1805 3618 1615 1805 3307 '0 0 1.805 '5170 , 0 1805. 3493 n- 0 Ped Intf Time (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Pedestrian Frequency ( %)- : 0.60 0.00 _ Protected Option Allowed Yes Yes Yes Yes Reference Time (s) 18.6 6.7 _ 9.3 2.9 16.2 0 0 6.6 _ -20.0- 7.8" 36.7.E 0:0 Adj Reference Time (s) 24.6 16.0 16.0 16.0 22.2 0.0 16.5 26.5 0.0 16.5 43.2 0.0 Permitted Option;° " Adj Saturation A (vph) 120 1809 120 1654 120 1723 120 1746 Reference Time A (s)',' 279.2 6.7 42.9 16.2 �° -98 7 �` _ ' 20.0 � 116.7 36:7 Adj Saturation B (vph NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Reference Time B (s) NA NA, NA NA NA NA NA 'NA,, Reference Time (s) 279.2 42.9 98.7 116.7 Adj Reference Time (sy--177- ._ 285.2 x.48.9 ` 105.2 � 123:2,. Split Option Ref �Time C-- o rnbined , s O 18:6 C.7 2.9 , 16 2 ,` 6.6 20.0 - 7.8 36.7 - Ref Time Seperate (s) 18.6 6.7 2.9 6.9 6.6 19.9 7.8 28.3 Reference,Time s "",-'18,6 18.6 �` -162 X16.2- 6 2 20 0, 20.0 - : �` 36.7 36.7 Adj Reference Time (s) 24.6 24.6 22.2 22.2 26.5 26.5 43.2 43.2 Protected Option (s) 46.8 59.7 Permitted Option (s) 285.2 123.2 _= _ Split Option (s) 46.8 69.7 Minimum (s) ` 46 8 P.. 59.7 `106.5 . w Rjgl T t 3 _ j Adt Referenc e Time (s) 16.0 Cross Thru Ref Time (s) 43.2 Oncoming` Left Ref Tim'' e (9 0 Combined (s) 75.2 Intersection Capacity Utilization 88.8% ICU Level of Service E Reference Times and Phasing Options do not represent an optimized timing plan. Atlantic Avenue 9/1/2015 Opening Year (2016) Traffic without Project Synchro 9 Report Psomas Page 1 Intersection Capacity Utilization Opening Year (2016) Traffic without Project AM 6: Atlantic Ave & Agnes Ave 9/22/2015 Movement , ; EBL "EBT , EBR "- WBL..WBT,.. WBR NBL - ,NBT r$ NBR° SBL, SBT SBR Lane Configurations I 67.4 r 24.6 51.4 r 29.6 tT+ Minimum (s) I t'+ Volume (vph) 190 0 81 5 3 7 45 1338 1 7 1066 101 Pedestrians Ped Button Pedestrian Timing (s) Free Right No No No No Ideal Flow 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1.900 1900 1900 1900 Lost Time (s) 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 6.5 6.5 4.0 6.5 6.5 4.0 Minimum Green (s) 8.0 4.0 8:0 8.0 8.0 8.0 10.0 10.0 4.0 10.0 10.0 4.0 Refr Cycle Length (s) 120 - 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 Volume Combined (vph) 190 0 81 0 8 7 45 1339 0 7 1167 0 Lane Utilization Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1:00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Turning Factor (vph) 0.95 1.00 0.85 0.9.5 0.97 0.85 0.95 1.00 0.85 0.95 0.99 0.85 Saturated Flow (vph) 1805 0 1615 0 1841 1615 1805 3617 0 1805 3571 0 Ped Intf Time (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Pedestrian Frequency ( %) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Protected Option Allowed No No Yes Yes Reference Time (s) 6.0 0.5 3.0 44A 0.0 0.5 39.2 0.0 Adj Reference Time (s) 13.0 13.0 16.5 50.9 0.0 16.5 45.7 0.0 Permitted Option Adj Saturation A (vph) 120 0 0 174 120 1809 120 1785 Reference Time A (s) 189.5 0.0 0.0 5.5 44.9 44.4 7.0 39.2 Adj Saturation B (vph 0 0 0 0 NA NA NA NA Reference Time B (s) 20.6 0.0 8.3 8.5 NA NA N_ A NA Reference Time (s) 20.6 5.5 44.9 392 Adj Reference Time (s) 24.6 13.0 51.4 45.7 Split Option Ref Time Combined (s) 12:6 0.0 0.0 0.5 3.0 44.4 0.5' 39.2 Ref Time Seperate (s) 12.6 0.0 0.3 0.2 3.0 44.4 0.5 35.8 Reference Time (s) 12.6 12.6 0.5 0.5 44:A 44.4 39.2 39.2 Adj Reference Time (s) 16.6 16.6 13.0 13.0 50.9 56.9 45.7 45.7 Protected Option (s) NA 67.4 Permitted Option (s) 24.6 51.4 Split Option (s) 29.6 96.6 Minimum (s) 24.6 51.4 76.0 Right Turns EBR1IUBR ,n-- -- Adj Reference Time (s) 13.0 13.0 Cross Thru Ref Time (s) 45.7 50.9 Oncoming Left Ref Time (60.0 16.6 Combined (s) 71.7 80.6 Intersection Capacity Utilization 67.1% ICU Level of Service C Reference Times and Phasing Options do not represent an optimized timing plan. Atlantic Avenue 9/112015 Opening Year (2016) Traffic without Project Synchro 9 Report Psomas Page 2 Intersection Capacity Utilization Opening Year (2016) Traffic without Project AM 9: Atlantic Ave & Fernwood Ave 9/22/2015 Lane Configurations 0 Volume (vph)" 74 142 53 109 171 42- 80 ` 1335 163 32 1021. 46 Pedestrians Ped Button, Pedestrian Timing (s) Free Right_ No - No ��. No ,. No Ideal Flow 1900 1900 1900 1.900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lost Time (s) -5.5 '5.5 4.0" 5.b 5.5 ,4.0 - -6.5 .6.5 . ' 4.0 6.5 6.5 4.0 Minimum Green (s) 8.0 8.0 4.0 8.0 8.0 4.0 10.0 10.0 4.0 10.0 10.0 4.0 Refr Cycle Length (s) 120, 120. 120 - 120 a _ 120 120 120 11 = 120 120 120 120 120 Volume Combined (vph) 74 195 0 109 213 0 80 1498 0 32 1067 0 Lane Utilization Fac �� tor 1:00 °1 -.00= 1,00 1.00- =1.00 x1.00 :.1:00 -0.95 1.00 , 1.00 0.95 - 1.00 Turning Factor (vph) 0.95 0.96 0.85 0.95 0.97 0.85 0.95 0.98 0.85 0.95 0.99 0.85 Saturated Ffow (vph) 1805 1.823 0 1805 1-11, 1844 0 - 1805 3559 0 '1'8-b6: ` 3594 -` 0 Ped Intf Time (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 010 0.0 Pedestrian Frequency ( %) 0.00 °0.00 0.00, 0.00= Protected Option Allowed Yes Yes Yes Yes Reference Time (s)" 4.9 1'2.8 � 0.0 7.2 z 13'.9 �' 0.0 ° 5.3 50.5 0.0' "2.1 35.6, 0.0 Adj Reference Time (s) 13.5 18.3 0.0 13.5 19.4 0.0 16.55-7.0' 0.0 16.5 42.1 0.0 Permitted Option Adj Saturation A (vph) 120 1823 120 1844 120 1779 120 1797 Reference Time A (s) 73.8 1- 2--'-8'- 119- _ 79.8 50.5 31.9 35:6 Adj Saturation B (vph NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Reference Time B (s) NA NA ��= NA NA NA NA- NA NA Reference Time (s) 73.8 a 108.779.8 35.6 Ac!i -,k6f rence Time -'(s) _ 79.3 1'14:2.= � 86 3 `� ° °` 42.1 Split Option Ref Time Combined,(s) 4.9 1.2 8 _ -7'.- 2 . '13.9 ` � 5.3 ',5-0'.5 2.1 � 35.6'., Ref Time Seperate (s) 4.9 9.3 7.2 11.1 5.3 45.0 2.1 3 4. 1 Reference Time (s) 1.2.8 12 8 13.9 119 50.5 50 5 , 35'-'.-6- , 35.6 Adj Reference Time (s) 18.3 18.3 19.4 19.4 57.0 57.0 42.1 42.1 Protected Option (s) 32.9 73.5 Permitted Option (s) "114.2 86.3 Split Option (s) 37.7 99.1 Minimum (s) 32.9 73.5 106.4 Adj Reference Time (s) Cross Thru Ref Ti me (s) On corning Left Ref Time (s) Combined (s)_ Intersection Capacity Utilization 88.6% ICU Level of Service E Reference Times and Phasing Options do not represent an optimized timing plan. Atlantic Avenue 9/1/2015 Opening Year (2016) Traffic without Project Synchro 9 Report Psomas Page 3 Intersection Capacity Utilization Opening Year (2016) Traffic without Project PM 3: Atlantic Ave & Carlin Ave 9/22/2015 - � � Io. i 4/ Lane Configurations Volume (vph) x 239 107 141 a - 24 r - 128 158- 109 890 21 147 ° 607 165 Pedestrians Pea Button Pedestrian Timing (s) Free Right: No No No. No _. .. Ideal Flow 1900 _ 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 - 1900 - 1900 Lost Time'(s) 6.0 -6.0, 6.0 6.0 6.0 4.0 6.5 6.5� 4.0 6.5 6.5 4 0 Minimum Green (s) 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 4.0 10.0 10.0 4.0 10.0 10.0 4.0 Refr =Cycle Length (s) 120- ., 120 - -120 ' °120 120 120 120 120 120 120 - '126 ; 120 Volume Combined (vph) 239 107 141 24 286 0 109 911 0 147 772 0 Lane Utilization Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 - 0.95 1.00 1.00 = 0.91 v 1.00: 1.00, ° 0 95 ' 1.00 Turning Factor (vph) 0.95 1.00 0.85 0.95 0.92 0.85 0.95 1.00 0.85 0.95 0.97 0.85 Saturated Flow (vph) 1805 3618 1615 1805 _33=18 `0 1805 5158 � 0 1805 3502,, 0 Ped Intf Time (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 PedestrianFrequency.( %)�':_'° 0'.00 , -o 6.00, 0.00 0.00 Protected Option Allowed Yes Yes Yes Yes Reference Time (s)- 15.9 15 ` 10.5 1.6, 10.3 0.01' 7.2 _21.2 ° 0.0 9.8- 26.5= 0.0 Adj Reference Time (s) 21.9 16.0 16.5 16.0 16.3 0.0 16.5 27.7 0.0 16.5 33.0 0.0 Permitted Option Adj Saturation A (vph) 120 1809 120 1659 120 1719 120 1751 Refetence Time k (s) 238.3 3.5 23.9 10.3 08 7 1-08.1-, -1,46.6- 46 6 Adj Saturation B (vph NA NA 0 3318 NA NA NA NA Reference Time B (s) _NA . NA 9.610 3 - NA NA NA - `' NA, Reference Time (s) . 238.3 10.3 108.7 146.6 PAtlj Reference 244.3 16.3 .115.2 153.1° _ Split Option Ref Time 06inbined -(s) 15 9 , 3.5 1.6 10.3 : ; 7.2 '2I. J, ; 9.8_ Ref Time Seperate (s) 15.9 3.5 1.6 4.6 7.2 20.7 9.8 20.8 Reference °Time (s)'-- 15.9 15.9: 1013, 10:3 ` 21.2 21.2 26.5--,-, 26.5 Ad Reference Tim21.9' j e (s) 21.9 21. 9 16.3 16.3 27.7 27.7 33.0 33.0 ComWOW- 1 `' 1.. Protected Option (s) 38.2 49.5 Permitted Option (s)" 244.3 153.1' Split- Option (s) 38.2 60.7 Minimum. s (.,_) 38:2 , _ _. _ _ _. 49:5 87.7 a Adj Reference Time (s) 16.5 - Cross Thru Ref Time (s) 33.0 Oncoming Left Ref -,Time (9I6-.0 _ Combined (s) 65.4 Interscfion: Smra7y Intersection Capacity Utilization 73.1% ICU Level of Service D Reference Times and Phasing Options do not represent an optimized timing plan. Atlantic Avenue 9/1/2015 Opening Year (2016) Traffic without Project Synchro 9 Report Psomas Page 1 Intersection Capacity Utilization Opening Year (2016) Traffic without Project PM 6: Atlantic Ave & Agnes Ave 9/22/2015 Reference Times and Phasing Options do not represent an optimized timing plan. Atlantic Avenue 9/1/2015 Opening Year (2016) Traffic without Project Synchro 9 Report Psomas Page 2 Lane Configurations 1 0 Volume (vph) 84 0 72 14 5 9 50 1127 4 9 815 -51 Pedestrians Ped Button Pedestrian Timing (s) Free Right No No No No Ideal Flow 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 19.00 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lost Time (s) 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 6.5 6.5, 4.0 6.5 6.5 4.0 Minimum Green (s) 8.0 4.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 10.0 10.0 4.0 10.0 10.0 4.0 Refr Cycle Length (s) 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 126' 120 120 120 Volume Combined (vph) 84 0 72 0 19 9 50 1131 0 9 866 0 Lane Utilization Factor ° 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 , 1.00 0.95 1.00 Turning Factor (vph) 0.95 1.00 0.85 0.95 0.96 0.85 0.95 1.00 0.85 0.95 0.99 0.85 Saturated Flow (vph) 1805 0 1615 0 1830 1615 1805 3616 0 1805 3586 0 ime (s) 0.0 Ped Intf time(s)- 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Pedestrian Frequency ( ° /a) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Protected Option Allowed No No Yes Yes Reference Time (s) 5.3 0.7 3.3 37:5 0.0 0.6 29.0 00 Adj Reference Time (s) 13.0 13.0 16.5 44.0 0.0 16.5 35.5 0.0 Permitted Option Adj Saturation A (vph) 120 0 0 152 120 1808 120 1793 Reference Time A s 83.8 0.0 0.0' 15.0 49.9 LL. 37.5 9.0 29.0 Adj Saturation B (vph 0 0 0 0 NA NA NA NA Reference Time B (s) 13.6 0.0 8.9 9.2 NA NA NA NA Reference Time (s) 13.6 9.2 49.9 29.0 Adj Reference Time (s) 17.6 14.2 56.4 35.5 Split Option Ref Time Combined (s) 5.6 0.0 0.0 1.2 3.3 37.5 0.6 29.0 Ref Time Seperate (s) 5.6 0.0 0.9 0.3 3.3 37.4 0.6 27.3 Reference Time (s) 5.6 5.6 1.2 1.2 37.5 .37.5 29.0 29.0 Adj Reference Time (s) 9.6 9.6 13.0 13.0 44.0 44.0 35.5 35.5 Summary_B,WB NBi`SB, Combinedg 3 , Protected Option (s) NA 60.5 Permitted Option (s) 17.6 56.4 Split Option (s) 22.6 79.5 Minimum (s) 17.6 56.4 73.9 , Right.Turris :P.. ":. EBR ;U1(BR 7 k� Adj Reference Time (s) 13.0 13.0 Cross Thru Ref Times 35.5 44.0 Oncoming Left_ Ref Time (sp.0 9.6 Combined (s) 61.5 66.6 lntersectio'n� ry ��"" >, ° � �� _ W � � _ ' Intersection Capacity Utilization� 61.6 % ICU Level of Service B Reference Times and Phasing Options do not represent an optimized timing plan. Atlantic Avenue 9/1/2015 Opening Year (2016) Traffic without Project Synchro 9 Report Psomas Page 2 Intersection Capacity Utilization Opening Year (2016) Traffic without Project PM 9: Atlantic Ave & Fernwood Ave 9/22/2015 f- ~ 4\ t touemenm )B.m,EE3T .: EBR INB1NBT, :.UVBR NBT ENBR, SBL..;`; .SBT SFfi Lane Configurations 17.5, ` 02.3 Split Option (s) 27.0 T+ MinimOn,(,$),- 17.5 '59.5 77.0 Volume (vph) 44 46 54 60 58 = 33 86 1051 . - 44 48 797 ,49 .., . Pedestrians Ped Button Pedestrian Timing (s) Free Right Noi No No No Ideal Flow 19.00 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lost Time (s) 5.5 5.5 4.0 5.5 5.5 4.0 , 6.5 6.5 4.0 65 6:5 ; 40 Minimum Green (s) 8.0 8.0 4.0 8.0 8.0 4.0 10.0 10.0 4.0 10.0 10.0 4.0 Refr,Cy-cle Length (s) 120 12b 120 120 120 120 120 ' 120 _ - 120. 120 , 120 , 1.20 Volume Combined (vph) 44 100 0 60 91 0 86 1095 0 48 846 0 Lane Utilization Factor 1.00 . 1;00" 1'.00 1.00 "1.00 ' '1.00 < 1.00. `0.95 1.00. too 0.95 - ' 1.00 Turning Factor (vph) 0.95 0.92 0.85 0.95 0.95 0.85 0.95 0.99 0.85 0.95 0.99 0.85 Saturated "Flow (v -ph) '1,' 805 . ,1746 ,'-6 1805 1797 0 1805 '3596 0` 1805 86867-', ,z 6 Ped Intf Time (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Pedestrian,_requency( %) .. 0:00 0.0-0, OAO 0.00 Protected Option Allowed Yes Yes Yes Yes Reference Time (s) 2.9 n B.0 X0.0 -.4.0 -6.1, ° 0.0' 5 7 36.5 00 3.2 Adj Reference Time (s) 13.5 13.5 0.0 13.5 13.5 0.0 16.5 43.0 0.0 16.5 34.8 0.0 Permitted Option. _ . Adj Saturation A (vph') 120 1746 120 1797 120 1798 120 1793 Reference Time A s ( ,) ' 43 9 � 6.9 � 59.8 6.1 � .. 85.8 �. '3_65' _ _. : 47.9 ,' 28.3 Adj Saturation B (vph 0 1746 0 . 1797 NA NA NA NA _ Reference Time B (s) .10 9 6.9 x 1`2:0 6.1':. NA NA' NA � NA ` _ Reference Time (s) 10.9 12.0 85.8 47.9 Adj R=efer=ence Time-(s) : 16A' 17.5 ; 92.3 64.4 Split Option Ref Tirne Combined (s)y ' 2 9 6 9 4.0 6.1 5.7 36 5 - ° 3.2 _s° 28.3' Ref Time Seperate (s) 2.9"___"3.2"' .9 8.2 4.0 3.9 5.7 35.1 3.2 26.7 Reference Time, _6.9 6 9 6.1 6.1 _ X36 5 ,.36 5 -° 28.3` 28.3- = Adj Reference Time (s) 13.5 13.5 13.5 13:5 43.0 43.0 34.8 34.8 Protected Option (s) 27.0 59.5 Permitted O tion s 17.5, ` 02.3 Split Option (s) 27.0 77.9 _ MinimOn,(,$),- 17.5 '59.5 77.0 1 _.. ,... e erenc e Time_ s u- ,F _ Cross Thru Ref Time (s) Oncoming Left Ref Tirne (s). _.. _ . . Combined (s) - - - -- - _ .- _ . �:. _ � � m . -tea n� � Intersection Capacity Utilization 64.2% ICU Level of Service C Reference Times and Phasing Options do not represent an optimized timing plan Atlantic Avenue 9/1/2015 Opening Year (2016) Traffic without Project Synchro 9 Report Psomas Page 3 Intersection Capacity Utilization Opening Year (2016) Traffic with Project AM 3: Atlantic Ave & Carlin Ave 9/22/2015 i Lane Configurations I ++ r �i t� 124.2 �j ttT+ ' I tt Volume (vph) 28.2 201 125 48 191 256 " 99 860 6' 118 _ 825 247 Pedestrians f Adj Reference Time (s) 16.0 " Cross Thru Ref Time (s) 43.3 t Ped Button Combined (s) 75.3 x WORsection atzrnma.N ; Pedestrian Timing (s) 4;fi Intersection Capacity Utilization 89.0% ICU Level of Service E _ Free Right. No - No - LL . No -No Ideal Flow 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lost Time (s) 6.0 6:0 6,0 6.0 6.0 ' 4.0 ' ° 6,5 6.5 4.0 6,5 6.5 _ 4:0 Minimum Green (s) 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 4.0 10.0 10.0 4.0 10.0 , 10.0 4.0 Refr Cycle Length (s) 120 • 120 120 „ 120 120= 120. =120 ° ° 120' 120 - 120 =, .120 - 120 Volume Combined (vph) 282 201 125 43 447 0 99 866 0 118 1072 0 Lane Utilization Factor 1.00. 0.05 1.00 1.06 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.91 1.00 1.00 0.95 '1.00 Turning Factor (vph) 0.95 1.00 6.85 0.95 0.91 0.85 0.95 1.00 0.85 0.95 0.97 0.85 Saturated Flow (vph) 1805 3.618 1615 1`805 3307 0 1805 5170 - 0 1805 3493 o Ped Intf Time (s) 0.00.0' 0.0 0.0 - 0.0 0.0 0.0 0. 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Pedestrian Frequency ( %) ., 0:00__ 0.00 0.00 0.00 Protected Option Allowed Yes Yes Yes Yes Reference Time (s) ",-1-8.7 - -.6.7 . _ 9.3° 2.9 16.2 0.0 6.6 ° 20:1 '0.0 7.8 36.8 > 0.0 Adj Reference Time (s) 24.7 16.0 16.0 16.0 22.2 0.0 16.5 26.6 0.0 16.5 43.3 0.0 Permitted Option _Saturation f Adj A (vph) 120 1809 120 1653 120 1723 120 1746 Reference Time A (s) -, 281.2 46- - .-7 - 42.9 '16.2 , 98.7 20.1 117.7 36.8 ; Adj Saturation B (vph NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Reference Time B (s) NA . NA.... NA -WA NA NA. 'NA NAB_ Reference Time (s) 281.2 42.9 98.7 117.7 Adj Reference Time.(s) 287.2 48.9 - 105.2 - -- 124.2 ° Split Option Ref.Ti.me Combined °(s) 18.1' _ 6 7 2,9 16.2 6.6 20.1 7.8 36.8 Ref Time Seperate (s) 18.7 6.7 2.9 6.9 6.6 20.0 7.8 28.3 Reference Time (s)` 18.7,-, 18 7 . , � � 16.2 16.2 ''2'0'.1 0.1 , '20 1 36.8 36._8 Adj Reference Time (s) 24.7 24.7 22.2 22.2 26.6 26.6 43.3 43.3 Protected Option (s) 47.0 59.8 Per"' tie "'Op ption s 287.2. 124.2 ' Split Option (s) 47.0 69.9 Minimum (s) 47.0 59.8 106.8 Adj Reference Time (s) 16.0 " Cross Thru Ref Time (s) 43.3 Oncoming Left Ref Time (9.0 Combined (s) 75.3 x WORsection atzrnma.N ; 4;fi Intersection Capacity Utilization 89.0% ICU Level of Service E Reference Times and Phasing Options do not represent an optimized timing plan. Atlantic Avenue 9/1/2015 Opening Year (2016) Traffic with Project Synchro 9 Report Psomas Page 1 Intersection Capacity Utilization Opening Year (2016) Traffic with Project AM 6: Atlantic Ave & Agnes Ave 9/22/2015 ---* -► � f- r--- 4- -N 10" i Movement. EBI ,EBT - EBR, 'WBL WBT `,WBR, -:NBL ,NBR, SBL SBT' ° SBR Lane Configurations I I +T Volume (vph) 190 0 81 8 4 11 45 1340 4 13 1067 101 Pedestrians Ped Button Pedestrian Timing (s) Free Right No No No No Ideal Flow 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lost Time (s) 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 6.5 6.5 4.0 6.5 6.5 4.0 Minimum Green (s) 8.0 4.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 10.0 10.0 4.0 10.0 10.0 4.0 Refr Cycle Length (s) 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 Volume Combined (vph) 190 0 81 0 12 11 45 1344 0 13 1168 0 Lane Utilization Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 °1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Turning Factor (vph) 0.95 1.00 0.85 0.95 0.97 0.85 0.95 1.00 0.85 0.95 0.99 0.85 Saturated Flow (vph) 1805 0 1615 0 1837 1615 1805 3616 0 1805 3.571 0 Ped Intf Time (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Pedestrian Frequency ( %) 0.00 0:00 0.00 0.00 Protected Option Allowed No No Yes Yes Reference Time (s) 6.0 0.8 3.0 44.6 0.0 0.9- 39.3 0.0 Adj Reference Time (s) 13.0 13.0 16.5 51.1 0.0 16.5 45.8 0.0 Permitted Option - Adj Saturation A (vph) 120 0 0 165 120 1808 120 1785 Reference Time A (s) 189.5 0.0 0.0 8.7 44.9 44.6 13.0 °39.3 Adj Saturation B (vph 0 0 0 0 NA NA NA NA Reference Time B (s) 20.6 0.0 8.5 8.8 NA NA NA NA Reference Time (s) 20.6 8.7 44.9 39.3 Adj Reference Time (s) 24.6 13.7 51.4 45.8 Split Option Ref Time Combined (s) 12.6 0.0 0.0 0.8 3.0 44.6 0.9 39.3 Ref Time Seperate (s) 12.6 0.0 0.5 0.3 3.0 44.5 0.9 35.9 Reference Time (s) 12.6 12.6 0.8 0.8 44.6 44.6 39.3 39.3 Adj Reference Time (s) 16.6 16.6 13.0 13.0 51.1 51.1 45.8 45.8 Summ ° °aryE61NB NBSB Combined : Protected Option (s) NA 67.6 Permitted Option (s) 24.6 51.4 Split Option (s) 29.6 96.9 Minimum (s) 24.6 51.4 76.0 Right`Turns EBR -WBR' a Adj Reference Time (s) 110 '13.0 Cross Thru Ref Time (s) 45.8 51.1 _ Oncoming Left Ref Time (dp.0 16.6 Combined (s) 71.8 80.7 Iritersection:Summary _ ._ _ _7 �' E x-'771 Intersection Capacity Utilization 67.3% ICU Level of Service C Reference Times and Phasing Options do not represent an optimized timing plan. Atlantic Avenue 9/1/2015 Opening Year (2016) Traffic with Project Synchro 9 Report Psomas Page 2 Intersection Capacity Utilization Opening Year (2016) Traffic with Project AM 9: Atlantic Ave & Fernwood Ave 9/22/2015 Lane Configurations T+ T+ 0 1 0 Volume (vph) 74 142 53 109 171 42 81, 1338 163' 32 1028 46 Pedestrians Ped Button, , Pedestrian Timing (s) Free Right , - ... -. No, „ No _ No No Ideal Flow 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lost Time (s) 5.5 5.5 4.0 5 °.5 5.5 4.0 6.5 6.5 '° 4.0 6.5 6,5 4.0 Minimum Green (s) 8.0 8.0 4.0 8.0 8.0 4.0 10.0 10.0 4.0 10_._0 10.0 4.0 Refr Cycle Length (s) 120 120 , ` 120 :120 °120 - 120 120--` 120 "z- 120 120° _ 120.. 120 Volume Combined (vph) 74 195 0 109 213 0 81 1501 0 32 1074 0 Lane Utilization Factor 1.00 9.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1 00 ; 0 95 1.00 1"00 0:95 1.00 Turning Factor (vph) 0.95 0.96 0.85 0.95 0.97 0.85 0.95 0.98 0.85 0.95 0.99 0.85 Saturated" Flow (vph) 1805 1823 0 . _1805 1844, 0 1805 " X3559 0 ,1805 ° "3594" 0 Ped'Intf Time (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 . 0. 0 0.0 0 .0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Peden _ Irian Frequency ( %) � 0.00 _ - 0.00 . _ . . _ ._ _ 0.00 - ...n _ 0.00 Protected Option Allowed Yes Yes Yes Yes Reference Time (s)-', 4.9" 12.8 0.0 7.2 13.9 0.0 5.4 50.6 0:0 2.1' " 35.9'' 0 0 Adj Reference Time (s) 13.5 18.3 0.0 13.5 19.4 0.0 16.5 57.1 0.0 16.5 42.4 0.0 Permitted Option. Adj Saturation A (vph) 120 1823 120 1844 120 1779 120 1797 Reference Time k(') 73.8 12.8 108.7 13.9 80.8 "- 50.6- ; 31.9 35.9;' Adj Saturation B (vph NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Reference Time B (s) NA NA NA ° ' NA NA _ NA - NA , NA Reference Time (s) 73.8 108.7 80.8 35.9 Add Reference Time,(s) 79.3 : ' n 114.2- 87.3 42.4 Split Option Reflime Combined (s) 1. e= 4.9 12. 8 - " T 7 2 13.9 5 4 50 6 2:1, � T. � 35.9 , Ref Time Seperate (s) 4.9 9.3 7.2 11.1 5.4 45.1 2.1 34.3 Reference Time (s) 12 8128 , _ , 13.9 13.9` `50.6 ":50 6 35.9 35.9 ,.: Adj Reference Time (s) 18.3 18.3 19.4 19.4 57.1 57.1 42.4 42.4 Protected Option (s) 32.9 73.6 Permitted Option (s) _ 114.2 ` 87.3 Split Option (s)' '37.7 99.5 Minimum--,(s)--, 32.9 73.6 106.5 VET. U 71705 Adj Reference Time (s) T " Cross Thru Ref Time (s) Oncommg�Left °Ref Time (s) Combined (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization 88.7% ICU Level of Service E Reference Times and Phasing Options do not represent an optimized timing plan. Atlantic Avenue 9/1/2015 Opening Year (2016) Traffic with Project Synchro 9 Report Psomas Page 3 Intersection Capacity Utilization Opening Year (2016) Traffic with Project PM 3: Atlantic Ave & Carlin Ave 9/22/2015 Movement �- EBL EBT EBR <WBL 1NBT WBR NBL ; NBT NBR SBL SBT�SBR Lane Configurations tt r Vi tT+ '� � tt Volume (vph) 241 107 141 24 128 159 109 894 21 148 611 166 Pedestrians Ped Button Pedestrian Timing (s) Free Right No No No No Ideal Flow 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lost Time (s) 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 4.0 6.5 6.5 4.0 6.5 6.5 4.0 Minimum Green (s) 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 4.0 10.0 10.0 4.0 10.0 10.0 4.0 Refr Cycle Length (s) 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 Volume Combined (vph) 241 107 141 24 287 0 109 915 0 148 777 0 Lane Utilization Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.91 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Turning Factor (vph) 0.95 1.00 0.85 0.95 0.92 0.85 0.95 1.00 0.85 0.95 0.97 0.85 Saturated Flow (vph) 1805 3618 1615 1805 3317 0 1805 5158 0 1805 3502 0 Ped Intf Time (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Pedestrian Frequency ( %) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Protected Option Allowed Yes Yes Yes Yes Reference Time (s) 16.0 3.5 10.5 1.6 10.4 '0.0 7.2 21.3 0.0 9.8 26.6 0.0 Adj Reference Time (s) 22.0 16.0 16.5 16.0 16.4 0.0 16.5 27.8 0.0 16.5 33.1 0.0 Permitted Option Adj Saturation A (vph) 120 1809 120 1658 120 1719 120 1751 Reference Time A (s) 240.3 3.5 23.9 10.4 108.7 21.3 147.6 26.6 Adj Saturation B (vph NA NA 0 3317 NA NA NA NA Reference Time B (s) NA NA 9.6 10.4 NA NA NA NA Reference Time (s) 240.3 10.4 108.7 147.6 Adj Reference Time (s) 246.3 16.4 115.2 154.1 Split Option Ref Time Combined (s) 16.0 3.5 1.6 10.4 7.2 21.3 9.8 26.6 Ref Time Seperate (s) 16.0 3.5 1.6 4.6 7.2 20.8 9.8 20.9 Reference Time (s) 16.0 16.0 10.4 10.4 21.3 21.3 26.6 26.6 Adj Reference Time (s) 22.0 22.0 16.4 16.4 27.8 27.8 33.1 33.1 Surnmary_._EB WB ^xTNB -SB - "° Combined : ; Protected Option (s) 38.4 49.6 Permitted Option (s) 246.3 154.1 Split Option (s) 38.4 60.9 Minimum (s) 38.4 49.6 88.0 Adj Reference Time (s) 16.5 Cross Thru Ref Time (s) 33.1 Oncoming Left Ref Time (9p.0 Combined (s) 65.6 lntetsecton Summary _.w Intersection Capacity Utilization 73.4% ICU Level of Service D Reference Times and Phasing Options do not represent an optimized timing plan. Atlantic Avenue 9/1/2015 Opening Year (2016) with Project Synchro 9 Report Psomas Page 1 Intersection Capacity Utilization Opening Year (2016) Traffic with Project PM 6: Atlantic Ave & Agnes Ave 9/22/2015 --I -# --* f- ,- *-- °\ t �` Movement, - -' __ n_ _ EBL EBT EBR -Y WBL WBT V1lBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations +T r 0 Volume (vph) 84 0 72 18 7 13 50 1130 7 15 816 51 Pedestrians Ped Button Pedestrian Timing (s) Free Right No No No No Ideal Flow 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lost Time (s) 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 6.5 6.5 4.0 6.5 6.5 4.0 Minimum Green (s) 8.0 4.0 8.0 8.0 8.0" 8.0 10.0 10.0 4.0 10.0 10.0 4.0 Refr Cycle Length (s) 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 Volume Combined (vph) 84 0 72 0 25 13 50 1137 0 15 867 0 Lane Utilization Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Turning Factor (vph) 0.95 1.00 0.85 0.95 0.96 0.85 0.95 1.00 0.85 0.95 0.99 0.85 Saturated Flow (vph) 1805 0 1615 0 1832 1615 1805 3614 0 1805 3586 0 Ped Intf Time (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Pedestrian Frequency ( %) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Protected Option Allowed No No Yes Yes Reference Time (s) 5.3 1.0 3.3 37.8 0.0 1.0 29.0 0.0 Adj Reference Time (s) 13.0 13.0 16.5 44.3 0.0 16.5 35.5 0.0 Permitted Option Adj Saturation A (vph) 120 0 0 155 120 1807 120 1793 Reference Time A (s) 83.8 0.0 0.0 19.4 49.9 37.8 15.0 29.0 Adj Saturation B (vph 0 0 0 0 NA NA NA NA Reference Time B (s) 13.6 0.0 9.2 9.6 NA NA NA NA Reference Time (s) 13.6 9.6 49.9 29.0 Adj Reference Time (s) 17.6 14.6 56.4 35.5 Split Option Ref Time Combined (s) 5.6 0.0 0.0 1.6 3.3 37.8 1.0 29.0 Ref Time Seperate (s) 5.6 0.0 1.2 0.4 3.3 37.5 1.0 27.3 Reference Time (s) 5.6 5.6 1.6 1.6 37.8 37.8 29.0 29.0 Adj Reference Time (s) 9.6 9.6 13.0 13.0 44.3 44.3 35.5 35.5 Summary . %a EB WB a ^�- SB NB` ~- Combined -LL ~'I Protected Option (s) NA 60.8 Permitted Option (s) 17.6 56.4 Split Option (s) 22.6 79.8 Minimum (s) 17.6 56.4 73.9 R@h-tt'Turns - ` EBR �WBR Adj Reference Time (s) 13.0 13.0 Cross Thru Ref Time (s) 35.5 44.3 Oncoming Left Ref Time (6p.0 9.6 Combined (s) 61.5 66.8 Intersection Summary n_ = Intersection Capacity Utilization 61.6% ICU Level of Service B Reference Times and Phasing Options do not represent an optimized timing plan. Atlantic Avenue 9/1/2015 Opening Year (2016) with Project Synchro 9 Report Psomas Page 2 Intersection Capacity Utilization Opening Year (2016) Traffic with Project 2 01 9: Atlantic Ave & Fernwood Ave Vlavemerit° N: ESL ¢ E8l`„ : 5BR ..W G-'.^ W> WBR._ NBL NBT tVBF ,.S�l'_,. SgC _ SBf2 Lane Configurations '� J* 58 33 87 1057 44 48 804 49 Volume (vph) 44 46 54 60 Pedestrians Ped Button Pedestrian Timing (s) No No No Free Right 1900 1900 No 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Ideal Flow 5.5 5.5 4.0 5.5 5.5 4.0 6.5 6.5 4.0 6.5 6.5 4.0 Lost Time (s) Minimum Green (s) 8.0 8.0 4.0 8.0 8.0 4.0 10.0 10.0 4.0 10.0 120 10.0 120 4.0 120 Refr Cycle Length (s) 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 0 48 853 0 Volume Combined (vph) 44 100 0 1.00 60 1.00 91 1.00 0 1.00 87 1.00 1101 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Lane Utilization Factor 1.00 Turning Factor (vph) 0.95 1.00 0.92 0.85 0.95 0.95 0.85 0.95 0.99 0.85 0.95 0.99 0.85 0 Saturated Flow (vph) 1805 1746 0 1805 1797 0 1805 3596 0.0 0 0.0 1805 0.0 3586 0.0 Ped Intf Time (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 00.0 Pedestrian Frequency ( %) 0.00 0.00 Yes Protected Option Allowed Yes 4.0 Yes 6.1 0.0 5.8 Yes 36.7 0.0 3.2 28.5 0.0 Reference Time (s) 2.9 6.9 13.5 0.0 0.0 13.5 13.5 0.0 16.5 43.2 0.0 16.5 35.0 0.0 Adj Reference Time (s) 13.5 Permitted Option Adj Saturation A (vph) 120 1746 120 1797 1 1798 1793 28.5 Reference Time A (s) 43.9 6.9 59.8 6.1 . 86.8 8 NA 36.7 NA 477.9 .9 NA NA Adj Saturation B (vph 0 1746 0 12.0 1797 6.1 NA NA NA NA Reference Time B (s) 10.9 6.9 12.0 86.8 47.9 Reference Time (s) 10.9 17.5 93.3 54.4 Adj Reference Time (s) 16.4 Split Option Ref Time Combined (s) 2.9 6.9 4.0 6.1 5.8 36.7 3.2 3.2 28.5 26.9 Ref Time Seperate (s) 2.9 3.2 4.0 3.9 5.8 36.7 35.3 36.7 28.5 28.5 Reference Time (s) 6.9 6.9 6.1 13.5 6.1 13.5 43.2 43.2 35.0 35.0 Adj Reference Time (s) 13.5 13.5 umm EB WB :• , SBxrn Combined °; E Protected Option (s) 27.0 59.7 Permitted Option (s) 17.5 93.3 Split Option (s) 27.0 78.3 Minimum (s) 17.5 59.7 77.2 "'. .�. Right Turns . • ,`.: . • . ., . _ , :. , Adj Reference Time (s) Cross Thru Ref Time (s) Oncoming Left Ref Time (s) Combined (s) tfiersctian Summary. , C Intersection Capacity Utilization 64.4% ICU Level of Service Reference Times and Phasing Options do not represent an optimized timing plan. Atlantic Avenue 9/1/2015 Opening Year (2016) with Project Synchro 9 Report Page 3 Psomas