Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAGENDA REPORT 1989 0503 CC REG ITEM 09BELOISE BROWN Mayor BERNARDO M. PEREZ Mayor Pro Tom CLINT HARPER, Ph. D. Councilmember PAUL LAWRASON Councilmember SCOTT MONTGOMERY Councilmember RICHARD T. HARE City Treasurer MOORPARK ITEM q.$. ME_M0_R_A_NllU.M STEVEN KUENY City Manager CHERYL J. KANE City Attorney PATRICK RICHARDS, A.I.C.P. Director of Community Development R. DENNIS DELZEIT City Engineer JOHN V. GILLESPIE Chief of Police TO: The Honorable City Council. FROM: Patrick J. Richards, Director. of Community Development DA'L'E: April 24, 1989 (CC Meeting of 5 -3 -89) SUBJECT: INDUSTRIAL PLANNED DEVELOPMENT PERMITS NOS. IP.D -88 -8 THROUGH IPD••88 -1.7 (APPLICANT': MOORPARK WEST) Background On April 3, 1989, the Planning Commission held a public hearing for the above referenced projects, and on April 17, 1989, the Commission adopted resolutions recommending that the. City Council approve the Negative Declaration and the mitigation reporting and mon:ltoring program, and recommending that the Council conditionally approve each of the requested industrial planned development permits. The Commission modified cond.itlons Nos. 16, 55, ail 64, and added conditions Nos. 58A and 97 as identiCied i.n the conditions of approval. attached to the Commission's resolutions. Discussion Conditions Nos. 16, 55, and 64 were modified and condition No. 58A was added in response to a request by the appiicant.. Condition No. 97 was added by the Planning Commission to requ:irc� that a contract be let for the widening of the north side of )cos Angeles Avenue between Maureen Dane and Gisler Avenue and for the installation of a 1:.r.aff.ic signal at the intersection of Maureen Lane and Los Angers Avenuo prior to the issuance of a building permit: for any of tlir� subject industrial buildings. The Commission added this condition in an at:tempt to minimize expected traffic conflicts at the intersection of Maureen Vane and Los Angeles Avenue. Attached i.s a copy of the staff report: for :[PD's 88 -8 through 88 -17 which contains a discussion of the. project -location; project, site background.; project description; project analysis of conformance with c.it.y policies, zoning, find gerle.raI plan; and environmental issues. 799 Moorpark Avenge Moorpark, California 93021 (805) 529 -6864 0 Recommendation 1. Approve the Negative Declaration prepared for IPD's 88 -8 through. 88 -17 (attached). 2. Approve the Mitigation Reporting and Monitoring Program proposed for all ten IPD's (included in the Negative Declaration). 3. Make the appropriate findings for all ten TPD's (recommended findings are attached). 4. Direct staff to prepare separate resolutions for Industrial Planned Development Permits Nos. IPD -88 -8 through IPD -88 -17 approving the Negative Declaration and the Mitigation Reporting and Monitoring Program, and conditionally approving each of the requested industrial planned development permits. Attachments: Recommended Findings Negative Declaration Planning Commission Resolutions dated 4 -17 -89 Conditions of Approval Minutes of Planning Commission Hearings of 4 -3 -89 and 4- 1.7 -89 Staff Report dated 4 -3 -89 PJR /DST MOORPARK, CALIFORNIA City Council Meeting of - 198 % ACTION: 7 Ot �'1�t[t!�•� y�tfit/ �f.a -ice ':'G. �G- �' 3 RECOMME ED FINDINGS IPD'S AR-8 TO 88 -17 r .P 1. MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR IPD'S 88 -8 TO 88 -17: a. The Mitigated Negative Declaration / Iniitial Study is complete and has been prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and City Policy. b. The contents of the Mitigated Negative Declaration /Initial Study have been considered in the various decisions on these projects. C. In order to reduce adverse impacts of the proposed projects, all mitigation measures discussed in the environmental document have been incorporated into the proposed projects. d. A mitigation measures reporting and monitoring program has been prepared in compliance with Assembly Bill No. 3180 and considered in the various decisions on these projects. 2. INDUSTRIAL PLANNED DEVELOPMENT PERMITS NOS. IPD -88 -8 TO 88 -17: a. The proposed industrial. uses would be consistent with the purpose, intent, guidelines, standards, policies, and provisions of the City's General Plan and Chapters 1 and 2 of the Ordinance Code. b. The proposed industrial uses would not impair the integrity and character of the zone in which they are to be located. C. The proposed industrial uses would be compatible with land uses permitted within the General Plan land use designations and the zones in the general area where the uses are to be located. d. The proposed industrial uses would not be obnoxious or harmful or impair the utility of the property itself or neighboring property or uses. e. The proposed industrial uses would not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience, or welfare. f. The proposed projects, together with the provisions for their design and improvement, are consistent with the General Plan. The proposed projects are compatible with the objectives, policies, general land . uses, and programs specified in the General Plan. g. The City Council has considered the effect of its action upon the housing needs of the region and has balanced these needs against the public service needs of its residents and available fiscal and environmental resources. v CITY OF MOORPARK COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 799 MOORPARK AVENUE MOORPARK, CALIFORNIA 93021 NEGATIVE DECLARATION X MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: 1. Entitlement: Industrial Planned Development Permits Nos. IPD -88 -8 to 88 -17. 2. Applicant: Siegel & Associates /West America Construction Corp. 3. Proposal: The applicant has requested industrial planned development permits for ten industrial buildings on separate, existing lots. The lot and building size for each requested permit are summarized below: IPD Permit Lot Size ( sq.ft.) Building Size (sq.ft.) 88 -8 23,020 11,536 88 -9 23,400 11,555 88 -10 25,400 11,812 88 -11 16,830 6,780 88 -12 12,480 5,624 88 -13 12,480 5,790 88 -14 12,480 5,790 88 -15 18,180 7,050 88 -16 21,750 10,800 88 -17 19,400 9,409 4. Location & Parcel Number(s): East of Maureen Lane, south of Hertz Street, west of Bonsai Avenue, and approximately 600 feet north of Los Angeles Avenue. (APN's 511 - 070 -73 and 76) 5. Responsible Agencies: None II. STATEMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS: An initial study was conducted by the Community Development Department to evaluate the potential effects of this project upon the environment. Based upon the findings contained in the attached initial study, it has been determined that this project could not have a significant effect upon the environment. V Mitigated Negative Declaration Onlv: Potentially significant environmental impacts can be satisfactorily mitigated through adoption of the mitigation measures identified on the following page as conditions of approval. Mitigation Measures Included to Avoid Significant Effects: See attachment. III. PUBLIC REVIEW- 1. Legal Notice Method: Direct mailing to property owners within 300 feet. 2. Document Posting Period: March 22 through April 3, 1989. Prepared by: Deborah S. Traffenstedt (Date) Associate Planner Approved by: `7 atrick J Wichards (Date) irectcr of Community Development W MITIGATION MEASURES AND REPORTING AND MONITORING PROGRAM FOR IPD'S 88 -8 TO 88 -17 1. Prior to issuance of a zoning clearance, the developer shall submit to the City of Moorpark for review and approval, a grading plan prepared by a registered Civil Engineer; shall obtain a Grading Permit; and shall post sufficient surety guaranteeing completion. Reporting and Monitoring: Prior to issuance of a zoning clearance, the staff planner shall contact the City Engineer's office to determine compliance with this condition, and shall document compliance by placing a note in the file. 2. If grading is to take place during the rainy season (October through March), an erosion control plan shall be submitted with the grading plan to the City Engineer for review and approval prior to the start of construction. A required erosion control measure shall be that all graded slopes will be hydroseeded or landscaped within 60 days of the completion of grading. Reporting and Monitoring: The City Engineer shall be responsible for determining whether an erosion control plan is required prior to issuance of a grading permit. The City Engineer, or his designee, shall monitor the project during construction to ensure that any required hydroseeding is accomplished, and shall document compliance by preparing a memorandum for the project file prior to approval of occupancy. 3. Prior to issuance of a zoning clearance, the applicant shall demonstrate for each building pad to the satisfaction of the City of Moorpark as follows: a. Adequate protection from 100 -year frequency storm, and b. Feasible access during a 10 -year frequency storm. Hydrology calculations shall be per current Ventura County Standards. Reporting and Monitoring: Prior to issuance of a zoning clearance, the City Engineer's office shall prepare a memorandum for the project file which documents compliance. 4. All roof top mechanical equipment and other noise generation sources onsite shall be attenuated to 55 dbA at the property line, or to the ambient noise level at the property line measured at the time of the occupancy request. Prior to the issuance of a zoning clearance for initial occupancy or any subsequent tenant occupancy, the Director of Community Development may request that a noise study or a certificate from a licensed acoustical engineer be submitted for review and approval which demonstrates that all onsite noise generation sources would be mitigated to the required level. 7 Reporting and Monitoring: Prior to approval of a zoning clearance for any roof -top equipment and /or prior to the issuance of a zoning clearance for tenant occupancy for a use which will require noise generating equipment which would affect ambient noise levels, the staff planner shall request submittal of the required noise study or noise certificate. The staff planner will document in the file when the Director of Community Development has approved the noise study. 5. Prior to issuance of a zoning clearance, a lighting plan shall be prepared by an electrical engineer registered in the State of California and submitted to the Department of Community Development for review and approval. The lighting plan shall achieve the following objectives: Avoid interference with reasonable use of adjoining properties; minimize onsite and offsite glare; provide adequate onsite lighting; limit electroliers height to avoid excessive illumination; and provide structures which are compatible with the total design of the proposed facility. The lighting plan shall include the following: a. A photometric plan showing a point -by -point foot candle layout to extend a minimum of twenty (20) feet outside the property lines. Layout plan to be based on a ten (10) foot grid center. b. Maximum overall height of fixtures shall be twenty (20) feet. C. Fixtures must possess sharp cut -off qualities with a maximum of one -half foot candle illumination at property lines. d. There shall be no more than a seven -to -one (7:1) ratio of level of illumination shown (maximum -to- minimum ratio between lighting standards). e. Energy efficient lighting fixtures shall be provided which are compatible with adjacent properties. f. Average maximum of one -half foot candle illumination g. No light shall be emitted above the 90 degree or horizontal plane. Reporting and Monitoring: Prior to issuance of a zoning clearance, for occupancy, the Director of Community shall review and approve the required lighting plan. The staff planner shall document this approval in the file. 6. Prior to the issuance of a zoning clearance for tenant occupancy, the proposed use shall be reviewed and approved by the Ventura County Environmental Health Division to ensure that the proposal will comply with all applicable State and local regulations related to the storage, handling, and disposal of potentially hazardous materials, U4 and that any required permits have been obtained. If required by the County Environmental Health Division, the applicant shall prepare a hazardous waste minimization plan. Reporting and Monitoring: The applicant shall be required to provide written documentation from the County Environmental Health Department that they have reviewed and approved the proposed use prior to the issuance of a zoning clearance for tenant occupancy. The staff planner shall document in the file that this approval has been obtained. 7. If any hazardous waste is encountered during the construction of the project, all work shall be immediately stopped and the Ventura County Environmental Health Department, the Fire Department, the Sheriff's Department, and the City Building Inspector shall be notified immediately. Work shall not proceed until clearance has been issued by all of these agencies. Reporting and Monitoring: The City's Public Works Inspector and the Building Inspector shall be responsible for ensuring that this condition is complied with. 9. Prior to the issuance of a zoning clearance for each of the subject industrial development permits, the applicant shall contribute to the City of Moorpark an amount of $.25 per square foot of gross floor area to support the City's current and future park system. _Reporting and Monitoring: The staff planner shall document in the file that this money has been collected prior to the issuance of a zoning clearance. .. .. IN OWN I ROOM" .- .. -. 9. Prior to the issuance of a zoning clearance for each of the subject industrial development permits, the applicant shall contribute to the City of Moorpark an amount of $.25 per square foot of gross floor area to support the City's current and future park system. _Reporting and Monitoring: The staff planner shall document in the file that this money has been collected prior to the issuance of a zoning clearance. W 10. In recognition of the need for public street and traffic improvements to meet the demand generated by cumulative development in the City, the applicant shall. prior to the issuance of a zoning clearance execute a covenant running with the land on behalf of itself and its successors, heirs, and assigns agreeing to participate in the formation of and be subject to any assessment district or other financing technique including but not limited to the payment of traffic mitigation fees, to provide funds for such improvements, should such a mechanism be established by the City. Reporting and Monitoring: The staff planner shall document in the file that the required covenant has been executed prior to the issuance of a zoning clearance. Prior to February 15th of each subsequent year, Community Development Department staff shall document whether an assessment district or other financing technique has been established to fund public street and traffic improvements in the City of Moorpark. 11. Prior to the issuance of a Zoning Clearance for each industrial planned development permit, the applicant shall make a monetary contribution to Commuter Computer of $.15 per square foot of floor area to fund ridesharing programs. Reporting and Monitoring: The applicant shall be required to provide written documentation that the required contribution to Commuter Computer has been made prior to the issuance of a zoning clearance. The staff planner shall document in the file compliance with this condition. 12. To encourage employees to use alternative means of transportation to reduce automobile trips, common area bicycle storage facilities such as bicycle racks or lockers shall be provided. Proposed bicycle storage areas and facilities shall be reviewed and approved by the Director of Community Development prior to issuance of a zoning clearance. Reporting and Monitoring: The staff planner shall document in the file when the Director of Community Development has approved a site plan showing the locations and the types of bicycle storage facilities proposed prior to issuance of a zoning clearance. The staff planner shall inspect the sites to ensure that the required facilities have been installed prior to issuance of occupancy and shall document compliance in the file. /0 CITY OF MOORPARK INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST FORM I. BACKGROUND 1. Name of Applicant W,-St 2. Project Description --r M5 09-9 tr-, 88-17 -- Con -..-A 1- ,o r, -, -E brw;ICA,:,o 5, on ex,' +llno laLs wrth ci total cannb;.,�i bui Id,'ro ar�� o� 86, 146 54 . -F 3. Date of Checklist 3- 2 -89 L R,- 4. Project Location l,C•ne-- Le>gSf- VI: go„sa; �uenlAe� o-,,4 apprvximatelj 600 f«t north o� 1-cs - lrv�¢ley f�u�nite. II. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS (Explanations of all "yes" and "maybe" answers are required on attached sheets.) 1. EARTH. Will the proposal result in: a. Unstable earth conditions or in changes in geologic substructures? b. Disruptions, displacements, compaction or overcovering of the soil? C. Change in topography or ground surface relief features? d. The destruction, covering or modification of any unique geologic or physical features? e. Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils, either on or off the site? f. Changes in deposition or erosion of beach sands, or changes in situation, deposition or erosion which may modify the channel of a river or stream or the bed of the ocean or any bay, inlet or lake? g. Exposure of people or property to geologic hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, mud- slides, ground failure, or similar hazards? YES MAYBE :N0 9 X X X X X 9 // 2. AIR. Will the proposal result in: a. Substantial air emissions or deterioration of ambient air quality? b. The creation of objectionable odors? YES MAYBE NO x C. Alteration of air movement, moisture or temperature, or any change in climate, either locally or regionally? d. Is there a potential for cumulative adverse impacts on air quality in the project area? 3. WATER. Will the proposal result in: X X a. Changes in currents, or the course of direction of water movements, in either marine or fresh waters? b. Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff? C. Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters? d. Change in the amount of surface water in X any water body? e. Discharge into surface waters, or in any X alteration of surface water quality, including but not limited to temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity? f. Alteration of the direction or rate of flow of ground waters? g. Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations? h. Degradation of ground water quality? i. Substantial reduction in the amount of water i( otherwise available for public water supplies? j. Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding or tidal waves? - YES MAYBE NO 4. PLANT LIFE. Will the proposal result in: a. Changes in the diversity of species or number of any species of plants (including trees, shrubs, grass, crops, and aquatic plants? b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of plants? C. Introduction of new species of plants into an area, X or in a barrier to the normal replenishment of existing species? d. Reduction in acreage of any agricultural crop? 5. ANIMAL LIFE. Will the proposal result in: a. Change in the diversity of species or numbers of any species of animals (birds, land animals including reptiles, fish and shellfish, benthic organisms or insects)? b. Restrict the range of or otherwise affect any rare or endangered animal species? C. Introduction of new species of animals into an area, or result in a barrier to the migration or movement of animals? d. Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife habitat? 6. NOISE. Will the proposal result in: a. Increases in existing noise levels? b. Exposure of people to severe noise levels? 7. LIGHT AND GLARE. Will the proposal produce new light or glare? 8. LAND USE. Will the proposal result in a substantial alteration of the present or planned land use of an area? 9. NATURAL RESOURCES. Will the proposal result in: a. Increase in the rate of use of any natural resources? b. Substantial depletion of any nonrenewable resource? X V 1�)' X X x X X X X X 1�)' r3 YES MAYBE NO 10. RISK OF UPSET. Will the proposal involve: a. A risk of an explosion or the release of hazardous _X substances (including, but not limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation) in the event of an accident or upset conditions? 11. POPULATION. Will the proposal alter the location, X distribution, density or growth rate of the human pop�:lation of an area? 12. HOUSING. Will the proposal affect existing housing, X or create a demand for additional housing? 13. TRANSPORTATION /CIRCULATION. Will the proposal result in: a. Generation of substantial additional vehicular X _ movement? b. Effects on existing parking facilities or demand X( for new parking? C. Substantial impact upon existing transportation systems? d. Alterations to present patterns of circulation or X movement of people and /or goods? e. Alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic? f. Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? 14. PUBLIC SERVICES. Will the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered governmental servies in any of the following areas: a. Fire protection? X b. Police protection? C. Schools? X d. Parks or other recreational facilities? e. Other governmental services? X 15. ENERGY. Will the proposal result in: a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy? )( 14 YES MAYBE NO b. Substantial increase in demand upon existing sources 17. of energy or require the development of new sources of energy? a. Creation of any health hazard or potential health 16. UTILITIES. Will the proposal result in a need for new systems, or substantial alterations to the following utilities: b. Exposure of people to potential health hazards? a. Power or natural gas? 18. b. Communications system? _ X C. Water? X_ d. Sewer or septic tanks? _ X e. Storm water drainage? X f. Solid waste and disposal? X g. Street lighting annexation and /or improvements? 17. HUMAN HEALTH. Will the proposal result in: a. Creation of any health hazard or potential health X hazard (excluding mental health)? b. Exposure of people to potential health hazards? 18. AESTHETICS. Will the proposal result in the obstruc- X tion of any scenic vista or view open to the public, or will the proposal result in the creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to public view? 19. RECREATION. Will the proposal result in an impact X upon the quality or quantity of existing recreational opportunities? 20. ARCHAEOLOGICAL /HISTORICAL. Will the proposal: a. Affect possible unknown archaeological or historic- al sites? b. Result in destruction or alteration of a known archaeological or historical site within the vicinity of the project? C. Result in destruction or alteration of a known archaeological or historical site near the vicinity of the project? �7 YES MAYBE NO 21. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the.quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self- sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or ei'dangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b. Does the project have the potential to achieve short -term, to the disadvantage of long -term, environmental goals? (A short -term impact on the environment is one which occurs in a relatively brief, definitive period of time while long -term impacts will endure well into the future.) C. Does the project have impacts which are individu- ally limited, but cumulatively considerable? (A project may impact on two or more separate resources where impact on ea.h resource is relatively small., but where the effect of the total of those impacts on the environment is significant.) �— d. Doe-s the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. _ is III. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION R."S', -t0 A-t�och en-t I - 1V. DETERMINATION. On the basis of this initial evaluation: In conformance with Sectionl506O of the State EIR Guidelines, I find with certainity that the proposal would not have a significant impact on the environment. 1 find the proposed project is categorically exempt purse ant to cia s,,; /46p _ I find the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION. should be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet could be applied to the project. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION SHOULD BE PREPARED. I find proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. _ I find proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ADDENDUM to an existing certified Environmental Impact Report is required. _ I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and this effect is adequately addressed in a certified Environmental Impact Report, and thus SUBSEQUENT USE of the existing EIR is required. 107 File Nos.: IPD's -88 -8 to 88 -17 Applicant: Moorpark West Attachment 1 DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION 1. EARTH. A limited amount of grading would be required due to the relatively flat topography of the project sites. All grading is anticipated to be balanced on -site. Construction of the proposed buildings would not result in unstable earth conditions or in changes in geologic substructures. The Soils Engineering Report prepared for the project indicates that the soils found on -site are expected to be suitable for the intended development. The building pad area for the subject industrial buildings would be compacted per City Building Code to support the structure. Compliance with building code /City Engineer requirements related to grading would minimize the potential for significant erosion impacts. Standard conditions of approval require submittal of a grading plan for review and approval, require an erosion control plan if grading is to take place during the rainy season, and require hydroseeding or landscaping of all graded slopes within 60 days of the completion of grading. No geologic or seismic hazards are known to exist on -site or within the immediate vicinity. The construction of the proposed industrial buildings is, therefore, not expected to result in exposure of people or property to geologic or seismic hazards. 2. AIR. Based on the Ventura County Air Pollution Control District's Guidelines for the Preparation of Air Quality Impact Analyses, the proposed projects would not result in substantial deterioration of ambient air quality or significant cumulative air giiality impacts. The referenced Guidelines indicate that a Negative Declaration is appropriate if the project would emit less than 13.7 tons per year (tpy) of Nitrogen Oxides (NOx) and Reactive Organic Compounds (ROC). Following is an estimate of the NOx and ROC emissions associated with the proposed industrial developments: IPD No. NOx (tpy) ROC _Ltpy) 88 -8 .33 .41 88 -9 .33 .41 88 -10 .34 .42 88 -11 .20 .24 88 -12 .16 .20 88 -13 .17 .21 88 -14 .17 .21 88 -15 .20 .25 88 -16 .31 .38 88 -17 .27 .33 Totals: 2.48 tpy 3.06 tpy While the proposed projects are not expected cumulative air quality impacts based on the would in conjunction with other past, present future projects incrementally contribute to a due to increased traffic. The mitigation discussion item No. 21 for cumulative traffic mitigate air quality impacts. f e to result in significant referenced Guidelines, they and reasonably foreseeable degradation of air quality measures identified under impacts would also serve to 3. WATER. Construction of the proposed industrial buildings would change the absorption rate and the drainage for the project sites. However, there are existing underground storm drains in the surrounding streets that were designed in conjunction with the industrial park subdivisions. Concrete drains would also be provided on -site. All excess on -site water would be diverted to existing storm drains to the Ventura County Flood Control Channel. No impacts related to drainage, and hydrology are expected to result from project construction. The proposed projects are also not expected to alter surface water quality or affect any known ground waters. Refer to discussion item No. 10 regarding required compliance with all applicable State and local regulations related to the storage, handling, and disposal of potentially hazardous materials. Sewer and water service would be provided by the Ventura County Waterworks District No. 1. Adequate sewer capacity and water pressure exist to serve the project sites. The subject properties are classified as Zone B on the Federal Emergency Management Agency Flood Insurance Rate Map for Moorpark. No alteration to the course of flood waters or exposure of people or property to significant flooding is expected. The following standard conditions of approval related to flooding would ensure no significant impacts would result from project construction: -2- /9 The applicant shall demonstrate for each building pad to the satisfaction of the City of Moorpark as follows: a. Adequate protection from 100 -year frequency storm, and b. Feasible access during a 10 -year frequency storm. Hydrology calculations shall be per current Ventura County Standards. 4. PLANT LIFE. The existing vegetation on the project sites is sparse, and there are no known unique, rare, or endangered species located on -site. No trees would be removed by project construction. New landscaping is proposed for each of the subject industrial developments. The project sites are not currently used for agricultural purposes, and the proposed development would not result in the reduction in acreage of any agricultural crops. 5. ANIMAL LIFE. The proposed projects would not change the diversity of species or numbers of any species of animals. No rare or endangered species are known to exist on -site or in the nearby vicinity. 6. NOISE. The proposed industrial projects are not expected to increase the ambient noise level in the general area. The primary noise source in the area is from Los Angeles Avenue (Highway 118). The City's Noise Element identifies that up to 75 decibels of exterior noise is considered acceptable for industrial uses. Figure 7 of the Noise Element identifies that the project area is projected to have noise levels of less than 70 decibels by the year 2000. Noise levels related to manufacturing could be lessened through proper installation of facilities and through muffling of large machinery. To minimize noise impacts to adjacent properties from manufacturing equipment, the following requirement should be included as a condition of approval for each of the subject permits: All roof top mechanical equipment and any other noise generation sources on -site shall be attenuated to 55 dBA at the property line, or to the ambient noise level at the property line measured at the time of the occupancy request. Prior to the issuance of a zoning clearance for initial tenant occupancy or any subsequent tenant occupancy, the Director of Community Development may request that a noise study or noise certificate from a licensed acoustical engineer be submitted for review and approval which demonstrates that all on -site noise generation sources would be mitigated to the required level. -3- av 7. LIGHT AND GLARE. The proposed industrial development would introduce lighting associated with parking areas and illumination of the new facilities. To mitigate potential glare impacts the following requirement should be included as a condition of approval for each of the subject permits: For all exterior lighting, a lighting plan shall be prepared by an electrical engineer registered in the State of California and submitted to the Department of Community Development for review and approval prior to issuance of a zoning clearance. The lighting plan shall achieve the following objectives: Avoid interference with reasonable use of adjoining properties; minimize on -site and off -site glare; provide adequate on -site lighting; limit electroliers height to avoid excessive illumination; and provide structures which are compatible with the total design of the proposed facility. The required lighting plan shall include the following: a. A photometric plan showing a point -by -point foot candle layout to extend a minimum of twenty (20) feet outside the property lines. Layout plan to be based on a ten (10 foot grid center. b. Maximum overall height of fixtures shall be fourteen (14) feet in or adjacent to residential areas and twenty (20) feet in nonresidential areas. C. Fixtures must possess sharp cut -off qualities with a maximum of one -half foot candle illumination at property lines. d. There shall be no more than a seven -to -one (7:1) ratio of level of illumination shown (maximum -to- minimum ratio between lighting standards). e. Energy efficient lighting fixtures which are compatible with adjacent properties. f. Average maximum of one -half foot candle illumination. g. No light shall be emitted above the 90 degree or horizontal plane. 8. LAND USE. The proposed industrial projects would not substantially alter the present or planned land use of the surrounding area. Although the project sites are currently undeveloped, they are part of an existing industrial park. Also, the zoning for the project sites is M -2 and the General Plan land use designation is Medium Tndustrial. 9. NATURAL RESOURCES. The proposed projects would not result in a significant increase in the rate of use of any natural resources, and would not result in substantial depletion of any nonrenewable resource. -4- .�;R/ 10. RISK OF UPSET. For all industrial projects, there is a potential that hazardous materials would be generated and /or stored on -site. To minimize the potential for environmental impacts, conditions of approval would be placed on the project similar to the following: Prior to the issuance of a zoning clearance for tenant occupancy, the proposed use shall be reviewed and approved by the Ventura County Environmental Health Division to ensure that the proposal would comply with all applicable .hate and local regulations related to the storage, handling, and disposal of potentially hazardous materials, and that any required permits have been obtained. If required by the County Environmental Health Division, the applicant shall prepare a hazardous waste minimization plan which shall be reviewed and approved pri.or to issuance of a zoning clearance. If any hazardous waste is encountered during the construction of the project, all work shall be immediately stopped and the Ventura County Environmental Health Department, the Fire Department, the Sheriff's Department, and the City Building Inspector shall be notified immediately. Work shall not proceed until clearance has been issued by all of these agencies. 11. POPULATION. The proposed projects would create new employment opportunities, which could possibly alter the location, distribution, density, or growth rate of the human population in Moorpark. No significant change in population is expected. The proposed industrial development is a planned land use. 12. HOUSING. Additional employment opportunities could create a demand for additional housing for employees. The number of new residential units constructed each year in the City of Moorpark is controlled by the City's adopted Residential Development Management System. 13. TRANSPORTATION /CIRCULATION. A Traffic Study was prepared in February 1988 by Thomas S. Montgomery and Associates for the subdivision (LD -M -10) which created the lots proposed as the project location. The City Traffic Engineer determined that the LD -M -10 Traffic Study adequately addressed the potential traffic impacts associated with the proposed ten industrial planned development permits. The completee traffic report is attached to this staff report and is available for review at the Moorpark Community Development Department. A summary of this report is provided below. -5- The street system in the vicinity of the study site is now operating at relatively high levels of service except at the intersections of Los Angeles Avenue /Spring Road and Spring Road /High Street /Los Angeles Avenue, which are operating in excess of design capacity (Levels D and E) during both commuter peak travel periods. The traffic related to the LD -M -10 subdivision was estimated to be about 1,600 ADT. The Traffic Study concluded that this traffic would not change the existing street system volume /capacity relationships to a significant degree with the addition of a southbound left -turn only lane at Maureen Lane. The industrial subdivision was projected, however, to incrementally contribute to projected 1993 adverse traffic conditions (Levels E and F) at three study area intersections (Los Angeles Avenue /Spring Road, Spring Road /High Street /Los Angeles Avenue, and Tierra Rejada Road /Gabbert Road). The construction of the connection of the State Route 23 and 118 freeways is anticipated to significantly alter traffic flow patterns in and through the City of Moorpark and improve traffic flow along the concerned portion of Los Angeles Avenue. Of importance to the current industrial development proposals is that the subject Traffic Study identified that future traffic demands at the intersection of Los Angeles Avenue and Maureen Lane were expected to warrant the installation of a traffic signal control. To ensure that a traffic signal l would be installed at the identified intersection when warrented by traffic levels, a condition of approval was imposed on the original subdivision map which required the p j QQtC t0 4Q% ' �15,% -aA nrl °! _ ..F the a6*816�...1.1 8 F ..r t1" ^ °: ^i�iTT ^ei6i� A ^i"�i 3�i condition 1J01i 1d orj tG �i0 4tAriOd_w�•-ees 4»rr_nJ; AQ_QI_P__Qt orm����ioct _ *ci nnc»ro thn} n }rnff�� ci ornl rat r�l 6t X66 Aiil$ OZOO AvoiiHO-aOd�MaiiiQOA�L�ii iG -- ^n4 nlle.i _ ..ho _.or.-- IAt;QA 1... City VU84916„r WQ-'1a he Go.ponciblo foi maniteginsthie developer to make a supplementary contribution to the Los Angeles Avenue Area of Contribution in the amount of $70,000. This amount has already been paid to the City. The amount of the deposit was determined based on half the estimated project cost to construct a traffic signal at the intersection of Maureen Lane and Los Angeles Avenue, and includes $5,000 to be used by the City Engineers office to conduct a traffic signal warrant study. Since all of the roads surrounding the project sites have already been built or are currently under construction, no alternation to present patterns of circulation would result. An increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists, or pedestrians may result due to the increase in the amount of automobile and truck traffic in the area. The required building setbacks and compliance with sight distance criteria would minimize potential traffic hazards. Irela J In regard to parking, the proposed projects are not expected to result in a demand for other new parking off -site. The parking area proposed for each project site meets City requirements. 14. PUBLIC SERVICES. The proposed industrial projects would not require additional fire protection or police protection personnel. Schools are not expected to be affected by the proposed development. Adopted school fees would have to be paid prior to issuance of a building permit. No impact to park and recreation facilities is expected. The City typically imposes a condi.tion of approval requiring the developer to contribute an amount of $.25 per square foot of gross floor area to support the City's current and future park system would ensure no impact to park and recreation facilities would result from construction of the proposed industrial buildings. 15. ENERGY. The proposed projects are not expected to use substantial amounts of fuel or energy, and would not substantially increase demand upon existing sources of energy or require the development of new sources of energy. 16. UTILITIES. The proposals would result in the need for new connections to existing electrical, natural gas, telephone, water, sewer, and storm water drainage facilities, but would not create excessive demands on the existing systems. Solid waste collection and disposal would be contracted out to a private collection service. No additional street lighting is required. 17. HUMAN HEALTH. The proposed projects are not expected to result in the creation of any health hazard or exposure of people to potential health hazards. Refer to discussion item No. 10 which identifies proposed mitigation conditions to ensure that any potential storage, handling, and disposal of potentially hazardous materials would comply with all applicable State and local regulations and that any required permits have been obtained. 18. AESTHETICS. No aesthetic impacts are expected. The proposed industrial buildings would not obstruct any scenic views. The maximum building height is proposed to be 20 feet. The proposed development is part of an existing industrial park. Proposed landscaping exceeds City requirements. 19. RECREATION. The proposed industrial development would not affect the quality or quantity of existing recreational opportunities. Refer to discussion item No. 14, Public Services. 20. ARCHAEOLOGICAL /HISTORICAL. There are no known archaeological or historical resources in the project vicinity. The project sites were graded in conjunction with the LD -M -10 subdivision map. 21. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. As previously discussed, no biological or cultural resources would be impacted. -7- a4 The proposed projects are expected to have long -term benefits to the City of Moorpark in regard to employment opportunities. The proposed development is consistent with the City's General Plan. Short -term impacts may result from construction activities, but are not expected to be significant. The proposed industrial development is expected to result in cumulative traffic and air quality impacts when considered with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects. However, the additional traffic generated by the subject development is not expected to significantly contribute to projected future adverse traffic conditions nor is it expected to significantly affect the air quality of the region. As mitigation for cumulative traffic and air quality impacts, standard conditions /mitigation measures should be imposed on the project similar to the following: Prior to the issuance of a Zoning Clearance, the applicant shall execute a covenant running with the land on behalf of it and its successors, heirs, and assigns agreeing to participate in the formation of and be subject to any assessment district or other financing technique including but not limited to the payment of traffic mitigation fees, which the City may implement or adopt, to fund public street and traffic improvements directly or indirectly affected by the development. The applicant shall make a monetary contribution to Commuter Computer of $.15 per square foot of floor area to fund ridesharing programs. To encourage employees to use alternative means of transportation to reduce automobile trips, common area bicycle storage facilities such as racks or lockers shall be provided. Proposed bicycle storage areas and facilities shall be reviewed and approved by the Director of Community Development prior to issuance of a zoning clearance. as F F 6 2 9 1988 CITY OF MOORPARK THOMAS S. MONTGOMERY AND ASSOCIATES Transportation & Traffic Engineers 2151 Alessandro Drive Suite 210 Ventura, California 93001 (805) 652 -0411 February 25, 1988 Mr. Nick Brown 8921 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 400 Beverly Hills, California 90211 RE: LDM -10 (DP397 -404) Traffic Impact Study Dear Mr. Brown: As requested by the City Planning Commission at the public hearing on this project on Monday evening, February 1, 1988, we have revised our initial traffic impact study for this development to include an analysis of site traffic impacts at High Street -Los Angeles Avenue and Spring Road, and to refine the site traffic generation characteristics of this project as necessary. This revised report contains the findings and conclusions of our analysis with all necessary supportive data, and supersedes our previous study dated November 30, 1987. In general, we still conclude that the additional traffic generated by this project would incrementally add to projected total 1993 traffic demands in excess of design capacity at two intersections on Los Angeles Avenue (and at the now added intersection of High Street /Spring Road) but that these potentially adverse impacts should be of relatively short duration. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The proposed development, known as "LD'�1 -10 ", would be located on the east side of Maureen Lane north of Los Angeles Avenue on an irregularly shaped vacant parcel of land approximately 12.4 acres in size (see Figure I, "Vicinity J Map ") . The project would contain a maximum of 26 separate buildings with a total floor area of 228,270 square feet. Parking would be provided on site for 562 vehicles. Access for the project would be to and from Los Angeles Avenue via a cul -de -sac local streets and numerous direct access driveways off Maureen Lane. For study purposes, it was assumed that this development would be constructed and become fully operational by mid -1993, the selected study design year. SCOPE OF WORK AND DATA SOURCES The scope of work for this traffic impact study was determined based on discussions with Mr. Mark Wessel, WILLDAN ASSOCIATES, the traffic engineering consulting firm acting as City Traffic Engineer for the City of Moorpark. The intersections selected for detailed volume /capacity analysis in this study were located on Los Angeles Avenue at Spring Road, Moorpark Avenue, Gisler Court (a future street), Maureen Lane, and Tierra Rejada Road - Gabbert Road and at Spring Road and High Street -Los Angeles Avenue. The study was prepared in accordance with the guidelines for traffic and circulation studies adopted by the City of Moorpark in April 1986. Existing traffic volume data was obtained from the files of the City of Moorpark Engineering Department and from the State of California Department of Transportation (CALTRANS). New peak period (6:30 to 8:30 AM and 3:30 to 5:30 PM) manual turning movement traffic volume counts were made by our personnel at the four existing study intersections along Los Angeles Avenue in the latter part of May and early June 1987, prior to the end of the school year for the school system serving the City of Moorpark. New peak period manual turning movement traffic volume counts were conducted by our personnel in February 1988 at the intersection of High Street -Los Angeles Avenue and Spring Road. Additional traffic data was obtained from the traffic impact study prepared for the TOPA MANAGEMENT COMPANY in July of 1987 for PD 1064, a proposed retail development to be located on the southwest corner of Los Angeles Avenue and Spring Road. This traffic impact study was prepared by LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, INC. (LLG) and contained recent peak period manual turning movement traffic count data at Los Angeles Avenue and Spring Road. Since that Tmk a? _� rV OOPPAPi� , , r Qo Iv ii iPA�RK I I 1 I i nM I----- '' =' - -- - -nN - -- MI o15 my —�� ' �l 11 ` LLE� r I t>r/ .o. I �I' J - -- - - -- —+ - - -- — a—-- r-------- l�--- P-- 1,-- ;�— +� - - - - -- I c.st�l RD I 000 GOP � PSI � I ,.— ='•- I W \ �' t� ANGELES I AV o00 �I� a q� 'FI f�S I " t+ a R11 urar I rer.l Ira. IOR(1 I r•uw }" 1 : ^ � I ' ( c'�� :I /ca A C. �JJ� . t / I �'I JI'•.1 ,r't� TAIA N sy R � /"1 1 i �. a .�J . � ' a � F• .I� �r 1 ,r . iit c.. 'i.:�, •�a— �O,r' /p I r '^fin ,�� �;�' ^„�,- •'1•Air_YSt7; .1•. /la:k'.I. / •• r'. '� 'F -Ire_ `'` F t LEGEND ® PROJECT LOCATION NO SCALE VICINITY MAP Ok traffic count data reflected normal traffic generation activities at Moorpark College, whereas our peak period counts were made during finals week, the LLG count data was used in this analysis. Specific industrial employment survey data for the industrial area north of Los Angeles Avenue in the vicinity of Maureen Lane and Gabbert Road was obtained from THE SIRACUSA COMPANY. This employment survey was conducted in February 1988, and contained employee density information for specific developments near the study site. A summary of the existing employment data is contained in the Appendix of this report. Information concerning specific future planned developments now proposed in and adjacent to the study area was obtained from the LLG study and a traffic impact study prepared for Tracts 4340, 4341, and 4342 ( "Planned Community No. 3 West Village ") by WILLDAN ASSOCIATES in September 1987. At the direction of staff at WILLDAN ASSOCIATES, our total cumulative 1993 traffic demand /capacity scenario was derived based on the traffic projection estimates contained in these two reports plus our estimate of the land use traffic generation potential in the remaining vacant portions of the large industrial park area north of Los Angeles Avenue in the immediate vicinity of the study site. Field investigations were made to ascertain the existing physical and traffic characteristics of the street system serving the study site and to observe current commuter peak period traffic operations. Information concerning the proposed industrial park project was obtained from your office and from the site plan prepared by SIEGEL & ASSOCIATES, INC., Calabasas, California. EXISTING TRAFFIC CONDITIONS Los Angeles Avenue, State Route 118 (SR 118), is the major east -west route bisecting the City of Moorpark. This important arterial now carries between 18,000 and 22,000 vehicle trips per day (vpd) in the vicinity of the study site and has a usable travelled roadway varying from a minimum of one lane in each direction to a cross section now striped for seven lanes. Maureen Lane, a two lane collector street, is now stop sign controlled at Los Angeles Avenue and has TMA 3 one approach lane in each direction. Los Angeles Avenue at Maureen Lane has one approach lane for eastbound traffic and one approach lane plus a separate left- turn -only lane for westbound traffic. The intersection of Los Angeles Avenue and Tierra Rejada Road - Gabbert Road is now controlled with an actuated traffic signal with separate left -turn phasing for the east and westbound approaches. The northbound approach at this location is striped for a left- turn -only lane, one through lane, and a right -turn- only lane; southbound for a left- turn -only lane and one through lane; with both approaches on Los Angeles Avenue striped for a left- turn -only lane, two through lanes, and a right- turn -only lane. The intersection of Los Angeles Avenue and Moorpark Avenue is now controlled with an'actuated traffic signal with separate left turn phasing for east and westbound traffic plus "split phasing" for north and southbound approach traffic. The south and westbound approaches utilize signal phase overlap for the separate right-turn _ movement. At this location the northbound approach is striped for a left- turn -only lane and one through lane; southbound for a left - turn -only lane, an optional left -turn, through or right -turn lane, and a right -turn- only lane; eastbound for a left- turn -only lane and two through lanes; and westbound for a left- turn -only lane, two through lanes, and a right- turn -only lane. The intersection of Los Angeles Avenue and Spring Road is also controlled with an actuated traffic signal with separate left turn phasing for east and westbound approach traffic. The northbound approach at this intersection is now striped for a left- turn -only lane, two through lanes, and a right- turn -only lane; southbound for a left- turn -only lane, one through lane, and a right- turn -only lane; eastbound for a left- turn -only lane and two through lanes; and westbound for a left- turn -only lane, one through lane, an optional through or right- turn -only lane, and a right- turn -only lane. The intersection of High Street -Los Angeles Avenue and Spring Road is now controlled with an actuated traffic signal with split phasing for east and westbound approach traffic. The northbound approach at this intersection is striped for a left- turn -only lane, an optional through or right -turn lane and a 4 3o separate right- turn -only lane with the southbound approach striped for a left - turn -only lane and one through lane. The westbound approach is striped for a left- turn -only lane, an optional left -turn or through lane, and a right- turn -only lane with the eastbound approach striped for a left- turn -only lane, two through lanes, and a right- turn -only lane. Shown on Figure 2 are the estimated existing peak hour and daily traffic volumes at and in the vicinity of the five existing study intersections. In order to estimate the current operational efficiency of this portion of Los Angeles Avenue, a volume /capacity analysis was made at these locations using the "Intersection Capacity Utilization" (ICU) method. This methodology is explained in detail on the information sheet contained in the Appendix. Also contained in the Appendix are copies of the peak period manual turning movement traffic volume counts made by our personnel at these five locations. The results of the ICU analysis are _ listed in Table 1 and indicate that the intersection of Los Angeles Avenue and Moorpark Avenue is now operating at relatively high levels of service, Level of Service A and B (LOS A and B) , during the morning and afternoon commuter -peak travel periods respectively; and that the intersection of Los Angeles Avenue and Tierra Rejada Road - Gabbert Road is currently operating at very high levels of service (LOS A) during both commuter peak travel periods. However, the intersection of Los Angeles Avenue and Maureen Lane is operating slightly in excess of the design capacity value designated for use in the City of Moorpark (LOS C with a maximum ICU of 0.80) during the afternoon commuter peak travel period due primarily to the relatively heavy westbound through traffic demands that are currently confined to one travel lane. The two study intersections on Spring Road are presently operating well in excess of design capacity during both commuter peak travel periods. TABLE 1 EXISTING VOLUME/CAPACITY RELATIONSHIPS Study Intersection ICU /LOS VALUES Morning Afternoon Peak Hour Period Peak Hour Period Los Angeles Avenue & Spring Road 0.86/D 0.95/E Los Angeles Avenue & Moorpark Avenue 0.49/A 0.63/B Los Angeles Avenue & Maureen Lane 0.72/C 0.81 /D Los Angeles Avenue & Tierra Rejada Road - Gabbert Road 0.50 /A 0.51 /A Spring Road and High Street -Los Angeles Avenue 0.96/E 0,88/0 TM& OD \ N O = C 2600 --a-- 6T5/824 v /-35/180 t C 5/17 V O (D 01 N O � �- 738/746 L.A. Ai N 126,000 325/397 --� 19.00 OD \ N O = 19/15 2600 --a-- 6T5/824 Los Angeles Ave. j I � /-35/180 118,500 34/20 J 842/706 --4 -- } 5/17 a �� � \Qf (D 01 N 1n pO M O 4 Ct TIVA `N� NO SCALE \ 00- 0\ 16/4 �— T71/1137 r 2/15 0 1/0 916/667 ,1 t 0/3 � o (o 0� O O M LEGEND I oo /oo AM /PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes 000 Daily Traffic Volumes O O_ 0 EXISTING TRAFFIC 2 iw VOLUMES 2600 N ((D M 57/75 �— 199/311 High 8500 �- 738/746 L.A. Ai 126,000 325/397 --� 68/91 ro - co ti \ \ \ �n ao _ Q rn (o O 0 21, 800 Q N \ \ M N \ a N N N �-'o 494/380 I I 130/291 �— 618/ 1007 -17/5 279 /468 10/5 21 200 1 l 140/142---'/ '- 385/393 4 524/311 - 18 000 r 1 862 /598 - I 23/8 ?> ti 156/225 m(oN N P \ NU to \ \ (D — 't M L CO — N LEGEND I oo /oo AM /PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes 000 Daily Traffic Volumes O O_ 0 EXISTING TRAFFIC 2 iw VOLUMES 3z SITE TRAFFIC GENERATION AND DISTRIBUTION Due to the concerns raised by Commissioner Scott Montgomery at the planning commission hearing on Monday evening, February 1, 1988, we estimated the directional peak hour and daily traffic generation quantities for the subject industrial park development based on traffic generation factors described in both vehicle trips per 1,000 square feet of gross leasable floor area (GLA) and in vehicle trips per employee. The traffic generation factors for both of these land use perimeters were derived from various studies made by public and private traffic engineering agencies nationwide and are summarized in the Institute of Transportation Engineers' (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, Third Edition. These site traffic generation factors are listed in Table 2 with the resultant directional peak hour and daily site traffic generation quantities shown in Table 3 for the four possible site traffic generation scenarios considered in this analysis. These are the site traffic generation demands previously used in our November 1987 traffic impact study on this project which are based on the total floor area proposed of 228,270 square feet and on the three employee density rates identified in this re- analysis (the average densities listed in the ITE manual and both the average and peak employee densities identified for the existing industrial development in the vicinity of the study site in THE SIRACUSA COMPANY survey) . TABLE 2 SITE TRAFFIC GENERATION FACTOR COMPARISONS Type Of Land Use Base Unit Traffic Generation Factor Daily Total AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour IN OUT IN OUT Industrial Park 1000 Ft.2 Employee 0.72 0.36 0.21 0.21 0.24 0.14 0.75 0.38 7.00 3.59 TAM C, 33 TABLE 3 SITE TRAFFIC GENERATION COMPARISON This expanded site traffic generation analysis indicates that the estimated peak period and daily site traffic demands contained in our original traffic impact study on this project would still be appropriate to use compared to the site traffic quantities derived from the "trips per employee" density ranges since the critical directional peak hour demands (inbound in the morning and outbound in the afternoon commuter peak travel periods) plus the daily totals are highest in the "trips per 1,000 square feet of GLA" traffic generation factor category. Therefore, it is still estimated that the LDM -10 development would generate a maximum of about 1,600 vpd with directional peak demands between 164 and 171 vehicle trips per hour (vph) inbound in the morning peak period and outbound in the afternoon peak period, respectively. The orientation of this site - generated traffic demand was estimated to be 29 percent to an from the north and northeast via Gabbert Road (1 percent), Moorpark Avenue north of High Street (3 percent) , and Los Angeles Avenue east of Spring Road at High Street (25 percent) ; 17 percent to and from the east on Los Angeles Avenue east of Spring TAAA Number Of Additional Vehicle Trips Per The "ITE" Trips /Employee Factors Time Per The November At Average "ITE" At Average Study Area At Peak Study Area Period 1987 TMA Report (Trips /1000 Ft.2) Employment Density (1.96 Emp /1000 Ft Employment Density (0.87 Emp /1000 Ft.I) Employment Densit� (1.42 Emp /1000 Ft. ) AM Peak Hour IN 164 161 71 117 OUT 48 94 42 68 PM Peak Hour IN 55 63 28 45 OUT 171 170 75 123 Daily Total 1,600 1,605 710 1,165 This expanded site traffic generation analysis indicates that the estimated peak period and daily site traffic demands contained in our original traffic impact study on this project would still be appropriate to use compared to the site traffic quantities derived from the "trips per employee" density ranges since the critical directional peak hour demands (inbound in the morning and outbound in the afternoon commuter peak travel periods) plus the daily totals are highest in the "trips per 1,000 square feet of GLA" traffic generation factor category. Therefore, it is still estimated that the LDM -10 development would generate a maximum of about 1,600 vpd with directional peak demands between 164 and 171 vehicle trips per hour (vph) inbound in the morning peak period and outbound in the afternoon peak period, respectively. The orientation of this site - generated traffic demand was estimated to be 29 percent to an from the north and northeast via Gabbert Road (1 percent), Moorpark Avenue north of High Street (3 percent) , and Los Angeles Avenue east of Spring Road at High Street (25 percent) ; 17 percent to and from the east on Los Angeles Avenue east of Spring TAAA Road; 23 percent to and from the south, south of Los Angeles Avenue on Tierra Rejada Road (14 percent) , Maureen Lane (1 percent) , Gisler Court (1 percent) , Moorpark Avenue (1 percent) , and Spring Road (6 percent) ; with the remaining 31 percent to and from the west on Los Angeles Avenue west of Tierra Rejada Road - Gabbert Road. Shown on Figure 3 are the peak hour and daily site traffic volume quantities as assigned to the study area street system based on these estimated site traffic generation and distribution characteristics. Maximum daily site traffic demands would occur on Maureen Lane north of Los Angeles Avenue (1,600 vpd) and along Los Angeles Avenue between Maureen Lane and Moorpark Avenue (about 850 vpd) . Maximum directional peak period site traffic turning movements demands would be less than 90 vph in all cases. Shown on Figure 4 are the existing plus site traffic demands on this portion of Los Angeles Avenue. FUTURE TRAFFIC CONDITIONS Total future cumulative traffic demands would consist of site - generated traffic plus the additional traffic that would be generated by other known planned developments in the study area plus future background traffic demands. Future 1993 traffic demands were estimated to equal 1.10 times existing traffic volumes; an increase equivalent to approximately 2.0 percent per year between now and 1993 to account for region -wide growth trends and unspecified local study area projects. Future traffic demands were then diverted to reflect the completion of the Tierra Rejada bridge as noted in a study done by our firm dated October 1986. The total related projects traffic demand used in this analysis consisted of the future land use assumptions contained in the following list: 1. PD -1014 and PD -1064 from the LLG traffic impact study; 2. Tracts 4340, 4341, 4342, 4037, 2865, 3019, 3525, and LDM -11 from the WILLDAN ASSOCIATES "West Village" traffic impact study; 3. Planned Community No. 4 and T.T. 3306 from WILLDAN ASSOCIATES; and, 8/3 High 80 /�— 32/11 L.A. Ave. r - - - --� S1. 2/9 1400 I STUDY j SITE M O_ L- _J w 4 C7 O O O lc%j � In to M O — — N \fa M N N 0/2 N ON M —15/53 Los Angeles 495 /r--7/24 j j �— 87/29 850 ] 85/29 -.-- -70/23 --..--28/9 Ave. 50 / 17 ----w- 735 75/25--,/ 26 /� 2 —� 18351 4/13 _� 690 10/34 27 _J/ 5 22[73 —t- 9/29 - - ►` U/2 _ 3/10 M \ \ N \ N N N O rc%i b ` O O �► 4 LEGEND TMA 3 oo /oo AM /PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes F0001 Daily Traffic SITE N Volumes NO SCALE TRAFFIC VOLUMES 0 cD N t� — O) M Ct N lD 57/75 +— 207/314 High 8600 — 770/757L.A.< S>. 1/9 126,400 327/406 —, I 68/91 vin _ min \ \OD Lo ro \_ � � N w M 4 O ICOOOO) O O � N O N N N — N � NCO h ~ N NOM �N\ In \ a O N O \\ N \f� N Q104 ti co NO �`-' 19/17 No N 103/33 130/291 "' - `" 494/380 1 690/877 -�- 771/1137 -+--- 688/1030 I �- 307/477 Los Angeles �% 1 r'— 42/204 �% r- 2/15 r--' 17/5 J j �— 10/5 Ave. 22 000 ��"" 118,300 34/20 ' 144/155 L33 7 892/723 - -�-- r9176/25 6/667 —= 4 884/671 —�- + �/ _ 23/10 _ 5/17 N tD M 0 / 3 — t0 O Of f� — OD N \O \ \\ N 19,000 _\ N m N ; N N co 0 O O O N 4 0 OD M V It O lb I � C J ti � h TMA LEGEND oo /oo AM /PM Peak Hour `'t Traffic Volumes 00o Daily Traffic EXISTING PLUS ITE N Volumes NO SCALE TRAFFIC VOLUMES 37 4. Numerous additional planned projects in the City of Moorpark that have become known to city staff since the LLG base study future projects information was obtained in March of 1987; completion of the future 69 acre community park, relocation of the highschool, and completion of the Mountain Meadows Elementary School; and completion of the buildout of the industrial park area located north of Los Angeles Avenue in the immediate vicinity of the study site. Shown on Figure 5 are the resultant updated total 1993 cumulative traffic demands at the six future study area intersections. In order to determine the potential future operational efficiency of the street system serving the study site, an ICU analysis was again made at these locations. The results of this analysis (with and without site - generated traffic demands) are displayed in Table 4 along with the "existing plus site traffic" scenario for comparison purposes. TABLE 4 FUTURE VOLUME/CAPACITY RELATIONSHIPS 0 TAM ICU /LOS VALUES FOR: Existing Plus Total 1993 Without Total 1993 With Study Area Site Traffic Site Traffic Site Traffic Intersection AM PM AM PM AM PM Peak Hour Peak Hour Peak Hour Peak Hour Peak Hour Peak Hour ON LOS ANGELES AVE. AT: 0.87/D 0.98/E 0.95/E 1.01 /F 0.95/E 1.02 /F Spring Road Moorpark Avenue 0.52/A 0.65/B 0.61 /B 0.71 /C 0.62/B 0.72/C Gisler Court N/A N/A 0.56/A 0.76/C 0.58 /A 0.76/C Maureen Lane 0.79/C 0.90 /D 0.51 /A 0.59/A 0.59/A 0.67/B Tierra Rejada Road - Gabbert Road 0.54/A 0.55/A 0.83/D 1.09 /F 0.86/D 1.12 /F AT SPRING ROAD 6 LOS 0.97/E 0.90 /D 0.94/E 1.00 /E 0.96/E 1.01 /F ANGELES AVE. -HIGH ST. 0 TAM t Q v_ 0O N 38 o\ 0 \ 0 ° M 0 1255/ 165/4 Los Angeles,, J i I )5 jj Are. 130/60 1 1 330/1440 I 365/615 0-00-2 C*j to N N � 45,000 Op T/VA LN� 0 0 a 0 � 0 0 N 0 X00 \ 0 ° M 0 170/40 no N I )5 jj 1515/1965 10/20 � 130/50 1615/1660 -- 100/340 —� 1510/1320 —�- 5/15� 000 10/10 a2 -i .� N N High S1. 00 ti 4 O M O � O O O 65/95 -F- 360/465 )0 1395/1335 /�— 5L. A. Av. 5/20 —� 465/620 --� � � � 48,000 85/125 o ° o � � N � 0 \\ o o N � � 120/400 N OD r -30/50 + r -20/10 r -50/90 I r N p0 M 0 N 300/360--**** 00/360 70/1020 ) 4 r 2� 1405/1700— ) i I I 30/30 \\\ 5/440 O° oa M M \ N�Q \ \O 0 [41,0001 °o M 0'0 i -4 LEGEND f— oo /oo AM /PM Ptak Hour Traffic Volumes 000 Daily Traffic Volumes 1993 4 5 NO SCALE TRAFFIC DEMANDS ODO 0 O O O 0 0 41,000 M o 200/395 t o o 630/540 120/400 N N M 2 '�- 1395/ 1600 — —530/590 I r N p0 M 0 N 300/360--**** 00/360 70/1020 ) 4 r 2� 1405/1700— ) i I I 30/30 \\\ 5/440 O° oa M M \ N�Q \ \O 0 [41,0001 °o M 0'0 i -4 LEGEND f— oo /oo AM /PM Ptak Hour Traffic Volumes 000 Daily Traffic Volumes 1993 4 5 NO SCALE TRAFFIC DEMANDS 35 For the existing plus site traffic scenario, the intersections of Moorpark Avenue /Los Angeles Avenue and Los Angeles Avenue /Tierra Rejada Road - Gabbert Road would continue to operate at relatively high levels of service during both commuter peak travel periods. However, without any additional intersection capacity improvements, all other study area intersections would be operating in excess of design capacity during one or both peak periods. At total future traffic demand levels, three of the six study area intersections would be operating in excess of design capacity with the future traffic signal and intersection geometric design improvements in place as described below: Spring Road & High Street -Los Angeles Avenue: This intersection would be controlled with an actuated traffic signal with separate left -turn phasing for east and westbound approach traffic. The northbound approach at this intersection would be striped for dual right- turn -only lanes (with phasing overlap), and an optional through or left -turn lane, and the southbound approach for a left- turn -only lane and one through lane. The westbound approach is striped for dual left- turn -only lanes and one through lane with the eastbound approach remaining as is (a left- turn -only lane, two through lanes, and a right- turn -only lane). Los Angeles Avenue & Spring Road: This intersection would be controlled with a fully actuated traffic signal with separate left turn phasing in all directions with the north and eastbound approaches being striped for double left -turn lanes and two through lanes. The southbound approach would be striped for double left -turn lanes, one through lane and one right- turn -only lane with the westbound approach striped for a left- turn -only lane, two through lanes and a right- turn -only lane. Los Angeles Avenue & Moorpark Avenue: The existing traffic signal operation would remain essentially as is with one through lane and a right - turn -only lane added on the northbound approach. The eastbound approach would be striped for double left -turn lanes and three through lanes; westbound for a left- turn -only lane, three through lanes, and a right -turn- only lane; with the southbound approach to remain as is. TMA 10 Los Angeles Avenue & Gisler Court: This new intersection would be controlled with an actuated traffic signal with separate left turn phasing for east and westbound traffic plus "split phasing" for the north and southbound approaches with the northbound approach striped for a left- turn -only lane and one through lane; southbound for a left- turn -only lane, an optional left - turn or through lane, and a right- turn -only lane; eastbound for double left - turn lanes, and three through lanes; and westbound for a left- turn -only lane, three through lanes, and a right- turn -only lane. Los Angeles Avenue & Maureen Lane: This intersection was treated as being controlled with a standard two -phase traffic signal for ICU analysis purposes with the north and southbound approaches each being striped for a left - turn -only lane and one through lane plus the east and westbound approaches each being striped for a left- turn -only lane and three through lanes. Los Angeles Avenue & Tierra Rejada Road - Gabbert Road: This intersection would be controlled with an actuated traffic signal with separate left turn phasing for east and westbound approaches with the northbound approach being striped for double left -turn lanes, one through lane and a right -turn- only lane. At this location the southbound approach would remain as is with the addition of one through lane; with the eastbound approach striped for a left- turn -only lane, two through lanes and a right- turn -only lane. The westbound approach at this intersection would be striped for a left- turn -only lane and three through lanes. The intersections of Los Angeles Avenue /Spring Road, Los Angeles Avenue /Tierra Rejada Road - Gabbert Road, and Spring Road /High Street -Los Angeles Avenue would be operating well in excess of design capacity during both commuter peak travel periods in 1993. Site traffic comprises approximately two percent of the total approach traffic demands at Los Angeles Avenue /Spring Road and at Los Angeles Avenue /Tierra Rejada - Gabbert Road, and approximately one percent of the total approach traffic demands at Spring Road/High Street -Los 11 V&;M.l qJ Angeles Avenue during both commuter peak travel periods. The ICU work sheets for all four study volume /capacity scenarios for the six selected study area intersections are contained in the Appendix of this report for more detailed examination if desired. SITE ACCESS AND CIRCULATION The study site is located within an approximately rectangularly shaped 45.5 acre portion of the overall industrial park area to be developed north of Los Angeles Avenue and west of Shasta Avenue that will be served by two north - south industrial collector street connections to Los Angeles Avenue (at Maureen Lane and at Goldman Avenue) . As shown on Figure 5, Maureen Lane is projected to carry slightly more traffic than Goldman Avenue north of Los Angeles Avenue (approximately 3,000 versus 2,320 vpd). Also, Maureen Lane, which intersects Los Angeles Avenue about 1,500 feet easterly of its intersection with Tierra Rejada Road - Gabbert Road, would be a more appropriate location for future signalization than Goldman Avenue from a signal spacing point -of -view along this portion of Los Angeles Avenue. To determine whether or not traffic signal control would actually be needed at Los Angeles Avenue and Maureen Lane, a traffic signal warrant analysis was conducted at this intersection for the "existing"; "existing plus site"; and "total 1993" traffic condition scenarios with or without an east - west internal roadway connection between Maureen Lane and Goldman Avenue north of Los Angeles Avenue. Shown in Table 5 are the results of the traffic signal warrant analysis at Los Angeles Avenue and Maureen Lane using CALTRANS "Estimated Average Daily Traffic Planning Warrant ". Since total existing and future traffic demands on Los Angeles Avenue easily exceed the major street average daily traffic volume (ADT) requirements, this table deals specifically with daily traffic demands on Maureen Lane north of Los Angeles Avenue as those ADT's increase over time with the buildout of the industrial park area to be served by this north -south industrial collector. More detailed information concerning the derivation of the future minor street traffic demands between now and 1993 is contained in the Appendix. 12 VAA 4a TABLE 5 TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANT ANALYSIS AT LOS ANGELES AVENUE AND MAUREEN LANE Study Scenario ADT Planning Warrant For: Minimum Vehicle Interruption Of Combination Volume Conditions Continuous Traffic Warrant Conditions Conditions Existing Conditions: No No No Existing plus Site Conditions: Without Connection No No No With Connection No No No Total 1993 Conditions: Without Connection No Yes (a) No With Connection No Yes (b) No IZION26M (a) Meets warrant at 82 percent development of property with access off Maureen Lane (total 390,378 square feet). (b) Meets warrant at 63 percent development of property with access off both Maureen Lane and Goldman Avenue (total 721,800 square feet). This analysis shows that traffic signal control will be warranted at the intersection of Los Angeles Avenue and Maureen Lane prior to the ultimate buildout of the area to be served by this roadway. Without an east -west connection between Maureen Lane and Goldman Avenue, signal control at this location will be warranted when approximately 82 percent of the area served by 13 TNA 4q3 Maureen Lane is developed. With a connection between these two north -south industrial collector street, signal control is estimated to be required at approximately 63 percent of buildout of the property to be served by these two roadways. The proposed LDM -10 comprises 58 percent of the development with access off Maureen Lane and 32 percent of the development with access off both Maureen Lane and Goldman Avenue. If traffic signal control is not installed at Los Angeles Avenue and Maureen Lane when warranted, it is highly likely that egress traffic (especially the southbound left -turn traffic movement) will experience significant increases in delay time entering Los Angeles Avenue which, in turn, could lead to serious traffic safety problems. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The street system in the vicinity of the study site is now operating at relatively high levels of service except at the intersections of Los Angeles Avenue /Spring Road and Spring Road /High Street -Los Angeles Avenue which are operating in excess of design capacity during both commuter peak travel periods. The additional traffic that would be generated by the study project (about 1,600 vpd) is relatively low and would not change the existing street system volume /capacity relationships to a significant degree (a degradation in ICU value equivalent to one level of service or more attributable to site traffic) with the addition of a southbound left- turn -only lane at Maureen Lane, but would incrementally contribute to projected 1993 adverse traffic conditions at three of the six selected study area intersections. It does not appear that any additional mitigation measures could be implemented at these locations that would further reduce these potential adverse ICU /LOS values to any significant degree. However, it should be noted that the completion of the connection of the Moorpark (SR 23) and Simi Valley -San Fernando (SR 118) Freeways, anticipate to occur in the mid- 1990's, will drastically alter traffic flow patterns in and through the City of Moorpark and may significantly improve traffic flow along the concerned portion of Los Angeles Avenue. Our analysis indicates that total future traffic demands at the intersection of Los Angeles Avenue and Maureen Lane will warrant the installation of traffic signal control if the intersection is considered to be in a "rural" environment TMA 1 /. (i.e. , with approach speeds on Los Angeles Avenue at Maureen Lane still in excess of 40 miles per hour) . Since by 1993 there will be a number of signalized intersections on this portion of Los Angeles Avenue, it is possible, that average travel speeds will drop below 40 miles per hour. If this situation occurs, the intersection of Los Angeles Avenue and Maureen Lane would not meet the normal warrants for installation of traffic signal control as developed by CALTRANS. Therefore, we would recommend that any decision concerning installation of traffic signals at this location be based on actual field measurements conducted at various stages of development for the industrial area north of Los Angeles Avenue. It has been a pleasure to serve you on this most interesting project. If you have any questions or require any further input at this time please contact us at your convenience. Very truly yours, THOMAS S. MONTGOMERY AND ASSOCIATES �OQ pF ESSIpNq` F M ON�CO O m Thomas S. Montgomery, P. � ° N0. 697 � EXP. 3!31190 * J Firm Principal TRAW- TSM: vll Project No. 870503 -A 15 TMA 4s APPENDIX N R, a I.' ICI. • l' fl ,, •'� �' i ♦� :I..��'., al♦ J ♦ . 1� .° ,S^ uiovoo.•,�•,h•t.o i,•.r'-Iw.., oI u + -, �c 1' 7_ r F. k' ;m n o {I' -11 Z NAVTN J LA _'1V. I nt—, I I 1 1;t •11 .; 0� '�- -t .�� - ,:IV:..�'�- . -�'�#; _— =�-� -: _ -- f = tom: - ��✓' '�y) 1 RPARK COUARE AAL' 1' �~ S AMpELia AVE.,'14QORI�JIRIC. CA SIEGEL & ASSOCIATES, INC. wwcwlact• •a w..r ws t.c..0 ws T 46 4-7 li . E S. rf,y FF IC CUIN I-, A�'-.KRWIILK LANE HOOFTARI,C� qti021 2 "-� 22' # * f. GNUAL -COUNT SUrrlt*Y I # f DAM: 50007 .CS FILE ll.,,: E: DW : FRIDW 1 Imp a 356H B: NAN C I 101 S; 1"Ol j F it :4.` t! TG -:4 h 22 155 1 Q 2 L •E4 HIE! WFEOZ! vlmVmh fl S ide 37 223 34 BU 5 Z5 6• 19 EBI KQ isk IB31 IC33 r. 26 1] v h r 842 675 LOS ANGELE' HE 5 75 26 THERA KjADA Rl)..-GrWERT RD. LEIS ANHi ES AVE..,H4i T61,4L i.,TIF Ni uc-Ni, S Li u r I t f: ci u i,4 TOTALS E A S I [;u, U UP WE 5 1 ET U- 111i 1:-.! HF, r I MCI. IEGIU LEFT WO RIGKI WT HIV EMU AD 5M f, G T H LEFT I Hr',,U F.I[ifil LEFT rmu moo ELD AD tofu it NIN WITH 1 2 20 U 6 2 33 2 35 6 of 1 3 12i 2 278 10 404 43, 1718 3 Q 2q 2 0 1: 8 40 11 ns 1 9 132 2 20 ! 5 U? A? 160 ti. 7: 00 v 1 34 5 0 1 44 12 56 9 215 Q i 173 7 215 is 400 W4 17"" 7: 15 11 34 1 0 1 37 7 44 8 34 1 4 148 L I o " I I I L, L L th TO :1 Q A 3 0 7 71 Iv 63 6 223 3 0 32 4 2-12 .173 471 504 IMI .:45 3 0 22 4 4 2• 8 33 8 123 it 3 156 7 131 MY 231 :2 4 41 5 1 7 47 13 0 5 U2 1 16 173 2 10 185 363 42' • 6:15 2 1 2? 6 0 7 12 15 V 5 H5 2 H 123 7 152 1'!1 W R", j F it :4.` t! TG -:4 h 22 155 1 Q 2 L •E4 HIE! WFEOZ! vlmVmh fl S ide 37 223 34 BU 5 Z5 6• 19 EBI KQ isk IB31 IC33 r. 26 1] v h r 842 675 LOS ANGELE' HE 5 75 26 THERA KjADA Rl)..-GrWERT RD. VITUS RAL41 S. fhtiff I c I IjD!P'c 4 L iiNbE•WIll. 1 AJ41 ),loDFP4:l Fn 931,21 ',9 HAHUAL CONT SUH6R. IWERSKUH : TIRRA REAls RmIAKaT RE 05 L ANELES hA"HA IIS DAM: 507 B7 ILE FILE Day : WENCE59 ME: C'-D!ii. : !I uils! C. I PE�..l 1V-iF. HFIPRGi.Cll HOW. N r E 114 Q 2B 20 74 17 05 ON 15 743 lop 1162 1555 155v A i lb t5 24 LOS AUGEUS AVF.,Pi 118 12 1 96 6 11 IFR,s PEJA0A il,nlv-EPT F-D. FWA RUM? •lh!UKEM R5. LOS lliGELE5 AVE.,;hW) 1111 SoUl KL!"!iliu. P4 'I'M TOTALS E61BOUND WESTBOUR !A HR THUS VOLUMS fI - ------ ------- PEGIN LEFT TO!! 11119 LEFT TRU RIGHT RD Uli [,0TH LEFT !HUI 111611T LEFT IOU RIGHT EBB RD WE 15 hili lWhill- 1:10 2 f, 4 7 1 9 h 17 23 4 06 0 A 239 3 140 A 7 403 41b 1022 7:4• 2 1 20 4 0 12 27 lo 39 6 151 7 21 20 4 W I z 02 52! 167", 4; 1 15 5 Q 12 17 17 34 6 22 3 n N 3 4 161 2-1B 'lrl� i b i 11 4:1` 13 1 0 14 14 15 W 5 IM 5 32 236 3 143 2n 419 443 UK*, W 70 5 1 7 0 11 33 22 55 3 Ab 3 27 19 5 192 20 413 40 1951 045 2 2' 9 2 0 h 17 47 3 169 7 37 OF 4 1•9 21) 410 416 3: 00 1 2 11 2 1 15 27 20 V B W 2 56 207 3 175 20 44! 46E & 15 4 2 13 2 2 11 24 15 35 6 NE 5 A 229 3 197 24 461 `::8 PE�..l 1V-iF. HFIPRGi.Cll HOW. N r E 114 Q 2B 20 74 17 05 ON 15 743 lop 1162 1555 155v A i lb t5 24 LOS AUGEUS AVF.,Pi 118 12 1 96 6 11 IFR,s PEJA0A il,nlv-EPT F-D. ? ICS ME QQ: 007min k,hCT AMAERMICI LANI COUNT SUMIiiRi job MAW. DATE: MOW Dal : 11WREDS 11115 WAS - 6:50h m HAREEN Wi, LOS mlt'GELE'b HVEifiW-s 112 101 hi lib 61 HLOOLId 56U1 i 1 i. Ulu N'l 1: 4 Hl: INKS WADOND WIMIMI) W HP 1mys VW UMIL, T, - -,[ .. - - . .- .. - - - - . ... - -I-.- . . -,.. - - - - . . . . - . - . . . . GEMN LET! TRU 6;161H LEFI THP RIGHT NED 560 BOTH LEFT TOO RIGHT LUT DIU RIGM EN Kv F51H 15 AN WORK win 0 o 1 1 it 11 3 1 4 0 u3 5 0 6B 2 323 160 463 467 170E W5 1 6 0 3 0 0 m B 0 1 00 0 298 171 05 412 loP .3 20! 0 2 Q! 1 20 1 M 325 32B A, 7: ! S r, 0 5 Q 7 0 7 0 216 0 0 06 2 216 19E 414 421 172L 0:0 1 v 1 0 0 2 1 3 0 Ab 0 1 56 1 236 TO 443 446 1 AS 4 4 0 152 0 IM 5 252 16• 4'.c 442 3 5 0 167 0 Mb 2 167 "0 It 320 19 1 20 9I1 5 7 ?71 16 917 W Ph 172b 172-, II v A C 16 916 771 LOS ANGELES AVEAW.,' !19 2 !1A;JEEN 04. ii.E.W.S. Tf,.*-iFFIC C-OUNTIS 43S AlDERWICI, LANE MOORPARi,,Cn 9,421 i82 t, 2 2, 2 ► f + tliit,U L-CGIINT SUMMARY * * * I' 7,d ± r c..,! ( ,:,, : imp 045, 2 jl;lFl,- ."..TIII!i : 1-14. rlql! Us Atil"ELE. i'�,"LiWillS DATE: 5QB- 87 Hak NuMAGIACT DAT : DIRS01 TIME: ..-,(,PM .- 5: ----------------------------- flAUPEEN LN. ----------------------------- TOTAL L't'. T! 0, Um 1, SHIRNN5 1:4 HR THUS EAETHIUND WESUWNE. 4 H F. I C, T A L L u If I E 5 N !.Li T Ti if,, U I L,� T LF(T I1Ii U P.Ili!fl 1W SI:D "iF H LEFT INU RIM LEFT TRU RIGHT EBB RD EDTH 15 MIN HOURK 6 4 4 0 Q 4 4 B 0 161 Q I 2H 0 161 290 4 A 45Y 0 1638 1 0 2 G 2 0 165 1 4 At 0 161 TA 05 40 UP 1 0 Q 1 0 1 0 ms 1 7 293 3 149 TO 452 4•3 1759 6 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 Hs 1 3 n5 1 1�9 Z5 4f8 4, ;? 1774 0 5 7- V 165 0 2 No 3 05 2A 433 440 1794 2 4 0 03 2 3 2M 0 P5 L0 h 3 2 1 3 9 0 133 1 5 H5 0 174 290 464 473 5:11 0 1. 2 0 it 2 0 2 it Ill 28: 184 -:a3 472 414 F•Erl. iuUE ij.l 3:_. Pt! TD 4: -, T. H 1 1 5 u v 7 5 12 0 667 3 15 HE 4 00 IKE 1526 1938 WE 0-4 y W - -i L A 4 667 --- 1137 LGIS ANbELES A4'E/814r118 3 15 A MAUREEN W. c57/ 1 i,.W F I L- CL-!Lll I Is 4,2'.. LAA .Cr 8 S 2 2 JON: 1, ii!lE6 D"'F: i ! E I 11 H F; WE t,E i; T 1 h,. L - 'c� ril i 4' rr; Tu 4 j r;t! 41 9 11 PF-Al i, S.'. " I W -t - -E I1: 241 li v 14V 17, -E "2, lc .ilo LUS A;4GELES tll.'E:TWi 11 !c ----- - - - - -- - - - -- - - - - - 1 4 H T T A L S F hs 1 'E: Du 11 D WIC si HOUIND I f 1 11 L LIM E i-E G i! L F !.EFT I !R' 1 1 HbD L" I H 1. E F -1 T PJ E b H T L i I I HIT, R I 1,Hl EBEt fjf;f. F: 13 1 i i ff HIN I'Lliff.i 4 7,4 4 7 1 1 1 -41 ,.:4J 4 L 1 �,4 71 1 C� :o Cl 7 2, 1 ::J 4 147 4 -.47 1 1 16 4 1'.. 17. .7 `6� 1 4-r7 lil 7 L4 L4 4' rr; Tu 4 j r;t! 41 9 11 PF-Al i, S.'. " I W -t - -E I1: 241 li v 14V 17, -E "2, lc .ilo -67 9A COUNT 1,Ur1hP.R1 t t t PE,*'I d'Alf" 1,10GRA-, V W- E A A S 142 291 598 ICi-,17 LDS iWvELFS All. Ni 116 MUM WI MS jut BVNM I r.' T,... KIP401 M. kh :2 Wd LES MIELES AvE. Ai IIB ME: Wsbml :CS i'IILE Hi'JE. E.AL Nf : t-.p Y MR VNFH - 5:36m! PE,*'I d'Alf" 1,10GRA-, V W- E A A S 142 291 598 ICi-,17 LDS iWvELFS All. Ni 116 MUM WI MS NJUM 41"MI 2. IDS AkL.ELES mVE--;hWh I ! E AR! MAN SOMOUND 114 HE MAS EA•ERA WEABOD P4 HP INVE A UK'-- WIN LEF • W EIGHT LEN IM i!.!i E [,, It MiN L E F T T H N"Ll RIM LHI M PMW EA WA. 521H 15 Hi MM 4 -.70 1 2 4 is 41 15 Is 14V 36 136 2 1 A 114 4: hy Dow Q 45 5 4 5 B! 2 15 N III 13: 1 S 17, 4 1 23L 104 131 IA 7! M 2 3 L i ,': k.�! 4 11 S 10 0 41 1 06 M q 2 48 1 1 0) 1 � m Ns 540 CA 120, 14: IS 1 2 -- L ,! -. L, c 10 1 Id 29 52 1 0 2:0 L I is: - A 4 7: Sol 227, 4.' -v 1 4 87 91 :1 i I 1i8 ')4 11,7•1 .E_ , I -. 4...L z:16 7S 4 1-.-9 11' :6 153 2 2 244 7q 191 to 411 c.`: 5:00 2 1 2 55 1 7 144 151 17 1 -', ', z i; ,* - " p-1' 4r-y' 57 1-2 - 7 hs 45 4: 46 N2 mb b 5 Nq 4! Aw lh _ AN AS, 155Q PE,*'I d'Alf" 1,10GRA-, V W- E A A S 142 291 598 ICi-,17 LDS iWvELFS All. Ni 116 MUM WI MS LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN. INC. 106 South Mentor Avenue. Suite 100 Pasadena, California 91106 (818) 796 -2322 • • • MANUAL COUNT SUMMARY r ,. Prepared for PD -1064 INTERSECTION: MOORPARK ROAD and LOS ANGELES AVENUE ABNORMAL CONDITIONS: _JOB_ ._N : 19.45 - --'- \ DATE: 05/20/87 - -SAY: - WEDNESDAY TIME: 7:OOAM - 9:OOAM TOTAL VOLUMES 15 MIN HOURLY 631 3002 792 3173 862 3048 717 2978 802 2705 667 O 792 O 444 0 PEAK HOUR from 7:15 to 8:15 AM 184 283 16 382 174 286 483 842 1325 385 524 156 10 279 494 1065 783 1848 3173 3173 V� W MOORPARK ROAD L05 ANGELES AVENUE TIME NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND 1/4 HR TOTALS EASTBOUND WESTBOUND 1/4 HR TOTALS BEGIN LEFT THRU RIGHT LEFT THRU RIGHT NBD SBD BOTH LEFT THRU RIGHT LEFT THRU RIGHT EBD WBD BOTH 7:00 43 49 O 87 24 45 92 156 248 107 109 27 5 69 66 243 140 383 a 7:15 43 71 6 98 35 81 120 214 334 100 163 34 2 67 92 297 161 458 • 7:30 38 61 4 105 35 64 103 204 307 119 179 59 4 64 130 357 198 555 • 7:45 37 63 2 88 70 61 102 219 321 65 76 33 3 64 155 174 222 396 • 8:00 66 88 4 91 34 80 158 205 363 101 106 30 1 84 117 237 202 439 8:15 68 39 1 89 29 68 108 186 294 93 122 27 1 74 56 242 131 373 8:30 34 37 1 91 26 79 72 196 268 155 124 40 2 57 146 319 205 524 8:45 36 45 1 20 6 16 82 42 124 32 18 10 2 80 178 60 260 320 TOTAL VOLUMES 15 MIN HOURLY 631 3002 792 3173 862 3048 717 2978 802 2705 667 O 792 O 444 0 PEAK HOUR from 7:15 to 8:15 AM 184 283 16 382 174 286 483 842 1325 385 524 156 10 279 494 1065 783 1848 3173 3173 V� W LINSCOTT. LAW G GREENSPAN. INC. 106 South Mentor Avenue. Suite 100 Pasadena. California 91106 r • • MANUAL COUNT SUMMARY - - - Prepared for PD -1064 INTERSECTION: MOORPARK ROAD and LOS ANGELES AVENUE ABNORMAL CONDITIONS: 1/4 HR TOTALS NBD SBD BOTH 109 255 364 MOORPARK ROAD 198 TIME NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND 276 BEGIN LEFT THRU RIGHT LEFT THRU 387 RIGHT 4:00 61 44 4 94 51 110 4:15 41 28 2 63 28 107 4:30 37 27 0 72 36 104 • 4:45 56 45 2 66 44 93 • 5:00 49 43 O 112 59 124 • 5:15 48 52 O 47 30 77 • 5:30 55 38 0 76 31 117 5:45 44 41 0 41 35 83 • PEAK HOUR from 4:45 to 5:45 PM 208 178 2 301 164 411 1/4 HR TOTALS NBD SBD BOTH 109 255 364 71 198 269 64 212 276 103 203 306 92 295 387 100 154 254 93 224 317 85 159 244 388 876 1264 JOB N: 1945 DATE: 05/20/87 DAY: WEDNESDAY TIME: 9 :00PH - 6:0OPM (818) 796 -2322 1/4 HR TOTALS ESD WBD BOTH 172 254 LOS ANGELES AVENUE. EASTBOUND WESTBOUND LEFT THRU RIGHT LEFT THRU RIGHT 68 60 44 5 141 108 84 67 53 3 126 69 77 85 47 3 114 82 71 58 39 3 125 76 122 113 79 1 132 119 110 74 55 O 90 79 90 66 52 1 121 106 83 50 40 1 105 88 (818) 796 -2322 1/4 HR TOTALS ESD WBD BOTH 172 254 426 204 198 402 209 199 408 168 204 372 314 252 566 239 169 408 208 228 436 173 194 367 TOTAL VOLUMES 15 MIN HOURLY 790 2823 671 2986 684 2977 678 3046 953 2979 662 0 753 0 611 O 393 311 225 5 468 380 929 853 1782 3046 3046 vl 5626 25 , :_S,4M V- N T L Ri - iA i u .362«g! h; L . .1�6 c.i,!TE 1110 L, f - 0 hAlid4_; C'JUN'T Sur-MARY f t f c�r t £6i r d M h N LRA2 h- r r H i P, i N H N L h , L; t-, S2Lk A v E 2: AS ws :§622x3 eGw2 GJ52a: E 6 a L I T 49 z» T h Wb bi§ : 6?O'Su'4 D,JE: 2t 1 u li E E P,fiy : WEBIESEAt T!mE: 7:o(jAil - 9:00,ir, 55262 klGF. gawk A,,E. - - - - - - - - - - - - ----------------- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - HtAL - - - 4 j-, i., GI4G &STBFdND 4ESTKUNI u I ! ;' I i; u - - - 1 .4 L S: - - - S VOLUM- - - - - - - - - - 62N LEF T ti �'j R i 1 - - - - L U T " - - - - m R, d n- - - - - ', G H.T - - - - Ni D- - - - - - S �z b - - - - BG'TH - - - - - LEFT - - - - - - TH�b RlShT - - - - - - - - - LEFT - - - - - T H-,(U - - - - - Gal - - - - L -ED - - w:. L - - k� - - 5 n 1 - - - � h L f 2 R 21 - - - - - § - - - - 1 - - - - b - - - 20 - - - 2 - - - - 7102 - - - - 0 - - - - - 14 - - - - 6 - - - - s2 2, - - - - - - - - - bu 24 C4 - - - - - - b - - - - - - 'i7 7 t 1 4 J - bb 4 - 77 18 2 ( 4 4 i 19 i5 - 7 7 3 7 9�. i 2 2 «a 5 4&6 u b 2 b 2 i j b 679 wt 8 J4 2 7 421 a 17 1-/0 y «& »w 2 6 4 i 4 4 2, 6 4 74 11 1 �,6 40 8c -I' -9- i. '7 6 3 2C: 7 t i,j 2 v E 2 J6 1 2 7 2 2] t 2 12 , , a 7 _C4 Z. 2 "L 4 4 2 7 1 707 0 79 1 1 110 ci 7 7 1-4 12, o 41 c 4 7' A 44(.1 14 4 5 "t 0 66 7 1 134 4 9 77 567 717 ..'Eri: 66 f rD& 5 z 2 T 0 5 'n 3, E u 2 66 26 14 _N7 1 25 S B &B El 199 y 94 i34 IOEE 2 9 a9 «w R36RwwE2k &� 66 28 43 > A 7 3J -9 159 H16H ST.IL.A. AVE. 66 738 v V ya A iS 1311 63 SkIN6 Rbd i P.ht -FIC CULL"Ell0t, S F r.', I LL 151 ALLESAii"O DRIVE, SUITE #210 VENTURA 1 Ek 93'jo1 (6u5 j 6' -u; I I t t t ImUAL COUNT :LlniARY t # * :1-N ;tiu -i6w-- -INb tilLk, ET,;-.H. w,,E. - i u I T I hZ;.N F. HL ' 'LhL! . i ON S : E - 4 S L i T + N B R" i 1 T d :gib JOBE: '-k !:HTE- 2.1 lo,, EE DAY tEDNESuHf T I r 4:uui-m. - b:C-:iP-N 2735 119 E4 b.� 4 7 1 v 81 llub 5 7�1 Q 1 746 311 7 S 4 W' 1 1 ­ , I I - �' V 91 v SPRING ROAD A 75 311 H16H ST./L.A. AVE. 746 slaR ING P-GAD HIGH 5T.fL.A. AVE. ------------------------------------------------ ----------------------------------------------- uTAL fd hbOLNb S u i T h B 0, U;; D 1/4 HR TOTALS rl E'STBOUND WESTB[iur'l IY4 'l*R VG LUM L- S --------------- --------------- ------------- --------------- --------------- ------------- -------------- Eolrl LEFT ThRU i IurT LIFT T1 I Gil T --- NBD --- S B D --- BOTH LEFT ---- THRU RIGHT ---- ----- LEFT ---- THRU ---- RIGHT ----- EBD --- wt5 --- BOTH ---- 15 .11N ------ Hlil! ------ 4 7 '?4 v ---- '14 !B7 I!,- "'E 1 244 116 260 93 711 166 8ii 15 12,Z t y7 0 — 2 1 2) 2, 3 4 '-,'6 - Kfu 6 119 7;) 1 Oj �6 146 T C, L-44 too 2b3b -.45 1 15 ILI 4 187, 11 194 0 75 2 10 9; 2i. 1 1-01 2485 l0 16 = 29e 34 332 110 15 177 7u IG 71 7'23 t a 9 0 ?S7 17 254 2 77 12 160 73 14 91 25? 7144 .198 7 7 4 24a 72 277 65 12 2u9 70 19 6' 764 7 t:45 0 zj 22 8 12 290 23 319 1 67 ij 177 ob 15 87 C'! 141 660 2735 119 E4 b.� 4 7 1 v 81 llub 5 7�1 Q 1 746 311 7 S 4 W' 1 1 ­ , I I - �' V 91 v SPRING ROAD A 75 311 H16H ST./L.A. AVE. 746 Ve1)ru.1i 1 1 , 196 11 pp INDUSTRIAL EMPLOYMENT SURVEY - M30RFARK Gabbert to Goldman Avenue ( Q4(, pr�.� •.t) BLDG. PRIMARY COMPAMI ADDRESS SIZE ACTIVITY EMPLOYMENT SO.FT. /EM PL M.G.I. 5151 Commerce 19.613 Machine Shop 25 792 • Variflex 5152 Commerce 104.000 Mfg. Bicycles /Scooters.etc. 78 1333 - G.T. Water Prod. 5239 Commerce 22.239 Mfg. Drain Devices 30 8C4 Lagormarsino Liquor 5360 Commerce 42.000 Liquor Warehouse /Dist. li 2a - Airlessco 5397 Commerce 31.726 Machine Shop 45 705 I.1.C. Prudential Overall Sply. 5300 Gabbert 26.040 Industrial Laundry 28 1 H L H Supply 5390 Gabbert 21.324 Ditribute Auto Cleaning Prod. 5 2144 Coloral 5155 Goldman Av. 54.052 Wallpaper WarehouselDist. 58 932 Cal -J Aircraft 879 Los Angeles Ave. 9,000 Export Aircraft Parts /Warehouse 10 900 World Wide Aero Mfg. Data Communications Equip. 150 576 Litton Aero Products 6101 Condor Air Dry Corporation 5297 Maureen Lane 60.000 Mfg. Dhydrators and Manifolds 85 706 • Kenney Mfg. Co. 11910 Poindexter 62.640 Drapery Hardware Warehouse /Dist. 13 4805 Total: 454.836 for Aerospace /Automotive 39u Flinn koad Area BLDG. PRIMARY COMPANY ADDRESS SIZE ACTIVITY EMPLOYMENT SO.FT. /EMFL Koros Surgical 610 Flinn Road 7,264 Mfg. Surgical Instruments 6 1211 Kenaex Corporation 616 Fitch 11.340 Dist. of Imported Yarns 20 567 Total: 18,604 26 716 Moorpark and Freeway Business Center BLDG. PRIMARY COMPANY ADDRESS SIZE ACTIVITY EMPLOYMENT SO.FT. /EMPL Moorpark Business Center 5898 Condor Dr. 97.680 Info. Management Systems 300 1) 326 Terminal Data Corp. Micom 6100 Condor Dr. 86,412 Mfg. Data Communications Equip. 150 576 Litton Aero Products 6101 Condor Dr. 140.844 Design and Mfg.Navig. Systems 575 245 Kavlico Corp. 14501 Los Angeles Av 120,000 Mtg. Transducers I Capacitors 510 235 for Aerospace /Automotive Freeway business Center 200 Science Dr. 112.320 Mfg. Metal Parts Aerospace 200 562 fletaI bellows Tanaer 405 Science Dr. 105.500 Design I Mfg. Computers 350 2) 301 Total: 662,756 2.085 318 1) Estimated employment. Will occupy April 1988. 2) Will increase +400 by mid 1988. Source: THE SIRACUSA COMPANY s,f INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION METHODOLOGY The ability of a roadway to move various traffic volumes is referred to as capacity. Capacity is nearly always greater between intersections and more restricted at intersections. This is true because the roadway normally flows continuously between intersections and flows only during green phases at signalized intersections. Signals are generally warranted and installed before capacity is reached for non - signalized intersections. One seldom encounters non - signalized intersections operating at capacity. Analytical techniques have been developed over the years which allow the calculation of the capacity of an intersection approach based upon its various geometric, demographic, and traffic flow characteristics. It is important to note that traffic volumes may be counted or estimated, whereas capacity is a calculated value. The capacity calculation methods are outlined in the Highway Capacity Manual . The term level of service (LOS) is used to describe quality of traffic flow. Levels of Service A to C operate quite well. LOS D typically is the level for which an urban street is designed. LOS E represents volumes at or near the capacity of the highway which will result in possible stoppages of momentary duration and fairly unstable flow. LOS F occurs when a facility is overloaded and is characterized by stop- and -go traffic with stoppages of long duration. The technique utilized to compare volume and capacity (vlc) ratios with level of service is called "Intersection Capacity Utilization" (ICU) ICU represents the proportion of the total hour required to accommodate intersection traffic volumes of all approaches are operating at a capacity (LOS E) . This does not mean that LOS E is appropriate for urban design, but the evaluation of present and future operating conditions in terms of total capacity is more easily understood. In the Los Angeles region, LOS D would represent the normal design value. The following relationships between level of service and ICU were used: LOS A - 0.60 or less; LOS B - 0.61 to 0.70; LOS C - 0.71 to 0.80; LOS D - 0.81 to 0.90; LOS E - 0.91 to 1.00; and LOS F - 1.01 or more. To determine the current and future operational efficiency of the street system in the study area, a v/c analysis was made at selected important intersections. The method used at each location was to determine the proportion of total signal time needed in one hour for each conflicting movement and to compare it with the total time available (100 percent of the hour) . For example, a movement with 1,000 VPH on an approach with a calculated capacity of 3,000 VPH would require 33 percent of the total available signal time. The capacities used are for Level of Service E as defined in the Highway Capacity Manual. Continuing this procedure for each critical approach signal phase will yield the total amount of H 01—ty (:.,Pacity M.,nual, 1965; Highway Research Board Special Report No. 81; Washington, D.C. 2. Traffic Enuirieerinj,. "Use of InterSeCtion Capacity Utilization Values to Estimate Overall Level of Service ", Robert W. Crommelin, July, 1974. s time required to meet traffic volume demands. An allowance for yellow clearance times also is added with the total representing the ICU. The ICU calculations assume that signals are properly timed. At poorly timed locations, it is possible to have an ICU of well below 1.00 yet severe traffic congestion occurs because a movement is not getting enough time to satisfy its demand in excess time being wasted. Thomas 's. Rssnr_ iates Int,r-cpctin,: TJEPPH PEJHCIH R. HY[' Proj Name: 11HUPFE� LHw[ T.�.� 2l'.} H}] a'`^,o Drive, 5uite 210 Projection Year: 99 wu�h~r Ventura, o�nia 9300 H^n' Gro"th Rate: 2 Peroent Dat F��. C �- FUTUpE l/S G .D. 6 T.I 6 T'S.' CONT UL CONTROL � -� Traffic Vo]umes Ex isting Conditimn Future Conditxon Ca�a�it E�ist' Site W/O SITE 1993 Exi -.t Fut'wre HM PM RM PM RM PM RM PM HBPT l51, 1O 1500 a 159 96 23 7 447 5O8 470 9\5 NB l6[0 l60O 1 6 4O 2O 4� 2O HBLT ]5(1 O 2800 c 26 12 550 495 550 495 SBPT P O 26 49 60 140 60 141--1 �R l60� 3ZO0 O 7 20 50 lO 50 'SBLT }3Lw l�OO }l l8 2 l 48 ll9 5O 120 EGPT l�-'0O 151-10 b 5 17 965 6l5 365 6] 5 ER 32�n I 32OO H42 7O6 5O l7 1Z8O }423 l�3O 1440 EBLT l 1531-1 34 21D 1 3O 60 130 60 W8pT 0 19 15 O 2 llO 58 110 60 WB 480O 675 824 15 59 124111 1357 1255 141 C WELT I �nl 1500 35 180 7 24 158 471 165 495 ---------'------------------------------------------------------- Ycllo" Allowance: ------------------------------------ --------------------------------- ICU L05 Value Note (a) MBF'T o/C - WBLT V/C ( PHASE OVERLAP ) �h) [BPT o/C - HBLT V/C ( PHASE OVEPLHP ) (c) D0UL8[ TUPN LANE CAPACITY 2800 (6) � .�� �� ` «~ |/ �-� m^1 ^ � u� n Vo}u IT] e/C czt14 P,lat1io^�h s- Existing Cnnditjon Future Condition Evistjng P]ur Site W/U Site Tntal 1 99� HM PM HM PM HM PM HM PM 0.11 YO'O6 * 0 .12 *O. C17 0. 19 ­+°° C1. 21D -­�.^ 'OO ,OO 'OO .UD O. O::! 0.1-11 0 .03 O.O] 171. 02 0.01 O.O2 O'Ol O' 2O O.ln p U'ZO 1')'.le ° 0,02 0'O4 O' O2 0. C14 O.O2 O. O6 iw O'0Z n. o,', ^ O'Ol �O.Ol + O'Ol °O'O} + O' O3 �.O.OR n. n-), °O.�� 'CIO 0.01 on Cf. Ol 0. 04 0.23 0.1-14 0. 2.7:' O.26 *O.22 + O.28 wO'23 1-1.4O *O.44 ^ O. 4Z *O.45 � 0. C12 C). 01 0. 1712. 0'01 0. 1719 O. O9 0.04 O.Ol O'Ol 0.011 0.01 0.21 0 .2 6 O.22 O'27 0.Z6 0.28 O'28 0.3l 0 .0 2 * I'D 'lZ O.O� '14 * 0.l} �0.3l * O'}1 *O.33 ` ------------------------------------------------------' 0. 10 �O.lO ' O,1O �O'lO * O.lO *O.iO ' 0'l0 *n.1O ~ -----------------------------------------------------' 0. 50 1-1'51 0'54 0. 5E. ID. El? }.O9 O.86 1. 1., F, R H H D F [I � INTERSECTION: � ye j t-),a oe-rg.-4 DQ ST I NC — rjrvRE I/S C.D. o I/S C.D. 6 T.S. 6 T.S. COKML A ' 00h7 OL � 1 I �22b ,21 i JOB NUMBER: P -70,! , 7 rApproach Traffic �b Peak Hour Traffic Volumes V/C Ratios (Critical wl*) .. 0 rApproach Traffic Peak Hour Traffic Volumes V/C Ratios (Critical wl*) .. �� .. , .. i ©r,�ssv�� �• it mta���e�mo TOTAL ICU: I ROME MWOU (a) Exclude Rtes is separate RM lane IN (b) LT volumes is excess of VPK treated as a separate left turn signal phase (c) Double tuts lam capeelty (d) 14o9fl INTERSECTION EU ST I MC I/S C.D. 6 T. S. CDN IWL aI T T2Ge -f �S rS- �-- T11il1itE o I/S C.D. i T.S. ODRML JOB NUMBER: R'705-0--> (a) Gcclude RT's is separate Rio Iwo (b) LT volmes in ascess of YWi treated as a separate left turn sipul phase (c) Double turn lane capacity (d) 1�j Peak Hour Traffic Volumes V/C Ratios (Critical w1k) iTOTAL ICU: (a) Gcclude RT's is separate Rio Iwo (b) LT volmes in ascess of YWi treated as a separate left turn sipul phase (c) Double turn lane capacity (d) 1�j INTERSECTION: EXISTING I/S C.D. 6 T. S. CDKML Rli m I/S C.D. i T.S. CONTIM JOB NUMBER: ` 7050 7 p O /C. D 4� r 0 s Ol Tr V/C Ratios (critical w/*) ` a Mm SAM MMMM=MMkp 11M 011=0 SL�NdlM M. -0 1 - WIMMMU M-01i TOTAL ICU: (a) Exclude Q's is separate QO Lw 11.-- 7o- -ra1, � 37Z5 (D) LT volumes la excess of Y!8 treated as a separate left tun+ s4pwl phase nN1 I IN (c) Double tin lams capacity 28CO _ r f' —'"� —" e- C400$s �� io KcT"l(- Lk INTERSECTION: '_ ILC�1'(r<1-( ✓E oo"/ Pa12V V JOB NUMBER: 970--,-,o 22g . V) e ok o t� �T� e r a J Approach I,— ° EXISTING ' •d fiilm I/S C.D. E - W L-T 4> �_ I/S G.D. 6 T. S. COPrML a ' N S ru f & T. S. / ° CORML f � � I 0 JOB NUMBER: 970--,-,o 22g . V) e ok o t� �T� e r a J Approach ' •d r. �IQ�; �• ��� ©o�� �- �a MMA WjWj TOTAL ICU: �LLLevel of Service: mmmmnm M (a) Exclude Rr's is separate RTO lam (b) LT volumes is excess of VPH treated as a separate left turn signal phase size- (c) Double turn lane capacity ZSoO —� r (d) „�.,, e 4 fo �F S6 .Lf 's o !�'� !.,r Orr Pr, rN2� �_� L� �✓G j1 F~ too pc Qt-- C R QT 'T'- :7 � ,4 n' �}9 s `� 'SAL- cn`C..L ���li t�oY.cs ��,n ^• \ �M ( j f �� 6 RT 4 qvSS `��� — r?'n � �, N, ••�i )r;1 S 8 -7'/2,' " -" (r ) /�"r!56 B> v`G = (.wRoss �� — �P LT r rERSECTION: V/C Ratios (Critical w/*) NOTES: 1-7 93 Exclude Q's In separate Qfl la:» 7,p--,4c- c o Aj (a) I/S G.D. LT volumes in excess of f VM treated as a separate last turn sisal phase �- _ I/S G.D. CDKML � d ���4 �" i T. S. ��S �C�C� T � f ' ^ -Ile- %i q TNQ v o' Cl T r'7 o vG ^+ ! •v %S ODNZ1lUL S.X�7 �/L 4�fh f. 4,,- y,(6 R'� I� orT� I �S n AM (J���T - Cj'r�5s l _ E�✓�T o 0 JOB NUMBER: 7n�7o -7 s n o O �- o, Eo o . S. .J o � O V/C Ratios (Critical w/*) NOTES: 1-7 93 Exclude Q's In separate Qfl la:» 7,p--,4c- Aj (a) (b) LT volumes in excess of f VM treated as a separate last turn sisal phase PM P � To (e) Double tun lees eepoc ity 2800 � y (d) 5D° 5'o Dr . �.��a,..�4 v,. 'fNa � N � ,S�r+ � L�(� G TS U O C� ��S �C�C� T � f ^ -Ile- %i q TNQ v o' Cl T r'7 o vG ^+ ! •v %S (f r� 1 i C7 �+ �� t l P / / /G ` S.X�7 �/L 4�fh f. 4,,- y,(6 R'� I� orT� I �S n AM (J���T - Cj'r�5s l _ E�✓�T mmm 11mm no immmmmmmaimmm mmm TOTAL ICU: NOTES: 1-7 93 Exclude Q's In separate Qfl la:» 7,p--,4c- Aj (a) (b) LT volumes in excess of f VM treated as a separate last turn sisal phase PM P � To (e) Double tun lees eepoc ity 2800 � y (d) 5D° 5'o Dr . �.��a,..�4 v,. 'fNa � N � ,S�r+ � L�(� G TS U O C� ��S �C�C� T � f ^ -Ile- %i q TNQ v o' Cl T r'7 o vG ^+ ! •v %S (f r� 1 i C7 �+ �� t l P / / /G ` S.X�7 �/L 4�fh f. 4,,- y,(6 R'� I� orT� I �S n AM (J���T - Cj'r�5s l _ E�✓�T INTERSECTION: Is"O Q "t ea 1 p 4 1�0-9., Zrid A�,Ig EXISTIPIC I/S C.D. & T. S. CONTROL FUTURE I/S C.D. i T. S. CONTROL JOB NUMBER: '3 '7z8-7? Approach Peak Hour Traffic Volumes V/C Ratios (Critical w/*) o-� g � �• S e ,fr D� '7z8-7? Approach Peak Hour Traffic Volumes V/C Ratios (Critical w/*) Movement TOTAL ICU: (a) Exclude Q's is separate RTO lam (D) LT volumes in excess of VPK treated as a separate left turn sitnal phase (c) Double turn lane capacity 7A— (d) N E -r /�a 1 60-0 9S plc i 9 84-7- y4- ILA— 70 % 5;7io �a Thomas S. Wntaomery C Rssooiatrz Inter Ev&/on: SPPIKG 2151 RI lv,nn x v DK,e, Suite NO Pro]~ctio,. fear: Vcntu/n` ky)`for,.^a 93001 Ann. Growth Pate: 2 [xM|N. ok FUTUPE l/S __ r!. T I/S MD. K T.S. ~�m b T.S. C0w114 w CONTPOL -_l Traffic Vc']ome, Existing Condition Future Condition Capacity Exist. Site A/O SITE 1995 Ewst. Future RM PH HM PH HM PM RM PH HBPT a l5mP 2800 d 1311 816 lO 34 1885 1576 1895 1630 N8 160H O 68 84 75 325 75 125 NEW ls(m 1500 c 95 119 120 150 120 150 S8PT 0 O 28 9 R5 20 35 2O S6 365U 1600 66 37 85 70 85 70 S0T K('[' 1500 49 41 50 35 50 55 EBPT ]509 1500 68 91 85 325 85 125 EG 1201 3200 325 397 2 9 463 611 465 620 EDLT 15UG 1500 1 9 5 20 5 20 WRPT 1509 O 57 75 65 95 65 95 WD 1600 1500 199 311 8 3 352 462 360 465 WRLT b M/ 2800 d 738 746 92 }} 1261 1524 1995 1595 -----------------------'------------'------------------------- Yellow Hl}o"ancr ---'-----'----------------------------------------------------- ICU LOS Value ��� � HIGH/L.H. RUE. Proj. Nom~: MHUMN LANE T.}.5. 19971. Pro> Number 870501 &LDn-10) Percent Date FEB, 12, 1988 � k�***v*% Volume/Capacity Relationships Existing Condition Futu'e Condition Existing Plus Site N/O bite Total 399'-_� RM PM RM PM RM PM HM PM 0.16 man** 0'15 Wxy** 0'18 `0'09 O.l8 *0.10 0.41 mO.28 * 0'41 *0.29 * 0.06 0.08 0.06 0'08 0'13 0.18 * 0.13 O.l8 ° 0'06 0.03 0'06 0'03 0.08 0.06 * 0'08 0.06 � O'Oa x0.03 v 0'03 ~0.03 0.03 10.04 0'OD *V.Y 0.05 0.06 0.05 0.06 0'06 0.08 0.06 0.O-1 0.10 *0.12 _ 0.10 °O.]? v 0'14 +0.19 * 0.15 *0.19 � 'OO 0.01 '00 O'Ol '00 0.01 .00 0.01 0'04 0'05 0'04 U. M, 0'29 0.33 0'30 0.34 0.28 0.97 0.26 O.W 0.92 YO.35 ` O'33 -O.35 ° 0.49 ~0.47 ~ O.50 0.48 ~ ---------------------------'-'--'---------------------- 0.10 "D.lO a 0.10 MO'1O - 0.10 -0.10 * O'lO *0.1; ~ ________________________________________ ___________ 0.96 0.88 0'97 0.90 0'94 1.00 0.96 1.0} [ D [ D [ E E F ?a` WSW 41 Z OF HDPT IN OPT LANE - MRA. WB V/C W! HSQU4 �7 I OF ARLT IN OPT. LANE (HM). & 3O % (PM) Cc` UPI l'^0/ THPJUGH-LEFT LRHE � (d) DOUGG Wr'N LANE CHPRCITY 2800 , NBPT GPEEH 0PFPRTES IN CONJUCTI0H H/ WBLT 7:0 '�� 463-5 . o� Oct . Qc2,, 06£ /L2 9 2 Z • �0 `2"V-7 M�3?J0- ( 1 ��D 553 H1)) J 1 N � w / 0 -2 - -2A �7 v�1 7� �O o�� 5 / T/r/ w O� D 1 - u Q-7 tiQ r�� r 3�t 20 d� ��Q IA3� ,oz IC211 o 1f10 NI w v 77T 179-77 0011134 d ino Ni 3W11 oL S�•o ��o �vto1 Grp Mi 1 / I 91 `71 o�, e? '1ZL 1Z- o ZL'O 1np ibl Z�•�d w� Z z F ^mob (6 2) -212) 5-�, 01.-7 p _/ M v�1..a?i ? N2 ✓ r- o w 0 Caw (z) r+ C c>> b )/\ S53 -1-7[l A4__ rJ 1 � L✓do ��I` -) X101 lav Wd WV 0OMU Will Q --V-- (I ::r .L:t�.� r� 5 ✓M i�T i o�.r S O 2 /tai �i // re-o -e 'a C- % I /4iti2Ci2�� p�.J �/67v0r+r w.�./ V1�• /Z� /3 A ✓2 fG�vv�l � 4 ^� � �13 LT /r.� c, a L r-F c, 232o 0 .53 z��J �' f 273! o.SJ = X777 ��// Z 77 — 6 3 %. /7z o4 r %Z�7 IJV� �.00clr W 171-1 P C.ipc.c���tiTo�� FA 0 4170 9-8 TRAFFIC SIGNALS AND LIGHTING Traffic Manual 12 -1986 Figure 9 -1 D TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANTS (Based on Estimated Average Daily Traffic- See Note 2) URBAN ...................... RURAL ....................... Minimum Requirements , EADT 1. Minimum Vehicular Satisfied Not Satisfied Vehicles per day on major street (total of both Vehicles per day on higher - volume minor- street approach approaches) (one direction only) Number of lanes for moving traffic on each approach Major Street Minor Street Urban Rural Urban Rural 1 .............. I........... 1 ........................... 8,000 5,600 2,400 1,680 2 or more ................. 1 ........................... 9,600 6,720 2,400 11,6801 2 or more ............... 2 or more .................. 9,600 6,720 3,200 12,240 1 ....................... . .. 2 or more .................. 8,000 5,600 3,200 2,240 2. Interruption of Continuous Traffic Vehicles per day on major Vehicles per day on higher - Satisfied Not Satisfied street (total of both volume minor - street approach approaches) (one direction only) Number of lanes for moving traffic on each approach Major Street Minor Street Urban Rural Urban Rural 1 ......................... 1 .......................... 12,000 8,400 1,200 850 2 or more ................. 1 .......................... 14,400 10,080 1,200 1 850 2 or more ................. 2 or more .................. 14,400 10,080 1,600 1,120 1 .......................... 2 or more .................. 12,000 8,400 1,600 1,120 3. Combination Satisfied Not Satisfied 2 Warrants 2 Warrants No one warrant satisfied but following warrants fulfilled 80% or more ............ 1 2 NOTE: 1. Heavier left turn movement from the major street may be included with minor street volume if a separate signal phase is to be provided for the left -turn movement 2. To be used only for NEW INTERSECTIONS or other locations where actual traffic volumes cannot be counted. TS -100