HomeMy WebLinkAboutAGENDA REPORT 1994 0518 CC REG ITEM 11MITEM/L AC-)
AGENDA REPORT
CITY OF MOORPARK
TO: The Honorable City Council
FROM: Jaime R. Aguilera, Director of Community Development
Kathleen Mallory, Associate Planner
DATE: May 11, 1994 (CC meeting of May 18, 1994)
SUBJECT: CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING: AMENDING THE SELECTED WATTAGE
FROM 100 WATT HIGH PRESSURE SODIUM TO 150 WATT HIGH
PRESSURE SODIUM, FOR THE STREET LIGHTS ON HIGH STREET;
ADOPTION OF A NEW LIGHTING STANDARD; AND MODIFICATIONS
TO THE SELECTED MATERIAL FOR THE STREET LIGHT POLE, FROM
MARBELITE TO FIBERGLASS
BACKGROUND
On November 3, 1993, the City Council approved: 1) the installation of the Washingtonian
light pole, under the LS -1 utility rate schedule; 2) the King Acorn lighting fixture to be
installed at a mounting height of 17 feet; 3) the manufacturer to apply the anti - graffiti
spray to all of the light poles; 4) the light source shall be High Pressure Sodium; 5) the
lighting system shall be based upon a single post top light pole, 100 watt Acorn luminaire,
with the "house- side" shield removed at the time of installation; 6) the underground
electrical system shall be designed based upon a double arm light pole and a 150 watt
Acorn luminaire; and 7) that the lighting system will be designed to provide electrical
wiring for decorative lighting. The Council directed staff to begin working with Southern
California Edison (SCE) to complete the electrical plan by January 1994 and to procure
a flat rate fee per foot for the construction and installation of the decorative street lights.
This information was to be provided to the Council /Redevelopment Agency for their
decision as to whether the City /Agency should contract with SCE or pursue a competitive
bid process for the construction /installation f the street lights.
The purpose of this staff report is to receive C juncil approval to change the wattage from
100 watt High Pressure Sodium (H.P.S.) to 50 watt H.P.S.; and determine the lighting
standard for High Street. Though the Council has previously selected the decorative
Washingtonian street light in marbelite (concrete), the purpose of this staff report is also
to inform the Council of the availability of a decorative Washingtonian street light in
fiberglass-, the selection of a fiberglass pole would result in a 53% cost savings per light
compared to the marbelite poles.
_1 Jjpcii
-ION:
r
C-
KMP- 05- 11- 94)11.30pm)A:',.CC5 -18LI RPT
The Honorable City Council
May 11, 1994
Page 2
DISCUSSION
Since November 1993, staff has been working with SCE's lighting engineer (who is
available free of charge to the City) to design a photometric plan which meets the needs
of the City. Once the photometric plan s prepared, SCE will begin preparing the
electrical plan for the installation /construction of the street lights. Upon completion of the
electrical plan, which will take approximately 6 weeks, a cost per foot for construction and
installation of the street lights will be known Staff will then present this information to the
Council /Redevelopment Agency for a determination if the City should contract with SCE
or should pursue a competitive bid process However, before staff can proceed, we
need further direction regarding the two aforementioned issues that have come to light,
since the previous Council direction to staf-
Council Selected Wattage for Street Lights
At the recommendation of the Public Works Facilities and Solid Waste Committee and
staff in November 1993, the City Council selected the 100 watt (9500 lumens) H.P.S. light
source. Based upon a preliminary photor,)etric plan, it was determined that 100 watt
(9500 lumens) H.P.S. would produce aesired illumination levels, estimated to be
approximately 1.2 footcandles. However, ,,pon finalizing the location of the street lights,
staff and the lighting engineer determined that based upon 100 watt H.P.S., the
illumination level would be too low for H qh Street and would not provide sufficient
illumination within sidewalk areas.
Summary of the Proposed Photometric levels, see Attachment Number 1
The goal in designing the photometric plar was to provide sufficient levels of illumination
on the street and sidewalk, without prodL�cing glare, while installing a decorative light
fixture. By increasing the wattage to 15C. watt (16,000 lumens), illumination levels for
streets and sidewalks are produced whl..;h are appropriate for activity levels in the
downtown, without creating glare. Specifically, at 150 watt H.P. S., 1.8 footcandles are
produced in the center of the lanes of -I avel and approximately 0.7 footcandles are
produced on the sidewalks; these illurrinat -;n levels provided sufficient illumination levels
for the level of activity within the dowrtow
KMP -05 -11 -94(11 30pm)A \CC5- 18LI.PPT
The Honorable City Council
May 11, 1994
Page 3
County Lighting Standard
The City of Moorpark has adopted the Ventura County lighting standard for illumination.
In February of 1991, the County adopted new lighting standards. The Plate which was
appropriate for downtown Moorpark, Plate B -4, was discontinued when the lighting
standards were updated in 1991 and were replaced with the B -5 Plate standards. When
originally used, Plate B -4 provided lighting standards for a "low traffic use collector" - local
collectors; Plate B -5 provides lighting standards for a "collector." According to the City's
General Plan, High Street is identified as a "local collector." When Plate B -4 was used,
Plate B -5 was also concurrently used-, this demonstrates that the County recognized that
there were two different lighting standards which were necessary for different classes of
roadways. The Plate B -4 standard is based an a different set of parameters, ie.,
footcandles at the street surface as opposed to the new standards which are based on
lumens at the light source. The two standards are described as follows:
OLD STANDARD NEW STANDARD
(see Attachment Number 2) (see Attachment Number 2)
Plate B -4 (Low Traffic - Commercial /Industriai Plate B -5 (Collector)
0.9 footcandles (Commercial) 22,000 lumens (200 watt)
spacing: 200' - 250' both sides of
the street
To demonstrate staff's point, a few pages of a photometric plan were prepared for 200
watt H.P.S., based upon a 200 -250' spacing and 28' mounting height, see Attachment
Number 3. Illumination levels underneath the fixtures were higher, 4.1 footcandles;
however, illumination levels between the poles, dropped to between 0.1 and 0.4
footcandles. The plan shows that bright spots occur underneath the fixtures with dark
areas occurring in between the fixtures, therefore the lighting is not evenly distributed on
the street. The average illumination levels shown in Attachment Number 3, are less than
the average illumination levels proposed with the 150 watt H.P.S. fixtures. One can
therefore, conclude that the footcandle levels for 150 watt H.P.S. fixtures provides a more
even distribution of lighting (eliminating hotspots). higher illumination levels which are
evenly distributed on the entire street, and less glare. The existing lights on High Street
were installed at different times, so staff is not aware of the existing illumination level on
High Street; the installation of the new street +ghts will increase the illumination level on
High Street.
KMP -05 -11 -94(11 30pm)A %CC5 -181.1 RPT
The Honorable City Council
May 11, 1994
Page 4
Review of Plate B -5
For the Council's information the illumination levels in Plate B -5 are intended for a
Collector, like Moorpark Avenue and Los Angeles Avenue. Furthermore, Plate B -5
standards are for a cobra head light fixture and are intended to installed at 25 -30 feet.
If the City was to install the downtown street lights at 200 watt H.P.S. at 200 -250' spacing
and at a 17' mounting height, hotspots and high levels of glare would be produced from
the Acorn luminaire. Lighting fixtures at 200 watt H.P.S. are not appropriate for the type
of light fixture (Acorn) which will be installed within the downtown. In summary, there is
no way that the City would be able to meet the County's lighting standard for the
proposed decorative street lights unless the City was willing to install 200 watt H.P.S. light
fixtures (at 200 -250' spacing), which would thereby produce uneven lighting levels (known
as hotspots) and inordinate amounts of glarE
Review of Plate B -4
If Plate B-4, was utilized, the proposed photometric plan for both 100 and 150 watt H.P.
S. would be in compliance with the County's B -4 lighting standard, because an average
footcandle of 0.09 would be produced. However, 150 watt H.P.S. would provide better
lighting by providing more light on the sidewalks and streets.
Liability
In order for SCE to design the electrical plan, the City is required to release SCE from
any and all liability based upon the illumination levels exemplified in the photometric plan.
The City Engineer reviewed the photometric plans against the County's lighting standards
and is reticent to accept liability because the City is not following a County lighting
standard. Therefore, staff consulted with the City Attorney regarding the issue of liability.
The City Attorney informed staff that the City would have design immunity if the City could
show that the standard which the new lights well meet, is reasonable, see Attachment
Number 4. Further, immunity would need to be asserted by the City Council by action
of the City Council-, therefore, at the recommendation of the City Attorney, the Council will
need to adopt the attached Resolution approving the creation of a lighting standard for
High Street.
Staff believes that it is reasonable to deviate from Plate B -5 based upon the rationale
outlined within this report and which is outlined in the Resolution. In summary, if the City
wishes to utilize either the 100 watt or 150 watt H.P.S. fixtures, the City will need to accept
the liability of the proposed illumination levels Acceptance of this liability is required to
be provided to SCE in the form of a letter
KMP -05 -1 1 -94(11 30pm)A:\CC5 -1 BLLRPT
The Honorable City Council
May 11, 1994
Page 5
Staff and the lighting engineer believe that by increasing the wattage in the luminaires,
better illumination levels will ensue without creating glare or hotspots. For the Council's
information, a copy of the proposed locations of street lights may be found in Attachment
Number 5.
Marbelite versus Fiberglass
Recently, staff was informed that another pole. which is a Washingtonian style, is available
in fiberglass. The two poles are different it appearance, see Attachment Number 6
except as follows:
COMPARISON OF MARBELITE AND FIBERGLASS (SEE PHOTOGRAPHS)
Concrete ( Marbelite)
Fluted
Diameter is larger than the fiberglass
Decoration at the tope and base is a
floral design
10 side flat surface
Shiny - glossy finish
Fiberglass
Fluted
Diameter is smaller than concrete
Decoration at the top and base is
rounded, with a line design
Flat finish
Some cities are replacing existing concrete poles with fiberglass poles for the following
reasons: 1) the cost of the fiberglass pole is Bess; and 2) the pole causes less damage
to objects or people if it is involved in an accident
A cost comparison between the two poles is as follows:
KMP- 05- 11- 94(11:30pm)A \CC5 -18LI RPT
The Honorable City Council
May 11, 1994
Page 6
MARBELITE
$1,230.00
COST COMPARISON (')
Per Street Light
FIBERGLASS
per single pole $473.00 for direct
bury
or
$483.00 to pour
concrete base
f o r a b o v e
ground pole
$623.00 per luminalr �? $623.00
(in any wattage) (in any wattage)
$ 35.00 cabling fee $ 35.00
$156.00 for black pc ie $ 0 (standard is
in black)
$ 79.00 for acrylic $ 0 not needed
anti- graffiti spray because fiberglass
Is not porous, so an
acrylic coating is not
needed
----------------------------------------------------------- - - - - -- - - - - -- ---------------------------------------------
$2,123.00 TOTAL $1,131.00 or $1,141.00
' Pursuant to Mike Canavan, SCE on April 26, 1993. Prices are annual updated on
July 1, 1994; however, a slight increase was made to the cost of the marbelite pole
in October 1993. The aforementioned costs do not include opening and closing
trench, conduits or handholds. Additionally, the cost does not include a
contribution in aide cost-, these costs will be known once the electrical plan has
been completed. The aforementioned cost does not include construction, which
based upon the cost per foot, will be conducted by either SCE or an independent
contractor. The undergrounding cost is the same for each type of light.
KMP- 05- 11- 94(11:30pm)A �CC5- 18LLRPT
The Honorable City Council
May 11, 1994
Page 7
Based upon the current prices, the use of the fiberglass pole will cost between $992.00
and $982.00 less than the marbelite (concrete) pole. In addition to the aforementioned
cost, a 34% tax on the total contribution in aide will be added to the above cost. What
this means is that a tax of 34% will be charged to the City for all of the costs which SCE
bills to the City. The 34% tax is an ITCC tax (mandated by the State).
Based upon the proposed photometric plan (1 50 watt H.P.S.), 43 street lights are planned
to be installed; 23 on the North side and 20 on the South side of High Street. The total
cost, which excludes the aforementioned items, for concrete would be approximately
$91,289.00 and approximately $48,633.00 to $49,063.00 for fiberglass.
Should the Council be interested in seeing the fiberglass pole, the pole is on display in
Irwindale.
Summary of the Public Works Facilities and Solid Waste Committee's
Recommendations
On May 11, 1994, the Public Works racilities and Solid Waste Committee
(Councilmembers Wozniak and Montgomery) rnet to consider the aforementioned issues.
The Committee's recommendations were 1) to install 150 watt H.P.S. luminaries, instead
of 100 watt H.P.S, which was previously selected; 2) approve the creation of a lighting
Standard for High Street; 3) proceed with the installation of the marbelite street light
instead of a fiberglass street light pole; and 4) that the street lights and construction on
High Street be funded with Moorpark Redevelopment Agency funds and that this project
be placed on the Public Works Projects Priority List. The Committee determined that 150
watt H.P.S. would provide better illumination of sidewalks and streets. The Committee
also recommended that the level of illumination be evaluated by the Committee six
months after installation and operation of the street lights on High Street. The concern
with the fiberglass pole was that this pole does not provide the decorative ornateness that
is available with the marbelite street pole
Summary
Staff and the Public Works Facilities and Solid Waste Committee, recommend that the
Council approve the installation of 150 watt H P.S. street lights. After the action of the
City Council, staff will prepare a letter to be sent to SCE accepting the level of illumination
based upon the location of the street lights; the City will need to transmit this letter to
SCE whether the Council approves the installation of 150 watt H.P.S. luminaires or 100
watt H.P.S. luminaries. Upon SCE's receipt of this letter, the electrical plan will be drawn;
it will take approximately 6 weeks to complete the electrical plan. Upon completion of this
KMP- 05- 1 1- 94(1 1:30pm)A \CC5 -18LI RPT
The Honorable City Council
May 11, 1994
Page 8
plan, a cost per foot for construction and installation will be established. A report
regarding the SCE cost will then be placed on the Council /Redevelopment Agenda for
consideration of the funding source, estimated construction time line, and determination
if SCE should be utilized or if a competitive hid process should be utilized.
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Approve the installation of 150 watt H P.S. light fixtures for High Street;
2. Approve the installation of marbelite poles
3. Adopt a lighting standard for High Street pursuant to the attached Resolution; and
4. That the street lights and construction of the street lights on High Street be funded
with Moorpark Redevelopment Agencv funds and that this project be placed on
the Public Works Projects Priority List
Attachments:
1. Photometric plan based upon 150 watt H.P.S, 17 foot mounting height
2. Old versus new County lighting street standards
3. Photometric plan based upon 200 watt H.P.S., 28 foot mounting height
4. Liability review from Cheryl Kane
5. Proposed location of street lights
6. Marbelite (concrete) pole and fiberglass pole
7. Resolution approving Council adoptior of an illumination standard for High Street
KMP -05 -11 -94(11 30PMIA %CC5 -18U RPT
7.�0
225.00
+
+
+
+
^
+
~
0.3
212.50
+
0.3
0.5
1.8
200 .00
+
+
+
0.4
0,7
1'4
187.50
+
+
A-
--.
�
--
C-) 5
.
07
2V
'
X.
1B
-/`
-'
S->
y0
175.00
^`
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
K\
0.6
0.7
2'1
1.8
�.'/
'' -CP.''
0.7
0.7
162.5'0
+
+
+
+
+
'
+
+
0.4
0.G
1.1
1.9
1.��
0'7
6.5
150.00
+
+
+
137.5f
0. �
125.0c)
�.�
C.)'4
2,8
112,50
+
+
+
+
+
^
+
+
10C).0C)
+
+
+
+
+
^
+
+
0.3
0.6
1.2
1.7
1..
� �..
0.5
['.�
87.50
~`
+
+
+
+
+
^
+
+
~�
A.5
0.7
1.5
1'6
1
0.4
C
V-.,
/5.{/0
+
+
+
+
+
~
+
+
Kl
o'/
0,7
1.9
1.9
�'
WW'
}'7
V,7»'
+
+
+
+
0.4
0,8
1,3
2'1
0.�
50.�0
+
+
+
+
+
~
+
+
0.�
0.5
0.6
37.50
+
+
0,�
�.�
Z'0
2.9
1'�
25.00
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
0.3
�.6
1.4
2.2
12.50
+
+
�.4
�.8
1.1
1.6
0.l
0.00
-)
+
+
+
+
+
--
0'7
0.7
1'3
1.6
1'�
' '� (/''
0.2
0,�
()O'��a-y
\�
\
/^ J,,
lr�
cr
ui
co
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
U
�
��
��
��
��
17
pp-pd-1
-_�
(
-
`
^
LM
_.
|
._ '--
> >)
�; �_
1
- .-
_ . � � � -yi ., �:J
..
_
...
is
..
_ c.'
- -I
-
_ - -.
'
T - • � � � . , T ^ - •. -. /
.- •-�
r �I
�- � 1
r � .
.-�
w . -1 T 'i
� .y
t. _I
_ � • .--
r
r
r
e
co
u J
•
r f .. . � .-+ . . -• � �•
+ .-, T
r•
J-
r,
r .-1
r .�,
1 i-,
T • - t .�
._,
t �
t � �. �
.� _
f t, s __
t
•1
t 1
TY
t
T i
t l
1
{
1 . 0
._ . 1
.. . Y 1
J'0
4
{{
1 1 7'5 . Oi_i
+
+
4
{
{.
{
1 1 i.._... 50
2b. 00
0.3
0.:
1.4
2.1 1
2.0 1
1.4
0.8
0.4
0.6
0.1
Rw5
1.6
',.--
0.0
�:
1.7
1
1. 5
1.0
_
0.2
0.1
1 _
,
+
+
1
0.2
0.1
1.0
1.0
1.1
.4
0.2
0.1
0.=
0.7
0.9
1.8
1.7 i
h,
0.2
0.1
1050.00
+
�+
I
�+
+ /
i
+
0.2
0.-
1.2
2.0
1.7
_._
0.2
_
f .
1.6
1 _
.6 _
Q.7:
1.5
1.7
1
0.7
7
= 1
r
t
it. 7
0.:'
]. _.
1.8
1 . .
0.7
0.4
4
+
+
+
+
f
+
+
0.5
0.8
1.1
1.7
1.?
�.
0.:
0.6
+
i-
+
+
+
r
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
2.2
_ .
.5
_
1021.00
1
+
{..
r.
+
{_
+
1-
r
rlL
��l
182
PLATE F -9 1
values shown are in average iorizontai foot- candles measured
at street surface when the luai.<itinq source is at its lowest
output and when the luminair !s ir! its dirtiest condition.
PLATE
RESIDENTIAL
NO.
ROAD _ CLASS
_ COMMLRCIAL
& RURAL
^'
CV
B -1.
Primary - Controlled ',c:-css
2.0
0.9
R -2
Secondary- Controll(
Acces ;
2.0
0.9
W
B -3
Secondary -Free Acce,•s
and
2.0
0.9
Non - Conforming Roads
with
W
More Than Two Lanes
)f Traffic
B -4
Industrial and Comm,
i c i,i1
0.)
Low Traffic
z
B -5
Collector
1.2
U.6
(_
B -6
Residential -Minos
0.2
z
W
B -7
Residential -Loop & ,
;!1- De -.,ac
0.2
L
B -8
Collector -RPD & 1 i.l.:.id�
0.2
B -9
Residential Minor Hi
1s:dc
0.2
U
B -10
Residential- Hillsid(
Loc•p
0.2
Q
Cul -De -Sac
B -11
Rural Collector and
Non-
1.2
Q
Conforming Roads Wit 61)'
or Greater R/W & ?'wc
of Traffic
B -12 Rural Road and Non -C` 0.9 0.2
Roads With Less Thar �) 12i •;
B -- 13 Industrial and Commc :. zi 1 1. 2
NOTES:
(1) The foot - candle values it. these Plates are current I.E.S.
recommended practice for averag(o illumination on the
pavement between curblin(.s, for straight and level road-
way areas and areas havi!ci minor curves and grades.
°f COUNTY OF VENTURA
/11 MAR 4 , 1 9b
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
Director of Public Works Dots STANDARD
,01 _.r_ LIGHTING INTENSITIES
PLATE F -10
(2)
j nt,
at cara(i, : ( (r,. ( :h
t ; or)
mend (-c' t is 1 ,?t
i :mr naL i c):: r: he .,.
areas si;all at icas:(
;l. 1. L,. the sum ct'_ ti?e i -1-
luniinat_io!t ues pi(_�vi(1l
>' Ti roadwl9y:, wh]c1. foIm
t1) e lnt( rsCC•'. inn.
(3)
The lowest foot - candle v<..
-i at my point on thc. pave-
ment should not be les _, t
ran one-third the average
value. Phe only excep') o
-(, this requirement applies
to resi den t.1a I roadway w-it
( *'Jo Lowest foot-candle
value at ar ?v point may r:(
1'3 lov; as one -sixth the average
va1.uc.
(4)
In designinq <i lighting
with foot. - candle:
values a:-, icquirc -d ir: ,_h(':
C 1'iatos and in accordance
with Note- (1) good ma. nt.
n<:rn -( .)ractices as f of lows
a, Operation of light so
ruc:; a* rated current
or vo l t.ag( ,
b. The i eyulc:r repl.accmc•
- o,- d( preciated lamps.
C. The perioc:ic cleanlnq
:f uminaires.
(S)
Glare shields may be rcqu:red
when their need is
indi.cate(i,
Adopted by ,Board of Swervisort COUNTY OF VENTURA
�.� � DEPARTMENT Of PUBLIC WORKS
'-- MAR 4,196
Director of Public works Date STANDARD
LIGHTING INTENSITIES
Principal Staff Snglnw R.C.E. Na 8634
10 - - - - - - -- - --
4' W/2 -- -- -- W/2
FO(; SEAL
o�
COAT
2 %SLOPE 2 %SLOPE
r-CC WALK
CURB & GUTTER
I-AC
P Ms
Lss
PRIME COAT
REVISION
I
DiR.PUB.WKS JTI�NIJH \DJ
RECOP1 MENDED' �Z /jI /Pig - - , l „CiC
B -4 A
B -4 B
B -4 C
DESIGN CRITERIA
- OLLECTOR
MINOR
CUL —DE —SAC
56
2
RIGHT OF WAY WIDTH, R(FT)
60
!PAVEMENT WIDTH. W(FT)
• ;0
36
32
CURB RETURN RADIUS(FT)
'5
25
25
TRAFFIC INDEX > 200 LOTS SERVED
NA
NA
TRAFFIC INDEX 141 -200 LOTS SERVED
r, 0
NA
NA
TRAFFIC INDEX 51 -140 LOTS SERVED
5
5.5
NA
TRAFFIC INDEX 21 -50 LOTS SERVED
5.0
5.0
TRAFFIC INDEX s 20 LOTS SERVED
`_
4.`
4.5
LOTS SERVED, MAX (("UL-DE -SAC,
LOT S I ZED 20.000 -F)
(:
50
10
L 0 Ti S SERVUO. NAx (•;JL -DE SAC.
DESIGN SPEED(MPH) `
25
25
�:URVE RAD,US. MIN(FT) I
CO
25C
i 200
GRADIENT. MIN /MAX( °,b)
i 1 0/12 0
i 0/15.0
(SrE PL.AFE 3 - -ID)
STOPPING SIGHT DISTANCE`FT)
)
160
60
;CUL- DE -SA- LENGTH MAX
(LOTS < 20,000 SF)(FT)
'•N"
80(
200
CUL -DE -SAC LENGTH MAX
(LOTS > 20.0(7-,0 SF)(FT)
PIN /
I ANY
200
LOOP LENGTH, MAX(F -F)
ANY
i 1600
0
ADOPTED BY 90ARD OF SUPERVISORS: JAN 28 1986
- J..UNTY
OF
VENTURA
APP VED
-
F
1BLIC WORKS
uGENCY
DiR.PUB.WKS JTI�NIJH \DJ
RECOP1 MENDED' �Z /jI /Pig - - , l „CiC
k V,
PLAT E
..UMEN SPACING
NO.
ROAD CLASS
B -2A
PRIMARY CONTROLLED
ACCESS
COMMERCIAL
22000
RESIDENTIAL
16000
B -2B
SECONDARY
CONTROLLED ACCESS
COMMERCIAL
22000
RESIDENTIAL
16000
6-3A
SECONDARY
FREE ACCESS AND NONCONFORMING
ROADS WITH
MORE THAN TWO LANES OF TRAFFIC
COMMERCIAL
22000
RESIDENTIAL
5800
B -3B
INDUSTRIAL
AND COMMERCIAL
22000
B -3C
INDUSTRIAL
AND COMMERCIAL
22000
B -3D
INDUSTRIAL
AND COMMERCIAL LOW TRAFFI
5800
B -5A
COLLECTOR
PLATE F - 9
IREVISION B_ I
200'- 250'BOTH SIDES OF MEDIAN
200'- 250'BOTH SIDES OF MEDIAN
------------------------- - - - - --
200'- 250'BOTH SIDES OF MEDIAN
200'- 250'BOTH SIDES OF MEDIAN
------------ ------------- - - - - --
200'- 250'STAGGERED BOTH SIDES
180'- 240'STAGGERED BOTH SIDES
--------------------------------
200'_250'
200' -250'
@INTERSECTIONS ONLY
COMMERCIAL 22000 200'- 250'BOTH SIDES
RESIDENTIAL 5800 180' -240'
B -5B RESIDENTIAL- MINOR 5800 180' -240'
B -5C RESIDENTIAL -LOOP & CUL -DE -SAC 5800 180' -240'
B -7A RURAL ROAD AND NON- CONFORMING ROADS 22000 @INTERSECTIONS ONLY
WITH LESS THAN 60' OF R/W
B -7B RURAL COLLECTOR AND NON - CONFORMING 2.000 @INTERSECTIONS ONLY
ROADS WITH 60' OR GREATER R/W AND TW
LANES OF TRAFFIC
1 ONLY HIGH PRESSURE SODIUM VAPOR LIGHTS SHALL BE USED
2 PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR MAY MODIFY THESE REQUIREMENTS
3 INTERSECTION LIGHTING SHALL BE AS SHOWN ON PLATES F -6 & F -7
4 GLARE SHIELDS MAY BE REQUIRED WHEN THEIR NEED IS INDICATED
5 THESE SPACING REQUIREMENTS ARE FOR STRAIGHT LEVEL ROADS.
WINDING ROADS AND STEEP ( >5 %) OR HIl Y ROADS MAY REQUIRE
ADDITIONAL LIGHTING
6 MOUNTING SHALL BE 25' - 28' FOR 5800 LUMEN LIGHTS AND 28' - 32'
FOR 16000 AND 22000 LUMEN LIGHTS
ADOPTED BY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS:
APPR.OvED,
ECOMMENDED
FEB 1 2 1591
DIR. PUB. WKS
ECf 9*631
Expires - 12/3 1 /S
COUNTY OF VENTURA
PUBLIC WORKS AGENCY
ROAD STANDARDS
ROADWAY LIGHTING
o -
i
'REcl C
�
P S E i - - - -�
�W /2
i
(NOTE 51
2% SLOPE
�--� -2% S L 0
t
W/2
i
P C
REVISION F
I
RE0DI
PSE
s 2
�E 2�
.6 . . I - I / r." �
P CC 'TALK 1
PM8 :� URB 8� GUTTER '(
(NOTE 6)
j' B A B -5 B B -5 C
DESIGN CRITERIA _C_0_LL_ tv
_" I T OR MINOR CUL -DE -SAC
RIGHT OF WAY WIDTH. RIFT) 3 49 45
PAVEMENT WIDTH W(FT �C 36 32
CURB RETURN RADIUS(FT) ?5 25
TRAFFIC INDEX ) 200 -OTS SERvEr- N/A N/A
TRAFFIC INDEX 141 -200 LOTS SERVE 0 N/A N/A
TRAFFIC INDEX 51 -140 -OTS SERVEC -5 ` N/A
TRAFFIC INDEX 21 -50 LOTS SERVED o 7 0 5.0
TRAFFIC INDEX � 20 LOTS SERVED = 7 4 5 4 5
LOTS SERVED. MAX (CUL - -DE -SAC 'O 50 10
LOT SIZE S 20.000 `;F)
LOTS SERVED. MAX (CUL - -DE -SAC :)0 40 39
LOT SIZE ) 20.000 Si =)
LOTS SERVED. MAX _OJI =).G 00 0
LOTS SEWED. MAX i0'1 0 39
DESIGN SPEED (MPH) c 25 25
CURVE RADIUS MIN(FT) GC50 200
GRADIENT, MIN /MAX( " /-) 1 0. 2 0 1 0/12 0 1 0 /I5 0
(SEE PLATE B-12 AND NOTE
STOPPING SIGHT DISTANCE(FT', 00 60 160
CUL -DE -SAC LENGTH MAX NY 800 200
(LOTS <- 20.000 Sf -)( =T)
I. CUL -DE -SAC LENGTH MAX. NY ANY 200
(LOTS > 20.000 SF )iF T )
LOOP LENGTH, MAX(FTi f.NY 1600 0
ADOPTED BY BOARD Of SUPERVISORS Fla 1 9 lq�! COUNTY OF VENTURA
APP E FEB 1 2 .,r,. PUBLIC WORKS AGENCY
$O _ EC DIR PUB �' - -- - -ROAD S'ANDARDS - --
O M OED I �C67663 —// - %ESIDEN T I� L 'GOADS URBtN
l�tt/� Expires -12131 /92 WI THOUT PARKWAYS
APR- 26 -1yG: GJ9 4�1
FY1011
SfjtITH OAST ''.ii1.
U . C)
a
Q
0.0
0.0
0.1
r
219Ci.0
+
+
+
0.0
0. 1
0.1
28(? . QO
+
+
+
+
+
0. 1
0.1
0.1
0.1
c> 1
C. 1
r`
270.00
+
+
+
+
+
+
0.1
0.2
0.2
0.3
0.2
G.2
0.1
r
260.00
+
+
+
+
+
.4-
0.2
0.3
0.3
0.4
0.4
C'.3
0.2
/~
;50.00
+
+
+
+
+
+.
+
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.5
0.4
c..3
0.2
240.00
+
+
+
+
+
+
0.6
0.7
0.6
0.5
0. 5
0.2
230.00
+
+
+
+
+
.+
1.2
1.2
0.9
0.6
0.
3
0.2
r
220.00
+
+
+
+
+
+
2.2
2.0
1.4
0.7
0.4
2
Q.I
210.00
+
+
+
+
+
i-
+
3.5
2.9
1.8
0.8
0.4
0.2
0.1
^
�1
200.00
F-
+
+
+
+
i
+
4.1
3.3
1.9
0.9
0.4
0.1
190.00
+
+
+
+
+
i
+-
Lr, .5
2.9
1.8
0.8
O 4
0.2
0.1
180.00
+
+
+
+
+
-
+
2.2
'.0
1.4
0.7
0 4
c.�.2
0.1
r`
170. < ?t>
+
+
+
a.
+
+
1.2
1.-
0.9
0.6
0 4
i,,3
O,-4
r
160.00
+
+
+
+
+
+
0.6
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.5
��.Z
0.2
150.00
+
+
+
+
+
+
O-Z
0.4
0.5
0.5
O 4
9.7
0.2
r'
140.00
+
+
+.
+
+
+
+
0.2
0.3
0.3
0.4
O
C�.T
O.2
r`
130.00
+
+
+
+
+
+
0 -1
0.2
0.2
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.1
^
120.00
+
+
+
+
+
+
0.1
0.1
C). 1
0.1
O 1
1
0.1
^•
110.00
+
+
+
+
+
a
+
0.0
0.1
0.1
0.1
O 1
0.1
0.1
^
100.00
+
+
+
+
4.
w
+
� Q
0.0
0.0
(-).0
O. s
TOTAL P.04
APR 26 '94 09:36
7143650297 PAGE.004
APR -2f= -1994
Fi
-
--
COBRA
HEAD STYLE STREET LIGHTS
284 MTG ;,HT. 22000 tilMENS
4e0.00
+
+
+
+
+
2001, SPACING
c�.1
0.1
��.:,
.:
,.
0.1
r'
470.00
+
+
+
+
0.1
0.2
0.2
r
460.00
+
+
+
+
f
+
0.3
0.3
0.4
f ,?,
0.-
0.2
450.00
+
+
+
+
4
+
+
0.,3
0.4
0.5
0.5
.4
0.:,
0.2
T`
44().00
+
+
+
+
+
+
0.6
0.7
0.6
0.5
3
0..
0.2
r
430.00
+
+
+
+
4
+
+
1.2
1.2
0.9
0.6
.4
O
0.2
r
420.00
+
+
+
+
4
+
+
2.2
2.0
1.4
0.''
.4
O.
0.1
4 1.0. 00
+
+
+
+
.}
+
3•.5
2.9
1.8
0.8
.4
O.
0.1
r`
400.00
�� r
Q�
+
+
+
+
+
4.1
_,
1.9
0.�'
.4
0.;
o.1
r
390.00
+
+
+
+
+
�.
37.
2.9
1.6
0.8
' .4
0.:
0.1
•80.00
+
+
+
+
+
+
2.2
2.0
1.4
0.7
.4
O.
0.1
rr
270.00
+
+
+
+
+
+
1.2.
1-2
0.9
0.6•
' .4
C. -
0.2
^
36� >.O Q
+
+
+
+
4.
+
0.6
0.7
0.6
O.0
5
c_)..
0.2
!`
350.00
.4-
+
+
+
+
+
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.E
.4
O..
0.2
340.00
+
+
+
+
+
+
0.2
0.3
0.Z,
O.4
..4
0.?
0.2
30. 00
+
•4•
+
+
4
+
+
0.1
0.2
0.2
0.7
2
•320.00
+
+
+
+
+
+
A A
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
1
0.1
0-1
.
APR 26 '94 0936
7143650297 PAGE.002
ATTACHMENT NUMBER 4
April 28 1994
Jaime R. Aguilera
Director of Community Development
City of Moorpark
799 Moorpark Avenue
Moorpark, California 93021
BURKE. WILLIAMS. SORENSEN & GAAR
LIGHTON PLAZA
7300 COLLEGE BOULEVARD
SUITE 220
UVERLANO PARK. KANSAS 66210
191 31 339 -6200
WRITER'S DIRECT DIAL
213 - 236 -2721
OUR FILE NO, 01359 -001
Re: Scope of Liability for Decorative Street
Lighting on Higi Street _
Dear Jaime:
In a memorandum dated April 27, 1994, you have stated
that Southern California Edison is going to require the City to
"accept liability" for the photometric plan for decorative street
lighting on High Street, which plan is outside the scope of the
City's adopted lighting standards. You have asked if it is true
that the City "will not incur morc liability than is normally
accepted" when a photometric plan is in compliance with the
City's standards, provided that tt:e City develops a "rational
methodology" for deviating from tt,ose standards.
There are two parts to your question. First, the
liability of the City. Second, the liability of Southern
California Edison, for which the city is assuming the obligation
to defend Southern California Edi <on and pay any judgment against
it.
City Liability
The City is liable for the dangerous condition of
public property, unless it is otherwise exempted from liability.
Since the street lights will be located within the public right -
of -way, it will be liable for conoitions caused by those lights
91147.1 RECEIVED
ia1��2 2 9199 --
Uly of moorualh
GUrrlfllulllly �iCVP !;pmurl nf•I!dl'/nP n'
LAVA UI - I
L. >
13U1;?10E, WILLIAM.-
& SORENSEN
01 WEST SIXTH .>3R1
T S. ITE Sl_CQ
VENTURA COUNTY OFFICE
2310 PONDEROSA DRIVE
LOS ANGELES CA.
017 r. -A 9 017
SUITE I
C AMARILLO, CALIFORNIA 03010
18051 967 -3468
TELECOPIFU tI
31 ? �C
ORANGE COUNTY OFFICE
3200 BRISTOL STREET
SUITE 640
COSTA MESA, CALIFORNIA 02626
17141 5453559
April 28 1994
Jaime R. Aguilera
Director of Community Development
City of Moorpark
799 Moorpark Avenue
Moorpark, California 93021
BURKE. WILLIAMS. SORENSEN & GAAR
LIGHTON PLAZA
7300 COLLEGE BOULEVARD
SUITE 220
UVERLANO PARK. KANSAS 66210
191 31 339 -6200
WRITER'S DIRECT DIAL
213 - 236 -2721
OUR FILE NO, 01359 -001
Re: Scope of Liability for Decorative Street
Lighting on Higi Street _
Dear Jaime:
In a memorandum dated April 27, 1994, you have stated
that Southern California Edison is going to require the City to
"accept liability" for the photometric plan for decorative street
lighting on High Street, which plan is outside the scope of the
City's adopted lighting standards. You have asked if it is true
that the City "will not incur morc liability than is normally
accepted" when a photometric plan is in compliance with the
City's standards, provided that tt:e City develops a "rational
methodology" for deviating from tt,ose standards.
There are two parts to your question. First, the
liability of the City. Second, the liability of Southern
California Edison, for which the city is assuming the obligation
to defend Southern California Edi <on and pay any judgment against
it.
City Liability
The City is liable for the dangerous condition of
public property, unless it is otherwise exempted from liability.
Since the street lights will be located within the public right -
of -way, it will be liable for conoitions caused by those lights
91147.1 RECEIVED
ia1��2 2 9199 --
Uly of moorualh
GUrrlfllulllly �iCVP !;pmurl nf•I!dl'/nP n'
n
v n
UI
to M
imT� s
wv s
fJ"o -\a Tryi�
!
i
ty"
7
ay
i v
a
r�
I II
I
614
t o
M
w
Y
M i
°°
L°, �£ 1
1 K
j Oil I
c
)
r
fi►
V1
Z o
9c�
t
n
-a
Vq
1
—j k7
Oo
1
i
`I sI I
of
� i s
0
He
'2
,l
cf f. r r z
„ ptc
I '
t
r G$OA • c+lN
a
C
0
V c
Y,�
,z;
Q vv
yam',
0
i
ty"
7
ay
r�
I II
oI'
w
Y
M i
°°
L°, �£ 1
1 K
j Oil I
c
)
r
fi►
Z o
Vq
LO
cc
W
W
2
D
z
F-
z LL
W
U
Q
z
C
J
-Y
J
1
r
I
J
J
J
r~
The Moorpark Old Town Merchants Ass,>c.
213 E. High Street
Moorpark, CA 93021
May 18, 1994
Moorpark City Council
Moorpark City Hall
f•;cx:>rpark, CA 93021
To The Honorable City Council:
Today 1 received a staff report - oncerning the proposed new street
lighting for High Street, and thank Associate Planner, Kathleen
Mallory, for providing this to ou association. Upon quick perusal I
was pleased that a higher wattay( light is being considered and it is
the recommendation of the assoc:,,tion that this brighter light be
approved. Adequate lighting is of ..fie utm,)st concern to the merchants
and patrons of downtown Moorparf:.
The report also recommends retair; nc the narbelite pole as originally
approved, even though the fibergla =s pole r.s much less expensive. Our
association finds either desicln �e•ceptable, for as before stated our
main concern is adequate Ligrtir' The :'.ifference between the two
designs is very minor.
All of the businesses on High Stree, arc', o• course, concerned about the
problem of having the street zorr Up and we trust every care will be
taken to make this impact minima;. V;e c,) want to thank the council,
though, [or their continuing concer 'or :owntown Moorpark.
Yours truly,
i 1 0 y C4=ings, President