The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutGeneral Plan Amendment GPA1986002 - Notice of action Letter with Findings & Conditions of ApprovalEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION Date Submitted to; Honorable Mayor and City Council Submitted by. Paul E. Cook, City Administrator Prepa'¢d by, Douglas N. La Belle, Director, Co :nunity Development , Consistent with Council i'cdicy? [ Yes [) New Policy or Exception Impact Report No. 87-2 0?JD *CA Subject: Land Use Eleme a-wAmendment 87--2c' -inc Change 87-13/Environmental Stat3ment of Issue, Recommendation, Analvasis, Funding Source, Alternative Actions, Attachments; Trans:,i tted for the City Council 's consideration is Land Use Element Amendment No. . 87-2C , Zone Change 87-13 and Environmental Impact Report No, 87-2 which is a request to emend the General Plan by redesi ,hating a 65-ac,:-e` site, the Meadowlark Airport, from Low Density Residential to Planned Community with a concurrent zone change from N114 (mobile home maximum nine units pe, acre) to the Meadowlark Specific Plan which would allow 15 acres of retail commercial and 50 acres of mixed residential not to exceed' 100 units (an average of 12 units per acre). CER1 F'ICATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 87-2 WiTh AN ADDENDUM INDICATING WHERE UTILITIES, RECREATION AND WATER ARE RECOMMENDA_TIQQ: Tannin Commissit,n ct o .car Se teznl r ,.1 ? . A MOTION WAS MADE BY SCH1. MACHE R, SECOND BY` PIERCE, TO RECOMMEND COVERED IN THEEIR, BY THE FO LLOWING VOTE: AYES: Silva, Schumacher, Higgins, Pierce, Leipzig, Livengoo NOES: None ABSENT. Summerell ABSTAIN: None NO, 87-13 TO THE OCTOBER 20, 1987* PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, BY THE GENERAL PLAN LAND CJSE ELEMENT AMENDMENT NO. 87---2C,AND ZONE CHANGE A. MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD, SECOND BY PIERCE, TO CONTINUE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Silva, Schumacher, Higgins, Pii NOES: None ,%BSENT: Summerell ABSTA?N. None The public hearing date (a 1987. Fannin Ccmmissiorx Act or orb November 17 1997 A. MOTION WAS MADE BY SILVA, SECOND BY PIERCE, TO APPROVE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE ELEMENT AMENDMENT NO. 87-2C TO PLANNED COMMUNITY LAND USE DESIGNATION, APPROVE WITH FINDINGS ZONE CHANGE NO. 87-13 TO ALLO'W' i5 ACRES OF COMMERCIAL AND 50 ACRESOF l\ AXED RESIDENTIAL NOT TO EXCEED 600 UNITS (12 UNITS/ACRE) AS MEADOWLARK SPECIFIC PLAN, BY THE FOLLOWING VOl E,: AYES: Silva, Sumrnei ell, Higgins, Pierce, Leipzig, Livengood NOES: Schumacher, Leipzi ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None A MOTION WAS MADE BY P1ERC , :SECOND WE SII.VA, TO CONTINUE MEADOWLARK SPECIFIC PLAN TO THE DECEMBER 1, 1987 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Silva, Schumacher, Iligg,ns, Pierce, Leipzig. Livengood, Summerell NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: Non: This motion was in espcrise to nine revisions requested by the Plarrn' g Commission which were it -rporated into the Specific Plan for the December 1st public hearing. The Cc -, mission suggested that the following revisions be made to the specific plan: Number of residential units not to exceed 600 units and shall be distributed a xrong several product types. Street connections be provided between Warner Avenu not encourage through traffic. Airport operation to cease within 6(3 days after approver Master Plan changed to read "Conceptual Master Plan" Circulation: The eastern side of Roosevelt Lane to be i; shall not be a through street to Warner. nd Heil Avenue that would of the first entitlement. roved and dedicatedand Developer shall pay one-fourth of the cost of a traffic sigh Pearce if Pearce is, proposed to access the project site. Density bonuses within individual product types may be gran number of units for the entire project shall not exceed 600. existing residential area. Front setback line for proposed project - 50 feet from of'a 20 foot landscape and setback shall be provided,. between the commercial and property, no buildings or service drives within 20 feet of property line. A minimum t Bolsa Chica and at I,, ha ei er be )tal Commercial use setbacks: building heights riot to exceed 30 ,feet within70 feet of Warner Avenue. Area set aside on western edge of Gibbs Park for park parking. (9727d) ANALYSIS: servic e (LOS) on both Warner Avenue ai d R s_t hiea Street. For example , the LOS on Warner will go from C to D and on Bolsa Ch t r EU"ieil to Warner) from B to C. commercial center. The proposed project wi';, ia ,yasurably reduce the long estimated 13,200 average daily trips 9000 v.cti; h are attributed to the retail portion generated the mainivy of trafi"lc :K =a . ej =ie elopita,ent on the site. example, the maximum development Plan will g enerate an Chica project . For the proposed pry ec.r a-r r., natives, the retail tontmercial The original traffic study was revised several tirtws and expanded to include consideration of potential traffic generated by the develop = e=i proposed for the Bolo Chica. Traffic is expected to increase in that area with or h t -S e Meadowlark project or the Br a Traff ic and irccla number of residential units divided into specific density ranges and requires perimeter buffering to enhance compatibility. The fc' lowr:rg is as summary of the major issues as addressed by th e Specific Plan and Fl : Transmitted for action is a rquest by the Nerio Par=oily to redesignate a 65-acre site (most of the existing Meadowlark A irport ), located on the north side of Warner Avenue, the sout.i side of Heil Avenue and 600 feet east +'f the northeast corner of Bolsa Chica Street and Warner Avenue, from Low Density to Planned Community implemented by a Specific Plan that will allow 15 acs es of commercial and 50 acres of residential (maxii:'jm 600 units). 'I he applicatiou for general plan amcndment was initially submitted in January of 1986. At that time , staff required tha c the applicant supply nur,te . us special studies to address important issues such as sewage, traffic, arch ffeology and economics. Those studies took more than a year for the applicant 's corisu.tants to complete. After the requested studies had been submit ted, staff incorporated them hnto the, EI and transr pitted it to the Planning Corr,rnh ion in May of 1987. As a i esu'.t of the public hearin process, Lo EIR o s ;v4,11 s the applicant's request and staff recommendation have changed c s.nsl fieruu: iy. The a ct:ach-'d chronology of events explains the process and changes that x project has progressed through. As indicated in the chronology of events, the major issues considered by staff and the Planning Commission were: traffic/circulat o;t, sewer and general compatibility. In order to address those issues, a Spe cific plan Ewa, : ,,-eloped which will serve as the implemenning 7nning for the project. The pecifik plan re =.uires L conceptual mas per plan be approved at the time of first entitlement, : eriuir°es phasing in conjunction with infrastructure availability, establishes circulation parameters , indentifies a m:axiK: um The Specific Plan addresses circulatioi s : M l yX establishing the foliuwi Limited access to Pearce Streiyt trips per day do not exceed 2500. Signalization at the southern and norther Liternal circulation planned in a between Warner and Heil Avenues. RCA -211/88 c°uit us i inner to discourage through traffi c Sewer and Water The Specific Plan will require that prior to issuance of building permits within any of the areas designated as a separate phase of development on thephasing plan, clearance ,,ha;.] be obtained from the Orange County Sanitation District and City Water Department stating that such development will not adversely impact the sewer and water systems, Such clearance shall be in the form of a letter to the Director os Public Works and the Director of Community De-velopment, mipatibility The Specific Plan requires that a buffer system be incorporated into the proposed project adjacent to the existing single family development that abutts the subject site on portions .of its eastern am" western borders. This measure was developed to mitigate the incompatibility of any proposed multi-family development on the subject site and the existing single family+. In addition to the buffer system, the Specific Plan also addresses the type and distribution of residential product types. The Specific Plan requires three product types including a minimum of 18 acres of single family detached units. The following table appears in the Specific Plan to establish the product types, Acres TnA_Qf„ . r!it an area that is greater than 300 feet, property owners within a 1000 foot radius were the Planning Commission saff report of Scpternb. ° 29, 1987, Because the airport impacts from agencies notified are included in the appendix to the report and can also be found in enity The request is accompanied by Environmental lmpac: Report (EIR) No. 87-2. Comments Minimum Detached of 18 Single Family Maximum Multi Family of 20 Medium Density Maximum Multi Family of 12 Medium-.high _..ri.density ENVIRON' NT Ai STATUS: notified and comments were received (9727d) A Al TERNATIVE ACTI N The City Council may deny Land Use Element Amendment No, 87-2C and Environmental Impact Report No., 81_2 and deny Zone Change No. 87-13 with the following findings; 1. The proposed zone change would result it,and use which would not be comp, t.hle with surrounding properties. 2. There is not existing sewer capacity to support the proposed uses and densities. 3. The proposed increase in density will have are adverse impact on traffic volumes and road capacities. ATT, ClN TS 6. Environmental Impact Report No. 97-2 4. Ordinance for Zone Change No 87-13 5. Meadowlark Specific Plan 3. Resolution Adopting Land Use Element Amendment No. 87-20 1. Area Mdp 2. Project Chronology. 7. Addendums to the EIR 8. Traffic Analysis and Revisions, Planning Commission Action on December l1987 A MOTION WAS MADE BY 1.IVENGOOD, SECOND BY HIGGINS, TO APPROVE ZONECHANGE NO. 87-13wWITH REVISIONS TO MEADOWLARK SPECIFIC PLAN, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE; AYES; Silva, Higgins, Pierce, Summerell, Livengood NOES; Schumacher, Leipzig, ABSENT: None ABSTAIN; None indin s for A royal - Zone, WChan e No. 87--I: 1. The proposed zone change is consistent with the General Plan Land Use Designation as recommended for amendment by the Planning Commission. 2 With the development constraints, mitigation measures and entitlement process REVISED MEADOWLARK SPEC,II IC PLAN AND FORWARD TO THE CITY COUNCIL, BY A MOTION WAS MADE BY LP°-Li GOOD, SEI ,:ND BY PIERCE, TO ACCEPT THE which are established in the specific plan, the proposed zone change will be compatible with adjacent properties. Phasing of the project will assure that the capacities of the City and County water, sewer, and storm drain systems are adequate or will be adequate to accommodate the proposed increase in density as well as all other planned land uses in the area, have a significant adverse impact an traffic volumes and road capacities, school With the. proposed mitigation measures the proposed increase in density will not The character of the surrounding area is not adversely impacted nor is the overall intent of the general plan sacrificed. enrollments, and recreational resources. PI nnin mmi i n A =D r '7 THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Silva, Schumacher, Higgins, Pierce, Leipzig, Livengood NOES: Nom ABSENT: Su.miwurell ABSTAIN: None Community. Staff also recommends approval with findings of Zone Change No. 87-13 for the adoption of the Meadowlark Specific Plan, which would allow 15 acres of Commercial and 50 acres of mixed residential, not to exceed 600 units(an overall average of 12 units 87-2C for a change in land use designation from Low Density Residential to Planned Staff recommends that the City Council approve General Plan Land Use Element No. 13ttaff Recomrnendation per acre). i P1 nnin mmi i n i n n D m 1 i A LOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD, SECOND BY HIGGINS, TO APPROVE ZONE CHANGE NO. 87-13 - WITH REVISIONS TO MEADOWLARK SPECIFIC PLAN, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Silva, Higgins, Pierce, Summerell, Livengcod NOES: Schumacher, Leipzig ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None Findings f r A r v I Z n h-n -N.81 : THE FOLLOWING VOTE: REVISED MEADOWLARK SPECIFIC ALAN AND FORWARD TO THE CITY COUNCIL, BN A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD, SECOND BY PIERCE, TO ACCEPT THE The proposed zone change iL consistent with the General Plan Land Use Designation as recommended for amendment by the Planning Commission. the proposed increase in density as well as all other planned land uses in the area. With the propsed mitigation measures the proposed increase in density will not have a signs, nt adverse impact on traffic volumes and road capa, ities, school With the development constraints, mitigation measures and entitlement process which are established in the, specific plan, the proposed zone change will be compatible with adjacent properties. Phasing of the project will assure that the capacities of the City and County water, sewer, and storm drain systems are adequate or will be adequate to accommodate enrollments, and recreational resources. The character of the surrounding area is not adversely in paged nor is the irrten, of the general plan sacrificed. PI nnin mmi i n A i n n December 15. 197 NOES: None ABSENT: Summerell ABSTAIN: None AYES. Silva, Schumacher, Higgins,, Pierce, Leipzig, Livengood and 50 acres of mixed residential, not to exceed 600 units (an overall average of 12 units Community. Staff also recommends approval with findings of Zone Change No. 87-13 for the adoption ofthe Meadowlark Specific Plan, which would allow 15 acres of commercial Staff recommends that the City Council approve General Plan Land Use Element No. 87-2C for a change in land use designation from Low Density Residential to Planned per acre). ORIGINAL TRAFFIC STUDY AND REV Slf., NS ATTACHMENT 8 All 1r1/?714.,/ 2 A ,revised traffic study. The results of the revised analysis indicated that in the near term assuming the completion of the commercial center, the three alternatives (similar to the site concepts in this report) would have similar impacts on adjacent intersections. 3. A draft Meadowlark Specific Plan which included three options. a.Applicant's proposal -- 15 acres of commercial 750 dwelling units. 15 acres of commercial, 600 dwelling units (staff recommendation) c. 15 acres of commercial, 400 dwelling nits 4. A table highlighting alternative Specific Plan concepts (see Figure 1) in the September 29, 1987 staff report (Attachment 4). An additional alternative planning concept of "Qualified" zoning restrictions . This was suggested as an alternative to a Specific Plan. In response to items 2 through 5, and the over 40 public testi monies, the Commission passed the following motions: To recommend certification of Environmental Impact '.Zeport No. 87-2. To continue General. Plan Land Use Element Amendment No, 87-2C and Zone Change No., 87-13 to the October 20, 1987 and 600 un14s. Direct staff to diagram conceptual site plans showing 350 commercial and a maximum of 750 units. The request was granted. time to prepare their site plan concept, which depicts 15 acres of tither continuance to the November 17, 1987 meeting for additional Following the September 29, 1!987 meeting, the applicant requested a Planning Commission meeting, 3.0 ANALYS I S: Concerns were raised by individuals testifying at the public hearing the distribution of dwl;.l,1,i g units on the residential portio« of the (Septemher 29,..1987) ae well as by the Plannin g Comm i ssion regarding proposed project. In response to tnx.s concern the P..ann,i.ng for the three alternative development scenarios analyzed in the Commission requested the applicant and staff to prepare site p staff reports dated June 28 and September 29, 1987. r-- .ADOWLARK TRAFFIC ADDENDUM MEADOWLARK NEAR TERM PROJECT ALTERNATIVES P RCENT INCREASE .IN INTERSECTION CAPACTIY UTILIZED OVER NO PROJECT ALTERNATIVE Intersection Bo.sa Chica St./Warner Ave. Bolsa Chica St./Heil Ave. Hell Ave./Graham St. Warner Ave./Graham St. All Project Alternatives change the net difference between t' e intersection c.pacity at tr i'butable to the propos ed Bolsa Chico deveIo,pment.. Including these tra .I':Uic projectio rs would not si, *niii4 ;an:tI No.e: The above peroent9ges reflect net changes ;n intersection Volume/Capacity ratios excluding theseffects of traffic utilized with the No Project alternative or the other proJeot -alternatives. MEADOWLARK LON TERM PROJECT ALTERNATIVES PERCENT INCREASE IN INTERSECTION CAPACTIY UTILIZED OVER NO PROJECT ALTERNATIVE intersection Project Alternat A B ve. C Balsa Chica St./'4'arne r Ave..05 .05 .03 Bolaa Chica St./Heii Ave..03 .07 06 .Heil Ave./Graham St..01 .01 01 Narner Ave./Graham St. Note ; The abuv percentages reflect ne Volume/Capacity ratios excluding attributable to the proposed Hot .03 clxngea; in I he effects of traffic a Chica dr.velopment :Including these *raffie projections would not change. the ncr difference between the in. erse utilized with the No Project alternative project a l to mna. tves s i gn ifIcant1 ion capacity any or the other SIGNAL LANDMARK TRIP GENERATIO AS PROPOSED JULY 1P87 (FOR INTERNAL USE WITIiIN THE CITY ONLY) Trip Generation Rates. Intensity units/acre 6.5 9.5 16.0 18.0 1 s0I. 1-15 1 0 ( 30.0 Trip Generation, Phase I Phase 2 un/ac Tr pa urn./ ac Trips 6.5 3,97 18.0 1716 95 193 21.0 1632 16 0 910 2 F'0 95t) 21.0 196.2 30.0 1600 25;0 2035 Total; 74 Total Near Tern (1991) (0 60%*Phase 1) 003 'rips 4495 ADT Total Long Tern (1995) Trips: (Phases I 2 +6996 Prase 4) Rate per unit 6 6.0 S.0 8.5 710 Phase 4 Commercial res 'Tr1ps 10450 0/ .re) acres Trip% 10 21 00 1x2.50 9140 Peak Hour w 360 T,n. 15 out. 14$ 22530 ADT Peak Hour. 1.8 TABLE 1EXISTING AND NEAR-TERM AFTERNOON PEAKSIGNALIZED INTERSECTION VOLUME/CAPACITYIntersectioniolsa Chica Street/W rner AvenueBolsa Chica- Street/lied AvenueHeil Avenue/Graham StreetWarner Avenue/Graham Streetear TeriWithout Iolsa Chica TrafficWithout WithProicet _ PrAssumes recommended mitigations measures as listed below.2Assumes arterial improvements currently pi ned by, the City ofAvenue and a separate westbound right turn lane on Warner Avenue.3Assumes that a two-phased signal is in place4Assumes a separate northbound right turn lane on LsolsWith Bola Cliica `I afficWithout WithProtect Prole tfree eastbouno and westbound through lanes on Warner LONG-TERM AFMWOON PEAIntersectionRota f:hica Street/Warner AvenueChita Street/lied AvenueBell AvenueJCraham Street4tWarner Avenue/Graham StreetWithout_Prac1e=t:8343.4,2 -,43.78432Yroj ntlttOrnativelAssume-- arterial it,cprovements proposed by the City, proposed near-term mitigations anti recotnlisted below.'TAssumee- a separate northbound right turn, and second eastbound left turn lane.3Assumes a combination westbound through right lane replaces the right turn only lane,a ait,red signal phasing,4Assumes a separate s utitvtsur.4 right turn lane, a combination westbound through right lane rcple es the right toand altered signal phasing,5As_umesa sp::ondnorthbound left uric lane.Msumes ,; second northbound through lane and altered signal phasing.fTent 'lra[ficci rent TraProject Projece Alternative AlternatiWeti C 87-2c ADDENDUM Planning Commission Staff Report July 28, 1987 This Addendum contains supportive material, revised analysis and additional information generated and or received regarding the subject site since the last public hearing on June 2, 19 s re discussed in this Addendum. Revis Traf f i Analysis, ne 2, 1987 study session, the Planning Commission requested staff to have the traffic analysis revised to include potential impacts from the proposed development in the Bolsa Chica. A sur+mary of that revision is included in this addendum and the full revision is an attachment to the Staff Report. Street; and the possibility of continuing Moody Circle to the south. Item No. 3 Mogdy Circle Issues Issues have beet raised regarding the existing connection of Moody Circle to Pearce addresses those issues. Item No. 4 reports the results of the Water Departments assessment of the well, use, by the City's Water Department of an existing water well on the airport site. In a recent meeting ,th applicant, a question was raised regarding the feasible future Ai r W t r W ll Hazardous Materials Item No. 6 assess that situation and its potential impacts to the airport site, Bolsa Chica and Warner have underground storage tanks that are leaking gasoli It was recently brought to staff's attention that two gas stations on the corner Revise Economic Consider d n5 f A member of the Airport Board made staff aware of the fact that the City receives personal property tax revenue on aircraft tied-down (or domiciled) at Meadowlark Airport. The Economic Considerations section of the EIR was revised to include tha revenue. 1. REVISED TRAFFIC ANALYSIS an. ipated growth in future traffic attributable to general land use intensification, the past six years. As such, it waz. assumed to be a reasonable measurement to base traffic volumes at the time the project's commercial phase is completed (near-term - 1991) and at the project's overall completion (long-term - 199$), were developed by factoring 1986 Average Daily Traffic (ADT) by a 3.5 percent annual growth factor. This factor was developed based on average traffic volume growth within the City of 14untington Beach over Meadowlark Airport Site (Parsons Briockerhoff' Quade & Douglas, Inc. March, 1987). future In the previous traffic impact study conducted for the proposed development of the development and through travel in the City. However, in light of the significant size and proximity of the proposed Bolsa Chica development , some measurement of the projected traffi c attributable to this project was necessary in addition to the above increase in background traffic . To accom plish this, staff contacted the Signal Landmark planning department and requested their best estimate of the amount of development to be completed by 1991 and 1996, which are the anticipated completion dates for Phase 1 (Commercial) and 2 (Residential) of the proposed Meadowlark project. Parsons, Brincherhoff, Quade and Douglas, Inc. utilized this data to prepare an analysis which includes traffic from Bolsa Chica development. It is difficult to determine traffic flows at this time because of uncertainties regarding the .iltimate street system. PBQ&D (Aid, however, estimate the future levels of service based on normal growth proposed Meadowlark development, anticipated Bolsa Chica traffic and the cumn:ulative impacts of all three scenarios. As expected, future arterial levels of service will decrease greatly, especially on Heil Avenue between Bolsa Chica and Springdale, Warner Avenue and Algonquin and opringdale and Bolsa Chica Street between Edinger and Warner, (See Table I of Attachment 5). According to PBQ&D, peak hour intersect- _i levels of service will also decrease. Three key intersections , Bolsa Chica Street/Warner Avenue, Bolsa Chica Street/Heil Avenue and Warner Avenue/Graham Street are analyzed below for the NP lowing anticipated scenarios: 1. Existing Conditions, 2. Background traffic - assurmin 3. Project Traffic 4. Balsa Chica Traffic gra 5. Cummulative Traffic - based on all the above impacts The analysis assumes that all mitigation ensures suggested by PBQ&D are in place. Mitigation measures were proposed where the revel of servicfails below LOS' D" because intersections operating at LOS `la' can be expected to acconmdae a high density but stable traffic flow. The other two intersections, E3olsa Chica Street/Pearce Drive and Heil Avenue/Graham Street, which were analyzed in the original report, remained at LOS 'A' throughout PBQ&D's analysis and are not addressed in this revised analysis. Existin .Conditions JT'ahle l) Currently, Bolsa Chica Street/Warner Avenue is operating at LOS T% Bolsa Chica Stre et/Neil Avenue is operating at LOS,C". °arner Avenue/Graham Street is opera LOS 'A% Assuming that proposed arteri,sl improvements (three eastbound ,nd three westbound though lanes on Warner Avenue) are in place, 'Levels of service based on background traffic will decrease. Bolsa Chica Street/Warner Avenue is expected to operate at LOS `" although some improvement in capacity over existing conditions is gained with additional through lanes on Warner Avenue. Bolsa Chica S wr-!et/Heil Avenue and Warner Avenue/Graham Street will operate at acceptable levels of service (LOS 'lam' or better). TABLE I Existing and Pear Term Afternoon Peak Hour Intersection Levels of Service (With Mitigation) Existing Background Project TABLE 2 Long-Teri Peak Hour Intersection Levels of Se-ice (With Mitigation) olsa Chica Street/Warner Avenue Warner Avenue/rsraham Street No mitigation suggested Balsa Chica Cumulative 8"l-ground Project 8015,1 Chica Lurrrnulati (86224). The addition of peak hour project traffic does not significantly change the levels of service discussed above for the new-term background traffic scenario, provided suggested mitigation measures are in place. With the addition of anticipated Balsa Chica near-terra traffic volumes, Bolsa Chica Street/Warner Avenue and Bolsa Chica Street /Hell Avenue will operate at LOS 'D", assuming mitigation is in place . Warner Avenue/Graham: Street will operate at LOS'C'. When background, project and Bolsa Chica traffic i mpacts are considered together, levels of service will remain at LOS 'D' for Bolsa Chica Street /Warner Avenue and Bolsa Chica Street /Heil Avenue. Again, Warner Avenue /Graham street will operate at LOS 'C', Lgng Term Traffic lm is (T able 2) Assuming that the suggested mitigation measures are in place, background traffic levels of service will decrease . All the intersections will operate at LOS V. Avenue/Graham Street are expected to operate at LOS 'D'. The addition of Bolsa Chico traffic is expected to require additional measures to mitigate impacts . Assuming that the mitigation measures are in,, place, Balsa Chica Street /Warner Avenue will decrease to LOS V . Balsa Chica Street /Hell Avenue and Warner service discussed ahove. All three intersections will operate at LOS 'D'. The addition of peak hour project traffic, with mitigation, doer not change the levels of When background, project and Bolsa Chica impacts a.together, the levels of ring that the suggested In summary, the levels of service in the area surrounding the Meadowlark site will decrease measurably in the next ten Years, largely due to normal growth and anticipated, Bolsa Chica development. Only a small portion of the increased traffic is attributable to, the proposed Meadowlark development. service for the three intersections remain the sane as a mitigation measures are in place, blocked off at Pearce and continued further to the south" It is appropriate to analyze the it should remain as a cul-de-sa c connected to Dear ce Street, or whether it should be the west. The street is presently °he focus of considerable debate regarding whether or not Moody Circle is not located within the study area, lhowever, it is within close proximity to connect with a second street running east and west. This street would then connect to it out to Bolsa Chica Street. The second option is to continue it south to where it would The traff ic and circulation section of Environmental Impact Report 81-2 indicates the need to retain Pearce Street as an access point for Meadowlark A.irpc . The connection of Pearce Street to Meadowlark, however, is to be designed in a manner which would, minimize the use of Pearce. The continued connection of Moody Circle to Pearce Street will have no impact on the connection of Pearce Street to Meadowlark. If Moody Circle is blocked off at Pearce Street, there are two general alternatives for continuing it to the south. One option is to continue it a short nistanc south and then turn Moody Circle issue in relation to Meadowlark Airport,. Balsa Chica Street and Meadowlark Airport. Although circulation planning for Meadowlark Airport has not included this second access point south of and parallel to Pearce Street , it could be accommodated . Because this street would never be signaiized at Bolsa Chica Street (and probably would not permit left turns ), it should not be utilized entirely i n place of Pearce Street. Rather, Pearce Street and this second street could both serve as access to Meadowlark Airport. In summary, any of the Moody Circle alternatives can be accommodated in planning for Meadowlark Airport . None of the alternatives , however, will permit Pearce Street to be discontinued as access to Meadowlar A. The largest issu,s are the impacts of the Moody Circle alternatives on the marketabilit y and design of the parcels south of Moody Circle which would be bi-sected by the continuation of the street . These issues are not within the purview of Environmental Impact Report 87-2. 3. AIRPORT WATER WELL At a recent meeting, that included the applicant, a discussion of an existing water well on the airport property raised some questions regarding the future inclusion of that well in the City's water system . Water Department staff conducted an assessment of the well to determine if it would be feasible, in the future, to incorporate the well into the City's water supply system. Their investigation resulted in a determination that it would not be cost effective to utilize the well. The reasons for their determination are as follow; 3. A. leaking from gas stations near thy? The well is vulnerable to contamination from hazardous materials The well is too shallow. The well is near the end of its useful life. The well has a history of low prod; HAZARDOUS MAT RIALS Underground Storage Tan tKV1. 1 On-site Tanks According to the Orange County Hieait .eare Agency, Environmental Health, Waste Management Section, there are two known underground s torage tanks in the study area. The tanks must b,- removed and the soil must be tested for contamination, If the soil or groundwater is contam inated, the Regional Water Quality Control Board should be con tacted for cleanup requirements. (86222d) MEADOWLARK AIRPORT TRAFFIC STUDY ADDENDUM -SEPTEMBER 1987 be generated by each of these prof ozsuls have bee, summarized in Table 1. high Density Residential -- 375 units Since that time three new altcrnativc development scen arios have been proposed. 1.11 three alternatives assume 15 acres of comnmereisx use, in addition to one of the fcllowin4 : _-idential densiti es: Applicant's proposal .750 units, Alternative One -600 units and Alterna tive Two - 4(10 units . The associated number of trips anticipated to following proposed dcvo_lopment. Comrnercftu - 14 afcr-s Senior Citizen housing -- 250 units Medium;r r: ens.ty Residential - 4",0 u The previcis traffic impact study coy duwte-l for the Meadowlark Airport site (Parsons Brinckerho f Qurzde acrd Douglas, Inc. - 1087), examined the effects of the To estimate the traffic effe4.t s of the rest)_ctiv,!r rlractir tx. in residential units over long term afternoon peak hour intersection '&:l txcity zan,riyse, were conducted. To the former project develop mcent as propose l in t o March 1987 traf fia study, near and to the percent difference posed by each alternative's estimateu trip generation. accomplish this, the former near and long term project traffic € s Idlusted according For e ca,mptc, in the ,ear ter;n (Applicant's, Alternative One, and r i rl acbecause of an increase in commer cial ae acres for each of the latest proposed alternatives. In the long term. expected for all current alternatives as follows: Applicant's Alternative One * 18% t aereasc, and Alternative Two .38 decrease. Fullowing the same intersection capacity March study , volume/capacity (V/C) rati developed. Tables 2 and 3 summari z e these nalysia Glid cot esuits traffic attributable to the l3olsa Ca development nrt the tli ffi e oci tt C with all tIlre al r 4 J Alternative Two) is projected to increase by reage from 14 in the former project to 15 methodology as outlined in the. 'esponding levels of sr~rviee were or the near ter rrm, both excluding d including this traffic. As can be seen in Table 14, without including the anticipated f3olsa Chica development traffic, all key intersections are expected to operate at "acceptable" service levels (Level of Service - LOS 'D' or better). Including project traffic is anticipated to necessitate a separate westbound right turn lane at the Balsa Chita Street/Warner Avenue intersection to mitigate LOS conditions. This latter measure is expected to be necessary to miti;ate LOS 'E' conditions at this intersection for the no project scentario if f3cls hiea traffic projections arei included (see Table 3)e With the addition of project traffic, the Bolsa Chica Street/Warner Avenue intersection is e: pected to require; a se-;rate nortN)ound right turn lane as wells For the long te.rin scenario, r.ssumini the city's planned improvements af three eastbound and westbound through lanes on Warner Avenue and the recommended near term mitigations are in pplace, the no project alter".etiv eexclutdin; the traffic projections for the l3plsa Chico Oevclopme"nt i s eapeeeted to require a separate northbound i ,-t•t tur-ii lane and an additional eastbound loft turn laic at the olsa Chica Street/Warner Avenue intersoowtion ano x econd westbound throu0 altered signal phasing at the ilols,a Chick. Adding estimated traffic projections t;, expected to require the same Measures as tI of a separate southbound right turn lan intersect ion, Table 5 presents the estimated intersection serdii Alternatives One and Two development seett projections). These two ;alter natives resu capacity utilized over the t plicant's propesal, recommended for the Applicant's proposal Alternative One or Dwo. uteri with tli App hce t s aiteraative is o no ;project aitttrn tiv e with at th 9.pe yy e^^C 4,...iD,1k 4-.'k i;3?.S. YaLA - wS iM'w 'yyA kl ce levels associated with the projeot''s arios (without Bol:,a Chica traffic a a 0 -2a reduction in intersection The same ,nitization measures are anticipated to be necessary' for Table 6 summarizes the results of the longterm intersection analyses Chita Development traffic projections fc. the no project and Appliea.rnativi In this scenario, the same two intersections (Bolsa Chica Street/Warner Avenue and Bolsa Chick. Street/licit Avenue) are anticipated to require mitigation as in the scenario excluding Bolsa Chi--a traffic. However, in this case, an additional eastbound left-turn lane and second northbour o through lane is anticipated to be necessaryat T3olsa C;hica Street/Mirner Avenue Whim Bolst, Chica Street/Heil Avenue is expected to require an additional westbound through lane, altered signal phasing and a separateC7 0 southbound right turn lane. In addition to these mitigations, adding Applicant's project traffic projections is expected to require a second northbound left turn lane at Bolsa Chica Street/Veil Avenue. Table 7 summarizes the results of the analyses for Alternatives One and Two. These alternatives are anti .i gated to reduce intersection capacity utilized from 0 - 3% over Applicantts proposal and ire expected to necessitate thesame mitigation measures as proposed above for :app licannt's proposal. ntersecti on capacity work3hreels a MEADOWLARK TRIP GENERATION FOR API"IUNITS/TRIP RATELAND USE ACRE RATE UNITRESIDENTIAL'S.09.0D. U.12.08.0D.U.16.07.0D. U.COMMERCIAL_a_-600.0ACRETOTALUNITS TRIPS UNITS TRIPS400 3600TABLE IICANT' :S PROPOSAL AND CITY PROPOSED LAND ULAND USE SCENARIOSAPPLIC7 AN_TS . ALTER31,1ATI VE #1 ALTERNATIVE750 525015 9000/000 I5 900014250 : 13800 G 12600600 4800 TABLE 2.NEAR TERM AFTERNOON PEAK HOUR INTERSECT*ALL PROJECT AITLRNAT ESEVEL OF SERVICE;without l3olsa Chic. Development Traffic)Without Miti -ation With Mitic'ationIntersectionWeSolsa Chica Street/Warner Avenue.tai;Bolsa Chica Street/Pearce Drive3i3Bolsa Chica Street/Hell Avenue. '474Heil Avenue/Graham StreetWarner Avenue/Graham StreetWithout Pia`ectLOS VIC LOSC'Assumes arterial iriprovements currently planned by the City oAvenue and Bolsa Chica Street.2Assumes that a two-phased signal is in place.With Projectif out it -ation With Miti ationVAC LOS V/C LOS.76hree eastbound and westbound through lanes on Warnerlea Street.0- ,ssumes a separate westbound right turn lane at Warner Avenue/Balsa C TABLE 3NEAR-TERM AFTERNOON PEAK HOUR INTERSECTIONALL PROJECT ALTEIRNATIVES(with 13olsa Chica Development Traffic)Without Pro'ectWithout Miti ation With Miti ation.IntersectionV/CLOSBolsa Chica Street{ Warn?r Avenue. 9 22113olsa Chica Street/Pearce DriveBoI ,a Chica Street/Heil AvenueHeil Avenue/Graham StreetWarner Avenue/Grahan StreetAV/C LOSIAssumes arterial improvements curr'ntly planned by the City of threeAvenue and Balsa Chica Street.2Assumes that a two phased signal is in place.With Pro'ec tWithout TY1iti ation With Mites ation3Assumes a separate westbound right turn lane at Warr er Avenue/Balsa Chica Street.4Assumes a separate northbound right turn lane at Warner Avenue/l3olsa Chica Street.V/ LOS V/C LOS LONG-TERM PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION LEVELS 01ALTERNATIVES ONE AND TWO(without Bolsa Ch ca Developme'Alternative Onent T zWithout Mitigation With Miti ationntersectionV/CBolsa Chica StreetlWarner Avenue1.09Bolsa Chica Street/Pearce Drive.43Bolsa Chica Street/Heil Avenue1. i5Heil Avenue/Graham Street.43Warner Avenue/Graham Street$2LOS VJC LOSAlternative TwoEitiation With M=ti atior.V/C LOS V/C LOS.43AIAssumes arterial improvements proposed by the City and proposed near-term initil.;mtIons.2Assumes a separate northbound right turn and second eastbound left turn land.3Assumes a separate southbound right turn lane, a combination westbound through right lane replaces the right turn only lane,and altered signal phasing. TABLE 6LONG-TERM PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION LEVAPPLICAN` S ALTERNATIVE(with Bolsa Chica Development .'raff"iWithout Pro'ectWithout Miti ation With Mitigation-IntersectionBolsa Chica Street/Warner Avenue4Bolsa Chica Street/Pearce DriveBolsa Chica Street/Heil Avenuel.11Heil Avew (Graham StreetWarner Avenue/Graham Street.3LOSlalF-mica ai 41-r*sil improvements proposed by the City and proposed tear-term in2AssaniL- =ecvn' northbound through lane and second eastbound left turn lane.With A . licant's Alternativewithout "V' t3ff sioln withmitigationV/0 LOS V/C LOS3Assumes a separate s 1c_ ibound right turn lane, a combination westbound through ri hand altered signal phasing.4Assumes a second northbound left turn lane. LONG-TERM PEAK 110ITR. I4TER.SECTION LKVEALTERNATIVES ONE AND TWOith Bolsa Chien D elopmeat Traffic)Alternative OneWithout !Iiti ation with MiIntersectionV/CBolsa Chica Street/Warner Avenue1.13flow Ghica Street/Pearce Drive.,50Balsa Chica Street/Hell AvenueL 24Heil Avenue/Graham StreetWarner Avenue/Graham StreetLOSZarterial improvements proposed by the City and proposed near-term mitigations.Assumesa separate northbound right turn, a second northbound though lane and second eastbound left turn lane, and alteredsignal phasing,Assumes a sep irate southbound right turn lane, a second northbound left turn lane, and a combination westbound through rightlane replaces the right turn only lane. C-: F F I .r =0.: C_' in; L. I "I t - ) & A E:1 -1 M EV INI .1 Pk INN U; .. Y -3 -I E=; it; 17; 1-4 1 to' r-4 DATE '7,'9i 3;7` 7w. °R i? t y, . k #' 7 '%,. .p•#. 1V•yf: # ii' i6 '"t #:ryiS df'''_ if #'}E f ' k'I.J.VEL '1,II'., f• Iw""L E I,''wL EJlI VOL. t,;I I I 1L BIJi l :1..-;t I,c C ELI`IEIf-° Ilijf: I I II ?I iI_?ND 1-1;71" W101 IIHvt1 I°i1C: EII NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND E SIPOUNi? WEST OUND II PLO' WDI I fi l i s I J hC.IIJW OHIO 01110 PHASING N'/S :gib DIRECTION SEPARATION EJ # t Z WAVIEST TURN PROTECTED PEDESiRIr3W ACTIVITY » 1. f)*99 ( PEDS/H'f ) CYCLE LENGTH % 80 SECONDS CRITICAL LANE VOLUMES BY MOVEMENT THRU -RIGHT LEFT NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTrMND 222 ?449 30 4 60 246 TURN CHECK:: NOR" '',BOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTDOW I tt VOLUME S'., fED VOL 97 -7 CAr'AC I T1' l" 1OVEMEN`l` N/A N/A N/A I:Mi+C x.,I., f-, Fi I C!1.Ir,IP L F'"t I 4111111", 58DUND 491 0 WESTBOUND 10 oil i'-4 > E-'•B B Ec 1=:z I E E--;: E- E= E-1 [-3 iC=. ...I iC r L_ r-1 d';.3 Ems' G"'1 UE hF T 4 I r%4 Ina I S c E-1 1 Z W EN En- F 1F °T E E= I . F' IF C DATE: 9/9/87 LEVEL Cif- SER'V ICE SATURATION EE---4 ' CRI 'f ICAL . N/S VU... ''";' C`c F ICAO... /W VOL CRI T I CAC_ aUM ;,14- "NE GEOMETRY NORT I IX is RAD Li NE t-10V WIDTH RT. 1- 11 5 SGIU 1' Fl_ 01UND 'J' C( I.joffl n°1UV WIDTH MOV WID TH I . , 12. I NMW L VOF._UMQ,,;; NONE WOUND BOU144BO UND EASTBOUND LEFT 1 : +xCTHRLJ 132 RIGHT 131 511 NORTHBOUND EASTBOUND WEST80UND TRW. S Q I LOCAL 3 1137 () 117 'Td1 tog `EAF' HOUR FACTOR N/S :5wPHASING DIRECTION SEPARATION E/W : 2 HEAVIEST TURN PROTECTED PEDESTRIAN ACT VITY 1. 0 - 99 (4$F'CDS/HR) CYCLE LENGTH SECONDS CRITICAL, LANE VOLUMES 8Y MOVEMENT NORTHF3OUND SOUTHBOUND THRU -RIGHT LEFT 222 30 2718 516 460 246 NCJRTHF3O(INI:) LEFT TURN CHECK SOUTHEIOUND EASTSOUNt) i ivIE'C.J C VOLUME ADJUSTED VOL 71 30 1 1 2 57 246 CAPACITY MOVEMENT N/A N/A N/A OUND WES r,EOUND NOV tiLI DTH RT.1`.1. 12 . K x WESTBOUND WESTSOUND DF I m I L.. Q EE F r* `r ink l AL.`(8 1 8 >1 fl X 3 3 F:; EE F" PA FR 'T F t.'J / F' `.' 0 (o3 / F 3. m DATE: 9/9/87 LEVEL OF SERVICE SATUR -(TION CRITICAL_ N/S VOL x`-`5£8' CRITICAL E/W VOL -4- CRITICAL SUM I q- * ***-A,-- 4 LANE GEOMETRY NORl"H}SOUND MOV WIDl L fit J f_"CE"F'T THRU FIGHT l_. . NORT HE4(JLJ4r S1 NORTHBOUND S OL) THBOUND EASTBOUND WEST80L'N0 EHASI NO PEDESTRIAN A CYCLE LENGTH ;SUUTHDOUNO MDV WIDTH EAS"BOUND M C V WIDTH WESTBOUND MOV WID'l H 12.0 12.0T. 1 O T. 12 0 L. . 1 1 . Q i RI F 1 I C VOL UMES SOUTHBOUND ,04 TPtJCIF'S (%) LOCA 11.( 1+.t_) IL;+0U114 L'D WEST?OUND 24 981 "r34 5108 /HR 1 PEF:; HOUR FACTOR X 95, N/S 5. DIRECTION SePARATION E/W .2. HEAVIEST TURN PROTECTED TIVITY 1* 0 99 (4#PEDS/HR) 5U SECONDS CRITICAL LANE VOL ME V MOVEMENTU h1ORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND..WEE'TB Ut.:D THRU :- R1SHT 2 238 46$402 LE P (0 246 0 LEFT TURN C HE NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND .L ASTBOUND WESTBOUND •t.f'l" VOLUME 71 925 257 1 1 AD.:!USTED VOL 3e„l 102 1 246 :r CAPACITY £x50 MOVEMENT N/A Nx'A N/A OK C [- II I k'N / W 0:4 Y.".'!« P4 Fz Y'-. V4 E A F;: tl FE e : M t"4 0 P F"l D 0 Q :F ONICLUDES BOLSA CF UCA) DATER 9/9/a7 LEVEL OF SERVICE E= SATURATION =P :21- CRITICAL Pd/S VOL .:,r CRITICAL E/W VOL E3: CRITICAL SUM 1 1 * K `tt' -}k" . y . ..fr i4' A 7`b'#"" ". ' 7E"}t,"'D4"YG 36'#" E' #'3(- "`d '}b #^'E"ir #"#I' r ')E';S' * * LANE GEOMETRY 1 y:.0 T .. » 1 x r 1`2- () L. a. 1-' 0 TRAFFIC VOLUMES NORTHBOUND NOV WIDTH CftjTrHbloUNU NOV WIDTH R 1'. 15. 0 R. 1 »:.. jai R:T. ! b,. 0 L, 12.0 R. 12. K 1, . 12.O NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WE:STE,QUND N/S E/W PEDESTRIAN ' ACTIVITY CYCLE LENGTH DIRECTION SEPARATION 2, HEAVIEST TURN PROTECTEDI r :0 - 9 ( F'EDS 8O, SECONDS EAS T"A"ULJND MUV WIDTH R) CRITICAL LANE VOLUME INPUT VOLUME ADJUSTED VOL CAPACITY t1OVEMEN T. N R1 HE OUND SOUTHBOUND 219 NORTHBOUND 70 29 c NIA SY MOVEMENT 3'TBOUND WESTBOUND NOV WIDTH R T 15.0 T. 12. 0 L.. 1 ..0 055 430 ND 239 459 475 :307 LEFT TURN CHE SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND 800 Io 1.15 e7 o7 _6 N/A N/A F' .c- dD S E F I t% J CG j I= F= 1- D F F Fes: I -r I c A I_ (La . M T .,i -r i_ V B I .__Y- (INCLUDES BOLSA CH CA NORTHEu::; Ji JT) LANE MDV WIDTH RT. 15.0 12. 5 T. 12.0 1Jµ.:.} T. 12.0 TRAFF:`ICN VOLUMES DATE; 9/9/57 LEVEL OF SERVICE SATURATION D E3 r:= CRITICAL W'S VOL ,-7 1 CRITICAL,E/W VOL "_ '., ' CRITICAL SUM I -- 1 " LANE GE 'f iETRY EASTBOUND MO`,.+ WIDTH MUVv` WIDTH i.-'. 0m# RT, 16.0 NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND LEFT THRU RIGHT 70 1 310 590 NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND PHASING so TRUCC".S . C %.7 E/W :24 HEAVIEST TURN PROTECTED N/S :5- DIRECTION SEPARATION WESTBOUND 115 05 5 430 PEA&-. HOUR FAC" 4 Oft PEDESTRIAN ACTIVITY 1.0 -99 (PEDS/HR) CYCLE LENGTH . x SO SECONDS CRITICAL LANE VOLUMES BY MOVEMENT NORTHBOUND THRU -RIGHT 219 LEFT 29 NORTHBOUND , OUTHSOUND LEFT TURN CHECK SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND I i'T VOLUME 70 ZI(3 ADJUSTED VOL 29 575 307 CAPACITY 0 MOVEF NT N/A N/A N/A WESTBOUND Mail WIDTH 12.( T. 12.0 T. 12. 0:) 1.I;3 .95 . 95 $95 .9x TBOUND F=.B- DAB EF I c E-:E F IDF (INCLUDES BOLSA C WCA) DATE: 9/9/S7 x ** ******* - ****-x ** **** - ** ** *- ** LEVEL OF SERVICE E SATURATION `95?` l CRITICAL N/S VOL -7 CRITICAL E/W VOL E3 -7 4-n, CRITICAL SUM 1 q! b 1 LANE GEOMETRY LANE y NORTHBOUND NOV WIDTH SOUTHBOUND NOV WIDTH EASTBOUND NOV WIDTH WESTBOUND MOV WIDTH RT.14i tw;FR..?''.R`l".15. f)RTb 15 L..12 .0 F..1: .,k T..12 0 T ..12.0. k F M 1..12.0 L. .121. 0 L.12. c)L..12. 4.) t„7 k k k. . T.FAFF-O LUMES NORTH80UND LEF T / . THRU 1. rl RIGHT 80 NORTHBOUNDiSOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND W5STBOUND TRUCFKS PHASING N/S E/W SOUTHBOUND, 925 265 590 LOCAL SU T3;-BOUND WES rBOUND #/H R) PEAK HOUR DIRECTION SEPARATION HEAVIEST TURN PROTECTED PEDESTRIAN ACTIVITY 1.0 -99 l#F`EDS/HR) CYCLE. LENGTH w 80 SECOND; CRITICAL LANE VOLU ES BY MOVEMENT NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EA'STBOUNrr THRU -RIGHT 219 2.x°9 49 LEFT 536 LEFT TURN CH5CK NORTHBOUND SOUTHSOUN EASTBOUND INPUT VOLUME 70 92S 1tµ ADJUSTED VOL 29 CAPACITY f Cj a ,MOVEMENT N/A N/A NIA 1(190 505 'ACTOR WESTBOUND WESTBOUND 115 ;111 OK c F:- . I -,F X C L:_ C) E Ems: NNI -r gf4 NI L `Y Via' I E (INCL UDES BOLSA CH CA) DATE.: 9/9/£37 R1 ,F"'I=^CT WX1-g1_r *it Yc 1134 3t' •*******3F'}`.'***#t**-}(.-IH (.fit'*** LEVEL Or SERVICE SAI URAT I ON ; »: CRITICAL N/ s VOL CRITICAL E/W VOL "7'#:tea CR'T' I LAL SUM :. -el- *** -* at, **********- 4l**************** L?AJ',f T NORi°HEI(JUNO 6 11 I . u 1t t- if: V(.bt NU Tf, WESTBOUND COV WIDTH 12.0 £r 2 I;".v ifC1F;'"F- }. (JIr7!`JI °"1t.:bd. I Fri tt 'a t; I E r'",. ` £ C1I I4D WEST DUND LEFT t) 10 I ' .THRU 1090 RIGH T .,£tai p , t - _ 0 TRUC F::S ;; L./1 AL tai..! L I #/i-HC PMAV" HOUR flACTOR NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EAS'§"LOUNf «'c WESTBOUND PHASING N/S x"Jw DIRECTION SEPARATION E/W :2 HEAVIEST TURN PROTECTED PEDESTRIAN ACTIVITY 1. 0 -'9 d4PEDS/HR1 CYCLE LENGTH'' 8t: SECONDS CRITICAL LANE VOLUMES BY MOVEMENT NORTHBOUND , SOUTHBOUND EASTPDLND WESTBOUND THRU -RIGHT 156 23c 49 446 LEFT +07 LEFT' TURN CHECK NORTHBOUND r:QUTNN"OUJNI EASTBOUND WESTBOUND If`- VL L-U 70 GIs"1: . « AD FoSTED VOL. 29 1o.1 . . CAPACITY Q tY 47 260 MOVEMENT N/A t s, N/A OK t C 1<; "T- X C r L_ V-I C) k1l", e- m E NI __r N U.11E3 T C -i ; C: ick Z R. d "EF< r1-01114 _r 1E= i M INIC F=.[ :C_J C DATE: 9/9/27 L..1 VEAL. Of- SEE V T CEc d.:: SATURATION c3l ^7 CRI 1`ICf L N/S VOL 8 t-''`" CRITICAL E/W VOL 7 CRITICAL SUM J. : 5" t79O T Fd'}tC 1C_ti'ytl LANE NOV U I I0'T H i. 5 n v WID I H NOV WIDTH MOV WIDTH mow. 1:.`. 0.0 T. n 1'.:. 0 12- . ('' ,0 Tn. I W, 7 ,t) R. 12.01`'n" R r.1x iwo; '(`t k"fJ N O E AS TE4U1JNI. WESTBOUND f ; . n IFnrt- I'..: VOLF.UM .':,S L E. F 7 TI-iRU RI GHT NORTHBOUND . (- U f HE(_ 4 Mu SFAS I BOUNt WESTBOUND 1` C`} THBI"JUt a.G I-1LF°f'HL±%1CJNDDEAS'TFOUND WESTBOUND 15 7 9b TF lai"t "ri (%)i__Mlrls 4 0 PHASING PEDESTRIAN ACT CYCLE LE NGTH NIS -5. DIRECTION SEPARATION /W t2. HEAVIEST TURN PROTECTED VITY 1. 99 C#P ,DS/HF 80 SECONDS HOUR PACT CRITICAL LANE. VOLUMES BY MOVEMENT NORTHBOUND 8OUTHBDUNI3 EASTE'OUND WESTBOU ND THRU -RIGHT 249 5M 452LEFT 42 61 28 0 NORTHBOUND INPLI1 VOLUME 84 f VOL 42- CAPACITY MOVEMENT N/A LEFT TURN CHE_Cf. SOUTHBOUND EAE 'recurtL tt1 ST C3UND 1099 0 1345 1 t_°' 286; 0 1 1. N/A N/A 01< 3 0 -A NE OE ONE TRY m I CAL II_ 1 1E -r A t'Q e€-' 1r- e I . ' a lC Z a' : 9 I F+ 6_.. Kf T k`' 104 D F F Cl kJ ri I `T DATE: 9/ 9/97 LEVEL OF SERVICE SATURATION . CRITICAL N/S VOL. CRITICAL E/W VOL CRITICAL, SUM 175. 4- Y4ir`.'rn•:,iix .i##r3:i4i4i4nFk 'rii'3r3k3fai I 14010 Hr• lcJutt LANE SEOMETR SOta' i HDOUND MIJV WIDTH IMD TE CUNL) WIDTHLANE MDV W ]D T I.I R.. 12.0 v'T.. 1.";.t..A +.iI:. 12.0 T .. 12. 0 L. 12.0 L... 12.') I 6•`A =1* I C VOLUMES saL L1 I`H80UNI) EASTBOUND WgSTSOUND THRU RIGHT > 24 2 147:* a 60 7 4;3 TR S ES (4I/FIR)PEA WESTBOUND MOV WIDTH T," 12.+) 12.0 12.0 12 0 1$.0 174 165 HOUR FACTOR NORTHBOUND S0h,1THBBUUNNi[ EF;STBOUND WEST80UND l PHASING N/S E/W ;5. Q. DIRECTION HEAVIEST TURN SEPARATION PROTECTED PEDESTRIAN ACTIVITY 1 99 _0PFDS/HR) CYCLE LENGTH R 80 SECONDS THRU -RIGHT LEFT ill 42 1O.RTI i {CUN IL, T VOLUME 84 ADJUSTED VOL 42 CAPACITY 0 MOVEMENT N/A NORTHBOUND CRITICAL LANE VOLUMES BY MOVEMENT SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND :266 610 52 7 15 LEFT TURN CHECK SOUTHBOUND EAST;EOUNP WESTBOUND 10 99 S05 .154 1162 2 86 0 c;r 35 N/ 'i N/A OK 1 =' a F E3 D! Ec F 1 r q C k:: 11=-x:, 8--p J F= I=- 1 'T- 1 L. 1-1 D " rw. "i L iii -r i I-,I ic L_ 'Y` 3C B !;._'0-d H ;E: L.,r / t FZNI ice. Ir L... 0 V Q E T I- F;1 s I =F:' 1.., 1 N1. DATE: 9 /9/57 1.EVE1,. OF SERVICE F~ ! ATORAT I ON 1. t__> X CRITICAL NIS VOL [. c5" LF; I x I C: AL. E/W VOL_ CRITICAL. SUM 1 ez:p L73 I . ..3j..'*x**7YC•'.**7" • C F'a"c•AY'Vic..*#''T.-pE'f..j(..... .,' *`**** L ANE ' GEOMETRY Es+F'i`1`• 1.#P i Lf.) hNF MCIV 41 O F 41 ?LIND CASTBIOUND t"itr)V'WIDTH MOV IW I DTH WESTBOUND MOV WIDTH ''F I . » 1:"r T. T.., 0 T, . 12 O TY 12.0 12.0 "' F• T s 'I (-')L;.C.JMES THRU R1GHIT NORTHBOL3141 NORTHIIC}U )D SOUT HBOUl''NE EASTBOUND WESTLB0UN 1 rHL'iC'1i.aF`-tD EASTBOUND , 11, 1535 6 6 ;., 4') 1" R (_1 c. Fvt.,'.« ciL 6413E: '^H PHASING N/S t 5k DIRECTION SEPARATION E/W «'. HEAVIEST TURN PROTECTED PEDESTRIAN ACTIVITY : 1.. 0 - 99 (4 PEDDS/HR) CYCLE LENGTH . So SECONDS CRITICAL LANE VOLUMES BY MOVEMENT NORTHBOUND £OUTHBUUND RASTBOUND THRU -RIGHT 249 -'Eyf 549 LE F T. NOR:THBC)1 rNINr-UT VOL UME ADJU TED VOL raw CAPAL I Ty MOVEMENT N/A 67c i 294 LEF T TURN CHECF: S001 HBOUND i vo s 125 N/A EAG TBOUND 294 S: N/A WESTBOUND 1"34. 106 674 F' HOUR x 4C_` roR ESTBGUND 46 WES TBOUND 134 21 3, 01< FR - C "-c-' ' Xig FZ l - F;: --tD 31 Ir- @ •q +C; 4 # ;. V 'j L F L.... V11 CD 9/9/7 LEVEiL OF SERVICE 11D SATURATION EK 91 CRITICAL N/S VOL E3 -4 ,- CRITICAL E/ICJ VOL CRITICAL SUN 1 'lam iANE GEOMETRY LANE NC3R 11LAT fr, D NOV L J l; i S+_?L. [' 1"SOUND NOV tiLEDJ T 12.0 R. 12 .0 L. . 12. 6 4OR T HBOUND LEFT 84 THRU 15Y RIGHT 6 Tt Li >•:S t% SOLUTHBOUN ! ."r EASTBOUND WESTBOUND 5 S NJTHDUUND TROUN 20 1 & It, 242 1503 612 40 I WESTBOUND MDV WIDTH P .. 12 .T.. 12.6 )".. 12.0-) 1 I . 1 WESTBOUND 114 1206 6'4 LOCAL SU ES (* /HHHa k PE P4: HOUR FACTOR PHASING N/S -5. DIRECTION 55PARATION E/W :2. HEAVIEST TURN P'ROTE'CTED PEDESTRIAN ACTIVITY 1. 0 * 99 (#PEDS/HR) CYCLE LENGTH 5() SECONDS NORTHBOUND THRU -RIGHT 176 _EwrP. R I T I CAL: LANE VOLUMES BY M OVEMENT SOUTH 'tOUND EASTBOUND 26 67 0 154 LEFT TURN C HECr NORTHx.?OUND INPU1 VOLUME 84 AD JUS yI I .0 VO1, 42 NOVEIIEN r N/A _ OU THBOUND I .. 312 127 294t,r B1 N/A N/A EA TSU 9 MDV WtoU UND WEST SOUND 468 0 WESTBOUN .134 7, c F;; I T I C L. !~'10' -r # ! = a A "N'` B I ,._.}'°- 7EeML L- E; CH 1 ( . Z 9 00 , . " . E F? L- C3 P4 Q IF E7 F? P1 54 L- IT".. DATE: 9 /9/07 . ***********i.****#iEY***DF****** *** LEVEL OF SERV ICE F" SATURATION ".q. 0 l CRITICAL N/S VOL 5' L - cRi rICAL E/W VOL "7 I CRITICAL SUM I `7t5 .****i.*34' * * ****************** 4****Y. LANE GEOMETRY LANE NORTHBOUND ` Oi.;7 i'! DUND EAS i L CUP MOV WIDTH NDV WIDTH MO1) WIDTH I. RT. 15.0 A.. 12 ,0 RT°. 15.0 2 L... 12.0 R. 12.0 T . . 12.0 3 .. .. F. 12.0 r .. 12.0 L:.. . -12 .t,,L. .) 2.0 12. Q 71C VOLUMES LEFT THRU RIGHT NORTHgOLNNL SOI.JTHE UNL NORTHOOLJND SOUTHB OUND EASTBOUND WESTB OUND TRUCKS 1%) LOCAL E USC 3 C#/HR °¢ wY :`-HAS ING NOS E/W PEDESTRIAN ACTIVITY CYCLE LENGTH 3 OUND 40 5.. LIFFECTION" SEPARAITON 2. MEAVIEST TURN PROTECTED 0 -,99 (#PEDS/HR) 90 SECONDS CRITICAL LANE VOLUMES NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND THRLJ -R I` GHT 249 2,66 LEFT 42 66 a LEFT TURN CHES.:>: NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND INPUT VOLUME: 04 1 ° 96 ADJUSTED VOL A 2 126E3 CAPACITY 0 o MOVEMENT N/A N/A RY MOVEMEN1 EASTBOUND 547 2 94, EASTBOUND 0:12 29= B N/A WESTBOUND MOV WIDTH WL TBOLIND 134 120 3 668 HOUR F AC`TOR 5STBOUND 407 0 WESTBOUND 134 214 OK L- C-3 d I-] T Pk / L A F-: >r E F_Z L_.1-111 m ri I -r i'iF** +'**aE•-i *Yc' i# rat *ti'' 7t ***#E-**•iF '14 **'6 B **X34 1,_EVEL OF SERVICE SA"r'URAT I CAN CRITICAL N/S VOL 44- 1 CRITICAL E/W VOL I CRITICAL CUM : a- **# ******** k **** 1-1f'*Yrc********f • YFir*** Yc LANE OE:UME.TRY A Z i T NOR1 .IBt :?;UNL L'4_t`"` CLIIIIt EAST BOUND WESTBOUND LANE MD':IV WID'I H M :3V WIDTH NOV WID'T'H MOV WIDTH RT'. 15.0 R. 12,0 L. DATE: 9/9/57 f 1 121 O T . M 12.0 T . w 1C 2 Y 1 Cr 1 n . ,{ { 2 .0 12, 0 T.. 12.. 0 12.0 L. ». 12.40 v Y Y b w a. Y +' w Y a M Th'1 R" 3. L V LtNES NORTHB C"UND S DlIFrHDDLIND EASTBOUND WE TDOUND LEFT 84 THRU 1 J7 RI3HI° 9'6 I. 4 L 4 -.spy 12.0; ) -:6 71'4' L c68 TRi,rsV; (%) k USE lli C-*/HR PEAS.HOUR `ACTOR NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND 5 PHASING N/S •DIRECTION SEPARATION E/W -,2. HEAVIEST TURN PR(fTECTED PEDESTRIAN ACTIVITY : 1. 0 - 99 ( P'EDS/HR) CYCLE K„ENGTF; 80 SECONDS CRITICAL LANE VOLUMES BY MOVEMENT NORTHBOUND THRU 'RIGHT 176) r r 4. EC UTHSDUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND 2 6 547 467 LJ be 1 0 LEFT TURN CHEC}::: NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND, x 11 1:0,x,INPUT VOLUME 84 ADJUSTED VOL- 42 126 8 294 } CAPAC,I TY M twt 7 110VEMENT N/A N/A N/A OK: F='iC4 i=ce" C. DIJS E I ff+ !< F<t-- bF"F c Fti I T I C.. A a-.. -: C) "-I-k r L.. N" {...}' I F-.:C.) L. r4 . tip (7_ W rr" t FR III IF=ti L- C3 f q r F =F-< " -cS LEVEL OF SERVICE F"' SATURATIO N . C-Q K_.) CRITICAL. N-/,S VOL ''c i. CRITICAL E/W VOL CRITICAL SUM au LANE GEOMETRY NORTHBOUND LANE MDV WIDTH RT. 1;.:3 a M h NORTHBOUND LEFT 84 TH'LI 1:k..x R I CHI` 96 SOUTH r3OUND MCJV W1 01,H R.. 12.. Q . . M TRAr 'F I C VOLUIES StlUTHSOUND TRUCKS (%) LOCAL. BUS NORTHBOUND 5 SOUTHBOUND 5 EASTBOUNDr WESTBOU ND 3 EASTBOUND Mrs"WIDTH PHASING N/S -5. DIRECTION SEPARATION E/W 2. HEAVIEST TURN PROTECTED PEDESTRIAN ACTIVITI,,' 0 -- 99 ( WE.D$/HR) CYCLE LENGTH Sty SECONDS CRITICAL LANE VOLUMES BY MOVEMENT L--r - WESTBOUND MO\ WIDTH WESTBOUND 154 1197, 652 HOUR FACTOR NORTHBOUND SOUTkSOUNL? EASTBOUND, WESTBOUND THRU -RICH 249 42 46Z LEFT 4 2 65 2 4 NORTHBOUND INPUT VOLUME Sn ADJUSTED VOL 42 CAPACITY 0 MOVEMENT N/A LEFT TURN CH SOUTHDOUND 1172 124"' N/A EASTSOUNI WESTBOUND y1c 134 '9^ a79 1" i'; N/A Sk, DATE: 9/9/87 1- F:z I r^ I C dcs @_,. 1'i C3 E. m JF NI `T' L_ Y S3 1 DATE: 'a1'/9/G7 LEVEL. OF SERVICE 13 SATURATION e CRITICAL N/S VOL :.; ',RITICAL E/W VOL 1 , T I: CAL SUM 31 -Cl- A LANE GEOMETRY NORTHBOUND SOUTH 1DOUND LAJ\IE MOV WIDTH MOV WIDTH w RAF F I C VOLUMES NOR i`HBOUND LEFT THRU J IGHT NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND PHASING z TH5OUND 1 611 EASTBOUND MOV WIDTH WESTBOUND MOV WIDTH RT.i 5'.12. 0 T.12.0 T.1.0 r.12. 0 T.12. 0 112.Ink T. 121.0 EASTBOUND L. BUSES t$/HR ) 40 12.0 WESTDOUND PEA}.. HOUR J= ACTOR N/S :3. E/W 2. PEDESTRIAN ACTIVITY M CYCLE LENGTH DIRECTION SEPARATION HEAVIEST TURN PRAT OTED SECONDS 0 *99 (#PJ=DS/HR) CRITIC NORTHBOUND THRI -RIGHT 176 LEFT 4211 NORTHBOUNDIUT ` VOLUME 54 ADJUSTED VOL 42 CAPACITY 'C MOVEMENT N/A L LANE VOLUMES BY MOVEMENT SOUTHBOUND :EASrBOUND 266 54 652 1 242 1172 SOUTHBOUND N/A EASTBOUND WESTBOUND 10 134 M91 79 74 N/A OK F< 11 I C-- A L. 3'" D V E-: M f "" "T' int 04 dc L-'V E I B r D L... B..- r 1i C " I a P Z 4:a.,! F-< NI F;: IL_ ci N o -r ,1 'N 10 (INCLUDES BOLSA CifCA) DATE: 9/9/57 LEVEL OF SERVICE F SATURATION 1 1 -4- CRITICAL N/S VOL ' 4- CRITICAL E/W VOL. CRITICAL SUM 1 Y *** -**** **K' is=r*a`F •*##-".•*** *#***r•i4 ****•D * LANE GEOME Tr- Y EASTBOUND WESTBOUND r 00U T HIJOUNI::A fTBOUND 11O'V )WIDTH MOV WIDTH DIRECTI ON SEPARATION HEAVIEST TURN PROTECTED NOR`[ HI3OUND INPUT VOLUME 55 ADJUSTED VOL.44 CA' ACITY'tl MOVEMENT N/A LANE NORTI•1SOUN MOV WIDTH NORTHBOUND SOUTHE!OUN0 00 SEG')ND S SOUTHBOUND269• A n LEFT(TURN CH SOUTHBOUND 0 -99 (4#PCDS/HR) EASTBOUND 480 479 112 I ESTBOUND M€]V WIDTH WEST OUND612 1 N/A d F is 'Y Z Q L.. lid C \? E 'i E 1' ll'T 'd * d L...'' '' I -3 L_. E3 I / ,R r L, N IS m d f`-4 (7) IF`' P C3 (IN C LUDES SOLSA C*41',.A) DATE: 9/9/87 LEVEL OF SN RV I ";E ATUrATION 'c " CRITICAL N/S VOL "7 BOO3- CRIT ICAL E ) W VOL E=1 4,:,::=. CRITICAL SUM 3. ":'teal q- LANE OEOME TRY NORTHE{DUNI fiU lHI:!G(.JNC7 LANE Iloy WIDTH RIGHT LEFT THFU 12.0 R.. 1.; 1 421. T. 1 Hir: R.1 Q .. 1 0 T.. J2.0 L. 1r}U La . 1 >d+ NORTH-1E:3OUND SOUTHBOUND WESTBOUND F'HAS I NS NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND E/W .2. HEAVIEST TURN PROTECTED CYCLE LENGTH 80 SECONDS PEDESTRIAN ACTIVITY 1. 0 - 99 (#PCDS/HR CRITICAL LANE VOLUM THE U -RIGHT LEFT I N"r''UT VOLUME' ADJUSTED VOL CAPACITY MOVEMENT 9 1 269 IIC1V NII TH TRAFFIC VOLt!t1 SOUTHBOUND TR L)Ck'S ; .` LOCAL BUSS' U L,. "9I.r EASIF'OUND WESTBOUND i'IC V WIDTH MDV WIDTH EAST-'%- cUND S (#/HR) PEAK H1 N / S :5. DIRECTION S1 PARF•:T I CN 4 4 610 NORTHBOUND ri 44 N/A LEFT TURN CH SOUTH SG.UUND 11 NA BY MOVEMENT R.. 12.0 l" 12. 0 T.. 12. T.. 12.0 I 12-0 SC. 600 Ur. AG , dR EAS1LKUUNE WEST?OL 1624 C: EAI3TB0UND WESTBOUND 48 i 4 9 t: WA OK E i : I T' I C ;f- L M 0 E M! d .B' lc" 4 1L. "4rr I B _ .rte [- I f t A " EE F " . L. ( R c -r tR M A F- -'' [_... I C ( r4 (INCLUDE S BOLS A CFHCA) DATE, 9/9/87 LEVEL CAE SERVICE F" SATURATION I I CRITICAL N/S VOL -€ CRITICAL E/W VOL . I 1 CRITICAL SUM i ?t5 7 LANE GEOMETRY LANE L.:: EASTBOUND WESTBOUND MOV WIIDT-{ NOV WIDTH R.. 1'2.0 RT. 15.0 R4 « 12.0 R.. 12.0 T.. 1 `.r T.. 12. 5,.C . 12.0 T, } 12.0 T. 12.0 { _ .. 1 ,()L. 12. T. . 12.0 12.0 - 0 . . k V A L. . 12.0 LEFT THRU RIGHT NO13TE[1OUN{D SO 1 i80tiND NOV W I I" T'f•i NOV WIDTH } W M NORTHBOUND I RAFE I C VOLUMES SUUTH VOUND NORTHBOUND SOUTHDOUND EAETBO UND" WESTBOUND EASTBOUNC' PHASING N/S s, . DIRECTION SEPARATION E/W :2. HEAVIEST TURN PROTECTED CYCLE LENGTH „ 80 SECONDS PEDESTRIAN ACTIVITY 1. 0 -99 WEDS/Hp) CI TICAL LANE VOLUMES BY MOVEMENT THRU `R LEFT BHT NORTHBOUND 174 44 WESTBOUND OUR FACTOR SOUTHSSOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND 26 9 4 628 670 485 0 LL PT TURN CHECK h,!Cat "1.H (Ctg 1ND INPUT VOLU , tE Plc ADJUSTED VOL 4-4 CAPACITY , 0 MOVEMENT N/A SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND 20 12 7E3 > i s 467 N/A N/A OK '3v..6'1NE ."."`lt,u-. .•': Y$aa]C'9ti.493"f]'A4T .... _. '." ••••,n. l« 'yyYe.d'weaGCA 4 k l . A .• ':ffiI. •"+Y+i.'TAnuf"4n"ss"a='ti ' `'' i"tidS.J 11sy9.U! .3+P.a+s`itk'. JMd..'YUUL H.3 AtTa3"t33iMYw$tiLd -..:--: - .: \-..1•F :k Y I c ,.f Y".f! L. F - !-.J' ,.rt K=.w 1 E N R r f'_'9 t q L_ ~T ES T +T w L_ C's. -T-1-1 F ' L. C t ! / JJ'i I (INCLUDE S BOLSA C ICA) DATE: 9/9/87 LEVEL OF SERVICE EE SATJJ''ATI (JN :D..-0, CR IT X CAL N/ VOL . CRITICAL E/ W VOL B a CRITICAL 3UM .. -: r 1 *****i4 ••sr^ld•i(3 ****-34E•l6,**ib3 *** ••kf#aF3t•a *** F LANE GEUNETRY LANE LEFT THRU R I GHT NOR f'HBOUP-ID NOV WIDTH Tp 1..,C T . i, 2 . 3 L 12. RT. 15._ 1»,0 T.. 12. L., t r>. L.. 12 . 0 4 12yci 12 t1 12.0 12.10 TRAFFIC VOLUME'S NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND NORTHBOUND t3L1UTHE4:,OUND EF S,T SOUN0 WESTBOUND 8' 5 1.55 95 TRUCKS (",'. PHASING N/SE/W PEDESTRIAN ACTIVITY CYCLE LENGTH UTHDOUND E-DISTBOUND WES"LEBOUND NOV WIDTH NOV WIDTH MGV WIDTH 435 1 2. i 18.a; ' 1620 97 40 670 LOCAL BUSES C#/HR) PE4 HOUR FACTOR DIRECTION SEPARATION : HEAVIEST TURN PROTECTED 1 0 _"99 (#PEDS/HR) W0 SECONDS CRITICAL LANE. VOLUMES J;Y MOVEMENT THRU --RIGHT LEFT NORTHBOUND 91 44 SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WJ=STaQUJND 269 b b3 67t 254 LEFT TURN CHECf:. NORTHBOUND .SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND VOLUME GO 126!5 4C 1ZO ADJUSTED VOL 44 1275 48 5 0 CAPACITY C 18 ",1Z 6 MOVEMENT N/A N/A N/A OK F `Y' 3 rC iC!o L t i p i T A INN L,_ `r' I s L. C" I Z R. R "3 F N*1 L. (J P 4 B `T' EE F i'l L. T (INCLUDES BOLSA CHICA) DATE: 9/9/G7 LEVEL OF SERVICE J SATURATION 1 1 CRITICAL N/S VOL 7$ 9 CRITICAL E/W VOL 3. Jl. 1 :2:5 CRITICAL SUM _ C9 t3 t,?ORTHBD rNP ODUTH}1CUND EASTBOUND WFSTBOUND LANE NOV V11 WIDTH MOV WIDTH MOV WIDTH MDV WITH 1 )T) RT.. 15 , R. 1,2. 0 T 1.2.. U T:. 12. O T. 1,^. C) L . . 12,10 L;.. 12" . O Rte.L. . 12 . 0 TRAFFIC VOLUME SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND LEF; T G f 115 48 1:b THRU 155 245 1910 1:620 R I GHT 9 5 87 40 6 6 5 N1OR'rHBOUND SOU"THTZfOUND EASTBOUND WEESTBOUND TRUCE LOCAL BUSES (4#/H5)PEAL OUR FACTOR PHAS a' NG N /S E/W DIRECTION SEPARATION HEAVIEST TURN PROTECTED PEDESTRIAN A TIVITY F 1 CYCLE LENGTH 80 SECOND S 0 - 99 (#PEDS CRITICAL LANE VOLUMES 8Y MOVEMENT NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTE+OUND WESTBOUND THRU -IGHT 174 269 643 620 LEFT 44 66 485 0 LEFT TURN CHECK i il4''Lrr VOLUME NORTHBOUND 85 , SOUTHBOUND 1195 EASTSCUND 4B* STROUND AD iWS`TE D VC)L 44 1267 485 0 CAPACITY i,)1 470 MOVEMENT N/A NA N/A OK LANE GEOMETRY P! F--< _1=3 0 NI E E B I C I-:-- E I-+„ C3 Ii=- F F. I -Iy I CA MC) 1 EZ ME 1'%l -r 1r'`4AL.`a-'8 I 43 L_ ip C:... H 31 (_. i! - ,rF 44 ? Nom."- M F L .. t J 3 1 44 L. 6 w J4 SAP .t J. " (INCLUDES BOLSA CHICA) DATE: 9//87 LEVEL OF SERVICE SATURATION 9?119 CRITI CAL N/S VOL -715 .6, E/W VOL aE3CRITICAL SUM 14 ='E LANE GEOMETRY 11II) EAS"I"DOmnNORTHBOUND SLxu,rtiLm LANE MOY WIDTH MOV WT. DTH MCIV 1JIDTH 1 1 W:.R. .12.0 11 T'. a 1?,tti R.12.: T..12.0 T. .4 Jr.F. +. 4 L. n Y0 L.12a 0 5 N . .12 . aa0 L 4 . 4 PT, 15. p T. 12_. ii 1-a . 1 a a4«r L. . 12 i:x NORTHBOUND SCJLwITHBOUND EASTBO UND LEF'1" THRU 1 5'-? 1 c 1 t.$ RIGHT 915 07.E.°) 40 NORTHBOU( D ;wOUTH fOUI''iD EASTBOUND WEST BOUND :7 WESTBOUND NO V WIDTH RA a 1A.n 0 T..12.0 T. .1: 2 .0 T. .121.0 12. 0 4 n . fFxIJL' F C C..U AL. ELI , t 7HR F`EAL' HOUFZ FACTOR PHASING N/S E/W -5. DIRECTION SE'AMATION -2. HEAVIEST TURN PROTECTED PEDESTRIAN AC's"IVITY E LENGTHCYC f: 99 So SECONDS (4iPE 1 CRITICAL LANE VQLUMSS SY MOVEMENT THRU -RIGHT LLEF T NOF:THROUND 9I 44 SOUTHBOUND 269 665 EASTBOUND 64 254 WEST3tUND r 0 NORTHBOUND LEFT TURN LHEC1. SOLTHB-OUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND IiJ UT VOLUME 119 45 ADJUSTED VOL 44 126 7 CAPACITY .f 19 MOVEMENT N/A N/A N./ A 0 F F: ';0NEms- E-c I N C&--;: I &- DFF -r i s44 L_ N(3 ' E ENl_` rc tla=t_''"3 I B (INCLUDES BOLSA CH CA) DATE: 9/9/87 LEVEL OF S ERVICE SATURATION 1 :1. -7% CRITICAL N/S VOL 0 ;"?` ' CRI'rTCAL E/W VOL I J! O.;Y CRITICAL Sl .1M _'cp NQi rHB OUND LANE 1110%) WIDTH .. 1- ..1ypR'» T u 1;',.0 1_44E` GEOMETRY SOU HI:OUND N' ,V WIDTH EF.,ITf'f0 UNU NOV WIDTH WESTEO1.IND NOV WIDTH 1"T. 1`50 R. 12.0 R. 1:,. ..1 TT . . 12.0 'r.. 12.0 T. . 1.t.. (.)T. 12.0 12.C1 T. 1 2, 0 L. . 12 . 0 NORTHBOUND TRAFF I r' VOLLJN _ SOUTHBOUND 1. EFT 117h; THRL,J 155 RII3HT 95 875 NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND PHASINC CYCLE LENGTH PEDESTRIAN ACTIVITY TRUCKS (. ) Ni/S E/W THRU -RIGHT LEFT INPUT VOLUME AD3UST ED VOL_ CAPACITY MOVEMENT EASTBOUND WESTBOUND 43"M:F 40 LOCAL BUSES (*,tHR) DIRECTION SEPARATION HEAVIEST TURN P'ROTLCTED 1,. 0 - 9P (#PEDS/HR) 80 SECONDS LANE V(1 UMES MOVEMENT NORTH80QND SOUTHBOUN EASTBOUND WESTBOUND 174 44. 269 6 ZN 6Z I9 48 5 624 0 NORTHB OUND LEFT TURN CHECK SOUTHBOUND AST BOUND WESTBOUND 85 1175 485 1 s 4A.124 485iy1C 17Y}_ N/A NIA N/A P' A F <, D E- 13 R i t"'+N c r !E F 8-f 0 F R 1-r 3: CA L- M ! %,.-' t i F. r1 -T' N A I "Y' 13 1 3 DL_ CH I C P Z LQ F-"tq ! PP L I G Tt N L- -r Y (INCLUDES BOLSA C fCA) DATE: 9/9°/S7 LEVEL OF SERVICE SATURAT 101'4 C2 E3 5/- CRITICAL N/S VOL - CfIi"ICAL. E/W VOL E3 -7E3 CRITICAL SUM I rr* 1F3i •3#- r `4'lE 3r* '. 3--r; ** F r ia•*i •n'r #-ik#r'F 6*Trr ' ** LANE GEOMETRY 11 NORTH1 OLINU LANE NOV WIT) i I-N 1 4 tt.. I .. 0 y .0 L. - 1 -2. 0, LEFT THRU RIGHT NORTHBOUND NORTHBOUND 8OUTHDOUNO EASTBOUND WESTBOUND SOUTHBOUND NOV tx;It.I"H UCE;:'m; (%) LOCAL 133 1610 ACTOR PHASING N/S E/W -5. DIRECTION SEPARATION HEAVIEST TURN PROTECTED PEDESTRIAN ACTIVITY CYCLE LENGTH 1. 0 - 99 (#PEDS/HIS) SO SECONDS CRITICAL LANE VOLUMES BY MOVEMENT NOR 'HBOUN1 SOUTHBOUND,`EASTBOUND ..WESTBOUND THRU -RIGHT 91 269 639 624 LEFT 44 657, LEFT TURN CHECK VOLUME NORTHBOUND S SOUTHBOUND 11 5 EASTBOUND 48 5 WESTBOUND ADJUSTED VOL 44 122 4:.r 48 5 CAPACIT'0 1 239 MOVEMENT N/A N/A lei/A OK EASTBOUND NOV WIDTH WESTBOUND NOV WIDTH RT. 15. ') R. . t.. 11.o T . 12.Q 1 ?. o T. -r ,mre f_?1 ,2 "C.).w . i. .. 12.0 L.. 12.0 F"A 1=z S; INJE3 n I " G : -- DF= 1 Cs :I "T`3: c:. ink L, PAI Q V FEM I'4 -I- A 1"41 A L- "' ° 3 X EDL- A DATE: 9/9187 LEVEL OF SERVICE a-x.Z°,SATURATION = CRITICAL N/S VOL, "5 '2 CRITICAL E/W VOL ==• CRITICAL SUM '1-7 wZ; •##-#Y#--####dr'*lF######a° kikYC #F#r3F#4 ' LANE GEOMETRY LANE NORTHBOUND MOV WIDTH SOUTHBOUND C?O'` W I O T I L EAS CBOF.iNi NOV WIDTH WESTBOUND MOV III TH I RT. 1'-.0 15.Cl RTL I T . 1,42. 142". 0 T. 1 x L',.X-1 a M a } M v Y 4 cF..r . I 11 2 .1i V k . V a I . 6 , t a FP''J1ROC EAL.MEIV NORTHBOUND `%DU'L HDOUNI EA'_° TSOUNL WESTBOUND LEFT 1"HRIJ RIGHT Z. 755 1.3.",t9 1 2 51 19 4 3 6 TRUCKS (fie.) LOCAL RUBE PEAL : HOUR FACTOR NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND ;14 * ADO WESTBOUND O k PHASING N/S E/W M 1 NEITHER TURN PROTECTED I NEITHER TURN RRO i ECTED PEDESTRIAN ACTIVITY 1. 0 9Y ( P'EDS/HR) CYCLE LENGTH 80 SECONDS CRITICAL LANE VOLUMES Y MOVEMENT NORTH80UND SOUTHSOUND EASTBOUND WESTPOUNO THRU -RIGHT 416 53 ^y SQ LEFT 0 NORTHBOUND 0 L :FT TURN CH :C :; SOUTHBOUND 0 EASTBOUND 4 WEST8DUND I N L.1" VOLUME A 56 6 19 ADJUSTED VOL_ C)0 %y 0 6, P P, r, I "Cif MOVEMENT" OK 1 '3.as v "d' •.. ° i.vNi&n a:1YfaF4" V„nrs..N.i..rksein, ,_ir:.., w nsanu" Ni ter I" 0 F;Z m E Fk • J C3 1 -r r C P Q.r- !'SAC N N d . ' Y Cl I- E3 A 4: 14-- !' -q k= fir M F=- A F i NI W ,/ 1=* F: C3,3 C -F DATE: 9/9/57 ******• ***** c ap*• •- - •*• **- * r * *- LEVEL OF SERVICE A SAw`l i=ATrON 4- r7/- CRITICAL N/S VOL t-57Ea CF±I'FICAL E/WW VOL .: CR I Tr I ;AL SUM 61 - i LANE GEOMETRY LANE -- NORTFH}3OUN . MGV WIDTH PT. T.. ,11 r-4DOuI4r,L MUV Wi'DTH 12, 1 2. AFFIC VO.OL.CJME i .U J HEtCUN LEc°-r THFtU RIGHT NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTr30U ND WESTBOUND 5 HOUR FACTOR .95 PHASING N/S 1.NEITHER TURN PROTECTED E/W :1.NEIT HER TURN PROTECTED PEDESTRIAN A TIVITY 0 --- 9x' (4P EDS/H1. CYCLE LENGTH 80 S ECO NDS NORTH80UND THRU -R,I GHT 456 LEFT 0 NORTHBOUND IN! UT VOLUME ADJUSTED VOL CAPACITY 0 MOVEMENT 14 6 _N 122 TRUC:L LOCAL BUSES PEA RITIM_ LANE VOLUM SOUTHtROUND q w q i7: WESTBOUND MOV WIDTH M q` t5,0 WESTBOUND 19 44Z6 EASTBOUND WESTBOUND so LEFT TURN CHECK SOUTHBOUND EAST80UND WESTBOUND 56 62 19 0 0 0 'OK UK: OK EA".>T I.JN1,1 MI- l")?1 L rH F*TL S BY MOVEMENT yr: ;. :4,. ' ::.Y1+dr -•.: -. _._ :r6.N ,+'+. .,. E Et X 4'x+4 4 V< {ice Ft 4-4 C3 F X m :C L. 4"4.4 4 °1 E 4'+.4 T4T 4`h4 9 `y' am 3G 4 I r ' 4 ( " 1 4: A / =• 4 P 4 c 4'x.4 E a < -F E fll t d (INCLU DES HOLED CHICA) DATE: 9/9/87 LEVEL OF SERVICE 44 SATUR ATION CRITICAL N/S VOL CRI'r ICAL E/W VOL. , CRITI CAL SUM If :o '211 e-_, Lk "ANE GEOMETRY NORTI--iBUt NU -3U i•HBOU'(D EA5TBO1JND LANE NOV WIDTH NOV WIRY"N MOV WIDTH RT..r a A a w T:AFF t C VOLUME NORl HBOUND -, 810 SOUTHBOUND 1 4. TRUCKS CY.? LOCAL NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EAOTBCJNI) t ESTBOUND i R",'IL" i5, EASTS USES ( /HR) PHASING N/S :1M NEI). ER TURN PROTECT E/W 1. NEITHER TURN PROTECT PEDESTRIAN ACTIVITY < 1,0 - 99 (# CYCLE. LENGTH i $0 SECONDS THRU -RIGHT LEFT CRITICAL LANE VOLU NORTHBOUND 445 OUTHPOUND 561 ' EDE/HR) F,01T C ,-r WESTBOUND NOV WIDTH 15K 0 WESTBOUND K HOUR, FACTOR .9 5 .9 5 ES BY MOVEMENT EASTBOUND WESTBOUND o 0 LEFT TURN CHEF: I NPUT VOLUME ADJU STED VOL CAPACITY MOVEMENT NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND 0S5 Cy 116 15 0y OK Cl:. CAF OK F' o 1 = ; Z ..r"- D ' N I --e 1-=4 I 1 i IC S -9 0 F" is I -r I c t_. i'•'i (D =. 1-1 EE: r l `r L... ''t'' 3 E3 `p L- E3 f'2,..r I G ./ F' { a-'"• ""' E S i=. „ l` r' ice, i' / F ,: + ,. C T (INCLUDES BO L A CH C ) DATE: 9/9/87 *db***fi****** .**************' ** *** [.. VEL OP SERVICE Pw SATURATION r.' CRITICAL N/,-3 VOL 4t'>" CR1 rICAL E/W VOL. , CRITICAL. SUM * **!r* gat, L(=NNE 3EsMETRY N("JFtiTL'HSIJ jNLD S(JUTi''L','t 1?ND EASTi3FJUUD WESTBOUND LANE MUV WIDTFJ NCr-) i<r r)TH MOV WIDTH 1 PT„ i5 d tD 2 T. 12,y LEFT THRU RIGHT NORT HODUND G P15 3 115 TRUCFL S V.) NORTHBOUND SOUTH OUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND 5 PHASING N/S E/W :1 PT i6. T. SOU 1HDOUND RTL, I .i MOV WIDTH R TL, 1 1125 4 S 120 50 LOCAL EL NEITHER 'itJkN PROTECTED NEITHER TURN PROTECTED PEDESTRIAN ACTIVITY 1.!0 - 99 (*PEDS/ CYCLE LENGTH 80 SECONDS CRTTIcAL LgNE VOLUM NORTHBOUND THRU --RIGHT 48S LEFT 0 sbUTHBC'UN D 6f-)7 ' Q EASTBOUND WESTBOUND Erg 50 0 LEFT TURN CHECK NORTH BOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND w5,SrEOUr1G VOL,UME 5 5s 60 2.0 ADJUSTED VOL, CAPACITY 1O MOVEMENT L`7}: M",O C)L, S SY MOVEMEN 'P F5C)N8 EcF I N <FE 6--<t- YF ' F: I T I C I_._..L C LE M E - A M'*! L- ''` S T CHI t r ' Z P o F < C C L- 0 "' G `t' Ftom' N O P' ! ' . c ". k 3 C `T' LEVEL OF SERVICE e- SATURA C ION itC x CRITICAL N/S VOL tits 1 CRITICAL E/W VOL in'' CRITICAL SUM . ' c ^}F**ibf'**94*******of4 3**r ************bF* LANE GEOMETRY LANE I 2 LEFT THRU RIGHT 6I 7Z8 145 TRUCKS 1%) VOCAL. DUZ3L S '#/HR) NORTHSOLH\ D ht SOUTHSOUND EASTEDUND WEST9OUND PHASING N/S NEITHER TURN PROTECTED E/W F 1 + NEITHER TURN PROTECTED PEDESTRIAN ACTIVITY : 1. 0 9 (#P'E,«fl5/ CYCLE LENGTH o SECONDS WESTBOUND MDV WIDTH RTL 15+0 aTEOUN. EAK HOUR ) CRITICAL LANE VOLUMES BY MOVMENr =`!ORTHBOUND SGUTHBOUND EASTSOUND THRU -RIGH T 51 651 69 LE FT c s , x NPUT VOLUME ADJUSTED) VOL CAPACITY MOVEMENT NORTHBOUNr. :t J W UND EASTBOUND M.DV WIDTH NOV WIDTH Ry. NORTHSOI.JND SOUTHBOUND NORTHr,OUND 4 t;.0 Q OK LEFT TURN , CHEC'}K SOUTHBOUND 67 Is & MOV WIDTH RTL 1 F4. EASTBOUND EASTEOUND 74 0 14 CK TOR TBOUND 0 WEST OUND 27 OK DATE. 9/9/87 1 = ' E I S 9 C " F - * ; _ C l .tl C t &--S CD F Fz_` C_- F I -d` I C 44 1 M D J Ez ;I'''! T' 1' f eA L_. " ' 'i .-c EL_ tE3 A Ci-9I C dfls ,"F' Pi FZC_- Li N i -rd PF'F'L I (.#m DATE: 9/9/E 7 LEVEL., OE=' SERVICE -" SATURAT I ON -I- Z5 41 CRITICAL N/'3 VOL x CRITICAL CRITICAL, EJW VOL SUM LANE (3EOME= TR'? NOR'THNI131_1I i #'•II? MOV W1 01,114 PT. 15.0 TRAFFIC VOLUMES NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EAST+OUND WESTBOUND c",00 r Hh OU,N,t) E 3 'r BOUND MOV WIDTH MOV WIDTH RT. 15. T. « 12« r.;i T. 1 L. I RTL, 1 w » 0 TRUCKS (%)LOCAL BUSES (#/HR', PHASING :'/S 1:. NEITHER TURN PROTECTED EJW :1. NEITHER TURN PROTECTED LANE L P FT THRU RIGHT CYCLE LENGTH 80 SECOND PEDES)'RIAN ACTIV ITY 1. . 0 -99 C#PED CRITICAL LANE VOLUMES BY MOVEMEN, NORTHBOUND THRU -RIGHT 552 LEFT 0 I.ivr'UT VOLUME' ,ADJUSTED VOL CAPACITY MOVEMENT NOR INBB OUND 4.0 rlf( SOUTHBOUND, EASTBOUN. 690 71c LEFT TURN CHECK SOUTHBOUND 'A ES BOUND NOV WIDTH r'EA} HOU I F+ :c"E3- 0 t 1 1 X V 4 C',F 1 7 ' X BALM 11.10) V EE: lJE,. -r ic,"eY ."'V E " r..-GDL_"'`A "I d A Ile F4 E" p : c IFE L[ l 0 `Y- E F t"1 A L_`7". GATE: 919/87 LEVEL. OF SERVICE P w ATURAT I ON a CRITICAL . N/S VOL 0 7' CRITICAL E/W VOL ;Fp = CRITICAL SUM 'b'c L/- NE GEOMETRY Noi :THI.*(DLJNt LANE MOV WI D-1"H SOUTHT-(OUNr EAS TPQ' Nt MCIV W ;H NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND LEFT q-0 THRU 10 58", RIGHT 4s) NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTECOUND WESTBOUND I(:)S 1540 145 TRU.JC.},S (%) LOCAL BUS;: MOB' WIDTH EAST; WESTBOUND MOV WIDTH TBOUND PHASING N/S :I. NEITHER TURN PROTECTED E/W 1. NEITHER' TURN PROTECTED PEDESTRIAN ACTIVITY i. 0 -- 99 ( EOS/HR) CYCLE LENGTH . SO ' SECONDS CRITICAL LANE VOLUME NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND THRU -RIGHT 549 697 LEFT s:>0 'T TURN C INPUT VOLUME AT)L LISTED VOL. CAPACITY MOVEMENT NORTHBO ND 400 0 01< SOUTHBOUND lOB i r)I:e ryOK, ECK ,Y MOVEMENT EASTBOUND WCSTDOUN 71 ' B A ST80LJ L WESTBOUND 7fit. 0, DATES 9/9/87 LEVEL Or SERVICE A SATUrRATIC,N CRITICAL CRITICAL CRITICAL N/S VOL E/W VOL '31,1M `7 LINE CLOME'1 R`•r" RIGHT N.OF:1 HT:it_ UUi "XT-111 H3: L'1t. N!", MDV WTD)Tr•H RT Tr. 1041 4.0 NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND PHASING TRUCKS N/S C"/ ) :{ E/W a1,. PEDESTRIAN AC' CYCLE LENGTH IVITY MOV WIDTH . aT.. YY { X ap ` OUTHBOUMD ZC 311.1 , LIND MDV WIDTH EASTBOUND 0 E3Tt"OUND MOV WIDTH 4 LD AL USl'S (#/1%'R) NEITHER TURN PROTECTED NE.' THER TURN PROTECTED at: SECONDS 0 - 99 (#PEDS/HR) CRITICAL LANE VOLUMES BY IY=':`?T THRU -RIGHT THRU LANE 71 A 4 LEFT LEFT l io-''*UT VOLUME ADJUSTE D VOL. CAPACITY MOVEMJNT NORTHBOUND 540 0 NORTHBOUND 40 cl 4K SOUTHBOUND 678 HOUR FACTOR EASTnOUNO WESTBOUND 7 0 O i.,.EF T TURN CHECK SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WEGTBOUND 98 r:0 a a 1: 8 t.a O, Ch.: lei. I=•; E F I N1 Ci F=:r IE F" C3 F P gff2b C:) t. F: I I- I , IL_ C : ) INA k >I IL_.,. "Y' c - , . . 3 1 00 - 3 1 clI.._E3 c _ _ I ) m =Nz 11 ' F ; : LD ( °FE=_P: f ',l F, F-< D 3 C (INCLUDES BOLSA CK CA) DATE; 9/9/97 LEVE L OF SERVICE O SATURATION CRITICAL N/S VOL CRITICAL E/W VOL 8 -4 CRI•rIC:rAL SUM LANE C•,EOMETR NoRTHD,0JNI? s Ou I t, It Nn EASTBOUND WESTBOUND LANE N OV WIDTH NOV WIDTH NOV WIDTH MOV WIDTH LEF:1" THE'U RIGHT i Fo,-iF' i" 1 C VULUMES LEFT 0 0 a 0 T1 RU RIGHT 599 782 84 57 CYCLE LENGT . Sc SECONDS CRITICAL LANE VOLUMES BY MOVEMENT NORTHBOUND SOUTHE'OUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND NORTHBOUND INE U r VOLUME A.O ADJUS`T'ED VOL C, RT. 1.'5.0 T. 1:?. O L..4J. -1.C). NORTHBOUI'•!D NORTHBOUND SCUTHBOUND EAST8OUND WESTBOUND RI. IS. 0:? .. 12.0T. y 12.0 Lk. 12. C, . k a 4() 11.6 0 4(:) TRUCky:S a ",rOU HBOUND 65 2010 260 RTL.5.0 PTL 15. EASTBOUND 60 LOCAL BUSES '#/HR) WESTBOUND F-EAAY: HOUR FACTOR N/S : 1 . NE1T -ER TURN PROTECTED E / W : 1. NEITHER TURN PROTECTED PEDESTRIAN ACTIVITY . 1. 0 - 9' S#PEDS/HR) PHASING CAPACI TY C) MOVEMENT OK SOUTHBOUND EASTBt 65 1 50 Q 15 10 =';. Ok;0 k: F' t R LJ t lB EC F=ZI V4 K FR "C) F= F 0[_ 0o C3l-I .I C- .'•I= A C3 F-= L DNI -t"EEImo;M F=l L_ IC itNT (INCLUDES 3 OLSA Ci CA) DATE": 9/9/87 4•• ;f •x --k•**** **** •E-S•rh #•# *3t••i#afi ;: aF x a3k## LE_VEI_ OF SERVICE SATURATI ON t5 C: ;/' CRITICAL N/S VOL ^O CRITICAL CRITICAL E/W SUM VOL #-" 3i• 9f• #-Yc•t• 3F df• ?4••1F•- •§4-Y•fi-#• #s•?4• # #• 94• k•3(' 3f-#•%c £'•k` fiE 3e 3fr# •ir-th- '-ANE GEOMETRY NORTHI_+OL!ND SOU f F jI3OLJND EASTBOUND WE STBBOUND L,AINE NOV WIDTH NOV WIDTH MOV WIDTH MOv WIDTH RT. 1 T. 1 :. L. 12= 0s ST. 15 ,.F_1 e 12. 0 12 . 0 12". Q TRAFFIC VOLUMES RTL 15 . {.) NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND LEFT T1 RU 1240 2120 RIGHT 40 260 TRUCKS ( l.) LOCAL RUSE NORTHBOUND c:3 SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND 5 WESTBOUND PHASING N/S 1. E/W 1. PEDESTRIAN ACTIVITY EASTBOUND IS RI L 15 0 W€T , f BOUND PEA} I:OUR FACTOR' I NEJ i HER TURN PROTECTED NEITHER TURN PROTECTED 1. 0 - 99 (4PEDS/HR.) CYCLE LENGTH 80 SECONDS CRITICAL LANE VOLUMES BYN NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND THRU -RIGHT 639 B20 LEFT INr11'1' VOLUMC ADJUSTED VOL CAPACITY MOVEMENT NORTHBOUND 400 o 1.81 OK OK F`a FFE DtgE3 E-E I rA 6 8--1QF 1=;z I _T' I G L _ r-11, ) "•• l rzz"lll P'l -F o^ 6A L I . XEc 13 L_ E3 ef__4 C ' . " I C A Z F' A F: c 61. L_ D 1 C3 T EE F N1 inb !_._,-i-• (INCLUDES 8OLSA C fCA) DATE: 9/9/87 L_EVE!_ OF SERVICE SATURAT 1 ON ti; CRITICAL N/S VOL B 1 63. CRITICAL E/W VOL, B! CRITICAL SUM c? Cj :1 LANE GEOMETRY L ONE NORTHBOUND MOV WIDTH SOUTHP'DUNL) MC_1V WIDTH RT.11tb R1 1 a r T „ . L. 1.,21. 12, .0 T. T..1.• TRfFf"11, VOL UME. _` LEFT TNRU RIGHT NORTH BOUND 4Q ^',; t_o 40 T RIJ i-l :S {"' NORTHBO UND?S SOUTHBOUND 5 EASTBOUND w WESTBOUND 5 NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EA ,34 816 0 0 PHASING N /S :1.NEITHER TURN PROTECTED E/W :1 .NEITHER TURN PROTECTED PEDESTRIAN ACTIV ITY I. 0 - 99 (#PEDS/HR) CYCLE LENGTH E30 SECONDS CR I T. T CAf. LAN i10LUJ ES- BY M THRU -RIGHT LEFT SOU f -4BOUND 105 60 EAS TBOUND WE IS -1, 4SOUND MOV WIDTH MOV WIDTH. RrL, 't S.RTL 15.0 , . . n . . e . If. EASTBOUND WESTBOUND 40CAL BUSES (#/HR 'EAF,--' HOUR F ACTOR 1 LEFT TURN CHECK'; TBOUNT 84 0 NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND INPUT. VOLUME 40 105 I50 aJUTDVM APACITY MOVEMENT 0 t.O!•:.;NO WESTBOUND 25 {H 1 lf. I- I r-- PL_.. 'rolD/FE@'-z'E*.N.i_F PN AI_'eE3 I E r-r #'. 3 L_ V3 4A H X c Pb .7 F E A F C E: L D --3 'T'" ,: M Pb L. T (INCLUD ES BOL A CHICA) DATE: 9/9/37 L;fh VEL OF SERVICE, EATURAT I ON O %. CRITICAL N/S VOL e -)B CRITICAL E/W VOL f34 CRIT ICAL SUM :E3 ' NORTHBOUND L..AI+.NIw I1IOV WIDTH RT. T. 12. i L. 12.L) NORTHBOUND LANE GEOMETRY SOUTHBOUND NOV WIDTH EAS`TTBOUNL MDV WIDTH WESTBOUND NOV WIDTH RT 15.0.RTL 15.0 RTL 15.x:5 T. 12.(1 ....... ..,. T. 1.0 1£.(3 . L 1 RAFF I C. VOLUMES SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND LEET 4O THRU 1215 2085 R h GHT 40 260 TRIJCt,,;S t.i 1so 60 3TBOUND 65 HR) F'EAI< HOUR FACTOR NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND WESTBOUND S PHASING N/S :1 d NEITHEr TURN PROTECTED PEDESTRIAN E/W ACTIVITY . i.. : NEITHER TURN P ROTECTED 1. 0 -99 WED /HR) CYCLE LENGTH 80 SECONDS CRITICAL LANE VOLUMES BY MOVEMENT I NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND THRU -RIGHT 626 BOB 84 76 LEFT 0 NORTHBOUND INPUT VOLUME 40 ADJUSTED VOL C.) CAPACITY 0 MOVEMENT 011.1, LEFT TURN CHECK' -SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND 9 ; 150 25. {1 0 18 2 G 0Of.:NO n ( F• , Cl N :E3 Ec R I P4 Q 1--;Z F=- 'z. " CD R= F Ec C L .. e''a 0 - F = - - IF-- tc X L E., F-,; T z r1 D DATE: 9/9/97 LEVEL OF SERVICE G :: ATURAT I ON -7 -4 CRITICAL., N/S VOL , ("RITICAL. E/W VOL I CRITICAL SUM 1 :2-! 6w LYA NIE GECIME 1'RY NOR I H)'U[_{r"'ii LANE NOV W .I D'1"!-4 RT, 2 I . . TL S 6 NORTHBOUND LEFT THRU RIGHT 1./1 1(;')6 TRUCKS G NO:TH OLND SOUTHBOUfff ) EASTBOUND' WESTBOUND PHASING N/S w: . E/W 2 PEDESTRIAN ACTIVITY : CYCLE LENGTH . NL LA i r.OUN+IL) M1011 W1'DT MOV WIDTH .R T ! - FR C3 a -- WESTBOUND MOV WIDTH SCOLJTHEOUND l .AST ?O JNI) 1290 456 y L.OC 'kL Bd.J SIwz C#i/H HEAVIEST TURN PROTECTED HEAVIEST TURN PROTECTED 1. 0 * 99 (t'PE S/HR) EQ SECONDS CRITICAL LANE VOLUMES BY MOVEMENT NORTHBOUND SOUTHSQUNO EAST SOUND THRU --RIGHT 299 625 2 20 LEFT TURN CHECF, NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND INPUT VOLUME 1-1113 1 2Z7 )DJLJSTEx VOL CAPACITY MOVEMENT NO LEFT 5 3 246 220 WESTBOUND 140 3 514 145 K HOUR FACTOR .95 .95 .9a ASTBOUND WESTBOUND 220 o 381, N/A OK F';8D C : H I / E1 i 13F I N E 11 C3 F= I L. P E F;:-.,.f M III / 6=° I D 0 r=- ;c: T DATE: 9/9/97 LEVEL OF SERVICE 0 SATURATION '" r1% CRITICAL N/S VOLE CRITICAL E/W VCL CRITICAL- SUM 1i fz :.5 NORTHF;OUNr LANE MCIV W1D1'H 4 5 6 F.T . T. L. LANE GEOMETRY 60 UT1-1Z.1, O# ND MOV WIDTH EA TDOUND NOV WIDTH WE; T3QUND MDV WIDTH RT.1,R1.15.R..1.0 T ..12",!'r T.12.(.T.12.0 T ..1 1. c:#L..1 ' .(.L..12.0 ( F1jFC! I c" VOL,1,.11IEu'J LEFT THRU RIGHT NORTHBOUND 1 62 7 106 SOU7 -HBO(JND EA;Z3TBDUND WE 'TBOUND x:: [ 1r 456 LOCAL BUSES '/HR 14 (v 334 145 PEAL. HOUR FACTOR NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND 5 5 tr' .95 .95 FHASING N/S E/W c2. HEAVIEST TORN PROTECTED :2. HEAVIEST TURN PROTECTED PEDESTRIAN ACT CYCLE LENGTH VITY 1. 80 SECONDS 0 - 99 (#REDS/HR) CRITICAL LANE VOLUMLS BY MOVEMENT NORTHBOUND THRU -RIGHT Z.-le LEFT 179 SJl1THSOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND 658 2 ,-%7 246 220 LEFT TURN CHECK NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND i NP'UT VOLUME 162 -J/233 ADJUSTED VOL 179 246 CAPACITY 0 519 0 MOVEMENT NO N/A N/A 1P E3 0 8 EEC F I NCIJ '. "1-4 DFF" k ; I mo ' , 1 . '-r I c a t 1 11 k,.,' E' I'1 E I"-l `T' 1%J oc L '" 'I Z- tz D @._ E3 in,1-1 I I u''- l I-I C 11..._. I'".I F `I- I F 0 I n F=' R D 0 F C-- -r (INCLUDES BO LSA CFHCA) DATE: 9/9/87 LEVEL. OF SERVICE SATURATION '7 CRITICAL N/S VOL E CRITICAL CRITICAL E/W VOL SUM 1.'.._":5I LANE GEOMETRY NORTHBOUND "SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WEOTBOUND LANE' MOV WIDI"H NOV WTD1'H NOV WIDTH MOV WIDTH RT T. T. L.Y RT.T`. 1 r Y 1 F • t j L . . 1 2 Y TRAFFIC VOLUMES NORTHBOUND LI;_F.l.1.1.5 THRU f 65 RIGHT 105 SOUTHBOUND 1 P+7 V 455 OUND 4r 1+14Y 60 WESTBOUND 140) 145 TRUC}:;z (!) LOCAL RUSK"' (#/HR) PEAK HOUR FACTOR NORTHBOUND S _ .95 SOUTHBOUND W .95 EASTBOUND .95 WESTBOUND 5 3 .95 PHASING N/S «2. HEAVIEST TURN PROTECTED E/W z2, HEAVIEST TURN PROTECTS- PEDESTRIAN ACTIVITY % 1. 0 -" 99 (#PEDS/HR) CYCLE LENGTH 80. SECONDS CRITICAL LANE VOLUMES BY MOVEMENT NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND THRU -RIGHT 317 65 4 2 20 30; LEFT INPUT VOLUME ADJUSTED VOL CAPACITY MOVEMENT 66 24. 1-1 210 11 LEFT TURN CHECb NORTHEOUNL SOUTHBOUND EA:BTPOUND WESTBOUND 14 ^5 s 5 140 ;;-1 y r 1 1 tr 40_ NO N/A RI, T . - 1_x;,•A. t . c F L i m i L_ tFd"i C3 w LEE t - i E : .r " , 1"A i 3 B (INCLUDES BOLSA C HI C A) DATE: 9/9/07 LEVEL OF SERVICE SATURATION ,-r CRITICAL N/S VOL ' CRITICAL E/W VOL 2 CRITICAL SUM :;41233 NORTHBOUND LANE NOV WIDTIH-l 1 4 RT. 1tc=aye T.. 12.( l•+:Y r 1 2 r OL. LANE GEOMETRY 9C.1UT3'HrADLJND NOV WIDTH Eel STBOiJP D NOV WIDTH WESTBOUND NOV WIDTH 'A".1O.'.% RT. 15.'.A F.I. 12.O T,-12.0 T. 12.0 T. 12,0 1'.12% 0 L. • 1 .0 L. 12.0 R q n F3 • q k • Fr . . Y Y . . LEFT THRU RIGHT NOR 1`HBOUND NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND T R i j Cr: S SOUTHBOUND 1400 435 . . . BOUND WESTBOUND .A55 95 140 -,5'35 145 LOCAL S rS ELF PHASING N/S :2.HEAVIEST TURN PROTECTED E/W :2.HEAVIEST TURN PROTECTED PEDESTRIAN ACTIVITY :A.0 -y 99 (WEDS/HR) CYCLE LENGTH SO SECONDS CRITICAL LANE VOLUMES BY MOVEMENT NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND THRU -RIGHT 337 687 238 LEFT 198 24•..ti 220 LEFT TURN CHECK NOIRTHDOi.JND SOUTHBOUND INPUT ti'OL UU C 3.65 5 ADJUSTED VOL 198 24 CAPACITY t:z 548 MOVEMENT NO N/A AV HOUR FACTOR .95 .95. 95 c F I E A L- P1 D% EE P 1=- 1'4_'6"1__ "'w„ 8 I B iE C) L. ii;E F-i I e' " EE I L__ L- D I'q C-3 _F 1= C- P1 I*hl D lam' ice, J D m DATE: 9/9/57 -at-- n #•mac--a,at----a- LEY=:L OF SERVI'*.F P SATURATION 1 C) E3 CRITICAL N/S VOL_ 1 3-C-3, CRITICAL E1W VOL CRITI CAL SUM 1 -7 E if-ir ** ****iE #•i6iE6.) *******4 }: ****-}E * *# it LANE GEOMETRY LANE NORT IFIBOUNI. MOV WIDTH S(:711THBUUND jIG',; WIDTH EASTBOUND MOV WIDTH WESTC':IUND MOV WIDTH 1.RT.1, t5,.o R T PT„I'S.R..12.0T(1 2 .<3 T . .T 1 T..12 . 0 T..12.4a T.12.'_...1 .0 L.. .j11i 4 L..12.0 12.'?Y M 5 6 TRAFF I C V'?LUMES LEFT THRU RIGHT NORTHBOUND COUTHSOUND EASTBOUND 19 911 1;6"9 NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND PHASING PEDESTRIAN ACT CYCLE LENGTH 126 TRUCKS t%) LOCAL BUSES (#/HR) S 4:24 109 S i'N/S ; HEAVIEST TURN PROTECTEO E/W -2. HEAVIEST TURN PROTECTED VITY 1: 80 SECONDS 0 - 99 (#PEDS/HR) CRITICAL LANE VOLUMES BY MOVEMENT NORTHBOUND THRU -RIGHT 349 LEFT :359 SOUTHB OUND EASTBOUND 742 267 :86 257 LEFT TURN CHECK NORTHBOUND INPUT VOLUME 192 ADJUSTED VOL 559 CAPACITY 0 MOVEMENT NO SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND 3(:)=. 26 6 257 7'-2 0 N/A N/A WESTBOUND '166 65 410. OK F' bfA F t-:-; C !'w9 E .=, 1 •J Ca: D IFS. F„ C F I `r ]' C L 1-10 F Z t -l C " -r N - e' L- N'` ! I U-y C_...,. - P L_rNJi Et IN I D « F-h: dD o DATE: 9/9/37 4c*******.*i *** 'r#ic#c-Y ****3C*** r"c#-;r3F';F-Y6. * LEVEL. OF SERVICE ; 1TU ATION 1.3 CR ITICAL N/S VOL -4- L`F.ITICF;L E/W VOL '-- ;y (TRITICAL SUM l -q--q•°q. raNE GEOMETRY aTL CJ131`a, WESTL OUNU LANE NOV WfEl TL-t WIDTH NOV WIDTH MDV WIDTH -i 4 6 NORTHBOUND SOUl"HBOUND EASTBOUND WE.S`I SOUND LEFT 3 THRU 91 1 16 -19 424 RIBHT t -5 42'103 NttCn 1 HSUtUN` S JUTHECiUNND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND E/W :2. HEAV I EST TURN PROTECTED RT.I RT. Is.o T. 1 12..i_.T.. 2. T..12-6 T. . L . I . 0 L.. 1 y . €=1 « k k TRULi ' ".' 16,E 39 7 1 72 HP) PEA},`.' HOUR FACTOR PHASIN G 1\1/Ze 4« OTH TURNS P ROTECTED WITH OVERLAP) PEDESTRIAN ACTIVITY i 1 « 0 -• 99 (#PEDS/HR) CYCLE LENGTH . ,1130 SECONDS TICAL LANE VOLUMES BY MOVEMENT THRU -RIGHT LEFT INPU"C" VOLUME ADJUSTI-'-I) VOL CAPACIT Y MOV'EMEN"'- NORTHBOUNi y 359 16 L .CAL Fri ?UTHBOUND 742 226 NORTHBOL'i ,ED -:rit`1_f 1Hi UU E ! 1 W "A: ll36 t t 74'2 N/A N/A F` e= j F E D t"J . - Ec 8=+z I i'A P=: E=-: FzZ 1 O F_ F !C 9 `T' I Cs L_ M C `4" E F•1 E N `ir f 44 L' y I r3DL_9A CH I C irA Z " EE I L_ dDMG _r EF:II'i i!nk F•F L_ I C -t- DATE: 9/9/87 LEVEL OF SERVICE F= SATURAT ION 1 1 q CRITICAL N/S VOL i2 `. '1=2 CRITICAL E/W VOL CRITICAL SUM 1 C9 7k. .'s i i'c**** - **** #i #'''s*# 'r'r-ir #c3rc3b* ***** 4-^F*** LANE 3EOMETRY LANE NORTH-lLW,"WD SOU"I"HbOUN D EASTBOUND MOV WIDTH MCIV WIDTH NOV WIDTH F;T. 15. 0 T • 12. s? T. 12. NOR T HSOUND TE;AF F II; VOLUMES SOUTHBOUND LEFT 12S 05 THRU 999 177 R': I GHT i.3µ542 RT. 15.0 T. 12.0 L.. 1:.() WESTBOUND MOV WIDTH R.. 12.ra T.. 1'.t? L.. 12.0 . . X . . • RUC=I':;S (?:) I.OCAL BUSES NORTHBOUND r SOUTHBOUND EASTDOUND WESTBOUND S PHASING N/S :2. HEAVIEST TURN PROTECTED E/W .2.. HEAVIEST TURN PROTECTED PEDESTRIAN ACTIVITY 1 0 * 99 (WEDS CYCLE LENGTH 80 SECONDS '27/9 426 128 HR) CRITICAL LANE VOLUMES BY MOVEMENT THRU -RIGHT LEFT NORTHBOUND 39 1 441 SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND 788 277 299 257 LEFT TURN CHECK INPUT VOLUME ADJUSTED VOL CAPACITY MOVEMENT NORTHBOUND 2ir 4A 1 N 0O SOUTHBOUND , EASTBOUND 317 2 79 299 257 9 38 0 N/A N/A EASTBOUND Fi I _T.I E-- PAL Ems' D V Ir P-1 1`4 _r PA ,9__w_-e B I -1 R-_ E 1-1 Z E ' .' 1 E_= I I<._ L_ 0 !' f_3 o ". i'i`i e F="_ C ]NJT W,-' N I T DATE: 9/9."87 LEVEL OF SERVICE D SATURATION 13!E; CRITICAL N/S VOL CRITICAL E/W VOL CRITICAL SUM i,1-; °7 LANE GEOMETRY JN,NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND l ANE MOV WIDTH MO V WIDTH I RT.15.Q R.12-0 2 T 12.0 T.. T..12. Q 4 L..12.0 T.12. Q .«,.«..L..12.0 6 Tt"-GAFF I C VOLUME NORTHBOUND LE"F"I" THRU RIGHT SOUTHBOUND X17 177 O4"' E:A S 1"BOUND WESTBOUND NOV WIDTH MOV WIDTH RT. I f. r1 T.. 12, 0 L. 12.0 EASTBOUND TRUCKS LOCAL BUSES (4/RR ) NORTHBOUND _ SOUTHBOUND 5 _ EASTBOUND 5 WESTBOUND S ' T. L.. 15.0 12. 0 1'.0 WESTBOUND 279 171 4:x'6 98 128 ISO PEAT HOUR FACTOR 1 I 1 1 PHASING N/S :4. BOTH TURNS PROTECTED (WITH OVERLAP) E / W :2u HEAVIEST TURN PRO1:._i END PEDESTRIAN ACTIVITY 1, 0 - 99 (#PEDS/HR) CYCLE LENGTH : 80 SECONDS CRITICAL LANE VOLUMES BY MOVEMENT NORTHBOUND SOU,i`HSOUND EASTBOUND THRU RIGHT 391 686 277 LEFT 176 299 LEFT TURN CHE I;1 NOR 9 fi iBOLtND-1 SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND INPUT VOLUME 205 517 279, ADJUSTED VOL 176 2 9 9 2'7 CAPACITY 0 838 64 MOVEMENT N/A N/A N/A NESTB UND WESTBOUND 171 75 268 OK qq 7- F* a!,e 3 0 tl " »y E y ;. I i C e !. " F--c I-1 D D`am'.. Eocb _L[-'4 L E c+ic- L. C:) V'" EZ 1-1 E E4 -r in PA L_ Y I E3 ]E-cD L_... i3 0:4 C: C--'i I G ic 1 1--d E T >L_ L_ 0 N1( T F= F m , L_ r a DATE: 9 /9/887 LEVEL OF SERVICE F. SATURAT ION 1_ tf;% CRITIC AL N/S VOL 1 2 18 CRITICAL E/W VOL CRITICAL SUM I -dq- LANE GEOMETRY I NORTI-HBOU!'NND SO? ETHBOUND EAS' T"I:BOUND WESTBOUND LANE MDV WIDTH MOV WIDTH MOV WIUT'H MOV WIDTH I PT 15.0 F.`3°•1 ,t R" N 15 . 0 12.0 2 T..12. O 1.N 1'YO T.Y I2.O T 12.0 T. •12. c:0 r. •1:'. O L.112.0 L.i2 0 4 L.:'' 0 12'. O .••u u N•• w Y h u 6 v N M 4 .Y Y x Y . f NORTHBOUND 'T'RAFFIC VOL_UME.S SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND LEFT THRU RIGHT 2u4 991 17-3" M 16 7 17 60 42' 542 126 171 398 1 717 TRUCLS LOCAL T USE S (, /HR)AK HOUR FACTOR NORTHBOUND S I SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND 5 3 PHASING N/S :2.HEAVIEST TURN PROTECTED E/W :2,HEAVIEST TURN PROTECTED PEDESTRIAN ACTIVITY 1. 0 -- 99 ( PEDS/HR) CYCLE LENGTH 80 SECONDS CRITICAL LANE VOLUMES BY MOVEMENT NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND THRU -RIGHT LEFT 389 434 784 29B 276 257 NORTP", -Ihll) LEFT TURN CHECK SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND INPUT VOLUME v16 279 ADJUSTED VOL 4",298 257 CAPACITY 829 MOVEMENT NO N/A N/A WESTBOUND 429 75 WESTBOUND 171 410 OK F' 44 - : E a (3 9 " 1E E E F I KKR = : E F t 1 d ice' Cl L_ e i-i I ( Z " UE I L L , 0 -r P t'1 ic L- Y - M C-3 LEVEL OF SERVICE r SATURATION :0 t5 IX- CRITICAL N/S VOL 7 CRITICAL E/W VOL k- CRITICAL SUM I -4-,C-3- I LANE GEOMETRY NOr2T€•IBCUND 8i:)k,._rrN};OUND EASTBOUND LANE MOV WIDTH MOW W J D"rH MOV WIDTH 1 Rr. '.t. R.. 1 .'.0 T.. 12, . 00 'r. 1.2. T. • 1 21. T.. ,'a 41 4 L. 1'.2.o r.. €2 0 5 . L.. 1760 542 LEFT 204 THRU 991 RIGHT 1 MORTP,1iO(.1ND SOUT SOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND 1 1 PHASING N/S :4. BOTH TURNS PROTECTED WITH OVERLAP) E/W .2, HEAVIEST TURN RROTECTE PEDESTR IAN ACTIVITY 1. 0 - 99 (#rEDS/HRH CYCLE LENGTH 80 SECOND RT. I 5 r. T. . ice.0 L. . 12.0 NORTHBOUND SOUTFfSOUND . EASTBOUND WESTBOUND rhi,AFF I C VOLUMES CRITICAL LANE VOLUMES BY MOVEMENT NORTHBOUND SOUrH?OUND E39 682 175 '298 EA$T$ODUND 237 NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND LEFT TURN CHECK INf°'UT VOLUME 2 4 1 16 2 79 ADJOSTED VOL 1 It;9S 257 CAPACITY 0 229 64 MOVEfYIFNT N/A N/A N/A 4.^'..6 126 tJ./N1`r WEST-.SOUND NOV WIDTH PT. 15.0 T. 12.0 L.. 1 c> 171 Z198 17; TRUCKS c r.) LOCAL BUST». (#/HR; P LAP, HOUR FACTOR 171 2.6 f 3 OK DATE: 9/9/87 J=' P F;7 EE; (D "E3 E ^r" I Nei U_= F-Z I-li C_W = 0 IA (3 r L_ -T- DATE: 9/9/87 LEVEL OF SERVICE SATURATION f;- 114- CRITICAL N/S VOL 1. 3.8'1x'• CRITICAL CRITICAL. E/W VOL SUM 1 Ca D LANE GEOMETRY LANE NORTH50UND NOV WIDTH wS UTHBOUND 00V WIDTH E A: TBO1JND MOV WIDTH RT.15.0 RT.15.0 R.T.15.0 u T.12 . (i T.12. .'`12a ) v.l T,12. o T. *12.0 LL' . 4 1 L. .12.0 5 NORTHBOUND TRAFFIC VOLUMES SOUTHBOUND EASTf iDt LEFT 201 3 1 2 714 THRU t 7 1750 425 RIGHT 542 TRUCKS (k. T LOCAL .BUSES NORTHGtJUV17 SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND 5 WESTBOUND 5 HR) PHASING N/S :2. HEAVIEST TURN PROTOCTED E/W :2. HEAVIEST TU cif PROTECTED PEDESTRIAN ACTIVITY 1. 0 - 19 t#PEDS/HR) CYCLE LENGTH SO ' ECONDS R 1 T I LAL. LANE VOLUMES BY MOVEMENT NORTHBOUN v SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND THRU -RIGHT 381 774 274 LEFT 41S 295 257 LEFT TURN CHEC:K NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND INPUT. VOLUME 201 : 13 2-79 ADuUS'TED VOL 41s ''105 257 CAPACITY 0 808 MOVEMENT NO N/A N/A T BOUND MOO WIDTH WESTBOUND HC I I M=• F;: E3 DEtaB nFk I P4M F,rM='F: " 0M='F F: I ffi I A L_ M t3' ' L M IC NI "I' I'A L ''f B I B DD M.__. ES ic Mr 1}- i ,,` --I _C L L C3 MBA CE;_$_'b-" " ict E_.. `r ..2 tt z M" i " DATE: 9/9/87 LEVEL OF SERVICE SATURATION ,9. E 14 " CRITICAL N/S VOL - I CRITICAL E/W VOL - - CRITICAL SUM . NORTHBOUND LANE MOV W I D 'IH RT. T. . T. L.. LANE GEOMETRY S01L1THF OUND MUV WIDTH EASTBOUND MDV WIDTH WESTBOUND MOV WIDTH P.) r .0 R T.15. 0 RT.15.0 F .1 2 .0 T.121.0 T . T. 12.L. • -121. 0 s . . µ L.12. t.: TRAP 1C VOLUMES NORTHBOUND LEFT THRU 9i 71 RIGHT 1.:1 NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND 5 EASTBOUND 5 WESTBOUND 1 /0 Z98 1 78 LOCAL ?USES 2 7Q 4sµ5, 12 2 /HR)PE HOUR FACTOR 1 PHASING N/S i4 BOTH TURNS PROTECTED (WITH OVERLAP) E/W :2. HEAVIEST TURN PROTECTED PEDESTRIAN ACTI `TTY 1 . 1 0 99 (#PEDSi -R) CYCLE LENGTH 1 80 SECONDS THRU -RIGHT LEFT SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND 17- 542 CRITICAL LANE VOLUMES NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND 381 470 171 295 LEFT TURN CHECK, NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUNL INPUT VOLUME 2:-!313 ADJUSTED VOL. 171 29 5 CAPACITY c 8i8 MOVEMENT /A N/A Y MOVEMENT EASTBOUND 274 257 EASTBOUND WESTBOUND 79 1702 257 !4"' 60 2 7 NIA OK -IF I SAL Mt3 )E NiE M -r ,nvL_NP ZF ,P.`? CD 1 -- k2 C:" I C-- Z f - E I L- e_-y- yy ,_ C) B'J 8j7 gp t i - M R " L3 F' F:z -,.F' J E C..-' ( INCLUDES B OLSA CHICA) DATE. 9/9/87 LEVEL OF SERVICE SATURATION 7I:' CRITICAL N/S VOL -_° t=k CRITICAL.E/W VOL E3f CRITICAL.SUM 1 ;5 *irk'YE'34- i-'i•4 *** c7*3+F3FYr* ****•3 **•lydf•kdk*DE•ia4-*** LANE GECIIETRY NORTHBOUND SOL.' 1 LANE MOV W I lD T+1 M (P) tai 101'rl 1 RT. 15 .O RT. I T.. 12.0 T. 1b.'«0 f, 1.2.0 T.: 1"«f1 4 L... 12.0 L. 1k u0 iJ Y+& 4 s, W 4 •. . C'RAFF I C VOLUI1Ecj NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUNt 195 11-45 125 540 NO,, W I OTH RT, r ,. AS TRUCKS (%) LOCAL ;:.USES (#h F NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOt INNNND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND CYCLE LENGTH 80 SECONDS 1 1. WESTBOUND NOV WIDTH R WESTBOUND PEAK HOUR FACTOR E/W :2. HEAVIEST TURN PROTECTED PEDESTRIAN ACTIVITY u 1. c -- 99 (%PEDSJHR) 5 aS PHASING N/S :2. HEAVIEST TURN PROTECTE11 CRITICAL LANE VOLUMES BY MOVEMENT NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EAST SOUND THRU -RIGHT 433 872 270 LEFT 378 286 259 LEFT TURN CHECK NORTHBOUND SOUTHB OUND EASTBOUND INPUT VOL UME 19 5 305 250:3 ADJUSTED VEIL ' ;78 wt 6 259 CAPAC I TY B1 7 MOVEMENT NO N/A N/A 115 WESTB WESTBOUND 165 63 41x OK F=« lam;BDNI EEC F I iIcI-=': F; -IC)F 6= +: I -r : c C-11 8_ k-1 tq _r =,1`^+k +'• '',=; I E L (I NCLUDES BOLA CWCA) DATE; 9/9/87 #-x' 9t• ••r #' fi'x' •1Q' •i• i#-tF''3F 4f• 3B # F•iz' •D4- iF #-' 3fi{• at• • •;Y'...yF #C f• 9t- LEVEL OF SERVICE SSATi,1RATION '; CRITICAL.NIS VOL -P,4 CRITICAL E/W VOL ;54-cD CRITIC AL SUM I -e4.3 ','. .' ..*'{'.'.R'**'*"* "X "7{#'-V ****4 i_,ANE 1 5 LANE GEU!IE TR\ NORTHBC`sUNI)C)U rHk: utm E ST. il(JND WESTBOUND NOV WTDIH MC1V WIDTH NOV WIDTH MOV WIDTH R.T.1`.5P Cr RT.1S« 0i '1 . P 1 ? . 0 T,1'2'L.12%0 TR I F I C VOLUMES NORTHBOUND SOU i HBOUND T. + 12.0 L. - 12%0 h Y Y ;Q 1 54Ci-11S 170 LEFT I Vtl THRU" 1123 RIGHT 125 TRUCF:'.S (I) LOeCAL N( RTHBOUND S SOUTH -t W,ID .j EASTBOUND 5+ WEB'TDOUND 5 PHi-.SING N/S : 4M PEDESTRIAN E /W ACTIVITY :2. A EASTBOUND WESTBOUND HR) PEAKK' HOUR FACTOR 1 I 1 ROTH TURNS PROTECTED (WITH OVERLAP) HEAVIEST TURN PROTE'";'TED 1. 0 -- 99 (#PEDS/HR) CYCLE : _ENGTH « 80 SECONDS CRITICAL LANE VOLUMES BY MOVEMENT NORTHBOL11'ND T-HRU -RIGHT 433 LEFT 165 NORTHBOUND SOU i"HBOUND EASTB UND WESTBOUND 783 276 281 286 29 6 LEFT TURN CHECK SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND I N1='UT VOLUME 1"+0O 280 1.65 r-D,TUS`TEI) VOL 1.65 286 k 6363 CAPAC ITY t s 818 52 270 MOVEMENT N/A N/A N/A OK F^ i!nb 1 D":E E--ci=ce I N C R =:; `-t; R F F- CC : IZZ I _r I c L_ M C:D v t ' P4_r A t L_ V EE x aL.-9 02k C "I -' "E 11_.. L,DI" " 9=+! 1 fl=" ^I__ 3 i_f (INCLUDES BOLSA CHICA) DA'rE: 9/9/87 LEVEL.. OF SERVICE F SATURATION CRITICAL N/S VOL CRITICAL. E/W VOL S CRITICAL SUM ''t-' 'b ki***-N•*.•** ***************************** LANE GE OMETRY N€3R I H,Hi'JUND SLJU.J l i NBIJLii D EA" TBOUI4D WESTBOUND LANL MOV WIDTH NlD'.' WIL-D'TH MOV WIDTH NOV WIDTH j RT^ 2 1".. i.2. Q T. 12.0 L.. 1.12. f) L 14. b .. ,... ... .... TFAEF LEr T THI U RIGHT F" NORTHBOUND SUUIHB'JUND L. 1 2 .0 n M . EASTBOUND WESTBOUND .=} 340 1' O 170 TRUL;:k.`S LOCAL . BU S ES (#/HR'9-P-`EAL'. HOUR FACTOR NORTHBOUND SLA-;THDOUN'l EIASTBOIUND aP. WESTBOUND S 1 PHASING N/S :2. HEAVIEST TURN PROTECTED E/W'. 2. HEAVIEST TJRN PROTECTED PEDESTRIAN ACTIVITY 1.0 -- 99 (#PEDS/HR) CYCLE LENGTH 90 SECONDS NORTHBOUND THRU --RIGHT 465 LEFT 472 CRITICAL LANE VOLUMES BY MOVEMENT SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND 918 280 426 297 ' 59 73 LEFT TURN CHECI1:: NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND INPUT VOLUME 210 31 J 280 AD UGTEn VOL 47^,)"°2S9 CAPACITY ;)9w 1 MOVEMENT NO N/A N/A 7c ES . . , 170 95 . 180 73 405 Off; P=• r F-CS3 0 P4 : E F: I =:: --I 4 I--- F:4: F:7 F= D L_ 1_13 44 (INCLUDE S BOLSA C HIC A) DATE: 9/9/87 Yr#-1F'ri{'****d4.94'##'** *#9i*,.****#-3k-****9F** LEVEL. OF SERVICE SATURATION E-3 CRITICAL N/S VOL 9.".'7 CRITICAL . E/W VOL CRITICAL SUM 94•#•M}r#3c -?63F-lk'c'f.**** 4.** *4 df*-Yr'r'-iG##-3'rii-#' =#r-) ** LANE GEOMETRY L(-'NE 1 5 NORTHBOUND SOUTUDOUND MOV WIDTH MD WIDTH PT. T, T. 1-.. . NORTHBOUND 2 1t) 1.A 3-J 1',5v 340 TRUC:}.:S 'X) LOCAL B US NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND PHASING N/S 4. PEDESTR IAN E/ ACTIVITY 12. CYCLE LENGTH TRAFFIC VOLUMES SOUTHBOUND EASTl'ULSNDD_ MCDV WIDTH T. 1`2 W W + W ES TB C3UND MOV WIDTH STBOUN; WESTBOUND 4 't- r-1 BOTH TURNS PROTECTED (WITH OVERLAP) HEAVIEST TURN PROTECTE 1. 0 -- 9 (#FEDS/Hr 0 SECONDS CRITICAL LANE VOLUMES BY MOVEMENT THRU -RIGHT LEFT NORTHBOUND 465 95 NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND 832297 LEFT TURN CHECK SOU THBOUND INPUT VOLUME 210 315 ADJUSTED VOL 181 CAPACITY 0 925 MOVEMENT N/A N/A EASTBOUND WESTBOUND 250 3*f rw F•.'",_r' D NI e h .. I INJ C-_ 9---. F."D F F I "r I A t_ P C:)'`.,' M E-: I'A 7f 1'4 , L_ `' `',..! 1 B (INCLUDES BOLSA CHICA) DATE: 9/9/87 LEVEL OF SERVICE F; SATURATION I ;n"-1-- CRITICAL N/S VOL 1 4- CRITI..AL E/W VOL E3CRITICAL SUM ^cwr_a.4? LANE GEOMETRY LANE NORTHFB0(JNNJD MDV WIDTH 1 RT.1.f";.o 2 31 T.Iw« L.12`. SOU I t ABOUND MOV W I DTH f+^l. iC!,o i .. ;.2.0 WESTBOUND NOV WIDTH 1.SwC0 R. 12. i 12. T. 12.0 12 L. 12w 0 « w + NORTHI'-OUJ"did rHAFFIC VOLUMES SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND LEF.I`'r 280 170 THRU i o 2 1:`"=35 25 .995 RIGHT 130 540 170 175 NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND TRUCKS (;:1 I OCAL U E EASTBC, UN0 NOV WIDTH C/ HR? PEAK HOUR FACTOR PHASING N/S :2. HEAVIEST TURN PROTECTED E/W R2. HEAVIEST TURN PROTECTED PEDESTRIAN ACTIVITY 1. 0 -- 99 WEDS/HR) CYCLE LENGTH 8o SECONDS CRITICAL LANE VOLUMES BY MOVEMENT NORTHBOUND SOU i HBOUND EASTBOUND 462 913 277 441 29 7 2,9 LEFT TURN CHECK NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EAS TBOUND WESTBOUND INPUT VOLUME 2 t i .1 O 250 170 ADJUSTED VOL.441 : 1297 2,59 73 MOVEMENT NO N/A N/A O'er CAP'AC TY t=1 89 2 C')40B c.. F: I Y I d...r r c ) C)v E m T r rq f_.._ Ne E3 1 i LEFT THRU RIGHT LEVEL OF SERVICE SATURATION E3 ,. CRITICAL N/S VOL c' I E CRITICAL E / W VOLa CRITICAL SUM 3. 4• ate. 1 LANE GEOMETRY CD!- 3 k :£ C p, I- I C I L. L D CI 0 -r F Z L* `t - I I I Ni I T (INCLUDE S SOL A CHICA) DATE: 9/9/87 LANE NORTHBOUND MOY WIDTH SCEL lTH OUND NOV WIDTH E iS TBOUHD NOV WIDTH WESTBOUND MOV WIDTH 1.RT.15.0 R..1.,"x 0 RT„1f•(,)RT.15.00 .e T..12.0 T..If . 0 T..12 O T.12.. 0 T 12 0 T (")C L 12 0.....1 ...W ..,..12.0 4 L.12.0 T.12`.0 .. ,4 . v • • x L« 4 12.0 L. TRAFFIC VOLUMES NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND Ej' STBOUND VESTBOUND NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND BUSES (#/HP PHASING N/S :4. BOTH TURNS PROTECTED E/W !2. HEAVIEST TURN PROTECTED 170 _95 175 EAt: HOUR FACTOR 1 (WITH OVERLAP) PEDESTRIAN ACTIVITY 1. 0 - 99 (#PEDS/HR) CYCLE LENGTH So SECONDS THRU -RIGHT LEFT CRITICAL LANE V:;LUMEE B NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUN 462 Orb 92 297 LEFT TURN CHECK NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND INPUT VOLUME '_i:315 ADJUSTED VOL 17 6 297 CAPACITY 0 892 MOVEMENT N/A N/A 8l;2w: lENi STBOUND 2*77 259 6b N/A EA STBOUND WESTPOUN1 F• ink r:R B D h4 E3 8 F 11",+. C r F--,-: ti-- D F t I '"r I + L 1-1 ki 1f`$ Fwj ti_ ' /"S S;3 I_ A C --1 I CA ./ "FE tt= I tl_... +L__ D C-3 E F' i L. T (INCLUDES BOL A CH CA) BATE,- 9/9/57 1f-9#'M•-M•*'14*34-F****DH *****FMn'3* 4FYc%r#AP*if** 0 -99 (# PEDS/HR) CRITICAL LANE VOLUMES BY MOVEMENT NORTHBOUND SOUTHB0UND-ASTROUND- 4.5 903 ;77 441 297 2;9 LEFT TURN CHECK TOR. WESTBOUND 26 73 NORTHBOL.UNqD SOUTH BOUND EASTBOLUND WESTEOUN 7 INPUT VOLUME _n5 1 r ':`:50 1; r ADJUSTED VOL, 441 29/ ASS 7; 4t€CAPACITY j SS9 0 MOV MENT NO N/A N/A OK L.At'li NORTHBOUND MOV WIDTH 1.RT.15.0 2 T..1'2, O ..T..12.0 4 L I:',Ci NORTHBOUND L.EFI" 2 5 THRLI lies RIGHT 1::',a NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND LEVEL OF SERVICE SATURATION CRITICAL N/S VOL I .»--4 CRITICAL E/W VOL CRITICAL SUM*:-? LANE OEOMETRY SOU E'HBOUND NOV WIDTH PT, T. . 0r EASTBOUND WESTBOUND NOV WIDTH MOV WIDTH r'0 12. T.12.0 T.. L_ . Y.n K M . 12.E ) . I a . • a L., • N a d a 1' .0 TRAFFIC VOLUMES SOUTHBOUND EA S TBOUND WESTBOUND 170 425 390 4 171x7 175 TRUCKS (f r LOCAL. BUSES (#/ HR) PEAK. HOUR 4',1 3 1 PHASING N/S E/W 5 - 5 5 2. HEAVIEST TURN PROTECTED 2. HEAVIEST TURN PROTECTED PEDESTRIAN ACTIVITY ; 1. CYCLE LENGTH 50 SECONDS F" 1=4'. 44-3 Ci n 1 I - a " a" F:z I _r I C fc I__t 1 C3 . E M E 1'l$ : .1 L. "y' - .t 113 3L_E3 A CF--1 I C ,./ 1-4 ' I __ L C)N (_T F:Z F'i fn L_ (INCLUDES BOLSA CFHCA) DATE: 9/9/87 LEVEL OF SERVICE ID SATURATION 43 % CRITICAL N/S VOL '''0 CRITICAL E/W VOL CRITICAL SUM 1.4 4-'` F'?s`'3f-tik'a,FF'i *** 1f** iF*$r** ** **** i- '-1Ea'rik* LANE GEOMETRY NORTHE13UNt? ;C e.,i 4k CUND EASTBOUND LANE MOV WID1`H NOV WIDTH 4'lDV wit)" 114 1 RT. 15.R.RT. 15.Q 2 T T T.J. t ... . 1420 L.. l a y. 4 L . . 12.0 w.12 . Ct .. a 5 L.. 12.0 12,0 6 NORTHBOUND LEF r J,.: THRU 1185 RIGHT 1"30 TRU,}Cf:,,S (%) NORTHBOUND 5 SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND TRAFFIC VOLU4 SOUTHBOUND 2105 5 40 LOCAL BU ;(„:S (#/HR '2180 425 WESTBOUND MOV WIDTH RT. 15.1) T. . 12. y WES TE OUND 170 .95 175 CA K HOUR FACTOR 1 1 PHASING N/S m4. BOTH TURNS PROTECTED (WITH OVERLAP) E/W :2. HEAVIEST TURN PROTECTED PEDESTRIAN ACTIVITY 1. 0 -- 99 E*PEDS/HR1 CYCLE LENGTH 80 SECONDS CRITICAL LANE VOLUMES BY MOVEMENT NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EAST BOUND THRU -RIGHT 455 B14 277 LEFT 297 259 LEFT TURN CHECK INPUT VOLUME ADJUSTED VOL CAPACITY MOVEMENT NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND 2 05 3 15 176 29 ry`y 889 NIA N/A EASTBOUND ,STBOUND WESTBOUND 28a 170 25 9 7 bu 266 N/A OK F• F: 01r J B 1B F=Z I I D E:-: FE "C F 1}- R _r, "H E I L_ , Vtom,: `"V lEt---ZM N10 F- DATE: 9/9/87 1_.EVEL OF SERVICE SATURATION Z-X '7 CRITICAL N/S VOL '7_2-OV CR.ITICAL E/W VOL. CRITICAL EUM LANE GEOMETRY 155 . C) NORTHBOUND SOUTHRJUND ( J CJ ND WESTBOUND LANE NOV WI iTHH NOV 'W!D744 NOV WIDTH MOV WIDTH LEF T THRU RIGHT NORTHBOUND T=Ar;f 10 RT. If,. t"1 L, T. 12,') EASTBOUND .4dr 97 1 . 3 Da 51 480 7,4 TRUC1,S (Y LOCAL BUSES NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND ; WESTBOUND PHASING N/S -.1. NEITHER TURN PROTECTED E/W :I. NEITHER TURN PROTECTED PEDESTRIAN ACTIVITY 1. 0 -99 (4PED CYCLE LENGTH e0 SECONDS CRITIC THRU -RIGHT LEFT PEAK HOUR FACTOR .95 .95 .95J HR) L LANE VOLUMES 3Y MOVEMENT NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND 291.46c^r 0 LEFT TURN CHEO< EASTBOUND WESTBOUND 326 27 Z,6 0 NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND INPUT VOLUME 11" 56 51 AOJU5TED VOL 0 4 r t_,r c k CAPACITY 55 i3 0 MOVEMENT Oki; OK OK 01% RT. 15.0 LT. 12.0 ... STSOUND F 44 R = : C 8 EF:I F 7= F JC T 1 Pk I- MD' '1:ME NI L..''` "B 1 ' 1-=ti ? F Ps tB T .,+r' 6- 1 L. DATE. 9/9/87 LEVEL OF SERVICE A SATURATION ::r E3 % CRITICAL N/S VOL :2'-f5:2 CRITICAL V/W VOL CRITICAL SUM C3 LANE GEIiME `RY NORTHLLCIUND LANE MOV W1 r) T"H 1, R;T. 1, 6 a h h • • • SOU 14IDDUND EASTBOU ND T-H MOV WIDTH RT. 1, 5. 0 W d • s _ . • • +!. b M C b V TRAFF I C VOLUMES RT• Li. NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND NOV WIDTH R T. 13. 0 LT. 12.0 WESTBOUND L .FT 1 1 __ THRU 2 Z" 3 46 450 RIGHT 52 97 118 4 TRUCKS (/) NORTHBOUND 5 SOUTHBOUND .1 EASTBOUND 5 WESTBOUND 5 PHASING N/S :1 a E/W 1. PEDESTRIAN ACTIVITY : CYCLE LENGTH LOCAL BUSES (#/HR PEAK HOUR FACTOR 45 .95 .95 .95 NEITHER TURN PROTECTED NEITHER TURN PROTECTED 1. 0 -99 (#PEDS/HR) 80 SECONDS CRITICAL LANE VOLUMES BY MOVEMENT NORTH80UND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND THRU -RIGHT 294 X52 26 27 LEFT t:7 0 0 0 LEA:` JRN CHECK NORTHBOUN[) INPUT VOLUME I.1 `. ADJUSTED VOL CAPACITY 0 MOVEMENT SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND 5 i1 58 O 3 OK 1 = k oc F = , : C D E 3 B i ; : I ;! 6 ! = _ _ t F F:1-4 D F 1= G F I -r . P L... ' V i'°'IJ l N -r ock NJ ic 8 _ N"S3 I, _ r' c:,F 1 R'-'tl ! - onk 1 E 1'-p E=-I i Mn! F. F "Y e, 44 i(-'+ i r-__ [;. R i r "I C3 (INCLUDES BOLSA CHICA) DATE. 9/9/87 LEVEL OF SERVICE 43ATURATION .-",'- CRITICAL N/S VOJ_ 0:-4-A- CRI'(3:CAL E/W VOL CRITICAL SUM 9!5:0 7 (D r-t ••at•••,•••3t••••t ••-•-gat-••aaat• LANE GEOMETRY LANE NORTHBOUNLI "a0L•J T1 - I FOUND ED'S ROUND MOV WIDTH NOV WIDJ"H k • M • 1 k NORTHBOUND P"l C0 I WESTBOLIMI) MOV Wlb, H RT. 15.0 LT. 12.0 : k . Ir Y :.Y J Y a Y$ Y i Y Y . R p' . WESTBOUND LEL- T 1 15 THRU 2 :: 0 RIGHT 50 TRVC#-;S (%) NORTHBOUND S SOUTHDOU NC EASTBOUND S WESTBOUND 4 RT. 15, 0 1 :. r) !R IFFIC VOt.U NOV WIDTH k M . 0 1}.t.1 SOUTHBOUND EASTLOLND 9 5 120 PHASING N/S, :1. NEITHER TU RN PROTECTED E/W : 1 . NEITHER TURN PROTECTED PEDESTRIAN ACTIVITY 1.0 99 (#PEDS/HR) CYCLE LENGTH SO SECONDS CRITICAL LANE VOLUMES BY MOVEMENT THRU -RIGHT LEFT 480 35 NORTHBOUND SOUTH8OUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND 289 ;44 326 27 NORTHBOUND INPUT VOLUME 11 ADJUSTED VOL.0 CAPACITY MOVEMENT OF:' 9 LEFT TURN CHECK SOUTHBOUND 35 EASTBOUND 55 OK WESTBOUND 5 0 I-+ ic:s1=<- B T8 E-9 FR 7: rNJCrE-.. F,-- gj F I ^] .I C L.., Ni D \ i E i M F N `T- N-I K L_ "Y E ` I , . . . _ r ` " - . i F 1 P P1 8 m F I--1 G I L., R r ^E. IC F P F-7 F- N W / F F D ti..P ice.;: c` m (INCLUDES 6OLS A CHI D) DA' Ea 9/9/87 L L',F't OF SERVICE A S(I t RATION :3 r ,.. TICAL N/S VOL -q- -I`(ICAL E/W VOL =: _ r CRITICAL SUM 3 S ':w. **• **• • -• •• ****** a ******•a ***** * ****** LANE GEOMETRY NORTHBOUND :, OtJT# lF3t;UND EAST:,JUND WESTBOUND LANE MOV WIDTH 1010v WIDTH NOV WIDTH NOV WIDTH 1 2 6 _jt )l,r4! 5 95 So 490 3O TRUCF.;S t :) LOCAL. L'USES (4 / HR) PC- AK' HOUR FACTOR NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND b PHASING NJ S 1 .NEITHER TURN PROTECTEI` E/W 1..NEITHER TURN PROTECTED PEDESTRIAN ACTIVITY 1.0 r- 99 (#PEDS/HR) CYCLE LENGTH 80 SECONDS THRU -RIGHT RT . 117, 0 Ee"f .15!. Y + Y TRAFFIC VOLUMES RT. R T . IS. LT. L.T. 12.0 NORT HI3DUND SOUTHBOUND EASTTOUND LEFT I 15' T HRU 235 RIGHT 50 LEFT CRITICAL LANE VOLUMES SY MOVEMENT NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND E AST,TCOUN1 2 94 . 48 3 2 6 0 0 0 LEFT TURN HECK NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND INPUT VO! ..UME 115 ADJUSTED VOL ca a CAPACITY MOVEMENT 1.a Okay 55 OK 5 WESTBOUND .95 .9:3 .9 .95 WEST BOUND - 0 t_ OK -r I C_ oc !._._. C D 1 r I I E rat 4C4 r4 L.._,. -,e 3 I S c__; F :; ot= r H ic t'1 T "-' "l I Pt " L.... CD ! 1 L3 T F P1 D F', _:'` _ DATE: 9/9/87 LEVEL Or SERVICE SATURATION CRi t'ICAL N/S VOL. r C'' -Q- CRITICAL E/W VOL ,# '7 CRITICAL SUM i, LANE GEOMETRY LANE NORTHBOUND MOV WIDTH ;'.i ,C I HI BOUND NOV W I brH EA; TU OUf`W ML1V WIDTH WES'TI30UND NOV WIDTH RT.13.0 Ri A i5."1 Rr".It.0 RI.15A 0 .. Y 12. o La _I2Y0 I_T.I12M0 LT.112.0 3 y M > W W N A A A w Y A 5 a y Y Y y s s Y} Y b Y Y s r)A V • • r M V1 I Y Y T'R iFE I C VOL..t.UM"f NORTHS-SOUND BOUTHEC1UND LEF..l..4 THRU 2RIGHT NORTHE CUND SOLITH>[OUt4D EASTBOUND WESTBOUND TRUCl•S (X) LOCAL ; PHASING P41 S : ... E/W :1, PEDESTRIAN ACTIVI (Y CYCLE LENGTH EASTBOUND a4o:f HR) OUND 61 570 40 { HOUR FACTOR I Z' I NEITHER TURN PROTECTED NEI THCR TURN PROTECTED 1 A 99 (#PEDS/Hfi ) 80 SECONDS CRITICAL LANE VOLUMES By MOVEMENT NORTH80UND THRU -RIGHT 7%:71 a LEFT c NORM' 14ZROL.IND INPUT 'VOLUME 134 ADJUSTED VOL s:) CAPACITY 0 MOVEMENT Off:: SOUTHBOUND 394 SOUTHBOUND LEFT TURN CH 64 OK EASTBOUND :67 OUND 306 r* + (1 : R ; aC fib --:. IR: F<" D F 1--= DATE: 9/9/E37 ###-Y''ti ii #i4k #i{.1kiFiFYr #9EiF3k '3tit-1kkt'l49Ea'rslr LEVEL OF SERVICE r SATURA1 1 UN ' - -v:= „ CRITICAL N/S VOL 4 -CI CRITICAL E/W VOL CRITICAL SUM -'" a ** 3(' r* * ********** * * t ****** * Fit LANE GEOMETRY LANE NORTHDOUN0 0M.J ;'}1DOUCND Nov WIDTH MUTT` WID 1 EAA'S TL UUND NOV WTDTH PT.1` i«(-)PT.1 15, C L.F aaY 1. a0 u M 1.A. «aa Jya 1, 2, 4) Y Y M i";10, F C KLiJ11 CRI T Y.'°AL LANE VOLUMES sY MOVEm NORTHBOUND SOUTHi OUND EASTSOUNP THRU -RIGHT 334 401 37G LEFT 0 0 LEFT TURN CHECK NORTHBOUND INPUT VOLUME 136 ADJUSTED VOL 2 CAPACI TY MOVEMENT NO NORTHBOUND 3OUTH;'QUN D "ASTEOUND LEFT THFU 221 296 RIGHT 62 11 BOUND 61 601 40 TRUCKS (4) LOCAL BUSES t 4/11R) PEA), HOUR FACTOR NOIR r1-TEOUNT SOU i HI'O N'D S EASTBOUND Wes: STE-+OUND C PHASING N/S 1. NEITHER TURN PROTECTED F-, .j x 1 . NEITHER TURN PROTECTED PEDESTRIAN ACTT' -TY 1 0 -- 99 ( PEDS/HR) CYCLE LENGTH S0 SECONDS SOLITHBOUND 0 EASTBOUND tJESTBOUND 69 61 1iiEST&OUND MOV WIDTH PT. 15.0 LT.12. () F u a W 4 } 1 P' onk FZ E3 C " E I--c F I r41 &--: EE "DF Fz I I- I C_- A Y- 1D v1EN "r oc 4NJ ict L...'i" !E3 I E. C-3 =4: "A 1-1 - -" " I L WW E^ L_DLU3 TEE AL._T' .. DATE 9/?/S7 LEVEL OF SERVICE 40k SATUF Af I ON it ow '% CRITICAL NIS VOL 3-CC I CRITICAL E/W VOL ZS-77'7 CRITICAL SUIT 7 78 # • #' #• t• #--• ##• # •ir •3i• $'r •Y• •14' •J' •#••# # •;• •fif• #''{' #•-iE•:y.3i•it• # °3t••• •Yr LANE GEOMETRY NORTHBOUND 30L T }1E OUNU EA TBOUND WESTBOUND L.,ANE MDV W1 11111 M 1V WIDTH MUV N EDTH MDV WIDTH RT L.. 4 R. 15.0 l4T, 5. 0 L... 12.0 LT. 12.0 LEFT THRU RIOH`I R'T. 15.0 LT. 12.0 v y n TRAF FIC VULUMES NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND) EASTBOUND WESTBOUND NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND 15.0 12.0:0 1,16 39 296"Ho 62 115 /HR-TRUCKS 0) LOCAL BUSES 0/14,R ) U PHASING N/S :1. NEITHER TURN PROTECTED E / W ;I . NEITHER TURN PROTECTED PEDESTRIAN ACTIVITY 1. 0 -- 99 (#PEDS/HR) CYCLE LENGTH 80 SECONDS CRITICAL LANE VOLUMES BY MOV EMENT NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EAST BOUND THRU -RIGHT 3 33 401 37 7 LEFT 0: LEFT T URN CHEC NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND INPUT VOLUME 1 6 719 ADJ USTED VOL 0 CAPACITY MC]VEM NT NO OF OF WESTBOUND 41 599 40 HOUR FACT P'44 :SC S J4`-:3 ` I ifs6-".':l: :" dD F:- C F I T I C d L NI C)' ' ei- N s 4`I_'P4 L-' '' 8 15 E-E I L..- ick %, E L- a N G -T- EE FZ M A L- `C .. DATE: 9/9/07 LEVEL, OF SERVICE #f4 SATURATION :; CRITICAL N/;S VOL _h Sx' CRI"f•ICAL E/W VOL .3•x .4- CFITICAL_ SUM •4•* * 3f•*94-k#••#•-'k•*****i4•K• 'r#-Yc- 'is-#-PF*6*-}63 *** LANE GEOMETRY NDR "t-I S(."ll..ll` D Cf. U I-I .iOU`•D :c;STCc)UNI) LANE M"1OV WIOTH NOV WI0i1ti MOV WIDTH 1. RT. 1 F";. i'; 4 5 NORTHBOUND L E F I THRU RIGHT 1. =4 s 2 80 62 NORTHBOUND TRUCK='S f t SDU3 HFIO1Uttl,b EASTBOUND 5 WESTBOUND 5 PHASING N/S :1 E/W :1. PEDESTRIAN ACTIVITY 1.' . C T. 1 . 0 Lk . 121. t.i LI . 12. f_x I RAFF I C VOLUMES M1 SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND 9 51 117 )_LOCAL BUSES ( 1iffR; NEITHER TURN PROTECTED NEITHER rURN PROTECTED 11 0 99 (#FEDS/HR) CYCLE LENGTH 60 SECONDS CRITICAL LANE VOLUMES BY MOVEMENT NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND THRU -RIGHT 333 9,9 3S 74 LEf l- 0 0 0 LEFT TURN CHECK INPUT VOLUME ADJUSTED VOL C"APAC I Ty MOVEMENT NORTHBOUND 1.35 SO UTHBOUND EASTBOUND 6S.9 t. 66 57 flk: OK WESTBOUND MOV WIDTH RT.15.(-) L T. 12.0 h 4 k R . . . w a WESTBOUND '1 59 2 40 HOUR FACTOR WESTBOUND 0 WESTBOUND 61 OK C F, X ->; X C t_ ri C) 1'1 two `r 4 4 N 44 1_ ' ' X H .X L k'h k,ep 1._. 0 E (:3 -r Ste: P1 f \j F F". c3 (INCLUDES BOLSA CHICA) DATE: 9/9/57 ##*########•#### #*#.**###*#-•#-## LE VEL_ OF SERA! I CE fff;N SATURATION jtwws/.µ CRITICAL N/S VOL :f CRITICAL E; /W VOLT CRITICAL SUtl '7 t!5 a -l6-Dr •€F # # # iF•1* :: -1E• d4• # it if• zr •'.r# •?4-)f• •Yr •4• •3'•-1rr •3£ # •Dc• 9i• •' • •Nr ir ^1#•-3C-•-S£• •#• LANE GEOMETRY LANE NORTHBOUND SOUTHUOL40 MOV WID TH MOV WIDTH RT. L..12.0 SA T B';Lt`ND WESTBOUND Mt, V WIDTH MOV WIDTH (.. i. 5. +J R T. 15.() L„ I2O L T. 12.0 4 . . r rl"Al"VOLUMES RTR 15.0 LT. 12.0 NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND LEFT THRU RIGHT 135 2.5 60 115 05 59 14+) 60 570 40 TRUCKS Q)LOCAL BUSES (#•/'HR)'EA K HOUR FACTOR NORTHBOUND 5 SOUTHBOUND 5 EASTBOUND 11;I WESTBOUND 5 PHASING N/S :1.NEITHER TURN PROTECTED E/W * 1 NEITHER TURN PROTECTED PEDESTRIAN ACTIVITY 1 0 - 99 (#PEDS/HR} CYCLE LENGTH a 80 SECONDS CRITICAL LANE VOLUMES BY MOVEMENT ThRU -RIGHT WEFT INPUT VOLUME AOJL STED VOLC APAGI Y MOVEMENT NORTHBOUND NORTHBOUND I: Z;5 C) o 01::: SOUTHBOUND 392 AST BOUND 366 LEFT TURN CHECK SOUTH BOUND EAST( 14•t-j 65 66 60 O}' OFK, N WESTBOUND 60 0 OK I rn I iC fck I__. M C3 v I'i E Ill _r ' r"i A L,. ''r' Ei I B I= . eA M ("- m E f z F-1 I I I.__.. r , f E I_ D I -TEE IFz N1 ickF. F" (INCLUDES BOLSA CHICA) DATE: 9/9/87 LEVEL OF SERVICE SATURATION CRITICAL N/S VOL. - I•" CRITICAL CRITICAL E/W SUM VOL ` 7 B .#i. f i • • •- •i #• • -•'Df• •iE it•ib #•ic-3F• Yr d• iE• y• c.-36`c • }F •3F is 'F LANE CEOME]'RY NOR Irl(BO ..!, 1!) 3OU-r'HX; (`.)UNL LA'iNE MOV WIDIfH MCV WIDTH 4 EASTBOUND NOV W I D I H R1 . 1`5.0 RT. L. 12.0 LT NORTHBOUND TRAFFIC VOLUMES SOUTHB OUND LEFT T,3 -T•{- RU 12 9w"; itiI'CELT 60 120 TRUCES M LOCAL BUSES NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND i WESTBOUND 5 1 . .0 EAST B:.Ui'NND 140 Ems 600 40 (#/HR) FEAR: HOUR' FACTOR F'HiSING N/S : 1,. NEITHER TURN PROTECTED E/W :1. NEITHER TURN PROTECTED PEDESTRIAN ACTIVITY : 1, 0 - 99 (#PED CYCLE LENGTH 8O SECONDS /1 CRITICAL LANE VOLUMES BY MOVEMENT NORTHBOUND SOUTHQOUND EASTBOUN. WEST SOUND THFU -RIGHT ::53 1 402 376 I LEFT 0 t s i- NORT HBOUND INPUT VOLUME 135 ADJUSTED VOL. T x CAFAC'TY i. MOVEMENT 0 KK. LEFT TURN CHEC #4:. SOUT HBOUND EAS'TBOUNti WESTBOUND 40 65 60 .fa,a 0 OK t =.. OF' I c rr WES ISUUNT) c 1=:, I r I A L.. I 'l D '" Ni E 4 rn ? NI 1_. `' B I B (INCLUDES BOLSA CHICA) DATE: 9/9/87 LEVEL OF SERVICE rcb SATURATION CRITICAL N/S VOL CRITICAL E/W VOL .' CRITICAL SUM " #*#*3k***`)F**1e14-****34•b4*• •*#***#-i ****14&*^Y.* LANE GEOMETRY 4 I NORTHI'Ot1JND SOU IAA-,,0UND. EASTBOUND WE CTSCIUND LANE NOV WIDl `H MDV W21:17TH MDV WIDTH MOV WIDTH R 'T L- 12". . 0 12.0 3, .. . 4 5 M k *. . . tl NORTHBOUND THRU -RIGHT 3+11 4.1LEFT NORTHBOUND .715INPu'r VOLUME 1, ADJUSTED VOL 0 CAPACITY rr MOVEMENT OK NORTHBOUND NORTHBOUND SOUTHE OUVD EASTBOUND WESTBOUND TRUCil:S (r!) 5 TRAFFIC VOLUMES SOUTHBOUND LOCAL RUSES (# LT. 12.4 1 ASTBOUND HR ) RT. 15.0 LT. 12 .0 WEST BOUND 64) 600 40 PEAK HOUR FACTOR I I i 1 Jet/S : I .NEITHE ': TURN PROTECTED E/W .I.NEI THER TURN RRi rECTED VITY to 0 - 99 (#PEDS/HR 80 SECONDS PEDESTRIAN ACT CYCLE LENGTH CRITICAL LANE VOLUMES BY SOUTHBOUND 40 71 OK MOVEMENT >_:1 . I I- I C L_ Tim 3 V l fi FEE IN4 T ink JN,.i l L-' V E I I iFti t i-# Ni T J 1-j 1 1.,.... E L.._ 0 T E Ni R m L T (INCLUDE S BOL S A CF CA) DATE: 9/9/87 L.EVEt,. OF SERVICE e >ATURA"f I ON -#-: CRITICAL N/S VOL ..+' CRITICAL E/W VOL CRITICAL, SUM '7'7 1 LANE GEO1"IE TR'? NOR'THDOUNI) SDUTHLOU'dl", LANE MOV W 1 D I H 4 F n F J w r a J f[T. I,,«') . w M Y' « « tr Y 1' F AF .1. NORTH900'i ) ') WIDTH 6,1 SOU fl-IT'OUND LEFT T HR U 20 RIGHT 60 115 TRUC: t.".S t r: ) NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND M, EASTBOUND 3 WESTBOUND a EAS c Oi jNi: WESTBOUND MCV WIDTH NOV WIDTH RTU L.T ' !4 F O F k • EAS TBGUND WEST bb 1616 31 PHASING N/S E / W CRITICAL LANE VOLUMES BY MOVEMENT NQR THEIOUND SOU1 HBI IUND t THRU -RIGHT 331 397 rr C:CLEFT LEFT TURN CHECK NOR THBOUND INPUT VOLUME 13 5 ,ADJUSTED VOL 0 CAPACITY 0 MOVEMENT Ofl,' -1. NEI THER TURN PROTECTED -1. NEITHER TURN PROTECTED I q c:0 - 99 E#PEDS/ Ht=;T 80 SECONDS PEDESTR IAN ACTIVITY CYCLE LENGTH SOUTHBOUND 40 LOCAL BUSES EASTBOUND ti74 0 C 9r 40 FACTOR ITBOUND 0 EAS TBOUND WESTBOUND 6 5 F F:: D V4 S3 E-* F< I r K E"FR " 0 t T I L_ 1110 E i" !f ME [NJ -y- 44 IIN4 Pb L_''" I B 4 F' 6",J 'P- IFS: DATE: 9/9/87 LEVEL OF SERVICE SATURATION a5-0 7 CRITICAL N/S VOL t5t5C= CRITICAL E/W VOL c CRITICAL SUM 1 - LANE GEOMETRY L.01'RIE 1 4 AEI,° ,"A">r t »v TEF;; 0 NORTHBOUND SOI(_I T HB;DUND EAS rBOLIND MDV WIDTH MOV W I OTH MDV WIDTH RI, 1,'f.rwa T. . 1 2 _ cD L_ 12.0 C3 U ESC-1 WESTBOUND MDV WIDTH S I a Y¢ s it NORTHBOUND TR'AFPIE VOLUMES SOUTHBOLN":EASTBOUND WESTBOUND LEFT 2?*17 9;88 THRU 2 r 160 1 9 1 1068 RIGI-IT Ito 89 9 82 5 S l Y NQRTI-I8O1JND SOUTF{L OUINID EASTBOUND WESTBOUND TRUCLK.;S (%) PHASING N/5 a/W PEDESTRIAN ACTIVITY CYCLE LENGTH NORTHBOUND L. „ . 12, 0 LOCAL BU P T . T. a 0 L. » 1v. {J :3 PEAK HOUR FACTOR X95 .95 .95 ,95 C, HEAVIEST TURN PROTECTED :1. NEITHER TURN PROTECTED 1 . 0 - 99 (#PEDS/HR) So SECONDS CRITICAL LANE VOLUMES SOUTHB OUND THRU -RIGHT 192 258 LEFT 292 0 LEFT TURN CHECK NORTHBOUND INPUT VOLUME 297 ADJUSTED VOL. CAPACITY MOVEMENT N/A 80LITHBOUND 115 OK ES ( /HR) MOVEMENT WESTBOUND 21 UK P•" ica :.- 0 t%A E; E F-^Z T 11x-9 Ca K F : -1 D Imo` Imo" F-- F=4: I -T'- I c3 P L P1 V 1'-1 lC '4i -r A IA ic L- "V 1 F ;; 114E V. F" A t 1 V4 o4 F:z r Fa F=,: M M aJ :/ Fz° F 0 r i-= `7' DATE, 9/9/87 LEVEL OF SERVICE c_- SATURATION CRITICAL N/S VOL CRI T ICAL E/W VOL -70-63. SUM :1 •ii• •If••r'E• # •1b •Ic # •3`r -k • • =,r ••'• # di-# 3F # # •-•# '# #''i4-# •3F•# Yr •F• k # if LANE I]EOMET'+Y LAME NOR'T 11-3CIUIN D MCV WIDTH SOU I SULI !) NOV IW•rDIN Emir' ."'!' L 0UN1) t1OV WIDTH WESTBOUND MOV WIDTH 7.'TY i•,'F:F f`_,R T.I .0 RT.15, to 2 T.. 12,7 L.12.'a T..I2, O T. ..L. a 12w .. .a .. • > .T.L. A 1 2,0 ! RAFF= I C VOLUMES NORTHBOUND 192 292 NORTHBOUND I N J T VOLUME 2'97 i is ADJUSTED VOL_2 92 CAPAC'IT'Y 0 364 MOVEMENT N/A Ijt LEE' THRU EIGHT A Y . k• A + n p •, u LL , 4 a Y. +I x . t. a al A ,' NORTHBOUND 2 2 1aI 2. HEAVIEST TURN PROTECTED :1. NEITHER TURN PROTECTED 1. () - 99 (#PEDS/HR I e0 SECONDS TRILLS %) LOCAL./HR)PEAT; HOUR FAa:TDR NORTHBOUND .95 SOUTHBOUND .9 5 EASTBOUND 4 .9k WESTBOUND :.95 PHASING N/S E/W PEDESTRIAN ACTIVITY CYCLE LENGTH CRITICAL LANE VOLUMES BY MOVEMENT SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND 264 6Z3 708 68 1264 eha.. 0 LEFT TURN CHECK SOUTHB OUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND TBOUND WESTBOUND OK OK; F' C=-;:'. - D &4.1 1-3 1- 1 1'4.1 1--=:1: FR 1-4 D F F 1 1 ' T "m° 1 L_ 1'x'1 D 1 = " M E r A -r r - i " A 1__. ' I S; .1 ~ B E: k- R ';•J' (3 1-4 OA M t 1= o.4 F:z '1-` 1= x; 1" 1 CD P' 8=`z a E. C -T" (INCLUDES BOLSA C ICA)DATE> 9/9/87 LEVEL OF SERVICE 1 SATURATION y"°., CRITICAL N/S VOL .5-44'? CRITICAL CRITICAL E/W SUM VOL + 4 - 1 ^ 1 c,"), LANE GF'GMETRY PORT HSOUNi SGUTHBE'UND EAz TBOUNVi NOV WIDTH NO'1' I D l H 110v WIDTH RT. 15. 0 R-1. 1 `i.its f".. 12.0 L_. . 1'2'. 6 .„w T I2 0 L.. 12.0 WESTBOUND NOV WIDTH RT 15.0r T.. 12. 0 L.. 12.0 .. NORTHBU1JND TRAM` F I C VOLUME SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND LEF I 2 5 THRU 2 60 160 1466 R 1 GHT 10 Q 90 NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND CYCLE LENGTH e 80 SECONDS r RUCKS %w LOCALa 5 5 a PHASING N/S :2. HEAVIEST TURN PROTECTED E/W ;1. NEITHER TURN PROTECTED PEDESTRIAN ACTIVITY c 1. 0 -99 (#PEDS/HR) CRITICAL LANE VOLUMES BY MOVEMENT THRU -RIGHT LEFT INPUT VOLUME DUSTED VOL CARACITY MOVEMENT NORTHBOUND .191 290 NORTHBOUND 295 290It) N/A SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND 259 609 f) Cs LEFT TURN CHECK SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND 115 5?i 358 0 WESTBOUND 11808o HOUR FACTOR .95 .9 5 .95 WESTBOUND 661 0 WESTBOUND 70 t, ©.: F =1 _F I c d I-. t'1 c 171 I N4 `T" L. "Y' 3 I E3 " `a I 9 1 . F I CE; F:: i-4 Its 1-t N E Z d! F_Z m F-:'F:Z "'i tAJ /' ' C-1 I -r (INCLUDES BOUSA CHICA) .DATE: 9/9/57 94• •it• dF•-i4' #'k •-X' 3S• # •k' f•-1h # # F ^1E94-f #-is•3F •a4• E"x#• •iN'3c'i• it• LEVEL OF SERVICE SATURATION T 7 71, CRITICAL N/S VOL t5-' - CRITICAL E/W VOL CRITICAL. SUM 1 :,1 ' **##****4 *#***•#•*** c*****4 '*^'ki4•*it^#*• ••n** LANE GEOMETRY RT. 15. 1° 1: L. . 12. 0 SCit.€'fi`Hp_ O ._)('11) MC:iv WID11-1 L.. . 1 C. Q 12.0 LASTU OUND WESTBOUND MOV WIDTH MDV WIDTH FIT . T. 15.0 12.0 12" o 12.0 Y a TRAFFIC VOLUMES RT. ISi..} T. 12.cr L. 12.0 NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUNC EASTBOUND WESTBOUND LOCAL BUS ES t#/HR) PHASING N/S Q. HEAVIEST TURN PROTECTED EJW z 1 . NEITHER TORN PROTECTED PEDESTRIAN ACTIVITY z 1. 0 -99 (#PED CYCLE LENGTH 80 SECONDS PEAK HDUR /HR) CRITICAL LANE VOLUMES BY MOVEMENT x r, ACTOR NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND THRU -RIGHT LEFT INPUT VOLUME ADJUSTED VOL CAPAC ITY MOVEMENT NORTHFOt JC11.7 LANE MOV WIQYH LEFT w;9 THRU 260 RIGHT 100 TRUCKS (0) NORTHBOUND !5 SOUTHBOUND S EASTBOUND i WESTBOUND 5 191 264 658 705 290 0 6 NORTH .BOUND 295 290 0 N/A 1 I`U 160 95 LEFT TURN CHE ULITHSOUNDS 1; EASTBOUND WESTBOUND 115 fiO=1 r0 0s 16 3 0 105 GK op"OK 70 1375 80 0 ' Ec 1-;4 I tq C F" C F F an, I- t'F6 M '4 J N m -r tfk m oft, L. -`Y'om I "FE 1`1 PA C3 F F,f C3 0 c T DATE: 9/9/97 LEVEL OF SERVICE SATURATION CRITICAL. N/S VOL CRITIC AL E/W VOL_ CRITICAL SUM t #3 !f yi it 4 **# *-it iE ^)'s•*** Fit* LANE _' ,4- :1=5- - LANE GEOMETRY NORTHBOUND MOV W11014 SOUTHDOUND NOV WIDTH EASTBOUND NOV WIDTH WESTBOUND MOV WIDTH RT.1`".0 RT.15.0 RT.15.0 T.1.,... u T.ti 1_-.0 T.12 ) L.N 12.T .l s .01L. . . x M.N tl L .M 112. 0 L.. . R Y 12, 0 NORTHBOU ND TRAFFIC VOLUMES SC)U 1 HBOUND EYASTBOUND WESTBOUND 1301 97 TRUCKS (Z) . LOCAL BUSES (#/HR ) PEAK:: HOUR. FACTOR NORTHBOUND 5 1 SOUTHBOUND 51 z 1 E ASTB-BOL,JNC? . WOSTSOUND PHASING N/S -2. HEAVIEST 'T'URN PROTECTED E/W z l. NEITHER TURN PROTECTED PEDESTRIAN ACTIVITY 1. 0 -99 (OPEDS /HR) CYCLE LENGTH SO SECONDS CRITICAL LANE VOLUMES BY MOVEMENT THRU -RIGHT LEFT NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND 216 ^96 71, 4 139 4 LEFT TURN CHECK NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND INPUT VOLUME ;1,C`" 137 119 AID+JUSTED VOL 339 4 r CA PAC I TY 0 419 MOVEMENT N/A CGS. OK WESTBOUND 54 0 L.. c Jt'3 A E=' E~' L_ I tr @ 4 T DATE; 9/9/87 LEVEL OF SERVICE SATURATION t3 CRITICAL N/S VOL CRITICAL E/W VOL 77 6 CRITICAL SUM 3.cy LANE GEOMETRY NcJRTFd8a:1t., .f t3 8t 1•";Yrf Hril.fND EAC1°E:CJUND WEFTBO11ND LANE NOV W J D 1'H Moll WIDTH MOV WIDTH MOV WIDTH i RT. 1,wj R,I . 1gr.k:) PT. 5.x1 PT. 15.0 2 T. . 1 t_, 12 . (% i° . T . 12. /_ L .. t '2 ." L _ T .. 12 .C)1yn 1112. 2 . 4 R1p aw,1Y a b . . 12 6 L. 1.} Y u Y Y R. u u. . q M Y R h Y 9 . p :. tr. .. K 6 P A. .... ... .... r A 4 k . k. w M b 7F'AFcc I c VOLUME E. NORTHBOUND SOLITHBOUND EASTZZO I=.LEFT 1`('aRU 3 11 1 9{'r RIGHT 1.' tx S7 NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EA 3THOUND WESTBOUND WESTBOUND 1770 99 TRUCKS (%) LOCAL BUSES (# 1-?I. t P AL;L' HOUR FA 5 PHASING N/S :2. HEAVIEST TURN PROTECTED E/W : 1 . NEITHER TURN PRo7 &C1TEv PEDESTRIAN ACTIVITY 1. 10 -- 99 (#PEI)cz/HR) CYCLE LENGTH 80 SECONDS CRITICAL LANE VOLUMES E4Y MOVEMENT I NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND THRU -RIGHT 216 30O 767 54 LEFT ,339 B C) 0 LEFT TURN CHECK INPUT VOLUME ADJUSTE VOL NORTHBOUND 35,x') 3 9 CAPACITY 0 MOVEMENT N/A SOUTHBOUND EASTSDUND 13"9 123 423 1 OK 01< llcsya'^•'sash::as,r::::.^.:;a:_e:4,:aass:;a:: a.. -. L r---c I -r I a V._._ 11.1.0 c.'c 4'.."E 1-1177 " T A 6'4 I L.._ Ne ,s- 31 E3 4 CA F:;t .J F < / !-L a N11 L- C:k NI G " WE F M A L_.. T 1 DATEE 9/9/87 LEVEL OF SERVICE L) SATURATION B:4 : CRITICAL N/S VOL ;. n G IT'ICAL EiWVOL ".: CRITICAL UM 11-'2 #'** n ,•*iri'i•'X ***it 'IC3e d'c X ETi-YC•t•-D('7# ****i '3 *ii--)€ * LANE GEOMETRY NORT 111-101 ttd SOUI 1 iL,BC'LU ID EAS I BOUND WESTSCIUND LANE. rMDV WIDTH M(JIV WIDT H Moll) WIDTH MDV WIDTH RT. 15. 6 1'. 12. 0 L . 12, i"i 1 .. 12. 0 T.. 12.0 T 12T.. 12.0 L. 1 .t_t L. . 12.0 1"r kAh` C- I C 'VOLUMES hIRU RIGHT NORTHBOU NORTHROIJMNID SOUTHB(,'RIND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND PHASING PEDESTRIAN ACT CYCLE LENGTH ID SOU THBOUND EASTB TRUCE::; (X; S t. LOCAL, BUSES { I N/S :2.HEAVIEST TURN PROTECTE E/W -I. NEITHER TURN PROTECTE VITY 99 (#F'EDS/'HR) 8O SECONDS CRITICAL LANE VOLUMES BY MOVEMENT THRU --RICH'; LEFT NORTHBOUND 216 .. 39 SOUTHJOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND 3c0 76s 6,27 $jJ 0 LEFT TURN CHECK NORTHBOUND I NPU'T VOLUME: 353 ADJUSTED VOL +39 CAPACITY 0 MOVEMENT N/A SOUTHBOUND 1";9S 4'2 Ot!.- EASTBOUND WESTBOUND 122 01 0 CtT°' O WEST-ROUND PE I:: HOUR FACTOR Fa t=om B 0 N 8 i3 Ifs I Imo! cl, I--: lam" 1--4 0 F F"' C_- iF : 1- :, r-- oce . fi'1 c V IF-E : 9' PEN "T- r 9'4 _'tip' 0 7: INK t I-IBUI,JND 01'.Jl9LA„11 INL1 E i { r` i°fJI• D WE'TBOUNI) LANE NOV W I DTHI NOV W IDTH J' OV tea I JO' J J MOV WIDTH DATE! 9/9/87 LEVEL OF SERVICE JCD SATURATION E3 . ":1a:. CRITICAL N/S VOL 4rTM CRITICAL E/W VOL. % CRITICAL SUM E 3'3F#xi.4ii%p..r?'1.**ikf:'*-X.'#4.''.X'*-i-V'***.C'd(*'rcid*-i-F-X•ic" LANE GEc ME IR Y 1 RT. J. K11 A%,f a i rtI 4 a a 0 LEFT THRU RIGHT Iry:f`,1- r VOL.UMES T. 12". -1. 12.0 a a a a I W Y 1 .s. r O T. 12. 0 K a K. L a ", td L, . 12.0 a a , NORTH BOUND NORTHBOUND SO1..ITHSOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND ;SOU INBOUND aTBC TRLJCFL'.S LOCAL EL,8E5 (4-/HR) 5 S PHASING N/S :?a HEAVIEST TURN [ fOTECTED E/W a 1 a NEITHER TURN PROTECTED PEDESTRIAN ACTIVITY 1rt w 99 ($PEDS/HR) CYCLE LENGTH 80 SECONDS THRU -RIGHT LEFT CRITICAL LANE VOLUME NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND 2216 299 7 50 ,T+M9 6 0 LEFT TURN CHECK NORTHBOUND SOUTHSOUND EASTBOUND INPUT VOLUME ;,53 1" rO 1 " ADJUSTED VOL 371 9 6 CAFACITY (.)422 141 MOVEMENT N/A 0 ff':OF:: BY MOVEMENT WESTBOUND 1658 98 HOUR FACTOR 1 1I (INCLUDES B OLSA C WCA) DATE: 9/9/87 LEVEL OF SERVICE SATURATION D CA f CRITICAL N/S VOL °: CRITICAL.E/W VOL.m CRITICAL UM 1 *.* * k if * # * •#F * i * * it * x n• 4£• •DC * i# i4 * # * * Dr • iE is Yc NORTHBOUND NORTHBOUND SOIJTHSOUi•W EASTBOUND WESTBOUND PHASING PEDESTRIAN ACT CYCLE LENGTH RAf"t' IC VOL. WESTBOUND 310 12r) 1910 260 8 155 194Q 95 TRUCKS %) LOCAL BUSES {*/HR i PEAK HOUR FACTOR 5^ J 1. 1 I N/S :2. HEAVIEST TURN PROTECTED E/ W : 1. NEITHER TURN PROTECTED VITY 1. 90 bECONDS 0 - 99 (#PEDSiHR) CRITICAL LANE VOLUMES BY MOVEMECT NORTHBOUND SOU i HBOUND EASTBOUND 215 298 809 336 ri 0 LEFT TURN CHECK INPUT VOLUME ADJI ISTED VOL CAPACITY MOVEMENT L"NE GEOMETRY I-.ANl NORTHBOUND MOV WIDTH SOLr BOUND MD`,' WIDTH EAST T'43 VND MO'•1 WIDTH WESTSOUN1a t'M,9k/ WIDTH 1 RT.15. :a RT 15.0 RT.150 T. .12.0 T,12 .Q T.12.0 L..1 2.0 ",.12.i)T..12 . 6 4 5 . M . 6 11 . e a +. r v,r q N i! M M LEFT THRU RIGHT NORTHBOUND sot ° HBUUN 350 1355 419 N/A OP. ASiBOUND 120 104 O}K:. r, b -=: EF:1-4 3 F F^. -gam F•A;: g0 !'S! E-9 R y : P4 C L.+ F: T -r I c_ . P-*,i L . 1 " R D '1l L l " 1 r_ I " »A -F 6-^'f IN frA 4.-.. 's, 5 I y d FR V4 E= "'4. P--A Y E /0:3 F . A " P i "" L k .. 0 N G F~ E F: M #-4 P F* L. I ft._.r 0r q A (INCLLUDE BOL3A CH CA) DATE, 9/9/87 ****## AS it******* k* f3kiFih3f ****# iE4•aFtr*** LEVEL OF SERVICE ID SATURATION Si X CRITICAL N/S VOL 4>':.+"-1 CRITICAL. E/W VOL EB6- t-RITICAL Sl1M .!E5 (:p LANE GEOMETRY 5 b b Y Y NO'S' WIDTH RT. Lb. TRAFFIC VOLUMES SOUTHESOUNP EAST 0#JNI CRITICAL LANE VOLUMES 8Y MOVEMENT NORTHBOUND, SOUTHPrl IND EAST SOUND NOR THDOLJND SOU'T'HBOUND INPUT VOLUME :;00 I ._ 5 r D J USTE1) VOL.7;3 0 CAPACITY 1 424 NOR 1 HBO1_INA. LANE MOV WIDTH I RT b 15.0 .. a . f"a 4 ... . . . THRU -RI GHT ^ 1 1-363 LEFT ti3bx i LEFT THR J RIGHT NORTHBOUND NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND CYCLE LENGTH b 80 SECOND L{ EASTBOUND MOV W:1CTH B"r . 1 . C)r.. 12.0;> T 12.0 L.. 12. °1 a . » a b x 190. 120 BUSES (' / HH) WESTBOUND MOV WIDTH RT. 1 .0 T.. 12.0 T.x 12,0 L, a 12 0 I . . WESTtOUND as :2170 9. PEAS HOUR FACTOR PHASING N/S :2. HEAVICST TURN PROTECTED E/W - 1 r NEITHER TURN PROTECTED PEDESTRIAN ACTIVITY e 1 K 0 -•- 99 (#W`EDS/HR) 1} MOVEMENT N/A OJ`; .«"H.F-w.,rwmnrrrr,;r's55.cB+?A+;9dk. yw 1 .B FZ gx R, ,7 1C:. 1-..., E: F-yR-1 L), p F7-- F,..- I p I L f"-"A L_ V i c1 ' IC. it - I 1 7. T 1 1. `! A"'-F LY. T B a A Fw." r` 1 t= FZ ic V ./ t A"i 1-1 L_.. D tNN C3 T IF- F '1 i 9.,_,.-T-4,2J (INCLUDES BOLS4. CEUCA) DATE. 9/-/C7 LEVEL OP SERVICE TD SATURATION *3 51 -0,_' CRITICAL N/S VOL ew «''' CRITICAL E/W VOL 8t5E3 CRITICAL SUM 1 At 7 'if', •r'i`r^ri"** -is** **r•**'F'1-ris-iktif#a-T-''-14"n'* K* * LANE D2.OME TRY NC?r< I Ht3(T JN1 1`1313IJTF 3sfl."Al) ,AL) FtA.R.,N II.? LANE MOV WIDTH Mfoll WIDTH MOV WIDTH 1 2 4 1. „l . lJ 12.3) TRkar=r- I,. VOLOMLz. PHASING PE DESTRIAN LEF'i 35'." H P L!310 , RIGHT 120 NORTHBOUND SCLJTHBOUNC. EASTBOUND WESTBOUND RT, I R 1". 12. . L.. L. , . 12.0 11 T. T. 15.0 12.Q 12.0 12'.t NORTHBO UND S 0 lJ 3 l-ABQ(J'r iD EASTB OUND k':.,j N/S :2.HEAVIEST TLJRN PROTECTED E/W K. .NEITHER TURN PROTECTED ACTIVITY ;... 0 w- 99 (OPEDS /HP) CYCLE LENGTH 30 SECONDS CRITICAL LANE VOLUMES BY MOVEMENT NORTHBOUND SOUTHE JLIND EASTBOUND THRU -RIGHT 215 858 LEFT 1"'6 0 0 LEFT TURN CHECK.' NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EAS'I'IOUNI,7 7' N "L.lT VCl! UME 350 13 5 ADJUSTED VOL.:336 C) CAPACITY C)42 ". MOVEMENT N/A OK lv< 125 DR o WESTDOUNI) NOV WIDTH RT. 15. Ca T.. 12.0 T.. 12.0 L.. 12.c) WESTDUND 5 G:' 2150 95, F , Sa E Few X th4 CC P:=A --c "C) Jam" F:" F: 11 I C dc L... V-1 CJ k„l F=".1'1 I r m a "snk L_,..'V S L4 ink F-< 1" LE: FZ r ," " 1'i L - 0 t'l1 G - E F r 1 e4 L_.» -1` (INCLUDES BOLSA, CHiCA) DATE.* 9/9/87 LEVEL Dl` SERVICE T SATL,Ic7°rI ON r_--j el=> :4 'C N S VDCRI(L1T CR;TICr L E/W C R I T I C A L AL SLIM L VOL 1a- 1 4 -1 3 LANE`, GEOMETRY NOR MDf'tl..!H K% L'1U I PBOl€1" D FA;':5TFoI_IN WESTROU.JND LA1'•IC.- NOV WIDTF4 "iliTIT NOV WIDIN MDV WIDTH 1. RTA 1..J»y L 1.2 . 0 4 .. c NOR THBOUN13 LEFT THRU RIGHT NOR7HBDUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBDU1'NNO PHASING PEDESTRIAN ACT CYCLE LENGTH TRPIF- F I C VOLUMES SUU rHEDUND EAS 90UNL 85 .c J" yf2+rr5 95 F. HOUR FACTOR N S :-2. HEAVIEST 'TURN PROTECTED E /W :1. NEITHER TURN PROTECTED VITY 1. 0 - 99 ( PEDS HR) aO SECONDS CRITICAL LANE VOLUMES EY MOVEMENT NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EA' `"D,IUND WESTBOUND THRU --RIGHT 2 15 ` 03 LEFT 33 E 0 NORTHSOLP-1D SOUTHB OUND INPUT VOLUME 35c:1 AD;IU STE1D VOL 33 CAPACITY 0 44 MOVEMENT N/A I D!=': 846 0 EASTBOUND WESTSOUNT 85 CJh OK RT » T. L» 15. U 121 »0 1121 , ty 12.0 WESTBOUND wow p+-4 EXHIBIT L&UrE, 67-2c AREA MAP huntington beach planning division ATTACHMENT Project Chronology January 1986 The application requesting a general plan redesignation and zone change for the 65-acre Meadowlark Airport was submitted in January of 1986, Followingthe application submittal, staff, Dick Nerio (representing the Nerio Family) and Dick Harlow (the official representative and consultant to Dick Nerio) meet to discuss what procedures would be established in response to the request, The director of Development Services directed staff to prepare the environmental impact report (EIR) and also required the applicant to provide specific, necessary, studies which were also significant components of the EIR. The specific studies included: the traffic analysis, markrit analysis, archaeological assessment, sewer assessment and preliminary soils analysis. These studies were completed in early 1987 .which allowed staff to completE the EIR and bring it to the Planning Commission for the first study session in May 1987 (copies of all Planning Commission staff reports are included as attachments to this RCA). May 1987 The request brought to the Planning Commission study session in May 19, 1981 was as follows: Redesignate 65 acres located on the north side of Warner Avenue, south side of Heil Avenue and 600 feet east of Balsa Chios Street from Low Density Residential to 30 acres of Medium Density Residential (450 units), 15 acres of Medium High Density (375 units, 5 acres of Senior Citizen kesidential (250 units). The total number of residential units equaled 1075, and 15 acres of Commercial (196,020 gross square feet). The proposed number of units included density bonuses. At that time Land Use Element 87-2 (LLiE) addressed two amendment requests, Meadowlark (Area 2.1) and OCTD (Area 2.21. OCTD was adopted first as LUE 87-2A. A concurrent LUE for A.C. Marion was adopted , s LUE 87-219, and Meadowlark as LUE 87-2C. The Meadowlark analysis contained an analysis of six land use scenarios or alternatives which were later exponded to seven. The issues raised at the May studying session included: 1. Compatibility: A mixed residentiL I development would be compatible with some of the existing residential uses adjacent to Meadowlark but not compatible with existing single-family on both the west and east side of the subject site. A affix: The proposed residential and commercial developments would contribute to increased traffic in the area surrounding the site. 3. Sewage: The site currently uses a septic tank, therefore, the proposed development would require a sewer system that would discharge into the County Sanitation District No. 11 service area and the Slater Pump Station. The Slater Pump Station is at capacity. Water : Questions arose regarding the Water Department's ability to adequately serve the site if and when it was totally developed. 5. Noise: Existing residentiai developments would be subject to noise levels of 70 and 65 Ldn, especially those residences along Hell Avenue, just north of the site. The Planning Commission directed staff to provide additional information, at the public hearing, regarding traffic, sewage, water, m-srket analysis and compatibility. A public hearing was scheduled for June 2, 1957. June 1987 In addition to responding to the Commission's request for additional data, staff also presentee a seventh land use alternative to tho. e° analyzed in the EIR. Alternative No. 7 presented a combination of 50 acres If law density residential and 15 acres of comm,F. cis1. This additional alternative wr, developed in response to the Commission's concern regarding the significant impacts, of the applicant's request on traffic and the sewer system from the 1075 dwelling units. At this hearing, there were also unresolved questions regarding future Water crpartnennt services to the site, the feasibility/viability of a commercial center in that area and the proposed multi-family impact on existing single--family residences adjacent to the A'%r"port. The testimony at the public hearing could be divided into two groups: those opposed to closing the airport and thoseopposed to the proposed multi-family development on the residential portion of the site. Although staff proposed phasing the development to coincide with the availability of water and sewer service, the Commission was also very concerned about the density of the proposed residential portion of the development and related impacts. In response to the public and Planning Commission's concern the applicant requested a continuation of the hearing until July 28, l9"17. L 1987 O~) July 28th, staff requested a continuation of the item with a reque,.t of the Planning Commission to direct staff to prel:are a specific plan for the subject site concurrent with the General Plan Amendment. It was also at this time that the EIR was amended to separate the subject site (Meadowlark) froze the original report and establish Land Use element Amendment 87-2C: Staff also reconsidered its previous recommendation for the proposed project which was approval of the requested general plan amendment and zone change. The reconsideration concluded that infrastructure deficiencies were so great as to preclude any redesignation other than 15 acres along Warner Avenue `to commercial. This recommendation was in conflict with staff `s earlier conclusion as described in the environmental impact report. That earlier conclusion was that Meadowlark Airport offered the opportunity for a variety of housing product types as well as retail commercial potent=al. Any concerns regarding infrastructure capability could be resolved through phasing of the project. The revised approach staff proposed was similar to the approach used in the Seabridge project at Beach Boulevard and Adams Avenue. The Planned Community land use designation would permit. a range of residential densities, as well as retail development. A specific plan would then identify all of the constraints and mitigation measures to be applied to the site, but would not identify the exact location of land uses. Those locations and land uses would be established through the conditional use permit process. 9729d) The Planning Commission suppo °;d staff 's reconsideration and directed staff to prepare a specific plan to be assessed at the next public hearing, In prior hearings, staff identified the raajor issues which surfaced in response to the applicant's proposal to close the airport and develop the site with residential and commercial use. I Those issues were as follows: The closure of the airport would negatively impact general aviation in the country, reducing available tie-down spaces. 2. Due to normal growth and ievelopu en : u: the Bolsa Chica, traffic volumes on the adjacent arterials are expected o =satyr s greatly over the next ten years. The additional traffic which would be f e A r ted by the project may increase traffic volumes measurably. 3. The residents on Pearce Drive are comae aed that development of the site will excessively increase traffic on Pearce Driie. 4. The proposed resi antial densities are higner°than most of the surrounding residential land uses adjacent to the site. 5. Sewer capacity at the present time is not sufficient to meet the needs of any densities which exceed the existing Low Density Residential designation. At the present time, it is unciet ermined whether sufficient future water capacity exists to service the proposed development. 7. The site may be subject to contamination by hazardous substances and leakage of methane gas. 8. The site hsti been identified as a possible archaeological site. At the July 28, I387 hearing, tle Plannin,ommission continued the hearing until September 22, 198' (the public hearing was rescheduled to a special public hearing on the 29th) and directed staff to address these issues by completing the following tasks. 1. Prepare a Feasibility Study for City acquisition and operation of the airport. 2, Prepare a Specific Pian which would trciude a maximum of 400 units (7 units per acre) and approximately 10 to i. acres or' Commercial. 3. Prepare a Specific Plan which would include 400 to 750 units, approximately 10 to 15 acres of Commercial , and senior citizen :Mrsing either on-site or off -site. Subsequent to the hearing , the applicant withdrew his request for senior citizen housing. Staff responded to the direction of the Planning Commission by completing the following p ember 1987 items for the public hearing on. September 29, 1. Meadowlark Airport Feasibility Analysis 2. Traffic Study Addendum by Parsons, Brinckerhoff, Quad: and Douglas, Inc. 3. Draft Meadowlark Specific Plan Option A - 750 residential units and 15 acres of commercial. Option B - 600 residential units and 15 acres of commercial. Option C - 400 residential units and 15 acres of commercial. 4. Alternative Specific Plan Concep s 5. "Qualified" zoning restrictions to be considered as an alternative to a specific plan. All of the above-are included in the S sirtember 29th staff report attached to the RCA. At the September public hearing, the majority of individuals who testified requested the Planning Commission to recommend to the City Council the immediate closure of Meadowlark Airport. Their secondary concern was the traffic that would be generated by the proposed &.velopment: In response to public testimony and staff's report regarding the feasibility of the City owning and operating Meadowlark Airport, the Planning Commission passed motion recommending that the City Council not pursue any consideration of purchasing and operating a municipal airport at Meadowlark. The results of a revised traffic study we! e also presented(that included estiniateo Balsa Chica traffic) with the conclusion that, in the near term, assuming the completion of the commercial center, the three alternative land uses that had been most recently assessed (all containing 15 acres of commercial with either r5( ,. )0 or 400 dwelling units) would have similar impacts on the., intersections adjacent t.. or near the airport. A new issue that surfaced at this meeting/public hearing was the lack of a,'ire,plan identifying the general location of the proposed residential portion of the development and the relation of those proposed units to existin6 residential developments adjacent to the airport. The applicant, in response tothe site plan request, requested a continuance of the hearing until November to prepare a conceptual site plan. The Environmental Impact Report 87-2C was found adequate by the Plaiining Commission. November 1987 Staff's recommended action presented at the November 17th public hearing was as follows: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council approval of General Plan land Use Element Amendment No. 87-2C for a change in land use designation from Low Density Residential to Planned Community. Staff also recommends approval with findings of Zone Change No. 87-13 for the adoption of the Meadowlark Specific Plan, which would allow 15 acres of commercial and 50 acres of mixed residential, not to exceed 600 units (an average of 12 units per acre), Project Chronology A-4 (9729d) The above recommendation was supported by a staff report that included, in addition to the applicant's conceptual site plan containing 750 units, a site plan prepared by staff that contained a maximum of 600 dwelling units. The report also containea further refinement of the proposed buffer areas separating existing residential adjacent to the airport from any proposed medium density (multi-family) residential units proposed for the site and the specific plan as reviewed and approved by the City Attorney's office. Testimony received at this public hearing focused on support of the applicant's proposal to develop, in addition to the retail commercial, 750 dwelling units on the airport site. The applicant , howev er, changed their request, reducing the residential portion to 600 units. The Planning Commission approved the general plan Land Use Element Amendment No. 87-2C changing the land use designation on the McFtdowlark Airport site to Planned Community containing 50 r cres of resiriea 'al development with a maximum of 600 units and 15 acres of retail commercial. The Commission continued the zone change component of the request in order to provide additional refinement to the Meadowlark Specific Plan. Staff was directed to bring the revised Mea.iowiark Specific Plan b-er.k to the Commission on December 1, 1987. D cem er 198' The Meadowlark Specific Plan was augmented in response to concerns raised by the Planning Commission at the November 17 publc hearing regarding the need to have mote specific guidelines in the plan Focusing on issues reluted to circulation, parking, alternative development scenarios specifying residential product types, buffers, setbacks and park dedication. Also, within Section N. Dever.,,ment Standards, three alternative development scenarios were presented. Staff requested that the Commission choose one of those scenarios to be included in the final version of the Spec ific Plan. The Commission chose one of the alternatives which divided the residential portion of the proposed development into three segme,rts including: a minimum of 18 acres of low density (7 DU/ac), a maximum of 20 acres of medium density (12 DU/ac) and a maximum of 12 acres of medium-high density (20 DU/ac). At this time, it was also discussed that staff tentatively scheduled a public hearing of the Meadowlark CPA, zone change, EIR before the City Council at their second meeting in January 1988. There. were also further revisions to the Specific Plan which staff was directed to prepare and return to the Planning Commission at their December 15, 1987 meeting. December 15, 1987 Bron ht before them as an informational item (non-public hearing) was a further revised Meadowlark Specific Plan including deletion s of sections no hanger, necessary within the context of the revised Specific Plan. The Commission found some typographical errors and the deletion of a sentence they wanted re-included in the Specific Plan. Staff will make the corrections and take the corrected Specific Plan back to the Commission on January 5, 1988 for their review of the latest revisions. t roject Chronology A-5 (9729d) RESOLUTION No. A RESCLUTION OF Tki CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ADOPTING LAND USE ELEMENT AMENDM ENT NO 87-2b TO THE GENERAL PLAN e City of Hunti ngton Beach desires to update ;anti L e General Plan in k,=ept.ng with changing communi ty ner_-Ws, ob jectives; and A public hearing o,., adoption of Land Use Element Amendment No.87-2b to he General Plan, was held by the Planni ng Commission on November. 17, 1987, and approved for recommendation to the City council;and Therefore, the City Council, after giving notice as pre- scribed by Government Code sections 65355 and 65090, held at least one public hearing to consider L a nd Use Element No. 87-2c; and At said hearing e `ore }:.rye City Council all persons desiring to be heard on said amendment were heard, NOW, THEREFORE, BE ,1i RESOL Fr) by the City Council of the WHEREAS, the City C'o urnc _l City of Huntington Bear:.scant t o provisions of Title 7, Chapter 3, Article 6 of Cax:;.i.turni.a Government Code, commencing with section 65350, that La=ms Use Element Amendment Nu 67-2c is hereby amended as fol locr Area 2.1, as shown on amended from Low Density Res attach d hereto, rrnt i a'3 to Planned achi eve consistency wi trn t.ne C :Yieral Plan, and a ?l l t,e ni.ty to i st ing zoning, PASSED AND ADOPTED L; the city Council of the City of Huntington Beach at a regular meeting thereof held on the day of 1988. Mayor ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM REVIEWED AND APPROVED: INITIATED AND APPROVED. City Clerk Ci ty Attorne 1 City Administrator Dire or of community Devek pment 28.53L: ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH AMENDING THE HUNTINGTON BEACH ORDINANCE CODE BY AMENDING DISTRICT MAP 24 TO INCORPORATE MEADOWLARK SPECIFIC PLAN WHEREAS, after notice duly given pursuant to Government Code section 65500, the City Council of the ;pity o;L Huntington Beach held a public hearing on Meadowlark Specific Plan and Environmental Impact Report No. 87-2 on which was continued on and Adoption of Meadowlark Specific Plan, covering sixty-five acres, more or less, located approximately 600 feet north and east, of the intersection of Balsa Chica Street. and Warner Avenue, attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit At is the most desirable method of providing regulated development of the area included within said specific plan in accord with the objectives set out in such specific plan; and On was held before this Council o after notice duly given, net lark Specific Plan and Environmental Impact Report No . 87-2, and the Cou ncil finds that such specific plan is necessary development of the real property Specific Plan, and finds that the such specific plan are satisfac general concept as set out in NOW, THEREFORE , the City Beach does ordain as IF the order luded wit and concluded procedures set regulated Meadowlark y and in agreemen t with the e c i t y ' s Generai until of the City of Huntington 1. District Map 24 Of the Huntington Beach Ordinance code he eby amended to incorporate Meadowlark Specific Plan. 2. Meadowlark Specific Plan, attached hE ret,) as Exhlt,bit and by copies this reference incorporated herei:,, of such specific plan shall be main is here ny approved;, and aired for inspection in the office of the city Clerk ' and the Department of Community Development. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at a regular meeting thereof held on the day of -, 1988. mayor ATTEST : City Clerk REVIEWED AND APPROVED, City Administrator APPROVED AS TO FORM INITIATED AND APPROV D; f Comma nits De opment Attachment MEADOWLARK SPECIFIC PLAN TABLE F NTE TS A. PURPOSE B. SPECIFIC PLAN BOUNDARIES C. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT D. APPLICATION PROCEDURE 1. Conditional Use Permit 2. Conceptual Master Plan 3. Statement Required 4. Phasing Plan for Development E. SEWER AND WATER INFRASTRUCTURE CAPACITY F. CIRCULATION 1. Perimeter Streets 2. Internal Circulation G. TRAFFIC COv ROL H. TRANSIT FACILITIES I. AIR QUALITY MITIGATION MEASURES J. GEOLCcGY/SOILSISEISMICITY K. ARCHAEOLOGY L. PERIMETER BUFFERS ESTABLISHMENT OF DISTRICT AREAS N. DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS 0. HOMEOWNERS OR COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION APPROVAL PERIOD MEADOWLARK SPECIFIC PLAN A. Pik RPOSE the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach adopted an amendment to the Land Use Element of the Cene.'al Plan. This amendment designated approximately 65 acres of land located approx- imately 600 ft. north and east of the intersection of Balsa Chica Street and Warner Avenue as a Planned Community. The General Plan Document, Land Use Element Amendment 87-2C, states that the Planned Community designation is to be imple- mented through adoption of a Specific Plan. The following policies were adopted by the City Council to provide direction for preparation of a Specific Plan. 1. The 15 acre retail center shall be located on Warner Avenue extending between Roosevelt Street and the residentialproject to the east. The total number of residential units, including any proposed affordable, units, to be constructed on the 50 acre portion of the property due north of the commercial portion, shall riot exceed 600 units and shall be distributed among several product types. 3. A buffer shall be provided between the existing single family homes and any attached rest." °ttial units which are developed at greater 4. An internal traffic circulation plan shall be provided that Provide street Yonnections between Warne would not encourage non-project related throug,tt;; acre. Av,nue that Ab. Limit the amount of traffic on Pearce Street ECr.v1.zverage daily rri c. Locate vehicular access points to Warner Avenue and Heil Avenue so as to minimize traffic conflicts: 5. Provide a phased development plan which coincides with the available in the sewer and water systems. Meadowlark SpecificPlan 6. Within 60 days of City approval of the first entitlement for development, the airport operation will cease. 7. This Specific Mar enacted through Zone Change No, 87-3 will be in effect until a subsequent zone change is adopted. The Planning Commission shall conduct an annual review of the Specific Plan until such time as a master plan is approved for the site. The Meadowlark Specific Plan. is designed to meet the planning requirements of the Land Use Element of the General Plan. It is intended to serve as a general set of conditions and regulations that will promote the orderly development of the pro- perty and prc'iide direction for preparing a plan for development while providing sufficient flexibility to permit design creativity. P IrI PLAN B UNDARa::.5 The Meadowlark Specific Plan encompasses that area as dt.lineated on the Exhibit 1. 2. Legal Description The Meadowlark Specific Plan includes the real property described as follows: Parcel 1 in the City of Huntington Peach as per map filed in Book 146, Page 21 of Parcel Maps, in the office of the County Recorder of said County; and Parcels 24, 25 and 26 in the City of Huntington Beach, as per snap filed in Book a=id146, Page 24 of Parcel Maps, in the office of the County corder of county. ENVIRONMENTAL ASJESSME-NT See Environmental Impact Re ort 87-2 APPL ItTlON PPOC Et _gE - Any request for a development proposal shall be accompanied by an application for a Conditional Use Permit and Tentative Tract or and elevation plans and a statement of statistics. All plans shall be submitted con Map. Such applications shall include preliminary site plans, grading plans, currently and shall meet the following requirements. Meadowlark Specific Plan J (klf(ddA Fj '(IF ATTACHED UNITS), MEADOWLARK .. huntlington beach planning division U ' 1iYR '..i tiF4P wN'$'fl111g }N¢L'SG :9MRl"^:i4Rd9YAh9ETCLr "NF{AY,XIa NrYWWh•s+M 1. Conditional Use Permit - Any proposed development within the specific plan area shall be subject to the approval of a conditional use permit as provided in Article 984 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code. 2. 1 Ma r Plan - A conceptual master plan for the overall project shall 3. be submitted at the time of the first Conditional Use Permit, the conceptual master plan shall include the following: a. Perimeter buffer alignment b. Location of pedestrian walkways; c. Circulation pattern of vehicular traffic; d. Use of common open space areas; e. Layout showing proposed swage and water facilities. 5tatem -nt Re aired - A detailed statement shall ai o be included containing the following information: a. Dista ,ace from the property to any known geological hazard; b. Existence of known contamination from hazardous materials on-site; c. Phase I results and Phase ll proposals for the Archeological Assessment of the Meadowlark Airport; d. Gross area of product type within the total project area boundary, e. Number and type of units and number of bedrooms; f. Total number of units and number of units and bedrooms per gross :acre; 9-Schedule and sequence of development if pry osed in phases. Phasing Plan fQr I e el rnrgrit A plan identifying phased de,telopment of the residential and commercial at ea shall be submitted in conjunction with the submittal of the conceptual master plan and any conditional use permits. Meadowlark Specific Plan E. SEWER AND WATER INFRAST ITCT RE All CITY Prior to issuance of bu*,lding permits within any of the area designated as a separate phase of developer not on the phasing plan, clearance shall be obtained om the Orange Cc .'Ly S3nitation District and City Water Department stating that such development will noc adversely impact the per and water systems. Such clearance shall be in the form of a letter to the Director of Public Works and the Director of Community Development. F. IR ULATION The conceptual master plan shall estahiish a plan concurrent with the issuance of the first entitlement. This conceptual master plan will establish the general alignment of Pearce Street if it connects into the new development, the connector street, L lignment and the internal circulation pattern of the development. Standards for streets and drives shall be as follow,;: 1. P rim _t r tr s-The street right-of--way for Warner Avenue. Heil Avenue, and Pearce Street shall be dedicated as public streets and fully improved to city standards. The eastern side of Roosevelt Lane (approximately 500 linear feet south of Pearce Street) shall be fully dedicated and fully improved to ,lty standards, needed. 2. Int rnal Circul_ tit n -- Circulation within the specific Plan Area shall be s that a connection between Heil (Avenue with Warner Avenue shall be provided. Project access points shall;,be at Warner Avenue/Leslie Lane and Heil Avenue/ Del Mar Lane. Any access to Pearce Street shall be such that traffic on Pearce Street does not exceed 2500 average daily trips. Roosevelt Lane shall not be a through street to Warner Avenue. The points of intersection with Warner Avenue, Heil Avenue, Pearce Street and Roosevelt Street shall generally conform to or,accomplish the objectives identified in Exhibit Meadowlark Specific P TRAPP1 NTROL -The Planning Commission , upon recommendation of the Department of Public Works, shall determine the need for traffic control devices (i.e., traffic signals). Such detef ruination shall include the appropriate time of installation . The developer shall pay the entire cost of installing traffic signals at Heil Avenue/Del Mar Lane, and Warner Avenue/Leslie Lane, at the entrances to the develop ment . If the proposed project requires access 4o Bolsa Chica Street from Pearce Street then the developer shall pay one-fourth of the cost of a traffic signal at Bolsa Chica and Pearce The developer shall provide for the future installation of any such improvements prior to issuance of building permits. TRANSIT FACILITIES -- Bus turnouts and bus shelters shall be provided at locations designated by the Department of Public Works and Orange County Transit District. The design of such shelters and turnouts shall be approved by the Department of Public Works and Orange County Transit District. I. AIR ALITY MIT IQA ON MEASt.iRE I Ri. shariri 2. P Irian Ac ss prior to the issuance of btil:diug permits. The developer shall -designing a progrtarn for the site The Orange County Transit District has a rideshare program, called "Commuter Network," which matches origins and destinations of commuters by computer. The project ,hall include pedestrian accessways from the interior of the site to the existing bus stops on the area streets and to the shopping center. The accessways shall be paved, lighted and handicapped accessible. The provision of neighborhood child care facilities are encouraged in the project in order to reduce the frequency and length of trips related to child care hit: Car ili i responsibilities. J. GEOLOGY /S IL. EISMMIQT1 - The following geology, soils and seismicity measures shall be employed prior to the issuance of building permits. 1, Submittal of a structural engineering study evaluating proposed foundation designs with respect to ground shaking and liquification hazards on the property. The study shall be subject to the review and approval of the Departments of Pt,blic Works and Co:aamunity Development. Foundations and structural components of the buildings shall be designed according :o :ecom- mendations contained within the structural engineering study. 2. Submittal of a soils study detailing grading rind site preparation. recom- mendations. This study shall be subject to the approval of the Departments of Public Works and Community Development. Grading and site preparation shall be accomplished in accordance with recommendations presented in the soils study. 3. Submittal of a soils analysis identifying the absence or presence of methane gas anad/or contamination by hazardous materials. If contamination isfound, all affected areas, must .e cleaned up to the satisfaction vi the City and other appropriate agencies. If methane gas is present, a mitigation plan must be submitted to and approved by the City and other appro riate agencies. ARCHAELOGY Prior to the issuance of entitlements, an archaeological analysis of three areas on the Meadowlark Airport, ideitified in the existing archaec& ical assessment (see Exhibit 2) shall be conducted. The analysis will include some excavations tc determine the existence of historical 19th century habitation and American Indian habittion, pre-19th century. a L. PERIMETER BUFFER A landscaped perimeter buffer shall be provided between existing off-site single family units and any development related multi family units pursuant to section N, Development Standards, see number 3 for specific standards. M. ESTABLISHME TT OF DiSTRI T AREAS The configuration of the property for which this Specific Plan is prepared is such that there are two (2) district areas. These areas are delineated on the Specific Plan Map shown on Exhibit 1. A description of Development standards for these areas are includedin the following section. N. 3E w LLOPMENT STANDARDS Proposed development within the Meadowlark Specific Plan shall comply with the following standards: 1. f and elDtn,11 1t - The following uses are permitted within the specific plan area. a. Area A - Commercial This area must comply with the requirements and standards set forth in the C4 District (excludeg Hotels and motels). b: Ai ea B Residential The conceptual master plan and cumulative conditional use permits shall use the following scenario as a guide in describing the type and distribution of residential product types. Three product types not exceeding 600 units shall be provided. Acres T- e Q Unit Denny Minimum Detached of 18 Single Family 7/acre Maximum Multi Family of 20 Medium Density Maximum Multi Family of 12 Med.iuui-high density Meadowlark Specific Plan i 2facre e Density bonuses within individual product types may be granted, however the total number of units for the entire project shall not exceed 600. Bedrooms/Unit The maximum number of bedrooms (sea; Section 9080.18 of the City Code for the definition of a bedroom) per acre will be established by standards set forth in Article ' - Planned Residential Developments, Section 9150.4 of the City Code: 9150.4 Maximum dens'aty. Maximum density shall be as shown in the following chart. For the purpose of calculating densit;i, acreage shall include area to the centerline of abutting street right-o'-way, but not to exceed 7.5 percent of the net area. District Maximum Units Maximu _gar acre Bedrooms Single Family Detached 7 20 Multi Family Medium Density 12, Multi Family Medium-High Density 20 40 Parking Within the development, parking will be allotted accordingtoArticle 915 of the City Code, Plh.nned Residential Developments Parking standards (9150.17). These conditions will include tandum parking for single family residences, Also, any residential unit that has four or more bedrooms will require .5 parking spaces per bedroom in excess; of three bedrooms. Off-street acid dAvay parking may count towards additional parking requirement. Meadowlark Specific Plan _10-(0631D)' 3. P rim ter Buffers a. Adjacent to existing off site single family development a minimum one hundred (100) foot wide landscaped perimeter buffer will be required, of which 50 percent of that width may be driveway or drive aisle (exciuding open or enclosed parking), or 75 percent of which may include attached low density residential units)orl00 percent of which may include detached single family residential units. In a4cases, the landscaped area shall be the outer portion of the buffer area. If structures are proposed within the buffer area no structure.may exceed a i°.eight of 15 feet. 4. ;gtbacks a. If attached structures are proposed along Heil Avenue, a 50 foot land- scaped setback shall be provided. Single family detached units shall only be subject to the normal setbacks established by the City Ordinance Code. b. Commercial uses must be set back from residential areas in order to minimize light and noise Impacts. Commercial setbacks shall be conditioned according to Article 922, Commercial District C-4 standards with the exception of the eastern perimeter of the proposed commercial center (between the existing Fernhill residential development and the subject site) where building heights shall not exceed 30 feet within 70 feet of the property, and no buildings or service drives shall be constructed within 20 feet of the property line. This 20 foot setback area. shall be limited exclusively to landscaping. c. A 20 foot landscape setback on either side of the collector street shall also be required for the section of the street bi-seeing the commercial center. d. The front setback line fog, the proposed project shall be 50 feet from Warner Avenue consistent with the setbacks depicted in the City's District Mips. S. Landscaping - The purpose of this is to insure a more pleasant living environment through the use o; plants and decorative design elements, a. All setback areas fronting on or visible from an adjacent public street, and all recreation, leisure and open areas shall be landscaped and permanently maintained in an attractive manner. b. All landscaped buffe r areas shall be landscaped in accordance with an approved landscape plan. The preliminary landscape plan implementing this requirement shall be submitted along with the application for a Conditionpi i_TW.e Permit(s) and/or Tentative Tract Map(s). The final landscape plan shall plan shall be approved by the Department of Community Development c. Intensified landscaping may be requ_ ed adjacent to the commercial portions of the proposed project. 6. All requirements set forth in this Specific Plan shall apply. When a conflict exists between this Specific Plan ,acad. the requirements of Division 9 the most restrictive requirement shall apply. PARK DED! ATLOLK Park dedication for the proposed project could be used for a greenbelt that would provide access through the development to Gib bs Parks and/or as an area on the western edge of the Park that would be set aside for park parking, providing it does not change the character of the Park. Any proposed augmentation of Gibbs will be subject to Comm mity Services approval. Meadowlark Specific Plan -12- P. I OMEOW, E R'S OR MM NIT A S CxA1I N -Approval of all development proposals shall be subject to submission ur a legal instrument or instruim nts setting forth a plan or manner of pe.: ianent care and maintenance of open spaces, recre- ational areas, and community faci;ities. No such instrument shall be acceptable until approved by the City .Attorney as to ; al form and effect, and by the Director of Community Development as to suitability for the proposed use of the open space areas. If the common open spaces are to be conveyed to a homeowners' association, the developer shall file a declaration of covenants to be submitted with the application for approval, that will govern the association. I. The homeowner;' association shall be established prior to the sale of the last dwelling unit. 2. Membership shall be mandatory for each, buyer and any successive buyer. 3. The open space : estrictions shall be permanent. 4. Provisions to prohibit parking upon other than approved and devel ,iaed parking spaces shall be written into the covenants, conditions, and restrictions for each project, f the development is constructed in increments or phases which require one or more final maps, reciprocal covenants, conditions, and restriction and reciprocal management and maintenance agreements shall be established which, will cause a merging of increments as they are completed, and embody one homeowners' association with common areas a,r the total development, APPROVAL PERIOD - Notwithstanding the provisions of Article 9, Conditional Use Permits, each Conditional Use Permit authorized under this Article shall became null and void within two (2) years unless a final tract map has been recorded with the County Recorders office on any portion of the approved plans within such two (2) year period. Extensions of time may be granted pursuant to the provisions for extending approval of the tentative tract map. Meadowlark Specific Plan USEELEMENT NDAI ENT 7.2 G mpact Report 87-2 ington 'bevuh department of servicesdevelopment Environment &I. R. ADDENDUM AND AIRPORT FEASIBILITY STUDY ATTA CHMENT 7 G I, ATTACk NT 2 WADOW L C AIRPORT F LLffY ANALYSIS Meadowlark Airport was incorporated ixttrs the City in 1964. By 1970, the City had created tia comrrnttee to investigate safety conditions at the airport, One outcome of he committee's analysis was the recommendation that "the City take steps to ensure that proper aviation authorities inE tote proceedings to require compliance with all existing air regulations." In 1972, another committee ,.gas formed to investigate the feasibility of a joint purchase of the airport by the City and Orange County. In 1973, the City withdrew its support of the study on Meadowlark, "based on the fact that the airport is not compatible with existing. st -roandi g residential area a..d would rather find a location more suited for this use.$0 By the late 13,70's, as discussed in the EIR, the Airport Board was formed which has cone -ibuted to a better relationship between the City, the airport and residential areas surrounding tho airport. As in 1972, the City ;s once more inves, gating the feasibility ox ow:..:ng and operating Meadowlark Airport. If improvement r to bring the airport up to FAA standards are f I-, Meadowlark could become a Dasi!,° utility J , eneral aviation .airpor, .... type f airport serves most of the single -e ngine and small twin--engine .airy, lanes used for personal and business purposes plus air taxi-type twin engine airplanes (example, four passenger commuter plane). Currently, there are approximately 200 aircraft tica down at Meadowlark. According to CALTRANS, that nun b .r could b:: increased by 54 - 100 percent in the space available on the airport site. The increase in tie downs directly relates to revenues anerated by uses at an airport, An outline of major revenue sources associated with a municipal airport are a. ioilows. A. Personnel Property Tax -Th is de pe nds on the. value of he aircraft. Currently, the City receives approximately 30 per y'ar in personal property tax revenue per aircraft. An Increase In tie downs would Increase the amount based on additional alydrai and also newer aircraft that would generate more than $30 per year. Note: A municipal airport would not generate property tax based on land value and Improvements because It would be public property. Tie Down Fees -based on discussi ons with the manager of Orange County's other general aviation airport, F ul erkon Municipal Airport manager Rod Murphy and CALTRV4S consultants , -monthly tie draw4 fees would range as follows: to 64OO per month to $125 per month Note: Landing Fe z d 4':n* Gad . 1 f°''vat ; air" its are usually not charge, at municipal airports. C. The City would also r cei ke s3' e 'o fuel sales and business leases at the airport , referred to a fbz 6 pvrators. The following businesses are commonly found at airports: Aircra ft sales also ge aera'tes retail sales tax) Flight instruction Aircraft leasing Aircraft maintrnance Additional comp tibl , u-, z,; F t h;port property (specifically adjacent to Warner Avenue) -"of ld b ti, a b, -;eneiral retail and hotel/motel. These commercial use wou -, ryr r,:!-ted revenue plus retail sales tax and transient cccupancy:a BIQLtm Would Meadowlar k as a According to the FAA, antilit,ai° costs and/or generate: some proirit, statement is based on nata.J SOO,OO0 per acre. Rod Murp years said . the Fullerton ah years as they payoff CA i.Tfi',,` increase fees. Fullerton lhr The goal to breaking even ;w of FAA grant f und,. :d not for property that is valued at portant to note, however, that this en=erate enough revenue to cover costs? aurally generate enough revenues to cover s managed Fullerton Airport for three should break even withi n the next two .".. incre ase manger/tie down space and A u. icipal airport for over 20 years. ould be affected by the availability ill.T v v 111 LIQ In Southern Calif ornia,, t e a i overnm ntal entities involved in airport acquisition and operation the ; .'.: alifornia Association of Governments (SCAG), the Federal Aviation dr .;do (FAA) and the California Department of Yransportation , aeronautics division (CALTRANS - Aeronautics).. SCAG SCAG has an Aviation Systi:eak,,that assess aviation needs in the region and forecasts future demands. C C ° _; :+ and support of a proposed airport, or in this case , the redevelopment of an airport, as necessarv before the FAA will considt the proposal . The review period at SCAG is i,pproxirnately four i onths. According to Tim Merwin, SCAG staff, SCAG would probably support the City if it proposed to own and opera tc: Meadowlark. Merwin 's assessment is based on aviation growth and local demand for tiedown space. While the region as a whole was stable regarding airtraf cotnrmt a, bet ween 1983 and 1986, there was a three percent increase in genera l aviat ion in Orange County. Therefore , based on the grow th of general aviation in rjn :ou; ty, SC .G would probably support retaining an existing facility, The next step in the process would be, assuming.SCAG supported the City's proposal, to take tone proposal to :k °A. EAA According to obarx ``4;,:.hsi°i o ,k' Standards Section, in a I91 eligible for an FAA grant National Plan of Integra In order to become a candid have to be met: 1. SLAG Recommends its regional plan, w place Meadowlark ar Environmental Federal ) and Envii determine the eiwi Concurrent with required to deter a.a.a of the amprc venae AL environmental pr : c le Meadowlark, Aiiotl,,,i comprehensive soi.S Meadowla. r,, t;o 'tai I dumping of a ircraf , operate Meado wlerl-, the Wound aurfac:°u. by CALTRANS. The FAA. would e. ,.ai: i,determine if it would Meadowlark . They funding nation Wide. If FAA decided to 4,n land acquisition master plan. The cos. estimate of the cost cost/benefit analysis, two years., As stated previolr, standards. The environnet accommodate the ne eSS runway in relation to the required to meet FAA uinda,,d;. rsCALTRANS ae rona uti ca l st a f f ,J?,c on the existing air r i o I airport property In. pactln g IDepartment of T;poetar design should include 8, each end of the runway for airport hazard rerov es Division of FAA (Supervisor 1997), Meadowlark would not be sent time because it is not in the FAA National clan, the following criteria would t SCA(i would place Meadowlark in >i',e, and formally recommended that FAA 'wrxv°irorz€iierital Impact Statement (EIS - ,,,part (EIR - State ) would be required to &Zits of the City's proposal. Because associated with the City's proposal. ndent feasibility study would b-. nce the mid-1970's the r. If the City were to purchase and ,d surface from years of casual mon to find, on Airports like environmental process would be a included a new noise study for )wly incur a cost to replace a portion of annd replacement would also be required impacts and aviation contributions to ivest it a municipal airport at City's request against other request for assessed within an FAA priority list. Ir grant would cover 90 percent of the it e the City to prepare an airport uld be incurred by the City, an eview time would take approximately re. The environmental process, the airpor t does not meet FAA f uid also assess if the airport :site could Figure A and B Illustrate the existing a longer and wider runway that would e B illustrates a design developed by uld ¥ ccornmodate a longer and wider runway j a,s7i clear zones extend beyond the rand private property. According to the .tion Administration (FAA) the airport a clear zone of 1000 feet at gures. A clear zone is an area. requirel rmtection, where Pr development exists. MEADOWLIU'K r'i,1"*,i1;,'. x WITH EXISTING RUNWAY Shaded areas i x di c to clear zones h n I each Planning division Ct CF-E W €T H LONGER RUNWAY* s Z 3E =. u #r. clear zone Thai i S CIR In order to provide t; south and north of v" clear zone would also would need to be real'.,..., beyond the identified accommodate realignmea In a recent telephone C L;, considering FAA would be reluctant If the City chooses na:., would be advisory wile the FAA has jurisdiction over 'he The City would Lerch The airport would h-v runway, to qualify fro has spec ific requires rarity, permit. They woul";1 w Itt future development en 4: antenna and tree heig hats. about are several tree A-rx Avenue. The trees lac a t4G nearby telephone liviesaiic attempting to tale off eample, for sever ayx being seenby pilots .'44 runway . CALTIIA" height of the tei p :r ,. available, `it does hay Improvements. B t.., CALTI A S could 4 ;b,, CALTRAN S does rapt;: They would not zones at each end eo, According tou support the cora.1,, Municipal airport. Mr. Ferguson m, et facility. His inAC,_ l property to accom 'zi, standards. He aLti , improved, would Aor; °a including a rest aur annt,., currently exist on the air; .-try adjacent to the airport and also G be cleared of existing structures. The venue and Hell Avenue . Both streets 'Le the clear zones, In that case, areas 8 to devoid of structures to kb ail. Bloom, August 18, 1987, he said that traffic con 4itions in the region, FAA xi zirport at Meadowlark. use FAA funds then 'FAA standards ircraft, CALTRANS has S for a permit to operate the airport. r uirement 5, such as a longer and wider TRANS. In addition to F",, CALTRANS Eo be met before it would issue a the area around the airport to control ..:. They ar e concerned about building, n existing condition they are concerned to the north of the airport on peal properties exceed the height of the vie w of aircraft on the ground aircraft coming in to land. For S does not have grant money have the trees cut back below the for land acquisition and capital obscured an incoming aircraft from nd individuals standing next to the e-cent of the funds to purchase the land, balance. ements as FAA re garding clear zones. 3ld even wah er- the 200 foot safety :.,Iodate a longer runway. Aviation consultant, CAL I API would ark and :also a conversion to a -1 on August 13, 1987 and toured the ,,I%azr was enough land on the airport l:_at would bring Meadowlark up to FAA ,aA of land along Warner, if the airport was t related commercial development Mr, Ferguson also noted t i wt r4l °xN E i x tion with FAA Mr. Bloom expressed concerns regardi t a iat of the site at Meadowlark to accommodate the ui ;rev er ,ents to meet FAA standards; this has been illustrated in Figures A arnd , If the airport is close d, ACA ,` 11Ar ,°el ovation program and will assist the aircraft owners in locating to airport! =wherethey can find new ti own spaces. aircraft obstruction s any cr :at ground. to prevent de;t toprrent, but ii .d permits for d-elopment watt risk on the ground, simiied FAA is advisory while the primary concern of the L review proposed deveiopnt: within a 10,000 foot r;dss or near the airport. Currently, the City is a°;i Commission (ALUC) will p While not involved in the Also, the Airport Lan supports the continue: 1957) "it does not appe t this matter". Meadowla rk Airport. 'cr davailability of County Staff has commun ica,-z V. Los lar c 1 -he military air star Army. According to Land Use Commission, the air station as a joint plans to abandon the the States Disaster will serve as a con mu currently a Coast Guard medical unit availa chasm thy. n t The Nerio Family h,,L development plan fort land whether they lease; or Orange County Airpo rt Lane Use sing proposed development adjacent to FAA of any proposes, development he State mandated ALUC will also 00 foo. radius or planning area. The f people in the aircraft and those at ence between the agencies is that ,,-=red the ALUC to delay or deny City root planning area. The purpose is not mitigate situations that may cause pilots , passengers and people on the a :otter dated September 21, 1957) low! ri, Ai rpo rt. y the Navy and leased to ,nner for the Orange County Airport fense has no intention of operating iett 'ieder`s Office regarding the oe able to assist Huntington Beach in zible City purchase and operation of Wieder's letter (dated September 14, civilian) nor does it have any future s Alamitos is e major component in If a regional or national disaster, e and medical relief center. There is the air station which includes a - y rresponse. ant to sell the property. Their proposed in the family retainin g ownership of the u es that would be built. If the property F as o'a' ', , K Brow-man of the City°s Property Management Department , has ,stg aa.tec t land costs would be approximately $500,000 per acre or a total of $32,300,r., Essentially , in order to = ; - to a 6 iunicfpal facility that meets FAA and CALTRANS standards, t v, My would have to redevelop the site, removing and/or demolishing existing suit, build more support and commercial structures and lengthens and widen the way. In addition to the airport development, private property would have to ho purcha sed, families and business relocated and both Warner and Heil vwould nave to be realigned to accommodate the clear zones discussed previously. lu kinfathe land cost, it is estimated that the entire project would cost between 1 6; a dK lfon dollars. The City could, through elder nc_., acquire the site ul.. agency could sell hto t; According to Robert City does not have the Assurnin ; that the e`if purchase price of he Franz estimates 04 % would not, in the fort cost o,4,:nd and imprcx _,LcN a o.Qsf .1L -111 Staff would reconarme,°id purchase and openatse a assessment conducted to the City associate l--, determine the ri sks and clear zones. a redevelopment area or an airport authority and the City would have the legal authority to dz.>,rnain. An airport authority or redevelopment ate funds for airport improvements. -epufiy City Administrator in charge of finance, the reserve s necessary to purchase the airport site. structures do not have a measurable value, the ° .'o' id at least 50O,OQ1 per acre. At that price, f how well a refurbished airport f unctic z d, it generate enough revenue to recoup the initial st step in the formal proc ess of proposing to copal airport at Mealowlark would be to have a risk nsuitaht to d.,:terrnine the risks and liability impacts T u icipal airport. It would also be important to associated with an airport with or without safety joa -STAtf hunti t beach, do art eat of communlt!f deve lopment TO: Planning Commix 'ROM: Community Develop + DATE; November 17, 1907 SUBJECT: LAND USE 13LMa1QT Al L 2 T n j . 37 -2 C/ZO NE - GE NO. 81-13 /ENV1RO a T° 2aT ACS REPORT NO , 7--2 APPLI CANT: Dick Norio REQUEST: Amend the ("Mora. Playa by r ed ig it ting the 65 acre Meadowla rk Airport i. a fx Low Density residential to planned C unity containing 50 acres of mixed residential with n5 .a-ia M of 750 units and 15 acres of retail commerci al. 1. a Specific plan to implement the Genera l Plan. Approximately 00 intersec t ion o,41!' Polo Staff recommends that the Planni w Council approval of General pli 87-2C for a change i n land u, e Residential to Planned Counit,, t of t he nd Warner Avenue. i.io n recommend t to the City j ry p ,;.yyyyyq Og, y. at with findings of Zone Chance z . 0`11-13 Meadowlark Speci fic plan, which t,iou1 and 50 acres of mixed re identie av,nrage of 12 units per acre). za BA Roo z At the publ i c hea ring held reque st sta ff provi ded the purc hasing and operating a Aunnicipa . rpc r°t at eado rlark. recommending that the Council not puree any consideration of he feasi bility of page a munici pa l facility. tion from Low Density 9 also recom mends approval the adoption of the 15 acres of commercial ed 600 units (an 1. 9, 1587, regarding the aboveinforat.oIln ; irport and conv erting it t6 Staff rai sed seri ous concerns X c r inn the City's abil ity to incur the expense and liability f operating the airport. The majority of people test ifying at the public ho: ring were opp ose d to th conti nued c er tion of tha airport. The Coi isai on passed a motion i "T rACHENT 4 7- ADDENDUM Planning C ors nission Staff Report July 23, 1987 This Addendum contains supportive material, revised analysis and additional information generated and or received regarding the subject site since the last public hearing on June 2, 1987. The following items are discussed in this Addendum: 0 vi ~ffir . At the June 2, 1987 study session, tha 'lan i ig Commission requested staff to have the tratfic analysis revised u_-, i..c ..sde e tial impacts from the proposed development in the l3olsa Chi z,. : ary of that revision is included in this addendum and the full revision is 4a. a achment to the Staff Peport. o M r 1 I es Issues have been raised regarding : cox sting connecticn of Moody Circle to Pearce Street, and the possibility of cant,ir . sng Moody Circle to the south. Item No. 3 addresses those issues. Airport Va .W: l In a recent meeting with apphcan, a question was raised regarding the feasible future use, by the City's Water Deer t n. ' an existing water well on the airport 5ite< Item No. 4 reports the results of ; Water Depax tments assessment of the well. o z a MM t laa1 It was recently brought to staff's attention that two gas stations on the corner of Balsa Chica and Warner have unuer rot r zd storage tanks that are leaking gasoline. Item No. 6 assess that situation r c t potential impacts to the airport site. R vi E n rni p isiA A member of the Airport Bow *r;<`1T staff aware of the fact that the City receives personal property tax a evenue on awc» f t tied-down (or domiciled) at Meadowlark Airport. The Economic of the EII was revised to include that revenue. REVISED TRAFFIC ANAL Y In the previous traffic impact study conducted for the proposed development of the Meadowlark Airport Site (Parsons Srinckerhoff wade Douglas, Inc. -March, 1987), r"uture traffic volumes at the time the project's commercial phase is completed (near-term-1991) and at the project's overall completion (on-term. - 199s), were developed by factoring 1986 Average Daily Traffic (ADS) by a 3.5 percent annual growth factor. This factor was developed based on average traffic volusie growth within the City of Huntington Beach over the past six years. As such, it was assumed to be a reasonable ri easurLrnent to base anticipated growth in future traffic attributable to general land use intensification, However, in ligl't of th( significant size and prox imity of the proposed Bolsa Chica development , some measurement of the projected traffic attributable to this project was necessary in addition to the above increase in background traffic, To accomplish this, staff contacted the Signal Landmark planning department and requested their best estimate of the amount of dew xopment to be completed by 1991 and 1996, which are the anticipated completion dates for Phase I (Commercial)", and 2 (Residential ) of the proposed Meadowlark project. Parsons, Brincherhoff, wade and Douglas, Inc. utilized this data to prepare an analysis which includes traffic from Bolsa Chica dev .lopmeat. It is difficult to determine traffic flows at this time because of uncertainties regarding the ultimate street system. PBQ&D did, however, estimate the future wevels of service based on normal growth proposed Meadowlark development, anticipated Boisa C r,icn traffic and the cummulative impacts of all three scenarios, As expected, future arterial lev ;ls of r i wpoll decrease greatly, especi ily e Heil Avenue between Balsa Chica and Spr'ngdaie Warner Avenue and Algonquin and Springdale and 13olsa Chica Street between Edinger and Warner .(See Table I of Attachment 5). According to PBQ&D , peak hour i,itersecti.,f i L isa of service will also decrease . Three key intersections , Bolsa Chica Stree t/Warnea° Boisa Chica Street/Heil Av--sue and Warner Avenue/Graham Street are anaiyz .yd b,: nww for the following anticipated scenarios; 1.Existing Conditions 2.Background traffic •=1 g r , x growth r vv 3.Project Traffic 4.Balsa Chica Traffic 5.NCummulative Traffic:basr`d o n i t"', a :Ve impacts The analysis assumes that all tr t aizcn --P, ure suggested by PBQ D are in place. Mitigation measures were proposed k herr::', ',emvei of service falls below LOS '0' because intersections operating atL S * D' carp b . ecv?,, t;i accomodate a high density but stab:e traffic flow. The other two intersections.`La Chica Street/Pearce Drive and Heil Avenue/Graham Street, which r ere atiz i ~£ r ,, original report, remained at LOS 'A' 'd in this revised analysis.throughout PBQ&D's analysis and are not 'SL Existing Conditions jiahle Currently, Bolsa Chica Street/Warner Ave ( operating at I OS 'D'. Bolsa Chica Street/Heil revenue is operating at LOS ' '". V a rarer Avenue/Graham Street is operat na LOS 'A ', 1 air Term Traffi„i, i :ail Assuming that proposed arterial improvements (three eastbound and thee, westbound though lanes on Warner Avenue) are in place-, levels of service based on background traffic will decrease, Bolsa Chica Street/W rner Avenue is expected to operate at LOS 'D' although some improvement in capacity over existing conditions is gained with additional through lanes on Warner Avenue. Balsa Chica Street/Hell Avenue and Warner Avenue/Graham Street will operate at acceptable levels of service (LOS 'C' or better). TABLE 1 Existin and Near Tom Afternoon Peak Hour Intersection Levels of Service (With Mi igatiun) Balsa Chica Street/Warner Avenue Balsa Chica Sf'eet/Neil Avenue Existing Background Project Balsa Chica Cummulative 0 0 G C C` 0 Warner Avenue/Graham Street A B C' No mitigation suggested TABLE Balsa Chica Street/Warner Avenue Balsa Chica Street/Heil Avenue darner Avenue/Graham Street 1. No mitigation suggested Long-Term Peak Hour Intersection Lever of Service (With #itigation) Background Project Baia Chica 0 C` Cummulative The addition of peak hour project traffic does not significantly change the levels of service discussed above for the new-term background traffic scenario, provided suggested mitigation measures are in place; With the addition of anticipated Bolsa Chica near-term traffic volumes, Bolsa Chica Street/Warner Avenue and Bolsa Chica Street/Heil Avenue will operate at LOS 'D°, assuming mitigation is in place. Warner Avenue/Graham Street will operate at LOS'C'. When background, project and Bolsa Chica traffic impacts are considered together, levels of service will remain at LOS 'D' for Balsa Chica Street/Warner Avenue and Balsa Chica Street/Heil Avenue. Again, Warner Avenue/Graham street will operate at LOS 'C'. L n T r fi .T I Assuming that the suggested mitigation measures are in place, background traffic levels of service will decrease. All the intersectiob will operate at LOS V. The addition of peak hour project traffic, with nitigation, does not change the levels of service discussed above. All three intersections will operate at LOS 'D'. The addition of Bolsa Chica traffic is expected to require additional measures to mitigate impacts. Assuming that the mitigation measures are in place, Balsa Chica Street/Warner Avenue will decrease to LOS 'V. Balsa Chica Street/Heil Avenue and Warner Avenue/Graham Street are expected to operate at LOS 'D'. When background, project and Bolsa Chica impacts are considered together, the le Is of service for the three intersections remain the same as above, assuming that the suggested mitigation measures are in place. In summary , the levels of service in the area surrounding the Meadowlark site will decrease measurably in the next ter, years, largely due to normal growth and anticipated Balsa Chica development. Only a small portion of the increased traffic is attributable to the proposed Meadowlark development. MOODY CIRCLE ISSUES Moody Circle is not located within th:: study area, however, it is within close proximity to the west. The street is presently the focus of considerable debate regarding whether or not it should remain as a cul-de-sac connected to Pearce Street, or whether it should be blocked off at Pearce and continued further to the south. It is appropriate to analyze the Moody Circle issue in relation to Meadowlark Airport. The traffic and circulation section of Environmental Impact Report 87-2 indicates the need to retain Pearce Street as an access point for Meadowlark Airport. The connection of Pearce Street to Meadowlark, however, is to be designed in a manner which would minimize the use of Pearce. The continued connection of Moody Circle to Pearce Street will have no impact on the connection of Pearce Street to Meadowlark. If Moody Circle is blocked off at Pearce Street, there are two general alternatives for continuing it to the south. One option is to continue it a short distance south and then turn it out to Balsa Chid Street. The second option is to continue it south to where it would connect with a second street running east and west, This street would the:' connect to Bolsa Chica Street and Meadowlark Airport. Although circulation planning c„e Meadowlark Airport has not included this second access point south of and parallel to r z rce Street, it could be accommodated. Because this street would never be signal red tt l3olsa Chwca : ,reef (and probably would not permit left turns), it should not be utilih ed eitirely in place of brce Street. Rather, Pearce Street and this second street coup" both serve as access to Meadowlark Airport. In summary, any of the MtxoTi Circle alternatives can be accommodated in planning for Meadowlark Airport. Non,,of the alternatives, however, will permit Pearce Street to be discontinued as access to ieado+rlark. The largest issues are the impacts of the Moody Circle alternatives on thte marketability and design of the parcels south of Moody Circle which would be bi-sected by the continuation of the street. These issues are not within the purview of Environmental Impact Report 8744 AIRPORT WATER WELL At a recent meeting , that inciu cd tie applicant, a discussion of an existing water well on the airport property . raised some questions regarding the future inclusion of that well in the City's water system . Water Departi.,ent stiff conducted an assessment of the well to determine if it would be feasible, in the f suture, to incorporate the well into the City's water supply system. Their investigation resulted in a determination that it would not be cost effective to utilize the well. The reasons for their determination are as follow: The well is too shallow. The well is vulnerable to contam inatik} From hazardous materials leaking from gas stations .:ar ,he air port. The well is near the end of its useful Lie. The weld has a history of low produ HAZARDOUS MATER IALS A. Underground Storage Tyr I. On-site Tanks According to the Orange County Healthcare Agency, Environmental Health, Waste Management Section, there are two known underground storage tanks in the study area. The tanksmust be removed and the nail r ,ust be tested for contamination; If the soil or groundwater As contaminated, the Regional Water Quality Control Board should be contacted for cleanup requirements. Offsite tanks fron,Since pips ? ; ,s #rxr .tanks can migrate underground thr a ° c' x`k a fe it is ir iportarit to identify nearby sources of .. utaWP--, dv. c' . Three n rra sources exist near the area of concern, Kayo Oil the southeast corner of Warner and Balsa Chico (,let , ,u : n E Mobile Oil on the northwest corner are th in the proce: ; of cleaning, up underground gasoline spills.. The free i red av ill be removed and the contaminated groundwater M H be tear ei u2.Accordin g to Kurt Berch-Eald of the Regonal Water impactin g the Me-Wic, may migrate M. the unknown how The GTE fah released diesel i rutad4Ttia;:'th e supervised cleanup of :or. , occurrer c . Tail Fuel leaks k rord: Abandoned Gil Two abandoned o"' must be abandoned Oil and Gas before that constrX tiy-)n be ,,i abandoned well. "New structures unless due to .e co can be prove n if procedure s set Department poi venting system i of buildings. C. Methane Gas Arer:s of Hun prc elem . organic matter c : associated with landfills and sewers with the formation shafts. Methane seepage e ai the surface. Coner t(.- the escape of the met will concentrate nn`!-, concrete the meta as,. the overlyin g structi_ District, thew', spills are: not ss will take. this time. T he contaminants . erection of the gradient. It is ,n z ai;.rr ted the soil on-site but not ;.';ousted soil has been rem`moved. on d and monitored. The :z lty Control District. and titer is prim rily th by the Division of ctly over abandoned wells tier adopted which states: Fse proximity to any The DOG has recomrnendec perly abandoned and that roixowed.g Current Fire Chica Street has y,it is necessary. If it necessarti the wells rnative , i t may be allowed ven€ safely outside eth ne as seepage the decomposition of mr. Biogenic methane is at lugs, river bottoms, ic) methane is associated escape via abandoned well., and foundations prevent when development occurs on Consequently, the gas tips in the asphalt or oncentration into a fire or xplosiort. (622d; JP to the size of .Age area 4 studiod to determine if r-a the Division of Oil and i seepage through the ,, ,U,x, the drilling of pressure reef D.Surface Spills to identify any con;. arr li ", eau development can : c,,p airport maintenance Surface fuel end clreaic Additio gal information affecti has been included in this Addend n,, 1. Alternative I -Existing r i Y ib Sales tax revenue was not report because that type of data is g 1-1&tg31. widual business income. Alternative 1 and not reported ":;- an private aircraft domiciled 4:: obtained on this issue frorrr, rre s-,, Assessors office. There a re apprc-, , k rrrecords, 200 airplanes domic cd o-,. generated $5,983 in r venu ;,-. Therefore, the revised r e t`aa*' i_: Revenue Cost Rovenue -- Cost Revenue/Cost This summary indicates }.iirt contrast to the original ; :u fiscal year 1986--1987, that r a" The most recent da'a avai . r.i da potential for methane he site, staff concurs with the area should be on the site. If it is present future development, )f venting apparatus and may be necessary bet ore s > tudy should be per for aed ccur•ed over the years dae to ions section in the Ei . 1 R. fir business, at Meadow} privacy laws concerning revenue generated by ;oval property tax assessed ir.ort. Data was he Orange County Tax 3ccordinl,to tax assessors,n)at Meadowlark that City of tuntington Beach.` for Alter native is s follows- r f scal year 1985-1986. e will be similar to 1955. in sufficient quantities to mitigatio n measu es, s dr -s,, Revenue/Cost Summaries for all 'intern uses are as follows: i Revenue $9,537 Cost $5,551 Revenue -- Cost $3,986 Revenue/Cost 1.71 Revenue $734,173 Cost $198,750 Revenue - Cost $535,423 Revenue/Cost 3.69 Alu $277,007 $25.921 $151,086 2,20 x.;44 Att•3 Alt .4 $515,970 $614,235 $146,769 $179,592 $369,101 $434,643 3.51 3.42 A1 $552,42 $125,565 $426,863 4.40 s u< ;t4b2. Cable Television/Uti lity "fax, Recently, it was brought to staff's attentn ghat the local cable television monthly flat rate fee has increased from $12.50 to $14.504 This two dollar increase per dwelling unit per month would res ult in a revenue increase, for the City, of 10 cents per dwelling unit per month or a Viz. (i par unit, per year. For Alte rnatives 2 through 7, this cable TV revenue increase would, very mini mally, increase the revenue for each alternative . The relationship of revenues and revenue to cost ratios would remain the same although the a ,=al numbers will charge , minimally . Because the additional revenue would result in such a minimal change the model was not reprogrammed at this time to accomodate this change. Within the next few months, staff rwiix la updating the model and some of the assumptions and revenue factors, including cable television fees will be revised. AREA 2.1 c.EVENUE COST ESTIMATES REVENUE ITEM ALT. #1 ALT, #2 ALT. #3 ALT. #4 ALT. #5 ALT. #6 ALT. #7 ------------------...r..--------------_-_-r.,+.--- !'ROPERTY TAX 3354 156953 196163 253283 241488 241569 158928 PERSONAL PRO. TAX 5983 0 0 0 0 0 0 SALES TAX 0 133 179639 160015 269086 220602 279847 UTI /FRAN. TAX 0 47351 66186 94099 124949 111819 52672 BUS. LICENSE 180 0 938 938 1406 1125 1406 FFP 0 16588 16674 19635 22982 22438 13613 CIGARETTE TAX 4029 4049 4769 5581 5449 3307 MOTOR VEHICLE 39700 39905 46992 55002 53700 3259.5 GAS TAX FUND 12253 12316 14504 13679 15150 10,:60 TOTAL:$9517 $277007 $515870 $614235 $734173 $67id52 $552428 COST ITEM GEN. ADMN,0 42055 421755 42055 42055 42055 42055 POLICE 5551 24679 43948 66204 72784 71427 33005 'IRE 0 43212 44567 52281 61565 5,x:9 37176 COMM. SERVICES 0 12546 12610 14850 17381 16970 10300 PUBLIC WORKS 0 3429 3589 4202 4965 4809 3029 TOTAL $5551 $125921 $146769 $179592 $198750 $195070 $125565 REVENUE-COST $3966 $151066 $369101 $434643 $533 $4767 26863 REV./COST RATIO 1.71 2.20 3.42 3.69 44"4,40 FILE NAI : END8 7-2.1 07/20/87 ATTACHMENT 5 Mai." D OWLARK AIRPORT TR, F1C STUDY ADDENDUM In the previous traffic irr pact study conducted for the proposed development of the Meadowlark Airport Site (Parsons Brinckeriioff Quade & Douglas , Inc , - March, 1987), future traffic volumes at the time the project's commercial phase is completed (near-- term -1991) and at the proje2t's overall completio n (long-term -1996), were developed by factoring, 1986 Average Daily Traffic (ADT) by a 34 percent annual growth factor . This factor was dev AToped based on r verage traffic volume growth within the City of Huntin g ton Deach over the past six years. As such, it was assumed to be . a reasonable measurement to base anticipated growth in future traffic attributable to general land use inter ification , d;.velopmerit and through travel in the City. However , in light of the signific#nt size: and proximity of the proposed Bolsa Chicae development, some measurement of the projected traffic attributable to this project was necessary in addition to ter above increase this, City Staff contacted the Signal Landmar background traffic. To accomplish anning department and requested their best estimate of the amount of developm ent to be completed by 1991 and 1996 which are the anticipate d completion dates for Phase 1 and 2 of the proposed Meadowlark project. Using these land use estimates, anticipated ADT and afternoon peak hour volumes were projected and assigned to the future street system based on directional percent distributions utilized in the lluntington Brinckerhoff . These future volumes were ach traffic model developed b then overlaid upon the near- and long -t volumes developed in the March 1997 traffic study , hence aessrnen traffic impacts including the effects of the proposed Boise Chica developm ns rm of It should be noted that other sources of projected traffic volumes at build -o ut of the City's General Plan were sought. However, at present there are no model data for this scenario available (although work, is underway and once available will require further refinement to reflect specific trends within Huntington Beach). Using a 3.5 percent annual growth factor to project to a build-out year is of little value due to various influences which could alter growth patterns significantly (Lee,, the location of future freeway access, economic patterns, etc.). Also, designating a specific year as 'b uild- out" is difficult to ascertain and yet imperative to this type of analysis. With respect to the above, a long -terry` scenario reflecting growth in existing background traffic, the Balsa Chica development and the Meadowlark project, at the time of its anticipated completion, has been determined to be the most appropriate basis for assessing traffic impacts at this time. The results from this analysis are presented bt.lowa Arterial Levels of Service Table I presents future artserr ;l icvet of service for ADT projections developed as .described in the preceding paragraphs. These ratings are ')ased on daily volume averages which do not allo! uld be used with care as they or site specific influences such as intersection geometries acid the per(-P4-.t of daily tra ffic occurring during peak travel times. These service Ievel: do, for general area assessments at a °°gener. plan" level . ADT estimates for project traffic do not change from the March 1987 report ;Figures 8, 9, and 10). Intersection Levels of Service To analyze intersection service ^eveib,wo i tir f afternoon peak hour factors , direc- tional splits and intersection turning movement pereentagcs were applied to the da}.y traffic projections to achicve estri s of 1991 1906 peak hour intersection turning movement s for the signali zed i t erseetions« Levels of service were then determined using a microcomputer v;rsion of the Critical Mover ent Analysis pro- cedure detailed in Circular 21L2 of the Transportation Researc h Board , and by assuming future intersection geometries and improvements currently proposed by the City. Levels of service and VIC ratios for near and long-term intersections are presented in Tables 2 through 5 and are discussed below. Documentation of the critical movement analyses can be found in the Appendix. Wear-Term Back round Traffic: As ea-i be seen in Table 2, when project and Bol; Chica traffic is excluded,, all of the signalized 'intersections except one are anticipated to be opera.tina at acceptable levels of service ('C' or better), assuming proposed arterial improvements, (three eastbound and three westbound through lanes on Warner TABLE IFUTURE ARTERIAL LEVELS OF SERVICE FOR STUDY AREAHear-TermRoadwayt_YHell Avenuel{eil AvenueHeil AvenuePearce DriveWarner AvenueWarner AvenueWarner AvenueI3otsa Chica RoadGrlsa Chica RoadGraham StreetGraham StreetAlgonquin to Sols;a Chic-,Bola Ctaica to Graham,Graham to SpringdaleBolsa Chiica east to Termi€:usAlgonquin to Boira ChicaBolsa Chica to GrahamGraham to SpringdaleEdinger to HeilHeil to WarnerEdinger to HeilHeil to WarnerTruffiLimitsrilin+rt Fret-stlavf'sc tWithBaekgro'.ara4t IJo1 tz Backgr a nd*Assumes City improvements."Based on 2,50O maximum ADT for residential streets per city or Ilur tinaton iicach Public ;Yorks t)epartrnentLLon Tert;rlgg o.«_acrtwithWitaackt ound i.3oIsa Background'l -mffic Chica TrafficWithBalsaChita TABLE 2 NEAR-TERM AFTERNOON PEAK ROYR INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE (without BoLsa Chica TaCf ic) Intersection Bolsa Chica Street/Warner Avenue Bolsa Chica Street/Pearce Drive Balsa Chica Street/Heil Avenue Heil Avenue/Graham Street Warner Avenue/Graham Street westbound through lanes on Warner Avenue and l3olsa Chica Street. 2Assumes that a two-phased signal is in place. 3Assumes a separate westbound right turn lane at Warner Avenue/Bolsa Chica With Pro'ec t Without with Without Pro'eet Mitigation jiti ation V/C LOS j/C LOS V'/C; LOS .86 D .33 A2 .74 C A2 .G7 .92 E .84 D3 .35 A A . .71 ;Assumes arterial i,nprovements currently plannedby the City of three eastbound and1 Avenue), are in place. The l3olsa Chica Street/Warner Avenue intersection is expected to operate at Level of Service (LOS) 'D' conditions, although some Improvement in capacity over existing conditions is gained with the additional through lanes on Warner Avenge, Due to the potential interruption to the increasingly higher volumes along Aolsa Chica Street at the Pearce Drive/Balsa Chica Street intersection, and the decreased arterial levels of service at the Heil Avenue/Graham Street intersection, both intersections warranted further service level analysis; therefore traffic signal warrants were prepared. The analysis indicated that near-term peak hour conditions without Bolsa Chica or project traffic are anticipated to warrant traffic signals at both inter- sections. Assuming a two-phase sigmas is in place, the corresponding levels of service at the Balsa Chico Street/Pearce Avenue intersection is expected to be LOSAt(.33 V/C ratio ) and at the Heil Avenue/Graham Street intersection LOS 'A' (,37 V/C ratio). Near-Term Pro'ect Traffic: The addition of project traffic is anticipated to lower the level of service at 13olsa Chine Street/Warner Avenue from l ' to ' i", (an increase of .O6 to the V/C ratio). Providing a separate westbound right turn lane is anticipated to increase conditions to LOS 'D', The remaining intersections are expected to continue operation at acceptable levels of service ('C' or better). The addition of peak hour project traffic does not significantly change the lever of service discussed above for the near-term background traffic scenario. A traffic signal warrant analysis was conducted for the Warner Avenue/Project Access (i.e., as i,; a typical 'T' intersection with Warner Avenue), and is therefore recommended. A critical movement analysis was not conducted due to uncertainties intersection . The warrant was satisfied with the inclusion of project veli regarding the location of project access across from Leslie Lane (hence a four-way intersection), or at some other location on Warner Avenue intersection). suiting in a three-way Near-Term Boise Chica Tr The addition of anticipated Rolsa Chica ni background traffic volumes de ireases the level of service at the 13olsa Chico. Street/Warner Avenue intersection to 'V assuming no mitigations(Se,,Table 31, Providing a separate westbound right turn lane is expected to increase conditions to LOS V. The Balsa Chica Street/Hell Avenue intersection is expected to be r.perating TABLE 3t EAP TER AFTERNOON PEAK HOUR t`dTEII EC--(with Balsa Chlea'Traffie)ithout Pro ectWithout Miti ation With 61Intersection V/C Los VICBolsa Chica Street/Warner AvenueBolsa Chica Strut; Pearee DriveBolsa Chie& Street/Heil AvenueHeil Avenue/Graham StreetWarner Avenue/Graharrm Street,4,98 1':.74C',2S'Assumes arterial improvements c.irrently planned by the City of three eastbound and westbound through lanes on WarnerAvenue and Bolsa Chica Street.2Assumes that a two-phased signal is in place.3Assumes a separate westbound right turn lane at Warner Avenue/l3olsa Chico Street.ON LEVEL OF SERVICEPro-ecWith Miti ation4Assumes altered signal phasing protecting both north/south left turns. at !,OS ' ' as well; however, "ltering the signal phasing should increase conditions to LOS V . The remaining intersections are anticipated to operate at acceptable levels of service ('C' or better) assuming signals ace in place at the Pearce give/Balsa Chica Street and Heil Avenue/Graham Street intersections and the proposed City improvements on Warner Avenue and Balsa Chica Street are in place. As in the case for background traffic, the addition of project traffic to this scenario lowers the Bolsa Chica Street/Warner Avenue and Balsa Chico Street/Heil Avenue intersections to LOS 'E' conditions wthout mitigation. 13cwever, assL.ming the previously discussed mitigations for intir-rsections are in place, conditions are anticipated to continue at LOS V. Long-Term Back round Traffic: Other mitigations anticipated to be necessary to achieve LOS 'D' conditions in addition to City and near-term improvements at the Bolsa Chica Street/Warner Avenue i.aterseetion include a separate northbound right turn lane, and a second eastbound left turn lane. At the Bolsa Chica Street/Hell.,- Avenue intersecti.m, a separate southbound right turn lane, a combination westbound through/right lane replaces the right turn only lane, and altered signal phasing are expected to be necessary. The other key intersections are expected to operate at LOS 'D' or better without mitigation. Table 4 summarizes the long-term intersection service levels excluding Bolsa :hica Traffic. Long-Term la'rojcet Traffic. Inclusion of 1 rsoje(-t traffic without mitigation is expected to decrease the level of service at the Bolsa Chica. Street/Warner Avenue and Bola Chica Street/lied Avenue intersections to LOSr:which exceeds capacity. The mitigations discussed above are expected to improve conditions: to LOS *0t, The Warner Avenue/Graham Street intersection is anticipated to decrease to LOS 'D, which represents high-density, but stable traffic flows. The other two key study area intersections are anticipated to operate at LOS 'A'. Mitigation measures for project traffic conditions are same as those discussed above for background trafffic conditions. Long -Term Bolsa Chica Traffic: The addition of Bolsa Chica traffic is expected to, ,require additional measures to mitigate impacts. Table 5 summarizes service levels and mitigations. In addition to the.proposed City roadway improvements, near-term mitigations, and the mitigations discussed above for the background traffic without Bolsa Chica, other mitigations anticipated to be necessary at the 13o]sa Chica BOIL-TERM PEAK DOUR INTERSECTION LEVELS OF SERA[(without Bola. Chita Traffic)IntersectionWithout Pro'ect With Pro ctWithout Miiti ation With iliti ation Without ttratIo With MAI ationYJC LOS V/C Los V/C LOSBoise. Chica Street/Warner Avenue .95Balsa Chica Street/Pearce Drive .39Balsa Chica Street/Heil Avenue ?.12Heil Avenue/Graham Street .42Warner Avenue/Graham Street.81] Assumes arterial improvements proposed by the City t rid proposed near-term mitigations.and altered signal phasing.2Assumes a separate northbound right turn and second eastbound left turn lane.3Assumes a separate southbound right turn lane, a combination. westbound through right lane replaces the right turn only lane,i TABLEICDAssumes a separate southbound right turn lane, a second northbound left turn lane, and a combination westbound throeLONG-TERM PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION LEVELS 01(with Balsa Ch.ica de "elopmerit traffic)Without Pro'eetWithout MitigationIntersectionV/CLOSBalsa Chica Street/"Ncrrner .venue1.1Balsa C'iica Street/Pearce Drive.49Balsa Chik°a Street/fleil Avenue1.04Heil Avenue/Graham StreetAWarner Avenue/Graham Street.93With 411ti atV C LOS.81,C°ectbut MR! ation With Miti a.43V/C LOS.99 E21Assumes arterial improvements proposed by the City and proposed near-term mitigations,2Assumes a separate northbound right turn, a second northbound through lane and second eastbound left turn lane, and alteredsignal phasing.3lane replaces the right turn only lane.t-44 Assumes a third westbound through lane. Street/Warner Avenue intersection include a second northbound through lane and altered signal phasing. However, conditions are expected to be improved to LOS 'E' only. This service level should be put into context and its impact not weighed too heavily in light of the uncertainties regarding these future conditions. As mentioned before, the 3.7 r :rcent growth factor, is a concervatively high estimate and there is some controversy as to whether the impacts of the Balsa Chico development are not ready included. Concerning the Bolsa Chica traffic itself, it is difficult tc, ascertain traffic flows because of uncertainties regarding the ultimate street system. In any case, this is a "best estimate" of condi'.ions and should be viewed as such4 At the Bolsa Chica Street/Hail Avenue intersection, a second northbound 101t turn lane and altered signal phasing are expected to be necessary in addition to those mitigations for conditions without Boise Chico traffic. At the Warner Avenue/Graham Street intersection a third westbound through lane is anticipated. The addition of project traffic to the Boise China Street/Warner Avenue intersection, increase volume to capacity ratiosbysix percent. Conditions will remain at LOS 'E' with the above mitigations in place. Again9 the relative contribution of the project to total conditions should be considered wtien assessing this project's impacts. Inclusion of project traffic is expected to decrease the level of service at the Bolsa Chica Street/Heel Avenue und Warner Avenue/C,-aharr Street intersections to LOS 'E' which exceeds capacity assuming the Mitigations discussed above are not in place. The other two key study area intersections are anticipated to be operating at LOS 'Al. Again, the mitigations discussed above for the background traffic are expected to increase services levels to ,0' at the Boksa Chica Street intersection with 1:- 1 Aven ac and Warner Avenue/Graham Street intersection. CON, CLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The 3.5% annual growth facto,, utilized to project future traffic. volumes in this analysis was based on recent gro, nth trends in the general. City of Huntington Duch area. This rate a -an be expected to decrease somewhat in the future as the numbers of vacant parcels in the vicinity diminish However, volumes are anticipated to continue to increase due to development of existing vacant la, rid, inntensifications of existing land uses (as with this proposed project), and further growth in traffic traveUing through the study area. Therefore, a 3.5% annual growth factor is in all likelihood a conservative measure but it can be easily substantiated by past experience. Traffic attributable to the proposed Bolsa Chica project alone could significantly impact the study area beyond those delineated for background traffic, Hence, an attempt was made in this analysis to include its effects. In the light of this the following mitigations are recommended for traffic conditions which incorporate background growth in volumes and traffic attributable to the 'dolsa Chica development and Meadowlark project: Near-Term 0 Provide three eastbound and westbound through lanes on 1. arner Avenue at Balsa Chico Street (as the City currently plans). Add a separate westbound right turn lane on Wa:ner Avenue at false, Chica Street. Install traffic signals at the following intersections. Boa Chica Street/ Pearce Drive, Heil Avenue/Graham Street and, Warner avenue/Project Access. Alter the signal phasing at the Boisa Chica Street/Heil Avenue rote section, protecting all left turns. L2E Term 0 Add a separate nort htound right turn lane at the Bolsa China. Street/ Warner Avenue intersection. Add a second northbound through lane at the Balsa Chica Street /Warner Avenue intersection. 0 Provid e a second eastbound left turn lane at the 'o Avenue interseetio Alter the signal phasing at the olsa Chica S section, protecting all left turns. -ner Avenue inter Add a separate southbound right turn lane at the Bolsa Chica Street/Heil Avenue intersection. Provide a second northbound left turn lane at the Balsa Chica Streetflleil Avenue intersection. Replace the westbound right turn only % ne with a combination through/ rigs _ Sane at the Bali r"Ica Street/ HeilAvenue intersection. Add a third westbound through lane to the Warner Avenue/Graham Street intersection. ATTACHMENT 6 EIR 8i-2 Appendix K Addendum Comments and Responses Comments received after the EIR was prepared have been incuded in this extention of Appendix K. The order of the comments and staff°s responses are as follows: 1. Airport Board 2. Division of Oil and Gas 3. Environmental Board 4. Mr. and Mrs. Ricks UCLA Archaeology Clearinghouse AIRPORT .]BOA June 2, 1937 '.4 embers of the Planning Commission: '3 7 •. 9 The Meadowlark Airport Board met on %lay 21, 1987, fur the purpose of formulating comments on the Environmental Impact Report (aIR) 87-2 pertaining to the proposed ,er.eral Plan Amendment for 'wleadowtark Airport. Katherine Miller O'Hara was present at the meeting ro receive the Boarc's veruai comments. 7e folo :3 a summ ary of the Bo,sr,:'s comments. The Board requests tha: these :.,.^r-sent, be 'nave par, of tt-,e f:na! Environmental €mpact Report. I. T=ae Board believes that the airport issue is significant enough to the community thaz the residents living around the airport beyond the 3G0 feet notification area should be notified of public hearing. The Board believes that all the residents living around the. airport should be notified so the city decision makers have the benefit. of knowing how the -esteencs feel about the airport and alternative land uses, . T,he Board believes that information used in the Ells report tends, at times, to be c;: daze. The Board sited ore example on page 21, section g, e Under this section, -tt reader s led to ceiieve that Meadow View Elementary School is currently an ,ycera.ing elementary school facility. This schooi has been closed for approximately 3 vears. The Board feels that more current information from outside agencies would be aopr.apriace. 3. Page 7. Recent -Cis . T;,e Board believes that the statement ``there arefewtae ocfs and landings occurring During the weekdays" is unfounded. The Board t; gest. d that. 3 survey would be the most appropriate method to ir;d.care the number cf weekday ta, oafs anc landings It would be more appropriate bor the report to ;rd sate that take offs and lancings are influenced by the weather c-anditions rather tan weckday versus weekend use. Aiso, the report should reflect the current inane-up of the Meadowlark A6-port Board which is; 3 pilots, -1 residents, inc me airport/owner operator. 4. Page 14, Compatibility, Alternative fit, Existing Airport; the last sentence. Tne Board believes that the comment concerning the use of radio communications was unfounded and should be deleted. Also, the word "substantially" which is located in the last sentence Should be <Seleted. 5. Page 17, Economic Consideration, Alternative 111; The overall economic analysis for the existing airport is inadequate. The Board believes that personal property tax for planes is not included. Gas tax from the fuel sold at the airport is not included. Various sales tax collected from ousinesses on the airport is not included. The Board believes that there should be a more cart. ul analysis of the economic benefit t1 at the current land use provides to the ceirrimunity. 6. Page 22, Table 1/3. The Board believes the nui,; r development cowl generate is lo,,r. The Board sage;este the school district .osee if thrre a`. ni re current enrotim 7. Page 2 aril 2S. The pages in the report are reversed. f school age children the, that the staff:, regntact tit figures available., Planning Commissioners June 2, 1997 Page -2- S. Page 34, a, Noise. A noise study need to be done to substantiate that a noise impact from aircraft exists. A noise contour mac; needs to t.e included in the EI"R that shows what the noise impact from the airport is to surrounding land uses. 9. PagR 3S. The Board believes that the report should have included a section on wildlife (e.g. \ eado lark bir:). 10. Page 39, Flocc. The board ':eiie 'es. that tie re ,art needs to address c;rainage problems that affeo:t property to the north of the study areas and have the EIIt address the mitigating measures that gdl alleviate and correct flooding problems that are associated with the develon rmsent pra-,osal. 11. Page 39, Regional Airport/Air- T raf is Impact; r ric report needs to discuss relocation costs for trtovirg existing airplanes which are based at Me adowlark Airport. The Board believes that there '.recurrent laws on the books that require some type of relocation cows The Board requested the planning staff to took into this to see if there is an, basis for this corcerf. 12. Appendix A - `3eneral . ssuriru of . There needs to be induced on the General Assumption Table for Area 2.1, tdnt a3sl.amptions pert:1in.ng ti the existing ian use which is the airport . Currently, trie ta. ie "dotes not include a disc'jssicn of that land use. 13, Appendix B -'Fiscal lp : pct btoc1el. Does 'tct awequately address 'U'e fiscal impact pertaining to the %le at. ou= tar A arl ort . b t s the Boar-.0s i r4derstanding that the California Department o: 7r: n sppar'ta ,ion, r eronaijtic ss Div isi'-,r% aces have available a fiscal impact model for airp orts > hi,,n may more accura :eiy reflect the economic impact of the airport lane;: use upon the com m unity . The Board feels that this needs to }.e oursuedy 14, Appendix C - ;l eadowlarae Market Report Outline Area 2.1 The Boaro believes that the information that was provided in ti'nts section really needs to be re•chec :ed to be sure it adequately reflects todays situation. Particularly, the comment which states "61% of the poputatlon in the area will have an income exceeding $35,000 by 199111 may be incorrect. 'the Board's feeling is that this may already be the case, rather than it actually happening in i99I. 15. If the airport is closed the board rs coii erned that it may give pilots of commercial airlines flying int-) Long 8aacch a sense that they can make their approach at a low altitude because fewer general aviation planes are in the area. In conclusion, the Board generally believes that there needs to be more focus on any relocation costs ,for pilots who may be affected by the change in the land use. Also, they felt the issue of "the quality of Hie" feeds to be. addressed in the l t. The_Eo.,r4 feel that the increase in the [and cis densitIe" opposed to the current land use which provides for 80 acres of open space needs to be addressed. Lastly, there needs to be scree discussion in the EIR concerning recreational loss to the residents of Huntington Beach as it relates to the airport. Planning Commissioners June 2, t9A7 Page -3- The Board would like to thank ttae Planning staff for the opportunity afforded us to comment on the EIR for Land Use Element Amendment /937-1. Sincerely yours, Crandall L. Gudmundson, n - •a, Co-Chairperson CLG/TP:paj f i Thomas Peel, Co-Cl r person xc Charles W. Thompson, City Administrator Richard Barnard, City Liaison to the Meadowlark Airport Board T 30.31.I Comment: The Board believes that the airport issue is significant enough to the community that the : esidents living around the airport beyond the 300 feet notification area should be notified of public hearing, The Board believes that all the residents living around the airport should be notified so the city decision makers have tho, benefit of knowing how the residents feel about the airport and alternative land uses. Response: The area of notification has been expanded t Meadowlark Airport, S!000 feet beyond the Comment: The Roard believes that information used in the EIR report tends, at times, to be out of date. The Board sited one example on page 21, sect'.on g,. Under this section, the reader is led to believe that Meadow View Elementary School is currently an operating elementary school facility. This school has been closed for approximately 3 years . The Board feels that more current information from outside agencies would be appropriate.le Response: Staff utilized the most curr ent info rmation that was provided by the appropriate agencies. 3. Comment Page 7, Decent .1-1'istu . The Board believ 4 that the statement 'here are few take. offs and landings occurring during the w=aeekdays' is unfounded. The Board suggested that a survey would be the most appropriate method to indicate the number of weekday takeoffs and landings.Ytwould be more appropriate for the report to indicate that take offs and landings are influenced by the weather conditions rati than weekday versus weekend u.:e. Also, the report should reflect the current make-up of the Meadowlark Airport Board which is ; 3 pilots, 3 residents, and the airport/owner opera ton Response: Art hlerio, the airport in.anaer, and co-movwner, was the source for the estimate of air traffic activity. It may have been more accurate to state that the majority of take -offs and landings occur on the weekend. A survey of takeoffs and landings was considered , however, records listing that type of data are fragmented , therefore it was not feasible to compile an accurate survey at this time. A 1974 noise stu4y ea_timAJPA an average of 150 takeoffs and I SO landings per day. This estimate, however, was an assumption, and not based on airport records or field ver ification . The airport operator has stated that takeof fs and landings are measurably less in 1997 compared to 1974. 4. Comment: Page 14, Compatibility, Alternative kl,Existing A irport; the last sentence. The Board believes that the comment concerning the use of radio communications was unfounded and should be deleted. Also, the work "substantially" which is locatad in the last sentence should be deleted, Response: Comment noted. Comment. Page 17, Economic Consideration, .tL-ernative #1; The overall economic analysis for the ed_is t ng airport is inadequate. The Board believes that personal pw°operty tax for planes s toot included. Gas tax from the fuel sold at the airport is not included. Various sales tax collected from businesses on the airport is not included. The Board believes that there should be a more careful analysis of the economic benefit that the current land use provides to the cornrnunity. l .espouse: Research at the Orange County Tax Assessors office resulted i; acquiring a. figure for' the City°s portion of the personal property tax revenue generated by aircraft domiciled at Meadowlark Airport. Thp fiscal analysis will be revised to include thy' additional revenue. Because of state laws protecting the privacy of tax revenue associated with individual business, gas tax and sales &ax revenue generated by related business sates at Meadowlark could not be ::ported in the fiscal analysis. 6. Comment, Page 22, Table #3. The l oard believes the number of school age children the development could generate is low, The Board suggested that the staff re--contact the school district to see if there are more current enrollment figures available. &: sponse; Comment noted. Comment: Page 25 and 25. The pages in the report are reversed. Response; Comment noted. Comment, Page 34, a, SZi:A noise study needs to be done to substantiate that a xioise impact from aircraf t exists. A noise contour map needs to be included in the MR that shows what the noise i nipact from the airport is to surrounding land uses. Response: A noise study was prepared by Wyle Laboratorie s in 1974 for the City's General Plan. The study identified noi se contours from flight activity based on a single 2000 foot runway with a 300 foot displaced threshold. A noise contour map is attached, see adjoining Figure. Comment. Page 38. The Board betiev s th Yt ahe,isport shouid have i ncluded a section on wildlife (e g. Meadowlark bird). Response: Discussions with the state Deparmsent of Fish and Game resulted in no identification of any . illife o.sa the Air port site that would require analysis. The Meadowlark is a biro common to f gilts and open areas in Southern California and is neither rare or endangered. 10. Comment: Page 39, Fly. The board believes that the report needs to address drainage problems that affect property to the north of the study areas and have the EIR address the mitigating measures that will alleviate and correct flooding problems that are associated with the development pr P esponse: A hydrological study strcV t permit. Condi rimes of approval for to approval of any conditional use i°sud' the appropriate improvem ents, II. Comment: Page 39, Regional Ai r or: c/A ir Tr , ' is impact ; - The report needs to discuss relocation costs for moving existing airplanes which are based at Meadowlark Airport. The Board believe s that there are current laws on the boks that require some type of relocation costs. Thy: Boeid requested the planning staff to look Into this to see if there is any basis for tats concern. Response: A recent telephouie conversation with the Aero7iautics Division of AL `RAN (May 26, 1987), Jerry barber, Chief of .irpoi't Operations, revealed that the Sate of California has no provi sion, for relocadon costs for private aircraft and owners that have to relocate aircraft in response to the closure of a private airport byits owners. v:s«.::sr1 - MMG9dZ - . SCALE E3 - U -- CNEL 6 d 70 CNEL 70+ 3000 Me,dow1ark G.D1f Course MEADOW LARK AIRPORT CNEL 00s 65, AND 70 Nox CONTOURS 12. Comment Appendix A - General Assumption . There needs to be included on the General Assumption Table for Area 2.1,the assumptions pertaining to the existing land use which is the airport. Currently, the table does not include a discussion of that land use. Response: General or specific assurnpt°ors for existing private air port operations were not available for this analysis. 13. Comment: Appendix B -- Fiscal Impact ao .r In ;yes not adequately address the fiscal impact pertaining to the Meadotvlark k art. It is the ,oard°s understanding that the Califc : nia; Department of T ransporta ion , Aeronautics Division , does have available a fiscal impact model for airports which may more accurately reflect the economic impact of the airpo rt land use upon ship C o m4 ity. The Board feels that this needs to be pursued. Response: The City has recently acquired a copy of the CALTRANS Airport conomic Impact Model and a revie w of the model is being conducted. -el 14, Comment. Appendix C -Meadowlark Niar°lret i eport Outline Area 2.1 -The Board believes that the information that was provided in this section really needs to l:e rechecked to be sure it adequately ret-lecti todays situ ation. Particularly , the comment which states "61% of the population in tr' area will have an income exceeding 35,000 by 1991" may be incorrect . The Board's feeling is that this may already be the case, rather than it actually happening in 1991. income estimate s and projections included in the report. Response: Staff has reviewed the market analysis with the consultant and is satisfied with the 15. Comment: if the airport is closed the hoard is concerned that it may give pilots of commercial airlines flying into Long Beach a sense that they can make their approach at a low altitude because fewer gener al aviation planes are in tae area. DWISION OF OIL AND GAS -!:r-`ED. STATE OF c,&Li1 O NIA-. t FIC'E OF THE OOVVRNat OFFICE OF PLANNING AND RESEARCH 7 M- O 7ENTh STREET ,RAMEM0, CA 99$14 (916/445-,0613) Catherine O'Hara City of Hunti ngton Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Subject :General flan Amendment #87-2/ SCH# 86031206 Dear Ms. O'Hara. GEORGE DEl YMEJU N , GeAwnor June 25, 1987 Tbe enclosed ccm eats on your draft ,ironrnental dcci nts were received by the State Clearinghouse after the end of the state review period, e are forwarding these corn rents to you because they provide iutorraa.tion or .ise issues which may assist you in project review. To ensure the adequacy of the final document you may wish to tncorpoorate these additional ccxrer:vs into the preparation of your final environmerAta1 document . concerning the review process. When you contact the Clearinghouse in this matter, please use the eight digit State Clearinghouse nc b r so that WP- r0aY respond promptly. Please contact Glen Stoker at 16/445-0613 if you have any ques Sincerely, t id C. Nunenkamp Chief Office of Permit Assistance Me m orond t Ms.Catharine O'Hara City of Huntington Reach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Dr. Gordon F. Snow Assistant Secretary for Resources a"v vx JON 2 2 1987 SCH #86031206 Draft EIR for Land Use Amendment 87-2, City of Huntington Beach, Orange County From : Deportmen t of Carus tike-00k' of Pha Dk*e The Department of Conservati -. ° s ry.• .„,j on of Oil and Gas has r eviewed the Draft . EIP. for t': City of Huntin tor. Beach Land Use Amendment 87-2, and submits the f ollowing comments for ;r ides ,iore Presently , there are a few abandoned oil wells in the a rea of the proposed project. Therefore, if any structure is to be located over or in the proximity of a previously abandoned well, there is the possibility that the well may need to be reabandoned. Section 3208.1 of the Public Resources Code authorizes the State Oil and Gar, Supervisor to order the reabandonment of any previously abandoned well when construction of any structure over or in the proximity of the well could resuJ.t in a hazard. The cost of reabandortment operations shall be the responsibility of the owner of the property upon which the strut will be located. Even though wells within the project area may not res-It in a hazard, or wells are reabandoned per Section 3208.1, a diligent effort should be made to avoid building over any abandoned oil well. If any abandoned or unrecorded wella are untcvered or damaged during excavation or grading, remedial cementing operations may be required. Also, the Division must be contacted for reabanddnment requi,rementa and for obtaining approval BL i lding Department for a copy of the site review .-Mcket To ensure proper review -,f the proposed building project, the Divis on has provided the City of Huntington Lead with a pap ket entitled "°Cons tructi on Project Site Review and Well Abandommnt Procedure". The packet includes a list of information that the project developer must submit to the Division for review. The project developer should contact the City of Huntington Beach a to perform remedial work to any well. This buildi ng project will be located near an area of known gas seeps could migrate into the interior of the overlying strut:ut tential'of cau sing an explosion or fire. and a crack develops in the concrete or asphalt at sore late-,,,.14gas accumulate beneath developed areas where concrete and asphalt s;xr'aces pr,: vent the natural migration of the methane as to the atmoepnerea If t is occurs, Department of Conservation, DIvis :opt of Oil and Gasreport: "A Study of Abandoned Oil and Gas Wells and other Hazardous Gas Ace nulations") .. ;ethane, Gas can Dr. Gordon F. Snow Ms. Catharine O'Hara Page 2 Therefore, it may be necessa ry for the final EI to include a study of the area to determi ne the likelihood of this type of occurrence. If the study indicates that gas accumulation is a possibility, it may be necessary to drill some shallow, pressure-relief wells adjaceht to the site. Also, gas detectors and venting systems should be installed in areas where ignition of methane gas could occur. If you have any questions, please contact Ken Carlson at the Division of Oil and Gas district office in Long Bach. lbo add ress is 245 W. Broadway, Suite 475,Long Beach , CA 90802; phone (213) 590,-53.1» h?OT,r,^ a Dennis J. O' Bryant Environmental Program Coordinate cc•. Ken Carlson, Division of Oil and Gas, Long Bob Reid, Division of Oil and Gas, Sacramento ;DR!-mww D1 l0 OF OIL AND GAS 3. Comment: The DOG states that there are a few abandoned oil wells in the area of the proposed project . Therefore, if any structure is to be located over or in the proximity of a previously abandoned well, the well may need to be reabandoned. A diligent effort should be made to avoid building over any abandoned well. Response: There are two known abandoned wells located on the subject property. A condition of approval for any Conditional Use Per- -it on the site should be that all wells be abandoned to current Division of Oil I Gas standards. Additionally, a diligent effort should be made to avoid locating strj...tires over or in near proximity to any abandoned oil well. 2. Comment: The DOG states that the project will be located near an area of known gas seeps. Methane as can accumulate beneath developed areas where concrete and asphalt surfaces prevent the natural migration of the 'ethane gas to the atmosphere. if a crack develops in the asphalt or concrete at s a later time, the gas could migrate into the interior of thr verlying structure , creating the potential for an explosion or fire. I herefore , it rn,, oe necessary for the final EIR to include .a study of the area to determine the likelihood of this type or occurence . It may be necessary to mitigate the problem. Response: Areas of Hunt ;ngton Beach are known to have a methane gas seepage problem. Prior to approval of a Conditional Use Permit, soils analysis should be performed to identify existing levels of methane , if any. It it is determined that development on the site would be subject to a methane leakage problem, prope r venting and monitoring devices, and possibly relief wells should be installed in and around all structures. I ENVIRON NTAL BOARD tst 11«.fu1'04 4LH Environmental Board CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH Post Otttc;C, Box 190 Hintington Beach, California 92648 June 1, 1987 Kent Pearce, Chairman Huntington Beach Planning Commission 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, California 92648 Dear Mr. Pearce: The 87 -2 Adhoc Commi ttee of the Huntingto n Beach Environmental Board has zet on several occasions to review the Land Use Element pertaining to the Meadowlark Airport. It is the recommendation of the Adhoc Committee and the Huntington Beach Environmental Board that the Meadowlark Airport p %.tion of the document is inadequate and should not be certified, Attached is a copy of the Adhoc Committee's response to the Environmental Check List and a summary of the recommendations Y denial. Thank you for your cons derat iorc in this matter. S iaC:erely, Corinne Welch Chairman ,87-2 Adhoc Committee -1 4 Dean Albright, member Gail P<ltimarx-Brown:, member Tom Steel, member Mark Conley, member Dale Brandon, member Planning commi ssion cc: Ci ty Council Huntington Beach Environmental Board Lee Weider, Chairman Jim Palin Ruth Finley, liaison Tom Mays, liaison Peter Green ,, liaison with the existing airport cantint.ing to operate until the above environmental concerns have been mitigated. it is also recommended thr-t this portion of the document not be certified s 87-2 AEi300 COMMITTEE MEETING Wednesday, May 6, 1987 Purpose : Study Land Use Element 87°2 Environmental Impact Report 87-2 The following are questions and concerns the committee has regarding the report with reference to the Environmental Checklist, Appendix # 1. Earth b. This area has been determined to bc archaeoloc7ically sensitive by The Institute of Archaeology at UCLA. The Institute should be notified of the proposals. ref. page 38 D. 2. Ai b. The site is located in the South Coast Air Basin which currently exceeds the state and/or national ambient air quality standards. ref. page 34 b. Any of the five alternative plans would significantly i,apact the area.. DOTE. Nothing in the study reports the levels of Methane gas on the site in other areas than the two abandoned oil well sites. This may also affect air quality by blocking natural ventilation with development, No ;ore samples were shown en the report regarding this site previously being used for refuse dumping. 3. Water b. All of the alternative plans will direct water runoff C from the site onto adjoining property and roadways. Flood control channels in the area terutinata southwest of Heil and Algonquin. As a recommendation only, the committee would re that landscaping by consistent with its coa location and maintain the species of plant consistent with our area. al. All al ternative plans will impact the open pace and .natural topography o f the area. The )onatch Butterfly population in the wooded northeast of the site may be affected, ref. page 2 10. Risk of Upset a. Further stc4l',es are necessary to determine the levels of methane ga.s on the site,as well as any seepage from the existing oil operations and fuel storage tanks. Any one of these may be a epotentj Al a or , explosion. 11. Population All of to alternatives will increase the population of the area. 13. Transpowt a t ..on d. The sp ec i fic i ps c° from the Bolsa Chico are not included in t he anal ysis . Existing arterial level of service does not incl ude long -terra traffic impacts of 14,300 AD`I`. Page 26,Table 4,ref. page 30 #1. 14. Public Service of all t he development A network of ne; 16. Sewers/Septic Tanks d. is, #1. accesses would be required ans except 41. existing lines are capable of handling the additional volume. ref. page The city s The Orange County Sanitation District maintains *,he slater Avenue pumping station is to capacity and cannot handle this add .tional volume. ref. page 18, 4. Tom Dawes, Director of Engineering for the OCSD says a new pumping station is required to handle the development. ref. page 18. Any new improvements to the current system would $12-15 million and take, up to five years to compist No money is in the budget'. at the present time. storm Dra ins:system is requ this site as the existing system is inadequate. an Health Exposure to methane gas Exposure to a potential dumpsite area. should include investigation of this site previously used as A dumpsite. r ed The study >r it being Displacement of 126 airplanes /owners from the aarea. 20. Cultural Resources This area has been determined historical/archaeological area:•"`, ENVI ENWRON?aNTAL BOARD Lett er of May ea, 1487 1. Comment: Earth This area has been determined to be archaeologically sensitive by the Institute of Archaeology at UCLA. The Institute should be notified of the proposals. ref. page 38 D. Response: The Institute of Archaeol gy has ueen notified and their response is include;' in :iris addei;dLm to the EIR. Comment: Air The site is located in the South Coast Air Basin which currently exceeds the state and/or national ambient air quality standards. ref. page 34 b. any of the five alternative plans would significantly impact the area. P40 1A E: Nothing in the study reports, the levels of Methane gas on the site in other areas than the two abandoned oil well cFites. This m :y also affect air quality by tlocking natural ventilation with development. No core samples were shown on the ,-eport regarding this site previously being used for refuse dumping. Response: Air and soil sampling should )e performed to determine if methanc:gas is present. If the gas could potentially cause an explosive hazard for new development, pressure relief wells and, monitoring venting devices should be installed. Also see response to the State Division of 0 and Gas included in this addendum. 3. Comment: Water All of the alternative plans will direct water runoff from the site onto adjoinih. property and roadways. Stood control channels in the area tern fate southwest o Heil and Algonquin. Response: Comment noted. 4. Comment: As a recommendation only, the committee would request that landscaping by consistent with. its coastal location and maintain the movies of plant life consistent with our area. Response: Comment noted. Comments 5 through 8 were not included in the Environmental Board's letter of May 26. 9. Comment: Natural Resources Ali alternative plans will impact the open space and natural topography of the area. The Monarch Butterfly population in the wooded area northeast of the site may be affected, ref. page. 21. Response: Comment noted..01 The State Department ofFish & Game, who has beer contacted about the proposed project does not think the project will disturb the butterflys. Also, the wooded area, Gibbs Park, will incur minor imporvements in the next five years which will not disturb the Monarch butterfly habitat. 10. Comment: Risk of Upset Further studies are necessaryti..letermine .. levels of methane gas on the site, as well as any seepage from the exsting oil operations and fuel storage tanks. Any one of these may be a potential for explosion. Response: Soils analysis should be performed to determine if any organic material contaminants are present. Appropriate mitigation or cleanup measures should be required. 11. Comment: Population All the alternatives will increase the population o Response: omment noted. Comment No. 12 was not included in the Board's letter. 13. Comment: Transportation The specific impacts from the flolsa Chica are not included in the analysis. Existing arterial level of service does not include long-term traffic impacts of] 4,300 ADT. Page 26, Table 4, ref .page 30 #1.I Response: A revised study iticluding specific impEct estimates from the proposed Bolsa Chica development will be conducted . Also, table 4 only addresses what ear Table 5 addresses near and long term impacts. 16. Comment, Sewers/Septic Ta Comment No. 15 - not included in the 1 oard lettr. plans except #1. Response: Comment noted. 14. Comment: Public Service A network of new streets: and accesses, would be required of all the development The city staff report shows existing service lines are capable of handling the additional voltame. ref. page 1g, 1. The Orange County Sanitation District maintains the Slater Avenue ps.xmping station is at capac ty and cannot handle this additional voluax:e. ref, page 18, #4. Torn Dawes, Director of Engineering for the OCSD says a new pumping station is required to handle the new development. ref.page 18. Any new improvements to the current system would cost $12 - 15 million and take up to five years to complete. No money is in the budget at the, present time. Storm Drains: a new storm drain system is required for this site as the existing system is inadequate. Response: City and County sewer lines can accommodate the development as it is proposed. The applicant understands that they may need to participate in improvements to the Slater Pump Station if the Coast Trunk lane is not in place near the point v build-out of the proposed development. As indicated on page 19 of the Elk some augmentation of the storm drain system will be necessary to accomodate the proposed r•°<,ict. The augmentation is considered feasible by the City's Public Works Department. 17. Comment Human Health: Exposure to methane gas. Exposure to a potential dumpsite area. The shady should include Investigation of this site for it being previously used as a durnpite. Response: Comments addressed prev"aously regarding methane gas. Response penaing regarding the dumpsite. 18. Comment No. 18 was not included in the Boards letter. 19, Comment; Recreation Displacement of 128 ai planesh3wners from the area. Rest: onset Th,'.re are approximately 200 aircraft domi.;ii_led at Meadowlark Airport. 20. Comment: Cultural Resources This area has been determined to be in a historicalfarchaeological area. Response: Staff has corresponded with the State Historic Preservation Office and t ie lrtitute of Archaeology at UCLA, the regional clearinghouse. A response from UCLA is included in this addendum. ENVIROM TAL BOARD LETTER OF MAY 27, 1987 OC CO Comment: Sewage No approval for any development of this site should be permitted until a new system of handling the additional volume is in operation. At a public hearing on May 19, 1987, a representative from the Orange Cou ty Sanitation District stated the Slater Avenue pumping station in District 11 was at capacity and could not handle any more volume. It was his recommendation that a new pumping facility and trunk line be constructed prior to any further development of the area.* This area does not include the Bolsa Chica Project and no phasing in of any project will alleviate the problems that now exist. Response: Sanitation District improvements are needed to support additional development in the area served by the Slater Pur,p Sta ion. Development of the area of concern should Kb phased to coincide with the improvements. Comment: Drinking Water According to the Huntington Beach Water Department the development of this site would put a strain on the existing water supplies, as well as future projections in the north end of the city. Response: The development gQWd result in a negative impact on the City's water service, however. a specific assessment it the impacts generated by the proposed developa eat cannot be conducted until the completion of the Water Department Master Plan, which is expected in October 1987. Comment: Traffic The study of traffic inapt -t in the area was grossly understated. Degradalon of traffic capacity will occu.- d gth increased development. The traffic impact from the Bolsa Chita and Graham Street projects are not included in the analysis. This project should be denied for the following reasons:' Response: The traffic analysis is being revised to include potential impacts from the development of the 1olsa Chica, Comment: Air The site is located in the South Coast Air Basin which currently exceeds the state and/or national ambient air quality standards. ref. page 34b Response: Comment noted. (m622) MR. AND MRS. PICKS Ralph & Ronna Ric6:s 1382 Old pirate inn Huntington Beach, CA 92649 22 June 87 Planning Commits i on Members Mayor and lmbers of the City Council MeadowlarK Airport aoard City of Huntington Beach 208 Main St. Hunting t on Beach Cry 92648 SUBJECT: Proposed Land Use Elamnt trnendment 87-2; EIR 87-2 aMCll L-*F`k': t I F21 C3 P °1" The person writing th is portion of the report $ id consul t the FAA and the Cal if. Q.O.T., but obvio usly did not '.onsul t the local „.ource of information acrd expert ise. the city's own l` eadow l arK Airport Board, The report stated that air traffic has Increased at ALL airports in southern California in the last seven ,ears. The only statistics sv.Ai1ab1e far i+,allowia ,r< say Just the opposite` traffic. has a creased at least E5% its this pei iod„ There were approximately 200 aircraft based at Meadowlari< in 1880. Today there are less than 158. There were two flight schooas M4 adow l arK in 19e81 today there is Just on*. The report cited the t acre of a contro tower as a negative -Factor. khen pressed, the FAA will admit that the only purpose of a control tower is to Keep aircraft SEPARATE) PROM EACH OTHER t is obvious that a control tower atMeaddwlark would have been a gross waste of money. There has been only one collision in the l..s.st fifteen years that involued M%adow larK. That accident resulted -in onl y very minor injuries, and those were to the pilot of a small aircraft whose design prevented him fr°orn adegvatel,y seeing th,e runway on his ap?rRoach. The pilot of the. plane he landed upon did not even realize there had been collision and continued his taxeoff roll. MeadowlaarX is not uncant tic. The aircraft f their pos 'it ions over the Contrary to the repoort, t today that l ack as $308, radio. lied traffic r it is pilot contra az pre -des isnated pattern and announce ad lo. Tip is: is FAA approved procedure. ore are almost no aairKcr*ft at i` adowlar°i4 Radios 'are available that cost At little ALTtRtOTZVE 1: fE $ OLL RK AI RP On the other hand, consta nsc°/ ion of an FAA approved control to costs in the realm of a million dollars. Add to that at ie*st a quail if icat ions to even just ifv a quarter' of a mill ion doll ars per near f,.nr sal ar iv ant, r int*nanc and You have a gross neast e ox r my F parr sre at is unl iK*lY that fr adoaa 1 arty has a high etnou h tr f f is count to r *t PAA r The compa ratively short run aV at adot;iiar,V, an 1 izte d as a nesgat ive safety, factor _ It it not. The saz of the runway Jost l imit4 the variety of aircraft that use at. if Mea.doralar ( had a longer, wider runwa y, there 4,tOuld just be lia.rc r' and aaster• aircratt using it . The acc id€nt5 that haue ce:vrrsad at 6"9aadowla3rx can all be traced to pilot zrrer 4 The recent fatal accident that occurred next to MeadoV_l arty airport is not really related to the z,- rety oic op ,ratzor s at M_aadosrlarK. That aircraft was out of 0as and a as ; oinS to coy down so mewhere in Huntington Beach anyhow. l nzt about the pose ib i 1 ;t airs for ter ad s l arts' fi progress ive Managemen' at MeadaarlarK Would long ago have allowed corm-star 3;irI hoses to service Meadow 1ar'K. Some wuis-n ong ine turboprop corrrsrnuter aircra,,t that serve Qrer, e County Airport are meter than most sin laa engine aircraft and can usa rt rwaYs much,shorter than Meadortf L anK 's{ . As the freeuaYs b corn rare clogg ed,, a 'commuter service to LAX becorrms more valuablt to Huntington *ach. Also lack twig in the report was scans tid r'at ion 04 to ur ssm. many a ircra¢t corms to Ma doul arn< and# Huntington aatach as a tourist dent mat ion,, i little prorrot 4on would provide good dividends. -noes Hunting ton Beach have The American Red Cros arthquaKe u ith in tha marooned as i+ on Ground transport wt ion will be d oaan --b'i ock irn9 bet The closest source of help ii the aircraft at ado;larK could prou da *rrrern ^Cy ser~va,naes to Huntington Beach in that critical first few d:a5ns- re l at ivne ly inta ct corrartd to much of Hunt instan Beach ,. Man oe from Ne vada or Arizon4. Meadowlark airport is on a mesa whose surface IS a.xp*cted t The convsmanities with ac to Set help first. Pleas e do not shortchange the v6-iue to explore the poss ib i l i t the goats of Hunt ington 94 t w PRt SURE 'r"o have a d i raj n.,aar s .Hunt ington Be -ich W i l l b "he a tPs.t t# ree day n< are cr poratnx ist ot. i' st freeway a 4roeuavs and the tr'ansparta in RESPONSE W)U 'TE k"'w 4 {a u & DAR,.LICKS: I 1. Comment: The person writing this portion of the report did consult the FAA .nd t e . Calif. D.O.T., but obviously d;.dnot consult the loci! source of information and expertise: the city's own Meadowlark Airport Board. Response; As we did with the Enviror.mex:tal Road, copies of l he Environmental Impac : Report were distributed to the Airport Board for their review and comment . Staff his received a comprehensive reply to t! EiR from the Airport Board which has been reviewed and will formally be the Addendum to the EIR. 2. Comment: The report stated that air traffic has increased at ALL airports in south ern California .n the last seven years . The only sty i tic> available for Meadowlark say j? t the opposite: traffic has degreased at leant 25% in this period. Response: The comment rega rding increased air traffic was generally referrhig to commercial airports in Southern California . There are, hov ever , no statistics a - ' h1e regarding a decrease in air traffic gen e rated by l eadowlarat Airport. Art Neric , the airport manager said that in the last several years, aircraft traffic; has been stable with no noticeaUle decrease or incre ase, Neither the Brio Family or the City done an analysis of air traffic as::oc a red with M I adcwlark in the last seven ya 3. Comment: 1986-1987 (county report due in August 1987' . the opportunity to research ,,, nc, = County Tax Assessor records and the most recent data available , fiscal. year 195- .1 lrCs, listed 203 aircraft domiciled at Meadowlark. Preliminary data indicate th,,-*the 203 .sir craft will be the same number for fiscal year t .-dc f', -it. schools at Meadowlark in 1980; today there isless than 150. There were just one. Response; The estimate of 150 planes tied dovin (or do,iciled) at Meadowlark reported in the E was provided by the applicant. Si::ce lie publication of the Draft MR, staff has had There were approximately '200 a . ryr it base ; at Meadowlark in 1980. Today there are Also, the applicant told staff treat there schools operating at the airport Comment: What about the possibiliti -s for M! adowwlark? A progressive management at Meadowlark would Fong ago have allowed commuter airlines to service Meadowlark. Some twin engine turboprop commuter aircraft that serve Orange County Airport are quieter than most single engine aircraft and can use runways much shor.er than Meadowlark's. As the freeways become more clogged, a commuter service to LAX becomes more valuable to Huntington Beach. Response: There have been no proposals to ow snag commuter 'li, hts ou, of Meadowlark Airport. S. Comment: Does Huntington Beach have a di ian` The American Red. Cross says that r ,a ARE SURE to have a disa.trous earthquake within the next several Years. untaa. ton Beach will be marooned as if on an island. The first three days are critical. Ground transportation will be nonexistent - Most freeway overpasses will be down-biocaing both the freeways and the surface streets. The closest source of help will likely be from Nevada or Arizona. Response: Yes, the City of Huntington Beach has a disaster plan. The City has a division of thee Fire Department titled "Emergency Services ." Eine}rgency Services staff has a community outreach proggii°am and vgouald be pleased to provi4e you with information about their various programs. can be reached at 536-5979 or 536-5980. 6. Comment: Please do not shortchange the vaau possibility of obtaining a lease on Mea Response: At the present tine the City doe and operate the airport as a puti k Airport. We need to explore the or the good of Huntington Beach. o obtain a lease on Meadowlark UCLA ARCHAEOLOGY CLEARINGHOUSE UCLA ARCHAEOLOGY CLEAMINGHOUSE I. Comment: It seems that this site (an extension of CA-ORA:-.368) may very well be eligible for inclusion. on the National Register of Historic Places. Response: According to Roger Mason, staff geologist at Scientific Resource Survey (SRS), the extenssorm of CA-ORA-368 has been determ ned to notbe for inclusion on the National Register of Historic Places This statement was verified by Rob Jackson, State Archaeologist, State Historic Preser iaticn Office, telephone conversation July 21, 1987. 2. Comment-. The City should settle the question of the site's significance prior to the adoption of a final EIR on the project. Response: Questions regarding the above comment res, ted in a phone call, by staff, to the UCLA Clearinghouse on Friday, July 17, 1987. According to Susan Colby survey archaeologist (John Parker is on vacation), determining site significance can also be rephrased as a recomzn ndation to do further archaeological work on the site addition to clarifying National Register status. Staff recommends that prior to any development an the proposed project site that fuurth :r archaeological analysis be conducted. This could be done in phases as the development is proposed and in a timely manner so that archaeological work does not delay develcpment and the cost of this work, to the property owner or developer, also phased over a period of time. UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, LOS ANGELES SANTA RARIEARA UCLA ANr CRUZ THE 1NSTITiJTE OF ARCHAEOLOGY Sie)UTIERN CAGJ1OANU, ARM"'D EA)CICAL SURVEY tO A! CELLS, CAUVORNIA 9 O24 Amendment # 87-2 SAN FaAMCISCQ June 2, 19 87 RE: Cultural Resource Review Of EIR for Land Use Element LU! tiGELER RIVERSIDE * SAU tIES:I) Diana Teran 131aisure Department of Development Services 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA. 92648 Dear Diana, Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the above listed project. We have reviewed tie historic and prehistoric site location maps, survey reports and site record files for the subject area. The following recommendations are based on the information contained in our files. There are three Archeological Reports on ftie with this office which cover portions of the Meadowlark Airport Parcel. The most recent of these (SRS, August 1986) deals with the question of the significance of prehistoric site CA--ORA--368 which lies partly within the project area. At the time of this most recent report, the State Office of Historic Preservation had not made a final determination. It seems that this site may very well be eligible for inclusion on the National Register of Historic Places. The City shou ld settle the question prtcr to the adoption of a final BI R Thanks again for the cpportunity t. review ax id comment on . project, Should you have any questions regarding the data in our files or these recomrne.tdations, please feel free to contact us at (213) 825-1720 or write to the above address RICHARD A HARLOW A944 V S A S 1 1 1 1 nth Street e Huntington Beach, California 92W 0 t714t 969-8 S85 City of Hunti n gton Beach 2!106 Main Street Huntington Beach , CA 92. Mike Adams, Deputy Director Dept. of Development Services Subject: General Plan Ameutdment. !I;;. S7-2C Meadowlark Airport. Dear Mr. Adams lr was a consensus of those is near i ng capacit y, aria: the development of the pr oposed c This is a follow-up of our .1"une t', 1987 meeting to discuss infrastructure capac ity of tue sw;ew aid water systems , as they relate to development of our pro perty. This meeting was attended by members of the Planning Staff, ToomDawes, Orange County Sanita- tion District , .Jeff t1enr4a , Water .tent. and Paul Cook Director of Public Works, of residentia l units this it must be phased with av be ac.,;omplished by either con seat rL at the exas ,strict w i ll only agree to i m rcial area and a limited E . aaddty oval development . par panding the capacity' of the Slate native is to construct the Coast tin 11,e HUHIIN ON BEACH O PMENT SERVICES P. C. Box 190 Hunting Seam. CA 92648 system mit umber is desired Addit octal capacity can Truck Line or ex- The pr eferr eu ePUMPytatio u c k LL-.Ae,. accomp l i s hed , the Slater Pura-, at n w ill, when either of these im p rovements occu r, addit our property can take place. With regard to water sery; of the extsting system has such as teat outlined to acc able. If it is determined t the Water Dept. will be able accomodate development of th property in this area. this can not he panded. In .any even anal development to it was stated that the precise ca pacity t been ,!,',:ermined, A phased program oda e the sewer system would be a;:cept-. existi ng water system" is rtadeQuate, develop a water system that will proposed , as well a s other It was a consensus that trh propel, brit rather the impact they would hay If development could he phased, as des, s ar e existing infrastructure. ed above, there did not appear to be a problem w..th t" request. Phasing of deve the property can be cont ol.led thr ugh the Specific Plan wherein a specific method for tying construction of resi to sewer and water cap scity would be e stabl ished. went of rope: ial units r Please be advised , that we are in agreement with the corcept of phasing development in such a way that it wil l not iverburdei the sewer or water systems. We also feel the specific plan process is as acceptable way to accomplish this objective, and we will cooperate with your staff to incorporate thisrequi :-ement in our request for a specif ic plan. Sin.c,re1y, ichard A. Harlow f ATTACHMENT 8 July 17,19 8r To: Huntington Beach Planning Commission, From: Robert D. And Gwendol one M. Runyard, 5451 Old Pirate Lane, Huntington Beach, CA 92649 Subject: Objection to Requested Change in the General Plan for Meadowlark Airport. Inasmuch as we will be out of town at the time of the scheduled Planning Commission meeting, July 28, 1987, at which the Meadowlark Airport Site will be discussed we would like to register our o ection to thL_12plicants, request for an increase from the Gene ~al Plan Low Dew residential . We feel that an increase In density would bring cn increased traffic congestion -when even now it is almost intole 'able, It would also increase the smog levels. There would also be increased need for city sr°vices,. It would lower the quality of l ife in this end of the cite. We have no objection to the commercial developmen Warner Ave.. as this seems to be compatible with W in general. Gwendol ine M. Runyafrd Sincerely, al ong r Ave. REQUEST FOR CITY. . COUNCIL ACT'I'ON IT"' 1,*roN BE` ON DEVELQEx »E 4' jr l" 'F ; Submitted to:r - .:!I d Srabie Mayor,and City Couricii Dane Submitted by:r%'7w f'` X && E. Cook, City Administrator Prepared by: Douglas N. La Belle, Director, Community Development Subject: Land Use Element Amendment 87-2c/Zone Change 87-13/Environm ental Impact Report No. 87-2 t,onsistent with Council Policy? (X] Yes ollp-D 4ta /Cp.AjI I Neww Policy or Exception A U,7 Statement of Issue, Recommendation Analysis, Funding Source, Alternative Actions, Attachments: SIALI 7MIENT OF ISSUE: Transmitted for the City Council 's consideration is Land Use Element Amendment No. 87-2C, Zone Change 87-13 and E:nvironmentaA Impact Report No . 87-2 which is a request to amend the Genera Plan by redesig nating a 65-acre ,ite, the Meadowlark Airport, from Low Density Residential to Planned Community `t,h' a fcor current zone chan ge from MH (mobile home maximum nine units per acre ) to the Meadowlark Specific Plan which would allow 15 acres of retail commercial and 50 acres of mixed residential not to exceed 600 units aP.Y('rt ' d l 2'µ;1m tS per COMMENDATION: Planning Commission p:tjq gr4Septerrlb e -9,J7 A MOTION WAS MADE BY SCHUMACHER, SECOND BY PIERCE. TO RECOMMEND CERTIFICATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 87-2 WITH AN ADDENDUM INDICATING WHERE UTILITIES, RECREATION AND WATER ARE COVERED IN THE EIR, :BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Silva, Schumacher, Higgins, Pierce, Leipzig, Li ,:-::[rood NOES: None ABSENT : Summerell ABSTAIN: IV--le A MOT ION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD, SECOND BY PIERCE, TO CONTINUE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE ELEMENT AMENDMENT N. 87-2C AND ZONE CHANGE NO. 87-13 TO THE OCTOBER. 20,1987" PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE; AYES: Silva) Schumacher , Higgins, Pierc,% Leipzig, Li V engood NOES: None ABSENT: Summerell ABSTAIN: None The p"lblic hearing 'ate (as requested by applicant) was rescheduled to November 198fi. Plannin Comm! sion Acttop on Iavetrt r i7_1 7 A MOTION WAS MADE BY SILVA, SECOND BY PIERCE, TO APPROVE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE ELEMENT AMENDMENT NO. 87-2C TO PLANNED COMMUNITY LAND USE DESIGNATION, APPROVE WITH FINDINGS ZONE CHANGE NO. 87-I3 TO ALLOW 15 ACRES OF COMMERCIAL AND 50 ACRES OF MIXED RESIDENTIAL NOT TO EXCEED 600 UNITS (12 UNITS/ACRE) AS MEADOWLARK SPECIFIC PLAN, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Silva, Surnmerell, Higgins, Pierce, Leipzig, Livengood NOES: Schumacher, Leipzig ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None A MOTION WAS MADE BY PIERCE, SECOND BY SILVA, TO CONTINUE MEADOWLARK SPECIFIC PLAN TO THE DECEMBER 1, 1987 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Silva, Schumacher, Pierce. Leipzig, Livengood, Summerell NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None This motion was in response to nine revisions requested by the Planning Commission which were incorporated into the Specific Plan for the December 1st public hearing. The Commission suggested that the following revisions be made to the specific plan, 1. Number of residential units not to exceeor600 „rinits and shall be distributed among not encourage through traffic. 3. Airport operation to cease within 60 days after approval of the first entitlement. 2. Street connections be provided between Warner Aven,,e and Heil Avenue that would several product Types. 4. Master Plan changed to read "Conci wual Master Plan". Circulation : The eastern side of Roosevelt Lane to be improved and dedicated and shall not be a through street to Warner. Developer shall pay one-fourth of the cost of a traffic signal at Bolsa Chica and at Pearce if Pearce is proposed to access t he project site. 1 7. Density bonuses within individual product types may be granted, however the total number of units for the entire project sliall not exceed 600. 8. Commercial use setbacks: building heights not to exceed 30 feet within 70 feet of property, no buildings or service drives within 20 feet of property line. A minimum of a 20 foot landscape and setback shall be provided between the commercial and existing residential area. Front setback line forproposed project - 50 feet from, Warner Avenue. Area set aside on western edge of Gibbs Park for park parking. RCA - 2/1/88 01 Huntington Beach Planning Commission P.O. BOX 190 CALIF ORNIA 9264 ZONE CHANGE NOTICE OF ACTION ,j t December 2 1.097 Applicant: Dick Neri Subject; ZONE CHANGE NO. 87-13 -- MEADOWLARK. SPECIFIC PLAN Your application to change the zoning classification upon subject property was acted on by the Huntington Beach Planning Commission at its public hearing on and your request was recommended for (A copy of the final document will be Approval _XX t*ittl revisions sent at a later date.) Conditional Approval (Se3e attached) Denied OR Continued unti Withdrawn Pursuant to the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code, a recommendation for approval or conditional approval by the Planning Commission will be trans- mitted to the City Council to be acted on at a public hearing. A rec-)m- mendation for denial by the Planning Commission will allow ''.e City Council to deny the reclassification of property without holding a p blic hearing unless an appeal is filed to the city Council by you or another interested party. Said appeal must be in writing and must set forth in detail its action and grounds by and upon which the party deems himself aggrieved. Said appeal must be accompanied by a filing fee of one hundred sixty-five ($165) dollars and be submitted to the City Clerk's office within ten (10) days of the date of the Planning Commission's action. In your case, the last day for filing an appeal and paying the filing 11 1987Dber,ecemfee is AJ Huntington Beach Planning C=MiSSiOn P.O. Rox 190 !' ALI ORNIA 92648 Date:November 19, 1987 NOTICE OF ACTION Applicant: Dick Nerio Subject:LAND USE ELEMENT .MENDMENT NO. 87-2C/ZONE CHANGE NO. 87-13/ ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 87-2 jour application was acted upon by t1-9 Huntington Beach Planning Commission on November 17, 1987 and your request was : Withdrawn Approved. XX.. Approved with Conditi ons (See Attached) Disapproved Tabled Continued until Meadow ark V ecific Plan 12/1/87 Under the provisions of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code, the action taken by the Planning Commission is final ttnlesa an appeal is filed to the city Council by you or an interested party. Said appeal must be `in writing and must. set forth in detail the actions and grounds by and upon which the applicant or interested party deems himself aggrieved. Said appeal must be accompanied by a filing fee of rune hundred and sixty-five ($165) dollars and be submitted to the City Clerk's office within ten (10) days of the date of the Commission's action. In your case, the last day for filing an appeal and paying the filing fee is November 27, 1987 Provisions of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code are such that any application becomes null and void one (1) year after final approval, unless actual construction has started.