HomeMy WebLinkAboutAGENDA REPORT 1995 0621 CC REG ITEM 11HTO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
� I Kmoo i1_l
AGENDA REPORT
CITY OF MOORPARK
The Honorable City Council
Steven Kueny, City Manager
June 16, 1995 (CC Meeting :3f June 21, 1995)
ITE H"*
Consider Refund of Unused 13alance of $70,000 Deposit
from West America for One- Iialf Cost of Traffic Signal
On July 6, 1988, the City Council approved Resolution No. 88 -490
for Parcel Map No. LDM -10 on application of Moorpark West (West
America). The project is general!`,, located on Maureen Lane.
Condition No. 45 required the depo:,it of $70,000 to the Los
Angeles Avenue Area of Contribution. A copy of the condition is
attached. The applicant has requested a refund of the deposit
because a signal has not been cons'. r a: tec at the intersection of
Maureen Lane and Loos Angeles Avent.t, ..
DISCUSSION:
Approximately one year ago, West America requested a refund of
its deposit because a traffic sign,il had not been constructed at
Los Angeles Avenue and Maureen Lario. It is their contention that
the signal would have to be built �it t.hi: location in order to
utilize the deposit.. :'ity staff believes that. -he language can
be interpreted such that the s::i_gna... cc.,uld be constructed at
either the Maureen Lane location the intersection of Los
Angeles Avenue and Goldman. To he � resc,lve t:he difference of
opinion, West America c- oncurre(,l th< t a t r af.f is signal warrant
study funded from the $70,000 depo j fc:r both Maureen Lane and
Goldman Avenue int.ersectic)ns wou1:- kc- <-c:riducted.
The City received a report from th. City's Traffic Engineer on
this matter. The study concluded -.r.at at Maureen Lane under both
existing and build -ou'_ scenari+:>s, ;r .ly warrant: 5 would be
satisfied. At Goldman Avenue, no ti�_rrarrts are satisfied under
existing conditions, 1)ut warrants and 11 would be
satisfied at build- ouµ-.. The C.'.ty :iaff..c Engineer also indicated
it is unlikely tha'. traffic si(ana lNc u�_c1 bey desired (or allowed
by Caltrans) at kx,)th ;oldman Aveni�_i arLd Maureen Lane. The
Traffic Engineer',- re(- ommendat : -�i 1 r ; t install a signal at
either intersect i_c r, a' th-i :� t i rn(; t 0 f r t he appropriate
development occurs, tc install a srg).al at Los Angeles Avenue and
Goldman Avenue.
In addition, the Director of Commurir_y Development feels that
with the residential build -out on th:_! south side of Los Angeles
Avenue, that Goldman Avenue should b::� extended south of Los
Angeles Avenue to service that pr(-).-e :-,!" wit}1 installation of a
signal at the Goldman Avenue inter: e:_!`:ic,�.
The Los Angeles Avenue Area of Contribution (AOC) list of
improvement projects includes fund ng for one -half the cost of
traffic signal at: Los Angeles A.ventie and Maureen Lane. The last
time the area of contribution r epc:,:t t eras revised (1986) , it was
assumed that Caltrans wou'-d prc,7 (i: of the funding.
If the City Counci. desires to pur,:.ue a traffic signal at Maureen
Lane, staff should be directed tc; proceea ttc work with Caltrans
with the offer that the City wcuis pay H0 percent of the traffic
signal. The other option woulc; :> - refu -td the unused balance
of the $70,000 deposit , estimal e i ce a.p,�roximately $66,000.
STAFF RE CObDENDAT I ON :
1) Authorize to proceed with signa :,onstr-iction at Los Angeles
Avenue and Maureen Lane; or 2) ref`iird unused balance of deposit.
SK:db
Attachments:
Traffic Signal Study
Condition No. 45
March 14, 1994, Letter from F'far gusts,, Case, Orr, Paterson &
Cunningham
c: \dots \wpwin \ccagenda \westam6.23
MEMORANDUM
TO: Ken Gilbert DATE: March 27, 1995
FROM: John Whitman �,e --
SUBJECT: Traffic Signal Study - -Los Angeles Avenue at Maureen Lane and at
Goldman Avenue
I have completed the Traffic Signal Study for both locations on Los Angeles Avenue.
Traffic signal warrants were examined both for a ;<isting conditions and at "build out." The
study was performed using the following data
• Traffic counts from the "Westland" study- -the counts in this study were
taken in late 1989. 1 factored all counts "up" to 1995 numbers and to "build
out" using a 2% increase per year. The numbers were then compared to
the Mission Bell Study and the 19144 MATM to confirm the assumptions.
• Build out was assumed to occur within 5 years with a "Westland" type
project built south of Los Angeles Avenue and 41,000 feet of light industrial
added north of Los Angeles Avenue.
• Pedestrian counts were assumed to be zero except from Maureen where
the counts were assumed to be 1 pedestrian per house per 2 hours or 26
pedestrians/hour during the period 7 am to 6 pm and Goldman - "build out"
where the counts were assumed tc be 1 pedestrian per house per 2 hours.
• Accidents were taken from "SWITRS ".
For the Los Angeles- Maureen intersection:
EXISTING
• Warrants 1, 2 , 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11 were not satisfied, and
• Warrant 5 is satisfied.
Page 2
Memo to Ken Gilbert
March 27, 1995
"BUILD OUT"
• Warrants 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11 will not be satisfied, and
• Warrant 5 will be satisfied.
Therefore, the signal could be installed based on Warrant #5; however, that warrant is
one of the less compelling warrants.
For the Los Angeles - Goldman intersection:
EXISTING
• No warrants were satisfied.
"BUILD OUT"
• Warrants 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 will not be satisfied, and
• Warrants 3, 9, 10 and 11 will be saatisfied.
Therefore, a signal is not currently warranted id the intersection, but a signal will be
warranted at "build out."
Neither street serves a very large area and installation of a signal would have a negligible
impact on traffic patterns.
The warrant forms from the Caltrans Traffic Manual completed for both intersections
follows - -both for existing and "build out."
My observations are as follows:
1. If, in the near term, the City of Moorpark desires to install a traffic signal at one of
the two Los Angeles Avenue intersections -- Maureen or Goldman- -the Maureen
Lane intersection is marginally warranted .and should be the choice. However, the
justification is not compelling and the City, could elect not to install a traffic signal
at either intersection now but wait until a project is developed south of Los Angeles
Avenue near the proposed "Westland"
Page 3
Memo to Ken Gilbert
March 27, 1995
2. When a residential project is developed south of Los Angeles Avenue and when
the remaining Light Industrial land north of Los Angeles Avenue is developed, a
signal will be warranted at Goldman. The need for a signal will not change at
Maureen.
My recommendation is to not install a signal at either intersection now and when an
appropriate development occurs, install at Los Angeles and Goldman.
JCW:ymo
lmemolsgnkvffvQw
EXISTING CONDITIONS
LA - Maureen
LA - Goldman
Traffic Manual TRAFFIC SIGNALS AND LIGHTING 9 -15
1.1991
Figure 9 -10
DIRECTIONAL TRAFFIC COUNT SHEET
F. x15 -1IN6 C0 A,rli7 11,3
s
NO. OF LANES —..
PEDESTRIANS O
TOTAL* I PEAK
INSERT NORTH POINT
J n
L/1
F '
O
N
rv�
Y
M
�
a
Y
Q
W
IL Ilk
+
a
M U) p
Q AM PEAK PM PEAK TOTAL*
a
wwY II�y 3�4 13117/Z
- --►
a_ a
O w Z. (I►I 4 )(10 06)(13,263)
* ENTIRE COUNT PERIOD
Not to Scale
AM PEA PEAK TOTAL'
3�
111 13131
Y
Q
-� -
.-1 71(, 103 Z //, /�S aw.
- Z
zz
w
•R �►-
10 v'k II? IN
Y
W�
Y
a
PEDES TRIMS
TOTAL* PEAK
i --
" ' �' – . — z �,
NO. OF LANES . - ._ -- -_L._.
r�
U-
0
0
Z
DIRECTIONAL TRAFFIC COUNT
DIST _ - - CO-- _RTE _ _ _ PM
r
Los 4 v), ( G �.
S _ Me, A
INTERSECfI N GIVE NAME
P!,T- - - - - -- -
CITY
-- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
DAY DATE
HOUR TO HOUR
TOTAL VOLUME
HOUR VOLUME
PEAK
PM
HOUR VOLUME
9 -6 TRAFFIC SIGNALS AND LIGHTING Traffic Manual
1 -1991
Figure 9 -1
TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANTS
� s 71 ry (9 C v ti h I "1 Iri ?4 `
CALC .-- _ —`t —w-
DIST CO RTE PM CHIK
Major St: Lod
Minor St: Mo, of < < h L c
Critical speed of major street traffic > 40 mph
In built up area of isolated community of < 10,000 pop..
WARRANT 1 - Minimum Vehicular volume
MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS
(80% SHOWN IN BRACKETS)
DATE
DATE _
7 NS
Critical Approach Speed
FULFILLED
mph
Critical Approach Speed
> S
mph
or
RURAL (R)
❑
❑
URBAN (U)
Yes
100% SATISFIED
YES ❑ NO
❑
80% SATISFIED
YES ❑ NO
IN
- AM
APPROACH 1 2 or more PER k
LANES Hour
Both Apprchs. 500 350 600 Cage �9c 20� �� S Z4
Major Street (400) (280) (480) (336)
Highest Apptch. 150 105 200 C14.43 V
Minor Street * (120) (84) (160) (112) J 1 so I Z 2- f 1 (,
U
* NOTE: Heavier left turn movement from Major Street included when LT- phasing is proposed El
WARRANT 2 - Interruption of Continuous Traffic 100% SATISFIED YES ❑ NO i
- - -- - 80% SATISFIED YES ❑ NO 0
MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS l
(80% SHOWN IN BRACKETS) I
U R U R � ^` pn)
APPROACH FE+<< / QUk
LANES 1 2 or more Hour Co ,)d.'rct)
Both Apprchs. 750 525 900
Major Street (600) (420) (720) 504 f �o f Z.0-7 ( ' Z 4 5
Highest Apprch. 75 53 100 V4� U
Minor Street * (60) 42 (80) (56) f 5 r
' NOTE: Heavier left turn movement from Mayor Street included when LT- phasing is proposed❑
WARRANT 3 - Minimum Pedestrian Volume
100% SATISFIED YES ❑ NO
REQUIREMENT
Pedestrian volume crossing the major street is 100 or more
for each of any four hours or is 190 or more during any one
hour; and
There are less than 60 gaps per hour in the major si;ireet traf-
fic stream of adequate length for pedestrians to cross; and
The nearest traffic signal along the major street is g eater
than 300 feet; and
The new traffic signal will not seriously disrupt progressive
traffic flow on the major street
The satisfaction of a warrant Is not necessarily justification for a signal. Delay, congestion, confusion or other evidence
of the need for right -of -way assignment must be shown
FULFILLED
Yes
❑
No
Yes
❑
No
Yes
®
No
❑
Yes
®
No
❑
The satisfaction of a warrant Is not necessarily justification for a signal. Delay, congestion, confusion or other evidence
of the need for right -of -way assignment must be shown
Traffic Manual
TRAFFIC SIGNALS AND LIGHTING
Ld5 -- ^16,t4V1th (Ex,g {�.
Figure 9 -2 ` -
TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANTS
WARRANTS 4 - School Crossings
WARRANT 5 - Progressive Movement
9 -7
1 -1991
Not Applicable ... ...............................
See School Crossings Warrant Sheet ❑
SATISFIED YES ■ NO O
MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS
DISTANCE TO NEAREST SIGNAL
FULFILLED
> 1000 FT.
N 1 A a, S N / A._ _it, E V ft, W 4 Z it.
YES ■ NO ❑
ON ONE WAY ISOLATED STREETS OR STREETS WITH ONE WAY TRAFFIC SIGNIFICANCE AND ADJACENT
SIGNALS ARE SO FAR APART THAT NECESSARY PLATOONING AND SPEED CONTROL WOULD BE LOST
ON 2 -WAY STREETS WHERE ADJACENT SIGNALS DO NOT PROV I' DE NECESSARY PLATOONING AND
SPEED CONTROL PROPOSED SIGNALS COULD CONSITUTE A PROGRESSIVE SIGNAL SYSTEM
■ ❑
WARRANT 6 - Accident Experience SATISFIED YES O NO
REQUIREMENTS WARRANT FULFILLED
ONE WARRANT
WARRANT 1 - MINIMUM VE iHICULAR VOLUME
SATIFIED........I .................. ... ...............................
OR
80% WARRANT 2 - INTERRUPTION OF CONTINUOUS TRAFFIC YES ❑ NO ■
SIGNAL WILL NOT SERIOUSLY DISRUPT PROGRESSIVE TRAFFIC FLOW ■ ❑
ADEQUATE TRIAL OF LESS RESTRICTIVE REMEDIES HAS FAILED TO REDUCE ACCIDENT FREQUENCY ❑ ■
ACC. WITHIN A 12 MONTH PERIOD SUSCEPTIBLE OF CORR. & INVOLVING INJURY OR $500 DAMAGE
MINIMUM REQUIREMENT NUMBER OF ACCIDENTS
5 OR MORE �.� ❑ ■
WARRANT 7 - Systems Warrant
SATISFIED YES O NO 8
MINIMUM VOLUME ENTERING VOLUIVIES - ALL APPROACHES FULFILLED
REQUIREMENTS
DURING TYPICAL WEEKDAY PE4 HOUR _ -____ VEHlHR
> 800 VEH /HR DURING EACH OF ANY 5 HRS
Of A SAT. AND/OR SUN. t h bn"t h VEHIHR YES ❑ NO ❑
CHARACTERISTICS OF MAJOR ROUTES MAJOR ST. MINOR ST.
HWY SYSTEM SERVING AS PRINCIPLE NETWORK FOR THR(iJUGH TRAFFIC Y S N
........................................... ............................... ... ...............................
RURAL OR SUBURBAN HWY OUTSIDE OF, ENTERING, OR TRAVERSING A CITY I'c S N 0
APPEARS AS MAJOR ROUTE ON AN OFFICAL PLAN E S N C1
ANY MAJOR ROUTE CHARACTERISTIC MET, BOTH STS. YES ❑ NO ■
The satisfaction of a warrant is not necessarily justification 1 or a signal. Delay, congestion, contusion or other evidence
of the need for right -of -way assignment must be shown
9 -8 TRAFFIC SIGNALS AND LIGHTING Traffic Manual
1 -1991
Leos 14 h j C I t .S •--, A
Figure 9 -3
TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANTS
WARRANT 8 - Combination of Warrants
SATISFIED YES ❑ NO N
REQUIREMENT
WARRANT
./
FULFILLED
TWO WARRANTS
_
1. MINIMUM VEHICULAR VOLUME
2. INTERRUPTION OF CONTINUOUS TRAFFIC
SATISFIED
YES ❑ NO
80%
WARRANT 9 - Four Hour Volume
SATISFIED* YES ❑ NO
2 or
rinn mnrci-
Hour Car~ `"I E k)
3G °.)
36
Both Approaches Major Streety
-
Highest Approaches - Minor Street
* Refer to Figure 9 -6 (URBAN AREAS) or Figure 9 -7 (RURAL AREAS) to determine if this warrant is satisfied.
WARRANT 10 -Peak Hour Delay SATISFIED YES ❑ NO
(ALL PARTS MUST BE SATISFIED)
1. The total delay experienced for traffic on one minor street approach controlled by a
STOP sign equals or exceeds four vehicle -hours for a one -lane approach and five
vehicle -hours for a two -lane approach; AND I kJ '',"k'' Pu YES ❑ NO ❑
2. The volume on the same minor street approach equals or exceeds 100 vph for
one moving lane of traffic or 150 vph for two moving lanes; J�NQ YES ❑ NO
3. The total entering volume serviced during the hour equals cr exceeds 800 vph
for intersections with four or more approaches or 650 vph for intersections with
three approaches. YES ® NO ❑
WARRANT 11 -Peak Hour Volume
SATISFIED YES ❑ NO ■
DM
A CA k
Hour
* Refer to Figure 9 -8 (URBAN AREAS) or Figure 9 -9 (RURAL AREAS) to determine if this warrant is satisfied.
The satisfaction of a warrant is not necessarily justification for a signal. Delay, congestion, confusion or other evidence
of the need for right -of -way assignment must be shown.
Traffic Manual TRAFFIC SIGNALS AND LIGHTING 9 -15
1 -1991
J
f-
ry)
z
Q
z p
w Y
d Q
o �
z
Figure 9 -10
DIRECTIONAL TRAFFIC COUNT SHEET
Ext 571N G ' a►Pub�I)rvS
INSERT NORTH POINT
PEDESTRIANS
TOTAL* _ PEAK _
a
t
109 1 0 °-7 13443 -
7
0,1
oa
0
y
M
z
Q
Y
_
( 9 0G)( 101Z)(I?Iq G 3)
w
CL
w
T�..,
ti
Y
Q
r'
�
a
r
AM PEAK PM PEAK TOTAL*
109 1 0 °-7 13443 -
- ►
-
a
Y
Q
* ENTIRE COUNT PERIOD
Y
Not to Scale
AM PEAK PM PEAK TOTAL
Z8 14
-
a
Y
Q
z
Q
_
( 9 0G)( 101Z)(I?Iq G 3)
w
w
T�..,
W
O_
Q
4
1= IIli�l
Y
-
a
a
PEDESTRIANS
TOTAL *— PEAK
NO. OF LANES ____ J _ .
o
DIRECTIONAL TRAFFIC COUNT
DIST - _ - CO _ _ - RTE _ _ -PM - - -
-LOS An'I's Avt - Cy�lc���a AvC-
INTERSECTION GIVE NAME
CITY
DAY DATE
HOUR TO HOUR
TOTAL VOLUME -
AM
- - - - - - -
HOUR - - - - VOLUME - - -
PEAK
PM_
HOUR^ VOLUME
9 -6
1.1991
TRAFFIC SIGNALS AND LIGHTING
Figure 9 -1
TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANTS
&- ,IS TIN G CuNIOiiIJN'�
CALC .._� �._W_ _-
DIST CO RTE ++ PM CHIP
Major St: Lv S A n t l c S A Y t r A c_ Critical Approach Speed
Minor St: V t V"v c Critical Approach Speed
Critical speed of major street traffic > 40 mph _ _ _ _ _
or
In built up area of isolated community of < 10,000 pop. - - - - - -- - ❑
WARRANT 1 - Minimum Vehicular volume
MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS
(80% SHOWN IN BRACKETS)
Traffic Manual
DATE 5 / S
DATE _
% 4 S mph
7 Z S mph
RURAL (R)
URBAN (U)
100% SATISFIED YES ❑ NO ■
80% SATISFIED YES ❑ NO
U _LR U R pry r
t 2 or more
APPROACH Am � C QM0h7(•
�
LANES _ PIAt PEA Hour a h" S
Both Apprchs. 500 350 600 (-420-, Za f ZI�L 1 3V
Major Street (400) (280) (480)
Highest Apprch 150 105 200 // I
Minor Street * (120) (84) (160) (112) 6 / S
* NOTE: Heavier left turn movement from Major Street included when LT- phasing is proposed ❑
WARRANT 2 - Interruption of Continuous Traffic 100% SATISFIED YES ❑ NO
1309/6 SATISFIED YES ❑ NO
[MMUM REQUIREMENTS l
8olz; SHO WN IN BRACKETS) I
APPROACH 1 2 or more
LANES Hour
Both Apprchs. 750 525 900 C63t1�
Major street (600) (ago) (720) 504
Highest Apprch. 75 53 100 0L)
Minor Street * (60) (42) 1 (80) (56) Z S
* NOTE: Heavier left turn movement from Major Street included when LT- phasing is proposed❑
WARRANT 3 - Minimum Pedestrian Volume
100% SATISFIED YES ❑ NO
REQUIREMENT
Pedestrian volume crossing the major street is 100 or more
for each of any four hours or is 190 or more during ,iny one
hour; and
There are less than 60 gaps per hour in the major s reet traf-
fic stream of adequate length for pedestrians to ao,,;s; and
The nearest traffic signal along the major street is g eater
than 300 feet; and
The new traffic signal will not seriously disrupt progressive
traffic flow on the major street
The satisfaction of a warrant Is not necessarily justification for a slggnal. Delay, congestion, confusion or other evidence
of the need for right -of -way assignment must be shown
FULFILLED
Yes
❑
No
Yes
❑
No
Yes
i
No
❑
Yes
■
No
❑
The satisfaction of a warrant Is not necessarily justification for a slggnal. Delay, congestion, confusion or other evidence
of the need for right -of -way assignment must be shown
Traffic Manual
TRAFFIC SIGNALS AND LIGHTING
Figure 9 -2
TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANTS
CxI ST ) N C C ,a u n I ? ,Oki C
9 -7
t -1991
WARRANTS 4 - School Crossings Not Applicable ... ............................... ■
See School Crossings Warrant Sheet ❑
WARRANT 5 - Progressive Movement SATISFIED YES O NO
MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS
DISTANCE TO NEAREST SIGNAL
FULFILLED
>1000 FT.
N N�__ft, E G(O ft, W 2 36 0 ft.
YES ❑ NO
ON ONE WAY ISOLATED STREETS OR STREETS WITH ONE WAY TRAFFIC SIGNIFICANCE AND ADJACENT
SIGNALS ARE SO FAR APART THAT NECESSARY PLATOONING AND SPEED CONTROL WOULD BE LOST
............................. ............ .............................................
............................................................................................................ ...............................
ON 2 -WAY STREETS WHERE ADJACENT SIGNALS DO NOT PROVIDE NECESSARY PLATO 0NING AND
SPEED CONTROL PROPOSED SIGNALS COULD CONSITUTE A PROGRESSIVE SIGNAL SYSTEM
O ❑
WARRANT 6 - Accident Experience SATISFIED YES O NO
REQUIREMENTS WARRANT FULFILLED
ONE WARRANT
WARRANT 1 - MINIMUM VEHICULAR VOLUME
SATIFIED............................ ............. - ....... ...............................
OR
80% WARRANT 2 - INTERRUPTION OF CONTINUOUS TRAFFIC YES ❑ NO N
SIGNAL WILL NOT SERIOUSLY DISRUPT PROGRESSIVE TRAFF C; FLOW ® ❑
ADEQUATE TRIAL OF LESS RESTRICTIVE REMEDIES HAS FAILE I:) TO REDUCE ACCIDENT FREQUENCY ❑
ACC. WITHIN A 12 MONTH PERIOD SUSCEPTIBLE OF CORR. & INVOLVING INJURY OR $500 DAMAGE
MINIMUM REQUIREMENT NUMBER OF ACCIDENTS
5 OR MORE ❑
WARRANT 7 - Systems Warrant SATISFIED YES O NO
MINIMUM VOLUME
REQUIREMENTS
ENTERING VOLUMES - ALL APPROACHES
DURING TYPICAL WEEKDAY 'EaK HOUR _
VEHIHR
FULFILLED
✓
> 800 VEH1HR.......
............................. ............ .............................................
OR
DURING EACH OF ANY 5 HRS 01= A SAT. ANDIOR SUN. n ` " "" VEHIHR
YES ❑ NO ❑
CHARACTERISTICS OF MAJOR ROUTES
MAJOR ST.
MINOR ST.
HWY SYSTEM SERVING AS PRINCIPLE NETWORK FOR THROUGH TRAFFIC
........... ...............................
... ............................... ........
RURAL OR SUBURBAN HWY OUTSIDE OF, ENTERING, OR TRAVERSING A CIT
.......... ..............................I
...............................
E_ `)
/V o-
I , I.... . ................... . . .. ........
...............................
APPEARS AS MAJOR ROUTE ON AN OFFICAL PLAN
ANY MAJOR ROUTE CHARACTERISTIC MET, BOTH STS.
YES O NO
The satisfaction of a warrant is not necessarily justification for a signal. Delay, congestion, confusion or other evidence
of the need for right -of -way assignment must be shown
9-8
1 -1991
TRAFFIC SIGNALS AND LIGHTING
Los A•,
Figure 9 -3
TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANTS
STJtJC, CON Y'iTQ1JC
WARRANT a - Combination of Warrants
Traffic Manual
SATISFIED YES ❑ NO
REQUIREMENT
WARRANT _ _
J
FULFILLED
TWO WARRANTS
_
1. MINIMUM VEHICULAR VOLUME
SATISFIED
2. INTERRUPTION OF CONTINUOUS TRAFFIC
YES ❑ NO
80%
WARRANT 9 -Four Hour Volume
SATISFIED* YES ❑ NO
Hour
I I62.v
1 46
* Refer to Figure 9 -6 (URBAN AREAS) or Figure 9 -7 (RURAL. A! --TEAS) to determine if this warrant is satisfied.
WARRANT 10 -Peak Hour Delay SATISFIED YES ❑ NO
(ALL PARTS MUST BE SATISFIED)
1. The total delay experienced for traffic on one minor street approach controlled by a
STOP sign equals or exceeds four vehicle -hours for a one -lane approach and five
vehicle -hours for a two -lane approach-, AND i"'`1rr OV,;rJ YES ❑ NO ❑
2. The volume on the same minor street approach equals or exceeds 100 vph for
one moving lane of traffic or 150 vph for two moving lanes; I_ YES ❑ NO
3. The total entering volume serviced during the hour equals or exceeds 800 vph
for intersections with four or more approaches or 650 vph far intersections with
three approaches. YES E NO ❑
WARRANT 11 - Peak Hour Volume
c' cr 0
SATISFIED* YES ❑ NO E
Hour
* Refer to Figure 9 -8 (URBAN AREAS) or Figure 9 -9 (RURAL AIREAS) to determine if this warrant is satisfied.
The satisfaction of a warrant is not necessarily justification for a signal. Delay, congestion, confusion or other evidence
of the need for right -of -way assignment must be shown.
"BUILD OUT" CONDITIONS
LA - Maureen
LA - Cioldman
Traffic Manual TRAFFIC SIGNALS10 AND LIGHTING 9 -15
1 -1992
Figure 9 -10
DIRECTIONAL TRAFFIC COUNT SHEET
r- b1'7t112(- Co kit 11- 7f)N`i ('glnl�I �in'i' Z�cs (3l
INSERT NORTH POINT
/
NO. OF LANES
PEDESTRIANS o
TOTAL" I PEAK
*
a O
O
Q
�
N
6-M
M
Y
Al
z
CL
a 400
v
Q
ga -
1..1
t/ I
Ir
2 I� 19u '
a
a
a
[ I Z 14 11,3,5 ,4 1 g v T 2 -- -►
UjY
rJ
N
a
z
i
* ENTIRE COUNT PERIOD
Not to Scale
AM PEAK PM PEAK TOTAL*
4a 13-3
Y
X13 V5.3 a
w
z d
-� ZZ )3�
Cc
1�5)('z�d4) o*
W
J kA
a J 01
UjY
a
CL
Y
Q
w
.r i
Al
z
CL
a
Q
AM PEAK PM PEAK TOTAL*
U)
Ir
2 I� 19u '
a
a
w
[ I Z 14 11,3,5 ,4 1 g v T 2 -- -►
U
-7 411
z
( 1% 4;L )( I I 1 1 )(14,663
* ENTIRE COUNT PERIOD
Not to Scale
AM PEAK PM PEAK TOTAL*
4a 13-3
Y
X13 V5.3 a
w
z d
-� ZZ )3�
Cc
1�5)('z�d4) o*
W
J kA
a J 01
UjY
a
CL
Y
a
a
a
PEDESTRIANS
TOTAL* PEAK
NO. OF LANES
U)
w
z
a
LL
O
DIRECTIONAL TRAFFIC COUNT
DIST - - - Go-- - RTE - - -PM - - -
INTERSECTION GIVE NAME
AA
CITY
DAY DATE
HOUR TO HOUR
TOTAL VOLUME
AM
PEAK HOUR VOLUME
PM - - - - - - - - - -
HOUR VOLUME
9 -6 TRAFFIC SIGNALS AND LIGHTING Traffic Manual
1 -1992
Figure 9 -1
TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANTS
CALC DATE
DIST CO RTE PM CHK _ _ ._ _ _ _ . ___ DATE
Major St: Lo s A',, 'f" 1{ S V ____ _. Critical Approach Speed mph
Minor St: M Svc r. h i a _ Gntical Approach Speed Z S mph
Critical speed of major street traffic > 40 mph -- - - - - - - - - - or RURAL (R)
In built up area of isolated community of < 10,000 pop.
[] URBAN (U)
WARRANT 1 - Minimum Vehicular Volume IC0% SATISFIED YES ❑ NO
- - - --1 80% SATISFIED YES ❑ NO
MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS
(80% SHOWN IN BRACKETS)
U R U_ R Q M PM
PEA t
APPROACH 1 2 or more PEAk / Hour CUri�t1N I4 j
LANES
Both Apprchs. 500 350 600 C 426 k
Major Street (400) (280) (480) (336)
Highest Apprch. 150 105 200 (140,.;a —
Minor Street (120) (84) (160) (112) Z 0 4 2
WARRANT 2 - Interruption of Continuous Traffic 1(10% SATISFIED YES ❑ NO M
-- - - - --- 30% SATISFIED YES ❑ NO
MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS
(80% SHOWN IN BRACKETS)
U R U R
APPROACH 1 2 or more // .
LANES Hour
Both Apprchs. 750 525 900 630
Major Street (600) (420) (720) �5o41
Highest Apprch 75 53 100 70 -2 G
Minor Street (60) (42) (80) (56)
WARRANT 31- Minimum Pedestrian Volume 100% SATISFIED YES ❑ NO
REQUIREMENT FULFILLED
Pedestrian volume crossing the major street is 100 or more
for each of any four hours or is 190 or more during any one Yes [] No
hour; A(Q
There are less than 60 gaps per hour in the major street traf
fic stream of adequate length for pedestrians to cross; U Yes ❑ No
A.
The nearest traffic signal along the major street is greater
Yes No
than 300 feet; A ®
Q ❑
The new traffic signal will not seriously disrupt progressive Yes ® No ❑
traffic flow on the major street
The satisfaction of a warrant Is not necessarily justification for a signal. Delay, congestion, confusion or other
evidence of the need for right -of -way assignment must be shown
Traffic Manual
TRAFFIC SIGNALS AND LIGHTING
9 -7
1 -1991
>,�s It y — MC 'Ay, , (
Figure 9 -2
TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANTS
WARRANT 4 - School Crossings Not Applicable - - - - _ - _ _ - - ■
See School Crossings Warrant Sheet ❑
WARRANT 5 - Progressive Movement SATISFIED YES 0 NO ❑
MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS
DISTANCE TO NEAREST SIGNAL
FULFILLED
> 1000 FT.
N A0A ft, S N j A ft, E /90 ft, W 4 I l) ft.
YES ® NO ❑
ON ONE WAY ISOLATED STREETS OR STREETS WITH ONE WAY TRAFFIC SIGNIFICANCE AND ADJACENT
SIGNALS ARE SO FAR APART THAT NECESSARY PLATOONING 8 SPEED CONTROL WOULD BE LOST
------- ._____..___..------ - - - ---
ON 2 -WAY STREETS WHERE ADJACENT SIGNALS DO NOT PROVIDE NECESSARY PLATOONING AND
SPEED CONTROL PROPOSED SIGNALS COULD CONSTITUTE A, PROGRESSIVE SIGNAL SYSTEM
❑
WARRANT 6 - Accident Experience
SATISFIED YES ❑ NO 0
REQUIREMENTS
WARRANT
FULFILLED
ONE WARRANT
WARRANT 1 - MINIMUM VEHICULAR VOLUME
SATISFIED
------- ._____..___..------ - - - ---
-
80%
OR
WARRANT 2 - INTERRUPTION OF CONTINUOUS TRAFFIC
YES ❑ NO
SIGNAL WILL NOT SERIOUSLY DISRUUPT PROGRESSIVE TRAFFIC FLOW
IN ❑
ADEQUATE TRIAL OF LESS RESTRICTIVE REMEDIES HAS FAILI- -D TO REDUCE ACCIDENT FREQUENCY
❑
ACC. WITHIN A 12 MONTH PERIOD SUSCEPTIBLE OF CORR 3 INVOLVING INJURY OR ? $500 DAMAGE
MINIMUM REQUIREMENT NUMBER OF ACCIDENTS
5ORMORE
I�
f\S5'Aw,16 N�3 C NAAIGE ❑ 0
WARRANT 7 - Systems Warrant
SATISFIED YES ❑ NO
MINIMUM VOLUME FULFILLED
REQUIREMENT ENTERING VOL.UTAES - ALL APPROACHES
DURING TYPICAL WEEKDAY PEAK HOUR VEH /HR
1000VEH/HR - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
OR GnENour
DURING EACH OF ANY 5 HRS. OF t1 SAT. AND /OR SUN. VEH /HR YES ❑ NO ❑
CHARACTERISTICS OF MAJOR ROUTES MAJOR ST. MINOR ST.
HWY. SYSTEM SERVING AS PRINCIPLE NETWORK FOR THROUGH TRAFFIC YES N V
RURAL OR SUBURBAN HWY OUTSIDE OF, ENTERING, OR TFIA`/ERSING A CITY [ S t/ I)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - _ _ _ ._ .. _ _ - - - - - - - - - - - -
APPEARS AS MAJOR ROUTE ON AN OFFICIAL PLAN if' f` .5 IV ")
ANY MAJOR ROUTE CHARACTERISTICS MET„ BOTH STREETS ❑ IN
The satisfaction of a warrant Is not necessarily Justification for a signal. Delay, congestion, confusion or other
evidence of the need for right -of -way assigmmnent must he shown.
9 -8 TRAFFIC SIGNALS AND LIGHTING Traffic Manual
1 -1991
Figure 9 -3
TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANTS
WARRANT 8 - Combination of Warrants
SATISFIED YES ❑ NO
REQUIREMENT
WARRANT
1. MINIMUM VEHICULAR VOLUME
J
FULFILLED
TWO WARRANTS
2'7G
SATISFIED
2. INTERRUPTION OF CONTINUOUS TRAFFIC
YES ❑ NO
80%
WARRANT 9 - Four Hour Volume
AnnrrA!mrh I nnnc
2 oi
17nP mrn a
SATISFIED* YES ❑ NO
Hour CQk.,01A7Ct)
— M 513
SS
Both Approaches Major Street
Highest Approaches Minor Street
(,
�Ou
1 a`7
2'7G
Highest Approaches
Minor Street
* Refer to Figure 9 -6 (URBAN AREAS) or Figure 9 -7 (RURAL_ AREAS) to determine if this warrant is satisfied.
WARRANT 10 -Peak Hour Delay SATISFIED YES ❑ NO
(ALL PARTS MUST BE SATISFIED)
1. The total delay experienced for traffic on one minor street approach controlled by a
STOP sign equals or exceeds four vehicle -hours for a one -lane approach and five
vehicle -hours for a two -lane approach; AND �' v,l -,,w, YES ❑ NO ❑
2. The volume on the same minor street approach equals of exceeds 100 vph for
one moving lane of traffic or 150 vph for two moving lanes; AND YES ❑ NO ■
3. The total entering volume serviced during the hour equals or exceeds 800 vph
for intersections with four or more approaches or 650 vph for intersections with
three approaches. YES ® NO ❑
WARRANT 11 - Peak Hour Volume SATISFIED* YES ❑ NO
Cr
Pn
Annrnarh I anPS One more ' t / / / Hour
Both Approaches
Major Street
1 a`7
2'7G
Highest Approaches
Minor Street
-7 S
* Refer to Figure 9 -8 (URBAN AREAS) or Figure 9 -9 (RURAL A REAS) to determine if this warrant is satisfied.
The satisfaction of a warrant is not necessarily justification for a signal. Delay, congestion, confusion or other evidence
of the need for right -of -way assignment must be shown.
Traffic Manual TRAFFIC SIGNALS AND LIGHTING 9 -15
1 -1991
*
J
z
a
Q W Y
d
u_ Q
O a
O
z
Figure 9 -10
DIRECTIONAL TRAFFIC COUNT SHEET
f (A fl
7LAF CO K) r) � �(,A 1L.I')UL'_7 2U0Ij
INSERT NORTH POINT
NO. OF LANES _. I
PEDESTRIANS
TOTAL* PEAK
a
*
J
AM PEAK PM PEAK TOTAL*
rl
o
r
Y
a
(N S))(Izt4)()SI6I'e))
vo
Y
Q
W
a
U
`
I� ^�
a
o
a
CL
Y
WL_
Y
W
ev
CL
r
r
Not to Scale
AM PEAK PM PEAK TOTAL`
4 s SSG
AM PEAK PM PEAK TOTAL*
120* r r�� �s,�a� -
- -►
23 SS
Y
a
(N S))(Izt4)()SI6I'e))
iz
Not to Scale
AM PEAK PM PEAK TOTAL`
4 s SSG
- -- ��z �rGG �3,►73�
�,
Y
a
iz
a
U
X
133 5)(/yl1 Gq)
o
a
WL_
Y
� 4 .W- o
r
O
Y
/L
a
U
6l
a
Y
CL
r
r
M :r
m
w
z
Q
J
U_
O
O
z
DIRECTIONAL TRAFFIC COUNT
DIST _ _ _CO__ _ RTE _ _ _PM
-Los A n5t(,y e �q I d mA,, - - - -
INTERSECTION GIVE NAME
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
CITY
* ENTIRE COUNT PERIOD PEDESTPIANS
TOTAL * PEAKi DAY DATE
.� HOUR TO HOUR
NO, OF LANES
TOTAL VOLUME
AM
- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
HOUR VOLUME
PEAK
PM
- - - - - - - - - - - -
HOUR VOLUM- - E
9 -6 TRAFFIC SIGNALS AND LIGHTING Traffic Manual
1.1992
Figure 9 -1
TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANTS
U r 1_ CALC - -- I.. -. - - - -- -- DATEIZS��
DIST CO RTE PM - CHK _ . _____._ DATE
Major St: L s as �^�jt A V (_ _ __ Critical Approach Speed %45- mph
Minor St: Lem I r na A y c c _ _ Cr tical Approach Speed 2 �S mph
Critical speed of major street traffic > 40 mph - - - - - - - -- - - -
or RURAL (R)
In built up area of isolated community of < 10,000 pop. - - _. _ _ [-
[_ URBAN (U)
WARRANT 1 - Minimum Vehicular Volume 100% SATISFIED YES ❑ NO ■
—, 30% SATISFIED YES ❑ NO ■
WARRANT 2 - Interruption of Continuous Traffic
MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS
(80% SHOWN IN BRACKETS)
(80% SHOWN IN BRACKETS)
U R
U J R_
Pedestrian volume crossing the major street is 100 or more
U I R
U - _
APPROACH
LANES
1
2 or more
for each of any four hours or is 190 or more during any on,i
Both Apprchs.
500
350
600
- .420?
t3y
Major Street
(400)
(280)
(480)
(336)
(720)
Highest Apprch.
150
1(120)
105
200
r "`140.a
2� -1
Minor Street
(84)
(160)
(112)
1 (80)
WARRANT 2 - Interruption of Continuous Traffic
WARRANT 3 - Minimum Pedestrian Volume
Hour
I y G r-4
100% SATISFIED YES ❑ NO ■
EIO% SATISFIED YES , NO ❑
Hour
X527
G�
1010% SATISFIED YES ■ NO ❑
MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS
(80% SHOWN IN BRACKETS)
U R
U J R_
Pedestrian volume crossing the major street is 100 or more
APPROACH
1
2 or more
LANES
for each of any four hours or is 190 or more during any on,i
Yes No
Both Apprchs.
750
525
900
_
630
Major Street
(600)
(420)
(720)
504
Yes ® No
Highest Apprch.
75
53
100
70
Minor Street
(60)
(42)
1 (80)
(56)
WARRANT 3 - Minimum Pedestrian Volume
Hour
I y G r-4
100% SATISFIED YES ❑ NO ■
EIO% SATISFIED YES , NO ❑
Hour
X527
G�
1010% SATISFIED YES ■ NO ❑
REQUIREMENT
FULFILLED
Pedestrian volume crossing the major street is 100 or more
MAY r3 F
for each of any four hours or is 190 or more during any on,i
Yes No
❑
hour; ALU
There are less than 60 gaps per hour in the major street traf
Yes ® No
❑
fic stream of adequate length for pedestrians to cross; BIZ
The nearest traffic signal along the major street is greater
Yes ■
El
300 feel; AbQ
No
The new traffic signal will not seriously disrupt progressive
Yes ® No
❑
traffic flow on the major street.
The satisfaction of a warrant Is not necessarily justification for a =signal.
Delay, congestion, confusion or other
evidence of the need for right -of -way assignment must be shown
Traffic Manual TRAFFIC SIGNALS AND LIGHTING 9-7
1 -1992
Eoc, GQLDMAN
Figure 9 -2
TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANTS
9 V I L
WARRANT 4 - School Crossings
WARRANT 5 - Progressive Movement
Not Applicable — — — — — — — _ — — IN
See School Crossings Warrant Sheet ❑
SATISFIED YES ❑ NO R
MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS
DISTANCE TO NEAREST SIGNAL
FULFILLED
> 1000 FT.
N ti/,A ft, S N ;_� ft, E 9e V it, W 2340 it.
YES ❑ NO N
ON ONE WAY ISOLATED STREETS OR STREETS WITH ONE WAY TRAFFIC SIGNIFICANCE AND ADJACENT
SIGNALS ARE SO FAR APART THAT NECESSARY PLATOONING & SPEED CONTROL WOULD BE LOST
----- _- _- _._.____
ON 2 -WAY STREETS WHERE ADJACENT SIGNALS DO NOT PROVIDE NECESSARY PLATOONING AND
SPEED CONTROL PROPOSED SIGNALS COULD CONSTITUTE A PROGRESSIVE SIGNAL SYSTEM
❑ ❑
WARRANT 6 - Accident Experience
SATISFIED YES ❑ NO ■
REQUIREMENTS
WARRANT
FULFILLED
ONE WARRANT
WARRANT 1 - MINIMUM \o E:HICULAR VOLUME
✓
SATISFIED
----- _- _- _._.____
80%
OR
WARRANT 2 - INTERRUPTION OF CONTINUOUS TRAFFIC
YES ®1 NO ❑
SIGNAL WILL NOT SERIOUSLY DISRUUPT PROGRESSIVE TRAFF=IC FLOW
❑
ADEQUATE TRIAL OF LESS RESTRICTIVE REMEDIES HAS FAILED TO REDUCE ACCIDENT FREQUENCY
❑
ACC. WITHIN A 12 MONTH PERIOD SUSCEPTIBLE OF CORR. & iNVOLVING INJURY OR >_ $500 DAMAGE
MINIMUM REQUIREMENT NUMBER OF ACCIDENTS
5 OR MORE
❑ ❑
WARRANT 7 - Systems Warrant
SATISFIED YES ❑ NO
I
MINIMUM
REQU
REQUIREMENT l ENTERING VOL UNIES - ALL APPROACHES ( FULFILLED I
DURING TYPICAL WEEKDAY PEAK HOUR VEH /HR
1000VEH/HR ----------- _.__.. _._ _--------- ---- -- -
OR "vv
DURING EACH OF ANY 5 HRS OF d, SAT. AND /OR SUN. VEH /HR YES ❑ NO ❑
CHARACTERISTICS OF MAJOR ROUTES MAJOR ST. MINOR ST.
HWY. SYSTEM SERVING AS PRINCIPLE NETWORK FOR THROLGIH TRAFFIC lr 6 S N V
RURAL OR SUBURBAN HWY OUTSIDE OF, ENTERING„ OR i RAVERSING A CITY Y q C' N 0
---------------------------------------------------
APPEARS AS MAJOR ROUTE ON AN OFFICIAL PLAN 1 (` S I N J
ANY MAJOR ROUTE CHARACTERISTICS MET, BOTH STREETS
The satisfaction of a warrant is not necessarily Justification for a signal. Delay, congestion, confusion or other
evidence of the need for right -of -way assigmmnent must ton shown.
9 -8 TRAFFIC SIGNALS AND LIGHTING Traffic Manual
1 -1991
LOS NGEL — V AA+^fd 13 1,41L0 Jt 7
Figure 9 -3
TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANTS
WARRANT 8 - Combination of Warrants
SATISFIED YES ❑ NO
REQUIREMENT
WARRANT
J
FULFILLED
TWO WARRANTS
1. MINIMUM VEHICULAR VOLUME
Cd
t/
SATISFIED
2. INTERRUPTION OF CONTINUOUS TRAFFIC
YES ❑ NO
SO%
WARRANT 9 - Four Hour Volume
Annrnnrrh I nnoc
SATISFIED* YES
2 or
mn
C)nP rEa i
® NO ❑
Cn w+ pH-7f ►0
Hour
I°�52
ASS
Both Approaches r Major Street
log U
Highest Approaches Minor Street
Cd
* Refer to Figure 9 -6 (URBAN AREAS) or Figure 9 -7 (RURAL_ AREAS) to determine if this warrant is satisfied.
M ilY.r3p
WARRANT 10 -Peak Hour Delay SATISFIED YES ® NO ❑
(ALL PARTS MUST BE SATISFIED)
1. The total delay experienced for traffic on one minor street approach controlled by a
STOP sign equals or exceeds four vehicle -hours for a one -lane approach and five
vehicle -hours for a two -lane approach; AND (AN krvowwi
YES ❑ NO ❑
2. The volume on the same minor street approach equals or exceeds 100 vph for
one moving lane of traffic or 150 vph for two moving lanes-, AND YES ® NO ❑
3. The total entering volume serviced during the hour equals cr exceeds 800 vph
for intersections with four or more approaches or 650 vph for intersections with
three approaches. YES ® NO ❑
WARRANT 11 -Peak Hour Volume SATISFIED YES ® NO ❑
2 or
Annrnnnh I antis One more / / / Hour
Both Approaches Major Street 3o o Z 306
Highest Approaches Minor Street
* Refer to Figure 9 -8 (URBAN AREAS) or Figure 9 -9 (RURAL AREAS) to determine if this warrant is satisfied.
The satisfaction of a warrant Is not necessarily justification for a signal. Delay, congestion, confusion or other evidence
of the need for right -of -way assignment must be shown.
VIA FACSIMILE (805) 529 -8270
and U.S. Mail
City of Moorpark
Attn: Jim Aguilera, Director
Community Development
799 Moorpark Avenue
Moorpark, California 93021
Re: West America Construction Corporation
City Council Resolution Nos_ 88 -490 and
88 -491, LDM -10
Dear Mr. Aguilera:
Pursuant to Condition No. /::5 of the above referenced, on
December 13, 1988, West America tendered to the City a check for
$70,000.00. According to Condition No. 45 the $70,000.00 was to
cover half of the costs of const:•ucting a traffic signal at the
intersection of Maureen Lane and Los Angeles Avenue. For your
convenience, the text of that coridit:.ion is set forth below.
Prior to the issuance of a zone clearance for LDM -10,
DPs -397 to 404 or DPs -393 to 396, the applicant shall
make a supplementary contzi;;lution to the Los Angeles
Avenue Area of Contribution in the amount of $70,000
which is to be paid once foi ;:he associated LDM -10, DPs -
393 to 404. This supplementary c:_-ontr.ibution represents
half of the estimated project posts to construct a
traffic signal at the .interse :,t: _oti < f Maureen Lane at Los
Angeles Avenue
It has been over five year;
check for $70,000.00 and the Cit}
tion of the traffic signal to be
Lane and Los Angeles Avenue. It
:since West America tendered its
teas not: yet even begun construc-
_.ocated. at the corner of Maureen
s respectfully requested that the
F E E11
{:: hroo,,)ash
Drg .j1,
FERGUSON, CASE, ORR, PATERSON
8 CUNNINGHAM
ATTORNEY -f A "f L.AA'
THOMAS R. FERGUSON
10 50 SOUTF -, . KIIABAL.L R, :)
MICHAEL W. CASE
VENTURA. CAIL.HORNIA 93004
JOHN C. ORR
WILLIAM E. PATERSON
IBC 5'. - > -i -6F3 C:
DAVID L. CUNNINGHAM
LOU CARPIAC
T E L ECC:�u?Ei.:. 8., -_S..J 63'.8
JOSEPH L. STROHMAN, JR
ALLEN F. CAMP
ROBERT L. GALLAWAY
SANDRA M. ROBERTSON
WILLIAM B. SMITH
ANNETT'E M. LERCEL
RAMON L. GUIZAR
March 1 ['�
1994
GISELE GOETZ
� ,
GREGORY W. HERRING
DOUGLAS E. KULPER
VIA FACSIMILE (805) 529 -8270
and U.S. Mail
City of Moorpark
Attn: Jim Aguilera, Director
Community Development
799 Moorpark Avenue
Moorpark, California 93021
Re: West America Construction Corporation
City Council Resolution Nos_ 88 -490 and
88 -491, LDM -10
Dear Mr. Aguilera:
Pursuant to Condition No. /::5 of the above referenced, on
December 13, 1988, West America tendered to the City a check for
$70,000.00. According to Condition No. 45 the $70,000.00 was to
cover half of the costs of const:•ucting a traffic signal at the
intersection of Maureen Lane and Los Angeles Avenue. For your
convenience, the text of that coridit:.ion is set forth below.
Prior to the issuance of a zone clearance for LDM -10,
DPs -397 to 404 or DPs -393 to 396, the applicant shall
make a supplementary contzi;;lution to the Los Angeles
Avenue Area of Contribution in the amount of $70,000
which is to be paid once foi ;:he associated LDM -10, DPs -
393 to 404. This supplementary c:_-ontr.ibution represents
half of the estimated project posts to construct a
traffic signal at the .interse :,t: _oti < f Maureen Lane at Los
Angeles Avenue
It has been over five year;
check for $70,000.00 and the Cit}
tion of the traffic signal to be
Lane and Los Angeles Avenue. It
:since West America tendered its
teas not: yet even begun construc-
_.ocated. at the corner of Maureen
s respectfully requested that the
F E E11
{:: hroo,,)ash
Drg .j1,
Jim Aguilera
March 14, 1994
Pane 2
City promptly construct the traffic signal as set forth in
Condition No. 45 or return the $70,000 00 to West America.
It has also come to our atte:- it:ion that the City may attempt to
use the funds collected pursuant to Condition No. 45 for construc-
tion of a traffic signal at a different location or for a different
facility altogether. Section 660;)6(a) of the California Government
Code, however, specifically requires that fees imposed as a
condition of approval of a develo.;=ent project be expended only for
the purpose for which they were originally collected. For your
convenience, Section. 66006(a) s set fc::,rth below.
If a local agency requires t.ae payment of a fee specified
in subdivision (c) [a fee to defray the costs of an
improvement to serve or puLdic facilities related to a
development project] in con: .-iectic:)n with the approval of
a development project, the local agency receiving the fee
shall deposit it with the other fees for the improvement
in a separate capital faci.Lities account or fund in a
manner to avoid any commincling of the fees with other
revenues and funds of the Local.. agency, except for
temporary investments, and ;expend those fees solely for
the purpose for which thE;_ fee was collected. Any
interest income earned by mcmeys :.n the capital facili-
ties account or fund sha:..l als<::: be deposited in that
account or fund and shall be _expended only for the
Purpose for which the fee_ was _originally collected.
(emphasis added)
Based on the above - quoted e r_i.on, it is clear that California
law requires that the fee obta:Lr.ed. from West America pursuant to
Condition No. 45 be used for c:-c >r.st.ruc: °t ion of a traffic signal at
the corner of Maureen and Los Arig(:les Avenue, the purpose for which
the fee was originally colt elctK, -d T'Fi�:� fee may not be used for an
alternate use.
West America respectfully n_:quests that the City immediately
commence construction of the traffic signal at the intersection of
Maureen and Los Angeles Aven. -IE! as specifically set forth in
Condition No. 45 or refund the fi -c. c -:)l ected to West America.
Jim Aguilera
March 14, 1994
Pacre 3
Your attention to this matter L.s appreciated.
Very truly yours,
FERGUSON, CASE, ORR, PATERSON
t CUNNINGHAM
B
Y
x;'11 en F .
AFC : pgl Camp .— �"
RG6216
LAND DIVISION NO.:
APPLICANT:
DATE:
CALTRANS CONDITIONS
LDM -10
DP -397 - 404
LDM -10
Siegel & Associates, Inc.
February 1, 1988
PRIOR TO ZONING CLEARANCE, THE F()LLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE
SATISFIED:
4 -- Prior- -to -zone - eleafanee;- Develepef- shall- make - a- supp4emeatar-y- eeA4i4bu6eA- Ie -4he -Les
Angeles - Avenue - Area- a €- Eentfibutien -in -the - amean{- a € - $63;800- 979 997-frepr-esent-ing
half -of - the - estimated -pre feet- eests -te - eenstfuet- a- tfa €€ie- signal -at- the- intefseetien -e€
Maureen - Lane -at- Les - Angeles - Avenue. -- When - the- Ci4y- Engineef- and - EaRr- ans- detef-
Mine -that - tfa € €ie- signal- waffants- are -saris €fed; - -the- E4y - will- pfeeeed- with - eenstFuetien
e €- the - signal, -with - €unding- te- eensist- a €- 39U/o- fe,gular- - AOE- funds- and - 30%- Develeper's
Supplementary- AOE- eentfibutien-
Ada' penal- feasenable- neeessar, y- fraff }e- sfud+e,- ei:s- rna.y- he -requi -fed- by -fke- Elf +- Engineer
shall -be- provided -by- the- appliean,t
45. Prior to the issuance of a zone clearance for LDM -10, DPs -397 to 404 or DPs -393 to
396 the applicant shall make a supplementar; _• ontribution to the Los Angeles Avenue
Area of Contribution in the amount of S70000 which is to be paid once for the
associated LDM -10, DPs - -393 to 404. This s,ipvlementary contribution represents half of
the estimated project costs ro construct a try, /rc` signal at the intersection of Maureen
Lane al Los Angeles j vc,nut,
U