Attachment 2 - CC Resolution No. 2024-9 — Camarillo City Council, May 28, 2025 (part 4 of 15)

1.01 36 INTEGRATED

CAPITAL
7+1Aciii-cTi 'FT
IPD-376 CALLE CARGA T-2878-4 18,368
IPD-377

INTEGRATED
CAPITAL CALLE CARGA T-2878-3 19,804
IPD-378

INTEGRATED
CAPITAL CALLE CARGA T-2878-2 16,427
3 PROJECTS PENDING 54,599
6 ACHES PAlli9RG •

1.01 42

1.18 38
5 5
arTy OF C4MAR17
Community Development Department Moto* Report December 2005

PENDING PROJECTS
INDUSTRIAL - TOTAL 20 PROJECTS 1,240,850 53.51 2.457

Page 3 ends

-----r- -4-ri _---t
_
UVof Camarillo
Departmentof
COIRMUILIty Development
.k„
—
^,
„ 1
• 2,,,,
1 '-'1 • • 'fi
. ' Ask!. A. it - .,-
,I ...". le /4:7 ,
' .(1.c`.—'', Z-;:-',K.''
e".."'— 1".
— r-r-,--; I A 57, 1---- 1 1
1, ---z1V-7,-------z•-:.'4"-- ''..:,..,:s-Lt..1, '.4 ._, •-..,::;• ''---6.,,, ,..... . c.-,..4 rf....,\ „:‘, '..... 7, ,.
„
....7- ) 1 1---...i ,..7.),., '..,
---.... 1--.- , L--il fr:,_L--1,' r • t--,..":•:;•,217,;:-:.--•::-.i,.77•••• s.... ,r,.,......:,*.,-- , ,....,
,./ --:..-44. i s 's•sui
, : f 'Tr', l', • .-0:-' 1 ,
T----1 m, j
i ;:---4, .....4r . r-
' 1—s 4-f4
••-•• "''',1,- •,:is• I. t" /
-1-
• /
—,., , ' r-q.
, P -,...„ r
I
t
\ s..-..---6
,
.V.,.
.1!.
...
ti/
-
,,,
- 1 .,
k 'AV , die., . '—.. !...-• i
-1=1,41.-1,•'71
y.,7
. •,....„-,,: ...., -,„,,,8„4...,,..., „;
0 s),A71; L-- .. ' I ta)
s i,:;,,p__•)--_•)•/ •,,..-, .k,, A
/ -t.
• , 1.---4_,..,.
,
.-4)
• ----
,
)
,i
,-
,
/
• ,,,•,,,-,-,,,, .r. -.51
r.:I
- -24
..,
j
--,
i
.' 71) i
I ,.' '.,-4,--,,:\,,,,I.1.1 ,
' ,4 1 f • c 1
-, ^-. , 1
I
i
, r
--.

J
s.
...,
'-1
'''...
\,,„
'
„,.-
I „
`.:-1-,, Iv.,-..-.2i ;,..7„(..;_..7-0,.,,-: --„,
TI-------.
:

Te, 1
.. , ;-.7-71- -. f--'4f;-..i %.,
:;'?,1:i 1 i tc -
fl
.j...,.
r--
-.0.• ,
1 :I 71 L.J. ----hs, : ...,,, i---;
-, ..„.. . ,
, •-,,, _--.„
.
--. ,--1---c
)i
.... 7-2_,-r
'‘---,-, , _.- ...,.., . ,
, It ,
r-, 1;
—
c _
...) __-..--=
5,........„-qt\,
'. LL .2
-^"
-.....-N
,-,, •0$6-1.2.01
_
\ ,, - ,., ,•,..,, s,- . n t- , ..... i1
- - ''' ,.....7 \• , k. ••••
n 1 1 . --, E zi i ....3
..„...., f
1-,
5 _Y-1
,
i -' . s ',,. ----t- 1,-77---..---_--L.... 1 , \ • ._-=........±...1 a: i ,,,..,... , ,-__...... . ,r---.711r7-13-1 ,--.
,,-..-..:\--' , I •
,. -
Indu
strial ProjectsLoca tions
n'---(1
.,
.31 —..,
' ‘2, 1 1,1.. ".....,. ,„,,,, i, ,
-...--....1 :, ;-. y .' 1
. ,o,
.
/ •-'
t
_
r,-.. •
--. I • 1
, .
,..„,,,,' ' ---,1,77.r4,Ntf i
•-.. 2,
b i.'1-)
4 ki "---.' — 4 fi
m. 11
.. •
. ..--
Z h :, ---
PIT impoct mg
t
I ,
01 %._1),
. : ,
, 1 _...„ ...., \ ......
...A, •--
9 ,
4V/
1 IL
—
:..
il
i L
11 ,
01 i
'....

MAT,
No.

UILDING
LOCATION So. FT. PARKING
• PROJECT
NUMBER DEVELOPER SrrElAcas
CUP-227 LING FIRNENTURA BLVD: 4,650 0.29 11
1 PROJECT COMPLETED IN 2005 4,650 0.29 11
CPD-139M DONAHUE/SCHRIBER PARDEE PLAZA 13,600
CPD-220 JIFFY LUBE DAILY DRIVE 18,174 1.45 10
CPD-216 DAVENPORT CAMARILLO BUSINESS CENTER 39,822 0.59 145 3 PROJECT UNDER CONSTRUCTION 71,596 2.04 155

PROJECT
NuntiBER DEVELOPEFI LOCATION

BUILDING
SO. FT. SulAcTiEs
MAT1
PATIKING No.

BUILDING

PARKING
MAP
S1fL1ACHS NO.
12,000 .74 45
13,898 1.06 60 9
25,898 1.80 105
533,790 47.07 2.794
2 PENDING PROJECTS
CPD-224
CPD-219
ROJECT
NumBER
FARAG

LSS/LCC

DEVELOPER
CARMEN

PICKWICK

LOCATION
COMMERCIAL - TOTAL 16 PROJECTS
CITY OF C4MAR1LLO
Commtwity, Development Department Month Report December 2005 .

COMMERCIAL
PROJECTS COMPLETED SINCE JANUARY 1.2005

PROJECTS UNDER CONSTRUCTION
g P.R orr LAS 7C7'5A•5 2cdt 22..c) -zoo p-t s I0

PROJECT
NUMBER
CPD-197

DEVELOPER

CHELSEA

LOCATION
VENTURA BLVD./LAS POSAS

BUILDING
BO.FT.
220,000

BITE/ACRES

30.10 PARKING
1,482
MAP
No.

CPD-221 SHEEHAN CAMARILLO BUSINESS CENTER 17,286 3.53 210 CPD-222 7-11 CARMEN DRIVE 2,394 .50 9 ---
CUP-241 THOMAS CEDAR/VENTURA BLVD. 10,480 .25 14 5
CUP-268 TAFT VENTURA BLVD. 26,682 .36 23
IPD-365 DJM CO. VERDUGO 51,600 2.23 142 --
IPD-366 Dm CO. VERDUGO 13,250 1.77 65 --

SUBTOTAL OF
CPD-69

APPROVED COMMERCIAL

LATERPHASESDF

TEYSSIER

DEVELOPMENTS
ONGDINW MmETiciAL Val NEDDEVELOPIVIENTPERMITS
341,692 38.74 1,945
ADOLFO ROAD 78,440 4.20 305 6
CPD-161 VENTURA PACIFIC CAMARILLO SPRINGS 5,170 7
CPD-171M CHELSEA CAMARILLO CENTER DRIVE 6,344
SUBTOTAL 89,954 4.20 305
9 TOTAL PROJECTS APPROVED 431,646 42.94 2,250

PENDING PROJECTS

Page 5 ends

%
,
,
,....
•
.t,
/
, r - ,
4 .4- 44. ', r ..,--" / .,,,---.) - r ,
r; ? , k , 1..e i %.......,..„.1,„, ,...,-;,--,-- . .,- ir- 11-''' • '. , r-"'. "1 1 1 - .... 1‘.
.1 .3.-•:--- - 7,-7-t--<•=rei: -
• .. '..,,,, I&J IA, , , ,.• ,.. k
' r--- 1 ' , ''..
'-- -,i---, .......-., 0--..1.4.,.. \ 17% 'i C -,..,4", --., 1,..-- ,
...
et( „.......
,L.s.,?.
''' ,..„:• '
.,.. •• te i.. I-6-'t
- iP i1
.... ,
1 i /...tri-f-tz•:-, .,,
,(-
,,'
1 ,-,, ' ... ',,:.--t----:y I j I 1
,..
...'
) L .
i
t•
1-,,
,,",,
..-,
......
1,,
.1..4'ff
i , ..,,
1 ,
City of Camarillo
Departmentof
CommunityDevelopment
'-0
_
-
",
,,,,-
'
,
1 1
.,/ 1
..,
...•. 0
-.,
„,f.
,
J
,
,
i
- :
,
.1-?;f
.
0 ,
,. f.
,
•
-,.. ..,„_,Ag-,....fq 1. -744.•,%..-.,-- , ...,„ -,t-,--,,,...„' • i„ _
L__1-1 • -5:V., Igo `4.,--,I, -44 - r- ,I
i 4

1. m..?_) t t [ .-
,. k,
.,..., t fe
, gi ,,/ t ks
, --, i"--1 411' / tiv.--rill
--, ---, e / .ti-O,V
(z.: i .„. --11,-L lii."-. .%--," ? --,-,--( , y-7-1- '-'i No, - , • ---. ! ,•.„._.- -
!
„,., .
'
.._....
• ...1'..; , .^7n...,--:,` ..?„ 'E.'7:.Y24 ...',,,_-_--r,:,"3.\ Ef,'(.Y 4` ' 4..-- 1 I i i , I
--- %.„,Nr;_:".:-...t . .r IL ... i -''S' 1..: , 7-L1 d,•.:._'_,":1'...''':, ' 42,10.1"-/ , ,,-_-,-, ,..........
, ,,...,...,..., „..,,,,,,
, i .i.-lf,,,-,„ ,..,. .

I
--, '
Comm
ercia l Proj
e
ctsLoca tions
k
401 ., i rp
, __,--.......-.4
k.......'—.. ,
hh
. • „
— r-,-,..`: -i ar ,--v y,......J__,. N, i, ' ..-
1 I:,.-, ,, 'T LL.-
.1, s.._.Li I .,,::•-?.. '---
,.. •,...-
' 1-41 .:
"S"4' ',•r, en.„,...",,
,..-. -1-..(1.- , - ..---- • ....„ .....,
-....",
.,.....----- '
'-'7,•:-../ ., ----,,.. ....L.......... ......4_;_ $
,
1_4--
'. \ .1 i
1 ,
I I I'I I liala
.7.1 i
4r.....:1 '
KT ill.'11P1 eq.'', I
I i k
•v-,,
---4.4
.....
,
ch,
--....,
:7', °4•,.. .....* ' — idri.,---'... ". .:1 --.4"-- ,
—1I • .;,_ .„......‘„ • ..111. -4 f I • I , •
...-.-, T4.1 . ''..,..,;- , .,,,,, -4,.1.412._ I ! 1,
,.... ::,.1 ', , Sk2Qi 1 ',, ' ....1.,:i H i I ., .,."" .,
, bra
' „ if.3.45 T,,,,,...

I co
st i , ;.. , t. , ,.._,.....,
'''' '1,--k.. Fi
F.." ,.. , L ...' . . '-'...... — ,-'..i1.61.7L—....71
i
,
• -, - - • -:,.. -r 1 . .
171. 7- .,,... -',,7.,
.., I I ,.......1 ,.%
" ...
`)\:-.,-4 -.)-.L"' ...--'-":7--1 i • ' 1 D
--+ rr.-,-1,-.7.i. y •-••• —t m
----
.-.---,'
,
..1 .,......
,
-' - ., \ —r1 , , -----"\--- , , •••••1 1 i • , ., /11 ." : ,..i t ‘.-4.15:• • • _,-, . , _,,, , , L
—
,.,••• r... [ 1 --, .......:', ' ,....,. " ,.....,--Y1 1 1 i_.___ ? '' ''1%:.9"1 ..-Ift'",-.,._ eh) i -gi ' —
1 , , j--co f - )
; . s • ......._
. f. , •1 ; PIE STOlact EIVI
+ t i , I ..,,,. ...,_.,_,.../ !,
i -1.-- A. 1 __,N,..-
r 17 i ;.' „
-
c,
,.—.. .
. ..-,,
, -P-
.,
t 4 1
- 1-1 M
0,.. k
., -"*... ...U. :

I .1" .. *I..: fl ',..._,/ ...-. „,....,
.. ..L.,. I Ii , ,,,,,...... ,-; 7-: 11—
s ;,' '_ 41,I ','.. !
Id 1 •cz., 1 i ...._____1
,
..'"
i
.1
)
E
[i---

PROJECT

UMBER DEVELOPER LOCATION
BUILDING. MAP
BO, FT. Sri-EAMES PARKING NO.

NO PROJECTS COMPLETED IN 2005 MI111111111=111

LOCATION
MAP
PARKING No,

BUILDING
SrrElAt.fit.

PROJECT

NUMBER DEVELOPER
CUP-226 LIBRARY LAS POSAS 65,823 10.0 253
CUP-257 YMCA VILLAGE AT THE PARK 13,900 4.98 136 7

TWO PROJECTS UNDER

CONSTRUCTION
79,723 14.98 389

PROJECTS APPROVED
NUMBER DEVELOPER LOCATION BC. FT. SITE/ACRES PARKING NO.

SUBTOTAL OF APPROVED INSTITUTIONAL DEVELOPMENTS - NONE
_LATER PHASES Of *ONGOIN"G. iNST1TUTIOI\IAI_T/E1;t1V1117S CUP-136
SUP-2117M
SLIP-2714M

UPLAND ROAD

LOMA DRIVE

TEMPLE AVENUE
45,108
9,520
17,732

SUBTOTAL OF ONGOING INSTITUTIONAL PERMITS
3 TOTAL PROJECTS APPROVED

PADRE SERRA

PEACE LUTHERAN

FIRST BAPTIST CHURCH
2 72,360
72,360

PENDING PROJECTS

NO PROJECTS PENDING

PROJECT BUILDING MAP
N.LIMBER DEVELOPER LOCATION SO. FT. SITE/ACRES PARKING NO.

CITY OF CAMARILLO
Comn2imity Development Deparvnent Month* Report December 20W'

INSTITUTIONAL AND OTHER
PROJECTS COMPLETED SINCE JANUARY 1, 2005

PROJECTS UNDER CONSTRUCTION
INSTITUTIONAL AND OTHER - TOTAL 5 PROJECTS 152,083 14.98 389

Page 7 ends

a cti
2 6 4

Page 10 ends

CITY OF CAMARILLO
COmmunity Development Department Mont* ,Report December 2005

RESIDENTIAL
CONSTRUCTION COMPLETED SINCE JANUARY 1, 2005
T-3318 BELLA VISTA LOTS 16,18
T-4103 GARNIDALE LOT 79 1 3 1
T-4104 CALLE DIA LOT 8 1 3 1
T-4227 SPANISH HILLS LOTS 9,80, 123, 155 4 13 6
T-5189 MULBERRY PLACE LOTS 1, 21-38, 43-46, 51-57, 64-68 65 208 7 LOTS 2-14, 16-20, 22, 23, 25, 28-30, 33, 34, 37,
38, 41,49, 66, 68, 73, 79 T-5248 THE PINNACLE 35 112 3
T-5367 ADDISON LANE LOTS 2-4, 6-26, 35-49 39 125 13
LOTS 50-60, 67-71, 86-88, 99-116, 125-158,
167-170, 180-184 T-5367 EASTON CROSSING 109 349 13
LOTS 2-12, 14-32, 36, 40-43, 45-48, 50 , 55-60,
69-72,74-79, 81-102 T-5368 CEDAR CREEK 80 256 13
LOTS 1-12, 14-16, 22-40, 43-47, 49, 50,61-67,
77-94,96-108, 110-118, 120-132 T-5369 HAMPTON ROAD 101 323 13 T-5403 MULBERRY PLACE LOTS 1-4, 6-10 14 45 14
T-5409 COURTYARDS LOTS 4-6, 24-27 7 22 9
T-5412 CAMDEN LOTS 1-11, 13,16-23 21 67 13
T-5414 JET-SKI LOTS 1-6 6 19 10
T-5477 CAMDEN Lurs 1-24 24 77 13
T-5486 WICKFORD LOTS 101-124, 161-176, 178-196, 221-238 76 190 13 LD-289 MENTA LANE LOT 1 1 3 15
LD-421 AVOCADO LOT C 1 3 12
CUP-227 LING APARTMENTS 5 13 16
2ND DWELLING UNITS VARIOUS 6 9
TOTAL DWELLINGS COMPLETED SINCE JANUARY 1, 2005 598 1,846 CITY OF: CAWLRILLO
Community Development Department: Monthly. Repoli' December 200,5 LEGEND

SFD SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING COMP COMPLETED

ASFD ATTACHED SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING U/C UNDER CONSTRUCTION COND CONDOMINIUMS REM. REMAINING
TOWNH TOWNHOUSES POP. POPULATION
MH MOBILEHOME ALLOT. ALLOTMENTS
APT APARTMENT EX. EXEMPT

LS LOT SALES (SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE)

APPROVED - UNDER CONSTRUCTION - DEVELOPMENT ALLOTMENTS
JeCt
<4,
1-:
[1) ,0 Y .0,P, S
o , In TI ac 0
1 T-3318
i BELLA VISTA
LS 64 48 13 3 51 64 '85 32
'84 32 3 0 4
1-3990/ LA MARINA
LS 15 13 2 I 1-4372 • 0 6 15
'86 12
'853
EX 1
0 0
I T-4104-1
,GARNIDALE
• 1 HILLS

KESHMESHIAN
LS 16 11 1 4 16 16 '88 16 4 0 1
I T-4227
'SPANISH HILLS
LS/SFD 156 153 1 2 10. 156
'92 29
'91 90
'90 25
2 0 6
I T-5189
II RPD-147

MULBERRY PL
PARDEE
SFD 68 66 2 0 6 68 '00 72 0 0 7
I T-5248

THE PI NNACLE
TOLL BROS.

SFD 99 94 5 0 16 99 '01 99 0 0 3
T-5572/
1 RPD-170 CONDOS
I/

DR HORTON
BROOKSHIRE 189 0 0 189 473 189 0597
06 99 189 0 13
1-5572
CUP-279
DR HoFiroN
MIXED USE 13 0 0 13 33 13 06 13 13 0 13
I 1-5367/
RPD-155
LENNAR

ADDISON LIN
SFD
82 39 43 0 138 82
Ex 3
.03 134
04 47
05 64
06 19
0 0 13
1 T5367/ -
I RPD-155

STANDARD PACIFIC

EASTOIN CROSSING
SFD
188 109 7 72 253 188 72
T
I
-5368/
RPD-156

WESTERN PACIFIC
'CEDAR CREEK
SFD
174 102 31 '41 138 174
Ex 3
03 133
06 38
41 0 13
T-5369/
I RPD-157

DR HORTON

HAMPTON ROADS
SFD
228 101 75 52 406 228
03 133
05 30
06 59
46 6 13
T-5403/
RPD-160
I MULBERRY PL.

PARDEE
SFD 19 14 5 0 16 19 05 80 0 0 14
1-5407

TRIMARK PACIFIC

TUSCAN GROVE
SFD
10 0 10 0 32 10 04 10 0 0 8
L-5409/ RPD-162
-

PINNACLE

COURTYARDS
SFD
35 7 28 0 90 35 EX 6
04 29 0 0 9

Page 12 ends

4.4 •—•
..,--*
.q:'( t-- • .? iliL._ ,,
l'.' -,
..71,..4 .F.,'-.• --4-,.,
...7,_. --'-4--
.,=t.....--,.,...._,.,.., A_,. .- 1
114gturip) — ,•••-•, f, '; ; I 1! Ill . .1._ i T
C-,... „r-,A.1'; ""--•••••,,,,.: "` '; -4 r•-1 I I .
-0,'' -.1--
,
,..1,,,..„ 1".. , i I T HT-
,
x.
'-'1:• • '-1-71 ,-.'",......; ''''' • ''; 0•- 'LAI •
e'7; \
.C.. '1'4.
..A 'rrrfr..!. ' 1.7
........, % 4 "....':...". A '''. C,i
i 1" 1. ,.,....,,,,
5 '-' '----`11,
' ‘`
-**
\
j. L.- V;C'-•,"
pw Bra sin

1..61
• 11
f'
• 1.1
••••.•
WO?
1••=1:
'•we
• 1...1
TV2
/
:•••
•
I
nmoxexmloo.... vccew %.14040.ttC moxeumgm...........*.zem.loo., • ecc,

APPROVED AND PENDING PROJECTS - TRIP GENERATION WORKSHEET Associated Transportation Engineers
Trip Generation Worksheet - With In/Out Splits
CAMARILLO COMMERCIAL PROJECT #05173

APPROVED/UNDER CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS TRIP GENERATION
Project Land Pass-by ADT A.M. P.M.

Number Use Size Factor Rate Trips Rate Trips In % Trips Out % Trips Rate Trips In % Trips Out % Trips IPD-363 Industr 49,163 1.00 6.97 343 0.92 45 88% 40 12% 5 0.98 48 12% 6 88% 42 IPD-301 Indust. 79,461 1.00 6.97 554 0.92 73 88% 64 12% 9 0.98 78 12% 9 88% 69 PD-352 Indust'. 79,846 1.00 6.97 557 0.92 73 88% 64 12% 9 0.98 78 12% 9 88% 69 IPD-370 Indust'. 129,000 1.00 6.97 899 0.92 119 88% 105 12% 14 0.98 126 12% 15 88% 111 Centex Indust- 290,000 1.00 6.97 2,021 0.92 267 88% 235 12% 32 0.98 284 12% 34 88% 250 CPD-220 Jiffy Lube 18,174 0.70 120 9 6 3 16 9 7
CPD-216 Office 39,822 1.00 20.26 807 2.41 96 88% 84 12% 12 2.34 93 17% 16 83% 77 CPD-221 Office 17,286 1.00 20.26 350 2.41 42 88% 37 12% 5 2.34 40 17% 7 83% 33 CPD-197 Outlet* 220,000 0.70 5,975 125 80 45 560 280 280 CPD-171M Comm 6,344 0.70 40.00 178 0.89 4 73% 3 27% 1 3.76 17 47% 8 53% 9 Marriott Hotel** 220 1.00 10.00 2,200 0.60 132 60% 79 40% 53 0.80 176 60% 106 40% 70 CUP-226 Library 65,823 1.00 40.45 2,663 1.24 82 72% 59 28% 23 5.62 370 48% 178 52% 192 CUP-136 Church 45,108 1.00 9.32 420 1.38 62 54% 33 46% 29 1.42 64 52% 33 48% 31 SUP-2714M Church 17,732 1.00 9.32 165 1.38 24 54% 13 46% 11 1.42 25 52% 13 48% 12 Project Total: 17,252 1,153 902 251 1,975 723 1,252
* Rates and traffic volumes derived from ATE #03077.
** Rates per room for land use Hotel w/Convention Facilities/Restaurant in SANDAG.

SPRINGVILLE DRIVE INTERCHANGE - PROJECT LAYOUT
LOCATION MAP - Not to Seale

PROJECT DETAIL

CITY OF CAMARILLO
2005-2010 CAPITALIMPROVEMENT PROGRAM

APPENDIX B -

GREENHOUSE GAS ANALYSIS

CALCULATION DATA
Final Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration 2016-1 B Ventura County, Annual
Amara Shopping Center

1.1 Land Usage
Land Uses Size Metric Lot Acreage Floor Surface Area Population Regional Shopping Center 499.00 1000sqft 44.84 499,000.00 0

1.2 Other Project Characteristics
Urbanization
Climate Zone
Urban
8 Wind Speed (m/s) 2.6 Precipitation Freq (Days) 31

1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data

1.0 Project Characteristics
Utility Company Southern California Edison
Operational Year 2020
CO2 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
630.89 CH4 Intensity 0.029
(lb/MWhr)
N2O Intensity 0.006
(lb/MWhr)
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 1 of 23 Date: 3/8/2016 10:50 AM Project Characteristics -
Land Use - Assumes 499,000 square feet of commercial building space at the 44.84-acre project site.

Construction Phase -
Off-road Equipment - Assumes no construction equipment since construction emissions are not calculated for this analysis.

Trips and VMT - Assumes no construction worker or vendor trips since construction emissions are not calculated for this analysis.

Vehicle Trips - Trip generation rates have been revised to be consistent with the rates identified in the approved Traffic and Circulation Study.

Area Coating - Assumes a maximum VOC emission factor of 50 g/L.

Water And Wastewater - Assumes 100% aerobic wastewater treatment.

Land Use Change -
Sequestration - Assumes the planting of 83 pine trees and 750 misc trees per the proposed landscape plan.

Energy Mitigation - Assumes a minimum 15% building energy efficiency per the current CalGreen Code.

Water Mitigation - Assumes a 90% reduction in outdoor water use due to proposed water conservation strategies.

Waste Mitigation - Assumes a 79% reduction in solid waste per current city efforts.

CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 2 of 23 Date: 3/8/2016 10:50 AM

2.0 Emissions Summary
Table Name Column Name Default Value New Value
tblAreaCoating Area_EF_Nonresidential_Exterior 250 50
tblAreaCoating Area_EF_Nonresidential_Interior 250 50
tblAreaMitigation UseLowVOCPaintNonresidentialExteriorV alue
50 250
tblLandUse LotAcreage 11.46 44.84
tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 1.00 0.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 3.00 0.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 1.00 0.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 3.00 0.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 1.00 0.00 tblProjectCharacteristics OperationalYear 2014 2020
tblSequestration NumberOfNewTrees 0.00 83.00
tblSequestration NumberOfNewTrees 0.00 750.00
tblTripsAndVMT VendorTripNumber 82.00 0.00
tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripNumber 160.00 0.00
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 49.97 44.97
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 25.24 22.72
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 42.94 38.69
tblWater AerobicPercent 87.46 100.00
tblWater AnaerobicandFacultativeLagoonsPercent 2.21 0.00 tblWater SepticTankPercent 10.33 0.00
tblWaterMitigation UseWaterEfficientIrrigationSystemPercen tReduction

6.1 90
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 3 of 23 Date: 3/8/2016 10:50 AM

2.1 Overall Construction
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Year tons/yr MT/yr
2017 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 2018 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 2019 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Unmitigated Construction
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Year tons/yr MT/yr
2017 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 2018 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 2019 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Mitigated Construction
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 4 of 23 Date: 3/8/2016 10:50 AM

2.2 Overall Operational
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Area 2.0649 4.0000e0054.6100e0030.0000 2.0000e0052.0000e0052.0000e0052.0000e0050.0000 8.9200e0038.9200e0032.0000e0050.0000 9.4200e003 Energy 5.5200e0030.0501 0.0421 3.0000e0043.8100e0033.8100e0033.8100e0033.8100e0030.0000 1,882.393 7 1,882.393
7 0.0851 0.0184 1,889.879
0 Mobile 8.1320 15.0929 67.7994 0.1716 12.3083 0.1992 12.5076 3.2861 0.1839 3.4699 0.0000 11,972.47 81 11,972.47
81 0.4540 0.0000 11,982.01
15 Waste 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 106.3571 0.0000 106.3571 6.2855 0.0000 238.3532 Water 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 13.0773 209.7527 222.8300 0.0547 0.0304 233.4121 Total 10.2024 15.1431 67.8461 0.1719 12.3083 0.2031 12.5114 3.2861 0.1877 3.4737 119.4344 14,064.63 34 14,184.06
78 6.8792 0.0488 14,343.66
52 Unmitigated Operational
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e
Percent
Reduction

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 5 of 23 Date: 3/8/2016 10:50 AM

2.2 Overall Operational
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Area 2.0649 4.0000e0054.6100e0030.0000 2.0000e0052.0000e0052.0000e0052.0000e0050.0000 8.9200e0038.9200e0032.0000e0050.0000 9.4200e003 Energy 5.1100e0030.0465 0.0390 2.8000e0043.5300e0033.5300e0033.5300e0033.5300e0030.0000 1,664.203 5 1,664.203
5 0.0751 0.0163 1,670.826
3 Mobile 8.1320 15.0929 67.7994 0.1716 12.3083 0.1992 12.5076 3.2861 0.1839 3.4699 0.0000 11,972.47 81 11,972.47
81 0.4540 0.0000 11,982.01
15 Waste 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 22.3350 0.0000 22.3350 1.3200 0.0000 50.0542 Water 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 13.0773 204.4217 217.4990 0.0544 0.0304 228.0603 Total 10.2020 15.1394 67.8430 0.1719 12.3083 0.2028 12.5111 3.2861 0.1874 3.4735 35.4123 13,841.11 22 13,876.52
45 1.9035 0.0467 13,930.96
16 Mitigated Operational
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e
Percent
Reduction

0.00 0.02 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.14 0.00 0.00 0.15 0.01 70.35 1.59 2.17 72.33 4.43 2.88 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 6 of 23 Date: 3/8/2016 10:50 AM

3.0 Construction Detail

2.3 Vegetation
CO2e
Category MT
New Trees 583.9540
Total 583.9540
Vegetation
Construction Phase
Phase
Number
Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Num Days
Week
Num Days Phase Description
1 Building Construction Building Construction 1/1/2017 11/1/2019 5 740 OffRoad Equipment
Residential Indoor: 0; Residential Outdoor: 0; Non-Residential Indoor: 0; Non-Residential Outdoor: 0 (Architectural Coating – sqft) Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 0
Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 0
Acres of Paving: 0
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 7 of 23 Date: 3/8/2016 10:50 AM

3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction
Phase Name Offroad Equipment Type Amount Usage Hours Horse Power Load Factor Building Construction Cranes 0 7.00 226 0.29
Building Construction Forklifts 0 8.00 89 0.20
Building Construction Generator Sets 0 8.00 84 0.74
Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 0 7.00 97 0.37 Building Construction Welders 0 8.00 46 0.45
Trips and VMT
Phase Name Offroad Equipment
Count
Worker Trip
Number
Vendor Trip
Number
Hauling Trip
Number
Worker Trip
Length
Vendor Trip
Length
Hauling Trip
Length
Worker Vehicle
Class
Vendor
Vehicle Class
Hauling
Vehicle Class
Building Construction 9 0.00 0.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 8 of 23 Date: 3/8/2016 10:50 AM

3.2 Building Construction - 2017
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 9 of 23 Date: 3/8/2016 10:50 AM

3.2 Building Construction - 2018
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 11 of 23 Date: 3/8/2016 10:50 AM

3.2 Building Construction - 2019
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 13 of 23 Date: 3/8/2016 10:50 AM

4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Mitigated 8.1320 15.0929 67.7994 0.1716 12.3083 0.1992 12.5076 3.2861 0.1839 3.4699 0.0000 11,972.47 81 11,972.47
81 0.4540 0.0000 11,982.01
15 Unmitigated 8.1320 15.0929 67.7994 0.1716 12.3083 0.1992 12.5076 3.2861 0.1839 3.4699 0.0000 11,972.47 81 11,972.47
81 0.4540 0.0000 11,982.01
15 4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile

4.2 Trip Summary Information

4.3 Trip Type Information
Average Daily Trip Rate Unmitigated Mitigated
Land Use Weekday Saturday Sunday Annual VMT Annual VMT
Regional Shopping Center 19,306.31 22,440.03 11337.28 32,638,736 32,638,736 Total 19,306.31 22,440.03 11,337.28 32,638,736 32,638,736 Miles Trip % Trip Purpose %
Land Use H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW Primary Diverted Pass-by Regional Shopping Center 9.50 7.30 7.30 16.30 64.70 19.00 54 35 11

5.0 Energy Detail

5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy
Exceed Title 24
Install High Efficiency Lighting

4.4 Fleet Mix
LDA LDT1 LDT2 MDV LHD1 LHD2 MHD HHD OBUS UBUS MCY SBUS MH

0.475060 0.062670 0.180903 0.157882 0.069305 0.010127 0.013604 0.017861 0.000759 0.000687 0.005630 0.000316 0.005195 Historical Energy Use: N
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 15 of 23 Date: 3/8/2016 10:50 AM ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Electricity
Mitigated

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 1,613.609
2 1,613.609
2 0.0742 0.0154 1,619.924
1 Electricity
Unmitigated

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 1,827.805
2 1,827.805
2 0.0840 0.0174 1,834.958
3 NaturalGas
Mitigated

5.1100e0030.0465 0.0390 2.8000e0043.5300e0033.5300e0033.5300e0033.5300e0030.0000 50.5942 50.5942 9.7000e0049.3000e00450.9021 NaturalGas
Unmitigated

5.5200e0030.0501 0.0421 3.0000e0043.8100e0033.8100e0033.8100e0033.8100e0030.0000 54.5885 54.5885 1.0500e0031.0000e00354.9207

1.02295e
+006

5.5200e0030.0501 0.0421 3.0000e0043.8100e0033.8100e0033.8100e0033.8100e0030.0000 54.5885 54.5885 1.0500e0031.0000e00354.9207 Total 5.5200e0030.0501 0.0421 3.0000e0043.8100e0033.8100e0033.8100e0033.8100e0030.0000 54.5885 54.5885 1.0500e0031.0000e00354.9207 Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 16 of 23 Date: 3/8/2016 10:50 AM

5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas
NaturalGa
s Use
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kBTU/yr tons/yr MT/yr
Regional
Shopping Center
948100 5.1100e0030.0465 0.0390 2.8000e0043.5300e0033.5300e0033.5300e0033.5300e0030.0000 50.5942 50.5942 9.7000e0049.3000e00450.9021 Total 5.1100e0030.0465 0.0390 2.8000e0043.5300e0033.5300e0033.5300e0033.5300e0030.0000 50.5942 50.5942 9.7000e0049.3000e00450.9021 Mitigated

5.3 Energy by Land Use - Electricity
Electricity
Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kWh/yr MT/yr
Regional
Shopping Center

6.3872e
+006
1,827.805
2 0.0840 0.0174 1,834.958
3 Total 1,827.805
2 0.0840 0.0174 1,834.958
3 Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 17 of 23 Date: 3/8/2016 10:50 AM

6.1 Mitigation Measures Area

6.0 Area Detail
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Mitigated 2.0649 4.0000e0054.6100e0030.0000 2.0000e0052.0000e0052.0000e0052.0000e0050.0000 8.9200e0038.9200e0032.0000e0050.0000 9.4200e003 Unmitigated 2.0649 4.0000e0054.6100e0030.0000 2.0000e0052.0000e0052.0000e0052.0000e0050.0000 8.9200e0038.9200e0032.0000e0050.0000 9.4200e003

5.3 Energy by Land Use - Electricity
Electricity
Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kWh/yr MT/yr
Regional
Shopping Center

5.6387e
+006
1,613.609
2 0.0742 0.0154 1,619.924
1 Total 1,613.609
2 0.0742 0.0154 1,619.924
1 Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 18 of 23 Date: 3/8/2016 10:50 AM

7.0 Water Detail

6.2 Area by SubCategory
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
SubCategory tons/yr MT/yr
Architectural
Coating

0.1156 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Consumer
Products

1.9488 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Landscaping 4.3000e0044.0000e0054.6100e0030.0000 2.0000e0052.0000e0052.0000e0052.0000e0050.0000 8.9200e0038.9200e0032.0000e0050.0000 9.4200e003 Total 2.0649 4.0000e0054.6100e0030.0000 2.0000e0052.0000e0052.0000e0052.0000e0050.0000 8.9200e0038.9200e0032.0000e0050.0000 9.4200e003 Unmitigated
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
SubCategory tons/yr MT/yr
Architectural
Coating

0.1156 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Consumer
Products

1.9488 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Landscaping 4.3000e0044.0000e0054.6100e0030.0000 2.0000e0052.0000e0052.0000e0052.0000e0050.0000 8.9200e0038.9200e0032.0000e0050.0000 9.4200e003 Total 2.0649 4.0000e0054.6100e0030.0000 2.0000e0052.0000e0052.0000e0052.0000e0050.0000 8.9200e0038.9200e0032.0000e0050.0000 9.4200e003 Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 19 of 23 Date: 3/8/2016 10:50 AM Apply Water Conservation Strategy
Install Low Flow Bathroom Faucet
Install Low Flow Toilet
Use Water Efficient Irrigation System

7.1 Mitigation Measures Water
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category MT/yr
Mitigated 217.4990 0.0544 0.0304 228.0603
Unmitigated 222.8300 0.0547 0.0304 233.4121

7.2 Water by Land Use
Indoor/
Outdoor
Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use Mgal MT/yr
Regional
Shopping Center

36.9622 /

22.6542
222.8300 0.0547 0.0304 233.4121
Total 222.8300 0.0547 0.0304 233.4121
Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 20 of 23 Date: 3/8/2016 10:50 AM

8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste
Institute Recycling and Composting Services

7.2 Water by Land Use
Indoor/
Outdoor
Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use Mgal MT/yr
Regional
Shopping Center

36.9622 /

22.6542
217.4990 0.0544 0.0304 228.0603
Total 217.4990 0.0544 0.0304 228.0603
Mitigated

8.0 Waste Detail
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
MT/yr
Mitigated 22.3350 1.3200 0.0000 50.0542
Unmitigated 106.3571 6.2855 0.0000 238.3532
Category/Year
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 21 of 23 Date: 3/8/2016 10:50 AM

8.2 Waste by Land Use
Waste
Disposed
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use tons MT/yr
Regional
Shopping Center
523.95 106.3571 6.2855 0.0000 238.3532
Total 106.3571 6.2855 0.0000 238.3532
Unmitigated
Waste
Disposed
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use tons MT/yr
Regional
Shopping Center
110.029 22.3350 1.3200 0.0000 50.0542
Total 22.3350 1.3200 0.0000 50.0542
Mitigated

9.0 Operational Offroad
Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Days/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 22 of 23 Date: 3/8/2016 10:50 AM

10.0 Vegetation
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category MT
Unmitigated 583.9540 0.0000 0.0000 583.9540

10.2 Net New Trees
Number of
Trees
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
MT
Miscellaneous 750 531.0000 0.0000 0.0000 531.0000
Pine 83 52.9540 0.0000 0.0000 52.9540
Total 583.9540 0.0000 0.0000 583.9540
Species Class
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 23 of 23 Date: 3/8/2016 10:50 AM

APPENDIX C -

TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION STUDY

FOR THE

SPRINGVILLE COMMERCIAL PROJECT
Final Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration 2016-1 C

SPRINGVILLE COMMERCIAL PROJECT

CITY OF CAMARILLO, CALIFORNIA

TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION STUDY
DRArT
August 27, 2014 ATE Project #14054
Prepared for:

Cadence Environmental Consultants
816 Sausalito Drive
Camarillo, CA 93010

ASSOCIATED TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS
100 N. Hope Avenue, Suite 4, Santa Barbara, CA 93110 • (805) 687-4418 • FAX (805) 682-8509 August 27, 2014
Michael Brown
Cadence Environmental Consultants
816 Sausalito Drive
Camarillo, CA 93010

TRAFFIC & CIRCULATION STUDY FOR THE

SPRINGVILLE COMMERCIAL PROJECT, CITY OF CAMARILLO, CALIFORNIA Associated Transportation Engineers (ATE) is pleased to submit this traffic and circulation report for the Springville Commercial Project, proposed in the City of Camarillo. The study provides information relative to existing and future traffic conditions within the project study area. We appreciate the opportunity to assist Cadence Environmental Consultants with the project. Please contact our office if you have any questions or comments regarding the contents of the study.

Associated Transportation Engineers
Scott A. Schell, AICP, PTP
Principal Transportation Planner

CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION 1
PROJECT DESCRIPTION 1
STUDY AREA 1
TRAFFIC SCEANRIOS 4
CITY OF CAMARILLO TRAFFIC IMPACT THRESHOLDS 5
EXISTING CONDITIONS 5
Street Network 5
Intersection Operations 6
PROJECT TRIP GENERATION 9
Trip Generation 9
Trip Distribution and Assignment 10
EXISTING + PROJECT CONDITIONS 12
Intersection Impacts 12
EXISTING + APPROVED + PROJECT CONDITIONS 15
Intersection Impacts 15
SITE ACCESS 19
GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT CONDITIONS 22
Trip Generation 22
Traffic Forecasts 23
Intersection Impacts 26
Traffic Fees 27
POTENTIAL IMPACTS TO VENTURA COUNTY FACILITIES 27
Impacts 28
Mitigation Measures 29
STUDY PARTICIPANTS AND REFERENCES 30
TECHNICAL APPENDIX 31
i
TABLES
Table 1 Study-Area Intersections 4
Table 2 Level of Service Grades 6
Table 3 Existing Levels of Service 9
Table 4 Project Trip Generation 15
Table 5 Project Trip Distribution 12
Table 6 Existing + Project Levels of Service —A.M. Peak Hour 14 Table 7 Existing + Project Levels of Service — P.M. Peak Hour 14 Table 8 Existing + Approved + Project Levels of Service — A.M. Peak Hour 18 Table 9 Existing + Approved + Project Levels of Service — P.M. Peak Hour 18 Table 10 Existing + Approved + Project Levels of Service — Project Intersections 19 Table 11 General Plan Buildout Trip Generation Comparison 22 Table 12 General Plan Buildout + Project Levels of Service —A.M. Peak Hour 26 Table 13 General Plan Buildout + Project Levels of Service — P.M. Peak Hour 27 Table 14 Los Posas Road/Pleasant Valley Road Levels of Service 28 Table 15 Santa Clara Avenue/Central Avenue Levels of Service 28

FIGURES
Figure 1 Project Site Location/Existing Street Network 2 Figure 2 Project Site Plan 3
Figure 3 Existing Lane Geometries and Traffic Controls 7 Figure 4 Existing Traffic Volumes 8
Figure 5 Project Trip Distribution and Assignment 11
Figure 6 Existing + Project Traffic Volumes 13
Figure 7 Existing + Approved Traffic Volumes 16
Figure 8 Existing + Approved + Project Traffic Volumes 17 Figure 9 Existing + Approved + Project Driveway Volumes 20 Figure 10 General Plan Buildout Traffic Volumes 24
Figure 11 General Plan Buildout + Project Traffic Volumes 25

INTRODUCTION
The following study contains an analysis of the potential traffic and circulation impacts associated with Springville Commercial Project (the "Project") proposed in the City of Camarillo. The guidelines set forth in the City's Traffic Impact Study manual were utilized in formatting the various sections of this study. Potential impacts are assessed for the Project using City impact criteria and mitigation measures are recommended where appropriate. The study also includes an analysis of the proposed site access connections to the adjacent streets.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The Project site is located on the southwest quadrant of the U.S. 101/Springville Drive interchange, as shown on Figure 1. The applicant is proposing a general plan amendment to change the zoning from industrial to allow for commercial uses. Figure 2 illustrates the Project Site Plan. Parcels A, B, C, and E are proposed to be rezoned from industrial to commercial and developed with 268,500 SF commercial uses. Parcels D and F would retain the existing industrial zoning and could be developed with a total of 149,075 SF of industrial uses and 49,692 SF of office space.

Primary access for Parcels A, B, C, D, and E would be provided by the B Street connection to Springville Drive on the site's eastern frontage and the A Street connection to West Ventura Boulevard on the site's southern frontage (see Project Site Plan). Access for Parcel A would also be provided via driveways that connect to West Ventura Boulevard along the western frontage of the site. Access for Parcel F, located on the south side of West Ventura Boulevard, would be provided via a driveway connection on West Ventura Boulevard opposite A Street.

STUDY AREA
Table 1 lists the intersections that were selected for the impact analysis. The study-area intersections were determined through consultation with City's Department of Public Works staff. The Project's access connections to Springville Drive and West Ventura Boulevard are also analyzed in the study (see Site Access).

Springville Commercial Project Associated Transportation Engineers Traffic and Circulation Study - 1 - August 27, 2014
0 Las Posas Road
St VenturaB
Springville Dr.

W. Ventura Blvd.
0-•
CP'
Springville Commercial Project
Traffic and Circulation Study - 2 -

PROJECT SITE LOCATION/EXISTING STREET NETWORK T RANSPORTATION Associated Transportation Engineers
August 27, 2014
MMF - #140
Li!
54 LT
LcAr'- 54'M wN
ECtii CJ '
no w T. ,orn,, SI — N _fj,I 513CU ° 'CR - CEA `1.1 i .° 'i' ; 17i IF 71 'E r. Ir' ',6 3'. 3,! , 4C- „..'F'61 U 1 y: g 3 mrrl 1 h... 02 , . . 0 ,,,,n .0,
. 0 It § .
g
- ,,,, : d u:
83' =3 [I .0
st,
k
,li h w
k g . cil E 2 2 2 IT Tr, P. i . LO-bc 1 1 @ 1 .3 3.
0 -ig cc
cc .I9 .'
.s 15
'5 cC un m 2 t,
2 11.11EN Pt
GC Fo37. VC I— aulc CO
a)
rcil Cgg Ci FF39 k ,,,g
g 1 0, ,,9 -as !i' ,; 5. A 1 g 0, 0- 2 CD
a 1 1` -3 )I I' 1 1
o _ c 0 g R 0 .T9b 5 .1F3
6 i :2 1 i zenkan aco cLE-g ml LOP a e 3 m o_co 332 P. 3 m P12 39 12 g
Project Statis
tics
ili ii
li' i i q iii, li /),.

II! ;:plii );
a
1/1 III)I
iiiliil
V li 1 1,1/1/1
IP Ih
li/111 !i ,i 0 , ll l
I Iii i , 1
ill HP; I
,i !ill ii ,
Ii JO il l
1111P I
I ii IPi ;
q i1
•
ill 1111
l
ijii Ilv;
ig lilf
1, tit
i f I
og iti;;,
,, / ft;
!I
ii 0, 1 f' li 11
I/
i /
hh Oi i!,i / :i 1
11 ' .i II
j Vril jj j i Y cl ij 1 co
0 I ID3)1180 RTIIAON12IdS

PROJECT SITE PLAN
grxrt c-trd.jl-Q

6. :[1:11:0:411:11:[1:1i11:1110
41:1:1:1:1:31:VIMEMIN
011:1:1:1:11:1E1:1:1:11:1:1:110:111t1:1:1:1:11[1::11)
'
OEMINI:MR11111:13TE2D
I I ult1:1:1:1:1:1t:1:11:1:1:1:r11:D
• 411:,11:1:111:111:0 1
vaniu5a1S3A/7
4TION
Springville Commercial Project
Traffic and Circulation Study - 3 -
Associated Transportation Engineers
August 27, 2014
Table 1
Study-Area Intersections
City of Camarillo
U.S. 101 Northbound Ramps/Central Avenue
U.S. 101 Southbound Ramps/Central Avenue
Las Posas Road/Earl Joseph Drive
Las Posas Road/Ponderosa Drive
Las Posas Road/Daily Drive
U.S. 101 Northbound Ramps/Las Posas Road
U.S. 101 Southbound Ramps/Las Posas Road
Las Posas Road/Ventura Boulevard
U.S. 101 Northbound Ramps/Springville Drive
U.S. 101 Southbound Ramps/Springville Drive
Springville Drive/West Ventura Boulevard
County of Ventura
Central Avenue/Santa Clara Avenue
Las Posas Road/Pleasant Valley Road

TRAFFIC SCENARIOS
The traffic and circulation study analyzes the following scenarios:

Existing Conditions: This scenario describes the existing street network and assesses peak hour operations at the study-area intersections.

Existing + Project Conditions: This scenario assesses potential traffic impacts related to the proposed Project assuming Existing + Project traffic forecasts. Potential impacts are determined using the City's impact thresholds.

Existing + Approved: This scenario assesses traffic operations assuming the additional traffic that will be generated by the approved development projects in the area.

Existing + Approved + Project: This scenario assesses impacts for the Project assuming the Existing + Approved traffic volume forecasts. Traffic volumes generated by the Project are layered onto the Existing + Approved traffic forecasts and potential impacts are determined using the City's impact thresholds.

General Plan Buildout: This scenario analyzes the Project's potential to generate impacts assuming buildout of the City's General Plan.

Springville Commercial Project Associated Transportation Engineers Traffic and Circulation Study - 4 - August 27, 2014

CITY OF CAMARILLO TRAFFIC IMPACT THRESHOLDS
The City's acceptable level of service for intersections is LOS C or better, with LOS D allowed for short periods of time during peak hour periods. Project impacts are significant and must be mitigated if they exceed the following thresholds:
• 30 per lane peak hour critical movement trips for LOS D • 20 per lane peak hour critical movement trips for LOS E • 10 per lane peak hour critical movement trips for LOS F Mitigation measures should provide a level of service equal or better than baseline conditions.

EXISTING CONDITIONS
Street Network
The project site is served by a circulation system comprised of highways, arterial streets, and collector streets, as illustrated on Figure 1. The following text briefly describes the key components of the study-area street network.

U.S. 101, located directly north of the Project site, is a multi-lane freeway which serves as a major arterial for the City and is the principal inter-city route along this portion of the Pacific Coast. Although it is a north-south highway in the State freeway system, U.S. 101 is aligned in the east-west direction in the vicinity of the Project site. U.S. 101 is 6-lanes wide north and south of the Springville Drive interchange.

Las Posas Road, located east of the Project, is classified as a Secondary Arterial street north of Ponderosa Drive and a Primary Arterial south of Ponderosa Drive. Las Posas Road extends westerly from Lewis Road in Camarillo and then proceeds southerly to its terminus at State Route 1 adjacent to Point Mugu State Park.

Ponderosa Drive, located north of U.S. 101, is a Secondary Arterial that extends east and west of Las Posas Road.

Daily Drive is an east-west Major Collector street that provides access to the commercial and residential areas located along the northern frontage of U.S. 101 between Las Posas Road and Lewis Road.

West Ventura Boulevard, located along the southern frontage of the Project site, is an east-west Secondary Arterial roadway that parallels the south side of U.S. 101. Along the western frontage of the Project, West Ventura Boulevard is a north-south Major Collector street.

Springville Commercial Project Associated Transportation Engineers Traffic and Circulation Study - 5 - August 27, 2014
Central Avenue is a two-lane rural arterial that extends northwest from U.S. 101 to Vineyard Avenue (State Route 232) in the unincorporated area of Ventura County.

Intersection Operations
Since traffic flow on roadway networks is most constrained at intersections, detailed traffic flow analysis examine the operating conditions of critical intersections during peak travel periods. "Level of Service" (LOS) A through F are used to rate traffic operations, with LOS A indicating very good operating conditions and LOS F indicating poor conditions. Table 2 shows the level of service grades for intersections.

Table 2
Level of Service Grades
LOS ICU Definition
A 0.00 - 0.60 Conditions of free unobstructed flow with little or no delay.

B 0.61 - 0.70 Conditions of stable flow with very little delay.

C 0.71 - 0.80 Conditions of stable flow with delays low to moderate.

D 0.81 - 0.90 Conditions approaching unstable flow with moderate to heavy delays.

E 0.91 - 1.00 Conditions of unstable flow with significant delay.

F > 1.00 Conditions of forced flow with volumes well above capacity.

Figure 3 shows the existing lane geometries and traffic controls at the study-area intersections.

Traffic counts were collected at the study-area intersections on Wednesday, July 23, 2014.

Figure 4 shows the Existing A.M. and P.M. peak hour traffic volumes.

The City's Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) methodology was used to calculate levels of service for the signalized intersections in the study area. Levels of service were calculated for the stop-sign controlled intersections at the U.S. 101/Central Avenue interchange using the methodologies outlined in the Highway Capacity Manual.1 Each movement that is required to stop or yield has a level of service rating and there is an overall level of service rating for stopsign controlled intersections. Pursuant to HCM methods, vehicle delays were measured in the field and levels of service are reported based on the average seconds of delay per vehicle for the stop and yield movements. Existing levels of service are shown in Table 3 (level of service calculations are contained in the Technical Appendix for reference).

Highway Capacity Manual, Transportation Research Board, 2010.

Springville Commercial Project Associated Transportation Engineers Traffic and Circulation Study - 6 - August 27, 2014
:18
ce
MMF - #14054
Las Posas Road
• • •
4'r 1
I Crestview Ave
I Las Poses Road I
•s°
40 7s.
0 uJ

T RANSPORTATION
.I.)
Central Avenue I I Central Avenue I
—s-
-,-1,
Springville Commercial Project
Traffic and Circulation Study - 7..

Associated Transportation Engineers
August 27, 2014
tt,
IT
W. Ventura Blvd.
13 LI
1:1,r-ri
/
I
-5
a
2 >•`'
t
Springville Dr. )

EXISTING LANEGEOMETRIES AND TRAFFIC CONTROLS
In1=11
•10 -r
rn 0 VD 0 M 0
PI- ag L-(48)143
—(451)724
J I I- r(103)366
235(70) -I
436(110)-1
147(24)- 196(124)---t
616(763) —
163(91) --t

17.:1
L.(70)159
—(274)283
— 295) ( 347
L(183)320
—(123)276
r (3)8
170(111) -I
200(248) -.-
9(23) ---t
Til)
26(11)—J 234(89)- 6(7)--,
1--(22)87
—(66)240
18(45)-i
70(97) —
--) I r
M N
4-(11)22
—(60)394
379(614) -I
91(78)—J
3 (1)
-89(82)
—t
108(69)—

EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES
143(135)
50(80) I
FoN
N N N "
/9_
g
.2
g
>
t
)]
SpringvilleDr.
m N.
cm c-4 m "1-
r- N M
J L
843(718)
496(438)
107(88) -1
421(509) --
21(11) -I
a) r- N
Ce,
__1 I I_
L(103)331
—(666)1112
-)90)232
—(294)502
r (57)174
—(173)503
r (55)165
Verdulera Street
66(73) ---
483 (410) -t
71 N 0
JIL L —(108)299
F(29)186
476(661) ---
100(109) --t
L(2)5
—(632)1540
22(32)
938(672) --
179(305)
Ex)
N
J L
‘.0
N N
co
N m CO
J I L
L(376)413
—(388)723
r(128)148
47(44)
580(657) —
39(56) -t

07.1 I r
0 N N
CY
w
(-7
LI
Springville Commercial Project
Traffic and Circulation Study - 8 -
Associated Transportation Engineers
August 27, 2014
Table 3
Existing Levels of Service
Intersection Control

ICU / LOS
A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour
U.S. 101 NB/Central Ave(a) Stop Sign 7.8 Sec./LOS A 11.6 Sec./LOS B U.S. 101 SB/Central Ave(a) Stop Sign 9.1 Sec./LOS A 12.2 Sec./LOS B U.S. 101 NB/Springville Dr Signal 0.35/LOS A 0.42/LOS A U.S. 101 SB/Springville Dr Signal 0.19/LOS A 0.32/LOS A Springville Dr/Ventura Blvd Signal 0.17/LOS A 0.26/LOS A Las Posas Rd/Earl Joseph Dr Signal 0.33/LOS A 0.48/LOS A Las Posas Rd/Ponderosa Dr Signal 0.43/LOS A 0.59/LOS A
Las Posas Rd/Daily Dr Signal 0.48/LOS A 0.59/LOS A
U.S. 101 NB/Las Posas Rd Signal 0.36/LOS A 0.51/LOS A
U.S. 101 SB/Las Posas Rd Signal 0.40/LOS A 0.47/LOS A
Las Posas RdNentura Blvd Signal 0.41/LOS A 0.57/LOS A
(a) Unsignalized intersection. LOS based on average delay per vehicle in seconds.

As shown, the study-area intersections operate at LOS A during the A.M. peak hour and LOS A-B during the P.M. peak hour, which meet the City's LOS C standard.

PROJECT TRIP GENERATION
Trip Generation
Trip generation estimates were calculated for the Project by ATE and City staff using rates contained in the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation report.' The ITE rates for Home Improvement Superstore (ITE Land Use Code #862) were used for the anchor store proposed on Parcel A and the ITE rates for Shopping Centers (ITE Land Use Code #820) were used for the other retail buildings proposed on Parcels A, C and E. A 5% multi-trip factor was applied when calculating the trip generation estimates for the commercial portion of the Project to account for trip interactions that will occur between the anchor store and the other shopping center uses (e.g. some of the patrons of the anchor store will also patronize the retail stores and restaurants on the commercial site).
2 Trip Generation, Institute of Transportation Engineers, 9th Edition, 2012.

Springville Commercial Project Associated Transportation Engineers Traffic and Circulation Study - 9 - August 27, 2014
Trip generation estimates were calculated for the industrial and office portions of the Project (Parcels D and F) using the ITE rates for General Light Industrial (ITE Land Use Code #110) and the ITE rates for General Office (Land Use Code #710). Table 4 summarizes the trip generation estimates for the Project. A worksheet showing the detailed trip generation calculations is included in the Technical Appendix for reference.

Table 4
Project Trip Generation
Use Size
Multi
Trip
Factor
ADT A.M. Peak P.M. Peak
Rate Trips Rate Trips Rate Trips
Anchor Store (Parcel A) 170,000 SF 0.95 30.74 4,965 1.49 241 2.33 376 Shopping Center (Parcels A, B, C, E) 98,500 SF 0.95 42.70 3,996 0.96 90 3.71 347 Light Industrial (Parcels D, F) 149,075 SF 1.00 6.97 1,039 0.92 138 0.97 145 General Office (Parcels D, F) 49,692 SF 1.00 11.03 548 1.56 78 1.49 74 Total Trip Generation 10,548 547 942
Rates per 1,000 SF of building space.

ADT = Average Daily Trips.

A.M. Peak = Trips during A.M. peak hour period.

P.M. Peak = Trips during P.M. peak hour period.

As shown, the proposed Project would generate 10,548 ADT, with 547 trips during the A.M. peak hour and 942 trips during the P.M. peak hour.

Trip Distribution and Assignment
Traffic generated by the Project was distributed to the study-area street network according to the percentages listed in Table 5. These percentages, developed in concert with City staff, were formulated based on existing traffic flows and a general knowledge of the population, employment, and commercial centers in the region. Figure 5 illustrates the distribution and assignment of the A.M. and P.M. peak hour trips that would be generated by the Project.

Springville Commercial Project Associated Transportation Engineers Traffic and Circulation Study -10- August 27, 2014
—(5)17 -"--(5)17
1- (65)65
01 r4-(5)17
cc
00 71"
1-71'
rI
0 IN N
N ,) 0,
ro
93(27) -1
25(26) -1 cc
CO
cc
L
—(16)56
r--(41)140
1-(49)169
--,—(57)196
38(38) — 164(165) —
Lr,
—(3)11 —(3)11
8(8) 8(8)—
- Distribution Percentage Z o

71. NVAF - #14054
Springville Commercial Project Associated Transportation Engineers Traffic and Circulation Study August 27, 2014
Table 5
Project Trip Distribution
Origin/Destination Direction Percent
U.S. 101 e/o Las Posas Rd East 30%
U.S. 101 w/o Central Ave West 25%
Central Ave n/o U.S. 101 Northwest 2%
Las Posas Rd e/o Earl Joseph Dr Northeast 5%
Ponderosa Dr e/o Las Posas Rd Northeast 5%
Daily Dr e/o Las Posas Northeast 3%
Ventura Blvd e/o Las Posas East 3%
Las Posas Rd s/o Ventura Blvd South 17%
Local(a) NA 10%
Total 100%
(a) Local east of site and west of Las Posas Road.

EXISTING + PROJECT CONDITIONS
Intersection Impacts
Levels of service were calculated for the study-area intersections assuming the Existing + Project peak hour volumes shown on Figure 6. Tables 6 and 7 compare the Existing and Existing + Project level of service forecasts and identify impacts based on City criteria. As shown, the study-area intersections are forecast to continue to operate at LOS A and LOS B during the A.M. and P.M. peak hours with Existing + Project traffic volumes. The Springville Commercial Project would not generated significant impacts under the Existing + Project scenario since the Existing + Project forecasts meet the City's LOS C standard.

Springville Commercial Project Associated Transportation Engineers Traffic and Circulation Study -12- August 27, 2014
• N
0 as
N as
▪ r
N M
J L
1-003)331
—(671)1129
843(718) —
507(450)
- 1 3 -
Springville Commercial Project
Traffic and Circulation Study
Associated Transportation Engineers
August 27, 2014
Las Posas Road
L- 30) ( 203
-(51)241
1-(55)206
1---(48)143
—(451)724
r(168)431
235(70) --1
616(763) —
! 453(115)--i 164(29)- 315(152)-)
163(91) -p
T-1
N,
'-t as
'1E:1 , r- j- ,'1-(2)5
---1 1--- —(637)1557
22(32)_J
938(672) —--1 I r _-
179(305)-p ? wf...,
N. r I-
'-/-q
N as
mm
N,
N
N
Co- SP `-(381)430
—(388)723
J I I- f-(128)148
47(44)_J ---1 I --
580(657)—
F.-,
39(56)
r
,-.-,-(6- 1- 2,
N M
07,1
as
NIMF - #14054
EXISTING+ PROJECT TRAFFICVOLUMES
236(162) -1
75(106)
170(111)-i
200(248)
9(23)
701
1-(71)256
—(123)436
—(189)559 F-(96)305
104(111)
483(410) -p
18(45) --I
234(262) —
1-01)22
—(63)405
—(111)310 E(291186
379(614)_J
116(77) —
484(669) —
100(109)_i
111111111 T RANSPORTATION
11111
N 61 0 V. as as CO
• assn
• NN
J I L
cr,
CuCS
Cu
as-
cr, N
N 0 r
J I L
-1 I r
CO N r- CS Cs 03 1-083)320
—(123)276
as Cu- mN,
0 "4-r
N —
J L
1-(90)232
—(294)502
f---(57)174
107(88) -/
421(509)-
2101)-p
T. I.
r
as as 0
r 00
as
as
N 0,
Table 6
Existing + Project Levels of Service - A.M. Peak Hour
Intersection
ICU / LOS Significant
Existing Existing + Project Impact?
U.S. 101 NB/Central Ave(a) 7.8 Sec./LOS A 7.8 Sec./LOS A No U.S. 101 SB/Central Ave(a) 9.1 Sec./LOS A 9.1 Sec./LOS A No U.S. 101 NB/Springville Dr 0.35/LOS A 0.40/LOS A No
U.S. 101 SB/Springville Dr 0.19/LOS A 0.27/LOS A No
Springville DrNentura Blvd 0.17/LOS A 0.24/LOS A No
Las Posas Rd/Earl Joseph Dr 0.33/LOS A 0.33/LOS A No
Las Posas Rd/Ponderosa Dr 0.43/LOS A 0.44/LOS A No
Las Posas Rd/Daily Dr 0.48/LOS A 0.49/LOS A No
U.S. 101 NB/Las Posas Rd 0.36/LOS A 0.36/LOS A No
U.S. 101 SB/Las Posas Rd 0.40/LOS A 0.40/LOS A No
Las Posas RdNentura Blvd 0.41/LOS A 0.44/LOS A No
(a) Unsignalized intersection. LOS based on average delay per vehicle in seconds.

Table 7
Existing + Project Levels of Service - P.M. Peak Hour
Intersection
ICU / LOS Significant
Existing Existing + Project Impact?
U.S. 101 NB/Central Ave(a) 11.6 Sec./LOS B 11.8 Sec./LOS B No U.S. 101 SB/Central Ave(a) 12.2 Sec./LOS B 12.5 Sec./LOS B No U.S. 101 NB/Springville Dr 0.42/LOS A 0.50/LOS A No
U.S. 101 SB/Springville Dr 0.32/LOS A 0.40/LOS A No
Springville DrNentura Blvd 0.26/LOS A 0.44/LOS A No
Las Posas Rd/Earl Joseph Dr 0.48/LOS A 0.49/LOS A No
Las Posas Rd/Ponderosa Dr 0.59/LOS A 0.62/LOS B No
Las Posas Rd/Daily Dr 0.59/LOS A 0.59/LOS A No
U.S. 101 NB/Las Posas Rd 0.51/LOS A 0.51/LOS A No
U.S. 101 SB/Las Posas Rd 0.47/LOS A 0.47/LOS A No
Las Posas Rd/Ventura Blvd 0.57/LOS A 0.60/LOS A No
(a) Unsignalized intersection. LOS based on average delay per vehicle in seconds.

Springville Commercial Project Associated Transportation Engineers Traffic and Circulation Study -14- August 27, 2014
EXISTING + APPROVED + PROJECT CONDITIONS
This section analyzes potential impacts assuming occupancy of the approved development projects as the baseline. "Existing + Approved" traffic was forecast based on a list of approved development projects provided by the City. Trip generation estimates for the approved projects were developed using ITE rates and the resulting A.M. and P.M. peak hour trips were then assigned to the study-area intersections. The list of approved project and the trip generation estimates for the approved projects are included in the Technical Appendix for reference. Figure 7 shows the Existing + Approved traffic forecasts.

Traffic that would be generated by the Springville Commercial Project was then layered onto the Existing + Approved forecasts to analyze potential impact for this scenario. Figure 8 shows the Existing + Approved + Project traffic forecasts.

Intersection Impacts
Levels of service were calculated for the study-area intersections assuming the Existing + Approved and Existing + Approved + Project traffic forecasts. Tables 8 and 9 compare the Existing + Approved and Existing + Approved + Project levels of service and identify impacts based on City criteria. As shown, the study-area intersections are forecast to operate at LOS B or better during the A.M. and P.M. peak hours with Existing + Approved and Existing + Approved + Project traffic volumes. The Springville Commercial Project would not generated significant impacts under the Existing + Approved scenario since operations are forecast to meet the City's LOS C standard.

Springville Commercial Project Associated Transportation Engineers Traffic and Circulation Study -15- August 27, 2014
MMF -#14054
EXISTING +APPROVED TRAFFIC VOLUMES
.4.
as
0 tas as 0 rJ I L
as
00 as N
as
co N
J I L
N 0 In rSD N N NN
as NN as Lc') as
JIL

SPORTATION

ASSOCIATED
CO N
N as
as N as
J L
968(909)-
496(438) --t 7;1
107(88)-4
422(514) —
21(11) —t

7.1 ,0 CO
00 03 as N
01 as as 0
JI
203(204) --
550(527) --t
502(674)-
100(109) —t
738(362)
58(134)
—(108)302
n (3 4)22 4
—(239)782
t—(96)412
L-(91)238
—(295)508
t—(110)360 4-007)361
—(694)1235
I
In 00 N
01 01
N N
7,71
t as
N N
J L
22(32) —4
1015(804)-
232(396) —I
54(57)
679(833)
39(56)
701
170(111)-4
200(248) --
9(23)
405(624)
108(100) ---
39(83)
08)—
so N SD
01 ON
N asas J I L
CO N 01 - as as as 01
g 8 as
N as N
I L
4—(11)22
—(65)435
L(71)403
—(140)647 -1 I r
N N M
In 01
rn sD
CO
4-083)320
—(123)276 t---(3)8
—(668)1726 4—(380)547
—(438)907
r(128)148
-
CO N coNas
Cr, CO
as
r_
Lc, as
as as 4—(48)143
—(476)854
t—(177)542
1 rCO N as r 01 CO
as 03 01
CO r- as
"ch as
Las Posas Road 240(79)_i
657(888) --
198(118)
T-11
Springville Commercial Project
Traffic and Circulation Study
Associated Transportation Engineers
- 16 - August 27, 2014
0 LU
LU - 2
Springville Commercial Project
Traffic and Circulation Study
Associated Transportation Engineers
- 1 7 - August 27, 2014 MMF - #14054 L. (33)212 ----(64)271 r- 57225 (48)143
—(476)854
f-(242)607
240(79) -i
500(123)-J 197(37)- 484 (213)-t
657(888) —
198(118)_!
1;1
Las Posas Road
230) ( 298
f- (343)342
1-(107)361
N
.7 1-11
52- , T 4 t-(2)5
—(699)1252
--J
1--- —(673)1743
968(909) — 22(32)_I
327(403)-J 15(11)- 258 288 ( )-!
507(450) --t 1015(804) --
232(396) -, -(14)1O4 -(105)308 I- (169)180
I-(91)238IF,
—(295)508
t-(110)360
en
Ln
Ln N lID
o co y t -- , y
--) I 1-
L-(385)564
—(438)907
f-(128)148
107(88) -I
422(514)—
21(11) -!

71. 33(16)-i 287(135)-- 201(279)---t
54(57) -i
679(833) --
39(56) -, 1
07, I
-1 I Rs- F-,-, 6-
ZI.: 0::::
u") 01 ---,
IN M tO CO
Peak Hour Volume
EXISTING +APPROVED + PROJECT TRAFFIC VOLUMES
L-(120)572
—(197)843
—(255)838
n(137)552
39(83)
609(473) --
Tri
241(242) --
550(527) -t
405(624)
116(108) —
T=1
510(681) —
100(109) -1
7, 1
170(111)_J
200(248) —
9(23)
701
83)320
—(123)276
n(3)8
—(111)313
n(34)224
1)22
—(68)446
N
Sn ‘.0 Sn
o Sn
cn
J L
1 i
co 'c-51 Sn
1 r
• N
• Zir)
NN
Sn
831(389)
83(160)
CDO 4-
I
on CY)
17/
N
Table 8
Existing + Approved + Project Levels of Service - A.M. Peak Hour Intersection

ICU / LOS
Significant
Existing + Approved Impact?
Existing + Approved
+ Project
U.S. 101 NB/Central Ave(a) 7.9 Sec./LOS A 7.9 Sec./LOS A No U.S. 101 SB/Central Ave(a) 9.1 Sec./LOS A 9.1 Sec./LOS A No U.S. 101 NB/Springville Dr 0.46/LOS A 0.51/LOS A No
U.S. 101 SB/Springville Dr 0.26/LOS A 0.36/LOS A No
Springville Dr/Ventura Blvd 0.25/LOS A 0.33/LOS A No
Las Posas Rd/Earl Joseph Dr 0.34/LOS A 0.34/LOS A No
Las Posas Rd/Ponderosa Dr 0.49/LOS A 0.50/LOS A No
Las Posas Rd/Daily Dr 0.52/LOS A 0.53/LOS A No
U.S. 101 NB/Las Posas Rd 0.40/LOS A 0.40/LOS A No
U.S. 101 SB/Las Posas Rd 0.42/LOS A 0.42/LOS A No
Las Posas RdNentura Blvd 0.49/LOS A 0.51/LOS A No
(a) Unsignalized intersection. LOS based on average delay per vehicle in seconds.

Table 9
Existing + Approved + Project Levels of Service - P.M. Peak Hour Intersection

ICU / LOS
Significant
Existing + Approved Impact?
Existing +Approved
+ Project
U.S. 101 NB/Central Ave(a) 11.9 Sec./LOS B 12.1 Sec./LOS B No U.S. 101 SB/Central Ave(a) 13.5 Sec./LOS B 13.8 Sec./LOS B No U.S. 101 NB/Springville Dr 0.61/LOS B 0.69/LOS B No
U.S. 101 SB/Springville Dr 0.54/LOS A 0.64/LOS B No
Springville DrNentura Blvd 0.52/LOS A 0.67/LOS B No
Las Posas Rd/Earl Joseph Dr 0.50/LOS A 0.51/LOS A No
Las Posas Rd/Ponderosa Dr 0.70/LOS B 0.70/LOS B No
Las Posas Rd/Daily Dr 0.62/LOS B 0.63/LOS B No
U.S. 101 NB/Las Posas Rd 0.56/LOS A 0.56/LOS A No
U.S. 101 SB/Las Posas Rd 0.50/LOS A 0.50/LOS A No
Las Posas Rd/Ventura Blvd 0.65/LOS B 0.69/LOS B No
(a) Unsignalized intersection. LOS based on average delay per vehicle in seconds.

Springville Commercial Project Associated Transportation Engineers Traffic and Circulation Study -18- August 27, 2014

SITE ACCESS
As shown on the site plan (see Figure 2), primary access for Parcels A, B, C, D, and E would be provided by the B Street connection to Springville Drive on the site's eastern frontage, the southern A Street connection to West Ventura Boulevard on the site's southern frontage, and via driveways that connect to West Ventura Boulevard along the western frontage of the site.

Access for Parcel F, located on the south side of West Ventura Boulevard, would be provided via a connection to West Ventura Boulevard opposite A Street.

Operations at the site access connections are reviewed below. The Existing + Approved + Project peak hour volumes shown on Figure 9 were used for the analyses. Table 10 summarizes the level of service forecasts for the connections (level of service worksheets are contained in the Technical Appendix for reference).

Table 10
Existing + Approved + Project Levels of Service — Project Intersections Intersection Control
Delay / LOS
A.M. Peak P.M. Peak
Springville Drive/B Street
Eastbound Right Turns Stop Sign 9.8 Sec./LOS A 11.5 Sec./LOS B West Ventura Boulevard/A Street
Northbound Left Turns
Northbound Right Turns
Southbound Left Turns
Southbound Right Turns
Stop Sign
Stop Sign
Stop Sign
Stop Sign

7.9 Sec./LOS A

8.5 Sec./LOS A

14.4 Sec./LOS B

9.1 Sec./LOS A

14.3 Sec./LOS B

9.4 Sec./LOS A
>50 Sec./LOS F

9.6 Sec./LOS A
West Ventura BoulevardNerdulera Street
Northbound Left + Thru + Right Turns
Southbound Left Turns
Southbound Thru + Right Turns
Stop Sign
Stop Sign
Stop Sign

11.1 Sec./LOS B

10.4 Sec./LOS B

9.2 Sec./LOS A

15.4 Sec./LOS C

15.1 Sec./LOS C

9.9 Sec./LOS A
Springville Drive/B Street.The B Street connection to Springville Drive would be limited to right-turns only by the raised median on Springville Drive. The connection would be controlled by stop signs on the B Street approach. The site plan shows a right-turn lane for the southbound Springville Drive to westbound B Street movement into the Project site, which is warranted given the relatively high volume of right turns forecast during the peak hour periods (235 vehicles during A.M. peak hour and 234 vehicles during P.M. peak hour). The level of service analysis shows minor delays for turning right from the Project site at B Street (LOS A during the A.M. peak hour and LOS B during the P.M. peak hour).

Springville Commercial Project Associated Transportation Engineers Traffic and Circulation Study -19- August 27, 2014
West Ventura Boulevard Verdulera Street
MMF -#14054
0 15'
West Ventura Boulevard
m
m
co
— mm O r. CV 1"
J I L
420(128)
2(0)
L(5)37
-1 I 1-
o cO
0 CL.-0
CO
A Street
EXISTING+APPROVED+ PROJECT DRIVEWAY VOLUMES
(264)1114
Springville Drive 821(522) 831(389)
234(235) 83(160)
Springville Commercial Project
Traffic and Circulation Study - 2 0 -
Associated Transportation Engineers
August 27, 2014
West Ventura Boulevard/A Street. As shown on the site plan, the southern A Street connection to West Ventura Boulevard is proposed as a full access intersection. The north leg of the intersection would serve the commercial portion of the Project on the north side and the south leg would serve the industrial/office uses on Parcel F south of West Ventura Boulevard. The intersection would be controlled by stop signs on the A Street approaches. As shown in Table 10, minor delays would occur for turning to/from the Project site during the A.M. peak hour (LOS A-B). However, during the P.M. peak hour, high delays (LOS F) are forecast for turning from A Street onto West Ventura Boulevard due to the high volume of A Street traffic turning left from the Project site (420 vehicles turning left from A Street onto West Ventura Boulevard during the P.M. peak hour) coupled with the volumes on West Ventura Boulevard (926 vehicles on West Ventura Boulevard during the P.M. peak hour).

The Existing + Approved + Project P.M. peak hour volumes and delays meet peak hour signal warrants. Installation of traffic signals would provide LOS A operations during the A.M. and P.M. peak hours under Existing + Approved + Project conditions. It is recommended that the City plan for signals at the intersection. It is important to note that the level of service analysis assumes full occupancy of the Project as well as occupancy of the approved developments in the area. Thus, traffic signals may not be warranted until sometime in the future. Given the relatively close spacing between this intersection and the Springville Drive/West Ventura Boulevard intersection, it is recommended that the two signals be interconnected and coordinated to facilitate traffic flows.

West Ventura BoulevardNerdulera Street. While this intersection does not provide direct access to the Project site, its operations were assessed using the Existing + Approved + Project peak hour volumes shown on Figure 9. The intersection is controlled by stop signs on the northsouth approaches and the east-west approaches are free flow. As shown in Table 10, minor delays would occur at the stop sign approaches during the A.M. and P.M. peak hours (LOS AB during the A.M. peak hour and LOS A-C during the P.M. peak hour) assuming the existing lane configurations and traffic controls.

West Ventura Boulevard/Project Driveways. There are three Project driveways that would connect to West Ventura Boulevard along the western frontage of the site. These driveways would serve the commercial uses proposed on Parcel A. Given the relative low volumes on West Ventura Boulevard (less than 250 vehicles per hour during the peak hour periods) and low volumes using these driveways (less than 100 vehicles per hour during the peak hour periods), they are estimated to operate at LOS C or better and meet the City's standard. West Ventura Boulevard would contain one travel lane in each direction plus a center left-turn lane for access to the Project site on the east side of the street and the industrial uses on the west side of the street. Stop signs should control the driveways exiting the Project site.

Springville Commercial Project Associated Transportation Engineers Traffic and Circulation Study -21 - August 27, 2014

GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT CONDITIONS
Traffic analyses of General Plan Buildout is provided in conjunction with the City's Circulation Element, The Circulation Element incorporates roadway and intersection improvements required to accommodate General Plan Buildout traffic forecasts, with needed improvements funded by the City's traffic mitigation fee program. The improvements that are planned by the City are designed to provide LOS C on the City's street system under General Plan Buildout traffic conditions, with LOS D allowed for short periods of time.

The Springville Commercial Project includes a general plan amendment to change the zoning from industrial to commercial on portions of the site to allow for commercial uses (Parcels A, B, C, and E). Parcels D and F would retain the existing industrial zoning. The following impact analysis was completed to determine if the additional traffic that would be generated by the Project under the proposed commercial zoning would trigger the need for improvements that have not been planned by the City in the Circulation Element.

Trip Generation
In Table 11 are the trip generation estimates for the proposed Project compared to the trip generation estimates for the Project site that were used to estimate General Plan Buildout traffic volumes.

Table 11
General Plan Buildout Trip Generation Comparison
Scenario Size
Trip Generation
ADT
A.M.

Peak
Hour
P.M.

Peak
Hour
Proposed Project
Commercial 268,500 SF 8,961 331 723
Industrial 149,075 SF 1,039 138 145
Office 49,692 SF 548 78 74
Totals: 10,548 547 942
General Plan Buildout
Research & Development(a) 700,000 SF 5,600 819 609
DIFFERENCES +4,948 -272 +333
(a) Trip generation derived from General Plan Circulation Element traffic analysis.

Springville Commercial Project Associated Transportation Engineers Traffic and Circulation Study - 22 - August 27, 2014
As shown, the proposed rezone and development of the Project would result in an increase in average daily traffic (+4,948 trips), a decrease in A.M. peak hour traffic (-272 trips), and an increase in P.M. peak hour traffic (+ 333 trips). The following impact analysis was prepared to determine if the change in traffic generated by the proposed Project would trigger the need for improvements that are not planned in the City's Circulation Element.

Traffic Forecasts
The General Plan Buildout traffic forecasts used for the Circulation Element are shown on Figure

10. General Plan Buildout levels of service were calculated for the study-area intersections assuming the General Plan Buildout traffic forecasts and the improvements that are programmed in the Circulation Element.

The net change in peak hour traffic that would result from the proposed Project was layered onto the General Plan Buildout traffic forecasts for analysis to determine if the proposed zoning change and development of the Project would trigger the need for additional improvements.

Figure 11 shows the General Plan Buildout + Project traffic volumes at the study-area intersections.

Springville Commercial Project Associated Transportation Engineers Traffic and Circulation Study - 23 - August 27, 2014
Springville Commercial Project
Traffic and Circulation Study
Associated Transportation Engineers
- 24 - August 27, 2014
cr
0 uJ
Lu
MMF -#14054
c0 N N rn On
5550
N en
J L
257(223)
584(801) --
24(17) -t
71,
1372(1385) —
210(132)
N 0 N
On N Ln

1.;'- c, ro, t c43
r•-:' . --- ‘"2- C-1- J I L
L-()56)358
—(836)1307
f-(137)212
439(97)_J
679(998) —
78(210) --t
1 1 /-

0.0 CO CO ,- N N N
CS
rn
rSC-
_T L
20(15)
99(771)-
179(538)
L-(330)448
—(595)1062
r(160)249
85(29) --I
929(1407) --
104(61)
To]
L-(507)559
—(195)250
r(13)12
320(266) -/
321(269) --
3(1) -t
1-(31)267
—(129)1032
183(117)
215(629)—
-(22)203
—(119)385
1229(1033)-i
102(555)—
Las Posas Road
Lu
Z
248(458) --
106(139) -t
847(1023)-
771(912)
197(290)
338(902)_i
—(94)398
r(77)158
--.--(357)1414
f-(212)672
L-(87)262
—(580)667
r-(87)240
1-(100)364
—(822)1486
N
N 0 CO •,1-
rn
L-(2)11
—(533)1375
4 r
e,
r

GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT TRAFFIC VOLUMES T RANSPORTATION
Verdulera Street
3 /
1 ea
(I
'g'
>"
V
—_i
Springville Dr.
1 r
1 r
N N
SO S- asNs-CS 0 N LO
Sn
N
0 NN N LSn
J I L
-1 r
N CS1-
N r- N
-3
DS'
Springville c)-j r.

L.(156)358
--L--(836)1307
n(79)264
439(99)
679(1000) —
78(222)
Las Posas Road
rn
N
ki7J
J L
20(15)
99(771)
179(538)
7E1
85(29) —/
929(1407)
104(61)_!
c7I
L-(2)11
-,--(535)1376
(332)449
--.—(595)1062
f--(160)249
! (147)135 !
(176)250
--4--(375)1416
n(230)679
278(422) —
106(139) ---,
:11
0 •rr
N as
,-- CS,
5 r-. sc74
S91 E -2:? -.--(95)399
-.) 1 L F(77)158
1378(1378) —.-
210(132) ---,
T -•
z o
1—(100)364
-.---(824)1487
847(1023)
780(902) --t
L.(87)262
—(580)667
n(87)240
257(223) —1
584(801)
24(17) —1
171
N Sn
N r- N
N
NDS
r•-• u.0
_1
00 N
N
as 0
N
N
J
1 r
as 6,

1.-•
N
0 CO N
CNN
t.
r
N N
m CO 1-
u-)
N rN
- 1 r
N
0, in cci
M
N - as
N
1 rN Cin
In 00 IN
176..N N
c0
N as
ki0 as
202(303)
359(878)
I_(507)559
—(195)250
E(13)12
320(266)
321(269)—.--
3(1)1
7o1
L-(53)276
—(155)1041
183(117)
345(480)
L.(22)203
—(120)386
1229(1033)
108(548) —
MMF -#14054
GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT + PROJECT TRAFFIC VOLUMES
S pringville Commercial Project
Traffic and Circulation Study
Nr
Associated Transportation Engineers
-25 - August 27, 2014
Intersection Impacts
Tables 12 and 13 compare the General Plan Buildout and General Plan Buildout + Project levels of service. The tables also identify impacts based on City criteria.

Table 12
General Plan Buildout + Project Levels of Service — A.M. Peak Hour Intersection

ICU / LOS
Significant
GP Buildout Impact?
GP Buildout
+Project
U.S. 101 NB/Central Ave 0.67/LOS B 0.67/LOS B No
U.S. 101 SB/Central Ave 0.42/LOS A 0.42/LOS A No
U.S. 101 NB/Springville Dr 0.30/LOS A 0.30/LOS A No
U.S. 101 SB/Springville Dr 0.55/LOS A 0.45/LOS A No
Springville DrNentura Blvd 0.36/LOS A 0.36/LOS A No
Las Posas Rd/Earl Joseph Dr 0.60/LOS A 0.60/LOS A No
Las Posas Rd/Ponderosa Dr 0.68/LOS B 0.68/LOS B No
Las Posas Rd/Daily Dr 0.81/LOS D 0.81/LOS D No
U.S. 101 NB/Las Posas Rd 0.48/LOS A 0.48/LOS A No
U.S. 101 SB/Las Posas Rd 0.56/LOS A 0.56/LOS A No
Las Posas RdNentura Blvd 0.59/LOS A 0.58/LOS A No
Bolded value exceeds City's LOS C standard.

Levels of service assume improvements planned by the City.

As shown in Table 12, the Las Posas Road/Daily Drive intersection is forecast to operate at LOS D (ICU 0.81) during the A.M. peak hour in the General Plan Buildout and General Plan Buildout + Project scenarios. The Springville Commercial Project would not significantly impact this location since the ICU value would not change as a result of Project traffic (ICU 0.81 with and without the Project).

Springville Commercial Project Associated Transportation Engineers Traffic and Circulation Study -26- August 27, 2014
Table 13
General Plan Buildout + Project Levels of Service — P.M. Peak Hour Intersection

ICU / LOS
Significant
GP Buildout Impact?
GP Buildout
+ Project
U.S. 101 NB/Central Ave 0.80/LOS C 0.80/LOS C No
U.S. 101 SB/Central Ave 0.53/LOS A 0.53/LOS A No
U.S. 101 NB/Springville Dr 0.71/LOS C 0.71/LOS C No
U.S. 101 SB/Springville Dr 0.54/LOS A 0.64/LOS B No
Springville DrNentura Blvd 0.61/LOS B 0.62/LOS B No
Las Posas Rd/Earl Joseph Dr 0.74/LOS C 0.74/LOS C No
Las Posas Rd/Ponderosa Dr 0.89/LOS D 0.89/LOS D No
Las Posas Rd/Daily Dr 0.72/LOS C 0.73/LOS C No
U.S. 101 NB/Las Posas Rd 0.69/LOS B 0.69/LOS B No
U.S. 101 SB/Las Posas Rd 0.56/LOS A 0.56/LOS A No
Las Posas RdNentura Blvd 0.80/LOS C 0.80/LOS C No
Bolded value exceeds City's LOS C standard.

Levels of service assume improvements planned by the City.

As shown in Table 13, the Las Posas Road/Ponderosa Drive intersection is forecast to operate at LOS D (ICU 0.89) during the P.M. peak hour in the General Plan Buildout and General Plan Buildout + Project scenarios. The Springville Commercial Project would not significantly impact this location since the ICU value would not change as a result of Project traffic (ICU

0.89 with and without the Project).

Traffic Impact Fees
The Springville Commercial Project would be required to contribute a proportional share towards the cost of the City's planned improvements via payment to the City's traffic mitigation fee program.

POTENTIAL IMPACTS TO VENTURA COUNTY FACILITIES
The Project's potential to impact the Ventura County roadway network adjacent to the City was assessed at two locations: 1) Los Posas Road/Pleasant Valley Road south of the City and 2) Santa Clara Avenue/Central Avenue located northwest of the City. Traffic counts were collected at the two intersections on Wednesday, July 23, 2014 for the impact analysis. Worksheets showing the traffic volumes and level of service calculations are included in the Technical Appendix for reference.

Springville Commercial Project Associated Transportation Engineers Traffic and Circulation Study - 27 - August 27, 2014
Impacts
Tables 14 and 15 show the Existing, Existing + Project, Existing + Approved, and Existing + Approved + Project levels of service for the two Ventura County intersections.

Table 14
Las Posas Road/Pleasant Valley Road Levels of Service
Time Period

ICU/LOS
Existing
Existing
+ Project
Existing
+ Approved
Existing
+ Approved
+ Project
A.M. Peak Hour 0.57/LOS A 0.59/LOS A 0.62/LOS B 0.64/LOS B P.M. Peak Hour 0.78/LOS C 0.80/LOS C 0.85/LOS D 0.87/LOS D The data in Table 14 show that the Los Posas Road/Pleasant Valley Road intersection currently operates at LOS A during the A.M. peak hour and is forecast to operate at LOS B with future traffic during the A.M. peak hour. The intersection currently operates at LOS C during the P.M. peak hour and is forecast to operate at LOS D during the P.M. peak hour with future traffic. The Springville Commercial Project, in conjunction with other development projects, would contribute to the level of service degradation during the P.M. peak hour period.

Table 15
Santa Clara Avenue/Central Avenue Levels of Service
Time Period

ICU/LOS
Existing
Existing
+ Project
Existing
+ Approved
Existing
+ Approved
+ Project
A.M. Peak Hour 0.48/LOS A 0.48/LOS A 0.48/LOS A 0.49/LOS A P.M. Peak Hour 0.51/LOS A 0.51/LOS A 0.52/LOS A 0.52/LOS A As shown in Table 15, the Santa Clara Avenue/Central Avenue intersection currently operates at LOS A during the A.M. and P.M. peak hour periods; and is forecast to continue to operate at LOS A with future traffic. The Springville Commercial Project would not impact this location.

Springville Commercial Project Associated Transportation Engineers Traffic and Circulation Study -28- August 27, 2014
Mitigation Measures
The City of Camarillo and Ventura County have executed a "Reciprocal Traffic Mitigation Agreement" wherein the City and the County have agreed to share the cost of mitigations for impacts to each jurisdiction's facilities. The Springville Commercial Project would offset its incremental impact to the Ventura County roadway network by contributing to the reciprocal fee program.

Springville Commercial Project Associated Transportation Engineers Traffic and Circulation Study - 29 - August 27, 2014

STUDY PARTICIPANTS AND REFERENCES
Associated Transportation Engineers
Scott A. Schell, AICP, PTP, Principal Transportation Planner Dan Dawson, PIP, Supervising Transportation Planner
Matthew Farrington, Transportation Planner I
City of Camarillo
Bill Golubics, PE, City of Camarillo
References
Highway Capacity Manual, Transportation Research Board, 2010.

Traffic and Circulation Study for the Camarillo Tract 5812 EIR, Associated Transportation Engineers, August 2010.

Trip Generation Manual, Institute of Transportation Engineers, 9th Edition, 2012.

Springville Commercial Project Associated Transportation Engineers Traffic and Circulation Study - 30- August 27, 2014

TECHNICAL APPENDIX
CONTENTS:

TRAFFIC COUNT DATA

PROJECT TRIP GENERATION CALCULATION WORKSHEET

INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE CALCULATION WORKSHEETS

DRIVEWAY LEVEL OF SERVICE CALCULATION WORKSHEETS

APPROVED PROJECT INFORMATION
Springville Commercial Project Associated Transportation Engineers Traffic and Circulation Study -31 - August 27, 2014

TRAFFIC COUNT DATA
Project #: 14-5474-002
US-101 SB Ramps
Southbound Approach
Total Volume Per Leg
North Leg
Total Ins & Outs
North Leg
821
°
972
AM
NOON
AM
NOON
PM 455 PM
!NEI
487
City: Camarillo
AM Peak Hour
NOON Peak Hour
PM Peak Hour
Count Periods Start End
AM 7:00 AM 9:00 AM
NOON
PM 4:00 PM 6:00 PM
Northbound Approach
715AM
500 PM
0 0 0
East Leg
1 -ATE97, k*r
626 g'01

AM NOON PM
ITM Peak Hour Summary
Prepared by:

National Data &Surveying Services
Central Ave and US-101 SB Ramps, Camarillo
*2.

AM NOON PM
183
West Leg

AM NOON PM

AM NOON PM
AM 71 AM

NOON NOON
PM 197 16 PM
South Leg South Leg
661 0
Project #: 14-5474-001
City: Camarillo
Total Ins & Outs Total Volume Per Leg
Peak Hour Summ
Date: Southbound Approach
Day: Wednesday
AM Peak Hour
NOON Peak Hour
PM Peak Hour
I 18 0 14
teettittittAitttnttittititintit1ttijatititittittr11,tjt!„, 0 q:;::4R7nFS::;gA
US-101 NB Ramps
estbound A. 'roac
0 0
Count Periods Start End
AM 7:00 AM 9:00 AM
NOON
PM 4:00 PM 6:00 PM
Northbound Approach
7/23/2014
715AM
500 PM
AM
North Leg
AM
NOON
1171

NOON ,A
P:*
PM 1374 PM
East Leg AM NOON PM
311 !;10

AM NOON PM AM NOON PM
AM 816
NOON
PM novaitil
North Leg
401
76 AM NOON PM
4A
West Leg
• AM laCt
PM 498 485
r 798
NOON
ITM Peak Hour Summary
Prepared by:

NS
National Data &Surveying Services
Central Ave and US-101 NB Ramps, Camarillo

41. I
South Leg South Leg
US-101 NIB Ramps
pew •punocrise
es
tbound A • roac
Southbound Approach
AM Peak Hour 730 AM
NOON Peak Hour
Date:

Day:
7/23/2014
Wednesday
PM Peak Hour 500 PM
Total Ins & Outs Total Volume Per Leg
Count Periods Start End
AM 7:00 AM 9:00 AM
NOON
PM 4:00 PM 6:00 PM
Northbound Approach
Project #: 14-5474-003
City: Camarillo
North Leg
South Leg
ITM Peak Hour Summary
Prepared by:

NS
National Data & Surveying Services
Springville Dr and US-101 NB Ramps, Camarillo
Project #: 14-5474-004 estbound Ap•roac
Southbound Approach
our Summary
AM Peak Hour 745 AM
NOON Peak Flour
PM Peak Hour 445 PM
Total Ins & Outs Total Volume Per Leg
US-101 SB Ramps
oecti • cly
punocose
Count Naas Start End
. AM 7:00 AM 9:00 AM
NOON
PM 4:00 PM 6:00 PM
Northbound Approach
City: Camarillo
Date: 7/23/2014
Day: Wednesday
North Leg
South Leg
ITM Peak Hour Summary
Prepared by:

N S
National Data Et Surveying Services
Springville Dr and US-101 SB Ramps, Camarillo
Akt#
3e0.11 e V punomse
City: Camarillo
AM Peak Hour 745 AM
NOON Peak Hour
PM Peak Hour 445 PM
Total Ins & Outs Total Volume Per Leg
our Summar
Southbound Approach Date: 7/23/2014 Project #: 14-5474-005 Ventura Blvd
Count Periods Start End
AM 7:00 AM 9:00 AM
NOON
PM 4:00 PM 9:00 PM
Northbound Approach
Day: Wednesday
North Leg
South Leg
ITM Peak Hour Summary
Prepared by:

NS
National Data & Surveying Services
Springville Dr and Ventura Blvd, Camarillo
4'5
Southbound Approach Date:

Day:
7/23/2014
Wednesday
Total Ins & Outs Total Volume Per Leg
AM Peak Hour
NOON Peak Hour
PM Peak Hour
Earl Joseph Ave
Gaunt Periods Start End
AM 7:00 AM 9:00 AM
NOON
PM 4:00 PM 6:00 PM
Northbound Approach
Project #: 14-5474-006
City: Camarillo
730 AM
500 PM
North Leg
ITM Peak Hour Summary
Prepared by:

NDS
National Data & Surveying Services
Las Posas Rd and Earl Joseph Ave. Camarillo
*.6
oecu •ivpunocnse_
Southbound Approach
eak Hour Summary
Total Ins & Outs Total Volume Per Leg
AM Peak Hour
NOON Peak Hour
PM Peak Hour
Ponderosa Dr
”est•ound A. i• roac
Count Periods Start End
AM 7:00 AM 0:00 AM
NOON
PM 4:00 PM 6:00 PM
Northbound Approach
Date: 7/23/2014
Day: Wednesday
Project #: 14-5474-007
City: Camarillo
730 AM
500 PM
North Leg
ITM Peak Hour Summary
Prepared by:

National Data & Surveying Services
Las Posas Rd and Ponderosa Dr. Camarillo
Total Ins & Outs Total Volume Per Leg
Project #: 14-5474-008
City: Camarillo
Date:

Day:
7/23/2014
AM Peak Hour
NOON Peak Hour
PM Peak Hour
! Y eSt • ound A. 8 roac
Count Periods Start End
AM 7:00 AM 9:00 AM
NOON
PM 4:00 PM 6:00 PM
Northbound Approach
730 AM
500 PM
North Leg
South Leg
ITM Peak Hour Summary
Prepared by:

N. S
National Data & Sunreying Services
Las Posas Rd and Daily Dr. Camarillo
#1)
Project #: 14-5474-009
715 AM
Southbound Approach
Total Ins & Outs Total Volume Per Leg
PM Peak Hour
US-101 NB Ramps
430 PM
Count Periods Start End
AM 7:00 AM 9:00 AM
NOON
PM 4:00 PM 6:00 PM
Northbound Approach
City: Camarillo
AM Peak Hour
NOON Peak Hour
Date: 7/23/2014
Day: Wednesday
A
North Leg
South Leg
ITM Peak Hour Summary
Prepared by:

S
National Data & Surveying Services
Las Posas Rd and US-101 NB Ramps. Camarillo
Project #: 14-5474-010
730 AM
Southbound Approach
Total Ins & Outs Total Volume Per Leg
PM Peak Hour
US-101 SE3 Ramps
415 PM estbound A roac
Count Periods Start End
AM 7:00 AM 9:00 AM
NOON
PM 4:00 PM 6:00 PM
Northbound Approach
City: Camarillo
Date: 7/23/2014
Day: Wednesday
A AM Peak Hour
NOON Peak Hour
North Leg
ITM Peak Hour Summary
Prepared by:

NS
National Data &Surveying Services
Las Posas Rd and US-101 SB Ramps, Camarillo
4:F to
Date: 7/23/2014 Project #: 14-5474-110 TTestbound A. •roac Southbound Approach
Hour suroPIRrY
a. AM Peak Hour 730 AM
Day: City: Camarillo
NOON Peak Hour
PM Peak Hour
US-101 SB Straight OnRamp
415 PM
3ecu ••vpunocpse
Count Periods Start End
AM 7:00 AM 9:00 AM
NOON
PM 4:00 PM 6:00 PM
Northbound Approach
Total Ins & Outs Total Volume Per Leg
South Leg
i400%,
ITM Peak Hour Summary
Prepared by:

National Data & Surveying Services
Las Posas Rd and US-101 SB Straight OnRamp Camarillo
AM Peak Hour 715 AM A NOON Peak Hour
PM Peak Hour 445 PM '
Total Ins & Outs Total Volume Per Leg
eak our Summa
Southbound Approach Project #: 14-5474-011
City Camarillo
Date:

Day: Wednesday
7/23/2014
Ventura Blvd
Count Periods Start End
AM 7:00 AM 3:00 AM
NOON
PM 4:00 PM 6:00 PM
Northbound Approach
ITM Peak Hour Summary
Prepared by:

National Data & Surveying Services
Las Posas Rd and Ventura Blvd. Camarillo
*it
Date: 7/23/2014 Project #: 14-5474-013
Total Ins & Outs Total Volume Per Leg
Day: City: Camarillo
AM Peak Hour
NOON Peak Hour
PM Peak Hour
Central Ave
Count Pod s Start End
AM 7;00 AM 9:00 AM
NOON
PM 4:00 PM 6:00 PM
700 AM
445 PM
Northbound Approach
ITM Peak Hour Summary
Prepared by:

NS
National Data & Surveying Services
Santa Clara Ave and Central Ave • Camarillo
PM Peak Hour
Date:

Day:
7/23/2014
Wednesday
Total Ins & Outs Total Volume Per Leg
Pleasant Valley Rd
pew. dypunomse
estboundA..roac
Count Periods Start End
AM 7:00 AM 9:00 AM
NOON
PM 4:00 PM 6:00 PM
Northbound Approach
Project #: 14-5474-012
City: Camarillo
A AM Peak Hour
NOON Peak Hour
700 AM
430 PM
North Leg
South Leg
ITM Peak Hour Summary
Prepared by:

S
National Data & Surveying Services
Las Posas Rd and Pleasant Valley Rd. Camarillo
I
North
8/21/2014 07:30 AM I
8/21/2014 08:15 AM 1
r—
Unshifted.
,F1..,........ Bank 1 j
-0 7i30 ''' W;3o „len Cs 0. 0)
CD

4. o
CD
0 0
0 0 0 to
0 0 0
CO CD
Nor,
,

CITY OF CAMARILLO
W.VENTURA & VERDULERA
7:00-8:30 am
Groups Printed- Unshifted - Bank.1
W.VENTURA - SB
From North
VV.VENTURA - VVB
From East
W.VENTURA - NB
From South

VERDULERA - EB
, From West
Start Time Right I Thru I Left 1 Pads I App,Thmi Right I Thru I Left j Pads I AN. Total Right I_Thru I Left I Pads I App, Total Right I Thru I Left I Pads I App. Total Int. Total I 07:30 AM
07:45 AM
0 0 7 0 7
1 0 5 0 6
9 21 0 0 30
16 17 1 0 34
0 0 0 . 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
0 11 0 0 11
0 19 0 0 19
48 59
Total 1 0 12 0 13 25 38 1 0 64 D 0 0 0 0 0 30 0 0 30 107 08:00 AM 0 0 4 0 4 17 28 0 0 45 0 1 0 0 1 0 17 1 0 18 68 08:15 AM 0 0 9 0 9 7 26 0 0 32 0 0 0 0 0 0 13, 0 0 13 54 Grand Total 1 0 25 0- 26 49 91 1 0 141 0 1 0 0 1 0 60 1 0 61 229 Apprch % 3.8 0 96.2 0 34.8 64.5 0.7 0 0 100 0 0 0 98.4 1.6 0 Total % 0.4 • 0 10.9 0 11.4 214 39,7 0.4 0 61,6 0 0.4 0 0 0.4 0 26.2 0.4 0 26.6 Unshifted 1 0 25 0 26 49 91 1 0 141 0 1 0 0 1 0 60 1 0 61 229 % Unshifted 100 0 100 0 100 100 100 100 0 100 0 100 0 0 100 0 100 100 0 100 100 Bank 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
% Bank 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
CANENTURA -511
Out In Total
51 26 77
51 26 77
1 0 25 0
0 0 9 0
1 0 26 0
Right Thru Left Pads
fJ 4
00)
4-1 I 14
Left Thru Right P&:Is
0 Out In Total

W VENTURA - NB
Grand Total 1 0 106 1 108
Apprch.% 0.9 0 98.1 0.9
Iota! % 0.1 0 14.8 0.1 151
Unshifted 1 0 106 1 108
% Unshifted100 0 100 100 100
Bank 1 0 0 0
% Bank 1 0 0 0
89 298 1 0 388 0 0 1 0 1

22.9 75.8 0,3 0 0 0 100 0

12.5 41.7 0.1 0 54.3 0 0 0.1 0 0.1
89 298 1 0 388 0 0 1 0 1
100 100 100 _0 100 0 _0 100 0 100
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 213 3 1 217 714
0 98.2 1.4 0.5
0 29.8 0.4 0.1 30.4
0 213 3 1 217 714
0 100 100 100 100 100
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
r4
Thru Right Peds
0 0
01 2
0 2
Out In Total
W.VENTURA- NB
Left
+1
0 0
FA2
03 12.
03 Lu
t:: 03
00 0 0
0 03
N 0 0
co 0 03
03 03 030)
-4
03 00
03 003 0) CU

CITY OF CAMARILLO
W.VENTURA & VERDULERA
4:30-6:00 am
Fire Name : Not Named 2
Site Code : 00000444
Start Date : 8/21/2014
Page No :1
Groups Printed- Unshifted - Bank 1
W.VENTURA - SB
From North
W.VENTURA '-WB
From East
W.VENTURA - NB
From South

VERULERA- FB
From West
Start Time Right I Thru Left I Peds App. T Right ThrufIWI Peds IApp. Total Right Thru I Left Peds App. Tet(A Right Thru Left Peds App. RAM At. Total 05:00 PM 1 0 34 1 36 15 60 0 0 75 0 0 0 0 0 0 54 1 0 55 166 05:15 PM 0 0 20 0 20 23 73 0 0 96 0 0 0 0 0 0 50 0 0 . 50 166 05:30 PM 0 0 28 0 28 31 86 1 0 118 0 0 0 0 . 0 0 73 0 1 74 220 05:45 PM 0 0 24 0 24 20 79 0 0 99 0 0 1 0 1 0 36 2 0 38 162 Total 1 0 106 1 108 89 298 1 0 388 0 d 1 0 1 0 213 3 1 217 714 W.VENTURA -88
Out In Total
92 108 200
ft
92 108 200
1 oi los
o' o
o los
Right Thru Left Peds
Lo
(0
North
8/21/2014 05:00 PM
8/21/2014 05:45 PM
Unshifted
Bank 1
5(Q

PROJECT TRIP GENERATION CALCULATION WORKSHEET
(NI
Lr) Lc-)
CO CO
CO CO
O°
co co
co co
76-2 *Cg
C Nx- [-•

8.9.. 82.

CO CO
CO
CO
('(CO

N- - CO
07 CO N- CO C‘,1 10 CO
LCV CV
v- m-
▪ d• CO

CO CO CO
CO • CO
T1' CO
('IC')
V- VCO CO
CO CO
CO CO
CO CO
1*---
LO
✓ r
di- CO CO
CV CO
0 CV CO CO 71-

T- Q) T- NY
LC)
(\i 6 6 6
CO 01
CO CO
4t At 4t
O 0 0 0
-0 '0 1:3
O 0 0 0
O 000

W W W F- H
m CD /7
0 'c
1-
S u.

CV0 CV CV r CO CV CO (7,
COco d-LO CO
T- CO r N- LO
,Q"' '1' CO CO CO T-
▪ CO CO LC) CO
<- CO
CO CO CO CO LO CO LC) 'CI' (si
N- dt CV LC) P.-- CV r `zt
CO CO 1"-- m- m- a)
N- CO CO IC) CV LU",t dr
CO L.r) CO LO CO CO

CO CO CO CO
07 CO NCO
• 07 Lo,
-CO CO
a) 0 07 00
r
CV r CO LO
di-CO N- CO CO
N-- 0) CD. CO O
• c\i CO
CO "zt cCD CD CO CO
COCO CD. (D.

CO CO
CV CO
0) LO

CO CV N--

N- CO CO
COCO CO CO
r CO U7

CO CO CO

CO CO CO
CO TPARCEL D

CO CO CO

CO CO CO
CO d-("V.,
LU CO
CO 07 CO
0, 07 0)
05 C6 SPRINGVILLE COMMERCIAL PROJECT
10 I-0
0)0)
CO CO

INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE CALCULATION WORKSHEETS

TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY
eneral inrormati A Information
Analyst MMF
Agency/Co. ATE
Date Performed 8/4/2014
Analysis Time Period A.M. PEAK HOUR
U.S. 101 NB/CENTRAL Intersection AVE
Jurisdiction CITY OF CAMARILLO
Analysis Year EXISTING
Project Description #14054 SPRING VILLE COMMERCIAL PROJECT East/West Street: U.S. 101 NB RAMPS North/South Street: CENTRAL AVENUE Intersection Orientation: North-South Study Period (hrs): 1.00 Iehicl! e ustments
Major Street Northbound Southbound
Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6
Volume (veh/h) 29 108 661 109
Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Hourly Flow Rate, HFR
(veh/h) 29 108 0 0 661 109
Percent Heavy Vehicles 4 0
Median Type Undivided
RT Channelized 0 0
Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 1
Configuration LT
Upstream Signal 0 0
Minor Street Eastbound Westbound
Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12
Volume (veh/h) 18 293
Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Hourly Flow Rate, HFR
(veh/h) 0 0 0 18 0 293
Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 4 0 4
Percent Grade (%) 0 0
Flared Approach
Storage 0 0
RT Channelized 0 0
Lanes 0 0 0 1 0 1
Configuration
Delay, Queue'Lengt' and Level of ervice
Approach Northbound Southbound Westbound Eastbound
Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12
Lane Configuration LT
v (veh/h) 29 18 293
C (m) (veh/h) 1023 634 1715
vIc 0.03 0.03 0.17
95% queue length 0.09 0.09 0.62
Control Delay (s/veh) 8.6 10.8 7.5

LOS A A
Approach Delay
(s/veh) 7.7
Approach LOS A
Copyright 0 2010 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS+Tm Version 5.6 Generated: 8/5/2014 10:19 AM

TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY
e Informal
Intersection
Jurisdiction
Analysis Year
U.S. 101 NB/CENTRAL AVE

CITY OF CAMARILLO
EXISTING+PROJECT
Analyst
Agency/Co.

Date Performed
Analysis Time Period
MMF
ATE
8/4/2014
A.M. PEAK HOUR
Project Description #14054 SPRING VILLE COMMERCIAL PROJECT East/West Street: U.S. 101 NB RAMPS North/South Street: CENTRAL AVENUE Intersection Orientation: North-South Study Period (hrs): 1.00 Ve le e U ustment
Major Street Northbound Southbound
Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6
Volume (veh/h) 29 111 669 109
Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Hourly Flow Rate, HFR
(veh/h) 29 111 0 0 669 109
Percent Heavy Vehicles 4 0
Median Type Undivided
RT Channelized 0 0
Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 1
Configuration LT
Upstream Signal 0 0
Minor Street Eastbound Westbound
Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12
Volume (veh/h) 18 293
Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Hourly Flow Rate, HFR
(veh/h) 0 0 0 18 0 293
Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 4 0 4
Percent Grade (%) 0 0
Flared Approach
Storage 0 0
RT Channelized 0 0
Lanes 0 0 0 1 0
Configuration
uene erv
Approach Northbound Southbound Westbound Eastbound
Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12
Lane Configuration LT
v (veh/h) 29 18 293
C (m) (veh/h) 1017 627 1713
\do 0.03 0.03 0.17
95% queue length 0.09 0.09 0.62
Control Delay (s/veh) 8.6 10.9 7.5

LOS A A
Approach Delay (s/veh) 7.7
Approach LOS A
Copyright @ 2010 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS+TmVersion 5.6 Generated: 8/5/2014 10:57 AM Atot:),?7.

TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY
General Information mat
Analyst MMF
Agency/Co. ATE
Date Performed 8/4/2014
Analysis Time Period A.M. PEAK HOUR
Intersection U.S. 101 NB/CENTRAL AVE
Jurisdiction CITY OF CAMARILLO
Analysis Year EXISTING+APPROVED
Project Description #14054 SPRINGVILLE COMMERCIAL PROJECT East/West Street: U.S. 101 NB RAMPS North/South Street: CENTRAL AVENUE Intersection Orientation: North-South Study Period (hrs): 1.00 'ehic !11,171,e§ga,]: ustme
Major Street Northbound Southbound
Movement 2 3 4 5 6
Volume (veh/h) 34 108 674 109
Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Hourly Flow Rate, HFR
(veh/h) 34 108 0 0 674 109
Percent Heavy Vehicles 4 0
Median Type Undivided
RT Channelized 0 0
Lanes 0 0 0
Configuration LT
Upstream Signal 0 0
Minor Street Eastbound Westbound
Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12
Volume (veh/h) 18 305
Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Hourly Flow Rate, HFR
(veh/h) 0 0 0 18 0 305
Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 4 0 4
Percent Grade (%) 0 0
Flared Approach
Storage 0 0
RT Channelized 0 0
Lanes 0 0 0 0
Configuration
eue Lefl e
Approach Northbound Southbound Westbound Eastbound
Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12
Lane Configuration LT
v (veh/h) 34 18 305
C (m) (veh/h) 1013 616 1715
vic 0.03 0.18
95% queue length 0.10
Control Delay (s/veh) 8.7

0.09 0.65

11.0 7.6
Approach Delay (s/veh) 7.7
Approach LOS A
LOS

0.03 A A
Copyright © 2010 University of Flo ida, All Rights Reserved HCS+TMVersion 5.6 Generated: 8/5/2014 11:04 AM : 7, A, sa.c. S A.

TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY
eneral Informa 0 nformanon
Analyst
Agency/Co.

Date Performed
Analysis Time Period
MMF
ATE
8/4/2014
A.M. PEAK HOUR
Intersection
Jurisdiction
Analysis Year
U.S. 101 NB/CENTRAL AVE

CITY OF CAMARILLO
EXISTING+APPROVED+PROJECT
Project Description #14054 SPRING VILLE COMMERCIAL PROJECT East/West Street: U.S. 101 NB RAMPS North/South Street: CENTRAL AVENUE Intersection Orientation: North-South Study Period (hrs): 1.00 ic e Lirries us me
Major Street Northbound Southbound
Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6
Volume (veh/h) 34 111 681 109
Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Hourly Flow Rate, HFR
(veh/h) 34 111 0 0 681 109
Percent Heavy Vehicles 4 0
Median Type Undivided
RI Channelized 0 0
Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 1
Configuration LT
Upstream Signal 0 0
Minor Street Eastbound Westbound
Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12
Volume (veh/h) 18 305
Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Hourly Flow Rate, HFR
(veh/h) 0 0 0 18 0 305
Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 4 0 4
Percent Grade (%) 0 0
Flared Approach
Storage 0 0
RI Channelized 0 0
Lanes 0 0 0 1 0 1
Configuration
elay ei Length
Approach Northbound Southbound Westbound Eastbound
Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12
Lane Configuration LT
v (veh/h) 34 18 305
C (m) (veh/h) 1008 608 1713
vIc 0.03 0.03 0.18
95% queue length 0.10 0.09 0.65
Control Delay (s/veh) 8.7 11.1 7.6

LOS A A
Approach Delay (s/veh) 7.8
Approach LOS A
Copyright © 2010 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS+TmVersion 5.6 Generated: 8/5/2014 11:05 AM AWA = sec.. / Lo 5 A
#14054 SPRINGVILLE COMMERCIAL PROJECT

INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION WORKSHEET - GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT TIME PERIOD: A.M. PEAK HOUR
N/S STREET: CENTRAL AVENUE
EPA' STREET: U.S. 101 NB RAMPS
CONTROL TYPE: SIGNAL
REF: 01 AM

TRAFFIC VOLUME SUMMARY

NORTH BOUND SOUTH BOUND EAST BOUND
VOLUMES L T R L r R L r R

WEST BOUND
L T R
(A) GP BUILDOUT: 77 94 0 0 1385 132 0 0 0
(B) PROJECT-ADDED: 0 1 0 0 -7 0 0 0 0
391 0 637
0 0 0

GEOMETRICS

NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND

LANE GEOMETRICS LL TT TT R

WESTBOUND

L LTR R

TRAFFIC SCENARIOS
SCENARIO 1 = GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT (A)
SCENARIO 2 = GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT + PROJECT VOLUMES (A+B)

LEVEL OF SERVICE CALCULATIONS
MOVEMENTS
# OF

LANES CAPACITY

SCENARIO VOLUMES
1 2

SCENARIO WC RATIOS
1 2
NBL
NBT
NBR (a)
SBL
SOT
SBR (b)
EBL
EBT
EBR (c)
WBL
WBT
WBR (d)
2 2
0 0
2 1
0 0
0 0
3 0
3200
3200
0 0
3200
1600
0 0
0 0
4800
0 77 77
94 95
0 0
- 0 0
1385 1378
132 132
0 0
0 0
0 0
391 391
0 0
637 637

0.024

0.029
-
-

0.433

0.083

0.214
-
*
*
*

0.024 *

0.030
-

0.431 *

0.083

0.214 *
TOTAL INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION:

SCENARIO LEVEL OF SERVICE:

0.671
B

0.669
B
NOTES:

RTOR: (a) 0%
(b) 0%
(c) 0%
(d) 0%
Printed: 07/31/14

TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY
General lnformatio e inormatio
U.S. 101 NB/CENTRAL
AVE

CITY OF CAMARILLO

EXISTING
Analyst
Agency/Co.

Date Performed
Analysis Time Period
MMF Intersection
ATE
8/4/2014
P.M. PEAK HOUR
Jurisdiction
Analysis Year
Project Description #14054 SPRING VILLE COMMERCIAL PROJECT East/West Street: U.S. 101 NB RAMPS North/South Street: CENTRAL AVENUE Intersection Orientation: North-South Study Period (hrs): 1.00 Vehicle Volumes and Ijustnients
Major Street Northbound Southbound
Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6
Volume (veh/h) 186 299 476 100
Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Hourly Flow Rate, HFR
(veh/h) 186 299 0 0 476 100
Percent Heavy Vehicles 4 0
Median Type Undivided
RT Channelized 0 0
Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 1
Configuration LT
Upstream Signal 0 0
Minor Street Eastbound Westbound
Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12
Volume (veh/h) 14 501
Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Hourly Flow Rate, HFR
(veh/h) 0 0 0 14 0 501
Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 4 0 4
Percent Grade (%) 0 0
Flared Approach
Storage 0 0
RT Channelized 0 0
Lanes 0 0 0 1 0 1
Configuration
Delay?,Queie Length, and Level of Service
Approach
Movement
Northbound
1 Southbound
4 Westbound Eastbound
7 8 9 10 11 12
Lane Configuration LT
v (veh/h) 186 14 501
C (m) (veh/h) 1176 314 977
\tic 0.16 0.04 0.51
95% queue length
Control Delay (s/veh)
LOS

0.14 17,0

3.12 12.5

0.56 8.6
A
Approach Delay
(s/veh) 12.7
Approach LOS
Copyright © 2010 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS+TulVersion 5.6 Generated: 8/5/2014 10:30 AM [L 5e-c-iv.
,

TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY
Genera ormatio Sil e Informati
Analyst MMF
Agency/Co. ATE
Date Performed 8/4/2014
Analysis Time Period P.M. PEAK HOUR
Intersection U.S. 101 NB/CENTRAL AVE
Jurisdiction CITY OF CAMARILLO
Analysis Year EXISTING+PROJECT
Project Description #14054 SPRING VILLE COMMERCIAL PROJECT East/West Street: U.S. 101 NB RAMPS North/South Street: CENTRAL AVENUE Intersection Orientation: North-South Study Period (hrs): 1.00 cle Volumes a jus men
Major Street Northbound Southbound
Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6
Volume (veh/h) 186 310 484 100
Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Hourly Flow Rate, HFR
(veh/h) 186 310 0 0 484 100
Percent Heavy Vehicles 4 0
Median Type Undivided
RT Channelized 0 0
Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 1
Configuration LT
Upstream Signal 0 0
Minor Street Eastbound Westbound
Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12
Volume (veh/h) 14 501
Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Hourly Flow Rate, HFR
(veh/h) 0 0 0 14 0 501
Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 4 0 4
Percent Grade (%) 0 0
Flared Approach
Storage 0 0
RT Channelized 0 0
Lanes 0 0 0 1 0 1
Configuration
Delay, Queue Lengthy and Level of.Serv
Approach Northbound Southbound Westbound Eastbound
Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12
Lane Configuration LT
v (veh/h) 186 14 501
C (m) (veh/h) 1169 306 960
vIc 0.16 0.05 0.52
95% queue length 0.57
Control Delay (s/veh) 8.7

0.14 3.23

17.3 12.8
LOS
Approach Delay (s/veh) 12.9
Approach LOS
A
Copyright © 2010 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS+TmVersion 5.6 Generated: 8/5/2014 10:58 AM Awls se-c1Los B

TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY
General.nformato Site rtf0004
Analyst
Agency/Co,
Date Performed
Analysis Time Period
MMF
ATE
8/4/2014
P.M. PEAK HOUR
Intersection
Jurisdiction
Analysis Year
U.S. 101 NB/CENTRAL AVE

CITY OF CAMARILLO
EXISTING+APPROVED
Project Description #14054 SPRING VILLE COMMERCIAL PROJECT East/West Street: U.S. 101 NB RAMPS North/South Street: CENTRAL AVENUE Intersection Orientation: North-South Study Period (hrs): 1.00 e umes an jtiattne,
Major Street Northbound Southbound
Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6
Volume (veh/h) 224 302 502 100
Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Hourly Flow Rate, HFR
(veh/h) 224 302 0 0 502 100
Percent Heavy Vehicles 4 0
Median Type Undivided
RT Channelized 0 0
Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 1
Configuration LT
Upstream Signal 0 0
Minor Street Eastbound Westbound
Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12
Volume (veh/h) 14 524
Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Hourly Flow Rate, HFR
(veh/h) 0 0 0 14 0 524
Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 4 0 4
Percent Grade (%) 0 0
Flared Approach
Storage 0 0
RT Channelized 0 0
Lanes 0 0 0 1 0 1
Configuration
ueue Lengths and ev of Serv
Approach Northbound Southbound Westbound Eastbound
Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12
Lane Configuration LT
v (veh/h) 224 14 524
C (m) (veh/h) 1154 262 972
ViC 0.19 0.05 0.54
95% queue length 0.72 0.17 3.46
Control Delay (s/veh) 8.9 19.5 13.0
LOS A
Approach Delay (s/veh) 13.2
Approach LOS
Copyright @ 2010 University of Florida, All R,ights Reserved HCS+Tm Version 5.6 Generated: 8/5/2014 11:05 AM AaA3D7- 11. - 4k 6ec.. L-4,5 S

TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY
eneral Information sate n ormation
Analyst MMF
Agency/Co. ATE
Date Performed 8/4/2014
Analysis Time Period P.M. PEAK HOUR
Intersection U.S. 101 NB/CENTRAL AVE
Jurisdiction CITY OF CAMARILLO
Analysis Year EXISTING+APPROVED+PROJECT
Project Description #14054 SPRING VILLE COMMERCIAL PROJECT East/West Street: U.S. 101 NB RAMPS North/South Street: CENTRAL AVENUE Intersection Orientation: North-South Study Period (hrs): 1.00 c e urn us me
Major Street Northbound Southbound
Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6
Volume (veh/h) 224 313 510 100
Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Hourly Flow Rate, HFR
(veh/h) 224 313 0 0 510 100
Percent Heavy Vehicles 4 0
Median Type Undivided
RT Channelized 0 0
Lanes 0 0 0 1
Configuration LT
Upstream Signal 0 0
Minor Street Eastbound Westbound
Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12
Volume (veh/h) 14 524
Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Hourly Flow Rate, HFR
(veh/h) 0 0 0 14 0 524
Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 4 0 4
Percent Grade (%) 0 0
Flared Approach
Storage 0 0
RT Channelized 0 0
Lanes 0 0 0 0 1
Configuration
Delay, Queue Len ei
Approach Northbound Southbound Westbound Eastbound
Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12
Lane Configuration LT
v (veh/h) 224 14 524
C (m) (veh/h) 1148 255 956
vIc 0.20 0.05 0.55
95% queue length 0.73 0.17 3.58
Control Delay (s/veh) 8.9 19.9 13.3
LOS A
Approach Delay (s/veh) 13.5
Approach LOS
Copyright© 2010 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS+Tm Version 5.6 Generated: 8/5/2014 11:06 AM Acob /Z.( 5ec../(..o5 B
#14054 SPRINGVILLE COMMERCIAL PROJECT

INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION WORKSHEET - GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT TIME PERIOD: P.M. PEAK HOUR
WS STREET: CENTRAL AVENUE
ENV STREET: U.S. 101 NB RAMPS
CONTROL TYPE: SIGNAL
,
REF: 01 PM

TRAFFIC VOLUME SUMMARY

NORTH BOUND SOUTH BOUND EAST BOUND

VOLUMES L T R L T R L T R

WEST BOUND
L T R
(A) GP BUILDOUT: 158 398 0 0 1372 210 0 0 0
(B) PROJECT-ADDED: 0 1 0 0 6 0 0 0 0
96 1 1024
0 0 0
,

GEOMETRICS

NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND

LANE GEOMETRICS LL IT TT R

WESTBOUND

L LTR R

TRAFFIC SCENARIOS
SCENARIO 1 = GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT (A)
SCENARIO 2 = GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT + PROJECT VOLUMES (A+B)

LEVEL OF SERVICE CALCULATIONS
MOVEMENTS
# OF

LANES CAPACITY

SCENARIO VOLUMES
1 2

SCENARIO WC RATIOS
1 2
NBL
NBT
N BR (a)
SBL
SBT
SBR (b)
EBL
EBT
EBR (c)
WBL
WBT
WBR (d)
2 2
0 0
2 1
0 0
0 1
2 0
3200
3200
0 0
3200
1600
0 0
0 1600
3200
0 158 158
398 399
0 0
0 0
1372 1378
210 210
0 0
0 0
0 0
96 96
1 1
1024 1024

0.049

0.124
-

0.429

0.131

0.060

0.320
*
*
*

0.049 *

0.125
-

0.431 *

0.131
-
0,060
0,320 *
TOTAL INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION:

SCENARIO LEVEL OF SERVICE:

0.798
C

0.800
C
NOTES:

RTOR: (a) 0%
(b) 0%
(c) 0%
(d) 0%
Printed: 08/01/14

TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY
enera tyforniatio Site lnformatio
U.S. 101 SB/CENTRAL
AVE

CITY OF CAMARILLO

EXISTING
Analyst MMF
Agency/Co. ATE
Date Performed 8/4/2014
Analysis Time Period A.M. PEAK HOUR
Intersection
Jurisdiction
Analysis Year
Project Description #14054 SPRING VILLE COMMERCIAL PROJECT East/West Street: U.S. 101 SB RAMPS North/South Street: CENTRAL AVENUE Intersection Orientation: North-South Study Period (hrs): 0.25 re U EIS
Major Street Northbound Southbound
Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6
Volume (veh/h) 60 11 614 69
Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Hourly Flow Rate, HFR
(veh/h) 0 60 11 614 69 0
Percent Heavy Vehicles 4 0
Median Type Undivided
RT Channelized 0 0
Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0
Configuration TR LT
Upstream Signal 0 0
Minor Street Eastbound Westbound
Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12
Volume (veh/h) 78 83
Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Hourly Flow Rate, HFR
(veh/h) 78 0 83 0 0 0
Percent Heavy Vehicles 4 0 4 4 0 4
Percent Grade (%) 0 0
Flared Approach
Storage 0 0
RI Channelized 0 0
Lanes 1 0 1 0 0 0
Configuration
a eue evel
Approach Northbound Southbound Westbound Eastbound
Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12
Lane Configuration LT
v (veh/h) 614 78 83
C (m) (veh/h) 1693 456 802
v/c 0.36 0.17 0.10
95% queue length 1.69 0.61 0.34
Control Delay (s/veh)
LOS

8.3 A
Approach Delay
(s/veh) 12.2
Approach LOS
Copyright 0 2010 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS+TmVersion 5.6 Generated: 8/5/2014 10:41 AM

TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY
eneral nformah nformati
Analyst MMF
Agency/Co. ATE
Date Performed 8/4/2014
Analysis Time Period A.M. PEAK HOUR
Intersection U.S. 101 SB/CENTRAL AVE
Jurisdiction CITY OF CAMARILLO
Analysis Year EXISTING+PROJECT
Project Description #14054 SPRINGVILLE COMMERCIAL PROJECT East/West Street: U.S. 101 SB RAMPS North/South Street: CENTRAL AVENUE Intersection Orientation: North-South Study Period (hrs): 0.25 Joie umes us fne
Major Street Northbound Southbound
Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6
Volume (veh/h) 63 11 614 77
Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Hourly Flow Rate, HFR
(veh/h) 0 63 11 614 77 0
Percent Heavy Vehicles 4 0
Median Type Undivided
RT Channelized 0 0
Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0
Configuration TR LT
Upstream Signal 0 0
Minor Street Eastbound Westbound
Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12
Volume (veh/h) 78 83
Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Hourly Flow Rate, HFR
(veh/h) 78 0 83 0 0 0
Percent Heavy Vehicles 4 0 4 4 0 4
Percent Grade (%) 0 0
Flared Approach
Storage 0 0
RT Channelized 0 0
Lanes 1 0 1 0 0 0
Configuration
e a ueue Length, a ei
Approach Northbound Southbound Westbound Eastbound
Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12
Lane Configuration LT
v (veh/h) 614 78 83
C (m) (veh/h) 1689 453 792
vIc 0.36 0.17 0.10
95% queue length 1.69
Control Delay (s/veh) 8.3

0.62 0.35

14.6 10.1
LOS
Approach Delay (s/veh) 12.3
Approach LOS
A
Copyright @ 2010 University of Flo ida, All Rights Reserved HCS+Tm Version 5,6 Generated: 8/5/2014 10:58 AM Pwab t $ec , Los x.

TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY
Genera Afloat' rifc)rillatIon
Analyst MMF
Agency/Co. ATE
Date Performed 8/4/2014
Analysis Time Period A.M. PEAK HOUR
Intersection U.S. 101 SB/CENTRAL AVE
Jurisdiction CITY OF CAMARILLO
Analysis Year EX1STING+APPROVED
Project Description #14054 SPRING VILLE COMMERCIAL PROJECT East/West Street: U.S. 101 SB RAMPS North/South Street: CENTRAL AVENUE Intersection Orientation: North-South Study Period (hrs): 0.25 ustmen
Major Street Northbound Southbound
Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6
Volume (veh/h) 65 11 624 100
Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Hourly Flow Rate, HFR
(veh/h) 0 65 11 624 100 0
Percent Heavy Vehicles 4 0
Median Type Undivided
RT Channelized 0 0
Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0
Configuration TR LT
Upstream Signal 0 0
Minor Street Eastbound Westbound
Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12
Volume (veh/h) 78 115
Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Hourly Flow Rate, HFR
(veh/h) 78 0 115 0 0 0
Percent Heavy Vehicles 4 0 4 4 0 4
Percent Grade (%) 0 0
Flared Approach
Storage 0 0
RT Channelized 0 0
Lanes 1 0 1 0 0 0
Configuration
ela uetie erig vel erv c
Approach Northbound Southbound Westbound Eastbound
Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12
Lane Configuration LT
v (veh/h) 624 78 115
C (m) (veh/h) 1686 435 765
vIc 0.37 0.18 0.15
95% queue length 1.74
Control Delay (s/veh) 8.4

0.65 0.53

15.1 10.5
LOS
Approach Delay (s/veh) 12.4
Approach LOS
A
Copyright @ 2010 University of Florida, Al! Rights Reserved HCS+TmVersion 5.6 Generated: 8/5/2014 11:09 AM Auot> A.-,s

TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY
eneral Informati nformatio
Analyst MMF
Agency/Co. ATE
Date Performed 8/4/2014
Analysis Time Period A.M. PEAK HOUR
Intersection U.S. 101 SB/CENTRAL AVE
Jurisdiction CITY OF CAMARILLO
Analysis Year EXISTING+APPROVED+PROJECT
Project Description #14054 SPRING VILLE COMMERCIAL PROJECT East/West Street: U.S. 101 SB RAMPS North/South Street: CENTRAL AVENUE Intersection Orientation: North-South Study Period (hrs): 0.25 0 urne ustme
Major Street Northbound Southbound
Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6
Volume (veh/h) 68 11 624 108
Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Hourly Flow Rate, HFR
(veh/h) 0 68 11 624 108 0
Percent Heavy Vehicles 4 0
Median Type Undivided
RT Channelized 0 0
Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0
Configuration TR LT
Upstream Signal 0 0
Minor Street Eastbound Westbound
Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12
Volume (veh/h) 78 115
Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Hourly Flow Rate, HFR
(veh/h) 78 0 115 0 0 0
Percent Heavy Vehicles 4 0 4 4 0 4
Percent Grade (%) 0 0
Flared Approach
Storage 0 0
RT Channelized 0 0
Lanes 1 0 1 0 0 0
Configuration
elay, Queue Length, a enn
Approach Northbound Southbound Westbound Eastbound
Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12
Lane Configuration LT
v (veh/h) 624 78 115
C (m) (veh/h) 1681 430 755
vIc 0.37 0.18 0.15
95% queue length 1.75
Control Delay (s/veh) 8.4

0.66 0.54

15.2 10.6
LOS
Approach Delay (s/veh) 12.5
Approach LOS
A
Copyright © 2010 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS+TmVersion 5.6 Generated: 8/5/2014 11:09 AM Ab 1.4 sec, /Los A
#14054 SPRINGVILLE COMMERCIAL PROJECT

INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION WORKSHEET - GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT TIME PERIOD: A.M. PEAK HOUR
WS STREET: CENTRAL AVENUE
E/W STREET: U.S. 101 SB RAMPS
CONTROL TYPE: SIGNAL
REF: 02 AM

TRAFFIC VOLUME SUMMARY

NORTH BOUND SOUTH BOUND EAST BOUND

VOLUMES L T R L T R L T R

WEST BOUND
L T R
(A) GP BUILDOUT: 0 119 22 1033 555 0 43 0 189
(B) PROJECT-ADDED; o 1 o 0 -7 0 0 o o
o o o
o o 0

GEOMETRICS

NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND

LANE GEOMETRICS TT R LL TT L RR

WESTBOUND

TRAFFIC SCENARIOS
SCENARIO 1 = GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT (A)
SCENARIO 2 = GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT + PROJECT VOLUMES (A+B)

LEVEL OF SERVICE CALCULATIONS
MOVEMENTS
# OF

LANES CAPACITY

SCENARIO VOLUMES
1 2

SCENARIO V/C RATIOS
1 2
NBL
NET
NBR (a)
SBL
SET
SBR (b)
EEL
EBT
EBR (c)
WBL
WET
WBR (d)
0 2
1 2
2 0
1 0
2 0
0 o
0 3200
1600
3200
3200
0 1600
0 3200
0 0
o
0 0
119 120
22 22
1033 1033
555 548
0 0
43 43
0 0
189 189
0 0
0 0
o o

0.037

0.014

0.323

0.173
-

0.027
-

0.059
'
*
*

0.038 '

0.014

0.323 *

0.171

0.027

0.059 *
-
-
TOTAL INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION:

SCENARIO LEVEL OF SERVICE:

0.419
A

0.420
A
NOTES:

RTOR: (a) 0%
(b) 0%
(c) 0%
(d) 0%
Printed: 07/31/14

TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY
eneral Informati ornia
Analyst MMF
Agency/Co. ATE
Date Performed 8/4/2014
Analysis Time Period P.M. PEAK HOUR
US. 101 SB/CENTRAL Intersection AVE
Jurisdiction CITY OF CAMARILLO
Analysis Year EXISTING
Project Description #14054 SPRING VILLE COMMERCIAL PROJECT East/West Street: U.S. 101 SB RAMPS North/South Street: CENTRAL AVENUE Intersection Orientation: North-South Study Period (hrs): 1.00 ehicte LIS Me
Major Street Northbound Southbound
Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6
Volume (veh/h) 394 22 379 108
Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Hourly Flow Rate, HFR
(veh/h) 0 394 22 379 108 0
Percent Heavy Vehicles 4 0
Median Type Undivided
RT Channelized 0 0
Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0
Configuration TR LT
Upstream Signal 0 0
Minor Street Eastbound Westbound
Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12
Volume (veh/h) 91 92
Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Hourly Flow Rate, HFR
(veh/h) 91 0 92 0 0 0
Percent Heavy Vehicles 4 0 4 4 0 4
Percent Grade (%) 0 0
Flared Approach
Storage 0 0
RT Channelized 0 0
Lanes 1 0 1 0 0 0
Configuration
Queue Len vei o
Approach Northbound Southbound Westbound Eastbound
Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12
Lane Configuration LT
v (veh/h) 379 91 92
C (m) (veh/h) 1345 235 940
vIc 0.28 0.39 0.10
95% queue length 1.17 1.85 0.33
Control Delay (s/veh) 8.7 29.9 9.2

LOS A A
Approach Delay
(s/veh) 19.5
Approach LOS
Copyright 0 2010 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS+TmVersion 5.6 Generated: 8/5/2014 10:45 AM C6,

TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY
General lnformatioi ormati
Analyst MMF
Agency/Co. ATE
Date Performed 8/4/2014
Analysis Time Period P.M. PEAK HOUR
Intersection U.S. 101 SB/CENTRAL AVE
Jurisdiction CITY OF CAMARILLO
Analysis Year EXISTING+PROJECT
Project Description #14054 SPRING VILLE COMMERCIAL PROJECT East/West Street: U.S. 101 SB RAMPS North/South Street: CENTRAL AVENUE Intersection Orientation: North-South Study Period (hrs): 1.00 ic e ume a Us filen
Major Street Northbound Southbound
Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6
Volume (veh/h) 405 22 379 116
Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Hourly Flow Rate, HFR
(veh/h) 0 405 22 379 116 0
Percent Heavy Vehicles 4 0
Median Type Undivided
RI Channelized 0 0
Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0
Configuration TR LT
Upstream Signal 0 0
Minor Street Eastbound Westbound
Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12
Volume (veh/h) 91 92
Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Hourly Flow Rate, HFR
(veh/h) 91 0 92 0 0 0
Percent Heavy Vehicles 4 0 4 4 0 4
Percent Grade (%) 0 0
Flared Approach
Storage 0 0
RT Channelized 0 0
Lanes 1 0 1 0 0 0
Configuration
Delay ueue Len and Leve 0
Approach Northbound Southbound Westbound Eastbound
Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12
Lane Configuration LT
v (veh/h) 379 91 92
C (m) (veh/h) 1335 228 931
vie 0.28 0.40 0.10
95% queue length 1.19 1.94 0.33
Control Delay (s/veh) 8.8 31.2 9.3

LOS A A
Approach Delay (s/veh) 20.2
Approach LOS
Copyright © 2010 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS+TmVersion 5.6 Generated: 8/5/2014 10:59 AM 4WD I2.5

TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY
eneral Informatio
Analyst MMF
Agency/Co. ATE
Date Performed 8/4/2014
Analysis Time Period P.M. PEAK HOUR
Intersection U.S. 101 SB/CENTRAL AVE
Jurisdiction CITY OF CAMARILLO
Analysis Year EXISTING-'-APPROVED
Project Description #14054 SPRING VILLE COMMERCIAL PROJECT East/West Street: U.S. 101 SB RAMPS North/South Street: CENTRAL AVENUE Intersection Orientation: North-South Study Period (hrs): 1.00 ucie 0 umes a ustruent
Major Street Northbound Southbound
Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6
Volume (veh/h) 435 22 405 108
Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Hourly Flow Rate, HFR
(veh/h) 0 435 22 405 108 0
Percent Heavy Vehicles 4 0
Median Type Undivided
RI Channelized 0 0
Lanes 0 1 0 0 0
Configuration TR LT
Upstream Signal 0 0
Minor Street Eastbound Westbound
Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12
Volume (veh/h) 91 94
Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Hourly Flow Rate, HFR
(veh/h) 91 0 94 0 0 0
Percent Heavy Vehicles 4 0 4 4 0 4
Percent Grade (%) 0 0
Flared Approach
Storage 0 0
RI Channelized 0 0
Lanes 1 0 1 0 0 0
Configuration
01#y erv c
Approach Northbound Southbound Westbound Eastbound
Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12
Lane Configuration LT
v (veh/h) 405 91 94
C (m) (veh/h) 1307 199 940
vIc 0.31 0.46 0.10
95% queue length 1.34
Control Delay (s/veh) 9.0

2.42 0.33

38.1 9.3
LOS
Approach Delay (s/veh) 23.4
Approach LOS
A A
Copyright @ 2010 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS+TMVersion 5.6 Generated: 8/5/2014 11:10 AM Ath3V>:: 13.5-sac,/ (-OS IN

TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY
General Information dte orniati
Analyst MMF
Agency/Co. ATE
Date Performed 8/4/2014
Analysis Time Period P.M. PEAK HOUR
Intersection U.S. 101 SB/CENTRAL AVE
Jurisdiction CITY OF CAMARILLO
Analysis Year EXISTING+APPROVED+PROJECT
Project Description #14054 SPRINGVILLE COMMERCIAL PROJECT East/West Street: U.S. 101 SB RAMPS North/South Street: CENTRAL AVENUE Intersection Orientation: North-South Study Period (hrs): 1.00 IC urn us !lien
Major Street Northbound Southbound
Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6
Volume (veh/h) 446 22 405 116
Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Hourly Flow Rate, HFR
(veh/h) 0 446 22 405 116 0
Percent Heavy Vehicles 4 0
Median Type Undivided
RT Channelized 0 0
Lanes 0 0 0 1 0
Configuration TR LT
Upstream Signal 0 0
Minor Street Eastbound Westbound
Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12
Volume (veh/h) 91 94
Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Hourly Flow Rate, HFR
(veh/h) 91 0 94 0 0 0
Percent Heavy Vehicles 4 0 4 4 0 4
Percent Grade (%) 0 0
Flared Approach
Storage 0 0
RT Channelized 0 0
Lanes 1 0 1 0 0 0
Configuration
;01* etie eve erv
Approach Northbound Southbound Westbound Eastbound
Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12
Lane Configuration LT
v (veh/h) 405 91 94
C (m) (veh/h) 1297 193 931
vIc 0.31 0.47 0.10
95% queue length 1.36
Control Delay (s/veh) 9.0

2.55 0.34

40.0 9.3
LOS
Approach Delay (s/veh) 24.4
Approach LOS
A A
Copyright @ 2010 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS+TmVersion 5.6 Generated: 8/5/2014 11:11 AM rs.s sec•./ c_os
#14054 SPRINGVILLE COMMERCIAL PROJECT

INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION WORKSHEET - GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT TIME PERIOD: P.M. PEAK HOUR
N/S STREET: CENTRAL AVENUE
EM/ STREET: U.S. 101 SB RAMPS
CONTROL TYPE: SIGNAL
REF: 02 PM

TRAFFIC VOLUME SUMMARY

NORTH BOUND SOUTH BOUND EAST BOUND

VOLUMES L T R L T R L T R

WEST BOUND
L T R
(A) GP BUILDOUT: 0 385 203 1229 102 0 142 0 116
(B) PROJECT-ADDED: 0 1 0 0 6 0 0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0

GEOMETRICS

NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND

LANE GEOMETRICS TT R LL IT L RR

WESTBOUND

TRAFFIC SCENARIOS ,
SCENARIO 1 = GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT (A)
SCENARIO 2 = GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT + PROJECT VOLUMES (A+B)

LEVEL OF SERVICE CALCULATIONS
MOVEMENTS
# OF

LANES CAPACITY

SCENARIO VOLUMES
1 2

SCENARIO V/C RATIOS
1 2
NBL
NBT
NBR (a)
SBL
SOT
SBR (b)
EBL
EBT
EB R (c)
WBL
WBT
WBR (d)
0 2
1 2
2 0
1 0
2 0
0 0
0 3200
1600
3200
3200
0 1600
0 3200
0 0
0 0 0
385 386
203 203
1229 1229
102 108
0 0
142 142
0 0
116 116
0 0
0 0
0 0
-

0.120

0.127

0.384

0.032

0.089

0.036
*
'
*
-

0.121

0.127 *

0.384 *

0.034

0.089 *

0.036
TOTAL INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION:

SCENARIO LEVEL OF SERVICE:

0.600
A

0.600
A
NOTES:

RTOR: (a) 0%
(b) 0%
(c) 0%
(d) 0%
Printed: 08/01/14
#14054 SPRINGVILLE COMMERCIAL PROJECT

INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION WORKSHEET
COUNT DATE: 07/24/2014
TIME PERIOD: A.M, PEAK HOUR
N/S STREET: SPRING VILLE DRIVE
ENV STREET: U.S. 101 NB RAMPS
CONTROL TYPE: SIGNAL
REF: 03 AM

TRAFFIC VOLUME SUMMARY

NORTH BOUND SOUTH BOUND EAST BOUND

VOLUMES L I R L T R L T R

WEST BOUND
L T R
(A) EXISTING: 55 173 0 0 73 410 0 0 0
(B) PROJECT-ADDED: 41 16 0 0 38 0 0 0 0
(0 EXISTING +APPROVED: 96 239 0 0 204 527 0 0 0
66 1 14
127 0 0
184 1 24

GEOMETRICS

NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND

LANE GEOMETRICS LL TT TT R

WESTBOUND
L LT R

TRAFFIC SCENARIOS
SCENARIO 1 = EXISTING VOLUMES (A)
SCENARIO 2 = EXISTING + PROJECT VOLUMES (A+ B)
SCENARIO 3 = EXISTING + APPROVED (C)
SCENARIO 4 = EXISTING + APPROVED + PROJECT VOLUMES (B+C)

LEVEL OF SERVICE CALCULATIONS
MOVEMENTS
I OF

LANES CAPACITY

SCENARIO VOLUMES
1 2

SCENARIO V/C RATIOS
1 2 3 4 3 4
NBL
NBT
NBR (a)
SBL
SBT
SBR (b)
EBL
EBT
EBR (c)
WBL
WBT
WBR (d)
2 2
o
0 2
1 0
0 0
0 2
1 3200
3200
0 0
3200
1600
0 0
0 0
3200
1600
55 96 96 137
173 189 239 255
o o 0 o
0 0 0 0
73 111 204 242
340 340 437 437
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
66 193 184 311
1 1 1 1
10 10 17 17

0.017

0.054
-
-

0.023

0.213
-

0.021

0.006
*
*
*

0.030 *

0.059

0.035

0.213 '

0.061 *

0.006
-
0,030 *

0.075

0.064

0.273 '

0.058 *

0.011

0.043

0.080

0.076

0.273
-
-

0.098

0.011
*
*
*
LOST TIME:

TOTAL INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION:

SCENARIO LEVEL OF SERVICE:

0.100

0.351
A
' 0.100 *

0.404
A

0.100 *

0.461
A

0.100

0.514
A
*
NOTES:

RTOR: (a) N/A
(b) 17%
(c) N/A
(d) 29%
Printed: 08/04/14
#14054 SPRINGVILLE COMMERCIAL PROJECT

INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION WORKSHEET - GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT TIME PERIOD: A.M. PEAK HOUR
N/S STREET: SPRING VILLE DRIVE
OW STREET: U.S. 101 NB RAMPS
CONTROL TYPE: SIGNAL
REF: 03 AM

TRAFFIC VOLUME SUMMARY

NORTH BOUND SOUTH BOUND EAST BOUND

VOLUMES L T R L T R L T R

WEST BOUND
L • T R
(A) GP BUILDOUT: 212 357 0 0 458 139 0 0 0
(B) PROJECT-ADDED: 18 18 0 0 -36 0 0 0 0
289 0 147
-113 0 0

GEOMETRICS

NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND

LANE GEOMETRICS LL TT TT R

WESTBOUND
LL R

TRAFFIC SCENARIOS
SCENARIO 1 = GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT (A)
SCENARIO 2 = GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT + PROJECT VOLUMES (A+B)

LEVEL OF SERVICE CALCULATIONS
MOVEMENTS
# OF

LANES CAPACITY

SCENARIO VOLUMES
1 2

SCENARIO WC RATIOS
1 2
NBL
NOT
NBR (a)
SBL
SBT
SBR (b)
EBL
EBT
EBR (c)
WBL
WBT
WBR (d)
2 2
0 0
2 1
0 0
0 2
0 1
3200
3200
0 0
3200
1600
0 0
0 3200
0 1600
212 230
357 375
0 0
0 0
458 422
139 139
0 0
0 0
0 0
289 176
0 0
147 147

0.066

0.112
-
-

0.143

0.087

0.090

0.092
*
*
*

0.072 *

0.117
-
-

0.132 *

0.087

0.055

0.092 *
TOTAL INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION:

SCENARIO LEVEL OF SERVICE:

0.301
A

0.296
A
NOTES: .

R TOR: (a) 0%
(b) 0%
(c) 0%
(d) 0%
' Printed: 07/31/14
#14054 SPRINGVILLE COMMERCIAL PROJECT

INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION WORKSHEET
COUNT DATE: 07/24/2014
TIME PERIOD: P.M. PEAK HOUR
N/S STREET: SPRING VILLE DRIVE
E/W STREET: U.S. 101 NB RAMPS
CONTROL TYPE: SIGNAL
REF: 03 PM

TRAFFIC VOLUME SUMMARY

NORTH BOUND SOUTH BOUND EAST BOUND

VOLUMES L T R L T R L T R

WEST BOUND
L I R
(A) EXISTING: 165 503 0 0 66 483 0 0 0
(B) PROJECT-ADDED: 140 56 0 0 38 0 0 0 0
(C) EXISTING+APPROVED: 412 782 0 0 203 550 0 0 0
29 2 17
126 0 0
288 2 55

GEOMETRICS

NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND

LANE GEOMETRICS LL IT IT R

WESTBOUND
L LT R

TRAFFIC SCENARIOS
SCENARIO 1 = EXISTING VOLUMES (A)
SCENARIO 2 = EXISTING + PROJECT VOLUMES (A+ B)
SCENARIO 3 = EXISTING + APPROVED (C)
SCENARIO 4 = EXISTING + APPROVED + PROJECT VOLUMES (B +C)

LEVEL OF SERVICE CALCULATIONS
MOVEMENTS # OF

LANES CAPACITY

SCENARIO VOLUMES
1 2

SCENARIO V/C RATIOS
1 2 3 4 3 4
NBL
NBT
NBR (a)
SBL
SBT
SBR (6)
EBL
EBT
EBR (c)
WBL
WBT
WBR (d)
2 2
0 0
2 1
0 0
0 0
2 1
3200
3200
0 0
3200
1600
0 0
0 0
3200
1600
165 305 412 552
503 559 782 838
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
66 104 203 241
406 406 462 462
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
29 155 288 414
2 2 2 2
11 11 36 36

0.052

0.157
-
-

0.021

0.254
-

0.010

0.007
*
*
*

0.095 *

0.175
-

0.033

0.254 *
-

0.049 *

0.007

0.129 *

0.244
-

0.063

0.289 *
-
-

0.091 *

0.023
0,173

0.262

0.075

0.289
-

0.130

0.023
*
'
*
LOST TIME:

TOTAL INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION:

SCENARIO LEVEL OF SERVICE:

0.100

0.416
A
* 0.100 *

0.498
A

0.100 *

0.609
B

0.100

0.692
8 *
NOTES:

RTOR: (a) N/A
(5) 16%
(c) N/A
(d) 35%
Printed: 08/04/14
#14054 SPRINGVILLE COMMERCIAL PROJECT

INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION WORKSHEET - GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT TIME PERIOD: P.M. PEAK HOUR
WS STREET: SPRING VILLE DRIVE
EPA' STREET: U.S. 101 NB RAMPS
CONTROL TYPE: SIGNAL
REF: 03 PM

TRAFFIC VOLUME SUMMARY

NORTH BOUND SOUTH BOUND EAST BOUND

VOLUMES L T R L T R L T R

WEST BOUND
L T R
(A) GP BUILDOUT: 672 1414 0 0 248 106 0 0 0
(B) PROJECT-ADDED: 7 2 0 0 30 0 0 0 0
150 0 135
100 0 0
,

GEOMETRICS

NORTHBOU ND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND

LANE GEOMETRICS LL IT TT R

WESTBOUND
LL R

TRAFFIC SCENARIOS
SCENARIO 1 = GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT (A)
SCENARIO 2 = GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT + PROJECT VOLUMES (A+B)

LEVEL OF SERVICE CALCULATIONS
MOVEMENTS # OF

LANES CAPACITY

SCENARIO VOLUMES
1 2

SCENARIO WC RATIOS
1 2
NBL
NBT
NBR (a)
SBL
SBT
SBR (6)
EBL ,
EBT
EBR (c)
WBL
WBT
WBR (d)
2 2
o
0 2
1 0
0 0
2 0
1 3200
3200
o
0 3200
1600
0 0
0 3200
0 1600
672 679
1414 1416
o 0
0 0
248 278
106 106
0 0
0 0
0 0
150 250
0 0
135 135

0.210

0.442

0.078

0.066
-
-
0,047

0.084
*
*

0.212

0.443 *
-

0.087

0.066

0.078

0.084 '
TOTAL INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION:

SCENARIO LEVEL OF SERVICE:

0.526
A

0.527
A
NOTES:

RTOR: (a) 0%
(b) 0%
(c) 0%
(d) 0%
Printed: t)8/01/14
#14054 SPRINGVILLE COMMERCIAL PROJECT

INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION WORKSHEET
COUNT DATE: 07/24/2014
TIME PERIOD: A.M. PEAK HOUR
N/S STREET: SPRINGVILLE DRIVE
EAN STREET: U.S. 101 SB RAMPS
CONTROL TYPE: SIGNAL
REF: 04 AM

TRAFFIC VOLUME SUMMARY

NORTH BOUND SOUTH BOUND EAST BOUND

VOLUMES L T R L T R L T R

WEST BOUND
L T R
(A) EXISTING: 0 66 22 45 97 0 165 2 115
(B) PROJECT-ADDED: 0 57 49 0 165 0 0 0 96
(C) EXISTING + APPROVED: 0 140 71 83 308 0 198 2 185
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0

GEOMETRICS

NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND

LANE GEOMETRICS TT R LL TT L LT R

WESTBOUND

TRAFFIC SCENARIOS
SCENARIO 1 = EXISTING VOLUMES (A)
SCENARIO 2 = EXISTING + PROJECT VOLUMES (A+B)
SCENARIO 3 = EXISTING + APPROVED (C)
SCENARIO 4 = EXISTING + APPROVED + PROJECT VOLUMES (B+C)

LEVEL OF SERVICE CALCULATIONS
MOVEMENTS # OF

LANES CAPACITY

SCENARIO VOLUMES
1 2

SCENARIO WC RATIOS
1 2 3 4 3 4
NBL
NBT
NB R (a)
SBL
SBT
SBR (b)
EBL
EBT
EBR (c)
WBL
WBT
wBR (d)
0 2
1 2
2 0
0 2
1 0
0 0
0 3200
1600
3200
3200
0 0
3200
1600
0 0
0 0 0 0 0 -
66 123 140 197
22 71 71 120
45 45 83 83
97 262 308 473
0 0 0 0
165 165 198 198
2 2 2 2
75 137 120 183
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
-

0.021

0.014

0.030
-

0.052

0.047
-
-
*
*
*

0.038

0.044

0.014

0.082 *
-
-

0.052

0.086 *

0.044

0.026

0.096 *
-

0.063 *

0.075

0.062

0.075

0.026

0.148
-
-

0.063

0.114
-
-
*
*
LOST TIME:

TOTAL INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION:

SCENARIO LEVEL OF SERVICE:

0.100

0.187
A
* 0.100 *

0.268
A

0.100 *

0.259
A

0.100

0.362
A
*
NOTES:

RTOR: (a) 0%
(b) N/A
(c) 35%
(d) N/A
Printed: 08/11/14
#14054 SPRINGVILLE COMMERCIAL PROJECT

INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION WORKSHEET - GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT TIME PERIOD: A.M. PEAK HOUR
WS STREET: SPRINGVILLE DRIVE
ENV STREET: U.S. 101 SB RAMPS
CONTROL TYPE: SIGNAL
REF: 04 AM

TRAFFIC VOLUME SUMMARY

NORTH BOUND SOUTH BOUND EAST BOUND

VOLUMES L T R L T R L T R

WEST BOUND
L T R
(A) GP BUILDOUT: 0 129 31 117 629 0 441 0 563
(B) PROJECT-ADDED: 0 26 22 0 -149 0 0 0 -86
0 0 0
0 0 0

GEOMETRICS

NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND

LANE GEOMETRICS TT R LL TT LL R

WESTBOUND

TRAFFIC SCENARIOS
SCENARIO 1 = GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT (A)
SCENARIO 2 = GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT + PROJECT VOLUMES (A+B)

LEVEL OF SERVICE CALCULATIONS
MOVEMENTS
# OF

LANES CAPACITY

SCENARIO VOLUMES
1 2

SCENARIO WC RATIOS
1 2
NBL
NBT
NBR (a)
SBL
SBT
SBR (b)
EBL
EBT
EBR (c)
WBL
WBT
WBR (d)
0 2
1 2
2 0
2 0
1 0
0 0
0 3200
1600
3200
3200
0 3200
0 1 600
0 0
0 0 0
129 155
31 53
117 117
629 480
0 0
441 441
0 0
563 477
0 0
0 0
0 0

0.040

0.019

0.037

0.197
-

0.138

0.352
*
*

0.048

0.033

0.037

0.150 *

0.138

0.298 *
TOTAL INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION:

SCENARIO LEVEL OF SERVICE:

0.549
A

0.448
A
NOTES:

RTOR: (a) 0%
(b) 0%
(c) 0%
(d) 0%
Printed: 07/31/14
#14054 SPRINGVILLE COMMERCIAL PROJECT

INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION WORKSHEET
COUNT DATE: 07/24/2014
TIME PERIOD: P.M. PEAK HOUR
N/S STREET: SPRING VILLE DRIVE
E/W STREET: U.S. 101 SB RAMPS
CONTROL TYPE: SIGNAL
REF: 04 PM

TRAFFIC VOLUME SUMMARY

NORTH BOUND SOUTH BOUND EAST BOUND

VOLUMES L T R L T R L T R

WEST BOUND
L T R
(A) EXISTING: 0 240 87 18 70 0 434 4 123
(B) PROJECT-ADDED: 0 196 169 0 164 0 0 0 95
(C) EXISTING +APPROVED: 0 647 403 39 445 0 553 4 351
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0

GEOMETRICS

NORTH BOU ND SOUTH BOU ND EASTBOU ND

LANE GEOMETRICS TT R LL TT L LT R

WESTBOUND

TRAFFIC SCENARIOS
SCENARIO 1 = EXISTING VOLUMES (A)
SCENARIO 2 = EXISTING + PROJECT VOLUMES (A+ B)
SCENARIO 3 = EXISTING + APPROVED (C)
SCENARIO 4 = EXISTING + APPROVED + PROJECT VOLUMES (B+C)

LEVEL OF SERVICE CALCULATIONS
MOVEMENTS
# OF

LANES CAPACITY

SCENARIO VOLUMES
1 2

SCENARIO V/C RATIOS
1 2 3 4 3 4
NBL
NOT
NOR (a)
SBL
SBT
SBR (b)
EBL
EBT
EBR (c)
WBL
WBT
WBR (d)
0 2
1 2
2 0
0 2
1 0
0 0
0 3200
1600
3200
3200
0 0
3200
1600
0 0
0 0 0 0 0
240 436 647 843
86 253 399 566
18 18 39 39
70 234 445 609
0 0 0 0
434 434 553 553
4 4 4 4
76 135 218 277
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
-

0.075

0.054

0.006

0.022
-

0.137

0.048
-
*
*
*
-

0.136

0.158 *

0.006 *

0.073

0.137 *

0.084
-
-

0.202

0.249 *

0.012 '

0.139

0.174 *

0.136
-
-
-

0.263

0.354

0.012

0.190
-

0.174

0.173
-
-
-
*
*
*
LOST TIME:

TOTAL INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION:

SCENARIO LEVEL OF SERVICE:

0.100

0.318
A
* 0.100 *

0.401
A

0.100 *

0.535
A

0.100

0.640
B
*
NOTES:

RTOR: (a) 7%
(b) N/A
(c) 38%
(d) N/A
Printed: 08/11/14
#14054 SPRINGVILLE COMMERCIAL PROJECT

INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION WORKSHEET - GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT TIME PERIOD: P.M. PEAK HOUR
, N/S STREET: SPRING VILLE DRIVE
ENV STREET: U.S. 101 SB RAMPS
CONTROL TYPE: SIGNAL
REF: 04 PM

TRAFFIC VOLUME SUMMARY

NORTH BOUND SOUTH BOUND EAST BOUND

VOLUMES L T R L T R L T R

WEST BOUND
L T R
(A) GP BUILDOUT: 0 1032 267 183 215 0 1055 0 321
(6) PROJECT-ADDED: 0 9 9 0 130 0 0 0 76
0 0 0
0 0 0

GEOMETRICS

NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND

LANE GEOMETRICS TT R LL TT LL R

WESTBOUND

TRAFFIC SCENARIOS
SCENARIO 1 = GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT (A)
SCENARIO 2 = GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT + PROJECT VOLUMES (A+B)

LEVEL OF SERVICE CALCULATIONS
MOVEMENTS # OF

LANES CAPACITY

SCENARIO VOLUMES
1 2

SCENARIO V/C RATIOS
1 2
NBL
NBT
NBR (a)
SBL
SBT
SBR 03)
EBL
EBT
EBR (c)
WBL
WBT
WBR (d)
0 2
1 2
2 0
2 0
1 0
0 0
0 3200
1600
3200
3200
0 3200
0 1600
0 0
0 0 0
1032 1041
267 276
183 183
215 345
0 0
1055 1055
0 0
321 397
0 0
0 0
0 0

0.323

0.167

0.057

0.067

0.330

0.201
*
*
*

0.325 *

0.173

0.057 *

0.108
-

0.330 *

0.248
TOTAL INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION:

SCENARIO LEVEL OF SERVICE:

0.710
C

0.712
C
NOTES:

RTOR: (a) 0%
(b) 0%
(c) 0%
(d) 0%
Printed: 08/01/14
#14054 SPRINGVILLE COMMERCIAL PROJECT

INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION WORKSHEET
REF: 05 AM
COUNT DATE: 07/24/2014
TIME PERIOD: A.M. PEAK HOUR
N/S STREET: SPRING VILLE DRIVE
E/W STREET: VENTURA BOULEVARD
CONTROL TYPE: SIGNAL

TRAFFIC VOLUME SUMMARY

NORTH BOUND SOUTH BOUND EAST BOUND WEST BOUND

VOLUMES L T R L T R L T R L T R
(Al EXISTING: 0 0 0 135 0 80 20 63 0 0 59 66
(B) PROJECT-ADDED: o 0 0 27 0 26 106 27 0 0 115 0
(C) EXISTING i-APPROVED: 0 0 0 362 0 134 25 68 0 0 103 133

GEOMETRICS

NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND

LANE GEOMETRICS LL RR LL TT TT R

TRAFFIC SCENARIOS
SCENARIO 1 = EXISTING VOLUMES (A)
SCENARIO 2 = EXISTING + PROJECT VOLUMES (A+B)
SCENARIO 3 = EXISTING + APPROVED (C)
SCENARIO 4 - EXISTING + APPROVED + PROJECT VOLUMES (B+C)

LEVEL OF SERVICE CALCULATIONS
MOVE- # OF SCENARIO VOLUMES SCENARIO V/C RATIOS
MENTS LANES CAPACITY 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4
NBL 0 0 0 0 0 0 - -
NBT 0 0 0 0 0 0 - - -
NBR (a) 0 0 0 0 0 0 - -
SBL 2 3200 135 162 362 389 0.042 * 0.031 * 0.113 * 0.122 * SBT 0 0 0 0 0 0 - -
SBR (6) 2 3200 39 52 66 78 0.012 0.016 0.021 0.024
EEL 2 3200 20 126 25 131 0.006 * 0.039 * 0.008 * 0.041 * FBI 2 3200 63 90 68 95 0,020 0.028 0.021 0.030
EBR (c) 0 0 0 0 0 0 -
WBL 0 0 0 0 0 0 -
WBT 2 3200 59 174 103 218 0.018 * 0.054 * 0.032 * 0.068 * WBR (d) 1 1600 64 64 129 129 0.040 0.040 0.081 0.081
LOST TIME: 0.100 * 0.100 * 0.100 * 0.100 *
TOTAL INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION: 0.166 0.244 0.253 0.331 SCENARIO LEVEL OF SERVICE: A A A A
NOTES:

RTOR: (a) N/A
(b) 51%
(c) NIA
(d) 3% - NOT CRITICAL DUE TO SB OVERLAP
Printed: 08/04/14
#14054 SPRINGVILLE COMMERCIAL PROJECT

INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION WORKSHEET - GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT TIME PERIOD: A.M. PEAK HOUR
N/S STREET: SPRING VILLE DRIVE
E/W STREET: VENTURA BOULEVARD
CONTROL TYPE: SIGNAL
REF: 05 AM

TRAFFIC VOLUME SUMMARY

NORTH BOUND SOUTH BOUND EAST BOUND

VOLUMES L T R L I R L T R

WEST BOUND
L T R
(A) GP BUILDOUT: o o o 290 0 902 75 36 0
(B) PROJECT-ADDED: o o o 13 0 -24 26 12 0
0 127 84
0 -102 0

GEOMETRICS

NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND

LANE GEOMETRICS LL RR LL IT

WESTBOUND
TT R

TRAFFIC SCENARIOS
SCENARIO 1 = GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT (A)
SCENARIO 2 = GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT + PROJECT VOLUMES (A+B)

LEVEL OF SERVICE CALCULATIONS
MOVEMENTS # OF

LANES CAPACITY

SCENARIO VOLUMES
1 ,
2 SCENARIO V/C RATIOS
1 2
NBL
NBT
NBR (a)
SBL
SBT
SBR (6)
EBL
EBT
EB R (c)
WBL
WBT
WBR (d)
0 0
0 2
0 2
2 2
0 0
2 1
0 0
0 3200
0 3200
3200
3200
0 0
3200
1600
0 0
0 0
0 0
290 303
0 0
902 878
75 101
36 48
0 0
0 0
127 25
84 84
0,091
-

0.282

0.023

0.011
-

0.040

0.053
*
*
*

0.095

0.274 *

0.032 *

0.015
-

0.008

0.053 *
TOTAL INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION:

SCENARIO LEVEL OF SERVICE:

0.358
A

0.359
A
NOTES:

R TOR: (a) 0%
(b) 0%
(c) 0%
(d) 0%
Printed: D7/31/14
#14054 SPRINGVILLE COMMERCIAL PROJECT

INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION WORKSHEET
COUNT DATE: 07/24/2014
REF: 05 PM
TIME PERIOD: P.M. PEAK HOUR
N/S STREET: SPRING VILLE DRIVE
E/W STREET: VENTURA BOULEVARD
CONTROL TYPE: SIGNAL

TRAFFIC VOLUME SUMMARY

NORTH BOUND SOUTH BOUND EAST BOUND WEST BOUND

VOLUMES L T R L T R L T R L T R
(A) EXISTING: 0 0 0 143 0 50 107 177 0 0 269 225
(B) PROJECT-ADDED: 0 0 0 93 0 25 365 92 0 0 114 0
(C) EXISTING +APPROVED: 0 o 0 738 0 58 163 223 0 0 343 586

GEOMETRICS

NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND

LANE GEOMETRICS LL RR LL TT TT R

TRAFFIC SCENARIOS
SCENARIO 1 = EXISTING VOLUMES (A)
SCENARIO 2 = EXISTING + PROJECT VOLUMES (A+ B)
SCENARIO 3 = EXISTING + APPROVED (C)
SCENARIO 4 = EXISTING + APPROVED + PROJECT VOLUMES (B +C)

LEVEL OF SERVICE CALCULATIONS
MOVE-- # OF SCENARIO VOLUMES SCENARIO WC RATIOS
MENTS LANES CAPACITY 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4
NBL 0 0 0 0 0 0
NBT 0 0 0 0 0 0 -
NBR (a) 0 0 0 0 0 0 - -
SBL 2 3200 143 236 738 831 0.045 ' 0.074 ' 0.231 ' 0.260 * SBT 0 0 0 0 0 0 - -
SBR (b) 2 3200 30 45 35 50 0.009 0.014 0.011 0.016
EBL 2 3200 107 472 163 528 0.033 * 0.148 * 0.051 * 0.165 ' EBT 2 3200 177 269 223 315 0.055 0.084 0.070 0.098
EBR (c) 0 0 0 0 0 0 - -
WBL 0 0 0 0 0 0 - -
WBT 2 3200 269 383 343 457 0.084 * 0.120 * 0.107 0.143 * wBR (d) 1 1600 153 107 217 170 0.096 0.067 0.136 * 0.106 LOST TIME: 0.100 * 0.100 * 0.100 * 0.100 *
TOTAL INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION: 0.262 0.442 0.518 0.668 SCENARIO LEVEL OF SERVICE: A A A B
NOTES:

RTOR: (a) NIA
(b) 40%
(c) NIA
(d) VOLUME REDUCED FOR SB LEFT-TURN OVERLAP
Printed: 08/27/14
#14054 SPRINGVILLE COMMERCIAL PROJECT

INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION WORKSHEET - GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT TIME PERIOD: P.M. PEAK HOUR
N/S STREET: SPRINGVILLE DRIVE
E/W STREET: VENTURA BOULEVARD
CONTROL TYPE: SIGNAL
REF: 05 PM

TRAFFIC VOLUME SUMMARY

NORTH BOUND SOUTH BOUND EAST BOUND

VOLUMES L T R L T R L T R

WEST BOUND
L T R
(A) GP BUILDOUT: 0 0 0 197 0 338 987 340 0
(B) PROJECT-ADDED: 0 0 0 5 0 21 18 5 0
0 184 311
0 92 0

GEOMETRICS

NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND

LANE GEOMETRICS LL RR LL TT

WESTBOUND
TT R

TRAFFIC SCENARIOS
SCENARIO 1 = GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT (A)
SCENARIO 2 = GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT + PROJECT VOLUMES (A+B)

LEVEL OF SERVICE CALCULATIONS
MOVEMENTS
# OF

LANES CAPACITY

SCENARIO VOLUMES
1 2

SCENARIO V/C RATIOS
1 2
NBL
NBT
NBR (a)
SBL
SBT
SBR (6)
EBL
EBT
EBR (c)
WBL
WBT
WBR (d)
0 0
0 2
0 2
2 2
0 0
2 1
0 0
0 3200
0 3200
3200
3200
0 0
3200
1600
0 0
0 0
0 0
197 202
0 0
338 359
987 1005
340 345
0 0
0 0
184 276
311 311

0.062
-

0.106

0.308

0.106

0.058

0.194
*
*
*

0.063
-

0.112 *

0.314 *

0.108
-

0.086

0.194 *
TOTAL INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION:

SCENARIO LEVEL OF SERVICE;

0.608
B

0.620
B
NOTES:

RTOR: (a) 0%
(b) 0%
(c) 0%
(d) 0%
Printed: 08/01/14
#14054 SPRINGVILLE COMMERCIAL PROJECT

INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION WORKSHEET
COUNT DATE: 07/24/2014
TIME PERIOD: A.M. PEAK HOUR
N/S STREET: LAS POSAS ROAD
E/W STREET: EARL JOSEPH AVENUE-LAS POSAS ROAD
CONTROL TYPE: SIGNAL
REF: 06 AM

TRAFFIC VOLUME SUMMARY

NORTH BOUND SOUTH BOUND EAST BOUND WEST BOUND

VOLUMES L T R L T R L T R L T R
(A) EXISTING: 3 123 183 111 248 23 11 89 7 295 274 70
(13) PROJECT-ADDED: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 o 19 o
(G) EXISTING +APPROVED: 3 123 183 111 248 23 11 119 7 296 300 70

GEOMETRICS

NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND

LANE GEOMETRICS L TT R L T TR L T TR LL T TR

TRAFFIC SCENARIOS
,
SCENARIO 1 = EXISTING VOLUMES (A)
SCENARIO 2 = EXISTING + PROJECT VOLUMES (A+ B)
SCENARIO 3 = EXISTING + APPROVED (C)
SCENARIO 4 = EXISTING + APPROVED + PROJECT VOLUMES (B+C)

LEVEL OF SERVICE CALCULATIONS
MOVE- # OF SCENARIO VOLUMES SCENARIO WC RATIOS
MENTS LANES CAPACITY 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4
N BL 1 1600 3 3 3 3 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.002
N BT 2 3200 123 123 123 123 0.038 * 0.038 ' 0.038 * 0.038 * NBR (a) 1 1600 35 35 35 35 0.022 0.022 0.022 0.022
5BL 1 1600 111 111 111 111 0.069 ' 0.069 * 0.069 * 0.069 * SBT 2 3200 248 248 248 248 0.084 0.084 0,084 0.084
5B R (b) 0 0 21 21 21 21
EBL 1 1600 11 11 11 11 0.007 0.007 0.007 0.007
EBT 2 3200 89 97 119 127 0.029 * 0.032 * 0.038 * 0.041 * E BR (c) 0 0 4 4 4 4 - -
WBI_ 2 3200 295 295 296 296 0.092 * 0.092 * 0.093 * 0.093 * WBT 2 3200 274 293 300 319 0.102 0.108 0.110 0.116
WBR (61) 0 0 51 51 51 51
LOST TIME: 0.100 * 0.100 * 0.100 * 0.100 *
TOTAL INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION: 0,328 0,331 0.338 0.341 SCENARIO LEVEL OF SERVICE: A A A A
NOTES:

RTOR: (a) VOLUME REDUCED FOR OVERLAP WITH WB LEFT TURNS. (b) 9%
(c) 43%
(d) 27%
Printed: 08/05/14
#14054 SPRINGVILLE COMMERCIAL PROJECT

INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION WORKSHEET - GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT TIME PERIOD: A.M. PEAK HOUR
N/S STREET: LOS POSAS ROAD
E/W STREET: EARL JOSEPH DRIVE
CONTROL TYPE: SIGNAL
REF: 06 AM

TRAFFIC VOLUME SUMMARY

NORTH BOUND SOUTH BOUND EAST BOUND

VOLUMES L T R L T R L T R

WEST BOUND
L T R
(A) GP BUILDOUT: 13 195 507 266 269 1 2 48 3
(B) PROJECT-ADDED: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0
810 35 151
0 -18 0

GEOMETRICS

NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND

LANE GEOMETRICS L TT R L T TR L T TR

WESTBOU ND

LL T TR

TRAFFIC SCENARIOS
SCENARIO 1 = GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT (A)
SCENARIO 2 = GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT + PROJECT VOLUMES (A+B)

LEVEL OF SERVICE CALCULATIONS
MOVEMENTS # OF

LANES CAPACITY

SCENARIO VOLUMES
1 2

SCENARIO WC RATIOS
1 2
NBL
NBT
NOR (a)
SBL
SOT
SBR (b)
EBL
EBT
EBR (c)
WBL
WBT
WBR (d)
1 2
1 1
2 0
1 2
0 2
2 0
1600
3200
1600
1600
3200
0 1600
3200
0 3200
3200
0 13 13
195 195
1021 102
266 266
269 269
1 1
2 2
48 52
3 3
810 810
35 17
151 151

0.008

0.061

0.064

0.166

0.084
-

0.001

0.016

0.253

0.058
*
*
*
*

0.008

0.061 *

0.064

0.166 *

0.084
-

0.001

0.017 *

0.253 *

0.053
LOST TIME:

TOTAL INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION:

SCENARIO LEVEL OF SERVICE:

0.100

0.596
A
' 0.100 *

0.597
A
NOTES:

RTOR: (a) Volume reduced for overlap with WB Left Turns. (b) 0%
(c) 0%
(d) 0%
Printed: 07/31/14
#14054 SPRINGVILLE COMMERCIAL PROJECT

INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION WORKSHEET
REF: 06 PM
COUNT DATE: 07/24/2014
TIME PERIOD: P.M. PEAK HOUR
N/S STREET: LAS POSAS ROAD
ENV STREET: EARL JOSEPH AVENUE-LAS POSAS ROAD
CONTROL TYPE: SIGNAL

TRAFFIC VOLUME SUMMARY

NORTH BOUND SOUTH BOUND EAST BOUND WEST BOUND

VOLUMES L T R L T R L T R L T R
(A) EXISTING: 8 276 320 170 200 9 26 234 6 347 283 159
(B) PROJECT-ADDED: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 28 0 0 19 0
(C) EXIS T ING +APPROVED: 8 276 320 170 200 9 26 299 6 352 348 159

GEOMETRICS

NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND

LANE GEOMETRICS L TT R L T TR L T TR LL T TR

TRAFFIC SCENARIOS
SCENARIO 1 = EXISTING VOLUMES (A)
SCENARIO 2 = EXISTING + PROJECT VOLUMES (A+B)
SCENARIO 3 = EXISTING + APPROVED (C)
SCENARIO 4 = EXISTING + APPROVED + PROJECT VOLUMES (B+C)

LEVEL OF SERVICE CALCULATIONS
MOVE- # OF SCENARIO VOLUMES SCENARIO V/C RATIOS
MENTS LANES CAPACITY 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4
NBL 1 1600 8 8 8 8 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.005
NOT 2 3200 276 276 276 276 0.086 0.086 0.086 0.086
N BR (a) 1 1600 146 146 144 144 0.091 * 0.091 * 0.090 * 0.090 * SBL 1 1600 170 170 170 170 0.106 ' 0.106 * 0.106 * 0.106 * SBT 2 3200 200 200 200 200 0.065 0.065 0.065 0.065
SBR (b) 0 0 8 8 8 8
EBL 1 1600 26 26 26 26 0.016 0.016 0.016 0.016
FBI 2 3200 234 262 299 327 0.074 * 0.083 * 0.094 * 0.103 * E BR (C) 0 0 3 3 3 3
WBL 2 3200 347 347 352 352 0.108 * 0.108 * 0.110 * 0.110 * WBT 2 3200 283 302 348 367 0.125 0.131 0.145 0.151
WBR (d) 0 0 116 116 116 116 -
I OST 7-IMF: 0.100 * 0.100 ' 0.100 * 0.100 *
TOTAL INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION: 0.479 0.488 0.500 0.509 SCENARIO LEVEL OF SERVICE: A A A A
NOTES:

RTOR: (a) VOLUME REDUCED FOR OVERLAP WITH WB LEFT TURNS. (b) 9%
(c) 43%
(d) 27%
Printed: 08/05/14
#14054 SPRINGVILLE COMMERCIAL PROJECT

INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION WORKSHEET - GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT TIME PERIOD: P.M. PEAK HOUR
N/S STREET: LOS POSAS ROAD
E/W STREET: EARL JOSEPH DRIVE
CONTROL TYPE: SIGNAL
REF: 06 PM

TRAFFIC VOLUME SUMMARY

NORTH BOUND SOUTH BOUND EAST BOUND

VOLUMES L T R L T R L T R

WEST BOUND
L T R
(A) GP BUILDOUT: 12 250 .559 320 321 3 58 281 11
(B) PROJECT-ADDED: 0 o o o o o 0 1. o
569 38 200
o 15 0

GEOMETRICS

NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND

LANE GEOMETRICS L TT R L T TR L T TR

WESTBOUND

LL T TR

TRAFFIC SCENARIOS
SCENARIO 1 = GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT (A)
SCENARIO 2 = GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT + PROJECT VOLUMES (A+B)

LEVEL OF SERVICE CALCULATIONS
MOVEMENTS # OF

LANES CAPACITY

SCENARIO VOLUMES
1 2

SCENARIO V/C RATIOS
1 2
NBL
NOT
NOR (a)
SBL
SBT
SBR (b)
EBL
EBT
EBR (c)
WBL
WBT
WBR (ci)
1 2
1 1
2 0
1 2
0 2
2 0
1600
3200
1600
1600
3200
0 1600
3200
0 3200
3200
0 12 12
250 250
2741 274
320 320
321 321
3 3
58 58
281 282
11 11
569 569
38 53
200 200

0.008

0.078

0.171

0.200

0.101
-

0.036

0.091

0.178

0.074
*
'
*
*

0.008

0.078

0.171 '
0,200 '

0.101

0.036

0.092 *
-

0.178 *

0.079
-
LOST TIME:

TOTAL INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION:

SCENARIO LEVEL OF SERVICE:

0.100

0.740
C
* 0.100 *

0.741
C
NOTES:

RTOR: (a) Volume reduced for overlap with WB Left Turns. (b) 0%
(c) 0%
(d) 0%
Printed: 08/01/14
#14054 SPRINGVILLE COMMERCIAL PROJECT

INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION WORKSHEET
REF: 07 AM
COUNT DATE: 07/24/2014
TIME PERIOD: A.M. PEAK HOUR
NUS STREET: LAS POSAS ROAD
ENV STREET: PONDEROSA DRIVE (SPLIT PHASED)
CONTROL TYPE: SIGNAL

TRAFFIC VOLUME SUMMARY

NORTH BOUND SOUTH BOUND EAST BOUND WEST BOUND

VOLUMES L T R L T R L T R L T R
(A) EXISTING: 57 294 90 88 509 11 16 97 100 168 60 14
(B) PROJECT-ADDED: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 19 0
(C) EXISTING+APPROVED: 110 295 91 88 514 11 16 127 279 169 86 14

GEOMETRICS

NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND

LANE GEOMETRICS L TT R L T TR L T R L LT R

TRAFFIC SCENARIOS
SCENARIO 1 = EXISTING VOLUMES (A) -
SCENARIO 2 = EXISTING + PROJECT VOLUMES (A+ B)
SCENARIO 3 = EXISTING + APPROVED (C)
SCENARIO 4 = EXISTING + APPROVED + PROJECT VOLUMES (B +C)

LEVEL OF SERVICE CALCULATIONS
MOVE- If OF SCENARIO VOLUMES SCENARIO V/C RATIOS
MENTS LANES CAPACITY • 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4
NBL 1 1600 57 57 110 110 0.036 * 0.036 * 0.069 * 0.069 * NOT 2 3200 294 294 295 295 0.092 0.092 0.092 0.092
NBR (a) 1 1600 78 78 79 79 0.049 0.049 0.049 0.049
5BL 1 1600 88 88 88 88 0.055 0.055 0.055 0.055
SBT 2 3200 509 509 514 514 0.163 ' 0.163 * 0.164 * 0.164 * SBR (6) 0 0 11 11 11 11 - - -
EBL 1 1600 16 16 16 16 0.010 0.010 0.010 0.010
EBT 1 1600 97 105 127 135 0.061 * 0.066 * 0.079 * 0.084 * EB R (c) 1 1600 44 44 123 123 0.028 0.028 0.077 0.077
WBL 0 0 168 168 169 169 -
WBT 2 3200 60 79 86 105 0.071 * 0.077 * 0.080 * 0.086 ' WBR (d) 1 1600 5 5 5 5 0.003 0.003 0.003 0.003
LOST TIME: MOO * 0.100 * 0.100 * 0.100 *
TOTAL INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION: 0.431 0.442 0.492 - 0.503 SCENARIO LEVEL OF SERVICE: A A A A
NOTES:

RTOR: (a) 13%
(b) 0%
(c) 5 6 %
(d) 64%
Printed: 08/04/14
#14054 SPRINGVILLE COMMERCIAL PROJECT

INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION WORKSHEET - GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT TIME PERIOD: A.M. PEAK HOUR
N/S STREET: LOS POSAS ROAD
OW STREET: PONDEROSA DRIVE
CONTROL TYPE: SIGNAL
REF: 07 AM

TRAFFIC VOLUME SUMMARY

NORTH BOUND SOUTH BOUND EAST BOUND

VOLUMES L T R L T R L T R

WEST BOUND
L T R
(A) GP BUILDOUT: 87 580 87 223 801 17 57 282 275
(B) PROJECT-ADDED: o o o o 0 0 0 4 0
197 80 126
0 -18 0

GEOMETRICS

NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND

LANE GEOMETRICS LL TT R L T TR L T TR

WESTBOUND
L LT R

TRAFFIC SCENARIOS
SCENARIO 1 = GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT (A)
SCENARIO 2 = GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT + PROJECT VOLUMES (A+B)

LEVEL OF SERVICE CALCULATIONS
MOVEMENTS
# OF

LANES CAPACITY

SCENARIO VOLUMES
1 2

SCENARIO WC RATIOS
1 2
NBL
NBT
N BR (a)
SBL
SBT
SBR (b)
EBL
EBT
EBR (c)
WBL
WBT
WBR (d)
2 2
1 1
2 o
1 2
0 0
2 1
3200
3200
1600
1600
3200
0 1600
3200
0 0
3200
1600
87 87
580 580
871 87
223 223
801 801
17 17
57 57
282 286
275 275
197 197
80 62
126 126

0.027

0.181

0.054

0.139

0.256
-

0.036

0.174
-

0.087

0.079
*
*
*
*

0.027

0.181 -

0.054

0.139 *

0.256

0.036

0.175 *
-

0.081 *

0.079
LOS( TIME:

TOTAL INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION:

SCENARIO LEVEL OF SERVICE:

0.100

0.681
B
* 0.100 *

0.676
B
NOTES:

RTOR: (a) 0%
(b) 0%
(c) 0%
(d) 0%
Printed: 07/31/14
#14054 SPRINGVILLE COMMERCIAL PROJECT

INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION WORKSHEET
REF: 07 PM
COUNT DATE: 07/24/2014
TIME PERIOD: P.M. PEAK HOUR
N/S STREET: LAS POSAS ROAD
E/VV STREET: PONDEROSA DRIVE (SPLIT PHASED)
CONTROL TYPE: SIGNAL

TRAFFIC VOLUME SUMMARY

NORTH BOUND SOUTH BOUND EAST BOUND WEST BOUND

VOLUMES L T R L T R L T R L T R
(A) EXISTING: 174 502 232 107 421 21 33 194 97 175 224 104 (B) PROJECT-ADDED: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 28 0 0 19 0
(C) EXISTING+APPROVED: 360 508 238 107 422 21 33 259 201 180 289 104

GEOMETRICS

NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND

LANE GEOMETRICS L TT R L T TR L T R L LT R

TRAFFIC SCENARIOS
SCENARIO 1 = EXISTING VOLUMES (A)
SCENARIO 2 = EXISTING + PROJECT VOLUMES (A+B)
SCENARIO 3 = EXISTING + APPROVED (C)
SCENARIO 4 - EXISTING + APPROVED + PROJECT VOLUMES (B+C)

LEVEL OF SERVICE CALCULATIONS
MOVE- # OF SCENARIO VOLUMES SCENARIO V/C RATIOS
MENTS LANES CAPACITY 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4
NBL 1 1600 174 174 360 360 0.109 ' 0.109 * 0.225 * 0.225 ' NBT 2 3200 502 502 .508 508 0.157 0.157 0.159 0.159
NBR (a) 1 1600 211 211 217 217 0.132 0.132 0.136 0.136
SBL 1 1600 107 107 107 107 0.067 0.067 0.067 0.067
SBT 2 3200 421 421 422 422 0.138 * 0.138 * 0.138 * 0.138 * SBR (b) 0 0 20 20 20 20 - -
EBL 1 1600 33 33 33 33 0.021 0.021 0.021 0.021
EBT 1 1600 194 222 259 287 0.121 * 0,139 * 0.162 0.179
EBR (c) 1 1600 67 67 139 139 0.042 0.042 0.087 * 0.087 * WBL 0 0 175 175 180 180
WBT 2 3200 224 243 289 308 0.125 ' 0.131 ' 0.147 * 0.153 ' WBR (d) 1 1600 69 69 69 69 0.043 0.043 0.043 0.043
LOST 104E: 0.100 * 0.100 * 0.100 ' 0.100 *
TOTAL INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION: 0.593 0.617 0.697 0.703 SCENARIO LEVEL OF SERVICE: A B B B
NOTES:

RTOR: (a) 9%
(b) 5%
(c) 31 %
(d) 34%
Printed: 08/04/14
#14054 SPRINGVILLE COMMERCIAL PROJECT

INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION WORKSHEET - GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT TIME PERIOD: P.M. PEAK HOUR
N/S STREET: LOS POSAS ROAD
OW STREET: PONDEROSA DRIVE
CONTROL TYPE: SIGNAL
REF: 07 PM

TRAFFIC VOLUME SUMMARY

NORTH BOUND SOUTH BOUND EAST BOUND

VOLUMES L T R L T R L T R

WEST BOUND
L T R
(A) GP BUILDOUT: 240 667 262 257 584 24 45 624 338
(B) PROJECT-ADDED: 0 o o o o o o 1 o
175 206 177
0 15 0

GEOMETRICS

NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND

LANE GEOMETRICS LL TT R L T TR L T TR

WESTBOUND
L LT R

TRAFFIC SCENARIOS
SCENARIO 1 = GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT (A)
SCENARIO 2 = GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT + PROJECT VOLUMES (A+B)

LEVEL OF SERVICE CALCULATIONS
MOVEMENTS # OF

LANES CAPACITY

SCENARIO VOLUMES
1 2

SCENARIO V/C RATIOS
1 2
NBL
NOT
NBR (a)
5BL
SBT
SBR (b)
EBL
EBT
EBR (0
WBL
WBT
WBR (d)
2 2
1 1
2 0
1 2
0 0
2 1
3200
3200
1600
1600
3200
0 1600
3200
0 0
3200
1600
240 240
667 667
561 56
257 257
584 584
24 24
45 45
624 625
338 338
175 175
206 221
177 177

0.075

0.208
0,035

0.161

0.190

0.028

0.301
-
-

0.119

0.111
*
*
*
*
0,075

0.208 *

0.035

0.161 *

0.190
-

0.028

0.301 *
-

0.124 *

0.111
LOST TIME:

TOTAL INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION:

SCENARIO LEVEL OF SERVICE:

0.100

0.889
D
* 0.100 *

0.894
D
NOTES:

RTOR: (a) Volume reduced for WB left-turn overlap.
(b) 0%
(c) 0%
(d) 0%
Printed: 08/01/14
#14054 SPRINGVILLE COMMERCIAL PROJECT

INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION WORKSHEET
REF: 08 AM
COUNT DATE: 07/24/2014
TIME PERIOD: A.M. PEAK HOUR
N/S STREET: LAS POSAS ROAD
EAA/ STREET: DAILY DRIVE (SPLIT PHASED)
CONTROL TYPE: SIGNAL

TRAFFIC VOLUME SUMMARY

NORTH BOUND SOUTH BOUND EAST BOUND WEST BOUND

VOLUMES L T R L T R L T R L T R
IA) EXISTING: 128 388 376 44 657 56 47 32 110 361 30 25 (B) PROJECT-ADDED: 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 0 0
(C) EXISTING +APPROVED: 128 438 380 57 833 56 47 32 110 376 30 29

GEOMETRICS

NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND

LANE GEOMETRICS L TTT R L TT -IR L LT R L LTR

TRAFFIC SCENARIOS
SCENARIO 1 = EXISTING VOLUMES (A)
SCENARIO 2 = EXISTING + 'PROJECT VOLUMES (A +B)
SCENARIO 3 = EXISTING + APPROVED (C)
SCENARIO 4 = EXISTING + APPROVED + PROJECT VOLUMES (B+C)

LEVEL OF SERVICE CALCULATIONS
MOVE- # OF SCENARIO VOLUMES SCENARIO ViC RATIOS
MENTS LANES CAPACITY 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4
NBL 1 1600 128 128 128 128 0.080 * 0.080 * 0.080 * 0.080 * NBT 3 . 4800 388 388 438 438 0.081 0.081 0.091 0.091
NBR (a) 1 1600 195 194 192 191 0.122 0.121 0.120 0.119
SBL 1 1600 44 44 57 57 0.028 0.028 0.036 0.036
SBT 3 4800 657 657 833 833 0.147 * 0.147 * 0.183 * 0,183 * SBR (b) 0 0 47 47 47 47 -
EBL 0 0 47 47 47 47
EBT 2 3200 32 32 32 32 0.025 * 0.025 * 0.025 * 0.025 *
[BR (c) 1 1600 24 24 24 24 0.015 0.015 0.015 0.015
WBL 0 0 361 373 376 388 - - -
WBT 2 3200 30 30 30 30 0,130 ' 0.133 ' 0.136 * 0.139 *
WBR (8) 0 0 24 24 28 28
LOST TIME: 0.100 * 0.100 * 0.100 * 0.100 *
TOTAL INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION: 0.482 0.485 0,524 0.527 SCENARIO LEVEL OF SERVICE: A A A A
NOTES:

RTOR: (a) VOLUME REDUCED FOR OVERLAP WITH WB LEFT TURNS. (b) 16%
(c) 78%
(d) 4%
Printed: 08/05/14
#14054 SPRINGVILLE COMMERCIAL PROJECT

INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION WORKSHEET - GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT TIME PERIOD: A.M. PEAK HOUR
N/S STREET: LOS POSAS ROAD
E/W STREET: DAILY DRIVE
CONTROL TYPE: SIGNAL
REF: 08 AM

TRAFFIC VOLUME SUMMARY

NORTH BOUND SOUTH BOUND EAST BOUND

VOLUMES L T R L T R L T R

WEST BOUND
L T R
(A) GP BUILDOUT: 160 595 330 29 1407 61 92 59 331
(B) PROJECT-ADDED: 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0
573 47 20
-10 0 0

GEOMETRICS

NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND

LANE GEOMETRICS LL TTT R L TT TR LT R

WESTBOUND

LL T TR

TRAFFIC SCENARIOS
SCENARIO 1 = GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT (A)
SCENARIO 2 = GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT + PROJECT VOLUMES (A+B)

LEVEL OF SERVICE CALCULATIONS
MOVE-
• MENTS
# OF

LANES CAPACITY

SCENARIO VOLUMES
1 2

SCENARIO V/C RATIOS
1 2
NBL
NBT
NBR (a)
SBL
SBT
SBR (b)
EBL
EBT
EBR (c)
WBL
WBT
WBR (d)
2 3
1 1
3 o
0 1
1 0
2 0
3200
4800
1600
1600
4800
0 0
1600
1600
0 3200
0 160 160
595 595
101 10
29 29
1407 1407
61 61
92 92
59 59
252 252
573 563
47 47
20 20

0.050

0.124

0.006

0.018

0.306
-

0.094

0.158
-

0.200
-
*
*
*
*

0.050 *

0.124

0.006

0.018

0.306 '
-

0.094

0.158 *
-

0.197 *
-
LOST TIME:

TOTAL INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION:

SCENARIO LEVEL OF SERVICE:

0.100

0.814
D
* 0.100 *

0.811
D
NOTES:

RTOR: (a) Volume reduced for overlap with WB.
(b) 0%
(c) 24% RTOR.
(d) 0%
Printed: 07/31/14
#14054 SPRINGVILLE COMMERCIAL PROJECT

INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION WORKSHEET
REF: 08 PM
COUNT DATE: 07/24/2014
TIME PERIOD: P.M. PEAK HOUR
N/S STREET: LAS POSAS ROAD
E/VV STREET: DAILY DRIVE (SPLIT PHASED)
CONTROL TYPE: SIGNAL

TRAFFIC VOLUME SUMMARY

NORTH BOUND SOUTH BOUND EAST BOUND WEST BOUND

VOLUMES L T R L T R L T R L T R
(A) EXISTING: 148 723 413 47 580 39 75 39 86 616 47 82
(B) PROJECT-ADDED: 0 0 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 0 0
(C) EXIST] NG + APPROVED: 148 907 547 54 679 39 75 39 86 642 47 95

GEOMETRICS

NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND

LANE GEOMETRICS L ITT R L TT TR L LT R L LTR

TRAFFIC SCENARIOS
SCENARIO 1 = EXISTING VOLUMES (A)
SCENARIO 2 = EXISTING + PROJECT VOLUMES (A+ B)
SCENARIO 3 = EXISTING + APPROVED (C)
SCENARIO 4 = EXISTING + APPROVED + PROJECT VOLUMES (B+C)

LEVEL OF SERVICE CALCULATIONS
MOVE- # OF SCENARIO VOLUMES SCENARIO V/C RATIOS
MENTS LANES CAPACITY 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4
NBL 1 1600 148 148 148 148 0,093 * 0.093 ' 0.093 ' 0.093 * N BT 3 4800 723 723 907 907 0.151 0.151 0.189 0.189
N BR (a) 1 1600 105 116 226 237 0.066 0.073 0.141 0.148 SBL 1 1600 47 47 54 54 0.029 0.029 0.034 0.034
SBT 3 4800 580 580 679 679 0.128 * 0.128 * 0.149 * 0.149 * SBR (b) 0 0 36 36 36 36
EBL 0 0 75 75 75 75 - -
EBT 2 3200 39 39 39 39 0.036 * 0.036 * 0.036 * 0.036 *
E BR (c) 1 1600 39 39 39 39 0.024 0.024 0.024 0.024
WBL 0 0 616 627 642 653 -
WBT 2 3200 47 47 47 47 0.233 * 0.236 * 0.245 * 0.248 *
WB R (d) 0 0 81 81 94 94
LOST TIME: 0.100 * 0.100 * 0,100 * 0.100 *
TOTAL INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION: 0.590 0.593 0.623 0.626 SCENARIO LEVEL OF SERVICE: A A B B
NOTES:

RTOR: (a) VOLUME REDUCED FOR OVERLAP WITH WB LEFT TURNS. (b) 8%
(c) 55%
(d) 1%
Printed: 08/05/14
#14054 SPRINGVILLE COMMERCIAL PROJECT

INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION WORKSHEET - GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT TIME PERIOD: P.M. PEAK HOUR
WS STREET: LOS POSAS ROAD
ENV STREET: DAILY DRIVE
CONTROL TYPE: SIGNAL
REF: 08 PM

TRAFFIC VOLUME SUMMARY

NORTH BOUND SOUTH BOUND EAST BOUND

VOLUMES L T R L T R L T R

WEST BOUND
L T R
(A) GP BUILDOUT: 249 1062 448 85 929 104 126 41 125
(B) PROJECT-ADDED: 0 o 1 o 0 0 o 0 0
554 98 70
9 0 0

GEOMETRICS

NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND

LANE GEOMETRICS LL TTT R L TT TR LT R

WESTBOUND

LL T TR

TRAFFIC SCENARIOS
SCENARIO 1 = GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT (A)
SCENARIO 2 = GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT + PROJECT VOLUMES (A+B)

LEVEL OF SERVICE CALCULATIONS
MOVEMENTS
# OF

LANES CAPACITY

SCENARIO VOLUMES
1 2

SCENARIO V/C RATIOS
1 2
NBL
NBT
N BR (a)
SBL
SB i
SBR (6)
EBL
FBI
E B R (c)
WBL
WBT
WBR (d)
2 3
1 1
3 0
0 1
1 0
2 0
3200
4800
1600
1600
4800
0 0
1600
1600
0 3200
0 249 249
1062 1062
871 87
85 85
929 929
104 104
126 126
41 41
125 125
554 563
98 98
70 70

0.078

0.221

0.054

0.053

0.215

0.104

0.078

0.226
*
*
*
*

0.078 *

0.221

0.054

0.053

0.215 '
-

0.104 *

0.078

0.228 *
LOST TIME:

TOTAL INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION:

SCENARIO LEVEL OF SERVICE:

0.100

0.723
C
* 0.100 *

0.725
C
NOTES:

RTOR: (a) Volume reduced for overlap with WB.
(b) 0%
(c) 0%
(d) 0%
Printed: 08/01/14
#14054 SPRINGVILLE COMMERCIAL PROJECT

INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION WORKSHEET
COUNT DATE: 07/24/2014
TIME PERIOD: A.M. PEAK HOUR
N/S STREET: LAS POSAS ROAD
E/W STREET: U.S. 101 NB RAMPS
CONTROL TYPE: SIGNAL
REF: 09 AM

TRAFFIC VOLUME SUMMARY

NORTH BOUND SOUTH BOUND EAST BOUND
VOLUMES L r R L T R L T R

WEST BOUND
L T R
(A) EXISTING: 0 666 103 0 718 438 0 0 0
(B) PROJECT-ADDED: 0 5 0 0 0 12 0 0 0
(C) EXISTING+APPROVED: 0 694 107 0 909 438 0 0 0
311 0 204
0 0 0
343 0 230

CEOMETRICS

NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND

LANE GEOMETRICS TT TR HT RR

WESTBOUND
LL R

TRAFFIC SCENARIOS
SCENARIO 1 = EXISTING VOLUMES (A)
SCENARIO 2 = EXISTING + PROJECT VOLUMES (A+ B)
SCENARIO 3 = EXISTING + APPROVED (C)
SCENARIO 4 = EXISTING + APPROVED + PROJECT VOLUMES (B+C)

LEVEL OF SERVICE CALCULATIONS
MOVEMENTS # OF

LANES CAPACITY

SCENARIO VOLUMES
1 2

SCENARIO V/C RATIOS
1 2 3 4 3 4
NBL
NBT
NBR (a)
SBL
SBT
SBR (b)
EBL
EBT
EBR (c)
WBL
WBT
WBR (d)
0 3
0 0
3 2
0 0
0 2
0 1
0 4800
0 0
4800
3200
0 0
0 3200
0 1600
0 0 0 0
666 671 694 699
103 103 107 107
0 0 0 0
718 718 909 909
438 450 438 450
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
311 311 343 343
0 0 0 0
108 108 122 122
-

0.160
-
-

0.150

0.137

0.097

0.068
*
'
-

0.161 *
-

0.150

0.141

0.097 *

0.068

0.167

0.189 *

0.137

0.107 *
-

0.076

0.168
-

0.189

0.141

0.107
-

0.076
'
*
LOST TIME:

TOTAL INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION:

SCENARIO LEVEL OF SERVICE:

0.100

0.357
A
' 0.100 *

0.358
A

0.100 *

0.396
A

0.100

0.396
A
*
NOTES:

RTOR: (a) N/A
(b) FREE MOVEMENT
(c) N/A
(d) 47%
Printed: 08/05/14
#14054 SPRINGVILLE COMMERCIAL PROJECT

INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION WORKSHEET - GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT TIME PERIOD: A.M. PEAK HOUR
N/S STREET: LOS POSAS ROAD
OA/ STREET: U.S. 101 NB RAMPS
CONTROL TYPE: SIGNAL
REF: 09 AM

TRAFFIC VOLUME SUMMARY

NORTH BOUND SOUTH BOUND EAST BOUND

VOLUMES L T R L T R L T R

WEST BOUND
L T R
(A) GP BUILDOUT: 0 822 100 0 1023 912 0 o o
(B) PROJECT-ADDED: o 2 0 0 o --io o 0 o
320 0 263
o 0 o

GEOMETRICS

NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND

LANE GEOMETRICS TT TR TTT R

WESTBOUND
LL R

TRAFFIC SCENARIOS
SCENARIO 1 = GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT (A)
SCENARIO 2 = GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT + PROJECT VOLUMES (A+B)

LEVEL OF SERVICE CALCULATIONS
MOVEMEN rs # OF

LANES CAPACITY

SCENARIO VOLUMES
1 2

SCENARIO V/C RATIOS
1 2
NBL
NBT
NBR (a)
SBL
SOT
SBR (6)
EBL
EBT
EBR (c)
WBL
WBT
WBR (d)
0 3
0 0
3 1
0 0
0 2
0 1
0 4800
0 0
4800
1600
0 0
0 3200
0 1600
0 0
822 824
1001 100
0 0
1023 1023
912 902
0 0
0 0
0 0
320 320
0 0
263 263
-

0.192

0.213

0.570

0.100

0.164
*
*
-

0.193
-
-
0,213 *

0.564

0.100

0.164 *
LOST TIME:

TOTAL INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION:

SCENARIO LEVEL OF SERVICE:
0,100

0.477
A
* 0.100 *

0.477
A
NOTES:

RTOR: (a) 0%
(b) FREE MOVEMENT
(c) 0%
(d) 0%
Printed: 08/01/14
#14054 SPRINGVILLE COMMERCIAL PROJECT

INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION WORKSHEET
COUNT DALE: 07/24/2014
TIME PERIOD: P.M. PEAK HOUR
NUS STREET: LAS POSAS ROAD
E/W STREET: U.S. 101 NB RAMPS
CONTROL TYPE: SIGNAL
REF: 09 PM

TRAFFIC VOLUME SUMMARY

NORTH BOUND SOUTH BOUND EAST BOUND

VOLUMES L T R L T R L T R

WEST BOUND
L T R
(A) EXISTING: 0 1112 331 0 843 496 0 0 0
(B) PROJECT-ADDED: 0 17 0 0 0 11 0 0 0
(C) EXISTING +APPROVED: 0 1235 361 0 968 496 0 0 0
337 0 203
0 0 0
342 0 298

GEOMETRICS

NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND

LANE GEOMETRICS TT TR ITT RR

WESTBOUND
LL R

TRAFFIC SCENARIOS
SCENARIO 1 = EXISTING VOLUMES (A)
SCENARIO 2 = EXISTING + PROJECT VOLUMES (A+B)
SCENARIO 3 = EXISTING + APPROVED (C)
SCENARIO 4 = EXISTING + APPROVED + PROJECT VOLUMES (B+C)

LEVEL OF SERVICE CALCULATIONS
MOVEMENTS # OF

LANES CAPACITY

SCENARIO VOLUMES
1 2

SCENARIO WC RATIOS
1 2 3 4 3 4
NBL
NBT
NBR (a)
SBL
SBT
SBR (6)
EBL
EBT
EBR (c)
WBL
WBT
WBR (d)
0 3
0 0
3 2
0 0
0 2
0 1
0 4800
0 0
4800
3200
0 0
0 3200
0 1600
0 0 0 0
1112 1129 1235 1252
331 331 361 361
0 0 0 0
843 843 968 968
496 507 496 507
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
337 337 342 342
0 0 0 0
134 134 197 197
-

0.301
-

0.176

0.155
-

0.105

0.084
*
*

0.304 *

0.176

0.158
-

0.105 *
0,084

0.333 '
-

0.202

0.155
-

0.107

0.123 *

0.336
-

0.202

0.158

0.107

0.123
*
*
LOST TIME:

TOTAL INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION:

SCENARIO LEVEL OF SERVICE:

0.100

0.506
A
* 0.100 *

0.509
A

0.100 *

0.556
A

0.100

0.559
A
*
NOTES:

RTOR: (a) NIA
(b) N/A
(c) N/A
(d) 34%
Printed: 08/05/14
#14054 SPRINGVILLE

INTERSECTION
TIME PERIOD:

N/S STREET:

EAA/ STREET:

CONTROL

COMMERCIAL PROJECT

CAPACITY UTILIZATION WORKSHEET - GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT
P.M. PEAK HOUR

LOS POSAS ROAD
U.S. 101 NB RAMPS
TYPE: SIGNAL
REF: 09 PM

TRAFFIC VOLUME SUMMARY

NORTH BOUND SOUTH BOUND EAST BOUND

VOLUMES L T R L T R L T R

WEST BOUND
L T R
(A) GP BUILDOUT: 0 1486 364 0 847 771 0 0 o
(B) PROJECT-ADDED: o 1 o o 0 9 0 0 0
307 0 328
0 0 0

GEOMETRICS

NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND

LANE GEOMETRICS TT TR TTT R

WESTBOUND
LL R

TRAFFIC SCENARIOS
SCENARIO 1 = GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT (A)
SCENARIO 2 = GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT + PROJECT VOLUMES (A+B)

LEVEL OF SERVICE CALCULATIONS
MOVEMENTS
# OF

LANES CAPACITY

SCENARIO VOLUMES
1 2

SCENARIO WC RATIOS
1 2
NBL
NBT
NOR (a)
SBL
SOT
SBR (6)
EBL
EBT
EBR (c)
WBL
WBT
WBR (d)
0 3
0 0
3 1
0 0
0 2
0 1
0 4800
0 0
4800
1600
0 0
0 3200
0 1600
0 0
1486 1487
3641 364
0 0
847 847
771 780
0 0
0 0
0 0
307 307
0 0
328 328

0.385
-

0.176

0.482
-

0.096
0,205
*
*
0,386 *

0.176

0.488

0.096

0.205 *
LOST TIME:

TOTAL INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION:

SCENARIO LEVEL OF SERVICE:

0.100

0.690
8 * 0.100 *

0.691
B
NOTES:

RTOR: (a) 0%
(6) FREE MOVEMENT.
(c) 0%
(d) 0%
Printed: 08/01/14
#14054 SPRINGVILLE COMMERCIAL PROJECT

INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION WORKSHEET
REF: 10 AM
COUNT DATE: 07/24/2014
TIME PERIOD: A.M. PEAK HOUR
WS STREET: LAS POSAS ROAD
EM/ STREET: U.S. 101 SB RAMPS (SPLIT PHASED)
CONTROL TYPE: SIGNAL

TRAFFIC VOLUME SUMMARY

NORTH BOUND SOUTH BOUND EAST BOUND WEST BOUND

VOLUMES L T R L T R L T R L T R
(A) EXISTING: 0 363 269 32 672 305 403 11 259 7 0 21
(B) PROJECT-ADDED: 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
(C) EXISTING+APPROVED: 0 395 273 32 804 396 403 11 288 7 0 21

GEOMETRICS

NORTHBOUND SOUTH BOU ND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND

LANE GEOMETRICS TTT TR L TT R LLL TR R L RR

TRAFFIC SCENARIOS
SCENARIO 1 = EXISTING VOLUMES (A)
SCENARIO 2 = EXISTING + PROJECT VOLUMES (A+ B)
SCENARIO 3 = EXISTING + APPROVED (C)
SCENARIO 4 = EXISTING + APPROVED + PROJECT VOLUMES (B+C)

LEVEL OF SERVICE CALCULATIONS

MOVE- II OF SCENARIO VOLUMES SCENARIO V/C RATIOS
MENTS LANES CAPACITY 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4
NBL 0 0 0 0 0 0 - -
NBT 3 4800 363 368 395 400 0.076 0.077 0.082 0.083
NBTR (a) 1 1600 269 269 273 273 0.168 0.168 0.171 0.171 5BL 1 1600 32 32 32 32 0.020 0.020 0.020 0.020
SBT 2 3200 672 672 804 804 0.210 * 0.210 * 0.251 * 0.251 * SBR (b) 1 1600 305 305 396 396 0.191 0.191 0.248 0.248
EBL 3 4800 403 403 403 403 0.084 * 0.084 * 0.084 0.084
EBT 2 3200 11 11 11 11 0.059 0.059 0.066 * 0.066 *
EBR (c) 0 0 179 179 199 199 - -
WBL 1 1600 7 7 7 7 0.004 0.004 0.004 0.004
WBT 0 0 0 0 0 0 -
WBR (d) 2 3200 19 19 19 19 0.006 * 0.006 * 0.006 * 0.006 * LOST TIME: 0.100 * 0.100 * 0.100 * 0.100 *
TOTAL INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION: 0.400 0.400 0.423 0.423 SCENARIO LEVEL OF SERVICE: A A A A
NOTES:

RTOR: (a) VOLUME ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT-TURN ONTO U.S. 101 SB ON-RAMP. (b) 0%
(c) 31%
(d) 10%
P nted: 08/05/14
#14054 SPRINGVILLE COMMERCIAL PROJECT

INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION WORKSHEET - GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT TIME PERIOD: A.M. PEAK HOUR
N/S STREET: LOS POSAS ROAD
ENV STREET: U.S. 101 SB RAMPS
CONTROL TYPE: SIGNAL
REF: 10 AM

TRAFFIC VOLUME SUMMARY

NORTH BOUND SOUTH BOUND EAST BOUND

VOLUMES L T R L T R L T R

WEST BOUND
L T R
(A) GP BUILDOUT: 0 533 2 15 771 538 387 11 447
(B) PROJECT-ADDED: o 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
6 0 14
0 0 0

CEOMETRICS

NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND

LANE GEOMETRICS TTT R L TT R LLL TR R

WESTBOUND
L RR

TRAFFIC SCENARIOS
SCENARIO 1 = GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT (A)
SCENARIO 2 = GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT + PROJECT VOLUMES (A+B)

LEVEL OF SERVICE CALCULATIONS
MOVEMENTS # OF

LANES CAPACITY

SCENARIO VOLUMES
1 2

SCENARIO V/C RATIOS
1 2
NBL
NBT
NEW (a)
SBL
SBT
SBR (b)
EBL
EBT
EBR (c)
WBL
WBT
WBR (d)
0 3
1 1
2 1
3 2
0 1
0 2
0 4800
1600
1600
3200
1600
4800
3200
0 1600
0 3200
0 0
533 535
21 2
15 15
771 771
4091 409
387 387
11 11
447 447
6 6
0 0
14 14

0.111

0.001

0.009

0.241

0.256

0.081

0.143

0.004

0.004
*
*
*

0.111

0.001

0.009

0.241

0.256 *

0.081

0.143 *

0.004 *

0.004
LOST TIME:

TOTAL INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION:

SCENARIO LEVEL OF SERVICE:

0.100
' 0.503
A
* 0,1 00 *

0.503
A
NOTES:

RTOR: (a) 0%
(b) Volume reduced for overlap with EB left turns.
(c) 0%
(d) 0%
Printed: 07/31/14
#14054 SPRINGVILLE COMMERCIAL PROJECT

INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION WORKSHEET
REF: 10 PM
COUNT DATE: 07/24/2014
TIME PERIOD: P.M. PEAK HOUR
WS STREET: LAS POSAS ROAD
E/W STREET: U.S. 101 SB RAMPS (SPLIT PHASED)
CONTROL TYPE: SIGNAL

TRAFFIC VOLUME SUMMARY

NORTH BOUND SOUTH BOUND EAST BOUND WEST BOUND

VOLUMES L T R L T R L T R L T R
(A) EXISTING: 0 1095 445 22 938 179 327 15 254 15 0 47
(B) PROJECT-ADDED: 0 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
(C) EXISTING +APPROVED: 0 1248 478 22 1015 232 327 15 258 15 0 47

GEOMETRICS

NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND

LANE GEOMETRICS TTT TR L TT R LLL TR R L RR

TRAFFIC SCENARIOS
SCENARIO 1 = EXISTING VOLUMES (A)
SCENARIO 2 = EXISTING + PROJECT VOLUMES (A+ B)
SCENARIO 3 = EXISTING + APPROVED (C)
SCENARIO 4 = EXISTING + APPROVED + PROJECT VOLUMES (B+C)

LEVEL OF SERVICE CALCULATIONS
MOVE- # OF SCENARIO VOLUMES SCENARIO V/C RATIOS
MENTS LANES CAPACITY 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4
NBL 0 0 0 0 0 0 -
NBT 3 4800 1095 1112 1248 1265 0.228 0.232 0.260 0.264
NBTR (a) 1 1600 445 445 478 478 0.278 0.278 0.299 0.299 SBL 1 1600 22 22 22 22 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014
SBT 2 3200 938 938 1015 1015 0.293 * 0.293 * 0.317 * 0.317 * SBR (b) 1 1600 179 179 232 232 0.112 0.112 0.145 0.145
EBL 3 4800 327 327 327 327 0.068 * 0.068 * 0.068 * 0.068 * EBT 2 3200 15 15 15 15 0.051 0.051 0.052 0.052
EBR (c) 0 0 147 147 150 150 - -
WBL 1 1600 15 15 15 15 0.009 0.009 0.009 0.009
WBT 0 0 0 0 0 0 -
WBR (d) 2 3200 39 39 39 39 0.012 * 0.012 * 0.012 * 0.012 * LOST TIME: 0.100 * 0.100 * 0.100 * 0.100 *
TOTAL INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION: 0.473 0.473 0.497 0.497 SCENARIO LEVEL OF SERVICE: A A A A
NOTES:

RTOR: (a) VOLUME ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT-TURN ONTO U.S. 101 SB ON-RAMP. (b) 0%
(c) 42%
(d) 17%
Printed: 08/05/14
#14054 SPRINGVILLE

INTERSECTION
TIME PERIOD:

N/S STREET:

E/W STREET:

CONTROL TYPE:

COMMERCIAL PROJECT

CAPACITY UTILIZATION WORKSHEET - GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT
P.M. PEAK HOUR

LOS POSAS ROAD
U.S. 101 SB RAMPS
SIGNAL
REF: 10 PM

TRAFFIC VOLUME SUMMARY

NORTH BOUND SOUTH BOUND EAST BOUND
VOLUMES L T R L f R L T R

WEST BOUND
L T R
(A) GP BUILDOUT: 0 1375 11 20 99 179 502 15 429
(B) PROJECT-ADDED: 0 1 0 o o o 0 o o
27 o 30
0 0 0

GEOMETRICS

NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND

LANE GEOMETRICS ITT R L IT R LLL TR R

WESTBOUND
L RR

TRAFFIC SCENARIOS
SCENARIO 1 = GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT (A)
SCENARIO 2 = GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT + PROJECT VOLUMES (A+B)

LEVEL OF SERVICE CALCULATIONS
MOVEMENTS
# OF

LANES CAPACITY

SCENARIO VOLUMES
1 2

SCENARIO V/C RATIOS
1 2
NBL
NBT
NBR (a)
5BL
SOT
SBR (b)
EBL
EBT
[BR (c)
WBL
WBT
WBR (d)
0 3
1 1
2 1
3 2
o
1 0
2 0
4800
1600
1600
3200
1600
4800
3200
0 1600
0 3200
0 a
1375 1376
11 11
20 20
99 99
12 12
502 502
15 15
429 429
27 27
0 0
30 30

0.286

0.007

0.013

0.031

0.008

0.105

0.139
-

0.017

0.009
*
*
*
*
-

0.287 *

0.007

0.013 *

0.031

0.008

0.105

0.139 *

0.017 *
-

0.009
LOST TIME:

TOTAL INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION:

SCENARIO LEVEL OF SERVICE:

0.100

0.555
A
' 0.100 *

0.556
A
NOTES:

RTOR: (a) 0%
(b) Volume reduced for overlap with EB /eft turns.
(c) 0%
(d) 0%
nninc/i 4
#14054 SPRINGVILLE COMMERCIAL PROJECT

INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION WORKSHEET
COUNT DATE: 07/24/2014
TIME PERIOD: A.M. PEAK HOUR
N/S STREET: LAS POSAS ROAD
EM' STREET: VENTURA BOULEVARD (SPLIT PHASED)
CONTROL TYPE: SIGNAL
REF: 11 AM

TRAFFIC VOLUME SUMMARY

VOLUMES

NORTH BOUND SOUTH BOUND EAST BOUND WEST BOUND

R L T R L
(A) EXISTING: 103 451 48 70 763 91 110 24 124 55 39 30
(B) PROJECT-ADDED: 65 0 0 0 0 0 5 5 28 0 12 0
(C) EXISTING +APPROVED: 177 476 48 79 888 118 118 32 185 57 52 33

GEOMETRICS

LANE GEOMETRICS

NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND

LL TTT R LL TT R LL LT T R LL T TR R

TRAFFIC SCENARIOS
SCENARIO 1 = EXISTING VOLUMES (A)
SCENARIO 2 = EXISTING + PROJECT VOLUMES (A+ B)
SCENARIO 3 = EXISTING + APPROVED (C)
SCENARIO 4 = EXISTING + APPROVED + PROJECT VOLUMES (B+C)

LEVEL OF SERVICE CALCULATIONS
MOVE- # OF SCENARIO VOLUMES SCENARIO WC RATIOS
MENTS LANES CAPACITY 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4
NBL 2 3200 103 168 177 242 0.032 0.053 * 0.055 * 0.076 * NBT 3 4800 451 451 476 476 0.094 0.094 0.099 0.099
NBR (a) 1 1600 32 32 32 32 0.020 0.020 0.020 0.020
SBL 2 3200 70 70 79 79 0.022 0.022 0.025 0.025
SBT 2 3200 763 763 888 888 0.238 * 0.238 * 0.278 * 0.278 * SBR (b) 1 1 600 75 75 97 97 0.047 0.047 0.061 0.061
EBL 0 0 110 115 118 123
EBT 4 6400 24 29 32 37 0.021 0.023 0.023 0.025
EBR (c) 1 1600 38 47 57 66 0.024 * 0.029 * 0.036 * 0.041 * WBL 2 3200 55 55 57 57 0.017 * 0.017 * 0.018 * 0.018 *
WBT 3 4800 39 51 52 64 0.010 0.013 0.013 0.015
WBR (d) 0 0 9 9 10 10
LOST TIME: 0.100 * 0.100 * 0.100 * 0.100 *
TOTAL INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION: 0.411 0.437 0.487 0.513 NOTES:

SCENARIO LEVEL OF SERVICE: A A A A
RTOR: (a) 33%
(b) 18%
(c) 69%
(c1) 70%
Printed: 08/05/14
#14054 SPRINGVILLE COMMERCIAL PROJECT

INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION WORKSHEET - GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT TIME PERIOD: A.M. PEAK HOUR
N/S STREET: LOS POSAS ROAD
ENV STREET: VENTURA BOULEVARD
CONTROL TYPE: SIGNAL
REF: 11 AM

TRAFFIC VOLUME SUMMARY

NORTH BOUND SOUTH BOUND EAST BOUND WESTBOUND

VOLUMES L T R L T R L T R L T R
(A) GP BUILDOUT: 137 836 156 97 998 210 109 53 59 324 136 107 (B) PROJECT-ADDED: -58 0 0 o o o 2 2 12 o -10 0

GEOMETRICS

NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND

LANE GEOMETRICS LL TTT R LL IT R LL LT T R LL TT R

TRAFFIC SCENARIOS
SCENARIO 1 = GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT (A)
SCENARIO 2 = GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT + PROJECT VOLUMES (A+B)

LEVEL OF SERVICE CALCULATIONS
MOVE- # OF SCENARIO VOLUMES SCENARIO WC RATIOS
MENTS LANES CAPACITY 1 2 1 2
NBL 2 3200 137 79 0.043 * 0.025 *
NBT 3 4800 836 836 0.174 0.174
NBR (a) 1 1600 1561 156 0.098 0.098
SBL 2 3200 97 97 0.030 0.030
SBT 2 3200 998 998 0.312 * 0.312 *
SBR (b) 1 1600 1511 151 0.094 0.094
EBL 0 0 109 111
EBT 4 6400 53 55 0.025 0.026
[BR (c) 1 1600 59 71 0.037 * 0.044 *
WBL 2 3200 324 324 0.101 * 0.101 *
WBT 2 3200 136 126 D.043 0.039
WBR (01) 1 1600 107 107 0.067 0.067
L0.51 TIME: 0.100 * 0.100 *
TOTAL INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION: 0.593 0.582
SCENARIO LEVEL OF SERVICE: A A
NOTES:

RTOR: (a) 0%
(b) Volume reduced for overlap with EB left turns.
(c) 0%
(d) 0%
Printed: 07/31/14
#14054 SPRINGVILLE COMMERCIAL PROJECT

INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION WORKSHEET
COUNT DATE: 07/24/2014
TIME PERIOD: P.M. PEAK HOUR
N/S STREET: LAS POSAS ROAD
ENV STREET: VENTURA BOULEVARD (SPLIT PHASED)
CONTROL TYPE: SIGNAL
REF: 11 PM

TRAFFIC VOLUME SUMMARY

VOLUMES

NORTH BOUND SOUTH BOUND EAST BOUND WEST BOUND

L T R L T RL T R
(A) EXISTING: 366 724 143 235 616 163 436 147 196 206 230 203 (B) PROJECT-ADDED: 65 0 0 0 0 0 17 17 95 0 11 0
(C) EXISTING +APPROVED: 542 854 143 240 657 198 483 180 389 225 260 212

GEOMETRICS

LANE GEOMETRICS

NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND

LL TTT R LL TT R LL LT T R LL T TR R

TRAFFIC SCENARIOS
SCENARIO 1 = EXISTING VOLUMES (A)
SCENARIO 2 = EXISTING + PROJECT VOLUMES (A+ B)
SCENARIO 3 = EXISTING + APPROVED (C)
SCENARIO 4 = EXISTING + APPROVED + PROJECT VOLUMES (B +C)

LEVEL OF SERVICE CALCULATIONS
MOVE- # OF SCENARIO VOLUMES SCENARIO V/C RATIOS
MENTS LANES CAPACITY 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4
NBL 2 3200 366 431 542 607 0.114 * 0.135 * 0.169 ' 0.190 * NBT 3 4800 724 724 854 854 0.151 0.151 0.178 0.178
NBR (a) 1 1600 83 83 83 83 0.052 0.052 0.052 0.052
SBL 2 3200 235 235 240 240 0.073 0.073 0.075 0.075
SBT 2 3200 616 616 657 657 0.193 * 0.193 * 0.205 * 0.205 * SBR (6) 1 1600 104 104 127 127 0.065 0.065 0.079 0.079
EBL 0 0 436 453 483 500
EBT 4 6400 147 164 180 197 0.091 * 0.096 * 0.104 * 0.109 EBR (c) 1 1600 74 111 148 184 0.046 0.069 0.093 0.115 * WBL 2 3200 206 206 225 225 0.064 0.064 0.070 0.070
WBT 3 4800 230 241 260 271 0.069 * 0.071 * 0.076 * 0.079 * WBR (d) 0 0 102 102 106 106
LOST TIME: 0.100 * 0.100 * 0.100 * 0.100 *
TOTAL INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION: 0.567 0.595 0.654 0.689 SCENARIO LEVEL OF SERVICE: A A
NOTES:

RTOR: (a) 42%
(b) 36%
(c) 62%
(d) 50%
Printed: 08/05/14
N....
#14054 SPRINGVILLE COMMERCIAL PROJECT

INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION WORKSHEET - GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT REF: 11 PM
TIME PERIOD: P.M. PEAK HOUR
WS STREET: LOS POSAS ROAD
EM/ STREET: VENTURA BOULEVARD
CONTROL TYPE: SIGNAL

TRAFFIC VOLUME SUMMARY

NORTH BOUND SOUTH BOUND EAST BOUND WEST BOUND

VOLUMES L T R L T R L T R L T R
(A) GP BUILDOUT: 212 1307 358 439 679 78 479 286 215 517 210 347 (B) PROJECT-ADDED: 52 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 5 0 9 0

GEOMETRICS

NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND

LANE GEOMETRICS LL TTT R LL TT R LL LT T R LL TT R

TRAFFIC SCENARIOS
SCENARIO 1 = GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT (A)
SCENARIO 2 = GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT + PROJECT VOLUMES (A+B)

LEVEL OF SERVICE CALCULATIONS
MOVE- # OF SCENARIO VOLUMES SCENARIO WC RATIOS
MENTS LANES CAPACITY 1 2 1 2
NBL 2 3200 212 264 0.066 0.083
NBT 3 4800 1307 1307 0,272 * 0.272 *
N BR (a) 1 1600 279 1 279 0.174 0.174
SBL 2 3200 439 439 0.137 ' 0.137 *
SBT 2 3200 679 679 0.212 0.212
SBR (b) 1 1600 781 78 0.049 0.049
EBL 0 0 479 480 - -
EBT 4 6400 286 287 0.120 * 0.120 *
EBR (c) 1 1600 135 139 0.084 0.087
WBL 2 3200 517 517 0.162 0.162
WBT 2 3200 210 219 0.066 0.068
WBR (d) 1 1600 267 267 0.167 * 0.167 *
LOST TIME: 0.100 * 0.100 *
TOTAL INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION: 0.796 0.796
SCENARIO LEVEL OF SERVICE: C C
NOTES:

RTOR: (a) 22%
(b) 0%
(c) 27%
(d) 23%
Printed: 08/01/14
#14054 SPRINGVILLE COMMERCIAL PROJECT

INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION WORKSHEET
COUNT DATE: 07/24/2014
TIME PERIOD: A.M. PEAK HOUR
NI/S STREET: LAS POSAS ROAD
ENV STREET: PLEASANT VALLEY ROAD
CONTROL TYPE: SIGNAL
REF: 12_AM

TRAFFIC VOLUME SUMMARY

VOLUMES

NORTH BOUND SOUTH BOUND EAST BOUND WEST BOUND

L T R L T RL T R
(Al EXISTING: 9 130 7 41 340 539 441 91 12 7 148 61
(B) PROJECT-ADDED: 0 25 0 3 11 14 33 0 0 0 0 7
(C) EXISTING +APPROVED: 9 172 7 53 383 587 491 91 12 7 148 74

GEOMETRICS

LANE GEOMETRICS

NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOU ND WESTBOUND

L T TR LTR LL TR L TR

TRAFFIC SCENARIOS
SCENARIO 1 = EXISTING VOLUMES (A)
SCENARIO 2 = EXISTING + PROJECT VOLUMES (A+ B)
SCENARIO 3 = EXISTING + APPROVED (C)
SCENARIO 4 = EXISTING + APPROVED + PROJECT VOLUMES (B +C)

LEVEL OF SERVICE CALCULATIONS
MOVE- # OF SCENARIO VOLUMES SCENARIO ViC RATIOS
MENTS LANES CAPACITY 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4
NBL 1600 9 9 9 9 0.006 * 0.006 * 0.006 * 0.006
NOT 2 3200 130 155 172 197 0.043 0.050 0.056 0.063
NBR (a) 0 0 6 6 6 6
SBL 1 1600 41 44 53 56 0.026 0.028 0.033 0.035
SOT 1600 340 351 383 394 0.213 * 0.219 0.239 * 0.246 *
SBR (b) 1600 539 553 587 601 0.337 0.346 0.367 0.376
EB L 2 3200 441 474 491 524 0.138 * 0.148 * 0.153 0.164 * EBT 1600 91 91 91 91 0.064 0.064 0.064 0.064
EBR (c) 0 11 11 11 11
WBL 1600 7 7 7 7 0.004 0.004 0.004 0.004
WBT 1600 148 148 148 148 0.115 0.118 * 0.120 * 0.123 *
WBR (d) 0 36 40 44 48
LOST TIME: 0.100 * 0.100 0.100 * 0.100 *
TOTAL INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION: 0.572 0.591 0.618 0.639 SCENARIO LEVEL OF SERVICE: A A
NOTES:

RTOR: (a) 14%
(b) YIELD
(c) 8%
(d) 41%
Printed: 08/05/14
#14054 SPRINGVILLE COMMERCIAL PROJECT

INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION WORKSHEET
REF: 12 PM
COUNT DATE: 07/24/2014
TIME PERIOD: P.M. PEAK HOUR
WS STREET: LAS POSAS ROAD
ENV STREET: PLEASANT VALLEY ROAD
CONTROL TYPE: SIGNAL

TRAFFIC VOLUME SUMMARY

NORTH BOUND SOUTH BOUND EAST BOUND WEST BOUND

VOLUMES L T R L T R L T R L T R
(A) EXISTING: 25 446 15 33 252 680 641 143 18 16 391 169 (8) PROJECT-ADDED: 0 25 0 3 11 14 33 0 0 0 0 7
(C) EXISTI NG + APPROVED: 25 538 15. 45 295 728 746 143 18 16 391 195

GEOMETRICS

NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND

LANE GEOMETRICS L T TR L T R LL TEL L TEL

TRAFFIC SCENARIOS
SCENARIO 1 = EXISTING VOLUMES (A)
SCENARIO 2 = EXISTING + PROJECT VOLUMES (A +B)
SCENARIO 3 = EXISTING + APPROVED (C)
SCENARIO 4 = EXISTING + APPROVED + PROJECT VOLUMES (B+C)

LEVEL OF SERVICE CALCULATIONS
MOVE- # OF SCENARIO VOLUMES SCENARIO WC RATIOS
MENTS LANES CAPACITY 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4
NBL 1 1600 25 25 25 25 0.016 * 0.016 * 0.016 0.016
NBT 2 3200 446 471 538 563 0.143 0.151 0.172 * 0.180 *
NBR (a) 0 0 13 13 13 13 -
SBL 1 1600
'
33 36 45 48 0.021 0.023 0.028 * 0.030 *
SBT 1 1600 252 263 295 306 0.158 * 0.164 * 0.184 0.191
SBR (6) 1 1600 680 694 728 742 0.425 0.434 0.455 0.464
EBL 2 3200 641 674 746 779 0.200 * 0.211 * 0.233 * 0.243 ' EBT 1 1600 143 143 143 143 0.100 0.100 0.100 0.100
EB R (c) 0 0 17 17 17 17 -
WBL 1 1600 16 16 16 16 0.010 0.010 0.010 0.010
WBT 1 1600 391 391 391 391 0.307 ' 0.309 * 0.316 * 0.319 * WBR (d) 0 0 100 104 115 119 - -
LOST TIME: 0.100 * 0.100 ' 0.100 * 0.100 *
TOTAL INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION; 0.781 0.800 0.849 0.872 SCENARIO LEVEL OF SERVICE: C C D D
NOTES:

RTOR: (a) 14%
(6) YIELD
(c) 8%
(d) 41%
Printed: 08/05/14
#14054 SPRINGVILLE COMMERCIAL PROJECT

INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION WORKSHEET
REF: 13_AM
COUNT DATE: 07/24/2014
TIME PERIOD: A.M. PEAK HOUR
N/S STREET: CENTRAL AVENUE
E/W STREET: SANTA CLARA AVENUE
CONTROL TYPE: SIGNAL

TRAFFIC VOLUME SUMMARY

NORTH BOUND SOUTH BOUND EAST BOUND WEST BOUND

VOLUMES L T R L T R L T R L T R
(A) EXISTING: 36 373 97 32 163 101 234 337 11 53 238 32 (B) PROJECT-ADDED: 0 3 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
(C) EXISTING+APPROVED: 36 385 97 32 176 101 234 337 11 53 238 32

GEOMETRICS

NORTHBOUND SOUTH BOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND

LANE GEOMETRICS LL T TR LL T TR L T TR L T TR

TRAFFIC SCENARIOS
SCENARIO 1 = EXISTING VOLUMES (A)
SCENARIO 2 = EXISTING + PROJECT VOLUMES (A+ B)
SCENARIO 3 = EXISTING + APPROVED (C)
SCENARIO 4 = EXISTING + APPROVED + PROJECT VOLUMES (B +C)

LEVEL OF SERVICE CALCULATIONS

MOVE- ROE SCENARIO VOLUMES SCENARIO WC RATIOS
MENTS LANES CAPACITY 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4
NBL 2 3200 36 36 36 36 0.011 0.011 0.011 0.011
NBT 2 3200 373 376 385 388 0.142 * 0.143 * 0.146 * 0.147 * NB R (a) 0 0 81 81 81 81 -
5BL 2 3200 32 32 32 32 0.010 * 0.010 * 0.010 * 0.010 *
SBT 2 3200 163 171 176 184 0.076 0.078 0.080 0.083
SBR (b) 0 0 80 80 80 80 - - - -
EBL 1 1600 234 234 234 234 0.146 * 0.146 * 0.146 * 0.146 * EST 2 3200 337 337 337 337 0.109 0.109 0.109 0.109
EBR (c) 0 0 11 11 11 11
WBL 1 1600 53 53 53 53 0.033 0.033 0.033 0.033
WBT 2 3200 238 238 238 238 0.082 * 0.082 * 0.082 * 0.082 * WBR (d) 0 0 23 23 23 23
LOS I I IME: 0.100 * 0.100 * 0.100 * 0.100 *
TOTAL INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION: 0.480 0.481 0.484 0.485 SCENARIO LEVEL OF SERVICE: A A A A
NOTES:

RTOR: (a) 17%
(b) 21%
(c) 0%
(d) 28%
Printed: 08/05/14
-.
#14054 SPRINGVILLE COMMERCIAL PROJECT

INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION WORKSHEET
REF: 13 PM
COUNT DATE: 07/24/2014
TIME PERIOD: P.M. PEAK HOUR
N/S STREET: CENTRAL AVENUE
E/W STREET: SANTA CLARA AVENUE
CONTROL TYPE: SIGNAL

TRAFFIC VOLUME SUMMARY

NORTH BOUND SOUTH BOUND EAST BOUND WEST BOUND

VOLUMES L T R L T R L T R L T R
(A) EXISTING: 136 403 97 153 537 57 30 269 72 76 495 152 (B) PROJECT-ADDED: 0 11 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
(C) EXISTING+APPROVED: 136 431 97 153 563 57 30 269 72 76 495 152

GEOMETRICS

NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND

LANE GEOMETRICS LL T TR LL T TR L T TR L T TR

TRAFFIC SCENARIOS
SCENARIO 1 = EXISTING VOLUMES (A)
SCENARIO 2 = EXISTING + PROJECT VOLUMES (A+B)
SCENARIO 3 = EXISTING + APPROVED (C)
SCENARIO 4 - EXISTING + APPROVED + PROJECT VOLUMES (13 +C)

LEVEL OF SERVICE CALCULATIONS
MOVE- 4 OF SCENARIO VOLUMES SCENARIO V/C RATIOS
MENTS LANES CAPACITY 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4
NBL 2 3200 136 136 136 136 0.043 0.043 0.043 0.043
NBT 2 3200 403 414 431 442 0.151 * 0.155 * 0.160 * 0.163 * NBR (a) 0 0 81 81 81 81
SBL 2 3200 153 153 153 153 0.048 * 0.048 * 0.048 " 0.048 * SBT 2 3200 537 545 563 571 0.182 0.184 0.190 0.193
SBR (6) 0 0 45 45 45 45 - -
EBL 1 1600 30 30 30 30 0.019 * 0.019 * 0.019 ' 0.019 *
EBT 2 3200 269 269 269 269 0.107 0.107 0.107 0.107
EBR (c) 0 0 72 72 72 72 -
WBL 1 1600 76 76 76 76 0.048 0.048 0.048 0.048
WBT 2 3200 495 495 495 495 0.189 * 0.189 * 0.189 * 0.189 * WBR (d) 0 0 109 109 109 109 - -
I OST TIME: 0.100 * 0.100 * 0.100 * 0.100 '
TOTAL INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION: 0.507 0.511 0.516 0.519 SCENARIO LEVEL OF SERVICE: A A A A
NOTES:

R TOR: (a) 17%
(b) 21%
(c) 0%
(d) 28%
Printed: 08/05/14

DRIVEWAY LEVEL OF SERVICE CALCULATION WORKSHEETS

TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY
- -
Analyst OLD
Agency/Co. ATE
Date Performed 8/12/2014
Analysis Time Period AM PEAK
Intersection B ST/SPRINGVILLE DR
Jurisdiction CAMARILLO
Analysis Year EX + APP + PROJECT
Project Description SPRING VILLE COMMERCIAL PROJECT
East/West Street: B STREET North/South Street: SPRING VILLE DR Intersection Orientation: North-South Study Period (hrs): 1.00 'Vehicle Volumes and Adjustmets.

Major Street Northbound Southbound
Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6

L T R L T R
Volume (veh/h) 264 522 235
Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Hourly Flow Rate, HFR
(veh/h) 0 264 0 0 522 235
Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 -- -- 0 - --
Median Type Undivided
RT Channelized 0 1
Lanes 0 2 0 0 2 1
Configuration T T R
Upstream Signal 0 0
Minor Street Eastbound Westbound
Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12

L T R L T R
Volume (veh/h) 27
Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Hourly Flow Rate, HFR
(veh/h) 0 0 27 0 0 0
Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0
Percent Grade (%) 0 0
Flared Approach N N
Storage 0 0
RT Channelized 0 0
Lanes 0 0 1 0 0 0
Configuration R
Deiay,- Queue Length,, and Level qf SerVice
Approach Northbound Southbound Westbound Eastbound
Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12
Lane Configuration R
v (veh/h) 27
C (m) (veh/h) 783
vIc 0.03
95% queue length 0.11
Control Delay (s/veh) 9.8
LOS A
Approach Delay
(s/veh) -- -- 9.8
Approach LOS -- -- A
Copyright © 2010 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS+TmVersion 5.6 Generated: 8/12/2014 8:43 AM

TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY
Geperal Information Information
Analyst DLD
Agency/Co. ATE
Date Performed 8/12/2014
Analysis Time Period PM PEAK
Intersection B ST/SPRINGVILLE DR
Jurisdiction CAMARILLO
Analysis Year EX + APP + PROJECT
Project Description SPRING VILLE COMMERCIAL PROJECT
East/West Street: B STREET North/South Street: SPRING VILLE DR Intersection Orientation: North-South Study Period (hrs): 1.00 Vetce Volumes and Adjustments
Major Street Northbound Southbound
Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6

L T R L T R
Volume (veh/h) 1114 821 234
Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Hourly Flow Rate, HFR
(veh/h) 0 1114 0 0 821 234
Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 -- -- 0 -- --
Median Type Undivided
RT Channelized 0 1
Lanes 0 2 0 0 2 1
Configuration T T R
Upstream Signal 0 0
Minor Street Eastbound Westbound
Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12

L T R L T R
Volume (veh/h) 93
Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Hourly Flow Rate, HFR
(veh/h) 0 0 93 0 0 0
Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0
Percent Grade (%) 0 0
Flared Approach N N
Storage 0 0
RT Channelized 0 0
Lanes 0 0 1 0 0 0
Configuration R
e
Approach Northbound Southbound Westbound Eastbound
Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12
Lane Configuration R
v (veh/h) 93
C (m) (veh/h) 646
vlc 0.14
95% queue length 0.50
Control Delay (s/veh) 11.5
LOS B
Approach Delay
(s/veh)
__ __ 11.5
Approach LOS -- -- B
Copyright © 2010 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS+Tm Version 5.6 Generated: 8/12/2014 8:45 AM

TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY
GneraI Information Site Information
Analyst DLD
Agency/Co. ATE
Date Performed 8/12/2014
Analysis Time Period AM PEAK
Intersection A ST/VENTURA BLVD
Jurisdiction CAMARILLO
Analysis Year EX + APP + PROJECT
Project Description SPRING VILLE COMMERCIAL PROJECT
EastNVest Street: VENTURA BOULEVARD North/South Street: A STREET Intersection Orientation: East-West Study Period (hrs): 1.00 VehicI Volumes and AdjuStments
Major Street Eastbound Westbound
Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6

L T R L T R
Volume (veh/h) 0 93 1 43 237 98
Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Hourly Flow Rate, HFR
(veh/h) 0 93 1 43 237 98
Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 - -- 0 -- --
Median Type Undivided
RT Channelized 0 0
Lanes 1 2 0 1 2 0
Configuration L T TR L T TR
Upstream Signal 0 0
Minor Street Northbound Southbound
Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12
L• T R L T R
Volume (veh/h) 0 0 5 128 0 0
Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Hourly Flow Rate, HFR
(veh/h) 0 0 5 128 0 0
Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0
Percent Grade (%) 0 0
Flared Approach N N
Storage 0 0
RT Channelized 0 0
Lanes 0 1 1 0 1 1
Configuration LT R LT R
'
Approach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12
Lane Configuration L L LT R LT R
v (veh/h) 0 43 0 5 128 0
C (m) (veh/h) 1236 1513 1028 510 881
vIc 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.25 0.00
95% queue length 0.00 0.09 0.01 1.00 0.00
Control Delay (s/veh) 7.9 7.4 8.5 14.4 9.1

TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY
General Informatio Site Informati

A STNENTURA BLVD

CAMARILLO
EX + APP + PROJECT
Intersection
Jurisdiction
Analysis Year
DLD
ATE
8/12/2014

PM PEAK
Analyst
Agency/Co.

Date Performed
Analysis Time Period
Project Description SPRING VILLE COMMERCIAL PRO JECT
East/West Street: VENTURA BOULEVARD North/South Street: A STREET Intersection Orientation: East-West Study Period (hrs): 1.00 icie votumes us men
Major Street Eastbound Westbound
Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6
Volume (veh/h) 0 386 0 6 401 133
Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Hourly Flow Rate, HFR
(veh/h) 0 386 0 6 401 133
Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0
Median Type Undivided
RT Channelized 0 0
Lanes 1 2 0 1 2 0
Configuration TR TR
Upstream Signal 0 0
Minor Street Northbound Southbound
Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12
Volume (veh/h) 1 0 37 420 0 2
Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Hourly Flow Rate, HFR
(veh/h) 1 0 37 420 0 2
Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0
Percent Grade (%) 0 0
Flared Approach
Storage 0 0
RT Channelized 0 0
Lanes 0 1 0 1 1
Configuration LT LT
e a ueue Length, a
Approach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12
Lane Configuration LT LT
v (veh/h) 0 6 1 37 420 2
C (m) (veh/h) 1044 1184 387 854 329 777
vIc 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.04 1.28 0.00
95% queue length 0.00 0.02 0.01 0.14 56.63 0.01
Control Delay (s/veh) 8.4 8.1 14.3 9.4 560.0 9.6
LOS
Approach Delay
(s/veh)

A A A A

INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION WORKSHEET
TIME PERIOD: A.M. PEAK HOUR
N/S STREET: A STREET ,
E/W STREET: VENTURA BOULEVARD
CONTROL TYPE: SIGNAL

MITIGATED WITH TRAFFIC SIGNALS

TRAFFIC VOLUME SUMMARY

NORTH BOUND SOUTH BOUND EAST BOUND

VOLUMES L T R L T R L T R

WEST BOUND
L T R
(A) EXISTING +APP+ PROJECT: 0 o 5 128 0 0 0 93 1 43 237 98

GEOMETRICS

NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND

LANE GEOMETRICS LT R LT R L T TR

WESTBOUND
L T TR

TRAFFIC SCENARIOS
SCENARIO 'I = EXISTING + APPROVED + PROJECT VOLUMES (A)

LEVEL OF SERVICE CALCULATIONS
MOVEMENTS
# OF

LANES CAPACITY

SCENARIO VOLUMES
1 SCENARIO WC RATIOS
1 NBL
NBT
N BR (a)
SBL
SBT
SBR (b)
EBL
EBT
EB R (c)
WB L
WBT
WBR (d)
0 1
1 0
1 1
1 2
0 1
2 0
0 1600
1600
0 1600
1600
1600
3200
0 1600
3200
0 0
0 5
128
0 0
0 93
1 43
237
98 -

0.000

0.003

0.080

0.000

0.029
-

0.027

0.105
*
a
*
*
LOST TIME:

TOTAL INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION:

SCENARIO LEVEL OF SERVICE:

0.100

0.288
A
*
NOTES:

RTOR: (a) NIA
(b) NIA
(c) N/A
(d) NIA
Printed: 08/1 3/1 4
#14054 SPRINGVILLE COMMERCIAL PROJECT

INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION WORKSHEET
TIME PERIOD: P.M. PEAK HOUR
N/S STREET: A STREET
E/W STREET: VENTURA BOULEVARD
CONTROL TYPE: SIGNAL

MITIGATED WITH TRAFFIC SIGNALS

TRAFFIC VOLUME SUMMARY

NORTH BOUND SOUTH BOUND EAST BOUND

VOLUMES L T R L T R L T R

WEST BOUND
L T R
(A) EXISTING +APP + PROJECT: 1 0 37 420 0 2 0 386 0 6 346 133

GEOMETRICS

NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND

LANE GEOMETRICS LT R LT R L T TR

WESTBOUND
L T TR

TRAFFIC SCENARIOS
SCENARIO 1 = EXISTING + APPROVED + PROJECT VOLUMES (A)

LEVEL OF SERVICE CALCULATIONS
MOVEMENTS
# OF

LANES CAPACITY

SCENARIO VOLUMES
1 SCENARIO V/C RATIOS
1 NBL
NBT
NBR (a)
SBL
SBT
SBR (b)
EBL
EBT
EBR (c)
WBL
WBT
WBR (d)
0 1
1 0
1 1
1 2
0 1
2 0
0 1600
1600
0 1600
1600
1600
3200
0 1600
3200
0 1
0 37
420
0 2
0 386
0 6
346
133
-

0.001

0.023
-

0.263

0.001

0.000
0,121

0.004

0.150
-
*
'
*
*
LOST TIME:

TOTAL INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION:

SCENARIO LEVEL OF SERVICE:

0.100

0.536
A
*
NOTES:

RTOR: (a) N/A
(b) N/A
(c) N/A
(d) N/A
Printed: 08/1 3/1 4

TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY
General Informati Site Information
Analyst DLD
Agency/Co. ATE
Date Performed 8/27/2014
Analysis Time Period A.M. PEAK
VENTURA Intersection BLVDNERDULERA ST
Jurisdiction CAMARILLO
Analysis Year EX + APP + PROJECT
Project Description SPRING VILLE COMMERCIAL PROJECT
East/West Street: VENTURA BLVD-VERDULERA ST North/South Street: VENTURA BLVD Intersection Orientation: East-West Study Period (hrs): 1.00 ye IC us men
Major Street Eastbound Westbound
Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6
Volume (veh/h) 10 67 0 1 182 55
Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Hourly Flow Rate, HFR
(veh/h) 10 67 0 1 182 55
Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0
Median Type Undivided
RT Channelized 0 0
Lanes 1 2 1 1 1 1
Configuration
Upstream Signal 0 0
Minor Street Northbound Southbound
Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12
Volume (veh/h) 0 1 0 27 0 10
Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Hourly Flow Rate, HFR
(veh/h) 0 1 0 27 0 10
Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0
Percent Grade (%) 0 0
Flared Approach
Storage 0 0
RT Channelized 0 0
Lanes 0 1 0 1 1 0
Configuration LTR TR
Dela orei
Approach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12
Lane Configuration LTR TR
v (veh/h) 10 1 1 27 10
C (m) (veh/h) 1342 1547 591 697 866
vIc 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.01
95% queue length 0.02 0.00 0.01 0.12 0.04
Control Delay (s/veh) 7.7 7.3 11.1 10.4 9.2

TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY
'General Information
Analyst
Agency/Co.

Date Performed
Analysis Time Period
DLD
ATE
8/27/2014
P.M. PEAK
Intersection
Jurisdiction
Analysis Year

VENTURA

BLVD/VERDULERA ST

CAMARILLO
EX + APP + PROJECT
Project Description SPRING VILLE COMMERCIAL PROJECT
East/West Street: VENTURA BLVD-VERDULERA ST
Intersection Orientation: East-West
Vehicle
Major Street Eastbound Westbound
Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6
Volume (veh/h)
Peak-Hour Factor, PHF
Hourly Flow Rate, HFR
veh/h)
Percent Heavy Vehicles
Median Type
RT Channelized
Lanes
Configuration
Upstream Signal
Minor Street
Movement
15 1.00
15 0
271

1.00 271
0 1.00
0 1

1.00 1
0 308

1.00 308
95 1.00
95 Undivided
1 7
2 0
Northbound
8 0
1 9
1 10
1 0
Southbound
11 0
1 12
Volume (veh/h)
Peak-Hour Factor, PHF
Hourly Flow Rate, HFR
veh/h)
Percent Heavy Vehicles
Percent Grade (%)
Flared Approach
Storage
RT Channelized
Lanes
Configuration
ueue en enri
Approach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12
Lane Configuration LTR TR
v (veh/h) 15 1 1 115 5
C (m) (veh/h) 1167 1304 346 472 737
v/c 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.24 0.01
95% queue length 0.04 0.00 0.01 0.96 0.02
Control Delay (s/veh) 8.1 7.8

LOS A A
Approach Delay
s/veh)
Approach LOS
North/South Street: VENTURA BLVD
Study Period (hrs): 1.00
1 0 0 115 0 5

1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
1 0 0 115 0 5
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 1 0 1 1 0
LTR TR

15.4 15.1 9.9
A

APPROVED PROJECT INFORMATION
CD CV CV 11) 0) V- CO V- CO CO 0, CO eq r- CD 0) ✓- r- CV CO to OD CV CV V- CO N. T- CO V- Tco CO (0 10 1"-- LO LO co -ct- co co co co CO Co CO
In 'V (o() (0 CO r.-.. (.0 ,:t 1.0 A.- N- CO 04 LO "v` CO CV LO 't•-• TCV 03 03 CO
LO CO CO 00
to
•,..

CO s- CV (0 0)
0, CO

SPRINGVILLE COMMERCIAL PROJECT (APPROVED PROJECT TRIP GENERATION) .12.
c
E
;S:"' , .1'g ,19.• g`'. O`'.. g`. '8P . , C19, c';'9, <",;° 8g, 'ag ?ig c's I 'ri- N. LO Co CO CO LO LO CO CV CV CV
r- LO QD CO CO CO (0 (0 CO d' r- r- rLO (0 10 r LO r- N. co \-. CO CO 0) CO co CA CV CO CD a) 00 N- LC) CO CO 0) 40 CD Tl'-- LO CV CV 0 CD 0 CV CV (y r- r- r- 0.) CV LID CO 0 0 0 CO CO LO 0) 0) 0) 0 ci ca; c; .-- .-- -,-.- 6 6 Co 00 6
'Ct 'V" N. r.0 1..., N- CV CV QD N.. Co Co r CV LO CO C- V- d- C0 ts4 71' 71' Co CV 10 co 1.0 T- I..

N... V- Co V-
''g. 'ag ,',g. ,••sg (NI COODO 10101000 N- CV CV N
N.. (0 0) CO N. N. N- CO 03 CO r- r- V.-.

1.0 N. CD 1`-- ..q. CO Vf T- CO CD QD 1"-- (3 0) 0,4 0 r- r- 0, V* V-. V- Co Do (7S . T.; r- V- CO Co V- Cq V, CO -1-r-- c) 0 0 0 Q c:, co 0) 0) oo
oo co r CV CV N N CV CV CO 0)10 CO
• V- N. CO CO (0 CO V- (0 0)
-
OD CO
c- CV 1.1) OD to (0 (1) -.7 1- (0 0) co CO r- C- Co rt
000 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0
▪ 0 •r1- r- 10 LO LO r- •-• 00 CV CV N
N f•-• 0 10 03 CD 0) 0)
• cS 6 6 0(0 6 CO cS 000
CD 10 11) `V CD "V (0 0) `V" CO 10 0) ''V' 0) 10 10 CO 0 - 'ct 0) 10 0 CO CO CO CO CO r•-• cl, co r- Lo co to co co CO r- (N 05.
rN- "V" r- 10 C \ 1 CV CV LO LO 0) N- N- N.. 0) dr. CO CO 1.0 1-0 LO CO CO CO 000) C 5 co oS 6 6 oi oi 6 6 CO (5 6 6
co
0 000 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0
C). 0 CD CD 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CD CD
. . .

TO ',:t 0 0) di- 40 I,- CD 't 0 00 0 CD 0 Co CO CO N- LO CO CO 0 0 00 CD T --- CO 0 7t 0) CD 0?; CST L6 CD- N:

CV a) a) N- VI- N.... VIfa.
0 0 0 0
0) 0) 0) CCC
,-,-_-
u) li 'Cu 'di
Ci.") CO Cr3 Ca
121 ... cts EEE.f.124 .,_ COO L.0) 1./5 a 'E
0 = C ,t < .----' m u_ u_ LL (1) QD
(00(000 0 0) 5 CD U) 0
a 1:3 s''
4 1- 8 E E E z a_ aaaa • i.Li .0-o -a — — — -a v t ., zEaca o o a ===aa
0)n=r)mas 0 0 .a
0) 7-71 ..'", . . . 44 . ' ' . ' 44
4) , CD ..-I --I . •
O. 00 1 .2 d., CS 6 4 CS CS CS CS CS .6 ,c 1 c co co co , ,... 0 h,-, (i) a as a.
...4 0 C) CC CC 0 CC OC OC OC CC 0 0 C) 0
-----_____(* Z-
cz
Witt; 403aPetIOrla
174, ?es,
711654111VP
-

APPENDIX D -

RESPONSES TO COMMENTS RECEIVED

ON THE DRAFT MND
Final Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration 2016-1 D

RESPONSES TO COMMENTS RECEIVED

ON THE DRAFT SUBSEQUENT MND

INTRODUCTION
The Draft Subsequent MND for the proposed Amara Shopping Center project was circulated for public review on March 17, 2016. The public review period, during which public agencies, organizations, and the pubic in general were afforded the opportunity to review the Draft Subsequent MND and submit written comments regarding the Draft Subsequent MND and the proposed project in accordance with Section 15073 of the CEQA Guidelines. The public review period ended on April 5, 2016. By the end of the public review period, the City of Camarillo had received eight letters commenting on the Draft Subsequent MND.

Written comment letters were received from the following public agencies:

PUBIC COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
The following pages provide the written comment letters, the specific comments regarding the Draft Subsequent MND, and the city’s responses to these comments.

LIST OF COMMENTING AGENCIES, ORGANIZATIONS, AND INDIVIDUALS Commenting Agency, Organization, or Individual Date Received Naval Base Ventura County March 24, 2016
SoCalGas March 25, 2016
Fox Canyon Groundwater Management Agency March 30, 2016 Ventura County Watershed Protection District, Planning and Regulatory Division March 23, 2016 County of Ventura, Resource Management Agency, Planning Division April 5, 2016 Ventura County Air Pollution Control District March 29, 2016 Ventura County Watershed Protection District, Groundwater Resources March 29, 2016 County of Ventura, Public Works Agency, Transportation Department March 30, 2016 Final Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration 2016-1 D-1 From: Jaclyn Lee [email protected]
Subject: FW: Subsequent MND 2016-1, Springville Camarillo Owner, LLC Date: March 30, 2016 at 1:41 PM
To: Michael Brown ([email protected]) [email protected] Michael - the comment below is from Naval Base Ventura County for the Amara project. Thank you. -----Original Message-----
From: Fagan, Amanda L CIV NAVFAC SW, MUGU [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, March 24, 2016 11:22 AM
To: Jaclyn Lee
Cc: Joe Vacca; Swaffer, Darlene G CIV V NAVFAC SW, MUGU Subject: Subsequent MND 2016-1, Springville Camarillo Owner, LLC Ms. Lee,
Thank you for the opportunity to review the subject proposed project, Subsequent MND 2016-1, Springville Camarillo Owner, LLC. After review of the planned action, we have determined that there will be no impact to military operations. The proposed project is located outside of the high noise contours and accident potential zones for Naval Base Ventura County (NBVC) Point Mugu. The proposed project location does fall within the Runway 03/21 Approach/Departure Clearance Surfaces, but the proposed maximum building height of 60-feet is below the 500-feet elevation of the runway clearance surface for the location, and below the 7:1 slope of the military avigation easement that covers the southwest corner of the project site. Should the proposed project/plans change, the Navy would request an opportunity to re-assess our evaluation for mission impact.

Respectfully submitted,
Amanda Fagan
Community Planning & Liaison Officer
Naval Base Ventura County
311 Main Rd., Bldg 66
Point Mugu, CA 93042
(805) 989-9752
[email protected]
The information contained in this e-mail is intended only for the use of the named addressee(s). If you received this message in error, please notify the sender of its receipt by calling (805) 388-5300, and subsequently delete and/or destroy this document along with any attachments.

Responses to Comments
Email from Naval Base Ventura County (NBVC) dated March 24, 2016 Comment NBVC-1
Thank you for the opportunity to review the subject proposed project, Subsequent MND 2016-1, Springville Camarillo Owner, LLC. After review of the planned action, we have determined that there will be no impact to military operations. The proposed project is located outside of the high noise contours and accident potential zones for Naval Base Ventura County (NBVC) Point Mugu. The proposed project location does fall within the Runway 03/21 Approach/Departure Clearance Surfaces, but the proposed maximum building height of 60-feet is below the 500-feet elevation of the runway clearance surface for the location, and below the 7:1 slope of the military avigation easement that covers the southwest corner of the project site. Should the proposed project/plans change, the Navy would request an opportunity to re-assess our evaluation for mission impact.

Response to Comment NBVC-1
As stated in this comment, the proposed project site is located outside of the high noise contours and accident potential zones for NBVC Point Mugu and the proposed project would have no impact on military operations. The comment does not question the content or conclusions of the Draft Subsequent MND.

Final Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration 2016-1 D-3 James Chuang
Environmental Specialist
Southern California Gas Company
Sempra Energy utilities
GT17E2
555 Fifth Street
Los Angeles, Ca. 90013
Tel: 213-244-5817
Fax: 323 518 2324
03/25/2016
Ms. Jaclyn Lee
Senior Planner
City of Camarillo Department of Community Development
601 Carmen Drive
Camarillo, CA 93010
Re: Amara Shopping Center
Dear Ms. Lee:

Southern California Gas Company (SoCalGas) appreciates the opportunity to review and respond to the Notice of Availability for a Draft Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration. SoCalGas understands that the proposed project would involve the modification of a previously approved development plan to construct a commercial shopping center. The modification involves changes to the site layout, building elevations, and anticipated commercial uses.

We respectfully request that the following comments be incorporated in the record. • SoCalGas has a medium pressure distribution pipeline traversing the lower portion of the proposed project area from an east to west alignment, north of Verdulera Street. SoCalGas recommends that the project proponent call Underground Service Alert at 811 at least two business days prior to performing any excavation work for the proposed project. Underground Service Alert will coordinate with SoCalGas and other Utility owners in the area to mark the locations of buried utility-owned lines.

Once again, we appreciate the opportunity to comment on the Notice of Availability. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at (213) 244-5817 or [email protected].

Sincerely,
James Chuang
Senior Environmental Specialist
Southern California Gas Company
cc. Carli Ewert, SoCalGas
Responses to Comments
Letter from SoCalGas dated March 25, 2016
Comment SoCalGas-1
SoCalGas has a medium pressure distribution pipeline traversing the lower portion of the proposed project area from an east to west alignment, north of Verdulera Street. SoCalGas recommends that the project proponent call Underground Service Alert at 811 at least two business days prior to performing any excavation work for the proposed project. Underground Service Alert will coordinate with SoCalGas and other Utility owners in the area to mark the locations of buried utility-owned lines.

Response to Comment SoCalGas-1
It is understood that the project developer will coordinate with Underground Service Alert and affected utility providers to identify all known existing infrastructure prior to any excavation at the project site.

The comment does not question the content or conclusions of the Draft Subsequent MND.

Final Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration 2016-1 D-5

FOX CANYON

GROUNDWATER MANAGEMENT AGENCY

A SI ATE OF CALIFORNIA WATER AGENCY

BOARD OF DIRECTORS
Lynn E. Maulhardt, Chair, Director, United Waler Conservation District Charlotte Craven, Vice Chair, Councilperson, City of Camarillo David Borchard, Farmer, Agricultural Rep resenta/ive
Steve Bennett, Supervisor, County of Venlura
Eugene F. West, Director, Camrosa Water District
March 30, 2016
Ms. Jaclyn Lee, Senior Planner
City of Camarillo, Department of Community Development
601 Carmen Drive
Camarillo, California 93010

EXECUTIVE OFFICER
Jeff Pratt, P.E.

SUBJECT: SUBSEQUENT MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 2016-1 SPRINGVILLE CAMARILLO

OWNER, LLC
Dear Ms. Lee:

The subject document was reviewed. The Fox Canyon Groundwater Management Agency (FCGMA) has several concerns regarding the proposed project.

BACKGROUND:

The project is a commercial development located in Camarillo, California. The project site (Site) is bordered on the north by U.S. Highway 101, on the south by West Ventura Boulevard and Camarillo Airport, on the west by Springville Drive, and on the east by a Home Depot shopping center (Assessor's Parcel Number (APN) 230-0-153-02). The proposed project site consists of four parcels (APNs 230-0-020-230, 230-0-020-240, 230-0-010-470, and 230-0-010- 480) of land totaling approximately 44.84 acres. The project site is a portion of the 337-acre Airport North Specific Plan (Specific Plan) area. The development is currently approved for up to 499,000 square feet (sq ft) of building coverage (retail, restaurant and office space) (under MND 2006-17). The proposed revision relates to a request for major changes to the site plan building layout and changes to building elevations. The revised building coverage is 487,239 sq ft.

In the past the Site has been used for agricultural purposes. Based on a review of easily available aerial photographs, the site was used as farmland (for growing seasonal crops) in 1945, 1984, 1989, and during the period 2000 to 2007.

The site has been vacant or used as a support area during construction of Springville Drive and the extension of West Ventura Boulevard.

DISCUSSION:

It is not clear if there will be adequate groundwater resources available for the proposed project. During review of the subject document a number of key water supply concerns were identified.

Water Supply Concerns
The Water Supply concerns are related to:

1. Past and proposed groundwater usage;

2. The State of California, Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA);

3. The Groundwater Sustainability Plan for the Pleasant Valley Basin;

4. Reliance on past and current FCGMA allocation systems and credit programs; and

5. Proof of water supply for the development.

Page 2 of 2 ends

was a blend of both groundwater and surface water, and therefore it is not clear how much groundwater was supplied annually. The proposed project site is currently vacant and has not been cultivated since 2007. It is not clear what the total annual water demand for the proposed project will be, but an increase in groundwater demand is significant.

It is proposed that the City of Camarillo will be supplying water to the site. The proposed water allocation is based upon a proposed Ag to M&I allocation transfer. Ag to M&I allocation transfers are not taking place while Emergency Ordinance Eis in effect. Additionally, the Ag to M&I allocation transfers are associated with historical allocation, which is an allocation system that may be replaced by an allocation system currently in development.

With regard to the resource, the site is located in the Pleasant Valley groundwater basin and the City of Camarillo's wells are located in the Pleasant Valley groundwater basin. The Pleasant Valley groundwater basin is currently identified by the State of California as a "Critically Overdrafted Groundwater Basin." The impact on the groundwater basin cannot be evaluated as it is not known how much groundwater is to be used. Please clarify what portion of the estimated water demand is to be supplied by imported water, surface water, and groundwater. Any increase in demand would be detrimental.

2. The State of California, Sustainable Groundwater Management Act On January 1, 2015, California began implementing the SGMA. Groundwater Sustainability Plans (GSPs) are to be developed by local Groundwater Sustainability Agencies (GSAs) for each of the high and medium priority basins (as designated by the California Statewide Groundwater Elevation Monitoring (CASGEM) program) by 2020 for attaining sustainability by 2040. If the GSPs are found to be incomplete or inadequate, SGMA allows the State to intervene.

There is no mention of SGMA and its potential impact on the proposed groundwater supply in the subject document.

3. Groundwater Sustainability Plan for the Pleasant Valley Basin The GSP for the Pleasant Valley Basin is currently being developed. Among the issues to be addressed is the overdrafted condition of the basin, the overdrafted condition contributing to seawater intrusion, water quality degradation within the basin, and land subsidence. As part of the effort to attain sustainability a new basin specific allocation system is being developed. It is anticipated that the new allocation system will replace the past allocation systems.

4. Reliance on an Allocation Transfer System Not in Use The analysis in the subject document relies heavily on a currently not in use FCGMA allocation transfer system. We further understand that the City's water credit program is a temporary measure applicable during "drought" conditions, and therefore should not be considered to be a mitigation measure for the proposed project. The project water supply analysis should evaluate the project in light of current conditions with the existing groundwater allocation system.

RECOMMENDATIONS:

We recommend that:

1. The issues of concern and the comments identified above be addressed.

2. An analysis be performed such that it is clear as to whether the proposed water demand (clearly identifying groundwater portion of demand) at the site will be greater than, less than, or equal to past water demand (clearly identifying groundwater portion of demand).

3. It should be clearly stated if the City of Camarillo will provide a Will Serve Letter.

CLOSURE:

If you have any questions please call me at (805) 654-2954.

Sincerely,
Kathleen Riedel, CEG
Groundwater Specialist
cc: Lucia McGovern, City of Camarillo
Responses to Comments
Letter from the Fox Canyon Groundwater Management Agency (FCGMA) dated March 30, 2016
Comment FCGMA-1

1. Past and Proposed Groundwater Usage
Per Ventura County Watershed Protection District records, there are no groundwater extraction wells associated with the project parcels. Water was received from offsite sources. It is reported (on page 56) that the site received water for past agricultural operations from Pleasant Valley County Water District (PVCWD). Historic water usage at the site was a blend of both groundwater and surface water, and therefore it is not clear how much groundwater was supplied annually. The proposed project site is currently vacant and has not been cultivated since 2007. It is not clear what the total annual water demand for the proposed project will be, but an increase in groundwater demand is significant. It is proposed that the City of Camarillo will be supplying water to the site. The proposed water allocation is based upon a proposed Ag to M&I allocation transfer. Ag to M&I allocation transfers are not taking place while Emergency Ordinance E is in effect. Additionally, the Ag to M&I allocation transfers are associated with historical allocation, which is an allocation system that may be replaced by an allocation system currently in development.

Response to Comment FCGMA-1
The amount of water that was provided by the Pleasant Valley Water District for the irrigation of agricultural activities at the project site was not identified in Final MND 2006-17. Therefore, it is unknown how much groundwater was previously supplied annually to the project site.

Final MND 2006-17 (page IV-75) estimated that the operation of 499,000 square feet of commercial uses at the project site would consume approximately 47,904 gallons of water per day based on a consumption rate of 96 gallons per 1,000 square feet per day. At the time that Final MND 2006-17 was approved, the City of Camarillo had adequate water supplies to serve the project. Page 56 of the Draft Subsequent MND states that the water demand for the proposed Amara Shopping Center project would not exceed the estimates for the original project as estimated in MND 2006-17.

D-8 Amara Shopping Center
Responses to Comments
The water supply effects of the current multi-year drought on City of Camarillo water supplies are discussed on page 56 of the Draft Subsequent MND. This includes the suspension of groundwater allocation transfers under Emergency Ordinance E.

As discussed on page 56 of the Draft Subsequent MND, the city’s Water Conservation Ordinance requires the applicants of all new development projects to demonstrate that the water demand of their projects would be offset either directly by developer-initiated programs, by the transfer of groundwater rights, or a payment to the city’s new water conservation credit fund. City staff are adding the following paragraph to the Final MND to clarify the requirements for the proposed project:

No new potable water service connections will be provided, no new temporary meters or permanent meters will be provided, and no statements of immediate ability to serve or provide potable water service (such as will-serve letters or letters of water verification) will be issued, unless the project developer provides, to the satisfaction of the city in accordance with Camarillo Municipal Code Chapter 14.12, substantial evidence of an enforceable commitment that water demands for the project will be offset prior to the provision of a water will-serve letter. The project developer may satisfy this requirement through any one or a combination of the following methods: (i) modifications to the project to provide non-required water savings features, (ii) agreements with existing city water users to retrofit existing improvements and facilities with water savings features, (iii) by making a payment to the city's water conservation credit fund in an amount necessary to offset the project's water demand as established under the city's water conservation credit program, or (iv) by transferring groundwater rights that are immediately available for use by the city in an amount necessary to offset the project's water demand as established under city's water conservation credit program.

In the case of the proposed project, the City of Camarillo will not be able to obtain the agricultural groundwater allocation transfers unless the FCGMA resumes groundwater allocation transfers from agricultural operations or new sources of water are obtained. This means that the project applicant will need to wait to develop and connect the project to the city’s water service until groundwater allocation transfers resume or provide substantial evidence of an enforceable commitment that water demands for the project comply with Camarillo Municipal Code Chapter 14.12. This will enable the City of Camarillo Water Division to provide water to the proposed project with no reduction of existing water supplies and is reflected as mitigation measure UTIL-8, which has been revised in the Final Subsequent MND by city staff as follows:

UTIL-8 The project developer shall wait to develop and connect the project to the city’s water service until the Fox Canyon Groundwater Management Agency resumes groundwater allocation transfers from agricultural operations. If groundwater allocation transfers do not resume, or if the developer wishes to connect the project to the city’s water service before that time, in accordance Final Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration 2016-1 D-9 Responses to Comments
with Camarillo Municipal Code Chapter 14.12, the project developer shall demonstrate that the water demand of the project would be offset either directly by developer-initiated programs, or if the city is in a declared Stage 2 or higher water supply condition, by making a payment to the city’s water conservation credit program in an amount calculated by the city to reduce existing water use elsewhere within the city in an amount adequate to serve the proposed project.

Implementation of mitigation measure UTIL-8 would ensure that no additional groundwater supplies beyond those allowed by the FCGMA would be utilized to serve the proposed project.

Comment FCGMA-2

Response to Comment FCGMA-2
It is understood that the FCGMA is in the process of preparing a GSP for submission to the California Department of Water resources as required by the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA).

The GSP must describe the sustainability goal and it must explain how the goal will be achieved in 20 years, with a 50-year planning and implementation horizon, and monitoring data. The Final Draft GSP is currently scheduled to be submitted to the FCGMA Board and related for a 90-day public comment period on or around September 28, 2016. Until that time, the City of Camarillo does not have the ability to estimate the potential impact on the regional groundwater supply and present this in the Final Subsequent MND for the proposed project.

Comment FCGMA-3

D-10 Amara Shopping Center
Responses to Comments
Response to Comment FCGMA-3
The City of Camarillo understands that a new groundwater allocation transfer system is being developed by the FCGMA. The proposed project would be subject to this new system if the developer chooses to wait to develop and connect the project to the city’s water service and rely on the allocation transfer for all or a portion of the project’s water demand. As discussed previously, Camarillo Municipal Code Chapter 14.12 provides alternatives to allocation transfers for current development projects. The options for the proposed project are reflected as mitigation measure UTIL-8, which has been revised in the Final Subsequent MND by city staff (see the Response to Comment FCGMA-1).

Comment FCGMA-4

Response to Comment FCGMA-4
As stated in the Response to Comment FCGMA-1, the Draft Subsequent MND discusses the suspension of groundwater allocation transfers under Emergency Ordinance E. As such, it does not rely heavily on the use of groundwater allocation transfers to provide the water to serve the proposed project. Mitigation measure UTIL-8 provides the option for the project developer to wait until the FCGMA resumes groundwater allocation transfers from agricultural operations, to offset either directly by developerinitiated programs, or if the city is in a declared Stage 2 or higher water supply condition, by making a payment to the city’s water conservation credit program in an amount calculated by the city to reduce existing water use elsewhere within the city in an amount adequate to serve the proposed project. These options would permit the project to proceed without increasing the groundwater supplies beyond those allowed by the FCGMA.

Pursuant to Camarillo Municipal Code Chapter 14.12, a payment to the city’s water conservation credit program during a declared Stage 2 or higher water supply condition would implement programs to reduce existing water use elsewhere within the city. These would be ongoing programs that result in ongoing reductions of water use. As such, it is a mitigation strategy that has been adopted by the City of Camarillo.

Comment FCGMA-5
We recommend that:

Final Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration 2016-1 D-11 Responses to Comments

1. The issues of concern and the comments identified above be addressed.

Response to Comment FCGMA-5
The concerns and comments of the FCGMA have been addressed in the preceding responses.

Comment FCGMA-6

Response to Comment FCGMA-6
Please see the Response to Comment FCGMA-1.

Comment FCGMA-7

3. It should be clearly stated if the City of Camarillo will provide a Will Serve Letter.

Response to Comment FCGMA-7
As discussed in the Response to Comment FCGMA-1, no new potable water service connections will be provided, no new temporary meters or permanent meters will be provided, and no statements of immediate ability to serve or provide potable water service (such as will-serve letters or letters of water verification) will be issued, unless the project developer provides, to the satisfaction of the city in accordance with Camarillo Municipal Code Chapter 14.12, substantial evidence of an enforceable commitment that water demands for the project will be offset prior to the provision of a water will-serve letter. The project developer may satisfy this requirement through any one or a combination of the following methods: (i) modifications to the project to provide non-required water savings features, (ii) agreements with existing city water users to retrofit existing improvements and facilities with water savings features, (iii) by making a payment to the city's water conservation credit fund in an amount necessary to offset the project's water demand as established under the city's water conservation credit program, or (iv) by transferring groundwater rights that are immediately available for use by the city in an amount necessary to offset the project's water demand as established under city's water conservation credit program. The options for the proposed project are reflected as mitigation measure UTIL-8, which has been revised in the Final Subsequent MND by city staff.

D-12 Amara Shopping Center

VENTURA COUNTY WATERSHED PROTECTION DISTRICT

PLANNING AND REGULATORY DIVISION
800 South Victoria Avenue, Ventura, California 93009
Sergio Vargas — (805) 650-4077

MEMORANDUM
DATE: March 23, 2016
TO: Joseph R. Vacca, Director: Department of Community Development, City of Camarillo
FROM: Sergio Vargas, PE., Deputy Director
SUBJECT.Amara Regional Shopping Center
APN: 230-0-010-470, 230-0-020-240, 230-0-010-480, 230-0-020-230 Camarillo Hills Drain & Revolon Channel, Zone 3
Revised Response to City of Camarillo
Based on discussions held on March 18, 2016 between the Ventura County Watershed Protection District (District) and the City of Camarillo, the District hereby provides the following revised response on the Amara Regional Shopping Center project:

1. In accordance with the Memorandum of Understanding between the City of Camarillo and the Ventura County Watershed Protection District, dated September 28, 2005, and Condition No. 7of EP 2006-087 dated May 10, 2007, the City's and District's continued commitment to a regional basin solution to the capacity deficiencies in the Camarillo Hills Drain removes the District's previous requirements for further drainage reports, on-site detention, and contribution of funds towards a regional basin project for the CPD-226 M(3) Amara project.

Attachments:

1. Agreement No. 2005-40, Memorandum of Understanding regarding Camarillo Hills Drain System Deficiencies (2 pages)

2. Public Works Agency , Ventura County Watershed Protection District Encroachment Permit (EP2006-087) (4 pages)
End of Text
City of Camarillo
601 Carmen Drive • P.O. Box 248 • Camarillo, CA 93011-0248 Office of the City Clerk
(805) 388-5315
Fax (805) 388-5318

RECEIVED
OCT 0 6 2005
October 4, 2005 WATERSHED PROTECTION DISTRICT
Sergio Vargas
Ventura County Watershed Protection District
800 S. Victoria Avenue
Ventura, California 93009
Re: Agreement No. 2005-40, Memorandum of Understanding regarding Camarillo Hills Drain System Deficiencies
Dear Mr. Vargas:

I have enclosed two executed copies of the above-referenced agreement which was approved by the Camarillo City Council at its meeting held September 28, 2005. Please have the agreement executed by Mr. Pratt and return one fully executed copy to my attention.

Thank you.

Sincerely,
Land
Deborah Harrington Harrington
City Clerk
Enclosures
cc: Public Works

MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING
The City of Camarillo (City) and the Ventura County Watershed Protection District (District) recognize the need to work cooperatively to find a regional solution to the Camarillo Hills Drain system deficiencies. In order to achieve this goal, the City and the District agree to the following:
(1) The City and District will cost-share (50/50) a deficiency study of the Camarillo Hills Drain to identify alternative regional solutions for the ultimate developed condition.
(2) The City will examine a funding mechanism for project implementation of the incremental impact due to development of the preferred regional solution. (3) The District will remove requirements for reduction of storm runoff from proposed-development projects (as outlined in the current City General Plan) within the Camarillo Hills Drain Channel watershed.
(4) A cost-share agreement between the City and the District will be prepared to conduct a deficiency study with a 50/50 cost distribution and implementation of the selected preferred alternative, which will be identified in the study.

Signed this W r4 —day of I , 2005

CITY OF CAMARILLO VENTURA COUNTY WATERSHED

PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT PROTECTION DISTRICT
Tom FoiX, Director Jeff
Agreement No. 2005-40
PERMITTIE ityx, ‘'T I; RE:
felt ekopm-KI By
Plan Check Deposit:

Inspection Deposit:

Application Fee:

Plan Check Fee:

Inspection Fee:

Facility Use Fee:

Access Key Deposit:

Performance Security:

Work Start Date: .510/2007
Issue Date: 5110/2007
Expiration Date: 5;10/2008
Estimated Completion Date; 5110,2008
Final Inspection:

File Closing Date:

WORKER'S COMPENSATION DECLARATION & ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
tierzby arlirrn that I fravt Certificalt• of Corent to xif-instar, or a •ocr1-i1ie4 copy Cettifleste of Wockcr's CornperNsa'.-ic•n insurance,OTa xrifecl oopy thiareof (S Lobar Cede), which bertby lirrnisticd
I. as app e;c t or I 3; ri • con(;-41.:.'',.tq' '1 11 IR'clr•Xf Pict e%-idenc,-... of' \k'ci-f-AT'i-Comp<:n;.u .-rrl
I certify th,f %T; 1- ;.31iCO,r 3,117" ic
'• • :" ; !I zf Trzakmq
!),.. -.7 I :1?7: 7.1'.15! 1ht:11 prr....is:,_os
1111r7'-2 i• - and all sh.ati be ,r. ,..,r1/(;;v..rNo. fr.. ':--'..rrry.17; Ind -
th,
:n.c .,t16 , f7g di rle
(.6'0 0'.7" ; Jr ind z1-;;;1 Jai to its
L, ...,Tricr _ 0.?;. „,,
,2fe.ty/.3!); i`V)", ;' D, 7.rcot ar ar
APPLNT! .7 is... ..

Print Neale _ Silvt‘tore
kovRESS:. S&5:5 ;Jaz:: TELEPHONE NO4 -
hereby ack_novilige upon L, )n_;71:t:0'1 of work 1-115 the periniitee shall accept the improvement not ..locrold to e ice neponbility of the District Ind shait _win, operate and maintain said intprov=enta in acA.-ordarice with acceptable pcachee and the iv-Atli:ter:eras of this ix,
rrnit, I undemand that this permit a-ay 1.):: revoked by the District at any time Applicant:

Address:

Phone It:

Watercourse:

Zone:

Purpose:

SELLECK PROPERTIES
5655 UNDER° CYN ROAD
V/ESTLAKE VILLAGE, CA 91362
818-991-7890 xl

CAMARILLO HILLS DRAIN
3 Permit*: 2006087
Project*: 88751
Mod #:

This permit is for the sole purpose of allowing the
construction of an outlet into Camarillo Hills Drain
consisting of a 78" RCP and riprap pad Work shall be
ccrnWetted in accordance wit'ri tie plans ant] SpeCifcations attached and :dentified as Exhititt 'A*, and the standard and special conditions of this permit.
$930 00
30 00
$70.00
$000
$0.00
Receipt* 5h751 07,11/2007
Receipt*
Receipt# $b75l 07,-31i2007
Receipt*
Receipt*
$000 Receipt*
$000 Receipt* 3b751
$25 000 00 anclp 4145#0444, 7--9
Cii:J/Discro.,,t • -nth F)onicn
1'! I LE:
7 14,u4k,c [nue& 51O477 /1-"' t* 4
aifinite,y,.
e
mo If y jiggm17 &SGlfi E kJ LEAST 44 HOURS PRIOR FO THE COMMENCEMENT OF WORK WATERCOURSE PERMIT ENCROACHMENT PERMIT 73

PUBLIC WORKS AGENCY

VENTURA COUNTY WATERSHED PROTECTION DISTRICT
800 South Victoria Avenue, Ventura, CA 93009
[805i (0- 4-2)11
FORM t l/22

SPECIAL CONDITIONS

1. This permit is for the sole purpctie of allowing the constructor: ttt an outlet Into Cementlo Hills Drain tonslaling of a 78" RCP and rIPraP pad Work shall be ooreplated in accordance with tha plans and specifications attached and Identified as Exhibit "A", mid the standard and special conditions of this pennit 2 Parmittee shah notify the Chief Iiispecte; by fairing tilt'? Pre-Coristruclien Meeting form attached to (8051 654-3360 at least 6 days prior to the conmiencement of work to schethsie a pre construction meeting. Any work rhariormed prior to the pra-censtrueoon meeting or without the appropriate notification of the Chief Inspector may be subiect tc refection and may have to be re-dorre.
3 Perfrifbee snail rietify. the District of ny "zhariges that mai/ Ivict rfl uses autritiVred under Ws perm
A. Perrnils required by cittlen ageoctes and ,..arTsitat - property owners shall be Tile responsibility of the ApplicantiPermittse
Pveof or Wetter's Compensate-1i and General Liability Ineuraric:-. she.,Isc subrnitten by the Permittee andior Pennines's contractor at the prs-censtruchon meeting. The Genera! Liability coverage en0 have the Venture County Watershed Protection District named as alr additional insured.

8. Tne Permillee is te600nsibie for ihe CVIstruction maintenance. repel . and te-Con3tructon & at irripKveemenis shc...7611. C./4-; ilia War Ss ext-Ait A rtim .proied.!ms ftr t.ted-r..-ssi
of the.egreeMeni tetween the CiC, iiie Vents.s rkt
irriotect0h Daarld.whereby a tegicitai detent.kin fa."wI be cl.instucted downstrear! with ceorwtatlen PQM both algo1cis6
6_ The Pentittea .SSSUrnelS all tespent;biitty fel. work perfornieo within or adisoenttoe basin andfor Channel during the retry season (November 1 through April 309, inoiuding the need for water thimrsice plart4, rainy season reMP',4 ead.ij oitiof addition& requiterriento deemed necessary by the District et other legal authority_ Ki' r s- rnoditkafierti.`,, Upgiariirg ret:isV Or reiCortstructino c..c)varsdt This permit Authohled vittbdtit MN approve!! by ttieDistriar.

D. !improvement" within tha Distr. Mt right-of.dway?-easerneil shall 1714 feicidc? eft inoclined arid/or relocated by Pertirrittes without cost to the Diatrict should future activities of the District so require, es determined by the District at it Sole discretion
EP2006-087

11. Any darn age caused to Ventura County Watershed Protection District facilities by reason of exercise of this permit shall be repaired at the Permittee's expense to the satisfaction of this District

12. No dumping of material into the channel or District facilities is allowed. Violation will result in revocation of the permit and possible fines.

13. Any equipment or vehicles driven and/or operated within or adjacent to the channel shall be checked and maintained daily to prevent leaks of materials that, if introduced into the water environment, could be deleterious to aquatic life.

14. Stationary equipment such as motors, pumps, generators, and welders located within or adjacent to the channel shall be positioned over drip pans.

15. The cleanup .of all spills shall begin immediately. The Department shall be notified immediately by the Permittee of any spills and shall be consulted regarding clean-up procedures.

16. No equipment maintenance shall be done within or near the channel where petroleum prod LiCtS or other pollutants from the equipment may enter the channel under any flow.

17. The Permittee shall comply with all conditions and requirements of the Ventura Countywide Stormwater Quality Management Program (VCSOMP), the Ventura County.vide Storm Water Permit. NP07.ES Permit No. CAS004002, as well as other - applicable requirements of the Porter-Cologne Act and the Clean Water Act. This shall include but not be limited to. the following requirements:
• All non-storm water discharges other than those that are allowable per NPDES Permit CAS004002 are prohibited,
• Storm water discharges containing pollutants that have not been reduced to the maximum extent practicable are prohibited.
• Pen-nittee is responsible for the quality of discharges that enter the storm drain system and any degradation. of ree,eiving water quality resulting from such discharge.

18. Any work in the creek during rainy season (November Ito April 15) shall have a five-day clear weather forecast from Ventura County Watershed Protection District. All debris, forms. etc shall be removed from the channel, and site shall be stabilized to the satisfaction of the District, in the event the District indicates rain in the forecast. No construction, which may obstruct the channel capacity andlor cause transport cf sediment or construction material, shall be performed prior to obtaining a five-day clear weather forecast.

19. The Permittee shall provide as-built plans to the District following completion of construction accompanied by a scanned digital image uncompressed .TIE file with a standard resolution of 300 DPI.

APPLICATION e
, tr.,16
ITR.COVIISI: ENCROACIIMMT - •"")

VENTURA COUNTY WATERSHXD PROTECTION DASTRICT

40.1 801..1131 Vie7rolut VEYVE, Vt:N11.1 , CA. 936E9
($05 65.1-100.i
APPLICANT'S .(kIAM/ _ S.71- i‘eir-• 1,-4-571-e_i4PPI•ICANT'S PHONE 40. is _11./.26 TO N.4....AZALIPPRUIVS oft 21L1itS APPI.,1( ANT IS .1.7X141POK.A110N -174,17,/, 6/4/,;:i7gil*T. fiMer.
_ /TA 7ifaryz. fr.7;,71-- eitog..thro
moNg mo)-V; _Aroluss. 41414_ ottlftk4
R-P_PESVIA, 1". -T 1.-F1 /7774 74friL'i rgri _
A.WEILIOR NUMMIt 1111.51TP.
•0•,:All<P4 Vsca try 7a;
Ptaroe ci Perms rDeseripara Iv be Do= aul %Aram& to be tp`frad_ ei7e454.,( _ .44A444.7.14e;ix eairti
Roy _
ow. rekliihstimi fur -_,strwaqa.coaci .tte lora- CB! e vii E:ortio/ution .taaic .p tOggii aliageted CON fegattioalvi 17.eaructim. 4- moo, 4 15th prop* ',basal. T avec that i1wort coo,etasit vetU crosimonefri 4f Madry (fl) ilsyt trier tial PITIvil V Uinta, Or tfp,é.lc act forth Lis the pram, 71;it!in.,::- rArN4kr. tAtt ta U wart yerl pinged bo no tocadrOakinelv4th reirscazdon diEgainer
LATE. 62te StAgRITT IC AN r StrkTuRE •L(t 7cc • fe.._
APEL-11Yr.C.IAMK.OF
raau TECTION to EVE C 0111PLETICb $ir vEti TURA (7-43VNTY wrv PROTECT-50(4 mnsuer
,ti UMiTihii
Pogio
Responses to Comments
Memorandum from the Ventura County Watershed Protection District (VCWPD), Planning and Regulatory Division dated March 23, 2016
Comment VCWPD-1
In accordance with the Memorandum of Understanding between the City of Camarillo and the Ventura County Watershed Protection District, dated September 28, 2005, and Condition No. 7 of EP 2006-087 dated May 10, 2007, the City’s and District’s continued commitment to a regional basin solution to the capacity deficiencies in the Camarillo Hills Drain removes the District’s previous requirements for further drainage reports, on-site detention, and contribution of funds towards a regional detention project for the CPD-226 M(3) Amara project.

Response to Comment VCWPD-1
This comments states that the VCWPD and the City of Camarillo have committed to a regional regional basin solution to the capacity deficiencies in the Camarillo Hills Drain and that the VCWPD does not have any requirements for the proposed project. The comment does not question the content or conclusions of the Draft Subsequent MND and no further analysis is required.

D-20 Amara Shopping Center
RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AGENCY Planning Division
Kimberly L. Prillhart county oi ventura Director
April 5,2016
City of Camarillo
Attn: Joseph R. Vacca, Director of Community Development 601 Carmen Drive
Camarillo, CA 93010
Email: [email protected]
Subject: Comments on the Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration 2016-1, Springville Camarillo Owner: CPD-226M(3)/CUPs 372,374,375/TT-5880 Dear Mr. Vacca:

Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the subject document. Attached are the comments that we have received resulting from intra-county review of the subject document. Additional comments may have been sent directly to you by other County agencies.

Your proposed responses to these comments should be sent directly to the commenter, with a copy to Laura Hocking, Ventura County Planning Division, L#1740, 800 S. Victoria Avenue, Ventura, CA 93009.

If you have any questions regarding any of the comments, please contact the appropriate respondent. Overall questions may be directed to Laura Hocking at (805) 654-2443.

Sincerely,
_ Tricia"'Maier, Mang
Planning Programs Section
Attachments
County RMA Reference Number 16-008
800 South Victoria Avenue, L# 1740, Ventura, CA 93009 (805) 654-2481 Fax (805) 654-2509 Printed on Recycled Paper
Responses to Comments
Letter from the Ventura County Resource Management Agency (VCRMA), Planning Division dated April 5, 2016
Comment VCRMA-1
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the subject document. Attached are the comments that we have received resulting from intra-county review of the subject document. Additional comments may have ben sent directly to you by other County agencies.

Your proposed responses to these comments should be sent directly to the commenter, with a copy to Laura Hocking, Ventura County Planning Division, L#1740, 800 S. Victoria Avenue, Ventura, CA 93009.

Response to Comment VCRMA-1
This letter serves as a cover letter for the comments that were received from intra-county review of the Draft Subsequent MND. Comments provided in the attached letters from Ventura County departments are responded to on subsequent pages in this section. The City of Camarillo’s responses to these comments will be provided to the commenters prior to consideration of he proposed project by the City of Camarillo Planning Commission.

D-22 Amara Shopping Center

VENTURA COUNTY

AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT
Memorandum
TO: Laura Hocking, Planning DATE: March 29, 2016
FROM: Alicia Stratton
SUBJECT: Request for Review of Draft Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Amara Shopping Center, CPD-226M(3)/CUPs-372,374,375/TT5880, City of Camarillo (Reference No. 16-008) Air Pollution Control District staff has reviewed the draft Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration, which is a request for approval of a modification to CPD No. 226 to modify the previously-approved development plans and construct a commercial shopping center on 45 acres. The project would consist of 487,239 sq. ft. of building area and related parking and landscape improvements. The previously-approved site authorized total building to not exceed 499,000 sq. ft., in which 155,628 sq. ft. would be anchored by a home improvement store. This modification proposes various changes and an overall building square footage of 487,239 sq. ft. However, the Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration evaluates development of up to 499,000 sq. ft. with replacement of the home improvement store with a discount retail superstore. Other proposed uses include restaurant use and a health club. The remainder of the building area would be general retail uses consisting of 234,356 sq. ft. The applicant also requests subdivision of the 45- acre property into eight lots, a conditional use permit to allow buildings to exceed the maximum building height and permits for the sale of alcoholic beverages for consumption off the premises. The project location is 384 West Ventura Boulevard in the City of Camarillo.

Section 3 and Appendix B of the draft Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration addresses air quality issues. As with the previously reviewed and approved project, we concur with the findings in these sections of the draft Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration that short-term (construction) and long-term (operational) air quality impacts will result from the project. The daily operational emissions would exceed the thresholds of significance of 25 lbs/day of reactive organic compounds and oxides of nitrogen, as documented in Appendix A.

Air pollutant emissions modeling for the project was conducted using the URBEMIS 2002 for Windows computer program. Air districts in California now advise applicants and agencies to use the CalEEmod air modeling program instead of URBEMIS (http://www.caleemod.com). CalEEmod is a statewide land use emissions computer model designed to provide a uniform platform for government agencies, land use planners, and environmental professionals to quantify potential criteria pollutant and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions associated with both construction and operations from a variety of land use projects. The model was developed in collaboration with the air districts of California, and specific default data for Ventura County is included (e.g., emission factors, trip lengths, meteorology, source inventory, etc.) to account for local requirements and conditions. We recommend that the Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration be revised to calculate air emissions using the CalEEmod model to ensure accurate quantification of Mitigation Measure AQ-4, Contribution to a Transportation Demand Management fund. I would be happy to assist you with this.

The mitigation measures described on Pages IV-14 through IV-17 adequately address both short-term and long-term air quality impacts.

If you have any questions, please call me at (805) 645-1426 or email [email protected].

Responses to Comments
Memorandum from the Ventura County Air Pollution Control District (VCAPCD) dated March 29, 2016
Comment VCAPCD-1
Section 3 and Appendix B of the draft Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration addresses air quality issues. As with the previously reviewed and approved project, we concur with the findings in these sections of the draft Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration that short-term (construction) and longterm (operational) air quality impacts will result from the project. The daily operational emissions would exceed the thresholds of significance of 25 lbs/day of reactive organic compounds and oxides of nitrogen, as documented in Appendix A.

Response to Comment VCAPCD-1
This comment states that the VCAPCD concurs with the findings in the air quality sections of the Draft Subsequent MND that short-term (construction) and long-term (operational) air quality impacts will result from the project. The comment does not question the content or conclusions of the Draft Subsequent MND.

Comment VCAPCD-2
Air pollutant emissions modeling for the project was conducted using the URBEMIS 2002 for Windows computer program. Air districts in California now advise applicants and agencies to use the CalEEmod air modeling program instead of URBEMIS (http://www.caleemod.com). CalEEmod is a statewide land use emissions computer model designed to provide a uniform platform for government agencies, land use planners, and environmental professionals to quantify potential criteria pollutant and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions associated with both construction and operations from a variety of land use projects.

The model was developed in collaboration with the air districts of California, and specific default data for Ventura County is included (e.g., emission factors, trip lengths, meteorology, source inventory, etc.) to account for local requirements and conditions. We recommend that the Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration be revised to calculate air emissions using the CalEEmod model to ensure accurate quantification of Mitigation Measure AQ-4, Contribution to a Transportation Demand Management fund.

I would be happy to assist you with this.

Response to Comment VCAPCD-2
The City of Camarillo is aware that the URBEMIS model has been replaced by the the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod). In fact, CalEEMod was used to calculate the greenhouse gas emissions for the proposed project in the Draft Subsequent MND. However, CalEEMod was not used to calculate the operational air quality emission for the proposed project.

Final Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration 2016-1 D-25 Responses to Comments
As discussed in the Introduction and Project Description sections of the Draft Subsequent MND, The City of Camarillo City Council approved General Plan Amendment GPA 2006-2, Change of Zone CZ-297 and CZ-298, Commercial Planned Development CPD-226, and Conditional Use Permit CUP-294 for the Paseo Camino Real commercial center project for the development of up to 499,000 square feet of commercial building coverage. In 2011, the city approved a Major Modification to the project [CPD-226 M(1)]. The overall type and amount of development at the site under the Major Modification continued to be less than 499,000 square feet of commercial center building space and the site access points remained unchanged. Although development has yet to occur at the project site, the existing entitlements for the development of up to 499,000 square feet of building coverage under CPD-226M(1) have been extended until February 15, 2017. As such, the analysis of impacts in the Draft Subsequent MND tiers off of the analysis presented in the adopted Final MND 2006-17.

As discussed on page 22 of the Draft Subsequent MND, approval and implementation of the proposed project would not change the location, type, or amount of development originally evaluated in the Final MND and approved by the City of Camarillo City Council. The number of vehicle trips and associated air pollutant emissions associated with the project would not change. As such, the impacts of the project as modified by the proposed site plan and architecture would be no different from those evaluated in the Final MND. While the newer CalEEMod software program might employ a different methodology and emission rates in calculating the potential air pollutant emissions associated with the proposed project, the actual resulting emissions would be no different from the uses that are already approved for the site.

A change in model is not new information of substantial importance not known at the time of the previous environmental document’s approval. For these reasons, the potential operational air pollutant emissions were not calculated for the proposed project, the mitigation measures identified above would continue to be applicable to the revised project, and no new air quality impacts would occur.

Comment VCAPCD-3
The mitigation measures described on Pages IV-14 through IV-17 adequately address both short-term and long-term air quality impacts.

Response to Comment VCAPCD-3
This comment states that the mitigation measures described on Pages IV-14 through IV-17 adequately address both short-term and long-term air quality impacts. The comment does not question the content or conclusions of the Draft Subsequent MND.

D-26 Amara Shopping Center
1 Ventura County
Watershed Protection District
Groundwater Resources

MEMORANDUM
DATE: March 29, 2016
TO: Laura Hocking, RMA/Planning Technician
FROM: Alma Quezada, Groundwater Specialist
SUBJECT: RMA Ref. #16-008, Draft Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration 2016-1, Commercial Planned Development Modification CPD-226M(3); Conditional Use Permits 372, 374, & 375; Tentative Tract Map 5880 As requested, the Ventura County Watershed Protection District (VCWPD) – Groundwater Resources Division has reviewed the Draft Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration (DSMND) dated March 2016 and provides the following comments:

PROJECT LOCATION:

The proposed project site is located within the City of Camarillo in Ventura County. It is bordered on the north by U.S. Highway 101, on the south by West Ventura Boulevard and Camarillo Airport, on the west by Springville Drive, and on the east by a Home Depot shopping center (APN #230-0-153-02). The proposed project site consists of four parcels (APN #’s 230-0-020-230, 230-0-020-240, 230-0-010-470, and 230-0-010-480) of land totaling approximately 44.84-acres. The project site is a portion of the 337-acre Airport North Specific Plan (Specific Plan) area.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION:

The proposed project site is vacant, relatively flat land and slopes gently to the south. The site was previously used for the agricultural production of row crops, but has not been cultivated since 2007.

Project entitlements to the commercial planned development have since been sold by the original applicant and the new owner is requesting approval of Major Modification of Commercial Planned Development CPD-226 to change the layout of the project site plan and architecture. The total amount of building space would be reduced to 487,239 square feet under this modification, which assumes a mix of 234,356 square feet of retail space, 57,082 square feet of restaurant space, and 38,000 square feet of health club space. The proposed shopping center would be anchored by a 157,801-square-foot major retail building. The anchor for the shopping center is anticipated to be a nationally recognized discount retailer that provides a variety of retail goods and services. 2 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS:

Item 2a. Groundwater Quantity
The proposed project is located within the service area of the Camarillo Water Division (CWD) and overlies the Pleasant Valley Basin, which was identified as a Critically Overdrafted Groundwater Basin by the Department of Water Resources (DWR) in January 2016. CWD has historically served its customers a blend of groundwater (42%) and imported water (58%). There are no wells associated with the project site and no existing agricultural uses. It is not clear what the total annual water demand for the proposed project will be, but it is likely to exceed 1.0 AFY. Any project which results in a net annual increase in groundwater extraction of 1.0 AFY or greater is considered to have a significant impact.

Construction of the proposed project includes buildings and roadways which will likely impede recharge of groundwater to shallower water-bearing strata. Proposed projects that decrease groundwater recharge are considered to have a significant impact.

Item 2b. Groundwater Quality
The proposed project may have the potential to impact the quality of groundwater if materials known to be hazardous to the State of California will be stored on-site. Further information regarding planned on-site storage of hazardous materials is needed and the County needs to be notified if any hazardous materials will be stored onsite in future developments.

Item 2c. Surface Water Quantity
The proposed project does not rely on surface water supplies in a fully appropriated stream reach as designated by State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) and is considered to have no impact on surface water quantity.

Item 28b. Water Supply – Quantity
It is not clear if a permanent water supply will be available for the proposed project. Two scenarios are presented in the DSMND:

1. Delay site development until the Fox Canyon Groundwater Management Agency (FCGMA) resumes groundwater allocation transfers from agricultural operations; or

2. The project developer shall make a payment to the City of Camarillo’s water conservation credit program to reduce existing water use elsewhere within the City in an amount adequate to serve the proposed project.

The proposed project needs to be evaluated under current conditions. The FCGMA allocation transfer systems are currently being developed through a Groundwater Sustainability Plan (GSP) as mandated by the 2014 Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) of California. Groundwater allocation transfers to the City cannot be relied upon as a mitigation measure. Additionally, the City of Camarillo’s water credit program is a temporary measure that only applies during drought conditions and should not be considered a mitigation measure for the proposed project.

It is not clear what the total annual water demand for the proposed project will be, but it is likely to exceed 1.0 AFY. The project proponent shall confirm a permanent water supply for the project by obtaining a valid Will Serve letter from the City of Camarillo Water Division.

Responses to Comments
Memorandum from the Ventura County Watershed Protection District (VCWPD), Groundwater Resources dated March 29, 2016
Comment VCWPD-2
Item 2a. Groundwater Quantity
The proposed project is located within the service area of the Camarillo Water Division (CWD) and overlies the Pleasant Valley Basin, which was identified as a Critically Overdrafted Groundwater Basin by the Department of Water Resources (DWR) in January 2016. CWD has historically served its customers a blend of groundwater (42%) and imported water (58%). There are no wells associated with the project site and no existing agricultural uses. It is not clear what the total annual water demand for the proposed project will be, but it is likely to exceed 1.0 AFY. Any project which results in a net annual increase in groundwater extraction of 1.0 AFY or greater is considered to have a significant impact.

Response to Comment VCWPD-2
Final MND 2006-17 (page IV-75) estimated that the operation of 499,000 square feet of commercial uses at the project site would consume approximately 47,904 gallons of water per day based on a consumption rate of 96 gallons per 1,000 square feet per day. At the time that Final MND 2006-17 was approved, the City of Camarillo had adequate water supplies to serve the project. Page 56 of the Draft Subsequent MND states that the water demand for the proposed Amara Shopping Center project would not exceed the estimates for the original project as estimated in MND 2006-17.

The water supply effects of the current multi-year drought on City of Camarillo water supplies are discussed on page 56 of the Draft Subsequent MND. This includes the suspension of groundwater allocation transfers under Emergency Ordinance E.

No new potable water service connections will be provided, no new temporary meters or permanent meters will be provided, and no statements of immediate ability to serve or provide potable water service (such as will-serve letters or letters of water verification) will be issued, unless the project developer provides, to the satisfaction of the city in accordance with Camarillo Municipal Code Chapter 14.12, substantial evidence of an enforceable commitment that water demands for the project will be offset prior to the provision of a water will-serve letter. The project developer may satisfy this requirement Final Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration 2016-1 D-29 Responses to Comments
through any one or a combination of the following methods: (i) modifications to the project to provide non-required water savings features, (ii) agreements with existing city water users to retrofit existing improvements and facilities with water savings features, (iii) by making a payment to the city's water conservation credit fund in an amount necessary to offset the project's water demand as established under the city's water conservation credit program, or (iv) by transferring groundwater rights that are immediately available for use by the city in an amount necessary to offset the project's water demand as established under city's water conservation credit program.

In the case of the proposed project, the City of Camarillo will not be able to obtain the agricultural groundwater allocation transfers unless the FCGMA resumes groundwater allocation transfers from agricultural operations or new sources of water are obtained. This means that the project applicant will need to wait to develop and connect the project to the city’s water service until groundwater allocation transfers resume or provide substantial evidence of an enforceable commitment that water demands for the project will comply with Camarillo Municipal Code Chapter 14.12. This will enable the City of Camarillo Water Division to provide water to the proposed project with no reduction of existing water supplies and is reflected as mitigation measure UTIL-8, which has been revised in the Final Subsequent MND by city staff as follows:

UTIL-8 The project developer shall wait to develop and connect the project to the city’s water service until the Fox Canyon Groundwater Management Agency resumes groundwater allocation transfers from agricultural operations. If groundwater allocation transfers do not resume, or if the developer wishes to connect the project to the city’s water service before that time, in accordance with Camarillo Municipal Code Chapter 14.12, the project developer shall demonstrate that the water demand of the project would be offset either directly by developer-initiated programs, or if the city is in a declared Stage 2 or higher water supply condition, by making a payment to the city’s water conservation credit program in an amount calculated by the city to reduce existing water use elsewhere within the city in an amount adequate to serve the proposed project.

Implementation of mitigation measure UTIL-8 would ensure that no additional groundwater supplies beyond those allowed by the FCGMA would be utilized to serve the proposed project.

Comment VCWPD-3
Construction of the proposed project includes buildings and roadways which will likely impede recharge of groundwater to shallower water-bearing strata. Proposed projects that decrease groundwater recharge are considered to have a significant impact.

D-30 Amara Shopping Center
Responses to Comments
Response to Comment VCWPD-3
As discussed in Final MND 2006-17, the City of Camarillo is located in the Pleasant Valley Basin at the western end of the Santa Clara River Valley. This river flood plain forms a groundwater drainage system composed of nine identifiable groundwater basins, including the Pleasant Valley Basin (Basin).

Historically, groundwater within this network flows westward from basin to basin. Successive basins in the network chain depend on the preceding basins for part or all of their natural recharge. In the past, the Pleasant Valley Basin has been replenished by subsurface inflows from the Oxnard Plain Basin, the East and West Las Posas Basins and the Santa Rosa Basin, however recent drought conditions and overpumping have lowered the water tables in some of the upstream basins such that the only flows currently adding to the Pleasant Valley Basin are the Oxnard Plain Basin and the East Las Posas Basin.

Most of the groundwater within the Pleasant Valley Basin is contained within alluvial deposits and the Fox and Grimes Canyon aquifers. The alluvial deposits in the upper strata of the Basin average 400 feet in thickness and consist of waterbearing sands and gravels separated by impervious clay lenses. The Fox Canyon aquifer is within the bottom of the San Pedro formation, which underlies these alluvial deposits.

The San Pedro formation varies in thickness from 400 to 1,500 feet and is effectively sealed from percolation of water from above by the impervious materials located at the bottom of the alluvial deposits. The Grimes Canyon Aquifer lies in the Santa Barbara formation, which is seated below the San Pedro formation.

Although the original project would increase the amount of impervious surface area on the site, direct groundwater recharge via infiltration of direct precipitation, either natural or artificial (i.e. irrigation), within the Basin is insignificant for the reasons discussed above. Therefore, the original project would not interfere with groundwater recharge of the Fox Canyon or Grimes Canyon aquifers in any significant way. In addition, the original project would not involve the construction of substructures at depths which could significantly impair or alter the direction or rate of flow of groundwater.

As discussed on page 41 of the Draft Subsequent MND, approval and implementation of the proposed project would not change the location, type, or amount of development originally evaluated in the Final MND and approved by the City of Camarillo City Council. As such, the impacts of the project as modified by the proposed site plan would be no different from those evaluated in the Final MND.

Therefore, the impact of the proposed project on potential groundwater recharge would continue to be less than significant.

Comment VCWPD-4
Item 2b. Groundwater Quality
The proposed project may have the potential to impact the quality of groundwater if materials known to be hazardous to the State of California will be stored on-site. Further information regarding planned onFinal Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration 2016-1 D-31 Responses to Comments
site storage of hazardous materials is needed and the County needs to be notified if any hazardous materials will be stored onsite in future developments.

Response to Comment VCWPD-4
As discussed in the Response to Comment VCWPD-3, the original project and proposed project would not interfere with groundwater recharge of the Fox Canyon or Grimes Canyon aquifers in any significant way. As such, they would not be expected to impact the quality of groundwater due to the use and storage of hazardous materials at the project site. However, mitigation measure HTD-2 addresses the potential for construction equipment to affect surface water quality during project construction activities and mitigation measure MYD-3 addresses operational surface water quality.

Comment VCWPD-5
Item 2c. Surface Water Quantity
The proposed project does not rely on surface water supplies in a fully appropriated stream reach as designated by State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) and is considered to have no impact on surface water quantity.

Response to Comment VCWPD-4
This comment states that the proposed project does not rely on surface water supplies in a fully appropriated stream reach as designated by State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) and is considered to have no impact on surface water quantity. The comment does not question the content or conclusions of the Draft Subsequent MND.

Comment VCWPD-6
Item 28b. Water Supply – Quantity
It is not clear if a permanent water supply will be available for the proposed project. Two scenarios are presented in the DSMND:

1. Delay site development until the Fox Canyon Groundwater Management Agency (FCGMA) resumes groundwater allocation transfers from agricultural operations; or

The proposed project needs to be evaluated under current conditions. The FCGMA allocation transfer systems are currently being developed through a Groundwater Sustainability Plan (GSP) as mandated by the 2014 Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) of California. Groundwater allocation D-32 Amara Shopping Center
Responses to Comments
transfers to the City cannot be relied upon as a mitigation measure. Additionally, the City of Camarillo’s water credit program is a temporary measure that only applies during drought conditions and should not be considered a mitigation measure for the proposed project.

Response to Comment VCWPD-6
Please see the Response to Comment VCWPD-2.

It is understood that the FCGMA is in the process of preparing a GSP for submission to the California Department of Water resources as required by the SGMA. The GSP must describe the sustainability goal and it must explain how the goal will be achieved in 20 years, with a 50-year planning and implementation horizon, and monitoring data. The Final Draft GSP is currently scheduled to be submitted to the FCGMA Board and related for a 90-day public comment period on or around September 28, 2016. Until that time, the City of Camarillo does not have the ability to estimate the potential impact on the regional groundwater supply and present this in the Final Subsequent MND for the proposed project.

Final Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration 2016-1 D-33 County of Ventura
Public Works Agency
Transportation Department

MEMORANDUM
TO
DATE: March 30,2016
FROM
RMA - Planning Division
Attention: Laura Hocking
Transportation Department tst'^'/
SUBJECT: REVIEW OF DOCUMENT l6-008 Draft Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration (DSMND)
Project: Amara Shopping Center
Lead Agency: Gity of Gamarillo
Large-scale development of up to 499,000 SF of commercial, discount, retail and restaurant space on four (4) parcels east of Springville Drive between Ventura Boulevard and US 101 (city).

Pursuant to your request, the Public Works Agency Transportation Department (PWATD) has reviewed the DSMND for the Amara Shopping Center (previously known as Paseo Camino Real).

This project is a portion of the 338-acre Airport North Specific Plan approved by the City of Camarillo in 1986 and amended in 2011. According to the transportation/traffic impacts discussion (Pages 49-53), since the original Traffic and Circulation Study was prepared for the project, six (6) Mitigation Measures have already been constructed (TRA-2 - Las Posas Road / Ventura Boulevard; TRA-3 - northbound US 101 off ramps at Las Posas Road; TRA-4 - Springville lnterchange (bridge over US 101); TRA-5/6 - West Ventura Boulevard Extension; TR-7 - Las Posas Road / Daily Drive). The City Traffic Engineer determined that a revised Traffic Study was not needed for the DSMND and traffic data from the Springville Commercial Project (Appendix F) could be used to identify any new traffic impacts for the revised project scope. The DSMND assumes a development of up to 499,000 square feet for flexibility with the site plan development; however, with changes to the site plan layout and architectural changes to the buildings the current plan has 487,239 SF of building space (234,356 SF of retail space, 57,082 SF in-line and freestanding restaurant space, 38,000 SF health club space, and 157,801 SF discount retailer space). The PWATD reviewed and provided comments for this project under RMA No. 06-069, dated December 28,2006.

We offer the following comment:

According to the transportation/traffic impacts discussion (Pages 49-53), Mitigation Measure (MM) TRA-8 for the payment of the County Traffic lmpact Mitigation Fee (TIMF) is no longer required by the City of Camarillo because MM TRA-1 for payment of the City TIMF incorporates/requires collection of the County TIMF.

The cumulative impacts of the development of this project, when considered with the cumulative impact of all other approved (or anticipated) development projects in the County, will be potentially significant.

To address the cumulative adverse impacts of traffic on the County Regional Road Network, the appropriate Traffic lmpact Mitigation Fee (TIMF) should be paid to the County when development occurs. Based on the information provided in the DSMND, and the reciprocal agreement between the City of Camarillo and the County of Ventura, the fee due to the County would be:
$1,244,271.70 = 19,306 ADT** x $64.45 / ADT
*" Trip Generate of 499,000 SF Shopping Center per Table 4 Page 13 of the Traffic Study by ATE dated May 23,2006 (Appendix F of DSMND).

The above estimated fee may be subject to adjustment at the time of deposit, due to provisions in the TIMF Ordinance allowing the fee to be adjusted for inflation based on the Engineering News Record Construction Cost lndex. The above is an estimate only based on information provided in the DSMND.

Our review is limited to the impacts this project may have on the County's Regional Road Network.

T:\Planning\Land Development\Non_County\1 6-008 (CAM).doc Responses to Comments
Memorandum from the Ventura County Public Words Agency, Transportation Department (VCTD) dated March 30, 2016
Comment VCTD-1
According to the transportation/traffic impacts discussion (Pages 49-53), Mitigation Measure (MM) TRA-8 for the payment of the County Traffic lmpact Mitigation Fee (TIMF) is no longer required by the City of Camarillo because MM TRA-1 for payment of the City TIMF incorporates/requires collection of the County TIMF.

To address the cumulative adverse impacts of the traffic on the County Regional Road Network, the appropriate Traffic Impact Mitigation Fee (TIMF) should be paid to the County when development occurs. Based on the information provided in the DSMND, and the reciprocal agreement between the City of Camarillo and the County own Ventura, the fees due to the County would be:
$1,244,271.70 = 19,306 ADT** x $64.45/ADT
** Trip Generate of 499,000 SF Shoping Center per Table 4 Page 13 of the Traffic Study by ATE dated May 23, 2006 (Appendix F of DSMND).

The above estimate fee may be subject to adjustment at the time of deposit, due to provisions in the TIMF Ordinance allowing the fee to be adjusted for inflation based on the Engineering News Record Construction Cost Index. The above is an estimate only based on information presented in the DSMND.

Response to Comment VCTD-1
The TIMF is a component of the City of Camarillo Traffic Mitigation Fee program. Therefore, contribution to the TIMF is already addressed through mitigation measure TRA-1 as stated on page 53 of the Draft Subsequent MND. It is also one of the city’s standard Conditions of Approval. City staff calculates the final contribution at a later stage of project development using the methodology approved by the City of Camarillo City Council. Upon payment of the Traffic Mitigation Fee, the city would forward the TIMF portion to the county.

D-36 Amara Shopping Center

APPENDIX E -

MITIGATION MONITORING AND

REPORTING PROGRAM
Final Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration 2016-1 E

MITIGATION MONITORING AND

REPORTING PROGRAM
This section of the Final Subsequent MND provides the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) that would be used to monitor the implementation of the mitigation measures adopted for the Amara Shopping Center project.

INTRODUCTION
CEQA requires the adoption of feasible mitigation measures to reduce the severity and magnitude of potentially significant environmental impacts associated with development projects. However, simply adopting these measures is not adequate under State law. Lead agencies are also required to adopt a program that will be used to ensure that the mitigation measures are, in fact, implemented. The requirements for mitigation monitoring or reporting are codified in Section 15097 of the CEQA Guidelines.

The Final Subsequent MND for the Amara Shopping Center project identifies project-specific mitigation measures to reduce the potentially significant impacts of the project as proposed. Following adoption of the Final Subsequent MND and approval of this MMRP by the City of Camarillo Planning Commission, the project-specific mitigation measures identified in the Final Subsequent MND would be implemented and monitored as described in this MMRP.

LIST OF MITIGATION MEASURES
The mitigation measures adopted for the Amara Shopping Center project are listed in the following table along with the action required, the timing for implementation of each measure, and the department within the City of Camarillo responsible for monitoring the mitigation measure.

Final Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration 2016-1 E-1 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
This page intentionally left blank.

E-2 Amara Shopping Center

MITIGATION MEASURES ADOPTED FOR THE AMARA SHOPPING CENTER PROJECT Mitigation Measure Action Required Mitigation Timing Monitoring Responsibility
Aesthetics
AES-1 The project building and landscaping design shall conform to all development regulations and design
standards in the Airport North Specific Plan.

Review of project building and
landscaping plans to confirm that
applicable development
regulations and design standards
of the Airport North Specific Plan
are reflected.

Prior to issuance of building
permits.

Department of
Community
Development
AES-2 Outdoor lighting shall be designed and installed in accordance with regulations in the Airport North Specific Plan, Section IV. Design Guidelines, E. Lighting:
• Project lighting should be concentrated at the main entries and along major plazas or architectural features or
landscape features;
• Decorative lights standards that complement the
architectural elements of the building design shall be
used;
• Buildings and tree groves should be up-washed with light to emphasize architecture;
• Low-intensity, energy efficient parking lot lighting shall be used. Parking lot lights should be secondary to the
illumination of buildings and landscaped features, and; • Low-level, direct lighting shall be used on pedestrian walkways.

Review of project lighting plans to
confirm that lighting controls
required by mitigation measure
AES-1 are included.

Prior to issuance of building
permits.

Department of
Community
Development
Final Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration 2016-1 E-3 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
AES-3 The exterior of the proposed buildings shall be constructed of materials such as tinted non-reflective glass and pre-cast concrete, stucco, or fabricated wall surfaces.

Review of project building plans to
confirm that building materials
required by mitigation measure
AES-3 are specified.

Prior to issuance of building
permits.

Department of
Community
Development
Air Quality
AQ-1 The project developer shall implement fugitive dust control measures in accordance with VCAPCD
recommendations. The project developer shall include
in construction contracts the control measures
required and recommended by the VCAPCD at the
time of development. Examples of the types of
measures currently required and recommended
include the following:
• The area disturbed by clearing, grading,
earthmoving, or excavation operations shall be
minimized on a daily basis to prevent excessive
amounts of dust.
• Pre-grading/excavation activities shall include
watering the area to be graded or excavated before
commencement of grading or excavation operations.

Application of water should penetrate sufficiently to
minimize fugitive dust during grading activities.
• All trucks shall be required to cover their loads as
required by California Vehicle Code §23114.

The project developer shall
implement dust control measures
during grading and construction.

During grading and
construction.

Department of Public
Works

MITIGATION MEASURES ADOPTED FOR THE AMARA SHOPPING CENTER PROJECT Mitigation Measure Action Required Mitigation Timing Monitoring Responsibility
E-4 Amara Shopping Center
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
• All graded and excavated material, exposed soil
areas, and active portions of the construction site,
including unpaved on-site roadways, shall be
treated to prevent fugitive dust. Treatment shall
include, but not necessarily be limited to, periodic
watering, application of environmentally-safe soil
stabilization materials, and/or roll-compaction, as
appropriate. Watering shall be done as often as
necessary.
• Material stockpiles shall be enclosed, covered,
stabilized, or otherwise treated, to prevent blowing
fugitive dust offsite.
• Graded and/or excavated inactive areas of the
construction site shall be monitored by a Citydesignated person at least weekly for dust stabilization. Soil stabilization methods, such as
water and roll-compaction, and environmentallysafe dust control materials, shall be periodically applied to portions of the construction site that are
inactive for over four consecutive days. If no further
grading or excavation operations are planned for the
area, the area should be seeded and watered until
grass growth is evident, or periodically treated with
environmentally-safe dust suppressants, to prevent
excessive fugitive dust.
• Signs shall be posted on-site limiting traffic to 15
miles per hour or less.

MITIGATION MEASURES ADOPTED FOR THE AMARA SHOPPING CENTER PROJECT Mitigation Measure Action Required Mitigation Timing Monitoring Responsibility
Final Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration 2016-1 E-5 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
• During periods of high winds (i.e., wind speed
sufficient to cause fugitive dust to impact adjacent
properties), all clearing, grading, earth moving, and
excavation operations shall be curtailed to the
degree necessary to prevent fugitive dust created by
on-site activities and operations from being a
nuisance or hazard, either off-site or on-site. The site superintendent/supervisor shall use his/her
discretion in conjunction with the VCAPCD in
determining when winds are excessive.
• Adjacent paved streets and roads shall be swept at
least once per day, preferably at the end of the day, if visible soil material is carried over to the adjacent
paved streets and roads.
• Personnel involved in grading operations, including
contractors and subcontractors, should be advised
to wear respiratory protection in accordance with
California Division of Occupational Safety and
Health regulations.

MITIGATION MEASURES ADOPTED FOR THE AMARA SHOPPING CENTER PROJECT Mitigation Measure Action Required Mitigation Timing Monitoring Responsibility
E-6 Amara Shopping Center
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
AQ-2 The project developer shall implement measures to
reduce the emissions of pollutants generated by
heavy-duty diesel-powered equipment operating at
the project site throughout the project construction
phases. The project developer shall include in
construction contracts the control measures required
and recommended by the VCAPCD at the time of
development. Examples of the types of measures
currently required and recommended include the
following:
• Keep all construction equipment in proper tune in
accordance with manufacturer’s specifications.
• Limit truck and equipment idling time to five
minutes or less.
• Utilize alternative fuel construction equipment (i.e., compressed natural gas, liquid petroleum gas, and
unleaded gasoline) to the extent that the equipment
is readily available and cost effective in Ventura
County (meaning that it does not have to be
imported from another air basin, that the
procurement of the equipment would not cause a
delay in construction activities of more than two
weeks, that the cost of the equipment use is not
more than 20 percent greater than the cost of
standard equipment).
• Lengthen the construction period during the smog
season (May through October) to minimize the
number of vehicles and equipment operating at the
same time.

The project developer shall provide
evidence to city staff that emissions
controls for heavy-duty dieselpowered equipment operating at the project site are included in
construction documents.

Prior to issuance of grading
permits and during grading
and construction.

Department of
Community
Development

MITIGATION MEASURES ADOPTED FOR THE AMARA SHOPPING CENTER PROJECT Mitigation Measure Action Required Mitigation Timing Monitoring Responsibility
Final Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration 2016-1 E-7 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
AQ-3 The project developer shall include in construction and building management contracts the following
requirements or measures shown to be equally
effective:
• Use solar or low-emission water heaters in the
commercial buildings.
• Require that commercial landscapers providing
services at the common areas of project site use
electric or battery-powered equipment, or other
internal combustion equipment that is either
certified by the California Air Resources Board or is
three years old or less at the time of use, to the
extent that such equipment is reasonably available
and competitively priced in Ventura County
(meaning that the equipment can be easily
purchased at stores in Ventura County and the cost
of the equipment is not more than 20 percent greater
than the cost of standard equipment).
• Provide bus stops with shelters at locations along
the project frontage with Ventura Boulevard. The
number of bus stops shall be determined in
consultation with Camarillo Area Transit.

Review of construction and
building management contracts to
confirm that the features required
by mitigation measure AQ-3 are
included.

Prior to issuance of building
permits.

Department of
Community
Development
AQ-4 The project developer shall contribute a total of
$667,502 to a TDM fund managed by the City of
Camarillo.

The project developer shall pay the
applicable TDM fees to the city.

Prior to issuance of building
permits.

Department of
Community
Development

MITIGATION MEASURES ADOPTED FOR THE AMARA SHOPPING CENTER PROJECT Mitigation Measure Action Required Mitigation Timing Monitoring Responsibility
E-8 Amara Shopping Center
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Cultural Resources
CR-1 The project developers shall include in construction contracts the requirement that construction activities
be halted if any archaeological materials are
encountered during the course of project
development. The services of a professional
archaeologist shall be secured by contacting the
Center for Public Archaeology – California State
University Fullerton, or a member of the Society of
Professional Archaeologists (SOPA) or a SOPAqualified archaeologist to assess the resources and evaluate the impact.

In the event that cultural resources are discovered, the handling will differ depending on the nature of the
artifacts. However, it is understood that all artifacts with the exception of human remains and related
grave goods or sacred objects belong to the property
owner. All artifacts discovered at the development site shall be inventoried and analyzed by the professional
archaeologist. In the event that the archaeologist
identifies resources of a prehistoric or Native
American origin, a Native American observer of
Chumash origin shall be retained to accompany the
archaeologist for the duration of the grading phase to
help analyze the Native American artifacts for
identification as everyday life and/or religious or
sacred items, cultural affiliation, temporal placement, and function, as deemed possible. All items found in
association with Native American human remains will
Review of project construction
contracts to confirm that the
requirements of mitigation
measure CR-1 are included.

Prior to issuance of grading
permits.

Department of
Community
Development

Nonnative American artifacts will be inventoried,
assessed, and analyzed for cultural affiliation,
personal affiliation (prior ownership), function, and
temporal placement. Subsequent to analysis and
reporting, these artifacts will be subjected to curation or returned to the property owner, as deemed
appropriate.

A report of findings, including an itemized inventory
of recovered artifacts, shall be prepared upon
completion of the steps outlined above. The report
shall include a discussion of the significance of all
recovered artifacts. The report and inventory, when
submitted to the City of Camarillo Department of
Community Development and the UCLA
Archaeological Information Center, will signify
completion of the program to mitigate impacts to
archaeological and/or cultural resources.

MITIGATION MEASURES ADOPTED FOR THE AMARA SHOPPING CENTER PROJECT Mitigation Measure Action Required Mitigation Timing Monitoring Responsibility
E-10 Amara Shopping Center
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
CR-2 The project developer shall include in construction contracts the requirement that the project be halted if any paleontological materials are encountered during
the course of project development. The services of a
paleontologist shall be secured by contacting the
Center for Public Paleontology, which can be found at
the following universities; USC, UCLA, California
State University at Los Angeles, or California State
University at Long Beach, to assess the resources and
evaluate the impact. Copies of the paleontological
survey, study, or report shall be submitted to the
Department of Community Development.

Review of project construction
contracts to confirm that the
requirements of mitigation
measure CR-2 are included.

Prior to issuance of grading
permits.

Department of
Community
Development
CR-3 The project developer shall include in construction contracts the requirement that the project be halted if any human remains are encountered during the
course of project development and the City of
Camarillo Public Works Department and County
Coroner shall be immediately notified. If the remains
are determined by the County Coroner to be Native
American, the Native American Heritage Commission
(NAHC) shall be notified within 24 hours, and the
guidelines of the NAHC shall be adhered to in the
treatment and disposition of the remains.

Review of project construction
contracts to confirm that the
requirements of mitigation
measure CR-3 are included.

Prior to issuance of grading
permits.

Department of
Community
Development

Review of the soil test findings
and, if required, soil remediation
plans.

Prior to issuance of grading
permits.

Department of
Community
Development
HAZ-2 Prior to project development all building plans must be submitted to the City of Camarillo Department of
Community Development to review for consistency
with all applicable avigational easements.

Review of project building plans
that demonstrate that building
heights do not exceed applicable
aviation easements.

Prior to issuance of building
permits.

Department of
Community
Development
HAZ-3 Any electronic equipment to be operated on-site
which might interfere with airport operations will
require a Federal Communications Commission (FCC)
permit. Prospective users of such equipment would
have to eliminate any interference through the use of
insulation materials or other means approved by the
City.

Review of FCC permits if required. Prior to the issuance of building permits and any time
that the installation and
operation of applicable
electronic equipment is
requested of the property
manager.

Department of Building
and Safety/Department
of Community
Development

MITIGATION MEASURES ADOPTED FOR THE AMARA SHOPPING CENTER PROJECT Mitigation Measure Action Required Mitigation Timing Monitoring Responsibility
E-12 Amara Shopping Center
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Hydrology and Water Quality
HYD-1 During construction, the project applicant shall
implement all applicable and mandatory Best
Management Practices (BMPs) in accordance with the
State General Construction NPDES Permit and related
SWPPP prepared for the project and the Ventura
County/Municipal Stormwater NPDES Permit. These
BMPs shall include, but not be limited, to the
following:
• Erosion and sediment control procedures shall be
implemented for exposed areas.
• Appropriate dust suppression techniques, such as
watering or tarping, shall be used.
• Construction entrances shall be designed to facilitate removal of debris from vehicles exiting the site.
• Truck loads shall be tarped.
• Material management BMPs shall be implemented.

Review of 401 Water Quality
Certification.

Prior to issuance of grading
permits.

Department of Public
Works
HYD-2 All construction equipment and vehicles shall be
inspected for leaks of hazardous materials (including
oil and gasoline) and all such leaks repaired according to a regular schedule, specified in the Grading Plan
approved by the City of Camarillo Public Works
Department.

Review of project construction
contracts to confirm that the
requirements of mitigation
measure HYD-2 are included.

Prior to issuance of grading
permits.

Department of Public
Works

CAS004002; Order No. 2010-0108 and related
stormwater quality mitigation requirements
pertaining to the detention, treatment, and/or
discharge of stormwater.

Review of 401 Water Quality
Certification.

Prior to issuance of grading
permits.

Department of Public
Works
Public Services
PUB-1 The recommendations of the Ventura County Fire
Department relative to fire safety shall be incorporated into the building plans, which includes the submittal
of a plot plan for approval by the VCFD either prior to the recordation of a final map or the approval of a
building permit.

Review of project building plans
that confirm that Ventura County
Fire Department recommendations
are addressed.

Prior to recordation of a final
map or issuance of building
permits.

Department of Building
and Safety & Ventura
County Fire
Department
PUB-2 The applicant shall comply with all applicable fire codes and pay any applicable fees to the Ventura
County Fire Department prior to the recordation of a
final map or the approval of a building permit.

Review of project building plans to
demonstrate compliance with all
applicable fire codes and receipt of
payment for all applicable fees to
the Ventura County Fire
Department.

Prior to recordation of a final
map or issuance of building
permits.

Department of Building
and Safety & Ventura
County Fire
Department
PUB-2 The environmental design recommendations of the
Camarillo Police Department shall be included in the
review process and incorporated into the building
plans to reduce opportunities for the commission of
crimes.

Review of project building plans
that confirm that Camarillo Police
Department recommendations are
addressed.

Prior to the issuance of
building permits.

Department of
Community
Development &
Camarillo Police
Department

MITIGATION MEASURES ADOPTED FOR THE AMARA SHOPPING CENTER PROJECT Mitigation Measure Action Required Mitigation Timing Monitoring Responsibility
E-14 Amara Shopping Center
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
PUB-3 Pursuant to Section 65595 of the Government Code, the project applicant shall be responsible for the
payment of all applicable schools fees to the school
district serving the project site to offset the impact of additional student enrollment at schools serving the
project area.

Receipt of payment for applicable
school fees.

Prior to the issuance of
building permits.

Department of
Community
Development
Transportation/Traffic
TRA-1 The developer shall pay the Traffic Mitigation Fee as established by Camarillo Municipal Code (CMC) §

11.68. Payment of this fee reflects a pro-rata (fair share) of traffic mitigation measures within the City of
Camarillo including, but not limited to, the widening
of Las Posas Road between Ventura Boulevard and
Daily Drive to add a northbound travel lane across the
U.S. 101 Freeway overpass. The amount of fees to be
paid shall be those in effect at the actual time of
payment of such fees. Administrative Policy and
Procedure No. 8.12 shall apply to capital facility fees.

Receipt of payment for applicable
Traffic Mitigation Fee.

Prior to the issuance of
building permits.

Department of Public
Works
Utilities and Service Systems
UTL-1 Before the city issues a grading permit or approves the final map, the developer/project applicant shall
guarantee the construction of a domestic water system
and an irrigation system for landscaping in
conformance with applicable City standards.

Review of project building plans
and water improvement plans
demonstrating that domestic
water systems and landscape
irrigation system will be
constructed in conformance with
applicable city standards.

Prior to the issuance of grading
permits or approval of final
map.

Department of Public
Works

Review of project water
improvement plans by the City
Engineer and confirmation of
approval by the Ventura County
Fire Department and Calleguas
Municipal Water District.

Prior to the issuance of grading
permits or approval of final
map.

Department of Public
Works
UTL-3 Sewer plans shall be approved by the City Engineer and the Camarillo Sanitary District. Before the city
issues a grading permit or approves the final map, the
developer/project applicant shall enter into an
agreement with the District which specifies the
funding mechanism for all wastewater conveyance
facilities.

Review of project sewer plans by
the City Engineer and the
Camarillo Sanitary District.

Prior to the issuance of grading
permits or approval of final
map.

Department of Public
Works
UTL-4 All industries proposing to connect to or discharge into the local sewer system shall first obtain the
appropriate permit from the Camarillo Sanitary
District.

Review of industrial wastewater
discharge permit request from the
Camarillo Sanitary District.

Prior to issuance of grading
permits for industries that
propose to connect to or
discharge into the local sewer
system.

Department of Public
Works
UTL-5 Restaurant and commercial uses shall install grease interceptors.

Review of building plans for
restaurants and commercial uses
using grease products.

Prior to issuance of building
permits for restaurants and
commercial uses using grease
products.

Department of Public
Works
UTL-6 Drought-resistant vegetation shall be used in
landscaping to reduce the demand for irrigation
water. Water-conserving features, such as low volume
water closets and lavatory faucets with limiting-flow
valves, shall be installed in all project buildings.

Review of project building and
landscaping plans to confirm that
drought-resistant vegetation and
water-conserving features are
incorporated.

Prior to issuance of building
permits.

Department of Building
and Safety/Department
of Community
Development

MITIGATION MEASURES ADOPTED FOR THE AMARA SHOPPING CENTER PROJECT Mitigation Measure Action Required Mitigation Timing Monitoring Responsibility
E-16 Amara Shopping Center
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
UTL-7 Recycling bins shall be provided at appropriate
locations to promote recycling of paper, metal, glass,
and other recyclable material.

Review of project building plans to
confirm that locations for recycling
bins are provided as appropriate.

Prior to issuance of occupancy
permits.

Department of
Community
Development
UTL-8 The project developer shall wait to develop and
connect the project to the city’s water service until the Fox Canyon Groundwater Management Agency
resumes groundwater allocation transfers from
agricultural operations. If groundwater allocation
transfers do not resume, or if the developer wishes to
connect the project to the city’s water service before
that time, in accordance with Camarillo Municipal
Code Chapter 14.12, the project developer shall
demonstrate that the water demand of the project
would be offset either directly by developer-initiated
programs, or if the city is in a declared Stage 2 or
higher water supply condition, by making a payment
to the city’s water conservation credit program in an
amount calculated by the city to reduce existing water
use elsewhere within the city in an amount adequate
to serve the proposed project.

Review of project water supply
plan for the project or/and
confirmation of payment to the
city’s water conservation credit
program.

Prior to issuance of building
permits.

Department of Public
Works

E-18 Amara Shopping Center
Second Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration 2023-4 B Camarillo Costco

APPENDIX B -

AIR QUALITY IMPACT EVALUATION
September 6, 2023
Ramboll
5 Park Plaza
Suite 500
Irvine, CA 92614
USA
T +1 949 261 5151
F +1 949 261 6202
www.ramboll.com

MEMORANDUM
To:

From:

Subject:

City of Camarillo
Haley Ozcan and Eric Lu, Ramboll Americas Engineering Solutions, Inc.

Air Quality Impact Evaluation for the Current Project
Camarillo, California

INTRODUCTION
The proposed Project (“Current Project” or “Project”) is located on the northeast corner of W. Ventura Blvd. and Springville Drive, Camarillo, California 93010 and includes two phases of development. The first phase of the Project (“Phase 1” or “Costco”), to be developed by Costco Wholesale Corporation, includes a gasoline dispensing facility (“GDF” or “fuel station”) with 16 dispensers (i.e., 32 fueling positions), an approximately 163,400 square-foot warehouse, and a parking lot consisting of approximately 900 stalls. The second phase of the Project (“Phase 2” or “Regional Shopping Center”) consists of development of approximately 335,600 square feet of shopping center use.

The Project would be developed within the footprint of the Amara Shopping Center located in Camarillo, California. The air quality and greenhouse gas (GHG) impacts were evaluated in prior environmental documentation for this site.

The City of Camarillo (“City”) adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration 2006-17 (“MND"), which analyzed the development of a 499,000 square-foot regional shopping center with an assumed mix of 429,469 square feet of retail space, 29,531 square feet of restaurant space, and 40,000 square feet of office space (“Original Project”) on the approximately 44.84-acre Project site. The MND included a criteria air pollutant (“CAP”) inventory for the Original Project. The MND determined that Original Project would result in less than significant air quality impacts with mitigation. The MND did not include an analysis of greenhouse gas (“GHG”) emissions, as CEQA did not require such analysis at the time.

The City subsequently adopted Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration 2016-1 (“Subsequent MND”) to address certain changes to the Original Project.

Specifically, the Subsequent MND analyzed the development of a 499,000 squarefoot regional shopping center that included 234,356 square feet of retail space, a 157,801 square-foot nationally recognized discount retailer, 57,082 square feet of in-line and freestanding restaurant space, and 38,000 square feet of health club space (“2016 Project”). The Subsequent MND included a greenhouse gas (“GHG”) \\wcirvfps1\projects\C\Costco\Camarillo\Memo\FINAL Current Project Camarillo_AQ_Memo 230913.docx 1/7
2/7
emissions inventory for the 2016 Project and concluded that the 2016 Project would result in less than significant air quality impacts with mitigation and less than significant GHG impacts This memorandum provides an assessment of the Current Project’s potential air quality impacts relative to the MND and Subsequent MND. Specifically, this analysis provides the CAP emissions and GHG emissions for construction and operation of the proposed Project. As discussed below, the proposed Project would not create new significant impacts nor alter the severity of impacts as previously identified and disclosed in the MND and Subsequent MND.

METHODOLOGY
This section describes the methodology that Ramboll used to develop the CAP and GHG emissions inventories associated with the Project. Project operational emissions are quantified for buildout in 2026. This is a conservative assumption since it is the earliest date that Phase 2 could be completed.

If the buildout of the site occurs in a later year, the operational emissions are expected to be lower due to more stringent air quality regulations. Sub-categories of operational emissions include the following: area, energy, mobile, natural gas emergency engine, and gasoline dispensing facility sources.

Ramboll primarily utilized the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod®) version 2022.11 methodology to assist in quantifying the criteria air pollutant and GHG emissions in the inventories presented for the Project. CalEEMod® provides methodologies to calculate construction and operational emissions from a land use development project. It calculates daily or annual CAP and GHG emissions.

Specifically, the model methodology aids the user in the following calculations:
 Construction emissions associated with off-road equipment use, on-road worker, vendor, and hauling trips, fugitive dust, paving, and architectural coating.  Operational emissions associated with the fully built out project, such as on-road mobile vehicle traffic generated by the land uses, emissions from architectural coating, and emissions from consumer products.

As mentioned above, CalEEMod® is based upon the CARB-approved OFFROAD and EMFAC models.

OFFROAD2 is an emission factor model used to calculate emission rates from off-road mobile sources.

The off-road diesel emission factors used by CalEEMod® are based on the CARB OFFROAD2017 program. EMFAC20213 is the emission factor model used in CalEEMod® to calculate emissions rates from on-road vehicles (e.g., passenger vehicles). These emissions factors were used to estimate mobile source operational emissions based on CalEEMod® methodology and defaults along with Project specific values where available.

In addition, CalEEMod® contains default values and existing regulation methodologies to use in each specific local air district region. Appropriate statewide default values can be utilized if regional default 1 SCAQMD. 2022. California Emissions Estimator Model®. Available at: http://www.CalEEMod.com/.

Accessed: June 2023.
2 CARB. 2022. MSEI – Off-Road Documentation. Available at: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/our-work/programs/mobilesource-emissions-inventory/msei-road-documentation-0. Accessed: June 2023. 3 CARB. 2022. MSEI – On-Road Documentation. Available at: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/our-work/programs/mobilesource-emissions-inventory/msei-road-documentation. Accessed: June 2023. 3/7
values are not defined. Ramboll used default factors for the Ventura County area for the emissions inventory, unless otherwise noted in the methodology descriptions below.

Construction
Construction emissions sources accounted for in CalEEMod® estimates are off-road equipment usage, on-road vehicle travel associated with workers and vendors, architectural coating, and paving.

Construction for the Project is separated into two overall phases. Construction of Phase 1 includes a Costco warehouse, gasoline station and parking lot. Construction of Phase 2 includes a shopping center. Phase 1 and Phase 2 both include the construction phases of site preparation, grading, building construction, paving, and architectural coating.

Off-Road Construction Equipment
For off-road construction equipment emissions, CalEEMod® methodology assumes all of the equipment operates on diesel fuel. The calculations include the running exhaust emissions from off-road equipment. Since the equipment is assumed to be diesel, there are no starting emissions associated with the equipment, as these are de minimis for diesel-fueled equipment. CalEEMod® calculates the exhaust emissions based on default values for horsepower and load factor from CARB’s OFFROAD2017-ORION, CARB 2017 Emission Factors, and CARB’s OFFROAD2011.4 On-Road Construction Trips
Construction emissions result from on-road vehicle trips made by personal vehicles for worker and vendor commuting. These emissions are calculated in CalEEMod® based on the number of trips and distance per trip along with emission factors from EMFAC2021. The number of worker and vendor trips represent defaults from CalEEMod®.

Architectural Coating and Paving
VOC off-gassing emissions result from evaporation of solvents contained in surface coatings.

CalEEMod® was used to estimate VOC evaporative emissions from the application of surface coatings.

VOC emission factors were updated to reflect current emission factors for architectural coatings. VOC architectural coating emissions are presented in Appendix A. CalEEMod® was also used to estimate the VOC off-gassing emissions associated with asphalt paving and these emissions are presented in Appendix A.

The CAP and GHG emissions generated by the construction for the Phase 1 Costco development and for the Phase 2 Regional Shopping Center development are shown in Appendix A.

Area Sources
Area sources are those emissions that are generally too small to be uniquely identified as point sources and are thus generally aggregated as a group. CalEEMod® estimates emissions for the following sources, which are included under the category of “area” sources: landscaping equipment (e.g., lawn mowers), consumer products, and architectural coatings. Criteria air pollutant emissions due to natural gas combustion in buildings, could also be considered area sources, but are reported by CalEEMod® in the emissions associated with building energy use (described below). 4 California Air Pollution Control Officers Association. 2022. California Emissions Estimator Model® User’s Guide, Appendix C. Available at: https://caleemod.com/documents/user-guide/04_Appendix%20C.pdf. Accessed: April 2023.
4/7
The CAP and GHG emissions generated by the Project were calculated using CalEEMod® defaults and can be viewed in Appendix A.

Energy Sources
CAP emissions are emitted from buildings as a result of activities for which natural gas is typically used as an energy source. Combustion of fossil fuels, such as natural gas, emits criteria air pollutants directly into the atmosphere. Climate Zone 8 was selected based on the CEC forecast climate zone map shown in the CalEEMod® User’s Guide. The analysis assumes that the Project’s land uses accord to the 2019 Title 24 Standards, as that code cycle became effective on January 1, 2020 based on CalEEMod® defaults. This is a conservative estimation of the emissions related to the Project energy use as the Project will meet the 2022 Title 24 Part 6 building code, which became effective on January 1, 2023. To calculate the total building natural gas input for the Project, Ramboll utilized default values provided in CalEEMod®, which are based on the Commercial End-Use Survey (CEUS).

Energy usage within buildings (e.g., electricity and natural gas) contribute to the Project’s GHG inventory. Combustion of any type of fuel emits carbon dioxide (CO2) and other GHGs directly into the atmosphere; these emissions are considered direct emissions associated with a building. GHGs are also emitted during the generation of electricity from fossil fuels; these emissions are considered to be indirect emissions. To estimate GHG emissions from the natural gas and electricity usage for the Project, Ramboll utilized CalEEMod® default assumptions, which incorporate Title 24 2019 Standards and carbon intensities for Southern California Edison, the electric utility that provides electricity to the Project.

CAP and GHG emissions from the natural gas consumption were estimated in CalEEMod® and can be viewed in Appendix A.

Water Supply, Treatment and Distribution
Indirect GHG emissions result from the production of electricity used to convey, treat, and distribute the Project's water and wastewater. The amount of electricity required to convey, treat, and distribute water depends on the volume of water as well as the sources of the water. Additionally, direct CH4 and N2O emissions result from the treatment of wastewater. Water demand and wastewater generation values were based on CalEEMod® defaults.

The water usage and associated GHG emissions are shown in Appendix A for the Project condition.

Solid Waste
Municipal solid waste (MSW) is the amount of material that is disposed of by landfilling, recycling, or composting. CalEEMod® calculates the indirect GHG emissions associated with waste that is disposed of at a landfill. The program uses annual waste disposal rates from CalRecycle data for individual land uses.

Solid waste generation associated with the Project are based on default values for waste generation in CalEEMod®. The Project’s solid waste generation and GHG emissions associated with solid waste are provided in Appendix A.

Refrigerants
Emissions from refrigeration result from leakage and service of building air conditioning and refrigeration equipment. CalEEMod® quantifies refrigerant emissions from leaks during regular 5/7
operation and routine servicing over the equipment lifetime and then derives average annual emissions from the lifetime estimate.

Refrigerant usage and leakage rates associated with the Project are based on default values in CalEEMod®. The Project’s refrigerant GHG emissions are provided in Appendix A.

Mobile Sources
The CAP and GHG emissions associated with on-road mobile sources during Project operation are generated from mobile sources traveling to and from the Project site. The emissions associated with on-road mobile sources include running, idling and starting exhaust emissions, evaporative emissions, tirewear, brakewear, and entrained road dust. Running emissions are dependent on vehicle miles travelled (“VMT”). Starting and evaporative emissions are associated with the number of starts or time between vehicle uses and the assumptions used in determining these values are described below.

Ramboll calculated mobile source emissions using the trip rate information provided by Kittelson & Associates, Inc (Kittelson). The analysis includes the benefit of reductions from some adopted regulatory programs, which are accounted for within the EMFAC2021 model.

Mobile source emissions calculation requires trip rates and trip lengths for each different trip type in the Project. The following sections describe the methodology to derive the necessary inputs.

The emission factors for each vehicle type were calculated from EMFAC2021 model outputs, based on CalEEMod® methodology. The emission factors used to estimate mobile emissions from running exhaust, running losses, tire wear, brake wear, and entrained road dust are on a “per mile” basis and thus the emissions were calculated by multiplying these factors by the estimated VMT for each vehicle type. The emission factors for starting exhaust and non-running evaporative processes are on a “per trip” basis and thus the emissions were calculated by multiplying these factors by the estimated number of trips for each vehicle type. The emission factors used to estimate CAP and GHG emissions from idling are on a “per minute of idling” basis and thus the emissions were calculated by multiplying these factors by the estimated idle duration for each vehicle type. This methodology is consistent with CalEEMod®, as noted earlier.

Trip Parameters (Trip Rates, Trip Lengths, and Fleet Mix) The trip generation rates were provided by Kittelson and are shown in Appendix B for the Phase 1 Costco development and Appendix C for the Phase 2 regional shopping center development. The daily trips were used to establish daily VMT for the Project. The number of trips and trip lengths are based upon Project-specific data and are shown in in Appendix B and Appendix C. The fleet mixes utilized for the operational mobile trips are shown in Appendix B and Appendix C and are based on Project-specific information. Exhaust, evaporative, tire wear, and brake wear emission factors were obtained from EMFAC2021 for Ventura County and are presented in Appendix B and Appendix C.

Emission factors were calculated as a fleet-weighted average.

Transport Refrigeration Units
The Project includes Transport Refrigeration Units (TRUs), which are refrigeration systems powered by diesel internal combustion engines designed to refrigerate or heat perishable products that are transported in various containers, including truck vans, semi-truck trailers, shipping containers, and railcars. Emission factors for TRUs were obtained from OFFROAD2021 for TRU trailers in Ventura County and are presented in Table 1 and Table 2.
6/7
The overall mobile source CAP and GHG emissions for the Costco development are shown in Appendix B and for the Phase 2 regional shopping center development are shown in Appendix C.

Operational Gasoline Transfer and Dispensing
Emissions from gasoline transfer and dispensing mainly occur during loading, breathing, refueling, spillage, and from hose permeation. Emission factors were obtained from Table 9 of the CAPCOA Gasoline Service Station Industrywide Risk Assessment Technical Guidance.5 Emissions were calculated based on the existing average annual throughput and the permitted annual throughput of 30 million gallons per year. These emissions are presented in Table 3.

Stationary Back-up Generator
There is a stationary back-up generator planned to be located on the roof of the warehouse on the condenser platform for the refrigeration condensers. Emission factors were extracted from the generator’s specification sheet. The unit is a SG045 engine model with an engine output of 45 kilowatts (kW). Emissions were calculated based on Ventura County’s maximum allowable hours of use per year for a backup utility generator. The emissions from this stationary back-up generator are presented in Table 4 and Table 5.

RESULTS
Table 6 summarizes the Project construction CAP emissions for each year of Project construction. As with the Original Project and 2016 Project, the Current Project will implement mitigation measures AQ-1 and AQ-2 from the MND to reduce CAP emissions during construction. As with the Original Project and 2016 Project, the Current Project’s CAP construction emission impacts would be less than significant with implementation of these measures.

Table 7 summarizes the Project operational CAP emissions at full buildout. As set forth in Table 7, the Project would generate 81 pounds per day volatile organic compounds (VOC) emissions and 50 pounds per day of nitrogen oxide compounds (NOx) emissions for non-stationary sources, which are less than the 92.3 pounds per day of VOC emissions and 94.5 pounds per day of NOx emissions set forth in the MND for non-stationary sources. As with the Original Project and 2016 Project, the Current Project will implement mitigation measures AQ-3 and AQ-4 from the MND to reduce CAP emissions during operation. Therefore, the Current Project would not create new significant impacts or increase the severity of air quality impacts as compared to those analyzed in the MND and Subsequent MND.

The Project’s GHG are presented in Table 8. Consistent with the Subsequent MND, Ramboll evaluated the efficiency metric of the Project, defined as the total emissions divided by the service population.

The Subsequent MND notes that for commercial projects, employees only make up roughly 2% of the number of people that visit a site, and thus it does not make sense to only consider employees for the service population of a commercial project. Because of this, the Subsequent MND assumed that the service population would include everyone that would be served by the project, including customers, employees, and vendors. To estimate the service population, the Subsequent MND divided the number of potential daily vehicle trips by two. This is a conservative estimate since each vehicle is assumed to accommodate only one person, but in reality, many of the vehicles would accommodate more than 5 CAPCOA. 2022. Gasoline Service Station Industrywide Risk Assessment Technical Guidance. February 18.

Available at: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2022- 03/Draft%202022%20Gas%20Station%20IWG%20-%20Technical%20Guidance_ADA%20Compliant.pdf.

Accessed: June 2023.
7/7
one person. Based on this methodology, the Current Project results in an efficiency metric of 0.93 MT CO2e of GHGs per service population member, which is less than the efficiency metric of 1.44 MT CO2e of GHGs per service population member estimated in the Subsequent MND. Thus, the Current Project’s GHG impacts would remain less than significant, as was determined in the Subsequent MND.

Ramboll
TABLES
Table 1. TRU Criteria Air Pollutant Emission Calculations Current Project
Camarillo, California
VOC NOx

3.56 3.63
VOC NOx
Phase 1 3 2.34 2.39
Abbreviations:

CARB - California Air Resources Board VOCs - Volatile Organic Compounds NOx - oxides of nitrogen VCAPCD - Ventura Country Air Pollution Control District TRU - transportation refrigeration unit
Constants:

Horsepower 3 25 bhp
Load Factor 4 0.46
TRU Cycle Duration 5 519 minutes
Conversion Factors:
453.592 g/lb
1000000 g/MT
60 min/hr
365 day/year
2000 lb/ton
Emission Factor1
(g/bhp-hr)
Scenario
Number of Round Trips
with TRUs2
Notes:
1 Emission factors obtained from OFFROAD2021 emissions output for Calendar Year 2024, Transportation Refrigeration Unit - Instate Trailer and Transportation Refrigeration Unit - Out-Of-State Trailer in Ventura County.

Daily Average TRU
Emissions
(lbs/day)
2 Number of warehouse delivery trucks equipped with TRUs based on project-specific information. 3 Horsepower obtained from CARB 2021 Update to Emissions Inventory for Transport Refrigeration Units, Section 2.6, for TRUs Over 25 hp, 2013 and newer. Available at:
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/barcu/board/rulemaking/tru2021/apph.pdf. Accessed: June 2023. 4 Load factor obtained from CARB 2021 Update to Emissions Inventory for Transport Refrigeration Units, Appendix H Table 10, for TRUs Over 25 hp, 2013 and newer. Available at:
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/barcu/board/rulemaking/tru2021/apph.pdf. Accessed: June 2023. 5 TRU Cycle Duration is based on 2 hours of off-site loading time plus the duration of the on-site and off-site transit. It is assumed that unloading will occur while the TRU is plugged in, so no emissions are estimated for this time period.

Assumptions based on Table II.G.1 of CARB Proposed Amendments to the Airborne Toxic Control Measure for In-Use DieselFueled Transport Refrigeration Units (TRU) and TRU Generator Sets, and Facilities Where TRUs Operate. Available at:
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/barcu/board/rulemaking/tru2021/appi.pdf. Accessed: June 2023.

Page 1 of 1 ends

Camarillo City CouncilMay 28, 2025

Camarillo City Council
May 28, 2025