Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
2014-10-28 - AGENDA REPORTS - APPL OF PC DENIAL OF MC 13-075 (2)
Agenda Item: 13 CITY OF SANTA CLARITA AGENDA REPORT PUBLIC HEARING City Manager Approval: Item to be presented by: Mike Marshall DATE: October 28, 2014 SUBJECT: APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION DENIAL OF MASTER CASE 13-075 (CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 13-005) A REQUEST BY ALBERT EINSTEIN ACADEMY FOR LETTERS, ARTS AND SCIENCES TO OPERATE A PRIMARY SCHOOL WITHIN THE BUSINESS PARK ZONE AT 25300 RYE CANYON ROAD DEPARTMENT: Community Development RECOMMENDED ACTION City Council adopt a resolution approving the modified project (Master Case 13-075) which includes the operation of a primary school consisting of a maximum of 250 on-site and 50 home school students in kindergarten through grade 4 within an existing 53,000 square -foot commercial building. BACKGROUND The Albert Einstein Academy for Letters, Arts and Sciences (Applicant) originally requested the approval of a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to allow for the proposed operation of a primary school consisting of up to 650 students in kindergarten through grade 6 (K-6), with an additional 37 teachers and employees (Master Case 13-075). With the exception of a 2,100 square -foot artificial turf area and a 3,600 square -foot concrete picnic area, the proposed primary school would be conducted within the interior of an existing 53,000 square -foot commercial building consisting of 32 classrooms, an indoor gymnasium, and play area at 25300 Rye Canyon Road (APN 2866-011-010) (Subject Site). The Planning Commission considered the project on March 4, 2014. Staff s presentation focused primarily on concerns regarding traffic safety and circulation based upon a project consisting of up to 650 students. Other issues addressed included the requirement that the applicant submit building plans to the Building & Safety Division to address existing unpermitted construction and a requirement that the building be upgraded to meet seismic retrofit standards. The hearing A\\ems f �cfi� � � included public testimony that both supported and opposed the project. After significant discussion, the Planning Commission, in a unanimous 5-0 vote, approved staff s recommend- ation to deny the project. The Planning Commission staff report and resolution, in addition to applicable correspondence, are included in the City Council's reading file for reference. The Applicant formally submitted a letter to the City Council appealing the Planning Commission's decision, and a public hearing was scheduled for June 10, 2014. On June 5, 2014, the Applicant requested a continuance of their appeal hearing to facilitate ongoing conversations with staff. On June 10, 2014, City Council opened the public hearing and continued it until the regularly scheduled City Council meeting of July 8, 2014, to allow the Applicant to draft a revised project description and complete a revised traffic and parking study. Subsequent to City Council action on June 10, 2014, staff continued to work with the Applicant on a revised project description that would adequately address staff's concerns regarding on-site and off-site traffic and circulation. On June 16, 2014, staff received a revised project description from the Applicant that now includes a proposal for a kindergarten through grade 4 (K-4) school with a maximum of 250 on-site students and 50 home school students, 14 classrooms, and 20 employees. In response, staff requested that the Applicant provide additional information to support the revised project description including, but not limited to, a revised traffic study. On July 8, 2014, City Council took action to continue the public hearing to the regularly scheduled meeting of October 14, 2014, to allow the Applicant sufficient time to submit a revised traffic study based upon the modified project description of a K-4 primary school, with up to 250 on-site students and 50 home school students. Subsequently, on October 14, 2014, City Council took further action to continue the public hearing to the regularly scheduled meeting of October 28, 2014, to allow the Applicant time to submit the final remaining documentation, thereby allowing staff the opportunity to complete the proper California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) document. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The modified project includes the operation of a primary school at the Subject Site The proposed school would include a maximum enrollment of 250 on-site students and 50 home school students in grades K-4, with 20 teachers and administrative staff. The proposed project would include interior improvements consisting of the construction of 14 classrooms, 23 offices, and an indoor multi-purpose and play area. The proposed exterior improvements consist of the construction of pedestrian sidewalks adjacent to the existing right-of-way of Avenue Scott and Rye Canyon Road, and the conversion of 5,700 square feet of existing outdoor pavement to a picnic and turf area. No additional exterior construction is anticipated as a part of the proposed project, and all school related activities would be conducted entirely within the interior of the existing commercial building. A site plan and first and second floor plans are attached (Exhibits B and C of the resolution). IN ANALYSIS The proposed project includes the operation of a primary school within an existing 53,000 square -foot commercial building. With the exception of the conversion of 5,700 square feet of exterior paved area into an outdoor turf and picnic area, no exterior construction is anticipated as a part of the project. Therefore, the focus of staff s project analysis focused on the impact of the proposed project upon the existing surface parking area and off-site traffic circulation. Staff has also provided a brief land use summary within this analysis. Parking Chapter 17.45.010(l 1) of the UDC specifies that the on-site parking requirement for primary schools is to be determined by the Director of Community Development. Understanding that each primary school has unique operational characteristics, staff required that the Applicant provide a third -party traffic and parking study to aid in determining an accurate parking demand based upon the revised project description. A Traffic and Parking Study for the project was subsequently prepared by Linscott, Law and Greenspan and submitted to the City on September 3, 2014. This study was reviewed by the City's Traffic and Transportation Planning Division. This study is included as Exhibit D of the resolution. Table 4 of the attached Traffic and Parking Study summarizes the application of empirical data utilized to determine an anticipated parking demand. Based upon this data, page 7 of the Traffic and Parking Study then identifies a parking demand of 52 parking spaces with 123 parking spaces being provided on-site. Based upon the parking demand analysis, it is anticipated that an adequate number of parking spaces would be provided on-site based upon the parking demand analysis provided as a part of the Traffic and Parking Study. Traffic Table 2 of the Traffic and Parking Study identifies the six key intersections analyzed for the proposed project, including Rye Canyon Road/Avenue Scott, Avenue Stanford/Avenue Scott, Avenue Tibbitts/Avenue Scott, McBean Parkway/Avenue Scott, and each of the two project driveways. The General Plan identifies the Level of Service (LOS) for traffic signals expressed in terms of the average control delay per vehicle, and they range from LOS -A to LOS -F. The LOS measures the operating conditions within a traffic system and how drivers and passengers perceive these conditions. The minimum acceptable level of service standard for intersections within the City is LOS -D. Table 2 of the Traffic and Parking Study indicates that the anticipated traffic volumes, with the incorporation of the approved project, would not exceed LOS -C, with the exception of the McBean Parkway/Avenue Scott intersection where the LOS would remain at the current pre-existing level of LOS -D. Therefore, the proposed project is not expected to cause a significant traffic impact at any of the six key intersections analyzed. Land Use Section 17.45.11 of the UDC allows for the operation of schools and other assembly uses within the Business Park (BP) zone subject to the approval of a Conditional Use Permit (CUP). The BP zone provides for mixed employment districts in areas accessible to transportation and visible from freeways, which allows a variety of uses including office, medical office, research and development, light assembly and fabrication, warehousing and distribution, and numerous other commercial uses. The proposed primary school will be required to comply with applicable regulations including, but not limited to, the California Building Code to ensure that there is no potential hazard to the public's health or safety. In addition, as previously discussed in this report, the maximum occupancy of 250 on-site students and 50 home school students will not significantly impact adjacent roadways and intersections. Further, the subject property is surrounded by office, warehousing, and manufacturing uses typically found within a business park environment and are consistent with land uses appropriate within the BP zone. IDI MAI;TIM13IWYI> M11IF41VaW An Initial Study was prepared in accordance with CEQA. The Initial Study determined that no impacts are anticipated as a result of the proposed project. Therefore, a Negative Declaration was prepared in accordance with Section 15070 of CEQA. The Negative Declaration and Initial Study were made available during a 21 -day public review period. Documents were posted in the Permit Center at the City of Santa Clarita City Hall and the City of Santa Clarita Public Library, Valencia Branch. PUBLIC NOTIFICATION A notice was placed in a local newspaper notifying the public of the proposed project, and two public notice signs were posted on-site. In response to this notification, the City has received letters of opposition regarding the proposed project (attached). The concerns addressed in these comments are focused on traffic impacts on adjacent roadways and intersections, pedestrian safety, and concerns regarding the presence of hazardous materials at surrounding properties. As discussed previously, the Traffic and Parking Study submitted by the Applicant concluded that the proposed use would not significantly impact adjacent roadways and intersections. Additionally, with the incorporation of sidewalks adjacent to the existing building where none currently exist, the project would result in enhanced pedestrian safety when compared to the existing condition. The BP zone does not allow for uses such as rendering plants and heavy manufacturing uses typically associated with industrial zones. Further, all surrounding businesses and properties must comply with all applicable regulations regarding the handling and retention of hazardous materials including, but not limited to, those enforced by the Building & General Plan Zoning Land Use Project BP BP Office/Warehousing/Manufacturing North BP BP Office/Warehousing/Manufacturing South BP BP Office/Warehousing/Manufacturing East BP BP Office/Warehousing/Manufacturing West BP BP Office/Warehousing/Manufacturing IDI MAI;TIM13IWYI> M11IF41VaW An Initial Study was prepared in accordance with CEQA. The Initial Study determined that no impacts are anticipated as a result of the proposed project. Therefore, a Negative Declaration was prepared in accordance with Section 15070 of CEQA. The Negative Declaration and Initial Study were made available during a 21 -day public review period. Documents were posted in the Permit Center at the City of Santa Clarita City Hall and the City of Santa Clarita Public Library, Valencia Branch. PUBLIC NOTIFICATION A notice was placed in a local newspaper notifying the public of the proposed project, and two public notice signs were posted on-site. In response to this notification, the City has received letters of opposition regarding the proposed project (attached). The concerns addressed in these comments are focused on traffic impacts on adjacent roadways and intersections, pedestrian safety, and concerns regarding the presence of hazardous materials at surrounding properties. As discussed previously, the Traffic and Parking Study submitted by the Applicant concluded that the proposed use would not significantly impact adjacent roadways and intersections. Additionally, with the incorporation of sidewalks adjacent to the existing building where none currently exist, the project would result in enhanced pedestrian safety when compared to the existing condition. The BP zone does not allow for uses such as rendering plants and heavy manufacturing uses typically associated with industrial zones. Further, all surrounding businesses and properties must comply with all applicable regulations regarding the handling and retention of hazardous materials including, but not limited to, those enforced by the Building & Safety Division, Los Angeles County Fire Department, and the Air Quality Management District. LEGAL DISCUSSION A recent ruling in a lawsuit brought by several school districts has put into question the validity of the charter document for Albert Einstein Academy-SCV. Staff shared with the Applicant concerns that this lawsuit and the judge's ruling therein would prevent the proposed project from moving forward. As provided in the attached letter from attorneys for the Applicant, the Applicant has clarified that the proposed project will not be used to house Albert Einstein Academy-SCV, but a wholly separate school operated by the Applicant. City staff has reviewed the charter for this separate school and the representations of the applicant's legal counsel, and has included as a Condition of Approval the requirement that the charter for the school be fully compliant with State law prior to any building permits being issued for work on the proposed project. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS 1. City Council deny the modified project and deny the Applicant's appeal of the Planning Commission denial of the original project consisting of a primary school with a maximum on-site enrollment of 650 students in kindergarten through grade 6. 2. City Council continue the item to a date uncertain to allow for the resolution of the pending court actions. 3. Other action as determined by City Council. FISCAL IMPACT None by this action. ATTACHMENTS Notice of Continued Public Hearing Resolution Exhibit A - Conditions of Approval Exhibit B - Site Plan Exhibit C - Floor Plans Exhibit D - Traffic Study Exhibit D I - Traffic Study Appendix Notice of Public Hearing and Notice of Intent to Adopt a Negative Declaration AEA Attorney Letter AEA Letter Regarding Withdraw of Appeal Correspondence Initial Study and Negative Declaration Planning Commission Resolution available in the City Clerk's Reading File Planning Commission Staff Report available in the City Clerk's Reading File NOTICE OF CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING CITY OF SANTA CLARITA CITY COUNCIL NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Santa Clarita, at its regular meeting held October 14, 2014, continued a public hearing on MASTER CASE 13-075: APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION TO DENY MASTER CASE 13-075 FOR THE OPERATION OF A PRIMARY SCHOOL IN THE BUSINESS PARK ZONE AT 25300 RYE CANYON ROAD to October 28, 2014. Dated this 151h day of October 2014. �:al******sa*a**a**>k>k**>«++******x**+.++�*>kr«sr.«r>k*+r��*►««+«rr� STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) SS. AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING CITY OF SANTA CLARITA ) Armin Chaparyan, being first duly sworn, deposes and says that she is the duly appointed and qualified City Clerk of the City of Santa Clarita and that on October r5, 2014, she caused the above notice to be posted at the door of the Council Chamber located at 23920 Valencia Blvd., Santa Clarita, California. sAc.r obhe I lenringAContinued PH Iumttin Academy to October H, Idlldac Santa Clarita, California 11 RESOLUTION NO. 14 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA APPROVING MASTER CASE NO. 13-075, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 13-005, TO ALLOW FOR THE OPERATION OF A PRIMARY SCHOOL LOCATED AT 25300 RYE CANYON ROAD, IN THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. FINDINGS OF FACT. The City Council does hereby make the following findings of fact: A. An application for Master Case No. 13-075 (CUP 13-005) was filed by Albert Einstein Academy for Letters, Arts and Sciences (hereinafter "Applicant") with the City of Santa Clarita on June 5, 2013. The property for which this Conditional Use Permit application (hereinafter "Application") was filed is located at 25300 Rye Canyon Road (hereinafter "Subject Site"); B. The Applicant originally proposed to operate a 650 student primary school for students in Kindergarten through Grade 6 (K-6) on the Subject Site; C. The zoning and General Plan designation for the Subject Site is BP (Business Park); D. The surrounding land uses include manufacturing, warehousing, and office uses to the north, south, east, and west of the Subject Site; E. On March 4, 2014, the duly noticed public hearing was held before the City of Santa Clarita Planning Commission at 6:00 p.m. at City Hall, Council Chambers, 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Santa Clarita; F. At this public hearing, the Planning Commission considered the staff report, staff presentation, Applicant's presentation, and public testimony; and in a unanimous 5-0 vote approved staff's recommendation to deny the proposed project based upon traffic safety/circulation and a student population of up to 650 students; G. On March 19, 2014, pursuant to the provisions established within the Unified Development Code (UDC), the Applicant submitted a letter to the City appealing the Planning Commission decision of March 4, 2014 to the City Council; H. On June 16, 2014, the Applicant submitted a revised, and now current project description which includes the operation of a primary school consisting of a maximum of 250 on-site students and 50 home school students in grades K-4 to be operated within the same 53,000 square -foot commercial building on a fully developed site at 25300 Rye Canyon Road in the BP zone; I. On October 7, 2014 the CEQA document was noticed which included notification of a public hearing for the City Council meeting for October 28, 2014, at or after 6:00 P.M. at City Hall Council Chambers, 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Santa Clarita; and J. At this public hearing, the City Council considered the staff report, staff presentation, Applicant presentation, and public testimony. SECTION 2. GENERAL FINDINGS FOR MASTER CASE NO. 13-075. Based on the foregoing facts and findings for Master Case No. 13-075, the City Council hereby determines as follows with respect to the findings required for the grant of a Conditional Use Permit as sought by the Applicant: A. The proposal is consistent with the General Plan; The City Council can make this finding. The land use designation for the Subject Site ("Business Park") provides for mixed employment districts in areas accessible to transportation and visible from freeways, which allows a variety of uses including office, medical office, research and development, light assembly and fabrication, warehousing and distribution and numerous other commercial uses. Specifically, land uses such as primary schools are allowed in the Business Park designation with an approved Conditional Use Permit subject to development not exceeding the lot coverage of .90 and floor area ratio of 1.0. The primary (K-4) school proposal will be located within an existing building that does not exceed the coverage and floor area ratios of the Business Park designation. Thus, with the approval of a Conditional Use Permit, the primary school proposal would be consistent with the City's General Plan. B. The proposal is allowed within the applicable underlying zone and complies with all other applicable provisions of the UDC; The City Council can make this finding. The Applicant's proposed primary school is allowed within the Business Park zone with the approval of a conditional use permit. The proposed use includes a K-4 school use that would be conducted within an existing commercial building and does not include a proposal for any new structures. The existing commercial building on the Subject Site is consistent with the development standards set forth in the UDC in terms of floor area ratio, building height, setbacks, parking, and landscaping. C. The proposal will not endanger, jeopardize, or otherwise constitute a hazard to the public convenience, health, interest, safety, or general welfare, or be materially detrimental or injurious to the improvements, persons, property, or uses in the vicinity and zone in which the property is located; and The City Council can make this finding. The proposed primary school would operate within an existing 53,000 square -foot commercial building on a fully developed parcel surrounded by office, warehouse, and manufacturing uses consistent with the BP zone. 00 2 With the exception of the conversion of 5,700 square feet of paved area into an outdoor patio and turf area, the proposed school would not include any new construction and would be operated entirely within the interior of the existing 53,000 square -foot building. The proposed primary school is required to comply with applicable regulations including, but not limited to, the California Building Code to ensure that there is no potential hazard to the public's health or safety. Therefore, the proposed primary school would not be detrimental to the public's health, safety, or welfare, nor would the use be materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. D. The proposal is physically suitable for the site. The factors related to the proposal's physical suitability for the site shall include, but are not limited to, the following: 1) The design, location, shape, size, and operating characteristics are suitable for the proposed use; The City Council can make this finding because as proposed, the primary school would be operated within the interior of an existing 53,000 square -foot commercial building that is consistent with the underlying zone in terms of building height, floor area ratio, and building setbacks. Further, there is sufficient space on-site to accommodate the anticipated volume of vehicles. Therefore, the proposed use would be consistent with surrounding properties and uses in the BP zone in terms of location, shape, size, and operational characteristics. 2) The highways or streets that provide access to the site are of sufficient width and are improved as necessary to carry the kind and quantity of traffic such proposal would generate; The City Council can make this finding. The proposed primary school consisting of 250 on-site and 50 home school students would not result in the generation of traffic volumes in excess of what was anticipated upon the construction of the existing 53,000 square -foot commercial building, as detailed in the third -party Traffic and Parking Study created for the project by Linscott, Law and Greenspan, dated September 3, 2014, and reviewed by the City's Traffic and Transportation Planning Division. Therefore, the existing street configuration is able to facilitate the expected traffic volume and movements generated by the proposed use. 3) Public protection services (e.g., Fire protection, Sheriff protection, etc.) are readily available; and The City Council can make this finding. The project site is located within an urbanized portion of the City that is adequately served by Fire and Sheriff services. The proposed use would be conducted within an existing commercial structure and would not include the construction of new structures creating an additional demand for public protection services. 4) The provision of utilities (e.g., potable water, schools, solid waste collection and 3 IA disposal, storm drainage, wastewater collection, treatment, and disposal, etc.) is adequate to serve the site. The City Council can make this finding. The project site is located within a developed portion of the City that is currently being served by public utilities such as water, sewer, and solid waste collection. The proposed use would be located within an existing commercial building and would not include a proposal for new structures. Therefore, the provision of utilities is adequate to serve the proposed project site. SECTION 3. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT FINDINGS (CEQA). Based upon the foregoing facts and findings, the City Council hereby finds as follows: A. An Initial Study was prepared in accordance with CEQA. The Initial Study determined all impacts related to the proposed project are considered to be less than significant. Therefore, a Negative Declaration was prepared in accordance with Section 15070 of CEQA. The Negative Declaration and Initial Study were made available during a 21 -day public review period. Documents were posted in the Permit Center at the City of Santa Clarita City Hall, and the City of Santa Clarita Library, Valencia Branch. SECTION 4. Based upon the findings of fact, the staff report (including staff report and materials from the Planning Commission hearings), written correspondence and oral testimony presented at the appeal hearing, the City Council does hereby uphold the appeal and overturn the Planning Commission decision to deny the project, and therefore approves MC 13-075 and its associated entitlements, including CUP 13-005, subject to the Conditions of Approval (Exhibit A), Site Plan (Exhibit B), Floor Plans (Exhibit C), and Traffic and Parking Study (Exhibit D). SECTION 5. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 28th day of October, 2014. /:TIN-11*16 INTERIM CITY CLERK MAYOR 13 STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES CITY OF SANTA CLARITA I, Armind Chaparyan, Interim City Clerk of the City of Santa Clarita, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the City Council of the City of Santa Clarita at a regular meeting thereof, held on the 28th day of October, 2014 by the following vote of the City Council: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: INTERIM CITY CLERK l� EXHIBIT A CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL GENERAL CONDITIONS GCI. The approval of this project shall expire if the approved use is not commenced October 28, 2016. GC2. The Applicant may file for an extension of the conditionally approved project prior to the date of expiration. If such an extension is requested, it must be Fled no later than 60 days prior to expiration. GC3. The Applicant shall be responsible for notifying the Director of Community Development, in writing, of any change in ownership, designation of a new engineer, or change in the status of the developer, within 30 days of said change. GC4. Unless otherwise apparent from the context, the term "Applicant" shall include the Applicant and any other persons, corporation, or other entity making use of this grant. The Applicant shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of Santa Clarita, its agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action, or proceeding against the City or its agents, officers, or employees to attach, set aside, void, or annul the approval of this Project by the City, which action is provided for in Government Code Section 66499.37. In the event the City becomes aware of any such claim, action, or proceeding, the City shall promptly notify the Applicant, or if the City fails to cooperate fully in the defense, the Applicant shall not thereafter be responsible to defend, indemnify, or hold harmless the City. Nothing contained in this Condition prohibits the City from participating in the defense of any claim, action, or proceeding, if both of the following occur: 1) The City bears its own attorneys' fees and costs; and 2) the City defends the action in good faith. The applicant shall not be required to pay or perform any settlement unless the settlement is approved by the applicant. GC5. The subject site shall be developed and maintained in substantial conformance with the approvals granted by the City. Any modifications shall be subject to further review by the City. GC6. The Applicant and property owner shall comply with all inspection requirements as deemed necessary by the City of Santa Clarita. GC7. The Applicant and property owner, at the time of issuance of permits or other grants of approval, agrees to develop the property in accordance with City and State codes and other appropriate ordinances such as the Building Code, Plumbing Code, Grading Code, Highway Permit Ordinance, Mechanical Code, Zoning Ordinance, Undergrouding of Utilities Ordinance, Sanitary Sewer and Industrial Waste Ordinance, Electrical Ordinance and Fire Code. IZ Master Case 13-075 Conditional Use Permit 13-005 October 28, 1014 Page 2 of 10 GC8. The Applicant must sign and notarize the attached affidavit to accept the conditions of this grant. The notarized affidavit must then be returned to the Community Development Department before approval is granted. PLANNING DIVISION PLI. Pursuant to a letter submitted to the City on September 10, 2014, the Applicant shall submit a letter withdrawing the appeal of Planning Commission Resolution P14-04 within three (3) days of project approval. Failure to comply with this condition of approval shall result in the commencement of revocation proceedings. PL2. The Applicant is approved for the operation of a primary school within an existing commercial building located at 25300 Rye Canyon Road subject to the approved and attached site plan (Exhibit B), floor plans (Exhibit C), and Traffic and Parking Study (Exhibit D) dated September 3, 2014. PL3. The primary school is approved subject to the following operational characteristics: a. The approved school shall consist only of students in kindergarten through grade 4. At no time shall educational curriculum or programming be provided for student populations younger than kindergarten or in grades beyond grade 4. b. The approved school shall have a total maximum enrollment of 300 students. A maximum of 250 students may be enrolled in full time educational programing that occurs on-site. A maximum of 50 students may be enrolled in home school programming. c. The approved school shall consist of a total maximum of 20 teachers and staff as identified in Exhibit D. d. The approved school may consist of a maximum of 14 classrooms per the approved floor plan in Exhibits C and D. For the purpose of this approval, a classroom shall be defined as any defined space where two or more students gather for the purposes of instruction at any point during the course of a typically scheduled academic school day. This shall not be construed to prohibit the use of additional spaces for the purposes of ancillary uses such as, but not limited to a library, or media room. e. With the exception of approximately 5,700 square feet of outdoor artificial turf and picnic area, the approved use shall be conducted entirely within the interior of the existing commercial building. With the exception of the outdoor artificial turf and picnic area, at no time shall any exterior portion of 15 Master Case 13-075 Conditional Use Permit 13-005 October 18, 1014 Page 3 of 10 the subject property be used for school related activities including, but not limited to surface parking areas, drive aisles and landscape areas. f. The daily schedule for the approved school shall be as follows: Before -care class opens 6:00 a.m. Early student drop-off 6:00 a.m.-7:30 a.m. Staff/faculty arrival time 6:00 a.m.-7:30 a.m. Class start times Grade 4 7:45 a.m. Grade 3 8:15 a.m. Grade 1 &2 8:45 a.m. Kindergarten 9:15 a.m. Class dismissal times Kindergarten 2:00 p.m. Grade 1 2:15 p.m. Grade 2 2:30 p.m. Grade 3 2:45 p.m. Grade 4 3:00 p.m. Staff/faculty departure time 3:15 p.m. -6:00 p.m. Athletic/after-school/enrichment 3:30 p.m. -6:00 p.m. Any modification to the approved daily schedule shall be approved by the Director of Community Development and is subject to the Applicant providing a supplemental Traffic and Parking Study. g. On-site attendance of homeschool students shall be limited to between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 2:00 p.m. Monday through Friday with no limitations on Saturday or Sunday. PL4. Prior to building permit final, the applicant shall provide a letter of engagement between the Applicant and a qualified third party contractor who shall agree to implement the Traffic and Parking Management Plan (T&PMP) as identified on Page 10 of the approved Traffic and Parking Study on file with the Planning Division dated September 3, 2014. PL5. No regular or scheduled bus service with on-site drop off or pick up shall be permitted. This shall not prohibit bus drop off or pick up for special events including, but not limited to, field trips. PL6. The Applicant is approved for the conversion of approximately 5,700 square feet of exterior concrete area into an artificial turf and patio area built in conjunction with 11 Master Case 13-075 Conditional Use Permit 13-005 October 28, 2014 Page 4 of 10 the operation of the approved primary school use. No other exterior building modifications are included as a part of this approval. PL7. The scheduling of all special events shall be conducted in a "staggered schedule" fashion where applicable to ensure that all attendees must park within the on-site surface parking field as identified in the Traffic and Parking Study dated September 3, 2014. The Applicant shall take reasonable steps to ensure that all participants are informed of the on-site parking requirement, and that no vehicles shall be permitted to park on adjacent streets and/or adjacent properties without the approval of the City and any affected property owners. PL8. The Applicant shall implement the Traffic and Parking Management Plan as detailed on pages 7-10 of the attached Traffic and Parking Study dated September 3, 2014 (Exhibit D). PL9. Prior to the issuance of the first building permit for work on the site, the applicant shall provide evidence satisfactory of the Planning Division to demonstrate that its charter is in full compliance with the State of California Education Code. ENGINEERING DIVISION Street Improvement Requirements ENI. Prior to any construction (including, but not limited to, drive approaches, sidewalks, curb and gutter, etc.), trenching or grading within public street right-of-way, the Applicant shall submit a street improvement plan consistent with the approved site plan and Conditions of Approval, and obtain encroachment permits from the Engineering Division. EN2. Prior to building final, the Applicant shall construct the following street improvements along the frontage of the project site, as directed by the City Engineer: Street Name Inverted Curb & Base & Street Street Sidewalk Landscaped Shoulder Gutter Paving Lights Trees (5'min) Median Rye Canyon Road X Avenue Scott X EN3. Prior to issuance of encroachment and building permits, the Applicant shall submit street plans with the design of the new sidewalk for City Engineer's approval. New sidewalk along the property frontage may require meandering to avoid conflicts with existing public improvements, including utilities and signs. Short retaining walls may be required depending on existing topography, as directed by City Engineer. 15 Master Case 13-075 Conditional Use Permit 13-005 October 28, 2014 Page 5 of 10 EN4. Sidewalk easement(s) may be required should sidewalk meander onto the private property in efforts of avoiding existing public improvements. Prior to issuance of building permits, the Applicant shall dedicate the required sidewalk easements to the City. EN5. Prior to building final, the Applicant shall repair any broken or damaged curb, gutter and sidewalk, and refurbish the half section of pavement on streets within or abutting the project, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. TRAFFIC ENGINEERING TEL Adequate sight visibility is required at all project driveways and shall follow the latest Caltrans manual for applicable requirements. This shall be shown on all applicable plans prior to issuance of first building permit. TE2. Minimum width of all interior drive aisles shall be 26 feet and shall be shown on all applicable plans prior to issuance of first building permit. TE3. All project driveways shall intersect with the adjacent roadway at 90 degrees or as close to 90 degrees as topography permits (no less than 80 degrees). This shall be shown on all applicable plans prior to issuance of first building permit. TE4. The site shall be designed to adequately accommodate all vehicles (e.g. automobiles, vans, trucks) that can be expected to access the site. This includes, but is not limited to, adequate maneuvering areas around loading zones, parking spaces and parking areas, and appropriate turning radii. TE5. The location, width and depth of all project driveways and drive aisles shall conform to the approved site plan. This shall he shown on all applicable plans prior to issuance of first building permit. No additional driveways shall be permitted. TE6. All project driveways shall be right-in/right-out only: The Applicant shall install appropriate "Right Tum Only" signage and pavement markings on the project site. In addition, the Applicant shall install "No Left Tum" signage on the median along Rye Canyon Road. TET The Applicant shall install a surveillance video camera (pan -tilt -zoom) at the intersection of Rye Canyon Road and Avenue Scott, as approved by the Director of Public Works. TE8. Prior to the issuance of the first building occupancy permit, the Applicant shall install system detection on all approaches at each of the driveways/access locations. The design of the detection system shall be completed and approved by the City I� Master Case 13-075 Conditional Use Permit 13-005 October 28, 2014 Page 6 of 10 prior to issuance of first building permit. The system detection system shall be designed and installed to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works. The Applicant shall grant to the City any and all easements necessary for installation of, maintenance of, and access to the system detection equipment. This shall be shown on all applicable plans prior to issuance of first building permit. TE9. Prior to the issuance of the first building occupancy permit, the Applicant shall pay a traffic -signal timing fee of $4,000 for the update of the traffic -signal timing at the intersection of Rye Canyon Road and Avenue Scott. TEIO. Prior to issuance of first building permit, the Applicant shall install all necessary and required school -area signage, including, but not limited to, school zone signs, crosswalk markings, and electronic devices. In addition, if warranted, the Applicant may be required to provide a properly trained and certified adult crossing guard at the intersection of Rye Canyon Road and Avenue Scott. TEl1. Prior to issuance of first building permit, the Applicant shall install all project - related traffic mitigations. FIRE DEPARTMENT FDI. Upon resubmittal, the Applicant shall provide a site plan that indicates that all drive aisles are a minimum unobstructed width of 26 feet to within 150 feet of all portions of the building. FD2. The Applicant shall be aware that the proposed tenant improvement will require a fire sprinkler system. FD3. The Applicant shall be aware that the proposed tenant improvement will require a fire alarm system. FD4. These conditions are preliminary and are subject to change. A complete set of architectural plans shall be submitted and approved prior to the issuance of a building permit. ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES ESI. Provide sufficient trash enclosures to house at least six 3 -yard bins. Three of the bins should be reserved for recyclable materials only. The enclosure(s) should be shown on the site plan with dimensions, consistent with the surrounding architecture, and shall be constructed with a solid roof. The enclosure(s) shall be located to provide convenient pedestrian and collection vehicle access. ES2. All demolition projects regardless of valuation and renovation projects valuated greater than $100,000 must comply with the City's Construction and Demolition 11 Master Case 13-075 Conditional Use Permit 13-005 October 28, 2014 Page 7 of 10 Materials (C&D) Recycling Ordinance. C&D Materials Recycling Ordinance: a. A Construction and Demolition Materials Management Plan (C&DMMP) must be prepared and approved by the Environmental Services Division prior to obtaining any grading or building permits. b. A minimum of 50% of the entire project's inert (dirt, rock, bricks, etc.) waste and 50% of the remaining C&D waste must be recycled or reused rather than disposing in a landfill. c. A deposit of 3% of the estimated total project cost or $25,000, whichever is less, is required. The full deposit will be returned to the Applicant upon proving that 50% of the inert and remaining C&D waste was recycled or reused. ES3. Per the California Green Building Standards Code, 1001/6 of trees, stumps, rocks and associated vegetation and soils resulting primarily from land clearing shall be reused or recycled. For a phased project, such material may be stockpiled on site until the storage site is developed. ES4. All projects within the City that are not self -hauling their waste materials must use one of the City's franchised haulers for temporary and roll -off bin collection services. Please contact Environmental Services staff at (661) 286-4098 for a complete list of franchised haulers in the City. BUILDING AND SAFETY DIVISION BSI. The City acknowledges that pursuant to a letter submitted to the City on August 27, 2013, the applicant has submitted building plans to the Building & Safety Division for first round plan check at risk of denial of land use approval. The applicant shall be aware that that the first round plan check comments issued on October 21, 2013, shall remain in effect. Additional comments may be forthcoming based upon resubmittal of building plans. BS2. Detailed construction drawings shall be submitted to the Building & Safety Division for plan review and building permit issuance. Supporting documentation, such as structural calculations and energy calculations, shall be included in the plan submittal package. BS3. Plans submitted for plan review shall show full compliance with the California Building Codes in effect at the time the building permit application is submitted to Building & Safety. The current building codes are: 2010 California Building, Mechanical, Plumbing, and Electrical Codes, the 2008 California Energy Code and the 2010 California Green Building Standards Code. If the building permit Master Case 13-075 Conditional Use Permit 13-005 October 28. 2014 Page 8 of l0 application date is after January 1, 2014, then the submitted plans shall comply with the new 2013 California Codes. BS4. The City of Santa Clarita has amended some portions of the California Building Code. Copies of these amendments are available at the Building & Safety public counter and on our website at: www.santa-clarita.com/Index.aspx?page=552. BSS. Plans submitted to Building & Safety for plan review shall be 100% complete. Plans submitted shall show all work being performed for this project including Architectural, Structural, Mechanical, Electrical and Plumbing work. Incomplete plans will not be accepted for plan review. BS6. This project will require the plans be prepared. by a licensed architect per Sec 5536.1 of the Architects Practice Act. The licensed architect shall be "qualified by education, training and experience in the specific technical areas involved" per sec 160 of the California Code of Regulations. Plans prepared by unqualified individuals/professionals will delay the project. BST It is encouraged that plans for this project be submitted electronically using our ePLANS system. For more information about ePLANS, please visit our website at: www.santa-clarita.com/index.asi3x?i)age=698. BSB. Regarding the jurisdiction of the project, please add to the cover sheet of the plans the previously prepared letter from the Applicant indicating that no state funds are being used for this project. For the City's Building & Safety Division to have jurisdiction for this project, no state funds shall be used for this project or for any purposes in the future. BS9. The plans shall include (on the cover sheet) the proposed school program, including: age and number of students, grades, hours of operation, and a list of proposed uses for the gymnasium. Since the facility will be used for an Elementary and a Secondary school, the facility shall be designed for the more restrictive elements of each. BSIO. The plans for this project shall show full compliance with the disabled access requirements as specified for public accommodations in Chapter IIB of the California Building Code. For existing buildings the plans shall clearly show all upgrades necessary to comply with the current code requirements. BS It. It is highly recommended this project comply with the new 2010 ADA Standards for Accessible Design (published by Department of Justice, Sept. 15, 2010). A copy of these Standards may be downloaded from the ADA Website: www.ADA.eov or may be obtained by calling the ADA Information Line: 800-512- 0301 (TTY: 800-514-0383). These ADA Standards are not enforced by local H Master Case 13-075 Conditional Use Permit 13-005 October 28, 1014 Page 9 of 10 building departments; however, they are the responsibility of the property/building owners. BS 12. The plans shall contain a separate egress plan that indicates the following: for each space/area indicate the use, occupancy group, occupant load factors, total occupant loads. The egress plan shall show the exit widths (both required and provided), travel distances to exits, common path of egress travel, etc. Enclosed stairways, exit enclosures, exit passageways, etc. may be necessary due to design layout and/or travel distances to exits. The occupant load factors shall be per chapter 10 of the CBC. In areas of multiple uses (such as the gym), the egress system shall be designed for the most restrictive use (highest occupant load). BS13. The submitted plans to Building & Safety shall have a Building Code Analysis and floor area justification containing the following minimum information: types of construction, occupancy groups, occupant loads, any area increases from frontage and/or fire sprinklers, height of building, number of stories, summary of any fire rated walls, occupancy separations (or non -separated uses), identify any accessory occupancies or incidental uses, indicate the project is NOT located in a flood hazard and NOT located in the fire hazard zone, and all other related data. Please consider the following information for building area justification: a. The existing building is Type V -N construction and is now considered Type V -B construction. b. The new School (Group 'E' occupancy) is limited to a one-story building of Type V -B construction (CBC Table 503). A change in Type of construction classification may be required, which will involve a separate plan review and building permit. c. The existing building is designed as an "unlimited area" building. The new 'E' occupancy is not allowed in an unlimited area building. (CBC 507.3 & 507.4) d. For 'E' Occupancies, the fire sprinklers shall not be used for both an additional story and an area increase at the same time. (CBC 504.2) BS14. Structural considerations: a. The scope of work involves a change of use to a primary school (no public funds involved) with an occupant load of more than 300. Per CBC Table 1604.5, this constitutes an increase in the structural Occupancy Category from Category II to Category III. See CBC Section 3408.4, which states: "When a change of occupancy results in a structure being reclassified to a higher occupancy category, the structure shall conform to the seismic requirements for a new structure of the higher occupancy category." b. Provide complete structural calculations for the building considering the higher occupancy category (Category III, Importance Factor = 1.25). All structural elements of the building shall be analyzed for the increased forces 2D Master Case 13-075 Conditional Use Permit 13-005 October 28, 2014 Page 10 of /0 and detailing provisions based on the current code (2010 CBC). See CBC Section 3408 for additional clarification. c. As an alternate, the provisions of ASCE 41 — "Seismic Rehabilitation of Existing Buildings" may be applied. d. Any existing structural elements which do not comply with current code shall be upgraded. e. Structural calculations and plans shall be prepared by a California licensed Structural or qualified Civil engineer. f. It appears the building will require extensive structural retrofitting. BS15. The California Plumbing Code (CPC) shall be used to determine the minimum number of plumbing fixtures. The plumbing count shall be determined by your design program, requirements for the most restrictive uses (elementary vs. secondary schools vs. various uses of the gym) and standard practice for public schools. Published information for public schools may be acceptable. Separate facilities and separate ratios for staff vs. students shall be used. BS16. Prior to submitting plans to Building & Safety for plan review, please contact Deanna Hamrick, Engineering Technician, at (661) 255-4941, for project addressing. BS17. After the project receives a final building inspection, a Certificate of Occupancy will be issued. The Certificate of Occupancy is required prior to the building being used or occupied. BS18. Prior to issuance of building permits, additional clearances will be required from these agencies: a. Santa Clarita Environmental Services (Construction & Demo Plan deposit) b. William S. Hart School District and appropriate elementary school district c. Castaic Lake Water Agency d. L. A. County Fire Prevention Bureau, (including Petroleum Chemical Unit) e. L. A. County Sanitation District Clearances from additional agencies may be required and will be determined during the plan review process. An agency referral list is available at the Building & Safety public counter. BS19. Each separate detached structure, such as trash enclosures, fences, retaining walls, and shade structures require separate applications and building permits. These other structures need not be on separate plans, but may be part of the same plans for the main project. 22 EXHIBIT C FIRST FLOOR PLAN _ i n n n n LJ LJ it I I it I e NR r----•---- I---------------------- o ' I i I I I I I I I I I I I I I _ 1 I I I ' I I I I I � I• I I I I I I I n Z3 EXHIBIT C SECOND FLOOR PLAN I b b b b ---a -zq EXHIBIT D TRAFFIC & PARKING STUDY September 3, 2014 Engineers B Planners The parking analysis estimates the future parking demand for the project based on Traffic review of the school's operational parameters and application of parking ratios from Transportation the prior/older City Code section for parking requirements, and empirical studies Parking Mr. Jeffrey Shapiro, HD PhD John P. Keating, PE Albert Einstein Academies for Letters, Arts and Sciences Linscott, Law& Greenspan, Engineers 25876 The Old Road, #325 2 Executive Circle Stevenson Ranch, CA 91381 Suite 250 address site ingress/egress, on-site stacking/queuing needs, pedestrian versus vehicle Irvine, CA 92614 LLG Reference: 2.13.3400.1 949.825.61753 949125.6173 F Subject: Revised www.11gengineers.com Traffic and Parking Study Update for Albert Einstein Academy Santa Clarita, California Pasadena Irvine San Diego Dear Mr. Shapiro: woodland Hills As requested, Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineers (LLG) is pleased to submit this Traffic and Parking Study for the proposed Albert Einstein Academy (AEA), a public charter elementary school to be located on the southeast corner of the Rye Canyon Road/Avenue Scott intersection in the City of Santa Clarita, California. This report updates our prior studies (last dated August 21, 2014) to evaluate a revised project description, and address City staff comments. As now proposed, the Academy will have a maximum enrollment of 300 students (reduced from the previous proposals of 500 and 650 students), which will include 50 students in a home study program, and serve Kindergarten through Grade 4. It will reoccupy an existing building (currently vacant), and will be served by its own surface spaces on site. The traffic section of this letter report estimates trip generation of the proposed school based upon anticipated operations and tripmaking characteristics derived from existing AEA elementary schools, evaluates traffic operating conditions during the AM peak hour, school dismissal, and PM peak hour at 6 key intersections with and without the project, and determines whether the project would cause any significant traffic impacts at key intersections. N:N00\2133400-Albert Einmm Ace ,, aaua C1adta\aepom1L. r9-3-14134 or 9.3.16door M LUM Cam V Founded W Philip M. Linscon, PE n9Rmml The parking analysis estimates the future parking demand for the project based on Jack M. Greenspan, PE lae,i review of the school's operational parameters and application of parking ratios from William A, Law, PE 9., the prior/older City Code section for parking requirements, and empirical studies Paul W. Wilkinson, PE completed by LLG for similar schools and at the AEA Endeavour Academy in San John P. Keating, PE Diego. David S. Shenden PE John Boarman, PE This letter report also presents a Traffic and Parking Management Plan (T&PMP) to Clare M. Look -Jaeger, PE address site ingress/egress, on-site stacking/queuing needs, pedestrian versus vehicle Richard E. Barrette, PE Keil 0. Mebarry PE N:N00\2133400-Albert Einmm Ace ,, aaua C1adta\aepom1L. r9-3-14134 or 9.3.16door M LUM Cam V Founded W Mr. Jeffrey Shapiro September 3, 2014 Page 2 circulation, and traffic and parking management during the peak student drop-off and pick-up time periods. In addition, this study identifies off-site, school -related traffic control measures based upon the application of Part 7: Traffic Control for School Areas of the California MUTCD (Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices) within the project's study area limits. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Anticipated School Operational Parameters Table 1 provides a summary of the proposed development totals and anticipated operations for the AEA project, which will have a maximum enrollment of 300 students (including 50 students in a home study program) in Kindergarten through Grade 4, consisting of 14 classrooms. It is anticipated that the elementary school will have 20 employees (7 staff, 13 teachers), plus 2 teachers for the home study program, and 2 before/after-class care staff. The proposed daily program would be consistent with the existing AEA and other typical schools, as presented on Table 1. The proposed schedule, which would include staggered school start and dismissal times, an extensive "6AM to 6PM" childcare program, and early student drop-off program, plus the implementation of other T&PMP measures (presented in the last section of this report), are necessary to create a more dispersed arrival of vehicles so that external queuing, on-site stacking, and pedestrian -vehicle circulation could be adequately managed. The earliest arrivals in the morning would be for before -class care and early student drop-off program that start at 6:00 AM, and staff/faculty arrivals between 6:00 AM and 7:30 AM. These programs and anticipated schedule would allow a significant number of parents to drop off students outside of the typical peak student drop-off period between 7:00 and 8:00 AM. In addition to the programs described above that allow student drop-off to occur outside of the AM peak period, class start times will be staggered in 30 -minute increments, corresponding to 7:45 AM for Grade 4, 8:15 AM for Grade 3, 8:45 AM for Grades 1 and 2, and 9:15 AM for Kindergarten, to ensure vehicles can fully queue/stack on site, and not impact the public roadways serving the site. Dismissal times in the afternoon would be staggered in 15 -minute increments by grade. Because student pick-up activities in the afternoon may be busier and may take longer to process because parents and students cannot perfectly time each other's arrival, a detailed Traffic and Parking Management Plan (T&PMP) was developed and will be implemented to ensure that student drop-off/pick-up periods are properly managed. N:\340012133400- Albert Eiiutnn AcW=y, Sana Clwita\R. f tepod A3-14\3400-WR3-14.cbx Mr. Jeffrey Shapiro September 3, 2014 Page 3 Staff/faculty departure, after-school care (i.e., the "6AM to 6PM" program), and activities that could involve athletic and enrichment programs, would run from 3:15/3:30 PM until approximately 6:00 PM. Project Setting and Site Plan Figure 1 presents a Vicinity Map, which illustrates the general location of the Project and depicts the study locations and surrounding street system. Figure 2 shows the project site aerial, and Figure 3 depicts the proposed site plan. The two existing driveways (on Avenue Scott and on Rye Canyon Road) serving the site will be maintained, with each restricted to right -turn in and right -turn out movements. The turn restrictions for the Rye Canyon driveway will be enforced through "Right Turn Only" roadway markings and signage on site, and "No Left Turn" signage on the median along Rye Canyon Road. Traffic movements at the Avenue Scott driveway are already restricted to right -turns in and right -turns out because of the existing raised/landscaped median along Avenue Scott. On site, student drop-off and pick-up activities will be staged by: (1) using two exclusive lanes dedicated for queuing/waiting, and one exclusive lane downstream with drop-off/pick-up zones or stations, or (2) parking in the 123 -space lot. In support of pedestrian safety enhancements, and pedestrian connections to the existing bus stop just north of the Rye Canyon Road driveway, the project will extend sidewalks along the site's frontage (where a sidewalk does not currently exist) on both Avenue Scott and Rye Canyon Road. TRAFFIC ANALYSIS Intersection Peak Hour Level of Service Methodology Level of Service (LOS) qualitatively measures the operating conditions within a traffic system and how drivers and passengers perceive these conditions. Level of service ranges from LOS A to overloaded conditions at LOS F. Weekday AM, school dismissal, and PM peak hour operating conditions for the signalized and unsignalized intersections were evaluated using the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM 2010) Operations methodology, and the City's Synchro model. Based on the HCM operations method of analysis, level of service for signalized intersections is defined in terms of control delay, which is a measure of driver discomfort, frustration, fuel consumption and lost travel time. The delay experienced by a motorist is made up of a number of factors that relate to control, geometries, traffic and incidents. Total delay is the difference between the travel time actually N:13 %21334W- Alban Eio»ain Academy. S+m+Cla %%CpnV Wft 9-3-14NW-lo- 9-3.14,d Mr. Jeffrey Shapiro September 3, 2014 Page 4 experienced and the reference travel time that would result during ideal conditions: in the absence of traffic control, in the absence of geometric delay, in the absence of any incidents and when there are no other vehicles on the road. Levels of service for traffic signals are expressed in terms of the average control delay per vehicle, and they range from LOS A to LOS F. The HCM unsignalized methodology was utilized for the analysis of the stop - controlled intersections. This methodology estimates the average control delay for each of the subject movements and determines the level of service for each movement. For one-way and two-way stop -controlled (minor street stop -controlled) intersections, this methodology estimates the worst side street delay, measured in seconds per vehicle and determines the level of service for that approach. The HCM control delay value translates to a level of service estimate ranging from LOS A to LOS F, which is a relative measure of the intersection performance. Minimum LOS Thresholds and Significant Traffic Impact Criteria The City of Santa Clarita's minimum acceptable level of service standard for intersections is LOS D. Based on the City's significant traffic impact criteria, a project would cause a significant impact at a key intersection if the service level deteriorates from LOS D or better without the project to LOS E or F with the project. If the intersection operates at a LOS D, E, or F without the project, the project would cause a significant traffic impact if the delay with the project increases by 4 seconds under LOS D, or increases by 2 seconds under LOS E or F. Existing Circulation Network A comprehensive inventory of the street system within the study area was undertaken to develop a detailed description of existing traffic conditions. Figure 4 illustrates the existing physical characteristics of the streets, including lane configurations and traffic control at intersections, number of travel lanes, posted speed limits, and median types along roadways. Existing Traffic Volumes Recent AM, school dismissal, and PM peak period traffic counts at the existing key intersections were collected in September and October 2013 (City staff provided traffic counts for the McBean Parkway/Avenue Scott intersection). Figures 5 through 7 illustrate the Existing AM, school dismissal, and PM peak hour traffic volumes, respectively. N:U4WV1334 -Albert P.ivn A.d.,S ClcipVIInUllp 9-3-14V4W-1t9-3-14A. ^ 00 Mr. Jeffrey Shapiro September 3, 2014 Page 5 Existing Traffic Conditions Table 2 summarizes the Existing (2013) peak hour levels of service for 4 key intersections based on existing traffic volumes and current street geometrics. It should be noted that 2 additional key intersections are project driveway intersections, which are analyzed under conditions with development of the project (i.e., Existing Plus Project). As Table 2 indicates, under existing conditions without the project, all 4 key intersections currently operate at an acceptable LOS D or better during each peak hour. The HCM/LOS calculation worksheets are contained in Appendix A. Project Traffic Volumes A multi -step process was utilized to develop project traffic forecasts. The first step is project traffic generation, which estimates the total arriving and departing traffic at the project site. The second step of the forecasting process is project traffic distribution, which involves the development of a geographic trip distribution pattern that identifies the origins/destinations of project traffic. The third step is project traffic assignment, by which project -generated trips are allocated on the street system. Traffic generation is expressed in vehicle trip ends, defined as one-way vehicular movements, either entering or exiting the generating land use. Generation factors and equations used in the traffic forecasting procedure are found in the 9th Edition of Trip Generation, published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE). However, the ITE reference manual only includes trip rates for public elementary schools, and private schools (K-12), both of which are land use categories that do not correlate to the proposed project. Therefore, it was necessary to develop project trip forecasts based on the maximum enrollment of 300 students (including 50 students in the home study program), anticipated operations of the project, and tripmaking data from existing AEA elementary schools (as presented in a letter provided by AEA, and contained in Appendix B). Table 3 presents the project's traffic generation potential by accounting for various operational aspects of the project, such as the 50 students in the home study program, "6am to 6pm" and early drop-off programs, school staff and faculty trip characteristics, typical rate of absences, and class start and dismissal times. As conservative measures, only 20% of students were presumed to be in the "6am to 6pm" program (AEA indicates 30% are enrolled in the program), and no further trip reductions were assumed relating to carpooling (AEA indicates 20% participate in a carpool program), and siblings who travel in the same vehicle. N:� WM334W-Ml nEinm Au Y, Sema Clema%R M\Re A9 -3-14U 4W 93-14.&" 2/w Mr. Jeffrey Shapiro September 3, 2014 Page 6 The highlighted portions (in yellow) of Table 3 present the project trip generation estimates, by direction, for the peak hour during the school AM drop-off, school PM pick-up/dismissal, and PM commute time periods. Figure 8 illustrates the trip distribution pattern developed for the project based on zip code information for the anticipated student enrollment at AEA (this information is also contained in Appendix B). The project -generated traffic volumes were then distributed and assigned to the adjoining street system, and added to existing traffic volumes, The Existing Plus Project traffic volumes during the AM, school dismissal, and PM peak hours are presented on Figures 9 through 11, respectively. Existing Plus Project Traffic Conditions Table 2 summarizes the Existing (2013) Plus Project peak hour levels of service for the total 6 intersections analyzed in this study. As Table 2 indicates, all 6 key intersections would operate at an acceptable LOS D or better during each peak hour. Based on the application of the City's significant traffic impact criteria specified in this study, the project is not expected to cause a significant traffic impact at any of the 6 key intersections analyzed. The HCM/LOS calculation worksheets are contained in Appendix A. PARKING ANALYSIS Table 4 presents the operational parameters relevant to estimating parking needs for the AEA project, parking demand calculation through the application of older/prior City Code ratios, and empirical ratios derived from LLG's prior studies, and a comparison of potential demand against the proposed supply. The City has recently updated Chapter 17.18 of the Municipal Code, which is the section pertaining to off-street parking standards. Based on the prior version, the Code ratio for primary schools was 2 spaces per classroom, plus required parking for additional spaces on site. The latest update removes these requirements, and indicates "as determined by the Director." Table 4 applies the old City Code ratios anyway, to provide further validation of the reasonableness of the parking demand estimation approach applied in this study. As indicated on the upper portion of Table 4, the application of older/prior City Code ratios to the project would result in a requirement of 32 spaces for the project. N:\30U1334W- Alban Einstein Academy, Sema Clan%\Re rffl epon9-3.1404 4r M.14.da« Mr. Jeffrey Shapiro September 3, 2014 Page 7 The lower portion of Table 4 summarizes the application of empirical parking ratios to the proposed elementary school. Based on LLG's prior studies of charter schools, in addition to the recent parking demand counts conducted at AEA Endeavour Academy in San Diego, the average ratio was 0.14 spaces per student. Adding a parking contingency of 10% to these empirical ratios yields 0.16 spaces per student. The adjusted parking rate was applied to the maximum enrollment of 300 students (even though 50 students are in the home study program, and would not be present on site every school day) and employee spaces were added to account for the home study and before/after-school care programs, resulting in a total parking demand of 52 spaces. Comparing the 52 -space demand against the future supply of 123 spaces corresponds to a surplus of 71 spaces. Special Events The school is currently operating at another location and a thorough analysis of all extra -curricular activities was conducted. At a K-4 school, the number and types of events are limited. All of the current special events scheduled can be accommodated with the parking on site. Events with the largest possible attendance are "Back -to - School" nights. These, as well as Parent/Teacher conferences are staggered. If an event is larger than can be accommodated with the existing parking, the event will be held at an alternative location such as AEA's high school campus. Based on the supply of 123 spaces, up to 123 families can be accommodated on site for a given special event. TRAFFIC & PARKING MANAGEMENT PLAN Although no significant traffic impacts and parking deficiencies are expected to occur with development of the school, the following recommendations (presented in Figures 12 through 14) have been developed as part of a Traffic & Parking Management Plan that will be implemented by AEA: 1. As shown on Figure 12, student drop-off and pick-up activities on site will be staged by: (1) using two exclusive lanes dedicated for queuing/waiting (Wait Lines 41 and #2, shown in pink and purple, respectively), and downstream of this area, one exclusive outbound/bypass lane plus an adjoining "yellow zone" comprised of drop-off/pick-up stations, or (2) parking in the 123 -space lot. 2. To access the yellow zone, vehicles must enter from Avenue Scott, and exit onto Rye Canyon Road. This takes into consideration the site's building layout (i.e., allowing students to be dropped off or picked up from the right- hand side of the vehicle, at drop-off/pick-up stations adjoining the building). Parents wanting to park may also enter from Avenue Scott (and are allowed to exit onto either Rye Canyon or Avenue Scott), but will be restricted from N.U4WU[31400-Ml nEms Ac my. Sarna C'IviuVteO naR n9-l-W34W-Iu9-)-14d X —5( Mr. Jeffrey Shapiro September 3, 2014 Page 8 parking in spaces across from the yellow zone to minimize traffic conflicts along this portion of the site. I Figure 12 illustrates that vehicles destined for the yellow zone and entered the site from Avenue Scott (and choosing not to park) will need to wait in "Wait Line #1" (shaded in pink) or "Wait Line #2" (shaded in purple), before being directed by traffic control personnel at the start of each queue to proceed to the yellow zone. No one will be allowed to drop-off or pick-up from within either wait line. No pedestrians will be allowed to cross these lanes. Signage on post delineators/cones and traffic control personnel stationed along these lanes will enforce the no loading/unloading restrictions. 4. Traffic control personnel will be responsible for "platooning" the vehicles on each wait line, and monitoring vehicle space or "station" availability within the yellow zone. The vehicles queued on each of the two wait lines will alternate in proceeding to the stations, and will do so in a platoon of 10 vehicles every tum (similar to a roller coaster ride). 5. Every vehicle in a wait line or in the yellow zone will be directed to move forward as close as possible to the vehicle in front of it. Any vehicle observed to stay too long in queue within the yellow zone will be directed to exit the site. Signage on post delineators/cones and traffic control personnel stationed along the yellow zone will direct traffic to move forward. 6. Once in the yellow zone, no one is allowed to exit or enter the vehicle except for the students from the right-hand side of the vehicle. Students will be assisted by traffic control personnel to help expedite the process. The vehicle can exit the yellow zone by moving forward or using the adjoining bypass lane (marked with a blue traffic flow line on Figure 12). No vehicle from the bypass lane is allowed to go into the yellow zone. Cellphone use is prohibited while in the wait line and/or yellow zone. 7. During student drop-off, the students should be prepared to exit the vehicle, and goodbyes made, while in the wait line, to facilitate quick processing in the yellow zone. 8. During student pick-up, parents must display placards on their windshield indicating the last name of the students being picked up, before getting to either of the two wait lines. Through the use of walkie-talkies, traffic control personnel will "arrange" the students in the correct order at stations within the yellow zone to prepare them for a quick pick-up once the vehicle pulls up at each station. Essentially, traffic control personnel will need to time and synchronize the parents' arrival with the students. For siblings, the older child stays with the younger child's designated pick-up station. Signage on post delineators/cones N.WWU133/ - Aber Eft,46. Ac.&.y, Sura Cl M\Re Mtq n9 -3-14V3 W4V 9-3-14.A 32— Mr. Jeffrey Shapiro September 3, 2014 Page 9 and traffic control personnel will enforce the placard program during school dismissal. 9. Parking spaces highlighted in green on Figure 12 will be designated as "fully park first" spaces; specifically, these spaces should be occupied before 7:30 AM, and also occupied between 2:00 PM and 3:15 PM. Requiring staff/faculty and other school service vehicles to park in these spaces early would minimize the conflict between vehicles in the wait lines and parked vehicles pulling out of a space. 10. Vehicles entering from Rye Canyon Road will not be allowed to use the yellow zone (i.e., will not be allowed to turn left into either wait line), and will be restricted to parking, and exiting onto Avenue Scott (regardless of where they parked in the lot). 11. Crosswalks will be provided where indicated on Figure 12. In order to facilitate safe pedestrian movement on site during peak student drop-off and pick-up periods, all pedestrian activity will be focused to a singular crossing point, which is the main crosswalk located between the yellow zone and wait lines (shown in bold on Figure 12). This primary crosswalk connects the pedestrian "refuge" area (marked with an "A" on Figure 12) to sidewalks adjoining the building. All pedestrians coming from parking spaces (regardless of where they parked) will be required by this T&PMP, and directed by traffic control personnel (stationed at strategic locations shown on Figure 12), to use the "refuge area" and the primary crosswalk to access the building's sidewalks and entryways. Traffic control personnel will be responsible for guiding those who parked in spaces on the outer perimeter of the site to access the "refuge area" by crossing near the trash enclosure (to minimize crossings anywhere else). Any pedestrian leaving the school building will be required to do the same. 12. In addition to 82 parking spaces available for parents to use during peak student drop-off/pick-up periods because the spaces would not be used by staff and faculty, Figure 13 shows that a total of 39 vehicles can be stacked on the drop- off/pick-up lane, comprised of 10 student drop-off/pick-up stations within the yellow zone, and 29 vehicles within the wait lines. Best Practice standards related to elementary school on-site queuingistacking (contained in Appendix C) indicate that 6% of the total student enrollment is a reasonable factor for estimating the "maximum queue" of vehicles on site. The application of this 6% standard to the maximum enrollment of 300 students, less 50 students in the home study program, results in a maximum queue storage requirement of 15 vehicles (6% x 250 students), which is a lot less than the 39 vehicles that can be accommodated within the on-site wait lines and stations, as shown on Figure 13. This is a conservative assessment because designing facilities are often based on the 85t" percentile values, not the 100"' percentile or maximum queue. Also, there is a significant portion of traffic that will not be present during the peak N:U4W\21334M. MI MEin n Academy, SwUC]mftW pMaR A9-3-14V4004"4-14.&cx 33 Mr. Jeffrey Shapiro September 3, 2014 Page 10 student drop-off and pick-up period (parking instead of using the wait lines and yellow zone, and would be part of the 6AM to 6PM program and the early drop- off program). 13. Appendix C refers to additional studies and research conducted at elementary schools that indicate the on-site maximum queue length can be estimated by taking 20% of the largest number of students dismissed at one time. Presuming 100 students (corresponding to two grade levels that will actually be dismissed 15 minutes apart, not at the same time), the maximum queue is calculated to be 20 vehicles (20% x 100 students), and this is also less than the 39 vehicles that can be accommodated within the wait lines and stations. 14. Off-site traffic control measures are illustrated in Figure 14, which include signage, restriping crosswalks, installing school speed limit signs, and placing an adult crossing guard at the Rye Canyon Road/Avenue Scott intersection during dismissal times in the afternoon. 15. The T&PMP's traffic and parking details will be included in the "Albert Einstein Academy Parent Handbook". In addition, a letter focused to the school's traffic and parking policies will be made part of the registration materials, and disseminated at the orientation meeting and in the school newsletters and/or flyers. Information will include, but not be limited to, arrival and dismissal times, drop-off and pick-up circulation, where not to park, what parents should do to make dropping off or picking up easier and quicker, and what parents should expect during the peak times. 16. The T&PMP's traffic and parking -related information will be disseminated in advance of special events for the school, and include reminders in the school newsletter and/or flyers. Large events will be staggered, to ensure all parking can be accommodated. 17. AEA will be a "Good Neighbor" to adjoining uses. 18. The T&PMP measures will be implemented through a "triad" of resources, including: (1) an on-site school official, who will be responsible for leading the T&PMP's ongoing efforts, operations, and program monitoring; (2) LLG's support in the initial, startup stages to establish the vision/objectives and framework/parameters of the operating plan for the T&PMP, and turnkey training of traffic control personnel; and (3) a qualified third -party contractor (similar to a firm providing crossing guard services) to be hired by AEA, which will provide paid staff, field traffic control personnel in carrying out the requirements of the T&PMP, onsite Feld presence, and provide project management oversight and monitoring/intemal field checks. N:U4W9 1334 -Al nEirtttnn Acedm 9 Cl ft\PgprM pn9.3-I4V It9-3-14.d Mr. Jeffrey Shapiro September 3, 2014 Page I1 We appreciate the opportunity to provide this analysis. Should you have any questions, please call us at 949.825.6175. Sincerely, Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineers Trissa (de Jesus) Allen, P.E. Senior Transportation Engineer N:U400131334 - MLL PAn Acedtm , Sm ClW%Vte nitepw 0.J -14V -It 9-3-1I do �`f� c/5 TABLE 1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION Description Proposed Elements School -Grade 4) School: Maximum enrollment 300 students (includes 50 students in homestudy program) Classrooms 14 classrooms (includes 4 rooms for homestudy program) Staff 7 employees Faculty (full-time & part-time) 13 employees Volunteers (maximum per day) 10 persons Homestudv Proeram: No. of students in homestudy program 50 students Homestudy teachers 2 employees Before -class & After -class Care: No. of students in before -care 75 students Before/after-class care staff 2 employees Anticipated Schedule: Before -class care opens 6:00 am Early student dropoffs 6:00 am - 7:30 am Staff/faculty arrival time 6:00 am - 7:30 am Class start times Grade 4 7:45 am Grade 3 8:15 am Grades 1 and 2 8:45 am Kindergarten 9:15 am Dismissal times Kindergarten 2:00 pm Grade 1 2:15 pm Grade 2 2:30 pm Grade 3 2:45 pm Grade 4 3:00 pm Staff/faculty departure time 3:15 pm - 6:00 pm Athletic/after-school/enrichment programs 3:30 pm - 6:00 pm TABLE 2 INTERSECTION PEAK HOUR LEVELS OF SERVICE Nota: IAS = Level of Service, s/v = seconds per vehicle (delay) lmllclzed rut corresponds to unsipalized intersections add HCM/tAS valun mdicese adverse service levels (LOS E or F) based w LOS staodvds per the City of Santa Clartla. Also, per the City's significant track respect criteria, a pojat would cause a significant inspact at a key intersection if the service level daeiorates frust LOS D or better without the project to LOS E or F with the pojact Ifthe vdmation operates m a IAS D. E, or F without the projcct. the project would cause a significant traffic impact if the delay with the projeca increases by 4 seconda order LOS D, or increases by 2 seconds under LOS E or F. �� (1) (2) Existing Traffic Existing Plus Project Time Conditions Traffic Conditions Delay (s/v) LOS Delay (s/v) LOS Key Intersection Period AM 29.0 C 33.5 C Rye Canyon Road at 1 Avenue Scott School Dismissal 27.6 C 33.5 C PM 29.6 C 31.3 C AM 4.8 A 4.8 A 2 Avenue Stanford at Avenue Scott School Dismissal 5.4 A 5.4 A PM 6.6 A 6.6 A AM 18.8 B 18.8 B 3 Avenue Tibbitts at Avenue Scott School Dismissal 24.3 C 24.6 C PM 22.0 C 22.1 C AM -- 10.7 B Project Driveway at 4 Avenue Scott School Dismissal -- -- 10.! B PM 9.8 A AM -- -- 10.9 B 5. Rye Canyon Road at Project Driveway School Dismissal -- -- 12.3 B PM -- 13.3 B AM 36.0 D 36.2 D McBean Parkway at 6 Avenue Scott School Dismissal 25.6 C 25.9 C PM 33.4 C 33.5 C Nota: IAS = Level of Service, s/v = seconds per vehicle (delay) lmllclzed rut corresponds to unsipalized intersections add HCM/tAS valun mdicese adverse service levels (LOS E or F) based w LOS staodvds per the City of Santa Clartla. Also, per the City's significant track respect criteria, a pojat would cause a significant inspact at a key intersection if the service level daeiorates frust LOS D or better without the project to LOS E or F with the pojact Ifthe vdmation operates m a IAS D. E, or F without the projcct. the project would cause a significant traffic impact if the delay with the projeca increases by 4 seconda order LOS D, or increases by 2 seconds under LOS E or F. �� TABLE 3 PROJECT TRIP GENERATION ESTIMATES Notes.. fad The namommn enrollment is 300 students, of which 50 students will be in the homesmdy program. Homestudy students do not wine to whool on a daily basis, but when they do, they avow after 9:30 AM and depart before 2:00 PM. Based on data from existing AEA elementary schools, 300/ of students are enrolled in the'6am to 6pm' before and after-whool program, but only 200ib was presumed as a conservative measure. [b] The 24 employees include 7 staff members, 13 full-time end part-time Faculty, 2 home -study teachers, and 2 before and after-school program staff (per %able l ). (c] Based on data from existing AEA elementary schools, approximately 6% of students are not in school on a given day due to absences, and 200/ of students participate in the carpool program. ' A' As a waservative measure, . students are presumed to caryool. "ham to 6pm" School Stall Grade4 Grade 3 Grant. I and 2 Mndergarten fcj and A, Fatuity 3w-508munaly-250 mtlmh 300-50 hmgludy-250 madnts 300-50 Avnantdy=250 e1udeade 3W-50 Mmeludy=250 stdrnu Early Dropoff 24 em,dox%lbl 250-50-fam-4a'=200 students 250 � 50'6mt-6pm'-200 nuEmu 250-50 xuaad,m'-2W m*za, 25050'6®dpm'=200 pudah 300- 50 hmasudy- 250 sod is 2411 vat-24via 2W-16%ab•cnJ-118nations 200-(6%&tocm)-188e1u31s 200-(6,dams)-189 andeth 200-(6%,deno)-188,blots 250 x2W.=50 smdvib 165/Sgtiv=39 eastern 165/5 trades =38m o, 165/5ytla-38 nudmn 165/5ptla=38•ludah No. of 50xIM=50vdiela 39 x(100, noo<erooft- 39 vast 38 x(IWI. nasuvProB-39vd 38 x(I W1, mnawpeop-39oh 39x(1 CII. au,a•ryml)=39Mt Whld. I•I Iq It] 39x 21adm-76.dt¢b lel Every No. of Vehicles I<I 15 Minutes Every hour Start End Time 'rime In Out In Out In Out In Out In Out In Out In Out In Out Total Hour School M Dr -Off 2 5:45 6:01 6:00 6:15 5 5 2 7 5 44 30 74 600-700. 6:15 6:30 5 5 4 9 5 51 35 86 6: 154:15mn 6:30 6:45 10 10 4 14 10 75 59 134 6:304:30am 6:45 7:00 10 10 4 14 10 80 w 148 645-745. 7:00 7:15 10 10 4 14 10 85 n 162 7 DD -8 Want 7:15 7:30 10 10 4 19 19 33 29 90 86 176 7:15.8:15. 7:30 7:45 19 1919 19 95 95 190 7:30-8 30am 7:45 8:00 19 19 I9 19 114 114 228 7A":45am 8:00 8:15 19 19 19 19 114 114 228 8:00,9: W. 8:15 8:30 38 38 38 38 114 114 228 8:15-9:15am 8:30 8:45 38 38 38 38 76 76 152 8 30-9:30ant 8:45 9:00 19 19 19 19 9:00 9:15 19 19 19 19 9:15 9:30 0 0 S and PM Fick -Up 0 0 114 114 228 1:45-2:45pm 1:45 2:00 2:00 2:15 38 38 38 38 152152 304 2'00-3:00pm 2:15 2:30 3g 38 38 38 152 152 J01 2:158:15p. 2:30 2:45 39 :9 38 38 114 114 228 2:30-3:30pm 2:45 3:00 38 38 38 38 3:01 3:15 38 38 38 38 3:15 3:30 0 0 M Commute Peak Period 5 5 4 5 9 30 46 76 430-5 30p. 4:30 4:45 4:45 5:00 5 5 4 5 9 35 51 86 4:45.5:45pm 5:00 5:15 10 10 4 10 t4 Q 56 % 5:00-6:00p0 5:15 5:30 10 10 4 10 14 5:30 5:45 10 10 4 10 14 5N5 6:01 10 10 4 10 14 Notes.. fad The namommn enrollment is 300 students, of which 50 students will be in the homesmdy program. Homestudy students do not wine to whool on a daily basis, but when they do, they avow after 9:30 AM and depart before 2:00 PM. Based on data from existing AEA elementary schools, 300/ of students are enrolled in the'6am to 6pm' before and after-whool program, but only 200ib was presumed as a conservative measure. [b] The 24 employees include 7 staff members, 13 full-time end part-time Faculty, 2 home -study teachers, and 2 before and after-school program staff (per %able l ). (c] Based on data from existing AEA elementary schools, approximately 6% of students are not in school on a given day due to absences, and 200/ of students participate in the carpool program. ' A' As a waservative measure, . students are presumed to caryool. TABLE 4 PARKING SUMMARY Description O erational/Parkin Data Maximum enrollment (includes 50 homestudy 300 students students not on site everyday) Classrooms 14 classrooms Home study teachers 2 employees Before/after-class care staff 2 employees Per Prior City Code [a] Prior City Code Ratios [a] 2 sp per classroom, plus req'd. parking for additional uses on site Code -required spaces for school 2 sp x 14 classrooms = (includes parents w/ younger children, staff, 28 spaces faculty, volunteers, school visitors) Plus home study teachers, and 4 spaces before/after-class care staff 32 spaces Per LLG's Practical Estimation Manhattan Academy (Manhattan Beach) 0.10 sp/student Carl Hankey Elementary (Mission Viejo) 0.12 sp/student AEA Endeavour Academy (San Diego) 0.13 sp/student St. Paul's Lutheran School (Orange) 0.15 sp/student Independence Christian School (Orange) 0.21 sp/student Average of all available ratios: 0.14 sp/student Add 10% Contingency: Parking demand for school 0.16 sp x 300 students = (includes parents w/ younger children, staff, 48 spaces faculty, volunteers, school visitors) Plus home study teachers, and 4 spaces before/after-class care staff 52 spaces Future parking supply on site 123 spaces Parking surplus (+) or deficiency (-) 71 spACO' ' ' (i.e., supply minus demand) Note: [a] The City of Santa Clarita has recently updated Chapter 17.18 of the Municipal Code, which pertains to parking standards. The Parking Code update for primary and secondary schools indicates that the Code parking requirement corresponds to "As determined by the Director." For illustrative purposes, the older, prior Code ratios were applied to the project to validate the reasonableness of the parking demand calculated through practical estimation. SOURCE: GOOGLE e KEY FIGURE 1 tNO STUDY INTERSECTION SCALE — PROJECT SITE VICINITY MAP ALBERT EINSTEIN ACADEMY, SANTA CLARITA DVOI Nd9 SCh Woodward lna (" • 9d a a sm PMdee - O . Ice stalwn Valencia B Subnefion NNislop • nN. A.. Satin g y a 2 Ng John McCanh�lp':.'.:'. ` o • Ullmale ➢an+iig .Nv V • x m 4cedemY aVyi 4�i �$ wAitewale, pi I C", P'la AUTD RLD ''Co4ision �ryi '�P az>a [sorer � •sae SMzen 90. S. •y 4 m ya" p+sn xenmberWhm B., o•" i tl SaspboohN Ca ssoa ♦ Y Velerrla Mernage Park i Exirg VrigatAxr 6_ O� O flak Parts y i sena Cbril♦314dba�;p 9a as PS Ph �9» NOvaCaO. MK . �>° • ,"Em y� 114 Hondo Performance DereloPon+l w 'e A� " e1%6 Parxne Bread V..ni. E E T, t h , G �Y • v 4\de' x a PaRema Callrsion Censer Ave U`r d qP 6 .,ro J • S - - �r�eanrllP c SOURCE: GOOGLE e KEY FIGURE 1 tNO STUDY INTERSECTION SCALE — PROJECT SITE VICINITY MAP ALBERT EINSTEIN ACADEMY, SANTA CLARITA SOURCE: GOGGLE KEY FIGURE 2 N PROJECT SITE NO SCALE PROJECT SITE AERIAL ALBERT EINSTEIN ACADEMY, SANTA CLARITA SIGNAGE FOR NO LEFT -TURN INTO SITE WILL BE INSTALLED ON MEDIAN ft CANYON ROAD — h — _ f1 I I I I I I ; - I — I I amNvavos� I _ o I i I ®NO SCALE FIGURE 3 PROPOSED SITE PLAN ALBERT EINSTEIN ACADEMY, SANTA CLARITA OTTf- - APPHUACH LANE ASSIGNMENT FIGURE 4 • = TRAFFIC SIGNAL.,- STOP SIGN P = PARKING, NP = NO PARKING U = UNDIVIDED, D = DIVIDED NO SCALE 2 = NUMBER OF TRAVEL LANES EXISTING ROADWAY CONDITIONS (XX)- POSTED SPEED LIMIT (MPH) AND INTERSECTON CONTROLS PROJECT SITE ALBERT EINSTEIN ACADEMY, SANTA CLARITA '� VV �Y __ __.. y�r 6 PHASE —SIGNAL �{ 5 PHASE SIGNAL S Req O0 R Q R by y $ 5 PHASE SIGNAL 2J 6�y1 Q 8 PHASE SIGNAL`, �^ P OTTf- - APPHUACH LANE ASSIGNMENT FIGURE 4 • = TRAFFIC SIGNAL.,- STOP SIGN P = PARKING, NP = NO PARKING U = UNDIVIDED, D = DIVIDED NO SCALE 2 = NUMBER OF TRAVEL LANES EXISTING ROADWAY CONDITIONS (XX)- POSTED SPEED LIMIT (MPH) AND INTERSECTON CONTROLS PROJECT SITE ALBERT EINSTEIN ACADEMY, SANTA CLARITA '� VV Cb g::. ir 0 ✓ 0 g P\ 6 o , 1 S sNs �J� S i i 3 9 �ry1�ti Q 8 L 7 l v P KEY PROJECT SITE (tNO SCALE FIGURE 5 EXISTING AM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES ALBERT EINSTEIN ACADEMY, SANTA CLARITA h '' 1� 1Rr e 9� 8 ✓ S� a �� mss• dS 9 1 'd J4. 9 �P C 1 1 4� KEY crr:i =PROJECT SITE tO SCALE FIGURE 6 EXISTING SCHOOL DISMISSAL PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES ALBERT EINSTEIN ACADEMY, SANTA CLARITA ,C0 LF � ,60 � ✓ 'L11 � �C ry n �V 8 l C 9 NEW �P �4`e 6 KEY FIGURE 7 '�"',',-; - PROJECT SITE GREEN �PAN 1, N NO SCALE EXISTING PM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES ALBERT EINSTEIN ACADEMY, SANTA CLARITA -\ A ��yd� — — A mss; = INBOUND PERCENTAGE FIGURE 8 f— = OUTBOUND PERCENTAGE NNO SCALE = PROJECT SITE PROJECT TRIP DISTRIBUTION PATTERN ALBERT EINSTEIN ACADEMY, SANTA CLARITA / Ae�` � t � (tNO SCALE KEY PROJECT SITE FIGURE 9 EXISTING PLUS PROJECT AM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES - 300 STUDENT ENROLLMENT ALBERT EINSTEIN ACADEMY, SANTA CLARITA I ,p0 i � s 3 � m Y \ b P B AF !j 1 � i W � S i (tNO SCALE —S) KEY PROJECT SITE FIGURE 10 EXISTING PLUS PROJECT SCHOOL DISMISSAL PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES — 300 STUDENT ENROLLMENT ALBERT EINSTEIN ACADEMY, SANTA CLARITA IP 66f a 1 a \ a' 3P € h 8 (tNO SCALE d KEY PROJECT SITE FIGURE 11 EXISTING PLUS PROJECT PM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES — 300 STUDENT ENROLLMENT ALBERT EINSTEIN ACADEMY, SANTA CLARITA /— SIGNAGE FOR NO LEFT -TURN INTO SITE WILL BE INSTALLED ON MEDIAN R.TL CAI ROAD •�•�'• w ..,.. .tea FIGURE 12 NO SCALE STUDENT DROPOFF/PICKUP TRAFFIC AND PARKING MANAGEMENT PLAN ALBERT EINSTEIN ACADEMY, SANTA CLARITA L II I I i I i I .I I I I � II 1 1/' ' e II a 1 t I I I I 8 — KEY ENTRY FROM AVENUE SCOTT FULLY PARK FIRST WITH DROP-OFF/PICK-UP STATIONS STAFF/FACULTY/SERVICE VEHICLES y _.. WAIT LINE1 • POST DELINEATORS/CONES NTH (NO LOAOING/UNLOADING) :NO LOADING/UNLOADING" "SHOW _- WAIT LINE 2 (NO LOADING/UNLOADING) • PLACARD" SIGNS POST DELINEATORS/CONES WITH MOVE SIGNSD TO DROPOFF/ ENTRY FROM RYE CANYON RD PICKUP' OPEDESTRIAN 'REFUGE" AREA ® TRAFFIC CONTROL PERSONNEL e FIGURE 12 NO SCALE STUDENT DROPOFF/PICKUP TRAFFIC AND PARKING MANAGEMENT PLAN ALBERT EINSTEIN ACADEMY, SANTA CLARITA SIGNAGE FOR NO LEFT—TURN INTO SITE°WILL BE INSTALLED ON MEDIAN RYE CANYON ROAD .... ,s',4� 5 FIGURE 13 ANO SCALE VEHICLE STACKING ON STUDENT DROP-OFF/PICK-UP LANE ALBERT EINSTEIN ACADEMY, SANTA CLARITA SCHO OSPEE' LIMIT 25 :Rosswu <• 'ME WHEN oRCHUREN JQoRAFNRE • FIN 4L SRa (Oq 5",N l I/ •• 4-I(CA) 5'.GN L' - EXHIBIT D1 TRAFFIC & PARKING STUDY APPENDIX APPENDIX A LEVEL OF SERVICE CALCULATION WORKSHEETS UNSCOTT, UW d GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2.13.3400.1 Albert Einstein Academy, Sema Clarita N,TilSimulia Acadvhy. Sano 661 Nth 'la<Mwv.i:WIhNiO tlnel�—y1' 5 1 APPENDIX A-1 EXISTING TRAFFIC CONDITIONS Limuf, , Uw 8 GREENSPM, engineers LLG Rcf 2-13-3400-1 Albert Einstein Academy, Santa Clarita Lanes, Volumes, Timings AM PEAK 27: Avenue Scott & Rye Canyon Rd/Copperhill Dr Existing .a *-Al� y l � 'X -* 1� R-. Lane Group SEL SET SER NWL NWT NWR NEL NET NER SWL SWT SWR Lane Configurations I p M T r Ttp ) ?T'A Volume (vph) 0 3 0 101 2 173 0 639 136 362 1404 2 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Width (it) 12 11 11 12 12 12 12 11 12 11 11 10 Storage Length (ft) 150 0 0 50 200 0 0 0 Storage Lanes 1 0 2 1 1 0 1 0 Taper Length (ft) 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.91 0.91 1.00 0.91 0.91 Fri 0.850 0.974 Flt Protected 0.950 0.950 Said. Flow (prot) 1863 1801 0 3433 1863 1583 1863 4788 0 1711 4916 0 Flt Permitted 0.950 0.950 Said, Flow (perm) 1863 1801 0 3433 1863 1583 1863 4788 0 1711 4916 0 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Said. Flow (RTOR) 188 31 Link Speed (mph) 35 35 45 45 Link Distance (it) 547 335 307 1700 Travel Time (s) 10.7 6.5 4.7 25.8 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 0 3 0 110 2 188 0 695 148 393 1526 2 Shared Lane Traffic I%) Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 3 0 110 2 188 0 843 0 393 1528 0 Enter Blocked Intersection No No No No No No No No No No No No Lane Alignment Left Left Right Left Left Right Left Left Right Left Left Right Median Width(ft) 24 24 12 12 Link Offset(h) 0 0 0 0 Crosswalk Width(ft) 16 16 16 16 Two way Left Turn Lane Headway Factor 1.00 1.04 1.04 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.04 1.00 1.04 1.04 1.09 Turning Speed (mph) 15 9 15 9 15 9 15 9 Number of Detectors 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Detector Template Leading Detector (ft) 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 Trailing Detector (ft) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Detector 1 Position(ft) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Detector 1 Size(ft) 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 Detector 1 Type CI+Ex CI+Ex CI+Ex CI+Ex CI+Ex CI+Ex CI+Ex CI+Ex CI+Ex Detector 1 Channel Detector 1 Extend (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Detector 1 Queue (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Detector 1 Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 0,0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Turn Type Penn Split Perm Prot Prot Protected Phases 7 3 3 5 2 1 14 6 Permitted Phases 7 3 Detector Phase 7 7 3 3 3 5 2 1 14 6 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4,0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Minimum Split (s) 15.0 15.0 35.0 35.0 35.0 8.5 30.0 45.0 Total Split (s) 15.0 15.0 0.0 35.0 35.0 35.0 20.0 30.0 0.0 52.0 42.0 0.0 LLG Engineers Synchro 7 - Report Page 27 A-1 5(0 Lanes, Volumes, Timings AM PEAK 27: Avenue Scott & Rye Canyon Rd/Copperhill Dr Existing Lane Group et 94 e14 Lane Configurations Volume (vph) Ideal Flow (vphpl) Lane Width (ft) Storage Length (ft) Storage Lanes Taper Length (ft) Lane Util. Factor Frt Fit Protected Satd. Flow (prol) Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Right Turn on Red Satd. Flow (RTOR) Link Speed (mph) Link Distance (ft) Travel Time (s) Peak Hour Factor Adj. Flow (vph) Shared Lane Traffic (%) Lane Group Flow (vph) Enter Blocked Intersection Lane Alignment Median Width(ft) Link Offset(ft) Crosswalk Width(fl) Two way Left Turn Lane Headway Factor Turning Speed (mph) Number of Detectors Detector Template Leading Detector (ft) Trailing Detector (ft) Detector 1 Position(ft) Detector 1 Size(ft) Detector 1 Type Detector 1 Channel Detector 1 Extend (s) Detector 1 Queue (s) Detector 1 Delay (s) Turn Type Protected Phases 1 4 14 Permitted Phases Detector Phase Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 Minimum Split (s) 20.0 35.0 14.0 Total Split (s) 32.0 35.0 20.0 LLG Engineers A-2 Synchro 7 • Report Page 28 Lanes, Volumes, Timings AM PEAK 27: Avenue Scott & Rye Canyon Rd/Copperhill Dr Existing r Lane Group SEL SET SER NWL NWT NWR NEL WL " SWT SWR Total Split (%) 11.4% 11.4% 0.0% 26.5% 26.5% 26.5% 15.2% 22.7% 0.0% 39,4% 31.8% 0.0% Maximum Green (s) 10.0 10.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 15.5 24.0 36.0 Yellow Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.5 5.0 5.0 All -Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust (s) -1.0 -1.0 0.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 -0.5 -2.0 0.0 -0.5 -2.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lead/Lag Lead Lead Lead Lag Lag Lead -Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Recall Mode None None Min Min Min Min C -Min C -Min Walk Time (s) 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 Flash Dont Walk (s) 23.0 23.0 23.0 16.0 27.0 Pedestrian Calls (#Ihr) 2 2 2 0 0 Act Effct Green (s) 6.8 14.2 14.2 14.2 64.6 38.9 69.3 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.05 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.49 0.29 0.52 v/c Ratio 0.03 0.30 0.01 0.56 0.36 0.78 0.59 Control Delay 60.0 54.2 46.0 12.8 25.8 58.0 16.2 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 60.0 54.2 46.0 12.8 25.8 58.0 16.2 LOS E D D B C E B Approach Delay 60.0 28.2 25.8 24.7 Approach LOS E C C C Queue Length 50th (ft) 3 46 2 0 118 358 128 Queue Length 95th (ft) 13 64 9 61 284 m403 211 Internal Link Dist (ft) 467 255 227 1620 Turn Bay Length (ft) 50 Base Capacity(vph) 150 806 438 516 2359 729 2580 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.02 0.14 0.00 0.36 0.36 0.54 0.59 Intersection Summa Area Type: Other Cycle Length: 132 Actuated Cycle Length: 132 Offset: 78 (59%), Referenced to phase 2:NET and 6:SWT, Start of Yellow Natural Cycle: 125 Control Type: Actuated -Coordinated Maximum vic Ratio: 0.78 Intersection Signal Delay: 25.4 Intersection LOS: C Intersection Capacity Utilization 55.0% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min)15 m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. LLG Engineers Synchro 7 - Report Page 29 A-3 59 Lanes, Volumes, Timings AM PEAK 27: Avenue Scott & Rye Canyon Rd/Copperhill Dr Existing LLG Engineers A-4 Synchro 7 - Report Page 30 5q Lanes, Volumes, Timings AM PEAK 27: Avenue Scott & Rye Canyon Rd/Copperhill Dr Existing Lane Group 01 e4 014 Total Split (%) 24% 27% 15% Maximum Green (s) 27.5 30.5 16.0 Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3,5 All -Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 0.5 Lost Time Adjust (s) Total Lost Time (s) LeadlLag Lead Lag Lead -Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 Recall Mode None None None Walk Time (s) 7.0 Flash Dont Walk (s) 23.0 Pedestrian Calls (#fhr) 0 Act Effct Green (s) Actuated g/C Ratio vlc Ratio Control Delay Queue Delay Total Delay LOS Approach Delay Approach LOS Queue Length 50th (11) Queue Length 95th (ft) Internal Link Dist (ft) Turn Bay Length (ft) Base Capacity (vph) Starvation Cap Reductn Spillback Cap Reductn Storage Cap Reductn Reduced vlc Ratio IntersectionSummary _.. LLG Engineers A-5 Synchro 7 - Report Page 31 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis AM PEAK 27: Avenue Scott & Rye Canyon Rd/Copperhill Dr Existing Lane Configurations I T+ 0.64 A) T p A ?4A 15 Vi tfA Volume (vph) 0 3 0 101 2 173 0 639 136 362 1404 2 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Width 12 11 11 12 12 12 12 11 12 11 11 10 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 0.91 1.00 0.91 Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.97 1.00 1.00 Flt Protected 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Said. Flow (prot) 1801 3433 1863 1583 4786 1711 4915 Flt Permitted 1.00 0.95 1,00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Said. Flow (perm) 1801 3433 1863 1583 4786 1711 4915 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 0 3 0 110 2 188 0 695 148 393 1526 2 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 168 0 17 0 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 3 0 110 2 20 0 826 0 393 1528 0 Turn Type Perm Split Perm Prot Prot Protected Phases 7 3 3 5 2 114 6 Permitted Phases 7 3 Actuated Green, G (s) 1.3 13.2 13.2 13.2 58.5 38.5 63.2 Effective Green, g (s) 2.3 14.2 14.2 14.2 60.5 35.5 65.2 ' Actuated g1C Ratio 0.02 0.11 0,11 0.11 0.46 0.27 0.49 Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 6.0 6.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 31 369 200 170 2194 460 2428 v/s Ratio Prot c0.00 c0.03 0.00 0.17 c0.23 c0.31 v/s Ratio Perm 0.01 v/c Ratio 0.10 0.30 0.01 0.12 0.38 0.85 0.63 Uniform Delay, d1 63.8 54.3 52.6 53.2 23.4 45.8 24.5 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.07 1.20 0.65 Incremental Delay, d2 1.4 0.5 0.0 0.3 0.5 9.4 0.8 Delay (s) 65.2 54.8 52.6 53.6 25.6 64.5 16.8 Level of Service E D D D C E B Approach Delay (s) 65.2 540 25.6 26.6 Approach LOS E D C C Intersection Summa HCM Average Control Delay 29.0 HCM Level of Service C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.64 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 132.0 Sum of lost time (s) 16.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 55.0% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group LLG Engineers Synchro 7 - Report Page 32 A-6 � Lanes, Volumes, Timings AM PEAK 29: Avenue Stanford & Avenue Scott Existing __-* -i o f- -4- 4 t/W `► 1 ,/ Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NOT NBR SBL , SBT SBR Lane Configurations + r ►j T+ ►j 0 0 Volume (vph) 11 38 141 9 9 11 194 254 64 47 410 44 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length (ft) 200 100 150 0 190 0 165 0 Storage Lanes 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 Taper Length (ft) 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.95 Frt 0.850 0.918 0.970 0.985 Flt Protected 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 1863 1583 1770 1710 0 1770 3433 0 1770 3486 0 Fit Permitted 0.755 0.755 0.471 0.544 Satd. Flow (perm) 1406 1863 1583 1406 1710 0 877 3433 0 1013 3486 0 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Satd. Flow (RTOR) 153 12 58 21 Link Speed (mph) 30 35 45 45 Link Distance (ft) 434 616 2297 504 Travel Time (s) 9.9 12.0 34.8 7.6 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 12 41 153 10 10 12 211 276 70 51 446 48 Shared Lane Traffic (%) Lane Group Flow (vph) 12 41 153 10 22 0 211 346 0 51 494 0 Enter Blocked Intersection No No No No No No No No No No No No Lane Alignment Left Left Right Left Left Right Left Left Right Left Left Right Median Width(ft) 12 12 12 12 Link Offset(ft) 0 0 0 0 Crosswalk Width(ft) 16 16 16 16 Two way Left Turn Lane Headway Factor 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Turning Speed (mph) 15 9 15 9 15 9 15 9 Number of Detectors 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Detector Template Leading Detector (ft) 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 Trailing Detector (ft) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Detector 1 Position(ft) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Detector 1 Size(ft) 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 Detector 1 Type CI+Ex CI+Ex CI+Ex CI+Ex CI+Ex CI+Ex CI+Ex CI+Ex CI+Ex Detector 1 Channel Detector 1 Extend (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Detector i Queue (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Detector 1 Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Turn Type Perm Perm Perm Perm Perm Protected Phases 4 8 2 6 Permitted Phases 4 4 4 8 2 6 Detector Phase 4 4 4 8 8 2 2 6 6 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Minimum Split (s) 35.0 35.0 35.0 35.0 35.0 26.0 26.0 30.0 30.0 Total Split (s) 35.0 35.0 35.0 35.0 35.0 0.0 30.0 30.0 0.0 30.0 30.0 0.0 Total Split (%) 53.8% 53.8% 53.8% 53.8% 53.8% 0.0% 46.2% 46.2°% 0.0% 46.2% 46.2°% 0.0% LLG Engineers Synchro 7 - Report Page 33 A � 2- Lanes, Volumes, Timings AM PEAK 29: Avenue Stanford & Avenue Scott Existing Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NEIL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Maximum Green (s) 31.0 31.0 31.0 31.0 31.0 26.0 26.0 26.0 26.0 Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All -Red Time (s) 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lead/Lag Lead -Lag Optimize? Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Recall Mode None None None None None Min Min Min Min Walk Time (s) 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 Flash Dont Walk (s) 24.0 24.0 24.0 24.0 24.0 15.0 15.0 19.0 19.0 Pedestrian Calls (#Ihr) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Act Effct Green (s) 6.6 6.6 6.6 6.6 6.6 20.1 20.1 20.1 20.1 Actuated gIC Ralio 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.64 0.64 0.64 0.64 vlc Ratio 0.04 0.11 0.34 0.03 0.06 0.38 0.16 0.08 0.22 Control Delay 11.1 11.4 5.3 11.0 8.6 7.1 3.3 4.2 3.9 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 H 0.0 Total Delay 11.1 11.4 5.3 11.0 8.6 7.1 3.3 4.2 3.9 LOS B B A B A A A A A Approach Delay 6.9 9.3 4.7 3.9 Approach LOS A A A A Queue Length 50th (ft) 1 5 0 1 1 16 9 3 16 Queue Length 95th (it) 10 22 29 9 13 54 23 13 36 Internal Link Dist (ft) 354 536 2217 424 Turn Bay Length (ft) 200 100 150 190 165 Base Capacity(vph) 1321 1750 1496 1321 1607 735 2887 849 2925 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced vlc Ratio 0.01 0.02 0,10 0.01 0.01 0.29 0.12 0.06 0.17 Intersection Summa Area Type: Other Cycle Length: 65 Actuated Cycle Length: 31.6 Natural Cycle: 65 Control Type: Actuated -Uncoordinated Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.38 Intersection Signal Delay: 4.8 Intersection LOS: A Intersection Capacity Utilization 40.8% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min)15 Splits and Phases: 29: Avenue Stanford 8 Avenue Scott LLG Engineers Synchro 7 - Report Page 34 A-8 G3 1 02 4 3103 35!' r;-nl177,77 _ i e6 ~ 08 I 30S LLG Engineers Synchro 7 - Report Page 34 A-8 G3 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 4.8 HCM Level of Service A HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.35 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 32.5 Sum of lost time (s) 8.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization AM PEAK 29: Avenue Stanford & Avenue Scott 15 c Critical Lane Group Existing --* --a. -,* r '~ t -\ t 1*` 1 41 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WEIR NBL -NBT NBR S8L SBT SBR Lane Configurations vj + r vj T4 +T+ ►) 0 Volume (vph) 11 38 141 9 9 11 194 254 64 47 410 44 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.92 1.00 0.97 1.00 0,99 Flt Protected 0.95 1.G0 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1,00 0.95 1.00 Said. Flow (prot) 1770 1863 1583 1770 1710 1770 3432 1770 3488 Flt Permitted 0.75 1.00 1.00 0.75 1.00 0.47 1.00 0.54 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1406 1863 1583 1406 1710 878 3432 1013 3488 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 12 41 153 10 10 12 211 276 70 51 446 48 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 128 0 10 0 0 24 0 0 9 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 12 41 25 10 12 0 211 322 0 51 485 0 Turn Type Perm Perm Perm Perm Perm Protected Phases 4 8 2 6 Permitted Phases 4 4 4 8 2 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 5.3 5.3 5.3 5.3 5.3 19.2 19.2 19.2 19.2 Effective Green, g (s) 5.3 5.3 5.3 5.3 5.3 19.2 19.2 19.2 19.2 Actuated g1C Ratio 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.59 0.59 0.59 0.59 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 229 304 258 229 279 519 2028 598 2061 vls Ratio Prot c0.02 0.01 0.09 0.14 vls Ratio Perm 0.01 0.02 0.01 c0.24 0.05 vlc Ratio 0.05 0.13 0.10 0.04 0.04 0.41 0.16 0.09 0.24 Uniform Delay, dl 11.5 11.6 11.6 11.5 11.5 3.6 3.0 2.9 3.2 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.5 0.0 0.1 0.1 Delay (s) 11.6 11.8 11.7 11.5 11.5 4.1 3.0 2.9 3.2 Level of Service B B B B B A A A A Approach Delay (s) 11.7 11.5 3.4 3.2 Approach LOS B B A A Intersectimi Summa NCM Average Control Delay 4.8 HCM Level of Service A HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.35 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 32.5 Sum of lost time (s) 8.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 40.8% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group LLG Engineers Synchro 7 - Report Page 35 A-9 0 Lanes, Volumes, Timings AM PEAK 9: Avenue Tibbilts & Avenue Scott Existing --` ' '- t 4% t �► 1 r Lane Group EBL EBT ESR- WBL' WBT WEIR N8L NBT NBR SBL SST SBR Lane Configurations Vi +T* ►j d er I }p I T? If Volume (vph) 135 51 185 1 8 10 153 367 116 27 453 80 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length (ft) 100 0 190 0 150 0 190 100 Storage Lanes 1 0 1 2 1 0 1 1 Taper Length (ft) 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.88 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Frl 0.882 0.850 0.964 0.850 At Protected 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950 Said. Flow (prot) 1770 3122 0 1681 1770 2787 1770 3412 0 1770 3539 1583 Flt Permitted 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950 Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 3122 0 1681 1770 2787 1770 3412 0 1770 3539 1583 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Satd. Flow (RTOR) 201 11 27 67 Link Speed (mph) 35 35 45 45 Link Distance (it) 795 973 1589 2297 Travel Time (s) 15,5 19.0 24.1 34.8 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 147 55 201 1 9 11 166 399 126 29 492 87 Shared Lane Traffic (%) 10% Lane Group Flow (vph) 147 256 0 1 9 11 166 525 0 29 492 87 Enter Blocked Intersection No No No No No No No No No No No No Lane Alignment Left Left Right Left Left Right Left Left Right Left Left Right Median Width(ft) 12 12 12 12 Link Offset(ft) 0 0 0 0 Crosswalk Width(ft) 16 16 16 16 Two way Left Turn Lane Headway Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Turning Speed (mph) 15 9 15 9 15 9 15 9 Number of Detectors 1 2 1 2 1 1 2 1 2 1 Detector Template Left Thru Left Thru Right Left Thru Left Thru Right Leading Detector (ft) 20 100 20 100 20 20 100 20 100 20 Trailing Detector (ft) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Detector 1 Posifion(ft) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Detector 1 Size(ft) 20 6 20 6 20 20 6 20 6 20 Detector 1 Type CI+Ex CI+Ex CI+Ex CI+Ex CI+Ex CI+Ex CI+Ex CI+Ex CI+Ex CI+Ex Detector 1 Channel Detector 1 Extend (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Detector 1 Queue (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 U 0.0 0.0 0.0 Detector 1 Delay (s) 0.0 QO 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Detector 2 Position(ft) 94 94 94 94 Detector 2 Size(ft) 6 6 6 6 Detector 2 Type CI+Ex CI+Ex CI+Ex CI+Ex Detector 2 Channel Detector 2 Extend (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Turn Type Split Split pm+ov Prot Prot Perm Protected Phases 3 3 4 4 5 1 6 5 2 Permitted Phases 4 6 2 Detector Phase 3 3 4 4 5 1 6 5 2 2 LLG Engineers Synchro 7 - Report Page 15 A_10 � 5 Lanes, Volumes, Timings AM PEAK 9: Avenue Tibbitts & Avenue Scott Existing -1, ---0- '- 1 t 1 " Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WB[-' WBF -' WSR NSC" NT NBR SSL ' ` SBT SBR Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Minimum Split (s) 33.0 33.0 10.0 10.0 8.5 8.5 39.0 8.5 33.0 33.0 Total Split (s) 31.0 31.0 0.0 31.0 31.0 44.5 24.5 56.0 0.0 44.5 76.0 76.0 Total Split (%) 19.1% 19.1% 0.0% 19.1% 19.1% 27.4% 15.1% 34.5% 0.0% 27.4% 46.8% 46.8% Maximum Green (s) 25.0 25.0 25.0 25.0 40.0 20.0 50.0 40.0 70.0 70.0 Yellow Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 3.5 3.5 5.0 3.5 5.0 5.0 All -Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust (s) -2.0 -2.0 0.0 -2.0 -2.0 -0.5 -0.5 -2.0 0.0 -0.5 -2.0 -2.0 Total Lost Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lead/Lag Lead Lead Lag Lag Lag Lead Lead Lag Lag Lag Lead -Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Recall Mode None None None None None None Min None Min Min Walk Time (s) 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 Flash Dont Walk (s) 20.0 20.0 26.0 20.0 20.0 Pedestrian Calls (Or) 0 0 0 0 0 Act Effct Green (s) 14.0 14.0 8.4 8.4 11.8 13.6 29.4 10.6 18.6 18.6 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.23 0.23 0.14 0.14 0.19 0.22 0.48 0.17 0.31 0.31 vlc Ratio 0.36 0.29 0.00 0.04 0.02 0.42 0.31 0.09 0.45 0.16 Control Delay 25.9 8.0 32.0 31.2 7.3 27.0 14.6 24.4 20.1 8.9 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 25.9 8.0 32.0 31.2 7.3 27.0 14.6 24.4 20.1 8.9 LOS C A C C A C B C C A Approach Delay 14.5 18.7 17.5 18.7 Approach LOS B B B B Queue Length 50th (ft) 41 7 0 3 0 47 32 9 65 4 Queue Length 95th (ft) 128 44 5 20 3 144 178 36 170 43 Internal Link Dist (ft) 715 893 1509 2217 Tum Bay Length (ft) 100 190 150 190 100 Base Capacity(vph) 842 1590 8D0 842 2047 639 2943 1263 3394 1521 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.17 0.16 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.26 0.18 0.02 0.14 0.D6 Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Cycle Length: 162.5 Actuated Cycle Length: 60.7 Natural Cycle: 95 Control Type: Actuated -Uncoordinated Maximum v/c Rata: 0.45 Intersection Signal Delay: 17.3 Intersection LOS: B Intersection Capacity Utilization 45.1 % ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min)15 LLG Engineers Synchro 7 - Report Page 16 A -I I % b Lanes, Volumes, Timings AM PEAK 9: Avenue Tibbitts & Avenue Scott Existing LLG Engineers Synchro7- Report Page 17 A-12 / q HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis AM PEAK 9: Avenue Tibbitts & Avenue Scott Existing -.4 _0� -,* 'r t- 4� 1 r `► 1 -� S8L SBT SBR Lane Configurations ►j +A 0.42 ►j FT ri 45.1% ICU Level of Service A fp 15 c Critical Lane Group TT r Volume (vph) 135 51 185 1 8 10 153 367 116 27 453 80 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4,0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0,95 0.95 0.95 0.88 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.88 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.96 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1,00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd.Flow (prol) 1770 3122 1681 1770 2787 1770 3412 1770 3539 1583 Fit Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 3122 1681 1770 2787 1770 3412 1770 3539 1583 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0,92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 147 55 201 1 9 11 166 399 126 29 492 87 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 160 0 0 0 10 0 15 0 0 0 45 Lane Group Flow (vph) 147 96 0 1 9 1 166 510 0 29 492 42 Turn Type Split Split pm+ov Prot Prot Perm Protected Phases 3 3 4 4 5 1 6 5 2 Permitted Phases 4 6 2 Actuated Green, G (s) 11.8 11.8 0.9 0.9 6.5 13.0 27.3 5.6 19.9 19.9 Effective Green, g (s) 13.8 13.8 2.9 2.9 7.5 13.5 29.3 6.1 21.9 21.9 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.20 0.20 0.04 0.04 0.11 0.20 0.43 0.09 0.32 0.32 Clearance Time (s) 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 4.5 4.5 6.0 4.5 6.0 6.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 359 633 72 75 307 351 1468 159 1138 509 vls Ratio Prot c0.08 0.03 0.00 c0.01 0.00 c0.09 0.15 0.02 c0.14 v/s Ratio Perm 0.00 0.03 vlc Ratio 0.41 0.15 0.01 0.12 0.00 0.47 0.35 0.18 0.43 0.08 Uniform Delay, d 23.6 22.3 31.2 31.4 27.0 24.2 13.0 28.7 18.2 16.1 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.8 0.1 0.1 0.7 0.0 1.0 0.1 0.6 0.3 0.1 Delay (s) 24.4 22.4 31.3 32.1 27.0 25.2 13.1 29.2 18.5 16.2 Level of Service C C C C C C B C B B Approach Delay (s) 23.1 29.4 16.0 18.7 Approach LOS C C B B Intersection Summa HCM Average Control Delay 18.8 HCM Level of Service B HCM Volume to Capadty ratio 0.42 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 68.1 Sum of lost time (s) 16.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 45.1% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group LLG Engineers Synchro 7 - Report Page 18 A-13 �� Lanes, Volumes, Timings 1.04 1.00 1.00 1.09 0.96 Turning Speed (mph) 15 9 9 AM PEAK 5: Ave Scott & McBean Parkway Number of Detectors 1 1 1 1 1 Detector Template 50 Existing 50 50 Leading Detector (ft) 50 50 50 50 50 Trailing Detector (ft) 0 0 0 0 Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WET WEIR NNI::``- � OR NBR2 SWL2 SWL SWR Lane Configurations M T rif ►j►j 0 CI+Ex 1) rrrr r a) 1111 r Volume (vph) 145 107 387 248 55 27 489 809 100 20 1762 92 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Width (ft) 11 12 12 10 13 8 11 11 12 10 12 16 Storage Length (ft) 250 8 200 300 15.0 0 300 300 Minimum Initial (s) 4.0 200 200 Storage Lanes 2 Minimum Split (s) 1 2 15.0 0 2 1 15.0 45.0 1 1 Taper Length (ft) 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 1.00 0.88 0.97 0.95 0.95 0.97 0.64 1.00 1.00 0.91 1.00 Frt 0.850 0.951 0.850 0.850 0.850 Flt Protected 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950 Said. Flow (prol) 3319 1863 2787 3204 3478 0 3319 3918 1583 1652 6441 1794 Flt Permitted 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950 Said. Flow (perm) 3319 1863 2787 3204 3478 0 3319 3918 1583 1652 6441 1794 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Said. Flow (RTOR) 6 29 109 73 Link Speed (mph) 30 30 50 50 Link Distance (ft) 522 438 610 971 Travel Time (s) 11.9 10.0 8.3 13.2 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 158 116 421 270 60 29 532 879 109 22 1915 100 Shared Lane Traffic (%) Lane Group Flow (vph) 158 116 421 270 89 0 532 879 109 22 1915 100 Enter Blocked Intersection No No No No No No No No No No No No Lane Alignment Left Left Right Left Left Right Left Right Right Left Left Right Median Width(ft) 22 22 22 58 Link Offset(ft) 0 0 0 0 Crosswalk Width(ft) 16 16 16 16 Two way Left Tum Lane Headway Factor 1.04 1.00 1.00 1.09 0.96 Turning Speed (mph) 15 9 9 15 9 Number of Detectors 1 1 1 1 1 Detector Template 50 50 50 50 50 Leading Detector (ft) 50 50 50 50 50 Trailing Detector (ft) 0 0 0 0 0 Detector i Position(ft) 0 0 0 0 0 Detector 1 Size(ft) 50 50 50 50 50 Detector 1 Type CI+Ex Ct+Ex CI+Ex CI+Ex CI+Ex Detector 1 Channel 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Detector 1 Extend (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Detector 1 Queue (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Detector 1 Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Turn Type Prot 6 pm+ov Prot 6 Protected Phases 7 4 1 3 8 Permitted Phases 4.0 4.0 4 4.0 4.0 Detector Phase 7 4 1 3 8 Switch Phase 52.0 15.0 20.0 47.0 52.0 Minimum Initial (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Minimum Split (s) 12.0 44.5 15.0 12.0 43.5 Total Split (s) 15.0 45.0 25.0 15.0 45.0 LLG Engineers 1.20 1.04 1.04 1.00 1.09 1.00 0.85 9 15 9 9 15 15 9 1 1 1 1 1 1 50 50 50 50 50 50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 50 50 50 50 50 50 CI+Ex CI+Ex CI+Ex CI+Ex CI+Ex CI+Ex 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 custom custom Prot custom 1 6 3 5 2 6 6 1 6 3 5 2 6 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 15.0 35.0 12.0 12.0 40.0 35.0 0.0 25.0 52.0 15.0 20.0 47.0 52.0 Synchro 7 - Report Page 9 A-14 /_1 Lanes, Volumes, Timings AM PEAK 5: Ave Scott & McBean Parkway Existing -JW __J. --t �+-z �' r `r ✓ Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBR NBR2 tWR Total Split 1%) 11.4% 34.1% 18.9% 11.4% 34.1% 0.0% 18.9% 39.4% 11.4% 15.2% 35.6% 39.4% Maximum Green (s) 10.5 39.5 20.5 10.5 39.5 20.5 46.0 10.5 15.5 41.0 46.0 Yellow Time (s) 3.5 4.5 3.5 35 4.5 3.5 5.0 3.5 3.5 5.0 5.0 All-Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust (s) -0.5 -1.5 -0.5 -0.5 -1.5 0.0 -0.5 -2.0 -0.5 -0.5 -2.0 -2.0 Total Lost Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lead Lead Lag Lead Lead Lead Lag Lag Lead Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Recall Mode None None Min None None Min C-Max None None C-Max C-Max Walk Time (s) 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 Flash Dont Walk (s) 32.0 27.0 22.0 27.0 22.0 Pedestrian Calls (#/hr) 0 0 0 0 0 Act Eftcl Green (s) 10.5 15.1 50.4 11.0 15.6 31.3 81.9 94.5 12.1 58.6 81.9 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.08 0.11 0.38 0.08 0.12 0.24 0.62 0.72 0.09 0.44 0.62 We Ratio 0.60 0.54 0.39 1.01 0.20 0.68 0.36 0.09 0.14 0.67 0.09 Control Delay 68.6 64.1 29.6 117.3 35.7 50.3 14.7 1.1 54.8 31.4 5.4 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 68.6 64.1 29.6 117.3 35.7 50.3 14.7 1.1 54.8 31.4 5.4 LOS E E C F D D 8 A D C A Approach Delay 44.3 97.1 26.2 30.3 Approach LOS D F C C Queue Length 50th (ft) 68 95 146 -122 24 215 160 0 17 348 10 Queue Length 95th (ft) 106 154 173 #217 49 267 214 11 44 440 39 Internal Link Dist (ft) 442 358 530 891 Turn Bay Length (ft) 250 200 300 300 300 300 200 200 200 Base Capacity(vph) 277 579 1068 267 1100 787 2431 1164 200 2859 1141 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.57 0.20 0.39 1.01 0.08 0.68 0.36 0.09 0.11 0.67 0.09 Intersection Summ Area Type: Other Cycle Length: 132 Actuated Cycle Length: 132 Offset: 96 (73%), Referenced to phase 2:SWL and 6:SWR, Start of Yellow Natural Cycle: 115 Control Type: Actuated -Coordinated Maximum v/c Ratio: 1,01 Intersection Signal Delay: 36.3 Intersection LOS: D Intersection Capacity Utilization 62.8% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min)15 - Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. LLG Engineers Synchro 7 - Report Page 10 A-15 1 O Lanes, Volumes, Timings AM PEAK 5: Ave Scott & McBean Parkway Existing LLG Engineers Synchro 7 - Report Page 11 A-16 '71 I HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis AM PEAK 5: Ave Scott & McBean Parkway Existing _jf ..► 1 'r f-- t 4% �' r �► l Lane Configurations f rr +to rrrrr r ►j ri r Volume (vph) 145 107 387 248 55 27 489 809 100 20 1762 92 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Width 11 12 12 10 13 8 11 11 12 10 12 16 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane U6I. Factor 0.97 1.00 0,88 0.97 0.95 0.97 0.64 1.00 1.00 0.91 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0,85 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.85 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 Said. Flow (Prot) 3319 1863 2787 3204 3478 3319 3918 1583 1652 6441 1794 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 Said. Flow (Perm) 3319 1863 2787 3204 3478 3319 3918 1583 1652 6441 1794 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 092 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 158 116 421 270 60 29 532 879 109 22 1915 100 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 4 0 26 0 0 0 35 0 0 29 Lane Group Flow (vph) 158 116 417 270 63 0 532 879 74 22 1915 71 Turn Type Prot Pm+ov Prot custom custom Prot custom Protected Phases 7 4 1 3 8 1 6 3 5 2 Permitted Phases 4 6 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 10.0 13.6 44.4 10.5 14.1 30.8 78,1 88.6 9.3 56.6 78.1 Effective Green, g (s) 10.5 15.1 45.4 11.0 15.6 31.3 80.1 89.6 9.8 58.6 80.1 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.06 0.11 0.34 0.08 0.12 0.24 0.61 0.68 0.07 0.44 0.61 Clearance Time (s) 4.5 5.5 4.5 4.5 5.5 4.5 6.0 4.5 4.5 6.0 6.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 264 213 959 267 411 787 2378 1075 123 2859 1089 Ws Ratio Prot 0.05 00.06 0.10 c0.08 0.02 c0.16 0.22 0.01 0.01 c0.30 vls Ratio Perm 0.05 0.04 0.04 vic Ratio 0.60 0.54 0.43 1.01 0.15 0.68 0.37 0.07 0.18 0.67 0.07 Uniform Delay, dl 58.7 55.2 33.4 60.5 52.3 45.7 13.2 7.1 57.3 29.0 10.6 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 3,6 2.8 0.3 58.0 0.2 2.3 0.4 0.0 0.7 1.3 0.1 Delay (s) 62.3 58.0 33.7 118.5 52.5 48.1 13.6 7.2 58.0 30.3 10.7 Level of Service E E C F D D B A E C B Approach Delay (s) 44.3 102.1 25.2 29.6 Approach LOS D F C C Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 36.0 HCM Level of Service D HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.69 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 132.0 Sum of lost time (s) 16.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 62.8% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group LLG Engineers A-17 Synchro 7 - Report Page 12 Lanes, Volumes, Timings SCHOOL DISMISSAL PEAK 27: Avenue Scott & Rye Canyon Rd/Copperhill Dr Existing Lane Group SEL SET SER NWL NWT NWR NEL NET NER SWIL , SWT SWR Lane Configurations Vi A f r 1 +0 ) +p Volume (vph) 7 1 4 150 3 177 2 859 136 176 602 1 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Width (ft) 12 11 11 12 12 12 12 11 12 11 11 10 Storage Length (ft) 150 0 0 50 200 0 0 0 Storage Lanes 1 0 2 1 1 0 1 0 Taper Length (ft) 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 Lane Uhl Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.91 0.91 1.00 0.91 0.91 Frt 0.880 0.850 0.979 Flt Protected 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950 Said. Flow (prot) 1770 1585 0 3433 1863 1583 1770 4813 0 1711 4916 0 Fit Permitted 0.950 0.950 0.950 Said. Flow (perm) 1863 1585 0 3433 1863 1583 1770 4813 0 1711 4916 0 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Said. Flow (RTOR) 4 192 21 Link Speed (mph) 35 35 45 45 Link Distance (ft) 547 335 307 1700 Travel Time (s) 10.7 6.5 4.7 25.8 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adi. Flow (vph) 8 1 4 163 3 192 2 934 148 191 654 1 Shared Lane Traffic (%) Lane Group Flow (vph) 8 5 0 163 3 192 2 1082 0 191 655 0 Enter Blocked Intersection No No No No No No No No No No No No Lane Alignment Left Left Right Left Left Right Left Left Right Left Left Right Median Width(ft) 24 24 12 12 Link Offset(ft) 0 0 0 0 Crosswalk Width(ft) 16 16 16 16 Two way Left Tum Lane Headway Factor 1.00 1.04 1.04 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.04 1.00 1.04 1.04 1.09 Turning Speed (mph) 15 9 15 9 15 9 15 9 Number of Detectors 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Detector Template Leading Detector (ft) 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 Trailing Detector (ft) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Detector 1 Position(ft) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Detector 1 Sze(ft) 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 Detector 1 Type CI+Ex CI+Ex CI+Ex CI+Ex CI+Ex G+Ex CI+Ex CI+Ex CI+Ex Detector 1 Channel Detector 1 Extend (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Detector 1 Queue (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Detector 1 Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Turn Type Perm Split Perm Prot Prot Protected Phases 7 3 3 5 2 114 6 Permitted Phases 7 3 Detector Phase 7 7 3 3 3 5 2 114 6 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Minimum Split (s) 15.0 15.0 35.0 35.0 35.0 8.5 30.0 45.0 Total Split (s) 15.0 15.0 0.0 35.0 35.0 35.0 20.0 34.0 0.0 48.0 42.0 0.0 LLG Engineers Synchro 7 - Report Page 27 A-18 -7� Lanes, Volumes, Timings SCHOOL DISMISSAL PEAK 27: Avenue Scott & Rye Canyon Rd/Copperhill Dr Existing 01 e4 014 Lane Configurations Volume (vph) Ideal Flow (vphpl) Lane Width (ft) Storage Length (ft) Storage Lanes Taper Length (ft) Lane Util. Factor Frt Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prof) Flt Permitted Said. Flow (perm) Right Turn on Red Said. Flow (RTOR) Link Speed (mph) Link Distance (ft) Travel Time (s) Peak Hour Factor Adj. Flow (vph) Shared Lane Traffic (°k) Lane Group Flow (vph) Enter Blocked Intersection Lane Alignment Median Width(ft) Link Offset(ft) Crosswalk Width(ft) Two way Left Turn Lane Headway Factor Turning Speed (mph) Number of Detectors Detector Template Leading Detector (ft) Trailing Detector (ft) Detector 1 Position(ft) Detector 1 Size(ft) Detector 1 Type Detector 1 Channel Detector 1 Extend (s) Detector 1 Queue (s) Detector 1 Delay (s) Turn Type Protected Phases 1 4 14 Permitted Phases Detector Phase Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 Minimum Split (s) 20.0 35.0 14.0 Total Split (s) 28.0 35.0 20.0 LLG Engineers A-19 Synchro 7 - Report Page 28 Lanes, Volumes, Timings SCHOOL DISMISSAL PEAK 27: Avenue Scoff & Rye Canyon Rdl/Copperhill Dr Existing "* %XIr 1r� *%l y/ Total Split (%) Maximum Green (s) Yellow Time (s) All -Red Time (s) Lost Time Adjust (s) Total Lost Time (s) Lead/Lag Lead -Lag Optimize? Vehicle Extension (s) Recall Mode Walk Time (s) Flash Dont Walk (s) Pedestrian Calls (#Ihr) Act Effct Green (s) Actuated g/C Ratio v/c Ratio Control Delay Queue Delay Total Delay LOS Approach Delay Approach LOS Queue Length 50th (ft) Queue Length 95th (ft) Internal Link Dist (ft) Turn Bay Length (ft) Base Capacity (vph) Starvation Cap Reductn Spillback Cap Reductn Storage Cap Reductn Reduced v/c Ratio Intwsection Summ 11.4% 10.0 4.0 1.0 -1.0 4.0 Lead Yes 3.0 None 7.4 0.06 0.08 60.0 0.0 60.0 E 7 24 11.4% 10.0 4.0 1.0 -1.0 4.0 Lead Yes 3.0 None 7.4 0.06 0.05 39.8 0.0 39.8 D 52.2 D 1 15 467 0.0% 26.5% 26.5% 26.5% 30.0 30.0 30.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.0 Min 7.0 23.0 2 15.7 0.12 0.40 55.1 0.0 55.1 E N 3.0 Min 7.0 23.0 2 15.7 0.12 0.01 45.0 0.0 45.0 D 31.8 C 2 11 255 3.0 Min 7.0 23.0 2 15.7 0.12 0.54 11.9 0.0 11.9 B nc� 15.2% 15.5 3.5 1.0 -0.5 4.0 Lead Yes 3.0 Min 6.3 0.05 0.02 50.0 0.0 50.0 D 0 2 62 m4 25.8% 28.0 5.0 1.0 -2.0 4.0 Lead Yes 3.0 C -Min 7.0 16.0 0 70.0 0.53 0.42 27.7 0.0 27.7 C 27.8 C 243 383 227 0.0% 36.4% 0.0 -0.5 4,0 4.0 25.4 0.19 0.58 21.8 00 21.8 C f<<L 36.0 5.0 1.0 -2.0 4.0 Lag Yes 3.0 C -Min 7.0 27.0 0 79.5 0.60 0.22 16.8 0.0 16.8 B 18.0 B 71 141 1620 150 50 200 155 136 806 438 519 215 2562 518 2960 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.05 0.04 0.20 0.01 0.37 0.01 0.42 0.37 0.22 Area Type: Other Cycle Length: 132 Actuated Cycle Length. 132 Offset: 54 (41 %), Referenced to phase 2:NET and 6:SWT, Start of Yellow Natural Cycle: 125 Control Type: Actuated -Coordinated Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.58 Intersection Signal Delay: 24.9 Intersection LOS: C Intersection Capacity Utilization 50.3% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 16 m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. LLG Engineers 0.0 4.0 Synchro 7 - Report Page 29 A-70 -75 Lanes, Volumes, Timings SCHOOL DISMISSAL PEAK 27: Avenue Scott & Rye Canyon Rd/Copperhill Dr Existing LLG Engineers A -2i Synchro 7 - Report Page 30 76 Lanes, Volumes, Timings SCHOOL DISMISSAL PEAK 27: Avenue Scott & Rye Canyon Rd/Copperhill Dr Existing Lane Group 01 M 014 Total Split (%) 21% 27% 15% Maximum Green (s) 23.5 30.5 16.0 Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 All -Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 0.5 Lost Time Adjust (s) Total Lost Time (s) Lead/Lag Lag Lag Lead -Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 Recall Mode None None None Walk Time (s) 7.0 Flash Dont Walk (s) 23.0 Pedestrian Calls (#/hr) 0 Act Eifct Green (s) Actuated g/C Ratio v/c Ratio Control Delay Queue Delay Total Delay LOS Approach Delay Approach LOS Queue Length 50th (ft) Queue Length 95th (fl) Intemal Link Dist (fl) Turn Bay Length (ft) Base Capacity (vph) Starvation Cap Raductn Spillback Cap Reducln Storage Cap Reducin Reduced v/c Ratio Intersection Summary LIG Engineers A -z') Synchro 7 - Report Page 31 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis SCHOOL DISMISSAL PEAK 27: Avenue Scott & Rye Canyon Rd/Copperhill Dr Existing Lane Configurations I 1a 11 + F I "T+ ) NT# Volume (vph) 7 1 4 150 3 177 2 859 136 176 602 1 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Width 12 11 11 12 12 12 12 11 12 11 11 10 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.91 1.00 0.91 Fri 1.00 0.88 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 Fit Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.D0 Said. Flow (prot) 1770 1585 3433 1863 15M 1770 4815 1711 4915 Flt Permitted 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Said. Flow (perm) 1863 1585 3433 1863 1583 1770 4815 1711 4915 Peak -hour factor,PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Ad. Flow (vph) 8 1 4 163 3 192 2 934 148 191 654 1 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 4 0 0 0 169 0 10 0 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 8 1 0 163 3 23 2 1072 0 191 655 0 Turn Type Perm Split Perm Prot Prot Protected Phases 7 3 3 5 2 1 14 6 Permitted Phases 7 3 Actuated Green, G (s) 3.0 3.0 14.7 14.7 14.7 5.8 64.8 25.0 74.3 Effective Green, g (s) 4.0 4.0 15.7 15.7 15.7 6.3 66.8 26.0 76.3 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.03 0.03 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.05 0.51 0.20 0.58 Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 4.5 6.0 60 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap(vph) 56 48 408 222 188 84 2437 337 2841 vls Ratio Prot 0.D0 00.05 0.00 0.00 c0.22 00.11 0.13 vls Ratio Perm 00.00 0.01 vlc Ratio 0.14 0.02 0.40 0.01 0.12 0.02 0.44 0.57 0.23 Uniform Delay, dl 62.3 62.1 53.8 51.3 52.0 59.9 20.7 47.9 13.6 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.D0 1.00 1.00 0.83 1.24 0.51 1.11 Incremental Delay, d2 1.2 0.2 0.6 OA 0.3 0.1 0.6 2.1 0.2 Delay (s) 63.5 62.3 54.4 51.3 52.3 49.9 26.3 26.4 15.3 Level of Service E E D D D D C C B Approach Delay (s) 63.0 53.3 26.3 17.8 Approach LOS E D C B Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 27.6 HCM Level of Service C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.45 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 132.0 Sum of lost time (s) 20.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 50.3% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group LLG Engineers Synchro 7 - Report Page 32 A-23 _� R Lanes, Volumes, Timings SCHOOL DISMISSAL PEAK 29: Avenue Stanford & Avenue Scott Existing 14 -* -V t 4/ Lane Configurations ►j ►j �� �� Volume (vph) 54 32 173 54 33 43 103 233 85 34 251 28 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length (ft) 200 100 150 0 190 0 165 0 Storage Lanes 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 Taper Length (ft) 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 1,00 0.95 0.95 Frt 0.850 0.915 0.960 0.985 FIt Protected 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950 Said. Flow (prot) 1770 1863 1683 1770 1704 0 1770 3398 0 1770 3486 0 At Permitted 0.714 0.734 0.567 0.545 Satd. Flow (perm) 1330 1863 1583 1367 1704 0 1056 3398 0 1015 3486 0 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Satd. Flow (RTOR) 188 47 92 21 Link Speed (mph) 30 35 45 45 Link Distance (11) 434 616 2297 504 Travel Time (s) 9.9 12.0 34.8 7.6 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 59 35 188 59 36 47 112 253 92 37 273 30 Shared Lane Traffic (%) Lane Group Flow (vph) 59 35 188 59 83 0 112 345 0 37 303 0 Enter Blocked Intersection No No No No No No No No No No No No Lane Alignment Left Left Right Left Left Right Left Left Right Left Left Right Median Width(ft) 12 12 12 12 Link Offset(ft) 0 0 0 0 Crosswalk Width(ft) 16 16 16 16 Two way Left Tum Lane Headway Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Turning Speed (mph) 15 9 15 9 15 9 15 9 Number of Detectors 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Detector Template Leading Detector (ft) 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 Trailing Detector (ft) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Detector 1 Position(ft) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Detector 1 Size(ft) 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 Detector 1 Type CI+Ex CI+Ex CI+Ex CI+Ex CI+Ex CI+Ex CI+Ex CI+Ex CI+Ex Detector 1 Channel Detector 1 Extend (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Detector 1 Queue (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Detector 1 Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Turn Type Perm Perm Perm Perm Perm Protected Phases 4 8 2 6 Permitted Phases 4 4 4 8 2 6 Detector Phase 4 4 4 8 8 2 2 6 6 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4,0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Minimum Split (s) 35.0 35.0 35.0 35.0 35.0 26.0 26.0 30.0 30.0 Total Split (s) 35.0 35.0 35.0 35.0 35.0 0.0 30.0 30.0 0.0 30.0 30.0 0.0 Total Split (%) 53.8% 53.8% 53.8% 53.8% 53.8% 0.0% 46.2% 46.2% 0.0% 46.2% 46.2% 0.0% LLG Engineers Synchro 7 - Report Page 33 A-24 Lanes, Volumes, Timings SCHOOL DISMISSAL PEAK 29: Avenue Stanford & Avenue Scott Existing -' --a. -,* s '- 4% t 1* \� l r Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBC ` Or NBR SBL SBT SBR Maximum Green (s) 31.0 31.0 31.0 31.0 31.0 26.0 26.0 26.0 26.0 Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All -Red Time (s) 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lead/Lag Lead -Lag Optimize? Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Recall Mode None None None None None Min Min Min Min Walk Time (s) 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 Flash Dont Walk (s) 24.0 24.0 24.0 24.0 24.0 15.0 15.0 19.0 19.0 Pedestrian Calls (#/hr) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Act Effct Green (s) 6.7 6.7 6.7 6.7 6.7 11.9 11.9 11.9 11.9 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.28 0.28 0.28 0.28 0.28 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 v/c Ratio 0.16 0.07 0.33 0.15 0.16 0.21 0.20 0.07 0.17 Control Delay 7.7 6.8 3.3 7.6 4.7 6.7 4.1 5.5 4.9 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 7.7 6.8 3.3 7.6 4.7 6.7 4.1 5.5 4.9 LOS A A A A A A A A A Approach Delay 4.7 5.9 41 5,0 Approach LOS A A A A Queue Length 50th (ft) 4 2 0 4 2 7 8 2 9 Queue Length 95th (ft) 17 11 18 17 16 24 21 10 22 Intemal Link Dist (ft) 354 536 2217 424 Tum Bay Length (ft) 200 100 150 190 165 Base Capacity (vph) 1330 1863 1583 1367 1704 1041 3351 1001 3437 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.04 0.02 0.12 0.04 0.05 0.11 0.10 0.04 0.09 Ititersec8on Summary Area Type: Other Cycle Length: 65 Actuated Cycle Length: 24 Natural Cycle: 65 Control Type: Actuated -Uncoordinated Maximum v!c Ratio: 0.33 Intersection Signal Delay: 4.9 Intersection LOS: A Intersection Capacity Utilization 33.2% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min)15 S its and Phases: 29: Avenue Stanford & Avenue Scott LLG Engineers Synchro 7 - Report Page 34 A-25 8D HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis SCHOOL DISMISSAL PEAK 29: Avenue Stanford & Avenue Scott Existing � �� 4- t1 t t `1 EBL Lane Configurations ►j T r A I +A Iy Volume (vph) 54 32 173 54 33 43 103 233 85 34 251 28 Ideal Flaw (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.92 1.00 0.96 1.00 0.99 Fit Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prof) 1770 1863 1583 1770 1705 1770 3398 1770 3487 Flt Permitted 0.71 1.00 1.00 0.73 1.00 0.57 1.00 0.54 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1331 1863 1583 1368 1705 1056 3398 1014 3487 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 59 35 188 59 36 47 112 253 92 37 273 30 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 145 0 36 0 0 51 0 0 12 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 59 35 43 59 47 0 112 294 0 37 291 0 Turn Type Perm Perm Perm Perm Perm Protected Phases 4 8 2 6 Permitted Phases 4 4 4 8 2 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 5.6 5.6 5.6 5.6 5.6 11.1 11.1 11.1 11.1 Effective Green, g (s) 5.6 5.6 5.6 5.6 5.6 11.1 11.1 11.1 11.1 Actuated 91C Ratio 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.45 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3,0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 302 422 359 310 387 475 1527 456 1567 vis Ratio Prot 0.02 0.03 0-09 0.08 vis Ratio Perm c0.04 0.03 0.04 c0.11 0.04 v/c Ratio 0.20 0.08 0.12 0.19 0.12 0.24 0.19 0.08 0.19 Uniform Delay, di 7.7 7.5 7.6 7.7 7.6 4.2 4.1 3.9 4.1 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.1 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.1 Delay (s) 8.0 7.6 7.7 8.0 7.7 4.4 4.2 4.0 4.1 Level of Service A A A A A A A A A Approach Delay (s) 7.8 7.9 4.2 4.1 Approach LOS A A A A Intersection summary HCM Average Control Delay 5.4 HCM Level of Service A HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.22 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 24.7 Sum of lost time (s) 8.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 33.2% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group LLG Engineers Synchro 7 - Report Page 35 A-26 81 Lanes, Volumes, Timings SCHOOL DISMISSAL PEAK 9: Avenue Tibbitts & Avenue Scott Existing --• --v 'e- 1- -*, t /ow 10� 1 Lane Configurations I tp ►t 4 er I to I tT Volume (vph) 13 53 169 317 34 90 75 318 95 115 354 9 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length (ft) 100 0 190 0 150 0 190 100 Storage Lanes 1 0 1 2 1 0 1 1 Taper Length (ft) 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.88 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Fri 0.886 0.850 0.966 0.850 FIt Protected 0.950 0.950 0.961 0.950 0.950 Satd.Flow (prot) 1770 3136 0 1681 1701 2787 1770 3419 0 1770 3539 1583 Flt Permitted 0.950 0.950 0.961 0.950 0.950 Said. Flow (perm) 1770 3136 0 1681 1701 2787 1770 3419 0 1770 3539 1583 Right Tum on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Satd. Flow (RTOR) 184 98 25 10 Link Speed (mph) 35 35 45 45 Link Distance (ft) 795 973 1589 2297 Travel Time (s) 15.5 19.0 24.1 34.8 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 14 58 184 345 37 98 82 346 103 125 385 10 Shared Lane Traffic (%) 45% Lane Group Flow (vph) 14 242 0 190 192 98 82 449 0 125 385 10 Enter Mocked Intersection No No No No No No No No No No No No Lane Alignment Left Left Right Left Left Right Left Left Right Left Left Right Median Width(ft) 12 12 12 12 Link Offset(ft) 0 0 0 0 Crosswalk Width(ft) 16 16 16 16 Two way Left Tum Lane Headway Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Turning Speed (mph) 15 9 15 9 15 9 15 9 Number o1 Detectors 1 2 1 2 1 1 2 1 2 1 Detector Template Left Thru Left Thru Right Left Thru Left Thru Right Leading Detector (ft) 20 100 20 100 20 20 100 20 100 20 Trailing Detector (ft) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Detector 1 Position(ft) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Detector 1 Size(ft) 20 6 20 6 20 20 6 20 6 20 Detector 1 Type CI+Ex CI+Ex CI+Ex CI+Ex CI+Ex CI+Ex CI+Ex CI+Ex CI+Ex CI+Ex Detector 1 Channel Detector 1 Extend (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Detector 1 Queue (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Detector 1 Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Detector 2 Position(ft) 94 94 94 94 Detector 2 Size(ft) 6 6 6 6 Detector 2 Type CI+Ex CI+Ex CI+Ex CI+Ex Detector 2 Channel Detector 2 Extend (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Turn Type Split Split pm+ov Prot Prot Perm Protected Phases 3 3 4 4 5 1 6 5 2 Permitted Phases 4 6 2 Detector Phase 3 3 4 4 5 1 6 5 2 2 LLG Engineers Synchro 7 - Report Page 15 A_27 92- Lanes, Volumes, Timings SCHOOL DISMISSAL PEAK 9: Avenue Tibbitts & Avenue Scott Existing -' -♦ 1 ! '~ k \ ` l Lane Group EBL Eder _MR NBL NBT "N9A -'''a' "9BT SBR Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Minimum Split (s) 33.0 33.0 10.0 10.0 8.5 8.5 39.0 8.5 33.0 33.0 Total Split (s) 31.0 31.0 0.0 31.0 31.0 44.5 24.5 56.0 0.0 44.5 76.0 76.0 Total Split (%) 19.1% 19.1% 0.0% 19.1% 19.1% 27.4% 15.1% 34.5% 0.0% 27.4% 46.8% 46.8% Maximum Green (s) 25.0 25.0 25.0 25.0 40.0 20.0 50.0 40.0 70.0 70.0 Yellow Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 3.5 3.5 5.0 3.5 5.0 5.0 All -Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust (s) -2.0 -2.0 0.0 -2.0 -2.0 45 -0.5 -2.0 0.0 45 -2.0 -2.0 Total Lost Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lead/Lag Lead Lead Lag Lag Lag Lead Lead Lag Lag Lag Lead -Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Recall Mode None None None None None None Min None Min Min Walk Time (s) 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 Flash Dont Walk (s) 20.0 20.0 26.0 20.0 20.0 Pedestrian Calls (Mr) 0 0 0 0 0 Act Effct Green (s) 9.6 9.6 17.0 17.0 29.0 10.0 18.0 12.0 22.9 22.9 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.13 0.13 0.23 0.23 0.40 0.14 0.25 0.16 0.31 0.31 v/c Ratio 0.06 0.42 0.49 0.49 0.08 0.34 0.52 0.43 0.35 0.02 Control Delay 33.7 12.6 30.7 30.6 2.0 36.2 26.2 35.2 23.1 12.8 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 33.7 12.6 30.7 30.6 2.0 36.2 26.2 35.2 23.1 12.8 LOS C B C C A D C D C B Approach Delay 13.8 24.8 27.7 25.8 Approach LOS B C C C Queue Length 50th (ft) 6 12 76 76 0 33 84 50 71 0 Queue Length 95th (ft) 26 52 170 171 8 91 164 123 140 12 Intemal Link Dist (ft) 715 893 1509 2217 Turn Bay Length (ft) 1 DO 190 150 190 100 Base Capacity(vph) 677 1312 642 650 1881 514 2524 1015 3293 1474 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.02 0.18 0.30 0.30 0.05 0.16 0.18 0.12 0.12 0.01 Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Cycle Length: 162.5 Actuated Cycle Length: 73.2 Natural Cycle: 95 Control Type: Actuated -Uncoordinated Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.52 Intersection Signal Delay: 24.4 Intersection LOS: C Intersection Capacity Utilization 48.1 % ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min)15 LLG Engineers Synchro 7 - Report Page 16 A-28 B Lanes, Volumes, Timings SCHOOL DISMISSAL PEAK 9: Avenue Tibbitts & Avenue Scott Existing Splits and Phases: 9: Avenue Tibbitts & Avenue Scott LLG Engineers Synchro 7 - Report Page 17 A-29 (7� HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis SCHOOL DISMISSAL PEAK 9: Avenue Tibbitts & Avenue Scott Existing �# � 4N t r` 1 WBL WBT WBR f&L Lane Configurations ►j *T IT R ?T* Vi ?T if Volume (vph) 13 53 169 317 34 90 75 318 95 115 354 9 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 19M 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.88 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.89 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.96 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Said, Flow (prot) 1770 3136 1681 1701 2787 1770 3417 1770 3539 1583 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.96 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Said. Flow (perm) 1770 3136 1681 1701 2787 1770 3417 1770 3539 1583 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 14 58 184 345 37 98 82 346 103 125 385 10 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 160 0 0 0 60 0 19 0 0 0 7 Lane Group Flow (vph) 14 82 0 190 192 38 82 430 0 125 385 3 Turn Type Split Split pm+ov Prot Prot Perm Protected Phases 3 3 4 4 5 1 6 5 2 Permitted Phases 4 6 2 Actuated Green, G (s) 7.5 7.5 14.9 14.9 27.6 7.8 15.9 12.7 20.8 20.8 Effective Green, g (s) 9.5 9.5 16.9 16.9 28.6 8.3 17.9 13.2 22.8 22.8 Actuated gIC Ratio 0.13 0.13 0.23 0.23 0.39 0.11 0.24 0.18 0.31 0.31 Clearance Time (s) 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 4.5 4.5 6.0 4.5 6.0 6.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap(vph) 229 405 387 391 1084 200 832 318 1098 491 vis Ratio Prot 0.01 cO.03 o0.11 0.11 0.01 0.05 cO.13 0.07 cO.11 vls Ratio Perm 0.01 OM vic Ratio 0.06 0.20 0.49 049 0.04 0.41 0.52 0.39 0.35 0.01 Uniform Delay, dl 28.1 28.6 24.6 24.6 13.9 30.3 24.1 26.6 19.6 17.5 Progression Factor 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.D0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.1 0.2 1.0 1.0 0.0 1.4 0.5 0.8 0.2 0.0 Delay (s) 28.2 28.9 25.5 25.5 13.9 31.7 24.6 27.4 19.8 17.5 Level of Service C C C C B C C C B B Approach Delay (s) 28.8 23.2 25.7 21.6 Approach LOS C C C C Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 24.3 HCM Level of Service C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.41 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 73.5 Sum of lost time (s) 12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 48.1% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group LLG Engineers A-30 Synchro 7 - Report Page 18 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 5: Ave Scott & McBean Parkway 3319 1853 2787 3204 3291 SCHOOL DISMISSAL PEAK Existing 3319 3918 1583 1652 6441 1794 Right Turn on Red Yes / Yes Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBC- N9W'!-W 248 -1W' '"Ok SWR Lane Configurations VA T rr 0 Link Speed (mph) (r(rrr F im r Volume (vph) 66 11 763 47 12 24 402 1543 131 11 1443 74 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 19W 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Width (ft) 11 12 12 10 13 8 11 11 12 10 12 16 Storage Length (ft) 250 0.92 200 300 0.92 0 300 300 829 51 200 200 Storage lanes 2 142 2 2 80 0 2 1 1 1 Taper Length (ft) 25 25 25 25 25 25 829 51 25 25 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 1.00 0.88 0.97 0.95 0.95 0.97 0.64 1.00 1.00 0.91 1.00 Frt No No 0.850 No 0.900 Lane Alignment Left 0.850 0.850 Left Left 0.850 Flt Protected 0.950 Right Left 0.950 Right Median Width(ft) 0.950 22 0.950 0.950 Said, Flow (prot) 3319 1863 2787 3204 3291 0 3319 3918 1583 1652 6441 1794 Flt Permitted 0.950 0.950 Crosswalk Width(ft) 0.950 16 0.950 0.950 Satd.Flow (perm) 3319 1853 2787 3204 3291 0 3319 3918 1583 1652 6441 1794 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Satd. Flow (RTOR) 248 26 142 73 Link Speed (mph) 30 30 50 50 Link Distance (ft) 522 438 610 971 Travel Time (s) 11.9 10.0 8.3 13.2 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 72 12 829 51 13 26 437 1677 142 12 1568 80 Shared Lane Traffic (%) Lane Group Flaw (vph) 72 12 829 51 39 0 437 1677 142 12 1568 80 Enter Blocked Intersection No No No No No No No No No No No No Lane Alignment Left Left Right Left Left Right Left Right Right Left Left Right Median Width(ft) 22 22 22 58 Link Offset(ft) 0 0 0 0 Crosswalk Width(ft) 16 16 16 16 Two way Left Turn Lane Headway Factor 1.04 1.00 1.00 1.09 0.96 1.20 1.04 1.04 1.00 1.09 1.00 0.85 Turning Speed (mph) 15 9 15 9 15 9 9 15 15 9 Number of Detectors 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Detector Template Leading Detector (ft) 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 Trailing Detector (ft) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Detector 1 Position(ft) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Detector 1 Size(ft) 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 Detector 1 Type CI+Ex CI+Ex CI+Ex CI+Ex CI+Ex CI+Ex CI+Ex CI+Ex CI+Ex CI+Ex CI+Ex Detector 1 Channel Detector 1 Extend (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Detector 1 Queue (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Detector 1 Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Tum Type Prot pm+ov Prot custom custom Prot custom Protected Phases 7 4 1 3 8 1 6 3 5 2 Permitted Phases 4 6 6 Detector Phase 7 4 1 3 8 1 6 3 5 2 6 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Minimum Split (s) 12.0 44.5 15.0 12.0 43.5 15.0 35.0 12.0 12.0 40.0 35.0 Total Split (s) 17.0 45.0 20A 17.0 45.0 0.0 20.0 54.0 17.0 16.0 50.0 54.0 LLG Engineers Synchro 7 - Report Page 9 A-31 I Lanes, Volumes, Timings SCHOOL DISMISSAL PEAK 5: Ave Scott & McBean Parkway Existing Intersection Summa Area Type: Other Cycle Length: 132 Actuated Cycle Length: 132 Offset: 94 (71 %), Referenced to phase 2:SWL and 6:SWR, Start of Yellow Natural Cycle: 125 Control Type: Actuated -Coordinated Maximum vlc Ratio: 0.80 Intersection Signal Delay: 22.6 Intersection LOS. C Intersection Capacity Utilization 50.6% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min)15 LLG Engineers Synchro 7 - Report Page 10 Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR Total Split (%) 12.9% 34.1% 15.2% 12.9% 34.1% 0.0% 15.2% 40.9% 12.9% 12.1% 37.9% 40.9% Maximum Green (s) 12.5 39.5 15.5 12.5 39.5 15.5 48.0 12.5 11,5 44.0 48.0 Yellow Time (s) 3.5 4.5 3.5 3.5 4.5 3.5 5.0 3.5 3.5 5.0 5.0 All -Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust (s) -0.5 -1.5 -0.5 -0.5 -1.5 0.0 -0.5 -2.0 -0.5 -0.5 -2.0 •2.0 Total Lost Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4,0 4.0 4.0 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lead Lead Lag Lead Lead Lead Lag Lag Lead Lead -Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Recall Mode None None Min None None Min C -Max None None C -Max C -Max Walk Time (s) 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 Flash Don( Walk (s) 32.0 27.0 22.0 27.0 22.0 Pedestrian Calls (#/hr) 0 0 0 0 0 Act Effct Green (s) 8.8 8.3 41.1 12.9 7.7 35.6 99.2 116.9 8.6 66.0 99.2 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.07 0.06 0.31 0.10 0.06 0.27 0.75 0.89 0.07 0.50 0.75 v/c Ratio 0.33 0.10 0.80 0.16 0.18 0.49 0.57 0.10 0.11 0.49 0.06 Control Delay 62.3 59.5 34.1 56.4 30.7 42.3 10.1 0.6 58.5 23.6 2.3 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 62.3 59.5 34.1 56.4 30.7 42.3 10.1 0.6 58.5 23.6 2.3 LOS E E C E C D B A E C A Approach Delay 36.7 45.3 15.7 22.8 Approach LOS D D B C Queue Length 50th (ft) 30 10 271 19 5 154 177 0 10 264 1 Queue Length 95th (ft) 56 31 308 43 25 207 390 8 31 308 21 Internal Link Dist (ft) 442 358 530 891 Turn Bay Length (ft) 250 200 300 300 300 300 200 200 200 Base Capacity (vph) 327 579 1039 380 1040 896 2945 1435 150 3219 1366 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.22 0.02 0.80 0.13 0.04 0.49 0.57 0.10 0.08 0.49 0.06 Intersection Summa Area Type: Other Cycle Length: 132 Actuated Cycle Length: 132 Offset: 94 (71 %), Referenced to phase 2:SWL and 6:SWR, Start of Yellow Natural Cycle: 125 Control Type: Actuated -Coordinated Maximum vlc Ratio: 0.80 Intersection Signal Delay: 22.6 Intersection LOS. C Intersection Capacity Utilization 50.6% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min)15 LLG Engineers Synchro 7 - Report Page 10 Lanes, Volumes, Timings SCHOOL DISMISSAL PEAK 5: Ave Scott & McBean Parkway Existing LLG Engineers Synchro 7 - Report Page 11 A-33 92 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis SCHOOL DISMISSAL PEAK 5: Ave Scott & McBean Parkway Existing � -+ 7 ! f-- Z 4\ r P �► l WBT WBR NBL Lane Configurations 1) f rr 313 }'k 895 m rrrr r ►s im r Volume (vph) 66 11 763 47 12 24 402 1543 131 11 1443 74 ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Width 11 12 12 10 13 8 11 11 12 10 12 16 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 24.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane UGI. Factor 0.97 1.00 0.88 0.97 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.64 1.00 1.00 0.91 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.90 Delay (s) 1.00 0.85 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 E 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 Said. Flow (prot) 3319 1863 2787 3204 3291 48.7 3319 3918 1583 1652 6441 1794 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 Said. Flow (perm) 3319 1863 2787 3204 3291 3319 3918 1583 1652 6441 1794 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0,92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 72 12 829 51 13 26 437 1677 142 12 1568 80 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 174 0 24 0 0 0 29 0 0 21 Lane Group Flow (vph) 72 12 655 51 15 0 437 1677 113 12 1568 59 Turn Type Prot pm+ov Prot custom custom Prot custom Protected Phases 7 4 1 3 8 1 6 3 5 2 Permitted Phases 4 6 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 7.1 3.3 38.4 12.4 8.6 35.1 91.2 103.6 4.6 60.7 91.2 Effective Green, g (s) 7.6 4.8 39.4 12.9 10.1 35.6 932 104.6 5.1 62.7 93.2 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.06 0.04 0.30 0.10 0.08 0.27 0.71 0.79 0.04 0.48 0.71 Clearance Time (s) 4.5 5.5 4.5 4.5 5.5 4.5 6.0 4.5 4.5 6.0 6.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3,0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 191 68 832 313 252 895 2766 1254 64 3059 1267 v!s Ratio Prot 00.02 0.01 00.21 00.02 0.00 0.13 00.43 0.01 0.01 cO.24 v/s Ratio Perm 0.02 0.06 0.03 v/c Ratio 0.38 0.18 0.79 0.16 0.06 0.49 0.61 0.09 0.19 0.51 0.05 Uniform belay, d1 59.9 61.7 42.5 54.6 56.5 40.5 10.0 3.1 61.4 24.0 5.9 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 1.2 1.2 5.0 0.2 0.1 0.4 1.0 0.0 1.4 0.6 0.1 Delay (s) 61.2 62.9 47.4 54.8 56.6 41.0 11.0 3.1 62.9 24.7 6.0 Level of Service E E D D E D B A E C A Approach Delay (s) 48.7 55.6 16.3 24.0 Approach LOS D E B C Intersection Summary -d HCM Average Control Delay 25.6 HCM Level of Service C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.60 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 132.0 Sum of lost time (s) 12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 50.6% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group LLG Engineers Synchro 7 - Report Page 12 1-i4 ZI Lanes, Volumes, Timings PM PEAK 27: Avenue Scott & Rye Canyon Rd/Copperhill Dr Existing Lane Configurations I 'N M + F I NA I "A Volume (vph) 5 5 2 238 1 405 2 1324 185 192 606 0 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Width (ft) 12 11 11 12 12 12 12 11 12 11 11 10 Storage Length (h) 150 0 0 50 200 0 0 0 Storage Lanes 1 0 2 1 1 0 1 0 Taper Length (ft) 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.91 0.91 1.00 0.91 0.91 Fri 0.957 0.850 0.982 Flt Protected 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 1723 0 3433 1863 1583 1770 4827 0 1711 4916 0 Fit Permitted 0,950 0.950 0.950 Satd. Flow (perm) 1863 1723 0 3433 1863 1583 1770 4827 0 1711 4916 0 Right Tum on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Said. Flow (RTOR) 2 440 18 Link Speed (mph) 35 35 45 45 Link Distance (ft) 547 335 307 1700 Travel Time (s) 10.7 6.5 4.7 25.8 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 5 5 2 259 1 440 2 1439 201 209 659 0 Shared Lane Traffic (%) Lane Group Flow (vph) 5 7 0 259 1 440 2 1640 0 209 659 0 Enter Blocked Intersection No No No No No No No No No No No No Lane Alignment Left Left Right Left Left Right Left Left Right Left Left Right Median Width(ft) 24 24 12 12 Link Offset(ft) 0 0 0 0 Crosswalk Width(ft) 16 16 16 16 Two way Left Turn Lane Headway Factor 1.00 1.04 1.04 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.D0 1.04 1.00 1.04 1.04 1.09 Turning Speed (mph) 15 9 15 9 15 9 15 9 Number of Detectors 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Detector Template Leading Detector (ft) 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 Trailing Detector (ft) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Detector 1 Position(ft) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Detector 1 Size(ft) 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 Detector 1 Type CI+Ex CI+Ex CI+Ex CI+Ex CI+Ex CI+Ex CI+Ex CI+Ex CI+Ex Detector 1 Channel Detector 1 Extend (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Detector 1 Queue (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Detector 1 Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Turn Type Perm Split Perm Prot Prot Protected Phases 7 3 3 5 2 114 6 Permitted Phases 7 3 Detector Phase 7 7 3 3 3 5 2 1 14 6 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Minimum Split (s) 15.0 15.0 35.0 35.0 35.0 8.5 30.0 45.0 Total Split (s) 15.0 15.0 0.0 35.0 35.0 35.0 20.0 34.0 0.0 48.0 42.0 0.0 LLG Engineers Synchro 7 - Report Page 27 A-35 ( I 1 Lanes, Volumes, Timings PM PEAK 27: Avenue Scott & Rye Canyon Rd/Copperhill Dr Existing Lane Group et e4 e14 Lane Configurations Volume (vph) Ideal Flow (vphpl) Lane Width (ft) Storage Length (ft) Storage Lanes Taper Length (ft) Lane Util. Factor Frt At Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Right Tum on Red Satd. Flow (RTOR) Link Speed (mph) Link Distance (ft) Travel Time (s) Peak Hour Factor Adj. Flow (vph) Shared Lane Traffic (%) Lane Group Flow (vph) Enter Blocked Intersection Lane Alignment Median Width(ft) Link Offset(ft) Crosswalk Width(ft) Two way Left Tum Lane Headway Factor Timing Speed (mph) Number of Detectors Detector Template Leading Detector (ft) Trailing Detector (ft) Detector 1 Position(ft) Detector 1 Size(ft) Detector 1 Type Detector 1 Channel Detector 1 Extend (s) Detector 1 Queue (s) Detector 1 Delay (s) Tum Type Protected Phases 1 4 14 Permitted Phases Detector Phase Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 Minimum Split (s) 20.0 35.0 14.0 Total Split (s) 28.0 35.0 20.0 LLG Engineers Synchro 7 - Report Page 28 A-;6 n Lanes, Volumes, Timings PM PEAK 27: Avenue Scott & Rye Canyon Rd/Copperhill Dr Existing Intersection Summa Area Type: Other Cycle Length: 132 Actuated Cycle Length: 132 Offset: 52 (39%), Referenced to phase 2:NET and 6:SW7, Start of Yellow Natural Cycle: 135 Control Type: Actuated -Coordinated Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.73 Intersection Signal Delay: 24.6 Intersection LOS: C Intersection Capacity Utilization 68.1% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min)15 # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. LLG Engineers Synchro 7 - Report Page 29 A-37 q Z Lane Group SEL SET. SER NWL NWT NWR NEL NET NER SWL SWT SWR Total Split (%) 11.4% 11.4% 0.0% 26.5% 26.5% 26.5% 15.2% 25.8% 0.0% 36.4% 31.8% 0.0% Maximum Green (s) 10.0 10.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 15.5 28.0 36.0 Yellow Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.5 5.0 5.0 All -Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust (s) -1.0 -1.0 0.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 -0.5 -2.0 0.0 -0.5 -2.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 LeadlLag Lead Lead Lead Lead Lag Lead -Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Recall Mode None None Min Min Min Min C -Min C -Min Walk Time (s) 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 Flash Dont Walk (s) 23.0 23.0 23.0 16.0 27.0 Pedestrian Calls (#Ihr) 2 2 2 0 0 Act Effct Green (s) 7.1 7.1 18.8 18.8 18.8 6.3 65.4 27.1 75.7 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.05 0.05 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.05 0.50 0.21 0.57 v/c Ratio 0.05 0.07 0.53 0.00 0.73 0.02 0.68 0.60 0.23 Control Delay 59.8 52.7 55.4 43.0 11.8 55.0 24.7 20.9 21.3 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 59.8 52.7 55.4 43.0 11.8 55.0 24.7 20.9 21.3 LOS E D E D B D C C C Approach Delay 55.6 28.0 24.7 21.2 Approach LOS E C C C Queue Length 50th (ft) 4 4 109 1 0 1 376 88 108 Queue Length 95th (ft) 18 21 135 6 92 m3 #701 119 117 Internal Link Dist (ft) 467 255 227 1620 Tum Bay Length (ft) 150 50 200 Base Capacity(vph) 155 145 806 438 708 215 2400 520 2820 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.03 0.05 0.32 0.00 0.62 0.01 0.68 0.40 0.23 Intersection Summa Area Type: Other Cycle Length: 132 Actuated Cycle Length: 132 Offset: 52 (39%), Referenced to phase 2:NET and 6:SW7, Start of Yellow Natural Cycle: 135 Control Type: Actuated -Coordinated Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.73 Intersection Signal Delay: 24.6 Intersection LOS: C Intersection Capacity Utilization 68.1% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min)15 # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. LLG Engineers Synchro 7 - Report Page 29 A-37 q Z Lanes, Volumes, Timings PM PEAK 27: Avenue Scott & Rye Canyon Rd/Copperhill Dr Existing LLG Engineers FOON Synchro 7 - Report Page 30 I3 Lanes, Volumes, Timings PM PEAK 27: Avenue Scott & Rye Canyon Rd/Copperhill Dr Existing Total Split (%) Maximum Green (s) Yellow Time (s) All -Red Time (s) Lost Time Adlusl (s) Total Lost Time (s) Lead/Lag Lead -Lag Op6mize? Vehicle Extension (s) Recall Mode Walk Time (s) Flash Dont Walk (s) Pedestrian Calls (#ihr) Act Effcl Green (s) Actuated g/C Rata v/c Ratio Control Delay Queue Delay Total Delay LOS Approach Delay Approach LOS Queue Length 50th (ft) Queue Length 95th (ft) Internal Link Dist (ft) Tum Bay Length (ft) Base Capacity (vph) Starvation Cap Reductn Spillback Cap Reductn Storage Cap Reductn Reduced v/c Ratio Intersedon Summary LLG Engineers 01 fW : e14 21% 27% 15% 23.5 30.5 16.0 3.5 3.5 3.5 1.0 1.0 0.5 Lag Lag Yes Yes 3.0 3.0 3.0 None None None 7.0 23.0 0 Synchro 7 - Report Page 31 A-39 / `-II HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis PM PEAK 27: Avenue Scott R Rye Canyon Rd/Copperhill Dr Existing Lane Configurations Tr M + r ) +0 1 +?A Volume (vph) 5 5 2 238 1 405 2 1324 185 192 606 0 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Width 12 11 11 12 12 12 12 11 12 11 11 10 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4,0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1,00 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.91 1.00 0.91 Frt 1.00 0.96 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 Flt Protected 0.95 1,00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Said. Flow (prol) 1770 1723 3433 1863 1583 1770 4825 1711 4916 Flt Permitted 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Said. Flow (perm) 1863 1723 3433 1863 1583 1770 4825 1711 4916 Peals -hour factor,PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 5 5 2 259 1 440 2 1439 201 209 659 0 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 2 0 0 0 377 0 10 0 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 5 5 0 259 1 63 2 1630 0 209 659 0 Turn Type Perm Split Perm Prot Prot Protected Phases 7 3 3 5 2 1 14 6 Permitted Phases 7 3 Actuated Green, G (s) 2.8 2.8 17.8 17.8 17.8 5.8 60.3 26.6 70.6 Effective Green, g (s) 3.8 3.8 18.8 18.8 18.8 6.3 62.3 27.6 72.6 Actuated 91C Ratio 0.03 0.03 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.05 0.47 0.21 0.55 Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 4.5 6.0 6.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 30 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 54 50 489 265 225 84 2277 358 2704 vls Ratio Prot c0.00 c0.08 0.00 0.00 c0.34 c0.12 0.13 vls Ratio Perm 0.00 0.04 v/c Ratio 0.09 0.10 0.53 0.00 0.28 0.02 0.72 0.58 0.24 Uniform Delay, dl 62.4 62.4 52.5 48.6 50.5 59.9 27.8 47.0 15.4 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.91 0.80 0.51 1.27 Incremental Delay, d2 0.7 0.9 1.0 0.0 0.7 0.1 1.8 2.3 0.2 Delay (s) 63.2 63.3 53.5 48.6 51.2 54.8 24.1 26.3 19.9 Level of Service E E D D D D C C B Approach Delay (s) 63.3 52.1 24.1 21.4 Approach LOS E D C C Intersection.SummarY HCM Average Control Delay 29.6 HCM Level of Service C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.63 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 132.0 Sum of lost time (s) 20.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 68.1% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group LLG Engineers A-40 Synchro 7 - Report Page 32 Lanes, Volumes, Timings PM PEAK 29: Avenue Stanford & Avenue Scott Existing Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations aj + if I T+ "I +T+ +p Volume (vph) 163 31 321 182 51 154 78 327 34 34 326 22 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length (ft) 200 100 150 0 190 0 165 0 Storage Lanes 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 Taper Length (ft) 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.95 Fit 0.850 0.887 0.986 0.990 Flt Protected 0,950 0.950 0.950 0.950 Satd, Flow (prot) 1770 1863 1583 1770 1652 0 1770 3490 0 1770 3504 0 Flt Permitted 0.620 0.735 0.528 0.520 Satd. Flow (perm) 1155 1863 1583 1369 1652 0 984 3490 0 969 3504 0 Right Tum on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Satd. Flow (RTOR) 347 167 20 13 Link Speed (mph) 30 35 45 45 Link Distance (ft) 434 616 2297 504 Travel Time (s) 9.9 12.0 34.8 7.6 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 177 34 349 198 55 167 85 355 37 37 354 24 Shared Lane Traffic (%) Lane Group Flow (vph) 177 34 349 198 222 0 85 392 0 37 378 0 Enter Blocked Intersection No No No No No No No No No No No No Lane Alignment Left Left Right Left Left Right Left Left Right Left Left Right Median Width(ft) 12 12 12 12 Link Offset(ft) 0 0 0 0 Crosswalk Width(ft) 16 16 16 16 Two way Left Turn Lane Headway Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Turning Speed (mph) 15 9 15 9 15 9 15 9 Number of Detectors 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Detector Template Leading Detector (ft) 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 Trailing Detector (h) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Detector 1 Position(ft) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Detector 1 Size(ft) 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 Detector 1 Type CI+Ex CI+Ex CI+Ex CI+Ex CI+Ex CI+Ex CI+Ex CH -Ex CI+Ex Detector 1 Channel Detector 1 Extend (s) 0.0 0,0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Detector 1 Queue (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Detector 1 Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Turn Type Perm Perm Perm Perm Perm Protected Phases 4 8 2 6 Permitted Phases 4 4 4 8 2 6 Detector Phase 4 4 4 8 8 2 2 6 6 Switch Phase a Minimum Initial (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Minimum Split (s) 35.0 35.0 35.0 35.0 35.0 26.0 26.0 30.0 30,0 Total Split (s) 35.0 35.0 35.0 35.0 35.0 0.0 30.0 30.0 0.0 30.0 30.0 0.0 Total Split (%) 53.8% 53.8% 53.8% 53.8% 53.8% 0.0% 46.2% 46.2% 0.0% 46.2% 46.2% 0.0% LLG Engineers Synchro 7 - Report Page 33 A -4I q I„ Lanes, Volumes, Timings PM PEAK 29: Avenue Stanford & Avenue Scott Existing Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR N81. ' NBR` ; _$ ':' ' "_SBR Maximum Green (s) 31.0 31.0 31.0 31.0 31.0 26.0 26.0 26.0 26.0 Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All -Red Time (s) 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lead/Lag Lead -Lag Optimize? Vehide Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Recall Mode None None None None None Min Min Min Min Walk Time (s) 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 Flash Dont Walk (s) 24.0 24.0 24.0 24.0 24.0 15.0 15.0 19.0 19.0 Pedestrian Calls (#/hr) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Act Effct Green (s) 10.3 10.3 10.3 10.3 10.3 8.9 8.9 8.9 8.9 Actuated g1C Ratio 0.37 0.37 0.37 0.37 0.37 0.32 0.32 0.32 0.32 v/c Ratio 0.41 0.05 0.43 0.39 0.31 0.27 0.34 0.12 0.33 Control Delay 9.9 5.9 3.0 9.0 3.5 10.5 8.2 8.8 8.3 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 9.9 5.9 3.0 9.0 3.5 10.5 8.2 8.8 8.3 LOS A A A A A B A A A Approach Delay 5.3 6.1 8.7 8.4 Approach LOS A A A A Queue Length 50th (ft) 15 2 0 16 4 7 17 3 16 Queue Length 95th (ft) 54 13 29 56 31 35 52 18 51 Internal Link Dist (ft) 354 536 2217 424 Tum Bay Length (R) 200 100 150 190 165 Base Capacity(vph) 1109 1789 1534 1315 1593 896 3180 882 3192 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.16 0.02 0.23 0.15 0.14 0.09 0.12 0.04 0.12 Intersection Summa Area Type: Other Cycle Length: 65 Actuated Cycle Length: 27.6 Natural Cycle: 65 Control Type: Actuated -Uncoordinated Maximum v/c Rata: 0.43 Intersection Signal Delay: 7.0 Intersection LOS A Intersection Capacity Utilization 49.7% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min)15 and Phases: 29: Avenue Stanford & Avenue Scott LLG Engineers Synchro 7 - Report Page 34 A-42, ,f.\ .l HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis PM PEAK 29: Avenue Stanford & Avenue Scott Existing --* --v �~ 4- 4\ t/00. NO. 4 41 EBI Lane Configurations t r 111 +j. 4A Volume (vph) 163 31 321 182 51 154 78 327 34 34 326 22 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Uhl. Factor 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.89 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 At Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 1863 1583 1770 1653 1770 3489 1770 3506 Flt Permitted 0.62 1.00 1.00 0.73 1.00 0.53 1.00 0.52 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1154 1863 1583 1369 1653 983 3489 969 3506 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0,92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 177 34 349 198 55 167 85 355 37 37 354 24 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 216 0 104 0 0 13 0 0 9 0 Lane Grp Flow (vph) 177 34 133 198 118 0 85 379 0 37 369 0 Turn Type Perm Perm Perm Perm Perm Protected Phases 4 8 2 6 Permitted Phases 4 4 4 8 2 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 10.3 10.3 10.3 10.3 10.3 8.9 8.9 8.9 8.9 Effective Green, g (s) 10.3 10.3 10.3 10.3 10.3 8.9 8.9 8.9 8.9 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.38 0.38 0.38 0.38 0.38 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 437 705 599 518 626 322 1142 317 1147 vis Ratio Prot 0.02 0.07 00.11 0.11 vls Ratio Perm 00.15 0.08 0.14 0.09 0.04 vic Ratio 0.41 0.05 0.22 0.38 0.19 0.26 0.33 0.12 0.32 Uniform Delay, di 6.2 5.3 5.7 6.1 5.7 6.7 6.9 6.4 6.9 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.6 0.0 0.2 0.5 0.1 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.2 Delay (s) 6.8 5.4 5.9 6.6 5.8 7.2 7.1 6.6 7.0 Level of Service A A A A A A A A A Approach Delay (s) 6.2 6.2 7.1 7.0 Approach LOS A A A A Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 6.6 HCM Level of Service A HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.37 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 27.2 Sum of lost time (s) 8.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 49.7% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group LLG Engineers Synchro 7 - Report Page 35 A-43 I Si Lanes, Volumes, Timings PM PEAK 9: Avenue Tibbitts & Avenue Scott Existing -'* r T r 1 ✓ Lane Group EBL Iff, NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 1 0 1 ++ r Volume (vph) 111 66 57 216 21 168 12 160 60 189 631 9 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length (ft) 100 0 190 0 150 0 190 100 Storage Lanes 1 0 1 2 1 0 1 1 Taper Length (ft) 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 Lane Uhl. Factor 1.00 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.88 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 0,95 1.00 Frt 0.931 0.850 0.959 0.850 Flt Protected 0.950 0.950 0.961 0.950 0.950 Said. Flow (Prot) 1770 3295 0 1681 1701 2787 1770 3394 0 1770 3539 1583 Fit Permitted 0.950 0.950 0.961 0.950 0.950 Said. Flow (perm) 1770 3295 0 1681 1701 2787 1770 3394 0 1770 3539 1583 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Said. Flow (RTOR) 62 183 35 6 Link Speed (mph) 35 35 45 45 Link Distance (ft) 795 973 1589 2297 Travel Time (s) 15.5 19.0 24.1 34.8 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 121 72 62 235 23 183 13 174 65 205 686 10 Shared Lane Traffic (%) 45% Lane Group Flow (vph) 121 134 0 129 129 183 13 239 0 205 686 10 Enter Blocked Intersection No No No No No No No No No No No No Lane Alignment Left Left Right Left Left Right Left Left Right Left Left Right Median Width(ft) 12 12 12 12 Link Cffset(ft) 0 0 0 0 Crosswalk Width(ft) 16 16 16 16 Two way Left Tum Lane Headway Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.D0 1.00 1.00 1.00 Turning Speed (mph) 15 9 15 9 15 9 15 9 Number of Detectors 1 2 1 2 1 1 2 1 2 1 Detector Template Left Thru Left Thru Right Left Thru Left Thru Right Leading Detector (ft) 20 100 20 100 20 20 100 20 100 20 Trailing Detector (ft) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Detector 1 Position(ft) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Detector 1 Size(ft) 20 6 20 6 20 20 6 20 6 20 Detector 1 Type CI+Ex CI+Ex CI+Ex CI+Ex CI+Ex CI+Ex CI+Ex CI+Ex CI+Ex CI+Ex Detector 1 Channel Detector 1 Extend (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Detector 1 Queue (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Detector 1 Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Detector 2 Position(ft) 94 94 94 94 Detector 2 Size(ft) 6 6 6 6 Detector 2 Type CI+Ex CI+Ex CI+Ex CI+Ex Detector 2 Channel Detector 2 Extend (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Turn Type Split Split pm+ov Prot Prot Perm Protected Phases 3 3 4 4 5 1 6 5 2 Permitted Phases 4 6 2 Detector Phase 3 3 4 4 5 1 6 5 2 2 LLG Engineers Synchro 7 - Report Page 15 A-44 111 Lanes, Volumes, Timings PM PEAK 9: Avenue Tibbiris & Avenue Scott Existing --* -► --* i-*-- t 4N t r �► 1 Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NM Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Minimum Split (s) 33.0 33.0 10.0 10.0 8.5 8.5 39.0 8.5 33.0 33.0 Total Split (s) 31.0 31.0 0.0 31.0 31.0 44.5 24,5 56.0 0.0 44.5 76.0 76.0 Total Split (%) 19.1% 19.1% 0.0% 19.1% 19.1% 27.4% 15.1% 34.5% 0.0% 27.4% 46.8% 46.8% Maximum Green (s) 25.0 25.0 25.0 25.0 40.0 20.0 50.0 40.0 70.0 70.0 Yellow Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 3.5 3.5 5.0 3.5 5.0 5.0 All -Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust (s) -2.0 -2.0 0.0 -2.0 -2.0 -0.5 -0.5 -20 0.0 -0.5 -2.0 -2.0 Total Lost Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lead/Lag Lead Lead Lag Lag Lag Lead Lead Lag Lag Lag Lead -Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3,0 3.0 Recall Mode None None None None None None Min None Min Min Walk Time (s) 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 Flash Dont Walk (s) 20.0 20.0 26.0 20.0 20.0 Pedestrian Calls (#rhr) 0 0 0 0 0 Ad Effcl Green (s) 13.5 13.5 14.1 14.1 29.9 6.9 130 15.9 31.2 31.2 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.18 0.18 0.19 0.19 0.41 0.09 0.18 0.22 0.43 0.43 v/c Ratio 0.37 0.20 0.40 0.39 0.15 0.08 0.38 0.53 0.45 0.01 Control Delay 32.8 17.6 32.6 32.5 1.5 37.9 26.5 32.5 17.7 12.4 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 32.8 17.6 32.6 32.5 1.5 37.9 26.5 32.5 17.7 12.4 LOS C B C C A D C C B B Approach Delay 24.8 19.7 27.1 21.0 Approach LOS C B C C Queue Length 50th (fl) 47 13 51 51 0 5 41 80 102 1 Queue Length 95th (fl) 119 45 131 130 9 26 95 174 233 13 Internet Link Dist (11) 715 893 1509 2217 Tum Bay Length (ft) 100 190 150 190 100 Base Capacity(vph) 681 1305 646 654 1995 517 2523 1021 3286 1470 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.18 0.10 0.20 0.20 0.09 0.03 0.09 0.20 0.21 0.01 Interserifon Summary Area Type: Other Cycle Length: 162.5 Actuated Cycle Length: 73 Natural Cycle: 95 Control Type: Actua(ed-Uncoordinated Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.53 Intersection Signal Delay: 22.0 Intersection LOS: C Intersection Capacity Utilization 46,8% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min)15 LLG Engineers Synchro 7 - Report Page 16 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 9: Avenue Tibbitts & Avenue Scott PM PEAK Existing LLG Engineers A-46 Synchro 7 • Report Page 17 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis PM PEAK 9: Avenue Tibbitts & Avenue Scott Existing Lane Configurations I Tj, Split i $ FF i f'h 15 I ft F Volume (vph) 111 66 57 216 21 168 12 160 60 189 631 9 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 19M 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 29.1 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 14.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Uri]. Factor 1.00 0.95 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.95 0.95 0.88 1.00 0.95 0.02 1.00 0.95 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.93 6.0 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.96 4.5 1.00 1.00 0.85 Fit Protected 0.95 1.00 3.0 095 0.96 1.00 0.95 1.00 3.0 0.95 1.00 1.00 Said. Flow (Prot) 1770 3294 39 1681 1700 2787 1770 3395 c0.07 1770 3539 1583 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.12 0.95 0.96 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Said. Flow (perm) 1770 3294 0.00 1681 1700 2787 1770 3395 0.07 1770 3539 1583 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 121 72 62 235 23 183 13 174 65 205 686 10 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 51 0 0 0 105 0 29 0 0 0 4 Lane Group Flow (vph) 121 83 0 129 129 78 13 210 0 205 686 6 Turn Type Split HCM Volume to Capacity rata Split Actuated Cycle Length (s) pm+ov Prot 46.8% ICU Level of Service A Prot 15 Perm Protected Phases 3 3 4 4 5 1 6 5 2 Permitted Phases 4 6 2 Actuated Green, G (s) 11.4 11.4 12.0 12.0 31.4 1.2 10.9 19.4 29.1 29.1 Effective Green, g (s) 13.4 13.4 14.0 14.0 32.4 1.7 12.9 19.9 31.1 31.1 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.43 0.02 0.17 0.26 0.41 0.41 Clearance Time (s) 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 4.5 4.5 6.0 4.5 6.0 6.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 311 579 309 312 1185 39 575 462 1444 646 vls Ratio Prot c0.07 0.03 c0.D8 0.08 0.02 0.01 cO.D6 0.12 c0.19 vls Ratio Perm 0.01 0.00 v/c Ratio 0.39 0.14 0.42 0.41 0.07 0.33 0.37 0.44 0.48 0.01 Uniform Delay, di 27.8 26.5 27.5 27.5 12.9 36.7 28.0 23.5 16.6 13.4 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.8 0.1 0.9 0.9 0.0 5.0 0.4 0.7 0.2 0.0 Delay (s) 26.6 26.7 28.4 28.4 13.0 41.7 28.4 24.2 16,8 13.4 Level of Service C C C C B D C C B B Approach Delay (s) 27.6 22.0 29.1 18.5 Approach LOS C C C B HCM Average Control Delay 22.0 HCM Level of Service C HCM Volume to Capacity rata 0.45 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 76.2 Sum of lost time (s) 16.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 46.8% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group LLG Engineers Synchro 7 - Report Page 18 A47 f ) Lanes, Volumes, Timings PM PEAK 5: Ave Scott & McBean Parkway Existing Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT Lane Configurations Volume (vph) Ideal Flow (vphpl) Lane Width (ft) Storage Length (ft) Storage Lanes Taper Length (ft) Lane U81. Factor Frt Flt Protected Said. Flow (Prot) Flt Permitted Sell Flow (perm) Right Turn on Red Said. Flow (RTCR) Link Speed (mph) Link Distance (ft) Travel Time (s) Peak Hour Factor Adj. Flow (vph) Shared Lane Traffic (%) Lane Group Flow (vph) Enter Blocked Intersection Lane Alignment Median Width(ft) Link Offset(ft) Crosswalk Width(ft) Two way Left Tum Lane Headway Factor Turning Speed (mph) Number of Detectors Detector Template Leading Detector (ft) Trailing Detector (ft) Detector 1 Position(ft) Detector 1 Size(ft) Detector 1 Type Detector 1 Channel Detector 1 Extend (s) Detector 1 Queue (s) Detector 1 Delay (s) Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Detector Phase Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) Minimum Split (s) Total Split (s) LLG Engineers 185 25 694 46 15 20 19M 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 11 12 12 10 13 8 250 50 200 300 0 0 2 0 2 2 0 0 25 50 25 25 50 25 0.97 1,00 0.88 0.97 0.95 0.95 0.0 0.0 0.850 0.0 0.913 0.0 0.950 0.0 0.0 0.950 0.0 0.0 3319 1863 2787 3204 3339 0 0.950 4 1 0.950 8 3319 1863 2787 3204 3339 0 1 3 Yes 4.0 4.0 Yes 4.0 4.0 249 44.5 22 12.0 43.5 30 45.0 20.0 30 45.0 0.0 610 522 436 8.3 11.9 10.0 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 201 27 754 50 16 22 201 27 754 50 38 0 No No No No No No Left Left Right Left Left Right 22 22 22 0 0 0 16 16 16 1.04 1.00 1.00 1.09 0.96 1.20 15 1900 9 15 9 1 1 1 1 1 50 50 50 50 50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 50 50 50 50 50 CI+Ex CI+Ex CI+Ex CI+Ex CI+Ex 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 OA 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Prot 1583 pm+ov Prot 1794 7 4 1 3 8 3319 4 1583 1652 7 4 1 3 8 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 12.0 44.5 15.0 12.0 43.5 17.0 45.0 20.0 17.0 45.0 0.0 184 2291 66 33 1836 33 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 11 11 12 10 12 16 300 300 200 200 2 1 1 1 25 25 25 25 0.97 0.64 1.00 1.00 0.91 1.00 0.850 0.850 0.850 0.950 0.950 0.950 3319 3918 1583 1652 6441 1794 0.950 0.950 0.950 3319 3918 1583 1652 6441 1794 Yes Yes 50 26 50 50 610 971 8.3 13.2 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 200 2490 72 36 1996 36 200 2490 72 36 1996 36 No No No No No No Left Right Right Left Left Right 22 58 0 0 16 16 1.04 1.D4 1.00 1.09 1.00 0.85 15 9 9 15 15 9 1 1 1 1 1 1 50 50 50 50 50 50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 50 50 50 50 50 50 CI+Ex CI+Ex CI+Ex CI+Ex CI+Ex CI+Ex 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 custom custom Prot custom 1 6 3 5 2 6 6 1 6 3 5 2 6 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 15.0 35.0 12.0 12.0 40.0 35.0 20.0 54.0 17.0 16.0 50.0 54.0 Synchro 7 - Report Page 9 A-48 1 Lanes, Volumes, Timings PM PEAK 5: Ave Scott & McBean Parkway Existing __0 __P 1 �- 4 / i *.-' Lane Group EBL E ` WBT WBR OU"' MBA '_hf8R2 SWL2 SK, . SWR Total Split 1%) 12.9% 34.1% 15.2% 12.9% 34.1% 0.0% 15.2% 40.9% 12.9% 12.1% 37.9% 40.9% Maximum Green (s) 12.5 39.5 15.5 12.5 39.5 15.5 48.0 12.5 11.5 44.0 48.0 Yellow Time (s) 3.5 4.5 3.5 3.5 4.5 3.5 5.0 3.5 3.5 5.0 5.0 All -Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust (s) -0.5 -1.5 -0.5 -0.5 -1.5 0.0 -0.5 -2.0 -0.5 -0.5 -2.0 -2.0 Total Lost Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lead Lead Lag Lead Lead Lead Lag Lag Lead Lead -Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Recall Mode None None Min None None Min C -Max None None C -Max C -Max Walk Time (s) 7.0 7.0 7A 7.0 7.0 Flash Dont Walk (s) 32.0 27.0 22.0 27.0 22.0 Pedestrian Calls (#/hr) 0 0 0 0 0 Act Effct Green (s) 12.3 11.1 36.8 11.2 7.8 24.1 89.3 102.1 10.8 74.0 89.3 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.09 0.08 0.28 0.08 0.06 0.18 0.68 0,77 0.08 0.56 0.68 v/c Ratio 0.65 0.17 0.79 0.18 0.17 0.33 0.94 0.06 0.27 0.55 0.03 Control Delay 68.1 58.2 34.5 58.5 33.8 47.3 30.0 1.4 61.2 20.9 4.5 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 68.1 58,2 34,5 58.5 33.8 47.3 30.0 1.4 61.2 20.9 4.5 LOS E E C E C D C A E C A Approach Delay 42.1 47.8 30.5 21.3 Approach LOS D D C C Queue Length 50th (ft) 86 22 233 21 6 79 -803 2 29 284 3 Queue Length 95th (ft) 128 53 281 42 26 106 #981 9 66 391 17 Internal Link Dist (ft) 442 358 530 891 Tum Bay Length (ft) 250 200 300 300 300 300 200 200 200 Base Capacity(vph) 327 579 972 366 1052 626 2651 1281 150 3612 1222 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.61 0,05 0.78 0.14 0.04 0.32 0.94 0,06 0.24 0.55 0.03 InWrsec8ai Summa Area Type: Other Cycle Length: 132 Actuated Cycle Length: 132 Offset 94 (71 %), Referenced to phase 2:SWL and 6:SWR, Start of Yellow Natural Cycle: 145 Control Type: Actuated -Coordinated Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.94 Intersection Signal Delay: 29.4 Intersection LOS: C Intersection Capacity Utilization 58.7% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15 - Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles, # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue maybe longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles, LLG Engineers Synchro 7 - Report Page 10 A_49 I Lanes, Volumes, Timings PM PEAK 5: Ave Scott & McBean Parkway Existing Splits and Phases: 5: Ave Scott & McBean Parkway LLG Engineers Syn&ro7 - Report Page 11 A-50 10 5 � SI•��..`�� wC ,=�_zyti� fG'vu Sia.. 'off _,_i3<�', LLG Engineers Syn&ro7 - Report Page 11 A-50 10 5 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis PM PEAK 5: Ave Scott & McBean Parkway Existing NEL NBR NBR Lane Configurations 4 rr M Ti, ►jai rrrr r 'S 1111 r Volume (vph) 185 25 694 46 15 20 184 2291 66 33 1836 33 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Width 11 12 12 10 13 8 11 11 12 10 12 16 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 1.00 0.88 0.97 0.95 0.97 0.64 1.00 1.00 0.91 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.91 1.00 0.85 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 Said. Flow (prot) 3319 1863 2787 3204 3340 3319 3918 1583 1652 6441 1794 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 Said. Flow (perm) 3319 1863 2787 3204 3340 3319 3918 1583 1652 6441 1794 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 201 27 754 50 16 22 200 2490 72 36 1996 36 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 187 0 21 0 0 0 14 0 0 9 Lane Group Flow (vph) 201 27 567 50 17 0 200 2490 58 36 1996 27 Tum Type Prot pm+ov Prot custom custom Prot custom Protected Phases 7 4 1 3 8 1 6 3 5 2 Permitted Phases 4 6 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 11.8 8.3 31.9 9.6 6.1 23.6 84.4 94.0 9.2 70.0 84.4 Effective Green, g (s) 12.3 9.8 32.9 10.1 7.6 24.1 86.4 95.0 9.7 72.0 86.4 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.09 0.07 0.25 0.08 0.06 0.18 0.65 0.72 0.07 0.55 0.65 Clearance Time (s) 4.5 5.5 4.5 4.5 5.5 4.5 6.0 4.5 4.5 6.0 6.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 309 138 695 245 192 606 2565 1139 121 3513 1174 vis Ratio Prot c0.06 0.01 c0.15 0.02 0.01 0.06 c0.64 0.00 0.02 c0.31 vis Ratio Perm 0.05 0.03 0.02 vic Ratio 0.65 0.20 0.82 0.20 0.09 0.33 0.97 0.05 0.30 0.57 0.02 Uniform Delay, dl 57.8 57.4 46.7 57.2 58.9 46.9 21.6 5.4 57.9 19.8 8.0 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 4.8 0.7 7.3 0.4 0.2 0.3 12.1 0.0 1.4 0.7 0.0 Delay (s) 62.6 58.1 54.0 57.6 59.1 47.2 33.7 5.4 59.3 20.4 8.0 Level of Service E E D E E D C A E C A Approach Delay (s) 55.9 58.3 34.0 20.9 Approach LOS E E C C Interseclioh Summary -17 i HCM Average Control Delay 33.4 HCM Level of Service C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.85 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 132.0 Sum of lost time (s) 8.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 58.7% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group LLG Engineers Synchro 7 - Report Page 12 A5I 10101 LINSCOTT, LAW & GI EENSPAN, engineers APPENDIX A-11 EXISTING WITH PROJECT TRAFFIC CONDITIONS (300 STUDENT ENROLLMENT) 1161 Ref 2-13-3400-1 Alben Einstein Academy, Santa Clarim Lanes, Volumes, Timings AM PEAK 27. Avenue Scott & Rye Canyon Rd/Copperhill Dr Existing Plus Project SER NWU NWL NWT IMM 'WELL NEL NET Lane Configurations I A M ? r N W+ I Volume (vph) 0 3 0 17 101 2 202 11 0 691 164 413 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Width (ft) 12 11 11 12 12 12 12 12 12 11 12 11 Storage Length (ft) 150 0 0 50 200 0 0 Storage Lanes 1 0 2 1 1 0 1 Taper Length (ft) 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 0.91 1.00 0.91 0.91 1.00 Frt 0.850 0.971 Flt Protected 0.950 0.950 0.950 Sald. Flow (prol) 1863 1801 0 0 3433 1863 1583 0 1770 4773 0 1711 Flt Permitted 0.950 0.404 0.950 Sald.Flow (perm) 1863 1801 0 0 3433 1863 1583 0 753 4773 0 1711 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Said. Flow (RTOR) 220 37 Link Speed (mph) 35 35 45 Link Distance (ft) 547 335 307 Travel Time (s) 10.7 6.5 4.7 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 0 3 0 18 11D 2 220 12 0 751 178 449 Shared Lane Traffic (%) Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 3 0 0 128 2 220 0 12 929 0 449 Enter Blocked Intersection No No No No No No No No No No No No Lane Alignment Left Left Right RNA Left Left Right R NA Left Left Right Left Median Width(ft) 24 24 12 Link Offset(ft) 0 0 0 Crosswalk Width(ft) 16 16 16 Two way Left Tum Lane Headway Factor 1.00 1.04 1.04 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.04 1.00 1.04 Turning Speed (mph) 15 9 9 15 9 9 15 9 15 Number of Detectors 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Detector Template Leading Detector (it) 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 Trailing Detector (ft) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Detector 1 Position(ft) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Detector 1 Size(ft) 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 5D 50 50 Detector 1 Type CI+Ex CI+Ex CI+Ex CI+Ex CI+Ex CI+Ex CI+Ex CI+Ex CI+Ex CI+Ex Detector 1 Channel Detector 1 Extend (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Detector 1 Queue (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Detector 1 Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Turn Type Perm Split Split Perm custom Prot Prot Protected Phases 7 3 3 3 5 2 114 Permitted Phases 7 3 5 Detector Phase 7 7 3 3 3 3 5 5 2 1 14 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Minimum Split (s) 15.0 15.0 35.0 35.0 35.0 35.0 8.5 8.5 30.0 Total Split (s) 15.0 15.0 0.0 35.0 35.0 35.0 35.0 20.0 20.0 30.0 0.0 52.0 LLG Engineers Synchro 7 - Report Page 27 A-52 A Lanes, Volumes, Timings AM PEAK 27: Avenue Scott & Rye Canyon Rd/Copperhill Dr Existing Plus Project A( k. Lane Group SWT SWR e1 e4 e14 LaneVonfigurallons t+'+ Volume (vph) 1432 2 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 Lane Width (ft) 11 10 Storage Length (ft) 0 Storage Lanes 0 Taper Length (ft) 25 Lane Ulil. Factor 0.91 0.91 Frt Flt Protected Said. Flow (prof) 4916 0 Flt Permitted Said. Flow (perm) 4916 0 Right Turn on Red Yes Said. Flow (RTOR) Link Speed (mph) 45 Link Distance (ft) 1700 Travel Time (s) 25.8 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 1557 2 Shared Lane Traffic (°h) Lane Group Flow (vph) 1559 0 Enter Blocked Intersection No No Lane Nignment Left Right Median Width(ft) 12 Link Offset(ft) 0 Crosswalk Width(ft) 16 Two way Left Turn Lane Headway Factor 1.04 1.09 Turning Speed (mph) 9 Number of Detectors 1 Detector Template Leading Detector (ft) 50 Trailing Detector (ft) 0 Detector 1 Position(ft) 0 Detector 1 Size(ft) 50 Detector 1 Type CI+Ex Detector 1 Channel Detector 1 Extend (s) 0.0 Detector 1 Queue (s) 0.0 Detector 1 Delay (s) 0.0 Turn Type Protected Phases 6 1 4 14 Permitted Phases Detector Phase 6 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Minimum Split (s) 45.0 20.0 35.0 14.0 Total Split (s) 42.0 0.0 32.0 35.0 20.0 LLG Engineers Synchro 7 • Report Page 28 A•53 l , /t Lanes, Volumes, Timings AM PEAK 27: Avenue Scott & Rye Canyon Rd/Copperhill Dr Existing Plus Project % Jk\ x-, *% f I X .A L Lane Group SEL SET SER NWU NWL i W ,"�1„- 7%Nff-' $yyl Total Split (%) 11.4% 11.4% 0.0% 26.5% 26.5% 26.5% 26.5% 15.2% 15.2% 22.7% 0.0% 39.4% Maximum Green (s) 10.0 10.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 15.5 15.5 24.0 Yellow Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.5 3.5 5.0 All -Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust (s) -1.0 -1.0 0.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 -0.5 -0.5 -2.0 0.0 -0.5 Total Lost Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lead/Lag Lead Lead Lead Lead Lag Lead -Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Recall Mode None None Min Min Min Min Min Min C -Min Walk Time (s) 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 Flash Dont Walk (s) 23.0 23.0 23.0 23.0 16.0 Pedestrian Calls (#Ihr) 2 2 2 2 0 Act Effct Green (s) 6.8 14.7 14.7 14.7 9.9 62.6 40.4 Actuated gIC Ratio 0.05 0.11 0,11 0.11 0.08 0.47 0.31 vlc Ratio 0.03 0.34 0.01 0.59 0.21 0.41 0.86 Control Delay 60.0 54.6 45.5 12.6 55.4 27.6 60.6 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 60.0 54.6 45.5 12.6 55.4 27.6 60.6 LOS E D D B E C E Approach Delay 60.0 28.1 27.9 Approach LOS E C C Queue Length 50th (ff) 3 54 2 0 10 163 410 Queue Length 95th (ft) 13 73 9 65 m30 #350 m434 Internal Link Dist (ft) 467 255 227 Turn Bay Length (ft) 50 200 Base Capacity (vph) 150 806 438 540 91 2283 740 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.02 0.16 0.00 0.41 0.13 0.41 0.61 Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Cycle Length: 132 Actuated Cycle length: 132 Offset: 78 (59%), Referenced to phase 2:NET and 6:SWT, Start of Yellow Natural Cycle: 125 Control Type: Actuated -Coordinated Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.86 Intersection Signal Delay: 29.2 Intersection LOS: C Intersection Capacity Utilization 59.9% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15 # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal LLG Engineers Synchro7- Report Page 29 A-54 UD O Lanes, Volumes, Timings AM PEAK 27: Avenue Scott & Rye Canyon Rd/Copperhill Dr Existing Plus Project LLG Engineers A•55 Synchro 7 - Report Page 30 Lanes, Volumes, Timings AM PEAK 27: Avenue Scott & Rye Canyon Rd/Copperhill Dr Existing Plus Protect Je, *-, Total Split (%) 31.8% 0.0% 24% 27% 15% Maximum Green (s) 36.0 27.5 30.5 16.0 Yellow Time (s) 5.0 3.5 3.5 3.5 All -Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.5 Lost Time Adjust (s) -2.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 4.0 4.0 LeadlLag Lag Lead Lag Lead -Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Recall Mode C -Min None None None Walk Time (s) 7.0 7.0 Flash Dont Walk (s) 27.0 23.0 Pedestrian Calls (#mr) 0 0 Act Effct Green (s) 64.1 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.49 vlc Ratio 0.65 Control Delay 21.1 Queue Delay 0.0 Total Delay 21.1 LOS C Approach Delay 29.9 Approach LOS C Queue Length 50th (ft) 149 Queue Length 95th (ft) #630 Internal Link Dist (ft) 1620 Turn Bay Length (ft) Base Capacity (vph) 2386 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 Spiilback Cap Reductn 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 Reduced vlc Ratio 0.65. LLG Engineers Synchro 7 - Report Page 31 A-56 117, HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis AM PEAK 27: Avenue Scott & Rye Canyon Rd/Copperhill Dr Existing Plus Project I %A � Jt\ r ";' f * -3 'X -* � Lane Configurations I A 52.2 52.9 M t r Progression Factor 1.00 TTA 1.00 Vi Volume (vph) 0 3 0 17 101 2 202 11 0 691 164 413 Ideal Flaw (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Width 12 11 11 12 12 12 12 12 12 11 12 11 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Uel. Factor 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.91 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.97 1.00 Flt Protected 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0,95 Satd. Flow (prat) 1801 3433 1863 1583 1770 4775 1711 Flt Permitted 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.40 1.00 0.95 Satd. Flow (perm) 1801 3433 1863 1583 753 4775 1711 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 0 3 0 18 110 2 220 12 0 751 178 449 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 0 196 0 0 21 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 3 0 0 128 2 25 0 12 908 0 449 Turn Type Perm Split Split Perm custom Prot Prot Protected Phases 7 3 3 3 5 2 1 14 Permitted Phases 7 3 5 Actuated Green, G (s) 1.3 13.7 13.7 13.7 9.4 56.5 40.0 Effective Green, g (s) 2.3 14.7 14.7 14.7 9.9 58.5 37.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.02 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.08 0.44 0.28 Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 4.5 6.0 Vehicle Extension is)_ 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 31 382 207 176 56 2116 480 vls Ratio Prot CHO c0.04 0.00 0.19 c0.26 vls Ratio Perm 0.02 0.02 vlc Ratio 0.10 034 0.01 014 021 043 094 Uniform Delay, d1 63.8 54.1 52.2 52.9 57.4 25.3 46.3 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.08 1.18 Incremental Delay, d2 1.4 0.5 0.0 0.4 1.9 0.6 17.4 Delay (s) 65.2 54.7 52.2 53.3 50.5 28.0 71.9 Level of Service E D D D D C E Approach Delay (s) 65.2 53.8 28.3 Approach LOS E D C Intersection Summa HCM Average Control Delay 33.5 HCM Level of Service C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.70 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 132.0 Sum of lost time (s) 16.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 59.9% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group LLG Engineers Synchro 7 - Report Page 32 A-57 i NCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis AM PEAK 27: Avenue Scott & Rye Canyon Rd/Copperhill Dr Existing Plus Project LaneVonfigurations ++'F v/s Ratio Prot Volume (vph) 1432 2 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 Lane Width 11 10 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 Delay (s) Lane Ubl. Factor 0.91 C Frt 1.00 Approach LOS At Protected 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 4915 Flt Permitted 1.00 Sald. Flow (perm) 4915 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 1557 2 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 1559 0 Tum Type Protected Phases 6 Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) 58.0 Effective Green, g (s) 60.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.45 Clearance Time (s) 6.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 2234 v/s Ratio Prot c0.32 v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio 0.70 Uniform Delay, dl 28.8 Progression Factor 0.69 Incremental Delay, d2 11 Delay (s) 21.0 Level of Service C Approach Delay (s) 32.4 Approach LOS C Intersection Summary LLG Engineers Synchro 7 - Report Page 33 A -5R � ' 1 Lanes, Volumes, Timings AM PEAK 29: Avenue Stanford & Avenue Scott Existing Plus Project _-A __I. 1! t 1 t r" 1► 1 Lane Configurations f r 1 j. ft I fA Volume (vph) 11 38 141 9 9 11 194 271 64 29 47 425 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length (ft) 200 100 150 0 190 0 165 Storage Lanes 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 Taper Length (ft) 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.95 Frt 0.850 0.918 0.971 0.984 Flt Protected 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950 Satd. Flow (prof) 1770 1863 1583 1770 1710 0 1770 3437 0 0 1770 3483 Flt Permitted 0.755 0.755 0.461 0.534 Satd. Flow (perm) 1406 1863 1583 1406 1710 0 859 3437 0 0 995 3483 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Said. Flow (RTOR) 153 12 53 23 Link Speed (mph) 30 35 45 45 Link Distance (ft) 434 616 2297 504 Travel Time (s) 9.9 12.0 34.8 7.6 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 12 41 153 10 10 12 211 295 70 32 51 462 Shared Lane Traffic (%) Lane Group Flow (vph) 12 41 153 10 22 0 211 365 0 0 83 516 Enter Blocked Intersection No No No No No No No No No No No No Lane Alignment Left Left Right Left Left Right Left Left Right R NA Left Left Median Width(ft) 12 12 12 12 Link Offset(ft) 0 0 0 0 Crosswalk Width(ft) 16 16 16 16 Two way Left Turn Lane Headway Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Turning Speed (mph) 15 9 15 9 15 9 9 15 Number of Detectors 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Detector Template Leading Detector (ft) 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 Trailing Detector (ft) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Detector 1 Posibon(ft) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Detector 1 Size(ft) 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 Detector 1 Type CI+Ex CI+Ex CI+Ex CI+Ex CI+Ex CI+Ex CI+Ex CI+Ex CI+Ex CI+Ex Detector 1 Channel Detector 1 Extend (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Detector 1 queue (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Detector 1 Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Turn Type Penn Perm Perm Perm Penn Perm Protected Phases 4 8 2 6 Permitted Phases 4 4 4 8 2 6 6 Detector Phase 4 4 4 8 8 2 2 6 6 6 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Minimum Split (s) 35.0 35.0 35.0 35.0 35.0 26.0 26.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 Total Split (s) 35.0 35.0 35.0 35.0 35.0 0.0 30.0 30.0 0.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 Total Split (%) 53.8% 53.8% 53.8% 53.8% 53.8% 0.0% 46.2% 46.2% 0.0% 46.2% 46.2% 46.2% LLG Engineers Synchro 7 - Report Page 34 A-59 I I Lanes, Volumes, Timings AM PEAK 29: Avenue Stanford & Avenue Scott Existing Plus Project I/ Volume (vph) 50 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 Storage Length (ft) 0 Storage Lanes 0 Taper Length (ft) 25 Lane Util. Factor 0.95 Frt Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) 0 Flt Permitted Sald. Flow (perm) 0 Right Tum on Red Yes Said. Flow (RTOR) Link Speed (mph) Link Distance (ft) Travel Time (s) Peak Hour Factor 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 54 Shared Lane Traffic (%) Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 Enter Blocked Intersection No Lane Alignment Right Median Width(ft) Link Offset(ft) Crosswalk Width(ft) Two way Left Turn Lane Headway Factor 1.00 Turning Speed (mph) 9 Number of Detectors Detector Template Leading Detector (ft) Trailing Detector (ft) Detector 1 Posifion(ft) Detector 1 Size(ft) Detector 1 Type Detector 1 Channel Detector 1 Extend (s) Detector 1 Queue (s) Detector 1 Delay (s) Tum Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Detector Phase Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) Minimum Split (s) Total Split (s) 0.0 Total Split (%) 0.0% LLG Engineers A-60 Synchro 7 - Report Page 35 Lanes, Volumes, Timings AM PEAK 29: Avenue Stanford & Avenue Scott Existing Plus Project Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NET NBR ' SBU ' SBL SBT Maximum Green (s) 31.0 31.0 31.0 31.0 31.0 26.0 26.0 26.0 26.0 26,0 Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All -Red Time (s) 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lead/Lag Lead -Lag Optimize? Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 RecA Mode None None None None None Min Min Min Min Min Walk Time (s) 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 Flash Dont Walk (s) 24.0 24.0 24.0 24.0 24.0 15.0 15.0 19.0 19.0 19.0 Pedestrian Calls (#Ihr) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Act Effct Green (s) 6.6 6.6 6.6 6.6 6.6 20.9 20.9 20.9 20.9 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.65 0.65 0.65 0.65 v/c Ratio 0.04 0.11 0.34 0.03 0.06 0.38 0.16 0.13 0.23 Control Delay 11.5 12.0 5.6 11.4 8.9 7.1 3.3 4.4 3.8 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 11.5 12.0 5.6 11.4 8.9 7.1 3.3 4.4 3.8 LOS B B A B A A A A A Approach Delay 7.2 9.7 4.7 3.9 Approach LOS A A A A Queue Length 50th (ft) 1 5 0 1 1 16 10 5 17 Queue Length 95th (ft) 11 24 30 10 13 54 25 19 38 Internal Link Dist (fl) 354 536 2217 424 Turn Bay Length (ft) 200 100 150 190 165 Base Capacity(vph) 1302 1725 1477 1302 1584 704 2827 816 2859 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced vlc Ratio 0.01 0.02 0.10 0.01 0.01 0.30 0.13 0.10 0.18 Intersection Summa Area Type: Other Cycle Length: 65 Actuated Cycle Length: 32.4 Natural Cycle: 65 Control Type: Actuated -Uncoordinated Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.38 Intersection Signal Delay: 4.8 Intersection LOS: A Intersection Capacity Utilization 41.4% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min)15 Splits and Phases: 29: Avenue Stanford 8 Avenue Scott 1 m2 "► m4 330 a' :... :. 3r s 'i~ m6 mg LLG Engineers Synchro7- Report Page 36 Lanes, Volumes, Timings AM PEAK 29: Avenue Stanford & Avenue Scott Existing Plus Project r Lane Group SBR Maximum Green (s) Yellow Time (s) All -Red Time (s) Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 4.0 Lead/Lag Lead -Lag Optimize? Vehicle Extension (s) Recall Mode Walk Time (s) Plash Dont Walk (s) Pedestrian Calls (#!hr) Act Effct Green (s) Actuated g/C Ratio We Ratio Control Delay Queue Delay Total Delay LOS Approach Delay Approach LOS Queue Length 50th (ft) Queue Length 95th (ft) Internal Link Dist (fl) Turn Bay Length (fl) Base Capacity (vph) Starvation Cap Reductn Spillback Cap Reductn Storage Cap Reductn Reduced v/c Ratio Intersection Summary d(1 LLG Engineers Synchro 7 - Report Page 37 A-62 � I Q HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis AM PEAK 29: Avenue Stanford & Avenue Scott Existing Plus Project �--I. -* 4e~ t 4N t ti 1 Un Lane Configurations "i T r fi t'# 1 0 Volume (vph) 11 38 141 9 9 11 194 271 64 29 47 425 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 Fri 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.92 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.98 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 100 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 1863 1583 1770 1710 1770 3437 1770 3484 Flt Permitted 0.75 1.00 1.00 0.75 1.00 0.46 1.00 0.53 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1406 1863 1583 1406 1710 859 3437 995 3484 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 12 41 153 10 10 12 211 295 70 32 51 462 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 129 0 10 0 0 21 0 0 0 9 Lane Group Flow (vph) 12 41 24 10 12 0 211 344 0 0 83 507 Turn Type Perm Perm Perm Perm Perm Perm Protected Phases 4 8 2 6 Permitted Phases 4 4 4 8 2 6 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 5.3 5.3 5.3 5.3 5.3 19.9 19.9 19.9 19.9 Effective Green, g (s) 5.3 5.3 5.3 5.3 5.3 19.9 19.9 19.9 19.9 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 224 297 253 224 273 515 2060 596 2068 vis Ratio Prot cO.02 0.01 0.10 0.15 vis Ratio Perm 0.01 0.02 0.01 cO.25 0.08 We Ratio 0.05 0.14 0.10 ON 0.04 0.41 0.17 0.14 0.24 Uniform Delay, d1 11.8 12.0 11.9 11.8 11.8 3.5 3.0 2.9 3.1 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.5 0.0 0.1 0.1 Delay (s) 11.9 12.2 12.1 11.9 11.9 4.1 3.0 3.0 3.2 Level of Service 8 B B B B A A A A Approach Delay (s) 12.1 11.9 3.4 3.2 Approach LOS B B A A Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 4.8 HCM Level of Service A HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.35 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 33.2 Sum of lost time (s) 8.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 41.4% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group LLG Engineers A-63 Synchro 7 - Report Page 38 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis AM PEAK 29: Avenue Stanford & Avenue Scott Existing Plus Project 4/ Movement SBR Lar'Wonfigurations Volume (vph) 50 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frt Flt Protected Satd. Flow (Prot) Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (oerm Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 54 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 Lane Grouo Flow (voh) 0 Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Greer,g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) vls Rath Prot vls Ratio Perm vlc Ratio Uniform Delay, dl Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS Intersection Summary LLG Engineers Synchro 7 - Report Page 39 A-64 l -2 ail Lanes, Volumes, Timings 35 1.00 1.00 35 9 15 29 45 15 9 AM PEAK 9: Avenue Tibbitts & Avenue Scott 1 973 2 Left 1589 Right Left Existing Plus Project 20 ---k, --a. --* 4- '- 0 -� 1 /'0' 0.92 4 1 Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SET SBR Lane Configurations 0.0 0 0.0 ►j d rr I fI# 256 I ++ r Volume (vph) 135 51 185 1 8 10 153 384 116 27 468 80 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length (ft) 100 5 0 190 0 150 0 190 4 100 Storage Lanes 1 16 0 1 16 2 1 16 0 1 1 Taper Length (ft) 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 Lane U61. Factor 1.00 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.88 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Frt 0.882 0.850 0.965 0.850 Flt Protected 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950 Said. Flow (prot) 1770 3122 0 1681 1770 2787 1770 3415 0 1770 3539 1583 Fit Permitted 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950 Sad. Flow (penn) 1770 3122 0 1681 1770 2787 1770 3415 0 1770 3539 1583 Right Tum on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Satd. Flow (RTOR) 201 11 26 65 Link Speed (mph) Link Distance (ft) Travel Time (s) Peak Hour Factor Adj. Flow (vph) Shared Lane Traffic (%) Lane Group Flow (vph) Enter Blocked Intersection Lane Alignment Median Width(ft) Link Offset(ft) Crosswalk Wdth(ft) Two way Left Tum Lane Headway Factor Turning Speed (mph) Number of Detectors Detector Template Leading Detector (ft) Trailing Detector (ft) Detector 1 Position(ft) Detector 1 Size(ft) Detector 1 Type Detector 1 Channel Detector 1 Extend (s) Detector 1 Queue (s) Detector 1 Delay (s) Detector 2 Position(ft) Detector 2 Size(ft) Detector 2 Type Detector 2 Channel Detector 2 Extend (s) Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Detector Phase LLG Engineers 1.00 1.00 15 1 2 Left Thru 20 100 0 0 0 0 20 6 CI+Ex CI+Ex 0.0 0.0 0.0 Split 3 3 0.0 0.0 0.0 94 6 CI+Ex 0.0 3 3 1.00 1.00 35 1.00 1.00 35 9 15 29 45 15 9 795 2 1 973 2 Left 1589 Right Left 15.5 20 100 19.0 20 100 24.1 0 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 147 55 201 1 9 11 166 417 126 0.0 0.0 0.0 10% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 147 256 0 1 9 11 166 543 0 No No No No No No No No No Left Left Right Left Left Right Left Left Right 5 12 Prot 12 4 5 12 6 0 4 0 4 4 0 1 6 16 16 16 1.00 1.00 15 1 2 Left Thru 20 100 0 0 0 0 20 6 CI+Ex CI+Ex 0.0 0.0 0.0 Split 3 3 0.0 0.0 0.0 94 6 CI+Ex 0.0 3 3 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 9 15 29 9 15 9 1 2 1 1 2 Left Thru Right Left Thru 20 100 20 20 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 6 20 20 6 CI+Ex CI+Ex CI+Ex CI+Ex G+Ex 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 94 94 6 CI+Ex 6 0.0 CI+Ex Prot CI+Ex 5 0.0 0.0 Split 5 pm+ov Prot 4 4 5 1 6 4 6 4 4 5 1 6 45 2297 34.8 0.92 0.92 0.92 29 509 87 29 509 87 No No No Left Left Right 12 0 16 1.00 1.00 1.00 15 9 1 2 1 Left Thru Right 20 100 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 6 20 CI+Ex CI+Ex CI+Ex 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 94 6 CI+Ex 0.0 Prot Perm 5 2 2 5 2 2 Synchro 7 - Report Page 15 A-65 � Z� Lanes, Volumes, Timings AM PEAK 9: Avenue Tibbitts & Avenue Scott Existing Plus Project ' --* -,* •- 4 - t r ` l Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NEL NBT NO! NOMMUR Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Minimum Split (s) 33.0 33.0 10.0 10.0 8.5 8.5 39.0 8.5 33.0 33.0 Total Split (s) 31.0 31.0 0.0 31.0 31.0 44.5 24.5 56.0 0.0 44.5 76.0 76.0 Total Split (%) 19.1% 19.1% 0.0% 19.1% 19.1% 27.4% 15.1% 34.5% 0.0% 27.4% 46.8% 46.8% Maximum Green (s) 25.0 25.0 25.0 25.0 40.0 20.0 50.0 40.0 70.0 70.0 Yellow Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 3.5 3.5 5.0 3.5 5.0 5.0 All -Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust (s) -2.0 -2.0 0.0 -2.0 -2.0 -0.5 -0.5 -2.0 0.0 45 -2.0 10 Total Lost Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lead/Lag Lead Lead Lag Lag Lag Lead Lead Lag Lag Lag Lead -Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Recall Mode None None None None None None Min None Min Min Walk Time (s) 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 Flash Dont Walk (s) 20.0 20.0 26.0 20.0 20.0 Pedestrian Calls (fllhr) 0 0 0 0 0 Act EBct Green (s) 14.0 14.0 8.4 8.4 11.8 13.6 29.8 10.6 19.0 19.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.23 0.23 0.14 0.14 0.19 0.22 0.49 0.17 0.31 0.31 v1c Ratio 0.36 0.29 0.00 0.04 0.02 0.42 0.32 0.09 0.46 0.16 Control Delay 26.2 8.1 32.0 31.6 7.4 27.3 14.6 24.6 20.2 9.1 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 26.2 8.1 32.0 31.6 7.4 27.3 14.6 24.6 20.2 9.1 LOS C A C C A C B C C A Approach Delay 14.7 19.0 17.6 18.9 Approach LOS B B B B Queue Length 50th (ft) 41 7 0 3 0 47 33 9 68 5 Queue Length 95th (ft) 129 45 5 21 3 145 186 36 176 44 Internal Link Dist (ft) 715 893 1509 2217 Turn Bay Length (ft) 100 190 150 190 100 Base Capacity(vph) 836 1580 794 836 2032 635 2932 1253 3389 1519 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.18 0.16 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.26 0.19 0.02 0.15 0.06 latersectlon Summary Area Type: Other Cycle Length: 162.5 Actuated Cycle Length: 61.2 Natural Cycle: 95 Control Type: Actuated -Uncoordinated Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.46 Intersection Signal Delay: 17.4 Intersection LOS: B Intersection Capacity Utilization 45.6% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min)15 LLG Engineers Synchro 7 - Report Page 16 A4>6 I ^ Lanes, Volumes, Timings AM PEAK 9: Avenue Tibbitts & Avenue Scott Existing Plus Project Splits and Phases: 9: Avenue Tibbitts & Avenue Soot) LLG Engineers Synchro 7 • Report Page 17 A-67 c23 u N LLG Engineers Synchro 7 • Report Page 17 A-67 c23 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis AM PEAK 9: Avenue Tibbitts & Avenue Scott Existing Plus Project EBL EBT EBR Lane Configurations I TA 0.42 I $ fr 45.6% ICU Level of Service A Tp 15 c Critical Lane Group T? r Volume (vph) 135 51 185 1 8 10 153 384 116 27 468 80 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.88 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.88 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Said. Flow (prot) 1770 3122 1681 1770 2787 1770 3416 1770 3539 1583 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Said. Flow (perm) 1770 3122 1681 1770 2787 1770 3416 1770 3539 1583 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 147 55 201 1 9 11 166 417 126 29 509 87 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 160 0 0 0 10 0 15 0 0 0 44 Lane Group Flow (vph) 147 96 0 1 9 1 166 528 0 29 509 43 Turn Type Split Split pm+ov Prot Prot Perm Protected Phases 3 3 4 4 5 1 6 5 2 Permitted Phases 4 6 2 Actuated Green, G (s) 11.9 11.9 0.9 0.9 6.5 13.1 27.7 5.6 20.2 20.2 Effective Green, g (s) 13.9 139 2.9 2.9 7.5 13.6 29.7 6.1 22.2 22.2 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.20 0.20 0.04 0.04 0.11 0.20 0.43 0.09 0.32 0.32 Clearance Time (s) 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 4.5 4.5 6.0 4.5 6.0 6.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 359 633 71 75 305 351 1479 157 1145 512 vis Ratio Prot c0.08 0.03 0.00 00.01 0.00 00.09 0.15 0.02 00.14 Ws Ratio Perm 0.00 0.03 vic Ratio 0.41 0.15 0.01 0.12 0.00 0.47 0.36 0.18 0.44 0.08 Uniform Delay, dl 23.8 22.5 31.5 31.6 27.2 24.3 13.0 28.9 18.3 16.1 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.8 0.1 0.1 0.7 0.0 1.0 0.1 0.6 0.3 0.1 Delay (s) 24.5 22.6 31.6 32.3 27.2 25.3 13.2 29.5 18.6 16.2 Level of Service C C C C C C B C B B Approach Delay (s) 23.3 29.6 16.0 18.8 Approach LOS C C B B Inlersedion Summa HCM Average Control Delay 18,8 HCM Level of Service B HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.42 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 68,6 Sum of lost time (s) 16.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 45.6% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group LLG Engineers Synchro7- Report Page 18 A-08 1 -2,11 Lanes, Volumes, Timings AM PEAK 4: Avenue Scott & Einstein Driveway Existing Plus Project --A 7 1 (A '*\ Lane Configurations P9 F VII Volume (vph) 517 80 0 34 322 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Utit. Factor 0.88 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.97 Frt 0.850 0.865 Fit Protected 0.950 Satd. Flow (prot) 2787 0 0 1611 3433 Flt Permitted 0.950 Satd. Flow (perm) 2787 0 0 1611 3433 Link Speed (mph) 35 30 45 Link Distance (ft) 335 346 504 Travel Time (s) 6.5 7.9 7.6 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 562 87 0 37 350 Shared Lane Traffic (%) Lane Group Flow (vph) 649 0 0 37 350 Enter Blocked Intersection No No No No No Lane Alignment Right Right Left Right Left Median Width(ft) 0 0 36 Link O(iset(ft) 0 0 0 Crosswalk Width(ft) 16 16 16 Two way Left Turn Lane Headway Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Turning Speed (mph) 9 9 15 9 15 Sign Control Free Stop Free Intersectlorr Summa Area Type: Other Control Type: Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Utilization 30.9% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 LLG Engineers Synchro 7 - Report Page 7 A-69 172-5 "75 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis AM PEAK 4: Avenue Scott & Einstein Driveway Existing Plus Project Lane Configurations rg EB 2 r M Volume (vehlh) 517 80 0 34 322 Sign Control Free Slop 0 Free Grade 0% 004 Volume Right 0% Peak Hour Factor 0,92 092 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 562 87 0 37 350 Pedestrians 0.22 0.16 0.06 0.10 Lane Width (ft) Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 0 4 Walking Speed (Rls) 0 Control Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 Percent Blockage 0.0 0.0 Lane LOS Right turn flare (veh) B Approach Delay (s) Median type None 10.7 0.0 Raised Median storage veh) B 1 Upstream signal (ft) .335 504 pX, platoon unblocked Average Delay vC, conflicting volume 780 324 vC1, stage 1 conf vol 30.9% 605 Analysis Period (min) vC2, stage 2 conf vol 15 175 vCu, unblocked vol 780 324 IC, single (s) 6.8 6.9 tC, 2 stage (s) 5.8 tF (s) 3.5 3.3 p0 queue free % 100 94 cM capacity (veh/h) 422 671 Direction Lane# EB 1 EB 2 NB 1 NW 1 NW 2 Volume Total 375 274 37 175 175 Volume Left 0 0 0 0 0 Volume Right 0 87 37 0 0 cSH 1700 1700 671 1700 1700 Volume to Capacity 0.22 0.16 0.06 0.10 0.10 Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 0 4 0 0 Control Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 10.7 0.0 0.0 Lane LOS B Approach Delay (s) 0.0 10.7 0.0 Approach LOS B Intersection Summary Average Delay 0.4 Intersection Capacity Utilization 30.9% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 LLG Engineers Synchro 7 - Report Page 8 A-70 � 1 / _ Lanes, Volumes, Timings 8: Einstein Driveway & Rye Canyon "t AM PEAK Dr Existing Plus Projed 786 34 0 1544 *Rd/Copperhill I t I i Lane Configurations Volume (vph) Ideal Flow (vphpl) Lane UGI, Factor Frt Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prof) Flt Permitted Said. Flow (perm) Link Speed (mph) Link Distance (ft) Travel Time (s) Peak Hour Factor Adj. Flow (vph) Shared Lane Traffic (%) Lane Group Flow (vph) Enter Blocked Intersection Lane Alignment Median Width(ft) Link Offset(ft) Crosswalk Width(ft) Two way Left Turn Lane Headway Factor Turning Speed (mph) Sign Control Intersection Summa r "T+ "t 0 80 786 34 0 1544 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1.00 1.00 0.91 0.91 1.00 0.91 0.865 0.994 45 0 1611 5055 0 0 5085 0 1611 5055 0 0 5085 30 45 45 360 799 307 8.2 12.1 4.7 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0 87 854 37 0 1678 0 87 891 0 0 1678 No No No No No No Left Right Left Right Left Left 0 12 12 0 0 0 16 16 16 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 15 9 9 15 Stop Free Free Area Type: Other Control Type: Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Utilization 33.2% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min)15 LLG Engineers Synchro 7 - Report Page 13 A-71 I V HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis AM PEAK 8: Einstein Driveway & Rye Canyon Rd/Copperhill Dr Existing Plus Project Lane Configurations Volume (vehm) Sign Control Grade Peak Hour Factor Hourly flow rate (vph) Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (f ts) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 cont vol vCu, unblocked vol IC, single (s) IC, 2 stage (s) IF (s) p0 queue free % cM capacity (vehm) 0 0 80 786 34 0 1544 Stop Free Free 0% 0% 0% 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0 87 854 37 0 1678 None 0.75 1432 303 891 400 303 6.8 6.9 3.5 3.3 100 87 432 693 891 4.1 2.2 100 756 None 307 Direction Lane A WB 1 NB 1 NB 2 NB 3 SB 1 SB 2 SB 3 Volume Total 87 342 342 208 559 559 559 Volume Left 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Volume Right 87 0 0 37 0 0 0 cSH 693 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 Volume to Capacity 0.13 010 0.20 0.12 0.33 0.33 0.33 Queue Length 95th (ft) 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 Control Delay (s) 10.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Lane LOS B Approach Delay (s) 10.9 0.0 0.0 Approach LOS B Intersection Summary Average Delay 0.4 Intersection Capacity Utilization 33.2% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 LLG Engineers Synchro 7 - Report Page 14 A-72 123 Lanes, Volumes, Timings AM PEAK 5: Ave Scott & McBean Parkway Existing Plus Project --J( --4' Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT ` WBR NEVI -W,7 -$J u "212 SWR Lane Configurations ir+rr(r ir i im Volume (vph) 155 107 392 248 55 27 495 809 100 20 1762 103 Ideal Flow (vp1hpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Width (ft) 11 12 12 10 13 8 11 11 12 10 12 16 Storage Length (ft) 250 200 300 0 300 300 200 200 Storage Lanes 2 1 2 0 2 1 1 1 Taper Length (ft) 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 1.00 0.88 0.97 0.95 0.95 0.97 0.64 1.00 1.00 0.91 1.00 Frt 0.850 0.951 0.850 0.850 0.850 Flt Protected 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950 Satd.Flow (prot) 3319 1863 2787 3204 3478 0 3319 3918 1583 1652 6441 1794 Flt Permitted 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950 Satd. Flow (perm) 3319 1863 2787 3204 3478 0 3319 3918 1583 1652 6441 1794 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Satd. Flow (RTOR) 6 29 109 82 Link Speed (mph) 30 30 50 50 Link Distance (ft) 522 438 610 971 Travel Time (s) 11.9 10.0 8.3 13.2 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 168 116 426 270 60 29 538 879 109 22 1915 112 Shared Lane Traffic (%) Lane Group Flow (vph) 168 116 426 270 89 0 538 879 109 22 1915 112 Enter Blocked Intersection No No No No No No No No No No No No Lane Alignment Left Left Right Left Left Right Lett Right Right Left Left Right Median Width(ft) 22 22 22 58 Link Offset(ft) 0 0 0 0 Crosswalk Wdth(ft) 16 16 16 16 Two way Left Turn Lane Headway Factor 1.04 1.00 1.00 1.09 0.96 1.20 1.04 1.04 1.00 1.09 1.00 0.85 Turning Speed (mph) 15 9 15 9 15 9 9 15 15 9 Number of Detectors 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Detector Template Leading Detector(}!) 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 Trailing Detector (ft) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Detector 1 Position(ft) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Detector 1 Size(ft) 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 Detector 1 Type CI+Ex CI+Ex CI+Ex CI+Ex CI+Ex CI+Ex CI+Ex CI+Ex CI+Ex CI+Ex CI+Ex Detector 1 Channel Detector 1 Extend (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Detector 1 Queue (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Detector 1 Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Tum Type Prot pm+ov Prot custom custom Prot custom Protected Phases 7 4 1 3 8 1 6 3 5 2 Permitted Phases 4 6 6 Detector Phase 7 4 1 3 8 1 6 3 5 2 6 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Minimum Split (a) 12.0 44.5 15.0 12.0 43.5 15.0 35.0 12.0 12.0 40.0 35.0 Total Split (s) 15.0 45.0 25.0 15.0 45.0 0.0 25.0 52.0 15.0 20.0 47.0 52.0 LLG Engineers Synchro 7 - Report Page 9 A-73 `I 1 Lanes, Volumes, Timings AM PEAK 5: Ave Scott & McBean Parkway Existing Plus Project Lane Group SWVI 2 SWL SWR Total Split (%) 11.4% 34.1% 18.9% 11.4% 34.1% 0.0% 18.9% 39.4% 11.4% 15.2% 35.6% 39.4% Maximum Green (s) 10.5 39.5 20.5 10.5 39.5 20.5 46.0 10.5 15.5 41.0 46.0 Yellow Time (s) 3.5 4.5 3.5 3.5 4.5 3.5 5.0 3.5 3.5 5.0 5.0 All -Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust (s) -0.5 -1.5 -0.5 -0.5 -1.5 0.0 -0.5 -2.0 -0.5 -0.5 -2.0 -2.0 Total Lost Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lead Lead Lag Lead Lead Lead Lag Lag Lead Lead -Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Recall Mode None None Min None None Min C -Max None None C -Max C -Max Walk Time (s) 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 Flash Dont Walk (s) 32.0 27.0 220 27.0 22.0 Pedestrian CaiIs (#!hr) 0 0 0 0 0 Act Effct Green (s) 10.5 15.1 50.9 11.0 15.6 31.8 81.9 94.5 12.1 58.1 81.9 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.08 0.11 0.39 0.08 0.12 0.24 0.62 0.72 0.09 0.44 0.62 v/c Ratio 0.63 0.54 0.39 1.01 0.20 0.67 0.36 0.09 0.14 0.68 0.10 Control Delay 70.0 64.1 29.4 117.3 35.8 49.8 14.7 1.1 54.8 31.8 5.3 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 70.0 64.1 29.4 117.3 35.8 49.8 14.7 1.1 54.8 31.8 5.3 LOS E E C F D D B A D C A Approach Delay 44.7 97.1 26.1 30.6 Approach LOS D F C C Queue Length 50th (ft) 72 95 147 -122 24 217 160 0 17 350 11 Queue Length 95th (ft) 111 154 175 #217 49 270 214 11 44 441 43 Internal Link Dist (ft) 442 358 530 891 Turn Bay Length (ft) 250 200 300 300 300 300 200 200 200 Base Capacity (vph) 277 579 1079 267 1100 801 2431 1164 200 2833 1144 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.61 0.20 0.39 1.01 0.08 0.67 0.36 0.09 0.11 0.68 0.10 Intersecdon'Summary Area Type: Other Cycle Length: 132 Actuated Cycle Length: 132 Offset: 96 (73%), Referenced to phase 2:SWL and 6:SWR, Start of Yellow Natural Cycle: 115 Control Type: Actuated -Coordinated Maximum v/c Ratio: 1.01 Intersection Signal Delay: 36.4 Intersection LOS: D Intersection Capacity Utilization 63.0% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min)15 - Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles, LLG Engineers Synchro7- Report Page 10 A-74 '30 Lanes, Volumes, Timings AM PEAK 5: Ave Scott & McBean Parkway Existing Plus Project LLG Engineers A-75 Synchro 7 - Report Page 11 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 36.2 HCM Level of Service D HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.69 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 132.0 Sum of lost time (s) 16.0 AM PEAK 5: Ave Scott & McBean Parkway Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Existing Plus Project Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL__ s `s *q'7_NBL NBR N Lane Configurations 'S►j T ri" +'A n rrrr IF i im r Volume (vph) 155 107 392 248 55 27 495 809 100 20 1762 103 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Width 11 12 12 10 13 8 11 11 12 10 12 16 Total Lost time (s) 4,0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 1.00 0.88 0.97 0.95 0.97 0.64 1.00 1.00 0.91 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.85 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 Sald. Flow (prot) 3319 1863 2787 3204 3478 3319 3918 1583 1652 6441 1794 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.D0 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 Satd.Flow (perm) 3319 1863 2787 3204 3478 3319 3918 1583 1652 6441 1794 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 168 116 426 270 60 29 538 879 109 22 1915 112 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 4 0 26 0 0 0 35 0 0 32 Lane Group Flow (vph) 168 116 422 270 63 0 538 879 74 22 1915 80 Turn Type Prot pm+ov Prot custom custom Prot custom Protected Phases 7 4 1 3 8 1 6 3 5 2 Permitted Phases 4 6 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 10.0 13.6 44.9 10.5 14.1 31.3 78.1 88.6 9.3 56.1 78.1 Effective Green, g (s) 10.5 15.1 45.9 11.0 15.6 31.8 80.1 89.6 9.8 58.1 80.1 Actuated gIC Ratio 0.08 0.11 0.35 0.08 0.12 0.24 0.61 0.68 0.07 0.44 0.61 Clearance Time (s) 4.5 5,5 4.5 4.5 5.5 4.5 6.0 4.5 4.5 6.0 6.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 264 213 969 267 411 800 2378 1075 123 2835 1089 vls Ratio Prot 0.05 c0.06 0.10 c0.08 0.02 c0,16 0.22 0.01 0.01 c0.30 vls Ratio Perm 0.05 0.04 0.04 v/c Ratio 0.64 0.54 0.44 1.01 0.15 0.67 0.37 0.07 0.18 0.68 0.07 Uniform Delay, dl 58.9 55.2 33.1 60.5 52.3 45.4 13.2 7.1 57.3 29.4 10.7 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 5.0 2.8 0.3 58.0 0.2 2.2 0.4 0.0 0.7 1.3 0.1 Delay (s) 63.9 58.0 33.4 118.5 52.5 47.6 13.6 7.2 58.0 30.7 10.8 Level of Service E E C F D D B A E C B Approach Delay (s) 44.6 102.1 25.1 30.0 Approach LOS D F C C Intersection Summ HCM Average Control Delay 36.2 HCM Level of Service D HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.69 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 132.0 Sum of lost time (s) 16.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 63.0% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group LLG Engineers Synchro 7 - Report Page 12 A-76 V 32- Lanes, Volumes, Timings SCHOOL DISMISSAL PEAK 27: Avenue Scott & Rye Canyon Rd/Copperhill Dr Existing Plus Project Lane Group , 1?74-1 ' '7SEL`-'SET"-SER NWU NWL`!s" "'NEIL" NEL NET NER SWL Lane Configurations I To ►jai ? r of +TT h Volume (vph) 7 1 4 23 150 3 215 15 2 927 174 244 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 190C Lane Width (ft) 12 11 11 12 12 12 12 12 12 11 12 11 Storage Length (ft) 150 0 0 50 200 0 0 Storage Lanes 1 0 2 1 1 0 1 Taper Length (ft) 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 Lane Util.Factor 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 0.91 1.00 0.91 0.91 1.00 Frt 0.880 0.850 0.976 Fit Protected 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950 Said. Flow (prot) 1770 1585 0 0 3433 1863 1583 0 1770 4798 0 1711 FIt Permitted 0.950 0.348 0.950 Said. Flow (Perm) 1863 1585 0 0 3433 1863 1583 0 648 4798 0 1711 Right Tum on Red Yes Yes Yes Satd. Flow (RTOR) 4 234 27 Link Speed (mph) 35 35 45 Link Distance (ft) 547 335 307 Travel Time (s) 10.7 6.5 4.7 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 8 1 4 25 163 3 234 16 2 1008 189 265 Shared Lane Traffic (%) Lane Group Flow (vph) 8 5 0 0 188 3 234 0 18 1197 0 265 Enter Blocked Intersection No No No No No No No No No No No No Lane Alignment Left Left Right R NA Left Left Right RNA Left Left Right Left Median Width(ft) 24 24 12 Link Offset(ft) 0 0 0 Crosswalk Width(ft) 16 16 16 Two way Left Tum Lane Headway Factor 1.00 1.04 1.04 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.04 1.00 1.04 Turning Speed (mph) 15 9 9 15 9 9 15 9 15 Number of Detectors 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Detector Template Leading Detector (ft) 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 Trailing Detector (ft) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Detector 1 Position(ft) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Detector 1 Size(ft) 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 Detector 1 Type CI+Ex CI+Ex CI+Ex CI+Ex CI+Ex CI+Ex CI+Ex CI+Ex CI+Ex CI+Ex Detector 1 Channel Detector 1 Extend (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Detector 1 Queue (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Detector 1 Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 O.D Tum Type Perm Split Split Perm custom Prot Prot Protected Phases 7 3 3 3 5 2 114 Permitted Phases 7 3 5 Detector Phase 7 7 3 3 3 3 5 5 2 1 14 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.D 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Minimum Split (s) 15.0 15.0 35.0 35.0 35.0 35.0 6.5 8.5 30.0 Total Split (s) 15.0 15.0 0.0 35.0 35.0 35.0 35.0 20.0 20.0 34.0 0.0 48.0 LLG Engineers Synchro 7 - Report Page 27 A-77 133 Lanes, Volumes, Timings SCHOOL DISMISSAL PEAK 27: Avenue Scott & Rye Canyon Rd/Copperhill Dr Existing Plus Project e1 p4 o14 Volume (vph) 640 1 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 Lane Width (ft) 11 10 Storage Length (ft) 0 Storage Lanes 0 Taper Length (ft) 25 Lane U61. Factor 0.91 0.91 Frt Flt Protected Said. Flow (prot) 4916 0 Fit Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) 4916 0 Right Tum on Red Yes Satd. Flow (RTOR) Link Speed (mph) 45 Link Distance (ft) 1700 Travel Time (s) 25.8 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 696 1 Shared Lane Traffic (%) Lane Group Flow (vph) 697 0 Enter Blocked Intersection No No Lane Alignment Left Right Median Width(ft) 12 Link Offset(ft) 0 Crosswalk Width(ft) 16 Two way Left Tum Lane Headway Factor 1.04 1.09 Turning Speed (mph) 9 Number of Detectors 1 Detector Template Leading Detector (ft) 50 Trailing Detector (ft) 0 Detector 1 Posifion(ft) 0 Detector 1 Size(ft) 50 Detector 1 Type CI*Ex Detector 1 Channel Detector 1 Extend (s) 0.0 Detector 1 Queue (s) 0.0 Detector 1 Delay (s) 0.0 Turn Type Protected Phases 6 1 4 14 Permitted Phases Detector Phase 6 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Minimum Split (s) 45.0 20.0 35.0 14.0 Total Split (s) 42.0 0.0 28.0 35.0 20.0 LLG Engineers Synchro 7 • Report Page 28 A•78 I 3u Lanes, Volumes, Timings SCHOOL DISMISSAL PEAK 27: Avenue Scott & Rye Canyon Rd/Copperhill Dr Existing Plus Project Lane Group SEL SET SER NWU NWL NWT NWR NEU NEL NF3'J+IER SWL Total Split (%) 11.4% 11.4% 0.0% 26.5% 26.5% 26.5% 26.5% 15.2% 15.2% 25.8% 0.0% 36.4% Maximum Green (s) 10.0 10.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 15.5 15.5 28.0 Yellow Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.5 3.5 5.0 All -Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust (s) -1.0 -1.0 0.0 0.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 0.0 -0.5 -2.0 0,0 -0.5 Total Lost Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.5 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lead/Lag Lead Lead Lead Lead Lead Lead -Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Recall Mode None None Min Min Min Min Min Min C -Min Walk Time (s) 7.0 7,0 7.0 7.0 7.0 Flash Dont Walk (s) 23.0 23.0 23.0 23.0 16.0 Pedestrian Calls (#Ihr) 2 2 2 2 0 Act Effct Green (s) 7.4 7.4 16.4 16.4 16,4 11.5 63.2 31.5 Actuated gIC Ratio 0.06 0.06 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.09 0.48 0.24 v/c Ratio 0.08 0.05 0.44 0.01 0.56 0.32 0.52 0.65 Control Delay 60.0 39.8 55.4 447 11.6 63.6 33.0 25.4 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 60.0 39.8 55.4 44.7 11.6 63.6 33.0 25.4 LOS E D E D B E C C Approach Delay 52.2 31.2 33.5 Approach LOS D C C Queue Length 50th (ft) 7 1 79 2 0 15 280 121 Queue Length 95th (ft) 24 15 101 11 67 m39 #479 182 Internal Link Dist (ft) 467 255 227 Turn Bay Length (ft) 150 50 200 Base Capacity (vph) 155 136 806 438 551 82 2310 528 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.05 0.04 0.23 0.01 0.42 0.22 0.52 0.50 Intersection Summ Area Type: Other Cycle Length: 132 Actuated Cycle Length: 132 Offset: 54 (41%), Referenced to phase 2:NET and 6:SWT, Start of Yellow Natural Cycle: 125 Control Type: Actuated -Coordinated Maximum vlc Ratio: 0.65 Intersection Signal Delay: 30.3 Intersection LOS: C Intersection Capacity Utilization 56.9% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min)15 # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue maybe longer, Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. LLS Engineers Synchro 7 - Report Page 29 A-79 I 35 Lanes, Volumes, Timings SCHOOL DISMISSAL PEAK 27: Avenue Scott & Rye Canyon Rd/Copperhill Dr Existing Plus Project Splits and Phases: 27: Avenue Scott & Rye Canyon Rd/Cowerhill or LLG Engineers Synchro 7 • Report Page 30 A-80 I �� L4�� �� �MUMM LLG Engineers Synchro 7 • Report Page 30 A-80 I �� Lanes, Volumes, Timings SCHOOL DISMISSAL PEAK 27: Avenue Scott & Rye Canyon Rd/Copperhill Dr Existing Plus Project J0( k. Lane Group SWT SWR et o4 o14 Total Split (%) 31.8% 0.0% 21% 27% 15% Maximum Green (s) 36.0 235 30.5 16.0 Yellow Time (s) 5.0 3.5 3.5 3.5 All -Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.5 Lost Time Adjust (s) -2.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 4.0 4.0 Lead/Lag Lag Lag Lag Lead -Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Recall Mode C -Min None None None Walk Time (s) 7.0 7.0 Flash Dont Walk (s) 27.0 23.0 Pedestrian Calls (#Ihr) 0 0 Act Effct Green (s) 71.5 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.54 v/c Ratio 026 Control Delay 25.8 Queue Delay 0.0 Total Delay 25.8 LOS C Approach Delay 25.6 Approach LOS C Queue Length 50th (ft) 94 Queue Length 95th (ft) 214 Internal Link Dist (ft) 1620 Turn Bay Length (ft) Base Capacity (vph) 2698 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.26 Intersection Summary LLG Engineers Synchro7- Report Page 31 A-81 I *�l HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis SCHOOL DISMISSAL PEAK 27: Avenue Scott & Rye Canyon Rd/Copperhill Dr Existing Plus Project SEL SET SER NWU NWL NWT NWR NEU Lane Configurations Vi $� Approach LOS E D C t r I tO HCM Level of Service C ►j Volume (vph) 7 1 4 23 150 3 215 15 2 927 174 244 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Width 12 11 11 12 12 12 12 12 12 11 12 11 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane UBI. Factor 1.00 1,00 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.91 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.88 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.98 1.00 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 Satd.Flow (prol) 1770 1585 3433 1863 1583 1770 4799 1711 Flt Permitted 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.35 1.00 0.95 Said, Flow (perm) 1863 1585 3433 1863 1583 648 4799 1711 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 8 1 4 25 163 3 234 16 2 1008 189 265 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 4 0 0 0 0 205 0 0 15 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 8 1 0 0 188 3 29 0 18 1182 0 265 Turn Type Perm Split Split Perm custom Prot Prot Protected Phases 7 3 3 3 5 2 1 14 Permitted Phases 7 3 5 Actuated Green, G (s) 3.0 3.0 15.4 15.4 15.4 11.0 58.0 31.1 Effective Green, g (s) 4.0 4.0 16.4 16.4 16.4 11.5 60.0 32.1 Actuated 91C Rafio 0.03 0.03 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.09 0.45 0.24 Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 4.5 6.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 56 48 427 231 197 56 2181 416 v/s Ratio Prot 0.00 00.05 0.00 c0.25 00.15 v/s Ratio Perm o0.00 0.02 0.03 vie Ratio 0.14 0.02 0.44 0.01 0.15 0.32 0.54 0.64 Uniform Delay, dt 62.3 62.1 53.5 50.7 51.6 56.6 26.1 44.7 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.91 1.21 0.68 Incremental Delay, d2 1.2 0.2 0.7 0.0 0.3 3.2 0.9 3.0 Delay (s) 63.5 62.3 54.3 50.7 51.9 54.9 32.6 33.2 Level of Service E E D D D D C C Approach Delay (s) 63.0 52.9 32.9 Approach LOS E D C Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 33.5 HCM Level of Service C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.54 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 132.0 Sum of lost time (s) 20.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 56.9% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group LLG Engineers Synchro7 - Report Page 32 A-82 15� HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis SCHOOL DISMISSAL PEAK 27: Avenue Scott & Rye Canyon Rd/Copperhill Dr Existing Plus Project �( -ft-, Volume (vph) 640 1 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 Lane Width 11 10 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.91 Frt 1.00 Flt Protected 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 4915 Flt Permitted 1.00 Said. Flow (perm) 4915 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 Adi. Flow (vph) 696 1 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 697 0 Turn Type Protected Phases 6 Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) 66.4 Effective Green, g (s) 68.4 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.52 Clearance Time (s) 6.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 2547 v/s Ratio Prot 0.14 vis Ratio Perm v/c Ratio 0.27 Uniform Delay, dl 17.9 Progression Factor 1.23 Incremental Delay, d2 0.2 Delay (s) 22.1 Level of Service C Approach Delay (s) 25.2 Approach LOS C Intersection Summary LLG Engineers Synchro 7 - Report Page 33 A-83 1 c—,1 Lanes, Volumes, Timings SCHOOL DISMISSAL PEAK 29: Avenue Stanford & Avenue Scott Existing Plus Project --► 4 t �► t Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NEIL NBT NBR SBU SBL SBT Lane Configurations ►j + if T* TA Vi TA Volume (vph) 54 32 173 54 33 43 103 256 85 38 34 274 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length (ft) 200 100 150 0 190 0 165 Storage Lanes 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 Taper Length (ft) 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.95 Frt 0.850 0.915 0.963 0.983 Flt Protected 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950 Satd. Flow (prol) 1770 1863 1583 1770 1704 0 1770 3408 0 0 1770 3479 Flt Permitted 0.714 0.734 0.549 0.532 Satd. Flow (perm) 1330 1863 1583 1367 1704 0 1023 3408 0 0 991 3479 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Satd. Flow (RTOR) 188 47 82 26 Link Speed (mph) 30 35 45 45 Link Distance (ft) 434 616 2297 5D4 Travel Time (s) 9.9 12.0 34.8 7.6 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 59 35 1B8 59 36 47 112 278 92 41 37 298 Shared Lane Traffic (°k) Lane Group Flow (vph) 59 35 188 59 83 0 112 370 0 0 78 337 Enter Blocked Intersection No No No No No No No No No No No No Lane Alignment Left Left Right Left Left Right Left Left Right R NA Left Left Median Width(ft) 12 12 12 12 Link Offset(ft) 0 0 0 0 Crosswalk Width(ft) 16 16 16 16 Two way Left Tum Lane Headway Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Turning Speed (mph) 15 9 15 9 15 9 9 15 Number of Detectors 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Detector Template Leading Detector (ft) 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 Trailing Detector (ft) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Detector 1 Position(ft) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Detector 1 Size(ft) 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 Detector 1 Type CI+Ex CI+Ex CI+Ex CI+Ex CI+Ex CI+Ex CI+Ex CI+Ex CI+Ex CI+Ex Detector 1 Channel Detector i Extend (s) 0.0 D.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Detector 1 Queue (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Detector 1 Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Turn Type Perm Perm Perm Perm Perm Perm Protected Phases 4 8 2 6 Permitted Phases 4 4 4 8 2 6 6 Detector Phase 4 4 4 8 8 2 2 6 6 6 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Minimum Split (s) 35.0 35.0 35.0 35.0 35.0 26.0 26.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 Total Split (s) 35.0 35.0 35.0 35.0 35.0 0.0 30.0 30.0 0.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 Total Split (%) 53.8% 53.8% 53.8% 53.8% 53.8% 0.0% 46.2% 462% 0.0% 46.2% 46.2% 46.2% LLG Engineers Synchro 7 - Report Page 34 A-84� �� Lanes, Volumes, Timings SCHOOL DISMISSAL PEAK 29: Avenue Stanford & Avenue Scott Existing Plus Project .✓ Lane Group SBR LaWonfigurations Volume (vph) 36 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 Storage Length (ft) 0 Storage Lanes 0 Taper Length (ft) 25 Lane Util. Factor 0.95 Frt Fit Protected Satd. Flow (prot) 0 Fh Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) 0 Right Tum on Red Yes Satd. Flow (RTOR) Link Speed (mph) Link Distance (ft) Travel Time (s) Peak Hour Factor 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 39 Shared Lane Traffic (%) Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 Enter Blocked Intersection No Lane Alignment Right Median Width(ft) Link Offset(ft) Crosswalk Width(ft) Two way Left Turn Lane Headway Factor 1.00 Turning Speed (mph) 9 Number of Detectors Detector Template Leading Detector (ft) Trailing Detector (ft) Detector 1 Posifion(ft) Detector 1 Size(ft) Detector 1 Type Detector 1 Channel Detector 1 Extend (s) Detector 1 Queue (s) Detector 1 Delay (s) Tum Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Detector Phase Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) Minimum Split (s) Total Split (s) 0.0 Total Split (%) 0.0% LLG Engineers Synchro 7 - Report Page 35 A8s 1 H I Lanes, Volumes, Timings SCHOOL DISMISSAL PEAK 29: Avenue Stanford & Avenue Scott Existing Plus Project Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBU SBL SBT Maximum Green (s) 31.0 31.0 31.0 31.0 31,0 26.0 26.0 26.0 26.0 26.0 Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 A11 -Red Time (s) 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 CO 4.0 4.0 Lead/Lag Lead -Lag Optimize? Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Recall Mode None None None None None Min Min Min Min Min Walk Time (s) 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 Flash Dont Walk (s) 24.0 24.0 24.0 24.0 24.0 15.0 15.0 19.0 19.0 19.0 Pedestrian Calls (#Ihr) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Act Eftct Green (s) 6.7 6.7 6.7 6.7 6.7 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.28 0.28 0.28 0.28 0.28 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 vlc Ratio 0.16 0.07 0.33 0.16 0.16 0.22 0.21 0.16 0.19 Control Delay 7.8 6.9 3.3 7.7 4.8 6.8 4.3 6.2 4.9 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 7.8 6.9 3.3 7.7 4.8 6.8 4.3 6.2 4.9 LOS A A A A A A A A A Approach Delay 4.7 6.0 4.9 5.2 Approach LOS A A A A Queue Length 50th (ft) 4 2 0 4 2 7 9 5 10 Queue Length 95th (ft) 18 12 19 18 17 24 23 18 24 Internal Link Dist (ft) 354 536 2217 424 Turn Bay Length (ft) 200 100 150 190 165 Base Capacity(vph) 1330 1863 1583 1367 1704 1006 3352 974 3421 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced vlc Ratio 0.04 0.02 0.12 0.04 0.05 0.11 0.11 0.08 0.10 Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Cycle Length: 65 Actuated Cycle Length: 24.1 Natural Cycle: 65 Control Type: Actuated -Uncoordinated Maximum vlc Ratio: 0.33 Intersection Signal Delay: 5.1 Intersection LOS: A Intersection Capacity Utilization 34.1 % ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min)15 oianroro a Avenue ocon LLG Engineers Synchro 7 - Report Page 36 A-86 I �� Lanes, Volumes, Timings SCHOOL DISMISSAL PEAK 29: Avenue Stanford & Avenue Scott Existing Plus Project It/ Lane Group SBR Maximum Green (s) Yellow Time (s) All -Red Time (s) Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 4.0 LeadlLag Lead -Lag Optimize? Vehicle Extension (s) Recall Mode Walk Time (s) Flash Dont Walk (s) Pedestrian Calls (#/hr) Act Effct Green (s) Actuated g1C Ratio v/c Ratio Control Delay Queue Delay Total Delay LOS Approach Delay Approach LOS Queue Length 50th (ft) Queue Length 95th (ft) Internal Link Dist (fl) Turn Bay Length (ft) Base Capadty (vph) Starvation Cap Reductn Spillback Cap Reductn Storage Cap Reductn Reduced vlc Ratio Intersection Summary -i"i LLG Engineers Synchro 7 - Report Page 37 A-87 143 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis SCHOOL DISMISSAL PEAK 29: Avenue Stanford & Avenue Scott Existing Plus Project Lane Configurations Vi T I T� ►( +I+ TA Volume (vph) 54 32 173 54 33 43 103 256 85 38 34 274 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.92 1.00 0.96 1.00 0.98 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 1863 1583 1770 1705 1770 3407 1770 3478 Flt Permitted 0.71 1.00 1.00 0.73 1.00 0.55 1.00 0.53 1.00 Satd.Flow (perm) 1331 1863 1583 1368 1705 1022 3407 990 3478 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 59 35 188 59 36 47 112 278 92 41 37 298 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 146 0 36 0 0 45 0 0 0 14 Lane Group Flow (vph) 59 35 42 59 47 0 112 325 0 0 78 323 Turn Type Perm Perm Perm Perm Perm Perm Protected Phases 4 8 2 6 Permitted Phases 4 4 4 8 2 6 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 5.6 5.6 5.6 5.6 5.6 11.2 11.2 11.2 11.2 Effective Green, g (s) 5.6 5.6 5.6 5.6 5.6 11.2 11.2 11.2 11.2 Actuated g1C Ratio 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.45 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 301 421 357 309 385 462 1539 447 1571 vls Ratio Prot 0.02 0.03 0.10 0.09 vls Ratio Perm 00.04 0.03 0.04 00.11 0.08 vlc Ratio 0.20 0.08 0.12 0.19 0.12 0.24 0.21 0.17 0.21 Uniform Delay, d1 7.8 7.6 7.6 7.8 7.6 4.2 4.1 4.0 4.1 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.1 0.3 0.1 0.2 0.1 Delay (s) 8.1 7.7 7.8 8.1 7.8 4.5 4.2 4.2 4.2 Level of Service A A A A A A A A A Approach Delay (s) 7.8 7.9 4.3 4.2 Approach LOS A A A A Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 5.4 HCM Level of Service A HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.23 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 24.8 Sum of last time (s) 8.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 34.1% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group LLG Engineers A•88 Synchro 7 - Report Page 38 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis SCHOOL DISMISSAL PEAK 29: Avenue Stanford & Avenue Scott Existing Plus Project 4/ Movement SBR La44Configurations Volume (vph) 36 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 Total Lost time (s) Lane Ulil. Factor Frt Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Fit Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 39 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated grC Ratio Clearance Time (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, dl Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS InterseC6on Summary LLG Engineers Synchro 7 - Report Page 39 A-89 I �J Lanes, Volumes, Timings SCHOOL DISMISSAL PEAK 9, Avenue Tibbitts & Avenue Scott Existing Plus Project EBL NBL NBT Lane Configurations I 4A ►j +T er TTA Volume (vph) 13 53 169 317 34 90 75 341 95 115 377 £ Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 190C Storage Length (ft) 100 0 190 0 150 0 190 10C Storage Lanes 1 0 1 2 1 0 1 1 Taper Length (ft) 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 2: Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.88 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Fri 0,886 0.850 0.967 0.85C Flt Protected 0.950 0.950 0.961 0.950 0.950 Said. Flow (prot) 1770 3136 0 1681 1701 2787 1770 3422 0 1770 3539 1583 Flt Permitted 0.950 0.950 0.961 0.950 0.950 Said. Flow (perm) 1770 3136 0 1681 1701 2787 1770 3422 0 1770 3539 1583 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Said. Flow (RTOR) 184 98 23 9 Link Speed (mph) 35 35 45 45 Link Distance (ft) 795 973 1589 2297 Travel Time (s) 15.5 19.0 24.1 34.8 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj, Flow (vph) 14 58 184 345 37 98 82 371 103 125 410 10 Shared lane Traffic (%) 45% Lane Group Flow (vph) 14 242 0 190 192 98 82 474 0 125 410 10 Enter Blocked Intersedon No No No No No No No No No No No No Lane Alignment Left Left Right Left Left Right Left Left Right Left Left Right Median W i th(ft) 12 12 12 12 Link Offset(ft) 0 0 0 0 Crosswalk Width(ft) 16 16 16 16 Two way Left Tum Lane Headway Factor 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Turning Speed (mph) 15 9 15 9 15 9 15 9 Number of Detectors 1 2 1 2 1 1 2 1 2 1 Detector Template Left Thru Left Thru Right Left Thru Left Thru Right Leading Detector (ft) 20 100 20 100 20 20 100 20 100 20 Trailing Detector (ft) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Detector 1 Position(ft) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Detector 1 Size(ft) 20 6 20 6 20 20 6 20 6 20 Detector 1 Type CI+Ex CI+Ex CI+Ex CI+Ex CI+Ex CI+Ex CI+Ex CI+Ex CI+Ex CI+Ex Detector 1 Channel Detector 1 Extend (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Detector 1 Queue (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Detector 1 Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Detector 2 Position(ft) 94 94 94 94 Detector 2 Size(ft) 6 6 6 6 Detector 2 Type CI+Ex CI+Ex CI+Ex CI+Ex Detector 2 Channel Detector 2 Extend (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Tum Type Split Split pm+ov Prot Prot Perm Protected Phases 3 3 4 4 5 1 6 5 2 Permitted Phases 4 6 2 Detector Phase 3 3 4 4 5 1 6 5 2 2 LLG Engineers Synchro 7 - Report Page 15 A-90 I H Lanes, Volumes, Timings SCHOOL DISMISSAL PEAK 9: Avenue Tibbitts & Avenue Scott Existing Plus Project � � � r t t `► 1 -' Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Minimum Split (s) 33.0 33.0 10.0 10.0 8.5 8.5 39.0 8.5 33.0 33.0 Total Split (s) 31.0 31.0 0.0 31.0 31.0 44.5 24.5 56.0 0.0 44.5 76.0 76.0 Total Split (%) 19.1% 19.1% 0.0% 19.1% 19.1% 27.4% 15.1% 34.5% 0.0% 27.4% 46.8% 46.8% Maximum Green (s) 25.0 25.0 25.0 25.0 40.0 20.0 50.0 40.0 70.0 70.0 Yellow Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 3.5 3.5 5.0 3.5 5.0 5.0 All -Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust (s) -2.0 -2.0 0.0 -2.0 -2.0 -0.5 -0.5 -2.0 0.0 -0.5 -2.0 -2.0 Total Lost Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lead/Lag Lead Lead Lag Lag Lag Lead Lead Lag Lag Lag Lead -Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Recall Mode None None None None None None Min None Min Min Walk Time (s) 7A 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 Flash Dont Walk (s) 20.0 20.0 26.0 20.0 20.0 Pedestrian Calls (tNhr) 0 0 0 0 0 Act Effct Green (s) 9.6 9.6 17.1 17.1 29.3 10.1 18.7 12.2 23,7 23.7 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.13 0.13 0.23 0.23 0.39 0.14 0.25 0.16 0.32 0.32 v/c Ratio 0.06 0.43 0.49 0.49 0.08 0.34 0.54 0.43 0.36 0.02 Control Delay 34.4 12.8 31.2 31.2 2.1 36.9 26.5 35.8 23.1 13.7 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 34.4 12.8 31.2 31.2 2.1 36.9 26.5 35.8 23.1 13.7 LOS C B C C A D C D C 8 Approach Delay 14.0 25.2 28.1 25.8 Approach LOS B C C C Queue Length 50th (11) 6 12 77 78 0 34 91 51 77 0 Queue Length 95th (ft) 26 52 172 173 9 92 175 125 149 13 Intemal Link Dist (ft) 715 893 1509 2217 Turn Bay Length (ft) 100 190 150 190 100 Base Capacity (vph) 667 1297 634 641 1863 507 2491 1001 3272 1464 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Splllback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced vic Ratio 0.02 0.19 0.30 0.30 0.05 0.16 0.19 0.12 0.13 0.01 Intersecbon Summa Area Type: Other Cycle Length: 162.5 Actuated Cycle Length: 74.2 Natural Cycle: 95 Control Type: Actuated -Uncoordinated Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.54 Intersection Signal Delay: 24.7 Intersection LOS: C Intersection Capacity Utilization 48.8% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min)15 LLG Engineers Synchro 7 - Report Page 16 A-91 �-.t� Lanes, Volumes, Timings SCHOOL DISMISSAL PEAK 9: Avenue Tibbitts & Avenue Scott Existing Plus Project Splits and Phases: 9', Avenue Tibbitts & Avenue Scott LLQ Engineers Synchro7- Report Page 17 A-92 I 4 Y• ._,�c�w K-.. ::i 9': .�-.:1111111_L ..�__ �.. �yi�Y�'T�'y n' LLQ Engineers Synchro7- Report Page 17 A-92 I 4 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis SCHOOL DISMISSAL PEAK 9: Avenue Tibbitts & Avenue Scott Existing Plus Project NEIL NBT Lane Configurations ►j ti+ 4 er ?A Vi ?? r Volume (vph) 13 53 169 317 34 90 75 341 95 115 377 9 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4,0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.88 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.89 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.96 1.00 0.95 1.D0 0.95 1.00 1.00 Said. Flow (Prot) 1770 3136 1681 1701 2787 1770 3424 1770 3539 1583 Fit Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.96 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Said. Flow (perm) 1770 3136 1681 1701 2787 1770 3424 1770 3539 1583 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 14 58 184 345 37 98 82 371 103 125 410 10 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 160 0 0 0 60 0 17 0 0 0 6 Lane Group Flow (vph) 14 82 0 190 192 38 82 457 0 125 410 4 Turn Type Split Split pm+ov Prot Prot Perm Protected Phases 3 3 4 4 5 1 6 5 2 Permitted Phases 4 6 2 Actuated Green, G (s) 7.6 7.6 15.1 15.1 27.9 7.9 16.7 12.8 21.6 21.6 Effective Green, g (s) 9.6 9,6 17.1 17.1 28.9 8.4 18.7 13.3 23.6 23.6 Actuated gIC Ratio 0.13 0.13 0.23 0.23 0.39 0.11 0.25 0.18 0.32 0.32 Clearance Time (s) 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 4.5 4.5 6.0 4.5 6.0 6.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 10 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 227 403 385 389 1078 199 857 315 1118 500 vls Ratio Prot 0.01 00.03 00.11 0.11 0.01 0.05 c0.13 0,07 c0.12 vls Ratio Perm 0.01 0.00 vlc Ratio 0.06 0.20 0.49 0.49 0.04 0.41 0.53 0.40 0.37 0.01 Uniform Delay, dt 28.6 29.1 25.0 25.0 14.2 30.9 24.2 27.2 19.8 17.5 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.1 0.2 1.0 1.0 0.0 1.4 0.6 0.8 0.2 0.0 Delay (s) 28.7 29.4 26.0 26.0 14.2 32.2 24.9 28.0 20.0 17.5 Level of Service C C C C B C C C B B Approach Delay (s) 29.3 23.6 26.0 21.8 Approach LOS C C C C Intersection Summary NCM Average Control Delay 24.6 HCM Level of Service C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.42 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 74.7 Sum of lost time (s) 12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 48.8% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group LLG Engineers Synchro 7 - Report Page 18 A-93 � n Lanes, Volumes, Timings SCHOOL DISMISSAL PEAK 4: Avenue Scott & Einstein Driveway Existing Plus Project --A �V 1 h '\ Lane configurations rga r 11 Volume (vph) 336 106 0 46 391 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Util. Factor 0.88 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.97 Frt 0.850 0,865 Fit Protected 0.950 Said. Flow (prot) 2787 0 0 1611 3433 Flt Permitted 0.950 Said. Flow (perm) 2787 0 0 1611 3433 Link Speed (mph) 35 30 45 Link Distance (ft) 335 346 504 Travel Time (s) 6.5 7.9 7.6 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 365 115 0 50 425 Shared Lane Traffic (%) Lane Group Flow (vph) 480 0 0 50 425 Enter Blocked Intersection No No No No No Lane Alignment Right Right Left Right Left Median Width(ft) 0 0 36 Link Offset(ft) 0 0 0 Crosswalk Width(ft) 16 16 16 Two way Left Turn lane Headway Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Turning Speed (mph) 9 9 15 9 15 Sign Control Free Stop Free Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Control Type: Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Utilization 25.5% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min)15 LLG Engineers A-94 Synchro 7 - Report Page 7 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis SCHOOL DISMISSAL PEAK 4: Avenue Scott & Einstein Driveway Existing Plus Project -1k 1 1 N '\ Movement EBR EBR2 N13L NBR NWL Lane Configurations rg r M Volume (vehm) 336 106 0 46 391 Sign Control Free Stop Free Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 365 115 0 50 425 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (fVs) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None Raised Median storage veh) 1 Upstream signal (ft) 335 504 pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 635 240 vC1, stage 1 cont vol 423 vC2, stage 2 oonf vol 212 vCu, unblocked vol 635 240 tC, single (s) 6.8 6.9 IC, 2 stage (s) 5.8 tF (s) 3.5 3.3 p0 queue free % 100 93 cM capacity (vehlh) 503 761 Directlo t, Lane # EB 1 E82 N81 NW 1 NW 2 Volume Total 243 237 50 212 212 Volume Left 0 0 0 0 0 Volume Right 0 115 50 0 0 cSH 1700 1700 761 1700 1700 Volume to Capacity 0.14 0.14 0.07 0.13 0.13 Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 0 5 0 0 Control Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 10.1 0.0 0.0 Lane LOS B Approach Delay (s) 0.0 10.1 0.0 Approach LOS B Indsection Summary Average Delay 0.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 25.5% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 LLG Engineers Synchro 7 - Report Page 8 A-95 I 5 I Lanes, Volumes, Timings SCHOOL DISMISSAL PEAK 8: Einstein Driveway & Rye Canyon Rd/Copperhill Dr Exisfing Plus Project f- 4-- t r \0� t Lane Configurations r W4 +++ Volume (vph) 0 106 1012 46 0 809 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Ufil. Factor 1.00 1.00 0.91 0.91 1.00 0.91 Frt 0.865 0.993 Flt Protected Said. Flow (prof) 0 1611 5050 0 0 5085 Flt Permitted Said. Flow (perm) 0 1611 5050 0 0 5085 Link Speed (mph) 30 45 45 Link Distance (ft) 360 799 307 Travel Time (s) 8.2 12.1 4.7 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 0 115 1100 50 0 879 Shared Lane Traffic (%) Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 115 1150 0 0 879 Enter Blocked Intersection No No No No No No Lane Alignment Left Right Left Right Left Left Median width(ft) 0 12 12 Link Offset(ft) 0 0 0 Crosswalk Width(ft) 16 16 16 Two way Left Tum Lane Headway Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Turning Speed (mph) 15 9 9 15 Sign Control Stop Free Free Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Control Type: Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Utilization 33.8% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min)15 LLG Engineers Synchro 7 - Report Page 13 A-96 15z HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis SCHOOL DISMISSAL PEAK 8: Einstein Driveway & Rye Canyon Rd/Copperhill Dr Existing Plus Project Lane Configurations WB 1 r "t+ N93 ff t Volume (vehfi) 0 106 1012 46 0 809 Sign Control Stop 293 Free 0 Free Grade 0% 0 0% 0 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0,92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 0 115 1100 50 0 879 Pedestrians 1700 1700 Volume to Capacity 0.19 0.26 Lane Width (ft) 0.16 0.17 0.17 0.17 Queue Length 95th (ft) Walking Speed (fils) 0 0 0 0 0 Percent Blockage Control Delay (s) 12.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 Right turn flare (veh) 0.0 0.0 Lane LOS B Median type None None Median storage veh) 0.0 0.0 Upstream signal (ft) Approach LOS B 307 pX, platoon unblocked 0.93 Intersection Summary vC, conflicting volume 1418 392 1150 Average Delay uC1, stage 1 conf vol 0.7 vC2, stage 2 coni vol Intersection Capacity Utilization 33.8% ICU Level vCu, unblocked vol 1171 392 1150 15 tC, single (s) 6.8 6.9 4.1 IC, 2 stage (s) IF (s) 3.5 3.3 2.2 p0 queue free % 100 81 100 cM capadty (veh/h) 172 607 603 Direction, Lane # WB 1 NB 1 NB 2, N93 SBI ,.3B1 I SB 3' r;uzJ Volume Total 115 440 440 270 293 293 293 Volume Left 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Volume Right 115 0 0 50 0 0 0 cSH 607 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 Volume to Capacity 0.19 0.26 0.26 0.16 0.17 0.17 0.17 Queue Length 95th (ft) 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 Control Delay (s) 12.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Lane LOS B Approach Delay (s) 12.3 0.0 0.0 Approach LOS B Intersection Summary Average Delay 0.7 Intersection Capacity Utilization 33.8% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 LLG Engineers Synchre 7 - Report Page 14 A-97 153 Lanes, Volumes, Timings SCHOOL DISMISSAL PEAK 5: Ave Scott & McBean Parkway Existing Plus Project Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBR NBR2 SWL2 SWL SWR Lane Configurations M + ior ►j►j +';r Irlrlr(r r ,j11,) r Volume (vph) 81 11 771 47 12 24 410 1543 131 11 1443 89 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Width (ft) 11 12 12 10 13 8 11 11 12 10 12 16 Storage Length (ft) 250 200 300 0 300 300 200 200 Storage Lanes 2 2 2 0 2 1 1 1 Taper Length (ft) 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 1.00 0.88 0.97 0.95 0.95 0.97 0.64 1.00 1.00 0.91 1.00 Frt 0.850 0.900 0.850 0.850 0.850 Flt Protected 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950 Satd. Flow (prot) 3319 1863 2787 3204 3291 0 3319 3918 1583 1652 6441 1794 Flt Permitted 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950 Satd. Flow (perm) 3319 1863 2787 3204 3291 0 3319 3918 1583 1652 6441 1794 Right Tum on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Said. Flow (RTOR) 248 26 142 89 Link Speed (mph) 30 30 50 50 Link Distance (ft) 522 438 610 971 Travel Time (s) 11.9 10.0 8.3 13.2 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 88 12 838 51 13 26 446 1677 142 12 1568 97 Shared Lane Traffic (%) Lane Group Flow (vph) 88 12 838 51 39 0 446 1677 142 12 1568 97 Enter Blocked Intersection No No No No No No No No No No No No Lane Alignment Left Left Right Left Left Right Left Right Right Left Left Right Median Width(ft) 22 22 22 58 Link Offset(ft) 0 0 0 0 Crosswalk Width(ft) 16 16 16 16 Two way Left Turn Lane Headway Factor 1.04 1.00 1.00 1.09 0.96 1.20 1.04 1.04 1.00 1.09 1.00 0.85 Turning Speed (mph) 15 9 15 9 15 9 9 15 15 9 Number of Detectors 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Detector Template Leading Detector (ft) 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 Trailing Detector (ft) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Detector 1 Position(ft) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Detector 1 Size(ft) 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 Detector 1 Type CI+Ex CI+Ex CI+Ex CI+Ex CI+Ex CI+Ex CI+Ex CI+Ex CI+Ex CI+Ex CI+Ex Detector 1 Channel Detector 1 Extend (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Detector 1 Queue (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Detector 1 Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 0,0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Turn Type Prot pm+ov Prot custom custom Prot custom Protected Phases 7 4 1 3 8 1 6 3 5 2 Permitted Phases 4 6 6 Detector Phase 7 4 1 3 8 1 6 3 5 2 6 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Minimum Split (s) 12.0 44.5 15.0 12.0 43.5 15.0 35.0 12.0 12.0 40.0 35.0 Total Split (s) 17.0 45.0 20.0 17.0 45.0 0.0 20.0 54.0 17.0 16.0 50.0 54.0 LLG Engineers Synchro 7 - Report Page 9 A-98 I l q Lanes, Volumes, Timings SCHOOL DISMISSAL PEAK 5: Ave Scott & McBean Parkway Existing Plus Project Intersection Summ Area Type: Other Cycle Length: 132 Actuated Cycle Length: 132 Offset: 94 (71 %), Referenced to phase 2:SWL and 6:SWR, Start of Yellow Natural Cycle: 125 Control Type: Actuated -Coordinated Maximum We Ratio: 0.80 Intersection Signal Delay: 22.9 Intersection LOS: C Intersection Capacity Utilization 51.3% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 LLG Engineers Synchro 7 - Report Page 10 A-99 1 D'5 -i' -- -,* ~ If- -. r /P- 4 t ✓ Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBR NBR2 SWL2 SWIL SWR Total Split (%) 12.9% 34.1% 15.2% 12.9% 34.1% 0.0% 15.2% 40.9% 12.9% 12.1% 37.9% 40.9% Maximum Green (s) 12.5 39.5 15.5 12.5 39.5 15.5 48.0 12.5 11.5 44.0 48.0 Yellow Time (s) 3.5 4.5 3.5 3.5 4.5 3.5 5.0 3.5 3.5 5.0 5.0 All -Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust (s) -0.5 -1.5 -0.5 -0.5 -1.5 0.0 -0.5 -2.0 -0.5 45 -2.0 -2.0 Total Lost Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4,0 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lead Lead Lag Lead Lead Lead Lag Lag Lead Lead -Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3,0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Recall Mode None None Min None None Min C -Max None None C -Max C -Max Walk Time (s) 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 Flash Dont Walk (s) 32.0 27.0 22.0 27.0 22.0 Pedestrian Calls (#Ihr) 0 0 0 0 0 Act Effct Green (s) 9.4 8.6 41.8 13.1 7.7 36.0 98.7 116.6 8.6 65.1 98.7 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.07 0.07 0.32 0.10 0.06 0.27 0.75 0.88 0.07 0.49 0.75 v/c Ratio 0.37 0.10 0.80 0.16 0.18 0.49 0.57 0.10 0.11 0.49 0.07 Control Delay 62.6 58.8 33.9 56.2 30.7 42.3 10.4 0.6 58.5 24.1 2.2 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 62.6 58.8 33.9 56.2 30.7 42.3 10.4 0.6 58.5 24.1 2.2 LOS E E C E C D B A E C A Approach Delay 36.9 45.2 16.1 23.1 Approach LOS D D 8 C Queue Length 50111 (ft) 37 10 275 19 5 157 182 0 10 268 1 Queue Length 95th (ft) 64 31 312 43 25 212 398 8 31 310 23 Internal Link Dist (ft) 442 358 530 891 Turn Bay Length (ft) 250 200 300 300 300 300 200 200 200 Base Capacity(vph) 327 579 1051 385 1040 904 2929 1431 150 3178 1364 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.27 0.02 0.80 0.13 0.04 0.49 0.57 0.10 0.D8 0.49 0.07 Intersection Summ Area Type: Other Cycle Length: 132 Actuated Cycle Length: 132 Offset: 94 (71 %), Referenced to phase 2:SWL and 6:SWR, Start of Yellow Natural Cycle: 125 Control Type: Actuated -Coordinated Maximum We Ratio: 0.80 Intersection Signal Delay: 22.9 Intersection LOS: C Intersection Capacity Utilization 51.3% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 LLG Engineers Synchro 7 - Report Page 10 A-99 1 D'5 Lanes, Volumes, Timings SCHOOL DISMISSAL PEAK 5: Ave Scott & McBean Parkway Existing Plus Project Splits and Phases: 5: Ave Scoff & McBean Parkway a2 rr3 e4 NEENNED LLG Engineers Synchro7- Report Page 11 A-100 1 5 K/ HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis SCHOOL DISMISSAL PEAK 5: Ave Scott & McBean Parkway Existing Plus Project a --► 7 '< ~ t 4N r /0- �► i EBL EBT NBR NBR2 SWI -2 Lane Configurations M T rr Prot Tj+ custom rrrr r mi r Volume (vph) 81 11 771 47 12 24 410 1543 131 11 1443 89 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Width 11 12 12 10 13 8 11 11 12 10 12 16 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 61.8 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 1.00 0.88 0.97 0.95 0.70 0.97 0.64 1.00 1.00 0.91 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.65 1.00 0.90 Vehicle Extension (s) 1,00 0.85 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Fit Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 236 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (Prot) 3319 1863 2787 3204 3291 0.01 3319 3918 1583 1652 6441 1794 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.02 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 3319 1863 2787 3204 3291 0.16 3319 3918 1583 1652 6441 1794 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 88 12 838 51 13 26 446 1677 142 12 1568 97 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 173 0 24 0 0 0 30 0 0 26 Lane Group Flow (vph) 88 12 665 51 15 0 446 1677 112 12 1568 71 Turn Type Prot pm+ov Prot custom custom Prot custom Protected Phases 7 4 1 3 8 1 6 3 5 2 Permitted Phases 4 6 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 8.9 3.6 39.1 12.6 7.3 35.5 90.7 103.3 4.6 59.8 90.7 Effective Green, g (s) 9.4 5.1 40.1 13.1 8.8 36.0 92.7 104.3 5.1 61.8 92.7 Actuated g1C Ratio 0.07 0.04 0.30 0.10 0.07 0.27 0.70 0.79 0.04 0.47 0.70 Clearance Time (s) 4.5 5.5 4,5 4.5 5.5 4.5 60 4.5 4.5 6.0 6.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 10 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap(vph) 236 72 847 318 219 905 2752 1251 64 3016 1260 vls Ratio Prot c0.03 0.01 c0.21 0.02 c0.00 0.13 c0.43 0.01 0.01 c0.24 v/s Ratio Perm 0.02 0,06 0,04 v/c Ratio 0.37 0.17 0.79 0.16 0.07 0.49 0.61 0.09 0.19 0.52 0.06 Uniform Delay, dl 58.5 61.4 42.0 54.4 57.8 40.3 10.2 3.1 61.4 24.7 6.1 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 1.0 1.1 4.8 0.2 0.1 0.4 1.0 0.0 1.4 0.6 0.1 Delay (s) 59.5 62.5 46.9 54.7 57.9 40.8 11.2 3.2 62.9 25.3 6.2 Level of Service E E D D E D B A E C A Approach Delay (s) 48.2 56.1 16.5 24.5 Approach LOS D E B C Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 25.9 HCM Level of Service C HCM Volume to Capacity rata 0.63 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 132.0 Sum of lost time (s) 160 Intersection Capacity Utilization 51.3% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group LLG Engineers Synchro 7 - Report Page 12 A-101 ' S I Lanes, Volumes, Timings PM PEAK 2T Avenue Scott & Rye Canyon Rd/Copperhill Dr Existing Plus Project \ J t' x-, N r I 's -Y L Lane Group SEL SET SER NWU NWL NWT NWR NEU NEL NET - NER SWL Lane Configurations I T+ T r ) ttlk ►) Volume (vph) 5 5 2 6 238 1 419 6 2 1349 197 210 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Width (it) 12 11 11 12 12 12 12 12 12 11 12 11 Storage Length (ft) 150 0 0 50 200 0 0 Storage Lanes 1 0 2 1 1 0 1 Taper Length (ft) 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 Lane UGI. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 0.91 1.00 0.91 0.91 1.00 Frt 0.957 0.850 0.981 Flt Protected 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950 Said. Flow (prot) 1770 1723 0 0 3433 1863 1583 0 1770 4822 0 1711 Flt Permitted 0.950 0.440 0.950 Satd. Flow (perm) 1863 1723 0 0 3433 1863 1583 0 820 4822 0 1711 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Said. Flow (RTOR) 2 455 19 Link Speed (mph) 35 35 45 Link Distance (ft) 547 335 307 Travel Time (s) 10.7 6.5 4.7 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flaw (vph) 5 5 2 7 259 1 455 7 2 1466 214 228 Shared Lane Traffic (%) Lane Group Flow (vph) 5 7 0 0 266 1 455 0 9 1680 0 228 Enter Blocked Intersection No No No No No No No No No No No No Lane Alignment Left Left Right RNA Left Left Right RNA Left Left Right Left Median Width(ft) 24 24 12 Link Offset(ft) 0 0 0 Crosswalk Width(ft) 16 16 16 Two way Left Tum Lane Headway Factor 1.00 1.04 1.04 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.04 1.00 1.04 Turning Speed (mph) 15 9 9 15 9 9 15 9 15 Number of Detectors 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Detector Template Leading Detector (ft) 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 Trailing Detector (1) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Detector 1 Position(ft) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Detector Size(ft) 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 Detector 1 Type CI+Ex CI+Ex CI+Ex CI+Ex CI+Ex CI+Ex CI+Ex CI+Ex CI+Ex CI+Ex Detector 1 Channel Detector 1 Extend (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Detector 1 Queue (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Detector 1 Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Turn Type Perm Split Split Perm custom Prot Prot Protected Phases 7 3 3 3 5 2 1 14 Permitted Phases 7 3 5 Detector Phase 7 7 3 3 3 3 5 5 2 1 14 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Minimum Split (s) 15.0 15.0 35.0 35,0 35.0 35.0 8.5 8.5 30.0 Total Split (s) 15.0 15.0 0.0 35.0 35.0 35.0 35.0 20.0 20.0 34.0 0.0 48.0 LLG Engineers Synchro 7 - Report Page 27 A-IO2 15-n Lanes, Volumes, Timings PM PEAK 27: Avenue Scott & Rye Canyon Rd/Copperhill Dr Existing Plus Project X, ►t. Volume (vph) 616 0 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 Lane Width (ft) 11 10 Storage Length (ft) 0 Storage Lanes 0 Taper Length (ft) 25 Lane Util. Factor 0.91 0.91 Frt Fit Protected Said. Flow (pmt) 4916 0 Flt Permitted Said. Flow (perm) 4916 0 Right Tum on Red Yes Said. Flow (RTOR) Link Speed (mph) 45 Link Distance (ft) 1700 Travel Time (s) 25.8 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 670 0 Shared Lane Traffic (%) Lane Group Flow (vph) 670 0 Enter Blocked Intersection No No Lane Alignment Left Right Median Width(ft) 12 Link Offset(ft) 0 Crosswalk Width(ft) 16 Two way Left Tum Lane Headway Factor 1.04 1.09 Turning Speed (mph) 9 Number of Detectors 1 Detector Template Leading Detector (ft) 50 Trailing Detector (ft) 0 Detector 1 Position(ft) 0 Detector 1 Size(ft) 50 Detector 1 Type CI+Ex Detector 1 Channel Detector 1 Extend (s) 0.0 Detector 1 Queue (s) 0.0 Detector 1 Delay (s) 0.0 Turn Type Protected Phases 6 Permitted Phases Detector Phase 6 14 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Minimum Split (s) 45.0 20.0 35.0 14.0 Total Split (s) 42.0 0.0 28.0 35.0 20.0 LLG Engineers Synchro 7 - Report Page 28 A-103 1 sq Lanes, Volumes, Timings PM PEAK 27: Avenue Scott & Rye Canyon Rd/Copperhill Dr Existing Plus Project I \ jk\ r � � h ';if Lane Group SEL SET SER NWU NWL NWT NWR NEU NEL NET NER SAL Total Split (%) 11.4% 11.4% 0.0°% 26.5% 26.5% 26.5% 26.5% 15.2% 15.2% 25.8% 0.0% 36.4% Maximum Green (s) 10.0 10.0 30.0 30,0 30.0 30.0 15.5 15.5 28.0 Yellow Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.5 3.5 5.0 All -Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust (s) -1.0 -1.0 0.0 0.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 0.0 -0.5 -2.0 0.0 -0.5 Total Lost Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.5 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Leadf-ag Lead Lead Lead Lead Lead Lead -Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Recall Mode None None Min Min Min Min Min Min C -Min Walk Time (s) 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 Flash Dont Walk (s) 23.0 23.0 23.0 23,0 16.0 Pedestrian Calls (#Jhr) 2 2 2 2 0 Act Effct Green (s) 7.1 7.1 19.0 19.0 19.0 9.1 63.6 28.6 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.05 0.05 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.07 0.48 0.22 v/c Ratio 0.05 0.07 0.54 0.00 0.74 0.16 0.72 0.61 Control Delay 59.8 52.7 55.5 43.0 11.8 47.5 26.8 21.4 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 59.8 52.7 55.5 43.0 11.8 47.5 26.8 21.4 LOS E D E D B D C C Approach Delay 55.6 27.9 26.9 Approach LOS E C C Queue Length 50th (ft) 4 4 111 1 0 6 400 92 Queue Length 95th (ft) 18 21 139 6 94 m13 #750 133 Intemal Link Dist (11) 467 255 227 Turn Bay Length (ft) 150 50 200 Base Capacity(vph) 155 145 806 438 720 99 2335 523 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.03 0.05 0.33 0.00 0.63 0.09 0.72 0.44 Intersection Summ Area Type: Other Cycle Length: 132 Actuated Cycle Length: 132 Offset: 52 (39%), Referenced to phase 2:NET and 6:SWT, Start of Yellow Natural Cycle: 135 Control Type: Actuated -Coordinated Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.74 Intersection Signal Delay- 26.2 Intersection LOS: C Intersection Capacity Utilization 69.7% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue maybe longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. LLG Engineers Synchro 7 - Report Page 29 A -104I I _u Lanes, Volumes, Timings PM PEAK 27: Avenue Scott & Rye Canyon Rd/Copperhill Dr Existing Plus Project LLG Engineers A-105 Synchro 7 - Report Page 30 M Lanes, Volumes, Timings PM PEAK 27: Avenue Scott & Rye Canyon Rd/Copperhill Dr Existing Plus Project Pee k' Lane Group SWr SWR ai e4 e14 Total Spit (%) 31,8% 0.0% 21% 27% 15% Maximum Green (s) 36.0 23.5 30.5 16.0 Yellow Time (s) 5.0 3.5 3.5 3.5 All -Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.5 Lost Time Adjust (s) -2.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 4.0 4.0 Lead/Lag Lag Lag Lag Lead -Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Recall Mode C -Min None None None Walk Time (s) 7.0 7.0 Flash Dont Walk (s) 27.0 23.0 Pedestrian Calls (#Ihr) 0 0 Act Effct Green (s) 72.2 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.55 vlc Ratio 0.25 Control Delay 23.8 Queue Delay 0.0 Total Delay 23.8 LOS C Approach Delay 23.2 Approach LOS C Queue Length 50th (ft) 110 Queue Length 95th (ft) 125 Inlemal Link Dist (ft) 1620 Turn Bay Length (ft) Base Capacity (vph) 2688 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 Reduced vlc Ratio 0.25 Intersection Summary , LLG Engineers A-106 Synchro 7 - Report Page 31 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis PM PEAK 27: Avenue Scott & Rye Canyon Rd/Copperhill Dr Existing Plus Project I%Jk\ r*% r h Movement SEL SET SER NWU NWL NWT NWR NEU NEL NET NER SWL Lane Configurations ►) T# 2 114 1) 4 if ) TTA ►j Volume (vph) 5 5 2 6 238 1 419 6 2 1349 197 210 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Width 12 11 11 12 12 12 12 12 12 11 12 11 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 54 4.0 4.0 268 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 vls Ratio Prot 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.91 c0.13 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.96 0.04 1.00 1.00 0.85 vlc Ratio 1.00 0.98 0.54 1.00 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.60 Uniform Delay, d1 0.95 1.00 1.00 48.4 0.95 1.00 29.6 0.95 Said. Flow (prof) 1770 1723 1.00 1.00 3433 1863 1583 0.53 1770 4822 0.9 1711 Fit Permitted 1.00 1.00 2.2 2.6 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.44 1.00 0.95 Said. Flow (perm) 1863 1723 3433 1863 1583 819 4822 1711 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 5 5 2 7 259 1 455 7 2 1466 214 228 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 2 0 0 0 0 390 0 0 10 0 0 Lane Grouo Flow (voh) 5 5 0 0 266 1 65 Tum Type Perm 53.6 48.4 51.2 Split Split Level of Service Perm custom Prot D C C Prot Protected Phases 52.0 7 3 3 3 D 5 2 114 Permitted Phases 7 3 5 Actuated Green, G (s) 2.8 2.8 18.0 18.0 18.0 8.6 58.5 28.2 Effective Green, g (s) 3.8 3.8 19.0 19.0 19.0 9.1 60.5 29.2 Actuated g1C Ratio 0.03 0.03 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.07 0.46 0.22 Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 4.5 6.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 30 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 54 50 494 268 228 56 2210 378 vls Ratio Prot c0.00 c0.08 0.00 c0.35 c0.13 vis Ratio Perm 0.00 0.04 0.01 vlc Ratio 0.09 0.10 0.54 0.00 0.29 0.16 0.76 0.60 Uniform Delay, d1 62.4 62.4 52.4 48.4 50.5 57.9 29.6 46.2 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.75 0.82 0.53 Incremental Delay, d2 0.7 0.9 1.1 0.0 0.7 1.2 2.2 2.6 Delay (s) 63.2 63.3 53.6 48.4 51.2 44.7 26.6 27.2 Level of Service E E D D D D C C Approach Delay (s) 63.3 52.0 26.7 Approach LOS E D C Intersection Summ HCM Average Control Delay 31.3 HCM Level of Service C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.66 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 132.0 Sum of lost time (s) 20.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 69.7% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group LLG Engineers Synchro 7 - Report Page 32 A-107 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis PM PEAK 27: Avenue Scott & Rye Canyon Rd/Copperhill Dr Existing Plus Project Pee Movement SWT SWR LaneNonfigurations ++' Volume (vph) 616 0 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 Lane Width 11 10 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 Lane Ufil. Factor 0.91 Frt 1.00 Flt Protected 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 4916 Fit Permitted 1.00 Said. Flow (perm) 4916 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 670 0 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 670 0 Turn Type Protected Phases 6 Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) 67.1 Effective Green, g (s) 69.1 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.52 Clearance Time (s) 6.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 2573 v/s Ratio Prot 0.14 v/s Ratio Perm vlc Ratio 0.26 Uniform Delay, dl 17.4 Progression Factor 1.22 Incremental Delay, d2 0.2 Delay (s) 21.4 Level of Service C Approach Delay (s) 22.9 Approach LOS C Intersecdon Summary LLG Engineers Synchro 7 - Report Page 33 Lanes, Volumes, Timings PM PEAK 29: Avenue Stanford & Avenue Scott Existing Plus Project -,.* --p- --* f- *-- 4% t /W 1-4 ti 4 Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WEIR NBL NBT NBR SBU SBL SBT Lane Configurations t r ►j T+ fl+ 0 Volume (vph) 163 31 321 182 51 154 78 333 34 14 34 334 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 19W 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length (ft) 200 100 150 0 190 0 165 Storage Lanes 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 Taper Length (ft) 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.95 Frt 0.850 0.887 0.986 0.990 Flt Protected 0.950 0950 0.950 0.950 Said. Flow (prot) 1770 1863 1583 1770 1652 0 1770 3490 0 0 1770 3504 Flt Permitted 0.620 0.735 0.521 0.517 Said. Flow (perm) 1155 1853 1583 1369 1652 0 970 3490 0 0 963 3504 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Said. Flow (RTOR) 337 167 20 14 Link Speed (mph) 30 35 45 45 Link Distance (ft) 434 616 2297 504 Travel Time (s) 9.9 12.0 34.8 7.6 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0,92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 177 34 349 198 55 167 85 362 37 15 37 363 Shared Lane Traffic (%) Lane Group Flow (vph) 177 34 349 198 222 0 85 399 0 0 52 390 Enter Blocked Intersection No No No No No No No No No No No No Lane Alignment Left Left Right Left Left Right Left Left Right RNA Left Left Median Width(ft) 12 12 12 12 Link Offset(ft) 0 0 0 0 Crosswalk Wdth(ft) 16 16 16 16 Two way Left Turn Lane Headway Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Turning Speed (mph) 15 9 15 9 15 9 9 15 Number of Detectors 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Detector Template Leading Detector (ft) 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 Trailing Detector (ft) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Detector Posilon(ft) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Detector 1 Size(fl) 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 Detector 1 Type CI+Ex CI+Ex CI+Ex CI+Ex CI+Ex CI+Ex CI+Ex CI+Ex CI+Ex CI+Ex Detector 1 Channel Detector 1 Extend (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Detector 1 Queue (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Detector 1 Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Tum Type Perm Perm Perm Perm Penn Perm Protected Phases 4 8 2 6 Permitted Phases 4 4 4 8 2 6 6 Detector Phase 4 4 4 8 8 2 2 6 6 6 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Minimum Split (s) 35.0 35.0 35.0 35.0 35.0 26.0 26.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 Total Split (s) 35.0 35.0 35.0 35.0 35.0 0.0 30.0 30.0 0.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 Total Split (%) 53.8% 53.8% 53.8% 53.8% 53.8% 0.0% 46.2% 46.2% 0.0% 46.2% 46.2% 46.2% LLG Engineers Synchro 7 • Report Page 34 A_I09 ` �'5 Lanes, Volumes, Timings PM PEAK 29: Avenue Stanford & Avenue Scott Existing Plus Project r Lane Group SBR LaWonfigurations Volume (vph) 25 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 Storage Length (ft) 0 Storage Lanes 0 Taper Length (ft) 25 Lane UGI. Factor 0.95 Frt Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prat) 0 Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) 0 Right Turn on Red Yes Satd. Flow (RTOR) Unk Speed (mph) Link Distance (ft) Travel Time (s) Peak Hour Factor 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 27 Shared Lane Traffic (%) Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 Enter Blocked Intersection No Lane Alignment Right Median Width(ft) Link Offsel(ft) Crosswalk Width(ft) Two way Left Tum Lane Headway Factor 1.00 Turning Speed (mph) 9 Number of Detectors Detector Template Leading Detector (ft) Trailing Detector (ft) Detector 1 Posifion(ft) Detector 1 Size(ft) Detector 1 Type Detector 1 Channel Detector 1 Extend (s) Detector 1 Queue (s) Detector 1 Delay (s) Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Detector Phase Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) Minimum Split (s) Total Split (s) 0.0 Total Split (%) 0.0% LLG Engineers Synchro 7 - Report Page 35 A -I 10 I ��^ Lanes, Volumes, Timings PM PEAK 29: Avenue Stanford & Avenue Scott Existing Plus Project Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBU SBL SBT Maximum Green (s) 31.0 31.0 31.0 31.0 31.0 26.0 26.0 26.0 26.0 26.0 Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All -Red Time (s) 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lead/Lag Lead -Lag Optimize? Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Recall Mode None None None None None Min Min Min Min Min Walk Time (s) 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 Flash Dont Walk (s) 24.0 24.0 24.0 24.0 24.0 15.0 15.0 19.0 19.0 19.0 Pedestrian Calls (#/hr) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Act Effct Green (s) 10.3 10.3 10.3 10.3 10.3 8.9 8.9 8.9 8.9 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.37 0.37 0.37 0.37 0.37 0.32 0.32 0.32 0.32 v/c Ratio 0.41 0.05 0.44 0.39 0,31 0.27 0.35 0.17 0.34 Control Delay 9.9 5.9 3.1 9.1 3.5 10.6 8.3 9.3 8.3 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 9.9 5.9 3.1 9.1 3.5 10.6 8.3 9.3 8.3 LOS A A A A A B A A A Approach Delay 5.4 6.1 8.7 8.5 Approach LOS A A A A Queue Length 50th (ft) 15 2 1 16 4 7 17 4 17 Queue Length 95th (ft) 54 13 31 56 31 35 53 24 52 Internal Link Dist (ft) 354 536 2217 424 Turn Bay Length (ft) 200 100 150 190 165 Base Capacity(vph) 1109 1788 1533 1314 1592 a83 3179 877 3191 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reducm 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.16 0.02 0.23 0.15 0.14 0.10 0.13 0.06 0.12 Intersection Summary :" " Area Type: Other Cycle Length: 65 Actuated Cycle Length: 27.6 Natural Cycle: 65 Control Type: Actuated -Uncoordinated Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.44 Intersection Signal Delay: 7.1 Intersection LOS: A Intersection Capacity Utilization 50.0% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min)15 and Phases: 29: Avenue Stanford & Avenue Scott LLG Engineers Synchro7- Report Page 36 Lanes, Volumes, Timings PM PEAK 29: Avenue Stanford & Avenue Scoff Existing Plus Project r Lane Group SBR Maximum Green (s) Yellow Time (s) All -Red Time (s) Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 4.0 Lead/Lag Lead -Lag Optimize? Vehicle Extension (s) Recall Mode Walk Time (s) Flash Dont Walk (s) Pedestrian Calls (#Ihr) Act Effct Green (s) Actuated g/C Ratio v/c Ratio Control Delay Queue Delay Total Delay LOS Approach Delay Approach LOS Queue Length 50th (ft) Queue Length 95th (ft) Internal Link Dist (ft) Turn Bay Length (ft) Base Capacity (vph) Starvation Cap Reductn Spillback Cap Reductn Storage Cap Reductn Reduced vlc Ratio Intersection Summary LLG Engineers Synchro 7 - Report Page 37 A-112 1/0 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 6.6 HCM Level of Service A HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0,37 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 27.2 Sum of lost time (s) 8.0 PM PEAK 29: Avenue Stanford & Avenue Scott Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Existing Plus Project t -• �-* �- 4\ t v " 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBU SBL SBT Lane Configurations I t r ►j A TA ►) TA Volume (vph) 163 31 321 182 51 154 78 333 34 14 34 334 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane UGI. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.89 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 177D 1863 1583 1770 1553 1770 3490 1770 3502 Flt Permitted 0.62 1,00 1.00 0.73 1.00 0.52 1.00 0.52 1.00 Said. Flow (perm) 1154 1863 1583 1369 1653 971 3490 963 3502 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 177 34 349 198 55 167 85 362 37 15 37 363 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 209 0 104 0 0 13 0 0 0 9 Lane Group Now (vph) 177 34 140 198 118 0 85 386 0 0 52 381 Tum Type Perm Penn Perm Perm Perm Perm Protected Phases 4 8 2 6 Permitted Phases 4 4 4 8 2 6 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 10.3 10.3 10.3 10.3 10.3 8.9 8.9 8.9 8.9 Effective Green, g (s) 10.3 10.3 10.3 10.3 10.3 8.9 8.9 8.9 8.9 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.38 0.38 0.38 0.38 0.38 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 437 705 599 518 626 318 1142 315 1146 v/s Ratio Prot 0.02 0.07 c0.11 0.11 vis Ratio Perm c0.15 0.09 0.14 0.09 0.05 v/c Ratio 0.41 0.05 0.23 0.38 0.19 0.27 0.34 0.17 0.33 Uniform Delay, dl 6.2 5.3 5.8 6.1 5.7 6.7 6.9 6.5 6.9 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.6 0.0 0.2 0.5 0.1 0.5 0.2 0.2 0.2 Delay (s) 6.8 5.4 6.0 6.6 5.8 7.2 7.1 6.8 7.1 Level of Service A A A A A A A A A Approach Delay (s) 6.2 6.2 7.1 7.0 Approach LOS A A A A Intersection Summ HCM Average Control Delay 6.6 HCM Level of Service A HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0,37 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 27.2 Sum of lost time (s) 8.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 50,0% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group LLG Engineers Synchro 7 - Report Page 38 A -I13 � 6q HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis PM PEAK 29: Avenue Stanford & Avenue Scott Existing Plus Project r Volume (vph) 25 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 Total Lost time (s) Lane U61. Factor Frt Flt Protected Satd. Flow (Prot) Flt Permitted Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 27 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 Tum Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS LLG Engineers Synchro 7 - Report Page 39 A-114 M 0 Lanes, Volumes, Timings PM PEAK 9: Avenue Tibbitts & Avenue Scott Existing Plus Project * Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WET WBR NB@' . 7Nllft ' Witt SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations ►j TT+ Q ejr ►j TT+ +T tr Volume (vph) 111 66 57 216 21 168 12 166 60 189 639 9 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length (ft) 100 0 190 0 150 0 190 100 Storage Lanes 1 0 1 2 1 0 1 1 Taper Length (ft) 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.88 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Frl 0.931 0.850 0.960 0.850 At Protected 0.950 0.950 0.961 0.950 0.950 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 3295 0 1681 1701 2787 1770 3398 0 1770 3539 1583 Flt Permitted 0.950 0.950 0.961 0.950 0.950 Satd. Flow (Perm) 1770 3295 0 1681 1701 2787 1770 3398 0 1770 3539 1583 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Satd. Flow (RTOR) 62 183 33 5 Link Speed (mph) 35 35 45 45 Link Distance (ft) 795 973 1589 2297 Travel Time (s) 15.5 19.0 24.1 34.8 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0,92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 121 72 62 235 23 183 13 180 65 205 695 10 Shared Lane Traffic (%) 45% Lane Group Flow (vph) 121 134 0 129 129 183 13 245 0 205 695 10 Enter Blocked Intersection No No No No No No No No No No No No Lane Alignment Left Left Right Left Left Right Left Left Right Left Left Right Median Width(ft) 12 12 12 12 Link Offset(ft) 0 0 0 0 Crosswalk Width(ft) 16 16 16 16 Two way Left Turn Lane Headway Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Turning Speed (mph) 15 9 15 9 15 9 15 9 Number of Detectors 1 2 1 2 1 1 2 1 2 1 Detector Template Left Thru Left Thru Right Left Thru Left Thru Right Leading Detector (ft) 20 100 20 100 20 20 iD0 20 100 20 Trailing Detector (ft) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Detector 1 Position(ft) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Detector 1 Size(ft) 20 6 20 6 20 20 6 20 6 20 Detector 1 Type CI+Ex CI+Ex CI+Ex CI+Ex CI+Ex CI+Ex CI+Ex CI+Ex CI+Ex CI+Ex Detector 1 Channel Detector 1 Extend (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Detector 1 Queue (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Detector 1 Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Detector 2 Position(ft) 94 94 94 94 Detector 2 Size(ft) 6 6 6 6 Detector 2 Type CI+Ex CI+Ex CI+Ex CI+Ex Detector 2 Channel Detector 2 Extend (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0,0 Turn Type Split Split pm+ov Prot Prot Perm Protected Phases 3 3 4 4 5 1 6 5 2 Permitted Phases 4 6 2 Detector Phase 3 3 4 4 5 1 6 5 2 2 LLG Engineers Synchro7 - Report Page 15 A-115 I V I Lanes, Volumes, Timings PM PEAK 9: Avenue Tibbitts & Avenue Scott Existing Plus Project Int6rsecdon Summa Area Type: Other Cycle Length: 162.5 Actuated Cycle Length: 73.3 Natural Cycle: 95 Control Type: Actuated -Uncoordinated Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.53 Intersection Signal Delay: 22.1 Intersection LOS: C Intersection Capacity Utilization 47.0% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min)15 LLG Engineers A-116 Synchro 7 - Report Page 16 Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SET SBR Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Minimum Split (s) 33.0 33.0 10.0 10.0 8.5 8.5 39.0 8.5 33.0 33.0 Total Split (s) 31.0 31.0 0.0 31.0 31.0 44.5 24.5 56.0 0.0 44.5 76.0 76.0 Total Split (%) 19.1% 19.1% 0.0% 19.1% 19.1% 27.4% 15.1% 34.5% 0.0°% 27.4% 46.8% 46.8% Maximum Green (s) 25.0 25.0 25.0 25.0 40.0 20.0 50.0 40.0 70.0 70.0 Yellow Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 3.5 3.5 5.0 3.5 5.0 5.0 All -Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust (s) -2.0 -2.0 0.0 -2.0 -2.0 -0.5 -0.5 -2.0 0.0 -0.5 -2.0 -2.0 Total Lost Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lead/Lag Lead Lead Lag Lag Lag Lead Lead Lag Lag Lag Lead -Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Recall Mode None None None None None None Min None Min Min Walk Time (s) 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 Flash Dont Walk (s) 20.0 20.0 26.0 20.0 20.0 Pedestrian Calls (#/hr) 0 0 0 0 0 Act Effct Green (s) 13.5 13.5 14.1 14.1 30.0 6.9 13.2 15.9 31.4 31.4 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.18 0.18 0.19 0.19 0.41 0.09 0.18 0.22 0.43 0.43 v/c Ratio 0.37 0.20 0.40 0.39 0.15 0.08 0.38 0.53 0.46 0.01 Control Delay 32.9 17.7 32.8 32.6 1.5 38.1 26.9 32.6 17.7 13.1 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0,0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 32.9 17.7 32.8 32.6 1.5 38.1 26.9 32.6 17.7 13.1 LOS C B C C A D C C B B Approach Delay 24.9 19.8 27.5 21.0 Approach LOS C B C C Queue Length 50th (ft) 47 13 52 52 0 5 43 80 103 1 Queue Length 95th (ft) 119 45 131 131 9 26 98 175 237 13 Internal Link Dist (ft) 715 893 1509 2217 Turn Bay Length (fl) 100 190 150 190 100 Base Capacity(vph) 678 1301 644 652 1990 515 2516 1017 3280 1468 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.18 0.10 0.20 0.20 0.09 0.03 0.10 0.20 0.21 0.01 Int6rsecdon Summa Area Type: Other Cycle Length: 162.5 Actuated Cycle Length: 73.3 Natural Cycle: 95 Control Type: Actuated -Uncoordinated Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.53 Intersection Signal Delay: 22.1 Intersection LOS: C Intersection Capacity Utilization 47.0% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min)15 LLG Engineers A-116 Synchro 7 - Report Page 16 Lanes, Volumes, Timings PM PEAK 9: Avenue Tibbitts & Avenue Scott Existing Plus Project LLG Engineers Synchro 7 - Report Page 17 A-117 C� 3 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis PM PEAK 9: Avenue Tibbitts & Avenue Scott Existing Plus Project -i -,* 4�- ~ 4- 4\ t `► 1 f .NOT Lane Configurations aj +T+ aj d er +T, I ?f if Volume (vph) 111 66 57 216 21 168 12 166 60 189 639 9 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.88 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Fit 1.00 0.93 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.96 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.96 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 3294 1681 1700 2787 1770 3398 1770 3539 1583 FII Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.96 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Said. Flow (perm) 1770 3294 1681 1700 2787 1770 3398 1770 3539 1583 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 121 72 62 235 23 183 13 180 65 205 695 10 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 51 0 0 0 105 0 27 0 0 0 3 Lana Group Flow (vph) 121 83 0 129 129 78 13 218 0 205 695 7 Turn Type Split Split pmiov Prot Prot Perm Protected Phases 3 3 4 4 5 1 6 5 2 Permitted Phases 4 6 2 Actuated Green, G (s) 11.4 11.4 12.0 12.0 31.4 1.2 11.1 19.4 29.3 29.3 Effective Green, g (s) 13.4 13.4 14.0 14.0 32.4 1.7 13.1 19.9 31.3 31.3 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.42 0.02 0.17 0.26 0.41 0.41 Clearance Time (s) 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 4.5 4.5 6.0 4.5 6.0 6.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 310 578 308 312 1182 39 583 461 1450 649 vis Ratio Prot cO.07 0.03 cO.08 0.08 0.02 0.01 cO.06 0.12 cO.20 vis Ratio Perm 0.01 0.00 v/c Ratio 0.39 0.14 0.42 0.41 0.07 0.33 0.37 0.44 0.48 0.01 Uniform Delay, dl 27.9 26.6 27.6 27.6 13.0 36.8 28.0 23.6 16.6 13.4 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.8 0.1 0.9 0.9 0.0 5.0 0.4 0.7 0.3 0.0 Delay (s) 28.7 26.8 28.5 28.5 13.1 41.8 28.4 24.3 16.8 13.4 Level of Service C C C C B D C C B B Approach Delay (s) 27.7 22.1 29.1 18.5 Approach LOS C C C B Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 22.1 HCM Level of Service C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio OA5 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 76.4 Sum of lost time (s) 16.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 47.0% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group LLG Engineers A-118 Synchro 7 - Report Page 18 Lanes, Volumes, Timings PM PEAK 4: Avenue Scott & Einstein Driveway Existing Plus Project --A ti 1 N '1 Lane Group EBR EBR2 NEIL NB17.':N1Nl Lane Configurations eg r Volume (vph) 390 28 0 17 664 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane U61. Factor 0.88 0,95 1.00 1.00 0.97 Frt 0.850 0.865 Flt Protected 0.950 Said. Flow (pro[) 2787 0 0 1611 3433 Flt Permitted 0,950 Said. Flow (perm) 2787 0 0 1611 3433 Link Speed (mph) 35 30 45 Link Distance (ft) 335 346 504 Travel Time (s) 6.5 7.9 7.6 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 424 30 0 18 722 Shared Lane Traffic (%) Lane Group Flow (vph) 454 0 0 18 722 Enter Blocked Intersection No No No No No Lane Alignment Right Right Left Right Left Median Width(ft) 0 0 36 Link Offset(ft) 0 0 0 Crosswalk Width(ft) 16 16 16 Two way Left Turn Lane Headway Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Turning Speed (mph) 9 9 15 9 15 Sign Control Free Stop Free Intersection Summa Area Type: Other Control Type: Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Utilization 24.6% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min)15 LLG Engineers Synchro 7 - Report Page 7 A-119 I 1 `l HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis PM PEAK 4: Avenue Scott & Einstein Driveway Existing Plus Project Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h) Sign Control Grade Peak Hour Factor Hourly flow rate (vph) Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (f 1s) Percent Blockage Right tum flare (veh) Median type Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume vC1, stage 1 cont' vol vC2, stage 2 cont vol vCu, unblocked vol tC, single (s) tC, 2 stage (s) IF (s) p0 queue free % cM capacity (vehlh) --lik 7 1 rA 390 28 Free 0% 0.92 0.92 424 30 None 335 NBL NBR NWL 800 227 439 361 800 227 6.8 6.9 5.8 3.5 3.3 100 98 441 776 Raised 011! Direction, Lane # P in 0 17 664 Stop 283 Free 0% 361 0% 0.92 0.92 0.92 0 16 722 800 227 439 361 800 227 6.8 6.9 5.8 3.5 3.3 100 98 441 776 Raised 011! Direction, Lane # EB 1 EB 2 NB 1 NW 1 NW2 Volume Total 283 172 18 361 361 Volume Left 0 0 0 0 0 Volume Right 0 30 18 0 0 cSH 1700 1700 776 1700 1700 Volume to Capacity 0.17 0.10 0.02 0.21 0.21 Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 0 2 0 0 Control Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 9.8 0.0 0.0 Lane LOS A Approach Delay (s) 0.0 9.8 0.0 Approach LOS A Intersection Summary Average Delay 0.2 Intersection Capacity Utilization 24.6% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 LLG Engineers Synchro 7 - Report Page 8 A-130 (n I1 W Lanes, Volumes, Timings PM PEAK 8: Einstein Driveway & Rye Canyon Dr Existing Plus Project *Rd/Copperhill I � i Lane Group WBL WEIR NET NBR SBL SET Lane Configurations r T'A'N ttt Volume (vph) 0 39 1515 12 0 862 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 0.91 0.91 1.00 0.91 Frt 0.865 0.999 Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) 0 1611 5080 0 0 5085 Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) 0 1611 5080 0 0 5085 Link Speed (mph) 30 45 45 Link Distance (ft) 360 799 307 Travel Time (s) 8.2 12.1 4.7 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 0 42 1647 13 0 937 Shared Lane Traffic (%) Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 42 1660 0 0 937 Enter Blocked Intersection No No No No No No Lane Alignment Left Right Left Right Left Left Median Width(ft) 0 12 12 Link Offset(ft) 0 0 0 Crosswalk Width(ft) 16 16 16 Two way Left Turn Lane Headway Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Turning Speed (mph) 15 9 9 15 Sign Control Stop Free Free Intersection Summa Area Type: Other Control Type: Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Utilization 39.5% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min)15 LLG Engineers Synchro 7 - Report Page 13 A-121 1I I HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis PM PEAK 8: Einstein Driveway & Rye Canyon Rd/Copperhill Dr Existing Plus Project Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h) Sign Control Grade Peak Hour Factor Hourly flow rate (vph) Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (f /s) Percent Blockage Right turn Bare (veh) Median type Median storage veh) Upstream signal (R) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol IC, single (s) tC, 2 stage (s) IF (s) p0 queue free % cM capacity (vehm) 4�- t t P �► l m. 0 39 1515 12 0 862 Stop Free Free 0% 0% 0% 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0 42 1647 13 0 937 None 0.93 1966 555 1660 1776 555 6.8 6.9 3.5 3.3 100 91 69 475 2.2 100 384 None 307 Direction 1_aii WB 1 NB 1 NB 2 NB 3 SBI SB 2 SB 3 Volume Total 42 659 659 342 312 312 312 Volume Left 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Volume Right 42 0 0 13 0 0 0 cSH 475 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 Volume to Capacity 0.09 0.39 0.39 0.20 0.18 0.18 0.18 Queue Length 95th (11) 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 Control Delay (s) 13.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Lane LOS B Approach Delay (s) 13.3 0.0 0.0 Approach LOS B IntersectionSummary Average Delay 0.2 Intersection Capacity Utilization 39.5% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 LLG Engineers A-122 Synchro 7 - Report Page 14 M Lanes, Volumes, Timings PM PEAK 5: Ave Scott & McBean Parkway Existing Plus Project Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBR NBR2 SWL2 SWI SWR Lane Configurations M 4 rr 0 rrrp r i im r Volume (vph) 190 25 697 46 15 20 186 2291 66 33 1836 37 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Width (R) 11 12 12 10 13 8 11 11 12 10 12 16 Storage Length (R) 250 200 300 0 300 300 200 200 Storage Lanes 2 2 2 0 2 1 1 1 Taper Length (ft) 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 1.00 0.88 0.97 0.95 0.95 0.97 0.64 1.00 1.00 0.91 1.00 Frt 0.850 0.913 0.850 0.850 0.850 Flt Protected 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950 Satd. Flow (prot) 3319 1863 2787 3204 3339 0 3319 3918 1583 1652 6441 1794 Flt Permitted 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950 Satd.Flow (perm) 3319 1863 2787 3204 3339 0 3319 3918 1583 1652 6441 1794 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Satd. Flow (RTOR) 249 22 50 29 Link Speed (mph) 30 30 50 50 Link Distance (ft) 522 438 610 971 Travel Time (s) 11.9 10.0 8.3 13.2 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 207 27 758 50 16 22 202 2490 72 36 1996 40 Shared Lane Traffic (%) Lane Group Flow (vph) 207 27 758 50 38 0 202 2490 72 36 1996 40 Enter Blocked Intersection No No No No No No No No No No No No Lane Alignment Left Left Right Left Left Right Left Right Right Left Left Right Median width(ft) 22 22 22 58 Link Offset(ft) 0 0 0 0 Crosswalk Width(ft) 16 16 16 16 Two way Left Tum Lane Headway Factor 1.04 1.00 1.00 1.09 0.96 1.20 1.04 1.04 1.00 1.09 1.00 0.85 Turning Speed (mph) 15 9 15 9 15 9 9 15 15 9 Number of Detectors 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Detector Template Leading Detector (ft) 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 Trailing Detector (ft) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Detector 1 Position(fit) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Detector 1 S¢e(ft) 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 Detector 1 Type CI+Ex CI+Ex CI+Ex CI+Ex CI+Ex CI+Ex CI+Ex CI+Ex CI+Ex CI+Ex CI+Ex Detector 1 Channel Detector 1 Extend (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Detector 1 Queue (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Detector 1 Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Turn Type Prot pm+ov Prot custom custom Prot custom Protected Phases 7 4 1 3 a 1 6 3 5 2 Permitted Phases 4 6 6 Detector Phase 7 4 1 3 8 1 6 3 5 2 6 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Minimum Split (s) 12.0 44.5 15.0 12.0 43.5 15.0 35.0 12.0 12.0 40.0 35.0 Total Split (s) 17.0 45.0 20.0 17.0 45.0 0.0 20.0 54.0 17.0 16.0 50.0 54.0 LLG Engineers Synchro 7 - Report Page 9 A-123 N Lanes, Volumes, Timings PM PEAK 5: Ave Scott & McBean Parkway Existing Plus Project Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBR NBR2 SW 2 ' SWL SWR Total Split 1%) 12.9% 34.1% 15.2% 12.9% 34.1% 0.0% 15.2% 40.9% 12.9% 12.1% 37.9% 40.9% Maximum Green (s) 12.5 39.5 15.5 12.5 39.5 15.5 48.0 12.5 11.5 44.0 48.0 Yellow Time (s) 3.5 4.5 3.5 3.5 4.5 3.5 5.0 3.5 3.5 5.0 5.0 All -Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust (s) -0.5 -1.5 -0.5 -0.5 -1.5 0.0 -0.5 -2.0 -0.5 45 -2.0 -2.0 Total Lost Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lead Lead Lag Lead Lead Lead Lag Lag Lead Lead -Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Recall Mode None None Min None None Min C -Max None None C -Max C -Max Walk Time (s) 7.0 7.0 7A 7.0 7.0 Flash Dont Walk (s) 32.0 27.0 22.0 27.0 22.0 Pedestrian Calls (#Mr) 0 0 0 0 0 Act Effct Green (s) 12.4 11.1 37.0 11.2 7.8 24.2 892 102.1 10.8 73.8 89.2 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.09 0.08 0.28 0.08 0.06 0.18 0.68 0.77 0.08 0.56 0.68 v/c Ratio 0.67 0.17 0.79 0.18 0.17 0.33 0.94 0.06 0.27 0.55 0.03 Control Delay 68.7 58.2 34.6 58.4 33.8 47.2 30.1 1.4 61.2 21.1 4.4 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 68.7 58.2 34.6 58.4 33.8 47.2 30.1 1.4 61.2 21.1 4.4 LOS E E C E C D C A E C A Approach Delay 42.3 47.8 30.6 21.4 Approach LOS D D C C Queue Length 50th (ft) 89 22 235 21 6 80 -803 2 29 285 3 Queue Length 95th (ft) 132 53 284 42 26 107 #981 9 66 392 18 Internal Link Dist (ft) 442 358 530 891 Turn Bay Length (ft) 250 200 300 300 300 300 200 200 200 Base Capacity(vph) 327 579 976 367 1052 630 2649 1281 150 3601 1222 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.63 0.05 0.78 0.14 0.04 0.32 0.94 0.06 0.24 0.55 0.03 Interiti*n;Summary Area Type: Other Cycle Length: 139 Actuated Cycle Length: 132 Offset: 94 (71%), Referenced to phase 2:SWL and 6:SWR, Start of Yellow Natural Cycle: 145 Control Type: Actuated -Coordinated Maximum v/c Rata: 0.94 Intersection Signal Delay: 29.6 Intersection LOS: C Intersection Capacity Utilization 58.8% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min)15 Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles LLG Engineers Synchro 7 - Report Page 10 A-124 I ,yT Lanes, Volumes, Timings PM PEAK 5: Ave Scott & McBean Parkway Existing Plus Project Splits and Phases: 5: Ave Scott 6 McBean Parkwav LLG Engineers Synchro 7 - Report Page 11 A-125 I HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis PM PEAK 5: Ave Scott & McBean Parkway Existing Plus Project Lane Configurations 1) f rr v)rf T'P M rrrr r 1111 if Volume(vph) 190 25 697 46 15 20 186 2291 66 33 1836 37 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Width 11 12 12 10 13 8 11 11 12 10 12 16 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 1.00 0.88 0.97 0.95 0.97 0.64 1.00 1.00 0.91 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.91 1.00 0.85 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 Sand. Flow (prot) 3319 1863 2787 3204 3340 3319 3918 1583 1652 6441 1794 Fit Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 Said. Flow (perm) 3319 1863 2787 3204 3340 3319 3918 1583 1652 6441 1794 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 207 27 758 50 16 22 202 2490 72 36 1996 40 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 187 0 21 0 0 0 14 0 0 10 Lane Group Flow(vph) 207 27 571 50 17 0 202 2490 58 36 1996 30 Tum Type Prot pm+ov Prot custom custom Prot custom Protected Phases 7 4 1 3 8 1 6 3 5 2 Permitted Phases 4 6 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 11.9 8.3 32.0 9.6 6.0 23.7 84.4 94.0 9.2 69.9 84.4 Effective Green, g (s) 12.4 9.8 33.0 10.1 7.5 242 86.4 95.0 9.7 71.9 86.4 Actuated gIC Ratio 0.09 0.07 0.25 0.08 0.06 0.18 0.65 0.72 0.07 0.54 0.65 Clearance Time (s) 4.5 5.5 4.5 4.5 5.5 4.5 6.0 4,5 4.5 6.0 6.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap(vph) 312 138 697 245 190 608 2565 1139 121 3508 1174 v!s Ratio Prot c0.06 0.01 c0.15 0.02 0.01 0.06 c0.64 0.00 0.02 c0.31 vis Ratio Perm 0.05 0.03 0.02 vfc Ratio 0.66 0.20 0.82 0.20 0.09 0.33 0.97 0.05 0.30 0.57 0.03 Uniform Delay, d1 57.8 57.4 46.7 57.2 59.0 46.9 21.6 5.4 57.9 19.8 8.0 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 5.2 0.7 7.5 0.4 0.2 0.3 12.1 0.0 1.4 0.7 0.0 Delay (s) 63.0 58.1 54.2 57.6 59.2 47.2 33.7 5.4 59.3 20.5 8.1 Level of Service E E D E E D C A E C A Approach Delay (s) 56.1 58.3 34.0 20.9 Approach LOS E E C C Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 33.5 HCM Level of Service C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.85 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 132.0 Sum of lost time (s) 8.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 58.8% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group LLG Engineers Synchro 7 - Report Page 12 LINSCOTT, LAW 8 GREENSPAN, engineers APPENDIX B STUDENT ZIP CODE INFORMATION LLG Ref. 2.13-3400-1 Albert Einstein Academy, Santa Claria V •' Wa L' 34W. Anan rinuvm A,a C—. Same t'Im JIN Ilgnm'IiA Iln+da.Jn: Table A Student Zip Code Information Zip Code Number of Students Percentage 91311 3 1% 91321 21 4% 91342 2 0% 91350 75 14% 91351 45 9% 91354 116 22% 91355 45 9% 91381 31 6% 91384 50 10% 91387 63 12% 91390 55 11% 93015 1 0% 93510 5 1% 93532 1 0% 93550 1 0% 93551 2 0% 93552 2 0% Total 518 100.0% I M LWSCOTT, LAW 8 GREENSPAN, enplr)eefS APPENDIX C ELEMENTARY SCHOOL ON-SITE QUEUE LLG Ref. 2-133400.1 Albert Einstein Academy, Santa Clarila 40 r `1 I:AIW - 416M Cinpan 1.nJnm. Shun l L, wu R<p,m � .'YJ IA,,d ,,A,, � 85 Strategies for the Greening of Student Pick -Ups at School Dismissal Dustin Qualls, PE, PTOE Abstract. Excessive queuing by parent vehicles picking -up their elementary -aged school children is becoming problematic in terms of both safe traffic operations on adjacent streets, as well as in increasing the individual school's carbon footprint. Adjacent street systems typically do not provide enough capacity to handle the stacking of parent vehicles in existing through lanes. This situation presents safety issues to existing traffic on the street system unrelated to the school traffic as well as to school related traffic. Where insufficient on-site stacking is provided on the school property, vehicles spill out onto the through lanes of the surrounding street system. Safety issues become apparent when students walk through parked cars in order to cross the street. Rear -end crashes also increase due to vehicles being stopped in through lanes of traffic. Emissions from vehicles can become excessive when parents queue to pick up their students. Volatile Organic Compound (VOC) and Carbon Monoxide (CO) emissions both increase during stop -and -go traffic or when a vehicle is idling'. Thus, vehicles queued to pick-up their student produce more VOC and CO than vehicles at free-flow speed. This paper offers strategies and state -of -the -practice methodologies to plan for the maximum expected vehicle queue during school dismissal at new or planned elementary schools. A rule -of -thumb for estimating the maximum queue length of parent vehicles at planned elementary schools will be presented. Also, recommendations and strategies will be given in order to reduce maximum queue lengths and the carbon footprints of existing elementary schools. INTRODUCTION Over the last ten years in and around the Houston, Texas, metropolitan area parents of elementary -aged students are increasingly relying on their personal vehicle to drop-off and pick- up their students to/from school. Dependence on alternative modes of transportation, whether it is bus ridership, walking, biking, or even carpools is dwindling. Several variables, including demographics, convenience and a presumed danger of letting students walk and bike to school all contribute to the over -reliance of personal vehicles to transport elementary -aged schoolchildren to and from school. During a typical morning drop-off event at an elementary school, the trips to the school are dispersed more normally across a broader time range than the peaking characteristics of an afternoon pick-up event and the morning trips do not typically present any traffic or safety operation issues. Onsite (or offsite) queuing during a typical morning drop-off event is negligible to minimal. However, the afternoon pick-up event attracts parents trying to "get in line first" in order to leave the queue as soon as possible upon the release of the students from school. Dismissal queuing is what causes traffic congestion both onsite in the school parking lot/queuing loop and offsite in the through lanes of adjacent roadways. Vehicle exhaust emissions, such as VOC and CO increase when vehicles idle or are in stop -and -go conditions [11. The topic of parent pick-up zones has not received considerable attention from the engineering and planning community until the recent years. Parent pick-up zones have long been overlooked in the initial elementary school site design process. However, even just minor improvements and strategies that address both sides of the following equation can provide significant results. [Improve roadivay safety and operations] + [Improve air quality and reduce vehicle emissions] _ A safer, "greener", student pick-up IMPROVE. ROADWAY SAFETY AND OPERATIONS The root causes of unsafe walking and biking modes of transportation for elementary -aged schoolchildren are pedestrian/vehicular/bus conflicts and the queuing of vehicles in through lanes of adjacent roadways. A higher number of conflict points between pedestrians and vehicles/buses obviously increases the likelihood of accidents between the two. Many times schoolchildren attempt to cross streets between parked or idling vehicles, or even load into the vehicles while the vehicle is queued in a though lane of travel. Figure 1 below shows this exact scenario of a long line of queued vehicles in a through lane of an adjacent street while a group of pedestrians are waiting to cross the street between vehicles. Students can also be seen loading into the passenger side of multiple vehicles while the vehicles are parked in a through lane of travel. Figure 1 — Pedestrian and Vehicular Conflict Points The primary tool to reduce the number of conflict points between elementary school pedestrians, vehicles and buses is to segregate bus pick-up, vehicle pick-up and pedestrian egress from different exit points of the school. Ideally, a bus pick-up loop is on one side of the building while the parent pick-up loop is on the other side. The pedestrians are then released from a third location in order to minimize interaction between all three modes. To further improve on the bus/vehicle/pedestrian segregation, the following strategies have been observed to work well and each comes with its own advantages. Delay the release of pedestrians until all private vehicle riders and bus riders have been loaded. This strategy ensures the least amount of bus/vehicle/pedestrian conflicts. Delay the release of private vehicle riders and bus riders until all pedestrians have been released. 'this strategy reduces but does not eliminate conflict points as some walkers/bikers will linger around the campus or walk slowly through the surrounding street network. However, this strategy promotes the pedestrian mode since these students will be released earlier than the private vehicle and bus riders. In order to develop a model to predict how much onsite storage should be constructed for parent pick-up vehicles, data from 55 elementary schools around the Houston, Texas, metropolitan area has been collected and is shown in Table I and continued on the next two pages. The collected data includes primarily the total enrollment of the elementary school (in number of students) as well as the maximum observed queue length (in number of vehicles). The maximum queue length at each elementary school can then be expressed as a percentage relating the maximum queue length to the total enrollment of the school. Table 1: Elementary Scbool PM Pick -Up Observations in Greater Houston Texas Observation Date Total Enrollment Students Maximum Queue VehiclesQueue Percentage of Enrollment for Maximum Katy Independent School District SD Franz Elementary 2/7/2007 1,231 83 6.7% Schmalz Elementary 2/5/2007 1,185 69 5.8% Griffin Element 2/6/2007 930 60 6.5% Woodereek Elementary 12/7/2007 687 55 8.0% Cy -Fair ISD Andre Elementary 12/7/2006 1,553 85 5.5% Duryea Elementary 12/7/2006 1,150 58 5.0% Sheridan Element 12/7/2006 1,321 75 5.7% Walker Elementary 12/7/2006 1,324 69 5.2% Keith Elementary 12/4/2007 1,036 615.9% Ault Element 12/6/2007 1,100 68 6.2% Cy -Lake Element 8/28/2008 1,483 78 5.3% M66 Table 1: Elementary School PM P ek-Up Obseryations in Greater Houston Texas Observation Date Total Enrollment Students(Vehicles) Maximum Queue Percentage of Enrollment for Maximum ueue Warner Elements 12/8/2008 1,015 58 5.7% Hemminway Elementary 1/13/2008 982 50 5.1% Copeland Element 3/5/2009 1,330 79 5.9% Postma Elements 3/5/2009 1,057 77 1 7.3% Birkes Elementary 3/6/2009 1,335 71 5.3% Spring ISD Winship Elements 12/12/2006 845 43 5.1% Sal ers Elements 12/12/2006 715 53 7.4% Cooper Element 11/28/2007 1,199 80 6.7% Meyer Element 11/28/2007 1,261 95 7.5% Ponderosa Element 12/13/2007 742 55 7.4% Reynolds Elements 11/28/2007 813 59 7.3% Magnolia ISD Bear Brach Elcment 11/1/2006 841 58 6.9% Ellisor Element 11/1/2006 785 48 6.1% Smith Elements 11/1/2006 750 44 5.9% Magnolia Elemen 1/4/2007 560 50 8.9% Aldine ISD Dunn Elementary 3/19/2007 1 264 84 6.6% Ma rill Elements 3/19/2007 1,286 82 6.4% Vine EC/PK Center 3/1/2007 750 41 5.5% deSantia o EC/PK Center 3/7/2007 709 68 9.6% Hino'osa EC/PK Center 11/26/2007 671 65 9.7% Keeble EC/PK 11/26/2007 850 58 6.8% Mac rill Elements 5/13/2008 1,502 100 6.7% Humble ISD Summerwood Elcment 1-5 1/25/2007 594 45 7.6% Summerwood Element K 2/2/2007 146 31 21.2% Eagle Spring Elements K 3/4/2009 159 28 17.6% Eagle Spring Elements 1-5 3/4/2009 869 61 7.0% Tomball ISD Willow Creek Elements K-4 4/11/2007 951 56 5.9% Table 1: Elementary School PM Pick -Up Observations in Greater Houston, Texas Observation Date Total Enrollment Students Maximum Queue VehiclesQueue Percentage of Enrollment for Maximum Lakewood Element K-4 4/12/2007 833 62 7.4% Tomball ES PreK-4 3/13/2008 615 45 7.3% Lamar CISD Frost Element 9/6/2007 1,108 74 6.7% Meyer Elementary 4/30/2008 762 47 6.2% Needville ISD Needville Elementary 12/3/2007 1,006 81 8.1% Texas City ISD Kohfeldt Elementary 3/28/2008 481 44 9.1% Fort Bend ISD Scanlan Oaks Elementary 5/9/2007 1,106 64 5.8% Sienna Crossing Elementary 5/8/2007 941 66 7.0% Oakland Elementary 5/7/2008 809 59 7.3% Burton Elementary 5/13/2008 927 61 6.6% Holley Elementary 9/14/2009 750 64 8.5% Jordan Elementary 9/15/2009 810 77 9.5% Spring Branch ISD Westwood Elementary 5/12/2008 595 24 4.0% Wilchester Element 5/28/2009 601 36 6.0% Housman Elementary 8/31/2009 540 35 6.5% Ed ewood Elementary 9/1/2009 720 42 1 5.8% Valley Oaks Elementary 9/2/2009 590 43 1 7.3% The data gathered from observations of the 55 elementary schools across the greater Houston, Texas, region over the past four years can be plotted and fitted with a best -fit linear regression trend line. Figure 2 displays the plotted data along with the linear regression results. mD 110 100 r 90 80 i 70 d 60 d 50 t3 40 n g 30 20 10 - Figure 2 - Onsite Elementary School Stacking Design Length ♦ ♦ = 0.0454x + 19.195 • • R= = 0.7059 100 300 500 700 900 1100 1300 1500 Total Enrollment (Students) From the linear regression trendline above, an Rz value of 0.71 signifies that the maximum queue length is roughly 71% dependent on the total enrollment of the elementary school. Other factors that affect the maximum queue length on any given day are factors such as the weather conditions, demographics, day of the week, etc. But for the purposes of this statistical model, a good "rule -of -thumb" for estimating the maximum queue length while in the school site planning process can be developed. The formulaic relationship from the best -fit linear regression trend line can be rounded and expressed as follows: Q=0.05(S)+19 where: Q = Maximum Queue Length (veh) S = Total Enrollment (students) To put it even simpler and in a more "rule -of -thumb" format, when the best -fit linear regression line that is forced to pass through the origin of (0,0) is added to Figure 2 (and thus removing the y-axis intercept component), the formulaic expression presented above gets reduced to: Q = 0.06(5) Or to put it in "rule -of -thumb" terms, the expected onsite maximum queue length, in vehicles, is approximately six percent of the total enrollment, in students. This "rule -of -thumb" could play a vital role in the school site planning process by providing an initial tool for estimating the amount of onsite stacking space required. Providing sufficient onsite stacking space will ensure the maximum queue of vehicles never overflows onto through lanes of adjacent roadways. N For existing elementary schools that are experiencing vehicle queuing onto the through lanes of adjacent roadways, there are retrofit options that could mitigate the existing roadway operations. Onsite stacking lanes can be designed and constructed to store the typical maximum queue length onsite and off of the through lanes of adjacent roadways. A recent case -study was able to be realized when Landolt Elementary School, of Clear Creek ISD in Harris County, Texas, constructed an onsite stacking roadway that provided two lanes of stacking up to the covered pick-up area as shown at the top of die figure in red in Figure 3 below. Figure 3 — Proposed Traffic Operations at Landolt ES, Harris County, Texas Landolt Elementary School had been experiencing a maximum queue of approximately 82 vehicles during a typical afternoon dismissal. The amount of existing onsite stacking space held a maximum of eight vehicles; thus congestion on the surrounding roadway network was extensive for approximately 30 minutes every weekday. Queuing in the through lanes of EI Dorado Boulevard, a major arterial of Harris County, Texas, occurred daily. Since the construction of the onsite stacking lanes, the maximum queue of vehicles on these lanes has not spilled onto the through lanes of any adjacent street. Better segregation between buses and private vehicles was also achieved with the improvements. Figure 4 shows the "before" conditions at the school, while Figure 5 shows the "after" conditions. 1, —----------_— --------_ w GO WAU1 1.020. i ❑ ❑ I •I • a ° I Q ° e — — � nn xoR stlaMr oxer -4r/ a5 I AIw xosF G 1 /HENT VOREI[ Mrtf AMIW SIRWM 1 IL WRAGP R'Al 4.05E AIK�AT '• 16i-TWI lAN[ WS/STMT wRANDL L FARM 011 Tl[Snnc �°t^srrxf.4vC. GLGSC MCIM1 Mut. "VMV IDM M TA• 60IM"T WIMo RAD Ns 05'f— GINW, SCENARIO MG M PI 4 LS 1 I4 .ZA0, MIX LGSF. Yl lMIIt11M YAOS LANOOLT ELD&,TAR, 04ltxG ArIpMODN DISNtS GAIN. A l" YAQ9 SCREW TIO OF LENGTH RE°IIME MIL NET LOSS OF 1 WN VAM PROPOSED TRArFlO IMSTACIpN, AM11MI. LI APPROX. I'm V b a Sm STACKING LF W �ERATIO'S Landolt Elementary School had been experiencing a maximum queue of approximately 82 vehicles during a typical afternoon dismissal. The amount of existing onsite stacking space held a maximum of eight vehicles; thus congestion on the surrounding roadway network was extensive for approximately 30 minutes every weekday. Queuing in the through lanes of EI Dorado Boulevard, a major arterial of Harris County, Texas, occurred daily. Since the construction of the onsite stacking lanes, the maximum queue of vehicles on these lanes has not spilled onto the through lanes of any adjacent street. Better segregation between buses and private vehicles was also achieved with the improvements. Figure 4 shows the "before" conditions at the school, while Figure 5 shows the "after" conditions. 1, Figure 4 - Landolt Elementary School "Before" Onsite Stacking Lanes Figure 5 - Landolt Elementary School "After" Onsite Stacking Lanes -3 REDUCE VEHICLE EMISSIONS AND INCREASE AIR QUALITY School children are often corralled and stationed outside during the afternoon dismissal from elementary schools in and around the Houston, Texas metropolitan area. These school children are breathing in vehicle emissions while private vehicles are queued onsite to pick them up. Rates of harmful vehicle emissions such as VOC and CO increase during vehicle idling and stop - and -go conditions. Figure 6 shows a typical case of students stationed and corralled outside immediately next to an excessive onsite queue of idling vehicles. Figure 7 displays the correlation between per -mile emission rates versus vehicle speed [1]. w d io s C 0 .y w E w d E t W a es Figure 7 — Per -Mile Emission Rates Versus Vehicle Speed Carbon Monoxide VOCs 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 Vehicle Speed (mph) M The State of Texas alone has approximately 5,050 (and rising) elementary schools. The following assumptions, based on observed data where applicable) are utilized in order to calculate the approximate amount of CO2 emissions produced annually by Texas elementary schools: • 180 school days per year • 60 vehicles in a typical afternoon dismissal queue • 25 minute average idling time while waiting for students to be dismissed • 0.0156 gallons of gasoline consumed per hour by a vehicle while idling 19.564 lb of CO2 per gallon of gasoline Multiplication of the applicable numbers above yields an approximate value of between 20,000 and 35,000 metric tons of CO2 produced annually by elementary schools in the State of'fexas. The responsibility of reducing this amount of CO2 production is spread equally over three primary factions: School districts and individual schools — Primary responsibility is to increase the efficiency of the student loading process. Best observed practices include: o Staggering the dismissal of students by grade level o Installing a two-stage loading process that utilizes hang -tags or placards placed in vehicle windshields to identity students to be picked -up. One school staff member relays the students' names to another staff member further up the queue line to arrange students in order of pick-up vehicle. Students then get loaded in up to six vehicles at a time, with a wave of six vehicles arriving after the preceding six vehicles. Governmental agencies — Primary responsibility is to educate the public to make them aware of the benefits of ride -sharing programs and safe -routes -to -school (SRTS) efforts that promote walking and biking to school. Best observed practices include: o Instilling green thinking into the community with printed materials and media encouraging the public to walk and bike to school. o Suggesting to parent drivers through print, radio and television media to turn off vehicle engines while queued up in school driveways. o Utilizing the internet like officials with Marin County, California, who used federal grant money to develop a "School Pool" ride -matching website that pairs up students who live along similar routes to school. Parents can then coordinate and commence carpooling. Elementary students and their parents — Primary responsibility are efforts to reduce the number of pick-up vehicles during elementary school dismissal. Best observed practices include: o Forming ride -sharing or multi -family carpools in which up to three or four families rotate weeks of picking -up all the students in the carpool. o Utilizing "express lanes" at schools that provide a shorter queue exclusively for families involved in ride -sharing or carpools. I 1� A simple goal of either reducing the amount of vehicles that participate in the afternoon dismissal at a given elementary school (a function of governmental agency and parent responsibilities), or in reducing the time duration of the student loading process into the vehicles (a function of school district responsibilities) could drastically reduce the amount of CO2 emissions produced annually by elementary schools in the State of Texas. Reducing either the number of pick-up vehicles by 50%, or reducing the time duration of the loading process by 50% could lead to an approximate savings of 10,000 to 17,500 metric tons of CO2 emissions per year just in the State of Texas alone. For a frame of reference, Figure 8 displays what just one metric ton of CO2 emissions looks like (the amount of CO2 emissions that could fit within the white cube in the photo is one metric ton). (2] Figure 8 — Representation of One Metric Ton of ;1i,r; TECHNOLOGIES Perhaps the best practice observed in terns of both student loading efficiency, safety and mitigation of vehicle idling while waiting in queue is the emerging use of automatic bar-code reading technology. Brookshire Elementary School, of the Orange County Public School System in Winter Park, Florida, has recently seen drastic results with the utilization of a bar-code reader system. The entrance of the school driveway is equipped with a bar-code reader that reads a bar-code decal on each pick-up vehicle entering the driveway. Students to be picked -up are staged inside the school in a classroom equipped with a large -screen television monitor that arranges students' pictures in succession according to successful scans of the bar-code decals at the school driveway entrance. This automates the two-stage loading process while keeping students away 0b from breathing any emissions of vehicles in the queue. Safety is also increased due to students being staged inside the school building. Unsuccessful bar-code scans or vehicles that do not have a bar-code at all are asked to park and come to the school office to provide identification before being allowed to pick-up a student. Within a couple of weeks of using the bar-code reading system, Brookshire Elementary School was able to see a reduction of near 50% in the overall time duration from the beginning of student loading to the end of the loading process. Photographs of the reader, bar-code decal and television monitor in the classroom are shown in Figure 9 below. CONCLUSIONS • Improving the student pick-up process for elementary schools has a significant safety and environmental benefit for the respective school and for the community. • Planning in the elementary school site design phase is best, but there are retrofit options. • Statistical models can be developed to design sufficient onsite queue storage required for elementary schools to contain the maximum expected queue length of vehicles. • An initial "rule -of -thumb" has been developed based on data collected from over 50 elementary schools in Houston, Texas. This "rule -of -thumb" states that the expected maximum queue length (in vehicles) that will queue during an afternoon dismissal of an elementary school is approximately six percent of the total enrollment of the school (in students). • Emerging technologies, such as bar-code reader systems, have shown to have positive results for improving the elementary student loading process. • Improving traffic operations for elementary schools requires collaborative efforts between primarily governmental agencies, school districts, students and their parents. I�j ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The author is indebted to hours and hours of data collection by the following colleagues: Susan Alleman, Rachel Carleton, Bradley Eaves, Ian Hlavacek, and Jessica Jia. SOURCES [1] Vehicle Emissions Pamphlet: htto://esa2l.kennesaNv.edu/activities/smoL-cars/doe-veh- pollutmds.ndf, Accessed Apri124, 2010. [2] Cohasset High School, Cohasset, Massuchusetts, Dave Ames Science Class. Photo accessed from http://www.enerLvrace.com/conimentarvhvliat does a ton of cot look like/ AUTHOR INFORMATION Dustin W. Qualls, PE, PTOE Principal Traffic Engineers, Inc. 8323 Southwest Freeway, Suite #200 Houston, Texas 77074 USA Phone: +1 713 398 7461 Fax: +1 713 270 8148 E-mail: dustini Traffic Management Plan 2864.3 Traffic Management Plan and Queuing Analysis St. Thomas Aquinas Catholic School Z112-124 3741 Abrams Road, Dallas, TX January 13,2011 L21281. Introduction: The St Thomas Aquinas Catholic School is located on the southwest corner of Abrams Road and Kenwood Street. The school has been in operation on the site since 1947. The school has approximately 590 students in grades Pre -K and 3-8, with 50 staff and teachers. The Saint Thomas Aquinas Catholic Church & School is proposing to reconstruct the southern portion of the Abrams Road campus to provide a baseball diamond and a football field, along with a small field house/concessions area and an additional 40 paved parking spaces. The parking lot addition would include an additional driveway to Abrams Road at the southwest comer, replacing the existing driveway at the Episcopal Church building. As a part of the SUP amendment, the allowable number of students at the campus will be reduced from the current 910 to a now limit of 600, essentially capping enrollment at the current level. The proposed construction of a football field and a baseball diamond on the campus will have no significant impact on the surrounding roadways or neighborhoods for either typical weekdays or during games. Effectively no additional vehicle trips will be generated on non -game weekdays because of the athletic fields. Nearly everyone who uses the fields on a daily basis for recreation or practice is already on the campus for other reasons. The ITE Trip Generation manual does not include the presence of athletic fields as a factor which contributes to trip generation for schools. In fact, with athletes potentially arriving earlier or leaving later than the general student population, the athletic facilities may actually reduce the number of vehicle trips in the school's peak hours, by spreading the traffic over a greater time period. The modest number of now trips that do occur during games take place when there is limited activity at the existing church and school (i.e., evenings and Sunday afternoons). Previous TMP Operation: On weekdays, the 590 -student school operates from 7:50 AM until 3:15 PM. Parent automobile drop-off and pick-up is organized with one loading area in the northern parking lot (Kenwood Lot) and one loading area in the southern parking lot (Field Lot). Presently, traffic for the Kenwood Lot loading area enters at the west driveway from Kenwood Drive, and exits at the east driveway. Traffic for the Field Lot enters and exits through the single driveway to Abrams Road. In both areas, entries and exits are limited to right turns in order to simplify operations, with generally good compliance by drivers. Student pick-up procedure is in the modern style with multiple pick-up points; vehicles displaying student namesa,. and names, being called, ahead to,mullch, students with vehicles as they arrive. Queuing prior to the pick-up time dissipates quickly once the loading operation commences. Proposed TMP Operation: The proposed TMP uses the same 7:50AM start and 3:15 PM dismissal and the same matching of students with multiple loading stations, with similar automobile paths to what has been used for many years. However, the additional row of parking in the Field Lot which will be added as a part of the athletic fields project will allow significantly larger queues to be stored within the campus. With four rows of parking, a serpentine path is possible with an entry at the existing driveway on the northeast corner of the lot, and a straightforward exit using the proposed driveway at the southeast comer of the lot. Exits would be restricted to right tutus only. The St. Thomas Aquinas Catholic School TMP Page 1 Specific Use Permit No. 1526 Approved City Plan Commission April 5. 2012 l q 28643 vehicle queue is separated from the pedestrian pathway that the students use to get w the assembly area near the loading stations. A simplified vehicle path is used in the AM drop-off period since the queuing distance is not as vital. The AM path uses the same entry and exit points, but removes the serpentine turns and drops off at the south door of the school. The TMP shown for the PM pick-up will provide 1,870' of queuing distance in the Field Lot when it is double - stacked. This is approximately three times as long as the existing 640' of single -stacked queue which was used before the parking lot expansion. The 1,870' of queuing distance will accommodate around 93 vehicles within the Field Lot. Doublo-stacking the Kenwood Lot path as shown will increase the available queuing distance there to 620', which would accommodate around 31 vehicles. The path follows the established route of right turns from Kenwood Street at the northwest comer, travelling through the lot and loading/unloading near the school doors, and then exiting with a right tum to Kenwood Street. Combining the two loading areas, the available queuing within the school site would be 2,490', or about 124 vehicles. With a greater portion of the queue storage distance being available on the Field Lot after the expansion, additional grades should be shifted to use that loading area in order to balance the number of queued vehicles on each tot. The goal should be to avoid significant interference to public street traffic. In any case, the additional queuing distance within the site will improve local operations compared to the existing conditions. Queuing Analysis; Based on observations of queuing at St. Thomas Aquinas and other public and private schools in the DFW area, KRA uses a design standard for projecting queue demands at schools. The expected maximum queue in vehicles is equal to 20% of the largest number of students dismissed at one time. Students using buses or walkingfbiking are deducted from the student number since they do not attract personal vehicles to the campus, This method accounts for the differences in how schools divide up the pick-up time period, as some dismiss all students in one group and therefore have higher vehicle demands in a short time period, while some spread out the dismissals over two or more groups. The projected queue formula can be stated as: (Students dismissed in time period — Students using other modes) • 0.20 = Number of vehicle in queue The school has a single dismissal time. There is no busing planned for the campus, and for a conservative analysis no students are expected to be pedestrians or bicyclists, so all 590 students aro assumed to be picked up by personal automobile. Therefore, the projected queue length is: (590 studehtsdismissed - 0 Students using busealWalk/bike);'.0 P =; f18 vehicles in, queue The projected queue of 118 vehicles translates to 2,360' of queuing distance. This distance is well in excess of the recommended values for equivalent Texas schools found in the Texas Transportation hustitute (TTI) research report 04286 Operations and Safety Around Schools published in January 2004. The more conservative (longer queues) KIIA method reflects the nature of private schools which draw from a large area and tend to have fewer students arriving by bus, pedestrian, or bicycle than traditional public schools. St. Thomas Aquinas Catholic School TMP page 2 0� 2864.3 The projected maximum queue demand of 2,360' can be accommodated within the 2,540' of distance available in the TMP, with approximately 180' of queuing distance available in excess of the demand. Projected Queue Demand: 2,360' 118 Vehicles Available Queuing Distance: 2,490' 124 Vehicles Surplus (Deficiency): 130' 6 Vehicles Summary: This TMP defines the drop-off and pick-up procedures for the St Thomas Aquinas Catholic School once the Field Lot is expanded as proposed. The proposed TMP provides a significant improvement in on-site queue storage over the existing operations, which will translate to a reduction in the number of vehicles stopping temporarily on the adjacent roadways. The TMP vehicle routes provide an available queue distance within the site that is greater than the projected maximum expected queue for the school's operations. With the TMP operating as shown and the dismissed students balanced between the two loading areas, the school traffic should not need to queue vehicles in the ROW of any City street. Any queuing that does occur should be minimal and of very limited duration. The property owner/school administrator is responsible for the administration of the TMP and minimizing the impact of the vehicle queue on the City streets. The TMP should be reevaluated at intervals as directed by the City in the SUP language. Based on the vehicle queuing analysis conducted and the resulting Traffic Management Plan, 1, Scot A. Johnson, P.E. #92615, certify that the results indicate that no queuing of vehicles dropping off or picking up students at the St. Thomas Aquinas School will extend onto City of Dallas rights-of-way. In order to ensure that all queuing of vehicles is completely accommodated on school property, St Thomas Aquinas School administrative officials should implement the proposed Traffic Management Plan, monitor the operation on a continuing basis, and if any vehicle queuing should begin to occur on public right-of-way, take the necessary action to mitigate it Only uniformed police officers should be allowed to direct and control traffic operating within the public right- of-way. Prepared by: Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. Scot A. Johnson, P.B., PTOE 12700 Park Central Drive, Suite 1800 Dallas, TX 75251 (972) 7701300 176 St. Thomas Aquinas Catholic School TMP Page 3 28043 102774 DeShazo, Tang & Associates, Inc. Engineers ♦ Planners 400 South Houston Street, Suite 330 Dallas, TX 7820218" 214.748.6740 • FAx 214.748.7037 wm A. hazolangxom Technical Memorandum To: Karl Crawley — Masterplan Consultants From: DeShazo, Tang & Associates, Inc. Date: April 13, 2010 Re: Traffic Management Plan for Zan Holmes Middle School in Dallas, Texas (DT&A No. 10005) INTRODUCTION The services of DeShazo, Tang & Associates, Inc. (DT&A) were retained by Masterplan Consultants on behalf of the Dallas Independent School District (DISD) to conduct a traffic management plan (TMP) for Zan Holmes Middle School ("the school') in Dallas, Texas. DT&A is an engineering consulting firm providing licensed engineers skilled in the field of traffic/ transportation engineering. Zan Holmes Middle School is proposed on a 28.5 -acre site at 2900 S. Westmoreland Drive in the City of Dallas, Texas. The expected maximum enrollment is 1,250 students in grades 6"th, The subject site is currently zoned residential single family [R-5(A)i and has been partially developed with single family housing infrastructure (i.e. roads, water, etc.) prior to DISD acquiring the site for construction of the School. A site location map is provided for reference in Exhibit 1. Purpose The purpose of this report is to develop procedures to promote traffic safety and efficiency to be used by the school during the morning drop-off and afternoon pick-up hours. The study will be provided to the City of Dallas staff ("the Staff) for review as to fulfill the associated requirements of the local approval process. TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT PLAN A Traffic Management Plan (TMP) is important to maintain an optimum level of traffic flow and circulation during peak traffic periods associated with student drop-off and pick-up. The City of Dallas strives for all drop-off and pick-up carpool activity to occur on private property rather than in the public right-of-way. The proposed site plan has been designed to incorporate Zan Holmes Middle School Traffic Management Plan Page I '70-2— 2804'3 102774 DeShazo, Tang b Associates, Inc. April 13, 2010 sufficient queuing space on-site for the projected peak demands for drop-off/pick-up for the middle school. A concerted effort by the school administration and the parents is encouraged to provide and maintain safe and efficient traffic operations. Drop-off and Pick-up Hours for Each Grade Level The school will operate on a uniform daily schedule. Classes on typical school days for all grades are expected to begin at 8:30 AM and conclude at 3:30 PM. While these are the scheduled class titres, it can be assumed that not all students will be picked -up and dropped -off at these exact times based upon normal distribution patterns. Occasional special events at the school that generate traffic may also occur outside the traditional peak drop-off and pick-up periods; while some of the measures presented in this report may be applicable, these traffic characteristics are not covered in this analysis. Ingress and Egress Points Zan Holmes Middle School is bounded on three sides by public streets and has four driveways onto public right-of-way as seen in Exhibit 2. Two driveways directly access St. David Drive and the other two intersect Pierce Street. The two driveways along St David Drive are 265 feet apart (from pavement -edge to pavement -edge), and the driveways on Pierce Street are 185 feet apart. The western driveway along St. David serves the main staff parking facility for the school as well as the loading dock and buses. This lot has only this driveway as an entrance and exit and will have the ability to be gated. The eastern driveway along St. David serves the main queue/ circulation area for public traffic as well as a smaller parking lot in front of the school. The two driveways along Pierce Street connect through an internal circulation route that serves nine parking spaces including two handicapped spaces. The northern drive will be an entrance only and the southern will be exit only. Drop-off and Pick-up Locations The site plan for the school provides abundant curb space for drop-off and pick-up staging. The entire circulation path in front of the school as well as the loop off Pierce can be used as loading points. The central focus of the loading should be near the main entry plaza, but may spill out to surrounding sidewalks. Parents should pull as far forward in the queue as possible to allow for maximum storage even if that means they physically park further from the building. See Exhibit 2 for more details. Buses may load along the curb from the short side nearest the school back along the side of the tennis courts. Buses should not load within the aisle of the parking lot or anywhere away from direct'paved curb access. In the morning, buses are expected to arrive at different times, so drop-off should be more focused near the school building along the curb adjacent the tennis courts. Zan Holmes Middle Schad Traffic Management Plan Page 2 7o-3 28043 1.02`774 OeSha:o, Tang & Associates, Inc. April 73, 2010 Clrculatlon DT&A recommends the school have three circulation paths divided between the three internal roadways. Two will be for private vehicles dropping -off and picking -up students and are located in the small circle lot off Pierce and the large loop in front of the school. The other serving buses, faculty, and staff will be in the staff puking lot off St. David Drive west of the school building. All internal circulation within each lot is to be one-way, counter -clockwise, except at the driveway throats along St. David Drive, to provide the safest, most efficient transportation for the students. Drivers may enter the Pierce Street loop in front of the school from the north driveway and load/unload along the curb before exiting through the south driveway. This drive also provides access to parking facilities near the main entrance. Vehicles utilizing the main loop enter and exit through the same drive, but follow a one-way path for most of the drive. The earliest vehicles in the afternoon queue should advance all the way to the eastern comer to provide maximum length for queuing. In the afternoon, cones may be placed blocking the inside lane at the point shown in Exhibit 2- This allows an auxiliary queue to form once the outer lane has reached the roadway. Staff members may remove these cones allowing the vehicles to proceed into the loading zone once the earlier vehicles have passed. Cone placement may vary, but should not be forward enough to allow double queuing in the loading zone. The staff lot has two-way access through the western St. David driveway, and will serve all school employees as well as buses. All vehicles wilt enter and exit the lot from St. David Drive through a two-way internal drive that joins with a one-way loop around the parking area. In the morning, staff is expected to arrive generally before buses, but some overlap may occur. Priority should be given to buses to safely unload near die school building directly against a curb. In the afternoon, all vehicular operation should stop while buses are present to load students. Staff should be instructed to wait until buses depart before leaving the lot. Queue Lengths The City of Dallas strives for all vehicular queuing and drop-off/pick-up procedures to take place off public right-of-way. A standardized technique for determining queue length does not exist, however DT&A has developed a proprietary methodology for estimating vehicular queue at schools. The model is based upon various prior studies performed at schools around the Dallas metropolitan area. Maximum queuing at schools consistently occurs during the afternoon peak period when students are being picked -up by private automobile (the morning period is typically not a significant issue since the drop-off traffic is more temporally distributed and occurs much more quickly than student pick-up. The DT&A model represents the peak queue conditions experienced during the afternoon peak hour. Based upon the DT&A model as empirically derived from prior observations, the maximum number of vehicles queued during the PM peak hour is equivalent to approximately 25% of the Zm Holmes Middle School Traffic Management Plan Page 3 Z" 1 28043 102774 DeSlwzo, Tang & Associates, Inc. April 13, 2010 total inbound PM peak hour traffic volume. Based on the assumption that 33% of students would bus to and from school, PM peak hour traffic was calculated based on 1,250 students using the DT&A's methodology using ITE Trip Generation manual (80% Edition) as seen in Table 1. Table 1. Trip Generation Summary Land Use Quantity AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Total In Out Total In Out Public Middle School 1(339; Bus250 Students sing) 757 416 341 506 238 268 Total: 757 416 341 506 238 268 ITE Trip Generation is a compilation of actual traffic generation data by land use as collected over several decades by creditable sources across the country, and It is accepted as the standard methodology to determine trip generation volumes for various land uses where sufficient data exists. Based on DT&A's methodology the following results were obtained: PM inbound traffic x 25% - Maximum Queue (veh) 238 x 25% - 59 vehicles x 20 feet/ vehicle =1,180 feet Available on-site length =1,260 feet Excess Capacity =1,260 -1,180 = 80 feet The current driveway alignment provides adequate queuing space for an anticipated max queue length of 1,180 feet. Vehicles may be stacked single file within the Pierce Street loop, single file in the loading zone of the main loop, and double file in the approach as described above. Exhibit 2 illustrates this queuing layout. The Pierce street loop Is capable of holding approximately 25% of the on-site queuing. It is recommended that students are separated into distinct groups for the two loops. This can be done by classrooms, grades, or names as long as one group represents 25% of the students and the other 75%. The 10 buses expected to serve the school require queuing space on-site as well. 'The maximum length of a school bus is 40 feet. This plus ten feet of spacing means each bus requires 50 feet of queue length. Maximum bus queue length 10 buses x 50 feet/bus = 500 feet Available on-site length - 675 feet Excess Capacity = 675 - 500 = 175 feet While the lot is long enough to accommodate the entire bus queue, there is only sufficient spam to load five or six buses at a time. The others must wait in the approach area until space is cleared along a curb. It may be beneficial to have buses arrive in two groups of five giving time for the first to load and depart before the second group enters the campus. Zan Holwes Middle School Traffic Managrwent Plan Page 4 zQs 2804 .3 102774 DeShazo, Tang b Associates, Inc. April 13, 2010 Personnel Assistance It is important to have a staff presence wherever students are dropped -off or picked -up, including the bus area. In the morning, them should be at least two staff members at the bus drop-off and at least four spread throughout the parent drop-off to guide vehicles to designated locations and direct students Into the school building. Because it is a middle school, students do not need as much assistance finding and loading into their vehicle in the afternoon as compared to younger grades. At this time staff presences is more to oversee operations and ensure traffic flows according to the TMP. A greater presence is needed in the afternoon due to the increased traffic and pedestrian activity. SUMMARY/CONCLUSIONS This TMP is to be used by 'Lan Holmes Middle School beginning in 2012 to provide safe and efficient transportation of students, staff, and faculty to and from the site. It shall be reviewed on a regular basis to confirm its effectiveness and compliance, and to investigate potential improvements. END OF MEMO Zan Wines Middle School Traffic Mattngeieent Plan Page 5 Z0� CITY OF SANTA CLARITA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 302 Santa Clarita, CA 91355 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING AND NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT A NEGATIVE DECLARATION APPLICATION: Master Case No. 13-075 Conditional Use Permit 13-005 PROJECT APPLICANT: Albert Einstein Academy for Letters, Arts and Sciences PROJECT LOCATION: 25300 Rye Canyon Road PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant is requesting the approval of a Conditional Use Permit to allow for the operation of a primary school within an existing and currently vacant 53,000 square foot commercial building. The original project description included a proposal for a 650 student K-6 primary school. Subsequent to project denial by the Planning Commission, the applicant modified the project description and appealed the Planning Commission decision to the City Council. The current project description includes a maximum enrollment of 300 students in grades K-4 and consists of interior tenant improvements and the conversion of 5,700 square feet of pavement into an outdoor picnic and turf area. No additional exterior construction is anticipated as a part of the proposed project and all school related activities would be conducted entirely within the interior of the existing commercial building. The subject property is located within the Business Park (BP) zone at 25300 Rye Canyon Road (APN 2866- 011-010) in the City of Santa Clarita. It is anticipated that City Council will hold a public hearing on this matter on Tuesday, October 28, 2014 at or after 6:00 p.m. in City Hall, Council Chambers located at 23920 Valencia Boulevard, First Floor Santa Clarita, CA 91355. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:A DRAFT NEGATIVE DECLARATION has been prepared for this proposed project and is available for a public review period, during which the City of Santa Clarita Community Development Department will receive comments, beginning at 12:00 p.m. on October 7, 2014, and ending at 12:00 p.m. on October 28, 2014. During the public review period, a copy of the Negative Declaration and all supporting documents will be located at the Permit Center located in the City Hall Building at 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 140, Santa Clarita, CA 91355. A copy of the draft Negative Declaration (without all supporting documents) will be posted at the Santa Clarita Library, Valencia Branch during the public review period noted above. Based on the foregoing, notice is hereby given that the City of Santa Clarita City Council will conduct a public hearing on this matter on the following date: DATE: Tuesday, October 28, 2014 TIME: At or after 6:00 p.m. LOCATION: City Hall, Council Chambers 23920 Valencia Blvd., First Floor Santa Clarita, CA 91355 If you wish to challenge the action taken on this matter in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearings described in this notice, or written correspondence delivered to the City of Santa Clarita at, or prior to, the public hearings. If you wish to 20 have written comments included in the materials the City Council receives prior to the public hearing, it must be submitted to the Community Development Department by Friday, October 17, 2014. For further information regarding this proposal, you may contact the project planner at the City of Santa Clarita, Permit Center, 23920 Valencia Blvd., Suite 140, Santa Clarita, CA 91355. Telephone: (661) 255- 4330. Website: www.santa-clarita.com/i)lanning. Send written correspondence to: 23920 Valencia Blvd., Suite 302, Santa Clarita, CA 91355. Project Planner: Mike Marshall, Assistant Planner II, mmarshall@santa-clarita.com. Jeff W. Hogan, AICP Planning Manager Dated: October 7, 2014 Posted: Santa Clarita City Hall Permit Center, Santa Clarita Public Library (Valencia Branch) Published: The Signal, October 7, 2014 MC 13-075; CUP 13-005 25300 Rye Canyon Road CIA:, LAW OFFICES OF YOUNG. MINNEY b CORR. LLP SACRAMENTO LOS ANGELES SAN DIEGO OCTOBER 22, 2014 VIA: EMAIL: imontes@bwslaw.com Joseph M. Montes, Esq. REVLY t0 9.KRRMFXID OiEI[[ City Attorney, City of Santa Clarita Burke, Williams & Sorensen, LLP PAUL C. MINNEY 444 South Flower Street, Suite 2400 JAMES E. YOuNO Los Angeles, CA 90071-2953 LISA A. CORR JERRY W. SIMMONS Re: Appeal of Planning Commission Denial of Master Case 13-075 CHASTIN H. PIERMAM (Conditional Use Permit 13-005) a Request by Albert Einstein Academy for Letters, Arts and Sciences of Operate a Primary KIMBERLY RODRIOUEE School at 25300 Rye Canyon Road (APN 2866011010) SARAH J. KOLLMAN Dear Mr. Montes: JANELLE A. BULKY MICHELLE A. LOPES This letter is written on behalf of our client, Albert Einstein Academy for SARAH K. BANCROFT Letters, Arts and Sciences ("AEALAS"), concerning its request to operate a MEGAN M. MOORE primary school at 25300 Rye Canyon Road ("Rye Canyon Site"). This RACHAEL B. TILLMAN correspondence addresses questions posed by the City of Santa Clarita with KATHLEEN M. EBERT respect to the proposed use of the Rye Canyon Site, the implications of the DREW K. RYMER October 9, 2014 ruling in Newhall School District v. Acton -Agues Dulce Unified BARBARA E. HAOBERO School District and AEALAS, aka Albert Einstein Academy for Letters, Arts and MARVIN H. STROUD Sciences (Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. BS 14906 1) ("Newhall Action"), DANIEL W. ROBERTSON and compliance with Education Code sections 47605(a)(5) and 47605.1(d) should MATEJKA M. NANOLEY the proposed use be approved. CATHERINE E. FLORES 1. The Proposed Use of the Rye Canyon Site is as a Schoolsite for the S. EDWARD SUBACH Public Charter School, AEALAS-Agua Dulce Partnership Academy. O. COUNSEL The proposed use of the Rye Canyon Site is as a primary school. At the initiation of this application process, AEALAS intended to use the Rye Canyon WILLIAM J. TRINRLE Site for its charter school, AEALAS-Santa Clarita Valley. However, since that time, AEALAS-Santa Clarita Valley has secured another facility and AEALAS no longer plans to use the Rye Canyon Site for that school. The school that AEALAS proposes to operate at the Rye Canyon Site is AEALAS-Agua Dulce Partnership Academy. The charter petition for the establishment of this charter school was submitted to Acton-Agua Dulce Unified School District ("AADUSD") in January 2014. The Board of Trustees of AADUSD then considered and approved the charter petition for AEALAS-Agua Dulce Partnership Academy on February 13, 2014. 701 UNIVERSITY AVENUE, SUITE 150. SACRAMENTO, CA 95625 TEL 916.646.1400 • FAX 916.546.1300 • WWW.MYCHARTERLAW.COM 20 Re: Appeal of Planning Commission Denial of Master Case 13-075 (Conditional Use Permit 13-005) a Request by Albert Einstein Academy for Letters, Arts and Sciences of Operate a Primary School at 25300 Rye Canyon Road October 22, 2014 Page 2 of 3 AEALAS-Aqua Dulce Partnership Academy opened in fall 2014-2015 and is currently operating at the Agua Dulce Elementary site located at 11311 Frascati St, Agua Dulce, California. The school currently serves approximately 200 students, and provides a combination of site-based and independent study instruction. However, Agua Dulce Elementary cannot accommodate AEALAS-Agua Dulce Partnership Academy's anticipated growth. While the school currently has 200 students enrolled, based upon AEALAS' experience operating charter schools in the area, it anticipates increased enrollment in future years. The space allocated to AEALAS-Aqua Dulce Partnership Academy at Agua Dulce Elementary cannot accommodate this growth. To accommodate this anticipated future growth, AEALAS-Aqua Dulce Partnership Academy intends to continue to operate at Agua Dulce Elementary next school year, and add another facility through its proposed use of the Rye Canyon Site. 2. AEALAS-Ague Dulce Partnership is Not the Charter School at Issue in the Newhall Action, and the Ruling Does Not Prohibit the Proposed Use of the Rye Canyon Site. On June 6, 2014, Newhall School District filed a Petition for Writ of Mandate and Complaint for Injunctive and Declaratory Relief to initiate the Newhall Action. This litigation challenged the location of AEALAS-Santa Clarita Valley, and did not involve AEALAS-Aqua Dulce Partnership Academy, the school that is currently proposed to use the Rye Canyon Site. The hearing on the Petition for Writ of Mandate in the Newhall Action was recently heard on October 9, 2014. The Court adopted its Tentative Ruling as orally modified at the hearing. Attached hereto is a copy of the Court's Minute Order reflecting the ruling in that case. To briefly summarize, the Court found that AADUSD did not make the necessary finding to support its approval of the AEALAS-Santa Clarita Valley charter petition so as to allow the school to locate outside AADUSD's boundaries pursuant to Education Code sections 47605(a)(5) and 47605.1(d). Based on this finding, the Court remanded the matter to AADUSD for a public hearing and findings concerning whether AEALAS-Santa Clarita Valley: (1) could not locate a site to house its entire program within AADUSD's boundaries, and (2) gave statutory notice to the district where the charter school proposes to locate prior to charter approval. (Ed. Code §§ 47605(a)(5), 47605.1(d).) The Court suspended a judgment in the Newhall Action and ordered a return to the writ be filed prior to the scheduled Order to Show Cause re Judgment, scheduled for February 5, 2014. This allows 120 days for AEALAS-Santa Clarita Valley to submit a new charter petition to ` The Newhall Action was consolidated for purposes of trial only with a similar case filed by the Los Angeles Unified School District, entitled Los Angeles Unified School District v. Acton -Agus Dulce Unified School District, AEALAS, aka Albert Einstein Academy For Letters, Arts and Sciences, Inc., and Academy of Arts and Sciences Charter School, AKA Valley International Prep (Los Angeles Superior Cour Case No. BS149062) ("LAUSD Action"). As part of the ruling in the Newhall Action, the Court ordered the parties to meet and confer in an attempt to incorporate the ruling into a stipulated order to resolve the LAUSD Action as well. -Z I Re: Appeal of Planning Commission Denial of Master Care 13-075 (Conditional Use Permit 13-005) a Request by Albert Einstein Academy for Letters, Arts and Sciences of Operate a Primary School at 25300 Rye Canyon Road October 22, 2014 Page 3 of 3 AADUSD, a public hearing, and action by AADUSD's Board of Trustees on the new petition with appropriate findings. During this time the school will remain open and the Court will address next steps at the February 5, 2014 Order to Show Cause re Judgment. Important here, the Court did not preclude AADUSD from approving the AEALAS- Santa Clarita Valley charter or any other charter where a school intends to locate outside AADUSD's boundaries. Further, the Court found that there was substantial evidence to support that AEALAS-Santa Clarks Valley was unable to locate a single site within AADUSD's boundaries to house its entire program in accordance with the requirements of Education Code sections 47605(a)(5) and 47605.1(d), and that proper notice had been given to Newhall School District as per the code. Therefore, the ruling in the Newhall Action is no bar to the proposed use of the Rye Canyon Site because AADUSD is not precluded from considering a material revision of AEALAS-Ague Dulce Partnership Academy's charter, with appropriate findings consistent with the Court's ruling, and, as noted, the decision does not involve AEALAS-Agua Dulce Partnership Academy's use of the Rye Canyon site. 3. AEALAS-Aqua Dulce Partnership Will Fully Comply With Education Code sections 47605(a)(5) and 47605.1(d) to Operate a Schoolsite Outside its Authorizer's Boundaries. Accordingly, if the City of Santa Clarita grants AEALAS' proposed use of the Rye Canyon Site, AEALAS-Agus Dulce Partnership Academy will fully comply with the relevant laws as clarified in the ruling in the Newhall Action and Education Code sections 47605(a)(5) and 47605.1(d). AEALAS has discussed the use of the Rye Canyon Site with AADUSD, and if the City of Santa Clarita approves the use of the facility, AEALAS-Agus Dulce Partnership Academy will submit a material revision of its charter to AADUSD, provide requisite notice to the Castaic Unified School District, and present sufficient information to AADUSD's Board of Trustees to allow it to make the findings necessary to approve the school's location outside AADUSD's boundaries. If AADUSD approves the material revision, the school will then provide notice to the county and state superintendents prior to the opening of the facility. (Ed. Code §§ 47604.4, 47605(a)(5), 47605.1(d).) This letter is intended to provide clarification on the proposed use of the Rye Canyon Site and the legal compliance of the proposed use. If you should have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, LAW OFFICES OF YouNG, N[umy & CORR, LLP Kathleen M. Ebert ATTORNEY AT LAW ZIZ SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES DATE: 10/09/14 DEPT. 85 HONORABLE JAMES C. CHALFANT JUDGE A. FAJARDO DEPUTY CLERK HONORABLE JUDGE PRO TEM ELECTRONIC RECORDING MONITOR #3 J. DE LUNA, C.A. Deputy5heriff B. JAMES, CSR# 9296 Reporter 9:30 am BS149061 NEWHALL SCHOOL DISTRICT Plaintiff SUE ANN SALMON EVANS [XI Counsel KARL H. WIDELL [XI VS Dekndant KATHLEEN M. EBERT [XI ACTON-AGUA DULCE UNIFIED SCHOOL Counsel PAUL C. MINNEY [XI DISTRICT ET AL HEATHER M. EDWARDS [XI R/T BS149062 (CONS FOR TRIAL ON ERIC E. STEVENS [XI NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS: HEARING ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE The matter is called for hearing. Counsel read the Court's Tentative Decision. After argument, the Court rules in accordance with his Tentative which is orally modified, adopted and filed this date. The Court notes that page 23 is withdrawn. The Court finds that a public hearing is required for material revision and findings that are required on an out of district approval. Counsel are ordered to meet and confer in an attempt to incorporate this ruling and to reach a stipulated order in the related matter. A STATUS CONFERENCE RE: STIPULATED ORDER is set on OCTOBER 30, 2014 at 9:30a.m. in this department. r•' C An ORDER RE: JUDGMENT is set on FEBRUARY 5, 2015 at 9:30a.m. in this department. r-1 If the return is not on file by the above date, the l Court intends to enter the Judgment and Writ setting aside the approval. r.l ;j MINUTES ENTERED Page 1 of 2 DEPT. 85 10/09/14 COUNTY CLERK 21 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES DATE: 10/09/14 DEPT. 85 HONORABLE JAMES C. CHALFANT JUDGE A. FAJARDO DEPUTY CLERK HONORABLE JUDGE PRO TEM .ELECTRONIC RECORDING MONITOR #3 J. DE LUNA, C.A. DgmtySheriff B. JAMES, CSR# 9296 Reporter 9:30 am BS149061 Plaintiff SUE ANN SALMON EVANS [XI Counsel KARL H. WIDELL [X] NEWHALL SCHOOL DISTRICT VS Defendant KATHLEEN M. EBERT [XI ACTON-AGUA DULCE UNIFIED SCHOOL Counsel PAUL C. MINNEY [X] DISTRICT ET AL HEATHER M. EDWARDS [XI R/T BS149062 (CONS FOR TRIAL ON ERIC E. STEVENS [X] NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS: Notice is waived. MINUTES ENTERED F.� Page 2 of 2 DEPT. 85 10/09/14 COUNTY CLERK Z-1 I ✓I 4e-6 25876 The Old Road #325, Stevenson Ranch, CA 91381 Phone: 661.513.3580 Fax: 661.286.1173 September 10, 2014 Mike Marshall MAIL Assistant Planner City of Santa Clarita 23920 Valencia Blvd. Santa Clarita, CA 91355 RE: Appeal of Planning Commission Resolution P14-04; Master Case #13-075 (CUP 13-005) 25300 Rye Canyon Road, Santa Clarita Dear Mike, M/a\� As the Applicant in the above -referenced case, we have been working closely with city staff to respond to and address all concerns and modify the AEA proposal accordingly. Theses modifications include: • reducing the maximum enrollment to 300 students, 50 of whom will be in independent study; • a revised Traffic and Parking Management Plan submitted to the City on September 5, 2014. We understand that city staff supports the modified plan and will be recommending approval of the modified plan to the City Council with conditions of approval. In the event that the City Council approves the modified proposal substantially as submitted and with Conditions of Approval that are acceptable to AEA, AEA will accept the modified plan approval, and will withdraw the plan that was presented to the Planning 215 Commission and, thus, withdraw the appeal of Planning Commission Kesolution IJA- 04. Please contact me if you need any further information. Very truly yours, Jeffrey Shapiro, HD PhD CEO Albert Einstein Academy for Letters, Arts and Sciences 2 1 (0 Mike Marshall From: Colleen Raponi <craponi@sbcglobal.net> Sent: Wednesday, February 19, 2014 3:24 PM To: Mike Marshall Cc: Ted Lewis Subject: Master Case No. 13-075 - Albert Einstein Academy for Letters, Arts & Sciences Importance: High Mr. Marshall, I co-own and operate a manufacturing facility in the area of which this would affect very much. This industrial park is just that, it has an extreme amount of traffic especially in the morning and when all manufacturing companies release their employees between 2:30 p.m., 3:30 p.m. & 5:00 pm, adding additional traffic to the corner of Rye Canyon & Ave. Scott would be very cumbersome to say the least. This is not an appropriate location to be educating students especially within this age bracket. The property is not set- back far enough from the street to be deemed safe, in my opinion. Accessibility is limited and the signals at that intersection are extremely long already. This would cause an unnecessary amount of gridlock and I am sure many safety issues. I know this building has been sitting for a very long time and I am sure the owners need to get it off their hands. But, this would be a very big mistake if they are granted the Permit that they are requesting. Regards, Colleen Raponi Lewis CFO/Operations Innovative Manufacturing Solutions (IMS) 27811 Avenue Hopkins, Unit #6 Valencia, CA 91355-4581 (661) 775-1671 (P) (661)775-1672 (F) (661) 755-4450 (C) www.innovativemfqsolutions.com tIMS Innevatlw M�nuhehring Solutions 'IOr narry fuisn' 14 Z (` INL RIVERPtOCK real eetate group 100 Bayview Circle, Suite 2600, Newport Beach, CA 92660 t : 714.689.1440 f : 714.556.2358 February 26, 2014 Mr. Mike Marshall Assistant Planner II Planning Division City of Santa Clarita 23920 Valencia Boulevard Suite 302 Santa Clarita, CA 91355 RE: PROPOSED EINSTEIN ACADEMY AND IMPACT ON 25115 AVENUE STANFORD, VALENCIA, CA 91355 Dear Mr. Marshall: RiverRock Real Estate Group, Inc. is the managing agent for KP Valencia LLC, which owns the property located at the address referenced above. It has come to our attention that a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) is under consideration for the Einstein Academy's use of the property directly adjacent to ours. As a commercial real estate management firm that currently manages in excess of 26 million square feet and represents institutional investors with holdings in the hundreds of billions of dollars, we are concerned and strongly opposed to the usage for the following reasons: - Our client was attracted to the area and ultimately purchased the investment due to its position in a commercial business park environment. - The existence of stringent CCBR's that assist in the preservation of the area and its assets was a major factor in our clients purchase. The establishment of a school clearly falls outside of the permitted uses for the area. - We believe traffic congestion involved with the pickup and drop off of children will negatively impact the flow around our property and cause a hazard. - There are no sidewalks servicing the area; which forces children, teachers, and parents to walk in the streets creating unnecessary liability. - The noise increase associated with a school is not beneficial to our existing or prospective tenants and will negatively impact our marketing efforts, which will in turn impact our property's value. Although the Einstein Academy has a good reputation, we believe the proposed location is not well suited for its use or in the best interest of our client and the surrounding properties. We strongly encourage the planning commission to reconsider the request and find a more suitable location for the school. RiverRockREG.com 2 Your consideration is very much appreciated. Should you wish to contact me directly to discuss further, I can be reached at 714.689.1449. Sincerely, F& --d, Steve Core President 2lq RIVERROCK real "tate group 100 Bayview Circle, Suite 2600, Newport Beach, CA 92660 t: 714.689.1440 f : 714.556.2358 October 8, 2014 Mr. Mike Marshall Assistant Planner II Planning Division City of Santa Clanta 23920 Valencia Boulevard Suite 302 Santa Clarlta, CA 91355 RE: APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION DENIAL OF MASTER CASE 13-075 PROPOSED ALBERT EINSTEIN ACADEMY AND IMPACT ON 25115 AVENUE STANFORD, VALENCIA, CA 91355 Dear Mr. Marshall: RlverRock Real Estate Group, Inc. is the managing agent for KP Valencia LLC, which owns the properly located at the address referenced above. It has come to our attention that an appeal Is under consideration for the Albert Einstein Academy's use of the property directly adjacent to ours. Our ultimate client, and the owner of this building, to a retirement plan consisting of more than 125,000 public employees Including policemen, firefighters and school teachers. As their representative we are very concerned and strongly object to the proposed usage for the following reasons: Our client was attracted to the area and ultimately purchased the investment due to Its position In a commercial business park environment. - The existence of stringent CC&R's that assist In the preservation of the area and its assets was a major factor in our clients purchase. The establishment of a school clearly falls outside of the permitted uses for the area. - We believe traffic congestion involved with the pickup and drop off of children will negatively impact the flow around our property and cause numerous hazards. - There are no sidewalks servicing the area; which forces children, teachers, and parents to walk In the streets creating unnecessary Ilabllity. - The noise increase associated with a school is not beneficial to our existing or prospective tenants. The uncertainty of this case has forced several prospective tenants from outside of the clty limits to forgo leasing at our building, depriving the city of new job creation and lax revenue. These Issues have already negatively Impacted our marketing efforts, which will In turn Impact our property's value and the retirement benefits of the Investors. Although the Albert Einstein Academy has a good reputation, we believe the proposed location Is not well suited for Its use or In the best Interest of our client and the surrounding properties. We strongly encourage the City Council to deny the appeal. Your consideration Is very much appreciated. Should you wish to contact me directly to discuss further, I can be reached at 714.689.1449. Steve Core President RiverRockREG.com 22O Mike Marshall From: Jrpelton@aol.com Sent: Tuesday, October 14, 2014 3:07 PM To: Mike Marshall Cc: Tom Cole; rick@thepacificaco.com Subject: Albert Einstein Academy - Master Case 13-075 I have owned several industrial properties in the Valencia Industrial Center since 1988. The master planned center has been developed as a first class industrial project. I am against the proposed 650 student school to be located at Rye Canyon and Avenue Scott in the Valencia Industrial Center. This type of use would be terribly detrimental to the existing industrial companies, subjecting them to unknown conditions as a result of having a school in the vicinity. For example, a company that does spray painting or other hazardous operations may not be able to use their facility because they are in a school area. In addition, in the case of an emergency, traffic would be greatly affected because of concerned parents rushing into the center to get their children. This would interfere with emergency vehicles and operations resulting in a dangerous situation. Thank you for your consideration on this matter, Jerry Pelton 221 Mike Marshall From: Chris Miltenberger <chrism@accuglassproducts.com> Sent: Tuesday, October 14, 2014 3:21 PM To: Mike Marshall Cc: Tom Cole; Jrpelton@aol.com Subject: City of Santa Clarita Case# 13-075 - a proposed school with 650 students to be located in the Valencia Industrial Center at Ave Scott and Rye Canyon. Hello All, I am "opposed" to a school being put into an industrial park. This paragraph created by one of my business acquaintances sums it up: "The master planned Valencia Industrial Center was developed as a "First Class Industrial Park". This type of use would be terribly detrimental to the existing industrial companies, subjecting them to unknown conditions as a result of having a school in the vicinity. For example, a company that does spray painting or other hazardous operations may not be able to use their facility because they are in a school area. In addition, in the case of an emergency, traffic would be greatly affected because of concerned parents rushing into the center to get their children. This would interfere with emergency vehicles and operations. A dangerous situation." There is a reason "Zoning" is in place and although I am not versed in the zoning laws, I would think a school is not allowed in an industrial park, FOR VALID REASON? Totally ridiculous idea and a situation asking for trouble on multiple fronts. I am shocked it has even gotten as far as a council meeting? I am unable to attend the meeting tonight but please include this email as an opposition. Sincierly, Chris Miltenberger, CEO Accu -Glass Products, Inc. 25047 Anza Dr. Valencia, CA. 91355 818-365-4215 818-365-7074 Fax www.accuglassproducts.com 8 2 Mike Marshall From: Michael Mueller <michael@matoplastics.com> Sent: Tuesday, October 14, 2014 7:02 PM To: Tom Cole; Mike Marshall Subject: 13-075 Einstein School Follow Up Flag: Flag for follow up Flag Status: Flagged Dear Sir, My wife and I as business and property owners on Avenue Scott are highly against this school. This will impact our business and all neighboring business in many ways. We are already under strict environmental regulations as it is and with a school moving into the area this will most likely be getting more strict. The added traffic and pedestrians - school kids - will not aid the traffic in this area. Schools in an industrial center are a bad idea period. This "Industrial" Center needs to stay just that - an Industrial Center without any schools. Regards, Michael L. Mueller 27717 Avenue Scott Valencia, CA 91355 - USA Tel: (661) 257-8999 Fax: (661) 257-8844 PRIVII-EGED AND CONFIDENTIAL COMMUNICATION This electronic transmission and any attacbmentr hereto, may contain confidential and/or legally privileged information. The information it intended onfy for use by the mapient named above with kmited dissemination of, and mass to, the Proprietary Information to wthinyour organization, and then only to those personnel who have a need for across to the information for the above-described purpose in this electronic transmission. Ifyou have mmived this electronic message in error, Please notij the sender and delete the elecemnic message. Any disclosure, eoPwn& distribution, or use of the contents of information received in error is strictly prohibited The information contained bemin is the proprietary property of Mato Plastics Inc.. The possessor agues not to adapt, imitate, mderign, reproduce, modify or otherwise use for any mason without expressed written consent. AThink Green - please do not print this email unless necessary Z23 Mike Marshall From: Alan <alan@berneyproperties.com> Sent: Wednesday, October 15, 2014 3:00 PM To: Mike Marshall Subject: Potential charter school Per our discussion today, we are very concerned about placing a school in the midst of the Valencia industrial area that is very full and successful. The additional traffic and no sidewalks on the street causing safety concerns does not make any school comparable with the area Please consider our concerns and deny any application for any size school in the area of our building at 25321 Rye Canyon Road. Alan Berney Berney Properties 7633 Haskell Ave Van NUYS, CA 91406 818.300.7373 Mike Marshall From: jonathancookler@gmail.com <jonathan.cookler@avaloninv.com> Sent: Wednesday, October 15, 2014 3:14 PM To: Mike Marshall Cc: Jerry Pelton Subject: Albert Einstein Academy Master Case 13-0375 I am against the proposed 650 student school to be located at Rye Canyon and Avenue Scott in the Valencia Industrial Center. I own several industrial properties in the Valencia Industrial Center since 1988. The master planned center has been developed as a first class industrial project. A 650 student school use would be terribly detrimental to the existing industrial companies, subjecting them to unknown conditions as a result of having a school in the vicinity. For example, a company that does spray painting or other hazardous operations may not be able to use their facility because they are in a school area. In addition, in the case of an emergency, traffic would be greatly affected because of concerned parents rushing into the center to get their children. This would interfere with emergency vehicles and operations resulting in a dangerous situation. Therefore this use of an industrial zoned property should not be allowed. Thank you for your consideration on this matter, Jonathan Cookler 818 342-6848 fax 818 342-9817 jonathan.cookler@avaloninv.com 225 Mike Marshall From: Dick Aronoff <aronoff@aronoff.com> Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 2014 3:24 PM To: Mike Marshall Cc: Icole@santa-clarita.com; Jerry Pelton Subject: Albert Einstein Academy - Master Case 13-075 Gentlemen, I own three buildings in the Valencia Industrial Center. I am worried that the Industrial Center will no longer meet the needs of my tenants, if the proposed school is approved. An industrial park is no place for a school. My tenants have spent significant time and money, meeting all of the environmental requirements required for their businesses. If a school is allowed in the area, my tenants will have to either start the approvals again, or move to a true industrial park. I also own two buildings in the Commerce Center. We allowed an elementary school to occupy a space in the Hasley Crossroads development. Ever since, the school has expanded, far beyond our expectations. Now, we are trying to promote the Commerce Center, but there are a lot of uses that cannot be within 1,000 feet of a school. Please maintain your business friendly approach, and reject the application for a school in the Valencia Industrial Center. Yours truly, Richard L. Aronoff (818) 343-1064 Office (818) 343-0721 Fax aronoff@aronoff.com Mike Marshall From: Margie Melendez <mmelendez@amsfulfillment.com> Sent: Wednesday, October 22, 2014 4:45 PM To: Mike Marshall Subject: INDUSTRIAL AREA SCHOOL PROPOSAL Letter to Mike Marshall — mmarshallna santa-clarita.com Re: Case # 13-075 Dear Mike: As a SCV business owner, and board member of the SCVEDC, I am offering my objection to the following: It is my understanding that the City Council is considering a proposal to allow Einstein Academy (K-6), a charter school, to occupy a building at the corner of Rye Canyon and Avenue Scott. This location is in the Industrial Center — on major roads. I am unequivocally opposed to this action, due to reasons listed below: • This area is on major thoroughfares —with no sidewalks, which could pose the potential of physical harm to children. • Individuals attending K-6 grades are very young children — who should not be getting an education in this type of environment. • There are no transportation options conducive to student schedules. • Neighboring facilities house industrial operations — which could include noise pollution, and possible air pollution. • This area is not a reasonable or appropriate site for a school. • This area must remain industrial — not for the education of children. • It should be retained for jobs —for the many individuals out of work — in SCV, and other surrounding areas. • None of the proper procedures were used to obtain this space for educational purposes. I do not understand why they would be offered relief when the rest of us abide by City policies? I'm told that the Planning Commission has already denied the school's application — unanimously — and I wholeheartedly agree with their decision. Respectfully, Idea �(/[dP.at", CEO 14/775 " `^""�"' 29010 Commerce Center Drive, Valencia, CA 91355 — 661-775-0611 My Assistant: Margie Melendez — 661-705-7592 — mmelendez(a amsfulfillment.com Z21 October 22, 2014 The City of Santa Clarita 23920 Valencia Blvd. Santa Clarita, CA 41355 RE: Appeal of Planning Commission Decision from Albert Einstein Academy for Language, Arts, and Science (AEALAS) Regarding Proposed Rye Canyon Charter School Site Dear Mayor Weste and City Councilmembers: On October 281" the Newhall School District is conducting its "State of the District" meeting and we cannot attend the City Council meeting at which you will consider the appeal of a proposed charter school site on Rye Canyon. Please accept this letter as our testimony. The Planning Commission of the City of Santa Clarita denied the zoning request of the AEALAS for a school facility on Rye Canyon, at a very busy intersection in the midst of an industrial park. We certainly concur with this decision and urge you to uphold and support your commission. We, as a Governing Board, are concerned about the safety and well-being of school -aged children across the Santa Clarita Valley. You asked us to look beyond our own boundaries and oppose the Cemex Mine using this same rationale. The industrial park at Rye Canyon is not a safe or healthy place for children to attend school. We are also aware that AEALAS is changing, yet again, its proposed use of the building by calling it a "K -3r° grade" facility. Consistent with the Los Angeles Superior Court's recent ruling against AEALAS, and in favor of Newhall School District in its lawsuit, this proposed use is unlawful and we urge you not to be complicit in this organization's illegal acts. AEALAS's charter was unlawfully approved by the Acton Agua Dulce Unified School District. Yet AEALAS has opened an elementary site on Orchard Village Road in Valencia and, as you know, this location is contested and is the subject of ongoing litigation. Our district prevailed in the lawsuit regarding the improper approval of the school, and legal challenges will continue, especially around the location issue. Even if one accepts the incorrect premise that the school was legally sited in the Santa Clarita Valley, the Charter Schools Act is clear about the operation of "one site" outside the chartering district's jurisdiction. The site is further illegal as it relates to this section of the law: CHAPTER 2. Establishment of Charter schools [47605 - 47608] ( Chapter 1 added by Stats. 1991, Ch. 781, Sec. 1. J 47605.1. (d) Notwithstanding subdivision (a) or subdivision (a) of Section 47605, a charter school that is unable to locate within the geographic boundaries of the chartering school district may establish one site outside the boundaries of the school district, but within the county within October 22, 2014 Page Two which that school district is located, if the school district where the charter school proposes to operate is notified in advance of the charter petition approval, the county superintendent of schools is noted of the location of the charter school before it commences operations, and either of the following circumstances exist: (1) The school has attempted to locate a single site or facility to house the entire program but such a facility or site is unavailable in the area in which the school chooses to locate. (2) The site is needed for temporary use during a construction or expansion project While the location of AEALAS's Orchard Village site is illegal in and of itself, clearly the organization's request for a second site in the Santa Clarita Valley is a blatant disregard for the section of the Charter School Act cited above. We are notifying the City of this issue of illegal use in advance of your decision as we wish to avoid embroiling the City in active litigation. Please do not condone AEALAS's scofflaw attitude. Sincerely, A— v' Brian Walters President Michael Shapiro Clerk Philip C. Elli Member Christy SAmith Member /}aN2 SolofOl Member 2Z q SANTA CLARITA VALLEY ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION October 22, 2014 Mike Marshall Community Development Department City of Santa Clarita 23920 Valencia Blvd Santa Clarita, CA 91355 Dear Mr. Marshall, On behalf of the Santa Clarita Valley Economic Development Corporation, I am writing to express our opposition to the proposed placement of a charter school In the Industrial Center at the intersection of Rye Canyon and Avenue Scott. (Case N 13-075) As the organization charged with promoting job growth and economic development in the Santa Clarita Valley, SCVEDC believes it is critical that we maintain the integrity of our business and industrial parks. These parks are a key differentiator for the Santa Clarita Valley from other parts of Los Angeles County. Many businesses that relocate to the Santa Clarita Valley cite encroachment of incompatible uses as a reason for their move. We must protect our industrial and business parks or we risk facing the same loss of industrial land and jobs that has plagued other parts of the County. A school use is completely incompatible with the industrial uses surrounding the proposed location. It is on a major thoroughfare, lacks sidewalks and transit options for students. The industrial operations in neighboring facilities may utilize hazardous materials and have regular truck traffic for shipments. These realities cannot be mitigated and are among the reasons why the Planning Commission denied the application. In fact, the Planning Commission deliberated carefully on this matter and denied the application, and the Council should stand behind this decision from a land use perspective. If the applicant is bringing substantial enough changes to the project to mitigate any of the Planning Commission's concerns, then the project should be returned to the Commission for review. If the there are none, or changes are minor, the project appeal should be denied. The space in the Industrial Center is designed for job growth. We only need to look to the loss of industrial land in Los Angeles to understand the consequences that occur when an incompatible use erodes the availability of jobs producing land. Please deny the application. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Holly Schroeder, President & CEO scvedc.org ©®© 26455 Rockvroll Canyon Road I UCEN 263 I soma Clarita, Callfomla 91355 1 Q.661.298.4400 P 661.268.4414 October 23, 2014 City Council City of Santa Clarita 23920 Valencia Boulevard Santa Clarita, CA 91355 CASTAIC UNION SCHOOL DISTRICT 28131 Livingston Avenue • Valencia, California 91355 Phone: (661) 257-4500 • Fax: (661) 257-3596 • www.castaicusd.com David Huffaker • Steve Teeman • Susan Christopher • Laura Pearson • Victor Torres President Clerk Member Member Member Re: Recommendation and Request to Uphold Planning Commission Project Denial in the Matter of the Appeal of Planning Commission Denial of Master Case 13-075 (Conditional Use Permit 13-005), October 28, 2014 City Council Agenda Dear Mayor Weste and City Councihnembers: The Castaic Union School District (District) urges you to uphold the Planning Commission's unanimous decision, which followed significant public debate and discussion, to deny the request of Albert Einstein Academy for Letters, Arts and Sciences (AEALAS) to operate a charter school located at 25300 Rye Canyon Road (Site) when the matter comes before you on October 28, 2014. Significant safety concerns affecting both the general public and the proposed student population militate in favor of upholding the denial. In addition, a recent decision of the Los Angeles County Superior Court confirmed that AEALAS's charter petition was unlawfully approved by the Acton -Agus Dulce Unified School District, and it was therefore set aside by the court, rendering AEALAS's desire to use the Site as an elementary charter school moot. As set forth in the District's earlier communication to you on this subject, the Planning Commission was correct when it cited serious pedestrian and traffic safety concerns associated with AEALAS's proposal to open a school to serve 650 elementary -age students at the Site. AEALAS's attempt to minimize the impact of the school on the surrounding community cannot be taken seriously, even if the number of students in attendance is 500 rather than 650. The daily arrival and departure of 500 students is no small matter. This is particularly true when factoring in the ages of the student body, many as young as 5 years old, and the fact that a significant number of the students in attendance will be driven to and from school by their parents because the charter school does not provide transportation to and from school. In addition to pedestrian and traffic safety concerns, the Review Committee Report also described multiple safety failures at the Site concerning the use of the commercial building as a school, including serious fire, structural, and seismic safety issues requiring significant retrofitting. As the duly organized public elementary school district charged with implementing the Constitutional guarantee of a free public education to pupils in the geographic area that includes the Site, the District has a profound interest in both the safety of students at school and the quality of the education they receive at the Site. Based on public comment received by the Planning Commission on March 4, 2014, the Planning Commission's findings and unanimous decision, and the publicly available information concerning 231 City Council City of Santa Clarita October 23, 2014 — Page 2 outstanding safety issues involved with the Site's proposed operation as an elementary school, the District respectfully requests that you uphold denial of the project. Safety concerns, however, are not the only reason to uphold denial of the project. As you may already be aware, AEALAS's elementary charter was recently vacated and set aside by the Superior Court in Newhall School District v. Acton -Agus Dulce Unified School District, et al., because it was unlawfully approved in violation of the Charter Schools Act and California law by the Acton -Ague Dulce Unified School District, the financially struggling district separated from our community by both the Saugus Union School District and the Sulphur Springs School District. AEALAS therefore currently has no elementary charter pursuant to which it might locate a charter school in the commercial space at the Site. Moreover, AEALAS is currently operating an elementary charter school within the boundaries of the Newhall School District — the situation foaming the basis for the pending litigation — and is legally precluded under Education Code Section 47605(a)(5) and 47605.1(d) from operating a second (or third, as the facts seem to indicate) location at the Site. As shown by the court's ruling, AEALAS has flouted both the spirit and the letter of the law in securing approval of its charter petitions, which also calls into doubt its credibility in the process of seeking approval of a conditional use permit for the Site. Safety concerns may not easily be dismissed, particularly when our children's safety hangs in the balance. There is no reason to dismiss these concerns for a charter school whose charter no longer exists because it was unlawfully granted. The Council should therefore uphold the Planning Commission's unanimous decision denying the subject project. Respectfully submitted, James M. Gibson Superintendent cc: Castaic Union School District Board of Trustees Z -32- CITY OF SANTA CLARITA NEGATIVEDECLARATION [ ] Proposed [X] Final MASTER CASE NO: Master Case No. 13-075 PERMIT/PROJECT NAME: Conditional Use Permit 13-005 APPLICANT; Albert Einstein Academy for Letters, Arts and Sciences 25876 The Old Road Stevenson Ranch, CA 91381 PROJECT LOCATION: 25300 Rye Canyon Road PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The project includes the approval of a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for the operation of a primary school within an existing and currently vacant 53,000 square foot commercial building located at 25300 Rye Canyon Road (APN 2866-011-010) in the City of Santa Clarita. The original project description included a proposal for the operation of a 650 student K-6 primary school within an existing 53,000 square foot commercial building on a fully developed site. Subsequent to denial by the Planning Commission, the applicant modified the project description and appealed the Planning Commission decision to the City Council. The current project description includes a maximum enrollment of 250 on-site students and 50 home school students in grades K-4 consisting of interior tenant improvements and the conversion of 5,700 square feet of pavement into an outdoor picnic and turf area. No additional exterior construction is anticipated as a part of the proposed project and all school related activities would be conducted entirely within the interior of the existing commercial building. Based on the information contained in the Initial Study prepared for this project, and pursuant to the requirements of Section 15070 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City of Santa Clarita [X] City Council [ ] Planning Commission [ ] Director of Community Development finds that the project as proposed or revised will have no significant effect upon the environment, and that a Negative Declaration shall be adopted pursuant to Section 15070 of CEQA. Mitigation measures for this project [X] Are Not Required [ ] Are Attached [ ] Are Not Attached JEFF HOGAN, A1CP PLANNING MANAO� Prepared by: /J`.�t—.�l Mike Marshall, Assistant Planner II (Signature) (Name/Title) Approved by u U IW Hogan. AICP, Planning Manager re) (Name/title) Public Re er od From r 7 2014 To October 28 2014 Public Notice i en On October -12014. [X] Legal Advertisement [I Posting of Properties [X] Written Notice CERTIFICATION DATE: ^ Y'r-RTMIRMUMMINEWRIM man WerT FIT ITA FMITF.g 233 Initial Study Page I of 40 INITIAL STUDY CITY OF SANTA CLARITA Project Title/Master Case Number: Lead Agency name and address: Contact person and phone number: Project location: Applicant's name and address: General Plan designation Zoning: Description of Project and Setting: Albert Einstein Academy for the Letters, Arts and Sciences MC# 13-075 City of Santa Clarita Community Development Department Planning Division 23920 Valencia Blvd., Suite 302 Santa Clarita, CA 91355 Mike Marshall, Assistant Planner II (661)286-4045 25300 Rye Canyon Road (APN 2866-011-010) Albert Einstein Academy for the Letters, Arts and Sciences 25876 The Old Road Stevenson Ranch, CA 91381 Business Park (BP) Business Park (BP) The project includes the approval of a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for the operation of a primary school within an existing and currently vacant 53,000 square foot commercial building located at 25300 Rye Canyon Road (APN 2866-011-010) in the City of Santa Clarita. The original project description included a proposal for the operation of a 650 student K-6 primary school within an existing 53,000 square foot commercial building on a fully developed site. Subsequent to denial by the Planning Commission, the applicant modified the project description and appealed the Planning Commission decision to the City Council. The current project description includes a maximum enrollment of 250 on-site students and 50 home school students in grades K-4 consisting of interior tenant improvements and the conversion of 5,700 square feet of pavement into an outdoor picnic and turf area. No additional exterior construction is anticipated as a part of the proposed project and all school related activities would be conducted entirely within the interior of the existing commercial building. Existing Setting and Surrounding Land Uses: The project site consists of an existing 53,000 square foot, 2 -story commercial building located on a 2.8 acre parcel within an urbanized business park environment. The 123 space parking field is accessed via existing driveways on Rye Canyon Road and Avenue Scott, both major highways as designated in the City of Santa Clarita General Plan. The project site is surrounded by fully 23`f Initial Study Page 2 of 40 developed office, light manufacturing and warehouse uses consistent with a typical business park environment. Photographs 1 through 6 depict existing project site conditions. 2-&5 Initial Study Page 3 of 40 Los Padres National Foresr bara Figure 1: Regional Location v ,38 e — HungryOle) a satevehicular. Lancaster RodmanMountaias Wbdeyness Area Quartz HA Lake Los PROJECT LOCATION Palmdale Adelarto Yictonille ! s 00 B x Phelan Hesperia `'k 26 Santa Gama 33 � Santa Paull 73 u .,..i... tial v tai t. a Ventura 118 _ Ari(ek Narwhal forest _ SWIS Simi Valley ®, Lake - Big Bear Lake 101 No hrdgeAnowhead La Gescenta V Oxnard Thousand Woodland 0 Burbank Ahadena Port Hueneme Oaks HMIs Pasadena ® Glendora Rancho ° , Topanga Laveme Hollywood Alhambra L, La San Bernardino -" SanBernardrnYuccaPanIMu�SYM NationalFmesl Yu eParA;i ;z? -, West Covina LOS Angles sz` Redlands 621 k , WonSanta Monica t� � Chinc Cat Ju upa Palley Calimesa Inglewood Whittier g L Entyale An Desert Hot Ocwney La Habraerside C142, v' 91 Beaumont. Compton YorbaLiinda 'Corona _ Torrance Lakewood Anaheim" - ' Palm Springs Long Beach .Vc Orange Perris sandacimo Cathedt Santa Ana rqz, Hemet ® Mamam Fa Initial Study Page 4 of 40 N W PROJECT LOCATION 9e<•tNt 4RuA� 9� Grycn Figure 2: Project Location Saugus Santa Cana Nev�ha': Hask89YHCF ,Xy' h ^ "cW0% caw C—try e Add g*-rW a,�e..E k. Wxerm[any% d slNe Falk iu Vasquez Rocks r 4 ' /41 G Initial Study Page 5 of 40 Figure 3 —Project Site Plan Initial Study Page 6 of 40 D 0 9 Figure 4 — V Floor Plan — 1 71- Initial Study Page 7 of 40 IN 0-1 Figure 5 - 2i4 Floor Plan tD 8 Q { ! I 1 Initial Study Page 8 of 40 Photograph 1: Interior of subject property from driveway on Rye Canyon Road Photograph 2: Interior of subject property from driveway on Avenue Scott 21 Initial Study Page 9 of 40 Photograph 3: Subject building and intersection of Rye Canyon Road and Avenue Scott from driveway on Rye Canyon Road Photograph 4: Intersection of Rye Canyon Road and Avenue Scott from driveway on Avenue Scott 2qZ Initial Study Page 10 of 40 Photograph 5: Existing building from Avenue Scott Photograph 6: Existing building from Rye Canyon Road 2L3 Initial Study Page 11 of 40 A. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact' or a "Less Than Significant with Mitigation" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages, [ ] Aesthetics [ ] Agriculture Resources [ ] Air Quality [ ] Biological Resources [ ] Cultural Resources [ ] Geology /Soils [ j Greenhouse Gas Emissions [ ] Hazards & Hazardous Materials [ J Hydrology / Water Quality [ ] Land Use / Planning [ ] Mineral Resources [ ] Noise [ ] Population / Housing [ ] Public Services [ ] Recreation [ ] Transportation/Traffic [ ] Utilities / Service Systems [ ] Mandatory Findings of Significance B. DETERMINATION: On the basis of this initial evaluation: [X] 1 find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. [ ] I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. [ ] 1 find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. [ ] 1 find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact' or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. [ ] I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. Signature\C;� - Zv�`k Mtke Marsh 11, Assistant Planner 11 Date Signature IP o a CP. Pla line anaaer Date 2qH Initial Study Page 12 of 40 C. EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: Only check "Less Than Significant with Mitigation" if this is a Mitigated Negative Declaration. Check one box for each question. Make sure your impact judgment discussions in D and the boxes you check here in C, are consistent. Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact with Impact Mitigation 1. AESTHETICS - Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? [ ] [ ] [ ] [Xl b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] primary/secondary ridgelines, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] site and its surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare that would adversely [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] affect day or nighttime views in the area? II. AGRICULTURE AND FOREST RESOURCES — In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state's inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment project; and forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board. Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] Act contract? c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220 (g)), timberland (as defined by Public. Resources Code section 4526), or timberland [ ] [ ] [ 1 [X] zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(8))? d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non- [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] forest use? 2H5 Initial Study Page 13 of 40 Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact with Impact Mitigation e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use? 111. AIR QUALITY - Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality (] [ ] [ ] (X] plan? b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] existing or projected air quality violation? c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria [ ] [ ] [ ] [XJ pollutant for which the project region is non -attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions that exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? [ ] [ ] [ ] (X] e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] f) Other (] [] I I IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES — Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat [ J [ ] [ ] [X] modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? d) interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? 0YO Initial Study Page 14 of 40 Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact with Impact Mitigation e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological [ ] [ ] [ 1 [X] resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? Oak trees? f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? g) Affect a Significant Ecological Area (SEA) or Significant Natural Area (SNA) as identified on the City of Santa Clarita ESA [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] Delineation Map? g) Other V. CULTURAL RESOURCES - Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] resource as defined in '15064.5? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] archaeological resource pursuant to '15064.5? c) Directly or indirectly destroy or impact a unique paleontological [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] resource or site or unique geologic feature? d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of [ ] [ ] [X1 [ ] formal cemeteries? VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS - Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? iii) Seismic -related ground failure, including liquefaction? iv) Landslides? I I I [X] [] 11 [X] [1 [] 11 [X] I [] 11 11 1X1 249 Initial Study Page 15 of 40 Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact with Impact Mitigation b) Result in substantial wind or water soil erosion or the loss of topsoil, [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] either on or off site? c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] Uniform Building Code (1997), creating substantial risks to life or property? e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? f) Change in topography or ground surface relief features? [ ] [ ] [ ] IN g) Earth movement (cut and/or fill) of 10,000 cubic yards or more? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] h) Development and/or grading on a slope greater than 10% natural [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] grade? j) The destruction, covering or modification of any unique geologic or [ ] [ ] [ ] IN physical feature? j)Other I [1 [] [] VII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS- Would the project: a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that [ ] [ ] [X] 11 may have a significant impact on the environment? b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gasses? [ ] [ ] [X] [ 1 VIII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS - Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving explosion or the release of hazardous materials into the environment (including, but not limited to oil, pesticides, chemicals, fuels, or radiation)? -z`s Initial Study Page 16 of 40 Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact with Impact Mitigation c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous [ ] [ ] [ ] [Xj materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a [ ] [ j [ ] [X1 plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? I) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project [ ] [ ] [ j [X] result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? I) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential health hazards [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] (e.g. electrical transmission lines, gas lines, oil pipelines)? j)Other [1 [] I I IX. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY - Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? [ ] [ ] [X] [ ] b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially [ ] [ ] [Xj [ ] with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, [ ] [ ] [X] [ ] including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? -Zqq Initial Study Page 17 of 40 d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site? e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? g) Place housing within a 100 -year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? h) Place within a 100 -year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? k) Changes in the rate of flow, currents, or the course and direction of surface water and/or groundwater? 1) Other modification of a wash, channel creek or river? m) Impact Stormwater Management in any of the following ways: i) Potential impact of project construction and project post - construction activity on storm water runoff? ii) Potential discharges from areas for materials storage, vehicle or equipment fueling, vehicle or equipment maintenance (including washing), waste handling, hazardous materials handling or storage, delivery areas or loading docks, or other outdoor work areas? iii) Significant environmentally harmful increase in the flow velocity or volume of storm water runoff? iv) Significant and environmentally harmful increases in erosion of the project site or surrounding areas? Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact with Impact Mitigation [J 11 11 [XI 11 11 U [XI [] 11 1X1 11 [] 11 11 [X1 11 11 11 [XI I [I I IN 11 11 [1 [X1 11 11 [1 [XI I 11 t [XI 11 11 [X1 I 11 11 [XI [I I I 1X1 I 11 11 [XI 11 11 11 1X1 [I 25� Initial Study Page 18 of 40 Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact with Impact Mitigation v) Storm water discharges that would significantly impair or [ ] [ ] [XJ [ J contribute to the impairment of the beneficial uses of receiving waters or areas that provide water quality benefits (e.g. riparian corridors, wetlands, etc, A Cause harm to the biological integrity of drainage systems, [ ] [ J [XJ [ J watersheds, and/or water bodies? vii) Does the proposed project include provisions for the (] [ ] [XJ [ J separation, recycling, and reuse of materials both during construction and after project occupancy? X. LAND USE AND PLANNING - Would the project: a) Disrupt or physically divide an established community (including a [ ] [ ] [ ] [XJ low-income or minority community)? b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of [ ] [ ] [ ] [XJ an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan, natural [ ] [ ] [ J [X] community conservation plan, and/or policies by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? XI. MINERAL AND ENERGY RESOURCES - Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that [ ] [ ] [ J [X] would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral [ ] [ ] [ J [XJ resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? c) Use nonrenewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner? [ ] [ ] [X] [ J XII. NOISE - Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundbome [J [J (XJ [J vibration or groundborne noise levels? c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the [ ] [ J [XJ [ J project vicinity above levels existing without the project? 251 Initial Study Page 19 of 40 Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact with Impact iv) Parks? Mitigation d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels [ ] [ ] [X] [ ] in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? XIII. POPULATION AND HOUSING - Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for [ ] [ ] [X] [ ] example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] construction of replacement housing elsewhere (especially affordable housing)? c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] construction of replacement housing elsewhere? XIV. PUBLIC SERVICES - Would the project result in: a) Substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: i) Fire protection? [ ] (] ( ] [X] ii) Police protection? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] iii) Schools? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] iv) Parks? [ ] [ 1 [ ] (X] v) Other public facilities [ ] (] [ ] [X] Z5Z Initial Study Page 20 of 40 Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact with Impact Mitigation XV. RECREATION - Would the project: a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other [ ] [ ] [ ] (X] recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b) Include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion [ J [ ] [ ] [X] of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? XVI. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC - Would the project: a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing ( I [ ] [X] [ I measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non -motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit? b) Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, [ I [ ] [X] [ ] including, but not limited to level of service standard and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase [ I [ ] [ I [X] in traffic levels or a change in location that result in substantial safety risks? d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp [ ] [ ] [X] [ I curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? c) Result in inadequate emergency access? [ ] [ ] [XI [ I f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public [ ] [ ] [X] [ I transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities? XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS - Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] Water Quality Control Board? b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater (] [ ] [ ] [X] treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? 253 Initial Study Page 21 of 40 Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact with Impact Mitigation c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage [] [] [ ] [X] facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from [ ] [ ] [X] [ ] existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed'? e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which [ ] [ ] [X] [ ] serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] to solid waste? XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE: a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the [ J [ ] [X] [ ] environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self- sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but [ ] [ ] [X] [ ] cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? XVII. DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME "NO EFFECTS" DETERMINATION: a) Will the project have an adverse effect either individually or [ ] [ ] [X] [ ] cumulatively, on fish and wildlife resources? Wildlife shall be defined for the purpose of this question as "all wild animals, birds, plants, fish, amphibians, and related ecological communities, including the habitat upon which the wildlife depends for it's continued viability." 251-( Initial Study Page 22 of 40 1 1 1 MIS 3101051 10OW01310AI0 lZILGI&72101 1' Section and Subsections Evaluation of Impacts 1. AESTHETICS a) No Impact: The City of Santa Clarita lies within Southern California's Santa Clarita Valley, which is bounded by the San Gabriel Mountains to the south and east, the Santa Susanna Mountains to the southwest, and the mountains of the Los Padres and Angeles National Forests to the north. The surrounding natural mountains and ridgelines, some of which extend into the city, provide a visual backdrop for the city. Other scenic resources within or visible from the city include the Santa Clara River corridor, forested/vegetated land, and a variety of canyons and natural drainages in portions of the city. The proposed project includes the operation of a primary school within an existing 53,000 square foot building on an existing developed site and would not damage any scenic resources and would not interrupt any views of scenic resources. Therefore, the proposed project would have no impact on scenic vistas. b) No Impact: The only roadway in Santa Clarita that is identified in the California Department of Transportation's State Scenic Highway program is Interstate 5 (I-5), which is designated as an Eligible State Scenic Highway. This designated eligible segment of 1-5 extends from the I-210 interchange to the State Route (SR) 126/Newhall Ranch Road interchange. SR 126 from the city's boundary at 1-5 west to SR 150 in Ventura County is also designated an Eligible State Scenic Highway. The proposed project is not visible from either I-5 or SR 126. Therefore, the proposed project would have no impacts on scenic resources within a state scenic highway. c) No Impact: The proposed project consists of the operation of a primary school within an existing 53,000 square foot building on a fully developed site, which is a land use that is consistent with the surrounding parcels. The proposed development meets all height, massing, and setback requirements in the City's UDC zoning, follows the guidelines set forth in the Community Character and Design Guidelines, and would be in character with the surrounding structures. Therefore, the proposed project would have no impact to the visual character or quality of the site and surroundings. d) No Impact: The proposed project does not include any additional outdoor lighting and would not be a new source of light or glare. Therefore, the proposed project would have no light or glare impacts. 11. AGRICULTURE a) No Impact: The site is not within an area of Prime Farmland, Unique RESOURCES Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance as identified by the California Department of Conservation's California Important Farmland Finder (accessed 9/25/14). Therefore, the proposed project would have no impact to Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance. 7i�T5 Initial Study Page 23 of 40 b) No Impact: Santa Clarita does not have agricultural preserve areas. Further, there is no Williamson Act contract land in the city. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with zoning for agricultural use or Williamson Act contracts and would have no related impacts. c) No Impact: The project site is currently zoned Business Park (BP) and is not located within an area zoned as Open Space -National Forest (OS -NF). Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not conflict with the existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forestland, timberland, or timberland zoned as Timberland Production. No impact would occur. d) No Impact: The project site is currently zoned Business Park (BP) and is not located within an area zoned as Open Space -National Forest (OS -NF). In addition, the project site does not contain any forestland. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not result in the loss of forestland or conversion of forestland to non -forest use. No impact would occur. e) No Impact: There are currently no agricultural operations being conducted on the project site, and the site is not zoned for agricultural uses. In addition, there is no forestland located on the proposed project site or in the vicinity of the proposed project site, as the area is highly urbanized. No farmland or forestland would be converted to other uses under the proposed project, and no impact would occur. In. AIR QUALITY a) No Impact: Santa Clarita is within the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB), which is bounded by the San Gabriel, San Bernardino, and San Jacinto mountains to the north and east and by the Pacific Ocean to the south and west. The air quality in the SCAB is managed by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD), The SCAB has a history of recorded air quality violations and is an area where both state and federal ambient air quality standards are exceeded. Because of the violations of the California ambient air quality standards (CAAQS), the California Clean Air Act requires triennial preparation of an Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP). The AQMP analyzes air quality on a regional level and identifies region -wide attenuation methods to achieve the air quality standards. These region -wide attenuation methods include regulations for stationary -source polluters; facilitation of new transportation technologies, such as low -emission vehicles; and capital improvements, such as park-and-ride facilities and public transit improvements. The most recent plan is the 2012 AQMP adopted on December 7, 2012. The 2012 AQMP is designed to meet the state and federal Clean Air Act planning requirements and focuses on new federal ozone and ultra -fine particulate matter (PM2s) standards. The SCAQMD's AQMP was prepared to accommodate growth, to reduce the high levels of pollutants within the areas under the jurisdiction of SCAQMD, and to attain clean air within the region. Projects that are considered to be consistent with the AQMP would 25( Initial Study Page 24 of 40 not interfere with attainment, because this growth is included in the projections used to formulate the AQMP. Therefore, projects, uses, and activities that are consistent with the applicable assumptions used in the development of the AQMP would not jeopardize attainment of the air quality levels identified in the AQMP, even if they exceed the SCAQMD's recommended daily emissions thresholds. AQMPs utilize projections of population and transportation activity forecasted by SCAG in their Regional Transportation Plan (RTP). If the project is consistent with the General Plan and zoning, it has been assumed in the AQMP and won't obstruct implementation of the AQMP. The proposed project is consistent with the zoning and General Plan land use designation for the site. As a result, the project is consistent with the growth expectations for the region. The proposed project is therefore consistent with the AQMP and would have no associated impacts. b -c) No Impact: The City of Santa Clarita is within the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB), which is an airshed that regularly exceeds ambient air quality standards (AAQS) — i.e., a non -attainment area. The SCAB is designated a non -attainment area for respirable particulate matter (PM10), fine particulate matter (PMZ,S), and ozone (03). The SCAB is currently a designated attainment area for the remaining criteria pollutants, which include carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen oxides (NOx), and sulfur dioxide (SOA The proposed project would not generate air pollutants from either construction or operation activities. Construction would include the construction of 14 classrooms, 23 offices, 2 conference rooms, 7 storage rooms, a science lab, media room, library, staff lounge, indoor play and activity areas, and outdoor patio and artificial turf area. During operation, the project would operate entirely within the existing 53,000 square foot building with the exception of the periodic use of a 5,700 square foot patio and artificial turf area. Therefore, the proposed project would not cause or substantially contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation, would not generate pollutants in excess of SCAQMD standards, and would not result in a cumulative considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant. d) No Impact: Certain residents, such as the very young, the elderly, and those suffering from certain illnesses or disabilities, are particularly sensitive to air pollution and are considered sensitive receptors. In addition, active park users, such as participants in sporting events, are sensitive air pollutant receptors due to increased breathing rates. Land uses where sensitive air pollutant receptors congregate include schools, daycare centers, parks, recreational areas, medical facilities, rest homes, and convalescent care facilities. During construction, incidental amounts of toxic substances such as oils, solvents, paints, adhesives, and coatings would be used. The use and 2 57 Initial Study Page 25 of 40 application of these substances would comply with all applicable SCAQMD rules for their use, storage, and disposal. The project site is not adjacent to any sensitive receptors, and the proposed project would not place sensitive land uses adjacent to substantial air pollution sources. Therefore, the proposed project would have no air quality impacts on sensitive receptors. e) No Impact: The proposed use of the site and the surrounding uses are not shown on Figure 5-5 "Land Uses Associated with Odor Complaints" of the 1993 SCAQMD's CEQA Air Quality Handbook. Therefore, the proposed project would have no odor -related impacts. IV. BIOLOGICAL a) No Impact: The project site consists of an existing 53,000 square foot RESOURCES building on a fully developed site and is surrounded by existing developed properties consistent with a business park environment. The site is not within an ecologically sensitive area or an area of importance for the California gnatcatcher, as shown on the City's respective mapping, and not within an adopted SEA. The site is not known or expected to contain any species identified as candidate, sensitive, or special -status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or US Fish and Wildlife Service. Further, the site does not contain any habitat capable of supporting special -status species. Therefore, the project would have no impacts on special -status species. b) No Impact: The project site contains no riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or US Fish or Wildlife Service. Vegetation on-site consists of ornamental and manicured landscaping. Therefore, the project would have no impact on riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community. c) No Impact: The proposed project site does not contain any federally protected wetlands as defined in Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, riverine, etc.). Therefore, the proposed project would not have adverse effects on protected wetlands. d) No Impact: The site is currently a vacant parcel in a developed area. This portion of the city does not support the dispersal of wildlife, and the proposed project would not restrict wildlife movement. Therefore, the proposed project would have no impact on the movement of fish or wildlife, wildlife corridors, or the use of wildlife nursery sites. e) No Impact: The City of Santa Clarita's Oak Tree Ordinance (Ordinance 88-34) is the only local policy or ordinance that protects biological resources. The project site does not contain any oak trees, and the project would not otherwise damage any oak trees. Therefore, the project is consistent with the City's Oak Tree Ordinance, and the project would have no related impacts. 2159 Initial Study Page 26 of 40 f) No Impact: The project site is not within a habitat conservation plan (HCP), natural community conservation plan (NCCP), or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan. Therefore, the project would not conflict with any adopted habitat conservation plans, and the project would have no related impacts. g) No Impact: The project site is not within a Significant Ecological Area identified on Exhibit CO -5 (Significant Ecological Areas) of the City's General Plan Conservation Element. The project site is also not within a Significant Natural Area identified by the CDFW. Therefore, the proposed project would not affect a Significant Ecological Area or Significant Natural Area. V. CULTURAL a) No Impact: There are no known buildings, structures, natural features, RESOURCES works of art, or similar objects on the site that are listed on the National Register of Historic Places, the California Register, or a local register or which have a significant historic value to the city which are to be demolished, relocated, removed, or significantly altered by the project. Therefore, the proposed project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource, and the project would have no related impacts. b) No Impact: There are no known prehistoric or historic archeological sites on the project site. In addition, the project site does not contain undisturbed surficial soils. The site was formerly used for warehousing and office space and was entirely developed with associated structures and facilities. If archaeological resources once existed on-site, it is likely that previous grading, construction, and modem use of the site have either removed or destroyed them. Consequently, surficial soils on the project site are devoid of archaeological resources. Therefore, the proposed project would have no impacts on archaeological resources. c) No Impact: No paleontological resources or unique geologic features are known to exist on-site. Furthermore, the project includes the operation of a primary school within an existing 53,000 square foot building on a fully developed site and does not include grading of any kind. Therefore, it is not anticipated that the proposed project would encounter any paleontological resources, and the project would have no impacts. d) Less Than Significant Impact: There are no known human remains on the site. The project site is not part of a formal cemetery and is not known to have been used for disposal of historic or prehistoric human remains. Thus, human remains are not expected to be encountered during construction of interior improvements for the proposed project. In the unlikely event that human remains are encountered during the construction of interior improvements, California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 requires the project to halt until the county coroner has made the necessary findings as to the origin and disposition of the remains pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. Compliance with these regulations would ensure the proposed project would not _significantly z 59 Initial Study Page 27 of 40 impact human remains. V1, GEOLOGY AND a)i. No Impact: The project site is not located in an Alquist-Priolo SOILS Earthquake Fault Zone or within any other fault zones, as identified on Figure 3.9-3 of the City's General Plan EIR. The proposed project does not include a proposal for the construction of new structures and regardless, any new construction is required to comply with the California Building Code that establishes regulations for structures in potentially hazardous areas in order to withstand impacts caused from localized earthquake activity. Therefore, the proposed project would not expose people or structures to potential adverse effects from the rupture of a known earthquake fault and would cause no associated impacts. a)ii. Less Than Significant Impact: Santa Clarita is within a seismically active region of Southern California. Consequently, the proposed project will likely be subject to strong seismic ground shaking. However, the risks of earthquake damage can be minimized through proper engineering, design, and construction. The proposed interior improvements are required to be built according to the California Building Standards Code (Building Code) and other applicable codes, and are subject to building inspection during and after construction. Structures for human habitation must be designed to meet or exceed Building Code standards for Seismic Zone 4. Conformance to these required standards ensures that the proposed project would not result in significant impacts due to strong seismic ground shaking. a)iii. Less Than Significant Impact: The project site is located within a liquefaction hazard area shown on Exhibit S-3 of the City's General Plan Safety Element. The proposed project does not include a proposal for the construction of new structures and regardless, any new construction is required to comply with the California Building Code that establishes regulations for structures in potentially hazardous areas in order to withstand impacts caused from localized earthquake activity. Therefore, the proposed project would not significantly expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving seismic -related ground failure including liquefaction. a)iv. No Impact: The project site is not within a landslide hazard zone identified on city or state mapping, as shown on Exhibit S-3 of the City's General Plan Safety Element. Furthermore, there are no unstable slopes on the project site. Therefore, the proposed project would not expose people or structures to potential adverse effects from landslides and would have no associated impacts. b) No Impact: The project includes a proposal for the operation of a primary school within an existing 53,000 square foot building on a fully developed site consisting of no natural or graded slopes and is surrounded by fully developed properties consistent with a business park environment. Therefore, the project will not result in substantial wind or water soil erosion or the loss of topsoil, either on or off-site. Initial Study Page 28 of 40 c) No Impact: The project site is a flat parcel that is not located on a cliff, mountainside, bluff, or other geographic feature with stability concerns. The site and vicinity are not susceptible to landslide, subsidence, or collapse. Therefore, the proposed project would not cause impacts related to unstable geologic units or soils. d) No Impact: The project consists of the operation of a primary school within an existing 53,000 square foot building on a fully developed site. Further, the site is underlain by large -grained sand and gravel. This type of surface material has a low expansion potential. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in impacts related to expansive soils. e) No Impact: The project will be required to connect to the existing public sewer system. Therefore, soil suitability for septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems is not applicable in this case, and the proposed project would have no associated impacts. t) No Impact: The project site is flat and does not include a proposal for grading activity. With the exception of the required installation of a 5' wide sidewalk adjacent to the two adjacent roadways, the proposed project would not result in noticeable changes in topography or ground surface relief features. g) No Impact: The project does not involve more than 10,000 cubic yards of earthwork. h) No Impact: As discussed, the project site is largely flat and there are no natural slopes greater than 10 percent grade existing on-site. Therefore, the proposed project would not cause any impacts from development or grading slopes greater than 10 percent natural grade. 1) No Impact: As discussed, the topography of the project site, as existing, is effectively flat, The site does not contain any ridgelines or other regionally notable topographic features. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in the destruction, covering, or modification of any unique geologic or physical feature, and the project would have no related impact. VII. GREENHOUSE GAS a) Less Than Significant Impact: The City of Santa Clarita's Climate EMISSIONS Action Plan (CAP) identifies the amount of greenhouse gases (GHG) emitted within Santa Clarita and establishes a set of strategies that reduces the amount of greenhouse gases produced in the city to a level that is consistent with the reduction goals identified in the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (AB 32) (Health and Safety Code Sections 38500, 38501, 28510, 38530, 38550, 38560, 38561-38565, 38570, 38571, 38574, 38580, 38590, 38592-38599). The proposed project would be consistent with the General Plan, Zoning Ordinance and the conditions of approval for the project. Because goals, objectives, and policies approved under the General Plan are forecast to meet the GHG emission reduction targets mandated by AB 32, development projects that are able to demonstrate consistency with the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance are Z61 Initial Study Page 29 of 40 by association consistent with the CAP. Since the project is consistent with the General Plan land use designation and zoning for the site, impacts relating to GHG emissions are less than significant. b) Less Than Significant Impact: The proposed project would be consistent with the CAP. The CAP must achieve emission reduction goals consistent with those outlined by the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (AB 32). Therefore the proposed project would not conflict with any applicable plans or policies adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHG and would be considered less than significant. Vill. HAZARDS AND a) No Impact: The project does not involve the use or storage of hazardous HAZARDOUS substances other than the small amounts of pesticides, fertilizers, and MATERIALS cleaning agents required for normal maintenance of the structure and landscaping. The project must adhere to applicable zoning and fire regulations regarding the use and storage of any hazardous substances. Further, there is no evidence that the site has been used for the storage of hazardous materials that would require disposal. b) No Impact: The site is not known or expected to contain any underground storage tanks (USTs), aboveground storage tanks (ASTs), gas lines, or other hazardous material conduits or storage facilities. The project site is not included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5. No evidence exists of industrial abuse, legal/illegal dumping, mining, or oil and gas exploration/production. Furthermore, the project does not propose any industrial uses, waste treatment/storage facilities, power plants, or other land uses that are typically associated with hazardous material accidents. Therefore, the proposed project would not create a hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment, and the project would have no related impacts. c) No Impact: The proposed project includes the operation of a primary school and is located within one-quarter mile of an existing school. However, as discussed in Issue a) above, the proposed uses are not anticipated to store, use, or generate substantial amounts of hazardous materials and are not anticipated to utilize any acutely hazardous materials. Therefore, the project would have no related impacts. d) No Impact: There is no known history of hazardous material use or storage on-site, and the project site is not known or expected to contain any hazardous materials. The site is not found on any list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 (hhnp://www.envirostor.dtse.ca.&ov/public/(iefault.asp or httn//Rcotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/1 and, as a result, would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment. e) No Impact: There are no airports located within 2 miles of the project site, and the project site is not within an airport land use plan. Therefore, Z1o2 Initial Study Page 30 of 40 the project would not result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in proximity to an airport, and the proposed project would have no associated impacts. t) No Impact: The project site is not within the vicinity of a private airstrip. There are no airplane transportation facilities, public or private, within 2 miles of the project site. Therefore, the project would not result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in proximity to a private airstrip, and the proposed project would have no associated impacts. g) No Impact: The construction and operation of the proposed project would not place any permanent or temporary physical barriers on any existing public streets. Furthermore, the project site is not utilized by any emergency response agencies, and no emergency response facilities exist in the project vicinity. Therefore, the proposed project would have no impact to emergency response planning. h) No Impact: As identified on the City's General Plan Safety Element Exhibit S-6 (Fire Hazard Zones), the project site is not within a fire hazard zone. Therefore, the proposed project would not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires, and the project would have no associated impacts. i) No Impact: The site is not known or expected to contain any electrical transmission lines, gas lines, oil lines, or other hazardous material conduits or storage facilities. Therefore, the proposed project would not expose people to existing sources of potential health hazards, and the project would have no related impacts. IX. HYDROLOGY AND a) Leas Than Significant Impact: Section 303 of the federal Clean Water WATER QUALITY Act requires states to develop water quality standards to protect the beneficial uses of receiving waters. In accordance with California's Porter/Cologne Act, the Regional Water Quality Control Boards (RWQCBs) of the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) are required to develop water quality objectives that ensure their region meets the requirements of Section 303 of the Clean Water Act. Santa Clarita is within the jurisdiction of the Los Angeles RWQCB. The Los Angeles RWQCB adopted water quality objectives in its Stormwater Quality Management Plan (SQMP). This SQMP is designed to ensure stormwater achieves compliance with receiving water limitations. Thus, stormwater generated by a development that complies with the SQMP does not exceed the limitations of receiving waters and thus does not exceed water quality standards. Compliance with the SQMP is ensured by Section 402 of the Clean Water Act, which is known as the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES). Under this section, municipalities are required to obtain permits for the water pollution generated by stormwater in their iurisdiction. These permits are known as Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Zb3 Initial Study Page 31 of 40 Systems (MS4) permits. Stormwater and non-stormwater flows enter and are conveyed through the MS4 and discharged to surface water bodies of the Los Angeles region. These discharges are regulated under countywide waste discharge requirements contained in Order No. 114-2012-01753 (NPDES Permit No. CAS004001, Waste Discharge Requirements for Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System [MS41 Discharges Within the Coastal Watersheds of Los Angeles County, Except Discharges Originating from the City of Long Beach MS4), which was adopted November 8, 2012. Chapter 17.90 of the City's Zoning Code prescribes the requirements of the NPDES compliance for all grading plans. In addition, as required by the MS4 permit, the City of Santa Clarita has adopted a Standard Urban Stormwater Mitigation Plan (SUSMP) ordinance to ensure new developments comply with the SQMP. The City's SUSMP ordinance, as described in Chapter 17.95 of the City's Zoning Code, requires new developments to implement best management practices (BMPs) that reduce water quality impacts, including erosion and siltation, to the maximum extent practicable. This ordinance also requires most new developments to submit a plan to the City that demonstrates how the project will comply with the City's SUSMP and identifies the project -specific BMPs that will be implemented. The project consists of the operation of a primary school. The proposed use is not a point source generator of water pollutants. As an urban development, the proposed project would add typical urban, nonpoint- source pollutants to stormwater runoff. As discussed, these pollutants are permitted by the countywide MS4 permit and would not exceed any receiving water limitations. Furthermore, the proposed development does not meet the City's SUSMP requirement thresholds. Thus, the project is not a planning priority project under the MS4 permit, and no special stormwater plans are required for the project. The proposed project would not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements and would have no related significant impacts. b) Less Than Significant Impact: The project would not install any groundwater wells and would not otherwise directly withdraw any groundwater. In addition, there are no known aquifer conditions at the project site or in the surrounding area that could be affected by excavation or development of the project. Therefore, the proposed project would not physically interfere with any groundwater supplies. The Santa Clara River and its tributaries are the primary groundwater recharge areas for the Santa Clarita Valley (General Plan Conservation Element 2012). The site's runoff currently flows into an engineered storm drain system and is not part of the natural drainage system that is largely responsible for recharging groundwater. Further, the proposed project would maintain the site's outflow into the supporting storm drain system. Therefore, the proposed project would not substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge, and the project would have no related significant impacts._ Z�q Initial Study Page 32 of 40 c) Less Than Significant Impact: Development projects that increase the volume or velocity of surface water can result in an increase in erosion and siltation. Increased surface water volume and velocity causes an increase in siltation and sedimentation by increasing both soiUwater interaction time and the sediment load potential of water. The project site does not include any discernable drainage courses. Therefore, the project would not result in substantial erosion or siltation on - or off-site, and the project would have no related significant impacts. d) No Impact: As discussed in Issue c) above, the proposed project includes a drainage system that complies with the MS4 permit to handle both the runoff that currently flows to the site from surrounding development and the increased runoff from the proposed impermeable surfaces on-site. Therefore, the project would not result in flooding on- or off-site, and the project would have no related impacts. e) No Impact: The project is required to comply with the City's engineering standards for volume of water discharged in the storm drain system and will comply with the City's SUSMP ordinance to ensure that stormwater flows are properly treated before entering the storm drain system. Therefore, the proposed project would not affect the capacity of the stormwater drainage system and would not create any source of polluted runoff. f) Less Than Significant Impact: The proposed project would not alter the water sources on the site and in the surrounding area. The proposed project would not be a point -source generator of water pollutants. Compliance with the City's SUSMP ordinance will ensure that the proposed project would not generate stormwater pollutants that would substantially degrade water quality. The project, however, also has the potential to generate short-term water pollutants during construction, including sediment, trash, construction materials, and equipment fluids. The countywide MS4 permit requires construction sites to implement BMPs to reduce the potential for construction -induced water pollutant impacts. These BMPs include methods to prevent contaminated construction site stormwater from entering the drainage system and preventing construction -induced contaminants from entering the drainage system. The MS4 identifies the following minimum requirements for construction sites in Los Angeles County: I . Sediments generated on the project site shall be retained using adequate treatment control or structural BMPs; 2. Construction -related materials, wastes, spills, or residues shall be retained at the project site to avoid discharge to streets, drainage facilities, receiving waters, or adjacent properties by Initial Study Page 33 of 40 wind or runoff; 3. Non-stormwater runoff from equipment and vehicle washing and any other activity shall be contained at the project site; and 4. Erosion from slopes and channels shall be controlled by implementing an effective combination of BMPs (as approved in Regional Board Resolution No. 99-03), such as the limiting of grading scheduled during the wet season; inspecting graded areas during rain events; planting and maintenance of vegetation on slopes; and covering erosion susceptible slopes. g) No Impact: The project site is not within the 100 -year or 500 -year flood zones as shown on the City's Flood Zones map. Therefore, the proposed project would not place future housing in flood hazard areas and would have no related impacts. h) No Impact: The project site is not within the 100 -year or 500 -year flood zones as shown on the City's Safety Element, Exhibit S-4 (Surface Water). Therefore, the proposed project would not place future structures in a flood hazard area and would have no related impacts. i) No Impact: The project site is not within a flood hazard area, and there are no levees, dams, or other water detention facilities in the vicinity of the project site. Therefore, the proposed project would not expose people or structures to a risk of loss, injury, or death involving flooding, and the project would have no related impacts. j) No Impact: No bodies of water in the vicinity of the project site are capable of producing seiche or tsunami. Similarly, the project site is not in an area prone to landslides, soil slips, or slumps. Therefore, the proposed project would have no impact from seiche, tsunami, or mudflow. k) No Impact: The project does not involve grading activity and would not alter the site's drainage patterns. Further, the project does not involve grading or excavation into the groundwater table and would not place any subterranean structures or foundations that would encroach into groundwater aquifer. Consequently, groundwater flows would not be affected. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in impacts from changes in the rate of flow, currents, or the course and direction of surface water and groundwater. 1) No Impact: The project would not cause any other impacts due to the modification of a wash, channel, creek, or river. See also Issues c) and d), above. M i -iv) Less Than Significant Impact: As discussed above in Issues a), c), d), and e), the project is required to comply with the City's SUSMP ordinance, the countywide MS4 permit, and the State's NPDES General Construction Permit and is required to implement a SUSMP compliance plan and SWPPP. Compliance with these requirements of the Clean Water Act and the NPDES will ensure the proposed project would not ON Initial Study Page 34 of 40 M significantly impact stormwater management. X. LAND USE AND a) No Impact: The project would not physically divide an existing PLANNING community, as the site is surrounded by similar development on all sides, and the project would not result in barriers or obstruction for pedestrians. Therefore, the project would have no impact related to physically dividing a community. b) No Impact: The project site is not part of a specific plan area or any other plan designed with the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. Santa Clarita is not within the Coastal Zone. The project site has a General Plan designation and zoning of Business Park (BP), which is consistent with the proposed uses for the property. Therefore, the proposed project would not cause impacts due to conflicts with applicable land use plans, policies, or regulations. c) No Impact: As discussed in subsection IV, Biological Resources, Issue f) of this report, the project site is not within a habitat conservation plan (HCP), natural community conservation plan (NCCP), or other approved environmental resource conservation plan. Therefore, the project would not conflict with any adopted environmental conservation plans, and the project would have no related impacts. XI. MINERAL AND a—b) No Impact: The project site is not within a mineral area identified on ENERGY RESOURCES Exhibit CO -2 (Mineral Resources) of the City's General Plan Conservation Element and is not otherwise known to contain mineral resources. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource, and the project would have no related impacts. c) Less Than Significant Impact: The project would utilize building materials and human resources for construction of the project. Many of the resources utilized for construction are nonrenewable, including manpower, sand, gravel, earth, iron, steel, and hardscape materials. Other construction resources, such as lumber, are slowly renewable. In addition, the project would commit energy and water resources as a result of the construction, operation, and maintenance of the proposed development. Much of the energy that will be utilized on-site will be generated through combustion of fossil fuels, which are nonrenewable resources. Market -rate conditions encourage the efficient use of materials and manpower during construction. Similarly, the energy and water resources that would be utilized by the proposed project would be supplied by the regional utility purveyors, which participate in various conservation programs. Furthermore, there are no unique conditions that would require excessive use of nonrenewable resources on-site, and the project is expected to utilize energy or water resources in the same manner as typical modern development. Therefore, the proposed project would not use nonrenewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner, and the project would have no related si nificant impacts. M Initial Study Page 35 of 40 XII. NOISE a) No Impact: The proposed project includes the operation of a primary school within an existing 53,000 square foot building on a fully developed site surrounded by commercial development. Commercial uses are not considered sensitive noise receptors. The Noise Element in the City's General Plan (Exhibit N-8) identifies the City's normally acceptable noise level for schools at 60 dBA. Based on the City's Noise Contour Map (General Plan Exhibit N-6), the proposed primary school would be placed within a 60 dBA Contour area and thus in an area acceptable for school uses. The land uses in the project vicinity include commercial uses such as warehouse and office space consistent with a business park environment. The proposed project is consistent with the existing land uses in the area and would not produce noise levels in excess of standards established in the City's General Plan or Noise Ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies. Therefore, the proposed project would not expose persons to excess noise levels and would have no related impacts. b) Less Than Significant Impact: There are no established vibration standards in the City of Santa Clarita. Regardless, the proposed primary school use at the specified location would neither generate nor expose people to excessive groundborne vibrations or groundbome noise levels. Construction of the proposed interior improvements for the project may temporarily generate vibrations. However, the proposed project does not involve construction practices that are typically associated with vibrations, such as pile driving and large-scale demolition. Therefore, the proposed project would not cause significant vibration impacts c) Less Than Significant Impact: The proposed project consists of the operation of a primary school within an existing 53,000 square foot building on a fully developed site. The project would generate vehicle trips that may increase traffic noise levels in the surrounding roadway areas. However, the increases in traffic volumes that would be caused by the proposed project would not cause a noticeable increase in roadway noise. Therefore, no significant long-term noise impacts are anticipated from the project (see also Issue a) above). d) Less Than Significant Impact: With the exception of an approximate 5,700 square foot outdoor patio and turf area, all construction activity will occur within the existing 53,000 square foot building. Therefore, the proposed project would not cause any significant impacts from temporarily generating noise. e) No Impact: There are no public use airports in Santa Clarita, and no portion of the city is within an airport land use plan. f) No Impact: There are no private airstrips in Santa Clarita. XIII. POPULATION AND a) Less Than Significant Impact: Growth -inducing impacts are caused by HOUSING those characteristics of a project that foster or encourage population and/or Initial Study Page 36 of 40 economic growth. These characteristics include adding residential units or businesses, expanding infrastructure, and generating employment opportunities. The project would involve the operation of a primary school. However, the project conforms to the City's land use designation of Business Park and would be within the buildout limits as provided in the City's General Plan. Furthermore, the proposed project would not otherwise induce growth by expanding the capacity of the roadway network or utility infrastructure. Therefore, although the proposed project would not cause significant growth -inducing impacts. b) No Impact: The project site does not include any housing units that would be removed. Therefore, the proposed project would not displace any housing and would have no associated impacts. c) No Impact: The project site does not include any housing units that would be removed. Therefore, the proposed project would not displace any people and would have no associated impacts. SERVICES a)i. No Impact: The proposed project would not result in the need for additional new or altered fire protection services and would not alter acceptable service ratios or response times. The proposed project would not increase the structures served by the Los Angeles County Fire Department. The project does not propose any structures or uses that cannot be adequately served by the Fire Department's existing resources. Therefore, the proposed project would not impact fire protection services. a)ii. No Impact: The proposed project will not result in the need for additional new or altered police protection services and will not alter acceptable service ratios or response times. The proposed project would not increase the demand for police services, which are provided by the Los Angeles County Sheriffs Department. The project does not propose any structures or uses that cannot be adequately served by the Sheriffs Department's existing resources. Therefore, the proposed project would not impact police protection services. a)iii. No Impact: The project would be within the Castaic Union School District (CUSD) for elementary school and the William S. Hart School District (WSHSD) forjunior high and high school. However, the proposed project would not develop any new residential dwellings and thus would not directly increase the population of school -aged children served by the CUSD and the WHSD. Therefore, the proposed project would not impact school services, a)iv. No Impact: The proposed project would not contribute new residences to the area that would lead to an increase in the use of the local and regional parks systems. Therefore, the proposed project would have no adverse impact on park services. a)v. No Impact: The project would not result in the need for new or expanded public facilities. The proposed project would not contribute new Initial Study Page 37 of 40 a_90 residences to the area that would lead to an increase in the use of the local library system. Therefore, the proposed project would have no adverse impact on library services. XV. RECREATION a) No Impact: The proposed development involves the operation of a primary school that would be utilized primarily by the population of the city and surrounding communities. The proposed project is not expected to increase the use of public parks. Therefore, the project would not lead to physical deterioration of any existing recreational facilities, and would have no related impacts. b). No Impact: The proposed project includes the operation of a primary school and does not include residential units that would require park development fees or implementation of new recreational facilities. Therefore, the project would not have an adverse physical effect on the environment from the construction or expansion of recreational facilities. XVI. TRANSPORTATION a -b) Less Than Significant Impact: A Traffic and Parking Study for the /TRAFFIC project was prepared by Linscott, Law and Greenspan dated September 3, 2014. This study is included in this Initial Study as Appendix A. Page 7 of the Traffic and Parking Study identifies a parking demand of 52 parking spaces despite 123 spaces being provided on the project site. Further, Page 6 of the attached Traffic and Parking Study concludes that the project is not expected to cause a significant traffic impact at any of the 6 key intersections analyzed. Therefore, the proposed project would result in less than significant traffic or parking impacts. c) No Impact: The project site is not within an airport land use plan or within two miles of a public airport or public use airport. Consequently, the proposed project would not affect any airport facilities and would not cause a change in the directional patterns of aircraft. Therefore, the proposed project would have no impact to air traffic patterns. d) Less Than Significant Impact: The project has been evaluated by the City's Traffic Division. Its circulation design has been found to not contain any hazardous conditions. In addition, the project's circulation design meets the City's engineering standards. Therefore, the proposed project would not significantly increase hazards due to a design feature or incompatible use and would have a less than significant amount of associated impacts. e) Less Than Significant Impact: The project's ingress/egress and circulation are required to meet the Los Angeles County Fire Department's standards, which ensure that proposed uses provide adequate access for emergency vehicles. The proposed project includes two access points. Additionally, the project site and surrounding roadway network do not pose any unique conditions that raise concerns for emergency access, such as narrow, winding roads or dead-end streets. Furthermore, final project plans are subject to review and approval by the Fire Department to ensure that the site's access complies with all Fire Department ordinances and policies. a_90 Initial Study Page 38 of 40 With the required compliance with all Fire Department ordinances and policies, the project would not cause significant impacts due to inadequate emergency access. Therefore, the project would have a less than significant impact related to emergency access. f) Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project is served by City of Santa Clarita Transit including routes 1, 2, 502, 791, 792, and 794. The proposed project would not directly or indirectly cause any change of service to the project area. Further, as the proposed project would not result in a significant impact to any of the identified study intersections, these transit services would not experience a substantial delay in service due to the proposed project. In addition, the proposed project has a pedestrian- and bicycle -friendly design, including the installation of 5' wide sidewalks along the total frontage of the project site. Therefore, the proposed project would result in a less than significant impact related to adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities. No mitigation measures are required. XVII. UTILITIES AND a) No Impact: The project proposes the operation of a primary school SERVICE SYSTEMS within an existing 53,000 square foot building on a fully developed site. The proposed project is consistent with the existing zoning and General Plan land use designations for the site. All wastewater generated by the proposed project is expected to be domestic sewage. Wastewater treatment facilities are designed to treat domestic sewage; thus, typical domestic sewage does not exceed wastewater treatment requirements. Since the project would not generate atypical wastewater and is consistent with the City's General Plan and zoning, the project would not exceed wastewater treatment requirements. The project would have no associated impacts. b) No Impact: The proposed development would not increase the demand for water and wastewater service. Further, as discussed in subsection XVII, Utilities and Service Systems, Issues d) and e) of this report, the increase to water/wastewater service demand is minimal in comparison to the existing service areas of the water and wastewater service purveyors, and the facilities currently maintained by the service purveyors are adequate to serve the proposed demand. The only water and wastewater improvements required for the project are on-site pipelines and unit connections to the infrastructure systems, which are subject to connection fees. Therefore, the proposed project would not require or result in the construction or expansion of new water or wastewater treatment facilities off-site, and the project would have no associated impacts. c) No Impact: The proposed project consists of the operation of a primary school within an existing 53,000 square foot building on a fully developed site. Therefore, the proposed project would not require or result in the construction of new off-site stormwater drainage facilities or the expansion of existing facilities off-site, and the project would have no related significant impacts. NO Initial Study Page 39 of 40 d) Less than Significant: The proposed project is consistent with the City's General Plan and zoning. The Valencia Water Company (VWC) provides water services to the project site. The VWC's water sources are derived from the State Water Project and local groundwater resources generated primarily from the Santa Clara River. These existing water supplies are sufficient to serve the proposed development. Therefore, the proposed project would not require new or expanded water entitlements, and the project would have no related significant impacts. e) Less than Significant: The proposed project is consistent with the City's General Plan and zoning designations. The Santa Clarita Valley Sanitation District (of the County of Los Angeles Sanitation Districts) provides wastewater services to the project site. The Santa Clarita Sanitation District's existing facilities are sufficient to accommodate the proposed development. Therefore, the proposed project would result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider that it has adequate capacity to serve the proposed project, and would have no related significant impacts. I) No Impact: The proposed project is consistent with the City's General Plan and zoning. The project would be served by a landfill (Chiquita Canyon) with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs. Chiquita Canyon Landfill is not expected to reach capacity for approximately 14-16 years. g) No Impact: The California Integrated Waste Management Act requires that jurisdictions maintain a 50 percent or better diversion rate for solid waste. The City implements this requirement through the City's franchised Solid Waste Management Services. Per the agreements between the City and the franchised trash disposal companies, each franchisee is responsible for meeting the minimum recycling diversion rate of 50 percent on a quarterly basis. Franchisees are further encouraged to meet the City's overall diversion rate goal of 75 percent. The proposed project is required to comply with the applicable solid waste franchise's recycling system, and thus, will meet the City's and California's solid waste diversion regulations. Therefore, the project would not cause any significant impacts from conflicting with statutes or regulations related to solid waste. XVIII. MANDATORY a) Less than Significant Impact: Based on the analysis in Sections IV and FINDINGS OF V of this document, the proposed project would not substantially reduce the SIGNIFICANCE habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory. Therefore, the proposed project does not result in a Mandatory Finding of Significance due to impacts to biological or cultural resources. b) Less than Significant Impact: The proposed project would not cause impacts that are cumulatively considerable. The project has the potential to Initial Study Page 40 of 40 ;)93 contribute to cumulative air quality, biological resource, hydrology, water quality, noise, population, housing, public services, recreation, traffic, and utility impacts. However, based on the analysis contained in this document, none of these cumulative impacts are substantial, and the project would not cause any cumulative impacts to become substantial. Therefore, with the incorporation of mitigation measures the proposed project does not have a Mandatory Finding of Significance due to cumulative impacts. c) No Impact: As discussed in subsections VIII, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, and XVI, Transportation/Traffic, of this document, the proposed project would not expose persons to flooding or transportation hazards. Subsection VI, Geology and Soils, of this document explains that occupants of the proposed project could be exposed to strong seismic earth shaking due to the potential for earthquakes in Southern California. The earth and geology conditions of the site would be alleviated by the required compliance with the California Building Code; thus, the proposed project would not result in adverse effects on human beings from geotechnical considerations. Therefore, the project would not create environmental effects that would cause substantial adverse effects on humans. XIX. DEPARTMENT OF a) Less than Significant Impact: As discussed in Section N of this FISH AND GAME NO document, the proposed project does not have the potential to adversely EFFECTS affect wildlife resources. Further, with the incorporation of mitigation DETERMINATION measures, the project would not cause any significant impacts on biological resources. Therefore, the project does qualify for a Department of Fish and Game `No Effect' finding. ;)93 CITY OF SANTA CLARITA STAFF REPORT MASTER CASE NO. 13-075 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 13-005 DATE: March 4, 2014 TO: Chairperson Heffernan and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Jeff Hogan, AICP, Planning Managef CASE PLANNER: Mike Marshall, Assistant Planner II JJ APPLICANT: Albert Einstein Academy for Letters, Arts and Sciences LOCATION: 25300 Rye Canyon Road (APN 2866-011-010) REQUEST: The applicant is requesting the approval of a conditional use permit to allow for the operation of a primary school with up to 650 students in grades Kindergarten -66' (K-6) with an additional 37 teachers and employees. The property is located in the BP (Business Park) zone within the Valencia Industrial Center. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The Albert Einstein Academy for Letters, Arts, and Sciences (Applicant) proposes to operate a primary school consisting of up to 650 students in grades K-6 with an additional 37 teachers and employees. With the exception of a 2,100 square foot artificial turf area and a 3,600 square foot concrete picnic area, the proposed primary school would be conducted within the interior of an existing 53,000 square foot commercial building consisting of 32 classrooms, an indoor gymnasium, and play area at 25300 Rye Canyon Road (Subject Site). A more detailed description of the proposed operating hours can be referenced in the applicant's attached traffic and parking study (Page 2 — Traffic and Parking Study). BACKGROUND Project Timeline June 5, 2013 An application was filed by Albert Einstein Academy for Letters, Arts, and Sciences (Applicant) to operate a primary school. July 1, 2013 The City sent a letter informing the Applicant that (1) the submitted project had been deemed Master Case 13-075 March 4, 2014 Page 2 of 14 incomplete pursuant to the Permit Streamlining Act and (2) that the City requires a completed Environmental Questionnaire and a Parking and Traffic Study consistent with City standards for the project to be deemed complete. July 25, 2013 City staff conducted a Development Review Committee (DRC) meeting to address preliminary comments on the Application in an effort to provide further guidance to the Applicant on the continued processing of the Application. July 29, 2013 City staff conducted a site inspection where it was observed that a significant amount of unpermitted construction had occurred within the subject building. In response, City staff posted a Stop Work Notice in a conspicuous location on the outside of the subject building and provided a copy to the Applicant's contractor. August 7, 2013 The Applicant requested. that the City acknowledge their claim that the proposed primary school was exempt from local zoning ordinances negating the requirement of a conditional use permit (CUP). August 21, 2013 The City informed the Applicant that the City does not concur with its position regarding primary school exemptions from local zoning ordinances and that the approval of a CUP is required for a primary school use, which the CUP would run with the land and benefit the property owner in addition to the Applicant. August 27, 2013 The City received a letter from the Applicant acknowledging that the proposed primary school use is subject to local zoning ordinances and that the Applicant intended to comply with the CUP requirement. Upon receipt of this acknowledgment, and knowing that the Applicant had made certain representations to its school community, City staff communicated to the Applicant that the Applicant could "dual -track" it's planning and building approvals, meaning that the proposed building plans would be processed concurrently with the Application but would not be approved unless the Application was approved. August 29, 2013 The Applicant submitted a building application to the Building and Safety Division requesting a 20,000 square foot change of use from an industrial use to an educational use. Further, due to inaccurate information presented on the permit application, an additional $8,197.10 in unpaid plan check fees are due to the City of Santa Clarita. September 10, 2013 A demolition permit was issued to Sanders Construction Company for the demolition and Master Case 13-075 March 4, 2014 Page 3 of 14 disposal of non-structural interior walls, trash enclosure and exterior fence; to date the work associated with the demolition permit has not passed final inspection by the Building and Safety Division meaning the demolition is not complete as required by the City's Code. August 27, 2013 -December 13, 2013 City staff and the Applicant kept in regular contact about the status of the Application, with City staff reminding the Applicant that delays in submission of information required for the Application to be deemed complete would delay processing of the Application and the hearing before the Planning Commission. December 18, 2013 City staff received from the Applicant the Parking and Traffic Study originally requested on July 1, 2013. January 13, 2014 City staff met with the Applicant to discuss initial concerns regarding the submitted Parking and Traffic Study. January 22, 2014 City staff issued formal comments to the Applicant regarding the submitted Parking and Traffic Study. January 22, 2014 -March 4, 2014 City staff and the Applicant kept in regular contact about the status of the Application which included regularly scheduled weekly meetings where staff made themselves available to meet with the Applicant to resolve any outstanding project related issues. However, the Applicant has not been able to make significant progress in addressing these issues resulting in staffs recommendation. PROJECT ISSUES The concerns detailed below were derived from staff's thorough review of the application and Traffic and Parking Study submitted by the Applicant on December 18, 2013 (Attached). Upon receipt of the study, staff worked diligently to review the study and issue comments to the applicant in an expedited manner. From the time that the comments were issued to the Applicant, staff made themselves readily available to the applicant in an effort to address these outstanding issues. The discussion details staffs concerns regarding unsafe ingress and egress, insufficient on-site stacking capacity, impacts to adjacent intersections and the functionality of adjacent properties. To date, none of these have been adequately addressed by the Applicant. The following project issues have been divided into ON-SITE CIRCULATION AND PARKING and OFF-SITE CIRCULATION: Master Case 13-075 March 4, 2014 Page 4 of 14 ON-SITE CIRCULATION AND PARKIING Left -Turn Pocket -Avenue Scott All Applicant traffic is anticipated to enter from the Avenue Scott entrance from the new proposed left -turn pocket. This improvement and proposal will be discussed further under OFF- SITE CIRCULATION (Page 8). Left Turn Exit- Rye Canyon Road The Applicant has proposed an unprotected left tum using a median opening designed to provide left -turn access to an industrial property across Rye Canyon to the west of the project site. The median opening was not designed for, nor can it accommodate, the number of vehicles turning left from the Subject Site onto Rye Canyon that the Applicant believes would be generated by the project. If approved, vehicles would exit the Subject Site turning left across six lanes of traffic on a high-speed roadway creating a significant traffic hazard during peak times as detailed in the diagram below. Master Case 13-075 March 4, 2014 Page 5 of 14 Double Right Turn Exit- Rye Canyon Road The proposed double -right tum onto northbound Rye Canyon Road cannot be supported by staff. This would create an unsafe condition in that the turning movement would be unprotected and the inside lane would not have adequate line -of -sight for turns to be executed safely because the outside tum lane would be blocking that line -of -sight as detailed in the diagram below. Additionally, the submitted traffic study indicates that 50% of the vehicles exiting the site will tum right at the Rye Canyon Road/Avenue Scott intersection. Those vehicles exiting from the outside right -tum lane would be required to make an unsafe weaving movement into the inside lane to make the right -tum onto Avenue Scott as shown below. Further, existing transit service at the location shown below would impede traffic flow within the inside right -tum lane. On -Site Stacking The analysis in the traffic study assumes that 150 vehicles can be moved through the site every 15 minutes during the morning drop-off and afternoon pickup times. City staff performed a study to determine if there are adequate gaps in traffic along Rye Canyon Road to accommodate the anticipated volume of traffic exiting the site. The study was performed on a typical weekday (01/16/14) morning during the time when parents would be arriving to drop off students (7:00 — 8:00 AM). Staff measured the duration of all gaps in traffic longer Master Case 13-075 March 4, 2014 Page 6 of 14 than the minimum necessary for vehicles turning right out of the Rye Canyon Road driveway. The minimum gap acceptance times in Chapter 19 of the 2010 Highway Capacity Manual were utilized (7.1 seconds for an uncontrolled right turn onto a six -lane facility). Note that only one right -turn exiting lane was assumed due to traffic conflicts with a dual right turn condition exiting the Subject Site as discussed above. Using this criteria, it was determined that only 120 vehicles would be able to exit the site during each 15 -minute period. Since the site can only accommodate 39 waiting vehicles, there is insufficient room to stack all the vehicles that would accumulate after the first of three morning drop-off periods. Vehicles would then'tack into the throat section of the driveway and block those vehicles turning left into the site from Avenue Scott, and cause those vehicles to overflow into the adjacent through lane as detailed in the diagram below. Further, the Applicant has recognized that entry to the subject site cannot be made via a right turn from Avenue Scott because of traffic loading at, and impacts to, the intersection of Rye Canyon and Avenue Scott. Future Gap Analysis The Applicant's traffic analysis did not include an analysis for future conditions five to ten years after the proposed opening of the school. The City/County Travel Demand Model indicates that morning peak hour traffic volumes at the Rye Canyon Road/Avenue Scott intersection are projected to increase between 40 and 50 percent within the next ten years resulting in a reduction of available gaps on both Avenue Scott and Rye Canyon Road thereby decreasing the number of vehicles able to exit the site during the 7:00 a.m. — 8:00 a.m. period. Additional analysis would Master Case 13-075 March 4, 2014 Page 7 of 14 be required to adequately determine the impact of the proposed project on future peak hour traffic volumes at this intersection. Parking The Parking and Traffic Study submitted by the Applicant indicates that there is currently 123 parking spaces provided on-site and that the proposed use would create a parking demand of 108 parking spaces demonstrating that there would be sufficient parking spaces available during regular school hours. Special Event Parking Although the parking demand during school hours can be met by the number of on-site parking spaces exceeding the anticipated demand, staff has concerns regarding regular events associated with school uses outside of the typical hours of instruction which could create significant parking demands. For example, typical primary schools conduct parent -teacher nights. As proposed, the school could have up to 650 students. Assuming that each family has two students attending the school, there would be in excess of 300 vehicles requiring a parking space within a parking lot that only provides 123 parking spaces. Further, unlike many primary schools, the streets adjacent to the proposed site do not provide for on -street parking. These increased demands could result in impacts to on- site parking/circulation and on-site ingress/egress. In addition, there could be pedestrian and parking impacts to surrounding properties. This issue is compounded by the fact that the arterial streets do not have sidewalks nor do they allow for on -street parking. Analysis and mitigation for these impacts has not been proposed by the Applicant. Additional analysis would be required to determine the extent of potential impacts to surrounding streets and properties as a result of these special events. Master Case 13-075 March 4, 2014 Page 8 of 14 OFF-SITE CIRCULATION Left -Turn Pocket -Avenue Scott As proposed, the project site plan includes a new median opening and left -tum pocket on Avenue Scott that would serve as the sole means for vehicles to enter the project site. Specifically, the Applicant has proposed that vehicular entry to the Subject Site for student drop-off and pick-up must be from Avenue Scott because of on-site constraints in pedestrian movement. The Applicant has also recognized that such entry cannot be made via a right tum from Avenue Scott because of traffic loading at, and impacts to, the intersection of Rye Canyon Road and Avenue Scott and the potential costs of mitigating such impacts. These conclusions require student - related traffic to enter .the Subject Site by making a left tum from Avenue Scott. The City generally does not allow new median openings for left -turning vehicles due to increased traffic conflicts and safety concerns. The proposed median opening is of particular concern because it will serve as the only access to the Subject Site and requires an unprotected left turn across two lanes of traffic on a major arterial as detailed below. .`` Proposed 1 pocket length turning into Woodward site from Avenue Scott !j 1 i \ �� � `tion v �. •*. - `i / � / Y 0 Existing 110' tum pocket length providing necessary space fora typical semi -truck delivery vehicle length of between 55 and 60 feet Approximate 55- 11 foot lengthA of typical serni-truck delivery vehicle Proposed 46' tum pocket length "t ; ',; 0 `�V does not provide necessary space` to facilitate typical semi -truck y \� yy`�� ° (\ delivery vehicles of between 55 F y ` ` "• l \: and 60 feet ;' , ��i�-� _ NiV -' Master Case 13-075 March 4, 2014 Page 10 of 14 Peak Time Capacity- Rye Canyon Road/Avenue Scott The Rye Canyon Road/Avenue Scott intersection may not have the capacity to facilitate the proposed school use during peak times as a result of the high number of vehicles exiting the Subject Site and turning right onto Rye Canyon Road. Based on the Applicant's proposed circulation plan this would severely impact the right turn movements and traffic flow, from Rye Canyon Road onto Avenue Scott creating an unsafe condition as shown below. Master Case 13-075 March 4, 2014 Page 11 of 14 Origin Of Parent Trip Distribution The submitted Parking and Traffic Study assumes that the origin of all parent trip distribution would derive from locations south and east of the subject property eliminating the need for vehicles to utilize the Rye Canyon Road/Avenue Scott intersection during drop-off/pick-up periods. Staff has significant concerns regarding the accuracy of these claims and has asked that the applicant provide justification for these assumptions since January 22, 2014. To date, staff has not received the requested information and therefore has concerns regarding the immediate impact upon the intersection of Rye Canyon Road/Avenue Scott upon occupancy as well as into the future. Further, the applicant proposes a "bulb -out' curb modification at the Avenue Scott driveway preventing vehicles from turning right into the site from Avenue Scott thus eliminating school related traffic from the Rye Canyon Road/Avenue Scott intersection during drop-off/pick- up times. Staff has significant concerns regarding the effectiveness of such a modification and has verbally requested that the Applicant substantiate such assumptions. To date, staff has not received the requested information. The diagram below shows those areas where the Parking and Traffic Study assumes all trips will be generated as well as those areas where staff believes there is likelihood for additional trips to be produced. Master Case 13-075 March 4, 2014 Page 11 of 14 Alternative Painted Double Left -Turn In the course of staffs conversations with the applicant regarding traffic impacts as a result of the proposed project, the applicant verbally proposed an alternative that would include the removal of an approximate 225 foot section of existing raised median and replacing it with a painted double left -tum lane as shown below. In addition to staff s concerns regarding the proposed left turn movement into the site as discussed above, staff has concerns with the replacement of the raised median with a painted double left -tum lane. The removal of the raised median would allow for vehicles exiting the site immediately south of the subject property to turn left across 4lanes of traffic on Avenue Scott creating an unsafe condition. Traffic Impact Analysis- McBean Parkway/Avenue Scott Based on the trip generation and trip distribution provided in the traffic study, approximately 400 project -related vehicles are expected to pass through the McBean Parkway/Avenue Scott intersection during the morning peak hour. The impacts of this increased traffic volume have not been analyzed by the applicant and no mitigation for that intersection has been proposed. Additional analysis, would be required to determine if the intersection is sufficient to carry the kind and quantity of traffic generated by the proposed use. Master Case 13-075 March 4, 2014 Page 13 of 14 GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION AND ZONING Section 17.45.11 of the UDC requires approval of a conditional use permit (CUP) for schools located within the BP zone. The subject property is surrounded by office, warehousing, and manufacturing uses typically found within a business park environment and are consistent with land uses appropriate within the BP zone. ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS Denial of an application is not considered a "project" under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Therefore, the preparation of an environmental document pursuant to CEQA is not required and neither an initial study nor more thorough environmental study of the project proposed by the Application has been undertaken. BULLETED SUMMARY OF ISSUES RESULTING IN DENIAL OF PROJECT Staff has bulleted and summarized the issues for the Planning Commission's reference below: On -Site Circulation and Parking • Proposed left -turn exiting the project site onto Rye Canyon Road would create unacceptable traffic impacts requiring vehicles to turn left across six lanes of high speed traffic. • Proposed double right -tum exiting onto Rye Canyon Road would create line -of -sight conflicts for those exiting the property from the inside right -turn lane. • Potential unsafe weaving movements into the inside right -tum lane for those vehicles exiting the property then making the right -turn from Rye Canyon Road onto Avenue Scott. • Potential transitibus service conflicts that would impede on-site traffic flow. • The City/County Travel Demand Model indicates that a reduction in available gaps at the Rye Canyon Road/Avenue Scott intersection is anticipated within the next ten years. Additional analysis would be required to adequately determine the impact of the proposed project on future peak hour traffic volumes at this intersection. • Staff has concluded that while 150 vehicles may enter the project site within a 15 minute period as identified in the submitted Parking and Traffic Study, only 120 vehicles may exit the property within the same time period creating a condition where vehicles would unsafely stack outside of the proposed left -tum pocket entering the project site into adjacent through lanes. General Plan —Zoning Land Use Project BP BP Office/Warehousin anufacturin North BP BP Office/—Warehousing/Manufacturing South BP BP Offrce/Warehousin anufacturin East BP BP Office/Warehousing/Manufacturin West BP Bp--Office/Warehousing/Manufacturing ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS Denial of an application is not considered a "project" under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Therefore, the preparation of an environmental document pursuant to CEQA is not required and neither an initial study nor more thorough environmental study of the project proposed by the Application has been undertaken. BULLETED SUMMARY OF ISSUES RESULTING IN DENIAL OF PROJECT Staff has bulleted and summarized the issues for the Planning Commission's reference below: On -Site Circulation and Parking • Proposed left -turn exiting the project site onto Rye Canyon Road would create unacceptable traffic impacts requiring vehicles to turn left across six lanes of high speed traffic. • Proposed double right -tum exiting onto Rye Canyon Road would create line -of -sight conflicts for those exiting the property from the inside right -turn lane. • Potential unsafe weaving movements into the inside right -tum lane for those vehicles exiting the property then making the right -turn from Rye Canyon Road onto Avenue Scott. • Potential transitibus service conflicts that would impede on-site traffic flow. • The City/County Travel Demand Model indicates that a reduction in available gaps at the Rye Canyon Road/Avenue Scott intersection is anticipated within the next ten years. Additional analysis would be required to adequately determine the impact of the proposed project on future peak hour traffic volumes at this intersection. • Staff has concluded that while 150 vehicles may enter the project site within a 15 minute period as identified in the submitted Parking and Traffic Study, only 120 vehicles may exit the property within the same time period creating a condition where vehicles would unsafely stack outside of the proposed left -tum pocket entering the project site into adjacent through lanes. Master Case 13-075 March 4, 1014 Page 14 of 14 Staff anticipates additional parking impacts as a result of regularly occurring events typically associated with primary schools. Staff has requested that additional analysis be conducted to address potential impacts. To date, staff has not received requested information. Of -Site Circulation • Creating a median break to allow for an unprotected left -turn into the subject site is an unsafe condition generally not allowed by staff. • Reduced length of the left -turn pocket into the adjacent Woodward site would create a condition where a typical 55' long semi -truck delivering to the site would not safely fit into the proposed 46' long turn pocket. • Rye Canyon Road/Avenue Scott intersection may not have the capacity to facilitate the peak time traffic generated by vehicles exiting the Subject Site and turning right onto Rye Canyon, severely impacting right turn movements and traffic flow from Rye Canyon Road onto Avenue Scott. • Recently proposed alternative by applicant to replace the existing raised median would result in vehicles turning left out of the property immediately to the south creating an unsafe condition where vehicles would be required to cross 4 lanes of traffic on Avenue Scott. • The Rye Canyon Road/Avenue Scott intersection may not have the capacity to facilitate the proposed school use during peak times as a result of the high. number of vehicles exiting the Subject Site and turning onto Rye Canyon Road during peak times. • The submitted Parking and Traffic Study assumes that the origin of all students upon occupancy and into the future will come from isolated portions of the City and does not take into account other points of trip origination. Staff has requested further information to support this assumption and to date, has not received requested information. • The submitted Parking and Traffic Study identifies that approximately 400 project -related vehicles are expected to pass through the intersection of McBean,Parkway/Avenue Scott during morning peak hour. These impacts have not been analyzed. Staff has requested further analysis of these impacts and to date, has not received requested information. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission receive the information and materials that constitute Master Case 13-075 (CUP 13-005) and adopt Resolution P14-04 denying the request for a conditional use permit to allow for the operation of a primary school within the BP zone at 25300 Rye Canyon Road in the Valencia Industrial Center. ATTACHMENTS Resolution Parking and Traffic Study Correspondence \CD\CURRENn12013\13-075 (CUP 13-005 AI6e.K Einstein AcademyAPIa nine Commission\13 075 Staff Reportdoc RESOLUTION NO. P14-04 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA DENYING MASTER CASE NO. 13-075, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 13-005 TO ALLOW FOR THE OPERATION OF A PRIMARY SCHOOL LOCATED AT 25300 RYE CANYON ROAD, IN THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. FINDINGS OF FACT. The Planning Commission does hereby make the following findings of fact: A. An application for Master Case No. 13-075 (CUP 13-005) was filed by Albert Einstein Academy for Letters, Arts, and Sciences (hereinafter "Applicant") with the City of Santa Clarita on June 5, 2013. The property for which this conditional use permit application (hereinafter "Application") was filed is located at 25300 Rye Canyon Road (hereinafter "Subject Site"); B. The applicant proposes to operate a primary school on the subject site, offering grades Kindergarten through 6° (K-6); C. The zoning and General Plan designation for the subject site is BP (Business Park); D. The surrounding land uses include manufacturing, warehousing, and office uses to the north, south, east, and west of the Subject Site; E. On July 1, 2013, the City sent a letter to the Applicant informing it (1) that the submitted project had been deemed incomplete pursuant to the Permit Streamlining Act and (2) that the City requires a completed Environmental Questionnaire and a parking and traffic study consistent with City standards for the project to be deemed complete; F. City staff conducted a Development Review Committee (DRC) meeting on July 25, 2013 to address preliminary comments on the Application in an effort to provide further guidance to the Applicant on the continued processing of the Application; G. On July 29, 2013, City staff conducted a site inspection where it was observed that a significant amount of unpermitted construction had occurred within the subject building. In response, City staff posted a Stop Work Notice in a conspicuous location on the outside of the subject building and provided a copy to the Applicant's contractor; H. On August 7, 2013, the Applicant requested that the City acknowledge their claim that the proposed primary school was exempt from local zoning ordinances negating the requirement of a conditional use permit (CUP); Resolution P14-04 Master Case No. 13-075 March 4, 2014 Page 2 of 8 I. On August 21, 2013, the City informed the Applicant that the City does not concur with its position regarding primary school exemptions from local zoning ordinances and that the approval of a CUP is required for a primary school use, which the CUP would run with the land and benefit the property owner in addition to the Applicant; J. On August 27, 2013, the City received a letter from the Applicant acknowledging that the proposed primary school use is subject to local zoning ordinances and that the Applicant intended to comply with the CUP requirement; K. Upon receipt of this acknowledgment, and knowing that the Applicant had made certain representations to its school community, City staff communicated to the Applicant that the Applicant could "dual -track" its planning and building approvals, meaning that the proposed building plans would be processed concurrently with the Application but would not be approved unless the Application was approved; L. On August 29, 2013, the Applicant submitted a building application to the Building and Safety Division requesting a 20,000 square foot change of use from an industrial use to an educational use and that due to inaccurate information presented on the permit application, an additional $8,197.10 in unpaid plan check fees are due to the City of Santa Clarita; M. On September 10, 2013, a demolition permit was issued to Sanders Construction Company for the demolition and disposal of non-structural interior walls, trash enclosure and exterior fence; to date the demolition permit has not passed final inspection by the Building and Safety Division meaning the demolition is not complete as required by the City's Code; N. From August 27, 2013 through December 13, 2013, City staff and the Applicant kept in regular contact about the status of the Application, with City staff reminding the Applicant that delays in submission of information required for the Application to be deemed complete would delay processing of the Application and the hearing before the Planning Commission; 0. On December 18, 2013, City staff received from the Applicant the parking and traffic study originally requested on July 1, 2013; P. City staff met with the Applicant on January 13, 2014 to discuss initial concerns regarding the submitted parking and traffic study; Q. On January 22, 2014, City staff issued formal comments to the Applicant regarding the submitted parking and traffic study; R. On February 11, 2014, a public hearing was duly noticed for the Planning Commission meeting for March 4, 2014, at 6:00 P.M. at City Hall Council Chambers, 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Santa Clarita; Resolution P14-04 Master Case No. 13-075 March 4, 2014 Page 3 of 8 S. On March 4, 2014, the duly noticed public hearing was held before the City of Santa Clarita Planning Commission at 6:00 p.m. at City Hall, Council Chambers, 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Santa Clarita; and T. At this public hearing, the Planning Commission considered the staff report, staff presentation, Applicant's presentation, and public testimony. SECTION 2. GENERAL FINDINGS FOR MASTER CASE NO. 13-075. Based on the foregoing facts and findings for Master Case No. 13-075, the Planning Commission hereby determines as follows with respect to the findings required for the grant of a conditional use permit as sought by the applicant: A. The proposal is consistent with the General Plan; The Planning Commission can make this finding. The land use designation for the Subject Site ("Business Park") provides for mixed employment districts in areas accessible to transportation and visible from freeways, which allows a variety of uses including office, medical office, research and development, light assembly and fabrication, warehousing and distribution and numerous other commercial uses. Specifically, land uses such as primary schools are allowed in the Business Park designation with an approved conditional use permit subject to development not exceeding the lot coverage of .90 and floor area ratio of 1.0. The primary (K-6) school proposal will be located within an existing building that does not exceed the coverage and floor area ratios of the Business Park designation. Thus, with the approval of a conditional use permit, the primary school proposal would be consistent with the City's General Plan B. The proposal is allowed within the applicable underlying zone and complies with all other applicable provisions of the UDC; The Planning Commission can make this finding. The Applicant's proposed primary school is allowed within the Business Park zone with the approval of a conditional use permit. The Application includes a proposed K-6 school use that would be conducted within an existing commercial building and does not include a proposal for any new structures. The existing commercial building on the Subject Site is consistent with the development standards set forth in the UDC in terms of floor area ratio, building height, setbacks, parking and landscaping. C. The proposal will not endanger, jeopardize, or otherwise constitute a hazard to the public convenience, health, interest, safety, or general welfare, or be materially detrimental or injurious to the improvements, persons, property, or uses in the vicinity and zone in which the property is located; and Resolution P14-04 Master Case No. 13-075 March 4, 2014 Page 4 of 8 The Planning Commission cannot snake this finding and concludes instead that as proposed, the primary school at this location would endanger, jeopardize, or otherwise constitute a hazard to public safety and general welfare to persons, property, or uses in the vicinity and zone in which the property is located based upon the following determinations: 1. That as proposed in the Application and as studied in the formal parking and traffic study received by City staff on December 18, the project site plan includes a new median opening and left -turn pocket on Avenue Scott that would serve as the sole means for vehicles to enter the project site. Specifically, the Applicant proposes that vehicular entry to the Subject Site for student drop-off and pick-up be from Avenue Scott because of on-site constraints in pedestrian movement. The Applicant has recognized that such entry cannot be made via a right turn from Avenue Scott because of traffic loading at and impacts to the intersection of Rye Canyon and Avenue Scott. These conclusions require student -related traffic to enter the Subject Site by making a left turn from Avenue Scott on to the Subject Site. Currently, no left turn pocket exists at this location resulting in the Applicant being required to construct this pocket if the Application is approved. However, the City generally does not allow new unprotected median openings for left -turning vehicles because of increased traffic conflicts and safety concerns arising from such unprotected openings. The proposed median opening is of particular concern because it will serve as the only access route into the Subject Site and it requires an unprotected left turn across two lanes of traffic on a road designated as a major arterial. Additionally, the reconfigured median would reduce the length of the left turn pocket that currently serves the Woodward HRT property across from the proposed school site and would preclude semi - trucks from safely using the existing left turn pocket into that site. Thus, this proposed after -condition is not acceptable to the City as it would result in an unsafe traffic flow. 2. That there is insufficient room on-site to stack all of the vehicles that would accumulate during the morning and afternoon drop-off periods. As proposed and as set forth in the traffic study, vehicles would stack into the throat portion of the Subject Site's driveway, blocking traffic turning left into the site from Avenue Scott, and causing left -turning vehicles on Avenue Scott to overflow into the adjacent traffic lane. Further, as stated above, the Applicant has recognized that entry to the Subject Site cannot be made via a right turn from Avenue Scott because of traffic loading at and impacts to the intersection of Rye Canyon and Avenue Scott, so the streets adjacent to the site are unavailable for stacking. 3. That as proposed, egress from the Subject Site creates an unsafe condition because in order to attempt to meet required traffic flow volumes the project includes (a) an unprotected left turn across Rye Canyon Road and (b) a double Resolution P14-04 Master Case No. 13-075 March 4, 2014 Page 5 of 8 right turn onto northbound Rye Canyon Road. The unprotected left turn is proposed to use a median opening designed to provide left -turn access to an industrial property across Rye Canyon to the west of the project site. The median opening was not designed for, nor can it accommodate, the number of vehicles turning left from the Subject Site onto Rye Canyon Road. The proposed double -right turn onto northbound Rye Canyon Road likewise creates an unsafe condition in that the turning movement would be unprotected and the inside lane would not have adequate line -of -sight for turns to be executed safely because the outside turn lane would be blocking that line -of -sight. 4. That the Rye Canyon Road/Avenue Scott intersection may not have the capacity to facilitate the proposed school use during peak times as a result of the high number of vehicles exiting the Subject Site and turning right onto Rye Canyon. Based on their circulation plan this could severely impact the right turn movements and traffic flow from Rye Canyon Road onto Avenue Scott creating an unsafe condition. 5. The City/County Travel Demand Model indicates that morning peak hour traffic volumes at the Rye Canyon Road/Avenue Scott intersection are projected to increase between 40 and 50 percent within the next ten years resulting in a reduction of available gaps on both Avenue Scott and Rye Canyon Road decreasing the number of vehicles able to exit the site during the 7:00 a.m. — 8:00 a.m. period. 6. That although the parking demand during school hours can be met by the number of on-site parking spaces exceeding the anticipated demand, regular events associated with school uses outside of the typical hours of instruction could create significant parking demands. The increased demands could result in impacts to on-site parking and circulation and on-site ingress and egress. In addition, there could be pedestrian and parking impacts to surrounding properties and streets that do not provide sidewalks or allow for on -street parking. No analysis of or mitigation of these impacts was proposed by the Applicant. D. The proposal is physically suitable for the site. The factors related to the proposal's physical suitability for the site shall include, but are not limited to, the following: 1) The design, location, shape, size, and operating characteristics are suitable for the proposed use; The Planning Commission cannot make this finding because as proposed, there is insufficient space on the Subject Site to accommodate the anticipated volume of vehicles at student pick-up and drop-off. As proposed, vehicles would be required to exit out of the Subject Site via dual right turn lanes and/or an unprotected left out on Resolution P14-04 Master Case No. 13-075 March 4, 2014 Page 6 of 8 to Rye Canyon Road, in addition to stacking into the throat portion of the Avenue Scott entry driveway resulting in additional congestion and conflicts on Avenue Scott and throughout the immediate area. Further, although the parking demand during school hours can be met by the number of on-site parking spaces exceeding the anticipated demand, regular events associated with school uses outside of the typical hours of instruction would be expected to create significant parking demands. These increased demands could result in impacts to on-site parking and circulation and on- site ingress and egress. In addition, there could be pedestrian and parking impacts to surrounding properties and the surrounding streets do not provide sidewalks or allow for on -street parking. 2) The highways or streets that provide access to the site are of sufficient width and are improved as necessary to carry the kind and quantity of traffic such proposal would generate; The Planning Commission cannot make this finding because the existing street configuration is not able to facilitate the expected traffic volume and movements generated by the proposed use during peak times. Opening an existing median on Avenue Scott and increasing public exposure to unprotected left turns is the only circulation plan proposed by the applicant and would create an unsafe traffic pattern and flow. Additionally, pick-up/drop-off and parking/loading areas are not possible on either of the major arterials adjacent to the Subject Site. Further, based on the trip generation and trip distribution provided in the traffic study, approximately 400 project -related vehicles are expected to pass through the McBean Parkway/Avenue Scott intersection during the morning peak hour. The impacts of this increased traffic volume have not been analyzed by the applicant and no mitigation for that intersection has been proposed. Therefore, the highways or streets that provide access to the site are not of sufficient width to cavy the kind and quantity of traffic generated by the proposed use's peak times. 3) Public protection services (e.g., Fire protection, Sheriff protection, etc.) are readily available; and The Planning Commission can make this finding. The project site is located within an urbanized portion of the City that is adequately served by fire and sheriff services. The proposed use would be conducted within an existing commercial structure and would not include the construction of new structures creating an additional demand for public protection services. 4) The provision of utilities (e.g., potable water, schools, solid waste collection and disposal, storm drainage, wastewater collection, treatment, and disposal, etc.) is adequate to serve the site. The Planning Commission can make this finding. The project site is located within a developed portion of the City that is currently being served by public utilities such as water, sewer, and solid waste collection. The proposed use would be located within Resolution P14-04 Master Case No. 13-075 March 4, 2014 Page 7 of S an existing commercial building and would not include a proposal for new structures. Therefore, the provision of utilities is adequate to serve the proposed project site. SECTION 3. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT FINDINGS. Based upon the foregoing facts and findings, the Planning Commission hereby find as follows: A. Denial of an application is not considered a "project" under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Therefore, the preparation of an environmental document pursuant to CEQA is not required and neither an initial study nor more thorough environmental study of the project proposed by the Application has been undertaken. Resolution P14-04 Master Case No. 13-075 March 4, 2014 Page 8 of 8 SECTION 4. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of Santa Clarita, California, as follows: Adopt Resolution P14-04, denying Master Case 13-075, Conditional Use Permit 13-005, to allow for the operation of a primary school, located at 25300 Rye Canyon Road. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 4th day of March, 2014. CHARLES HEFF AN, CHAIRPERSON PLANNING COMMISSION COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) CITY OF SANTA CLARITA ) I, Jeff W. Hogan, Planning Commission Secretary of the City of Santa Clarita, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Santa Clarita at a regular meeting thereof, held on the 4th day of March, 2014 by the following vote of the Planning Commission: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Heffernan, Trautman, Burkhart, Eichman, Ostrom NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: