THE FOLLOWING
6,848 PAGES ARE
RELATED TO ITEM
12.A.
MONDAY, MAY 9, 2022 — 6:00 PM
Originally, the City Community Development
Department was set to approve this waste-collection
truck dispatch center without a public hearing or
environmental review. After public opposition from
nearby neighbors, the Administrative Hearing took
place and many negative public comments from the
community were received.
The waste-collection truck maintenance facility
should be subject to a full environmental impact
report (EIR) in compliance with the California
Environmental Quality Act.
An EIR allows our local government and members of
the public to learn about the potentially significant
adverse environmental effects of the project and to
prevent and mitigate those effects.
An EIR would include an analysis of the following
topics, among others:
• Air Quality
• Biological Resources
• Geology and Soils
• Hazards and
Hazardous Materials
• Noise
• Traffic
ATTENTION: Thousand Oaks Residents
ON MAY 9, 2022 AT 6:00 P.M., THE CITY OF THOUSAND OAKS PLANNING COMMISSION WILL CONDUCT A HEARING TO CONSIDER A NEW 21,440 SQUARE FOOT WASTECOLLECTION TRUCK DISPATCH CENTER WITH HEAVY-DUTY TRUCK MAINTENANCE
FACILITIES, ASSOCIATED PARKING, OUTDOOR VEHICLE STORAGE, RETAINING WALLS, AND A COMPRESSED NATURAL GAS (CNG) FUELING STATION.
Borchard Rd
Rancho Conejo Blvd
Corporate Center Dr
Corporate Center Dr
Newbury Park
Adventist Academy
101 Freeway
101 Freeway
Hillcrest Dr
Hillcrest Dr
Conejo Adventist
Elementary School
Sports Academy
Amgen
Lowe’s
Target
Home Depot
Rancho Conejo Blvd
Lawrence Dr
Proposed Site
Residential
Residential
Residential
Residential
Residential
IMPORTANT ENVIRONMENTAL HEARING
Proposed Site Location:
2498 and 2550 Conejo Center Dr.
Thousand Oaks, CA 91320
You may fill out a speaker card in the Boardroom
and request to speak under Public Comment, or, if
you wish to participate remotely, you may click on
the ‘Request to Speak’ link on the Agenda when it is
published on the City’s Website, and the system will
send you Zoom instructions.
FOR MORE INFORMATION, PLEASE CALL: (805) 387-9265
www.AthensIsAtItAgain.com
HAVE YOUR VOICE HEARD
AT THIS PUBLIC HEARING
• Greenhouse Gas
Emissions
• Land Use and Planning
• Water Quality/
Stormwater Runoff
• Cumulative Impacts
PAID FOR BY WASTE MANAGEMENT
This May Be Your Last Chance
Thousand Oaks residents have the right to participate
in the hearing to let the City know that you demand a
full Environmental Impact Report (EIR).
This project may have potentially significant impacts
to biological resources, traffic, air quality, and noise throughout our neighborhood.
Residents are invited to join — either in-person at
City Hall in the Andrew P. Fox City Council Chambers
2100 Thousand Oaks Blvd., 2nd Floor, Thousand Oaks
and via Zoom video conference / teleconference.
A public hearing notice is posted on
the City’s website. Scan the QR code
to be redirected to the link.
The agenda will be published no
later than 72 hours before the
meeting and will be found here:
CRITTER CORNER
GREEN SCENE
Courtesy of Agoura Animal Care Center
PRECIOUS—Jade is a pit bull mix, about 2 years old, who loves toys and pools. She is playful and treat-motivated. She knows the command “sit” and is learning others. She is looking for an owner who will continue her training. Jade has a solid build and an exuberant play style, so she would be best in an adult household or one with older children, and in a home with no other pets.
To meet Jade, ID No. A5458506, schedule an appointment with the Agoura Animal Care Center at animalcare.lacounty.gov/ adopt-a-pet.
Pet of the
wee
k
Police sniff out where K-9 fits in
He’d rather play
fetch than search
for drugs
One very good boy with a penchant for playing is now making a big difference at the Ventura
County Jail.
Rocky, a 2-year-old Labrador
retriever, was trained as a patrol
narcotics dog for the Ventura
&RXQW\6KHUL൵¶V2൶FH
However, it soon became clear
to his handlers that Rocky—described as a “stealer of snacks but very cute”—preferred to play
fetch rather than search for drugs.
The solution? Change his job
description and make him the
VKHUL൵¶V R൶FH¶V ¿UVW HPRWLRQDO
support/therapeutic K-9.
5RFN\¶VMREQRZLVWRLQFUHDVH
socialization and treatment compliance for those in jail who are dealing with mental illness.
6KHUL൵¶VR൶FLDOVVDLG5RFN\¶V
presence helps to calm individuals
in crisis and reduce the anxieties
of those who have challenges
navigating social settings.
Rocky lives with Dep. Myron
%HQQHWWZKRZRUNVLQWKHMDLO¶V
therapeutic inmate management
XQLW%HQQHWW¶VGXWLHV UHPDLQWKH
same—except now he has a helpful canine partner in Rocky. “He has just proven to already
be an asset to our program,” BenQHWWVDLG³7KHVHLQPDWHVKDYHQ¶W even seen dogs in a long, long time
and even just the mere sight of a
dog has kind of shown improvement in their behavior.”
Sheriff Bill Ayub said in a
statement that the county jails
house residents with severe mental
illness.
“Working to improve a perVRQ¶V FLUFXPVWDQFHV ZKLOH LQ custody helps them to return to
our communities stabilized and
healthier. We all know dogs have
that special ability to calm people
ZLWKWKHLUÀRSS\HDUVDQGZHWQRVes. It made perfect sense to assign Rocky to this job,” Ayub said.
Rocky is helping to improve
the health and well-being of inPDWHVDQGKH¶VEHFRPHDQLPSRUWDQWFRPSDQLRQWRWKHMDLOVWD൵ “Rocky has an impact on all of
XV´VDLG$VVLVWDQW6KHUL൵5RE'Dvidson. “Jails are stressful places WRZRUN5RFN\JLYHVDOORXUVWD൵
a chance to scratch his belly and
take a deep breath from time to
time. Rocky is truly a breath of
fresh air for everyone.”
Rocky was purchased and
trained with community-donated
funds, and his presence in the jail
system does not cost taxpayers
DQ\PRQH\DFFRUGLQJWRVKHUL൵¶V
R൶FLDOV
— Michele Willer-Allred
READY TO LISTEN—
Rocky is the first
emotional support/
therapeutic K-9 in the
sheriff’s office.
Courtesy of VCSO
School districts adopt practices to reduce food waste
‘WHO WANTS MY APPLE?’—While schools are required to provide students with healthy foods, there’s no guarantee the kids will eat it.
COMMENTARY ///Eye on the Environment
By David Goldstein
Special to the Acorn
Officials at Pleasant Valley
School District in Camarillo are
working to reduce food waste by
SUDFWLFLQJ ³R൵HU YHUVXV VHUYH´
food distribution and administering “share tables.”
According to Nance Shirley,
WKHGLVWULFW¶VIRRGVHUYLFHVXSHUYLVRULQWKH³R൵HUYHUVXVVHUYH´ method, kids are provided with
choices rather than a meal. The
PHWKRGGL൵HUVIURPDEX൵HWOLQH
because the students must take
a certain number of items from
various categories so the school
can meet nutrition requirements
set by the 2012 Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act. That act, championed by Michele Obama,
VHWIHGHUDOUHTXLUHPHQWVIRUNLGV¶
lunches, requiring each child to be
SURYLGHGZLWKVSHFL¿FFDWHJRULHV
of foods.
,Q DGGLWLRQ WR ³R൵HU YHUVXV
serve,” the district uses “share
tables” to provide students with
required nutrition while reducing
waste. After making their choices, some kids may not eat all the items they selected, so rather than
tossing them in the garbage, kids
place unopened food or cartons of
milk on a share table where others
can take it.
As long as the child left the
serving area of the cafeteria with
the fruit or milk, they were provided with the item and the school met nutrition requirements. The
school is not expected to ensure
the kid consumes an item. Children who are not signed up for free lunches or who want more to
eat can take what they want from
the share tables.
The tables are encouraged by
regulators, according to Graciela
Garcia, who manages food inspections for the Ventura County Environmental Health Division.
She said as long as safety measures are followed, share tables and other such programs “reduce
waste and provide food to those
in need.”
“There is a lot of variety
between school districts, and
even when a district has a waste
UHGXFWLRQSURJUDPLW¶VRIWHQXS
to the principal whether, and
KRZLW¶VLPSOHPHQWHG´VDLG/LVD
McCullough, an environmental
resource analyst with the Ventura
County Integrated Waste Management Division.
In helping schools set up recycling programs, she has worked ZLWKNLGVRQWKH¿UVWVWHSWRSODQning better waste management practices; she has them categorize
DQGTXDQWLI\WKHLUVFKRRO¶VZDVWH
stream.
“At schools where milk is one
of the mandatory items kids must
take to meet the federal requirements for funding, full or partially full milk cartons are usually the
biggest, heaviest component of
the waste stream,” she said.
At many schools, share tables
are not sufficient to handle the
volume of unopened milk cartons,
and at some of those schools, cafHWHULDVWD൵ZDVKR൵WKHXQRSHQHG cartons and put them back in the
refrigerator before the milk has
been out too long. In some cases,
ice sheets on share tables keep
items at required temperatures
before the items are placed back
in refrigerators.
Although uncommon, some
schools donate leftover food to
food pantries or a food bank.
Garcia said the retail food code
in the California Code of RegXODWLRQV VSHFL¿FDOO\ DXWKRUL]HV local educational agencies to donate “to a food bank or any other QRQSUR¿WFKDULWDEOHRUJDQL]DWLRQ
for distribution.”
Spirit of Santa Paula, which
operates a shelter and can collect
from as far away as Camarillo,
recently sent a refrigerated truck
to pick up 64 cartons of unused
yogurt from a local school. The
yogurt was near expiration but
still safe to eat.
The lessons of waste reduction
in schools can be applied at home.
For meals with guests, or even
just with your own family, you
will generate less waste if you
let everyone pick their own foods
and portions, rather than dishing
out and serving food.
David Goldstein, environmental resource analyst with the Ventura County Public Works
Agency, may be reached at da[email protected] or (805) 658-4312.
Athens:
All bins
have been
delivered
Athens Services has
completed the full transition of waste collection and
recycling services in Thousand Oaks, the company
announced Wednesday.
The transition involved
delivering over 130,000
new waste bins to residents, as a new state law
requires every single-family home to have a “green”
organics bin.
“The transition of service in Thousand Oaks was
D VLJQL¿FDQW XQGHUWDNLQJ
and we are proud to have
completed the transition on
schedule and very eager to
begin construction of the
truck yard,” Athens Executive Vice President Cesar
Torres said in a statement.
Athens, which took over
WKH FLW\¶V ZDVWHKDXOLQJ
contract Jan. 1, is in the
process of getting permits
from the city to build a truck
yard in Newbury Park.
Residents and businesses that have questions
about their containers, services, schedules or other
matters, can go to AthensThousandOaks.com,
call (805) 852-5264 or
YLVLW$WKHQV¶6XVWDLQDELOLW\
Center at 2251 E. Thousand Oaks Blvd.
020_TOAcornIssue17.indd 1 4/27/2022 2:14:29 PM
By continuing to browse or by clicking "Accept," you agree to our site's privacy policy.
Accept Privacy policy
By continuing to browse or by clicking "Accept," you agree to our site's privacy policy.
Accept Privacy policy
By continuing to browse or by clicking "Accept," you agree to our site's privacy policy.
Accept Privacy policy
Thousand Oaks Acorn April 29, 2022 Page 7
EVER SINCE THOUSAND OAKS SELECTED ATHENS SERVICES TO PROVIDE WASTE COLLECTION AND RECYCLING SERVICES, ONE OF THE CITY’S FORMER HAULERS, WASTE MANAGEMENT, HAS SHOWN THEIR TRUE COLORS. AND IT’S NOT PRETTY.
True to form for a company that was called out by a judge last year for a “lack of business ethics,” the Texas-based behemoth has littered homes with false, fear-mongering mailers.
They’ve wasted taxpayer money filing frivolous lawsuits against the City.
Now they’re trying to overturn City approval for a local Athens truck storage and dispatch facility.
It’s a brazen show of hypocrisy by Waste Management. The company once complained that Athens trucks traveling to Thousand Oaks from out of town would increase greenhouse gas emissions. Now that a local solution has been approved, they’re complaining about Athens trucks remaining in the city on industrial land already zoned for precisely this kind of use.
The fact is, Athens’ transition of service in Thousand Oaks has been a resounding success.
We have delivered 130,000 new waste containers on schedule, rolled out the City’s first “green bin” waste collection program, and helped Thousand Oaks become one of the first cities in Ventura County to fully comply with a new state law designed to divert methaneemitting organic waste from landfills.
That’s the kind of progress that Waste Management doesn’t want you to know about. While they try to undermine our operations and bully elected officials, we’re delivering better service and building a more sustainable future. Waste Management’s decision to attack Thousand Oaks reveals who they really are: sore losers quick to betray the city they once served.
Proudly Serving The Community Of Thousand Oaks
AthensThousandOaks.com
17T15C
007_TOAcornIssue17.indd 1 07_TOAcornIssue17.indd 1 4/27/2022 11:01:27 AM /27/2022 11:01:27 AM Appendix F
Stormwater Calculations
STORMWATER CALCULATIONS
FOR:
CONEJO SUMMIT PROJECT
PREPARED BY:
SIKAND ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES
15230 Burbank Boulevard, Suite 100
Van Nuys, California 91411
818/787-8550 Fax 818/901-7451
Date: February 10, 2020
David Nauta, Civil Engineer
W.O. 5116-007
INTRODUCTION
The following study has been prepared by Sikand Engineering Associates, to determine the required Stormwater Quality and detention facilities for all buildings of the proposed Conejo Summit Industrial project. The project will consist of 15 industrial buildings with loading docks in the Newbury Park area of Thousand Oaks to be constructed on existing vacant lots. Because of existing adjacent groundwater contamination from neighboring properties, infiltration was not considered in treatment of storm water. Water quality solutions were chosen in order of viability, from natural bioswales to biological contact in proprietary media to catch basin filters.
BUILDING 1A
Detention Calculations
Soil Type ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 002 SUMP Volume per City of Thousand Oaks Figure 7 -------------------------------------------- 950 CF/Acre Aproject1 consists of subareas 1A-1, 1A-2, & 1A-4 ------------------------------------------------- 2.49 Acre Vsump1 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2.49*950=2362 CF Aproject2 consists of subarea 1A-3 & 1B-4 ------------------------------------------------------------ 0.53 Acre Vsump2 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 0.53*950=502 CF Assume 48” CMP
Cross Sectional Area=12.57 SF
Length of 48” CMP for Detention1 = 2362 CF/12.57 SF = 187’ < 190’ provided Length of 48” CMP for Detention2 = 502 CF /12.57 SF= 40’ < 45’ provided Per storm drain system master plan:
Subarea 910D Q10=1.99 cfs/Ac
Q100=3.30 cfs/Ac
1A-1: Q10=1.99 cfs/Ac * 0.79 Ac = 1.58 cfs Q100=3.30 cfs/Ac * 0.79 Ac = 2.62 cfs 1A-2: Q10=1.99 cfs/Ac * 1.57 Ac = 3.13 cfs Q100=3.30 cfs/Ac * 1.57 Ac = 5.19 cfs 1A-3: Q10=1.99 cfs/Ac * 0.32 Ac = 0.63 cfs Q100=3.30 cfs/Ac * 0.32 Ac = 1.05 cfs 1A-4: Q10=1.99 cfs/Ac * 0.12 Ac = 0.24 cfs Q100=3.30 cfs/Ac * 0.12 Ac = 0.39 cfs 1B-4: Q10=1.99 cfs/Ac * 0.21 Ac = 0.42 cfs Q100=3.30 cfs/Ac * 0.21 Ac = 0.69 cfs
Stormwater Quality Treatment Calculations
Area 1A-1
Stormwater Quality Design Flow (SQDF)
Area --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 0.79 Acres Soil Type ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 002 Cp for soil type 2 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 0.1 C=0.95*Imp+Cp(1-Imp) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 0.769 I ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 0.2 SQDF=C*I*A ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- .122 cfs Or use 10% of Q50 = Q100/1.2 = (3.30 cfs/Ac)/1.2x0.79 Ac = 2.18 cfs x10% = -------------------- .218 cfs Treatment device used for Area 1A-1: Bioswale
Vegetated Swale Calculations
n=0.2
s=0.009
b=2’
SQDF=.218 cfs
V=.27 fps (per attached flow master calculations in Appendix A) Using 7 minute residence time
L=60*7*.27=113’ of swale required < 120’ of bioswale provided
Area 1A-2
Stormwater Quality Design Flow (SQDF)
Area --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1.57 Acres Soil Type ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 002 Cp for soil type 2 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 0.1 C=0.95*Imp+Cp(1-Imp) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 0.926 I ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 0.2 SQDF=C*I*A ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- .291 cfs Or use 10% of Q50 = Q100/1.2 = (3.30 cfs/Ac)/1.2x1.57 Ac = 4.33 cfs x10% = -------------------- .433 cfs Treatment device used for Area 1A-2: OldCastle BioPod Biofilter Underground BioPod Biofilters use biological contact through proprietary media to achieve an infiltration rate of 1.80 gpm/sf (see attached documentation in Appendix B). 1.80 gpm/ sf is equivalent to .00401 ft/sec.
.433 cfs/ .00401 fps = 108 sq. ft. of infiltration area. Because of the limited feasible landscape area in this tributary area, an underground biofiltration device will be used. Therefore, we will use the 8’x16’ BioPod Underground Biofilter, BPU-816 model, which provides 112 sf of area.
Area 1A-3
Stormwater Quality Design Flow (SQDF)
Area --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 0.32 Acres Soil Type ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 002 Cp for soil type 2 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 0.1 C=0.95*Imp+Cp(1-Imp) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 0.758 I ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 0.2 SQDF=C*I*A ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- .047 cfs Or use 10% of Q50 = Q100/1.2 = (3.30 cfs/Ac)/1.2x0.32 Ac = 0.880 cfs x10% = ------------------ .088 cfs Treatment device used for Area 1A-3: OldCastle BioPod Biofilter Planter Although there is some landscape area for the surface flow, there is not enough space for a natural bioswale. BioPod Biofilters use biological contact through proprietary media to achieve an infiltration rate of 1.80 gpm/sf (see attached documentation in Appendix B). 1.80 gpm/ sf is equivalent to .00401 ft/sec.
.088 cfs/ .00401 fps = 22 sq. ft. of infiltration area. Therefore, we will use the 4’x6.5’ BioPod Biofilter Planter, BPP-46-SI model, which provides 26 sf of area.
Area 1A-4
Stormwater Quality Design Flow (SQDF)
Area --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 0.12 Acres Soil Type ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 002 Cp for soil type 2 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 0.1 C=0.95*Imp+Cp(1-Imp) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 0.818 I ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 0.2 SQDF=C*I*A ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- .019 cfs Or use 10% of Q50 = Q100/1.2 = (3.30 cfs/Ac)/1.2x0.12 Ac = 0.330 cfs x10% = ------------------ .033 cfs Treatment device used for Area 1A-4: OldCastle Catch Basin Filter Area 1A-4 does not have sufficient area for a vegetated swale or a BioPod BioFilter. Because the required flow is a small volume, a catch basin filter will be used to treat the storm water (See Appendix C for spec sheet).
Area 1B-4
Stormwater Quality Design Flow (SQDF)
Area --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 0.21 Acres Soil Type ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 002 Cp for soil type 2 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 0.1 C=0.95*Imp+Cp(1-Imp) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 0.846 I ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 0.2 SQDF=C*I*A ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- .034 cfs Or use 10% of Q50 = Q100/1.2 = (3.30 cfs/Ac)/1.2x0.21 Ac = 0.580 cfs x10% = ------------------ .058 cfs Treatment device used for Area 1B-4: OldCastle Catch Basin Filter Area 1B-4 does not have sufficient area for a vegetated swale or a BioPod BioFilter. Because the required flow is a small volume, a catch basin filter will be used to treat the storm water (See Appendix C for spec sheet).
BUILDING 1B
Detention Calculations
Soil Type ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 002 SUMP Volume per City of Thousand Oaks Figure 7 -------------------------------------------- 950 CF/Acre Aproject consists of subareas 1B-1 & 1B-2 ------------------------------------------------------------ 0.65 Acre Vsump --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 0.65*950=613 CF Assume 48” CMP
Cross Sectional Area=12.57 SF
Length of 48” CMP for Detention = 613 CF/12.57 SF = 49’ < 55’ provided Per storm drain system master plan:
Subarea 910D Q10=1.99 cfs/Ac
Q100=3.30 cfs/Ac
1B-1: Q10=1.99 cfs/Ac * 0.53 Ac = 1.05 cfs Q100=3.30 cfs/Ac * 0.53 Ac = 1.74 cfs 1B-2: Q10=1.99 cfs/Ac * 0.12 Ac = 0.23 cfs Q100=3.30 cfs/Ac * 0.12 Ac = 0.39 cfs
Stormwater Quality Treatment Calculations
Area 1B-1
Stormwater Quality Design Flow (SQDF)
Area --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 0.53 Acres Soil Type ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 002 Cp for soil type 2 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 0.1 C=0.95*Imp+Cp(1-Imp) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 0.903 I ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 0.2 SQDF=C*I*A ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- .095 cfs Or use 10% of Q50 = Q100/1.2 = (3.30 cfs/Ac)/1.2x0.53 Ac = 1.45 cfs x10% = -------------------- .145 cfs Treatment device used for Area 1B-1: OldCastle BioPod Biofilter Underground Because of the limited feasible landscape area in this tributary area, an underground biofiltration device will be used. BioPod Biofilters use biological contact through proprietary media to achieve an infiltration rate of 1.80 gpm/sf (see attached documentation in Appendix B).
1.80 gpm/ sf is equivalent to .00401 ft/sec.
.145 cfs/ .00401 fps = 36 sq. ft. of infiltration area. Therefore, we will use the 4’x13’ BioPod Underground Biofilter, BPU-413 model, which provides 44 sf of area.
Area 1B-2
Stormwater Quality Design Flow (SQDF)
Area --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 0.12 Acres Soil Type ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 002 Cp for soil type 2 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 0.1 C=0.95*Imp+Cp(1-Imp) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 0.781 I ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 0.2 SQDF=C*I*A ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- .018 cfs Or use 10% of Q50 = Q100/1.2 = (3.30 cfs/Ac)/1.2x0.12 Ac = 0.32 cfs x10% = ------------------ .032 cfs Treatment device used for Area 1B-2: Bioswale
Vegetated Swale Calculations
n=0.2
s=0.018
b=2’
SQDF=.032 cfs
V=.18 fps (per attached flow master calculations in Appendix A) Using 7 minute residence time
L=60*7*.18=76’ of swale required = 76’ of bioswale provided BUILDING 1C
Detention Calculations
Soil Type ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 002 SUMP Volume per City of Thousand Oaks Figure 7 -------------------------------------------- 950 CF/Acre Aproject consists of subareas 1C-1 & 1C-2 ------------------------------------------------------------ 1.90 Acre Vsump ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1.90*950=1809 CF Assume 48” CMP
Cross Sectional Area=12.57 SF
Length of 48” CMP for Detention = 1809 CF/12.57 SF = 144’ < 150’ provided Per storm drain system master plan:
Subarea 910D Q10=1.99 cfs/Ac
Q100=3.30 cfs/Ac
1C-1: Q10=1.99 cfs/Ac * 1.59 Ac = 3.16 cfs Q100=3.30 cfs/Ac * 1.59 Ac = 5.24 cfs 1C-2: Q10=1.99 cfs/Ac * 0.13 Ac = 0.26 cfs Q100=3.30 cfs/Ac * 0.13 Ac = 0.42 cfs 1C-3: Q10=1.99 cfs/Ac * 0.19 Ac = 0.37 cfs Q100=3.30 cfs/Ac * 0.19 Ac = 0.62 cfs Stormwater Quality Treatment Calculations
Area 1C-1
Stormwater Quality Design Flow (SQDF)
Area --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1.59 Acres Soil Type ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 002 Cp for soil type 2 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 0.1 C=0.95*Imp+Cp(1-Imp) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 0.913 I ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 0.2 SQDF=C*I*A ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- .290 cfs Or use 10% of Q50 = Q100/1.2 = (3.30 cfs/Ac)/1.2x1.59 Ac = 4.37 cfs x10% = -------------------- .437 cfs Treatment device used for Area 1C-1: OldCastle BioPod Biofilter Underground . Because of the limited feasible landscape area in this tributary area, an underground biofiltration device will be used. BioPod Biofilters use biological contact through proprietary media to achieve an infiltration rate of 1.80 gpm/sf (see attached documentation in Appendix B).
1.80 gpm/ sf is equivalent to .00401 ft/sec.
.437 cfs/ .00401 fps = 109 sq. ft. of infiltration areaTherefore, we will use the 8’x16’ BioPod Underground Biofilter, BPU-816 model, which provides 112 sf of area.
Area 1C-2
Stormwater Quality Design Flow (SQDF)
Area --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 0.13 Acres Soil Type ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 002 Cp for soil type 2 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 0.1 C=0.95*Imp+Cp(1-Imp) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 0.804 I ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 0.2 SQDF=C*I*A ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- .020 cfs Or use 10% of Q50 = Q100/1.2 = (3.30 cfs/Ac)/1.2x0.13 Ac = 0.35 cfs x10% = ------------------ .035 cfs Treatment device used for Area 1C-2: OldCastle Catch Basin Filter Area 1C-2 does not have sufficient area for a vegetated swale or a BioPod BioFilter. Because the required flow is a small volume, a catch basin filter will be used to treat the storm water (See Appendix C for spec sheet).
Area 1C-3
Stormwater Quality Design Flow (SQDF)
Area --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 0.19 Acres Soil Type ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 002 Cp for soil type 2 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 0.1 C=0.95*Imp+Cp(1-Imp) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 0.679 I ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 0.2 SQDF=C*I*A ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- .025 cfs Or use 10% of Q50 = Q100/1.2 = (3.30 cfs/Ac)/1.2x0.19 Ac = 0.51 cfs x10% = ------------------ .051 cfs Treatment device used for Area 1C-3: OldCastle Catch Basin Filter Area 1C-3 does not have sufficient area for a vegetated swale or a BioPod BioFilter. Because the required flow is a small volume, a catch basin filter will be used to treat the storm water (See Appendix C for spec sheet).
BUILDING 1D
Detention Calculations
Soil Type ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 002 SUMP Volume per City of Thousand Oaks Figure 7 -------------------------------------------- 950 CF/Acre Aproject consists of subareas 1D-1, 1D-2 & 1D-3 --------------------------------------------------- 1.73 Acre Vsump ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1.73*950=1642 CF Assume 48” CMP
Cross Sectional Area=12.57 SF
Length of 48” CMP for Detention = 1642 CF/12.57 SF = 130’ < 136’ provided Per storm drain system master plan:
Subarea 910D Q10=1.99 cfs/Ac
Q100=3.30 cfs/Ac
1D-1: Q10=1.99 cfs/Ac * 1.33 Ac = 2.65 cfs Q100=3.30 cfs/Ac * 1.33 Ac = 4.39 cfs 1D-2: Q10=1.99 cfs/Ac * 0.35 Ac = 0.69 cfs Q100=3.30 cfs/Ac * 0.35 Ac = 1.14 cfs 1D-3: Q10=1.99 cfs/Ac * 0.06 Ac = 0.11 cfs Q100=3.30 cfs/Ac * 0.06 Ac = 0.18 cfs Stormwater Quality Treatment Calculations
Area 1D-1
Stormwater Quality Design Flow (SQDF)
Area --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1.33 Acres Soil Type ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 002 Cp for soil type 2 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 0.1 C=0.95*Imp+Cp(1-Imp) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 0.708 I ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 0.2 SQDF=C*I*A ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- .222 cfs Or use 10% of Q50 = Q100/1.2 = (3.30 cfs/Ac)/1.2x1.33 Ac = 3.66 cfs x10% = -------------------- .366 cfs Treatment device used for Area 1D-1: OldCastle BioPod Biofilter Planter Although there is some landscape area for the surface flow, there is not enough space for a natural bioswale. BioPod Biofilters use biological contact through proprietary media to achieve an infiltration rate of 1.80 gpm/sf (see attached documentation in Appendix B). 1.80 gpm/ sf is equivalent to .00401 ft/sec.
.366 cfs/ .00401 fps = 91 sq. ft. of infiltration area. Therefore, we will use the 8’x12’ BioPod Biofilter Planter, BPP-812-SI model, which provides 96 sf of area.
Area 1D-2
Stormwater Quality Design Flow (SQDF)
Area --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 0.06 Acres Soil Type ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 002 Cp for soil type 2 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 0.1 C=0.95*Imp+Cp(1-Imp) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 0.729 I ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 0.2 SQDF=C*I*A ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- .008 cfs Or use 10% of Q50 = Q100/1.2 = (3.30 cfs/Ac)/1.2x0.06 Ac = 0.15 cfs x10% = ------------------- .015 cfs Treatment device used for Area 1D-2: OldCastle Catch Basin Filter Area 1D-2 does not have sufficient area for a vegetated swale or a BioPod Tree Filter. Because the required flow is a small volume, a catch basin filter will be used to treat the storm water (See Appendix C for spec sheet).
Area 1D-3
Stormwater Quality Design Flow (SQDF)
Area --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 0.35 Acres Soil Type ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 002 Cp for soil type 2 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 0.1 C=0.95*Imp+Cp(1-Imp) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 0.708 I ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 0.2 SQDF=C*I*A ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- .048 cfs Or use 10% of Q50 = Q100/1.2 = (3.30 cfs/Ac)/1.2x0.35 Ac = 0.95 cfs x10% = -------------------- .095 cfs Treatment device used for Area 1D-3: Bioswale
Vegetated Swale Calculations
n=0.2
s=0.005
b=2’
SQDF=.095 cfs
V=.17 fps (per attached flow master calculations in Appendix A) Using 7 minute residence time
L=60*7*.17=71’ of swale required < 81’ of bioswale provided BUILDING 1E
Detention Calculations
Soil Type ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 002 SUMP Volume per City of Thousand Oaks Figure 7 -------------------------------------------- 950 CF/Acre Aproject consists of subareas 1E-1, 1E-2, 1E-3, 1E-4, 1E-5, & 1B-3 ---------------------------- 3.99 Acre Vsump ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3.99*950=3790 CF Assume 48” CMP
Cross Sectional Area=12.57 SF
Length of 48” CMP for Detention = 3790 CF/12.57 SF = 301 < 308’ provided Per storm drain system master plan:
Subarea 910D Q10=1.99 cfs/Ac
Q100=3.30 cfs/Ac
1E-1: Q10=1.99 cfs/Ac * 1.35 Ac = 2.68 cfs Q100=3.30 cfs/Ac * 1.35 Ac = 4.45 cfs 1E-2: Q10=1.99 cfs/Ac * 0.98 Ac = 1.94 cfs Q100=3.30 cfs/Ac * 0.98 Ac = 3.23 cfs 1E-3: Q10=1.99 cfs/Ac * 0.78 Ac = 1.56 cfs Q100=3.30 cfs/Ac * 0.78 Ac = 2.59 cfs 1E-4: Q10=1.99 cfs/Ac * 0.16 Ac = 0.31 cfs Q100=3.30 cfs/Ac * 0.16 Ac = 0.52 cfs 1E-5: Q10=1.99 cfs/Ac * 0.11 Ac = 0.23 cfs Q100=3.30 cfs/Ac * 0.11 Ac = 0.38 cfs 1B-3: Q10=1.99 cfs/Ac * 0.61 Ac = 1.21 cfs Q100=3.30 cfs/Ac * 0.61 Ac = 2.00 cfs Stormwater Quality Treatment Calculations
Area 1B-3
Stormwater Quality Design Flow (SQDF)
Area --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 0.61 Acres Soil Type ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 002 Cp for soil type 2 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 0.1 C=0.95*Imp+Cp(1-Imp) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 0.904 I ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 0.2 SQDF=C*I*A ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- .110 cfs Or use 10% of Q50 = Q100/1.2 = (3.30 cfs/Ac)/1.2x0.61 Ac = 1.67 cfs x10% = -------------------- .167 cfs Treatment device used for Area 1B-3: OldCastle BioPod Biofilter Planter Although there is some landscape area for the surface flow, there is not enough space for a natural bioswale. BioPod Biofilters use biological contact through proprietary media to achieve an infiltration rate of 1.80 gpm/sf (see attached documentation in Appendix B). 1.80 gpm/ sf is equivalent to .00401 ft/sec.
.167 cfs/ .00401 fps = 42 sq. ft. of infiltration area. Therefore, we will use the 4’x13’ BioPod Biofilter Planter, BPP-413-SI model, which provides 52 sf of area.
Area 1E-1
Stormwater Quality Design Flow (SQDF)
Area --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1.35 Acres Soil Type ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 002 Cp for soil type 2 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 0.1 C=0.95*Imp+Cp(1-Imp) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 0.909 I ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 0.2 SQDF=C*I*A ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- .245 cfs Or use 10% of Q50 = Q100/1.2 = (3.30 cfs/Ac)/1.2x0.49 Ac = 1.35 cfs x10% = -------------------- .371 cfs Treatment device used for Area 1E-1: OldCastle BioPod Biofilter Planter Although there is some landscape area for the surface flow, there is not enough space for a natural bioswale. BioPod Biofilters use biological contact through proprietary media to achieve an infiltration rate of 1.80 gpm/sf (see attached documentation in Appendix B). 1.80 gpm/ sf is equivalent to .00401 ft/sec.
.371 cfs/ .00401 fps = 93 sq. ft. of infiltration area. Therefore, we will use the 8’x16’ BioPod Biofilter Planter, BPP-816-SI model, which provides 128 sf of area. .
Area 1E-2
Stormwater Quality Design Flow (SQDF)
Area --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 0.98 Acres Soil Type ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 002 Cp for soil type 2 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 0.1 C=0.95*Imp+Cp(1-Imp) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 0.908 I ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 0.2 SQDF=C*I*A ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- .166 cfs Or use 10% of Q50 = Q100/1.2 = (3.30 cfs/Ac)/1.2x0.98 Ac = 2.69 cfs x10% = -------------------- .269 cfs Treatment device used for Area 1E-2: OldCastle BioPod Biofilter Underground Because of the limited feasible landscape area in this tributary area, an underground biofiltration device will be used. BioPod Biofilters use biological contact through proprietary media to achieve an infiltration rate of 1.80 gpm/sf (see attached documentation in Appendix B).
1.80 gpm/ sf is equivalent to .00401 ft/sec.
.269 cfs/ .00401 fps = 67 sq. ft. of infiltration area. Therefore, we will use the 8’x12’ BioPod Underground Biofilter, BPU-812 model, which provides 80 sf of area.
Area 1E-3
Stormwater Quality Design Flow (SQDF)
Area --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 0.78 Acres Soil Type ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 002 Cp for soil type 2 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 0.1 C=0.95*Imp+Cp(1-Imp) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 0.820 I ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 0.2 SQDF=C*I*A ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- .129 cfs Or use 10% of Q50 = Q100/1.2 = (3.30 cfs/Ac)/1.2x0.78 Ac = 2.16 cfs x10% = -------------------- .216 cfs Treatment device used for Area 1E-3: OldCastle BioPod Biofilter Planter Although there is some landscape area for the surface flow, there is not enough space for a natural bioswale. BioPod Biofilters use biological contact through proprietary media to achieve an infiltration rate of 1.80 gpm/sf (see attached documentation in Appendix B). 1.80 gpm/ sf is equivalent to .00401 ft/sec.
.216 cfs/ .00401 fps = 54 sq. ft. of infiltration area. Therefore, we will use the 4’x17’ BioPod Biofilter Planter, BPP-417-SI model, which provides 68 sf of area.
Area 1E-4
Stormwater Quality Design Flow (SQDF)
Area --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 0.16 Acres Soil Type ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 002 Cp for soil type 2 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 0.1 C=0.95*Imp+Cp(1-Imp) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 0.777 I ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 0.2 SQDF=C*I*A ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- .025 cfs Or use 10% of Q50 = Q100/1.2 = (3.30 cfs/Ac)/1.2x0.16 Ac = 0.430 cfs x10% = ------------------ .043 cfs Treatment device used for Area 1E-4: OldCastle Catch Basin Filter Area 1E-4 does not have sufficient area for a vegetated swale or a BioPod BioFilter. Because the required flow is a small volume, a catch basin filter will be used to treat the storm water (See Appendix C for spec sheet).
Area 1E-5
Stormwater Quality Design Flow (SQDF)
Area --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 0.11 Acres Soil Type ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 002 Cp for soil type 2 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 0.1 C=0.95*Imp+Cp(1-Imp) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 0.698 I ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 0.2 SQDF=C*I*A ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- .016 cfs Or use 10% of Q50 = Q100/1.2 = (3.30 cfs/Ac)/1.2x0.11 Ac = 0.32 cfs x10% = -------------------- .032 cfs Treatment device used for Area 1E-5: OldCastle Catch Basin Filter Area 1E-5 does not have sufficient area for a vegetated swale or a BioPod BioFilter. Because the required flow is a small volume, a catch basin filter will be used to treat the storm water (See Appendix C for spec sheet).
BUILDING 1F
Detention Calculations
Soil Type ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 002 SUMP Volume per City of Thousand Oaks Figure 7 -------------------------------------------- 950 CF/Acre Aproject consists of subareas 1F-1, 1F-2, 1F-3, 1F-4, 1F-5 & 1F-6 ------------------------------ 4.78 Acre Vsump ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4.78*950=4500 CF Assume 48” CMP
Cross Sectional Area=12.57 SF
Length of 48” CMP for Detention = 4500 CF/12.57 SF = 357’ < 377’ provided Per storm drain system master plan:
Subarea 882C Q10=1.85 cfs/Ac
Q100=3.15 cfs/Ac
1F-1: Q10=1.85 cfs/Ac * 1.59 Ac = 2.94 cfs Q100=3.15 cfs/Ac * 1.59 Ac = 5.01 cfs 1F-2: Q10=1.85 cfs/Ac * 1.32 Ac = 2.44 cfs Q100=3.15 cfs/Ac * 1.32 Ac = 4.16 cfs 1F-3: Q10=1.85 cfs/Ac * 0.49 Ac = 0.91 cfs Q100=3.15 cfs/Ac * 0.49 Ac = 1.55 cfs 1F-4: Q10=1.85 cfs/Ac * 0.24 Ac = 0.45 cfs Q100=3.15 cfs/Ac * 0.24 Ac = 0.76 cfs 1F-5: Q10=1.85 cfs/Ac * 0.14 Ac = 0.25 cfs Q100=3.15 cfs/Ac * 0.14 Ac = 0.43 cfs 1F-6: Q10=1.85 cfs/Ac * 0.96 Ac = 1.77 cfs Q100=3.15 cfs/Ac * 0.96 Ac = 3.01 cfs Stormwater Quality Treatment Calculations
Area 1F-1
Stormwater Quality Design Flow (SQDF)
Area --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1.59 Acres Soil Type ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 002 Cp for soil type 2 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 0.1 C=0.95*Imp+Cp(1-Imp) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 0.941 I ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 0.2 SQDF=C*I*A ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- .263 cfs Or use 10% of Q50 = Q100/1.2 = (3.15 cfs/Ac)/1.2x1.59 Ac = 4.17 cfs x10% = -------------------- .417 cfs Treatment device used for Area 1F-1: OldCastle BioPod Biofilter Underground Because of the limited feasible landscape area in this tributary area, an underground biofiltration device will be used. BioPod Biofilters use biological contact through proprietary media to achieve an infiltration rate of 1.80 gpm/sf (see attached documentation in Appendix B).
1.80 gpm/ sf is equivalent to .00401 ft/sec.
.417 cfs/ .00401 fps = 104 sq. ft. of infiltration area. Therefore, we will use the 8’x16’ BioPod Underground biofilter, BPU-816 model, which provides 112 sf of area.
Area 1F-2
Stormwater Quality Design Flow (SQDF)
Area --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1.32 Acres Soil Type ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 002 Cp for soil type 2 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 0.1 C=0.95*Imp+Cp(1-Imp) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 0.903 I ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 0.2 SQDF=C*I*A ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- .231 cfs Or use 10% of Q50 = Q100/1.2 = (3.15 cfs/Ac)/1.2x1.32 Ac = 3.47 cfs x10% = -------------------- .347 cfs Treatment device used for Area 1F-2: OldCastle BioPod Biofilter Underground Because of the limited feasible landscape area in this tributary area, an underground biofiltration device will be used. BioPod Biofilters use biological contact through proprietary media to achieve an infiltration rate of 1.80 gpm/sf (see attached documentation in Appendix B).
1.80 gpm/ sf is equivalent to .00401 ft/sec.
.347 cfs/ .00401 fps = 87 sq. ft. of infiltration area. Therefore, we will use the 8’x16’ BioPod Underground biofilter, BPU-816 model, which provides 112 sf of area.
Area 1F-3
Stormwater Quality Design Flow (SQDF)
Area --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 0.49 Acres Soil Type ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 002 Cp for soil type 2 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 0.1 C=0.95*Imp+Cp(1-Imp) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 0.898 I ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 0.2 SQDF=C*I*A ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- .088 cfs Or use 10% of Q50 = Q100/1.2 = (3.15 cfs/Ac)/1.2x0.49 Ac = 1.286 cfs x10% = ------------------ .129 cfs Treatment device used for Area 1F-3: OldCastle BioPod Biofilter Planter Although there is some landscape area for the surface flow, there is not enough space for a natural bioswale. BioPod Biofilters use biological contact through proprietary media to achieve an infiltration rate of 1.80 gpm/sf (see attached documentation in Appendix B). 1.80 gpm/ sf is equivalent to .00401 ft/sec.
.129 cfs/ .00401 fps = 32 sq. ft. of infiltration area. Therefore, we will use the 6’x6’ BioPod Biofilter Planter, BPP-66-SI model, which provides 36 sf of area.
Area 1F-4
Stormwater Quality Design Flow (SQDF)
Area --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 0.24 Acres Soil Type ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 002 Cp for soil type 2 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 0.1 C=0.95*Imp+Cp(1-Imp) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 0.819 I ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 0.2 SQDF=C*I*A ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- .040 cfs Or use 10% of Q50 = Q100/1.2 = (3.15 cfs/Ac)/1.2x0.24 Ac = 0.64 cfs x10% = ------------------ .064 cfs Treatment device used for Area 1F-4: OldCastle Catch Basin Filter Area 1F-4 does not have sufficient area for a vegetated swale or a BioPod BioFilter. Because the required flow is a small volume, a catch basin filter will be used to treat the storm water (See Appendix C for spec sheet).
Area 1F-5
Stormwater Quality Design Flow (SQDF)
Area --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 0.14 Acres Soil Type ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 002 Cp for soil type 2 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 0.1 C=0.95*Imp+Cp(1-Imp) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 0.789 I ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 0.2 SQDF=C*I*A ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- .021 cfs Or use 10% of Q50 = Q100/1.2 = (3.15 cfs/Ac)/1.2x0.14 Ac = 0.36 cfs x10% = ------------------ .036 cfs Treatment device used for Area 1F-5: OldCastle Catch Basin Filter Area 1F-5 does not have sufficient area for a vegetated swale or a BioPod BioFilter. Because the required flow is a small volume, a catch basin filter will be used to treat the storm water (See Appendix C for spec sheet).
Area 1F-6
Stormwater Quality Design Flow (SQDF)
Area --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 0.96 Acres Soil Type ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 002 Cp for soil type 2 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 0.1 C=0.95*Imp+Cp(1-Imp) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 0.827 I ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 0.2 SQDF=C*I*A ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- .204 cfs Or use 10% of Q50 = Q100/1.2 = (3.15 cfs/Ac)/1.2x0.96 Ac =2.51 cfs x10% = ------------------ .251 cfs Treatment device used for Area 1F-6: OldCastle BioPod Biofilter Underground Because of the limited feasible landscape area in this tributary area, an underground biofiltration device will be used. BioPod Biofilters use biological contact through proprietary media to achieve an infiltration rate of 1.80 gpm/sf (see attached documentation in Appendix B).
1.80 gpm/ sf is equivalent to .00401 ft/sec.
.251 cfs/ .00401 fps = 63 sq. ft. of infiltration area. Therefore, we will use the 8’x12’ BioPod Underground biofilter, BPU-812 model, which provides 96 sf of area.
BUILDING 1G
Detention Calculations
Soil Type ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 002 SUMP Volume per City of Thousand Oaks Figure 7 -------------------------------------------- 950 CF/Acre Aproject consists of subareas 1G-1, 1G-2, 1G-3, 1G-4 & Open Space Hillside (0.68 Ac) - 3.52 Acre Vsump ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3.52*950=3340 CF Assume 48” CMP
Cross Sectional Area=12.57 SF
Length of 48” CMP for Detention = 3340 CF/12.57 SF = 265’ < 274’ provided Per storm drain system master plan:
Subarea 882C Q10=1.85 cfs/Ac
Q100=3.15 cfs/Ac
1G-1: Q10=1.85 cfs/Ac * 1.59 Ac = 3.11 cfs Q100=3.15 cfs/Ac * 1.59 Ac = 5.30 cfs 1G-2: Q10=1.85 cfs/Ac * 0.43 Ac = 0.80 cfs Q100=3.15 cfs/Ac * 0.43 Ac = 1.36 cfs 1G-3: Q10=1.85 cfs/Ac * 0.31 Ac = 0.57 cfs Q100=3.15 cfs/Ac * 0.31 Ac = 0.97 cfs 1G-4: Q10=1.85 cfs/Ac * 0.15 Ac = 0.29 cfs Q100=3.15 cfs/Ac * 0.15 Ac = 0.49 cfs Stormwater Quality Treatment Calculations
Area 1G-1
Stormwater Quality Design Flow (SQDF)
Area --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1.59 Acres Soil Type ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 002 Cp for soil type 2 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 0.1 C=0.95*Imp+Cp(1-Imp) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 0.802 I ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 0.2 SQDF=C*I*A ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- .270 cfs Or use 10% of Q50 = Q100/1.2 = (3.15 cfs/Ac)/1.2x1.59 Ac = 4.18 cfs x10% = -------------------- .418 cfs Treatment device used for Area 1G-1: Bioswale
Vegetated Swale Calculations
n=0.2
s=0.005
b=8’
SQDF=.418 cfs
V=.20 fps (per attached flow master calculations in Appendix A) Using 7 minute residence time
L=60*7*.20=84’ of swale required = 84’ of bioswale provided
Area 1G-2
Stormwater Quality Design Flow (SQDF)
Area --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 0.43 Acres Soil Type ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 002 Cp for soil type 2 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 0.1 C=0.95*Imp+Cp(1-Imp) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 0.727 I ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 0.2 SQDF=C*I*A ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- .063 cfs Or use 10% of Q50 = Q100/1.2 = (3.15 cfs/Ac)/1.2x0.43 Ac = 1.13 cfs x10% = ------------------ .113 cfs Treatment device used for Area 1G-2: Bioswale
Vegetated Swale Calculations
n=0.2
s=0.026
b=3’
SQDF=.113 cfs
V=.28 fps (per attached flow master calculations in Appendix A) Using 7 minute residence time
L=60*7*.28=118’ of swale required < 170’ of bioswale provided Area 1G-3
Stormwater Quality Design Flow (SQDF)
Area --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 0.31 Acres Soil Type ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 002 Cp for soil type 2 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 0.1 C=0.95*Imp+Cp(1-Imp) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 0.520 I ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 0.2 SQDF=C*I*A ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- .031 cfs Or use 10% of Q50 = Q100/1.2 = (3.15 cfs/Ac)/1.2x0.31 Ac = 0.81 cfs x10% = ------------------ .081 cfs Treatment device used for Area 1G-3: OldCastle Catch Basin Filter Area 1G-3 does not have sufficient area for a vegetated swale or a BioPod BioFilter. Because the required flow is a small volume, a catch basin filter will be used to treat the storm water (See Appendix C for spec sheet).
Area 1G-4
Stormwater Quality Design Flow (SQDF)
Area --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 0.15 Acres Soil Type ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 002 Cp for soil type 2 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 0.1 C=0.95*Imp+Cp(1-Imp) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 0.770 I ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 0.2 SQDF=C*I*A ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- .023 cfs Or use 10% of Q50 = Q100/1.2 = (3.15 cfs/Ac)/1.2x0.15 Ac = 0.41 cfs x10% = ------------------ .041 cfs Treatment device used for Area 1G-4: OldCastle Catch Basin Filter Area 1G-4 does not have sufficient area for a vegetated swale or a BioPod BioFilter. Because the required flow is a small volume, a catch basin filter will be used to treat the storm water (See Appendix C for spec sheet).
BUILDING 2
Detention Calculations
Soil Type ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 002 SUMP Volume per City of Thousand Oaks Figure 7 -------------------------------------------- 950 CF/Acre Aproject consists of subareas 2-1, 2-2, 2-3, 2-4 & Open Space hillside (.42 Ac) ----------- 2.64 Acre Vsump ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2.64*950=2504 CF Assume 48” CMP
Cross Sectional Area=12.57 SF
Length of 48” CMP for Detention = 2504 CF/12.57 SF = 199’ < 204’ provided Per storm drain system master plan:
Subarea 883C Q10=1.83 cfs/Ac
Q100=3.17 cfs/Ac
2-1: Q10=1.83 cfs/Ac * 1.49 Ac = 2.73 cfs Q100=3.17 cfs/Ac * 1.49 Ac = 4.73 cfs 2-2: Q10=1.83 cfs/Ac * 0.32 Ac = 0.58 cfs Q100=3.17 cfs/Ac * 0.32 Ac = 1.00 cfs 2-3: Q10=1.83 cfs/Ac * 0.28 Ac = 0.51 cfs Q100=3.17 cfs/Ac * 0.28 Ac = 0.88 cfs 2-4: Q10=1.83 cfs/Ac * 0.13 Ac = 0.24 cfs Q100=3.17 cfs/Ac * 0.13 Ac = 0.42 cfs Stormwater Quality Treatment Calculations
Area 2-1
Stormwater Quality Design Flow (SQDF)
Area --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1.49 Acres Soil Type ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 002 Cp for soil type 2 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 0.1 C=0.95*Imp+Cp(1-Imp) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 0.918 I ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 0.2 SQDF=C*I*A ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- .274 cfs Or use 10% of Q50 = Q100/1.2 = (3.17 cfs/Ac)/1.2x1.49 Ac = 3.95 cfs x10% = -------------------- .395 cfs Treatment device used for Area 2-1: Bioswale
Vegetated Swale Calculations
n=0.2
s=0.005
b=3’
SQDF=.395 cfs
V=.25 fps (per attached flow master calculations in Appendix A) Using 7 minute residence time
L=60*7*.25=105’ of swale required < 130’ of bioswale provided
Area 2-2
Stormwater Quality Design Flow (SQDF)
Area --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 0.32 Acres Soil Type ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 002 Cp for soil type 2 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 0.1 C=0.95*Imp+Cp(1-Imp) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 0.464 I ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 0.2 SQDF=C*I*A ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- .029 cfs Or use 10% of Q50 = Q100/1.2 = (3.17 cfs/Ac)/1.2x0.32 Ac = 0.83 cfs x10% = ------------------ .083 cfs Treatment device used for Area 2-2: Bioswale
Vegetated Swale Calculations
n=0.2
s=0.010
b=3’
SQDF=.083 cfs
V=.19 fps (per attached flow master calculations in Appendix A) Using 7 minute residence time
L=60*7*.19=80’ of swale required < 85’ of bioswale provided
Area 2-3
Stormwater Quality Design Flow (SQDF)
Area --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 0.28 Acres Soil Type ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 002 Cp for soil type 2 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 0.1 C=0.95*Imp+Cp(1-Imp) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 0.916 I ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 0.2 SQDF=C*I*A ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- .051 cfs Or use 10% of Q50 = Q100/1.2 = (3.17 cfs/Ac)/1.2x0.28 Ac = 0.74 cfs x10% = -------------------- .074 cfs Treatment device used for Area 2-3: Bioswale
Vegetated Swale Calculations
n=0.2
s=0.010
b=2’
SQDF=.074 cfs
V=.20 fps (per attached flow master calculations in Appendix A) Using 7 minute residence time
L=60*7*.20=84’ of swale required < 144’ of bioswale provided
Area 2-4
Stormwater Quality Design Flow (SQDF)
Area --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 0.13 Acres Soil Type ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 002 Cp for soil type 2 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 0.1 C=0.95*Imp+Cp(1-Imp) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 0.732 I ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 0.2 SQDF=C*I*A ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- .019 cfs Or use 10% of Q50 = Q100/1.2 = (3.17 cfs/Ac)/1.2x0.13 Ac = 0.35 cfs x10% = ------------------ .035 cfs Treatment device used for Area 2-4: OldCastle Catch Basin Filter Area 2-4 does not have sufficient area for a vegetated swale or a BioPod BioFilter. Because the required flow is a small volume, a catch basin filter will be used to treat the storm water (See Appendix C for spec sheet).
BUILDING 3
Detention Calculations
Soil Type ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 002 SUMP Volume per City of Thousand Oaks Figure 7 -------------------------------------------- 950 CF/Acre Aproject1 consists of subareas 3-4 &3-5 ---------------------------------------------------------------- 0.83 Acre Vsump1 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 0.83*950=786 CF Aproject2 consists of subarea 3-1, 3-2 & 3-3 ---------------------------------------------------------- 3.03 Acre Vsump2 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3.03*950=2877 CF Assume 48” CMP
Cross Sectional Area=12.57 SF
Length of 48” CMP for Detention1 = 786 CF/12.57 SF = 62’ < 70’ provided Length of 48” CMP for Detention2 = 2877 CF /12.57 SF= 228’ < 230’ provided Per storm drain system master plan:
Subarea 883C Q10=1.83 cfs/Ac
Q100=3.17 cfs/Ac
3-1: Q10=1.83 cfs/Ac * 1.39 Ac = 2.55 cfs Q100=3.17 cfs/Ac * 1.39 Ac = 4.41 cfs 3-2: Q10=1.83 cfs/Ac * 0.83 Ac = 1.52 cfs Q100=3.17 cfs/Ac * 0.83 Ac = 2.64 cfs 3-3: Q10=1.83 cfs/Ac * 0.80 Ac = 1.47 cfs Q100=3.17 cfs/Ac * 0.80 Ac = 2.55 cfs 3-4: Q10=1.83 cfs/Ac * 0.34 Ac = 0.62 cfs Q100=3.17 cfs/Ac * 0.34 Ac = 1.08 cfs 3-5: Q10=1.83 cfs/Ac * 0.49 Ac = 0.89 cfs Q100=3.17 cfs/Ac * 0.49 Ac = 1.54 cfs Stormwater Quality Treatment Calculations
Area 3-1
Stormwater Quality Design Flow (SQDF)
Area --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1.39 Acres Soil Type ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 002 Cp for soil type 2 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 0.1 C=0.95*Imp+Cp(1-Imp) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 0.837 I ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 0.2 SQDF=C*I*A ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- .233 cfs Or use 10% of Q50 = Q100/1.2 = (3.17 cfs/Ac)/1.2x1.39 Ac = 3.68 cfs x10% = -------------------- .368 cfs Treatment device used for Area 3-1: OldCastle BioPod Biofilter Underground Because of the limited feasible landscape area in this tributary area, an underground biofiltration device will be used. BioPod Biofilters use biological contact through proprietary media to achieve an infiltration rate of 1.80 gpm/sf (see attached documentation in Appendix B).
1.80 gpm/ sf is equivalent to .00401 ft/sec.
.368 cfs/ .00401 fps = 92 sq. ft. of infiltration area. Therefore, we will use the 8’x16’ BioPod Underground biofilter, BPU-816 model, which provides 112 sf of area.
Area 3-2
Stormwater Quality Design Flow (SQDF)
Area --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 0.83 Acres Soil Type ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 002 Cp for soil type 2 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 0.1 C=0.95*Imp+Cp(1-Imp) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 0.688 I ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 0.2 SQDF=C*I*A ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- .115 cfs Or use 10% of Q50 = Q100/1.2 = (3.17 cfs/Ac)/1.2x1.64 Ac = 4.332 cfs x10% = ------------------ .220 cfs Treatment device used for Area 3-2: OldCastle BioPod Biofilter Planter Although there is some landscape area for the surface flow, there is not enough space for a natural bioswale. BioPod Biofilters use biological contact through proprietary media to achieve an infiltration rate of 1.80 gpm/sf (see attached documentation in Appendix B). 1.80 gpm/ sf is equivalent to .00401 ft/sec.
.220 cfs/ .00401 fps = 55 sq. ft. of infiltration area. Therefore, we will use the 4’x15’ BioPod Biofilter Planter, BPP-415-SI model, which provides 60 sf of area.
Area 3-3
Stormwater Quality Design Flow (SQDF)
Area --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 0.80 Acres Soil Type ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 002 Cp for soil type 2 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 0.1 C=0.95*Imp+Cp(1-Imp) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 0.892 I ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 0.2 SQDF=C*I*A ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- .143 cfs Or use 10% of Q50 = Q100/1.2 = (3.17 cfs/Ac)/1.2x0.80 Ac = 2.12 cfs x10% = ------------------ .212 cfs Treatment device used for Area 3-3: OldCastle BioPod Biofilter Planter Although there is some landscape area for the surface flow, there is not enough space for a natural bioswale. BioPod Biofilters use biological contact through proprietary media to achieve an infiltration rate of 1.80 gpm/sf (see attached documentation in Appendix B). 1.80 gpm/ sf is equivalent to .00401 ft/sec.
.212 cfs/ .00401 fps = 53 sq. ft. of infiltration area. Therefore, we will use the 4’x15’ BioPod Biofilter Planter, BPP-415-SI model, which provides 60 sf of area.
Area 3-4
Stormwater Quality Design Flow (SQDF)
Area --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 0.34 Acres Soil Type ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 002 Cp for soil type 2 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 0.1 C=0.95*Imp+Cp(1-Imp) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 0.921 I ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 0.2 SQDF=C*I*A ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- .063 cfs Or use 10% of Q50 = Q100/1.2 = (3.17 cfs/Ac)/1.2x0.09 Ac = 0.238 cfs x10% = ------------------ .090 cfs Treatment device used for Area 3-4: OldCastle BioPod Biofilter Planter Although there is some landscape area for the surface flow, there is not enough space for a natural bioswale. BioPod Biofilters use biological contact through proprietary media to achieve an infiltration rate of 1.80 gpm/sf (see attached documentation in Appendix B). 1.80 gpm/ sf is equivalent to .00401 ft/sec.
.090 cfs/ .00401 fps = 22 sq. ft. of infiltration area. Therefore, we will use the 4’x6.5’ BioPod Biofilter Planter, BPP-46-SI model, which provides 26 sf of area.
Area 3-5
Stormwater Quality Design Flow (SQDF)
Area --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 0.49 Acres Soil Type ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 002 Cp for soil type 2 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 0.1 C=0.95*Imp+Cp(1-Imp) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 0.812 I ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 0.2 SQDF=C*I*A ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- .079 cfs Or use 10% of Q50 = Q100/1.2 = (3.17 cfs/Ac)/1.2x0.49 Ac = 1.29 cfs x10% = -------------------- .129 cfs Treatment device used for Area 3-3: OldCastle BioPod Biofilter Planter Although there is some landscape area for the surface flow, there is not enough space for a natural bioswale. BioPod Biofilters use biological contact through proprietary media to achieve an infiltration rate of 1.80 gpm/sf (see attached documentation in Appendix B). 1.80 gpm/ sf is equivalent to .00401 ft/sec.
.129 cfs/ .00401 fps = 32 sq. ft. of infiltration area. Therefore, we will use the 6’x8’ BioPod Biofilter Planter, BPP-68-SI model, which provides 48 sf of area.
BUILDING 4A
Detention Calculations
Soil Type ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 002 SUMP Volume per City of Thousand Oaks Figure 7 -------------------------------------------- 950 CF/Acre Aproject1 consists of subareas 4A-1 --------------------------------------------------------------------- 1.26 Acre Vsump1 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1.26*950=1196 CF Assume 48” CMP
Cross Sectional Area=12.57 SF
Length of 48” CMP for Detention1 = 1196 CF/12.57 SF = 95’ < 100’ provided Per storm drain system master plan:
Subarea 883C Q10=1.83 cfs/Ac
Q100=3.17 cfs/Ac
4A-1: Q10=1.83 cfs/Ac * 1.26 Ac = 2.30 cfs Q100=3.17 cfs/Ac * 1.26 Ac = 3.99 cfs Stormwater Quality Treatment Calculations
Area 4A-1
Stormwater Quality Design Flow (SQDF)
Area --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1.26 Acres Soil Type ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 002 Cp for soil type 2 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 0.1 C=0.95*Imp+Cp(1-Imp) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 0.827 I ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 0.2 SQDF=C*I*A ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- .208 cfs Or use 10% of Q50 = Q100/1.2 = (3.17 cfs/Ac)/1.2x1.26 Ac = 3.33 cfs x10% = -------------------- .333 cfs Treatment device used for Area 4A-1: OldCastle BioPod Biofilter Underground Because of the limited feasible landscape area in this tributary area, an underground biofiltration device will be used. BioPod Biofilters use biological contact through proprietary media to achieve an infiltration rate of 1.80 gpm/sf (see attached documentation in Appendix B).
1.80 gpm/ sf is equivalent to .00401 ft/sec.
.333 cfs/ .00401 fps = 83 sq. ft. of infiltration area. Therefore, we will use the 8’x16’ BioPod Underground biofilter, BPU-816 model, which provides 112 sf of area.
BUILDING 4B
Detention Calculations
Soil Type ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 002 SUMP Volume per City of Thousand Oaks Figure 7 -------------------------------------------- 950 CF/Acre Aproject1 consists of subareas 4A-2 & 4B-1 ----------------------------------------------------------- 1.38 Acre Vsump1 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2.86*950=1315 CF Aproject2 consists of subareas 4B-2 & 4B-3 ----------------------------------------------------------- 1.32 Acre Vsump2 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2.86*950=1252 CF Assume 48” CMP
Cross Sectional Area=12.57 SF
Length of 48” CMP for Detention1 = 1315 CF/12.57 SF = 104’ < 110’ provided Length of 48” CMP for Detention2 = 2718 CF/12.57 SF = 99’ < 104’ provided Per storm drain system master plan:
Subarea 883C Q10=1.83 cfs/Ac
Q100=3.17 cfs/Ac
4A-2: Q10=1.83 cfs/Ac * 0.48 Ac = 0.88 cfs Q100=3.17 cfs/Ac * 0.48 Ac = 1.53 cfs 4B-1: Q10=1.83 cfs/Ac * 0.90 Ac = 1.65 cfs Q100=3.17 cfs/Ac * 0.90 Ac = 2.85 cfs 4B-2: Q10=1.83 cfs/Ac * 0.92 Ac = 1.68 cfs Q100=3.17 cfs/Ac * 0.92 Ac = 2.92 cfs 4B-3: Q10=1.83 cfs/Ac * 0.40 Ac = 1.26 cfs Q100=3.17 cfs/Ac * 0.40 Ac = 0.73 cfs Stormwater Quality Treatment Calculations
Area 4A-2
Stormwater Quality Design Flow (SQDF)
Area --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 0.48 Acres Soil Type ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 002 Cp for soil type 2 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 0.1 C=0.95*Imp+Cp(1-Imp) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 0.913 I ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 0.2 SQDF=C*I*A ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- .075 cfs Or use 10% of Q50 = Q100/1.2 = (3.17 cfs/Ac)/1.2x0.48 Ac =1.28 cfs x10% = -------------------- .128 cfs Treatment device used for Area 4A-1: OldCastle BioPod Biofilter Planter Although there is some landscape area for the surface flow, there is not enough space for a natural bioswale. BioPod Biofilters use biological contact through proprietary media to achieve an infiltration rate of 1.80 gpm/sf (see attached documentation in Appendix B). 1.80 gpm/ sf is equivalent to .00401 ft/sec.
.128 cfs/ .00401 fps = 32 sq. ft. of infiltration area. Therefore, we will use the 6’x6’ BioPod Biofilter Planter, BPP-66-SI model, which provides 36 sf of area.
Area 4B-1
Stormwater Quality Design Flow (SQDF)
Area --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 0.90 Acres Soil Type ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 002 Cp for soil type 2 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 0.1 C=0.95*Imp+Cp(1-Imp) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 0.913 I ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 0.2 SQDF=C*I*A ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- .170 cfs Or use 10% of Q50 = Q100/1.2 = (3.17 cfs/Ac)/1.2x0.90 Ac = 2.38 cfs x10% = -------------------- .238 cfs Treatment device used for Area 4B-1: OldCastle BioPod Biofilter Planter Although there is some landscape area for the surface flow, there is not enough space for a natural bioswale. BioPod Biofilters use biological contact through proprietary media to achieve an infiltration rate of 1.80 gpm/sf (see attached documentation in Appendix B). 1.80 gpm/ sf is equivalent to .00401 ft/sec.
.238 cfs/ .00401 fps = 59 sq. ft. of infiltration area. Therefore, we will use the 6’x12’ BioPod Biofilter Planter, BPP-612-SI model, which provides 72 sf of area.
Area 4B-2
Stormwater Quality Design Flow (SQDF)
Area --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 0.92 Acres Soil Type ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 002 Cp for soil type 2 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 0.1 C=0.95*Imp+Cp(1-Imp) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 0.911 I ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 0.2 SQDF=C*I*A -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- .159cfs Or use 10% of Q50 = Q100/1.2 = (3.17 cfs/Ac)/1.2x0.92 Ac = 2.43 cfs x10% = -------------------- .243 cfs Treatment device used for Area 4B-2: OldCastle BioPod Biofilter Underground Because of the limited feasible landscape area in this tributary area, an underground biofiltration device will be used. BioPod Biofilters use biological contact through proprietary media to achieve an infiltration rate of 1.80 gpm/sf (see attached documentation in Appendix B).
1.80 gpm/ sf is equivalent to .00401 ft/sec.
.243 cfs/ .00401 fps = 61 sq. ft. of infiltration area. Therefore, we will use the 8’x12’ BioPod Underground biofilter, BPU-812 model, which provides 96 sf of area.
Area 4B-3
Stormwater Quality Design Flow (SQDF)
Area --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 0.40 Acres Soil Type ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 002 Cp for soil type 2 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 0.1 C=0.95*Imp+Cp(1-Imp) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 0.724 I ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 0.2 SQDF=C*I*A ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- .068 cfs Or use 10% of Q50 = Q100/1.2 = (3.17 cfs/Ac)/1.2x0.40 Ac = 1.05 cfs x10% = ------------------ .105 cfs Treatment device used for Area 4B-3: OldCastle BioPod Biofilter Planter Although there is some landscape area for the surface flow, there is not enough space for a natural bioswale. BioPod Biofilters use biological contact through proprietary media to achieve an infiltration rate of 1.80 gpm/sf (see attached documentation in Appendix B). 1.80 gpm/ sf is equivalent to .00401 ft/sec.
.105 cfs/ .00401 fps = 26 sq. ft. of infiltration area. Therefore, we will use the 4’x8’ BioPod Biofilter Planter, BPP-48-SI model, which provides 32 sf of area.
BUILDING 5A
Detention Calculations
Soil Type ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 002 SUMP Volume per City of Thousand Oaks Figure 7 -------------------------------------------- 950 CF/Acre Aproject consists of subareas 5A-1, 5A-2, 5A-3, 5A-4, 5A-5 & 5A-6 --------------------------- 5.22 Acre Vsump ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5.22*950=4958 CF Assume 48” CMP
Cross Sectional Area=12.57 SF
Length of 48” CMP for Detention = 4958 CF/12.57 SF = 394’ < 400’ provided Per storm drain system master plan:
Subarea 910D Q10=1.99 cfs/Ac
Q100=3.30 cfs/Ac
5A-1: Q10=1.99 cfs/Ac * 0.87 Ac = 1.60 cfs Q100=3.30 cfs/Ac * 0.87 Ac = 2.77 cfs 5A-2: Q10=1.99 cfs/Ac * 1.41 Ac = 2.59 cfs Q100=3.30 cfs/Ac * 1.41 Ac = 4.48 cfs 5A-3: Q10=1.99 cfs/Ac * 1.07 Ac = 2.14 cfs Q100=3.30 cfs/Ac * 1.07 Ac = 3.54 cfs 5A-4: Q10=1.99 cfs/Ac * 1.34 Ac = 2.66 cfs Q100=3.30 cfs/Ac * 1.34 Ac = 4.41 cfs 5A-5: Q10=1.99 cfs/Ac * 0.13 Ac = 0.26 cfs Q100=3.30 cfs/Ac * 0.13 Ac = 0.43 cfs 5A-6: Q10=1.99 cfs/Ac * 0.39 Ac = 0.78 cfs Q100=3.30 cfs/Ac * 0.39 Ac = 1.29 cfs Stormwater Quality Treatment Calculations
Area 5A-1
Stormwater Quality Design Flow (SQDF)
Area --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 0.87 Acres Soil Type ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 002 Cp for soil type 2 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 0.1 C=0.95*Imp+Cp(1-Imp) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 0.916 I ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 0.2 SQDF=C*I*A ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- .160 cfs Or use 10% of Q50 = Q100/1.2 = (3.30 cfs/Ac)/1.2x0.87 Ac = 2.31 cfs x10% = -------------------- .231 cfs Treatment device used for Area 5A-1: Bioswale
Vegetated Swale Calculations
n=0.2
s=0.005
b=2’
SQDF=.231 cfs
V=.22 fps (per attached flow master calculations in Appendix A) Using 7 minute residence time
L=60*7*.22=93’ of swale required < 99’ of bioswale provided
Area 5A-2
Stormwater Quality Design Flow (SQDF)
Area --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1.41 Acres Soil Type ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 002 Cp for soil type 2 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 0.1 C=0.95*Imp+Cp(1-Imp) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 0.879 I ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 0.2 SQDF=C*I*A ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- .249 cfs Or use 10% of Q50 = Q100/1.2 = (3.30 cfs/Ac)/1.2x1.41 Ac = 3.73 cfs x10% = -------------------- .373 cfs Treatment device used for Area 5A-2: OldCastle BioPod Biofilter Planter BioPod Biofilters use biological contact through proprietary media to achieve an infiltration rate of 1.80 gpm/sf (see attached documentation in Appendix B). 1.80 gpm/ sf is equivalent to .00401 ft/sec.
.373 cfs/ .00401 fps = 93 sq. ft. of infiltration area. Therefore, we will use the 8’x16’ BioPod Biofilter Planter, BPP-816-SI model, which provides 128 sf of area.
Area 5A-3
Stormwater Quality Design Flow (SQDF)
Area --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1.07 Acres Soil Type ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 002 Cp for soil type 2 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 0.1 C=0.95*Imp+Cp(1-Imp) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 0.804 I ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 0.2 SQDF=C*I*A ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- .173 cfs Or use 10% of Q50 = Q100/1.2 = (3.30 cfs/Ac)/1.2x1.07 Ac = 2.95 cfs x10% = -------------------- .295 cfs Treatment device used for Area 5A-3: Bioswale
Vegetated Swale Calculations
n=0.2
s=0.005
b=3’
SQDF=.295 cfs
V=.23 fps (per attached flow master calculations in Appendix A) Using 7 minute residence time
L=60*7*.23=97’ of swale required < 140’ of bioswale provided
Area 5A-4
Stormwater Quality Design Flow (SQDF)
Area --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1.34 Acres Soil Type ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 002 Cp for soil type 2 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 0.1 C=0.95*Imp+Cp(1-Imp) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 0.844 I ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 0.2 SQDF=C*I*A ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- .226 cfs Or use 10% of Q50 = Q100/1.2 = (3.30 cfs/Ac)/1.2x1.34 Ac = 3.67 cfs x10% = ------------------- .367 cfs Treatment device used for Area 5A-4: Bioswale
Vegetated Swale Calculations
n=0.2
s=0.005
b=2’
SQDF=.367 cfs
V=.26 fps (per attached flow master calculations in Appendix A) Using 7 minute residence time
L=60*7*.25 =109’ of swale required < 120’ of bioswale provided
Area 5A-5
Stormwater Quality Design Flow (SQDF)
Area --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 0.13 Acres Soil Type ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 002 Cp for soil type 2 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 0.1 C=0.95*Imp+Cp(1-Imp) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 0.659 I ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 0.2 SQDF=C*I*A ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- .017 cfs Or use 10% of Q50 = Q100/1.2 = (3.30 cfs/Ac)/1.2x0.13 Ac = 0.36 cfs x10% = ------------------ .036 cfs Treatment device used for Area 5A-5: Bioswale
Vegetated Swale Calculations
n=0.2
s=0.005
b=2’
SQDF=.036 cfs
V=.12 fps (per attached flow master calculations in Appendix A) Using 7 minute residence time
L=60*7*.12 =50’ of swale required < 70’ of bioswale provided
Area 5A-6
Stormwater Quality Design Flow (SQDF)
Area --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 0.39 Acres Soil Type ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 002 Cp for soil type 2 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 0.1 C=0.95*Imp+Cp(1-Imp) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 0.811 I ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 0.2 SQDF=C*I*A ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- .064 cfs Or use 10% of Q50 = Q100/1.2 = (3.30 cfs/Ac)/1.2x0.39 Ac = 1.80 cfs x10% = ------------------ .108 cfs Treatment device used for Area 5A-6: OldCastle BioPod Biofilter Planter Although there is some landscape area for the surface flow, there is not enough space for a natural bioswale. BioPod Biofilters use biological contact through proprietary media to achieve an infiltration rate of 1.80 gpm/sf (see attached documentation in Appendix B). 1.80 gpm/ sf is equivalent to .00401 ft/sec.
.108 cfs/ .00401 fps = 27 sq. ft. of infiltration area. Therefore, we will use the 4’x8’ BioPod Biofilter Planter, BPP-48-SI model, which provides 32 sf of area.
BUILDING 5B
Detention Calculations
Soil Type ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 002 SUMP Volume per City of Thousand Oaks Figure 7 -------------------------------------------- 950 CF/Acre Aproject consists of subarea 5B-1, 5B-2, &5B-3 ----------------------------------------------------- 1.16 Acre Vsump ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1.16*950=1103 CF Assume 48” CMP
Cross Sectional Area=12.57 SF
Length of 48” CMP for Detention = 1103 CF/12.57 SF = 88’ < 90’ provided Per storm drain system master plan:
Subarea 910D Q10=1.99 cfs/Ac
Q100=3.30 cfs/Ac
5B-1: Q10=1.99 cfs/Ac * 0.65 Ac = 1.29 cfs Q100=3.30 cfs/Ac * 0.65 Ac = 2.14 cfs 5B-2: Q10=1.99 cfs/Ac * 0.39 Ac = 0.77 cfs Q100=3.30 cfs/Ac * 0.39 Ac = 1.27 cfs 5B-3: Q10=1.99 cfs/Ac * 0.13 Ac = 0.25 cfs Q100=3.30 cfs/Ac * 0.13 Ac = 0.42 cfs Stormwater Quality Treatment Calculations
Area 5B-1
Stormwater Quality Design Flow (SQDF)
Area --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 0.65 Acres Soil Type ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 002 Cp for soil type 2 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 0.1 C=0.95*Imp+Cp(1-Imp) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 0.904 I ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 0.2 SQDF=C*I*A ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- .117 cfs Or use 10% of Q50 = Q100/1.2 = (3.30 cfs/Ac)/1.2x0.65 Ac = 1.78 cfs x10% = -------------------- .178 cfs Treatment device used for Area 5B-1: OldCastle BioPod Biofilter Planter Although there is some landscape area for the surface flow, there is not enough space for a natural bioswale. BioPod Biofilters use biological contact through proprietary media to achieve an infiltration rate of 1.80 gpm/sf (see attached documentation in Appendix B). 1.80 gpm/ sf is equivalent to .00401 ft/sec.
.178 cfs/ .00401 fps = 44 sq. ft. of infiltration area. Therefore, we will use the 4’x13’ BioPod Biofilter Planter, BPP-413-SI model, which provides 52 sf of area.
Area 5B-2
Stormwater Quality Design Flow (SQDF)
Area --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 0.39 Acres Soil Type ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 002 Cp for soil type 2 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 0.1 C=0.95*Imp+Cp(1-Imp) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 0.765 I ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 0.2 SQDF=C*I*A ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- .059 cfs Or use 10% of Q50 = Q100/1.2 = (3.30 cfs/Ac)/1.2x0.39 Ac = 1.06 cfs x10% = -------------------- .106 cfs Treatment device used for Area 5B-2: Bioswale
Vegetated Swale Calculations
n=0.2
s=0.005
b=2’
SQDF=.106 cfs
V=.18 fps (per attached flow master calculations in Appendix A) Using 7 minute residence time
L=60*7*.18 =76’ of swale required < 96’ of bioswale provided Area 5B-3
Stormwater Quality Design Flow (SQDF)
Area --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 0.13 Acres Soil Type ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 002 Cp for soil type 2 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 0.1 C=0.95*Imp+Cp(1-Imp) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 0.950 I ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 0.2 SQDF=C*I*A ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- .024 cfs Or use 10% of Q50 = Q100/1.2 = (3.15 cfs/Ac)/1.2x0.13 Ac = 0.35 cfs x10% = ------------------ .035 cfs Treatment device used for Area 5B-3: OldCastle Catch Basin Filter Area 5B-3 does not have sufficient area for a vegetated swale or a BioPod BioFilter. Because the required flow is a small volume, a catch basin filter will be used to treat the storm water (See Appendix C for spec sheet).
BUILDING 6A
Detention Calculations
Soil Type ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 002 SUMP Volume per City of Thousand Oaks Figure 7 -------------------------------------------- 950 CF/Acre Aproject consists of subarea 6A-1, 6A-2, 6A-3, & 6A-4 -------------------------------------------- 2.66 Acre Vsump ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2.66*950=2525 CF Assume 48” CMP
Cross Sectional Area=12.57 SF
Length of 48” CMP for Detention = 2525 CF/12.57 SF = 200’ < 210’ provided Per storm drain system master plan:
Subarea 910D Q10=1.99 cfs/Ac
Q100=3.30 cfs/Ac
6A-1: Q10=1.99 cfs/Ac * 0.36 Ac = 0.72 cfs Q100=3.30 cfs/Ac * 0.36 Ac = 1.19 cfs 6A-2: Q10=1.99 cfs/Ac * 1.55 Ac = 3.08 cfs Q100=3.30 cfs/Ac * 1.55 Ac = 5.10 cfs 6A-3: Q10=1.99 cfs/Ac * 0.66 Ac = 1.32 cfs Q100=3.30 cfs/Ac * 0.66 Ac = 2.19 cfs 6A-4: Q10=1.99 cfs/Ac * 0.09 Ac = 0.17 cfs Q100=3.30 cfs/Ac * 0.09 Ac = 0.29 cfs Stormwater Quality Treatment Calculations
Area 6A-1
Stormwater Quality Design Flow (SQDF)
Area --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 0.36 Acres Soil Type ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 002 Cp for soil type 2 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 0.1 C=0.95*Imp+Cp(1-Imp) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 0.845 I ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 0.2 SQDF=C*I*A ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- .061 cfs Or use 10% of Q50 = Q100/1.2 = (3.30 cfs/Ac)/1.2x0.36 Ac = 0.99 cfs x10% = -------------------- .099 cfs Treatment device used for Area 6A-1: Bioswale
Vegetated Swale Calculations
n=0.2
s=0.010
b=3’
SQDF=.099 cfs
V=.20 fps (per attached flow master calculations in Appendix A) Using 7 minute residence time
L=60*7*.20=84’ of swale required = 84’ of bioswale provided Area 6A-2
Stormwater Quality Design Flow (SQDF)
Area --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1.55 Acres Soil Type ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 002 Cp for soil type 2 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 0.1 C=0.95*Imp+Cp(1-Imp) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 0.826 I ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 0.2 SQDF=C*I*A ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- .255 cfs Or use 10% of Q50 = Q100/1.2 = (3.30 cfs/Ac)/1.2x1.55 Ac = 4.25 cfs x10% = -------------------- .425 cfs Treatment device used for Area 6A-2: Bioswale
Vegetated Swale Calculations
n=0.2
s=0.020
b=3’
SQDF=.425 cfs
V=.41 fps (per attached flow master calculations in Appendix A) Using 7 minute residence time
L=60*7*.41=172’ of swale required < 276’ of bioswale provided Area 6A-3
Stormwater Quality Design Flow (SQDF)
Area --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 0.66 Acres Soil Type ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 002 Cp for soil type 2 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 0.1 C=0.95*Imp+Cp(1-Imp) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 0.720 I ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 0.2 SQDF=C*I*A ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- .095 cfs Or use 10% of Q50 = Q100/1.2 = (3.30 cfs/Ac)/1.2x0.66 Ac = 1.82 cfs x10% = -------------------- .182 cfs Treatment device used for Area 6A-3: Bioswale
Vegetated Swale Calculations
n=0.2
s=0.005
b=3’
SQDF=.281 cfs
V=.19 fps (per attached flow master calculations in Appendix A) Using 7 minute residence time
L=60*7*.19=80’ of swale required < 156’ of bioswale provided
Area 6A-4
Stormwater Quality Design Flow (SQDF)
Area --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 0.09 Acres Soil Type ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 002 Cp for soil type 2 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 0.1 C=0.95*Imp+Cp(1-Imp) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 0.850 I ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 0.2 SQDF=C*I*A ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- .015 cfs Or use 10% of Q50 = Q100/1.2 = (3.30 cfs/Ac)/1.2x0.09 Ac = 0.24 cfs x10% = -------------------- .024 cfs Treatment device used for Area 6A-4: OldCastle Catch Basin Filter Area 6A-4 does not have sufficient area for a vegetated swale or a BioPod BioFilter. Because the required flow is a small volume, a catch basin filter will be used to treat the storm water (See Appendix C for spec sheet).
BUILDING 6B
Detention Calculations
Soil Type ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 002 SUMP Volume per City of Thousand Oaks Figure 7 -------------------------------------------- 950 CF/Acre Aproject1 consists of subareas 6B-1, 6B-3, & 6B-4 -------------------------------------------------- 4.51 Acre Vsump1 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4.51*950=4283 CF Aproject2 consists of subarea 6B-2 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 0.78 Acre Vsump2 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 0.78*950=740 CF Assume 48” CMP
Cross Sectional Area=12.57 SF
Length of 48” CMP for Detention1 = 4283 CF/12.57 SF = 340’ < 350’ provided Length of 48” CMP for Detention2 = 740 CF/12.57 SF = 59’ < 65’ provided Per storm drain system master plan:
Subarea 910D Q10=1.99 cfs/Ac
Q100=3.30 cfs/Ac
6B-1: Q10=1.99 cfs/Ac * 4.06 Ac = 8.09 cfs Q100=3.30 cfs/Ac * 4.06 Ac = 13.41 cfs 6B-2: Q10=1.99 cfs/Ac * 0.78 Ac = 1.55 cfs Q100=3.30 cfs/Ac * 0.78 Ac = 2.57 cfs 6B-3: Q10=1.99 cfs/Ac * 0.33 Ac = 0.66 cfs Q100=3.30 cfs/Ac * 1.09 Ac = 5.44 cfs 6B-4: Q10=1.99 cfs/Ac * 0.11 Ac = 0.23 cfs Q100=3.30 cfs/Ac * 0.11 Ac = 0.38 cfs Stormwater Quality Treatment Calculations
Area 6B-1
Stormwater Quality Design Flow (SQDF)
Area --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4.06 Acres Soil Type ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 002 Cp for soil type 2 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 0.1 C=0.95*Imp+Cp(1-Imp) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 0.813 I ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 0.2 SQDF=C*I*A ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- .661 cfs Or use 10% of Q50 = Q100/1.2 = (3.30 cfs/Ac)/1.2x4.06 Ac = 11.18 cfs x10% = ----------------- 1.118 cfs Treatment device used for Area 6B-1: Bioswale
Vegetated Swale Calculations
n=0.2
s=0.005
b=3’
SQDF=1.118 cfs
V=.34 fps (per attached flow master calculations in Appendix A) Using 7 minute residence time
L=60*7*.34=143’ of swale required < 360’ of bioswale provided
Area 6B-2
Stormwater Quality Design Flow (SQDF)
Area --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 0.78 Acres Soil Type ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 002 Cp for soil type 2 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 0.1 C=0.95*Imp+Cp(1-Imp) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 0.849 I ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 0.2 SQDF=C*I*A ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- .132 cfs Or use 10% of Q50 = Q100/1.2 = (3.30 cfs/Ac)/1.2x0.78 Ac = 2.14 cfs x10% = -------------------- .214 cfs Treatment device used for Area 6B-2: OldCastle BioPod Biofilter Surface Although there is no space for landscape or vegetation to treat the surface flow, there is space for a BioPod surface biofilter, which provides the biological contact needed for water quality without the surface vegetation. BioPod Biofilters use biological contact through proprietary media to achieve an infiltration rate of 1.80 gpm/sf (see attached documentation in Appendix B).
1.80 gpm/ sf is equivalent to .00401 ft/sec.
.214 cfs/ .00401 fps = 53 sq. ft. of infiltration area. Therefore, we will use the 6’x12’ BioPod Biofilter Surface, BPS-612-SI model, which provides 72 sf of area.
Area 6B-3
Stormwater Quality Design Flow (SQDF)
Area --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 0.33 Acres Soil Type ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 002 Cp for soil type 2 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 0.1 C=0.95*Imp+Cp(1-Imp) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 0.815 I ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 0.2 SQDF=C*I*A ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- .054 cfs Or use 10% of Q50 = Q100/1.2 = (3.30 cfs/Ac)/1.2x0.33 Ac = 0.91 cfs x10% = -------------------- .091 cfs Treatment device used for Area 6B-3: Bioswale
Vegetated Swale Calculations
n=0.2
s=0.010
b=2’
SQDF=.091 cfs
V=.21 fps (per attached flow master calculations in Appendix A) Using 7 minute residence time
L=60*7*.21=88’ of swale required < 90’ of bioswale provided
Area 6B-4
Stormwater Quality Design Flow (SQDF)
Area --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 0.11 Acres Soil Type ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 002 Cp for soil type 2 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 0.1 C=0.95*Imp+Cp(1-Imp) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 0.818 I ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 0.2 SQDF=C*I*A ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- .019 cfs Or use 10% of Q50 = Q100/1.2 = (3.30 cfs/Ac)/1.2x0.11 Ac = 0.31 cfs x10% = -------------------- .031 cfs Treatment device used for Area 6B-4: OldCastle Catch Basin Filter Area 6B-4 does not have sufficient area for a vegetated swale or a BioPod BioFilter. Because the required flow is a small volume, a catch basin filter will be used to treat the storm water (See Appendix C for spec sheet).
APPENDIX A
BIOSWALE CALCULATION
WORKSHEETS
3URMHFW'HVFULSWLRQ
)ULFWLRQ0HWKRG 0DQQLQJ)RUPXOD
6ROYH)RU 1RUPDO'HSWK
,QSXW'DWD
5RXJKQHVV&RHIILFLHQW
&KDQQHO6ORSH
IWIW
/HIW6LGH6ORSH IWIW
+
9 5LJKW6LGH6ORSH IWIW
+
9 %RWWRP:LGWK IW
'LVFKDUJH IWñV
5HVXOWV
1RUPDO'HSWK IW
)ORZ$UHD IWð
:HWWHG3HULPHWHU IW
+\GUDXOLF5DGLXV IW
7RS:LGWK IW
&ULWLFDO'HSWK IW
&ULWLFDO6ORSH IWIW
9HORFLW\ IWV
9HORFLW\+HDG IW
6SHFLILF(QHUJ\ IW
)URXGH1XPEHU
)ORZ7\SH 6XEFULWLFDO
*9),QSXW'DWD
'RZQVWUHDP'HSWK IW
/HQJWK IW
1XPEHU2I6WHSV
*9)2XWSXW'DWD
8SVWUHDP'HSWK IW
3URILOH'HVFULSWLRQ
3URILOH+HDGORVV IW
'RZQVWUHDP9HORFLW\ ,QILQLW\ IWV
8SVWUHDP9HORFLW\ ,QILQLW\ IWV
1RUPDO'HSWK IW
&ULWLFDO'HSWK IW
&KDQQHO6ORSH
IWIW
$%,26:$/(:25.6+((7
30
%HQWOH\6\VWHPV,QF+DHVWDG0HWKRGV6ROXWLRQ&HQWHU %HQWOH\)ORZ0DVWHU9L 6(/(&7VHULHV
>@
6LHPRQV&RPSDQ\'ULYH6XLWH::DWHUWRZQ&7 86$ 3DJH RI
3URMHFW'HVFULSWLRQ
)ULFWLRQ0HWKRG 0DQQLQJ)RUPXOD
6ROYH)RU 1RUPDO'HSWK
,QSXW'DWD
5RXJKQHVV&RHIILFLHQW
&KDQQHO6ORSH IWIW
/HIW6LGH6ORSH IWIW
+
9 5LJKW6LGH6ORSH IWIW
+
9 %RWWRP:LGWK IW
'LVFKDUJH IWñV
5HVXOWV
1RUPDO'HSWK IW
)ORZ$UHD IWð
:HWWHG3HULPHWHU IW
+\GUDXOLF5DGLXV IW
7RS:LGWK IW
&ULWLFDO'HSWK IW
&ULWLFDO6ORSH IWIW
9HORFLW\ IWV
9HORFLW\+HDG IW
6SHFLILF(QHUJ\ IW
)URXGH1XPEHU
)ORZ7\SH 6XEFULWLFDO
*9),QSXW'DWD
'RZQVWUHDP'HSWK IW
/HQJWK IW
1XPEHU2I6WHSV
*9)2XWSXW'DWD
8SVWUHDP'HSWK IW
3URILOH'HVFULSWLRQ
3URILOH+HDGORVV IW
'RZQVWUHDP9HORFLW\ ,QILQLW\ IWV
8SVWUHDP9HORFLW\ ,QILQLW\ IWV
1RUPDO'HSWK IW
&ULWLFDO'HSWK IW
&KDQQHO6ORSH IWIW
%%,26:$/(:25.6+((7
30
%HQWOH\6\VWHPV,QF+DHVWDG0HWKRGV6ROXWLRQ&HQWHU %HQWOH\)ORZ0DVWHU9L 6(/(&7VHULHV
>@
6LHPRQV&RPSDQ\'ULYH6XLWH::DWHUWRZQ&7 86$ 3DJH RI
3URMHFW'HVFULSWLRQ
)ULFWLRQ0HWKRG 0DQQLQJ)RUPXOD
6ROYH)RU 1RUPDO'HSWK
,QSXW'DWD
5RXJKQHVV&RHIILFLHQW
&KDQQHO6ORSH IWIW
/HIW6LGH6ORSH IWIW
+
9 5LJKW6LGH6ORSH IWIW
+
9 %RWWRP:LGWK IW
'LVFKDUJH IWñV
5HVXOWV
1RUPDO'HSWK IW
)ORZ$UHD IWð
:HWWHG3HULPHWHU IW
+\GUDXOLF5DGLXV IW
7RS:LGWK
IW
&ULWLFDO'HSWK IW
&ULWLFDO6ORSH IWIW
9HORFLW\ IWV
9HORFLW\+HDG IW
6SHFLILF(QHUJ\ IW
)URXGH1XPEHU
)ORZ7\SH 6XEFULWLFDO
*9),QSXW'DWD
'RZQVWUHDP'HSWK IW
/HQJWK IW
1XPEHU2I6WHSV
*9)2XWSXW'DWD
8SVWUHDP'HSWK IW
3URILOH'HVFULSWLRQ
3URILOH+HDGORVV IW
'RZQVWUHDP9HORFLW\ ,QILQLW\ IWV
8SVWUHDP9HORFLW\ ,QILQLW\ IWV
1RUPDO'HSWK IW
&ULWLFDO'HSWK IW
&KDQQHO6ORSH IWIW
'%,26:$/(:25.6+((7
30
%HQWOH\6\VWHPV,QF+DHVWDG0HWKRGV6ROXWLRQ&HQWHU %HQWOH\)ORZ0DVWHU9L 6(/(&7VHULHV
>@
6LHPRQV&RPSDQ\'ULYH6XLWH::DWHUWRZQ&7 86$ 3DJH RI
3URMHFW'HVFULSWLRQ
)ULFWLRQ0HWKRG 0DQQLQJ)RUPXOD
6ROYH)RU 1RUPDO'HSWK
,QSXW'DWD
5RXJKQHVV&RHIILFLHQW
&KDQQHO6ORSH IWIW
/HIW6LGH6ORSH IWIW
+
9 5LJKW6LGH6ORSH IWIW
+
9 %RWWRP:LGWK IW
'LVFKDUJH IWñV
5HVXOWV
1RUPDO'HSWK IW
)ORZ$UHD
IWð
:HWWHG3HULPHWHU
IW
+\GUDXOLF5DGLXV IW
7RS:LGWK
IW
&ULWLFDO'HSWK IW
&ULWLFDO6ORSH IWIW
9HORFLW\ IWV
9HORFLW\+HDG IW
6SHFLILF(QHUJ\ IW
)URXGH1XPEHU
)ORZ7\SH 6XEFULWLFDO
*9),QSXW'DWD
'RZQVWUHDP'HSWK IW
/HQJWK IW
1XPEHU2I6WHSV
*9)2XWSXW'DWD
8SVWUHDP'HSWK IW
3URILOH'HVFULSWLRQ
3URILOH+HDGORVV IW
'RZQVWUHDP9HORFLW\ ,QILQLW\ IWV
8SVWUHDP9HORFLW\ ,QILQLW\ IWV
1RUPDO'HSWK IW
&ULWLFDO'HSWK IW
&KDQQHO6ORSH IWIW
*%,26:$/(:25.6+((7
30
%HQWOH\6\VWHPV,QF+DHVWDG0HWKRGV6ROXWLRQ&HQWHU %HQWOH\)ORZ0DVWHU9L 6(/(&7VHULHV
>@
6LHPRQV&RPSDQ\'ULYH6XLWH::DWHUWRZQ&7 86$ 3DJH RI
3URMHFW'HVFULSWLRQ
)ULFWLRQ0HWKRG 0DQQLQJ)RUPXOD
6ROYH)RU 1RUPDO'HSWK
,QSXW'DWD
5RXJKQHVV&RHIILFLHQW
&KDQQHO6ORSH IWIW
/HIW6LGH6ORSH IWIW
+
9 5LJKW6LGH6ORSH IWIW
+
9 %RWWRP:LGWK IW
'LVFKDUJH IWñV
5HVXOWV
1RUPDO'HSWK IW
)ORZ$UHD IWð
:HWWHG3HULPHWHU IW
+\GUDXOLF5DGLXV IW
7RS:LGWK IW
&ULWLFDO'HSWK IW
&ULWLFDO6ORSH IWIW
9HORFLW\ IWV
9HORFLW\+HDG IW
6SHFLILF(QHUJ\ IW
)URXGH1XPEHU
)ORZ7\SH 6XEFULWLFDO
*9),QSXW'DWD
'RZQVWUHDP'HSWK IW
/HQJWK IW
1XPEHU2I6WHSV
*9)2XWSXW'DWD
8SVWUHDP'HSWK IW
3URILOH'HVFULSWLRQ
3URILOH+HDGORVV IW
'RZQVWUHDP9HORFLW\ ,QILQLW\ IWV
8SVWUHDP9HORFLW\ ,QILQLW\ IWV
1RUPDO'HSWK IW
&ULWLFDO'HSWK IW
&KDQQHO6ORSH IWIW
*%,26:$/(:25.6+((7
30
%HQWOH\6\VWHPV,QF+DHVWDG0HWKRGV6ROXWLRQ&HQWHU %HQWOH\)ORZ0DVWHU9L 6(/(&7VHULHV
>@
6LHPRQV&RPSDQ\'ULYH6XLWH::DWHUWRZQ&7 86$ 3DJH RI
3URMHFW'HVFULSWLRQ
)ULFWLRQ0HWKRG 0DQQLQJ)RUPXOD
6ROYH)RU 1RUPDO'HSWK
,QSXW'DWD
5RXJKQHVV&RHIILFLHQW
&KDQQHO6ORSH IWIW
/HIW6LGH6ORSH IWIW
+
9 5LJKW6LGH6ORSH IWIW
+
9 %RWWRP:LGWK IW
'LVFKDUJH IWñV
5HVXOWV
1RUPDO'HSWK IW
)ORZ$UHD
IWð
:HWWHG3HULPHWHU IW
+\GUDXOLF5DGLXV IW
7RS:LGWK IW
&ULWLFDO'HSWK IW
&ULWLFDO6ORSH
IWIW
9HORFLW\ IWV
9HORFLW\+HDG IW
6SHFLILF(QHUJ\ IW
)URXGH1XPEHU
)ORZ7\SH 6XEFULWLFDO
*9),QSXW'DWD
'RZQVWUHDP'HSWK IW
/HQJWK IW
1XPEHU2I6WHSV
*9)2XWSXW'DWD
8SVWUHDP'HSWK IW
3URILOH'HVFULSWLRQ
3URILOH+HDGORVV IW
'RZQVWUHDP9HORFLW\ ,QILQLW\ IWV
8SVWUHDP9HORFLW\ ,QILQLW\ IWV
1RUPDO'HSWK IW
&ULWLFDO'HSWK IW
&KDQQHO6ORSH IWIW
%,26:$/(:25.6+((7
30
%HQWOH\6\VWHPV,QF+DHVWDG0HWKRGV6ROXWLRQ&HQWHU %HQWOH\)ORZ0DVWHU9L 6(/(&7VHULHV
>@
6LHPRQV&RPSDQ\'ULYH6XLWH::DWHUWRZQ&7 86$ 3DJH RI
3URMHFW'HVFULSWLRQ
)ULFWLRQ0HWKRG 0DQQLQJ)RUPXOD
6ROYH)RU 1RUPDO'HSWK
,QSXW'DWD
5RXJKQHVV&RHIILFLHQW
&KDQQHO6ORSH IWIW
/HIW6LGH6ORSH IWIW
+
9 5LJKW6LGH6ORSH IWIW
+
9 %RWWRP:LGWK IW
'LVFKDUJH IWñV
5HVXOWV
1RUPDO'HSWK IW
)ORZ$UHD IWð
:HWWHG3HULPHWHU IW
+\GUDXOLF5DGLXV IW
7RS:LGWK IW
&ULWLFDO'HSWK IW
&ULWLFDO6ORSH
IWIW
9HORFLW\
IWV
9HORFLW\+HDG IW
6SHFLILF(QHUJ\ IW
)URXGH1XPEHU
)ORZ7\SH 6XEFULWLFDO
*9),QSXW'DWD
'RZQVWUHDP'HSWK IW
/HQJWK IW
1XPEHU2I6WHSV
*9)2XWSXW'DWD
8SVWUHDP'HSWK IW
3URILOH'HVFULSWLRQ
3URILOH+HDGORVV IW
'RZQVWUHDP9HORFLW\ ,QILQLW\ IWV
8SVWUHDP9HORFLW\ ,QILQLW\ IWV
1RUPDO'HSWK IW
&ULWLFDO'HSWK IW
&KDQQHO6ORSH IWIW
%,26:$/(:25.6+((7
30
%HQWOH\6\VWHPV,QF+DHVWDG0HWKRGV6ROXWLRQ&HQWHU %HQWOH\)ORZ0DVWHU9L 6(/(&7VHULHV
>@
6LHPRQV&RPSDQ\'ULYH6XLWH::DWHUWRZQ&7 86$ 3DJH RI
3URMHFW'HVFULSWLRQ
)ULFWLRQ0HWKRG 0DQQLQJ)RUPXOD
6ROYH)RU 1RUPDO'HSWK
,QSXW'DWD
5RXJKQHVV&RHIILFLHQW
&KDQQHO6ORSH IWIW
/HIW6LGH6ORSH IWIW
+
9 5LJKW6LGH6ORSH IWIW
+
9 %RWWRP:LGWK IW
'LVFKDUJH IWñV
5HVXOWV
1RUPDO'HSWK IW
)ORZ$UHD IWð
:HWWHG3HULPHWHU IW
+\GUDXOLF5DGLXV IW
7RS:LGWK IW
&ULWLFDO'HSWK IW
&ULWLFDO6ORSH
IWIW
9HORFLW\ IWV
9HORFLW\+HDG IW
6SHFLILF(QHUJ\ IW
)URXGH1XPEHU
)ORZ7\SH 6XEFULWLFDO
*9),QSXW'DWD
'RZQVWUHDP'HSWK IW
/HQJWK IW
1XPEHU2I6WHSV
*9)2XWSXW'DWD
8SVWUHDP'HSWK IW
3URILOH'HVFULSWLRQ
3URILOH+HDGORVV IW
'RZQVWUHDP9HORFLW\ ,QILQLW\ IWV
8SVWUHDP9HORFLW\ ,QILQLW\ IWV
1RUPDO'HSWK IW
&ULWLFDO'HSWK IW
&KDQQHO6ORSH IWIW
%,26:$/(:25.6+((7
30
%HQWOH\6\VWHPV,QF+DHVWDG0HWKRGV6ROXWLRQ&HQWHU %HQWOH\)ORZ0DVWHU9L 6(/(&7VHULHV
>@
6LHPRQV&RPSDQ\'ULYH6XLWH::DWHUWRZQ&7 86$ 3DJH RI
3URMHFW'HVFULSWLRQ
)ULFWLRQ0HWKRG 0DQQLQJ)RUPXOD
6ROYH)RU 1RUPDO'HSWK
,QSXW'DWD
5RXJKQHVV&RHIILFLHQW
&KDQQHO6ORSH IWIW
/HIW6LGH6ORSH IWIW
+
9 5LJKW6LGH6ORSH IWIW
+
9 %RWWRP:LGWK IW
'LVFKDUJH IWñV
5HVXOWV
1RUPDO'HSWK IW
)ORZ$UHD IWð
:HWWHG3HULPHWHU IW
+\GUDXOLF5DGLXV IW
7RS:LGWK IW
&ULWLFDO'HSWK IW
&ULWLFDO6ORSH IWIW
9HORFLW\ IWV
9HORFLW\+HDG IW
6SHFLILF(QHUJ\ IW
)URXGH1XPEHU
)ORZ7\SH 6XEFULWLFDO
*9),QSXW'DWD
'RZQVWUHDP'HSWK IW
/HQJWK IW
1XPEHU2I6WHSV
*9)2XWSXW'DWD
8SVWUHDP'HSWK IW
3URILOH'HVFULSWLRQ
3URILOH+HDGORVV IW
'RZQVWUHDP9HORFLW\ ,QILQLW\ IWV
8SVWUHDP9HORFLW\ ,QILQLW\ IWV
1RUPDO'HSWK IW
&ULWLFDO'HSWK IW
&KDQQHO6ORSH IWIW
$%,26:$/(:25.6+((7
30
%HQWOH\6\VWHPV,QF+DHVWDG0HWKRGV6ROXWLRQ&HQWHU %HQWOH\)ORZ0DVWHU9L 6(/(&7VHULHV
>@
6LHPRQV&RPSDQ\'ULYH6XLWH::DWHUWRZQ&7 86$ 3DJH RI
3URMHFW'HVFULSWLRQ
)ULFWLRQ0HWKRG 0DQQLQJ)RUPXOD
6ROYH)RU 1RUPDO'HSWK
,QSXW'DWD
5RXJKQHVV&RHIILFLHQW
&KDQQHO6ORSH IWIW
/HIW6LGH6ORSH IWIW
+
9 5LJKW6LGH6ORSH IWIW
+
9 %RWWRP:LGWK IW
'LVFKDUJH IWñV
5HVXOWV
1RUPDO'HSWK IW
)ORZ$UHD IWð
:HWWHG3HULPHWHU IW
+\GUDXOLF5DGLXV IW
7RS:LGWK IW
&ULWLFDO'HSWK IW
&ULWLFDO6ORSH
IWIW
9HORFLW\ IWV
9HORFLW\+HDG IW
6SHFLILF(QHUJ\ IW
)URXGH1XPEHU
)ORZ7\SH 6XEFULWLFDO
*9),QSXW'DWD
'RZQVWUHDP'HSWK IW
/HQJWK IW
1XPEHU2I6WHSV
*9)2XWSXW'DWD
8SVWUHDP'HSWK IW
3URILOH'HVFULSWLRQ
3URILOH+HDGORVV IW
'RZQVWUHDP9HORFLW\ ,QILQLW\ IWV
8SVWUHDP9HORFLW\ ,QILQLW\ IWV
1RUPDO'HSWK IW
&ULWLFDO'HSWK IW
&KDQQHO6ORSH IWIW
$%,26:$/(:25.6+((7
30
%HQWOH\6\VWHPV,QF+DHVWDG0HWKRGV6ROXWLRQ&HQWHU %HQWOH\)ORZ0DVWHU9L 6(/(&7VHULHV
>@
6LHPRQV&RPSDQ\'ULYH6XLWH::DWHUWRZQ&7 86$ 3DJH RI
3URMHFW'HVFULSWLRQ
)ULFWLRQ0HWKRG 0DQQLQJ)RUPXOD
6ROYH)RU 1RUPDO'HSWK
,QSXW'DWD
5RXJKQHVV&RHIILFLHQW
&KDQQHO6ORSH IWIW
/HIW6LGH6ORSH IWIW
+
9 5LJKW6LGH6ORSH IWIW
+
9 %RWWRP:LGWK IW
'LVFKDUJH IWñV
5HVXOWV
1RUPDO'HSWK IW
)ORZ$UHD IWð
:HWWHG3HULPHWHU IW
+\GUDXOLF5DGLXV IW
7RS:LGWK
IW
&ULWLFDO'HSWK IW
&ULWLFDO6ORSH IWIW
9HORFLW\ IWV
9HORFLW\+HDG IW
6SHFLILF(QHUJ\ IW
)URXGH1XPEHU
)ORZ7\SH 6XEFULWLFDO
*9),QSXW'DWD
'RZQVWUHDP'HSWK IW
/HQJWK IW
1XPEHU2I6WHSV
*9)2XWSXW'DWD
8SVWUHDP'HSWK IW
3URILOH'HVFULSWLRQ
3URILOH+HDGORVV IW
'RZQVWUHDP9HORFLW\ ,QILQLW\ IWV
8SVWUHDP9HORFLW\ ,QILQLW\ IWV
1RUPDO'HSWK IW
&ULWLFDO'HSWK IW
&KDQQHO6ORSH IWIW
$%,26:$/(:25.6+((7
30
%HQWOH\6\VWHPV,QF+DHVWDG0HWKRGV6ROXWLRQ&HQWHU %HQWOH\)ORZ0DVWHU9L 6(/(&7VHULHV
>@
6LHPRQV&RPSDQ\'ULYH6XLWH::DWHUWRZQ&7 86$ 3DJH RI
3URMHFW'HVFULSWLRQ
)ULFWLRQ0HWKRG 0DQQLQJ)RUPXOD
6ROYH)RU 1RUPDO'HSWK
,QSXW'DWD
5RXJKQHVV&RHIILFLHQW
&KDQQHO6ORSH IWIW
/HIW6LGH6ORSH IWIW
+
9 5LJKW6LGH6ORSH IWIW
+
9 %RWWRP:LGWK IW
'LVFKDUJH IWñV
5HVXOWV
1RUPDO'HSWK IW
)ORZ$UHD
IWð
:HWWHG3HULPHWHU IW
+\GUDXOLF5DGLXV IW
7RS:LGWK IW
&ULWLFDO'HSWK IW
&ULWLFDO6ORSH
IWIW
9HORFLW\ IWV
9HORFLW\+HDG IW
6SHFLILF(QHUJ\ IW
)URXGH1XPEHU
)ORZ7\SH 6XEFULWLFDO
*9),QSXW'DWD
'RZQVWUHDP'HSWK IW
/HQJWK IW
1XPEHU2I6WHSV
*9)2XWSXW'DWD
8SVWUHDP'HSWK IW
3URILOH'HVFULSWLRQ
3URILOH+HDGORVV IW
'RZQVWUHDP9HORFLW\ ,QILQLW\ IWV
8SVWUHDP9HORFLW\ ,QILQLW\ IWV
1RUPDO'HSWK IW
&ULWLFDO'HSWK IW
&KDQQHO6ORSH IWIW
$%,26:$/(:25.6+((7
30
%HQWOH\6\VWHPV,QF+DHVWDG0HWKRGV6ROXWLRQ&HQWHU %HQWOH\)ORZ0DVWHU9L 6(/(&7VHULHV
>@
6LHPRQV&RPSDQ\'ULYH6XLWH::DWHUWRZQ&7 86$ 3DJH RI
3URMHFW'HVFULSWLRQ
)ULFWLRQ0HWKRG 0DQQLQJ)RUPXOD
6ROYH)RU 1RUPDO'HSWK
,QSXW'DWD
5RXJKQHVV&RHIILFLHQW
&KDQQHO6ORSH IWIW
/HIW6LGH6ORSH IWIW
+
9 5LJKW6LGH6ORSH IWIW
+
9 %RWWRP:LGWK IW
'LVFKDUJH IWñV
5HVXOWV
1RUPDO'HSWK IW
)ORZ$UHD IWð
:HWWHG3HULPHWHU IW
+\GUDXOLF5DGLXV
IW
7RS:LGWK
IW
&ULWLFDO'HSWK IW
&ULWLFDO6ORSH
IWIW
9HORFLW\ IWV
9HORFLW\+HDG IW
6SHFLILF(QHUJ\ IW
)URXGH1XPEHU
)ORZ7\SH 6XEFULWLFDO
*9),QSXW'DWD
'RZQVWUHDP'HSWK IW
/HQJWK IW
1XPEHU2I6WHSV
*9)2XWSXW'DWD
8SVWUHDP'HSWK IW
3URILOH'HVFULSWLRQ
3URILOH+HDGORVV IW
'RZQVWUHDP9HORFLW\ ,QILQLW\ IWV
8SVWUHDP9HORFLW\ ,QILQLW\ IWV
1RUPDO'HSWK IW
&ULWLFDO'HSWK IW
&KDQQHO6ORSH IWIW
%%,26:$/(:25.6+((7
30
%HQWOH\6\VWHPV,QF+DHVWDG0HWKRGV6ROXWLRQ&HQWHU %HQWOH\)ORZ0DVWHU9L 6(/(&7VHULHV
>@
6LHPRQV&RPSDQ\'ULYH6XLWH::DWHUWRZQ&7 86$ 3DJH RI
3URMHFW'HVFULSWLRQ
)ULFWLRQ0HWKRG 0DQQLQJ)RUPXOD
6ROYH)RU 1RUPDO'HSWK
,QSXW'DWD
5RXJKQHVV&RHIILFLHQW
&KDQQHO6ORSH IWIW
/HIW6LGH6ORSH IWIW
+
9 5LJKW6LGH6ORSH IWIW
+
9 %RWWRP:LGWK IW
'LVFKDUJH IWñV
5HVXOWV
1RUPDO'HSWK IW
)ORZ$UHD IWð
:HWWHG3HULPHWHU IW
+\GUDXOLF5DGLXV IW
7RS:LGWK IW
&ULWLFDO'HSWK IW
&ULWLFDO6ORSH
IWIW
9HORFLW\ IWV
9HORFLW\+HDG IW
6SHFLILF(QHUJ\ IW
)URXGH1XPEHU
)ORZ7\SH 6XEFULWLFDO
*9),QSXW'DWD
'RZQVWUHDP'HSWK IW
/HQJWK IW
1XPEHU2I6WHSV
*9)2XWSXW'DWD
8SVWUHDP'HSWK IW
3URILOH'HVFULSWLRQ
3URILOH+HDGORVV IW
'RZQVWUHDP9HORFLW\ ,QILQLW\ IWV
8SVWUHDP9HORFLW\ ,QILQLW\ IWV
1RUPDO'HSWK IW
&ULWLFDO'HSWK IW
&KDQQHO6ORSH IWIW
$%,26:$/(:25.6+((7
30
%HQWOH\6\VWHPV,QF+DHVWDG0HWKRGV6ROXWLRQ&HQWHU %HQWOH\)ORZ0DVWHU9L 6(/(&7VHULHV
>@
6LHPRQV&RPSDQ\'ULYH6XLWH::DWHUWRZQ&7 86$ 3DJH RI
3URMHFW'HVFULSWLRQ
)ULFWLRQ0HWKRG 0DQQLQJ)RUPXOD
6ROYH)RU 1RUPDO'HSWK
,QSXW'DWD
5RXJKQHVV&RHIILFLHQW
&KDQQHO6ORSH IWIW
/HIW6LGH6ORSH IWIW
+
9 5LJKW6LGH6ORSH IWIW
+
9 %RWWRP:LGWK IW
'LVFKDUJH IWñV
5HVXOWV
1RUPDO'HSWK
IW
)ORZ$UHD IWð
:HWWHG3HULPHWHU IW
+\GUDXOLF5DGLXV IW
7RS:LGWK IW
&ULWLFDO'HSWK IW
&ULWLFDO6ORSH IWIW
9HORFLW\ IWV
9HORFLW\+HDG IW
6SHFLILF(QHUJ\
IW
)URXGH1XPEHU
)ORZ7\SH 6XEFULWLFDO
*9),QSXW'DWD
'RZQVWUHDP'HSWK IW
/HQJWK IW
1XPEHU2I6WHSV
*9)2XWSXW'DWD
8SVWUHDP'HSWK IW
3URILOH'HVFULSWLRQ
3URILOH+HDGORVV IW
'RZQVWUHDP9HORFLW\ ,QILQLW\ IWV
8SVWUHDP9HORFLW\ ,QILQLW\ IWV
1RUPDO'HSWK
IW
&ULWLFDO'HSWK IW
&KDQQHO6ORSH IWIW
$%,26:$/(:25.6+((7
30
%HQWOH\6\VWHPV,QF+DHVWDG0HWKRGV6ROXWLRQ&HQWHU %HQWOH\)ORZ0DVWHU9L 6(/(&7VHULHV
>@
6LHPRQV&RPSDQ\'ULYH6XLWH::DWHUWRZQ&7 86$ 3DJH RI
3URMHFW'HVFULSWLRQ
)ULFWLRQ0HWKRG 0DQQLQJ)RUPXOD
6ROYH)RU 1RUPDO'HSWK
,QSXW'DWD
5RXJKQHVV&RHIILFLHQW
&KDQQHO6ORSH IWIW
/HIW6LGH6ORSH IWIW
+
9 5LJKW6LGH6ORSH IWIW
+
9 %RWWRP:LGWK IW
'LVFKDUJH IWñV
5HVXOWV
1RUPDO'HSWK IW
)ORZ$UHD
IWð
:HWWHG3HULPHWHU
IW
+\GUDXOLF5DGLXV IW
7RS:LGWK IW
&ULWLFDO'HSWK IW
&ULWLFDO6ORSH IWIW
9HORFLW\
IWV
9HORFLW\+HDG IW
6SHFLILF(QHUJ\ IW
)URXGH1XPEHU
)ORZ7\SH 6XEFULWLFDO
*9),QSXW'DWD
'RZQVWUHDP'HSWK IW
/HQJWK IW
1XPEHU2I6WHSV
*9)2XWSXW'DWD
8SVWUHDP'HSWK IW
3URILOH'HVFULSWLRQ
3URILOH+HDGORVV IW
'RZQVWUHDP9HORFLW\ ,QILQLW\ IWV
8SVWUHDP9HORFLW\ ,QILQLW\ IWV
1RUPDO'HSWK IW
&ULWLFDO'HSWK IW
&KDQQHO6ORSH IWIW
$%,26:$/(:25.6+((7
30
%HQWOH\6\VWHPV,QF+DHVWDG0HWKRGV6ROXWLRQ&HQWHU %HQWOH\)ORZ0DVWHU9L 6(/(&7VHULHV
>@
6LHPRQV&RPSDQ\'ULYH6XLWH::DWHUWRZQ&7 86$ 3DJH RI
3URMHFW'HVFULSWLRQ
)ULFWLRQ0HWKRG 0DQQLQJ)RUPXOD
6ROYH)RU 1RUPDO'HSWK
,QSXW'DWD
5RXJKQHVV&RHIILFLHQW
&KDQQHO6ORSH IWIW
/HIW6LGH6ORSH IWIW
+
9 5LJKW6LGH6ORSH IWIW
+
9 %RWWRP:LGWK IW
'LVFKDUJH IWñV
5HVXOWV
1RUPDO'HSWK IW
)ORZ$UHD IWð
:HWWHG3HULPHWHU IW
+\GUDXOLF5DGLXV IW
7RS:LGWK
IW
&ULWLFDO'HSWK IW
&ULWLFDO6ORSH IWIW
9HORFLW\ IWV
9HORFLW\+HDG IW
6SHFLILF(QHUJ\ IW
)URXGH1XPEHU
)ORZ7\SH 6XEFULWLFDO
*9),QSXW'DWD
'RZQVWUHDP'HSWK IW
/HQJWK IW
1XPEHU2I6WHSV
*9)2XWSXW'DWD
8SVWUHDP'HSWK IW
3URILOH'HVFULSWLRQ
3URILOH+HDGORVV IW
'RZQVWUHDP9HORFLW\ ,QILQLW\ IWV
8SVWUHDP9HORFLW\ ,QILQLW\ IWV
1RUPDO'HSWK IW
&ULWLFDO'HSWK IW
&KDQQHO6ORSH IWIW
%%,26:$/(:25.6+((7
30
%HQWOH\6\VWHPV,QF+DHVWDG0HWKRGV6ROXWLRQ&HQWHU %HQWOH\)ORZ0DVWHU9L 6(/(&7VHULHV
>@
6LHPRQV&RPSDQ\'ULYH6XLWH::DWHUWRZQ&7 86$ 3DJH RI
3URMHFW'HVFULSWLRQ
)ULFWLRQ0HWKRG 0DQQLQJ)RUPXOD
6ROYH)RU 1RUPDO'HSWK
,QSXW'DWD
5RXJKQHVV&RHIILFLHQW
&KDQQHO6ORSH IWIW
/HIW6LGH6ORSH IWIW
+
9 5LJKW6LGH6ORSH IWIW
+
9 %RWWRP:LGWK IW
'LVFKDUJH
IWñV
5HVXOWV
1RUPDO'HSWK IW
)ORZ$UHD IWð
:HWWHG3HULPHWHU IW
+\GUDXOLF5DGLXV IW
7RS:LGWK IW
&ULWLFDO'HSWK IW
&ULWLFDO6ORSH IWIW
9HORFLW\ IWV
9HORFLW\+HDG IW
6SHFLILF(QHUJ\ IW
)URXGH1XPEHU
)ORZ7\SH 6XEFULWLFDO
*9),QSXW'DWD
'RZQVWUHDP'HSWK IW
/HQJWK IW
1XPEHU2I6WHSV
*9)2XWSXW'DWD
8SVWUHDP'HSWK IW
3URILOH'HVFULSWLRQ
3URILOH+HDGORVV IW
'RZQVWUHDP9HORFLW\ ,QILQLW\ IWV
8SVWUHDP9HORFLW\ ,QILQLW\ IWV
1RUPDO'HSWK IW
&ULWLFDO'HSWK IW
&KDQQHO6ORSH IWIW
%%,26:$/(:25.6+((7
30
%HQWOH\6\VWHPV,QF+DHVWDG0HWKRGV6ROXWLRQ&HQWHU %HQWOH\)ORZ0DVWHU9L 6(/(&7VHULHV
>@
6LHPRQV&RPSDQ\'ULYH6XLWH::DWHUWRZQ&7 86$ 3DJH RI
$33(1',;%
%,232'%,2),/7(563(&,),&$7,216
$33(1',;&
&$7&+%$6,1),/7(563(&,),&$7,216
SUBMITTALPACKAGE
Oldcastle 1SFDBTUStormwater
(800) 579-8819 0ldcastle4tormwater.com
5"#-&0'$0/5&/54
'&"563&4 #&/&'*54
"$$&4403*&4
130%6$5 41&$*'*$"5*0/4
4&$5*0/
'&"563&4 #&/&'*54
Call us today (800) 579-8819 or visit our website for detailed product information, drawings and design tools at www.oldcastlestormwater.com
FLOGARD® CATCH BASIN INSERT FILTER
INLET FILTRATION
Removes Pollutants from Runoff Prior to Entering Waterways Efficient System
Catches pollutants where they
are easiest to catch, at the inlet.
Focused Treatment
Removes petroleum hydrocarbons, trash and Total
Suspended Solids (TSS).
Variable Design
Able to be retrofitted or
used in new projects.
Two-part stainless-steel
insert to filter solids and
oils/grease
Easy to install, inspect and maintain, even on small and confined sites Treatment Train
Can be incorporated as
part of a “Treatment Train”.
No Standing Water
Helps to minimize bacteria
and odor problems.
Economical
Earn a higher return on
system investment.
Maximum Flexibility
Available in a variety of standard
sizes to fit round and square inlets.
Catch Basin Filter Test Results Summary
UCLA
U of Auckland
Tonking & Taylor, Ltd.
(for City of Auckland)
U of Hawaii
(for City of Honolulu)
80 78 to 95
80 70 to 80
Testing Agency % TSS Removal % Oil & Grease Removal
20 to 40
% PAH Removal
system investment.
Ca
U
U
T
(f
U
(f
Te
By the Numbers*:
Filter will remove up to 80% of Total
Suspended Solids (TSS), at least 70%
of oils and grease, and up to 40% of
Total Phosphorus (TP) associated with
organic debris as well as Polycyclic
Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAH) from oil
leaks and spills.
*Approx. for urban street application
(800) 579-8819
oldcastlestormwater.com © 2017 Oldcastle Precast, Inc.
Multi-Purpose Catch Basin Insert Retains Sediment, Debris, Trash and Oils/Grease FloGard® Catch Basin Insert Filters are recommended for areas subject to silt and debris as well as low-to-moderate levels of petroleum hydrocarbons (oils and grease). Examples of such areas include vehicle parking lots, aircraft ramps, truck and bus storage yards, business parks, residential and public streets.
Catch Basin Filter Competitive Feature Comparison
Evaluation of Catch Basin Filters Oldcastle Stormwater Other Insert Filter Types** (Based on flow-comparable units) (Scale 1-10)
Flow Rate 10 7
Removal Efficiency* 80% 45%
Capacity - Sludge & Oil 7 7
Service Life 10 3
Installation - Ease of Handling / Installation 8 6
Ease of Inspections & Maintenance 7 7
Value 10 2
*approximate, based on field sediment removal testing in urban street application **average Long-Term Value Comparison Oldcastle Stormwater Other Insert Filter Types (Based on flow-comparable units) (Scale 1-10)
Unit Value - Initial ($/cfs treated) 10 4
Installation Value ($/cfs treated) 10 7
Absorbent Replacement (annual avg ($/cfs treated) 10 2
Materials Replacement Value (annual avg ($/cfs treated) 10 10 Maintenance Value (annual avg ($/cfs treated) 10 7
Total First Year ROI ($/cfs treated) 10 5
Total Annual Avg Value ($/cfs treated, avg over 20 yrs)* 10 5 Flat-Grated Inlet
Captured debris from FloGard Catch Basin Insert Filter in Dana Point, California Circular Frame Catch Basin Combination Inlet
4&$5*0/
"$$&4403*&4
6-5*."5& #:1"44'&"563&4
("4,&5
45"*/-&44 45&&- 4611035 #"4,&5
'PTTJM3PDL5. "#403#&/5 106$)&4
'MP(BSE¥'*-5&3
*/45"--&% */50$"5$) #"4*/
64 1"5&/5
-*/&3
4611035#"4,&5
$"5$) #"4*/ '-"5 (3"5& 45:-&
%&5"*-"
&91-0%&%7*&8
/05&4
'JMUFSJOTFSUTIBMMIBWFBIJHIGMPXCZQBTTGFBUVSF
'JMUFSTVQQPSUGSBNFTIBMMCF DPOTUSVDUFEGSPNTUBJOMFTTTUFFM 5ZQF
'JMUFSNFEJVNTIBMM CF 'PTTJM3PDL JOTUBMMFE BOENBJOUBJOFE JO BDDPSEBODFXJUI NBOVGBDUVSFSTQFDJGJDBUJPOT
4UPSBHFDBQBDJUZSFGMFDUT PGNBYJNVNTPMJETDPMMFDUJPOQSJPS UP JNQFEJOHGJMUFSJOHCZQBTT
4&$5*0/
130%6$541&$*'*$"5*0/4
64 1"5&/5
6-5*."5& #:1"44 '&"563&
-067&34 01&/*/(4
4&& %&5"*- $ 6-5*."5& #:1"44 '&"563&
-067&34 01&/*/(4
%&15)
45"/%"3%
*/$)&4
4)"--08
*/$)&4
$6450.
%&5"*-#
4&$5*0/7*&8
'MP(BSE¥'*-5&3
*/45"--&%
%&5"*-$
6-5*."5&#:1"44
'&"563&
."/: 05)&345"/%"3% $6450. 4*;&4%&15)4"7"*-"#-&610/ 3&26&45 41&$*'*&3$)"35
45"/%"3% %&15) 4)"--08%&15)
*ODIFT *ODIFT
.0%&-/0 .0%&-/0
45"/%"3% 4)"--08%&15)
45"/%"3%
*/-&5 *% 40-*%4 '*-5&3&% 4)"--08 40-*%4 '*-5&3&% %&15) (3"5&0% 505"- %&15) *OTJEF 0VUTJEF #:1"44 4503"(& '-08 4503"(& '-08 %JNFOTJPO %JNFOTJPO $"1"$*5: $"1"$*5: $"1"$*5:
JODIYJODI
JODIYJODI
DVGUTFD
DVGU
DV GUTFD
DVGU
DV GUTFD
'(1' 9 9 '(1' '(1' 9 9 '(1' '(1' 9 9 '(1' '(1' 9 9 '(1' '(1' 9 9 '(1' '(1' 9 9 '(1' '(1' 9 9 '(1' '(1' 9 9 '(1' '(1' 9 9 '(1' '(1' 9 9 '(1' '(1' 9 9 '(1' '(1' 9 9 '(1' '(1' 9 9 '(1' '(1' 9 9 '(1' '(1' 9 9 '(1' '(1' 9 9 '(1' '(14%' 9 9 '(14%'
INLET, FRAME & GRATE INFORMATION
CONTACT INFORMATION CONTACT DETAILS
Company:
Job Name:
Job Address:
Contact Name:
Email:
TYPE
Inlet Type (e.g. PA Type M):
Frame Model #:
Grate MFG/Model (e.g. Neenah R-2060):
Grate Type (Check One): Cast Iron Steel
PLEASE PROVIDE MEASUREMENTS WITHIN 1/8" TO GUARANTEE ACCURATE INSTALLATION*
THE FOLLOWING MEASUREMENTS ARE REQUIRED TO PLACE AN ORDER Notes: If any obstructions or protrusions exist within the catch basin, please provide photos and accurate measurements to ensure proper installation. Submittal of this form represents that the customer acknowledges that all details provided are accurate, and that any issues resulting from inaccurate information herein are the responsibility of said customer. * Use second page for additional catch basins.
CONTACT INFORMATION
Grate
Grate outside dimensions
A
Grate outside dimensions
B
Catch Basin
Frame clear opening or
wall to wall inside the
catch basin, whichever
is less
C
Frame clear opening or
wall to wall inside the
catch basin, whichever
is less
D
Grate section
Square belly
Round belly
Flat
Section through Catch Basin
Bottom of frame to top
of outlet pipe
E
Bottom of frame to
floor of catch basin
F
Grate type (pick one):
Belly width
Belly width
Belly depth
Belly depth
G
H
I
J
City/State/Zip:
Phone:
Do you have inlet pipes? Y N If yes, bottom of grate to top of pipe Pipe inside diameter Need to be filtered? Y N Inlet Pipes?
Please email completed forms to [email protected] www.oldcastlestormwater.com Phone: (800) 579-8819
Measurement Chart for FloGard Inserts
(Square/Rectangular Flat Grated Inlets)
PLEASE PROVIDE MEASUREMENTS WITHIN 1/8" TO GUARANTEE ACCURATE INSTALLATION A - Grate outside dimensions
B - Grate outside dimensions
C - Frame clear opening or wall to wall inside the catch basin, whichever is less D - Frame clear opening or wall to wall inside the catch basin, whichever is less E - Measure from bottom of frame to top of outlet pipe
F - Bottom of frame to floor of catch basin
* If grate has "belly" please include measurements for G & H or I & J, depending on belly style.
Notes: If any obstructions or protrusions exist within the catch basin, please provide photos and accurate measurements to ensure proper installation. Submittal of this form represents that the customer acknowledges that all details provided are accurate, and that any issues resulting from inaccurate information herein are the responsibility of said customer.
THE FOLLOWING MEASUREMENTS ARE REQUIRED TO PLACE AN ORDER Bottom of frame
to top of pipe Grate outside dimensions Frame clear opening or wall to wall inside the catch basin
AB C DEF
Bottom of frame to
Quantity/ floor of catch basin
Drain #
Square belly
width
GH I J
Square belly
depth
Round belly
width
Round belly
depth
Square belly grate Round belly grate
Please email completed forms to [email protected] www.oldcastlestormwater.com Phone: (800) 579-8819
Measurement Chart for FloGard Inserts
(Square/Rectangular Flat Grated Inlets)
NOTES:
XXXPMEDBTUMFTUPSNXBUFSDPN
Appendix G
Noise Calculations
Project: Conejo Summit
Construction Noise Impact on Sensitive ReceptorsParametersConstruction Hours: 8 Daytime hours (7 am to 7 pm) 0 Evening hours (7 pm to 10 pm)0 Nighttime hours (10 pm to 7 am) Leq to L10 factor 3
Construction PhaseEquipment Type
No. of
Equip.
Reference
Noise Level at
50ft, Lmax
Acoustical
Usage Factor Distance (ft) Lmax Leq L10
Estimated
Noise
Shielding, dBA
Phase 1 and 2 Grading 61 57Dump/Haul Trucks 1 76 40% 1250 48 44 47 0Dump/Haul Trucks 10 76 40% 1250 58 54 57 0Water Trucks 2 80 10% 1750 47 37 40 5Scrapers 4 84 40% 1750 54 50 53 5Dozer 2 82 40% 1750 49 45 48 5Graders 1 85 40% 1750 49 45 48 5Excavator 1 81 40% 2250 43 39 42 5Tractor/Loader/Backhoe 2 80 25% 2250 45 39 42 5Roller 2 80 20% 2250 45 38 41 5Dump/Haul Trucks 10 76 40% 2250 48 44 47 5Phase 3, 4, and 7 Grading 55 51Dump/Haul Trucks 4 76 40% 2250 49 45 48 0Scrapers 1 84 40% 2250 51 47 50 0Dozer 1 82 40% 2250 44 40 43 5Graders 1 85 40% 2750 45 41 44 5Excavator 1 81 40% 2750 41 37 40 5Tractor/Loader/Backhoe 1 80 25% 2750 40 34 37 5Roller 1 80 20% 3250 39 32 35 5Paver 1 77 50% 3250 36 33 36 5Other Equipment 1 85 50% 3250 44 41 44 5Phase 5 and 6 Grading 55 51Dump/Haul Trucks 4 76 40% 2000 50 46 49 0Scrapers 1 84 40% 2000 52 48 51 0Dozer 1 82 40% 2500 43 39 42 5Graders 1 85 40% 2500 46 42 45 5Excavator 1 81 40% 2500 42 38 41 5Tractor/Loader/Backhoe 1 80 25% 3000 39 33 36 5Roller 1 80 20% 3000 39 32 35 5Building Construction - Phase 1 62 57Forklift 2 75 10% 1250 50 40 43 0Cranes 2 81 16% 1250 56 48 51 0Dozer 1 82 40% 1250 54 50 53 0Graders 1 85 40% 1250 57 53 56 0Dump/Haul Trucks 1 76 40% 1750 40 36 39 5Excavator 1 81 40% 1750 45 41 44 5Other Equipment 1 85 50% 1750 49 46 49 5Paver 1 77 50% 1750 41 38 41 5Air Compressor 1 78 40% 1750 42 38 41 5Roller 1 80 20% 1750 44 37 40 5Front End Loader 1 79 40% 2250 41 37 40 5Water Trucks 1 80 10% 2250 42 32 35 5Building Construction - Phase 2 62 57Forklift 2 75 10% 1250 50 40 43 0 R1
Construction Phase
Equipment Type
No. of
Equip.
Reference
Noise Level at
50ft, Lmax
Acoustical
Usage Factor Distance (ft) Lmax Leq L10
Estimated
Noise
Shielding, dBA
R1
Cranes 2 81 16% 1250 56 48 51 0Dozer 1 82 40% 1250 54 50 53 0Graders 1 85 40% 1250 57 53 56 0Dump/Haul Trucks 1 76 40% 1750 40 36 39 5Excavator 1 81 40% 1750 45 41 44 5Air Compressor 1 78 40% 1750 42 38 41 5Other Equipment 1 85 50% 1750 49 46 49 5Paver 1 77 50% 1750 41 38 41 5Roller 1 80 20% 1750 44 37 40 5Front End Loader 1 79 40% 2250 41 37 40 5Water Trucks 1 80 10% 2250 42 32 35 5Building Construction - Phase 3 57 52Forklift 1 75 10% 2250 42 32 35 0Cranes 2 81 16% 2250 51 43 46 0Dozer 1 82 40% 2250 49 45 48 0Graders 1 85 40% 2250 52 48 51 0Dump/Haul Trucks 1 76 40% 2750 36 32 35 5Excavator 1 81 40% 2750 41 37 40 5Air Compressor 1 78 40% 2750 38 34 37 5Other Equipment 1 85 50% 2750 45 42 45 5Paver 1 77 50% 2750 37 34 37 5Roller 1 80 20% 2750 40 33 36 5Front End Loader 1 79 40% 3250 38 34 37 5Water Trucks 1 80 10% 3250 39 29 32 5Building Construction - Phase 4 55 50Forklift 1 75 10% 2600 41 31 34 0Cranes 2 81 16% 2600 50 42 45 0Dozer 1 82 40% 2600 48 44 47 0Graders 1 85 40% 2600 51 47 50 0Dump/Haul Trucks 1 76 40% 3100 35 31 34 5Air Compressor 1 78 40% 3600 36 32 35 5Excavator 1 81 40% 3100 40 36 39 5Other Equipment 1 85 50% 3100 44 41 44 5Paver 1 77 50% 3100 36 33 36 5Roller 1 80 20% 3100 39 32 35 5Front End Loader 1 79 40% 3600 37 33 36 5Water Trucks 1 80 10% 3600 38 28 31 5Building Construction- Phase 5 58 53Forklift 1 75 10% 2000 43 33 36 0Cranes 2 81 16% 2000 52 44 47 0Dozer 1 82 40% 2000 50 46 49 0Graders 1 85 40% 2000 53 49 52 0Dump/Haul Trucks 1 76 40% 2500 37 33 36 5Air Compressor 1 78 40% 3000 37 33 36 5Excavator 1 81 40% 2500 42 38 41 5Other Equipment 1 85 50% 2500 46 43 46 5Paver 1 77 50% 2500 38 35 38 5Roller 1 80 20% 2500 41 34 37 5Front End Loader 1 79 40% 3000 38 34 37 5Water Trucks 1 80 10% 3000 39 29 32 5Building Construction- Phase 6 55 50Forklift 1 75 10% 2600 41 31 34 0Cranes 2 81 16% 2600 50 42 45 0Dozer 1 82 40% 2600 48 44 47 0Graders 1 85 40% 2600 51 47 50 0Dump/Haul Trucks 1 76 40% 3100 35 31 34 5 Construction Phase
Equipment Type
No. of
Equip.
Reference
Noise Level at
50ft, Lmax
Acoustical
Usage Factor Distance (ft) Lmax Leq L10
Estimated
Noise
Shielding, dBA
R1
Air Compressor 1 78 40% 3600 36 32 35 5Excavator 1 81 40% 3100 40 36 39 5Other Equipment 1 85 50% 3100 44 41 44 5Paver 1 77 50% 3100 36 33 36 5Roller 1 80 20% 3100 39 32 35 5Front End Loader 1 79 40% 3600 37 33 36 5Water Trucks 1 80 10% 3600 38 28 31 5Building Construction- Phase 7 56 51Forklift 1 75 10% 2500 41 31 34 0Cranes 2 81 16% 2500 50 42 45 0Dozer 1 82 40% 2500 48 44 47 0Graders 1 85 40% 2500 51 47 50 0Dump/Haul Trucks 1 76 40% 3000 35 31 34 5Air Compressor 1 78 40% 3500 36 32 35 5Excavator 1 81 40% 3000 40 36 39 5Other Equipment 1 85 50% 3000 44 41 44 5Paver 1 77 50% 3000 36 33 36 5Roller 1 80 20% 3000 39 32 35 5Front End Loader 1 79 40% 3500 37 33 36 5Water Trucks 1 80 10% 3500 38 28 31 5 Overlapping Phase Noise Levels
All Grading + Building Construction Phases 1 + 2 65 62Maximum Combined Noise Levels 65 62Source for Ref. Noise Levels: LA CEQA Guides, 2006 & FHWA RCNM, 2005
TRAFFIC NOISE ANALYSIS TOOL
Conejo Summit
Construction Noise
Auto MT HT Auto MT HT
Rancho Conejo Blvd between Conejo Spectrum St and Corporate C Hard 80 35 30 30 22 0 10 54.3 54.6 Noise Level
dBA CNEL
Peak Hour Noise
Level (Leq(h)
dBA)
Ground
Type
Distance from
Roadway to
Receiver (feet)
Speed (mph) Peak Hour Volume
Onroad Construction Noise.xlsx ESA 12/10/2021
TRAFFIC NOISE ANALYSIS TOOL
Conejo Summit
Project Traffic
Fehr & Peers
Auto MT HT Auto MT HT
Rancho Conejo Blvd between Conejo Spectrum St and Corporate C Hard 80 35 30 30 96 2 2 53.1 53.4 Peak Hour Noise
Level (Leq(h)
dBA)
Ground
Type
Distance from
Roadway to
Receiver (feet)
Speed (mph) Peak Hour Volume Noise Level
dBA CNEL
Traffic Noise_Project.xlsx ESA 12/10/2021
Appendix H
Traffic Studies
Iteris, Inc.| 1
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
To: City of Thousand Oaks From: Iteris, Inc.
801 S. Grand Avenue, Suite 750
Los Angeles, CA 90017
Date: December 21, 2020
RE: Shapell Industrial Project – CEQA Transportation Analysis
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), assessment of transportation impacts uses a metric of the average length of vehicle trips taken by users of the proposed Shapell Industrial project site as compared to the citywide average.The trip lengths (vehicle miles traveled) were calculated from a computerized travel demand model which estimates the projectͲrelated and citywide vehicle miles traveled in a dynamic relationship with other land uses in the southern California region.Based on the analysis, the site workers would average longer trips taken by vehicles than the citywide average— necessitating mitigation actions to reduce vehicle trips and trip lengths. A mitigation program was developed in conjunction with City staff and the project applicant to reduce the project to less than significant impacts under CEQA.
INTRODUCTION
This memorandum presents Iteris’ California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) analysis of the Shapell Industrial project in the City of Thousand Oaks. The Shapell Industrial project consists of 754,222 square feet of light industrial park land use. The project site is surrounded by industrial, institutional, and open space landͲuses. Access to the site is planned off Rancho Conejo Boulevard and Conejo Center Drive.
CEQA analysis for determining potential significant transportation impacts from vehicles transitioned in 2020 from an automobile delay or capacity measure to a Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) metric as required by Senate Bill (SB) 743. VMT is an areaͲwide performance measure which helps compare the overall performance of a project or project alternatives and is also used as a metric to ultimately assess the transportation environmental impacts of a project. VMT analysis shifts the focus towards impacts caused by the distance traveled by vehicles rather than the localized congestion created by vehicles (i.e., intersectionͲlevel delay).
VMT is generally calculated using a travel demand model that captures the movement of all trips over a highway network.For this analysis, the time period was defined as a 24Ͳhour period on a typical weekday.
Itshould be noted that travelͲdemand modeling outputs are unique, thus differ between model runs even when minimal land use or circulation network edits are made. As a result, the outputs generated for this project should only be applied to this analysis. This is discussed in more detail later in this memorandum.
Iteris, Inc.| 2
METHODOLOGY
Iteris utilized the Ventura County Transportation Model (VCTM) to generate the VMT statistics, following the City’s administrative policy on CEQA transportation analysis.This landͲuse based model, which is a subarea model of the Southern California Association of Government’s (SCAG) travel demand model, is consistent with the 2016 SCAG RTP/SCS travelͲdemand model assumptions and inputs. The model consists of a 2012 base year scenario and 2040 future year scenario. For the purposes of this analysis, the 2012 base year scenario is utilized.It should be noted the 2012 base year of the 2016 model is the regionwide standard for existing and baseline conditions analysis.
The VCTM consists of a detailed traffic analysis zone (TAZ) structure in the City of Thousand Oaks. The model consists of 110 TAZ’s within the City. Figure 1 shows the location of the proposed project’s TAZ (60169101) in relation to the regional area.
CEQA ANALYSIS
This section describes the potential screening, thresholds of significance, and VMT impact evaluation for the proposed project.
Screening Criteria
The City utilizes a screening criteria in order to provide CEQA relief to projects that support the State’s GHG emission goals, and those projects are presumed as less than significant. The proposed Shapell industrial project does not meet any of the screening criteria, thus is required to undergo a CEQA Transportation Assessment.
Thresholds of Significance
The City has adopted an administrative policy stating that thresholds of significance will be determined on a case by case basis. For the purposes of this project, the thresholds of significance will be as follows:
x A significant impact would occur if the VMT per capita or VMT per employee exceeds the citywide average VMT per capita or per employee of the baseline.
)LJXUH
3URMHFW/RFDWLRQDQG7UDQVSRUWDWLRQ$QDO\VLV=RQHV
7$=
1 127726&$/(
/HJHQG
3URMHFW7$=
)UHHZD\
3URMHFW6LWH9&707$=
5RDGZD\
6KDSHOO,QGXVWULDO3URMHFW907$QDO\VLV&LW\RI7KRXVDQG2DNV Iteris, Inc.| 4
VMT Impact Evaluation
The proposed project is nonͲresidential, thusthe VMT will be reported as Employment VMT per employee, calculated as such: (HomeͲBased Work Attraction VMT + WorkͲBased Production) / Number of Employees. In order to determine the project’s potential level of impact, a new VCTM scenario including the proposed project land use within TAZ 60169101 was prepared, utilizing the existing/baseline year of the model. From this model scenario output, the following two metrics were determined for significant impact determination:
x Regional average daily VMT per employee; and
x Project TAZ daily VMT per employee.
Based on the City’s adopted guidelines, the “region” for CEQA analysis purposes is assumed to be the City of Thousand Oaks. The new VCTM scenario resulted in the following outputs:
x The Citywide average daily VMT per employee, as calculated for use in this analysis only, is 14.58; and
x The Project TAZ daily VMT per employee is 16.52.
The project TAZ’s daily VMT per employee is 13.3% greater than the citywide average.Based on the thresholds of significance, the proposed project would result in a significant transportation impact and the project would need to mitigate its daily VMT per employee to a less than significant level.The 985 Project employees estimated to generate a total 16,275 daily vehicle miles and to be at the citywide the 985 Project employees would need to generate an estimated 14,361 vehicle miles per day—a difference of 1,914 vehicle miles. In order to be mitigated to a less than significant level, the total number of estimated projectͲrelated vehicle miles would need to be reduced by more than 1,915 vehicle miles.
As mentioned, it should be noted that travelͲdemand modeling outputs are unique, thus differ between model runs even when minimal land use or circulation network edits are made. Therefore, the approach to analyzing a project’s VMT impact is to only compare outputs (citywide average vs. project TAZ) that are extracted from the same model run. As described in this memo, the key measure for significant impact determination is the relative percentage difference between the two outputs from the same model run, rather than the absolute numbers themselves, as the citywide average output will be slightly different between separate model runs (i.e., not a static value). Thus, the citywide average output should only be applied to this analysis.
MITIGATION
CEQA requiresthat an environmental impact report identify feasible alternatives and mitigation measures that could avoid or substantially reduce a project’s significant environmental impacts. Mitigation options as generally recommended by the Office of Planning and Research (OPR) include provision of onͲsite transportation infrastructure, onͲsite transportation demand management, offͲsite infrastructure improvements, including roadway improvements which may also include active transportation and multimodal infrastructure, or offͲsite multimodal improvements.
Iteris, Inc.| 5
Based on discussions with the City, the following feasible mitigations measures are recommended in order to reduce the project’s significant impact:
x Infrastructure improvements to add an access road allowing bicycle access to/from the north x Active Transportation Improvements
x Bicycle Program
x OnͲsite Transportation Demand Management
A series of mitigation measure strategies are recommended in order to reduce the project TAZ’s daily VMT. Based on analysis of potential mitigation measure effectiveness, the following strategies would be required to be conditions of the proposed project in order for the impact to be less than significant: x Provision of Pedestrian Network Improvements
x Provision of Bicycle Parking and End of Trip Facilities x Provision of Electrical Vehicle Charging Stations
x Implementation of Preferential Rideshare Parking Program x Academy Drive Connection Fair Share Participation
x Hill Canyon Wastewater Treatment Plan Access Road and Bicycle Trail Fair Share Participation The mitigation measures, their estimated daily reduction in VMT from projectͲrelated trips and additional description of the mitigation measure is shown in Table 1.The detailed methodology of the VMT reduction estimation is included in Appendix A at the end of the memorandum. Table 1: Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Strategy Estimated Daily VMT
Reduction Description
Provide Pedestrian Network (152) Install paths to connect buildings.
Provide Bike Parking in NonͲResidential
Projects (102) Bike racks and lockers
Provide End of Trip Facilities (54) Bike lockers storage Electrical Vehicle Charging Stations (843) 51 total stations, 3.4 per 15 buildings Implement Preferential Rideshare Parking
Program (248) One space per building (15)
Academy Drive Connection (86) Fair share participation
Hill Canyon Wastewater Treatment Plan
Access Road (432) New connection to reduce trip length to Wastewater facility and project site access, fair
share participation Hill Canyon Road Bicycle Trail Component (24) Total Reduction (1,941) Reduction is higher than amount necessary to be less than significant
Implementation of these mitigation measures is estimated to reduce the project TAZ’s daily VMT per employee below the citywide average. Thus, the project would achieve lessthan significant transportation impacts after mitigation. Detailed VMT reduction calculations are provided in Appendix A. Iteris, Inc.| 6
CONCLUSIONS
The Shapell Industrial project consists of 754,222 square feet of light industrial park land use. The project does not meeting any CEQA transportation screening criteria, thus is required to undergo a CEQA Transportation Assessment. Based on the described thresholds of significance, the proposed Shapell Industrial project would result in a significant transportation impact requiring mitigation. A series of mitigation measure strategies are recommended in order to reduce the project TAZ’s daily VMT, which include both onͲsite and offͲsite physical infrastructure improvements. Implementation of these mitigation measures is estimated to reduce the project TAZ’s daily VMT per employee below the citywide average. Thus, the project would achieve less than significant transportation impacts after mitigation.
Citywide Shapell Site
ID Purpose Productions Attractions ID Purpose Productions Attractions 1 HomeͲbased Work 1,439,022 917,425 1 HomeͲbased Work 8,960 20,358 2 HomeͲbased School 41,008 36,727 2 HomeͲbased School 962 Ͳ3 HomeͲbased University 57,119 5,929 3 HomeͲbased University 1,275 Ͳ 4 HomeͲbased Shopping 132,556 225,000 4 HomeͲbased Shopping 1,175 Ͳ 5 HomeͲbased SocialͲRecreational 269,434 400,742 5 HomeͲbased SocialͲRecreational 2,633 1,302 6 HomeͲbased Serve Passenger 67,713 133,886 6 HomeͲbased Serve Passenger 687 1,066 7 HomeͲbased Other 266,533 512,656 7 HomeͲbased Other 2,380 3,875 8 WorkͲBased Other 110,923 115,346 8 WorkͲBased Other 1,353 1,8979 Other Based Other 352,468 316,578 9 Other Based Other 1,742 1,369 2,736,776 2,664,289 21,167 29,868
Total WorkͲbased VMT/Employee 14.58 Total WorkͲbased VMT/Employee 16.52 Total HomeͲbased VMT/Capita 17.91 Total HomeͲbased VMT/Capita 16.25 Total Employees 70,532 Total Employees 1,314
Total Population 126,943 Total Population 1,112
Total WorkͲbased VMT 1,028,348 Total WorkͲbased VMT 21,711 Total HomeͲbased VMT 2,273,386 Total HomeͲbased VMT 18,071 Thousand Oaks TAZ: 60169101
Total VMT Total VMT
Iteris, Inc.| 7
Appendix A: VMT Reduction Calculations
# Strategy VMT Reduction Potential Purpose Elements Literature Range of Effectiveness Calculation Est. VMT Red. 1 Provide Pedestrian
Network Mode Shift to walking Improve pedestrian network conditions to facilitate walking භBuild a pedestrian access network that internally links all uses and connects to all existing or planned external streets and pedestrian facilities contiguous with the projectsite
භMinimize barriers to pedestrian access and interconnecƟvity භEliminate physical barriers such as walls, landscaping, and slopes that impede pedestrian circulation
2% vehicle miles traveled
(VMT) reduction 2% x total VMT (152)
2 Provide Bike Parking in
NonͲResidential Projects Mode shift to biking
Provide strengthened street
network characteristics and bicycle
facilities
භProvide bicycle parking at each building 0.625% Shift to Bicycles 0.625% shift to bicycles with bicycle parking at each building
(102)
3 Provide End of Trip
Facilities (such as onͲsite
food service, gym,
shower)
Mode shift to biking
Providing convenience and
security needed to encourage
bicycle commuting.
භProvide "endͲofͲtrip" faciliƟes for bicycle riders including bicycle lockers
1/3 % reduction in commute
vehicle trips 1/3% x Total VMT (54)
4 Electrical Vehicle
Charging Station Increase ZEV VMT
To transition from gasoline/diesel
vehicles to electric vehicles
භBuild electrical charging infrastructure
භBuild solar energy generaƟon and baƩery storage
Substitute fuel trips 1:1
based on charging capability
# of Charging Locations x
average VMT/VMT (51
stations)
(843)
5 Implement Preferential
Rideshare Parking
Program
Increase carpooling Create parking space forshared vehicles භProvide preferenƟal parking in convenient locaƟons (such as near public transportation or building front doors) in terms of free or reducedparking fees, priority parking, or reserved parking for commuters who carpool, vanpool, rideͲshare or use alternatively fueled vehicles Assume
carpooling/rideshare by
number of spaces provided
Assume 1 space per building
(15) (248)
6 Academy Drive
Connection Fair Share
Reduction in commute
distance from West
New connection with shorter
distance to western destinations
Reduction based on reduced distance from Academy Drive connection for employees from the West, from 2.5 miles to 1.1 miles from Wendy Drive interchange x estimated employees from the West (30% of employees with 10+ mile commuteͲconsistent with traffic study) 20% of reduced commute
distance of employee
commuters from the west
20% x 431 VMT reduction
from Academy Drive
connection
(86)
7 Hill Canyon Wastewater
Treatment Plan Access
Road
Wastewater Facility Access for
Employees Shorter access to employment site
Completion of an access road to the Hill Canyon Wastewater Treatment Plan for HCTP employees to access the Shapell properties 1Ͳ2 times a year for inspection
Reduction based on shorter
distance between HCTC and
Shapell Properties
13.0 miles between HCTC
and Shapell, 1mile with
access road, 12mile diff.,
round trip 24mile, 1.2 trips
per year X 15 buildings =
432
(432)
8 Hill Canyon Road Bicycle
Trail New Bicycle Path Connection Improve bicycle connectivity Biycle access from new Hill Canyon Wastewater access road to Hill Canyon Road 1% increase in share of
workers commuting by
bicycle (for each additional
mile of bike lanes per
square mile)
3 miles x 1% increase of City
average of 0.5% bicycle
commuters = .015% increase
x total VMT
(24)
City of Thousand Oaks | 099008021 0
Traffic Impact Analysis i May 15, 2020
Shapell Traffic Study
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................................ III INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................................. 1 TRAFFIC STUDY ............................................................................................................................. 1 STUDY METHODOLOGY................................................................................................................ 1 Level of Service Analysis Criteria ........................................................................................... 5 EXISTING (2020) CONDITIONS ..................................................................................................... 6 Study Area Roadway Descriptions ......................................................................................... 6 Existing (2020) Intersection Operations ................................................................................. 6 PROJECT TRAFFIC....................................................................................................................... 10 Project Trip Generation ......................................................................................................... 10 Project Trip Distribution ......................................................................................................... 10 EXISTING (2020) + PROJECT CONDITIONS ............................................................................. 14 Significant Impact and Recommended Mitigation ............................................................... 15 BUILD OUT (2040) CONDITIONS ................................................................................................ 17 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS............................................................................... 19
APPENDIX
APPENDIX A: Study Intersection LOS Analysis – Synchro Output Sheets APPENDIX B: Study Intersection LOS Analysis – ICU Output Sheets Traffic Impact Analysis ii May 15, 2020
Shapell Traffic Study
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE 1 – PROJECT SITE LOCATION MAP ................................................................................................ 3 FIGURE 2 – PROJECT SITE PLAN................................................................................................................... 4 FIGURE 3 – EXISTING LANE CONFIGURATIONS ......................................................................................... 8 FIGURE 4 – EXISTING PEAK-HOUR INTERSECTION VOLUMES............................................................... 9 FIGURE 5 – GENERAL SITE TRIP DISTRIBUTION...................................................................................... 11 FIGURE 6 – SITE TRIP INTERSECTION DISTRIBUTION............................................................................ 12 FIGURE 7 – PROJECT PEAK-HOUR INTERSECTION VOLUMES............................................................. 13 FIGURE 8 – EXISTING (2020) + PROJECT PEAK-HOUR INTERSECTION VOLUMES........................... 16 FIGURE 9 – BUILD OUT (2040) PEAK-HOUR INTERSECTION VOLUMES .............................................. 18
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE 1 - STUDY AREA INTERSECTIONS .................................................................................................... 2 TABLE 2 - LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) DEFINITIONS .................................................................................... 5 TABLE 3 - EXISTING (2020) INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE - HCM ................................................ 7 TABLE 4 - EXISTING (2020) INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE - ICU .................................................. 7 TABLE 5 - PROJECT TRIP GENERATION .................................................................................................... 10 TABLE 6 - EXISTING (2020) + PROJECT INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE - HCM ........................ 14 TABLE 7 - EXISTING (2020) + PROJECT INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE - ICU .......................... 14 TABLE 8 - EXISTING (2020) + PROJECT INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE – HCM (MITIGATION)15 TABLE 9 - BUILD OUT (2040) INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE - HCM ........................................... 17 TABLE 10 - BUILD OUT (2040) INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE - ICU ........................................... 17 Traffic Impact Analysis iii May 15, 2020
Shapell Traffic Study
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The proposed location for the Shapell Development is in the City of Thousand Oaks and totals approximately 754,222 square feet of light industrial space. This traffic impact study analyzes the Shapell Development and its impacts on four neighboring signalized intersections:
x Rancho Conejo / Hillcrest Drive
x Camino Dos Rios / Teller
x Ventu Park Road / Hillcrest Drive
x Broadbeck / Camino Dos Rios
This study has been prepared with information provided by the City’s Traffic Impact Mitigation Fee Nexus Study (TIMF) to address the traffic-related impacts of the proposed Shapell Development in the City of Thousand Oaks. The Trip Generation Analysis was produced using the 10th Edition of the ITE Trip General Manual.
Existing (2020) Conditions
For the Existing (2020) conditions, all study intersections operate at an acceptable level of service with the exception of the intersection of Ventu Park Rd at Hillcrest Dr during the PM peak hour, which operates at a LOS D.
Existing (2020) + Project Conditions
For the Existing (2020) + Project conditions, the project has a significant impact on the intersections of Rancho Conejo Blvd at Hillcrest Dr (AM peak hour) and Ventu Park Rd at Hillcrest Dr (AM and PM peak hours). It is recommended to make signal timing changes at both intersections to better accommodate the vehicular demand and it’s also recommended to change the lane assignment of the southbound approach of ther intersection of Ventu Park Rd at Hillcrest Dr to be a through, through, through-right approach.
Build Out (2040) Conditions
Recommended improvements from the Existing (2020) + Project scenario were included in the Build Out (2040) conditions. In the Build Out (2040) scenario, all study intersections continue to operate at an acceptable LOS, except for the intersection of Ventu Park Rd at Hillcrest Dr. It is anticipated that when the Academy Drive extension is built and connects to the project site, it would alleviate the traffic experienced on Ventu Park Rd and therefore decrease the delay seen at the intersection of Ventu Park Rd at Hillcrest Dr.
Traffic Impact Analysis 1 May 15, 2020
Shapell Traffic Study
INTRODUCTION
The City of Thousand Oaks is the second largest city in Ventura County covering approximately 56 square miles and holding a population of 130,196 people1. Over the years, the City has experienced growth in both residential and employment opportunities. Companies are looking to Thousand Oaks as a viable location for business as it there is more space compared to the City of Los Angeles and there is access to nearby residents.
In the 1980s, the City of Thousand Oaks adopted Specific Plan No. 7. The Specific Plan envisioned a Project, which is now ready for implementation. The Project is a light industrial park that totals approximately 754,222 square feet. The site has already been graded with utilities stubbed to lots. The Project will provide site improvements such as site access improvements, parking, landscaping and utility infrastructure. The Project site is surrounded by industrial, institutional, and open space land-uses. Site access is planned from Rancho Conejo Boulevard and Conejo Center Drive. Planned projects for the future include extension of Academy Drive which will connect to Conejo Center Drive between Lot’s 10 and 11/12. The Project will construct the public road improvements for this future connection.
TRAFFIC STUDY
This traffic impact study has been prepared to address the traffic-related impacts of the proposed Shapell Development in the City of Thousand Oaks. This traffic study has been conducted using the Traffic Impact Mitigation Fee Nexus Study (TIMF), completed in 2019. The TIMF Study provides existing and build-out scenarios of the Study Area. The Trip Generation Analysis was produced using the 10th Edition of the ITE Trip General Manual.
This report includes a description of existing traffic conditions in the surrounding area, estimated project trip generation and distribution, future traffic growth, and an assessment of project-related impacts on the roadway system in the future.
STUDY METHODOLOGY
This document analyzes study area traffic conditions under five conditions:
x Existing (2020)
x Existing (2020) + Project
x Build Out (2040)
The project study area and site location for this traffic impact study were defined by City of Thousand Oaks staff. The year 2020 is the defined year for existing conditions. Traffic volumes for the Existing (2020) conditions were interpolated between the 2016 counts and the approved 2040 volumes found in the TIMF.
Approved 2040 traffic volumes from the TIMF were used for the Build Out (2040) analysis. The City has mentioned that there will be an Academy Drive extension project that would connect to the study area but does not have a set construction date. This will be further discussed in the Build Out (2040) chapter.
Existing operations and peak-hour project traffic impacts were analyzed at four intersections within the vicinity of the project. Table 1 presents the intersections analyzed, their type of intersection control, and in which jurisdiction they lie.
1 https://www.toaks.org/business/economic-development/business-resources/demographics Traffic Impact Analysis 2 May 15, 2020
Shapell Traffic Study
TABLE 1 - STUDY AREA INTERSECTIONS
Intersection Control Jurisdiction
1 Rancho Conejo Blvd at Hillcrest Dr Signalized City of Thousand Oaks 2 Camino Dos Rios/Teller Rd at Hillcrest Dr Signalized City of Thousand Oaks 3 Ventu Park Road at Hillcrest Drive Signalized City of Thousand Oaks 4 Broadbeck at Camino Dos Rios Signalized City of Thousand Oaks 21 1 287 16
273 (388)76 (179)
54 (27)
354 (629)
0 239 92
81 295 (364)
9 8(2 7(
10 1 21
50 13 (51)
108 (59)167 (185)277 (289)
17 (41) 20 (12)
787 (252) 167 (438)
0 284 11
106 (395)
THIS DOCUMENT, TOGETHER WITH THE CONCEPTS AND DESIGNS PRESENTED HEREIN, AS AN INSTRUMENT OF SERVICE, IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE THE SPECIFIC PURPOSE AND CLIENT FOR WHICH IT IS PREPARED. REUSE OF AND IMPROPER RELIANCE ON THIS DOCUMENT WITHOUT WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION AND ADAPTATION BY KIMLEY-HORN, AND ASSOCIATES INC. SHALL BE WITHOUTLIABILITY TO KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
Figure
1 Vicinity Map
Shapell Development Traffic
Study
Thousand Oaks, CA
DRAFT | 4/27/2020
Legend
Intersection Analysis Locations
US-101
Shapell
Project Site
10%
20%
60%
US-101
Rancho Conejo Blvd
Teller Rd
Academy Dr
Lawrence Dr
5%
5%
THIS DOCUMENT, TOGETHER WITH THE CONCEPTS AND DESIGNS PRESENTED HEREIN, AS AN INSTRUMENT OF SERVICE, IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE THE SPECIFIC PURPOSE AND CLIENT FOR WHICH IT IS PREPARED. REUSE OF AND IMPROPER RELIANCE ON THIS DOCUMENT WITHOUT WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION AND ADAPTATION BY KIMLEY-HORN, AND ASSOCIATES INC. SHALL BE WITHOUT LIABILITY TO KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
Figure
2 Conceptual Site Plan
Shapell Development Traffic
Study
Thousand Oaks, CA
DRAFT | 4/27/2020
Traffic Impact Analysis 5 May 15, 2020
Shapell Traffic Study
Level of Service Analysis Criteria
The study area intersections were analyzed using Synchro Version 10 and ICU spreadsheets to determine the Level of Service (LOS) using both the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) and the Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) methods, respectively. Under the HCM Methodology, study intersections were analyzed using HCM 2000 to be consistent with the TIMF.
Table 2 presents the average intersection delay (per vehicle), capacity ratio, and the corresponding LOS, using the ICU and HCM methods.
TABLE 2 - LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) DEFINITIONS
ICU Value
HCM Value
(sec/veh)
Level of Service
(LOS)
0 to 0.60 < 10 A
>0.60 to 0.70 > 10 – 20 B
>0.70 to 0.80 > 20 – 35 C
>0.80 to 0.90 > 35 – 55 D
>0.90 to 1.00 > 55 – 80 E
>1.00 to 1.10 > 80 F
ICU Data Source: Thousand Oaks City Guidelines.
HCM Data Source: Highway Capacity Manual, 6th Edition for Signalized Intersections The traffic impact study guidelines utilized by the City of Thousand Oaks state that a project will have a significant traffic impact if the project increases demand on an intersection or roadway segment by at least 2% of capacity, at a pre-project LOS of C, D, E, or F.
As stated in the TIMF Study, the City has established a minimum of LOS C as acceptable at study intersections, with the exception of Rancho Conejo Blvd at Hillcrest Drive where LOS D is acceptable.
Analysis of Existing (2020) traffic conditions is based upon traffic counts and the approved 2040 volumes provided by the TIMF Study. The peak-hour intersection counts were conducted on a typical weekday between the hours of 7:00 AM and 9:00 AM, and 4:00 PM and 6:00 PM mostly between the years of 2015- 2017. Growth rates were calculated between the counts and the approved 2040 volumes to interpolate traffic volumes for the Existing (2020) conditions.
Traffic Impact Analysis 6 May 15, 2020
Shapell Traffic Study
EXISTING (2020) CONDITIONS
A description of study area roadways and an analysis of existing intersection operating conditions are provided in the following pages.
Study Area Roadway Descriptions
Descriptions of study area roadways that provide primary travel routes to and from the project site are provided below:
Rancho Conejo Boulevard is a six-lane divided north-south roadway that leads to the Project Site. Rancho Conejo Boulevard is a designated bikeway with exclusive bike lanes on both side of the street. The posted speed limit is 45 miles per hour. Rancho Conejo Boulevard has an interchange at the Ventura (US-101) Freeway.
Hillcrest Drive is an east-west secondary arterial roadway that has two travel lanes in each direction and narrows to one lane in each direction as it curves to parallel the Ventura Freeway. The posted speed limit is 35 miles per hour. Hillcrest Drive links Camino Dos Rios with Rancho Conejo Boulevard and its access ramps with the Ventura (US-101) Freeway.
Ventu Park Road is a six-lane divided north-south roadway. North of Hillcrest Drive Ventu Park Road has a dedicated bike lane. The posted speed limit is 40 miles per hour.
Broadbeck Drive is a four-lane divided north-south roadway with right-turn pockets at the intersection.
Broadbeck Drive dead ends at Academy Drive and turns into a driveway at Camino Dos Rios.
Camino Dos Rios is a six-lane divided east-west arterial south of the project site. Camino Dos Rios is a designated bikeway with exclusive bike lanes on both side of the street. The posted speed limit is 40 miles per hour. Camino Dos Rios becomes Teller Road east of the Hillcrest Drive intersection.
Teller Road is a four-lane east-west roadway west of the project site. The posted speed limit is 40 miles per hour. East of Lawrence Drive, Teller Road becomes a two-lane roadway with a posted speed limit of 25 miles per hour.
Lawrence Drive is a two-lane north-south roadway. The posted speed limit is 25 miles per hour. Lawrence Drive provides local access to many of the commercial and industrial sites in the area.
Existing (2020) Intersection Operations
Figure 3 illustrates the existing lane configurations and control type at the study intersections. The existing AM and PM peak-hour traffic volumes for the study intersections are illustrated on Figure 4.
Existing (2020) intersection peak-hour operations were evaluated using the HCM and ICU methodology. The HCM results are summarized in Table 3, while the ICU results are summarized in Table 4. For the Existing (2020) conditions, all study intersections operate at an acceptable level of service with the exception of the intersection of Ventu Park Rd at Hillcrest Dr during the PM peak hour, which operates at a LOS D.
HCM LOS analysis worksheets for the Existing (2020) conditions are provided in Appendix A, while ICU LOS analysis worksheets are provided in Appendix B.
Traffic Impact Analysis 7 May 15, 2020
Shapell Traffic Study
TABLE 3 - EXISTING (2020) INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE - HCM Intersection
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Delay1 V/C LOS Delay1 V/C LOS
1 Rancho Conejo Blvd at Hillcrest Dr 21.8 0.70 C 33.1 0.83 C 2 Camino Dos Rios/Teller Rd at
Hillcrest Dr 9.6 0.34 A 26.9 0.43 C
3 Ventu Park Rd at Hillcrest Dr 32.3 0.70 C 51.8 0.84 D 4 Broadbeck Dr at Camino Dos Rios 11.7 0.34 B 16.5 0.37 B 1 Delay recorded in seconds per vehicle
TABLE 4 - EXISTING (2020) INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE - ICU Intersection
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
V/C LOS V/C LOS
1 Rancho Conejo Blvd at Hillcrest Dr 0.43 A 0.59 A
2 Camino Dos Rios/Teller Rd at
Hillcrest Dr 0.28 A 0.36 A
3 Ventu Park Rd at Hillcrest Dr 0.55 A 0.71 C
4 Broadbeck Dr at Camino Dos Rios 0.26 A 0.30 A
SHAPELL DEVELOPMENT
THIS DOCUMENT, TOGETHER WITH THE CONCEPTS AND DESIGNS PRESENTED HEREIN, AS AN INSTRUMENT OF SERVICE, IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE THE SPECIFIC PURPOSE AND CLIENT FOR WHICH IT IS PREPARED. REUSE OF AND IMPROPER RELIANCE ON THIS DOCUMENT WITHOUT WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION AND ADAPTATION BY KIMLEY-HORN, AND ASSOCIATES INC. SHALL BE WITHOUT LIABILITY TO KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC. 3 Figure Existing (2020) Lane Use and Traffic
Control Devices
Shapell Development Traffic Study
Thousand Oaks, CA
DRAFT | 4/27/2020
Legend
Lane Use Signalized
Intersection
US-101
Hillcrest Dr
Lawrence Dr
Conejo Spectrum
Camino Dio Rios
299 (369)
358 (637)
280 (293)
107 (400) 10 (13) 214 (1203)
51 (274)
109 (60)
169 (187)
20 (12)
169 (443)
283 (171)
1260 (271)
115 (228)
21 (16)284 (985)
233 (299)941 (257)
169 (384)
315 (120)
55 (27)
77 (181)
276 (393)
15 (80)
130 (247)
4 (12)
8 (100)14 (74)51 (274)
13 (52)
208 (620)
0 (14)
17 (42)
82 (123)
49 (138)2 (5)49 (138)
21 (94)
231 (789)
6 (16)
89 (166)
1024 (448)
24 (30)
3 (10)
9 (9)
25 (45)
798 (256)
68 (201)
0 (0)0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
SHAPELL DEVELOPMENT
0 (0)0 (0)
THIS DOCUMENT, TOGETHER WITH THE CONCEPTS AND DESIGNS PRESENTED HEREIN, AS AN INSTRUMENT OF SERVICE, IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE THE SPECIFIC PURPOSE AND CLIENT FOR WHICH IT IS PREPARED. REUSE OF AND IMPROPER RELIANCE ON THIS DOCUMENT WITHOUT WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION AND ADAPTATION BY KIMLEY-HORN, AND ASSOCIATES INC. SHALL BE WITHOUT LIABILITY TO KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC. 4 Figure Existing (2020) Turning Movement
Volumes
Shapell Development Traffic Study
Thousand Oaks, CA
DRAFT | 4/27/2020
Legend
A(B) = Existing Traffic Volumes
A = Weekday AM Peak Hour Volumes
B = Weekday PM Peak Hour Volumes
US-101
4 1 3
2 Hillcrest Dr
Lawrence Dr
Conejo Spectrum
Traffic Impact Analysis 10 May 15, 2020
Shapell Traffic Study
PROJECT TRAFFIC
Project Trip Generation
Traffic volumes generated by the proposed Shapell Project were developed using the 10th Edition of the ITE Trip Generation Handbook. Information regarding trip generation was taken from General Light Industrial Land Use, which has the code of 110. Due to the size of the develop, the intensity for the Shapell Project is 754.22 KSF. Trip generation was developed using the fitted curve equation from the following time periods:
x Weekday (Daily)
x Weekday, Peak Hour of Adjacent Street Traffic, One Hour Between 7 and 9 AM x Weekday, Peak Hour of Adjacent Street Traffic, One Hour Between 4 and 6 PM Table 5 displays the trips generated from the Shapell Development.
TABLE 5 - PROJECT TRIP GENERATION
AM Peak Hour
Daily
Trips Total In Out Total In Out
[ITE Code] Existing Site Traffic
110 General Light Industrial 754.22 KSF 2,916 199 163 24 149 19 130 Proposed Subtotal 2,916 199 163 24 149 19 130
Internal Capture Trips 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Driveway Volumes 2,916 199 163 24 149 19 130
Pass-By Trips1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Proposed Site Trips 2,916 199 163 24 149 19 130
[ITE 710] General Office Building X is KSF
Weekday Daily (T) = 3.79(X)+57.96 (50% in, 50% out)
Weekday AM Peak Hour Ln (T) = 0.74 Ln (X) + 0.39 (82% in, 18% out) Weekday PM Peak Hour Ln (T) = 0.69 Ln (X) + 0.43 (13% in, 87% out) PM Peak Hour
of Adjacent Street of Adjacent Street
Notes: Trip generation for the following uses are based on ITE's Trip Generation, 10th Edition.
Land Use Intensity
Project Trip Distribution
Project trip distribution was developed based upon input from City staff, knowledge of the local roadway network, the type of development proposed, and other land uses within the vicinity of the site. Figure 5 and Figure 7 illustrate the trip distribution percentages and project traffic volumes for the proposed project, respectively.
FIGURE - General Site Trip Distribution
50%(50%)
SHAPELL DEVELOPMENT
50%
(20%) (20%)
(50%)
20% 20%
(40%)(25%)
15%40%25%
(15%)
THIS DOCUMENT, TOGETHER WITH THE CONCEPTS AND DESIGNS PRESENTED HEREIN, AS AN INSTRUMENT OF SERVICE, IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE THE SPECIFIC PURPOSE AND CLIENT FOR WHICH IT IS PREPARED. REUSE OF AND IMPROPER RELIANCE ON THIS DOCUMENT WITHOUT WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION AND ADAPTATION BY KIMLEY-HORN, AND ASSOCIATES INC. SHALL BE WITHOUT LIABILITY TO KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC. 6 Figure
Site Trip Distribution
Shapell Development Traffic Study
Thousand Oaks, CA
DRAFT | 4/27/2020
Legend
A%(B%) = Site Trip Distribution
A% = % Site Trips Entering
(B%) = % Site Trips Exiting
US-101
4 1 3
2 Hillcrest Dr
7 5
Lawrence Dr
Conejo Spectrum
0 (0)
82 (10)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
12 (65)
SHAPELL DEVELOPMENT
0 (0) 0 (0)
0 (0)0 (0)
0 (0)
82 (10)
0 (0)
0 (0)
5 (26) 5 (26)
0 (0) 0 (0)
12 (65)
0 (0)0 (0)0 (0)0 (0)0 (0)0 (0)
0 (0)
33 (4)
0 (0)0 (0)0 (0)
33 (4)
0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0)
0 (0) 0 (0)
0 (0)0 (0)
10 (52)0 (0)0 (0)6 (33)0 (0)
0 (0) 0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
24 (3)65 (8)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
41 (5)
0 (0)
4 (20) 0 (0)
THIS DOCUMENT, TOGETHER WITH THE CONCEPTS AND DESIGNS PRESENTED HEREIN, AS AN INSTRUMENT OF SERVICE, IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE THE SPECIFIC PURPOSE AND CLIENT FOR WHICH IT IS PREPARED. REUSE OF AND IMPROPER RELIANCE ON THIS DOCUMENT WITHOUT WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION AND ADAPTATION BY KIMLEY-HORN, AND ASSOCIATES INC. SHALL BE WITHOUT LIABILITY TO KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC. 7 Figure Project Generated Turning Movement
Volumes
Shapell Development Traffic Study
Thousand Oaks, CA
DRAFT | 4/27/2020
Legend
A(B) = Project Generated Traffic Volumes
A = Weekday AM Peak Hour Volumes
B = Weekday PM Peak Hour Volumes
US-101
4 1 3
2 Hillcrest Dr
7 5
Lawrence Dr
Conejo Spectrum
Traffic Impact Analysis 14 May 15, 2020
Shapell Traffic Study
EXISTING (2020) + PROJECT CONDITIONS
Project traffic was added to Existing (2020) traffic volumes at the four study area intersections and analyzed for peak-hour operations. Figure 8 illustrates the AM and PM peak-hour volumes for the Existing (2020) + Project condition. HCM LOS analysis worksheets are provided in Appendix A, while ICU LOS analysis worksheets are provided in Appendix B.
The HCM results are summarized in Table 6, while the ICU results are summarized in Table 7.
TABLE 6 - EXISTING (2020) + PROJECT INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE - HCM Intersection
Existing
(2020) Existing (2020) + Project
Impact? AM PM AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
V/C V/C Delay1 V/C Diff LOS Delay1 V/C Diff LOS
1 Rancho
Conejo Blvd at
Hillcrest Dr
0.70 0.83 22.7 0.72 0.02 C 34.2 0.84 0.01 C Yes
2 Camino Dos
Rios/Teller Rd
at Hillcrest Dr
0.34 0.43 9.5 0.35 0.01 A 27.0 0.44 0.01 C No
3 Ventu Park Rd
at Hillcrest Dr 0.70 0.84 34.0 0.72 0.02 C 55.9 0.85 0.01 E Yes 4 Broadbeck Dr
at Camino Dos
Rios
0.34 0.37 11.6 0.34 0.00 B 16.3 0.38 0.01 B No
1 Delay recorded in seconds per vehicle
TABLE 7 - EXISTING (2020) + PROJECT INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE - ICU Intersection
Existing (2020) Existing (2020) + Project
Impact? AM Peak
Hour
PM Peak
Hour AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
V/C LOS V/C LOS V/C Diff LOS V/C Diff LOS
1 Rancho Conejo
Blvd at Hillcrest
Dr
0.43 A 0.59 A 0.45 0.02 A 0.61 0.02 B No
2 Camino Dos
Rios/Teller Rd
at Hillcrest Dr
0.28 A 0.36 A 0.29 0.01 A 0.37 0.01 A No
3 Ventu Park Rd
at Hillcrest Dr 0.55 A 0.71 C 0.57 0.02 A 0.72 0.01 A No 4 Broadbeck Dr
at Camino Dos
Rios
0.26 A 0.30 A 0.27 0.01 A 0.31 0.01 A No
Traffic Impact Analysis 15 May 15, 2020
Shapell Traffic Study
Significant Impact and Recommended Mitigation
For the Existing (2020) + Project conditions, the project has a significant impact on the intersections of Rancho Conejo Blvd at Hillcrest Dr (AM peak hour) and Ventu Park Rd at Hillcrest Dr (AM and PM peak hours). It is recommended to make signal timing changes at both intersections to better accommodate the vehicular demand and it’s also recommended to change the lane assignment of the southbound approach of the intersection of Ventu Park Rd at Hillcrest Dr to be a through, through, through-right approach per direction given by the TIMF Study. Table 8 summarizes the HCM results after mitigation.
TABLE 8 - EXISTING (2020) + PROJECT INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE – HCM (MITIGATION)
Intersection
Existing
(2020) Existing (2020) + Project + Mitigation
Impact? AM PM AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
V/C V/C Delay1 V/C Diff LOS Delay1 V/C Diff LOS
1 Rancho
Conejo Blvd at
Hillcrest Dr
0.70 0.83 22.8 0.70 0.00 C 34.2 0.84 0.01 C No
2 Camino Dos
Rios/Teller Rd
at Hillcrest Dr
0.34 0.43 9.5 0.35 0.01 A 27.0 0.44 0.01 C No
3 Ventu Park Rd
at Hillcrest Dr 0.70 0.84 32.3 0.71 0.01 C 35.8 0.74 -0.10 D No 4 Broadbeck Dr
at Camino
Dos Rios
0.34 0.37 11.6 0.34 0.00 B 16.3 0.38 0.01 B No
1 Delay recorded in seconds per vehicle
SHAPELL DEVELOPMENT
89 (166) 17 (42)
0 (0)0 (0)
0 (0)
82 (10)
0 (0)
13 (52)
236 (815) 213 (646)
6 (16) 0 (14)
12 (65)
49 (138)2 (5)49 (138)8 (100)14 (74)50 (271)
21 (94)
1057 (452)
24 (30)
3 (10)
9 (9)
831 (260)
25 (45) 130 (247)
68 (201)
15 (80)
221 (1240)50 (271)21 (16)
108 (59)
20 (12)
4 (12)
167 (185) 276 (393)
277 (289) 77 (181) 290 (1018) 169 (384)
315 (120)
10 (13)
982 (262)
82 (123)
110 (415) 299 (369)
358 (637)
233 (299)
55 (27)
167 (438)
304 (172)
1309 (276)
114 (225)
THIS DOCUMENT, TOGETHER WITH THE CONCEPTS AND DESIGNS PRESENTED HEREIN, AS AN INSTRUMENT OF SERVICE, IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE THE SPECIFIC PURPOSE AND CLIENT FOR WHICH IT IS PREPARED. REUSE OF AND IMPROPER RELIANCE ON THIS DOCUMENT WITHOUT WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION AND ADAPTATION BY KIMLEY-HORN, AND ASSOCIATES INC. SHALL BE WITHOUT LIABILITY TO KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC. 8 Figure Existing (2020) + Project Turning
Movement Volumes
Shapell Development Traffic Study
Thousand Oaks, CA
DRAFT | 4/10/2020
Legend
A(B) = Project Generated Traffic Volumes
A = Weekday AM Peak Hour Volumes
B = Weekday PM Peak Hour Volumes
US-101
4 1 3
2 Hillcrest Dr
Lawrence Dr
Conejo Spectrum
Traffic Impact Analysis 17 May 15, 2020
Shapell Traffic Study
BUILD OUT (2040) CONDITIONS
Build Out (2040) conditions were determined based on the TIMF Study. The TIMF Study determined Build Out (sometimes referred to as Future) volumes from the 2035 Specific Plan. These volumes from the 2035 Specific Plan were grown further by 0.376% annually for 5 years for a total increase of 1.88% to 2040. If 2035 Specific Plan volumes were not available for the intersection location, the existing traffic volumes were grown by 0.376% annually from the year they were collected to 2040. The Build Out (2040) conditions already include the Shapell development but does not include the future extension of Academy Dr. Figure 9 illustrates the AM and PM peak-hour volumes for the Build Out (2040) condition. Recommended improvements from the Existing (2020) + Project scenario were included in the Build Out (2040) conditions.
The HCM results are summarized in Table 9, while the ICU results are summarized in Table 10. For the Build Out (2040) all study intersections operate at an acceptable level of service. HCM LOS analysis worksheets are provided in Appendix A, while ICU LOS analysis worksheets are provided in Appendix B.
TABLE 9 - BUILD OUT (2040) INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE - HCM Intersection
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Delay1 V/C LOS Delay1 V/C LOS
1 Rancho Conejo Blvd at Hillcrest Dr 23.7 0.73 C 37.7 0.89 D 2 Camino Dos Rios/Teller Rd at
Hillcrest Dr 9.8 0.36 A 27.3 0.46 C
3 Ventu Park Rd at Hillcrest Dr 35.7 0.75 D 40.4 0.75 D 4 Broadbeck Dr at Camino Dos Rios 11.9 0.36 B 16.8 0.40 B 1 Delay recorded in seconds per vehicle
TABLE 10 - BUILD OUT (2040) INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE - ICU Intersection
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
V/C LOS V/C LOS
1 Rancho Conejo Blvd at Hillcrest Dr 0.46 A 0.63 B
2 Camino Dos Rios/Teller Rd at
Hillcrest Dr 0.29 A 0.39 A
3 Ventu Park Rd at Hillcrest Dr 0.61 B 0.65 B
4 Broadbeck Dr at Camino Dos Rios 0.28 A 0.33 A
All study intersections continue to operate at an acceptable LOS, except for the intersection of Ventu Park Rd at Hillcrest Dr. It is anticipated that when the Academy Drive extension is built and connects to the project site, it would alleviate the traffic experienced on Ventu Park Rd and therefore decrease the delay seen at the intersection of Ventu Park Rd at Hillcrest Dr.
95 (176) 19 (44)
14 (55)
245 (839) 220 (656)
7 (18) 0 (15)
52 (147)2 (5)
SHAPELL DEVELOPMENT
52 (147)9 (106)15 (79)54 (292)
23 (100)
1090 (477)
26 (32)
3 (11)
10 (10)
846 (271)
27 (48) 138 (262)
72 (213)
16 (85)
228 (1281)54 (292)23 (18)
116 (64)
22 (13)
4 (13)
180 (199) 294 (419)
298 (311) 82 (193) 302 (1049) 180 (409)
335 (128)
11 (14)
1002 (274)
88 (131)
114 (426) 318 (392)
381 (678)
248 (317)
58 (29)
180 (472)
301 (182)
1341 (289)
123 (242)
THIS DOCUMENT, TOGETHER WITH THE CONCEPTS AND DESIGNS PRESENTED HEREIN, AS AN INSTRUMENT OF SERVICE, IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE THE SPECIFIC PURPOSE AND CLIENT FOR WHICH IT IS PREPARED. REUSE OF AND IMPROPER RELIANCE ON THIS DOCUMENT WITHOUT WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION AND ADAPTATION BY KIMLEY-HORN, AND ASSOCIATES INC. SHALL BE WITHOUT LIABILITY TO KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC. 9 Figure Build Out (2040) Turning Movement
Volumes
Shapell Development Traffic Study
Thousand Oaks, CA
DRAFT | 4/10/2020
Legend
A(B) = Build Out (2040) Generated Traffic Volumes
A = Weekday AM Peak Hour Volumes
B = Weekday PM Peak Hour Volumes
US-101
4 1 3
2 Hillcrest Dr
Lawrence Dr
Conejo Spectrum
Traffic Impact Analysis 19 May 15, 2020
Shapell Traffic Study
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The City of Thousand Oaks traffic impact analysis guidelines state that a significant project traffic impact occurs when the proposed project increases traffic demand on a signalized intersection by at least 0.02 of capacity at a pre-project LOS of C, D, E, or F. As stated in the TIMF Study, the City has established a minimum of LOS C as acceptable at study intersections, with the exception of Rancho Conejo Blvd at Hillcrest Dr where LOS D is acceptable.
For the Existing (2020) conditions, all study intersections operate at an acceptable level of service with the exception of the intersection of Ventu Park Rd at Hillcrest Dr during the PM peak hour, which operates at a LOS D.
For the Existing (2020) + Project conditions, the project has a significant impact on the intersections of Rancho Conejo Blvd at Hillcrest Dr (AM peak hour) and Ventu Park Rd at Hillcrest Dr (AM and PM peak hours). It is recommended to make signal timing changes at both intersections to better accommodate the vehicular demand and it’s also recommended to change the lane assignment of the southbound approach of ther intersection of Ventu Park Rd at Hillcrest Dr to be a through, through, through-right approach.
Recommended improvements from the Existing (2020) + Project scenario were included in the Build Out (2040) conditions. In the Build Out (2040) scenario, all study intersections continue to operate at an acceptable LOS, except for the intersection of Ventu Park Rd at Hillcrest Dr. It is anticipated that when the Academy Drive extension is built and connects to the project site, it would alleviate the traffic experienced on Ventu Park Rd and therefore decrease the delay seen at the intersection of Ventu Park Rd at Hillcrest Dr.
APPENDIX A: Study Intersection LOS Analysis – Synchro Output Sheets HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Existing (2020) 1: Rancho Conejo Blvd & Hillcrest Dr/Hillcrest Dr AM Peak Hour Shapell Traffic Study Synchro 10 Report
04/27/2020 Page 1
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 20 169 107 280 169 109 283 1260 115 51 214 10 Future Volume (vph) 20 169 107 280 169 109 283 1260 115 51 214 10 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 5.5 4.0 4.0 5.5 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.91 1.00 1.00 0.91 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.99 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 3539 1583 3433 1863 1583 1770 5085 1583 1770 5051 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 3539 1583 3433 1863 1583 1770 5085 1583 1770 5051 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 22 184 116 304 184 118 308 1370 125 55 233 11 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 75 0 0 85 0 0 56 0 6 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 22 184 41 304 184 33 308 1370 69 55 238 0 Turn Type Prot NA pm+ov Prot NA pm+ov Prot NA pm+ov Prot NA Protected Phases 52316738174
Permitted Phases 2 6 8
Actuated Green, G (s) 1.1 7.9 24.4 8.2 15.0 19.5 16.5 30.0 38.2 4.5 18.0 Effective Green, g (s) 1.1 7.9 24.4 8.2 15.0 19.5 16.5 30.0 38.2 4.5 18.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.02 0.11 0.35 0.12 0.22 0.28 0.24 0.43 0.55 0.07 0.26 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 5.5 4.0 4.0 5.5 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 28 404 558 407 404 446 422 2207 875 115 1315 v/s Ratio Prot 0.01 0.05 0.02 c0.09 c0.10 0.00 c0.17 c0.27 0.01 0.03 0.05 v/s Ratio Perm 0.01 0.02 0.03
v/c Ratio 0.79 0.46 0.07 0.75 0.46 0.07 0.73 0.62 0.08 0.48 0.18 Uniform Delay, d1 33.9 28.6 14.8 29.4 23.5 18.2 24.2 15.1 7.2 31.2 19.8 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 82.7 0.8 0.1 7.3 0.8 0.1 6.2 0.5 0.0 3.1 0.1 Delay (s) 116.6 29.4 14.9 36.8 24.3 18.3 30.5 15.7 7.3 34.3 19.9 Level of Service F C B D C B C B A C B
Approach Delay (s) 30.1 29.4 17.6 22.5
Approach LOS C C B C
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 21.8 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.70
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 69.1 Sum of lost time (s) 18.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 57.0% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Existing (2020) 2: Hillcrest Dr & Camino Dos Rios/Teller Rd AM Peak Hour Shapell Traffic Study Synchro 10 Report
04/27/2020 Page 2
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 17 798 130 0 208 13 68 15 4 7 14 8 Future Volume (vph) 17 798 130 0 208 13 68 15 4 7 14 8
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 4.0
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.99 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.98 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 3539 1583 3508 3433 1807 1831 1583 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.98 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 3539 1583 3508 3433 1807 1831 1583 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 18 867 141 0 226 14 74 16 4 8 15 9
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 25 020040008
Lane Group Flow (vph) 18 867 116 0 238 0 74 16 0 0 23 1 Turn Type Prot NA pm+ov Prot NA Split NA Split NA pm+ov Protected Phases 52816 88 775
Permitted Phases 2 7
Actuated Green, G (s) 4.6 90.5 98.7 81.9 8.2 8.2 4.8 9.4 Effective Green, g (s) 4.6 90.5 98.7 81.9 8.2 8.2 4.8 9.4 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.04 0.75 0.82 0.68 0.07 0.07 0.04 0.08 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 4.0
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 67 2668 1374 2394 234 123 73 124
v/s Ratio Prot 0.01 c0.24 0.01 0.07 c0.02 0.01 c0.01 0.00 v/s Ratio Perm 0.07 0.00
v/c Ratio 0.27 0.32 0.08 0.10 0.32 0.13 0.32 0.01
Uniform Delay, d1 56.1 4.8 2.0 6.5 53.2 52.6 56.0 51.0
Progression Factor 1.26 0.74 0.78 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 2.1 0.3 0.0 0.1 0.8 0.5 2.5 0.0
Delay (s) 72.9 3.9 1.6 6.6 54.0 53.0 58.5 51.0
Level of Service E A A A D D E D
Approach Delay (s) 4.8 6.6 53.8 56.4
Approach LOS A A D E
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 9.6 HCM 2000 Level of Service A
HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.34
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 120.0 Sum of lost time (s) 20.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 39.8% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Existing (2020) 3: Ventu Park Rd & Hillcrest Dr AM Peak Hour
Shapell Traffic Study Synchro 10 Report
04/27/2020 Page 3
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 55 358 299 77 276 315 233 941 82 169 284 21 Future Volume (vph) 55 358 299 77 276 315 233 941 82 169 284 21 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 6.0 5.0 4.0 6.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.97 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.95 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.92 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 3539 1583 1770 3256 3433 3539 1583 3433 3539 1583 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 3539 1583 1770 3256 3433 3539 1583 3433 3539 1583 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 60 389 325 84 300 342 253 1023 89 184 309 23 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 162 0 172 0 0 0 60 0 0 16
Lane Group Flow (vph) 60 389 163 84 470 0 253 1023 29 184 309 7 Turn Type Prot NA pm+ov Prot NA Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Protected Phases 52316 38 74
Permitted Phases 2 8 4
Actuated Green, G (s) 6.1 29.2 39.9 6.9 30.0 10.7 30.3 30.3 8.8 27.4 27.4 Effective Green, g (s) 6.1 29.2 39.9 6.9 30.0 10.7 30.3 30.3 8.8 27.4 27.4 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.06 0.31 0.42 0.07 0.32 0.11 0.32 0.32 0.09 0.29 0.29 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 6.0 5.0 4.0 6.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 1.4 2.0 1.4 1.4 2.0 1.4 2.0 2.0 1.4 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 114 1097 670 129 1036 389 1138 509 320 1029 460 v/s Ratio Prot 0.03 0.11 0.03 c0.05 c0.14 c0.07 c0.29 0.05 0.09 v/s Ratio Perm 0.08 0.02 0.00
v/c Ratio 0.53 0.35 0.24 0.65 0.45 0.65 0.90 0.06 0.57 0.30 0.01 Uniform Delay, d1 42.7 25.2 17.4 42.5 25.6 40.0 30.5 22.1 40.9 26.0 23.8 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 2.0 0.9 0.1 8.6 0.1 3.0 9.4 0.0 1.6 0.1 0.0 Delay (s) 44.7 26.1 17.5 51.1 25.7 42.9 39.8 22.1 42.5 26.0 23.8 Level of Service D C B D C DDCDCC
Approach Delay (s) 23.9 28.6 39.3 31.8
Approach LOS C C D C
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 32.3 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.70
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 94.2 Sum of lost time (s) 20.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 68.6% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Existing (2020) 4: Broadbeck Dr & Camino Dos Rios AM Peak Hour
Shapell Traffic Study Synchro 10 Report
04/27/2020 Page 4
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 89 1024 25 6 231 21 24 3 9 66 2 49 Future Volume (vph) 89 1024 25 6 231 21 24 3 9 66 2 49
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.5 5.5 4.0 4.0 4.5 4.5 4.0 4.5
Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.91 1.00 0.91 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.88 Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.88 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 3433 5067 1770 5021 1770 1648 1776 2787 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.65 1.00 0.72 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 3433 5067 1770 5021 1219 1648 1346 2787 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 97 1113 27 7 251 23 26 3 10 72 2 53
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 1 0 0 4 0 0 9 0 0 0 45
Lane Group Flow (vph) 97 1139 0 7 270 0 26 4 0 0 74 8
Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA Perm NA Perm NA pm+ov
Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 8 4 5
Permitted Phases 8 4 4
Actuated Green, G (s) 8.2 95.2 1.4 89.4 9.4 9.4 9.9 18.1 Effective Green, g (s) 8.2 95.2 1.4 89.4 9.4 9.4 9.9 18.1 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.07 0.79 0.01 0.75 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.15 Clearance Time (s) 4.5 5.5 4.0 4.0 4.5 4.5 4.0 4.5
Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 3.0 2.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 234 4019 20 3740 95 129 111 420
v/s Ratio Prot c0.03 c0.22 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.00
v/s Ratio Perm 0.02 c0.05 0.00
v/c Ratio 0.41 0.28 0.35 0.07 0.27 0.03 0.67 0.02
Uniform Delay, d1 53.6 3.3 58.8 4.1 52.1 51.1 53.4 43.4 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.03 0.87 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.4 0.2 3.8 0.0 0.6 0.0 11.1 0.0
Delay (s) 54.0 3.5 64.4 3.6 52.7 51.1 64.6 43.4
Level of Service D A E A D D E D
Approach Delay (s) 7.4 5.2 52.1 55.7
Approach LOS A A D E
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 11.7 HCM 2000 Level of Service B HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.34
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 120.0 Sum of lost time (s) 14.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 47.9% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Existing (2020) 1: Rancho Conejo Blvd & Hillcrest Dr/Hillcrest Dr PM Peak Hour Shapell Traffic Study Synchro 10 Report
04/27/2020 Page 1
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 12 443 400 293 187 60 171 271 228 274 1203 13 Future Volume (vph) 12 443 400 293 187 60 171 271 228 274 1203 13 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 5.5 4.0 4.0 5.5 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.91 1.00 1.00 0.91 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 3539 1583 3433 1863 1583 1770 5085 1583 1770 5077 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 3539 1583 3433 1863 1583 1770 5085 1583 1770 5077 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 13 482 435 318 203 65 186 295 248 298 1308 14 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 84 0 0 33 0 0 41 0 1 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 13 482 351 318 203 32 186 295 207 298 1321 0 Turn Type Prot NA pm+ov Prot NA pm+ov Prot NA pm+ov Prot NA Protected Phases 52316738174
Permitted Phases 2 6 8
Actuated Green, G (s) 0.6 12.3 24.9 12.0 23.7 39.8 12.6 20.8 32.8 16.1 24.3 Effective Green, g (s) 0.6 12.3 24.9 12.0 23.7 39.8 12.6 20.8 32.8 16.1 24.3 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.01 0.15 0.31 0.15 0.30 0.50 0.16 0.26 0.41 0.20 0.30 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 5.5 4.0 4.0 5.5 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 13 546 494 516 553 790 279 1327 651 357 1547 v/s Ratio Prot 0.01 c0.14 0.11 c0.09 0.11 0.01 0.11 0.06 0.05 c0.17 c0.26 v/s Ratio Perm 0.11 0.01 0.08
v/c Ratio 1.00 0.88 0.71 0.62 0.37 0.04 0.67 0.22 0.32 0.83 0.85 Uniform Delay, d1 39.6 33.0 24.2 31.7 22.1 10.2 31.6 23.1 15.9 30.5 26.0 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 249.6 15.5 4.8 2.2 0.4 0.0 5.9 0.1 0.3 15.4 4.8 Delay (s) 289.2 48.5 29.0 33.9 22.5 10.2 37.5 23.2 16.2 45.9 30.8 Level of Service F DCCCBDCBDC
Approach Delay (s) 42.7 27.3 24.4 33.6
Approach LOS D C C C
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 33.1 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.83
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 79.7 Sum of lost time (s) 18.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 69.0% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Existing (2020) 2: Hillcrest Dr & Camino Dos Rios/Teller Rd PM Peak Hour Shapell Traffic Study Synchro 10 Report
04/27/2020 Page 2
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 42 256 247 14 620 52 201 80 12 29 74 100 Future Volume (vph) 42 256 247 14 620 52 201 80 12 29 74 100 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 5.5 5.5 4.0 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.99 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 3539 1583 1770 3498 3433 1826 1837 1583 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.99 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 3539 1583 1770 3498 3433 1826 1837 1583 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 46 278 268 15 674 57 218 87 13 32 80 109 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 81 0 4 0 0 4 0 0 0 90
Lane Group Flow (vph) 46 278 187 15 727 0 218 96 0 0 112 19 Turn Type Prot NA pm+ov Prot NA Split NA Split NA pm+ov Protected Phases 52816 88 775
Permitted Phases 2 7
Actuated Green, G (s) 8.8 59.4 83.8 3.1 53.7 24.4 24.4 12.6 21.4 Effective Green, g (s) 8.8 59.4 83.8 3.1 53.7 24.4 24.4 12.6 21.4 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.07 0.49 0.70 0.03 0.45 0.20 0.20 0.10 0.18 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 5.5 5.5 4.0 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 4.0
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 129 1751 1105 45 1565 698 371 192 282 v/s Ratio Prot c0.03 0.08 0.03 0.01 c0.21 c0.06 0.05 c0.06 0.01 v/s Ratio Perm 0.08 0.01
v/c Ratio 0.36 0.16 0.17 0.33 0.46 0.31 0.26 0.58 0.07
Uniform Delay, d1 52.9 16.6 6.2 57.4 23.1 40.7 40.2 51.2 41.0 Progression Factor 1.16 0.87 0.54 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 1.7 0.2 0.3 4.3 1.0 1.2 1.7 4.5 0.1 Delay (s) 63.3 14.6 3.7 61.8 24.1 41.8 41.9 55.7 41.1
Level of Service EBAEC DD ED
Approach Delay (s) 13.4 24.9 41.8 48.5
Approach LOS B C D D
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 26.9 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.43
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 120.0 Sum of lost time (s) 20.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 49.5% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Existing (2020) 3: Ventu Park Rd & Hillcrest Dr PM Peak Hour
Shapell Traffic Study Synchro 10 Report
04/27/2020 Page 3
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 27 637 369 181 393 120 299 257 123 384 985 16 Future Volume (vph) 27 637 369 181 393 120 299 257 123 384 985 16 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 6.0 5.0 4.0 6.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.97 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.95 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.96 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 3539 1583 1770 3415 3433 3539 1583 3433 3539 1583 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 3539 1583 1770 3415 3433 3539 1583 3433 3539 1583 Peak-hour factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj. Flow (vph) 27 637 369 181 393 120 299 257 123 384 985 16 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 34 0 22 0 0 0 94 0 0 12
Lane Group Flow (vph) 27 637 335 181 491 0 299 257 29 384 985 4 Turn Type Prot NA pm+ov Prot NA Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Protected Phases 52316 38 74
Permitted Phases 2 8 4
Actuated Green, G (s) 3.7 30.7 42.9 11.0 38.0 12.2 23.7 23.7 14.5 25.0 25.0 Effective Green, g (s) 3.7 30.7 42.9 11.0 38.0 12.2 23.7 23.7 14.5 25.0 25.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.04 0.31 0.43 0.11 0.38 0.12 0.24 0.24 0.15 0.25 0.25 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 6.0 5.0 4.0 6.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 1.4 2.0 1.4 1.4 2.0 1.4 2.0 2.0 1.4 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 66 1098 686 196 1312 423 848 379 503 894 400 v/s Ratio Prot 0.02 c0.18 0.06 c0.10 0.14 0.09 0.07 c0.11 c0.28 v/s Ratio Perm 0.15 0.02 0.00
v/c Ratio 0.41 0.58 0.49 0.92 0.37 0.71 0.30 0.08 0.76 1.10 0.01 Uniform Delay, d1 46.5 28.7 20.1 43.5 21.9 41.6 30.8 29.1 40.6 37.0 27.7 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 1.5 2.2 0.2 42.5 0.1 4.4 0.1 0.0 6.1 61.9 0.0 Delay (s) 48.0 30.9 20.3 86.0 22.0 46.0 30.9 29.2 46.7 98.9 27.7 Level of Service D C C F C DCCDFC
Approach Delay (s) 27.6 38.7 37.2 83.6
Approach LOS C D D F
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 51.8 HCM 2000 Level of Service D HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.84
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 98.9 Sum of lost time (s) 20.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 80.1% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Existing (2020) 4: Broadbeck Dr/Broadbeck Drive & Camino Dos Rios PM Peak Hour Shapell Traffic Study Synchro 10 Report
04/27/2020 Page 4
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 166 448 45 16 789 94 30 10 9 102 5 138 Future Volume (vph) 166 448 45 16 789 94 30 10 9 102 5 138 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.5 5.5 4.0 4.0 4.5 4.5 4.0 4.5
Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.91 1.00 0.91 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.88 Frt 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.93 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 3433 5016 1770 5004 1770 1730 1778 2787 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.53 1.00 0.72 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 3433 5016 1770 5004 982 1730 1341 2787 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 180 487 49 17 858 102 33 11 10 111 5 150 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 5 0 0 8 0 0 9 0 0 0 118
Lane Group Flow (vph) 180 531 0 17 952 0 33 12 0 0 116 32 Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA Perm NA Perm NA pm+ov
Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 8 4 5
Permitted Phases 8 4 4
Actuated Green, G (s) 10.7 88.8 2.9 82.0 14.3 14.3 14.8 25.5 Effective Green, g (s) 10.7 88.8 2.9 82.0 14.3 14.3 14.8 25.5 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.09 0.74 0.02 0.68 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.21 Clearance Time (s) 4.5 5.5 4.0 4.0 4.5 4.5 4.0 4.5
Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 3.0 2.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 306 3711 42 3419 117 206 165 592
v/s Ratio Prot c0.05 0.11 0.01 c0.19 0.01 0.00
v/s Ratio Perm 0.03 c0.09 0.01
v/c Ratio 0.59 0.14 0.40 0.28 0.28 0.06 0.70 0.05
Uniform Delay, d1 52.5 4.5 57.7 7.4 48.2 46.9 50.5 37.6 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.02 0.63 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 1.9 0.1 2.2 0.2 0.5 0.0 10.5 0.0
Delay (s) 54.4 4.6 61.2 4.9 48.7 46.9 61.0 37.7
Level of Service D A E A D D E D
Approach Delay (s) 17.1 5.9 48.0 47.8
Approach LOS B A D D
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 16.5 HCM 2000 Level of Service B HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.37
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 120.0 Sum of lost time (s) 14.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 46.2% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Existing (2020) + Project 1: Rancho Conejo Blvd & Hillcrest Dr/Hillcrest Dr AM Peak Hour Shapell Traffic Study Synchro 10 Report
04/27/2020 Page 1
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 20 169 111 280 169 109 307 1325 115 51 224 10 Future Volume (vph) 20 169 111 280 169 109 307 1325 115 51 224 10 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 5.5 4.0 4.0 5.5 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.91 1.00 1.00 0.91 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.99 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 3539 1583 3433 1863 1583 1770 5085 1583 1770 5052 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 3539 1583 3433 1863 1583 1770 5085 1583 1770 5052 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 22 184 121 304 184 118 334 1440 125 55 243 11 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 77 0 0 86 0 0 54 0 6 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 22 184 44 304 184 32 334 1440 71 55 248 0 Turn Type Prot NA pm+ov Prot NA pm+ov Prot NA pm+ov Prot NA Protected Phases 52316738174
Permitted Phases 2 6 8
Actuated Green, G (s) 1.0 7.9 25.9 8.3 15.2 19.7 18.0 32.4 40.7 4.5 18.9 Effective Green, g (s) 1.0 7.9 25.9 8.3 15.2 19.7 18.0 32.4 40.7 4.5 18.9 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.01 0.11 0.36 0.12 0.21 0.28 0.25 0.45 0.57 0.06 0.26 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 5.5 4.0 4.0 5.5 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 24 390 572 397 395 435 444 2301 899 111 1333 v/s Ratio Prot 0.01 0.05 0.02 c0.09 c0.10 0.00 c0.19 c0.28 0.01 0.03 0.05 v/s Ratio Perm 0.01 0.02 0.04
v/c Ratio 0.92 0.47 0.08 0.77 0.47 0.07 0.75 0.63 0.08 0.50 0.19 Uniform Delay, d1 35.3 29.9 15.0 30.7 24.7 19.2 24.7 15.0 7.0 32.5 20.4 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 145.1 0.9 0.1 8.6 0.9 0.1 7.1 0.5 0.0 3.5 0.1 Delay (s) 180.3 30.8 15.1 39.3 25.5 19.3 31.8 15.5 7.0 35.9 20.5 Level of Service F C B D C B C B A D C
Approach Delay (s) 35.0 31.2 17.8 23.2
Approach LOS D C B C
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 22.7 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.72
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 71.6 Sum of lost time (s) 18.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 58.2% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Existing (2020) + Project 2: Hillcrest Dr & Camino Dos Rios/Teller Rd AM Peak Hour Shapell Traffic Study Synchro 10 Report
04/27/2020 Page 2
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 17 831 130 0 213 13 68 15 4 7 14 8 Future Volume (vph) 17 831 130 0 213 13 68 15 4 7 14 8
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 4.0
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.99 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.98 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 3539 1583 3509 3433 1807 1831 1583 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.98 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 3539 1583 3509 3433 1807 1831 1583 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 18 903 141 0 232 14 74 16 4 8 15 9
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 25 020040008
Lane Group Flow (vph) 18 903 116 0 244 0 74 16 0 0 23 1 Turn Type Prot NA pm+ov Prot NA Split NA Split NA pm+ov Protected Phases 52816 88 775
Permitted Phases 2 7
Actuated Green, G (s) 4.6 90.5 98.7 81.9 8.2 8.2 4.8 9.4 Effective Green, g (s) 4.6 90.5 98.7 81.9 8.2 8.2 4.8 9.4 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.04 0.75 0.82 0.68 0.07 0.07 0.04 0.08 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 4.0
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 67 2668 1374 2394 234 123 73 124
v/s Ratio Prot 0.01 c0.26 0.01 0.07 c0.02 0.01 c0.01 0.00 v/s Ratio Perm 0.07 0.00
v/c Ratio 0.27 0.34 0.08 0.10 0.32 0.13 0.32 0.01
Uniform Delay, d1 56.1 4.9 2.0 6.5 53.2 52.6 56.0 51.0
Progression Factor 1.28 0.74 0.79 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 2.1 0.3 0.0 0.1 0.8 0.5 2.5 0.0
Delay (s) 73.7 3.9 1.6 6.6 54.0 53.0 58.5 51.0
Level of Service E A A A D D E D
Approach Delay (s) 4.8 6.6 53.8 56.4
Approach LOS A A D E
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 9.5 HCM 2000 Level of Service A
HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.35
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 120.0 Sum of lost time (s) 20.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 40.7% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Existing (2020) + Project 3: Ventu Park Rd & Hillcrest Dr AM Peak Hour
Shapell Traffic Study Synchro 10 Report
04/27/2020 Page 3
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 55 358 299 77 276 315 233 982 82 169 290 21 Future Volume (vph) 55 358 299 77 276 315 233 982 82 169 290 21 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 6.0 5.0 4.0 6.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.97 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.95 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.92 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 3539 1583 1770 3256 3433 3539 1583 3433 3539 1583 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 3539 1583 1770 3256 3433 3539 1583 3433 3539 1583 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 60 389 325 84 300 342 253 1067 89 184 315 23 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 159 0 172 0 0 0 60 0 0 16
Lane Group Flow (vph) 60 389 166 84 470 0 253 1067 29 184 315 7 Turn Type Prot NA pm+ov Prot NA Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Protected Phases 52316 38 74
Permitted Phases 2 8 4
Actuated Green, G (s) 6.1 29.2 39.9 6.9 30.0 10.7 30.3 30.3 8.8 27.4 27.4 Effective Green, g (s) 6.1 29.2 39.9 6.9 30.0 10.7 30.3 30.3 8.8 27.4 27.4 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.06 0.31 0.42 0.07 0.32 0.11 0.32 0.32 0.09 0.29 0.29 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 6.0 5.0 4.0 6.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 1.4 2.0 1.4 1.4 2.0 1.4 2.0 2.0 1.4 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 114 1097 670 129 1036 389 1138 509 320 1029 460 v/s Ratio Prot 0.03 0.11 0.03 c0.05 c0.14 c0.07 c0.30 0.05 0.09 v/s Ratio Perm 0.08 0.02 0.00
v/c Ratio 0.53 0.35 0.25 0.65 0.45 0.65 0.94 0.06 0.57 0.31 0.01 Uniform Delay, d1 42.7 25.2 17.5 42.5 25.6 40.0 31.0 22.1 40.9 26.0 23.8 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 2.0 0.9 0.1 8.6 0.1 3.0 13.9 0.0 1.6 0.1 0.0 Delay (s) 44.7 26.1 17.6 51.1 25.7 42.9 44.9 22.1 42.5 26.1 23.8 Level of Service D C B D C DDCDCC
Approach Delay (s) 23.9 28.6 43.1 31.7
Approach LOS C C D C
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 34.0 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.72
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 94.2 Sum of lost time (s) 20.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 69.7% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Existing (2020) + Project 4: Broadbeck Dr & Camino Dos Rios AM Peak Hour
Shapell Traffic Study Synchro 10 Report
04/27/2020 Page 4
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 89 1057 25 6 236 21 24 3 9 66 2 49 Future Volume (vph) 89 1057 25 6 236 21 24 3 9 66 2 49
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.5 5.5 4.0 4.0 4.5 4.5 4.0 4.5
Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.91 1.00 0.91 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.88 Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.88 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 3433 5068 1770 5023 1770 1648 1776 2787 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.65 1.00 0.72 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 3433 5068 1770 5023 1219 1648 1346 2787 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 97 1149 27 7 257 23 26 3 10 72 2 53
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 1 0 0 4 0 0 9 0 0 0 45
Lane Group Flow (vph) 97 1175 0 7 276 0 26 4 0 0 74 8
Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA Perm NA Perm NA pm+ov
Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 8 4 5
Permitted Phases 8 4 4
Actuated Green, G (s) 8.2 95.2 1.4 89.4 9.4 9.4 9.9 18.1 Effective Green, g (s) 8.2 95.2 1.4 89.4 9.4 9.4 9.9 18.1 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.07 0.79 0.01 0.75 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.15 Clearance Time (s) 4.5 5.5 4.0 4.0 4.5 4.5 4.0 4.5
Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 3.0 2.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 234 4020 20 3742 95 129 111 420
v/s Ratio Prot c0.03 c0.23 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.00
v/s Ratio Perm 0.02 c0.05 0.00
v/c Ratio 0.41 0.29 0.35 0.07 0.27 0.03 0.67 0.02
Uniform Delay, d1 53.6 3.3 58.8 4.1 52.1 51.1 53.4 43.4 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.03 0.86 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.4 0.2 3.8 0.0 0.6 0.0 11.1 0.0
Delay (s) 54.0 3.5 64.7 3.6 52.7 51.1 64.6 43.4
Level of Service D A E A D D E D
Approach Delay (s) 7.4 5.1 52.1 55.7
Approach LOS A A D E
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 11.6 HCM 2000 Level of Service B HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.34
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 120.0 Sum of lost time (s) 14.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 48.5% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Existing (2020) + Project 1: Rancho Conejo Blvd & Hillcrest Dr/Hillcrest Dr PM Peak Hour Shapell Traffic Study Synchro 10 Report
04/27/2020 Page 1
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 12 443 420 293 187 60 174 279 228 274 1255 13 Future Volume (vph) 12 443 420 293 187 60 174 279 228 274 1255 13 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 5.5 4.0 4.0 5.5 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.91 1.00 1.00 0.91 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 3539 1583 3433 1863 1583 1770 5085 1583 1770 5078 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 3539 1583 3433 1863 1583 1770 5085 1583 1770 5078 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 13 482 457 318 203 65 189 303 248 298 1364 14 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 84 0 0 33 0 0 41 0 1 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 13 482 373 318 203 32 189 303 207 298 1377 0 Turn Type Prot NA pm+ov Prot NA pm+ov Prot NA pm+ov Prot NA Protected Phases 52316738174
Permitted Phases 2 6 8
Actuated Green, G (s) 0.6 12.3 25.1 12.0 23.7 39.8 12.8 21.1 33.1 16.1 24.4 Effective Green, g (s) 0.6 12.3 25.1 12.0 23.7 39.8 12.8 21.1 33.1 16.1 24.4 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.01 0.15 0.31 0.15 0.30 0.50 0.16 0.26 0.41 0.20 0.30 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 5.5 4.0 4.0 5.5 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 13 544 496 514 551 787 283 1341 654 356 1548 v/s Ratio Prot 0.01 c0.14 0.12 c0.09 0.11 0.01 0.11 0.06 0.05 c0.17 c0.27 v/s Ratio Perm 0.12 0.01 0.08
v/c Ratio 1.00 0.89 0.75 0.62 0.37 0.04 0.67 0.23 0.32 0.84 0.89 Uniform Delay, d1 39.7 33.2 24.7 31.9 22.2 10.3 31.6 23.1 15.8 30.7 26.5 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 249.6 15.9 6.4 2.2 0.4 0.0 5.9 0.1 0.3 15.6 6.7 Delay (s) 289.3 49.0 31.0 34.1 22.7 10.3 37.5 23.1 16.1 46.3 33.2 Level of Service F DCCCBDCBDC
Approach Delay (s) 43.7 27.5 24.4 35.5
Approach LOS D C C D
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 34.2 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.84
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 80.0 Sum of lost time (s) 18.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 70.2% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Existing (2020) + Project 2: Hillcrest Dr & Camino Dos Rios/Teller Rd PM Peak Hour Shapell Traffic Study Synchro 10 Report
04/27/2020 Page 2
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 42 260 247 14 646 52 201 80 12 29 74 100 Future Volume (vph) 42 260 247 14 646 52 201 80 12 29 74 100 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 5.5 5.5 4.0 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.99 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 3539 1583 1770 3499 3433 1826 1837 1583 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.99 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 3539 1583 1770 3499 3433 1826 1837 1583 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 46 283 268 15 702 57 218 87 13 32 80 109 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 81 0 4 0 0 4 0 0 0 87
Lane Group Flow (vph) 46 283 187 15 755 0 218 96 0 0 112 22 Turn Type Prot NA pm+ov Prot NA Split NA Split NA pm+ov Protected Phases 52816 88 775
Permitted Phases 2 7
Actuated Green, G (s) 8.8 59.4 83.8 3.1 53.7 24.4 24.4 12.6 21.4 Effective Green, g (s) 8.8 59.4 83.8 3.1 53.7 24.4 24.4 12.6 21.4 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.07 0.49 0.70 0.03 0.45 0.20 0.20 0.10 0.18 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 5.5 5.5 4.0 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 4.0
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 129 1751 1105 45 1565 698 371 192 282 v/s Ratio Prot c0.03 0.08 0.03 0.01 c0.22 c0.06 0.05 c0.06 0.01 v/s Ratio Perm 0.08 0.01
v/c Ratio 0.36 0.16 0.17 0.33 0.48 0.31 0.26 0.58 0.08
Uniform Delay, d1 52.9 16.6 6.2 57.4 23.4 40.7 40.2 51.2 41.1 Progression Factor 1.17 0.87 0.53 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 1.7 0.2 0.3 4.3 1.1 1.2 1.7 4.5 0.1 Delay (s) 63.3 14.6 3.6 61.8 24.4 41.8 41.9 55.7 41.2
Level of Service EBAEC DD ED
Approach Delay (s) 13.4 25.1 41.8 48.5
Approach LOS B C D D
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 27.0 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.44
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 120.0 Sum of lost time (s) 20.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 50.2% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Existing (2020) + Project 3: Ventu Park Rd & Hillcrest Dr PM Peak Hour
Shapell Traffic Study Synchro 10 Report
04/27/2020 Page 3
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 27 637 369 181 393 120 299 262 123 384 1018 16 Future Volume (vph) 27 637 369 181 393 120 299 262 123 384 1018 16 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 6.0 5.0 4.0 6.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.97 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.95 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.96 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 3539 1583 1770 3415 3433 3539 1583 3433 3539 1583 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 3539 1583 1770 3415 3433 3539 1583 3433 3539 1583 Peak-hour factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj. Flow (vph) 27 637 369 181 393 120 299 262 123 384 1018 16 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 34 0 22 0 0 0 94 0 0 12
Lane Group Flow (vph) 27 637 335 181 491 0 299 262 29 384 1018 4 Turn Type Prot NA pm+ov Prot NA Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Protected Phases 52316 38 74
Permitted Phases 2 8 4
Actuated Green, G (s) 3.7 30.7 42.9 11.0 38.0 12.2 23.7 23.7 14.5 25.0 25.0 Effective Green, g (s) 3.7 30.7 42.9 11.0 38.0 12.2 23.7 23.7 14.5 25.0 25.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.04 0.31 0.43 0.11 0.38 0.12 0.24 0.24 0.15 0.25 0.25 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 6.0 5.0 4.0 6.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 1.4 2.0 1.4 1.4 2.0 1.4 2.0 2.0 1.4 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 66 1098 686 196 1312 423 848 379 503 894 400 v/s Ratio Prot 0.02 c0.18 0.06 c0.10 0.14 0.09 0.07 c0.11 c0.29 v/s Ratio Perm 0.15 0.02 0.00
v/c Ratio 0.41 0.58 0.49 0.92 0.37 0.71 0.31 0.08 0.76 1.14 0.01 Uniform Delay, d1 46.5 28.7 20.1 43.5 21.9 41.6 30.9 29.1 40.6 37.0 27.7 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 1.5 2.2 0.2 42.5 0.1 4.4 0.1 0.0 6.1 76.0 0.0 Delay (s) 48.0 30.9 20.3 86.0 22.0 46.0 31.0 29.2 46.7 112.9 27.7 Level of Service D C C F C DCCDFC
Approach Delay (s) 27.6 38.7 37.2 94.0
Approach LOS C D D F
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 55.9 HCM 2000 Level of Service E HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.85
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 98.9 Sum of lost time (s) 20.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 81.0% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Existing (2020) + Project 4: Broadbeck Dr/Broadbeck Drive & Camino Dos Rios PM Peak Hour Shapell Traffic Study Synchro 10 Report
04/27/2020 Page 4
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 166 452 45 16 815 94 30 10 9 102 5 138 Future Volume (vph) 166 452 45 16 815 94 30 10 9 102 5 138 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.5 5.5 4.0 4.0 4.5 4.5 4.0 4.5
Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.91 1.00 0.91 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.88 Frt 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.93 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 3433 5016 1770 5007 1770 1730 1778 2787 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.53 1.00 0.72 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 3433 5016 1770 5007 982 1730 1341 2787 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 180 491 49 17 886 102 33 11 10 111 5 150 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 5 0 0 8 0 0 9 0 0 0 118
Lane Group Flow (vph) 180 535 0 17 980 0 33 12 0 0 116 32 Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA Perm NA Perm NA pm+ov
Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 8 4 5
Permitted Phases 8 4 4
Actuated Green, G (s) 10.7 88.8 2.9 82.0 14.3 14.3 14.8 25.5 Effective Green, g (s) 10.7 88.8 2.9 82.0 14.3 14.3 14.8 25.5 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.09 0.74 0.02 0.68 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.21 Clearance Time (s) 4.5 5.5 4.0 4.0 4.5 4.5 4.0 4.5
Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 3.0 2.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 306 3711 42 3421 117 206 165 592
v/s Ratio Prot c0.05 0.11 0.01 c0.20 0.01 0.00
v/s Ratio Perm 0.03 c0.09 0.01
v/c Ratio 0.59 0.14 0.40 0.29 0.28 0.06 0.70 0.05
Uniform Delay, d1 52.5 4.5 57.7 7.5 48.2 46.9 50.5 37.6 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.03 0.61 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 1.9 0.1 2.1 0.2 0.5 0.0 10.5 0.0
Delay (s) 54.4 4.6 61.7 4.8 48.7 46.9 61.0 37.7
Level of Service D A E A D D E D
Approach Delay (s) 17.1 5.7 48.0 47.8
Approach LOS B A D D
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 16.3 HCM 2000 Level of Service B HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.38
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 120.0 Sum of lost time (s) 14.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 46.7% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Existing (2020) + Project + Mitigation 1: Rancho Conejo Blvd & Hillcrest Dr/Hillcrest Dr AM Peak Hour Shapell Traffic Study Synchro 10 Report
04/27/2020 Page 1
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 20 169 111 280 169 109 307 1325 115 51 224 10 Future Volume (vph) 20 169 111 280 169 109 307 1325 115 51 224 10 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 5.5 4.0 4.0 5.5 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.91 1.00 1.00 0.91 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.99 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 3539 1583 3433 1863 1583 1770 5085 1583 1770 5052 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 3539 1583 3433 1863 1583 1770 5085 1583 1770 5052 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 22 184 121 304 184 118 334 1440 125 55 243 11 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 76 0 0 85 0 0 48 0 6 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 22 184 45 304 184 33 334 1440 77 55 248 0 Turn Type Prot NA pm+ov Prot NA pm+ov Prot NA pm+ov Prot NA Protected Phases 52316738174
Permitted Phases 2 6 8
Actuated Green, G (s) 1.1 8.9 27.0 9.2 17.0 20.0 18.1 32.9 42.1 3.0 17.8 Effective Green, g (s) 1.1 8.9 27.0 9.2 17.0 20.0 18.1 32.9 42.1 3.0 17.8 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.02 0.12 0.37 0.13 0.23 0.28 0.25 0.45 0.58 0.04 0.25 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 5.5 4.0 4.0 5.5 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 26 434 589 435 436 436 441 2307 919 73 1240 v/s Ratio Prot 0.01 0.05 0.02 c0.09 c0.10 0.00 c0.19 c0.28 0.01 0.03 0.05 v/s Ratio Perm 0.01 0.02 0.04
v/c Ratio 0.85 0.42 0.08 0.70 0.42 0.07 0.76 0.62 0.08 0.75 0.20 Uniform Delay, d1 35.6 29.4 14.7 30.3 23.6 19.4 25.2 15.1 6.7 34.4 21.7 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 109.6 0.7 0.1 4.9 0.7 0.1 7.3 0.5 0.0 35.0 0.1 Delay (s) 145.3 30.1 14.8 35.2 24.2 19.5 32.5 15.6 6.7 69.3 21.8 Level of Service F C B D C B C B A E C
Approach Delay (s) 32.2 28.8 18.0 30.2
Approach LOS C C B C
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 22.8 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.70
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 72.5 Sum of lost time (s) 18.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 58.2% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Existing (2020) + Project + Mitigation 2: Hillcrest Dr & Camino Dos Rios/Teller Rd AM Peak Hour Shapell Traffic Study Synchro 10 Report
04/27/2020 Page 2
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 17 831 130 0 213 13 68 15 4 7 14 8 Future Volume (vph) 17 831 130 0 213 13 68 15 4 7 14 8
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 4.0
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.99 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.98 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 3539 1583 3509 3433 1807 1831 1583 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.98 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 3539 1583 3509 3433 1807 1831 1583 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 18 903 141 0 232 14 74 16 4 8 15 9
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 25 020040008
Lane Group Flow (vph) 18 903 116 0 244 0 74 16 0 0 23 1 Turn Type Prot NA pm+ov Prot NA Split NA Split NA pm+ov Protected Phases 52816 88 775
Permitted Phases 2 7
Actuated Green, G (s) 4.6 90.5 98.7 81.9 8.2 8.2 4.8 9.4 Effective Green, g (s) 4.6 90.5 98.7 81.9 8.2 8.2 4.8 9.4 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.04 0.75 0.82 0.68 0.07 0.07 0.04 0.08 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 4.0
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 67 2668 1374 2394 234 123 73 124
v/s Ratio Prot 0.01 c0.26 0.01 0.07 c0.02 0.01 c0.01 0.00 v/s Ratio Perm 0.07 0.00
v/c Ratio 0.27 0.34 0.08 0.10 0.32 0.13 0.32 0.01
Uniform Delay, d1 56.1 4.9 2.0 6.5 53.2 52.6 56.0 51.0
Progression Factor 1.28 0.74 0.79 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 2.1 0.3 0.0 0.1 0.8 0.5 2.5 0.0
Delay (s) 73.7 3.9 1.6 6.6 54.0 53.0 58.5 51.0
Level of Service E A A A D D E D
Approach Delay (s) 4.8 6.6 53.8 56.4
Approach LOS A A D E
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 9.5 HCM 2000 Level of Service A
HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.35
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 120.0 Sum of lost time (s) 20.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 40.7% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Existing (2020) + Project + Mitigation 3: Ventu Park Rd & Hillcrest Dr AM Peak Hour
Shapell Traffic Study Synchro 10 Report
04/27/2020 Page 3
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 55 358 299 77 276 315 233 982 82 169 290 21 Future Volume (vph) 55 358 299 77 276 315 233 982 82 169 290 21 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 6.0 5.0 4.0 6.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.97 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.91 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.92 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.99
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 3539 1583 1770 3256 3433 3539 1583 3433 5033 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 3539 1583 1770 3256 3433 3539 1583 3433 5033 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 60 389 325 84 300 342 253 1067 89 184 315 23 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 192 0 167 0 0 0 58 0 8 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 60 389 133 84 475 0 253 1067 31 184 330 0 Turn Type Prot NA pm+ov Prot NA Prot NA Perm Prot NA
Protected Phases 52316 38 74
Permitted Phases 2 8
Actuated Green, G (s) 6.2 28.8 40.0 6.9 29.5 11.2 34.2 34.2 9.2 31.2 Effective Green, g (s) 6.2 28.8 40.0 6.9 29.5 11.2 34.2 34.2 9.2 31.2 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.06 0.29 0.41 0.07 0.30 0.11 0.35 0.35 0.09 0.32 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 6.0 5.0 4.0 6.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 1.4 2.0 1.4 1.4 2.0 1.4 2.0 2.0 1.4 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 111 1038 645 124 979 391 1233 551 321 1600 v/s Ratio Prot 0.03 0.11 0.02 c0.05 c0.15 c0.07 c0.30 0.05 0.07 v/s Ratio Perm 0.06 0.02
v/c Ratio 0.54 0.37 0.21 0.68 0.49 0.65 0.87 0.06 0.57 0.21 Uniform Delay, d1 44.6 27.5 18.8 44.5 28.1 41.6 29.8 21.2 42.6 24.4 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 2.9 1.0 0.1 10.9 0.1 2.8 6.4 0.0 1.5 0.0 Delay (s) 47.4 28.5 18.8 55.5 28.2 44.3 36.2 21.2 44.1 24.4 Level of Service D C B E C DDCDC
Approach Delay (s) 25.9 31.4 36.7 31.4
Approach LOS C C D C
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 32.3 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.71
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 98.1 Sum of lost time (s) 20.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 69.7% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Existing (2020) + Project + Mitigation 4: Broadbeck Dr & Camino Dos Rios AM Peak Hour
Shapell Traffic Study Synchro 10 Report
04/27/2020 Page 4
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 89 1057 25 6 236 21 24 3 9 66 2 49 Future Volume (vph) 89 1057 25 6 236 21 24 3 9 66 2 49
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.5 5.5 4.0 4.0 4.5 4.5 4.0 4.5
Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.91 1.00 0.91 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.88 Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.88 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 3433 5068 1770 5023 1770 1648 1776 2787 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.65 1.00 0.72 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 3433 5068 1770 5023 1219 1648 1346 2787 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 97 1149 27 7 257 23 26 3 10 72 2 53
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 1 0 0 4 0 0 9 0 0 0 45
Lane Group Flow (vph) 97 1175 0 7 276 0 26 4 0 0 74 8
Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA Perm NA Perm NA pm+ov
Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 8 4 5
Permitted Phases 8 4 4
Actuated Green, G (s) 8.2 95.2 1.4 89.4 9.4 9.4 9.9 18.1 Effective Green, g (s) 8.2 95.2 1.4 89.4 9.4 9.4 9.9 18.1 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.07 0.79 0.01 0.75 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.15 Clearance Time (s) 4.5 5.5 4.0 4.0 4.5 4.5 4.0 4.5
Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 3.0 2.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 234 4020 20 3742 95 129 111 420
v/s Ratio Prot c0.03 c0.23 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.00
v/s Ratio Perm 0.02 c0.05 0.00
v/c Ratio 0.41 0.29 0.35 0.07 0.27 0.03 0.67 0.02
Uniform Delay, d1 53.6 3.3 58.8 4.1 52.1 51.1 53.4 43.4 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.03 0.86 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.4 0.2 3.8 0.0 0.6 0.0 11.1 0.0
Delay (s) 54.0 3.5 64.7 3.6 52.7 51.1 64.6 43.4
Level of Service D A E A D D E D
Approach Delay (s) 7.4 5.1 52.1 55.7
Approach LOS A A D E
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 11.6 HCM 2000 Level of Service B HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.34
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 120.0 Sum of lost time (s) 14.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 48.5% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Existing (2020) + Project + Mitigation 1: Rancho Conejo Blvd & Hillcrest Dr/Hillcrest Dr PM Peak Hour Shapell Traffic Study Synchro 10 Report
04/27/2020 Page 1
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 12 443 420 293 187 60 174 279 228 274 1255 13 Future Volume (vph) 12 443 420 293 187 60 174 279 228 274 1255 13 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 5.5 4.0 4.0 5.5 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.91 1.00 1.00 0.91 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 3539 1583 3433 1863 1583 1770 5085 1583 1770 5078 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 3539 1583 3433 1863 1583 1770 5085 1583 1770 5078 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 13 482 457 318 203 65 189 303 248 298 1364 14 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 84 0 0 33 0 0 41 0 1 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 13 482 373 318 203 32 189 303 207 298 1377 0 Turn Type Prot NA pm+ov Prot NA pm+ov Prot NA pm+ov Prot NA Protected Phases 52316738174
Permitted Phases 2 6 8
Actuated Green, G (s) 0.6 12.3 25.1 12.0 23.7 39.8 12.8 21.1 33.1 16.1 24.4 Effective Green, g (s) 0.6 12.3 25.1 12.0 23.7 39.8 12.8 21.1 33.1 16.1 24.4 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.01 0.15 0.31 0.15 0.30 0.50 0.16 0.26 0.41 0.20 0.30 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 5.5 4.0 4.0 5.5 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 13 544 496 514 551 787 283 1341 654 356 1548 v/s Ratio Prot 0.01 c0.14 0.12 c0.09 0.11 0.01 0.11 0.06 0.05 c0.17 c0.27 v/s Ratio Perm 0.12 0.01 0.08
v/c Ratio 1.00 0.89 0.75 0.62 0.37 0.04 0.67 0.23 0.32 0.84 0.89 Uniform Delay, d1 39.7 33.2 24.7 31.9 22.2 10.3 31.6 23.1 15.8 30.7 26.5 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 249.6 15.9 6.4 2.2 0.4 0.0 5.9 0.1 0.3 15.6 6.7 Delay (s) 289.3 49.0 31.0 34.1 22.7 10.3 37.5 23.1 16.1 46.3 33.2 Level of Service F DCCCBDCBDC
Approach Delay (s) 43.7 27.5 24.4 35.5
Approach LOS D C C D
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 34.2 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.84
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 80.0 Sum of lost time (s) 18.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 70.2% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Existing (2020) + Project + Mitigation 2: Hillcrest Dr & Camino Dos Rios/Teller Rd PM Peak Hour Shapell Traffic Study Synchro 10 Report
04/27/2020 Page 2
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 42 260 247 14 646 52 201 80 12 29 74 100 Future Volume (vph) 42 260 247 14 646 52 201 80 12 29 74 100 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 5.5 5.5 4.0 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.99 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 3539 1583 1770 3499 3433 1826 1837 1583 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.99 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 3539 1583 1770 3499 3433 1826 1837 1583 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 46 283 268 15 702 57 218 87 13 32 80 109 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 81 0 4 0 0 4 0 0 0 87
Lane Group Flow (vph) 46 283 187 15 755 0 218 96 0 0 112 22 Turn Type Prot NA pm+ov Prot NA Split NA Split NA pm+ov Protected Phases 52816 88 775
Permitted Phases 2 7
Actuated Green, G (s) 8.8 59.4 83.8 3.1 53.7 24.4 24.4 12.6 21.4 Effective Green, g (s) 8.8 59.4 83.8 3.1 53.7 24.4 24.4 12.6 21.4 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.07 0.49 0.70 0.03 0.45 0.20 0.20 0.10 0.18 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 5.5 5.5 4.0 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 4.0
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 129 1751 1105 45 1565 698 371 192 282 v/s Ratio Prot c0.03 0.08 0.03 0.01 c0.22 c0.06 0.05 c0.06 0.01 v/s Ratio Perm 0.08 0.01
v/c Ratio 0.36 0.16 0.17 0.33 0.48 0.31 0.26 0.58 0.08
Uniform Delay, d1 52.9 16.6 6.2 57.4 23.4 40.7 40.2 51.2 41.1 Progression Factor 1.17 0.87 0.53 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 1.7 0.2 0.3 4.3 1.1 1.2 1.7 4.5 0.1 Delay (s) 63.3 14.6 3.6 61.8 24.4 41.8 41.9 55.7 41.2
Level of Service EBAEC DD ED
Approach Delay (s) 13.4 25.1 41.8 48.5
Approach LOS B C D D
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 27.0 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.44
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 120.0 Sum of lost time (s) 20.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 50.2% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Existing (2020) + Project + Mitigation 3: Ventu Park Rd & Hillcrest Dr PM Peak Hour
Shapell Traffic Study Synchro 10 Report
04/27/2020 Page 3
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 27 637 369 181 393 120 299 262 123 384 1018 16 Future Volume (vph) 27 637 369 181 393 120 299 262 123 384 1018 16 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 6.0 5.0 4.0 6.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.97 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.91 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.96 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 3539 1583 1770 3415 3433 3539 1583 3433 5073 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 3539 1583 1770 3415 3433 3539 1583 3433 5073 Peak-hour factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj. Flow (vph) 27 637 369 181 393 120 299 262 123 384 1018 16 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 58 0 20 0 0 0 93 0 1 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 27 637 311 181 493 0 299 262 30 384 1033 0 Turn Type Prot NA pm+ov Prot NA Prot NA Perm Prot NA
Protected Phases 52316 38 74
Permitted Phases 2 8
Actuated Green, G (s) 3.7 30.1 42.6 12.3 38.7 12.5 25.2 25.2 15.1 26.8 Effective Green, g (s) 3.7 30.1 42.6 12.3 38.7 12.5 25.2 25.2 15.1 26.8 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.04 0.30 0.42 0.12 0.38 0.12 0.25 0.25 0.15 0.26 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 6.0 5.0 4.0 6.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 1.4 2.0 1.4 1.4 2.0 1.4 2.0 2.0 1.4 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 64 1047 663 214 1299 421 876 392 509 1336 v/s Ratio Prot 0.02 c0.18 0.06 c0.10 0.14 0.09 0.07 c0.11 c0.20 v/s Ratio Perm 0.14 0.02
v/c Ratio 0.42 0.61 0.47 0.85 0.38 0.71 0.30 0.08 0.75 0.77 Uniform Delay, d1 48.0 30.7 21.4 43.8 22.8 42.9 31.1 29.3 41.5 34.6 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 1.6 2.6 0.2 24.3 0.1 4.7 0.1 0.0 5.6 2.6 Delay (s) 49.6 33.4 21.6 68.1 22.9 47.5 31.1 29.4 47.1 37.2 Level of Service D C C E C DCCDD
Approach Delay (s) 29.6 34.7 38.0 39.9
Approach LOS C C D D
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 35.8 HCM 2000 Level of Service D HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.74
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 101.7 Sum of lost time (s) 20.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 72.9% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Existing (2020) + Project + Mitigation 4: Broadbeck Dr/Broadbeck Drive & Camino Dos Rios PM Peak Hour Shapell Traffic Study Synchro 10 Report
04/27/2020 Page 4
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 166 452 45 16 815 94 30 10 9 102 5 138 Future Volume (vph) 166 452 45 16 815 94 30 10 9 102 5 138 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.5 5.5 4.0 4.0 4.5 4.5 4.0 4.5
Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.91 1.00 0.91 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.88 Frt 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.93 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 3433 5016 1770 5007 1770 1730 1778 2787 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.53 1.00 0.72 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 3433 5016 1770 5007 982 1730 1341 2787 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 180 491 49 17 886 102 33 11 10 111 5 150 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 5 0 0 8 0 0 9 0 0 0 118
Lane Group Flow (vph) 180 535 0 17 980 0 33 12 0 0 116 32 Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA Perm NA Perm NA pm+ov
Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 8 4 5
Permitted Phases 8 4 4
Actuated Green, G (s) 10.7 88.8 2.9 82.0 14.3 14.3 14.8 25.5 Effective Green, g (s) 10.7 88.8 2.9 82.0 14.3 14.3 14.8 25.5 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.09 0.74 0.02 0.68 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.21 Clearance Time (s) 4.5 5.5 4.0 4.0 4.5 4.5 4.0 4.5
Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 3.0 2.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 306 3711 42 3421 117 206 165 592
v/s Ratio Prot c0.05 0.11 0.01 c0.20 0.01 0.00
v/s Ratio Perm 0.03 c0.09 0.01
v/c Ratio 0.59 0.14 0.40 0.29 0.28 0.06 0.70 0.05
Uniform Delay, d1 52.5 4.5 57.7 7.5 48.2 46.9 50.5 37.6 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.03 0.61 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 1.9 0.1 2.1 0.2 0.5 0.0 10.5 0.0
Delay (s) 54.4 4.6 61.7 4.8 48.7 46.9 61.0 37.7
Level of Service D A E A D D E D
Approach Delay (s) 17.1 5.7 48.0 47.8
Approach LOS B A D D
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 16.3 HCM 2000 Level of Service B HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.38
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 120.0 Sum of lost time (s) 14.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 46.7% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Build Out (2040) 1: Rancho Conejo Blvd & Hillcrest Dr/Hillcrest Dr AM Peak Hour Shapell Traffic Study Synchro 10 Report
04/27/2020 Page 1
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 22 180 114 298 180 116 301 1341 123 54 228 11 Future Volume (vph) 22 180 114 298 180 116 301 1341 123 54 228 11 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 5.5 4.0 4.0 5.5 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.91 1.00 1.00 0.91 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.99 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 3539 1583 3433 1863 1583 1770 5085 1583 1770 5050 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 3539 1583 3433 1863 1583 1770 5085 1583 1770 5050 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 24 196 124 324 196 126 327 1458 134 59 248 12 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 80 0 0 92 0 0 57 0 6 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 24 196 44 324 196 34 327 1458 77 59 254 0 Turn Type Prot NA pm+ov Prot NA pm+ov Prot NA pm+ov Prot NA Protected Phases 52316738174
Permitted Phases 2 6 8
Actuated Green, G (s) 1.0 7.8 25.9 8.2 15.0 19.5 18.1 33.2 41.4 4.5 19.6 Effective Green, g (s) 1.0 7.8 25.9 8.2 15.0 19.5 18.1 33.2 41.4 4.5 19.6 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.01 0.11 0.36 0.11 0.21 0.27 0.25 0.46 0.57 0.06 0.27 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 5.5 4.0 4.0 5.5 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 24 382 567 389 387 427 443 2338 907 110 1370 v/s Ratio Prot 0.01 0.06 0.02 c0.09 c0.11 0.00 c0.18 c0.29 0.01 0.03 0.05 v/s Ratio Perm 0.01 0.02 0.04
v/c Ratio 1.00 0.51 0.08 0.83 0.51 0.08 0.74 0.62 0.08 0.54 0.19 Uniform Delay, d1 35.6 30.4 15.3 31.3 25.3 19.7 24.9 14.8 6.9 32.8 20.2 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 183.7 1.2 0.1 14.1 1.0 0.1 6.3 0.5 0.0 5.0 0.1 Delay (s) 219.3 31.6 15.3 45.5 26.4 19.7 31.2 15.3 6.9 37.8 20.2 Level of Service F C B D C B C B A D C
Approach Delay (s) 38.8 34.7 17.4 23.5
Approach LOS D C B C
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 23.7 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.73
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 72.2 Sum of lost time (s) 18.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 59.1% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Build Out (2040) 2: Hillcrest Dr & Camino Dos Rios/Teller Rd AM Peak Hour Shapell Traffic Study Synchro 10 Report
04/27/2020 Page 2
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 19 846 138 0 220 14 72 16 4 8 15 9 Future Volume (vph) 19 846 138 0 220 14 72 16 4 8 15 9
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 4.0
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.99 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.98 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 3539 1583 3508 3433 1810 1830 1583 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.98 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 3539 1583 3508 3433 1810 1830 1583 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 21 920 150 0 239 15 78 17 4 9 16 10
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 26 020040009
Lane Group Flow (vph) 21 920 124 0 252 0 78 17 0 0 25 1 Turn Type Prot NA pm+ov Prot NA Split NA Split NA pm+ov Protected Phases 52816 88 775
Permitted Phases 2 7
Actuated Green, G (s) 4.7 90.3 98.6 81.6 8.3 8.3 4.9 9.6 Effective Green, g (s) 4.7 90.3 98.6 81.6 8.3 8.3 4.9 9.6 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.04 0.75 0.82 0.68 0.07 0.07 0.04 0.08 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 4.0
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 69 2663 1373 2385 237 125 74 126
v/s Ratio Prot 0.01 c0.26 0.01 0.07 c0.02 0.01 c0.01 0.00 v/s Ratio Perm 0.07 0.00
v/c Ratio 0.30 0.35 0.09 0.11 0.33 0.14 0.34 0.01
Uniform Delay, d1 56.1 5.0 2.1 6.6 53.2 52.5 56.0 50.8
Progression Factor 1.27 0.73 0.77 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 2.4 0.3 0.0 0.1 0.8 0.5 2.7 0.0
Delay (s) 73.6 4.0 1.6 6.7 54.0 53.0 58.7 50.8
Level of Service E A A A D D E D
Approach Delay (s) 5.0 6.7 53.8 56.4
Approach LOS A A D E
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 9.8 HCM 2000 Level of Service A
HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.36
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 120.0 Sum of lost time (s) 20.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 41.3% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Build Out (2040) 3: Ventu Park Rd & Hillcrest Dr AM Peak Hour
Shapell Traffic Study Synchro 10 Report
04/27/2020 Page 3
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 58 381 318 82 294 335 248 1002 88 180 302 23 Future Volume (vph) 58 381 318 82 294 335 248 1002 88 180 302 23 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 6.0 5.0 4.0 6.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.97 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.91 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.92 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.99
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 3539 1583 1770 3257 3433 3539 1583 3433 5031 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 3539 1583 1770 3257 3433 3539 1583 3433 5031 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 63 414 346 89 320 364 270 1089 96 196 328 25 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 148 0 173 0 0 0 65 0 8 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 63 414 198 89 511 0 270 1089 31 196 345 0 Turn Type Prot NA pm+ov Prot NA Prot NA Perm Prot NA
Protected Phases 52316 38 74
Permitted Phases 2 8
Actuated Green, G (s) 6.2 29.2 40.4 7.1 30.1 11.2 30.3 30.3 9.2 27.3 Effective Green, g (s) 6.2 29.2 40.4 7.1 30.1 11.2 30.3 30.3 9.2 27.3 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.07 0.31 0.43 0.07 0.32 0.12 0.32 0.32 0.10 0.29 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 6.0 5.0 4.0 6.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 1.4 2.0 1.4 1.4 2.0 1.4 2.0 2.0 1.4 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 115 1090 674 132 1034 405 1131 505 333 1448 v/s Ratio Prot 0.04 0.12 0.03 c0.05 c0.16 c0.08 c0.31 0.06 0.07 v/s Ratio Perm 0.09 0.02
v/c Ratio 0.55 0.38 0.29 0.67 0.49 0.67 0.96 0.06 0.59 0.24 Uniform Delay, d1 42.9 25.7 17.8 42.7 26.2 40.0 31.7 22.4 41.0 25.8 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 2.8 1.0 0.1 10.2 0.1 3.2 18.3 0.0 1.7 0.0 Delay (s) 45.8 26.7 17.9 52.9 26.3 43.2 50.0 22.4 42.7 25.8 Level of Service D C B D C DDCDC
Approach Delay (s) 24.5 29.4 46.9 31.9
Approach LOS C C D C
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 35.7 HCM 2000 Level of Service D HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.75
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 94.8 Sum of lost time (s) 20.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 71.7% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Build Out (2040) 4: Broadbeck Dr & Camino Dos Rios AM Peak Hour
Shapell Traffic Study Synchro 10 Report
04/27/2020 Page 4
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 95 1090 27 7 245 23 26 3 10 70 2 52 Future Volume (vph) 95 1090 27 7 245 23 26 3 10 70 2 52 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.5 5.5 4.0 4.0 4.5 4.5 4.0 4.5
Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.91 1.00 0.91 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.88 Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.88 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 3433 5067 1770 5020 1770 1643 1776 2787 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.64 1.00 0.72 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 3433 5067 1770 5020 1184 1643 1344 2787 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 103 1185 29 8 266 25 28 3 11 76 2 57
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 1 0 0 4 0 0 10 0 0 0 48
Lane Group Flow (vph) 103 1213 0 8 287 0 28 4 0 0 78 9
Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA Perm NA Perm NA pm+ov
Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 8 4 5
Permitted Phases 8 4 4
Actuated Green, G (s) 8.3 94.9 1.4 89.0 9.7 9.7 10.2 18.5 Effective Green, g (s) 8.3 94.9 1.4 89.0 9.7 9.7 10.2 18.5 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.07 0.79 0.01 0.74 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.15 Clearance Time (s) 4.5 5.5 4.0 4.0 4.5 4.5 4.0 4.5
Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 3.0 2.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 237 4007 20 3723 95 132 114 429
v/s Ratio Prot c0.03 c0.24 0.00 0.06 0.00 0.00
v/s Ratio Perm 0.02 c0.06 0.00
v/c Ratio 0.43 0.30 0.40 0.08 0.29 0.03 0.68 0.02
Uniform Delay, d1 53.6 3.5 58.9 4.2 51.9 50.8 53.3 43.1 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.04 0.87 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.5 0.2 4.7 0.0 0.6 0.0 12.7 0.0
Delay (s) 54.1 3.6 65.9 3.7 52.6 50.8 66.0 43.1
Level of Service D A E A D D E D
Approach Delay (s) 7.6 5.4 52.0 56.3
Approach LOS A A D E
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 11.9 HCM 2000 Level of Service B HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.36
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 120.0 Sum of lost time (s) 14.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 49.4% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Build Out (2040) 1: Rancho Conejo Blvd & Hillcrest Dr/Hillcrest Dr PM Peak Shapell Traffic Study Synchro 10 Report
04/27/2020 Page 1
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 13 472 426 311 199 64 182 289 242 292 1281 14 Future Volume (vph) 13 472 426 311 199 64 182 289 242 292 1281 14 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 5.5 4.0 4.0 5.5 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.91 1.00 1.00 0.91 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 3539 1583 3433 1863 1583 1770 5085 1583 1770 5077 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 3539 1583 3433 1863 1583 1770 5085 1583 1770 5077 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 14 513 463 338 216 70 198 314 263 317 1392 15 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 84 0 0 35 0 0 41 0 1 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 14 513 379 338 216 35 198 314 222 317 1406 0 Turn Type Prot NA pm+ov Prot NA pm+ov Prot NA pm+ov Prot NA Protected Phases 52316738174
Permitted Phases 2 6 8
Actuated Green, G (s) 0.6 12.3 25.4 12.3 24.0 40.0 13.1 21.7 34.0 16.0 24.6 Effective Green, g (s) 0.6 12.3 25.4 12.3 24.0 40.0 13.1 21.7 34.0 16.0 24.6 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.01 0.15 0.31 0.15 0.30 0.50 0.16 0.27 0.42 0.20 0.30 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 5.5 4.0 4.0 5.5 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 13 538 497 522 553 783 286 1365 666 350 1545 v/s Ratio Prot 0.01 c0.14 0.12 c0.10 0.12 0.01 0.11 0.06 0.05 c0.18 c0.28 v/s Ratio Perm 0.12 0.01 0.09
v/c Ratio 1.08 0.95 0.76 0.65 0.39 0.04 0.69 0.23 0.33 0.91 0.91 Uniform Delay, d1 40.1 34.0 25.0 32.2 22.6 10.5 31.9 23.0 15.8 31.7 27.0 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 276.9 27.4 6.8 2.8 0.5 0.0 7.1 0.1 0.3 25.8 8.2 Delay (s) 317.0 61.3 31.8 35.0 23.0 10.6 39.0 23.1 16.1 57.5 35.2 Level of Service F E C C C B D C B E D
Approach Delay (s) 51.2 28.1 24.8 39.3
Approach LOS D C C D
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 37.7 HCM 2000 Level of Service D HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.89
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 80.8 Sum of lost time (s) 18.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 72.5% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Build Out (2040) 2: Hillcrest Dr & Camino Dos Rios/Teller Rd PM Peak
Shapell Traffic Study Synchro 10 Report
04/27/2020 Page 2
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 44 271 262 15 656 55 213 85 13 31 79 106 Future Volume (vph) 44 271 262 15 656 55 213 85 13 31 79 106 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 5.5 5.5 4.0 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.99 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 3539 1583 1770 3498 3433 1826 1837 1583 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.99 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 3539 1583 1770 3498 3433 1826 1837 1583 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 48 295 285 16 713 60 232 92 14 34 86 115 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 87 0 4 0 0 4 0 0 0 80
Lane Group Flow (vph) 48 295 198 16 769 0 232 102 0 0 120 35 Turn Type Prot NA pm+ov Prot NA Split NA Split NA pm+ov Protected Phases 52816 88 775
Permitted Phases 2 7
Actuated Green, G (s) 9.0 59.4 83.3 3.1 53.5 23.9 23.9 13.1 22.1 Effective Green, g (s) 9.0 59.4 83.3 3.1 53.5 23.9 23.9 13.1 22.1 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.08 0.49 0.69 0.03 0.45 0.20 0.20 0.11 0.18 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 5.5 5.5 4.0 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 4.0
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 132 1751 1098 45 1559 683 363 200 291 v/s Ratio Prot c0.03 0.08 0.04 0.01 c0.22 c0.07 0.06 c0.07 0.01 v/s Ratio Perm 0.09 0.01
v/c Ratio 0.36 0.17 0.18 0.36 0.49 0.34 0.28 0.60 0.12
Uniform Delay, d1 52.8 16.7 6.4 57.5 23.6 41.3 40.8 51.0 40.8 Progression Factor 1.16 0.86 0.56 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 1.7 0.2 0.4 4.8 1.1 1.3 1.9 4.8 0.2 Delay (s) 63.0 14.5 4.0 62.2 24.7 42.6 42.7 55.7 41.0
Level of Service EBAEC DD ED
Approach Delay (s) 13.4 25.5 42.6 48.5
Approach LOS B C D D
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 27.3 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.46
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 120.0 Sum of lost time (s) 20.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 51.0% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Build Out (2040) 3: Ventu Park Rd & Hillcrest Dr PM Peak
Shapell Traffic Study Synchro 10 Report
04/27/2020 Page 3
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 29 678 392 193 419 128 317 274 131 409 1049 18 Future Volume (vph) 29 678 392 193 419 128 317 274 131 409 1049 18 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 6.0 5.0 4.0 6.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.97 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.91 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.96 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 3539 1583 1770 3415 3433 3539 1583 3433 5072 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 3539 1583 1770 3415 3433 3539 1583 3433 5072 Peak-hour factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj. Flow (vph) 29 678 392 193 419 128 317 274 131 409 1049 18 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 71 0 23 0 0 0 102 0 2 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 29 678 321 193 524 0 317 274 29 409 1065 0 Turn Type Prot NA pm+ov Prot NA Prot NA Perm Prot NA
Protected Phases 52316 38 74
Permitted Phases 2 8
Actuated Green, G (s) 3.5 37.0 50.2 15.4 48.9 13.2 24.9 24.9 17.2 27.9 Effective Green, g (s) 3.5 37.0 50.2 15.4 48.9 13.2 24.9 24.9 17.2 27.9 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.03 0.33 0.44 0.14 0.43 0.12 0.22 0.22 0.15 0.25 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 6.0 5.0 4.0 6.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 1.4 2.0 1.4 1.4 2.0 1.4 2.0 2.0 1.4 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 54 1153 700 240 1471 399 776 347 520 1246 v/s Ratio Prot 0.02 c0.19 0.05 c0.11 0.15 0.09 0.08 c0.12 c0.21 v/s Ratio Perm 0.15 0.02
v/c Ratio 0.54 0.59 0.46 0.80 0.36 0.79 0.35 0.08 0.79 0.86 Uniform Delay, d1 54.2 31.9 22.1 47.6 21.7 48.8 37.5 35.2 46.4 40.9 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 5.1 2.2 0.2 16.6 0.1 9.8 0.1 0.0 7.1 5.7 Delay (s) 59.3 34.1 22.3 64.2 21.8 58.6 37.6 35.3 53.5 46.6 Level of Service E C C E C E DDDD
Approach Delay (s) 30.6 32.8 46.4 48.5
Approach LOS C C D D
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 40.4 HCM 2000 Level of Service D HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.75
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 113.5 Sum of lost time (s) 20.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 75.8% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Build Out (2040) 4: Broadbeck Dr/Broadbeck Drive & Camino Dos Rios PM Peak Shapell Traffic Study Synchro 10 Report
04/27/2020 Page 4
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 176 477 48 18 839 100 32 11 10 109 5 147 Future Volume (vph) 176 477 48 18 839 100 32 11 10 109 5 147 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.5 5.5 4.0 4.0 4.5 4.5 4.0 4.5
Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.91 1.00 0.91 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.88 Frt 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.93 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 3433 5016 1770 5004 1770 1729 1777 2787 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.51 1.00 0.72 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 3433 5016 1770 5004 952 1729 1337 2787 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 191 518 52 20 912 109 35 12 11 118 5 160 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 5 0 0 8 0 0 10 0 0 0 125
Lane Group Flow (vph) 191 565 0 20 1013 0 35 13 0 0 123 35 Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA Perm NA Perm NA pm+ov
Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 8 4 5
Permitted Phases 8 4 4
Actuated Green, G (s) 11.0 88.1 3.0 81.1 14.9 14.9 15.4 26.4 Effective Green, g (s) 11.0 88.1 3.0 81.1 14.9 14.9 15.4 26.4 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.09 0.73 0.02 0.68 0.12 0.12 0.13 0.22 Clearance Time (s) 4.5 5.5 4.0 4.0 4.5 4.5 4.0 4.5
Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 3.0 2.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 314 3682 44 3381 118 214 171 613
v/s Ratio Prot c0.06 0.11 0.01 c0.20 0.01 0.01
v/s Ratio Perm 0.04 c0.09 0.01
v/c Ratio 0.61 0.15 0.45 0.30 0.30 0.06 0.72 0.06
Uniform Delay, d1 52.4 4.8 57.7 7.9 47.8 46.4 50.2 37.0 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.03 0.62 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 2.3 0.1 2.5 0.2 0.5 0.0 11.4 0.0
Delay (s) 54.7 4.9 61.9 5.1 48.3 46.4 61.6 37.0
Level of Service D A E A D D E D
Approach Delay (s) 17.4 6.2 47.6 47.7
Approach LOS B A D D
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 16.8 HCM 2000 Level of Service B HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.40
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 120.0 Sum of lost time (s) 14.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 47.7% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
APPENDIX B: Study Intersection LOS Analysis – ICU Output Sheets DATE: 4 2020 N - S: Rancho Conejo Blvd
LOCATION: Rancho Conejo Blvd at Hillcrest Dr E - W: Hillcrest DrSCENARIO: Existing (2020) FILE: ShapellTIA_ICU_EX.xlsPEAK HOUR: AM Peak Hour COMMENTS:
Rancho Conejo Blvd
NORTH # OF CAPACITY VOLUME V/C SPLIT CRITICAL
LANES PHASED V/C
171 214 26 NORTHBOUND
LEFT 1 1600 283 0.18 N
THRU 3 4800 1260 0.26 0.26
RIGHT 1 1600 115 0
Hillcrest Dr SOUTHBOUND
LEFT 1 1600 51 0.03 N
THRU 3 4800 214 0.05 0.03
176 INTERSECTION 109 RIGHT 0 0 10 0
TOTAL
1132 169 EASTBOUND
2787 LEFT 1 1600 20 0.01 N
508 280 THRU 2 3200 169 0.05 0.05
RIGHT 1 1600 107 0
WESTBOUND
LEFT 2 3200 280 0.09 N
THRU 1 1600 169 0.11 0.09
RIGHT 1 1600 109 0.04
574 219 143
TOTAL ICU 0.43LEVEL OF SERVICE A
DATE: 4 2020 N - S: Rancho Conejo Blvd
LOCATION: Rancho Conejo Blvd at Hillcrest Dr E - W: Hillcrest DrSCENARIO: Existing (2020) FILE: ShapellTIA_ICU_EX.xlsPEAK HOUR: PM Peak Hour COMMENTS:
Rancho Conejo Blvd
NORTH # OF CAPACITY VOLUME V/C SPLIT CRITICAL
LANES PHASED V/C
171 1203 26 NORTHBOUND
LEFT 1 1600 171 0.11 N
THRU 3 4800 271 0.06 0.11RIGHT 1 1600 228 0.05
Hillcrest Dr SOUTHBOUND
LEFT 1 1600 274 0.17 N
THRU 3 4800 1203 0.25 0.25
176 INTERSECTION 60 RIGHT 0 0 13 0
TOTAL
1132 187 EASTBOUND
3555 LEFT 1 1600 12 0.01 N
508 293 THRU 2 3200 443 0.14 0.14
RIGHT 1 1600 400 0.14
WESTBOUND
LEFT 2 3200 293 0.09 N
THRU 1 1600 187 0.12 0.09
RIGHT 1 1600 60 0
574 219 143
TOTAL ICU 0.59LEVEL OF SERVICE A
DATE: 4 2020 N - S: Camino Dos Rios / Teller Road
LOCATION: Camino Dos Rios at Teller Road E - W: Hillcrest DrSCENARIO: Existing (2020) FILE: ShapellTIA_ICU_EX.xlsPEAK HOUR: AM Peak Hour COMMENTS:
Camino Dos Rios / Teller Road
NORTH # OF CAPACITY VOLUME V/C SPLIT CRITICAL
LANES PHASED V/C
171 14 26 NORTHBOUND
LEFT 2 3200 68 0.02 Y 0.02
THRU 1 1600 15 0.01
RIGHT 0 0 4 0
Hillcrest Dr SOUTHBOUND
LEFT 0 0 7 0 Y 0.01
THRU 1 1600 14 0.01
176 INTERSECTION 13 RIGHT 1 1600 8 0
TOTAL
1132 208 EASTBOUND
1282 LEFT 1 1600 17 0.01 N
508 0 THRU 2 3200 798 0.25 0.25
RIGHT 1 1600 130 0.06
WESTBOUND
LEFT 1 1600 0 0.00 N
THRU 2 3200 208 0.07 0.00
RIGHT 0 0 13 0
574 219 143
TOTAL ICU 0.28LEVEL OF SERVICE A
DATE: 4 2020 N - S: Camino Dos Rios / Teller Road
LOCATION: Camino Dos Rios at Teller Road E - W: Hillcrest DrSCENARIO: Existing (2020) FILE: ShapellTIA_ICU_EX.xlsPEAK HOUR: PM Peak Hour COMMENTS:
Camino Dos Rios / Teller Road
NORTH # OF CAPACITY VOLUME V/C SPLIT CRITICAL
LANES PHASED V/C
171 74 26 NORTHBOUND
LEFT 2 3200 201 0.06 Y 0.06
THRU 1 1600 80 0.06
RIGHT 0 0 12 0
Hillcrest Dr SOUTHBOUND
LEFT 0 0 29 0 Y 0.06
THRU 1 1600 74 0.06
176 INTERSECTION 52 RIGHT 1 1600 100 0.04
TOTAL
1132 620 EASTBOUND
1727 LEFT 1 1600 42 0.03 N
508 14 THRU 2 3200 256 0.08 0.03
RIGHT 1 1600 247 0.09
WESTBOUND
LEFT 1 1600 14 0.01 N
THRU 2 3200 620 0.21 0.21
RIGHT 0 0 52 0
574 219 143
TOTAL ICU 0.36LEVEL OF SERVICE A
DATE: 4 2020 N - S: Ventu Park Rd
LOCATION: Ventu Park Rd at Hillcrest Dr E - W: Hillcrest DrSCENARIO: Existing (2020) FILE: ShapellTIA_ICU_EX.xlsPEAK HOUR: AM Peak Hour COMMENTS:
Ventu Park Rd
NORTH # OF CAPACITY VOLUME V/C SPLIT CRITICAL
LANES PHASED V/C
171 284 26 NORTHBOUND
LEFT 2 3200 233 0.07 N
THRU 2 3200 941 0.29 0.29RIGHT 1 1600 82 0.00
Hillcrest Dr SOUTHBOUND
LEFT 2 3200 169 0.05 N
THRU 2 3200 284 0.09 0.05
176 INTERSECTION 315 RIGHT 1 1600 21 0
TOTAL
1132 276 EASTBOUND
3110 LEFT 1 1600 55 0.03 N
508 77 THRU 2 3200 358 0.11 0.03
RIGHT 1 1600 299 0.11
WESTBOUND
LEFT 1 1600 77 0.05 N
THRU 2 3200 276 0.18 0.18
RIGHT 0 0 315 0
574 219 143
TOTAL ICU 0.55LEVEL OF SERVICE A
DATE: 4 2020 N - S: Ventu Park Rd
LOCATION: Ventu Park Rd at Hillcrest Dr E - W: Hillcrest DrSCENARIO: Existing (2020) FILE: ShapellTIA_ICU_EX.xlsPEAK HOUR: PM Peak Hour COMMENTS:
Ventu Park Rd
NORTH # OF CAPACITY VOLUME V/C SPLIT CRITICAL
LANES PHASED V/C
171 985 26 NORTHBOUND
LEFT 2 3200 299 0.09 N
THRU 2 3200 257 0.08 0.09RIGHT 1 1600 123 0
Hillcrest Dr SOUTHBOUND
LEFT 2 3200 384 0.12 N
THRU 2 3200 985 0.31 0.31
176 INTERSECTION 120 RIGHT 1 1600 16 0
TOTAL
1132 393 EASTBOUND
3791 LEFT 1 1600 27 0.02 N
508 181 THRU 2 3200 637 0.20 0.20
RIGHT 1 1600 369 0.14
WESTBOUND
LEFT 1 1600 181 0.11 N
THRU 2 3200 393 0.16 0.11
RIGHT 0 0 120 0
574 219 143
TOTAL ICU 0.71LEVEL OF SERVICE C
DATE: 4 2020 N - S: Broadbeck Dr
LOCATION: Broadbeck Dr at Camino Dos Rios E - W: Camino Dos RiosSCENARIO: Existing (2020) FILE: ShapellTIA_ICU_EX.xlsPEAK HOUR: AM Peak Hour COMMENTS:
Broadbeck Dr
NORTH # OF CAPACITY VOLUME V/C SPLIT CRITICAL
LANES PHASED V/C
171 2 26 NORTHBOUND
LEFT 0 0 24 0 N
THRU 1 1600 3 0.02 0
RIGHT 0 0 9 0
Camino Dos Rios SOUTHBOUND
LEFT 0 0 66 0 N
THRU 1 1600 2 0.04 0.04
176 INTERSECTION 21 RIGHT 2 3200 49 0
TOTAL
1132 231 EASTBOUND
1549 LEFT 2 3200 89 0.03 N
508 6 THRU 3 4800 1024 0.22 0.22
RIGHT 0 0 25 0
WESTBOUND
LEFT 1 1600 6 0.00 N
THRU 3 4800 231 0.05 0.00
RIGHT 0 0 21 0
574 219 143
TOTAL ICU 0.26LEVEL OF SERVICE A
DATE: 4 2020 N - S: Broadbeck Dr
LOCATION: Broadbeck Dr at Camino Dos Rios E - W: Camino Dos RiosSCENARIO: Existing (2020) FILE: ShapellTIA_ICU_EX.xlsPEAK HOUR: PM Peak Hour COMMENTS:
Broadbeck Dr
NORTH # OF CAPACITY VOLUME V/C SPLIT CRITICAL
LANES PHASED V/C
171 5 26 NORTHBOUND
LEFT 0 0 30 0 N
THRU 1 1600 10 0.03 0
RIGHT 0 0 9 0
Camino Dos Rios SOUTHBOUND
LEFT 0 0 102 0 NTHRU 1 1600 5 0.07 0.07
176 INTERSECTION 94 RIGHT 2 3200 138 0
TOTAL
1132 789 EASTBOUND
1852 LEFT 2 3200 166 0.05 N
508 16 THRU 3 4800 448 0.10 0.05
RIGHT 0 0 45 0
WESTBOUND
LEFT 1 1600 16 0.01 N
THRU 3 4800 789 0.18 0.18
RIGHT 0 0 94 0
574 219 143
TOTAL ICU 0.30LEVEL OF SERVICE A
DATE: 4 2020 N - S: Rancho Conejo Blvd
LOCATION: Rancho Conejo Blvd at Hillcrest Dr E - W: Hillcrest DrSCENARIO: Existing (2020) Plus Project FILE: ShapellTIA_ICU_EXPP.xlsPEAK HOUR: AM Peak Hour COMMENTS:
Rancho Conejo Blvd
NORTH # OF CAPACITY VOLUME V/C SPLIT CRITICAL
LANES PHASED V/C
171 224 26 NORTHBOUND
LEFT 1 1600 307 0.19 N
THRU 3 4800 1325 0.28 0.28
RIGHT 1 1600 115 0
Hillcrest Dr SOUTHBOUND
LEFT 1 1600 51 0.03 N
THRU 3 4800 224 0.05 0.03
176 INTERSECTION 109 RIGHT 0 0 10 0
TOTAL
1132 169 EASTBOUND
2890 LEFT 1 1600 20 0.01 N
508 280 THRU 2 3200 169 0.05 0.05
RIGHT 1 1600 111 0
WESTBOUND
LEFT 2 3200 280 0.09 N
THRU 1 1600 169 0.11 0.09
RIGHT 1 1600 109 0.04
574 219 143
TOTAL ICU 0.45LEVEL OF SERVICE A
DATE: 4 2020 N - S: Rancho Conejo Blvd
LOCATION: Rancho Conejo Blvd at Hillcrest Dr E - W: Hillcrest DrSCENARIO: Existing (2020) Plus Project FILE: ShapellTIA_ICU_EXPP.xlsPEAK HOUR: PM Peak Hour COMMENTS:
Rancho Conejo Blvd
NORTH # OF CAPACITY VOLUME V/C SPLIT CRITICAL
LANES PHASED V/C
171 1255 26 NORTHBOUND
LEFT 1 1600 174 0.11 N
THRU 3 4800 279 0.06 0.11RIGHT 1 1600 228 0.05
Hillcrest Dr SOUTHBOUND
LEFT 1 1600 274 0.17 N
THRU 3 4800 1255 0.26 0.26
176 INTERSECTION 60 RIGHT 0 0 13 0
TOTAL
1132 187 EASTBOUND
3638 LEFT 1 1600 12 0.01 N
508 293 THRU 2 3200 443 0.14 0.15
RIGHT 1 1600 420 0.15
WESTBOUND
LEFT 2 3200 293 0.09 N
THRU 1 1600 187 0.12 0.09
RIGHT 1 1600 60 0
574 219 143
TOTAL ICU 0.61LEVEL OF SERVICE B
DATE: 4 2020 N - S: Camino Dos Rios / Teller Road
LOCATION: Camino Dos Rios at Teller Road E - W: Hillcrest DrSCENARIO: Existing (2020) Plus Project FILE: ShapellTIA_ICU_EXPP.xlsPEAK HOUR: AM Peak Hour COMMENTS:
Camino Dos Rios / Teller Road
NORTH # OF CAPACITY VOLUME V/C SPLIT CRITICAL
LANES PHASED V/C
171 14 26 NORTHBOUND
LEFT 2 3200 68 0.02 Y 0.02
THRU 1 1600 15 0.01
RIGHT 0 0 4 0
Hillcrest Dr SOUTHBOUND
LEFT 0 0 7 0 Y 0.01
THRU 1 1600 14 0.01
176 INTERSECTION 13 RIGHT 1 1600 8 0
TOTAL
1132 213 EASTBOUND
1320 LEFT 1 1600 17 0.01 N
508 0 THRU 2 3200 831 0.26 0.26
RIGHT 1 1600 130 0.06
WESTBOUND
LEFT 1 1600 0 0.00 N
THRU 2 3200 213 0.07 0.00
RIGHT 0 0 13 0
574 219 143
TOTAL ICU 0.29LEVEL OF SERVICE A
DATE: 4 2020 N - S: Camino Dos Rios / Teller Road
LOCATION: Camino Dos Rios at Teller Road E - W: Hillcrest DrSCENARIO: Existing (2020) Plus Project FILE: ShapellTIA_ICU_EXPP.xlsPEAK HOUR: PM Peak Hour COMMENTS:
Camino Dos Rios / Teller Road
NORTH # OF CAPACITY VOLUME V/C SPLIT CRITICAL
LANES PHASED V/C
171 74 26 NORTHBOUND
LEFT 2 3200 201 0.06 Y 0.06
THRU 1 1600 80 0.06
RIGHT 0 0 12 0
Hillcrest Dr SOUTHBOUND
LEFT 0 0 29 0 Y 0.06
THRU 1 1600 74 0.06
176 INTERSECTION 52 RIGHT 1 1600 100 0.04
TOTAL
1132 646 EASTBOUND
1757 LEFT 1 1600 42 0.03 N
508 14 THRU 2 3200 260 0.08 0.03
RIGHT 1 1600 247 0.09
WESTBOUND
LEFT 1 1600 14 0.01 N
THRU 2 3200 646 0.22 0.22
RIGHT 0 0 52 0
574 219 143
TOTAL ICU 0.37LEVEL OF SERVICE A
DATE: 4 2020 N - S: Ventu Park Rd
LOCATION: Ventu Park Rd at Hillcrest Dr E - W: Hillcrest DrSCENARIO: Existing (2020) Plus Project FILE: ShapellTIA_ICU_EXPP.xlsPEAK HOUR: AM Peak Hour COMMENTS:
Ventu Park Rd
NORTH # OF CAPACITY VOLUME V/C SPLIT CRITICAL
LANES PHASED V/C
171 290 26 NORTHBOUND
LEFT 2 3200 233 0.07 N
THRU 2 3200 982 0.31 0.31RIGHT 1 1600 82 0.00
Hillcrest Dr SOUTHBOUND
LEFT 2 3200 169 0.05 N
THRU 2 3200 290 0.09 0.05
176 INTERSECTION 315 RIGHT 1 1600 21 0
TOTAL
1132 276 EASTBOUND
3157 LEFT 1 1600 55 0.03 N
508 77 THRU 2 3200 358 0.11 0.03
RIGHT 1 1600 299 0.11
WESTBOUND
LEFT 1 1600 77 0.05 N
THRU 2 3200 276 0.18 0.18
RIGHT 0 0 315 0
574 219 143
TOTAL ICU 0.57LEVEL OF SERVICE A
DATE: 4 2020 N - S: Ventu Park Rd
LOCATION: Ventu Park Rd at Hillcrest Dr E - W: Hillcrest DrSCENARIO: Existing (2020) Plus Project FILE: ShapellTIA_ICU_EXPP.xlsPEAK HOUR: PM Peak Hour COMMENTS:
Ventu Park Rd
NORTH # OF CAPACITY VOLUME V/C SPLIT CRITICAL
LANES PHASED V/C
171 1018 26 NORTHBOUND
LEFT 2 3200 299 0.09 N
THRU 2 3200 262 0.08 0.09RIGHT 1 1600 123 0
Hillcrest Dr SOUTHBOUND
LEFT 2 3200 384 0.12 N
THRU 2 3200 1018 0.32 0.32
176 INTERSECTION 120 RIGHT 1 1600 16 0
TOTAL
1132 393 EASTBOUND
3829 LEFT 1 1600 27 0.02 N
508 181 THRU 2 3200 637 0.20 0.20
RIGHT 1 1600 369 0.14
WESTBOUND
LEFT 1 1600 181 0.11 N
THRU 2 3200 393 0.16 0.11
RIGHT 0 0 120 0
574 219 143
TOTAL ICU 0.72LEVEL OF SERVICE C
DATE: 4 2020 N - S: Broadbeck Dr
LOCATION: Broadbeck Dr at Camino Dos Rios E - W: Camino Dos RiosSCENARIO: Existing (2020) Plus Project FILE: ShapellTIA_ICU_EXPP.xlsPEAK HOUR: AM Peak Hour COMMENTS:
Broadbeck Dr
NORTH # OF CAPACITY VOLUME V/C SPLIT CRITICAL
LANES PHASED V/C
171 2 26 NORTHBOUND
LEFT 0 0 24 0 N
THRU 1 1600 3 0.02 0
RIGHT 0 0 9 0
Camino Dos Rios SOUTHBOUND
LEFT 0 0 66 0 N
THRU 1 1600 2 0.04 0.04
176 INTERSECTION 21 RIGHT 2 3200 49 0
TOTAL
1132 236 EASTBOUND
1587 LEFT 2 3200 89 0.03 N
508 6 THRU 3 4800 1057 0.23 0.23
RIGHT 0 0 25 0
WESTBOUND
LEFT 1 1600 6 0.00 N
THRU 3 4800 236 0.05 0.00
RIGHT 0 0 21 0
574 219 143
TOTAL ICU 0.27LEVEL OF SERVICE A
DATE: 4 2020 N - S: Broadbeck Dr
LOCATION: Broadbeck Dr at Camino Dos Rios E - W: Camino Dos RiosSCENARIO: Existing (2020) Plus Project FILE: ShapellTIA_ICU_EXPP.xlsPEAK HOUR: PM Peak Hour COMMENTS:
Broadbeck Dr
NORTH # OF CAPACITY VOLUME V/C SPLIT CRITICAL
LANES PHASED V/C
171 5 26 NORTHBOUND
LEFT 0 0 30 0 N
THRU 1 1600 10 0.03 0
RIGHT 0 0 9 0
Camino Dos Rios SOUTHBOUND
LEFT 0 0 102 0 NTHRU 1 1600 5 0.07 0.07
176 INTERSECTION 94 RIGHT 2 3200 138 0
TOTAL
1132 815 EASTBOUND
1882 LEFT 2 3200 166 0.05 N
508 16 THRU 3 4800 452 0.10 0.05
RIGHT 0 0 45 0
WESTBOUND
LEFT 1 1600 16 0.01 N
THRU 3 4800 815 0.19 0.19
RIGHT 0 0 94 0
574 219 143
TOTAL ICU 0.31LEVEL OF SERVICE A
DATE: 4 2020 N - S: Rancho Conejo Blvd
LOCATION: Rancho Conejo Blvd at Hillcrest Dr E - W: Hillcrest DrSCENARIO: Build Out (2040) FILE: ShapellTIA_ICU_BO.xlsPEAK HOUR: AM Peak Hour COMMENTS:
Rancho Conejo Blvd
NORTH # OF CAPACITY VOLUME V/C SPLIT CRITICAL
LANES PHASED V/C
171 228 26 NORTHBOUND
LEFT 1 1600 301 0.19 N
THRU 3 4800 1341 0.28 0.28
RIGHT 1 1600 123 0
Hillcrest Dr SOUTHBOUND
LEFT 1 1600 54 0.03 N
THRU 3 4800 228 0.05 0.03
176 INTERSECTION 116 RIGHT 0 0 11 0
TOTAL
1132 180 EASTBOUND
2968 LEFT 1 1600 22 0.01 N
508 298 THRU 2 3200 180 0.06 0.06
RIGHT 1 1600 114 0
WESTBOUND
LEFT 2 3200 298 0.09 N
THRU 1 1600 180 0.11 0.09
RIGHT 1 1600 116 0.04
574 219 143
TOTAL ICU 0.46LEVEL OF SERVICE A
DATE: 4 2020 N - S: Rancho Conejo Blvd
LOCATION: Rancho Conejo Blvd at Hillcrest Dr E - W: Hillcrest DrSCENARIO: Build Out (2040) FILE: ShapellTIA_ICU_BO.xlsPEAK HOUR: PM Peak Hour COMMENTS:
Rancho Conejo Blvd
NORTH # OF CAPACITY VOLUME V/C SPLIT CRITICAL
LANES PHASED V/C
171 1281 26 NORTHBOUND
LEFT 1 1600 182 0.11 N
THRU 3 4800 289 0.06 0.11RIGHT 1 1600 242 0.05
Hillcrest Dr SOUTHBOUND
LEFT 1 1600 292 0.18 N
THRU 3 4800 1281 0.27 0.27
176 INTERSECTION 64 RIGHT 0 0 14 0
TOTAL
1132 199 EASTBOUND
3785 LEFT 1 1600 13 0.01 N
508 311 THRU 2 3200 472 0.15 0.15
RIGHT 1 1600 426 0.15
WESTBOUND
LEFT 2 3200 311 0.10 N
THRU 1 1600 199 0.12 0.10
RIGHT 1 1600 64 0
574 219 143
TOTAL ICU 0.63LEVEL OF SERVICE B
DATE: 4 2020 N - S: Camino Dos Rios / Teller Road
LOCATION: Camino Dos Rios at Teller Road E - W: Hillcrest DrSCENARIO: Build Out (2040) FILE: ShapellTIA_ICU_BO.xlsPEAK HOUR: AM Peak Hour COMMENTS:
Camino Dos Rios / Teller Road
NORTH # OF CAPACITY VOLUME V/C SPLIT CRITICAL
LANES PHASED V/C
171 15 26 NORTHBOUND
LEFT 2 3200 72 0.02 Y 0.02
THRU 1 1600 16 0.01
RIGHT 0 0 4 0
Hillcrest Dr SOUTHBOUND
LEFT 0 0 8 0 Y 0.01
THRU 1 1600 15 0.01
176 INTERSECTION 14 RIGHT 1 1600 9 0
TOTAL
1132 220 EASTBOUND
1361 LEFT 1 1600 19 0.01 N
508 0 THRU 2 3200 846 0.26 0.26
RIGHT 1 1600 138 0.06
WESTBOUND
LEFT 1 1600 0 0.00 N
THRU 2 3200 220 0.07 0.00
RIGHT 0 0 14 0
574 219 143
TOTAL ICU 0.29LEVEL OF SERVICE A
DATE: 4 2020 N - S: Camino Dos Rios / Teller Road
LOCATION: Camino Dos Rios at Teller Road E - W: Hillcrest DrSCENARIO: Build Out (2040) FILE: ShapellTIA_ICU_BO.xlsPEAK HOUR: PM Peak Hour COMMENTS:
Camino Dos Rios / Teller Road
NORTH # OF CAPACITY VOLUME V/C SPLIT CRITICAL
LANES PHASED V/C
171 79 26 NORTHBOUND
LEFT 2 3200 213 0.07 Y 0.07
THRU 1 1600 85 0.06
RIGHT 0 0 13 0
Hillcrest Dr SOUTHBOUND
LEFT 0 0 31 0 Y 0.07
THRU 1 1600 79 0.07
176 INTERSECTION 55 RIGHT 1 1600 106 0.04
TOTAL
1132 656 EASTBOUND
1830 LEFT 1 1600 44 0.03 N
508 15 THRU 2 3200 271 0.08 0.03
RIGHT 1 1600 262 0.10
WESTBOUND
LEFT 1 1600 15 0.01 N
THRU 2 3200 656 0.22 0.22
RIGHT 0 0 55 0
574 219 143
TOTAL ICU 0.39LEVEL OF SERVICE A
DATE: 4 2020 N - S: Ventu Park Rd
LOCATION: Ventu Park Rd at Hillcrest Dr E - W: Hillcrest DrSCENARIO: Build Out (2040) FILE: ShapellTIA_ICU_BO.xls PEAK HOUR: AM Peak Hour COMMENTS:
Ventu Park Rd
NORTH # OF CAPACITY VOLUME V/C SPLIT CRITICAL
LANES PHASED V/C
171 302 26 NORTHBOUND
LEFT 2 3200 248 0.08 N THRU 2 3200 1002 0.31 0.31RIGHT 1 1600 88 0.00 Hillcrest Dr SOUTHBOUND
LEFT 2 3200 180 0.06 NTHRU 3 4800 302 0.07 0.06
176 INTERSECTION 335 RIGHT 0 23 0
TOTAL
1132 294 EASTBOUND
3311 LEFT 1 1600 58 0.04 N
508 82 THRU 2 3200 381 0.12 0.04
RIGHT 1 1600 318 0.12
WESTBOUND
LEFT 1 1600 82 0.05 NTHRU 2 3200 294 0.20 0.20RIGHT 0 0 335 0 574 219 143
TOTAL ICU 0.61LEVEL OF SERVICE B
DATE: 4 2020 N - S: Ventu Park Rd
LOCATION: Ventu Park Rd at Hillcrest Dr E - W: Hillcrest DrSCENARIO: Build Out (2040) FILE: ShapellTIA_ICU_BO.xls PEAK HOUR: PM Peak Hour COMMENTS:
Ventu Park Rd
NORTH # OF CAPACITY VOLUME V/C SPLIT CRITICAL
LANES PHASED V/C
171 1049 26 NORTHBOUND
LEFT 2 3200 317 0.10 N THRU 2 3200 274 0.09 0.10RIGHT 1 1600 131 0 Hillcrest Dr SOUTHBOUND
LEFT 2 3200 409 0.13 NTHRU 3 4800 1049 0.22 0.22
176 INTERSECTION 128 RIGHT 0 18 0
TOTAL
1132 419 EASTBOUND
4037 LEFT 1 1600 29 0.02 N
508 193 THRU 2 3200 678 0.21 0.21
RIGHT 1 1600 392 0.15
WESTBOUND
LEFT 1 1600 193 0.12 NTHRU 2 3200 419 0.17 0.12RIGHT 0 0 128 0 574 219 143
TOTAL ICU 0.65LEVEL OF SERVICE B
DATE: 4 2020 N - S: Broadbeck Dr
LOCATION: Broadbeck Dr at Camino Dos Rios E - W: Camino Dos RiosSCENARIO: Build Out (2040) FILE: ShapellTIA_ICU_BO.xlsPEAK HOUR: AM Peak Hour COMMENTS:
Broadbeck Dr
NORTH # OF CAPACITY VOLUME V/C SPLIT CRITICAL
LANES PHASED V/C
171 2 26 NORTHBOUND
LEFT 0 0 26 0 N
THRU 1 1600 3 0.02 0
RIGHT 0 0 10 0
Camino Dos Rios SOUTHBOUND
LEFT 0 0 70 0 N
THRU 1 1600 2 0.05 0.05
176 INTERSECTION 23 RIGHT 2 3200 52 0
TOTAL
1132 245 EASTBOUND
1650 LEFT 2 3200 95 0.03 N
508 7 THRU 3 4800 1090 0.23 0.23
RIGHT 0 0 27 0
WESTBOUND
LEFT 1 1600 7 0.00 N
THRU 3 4800 245 0.06 0.00
RIGHT 0 0 23 0
574 219 143
TOTAL ICU 0.28LEVEL OF SERVICE A
DATE: 4 2020 N - S: Broadbeck Dr
LOCATION: Broadbeck Dr at Camino Dos Rios E - W: Camino Dos RiosSCENARIO: Build Out (2040) FILE: ShapellTIA_ICU_BO.xlsPEAK HOUR: PM Peak Hour COMMENTS:
Broadbeck Dr
NORTH # OF CAPACITY VOLUME V/C SPLIT CRITICAL
LANES PHASED V/C
171 5 26 NORTHBOUND
LEFT 0 0 32 0 N
THRU 1 1600 11 0.03 0
RIGHT 0 0 10 0
Camino Dos Rios SOUTHBOUND
LEFT 0 0 109 0 NTHRU 1 1600 5 0.07 0.07
176 INTERSECTION 100 RIGHT 2 3200 147 0
TOTAL
1132 839 EASTBOUND
1972 LEFT 2 3200 176 0.06 N
508 18 THRU 3 4800 477 0.11 0.06
RIGHT 0 0 48 0
WESTBOUND
LEFT 1 1600 18 0.01 N
THRU 3 4800 839 0.20 0.20
RIGHT 0 0 100 0
574 219 143
TOTAL ICU 0.33LEVEL OF SERVICE A
Appendix I
Water Supply Assessment
February 18, 2021
Re: Conejo Summit Water Supply Assessment
Conejo Summit,
The attached Water Supply Assessment (WSA) was prepared on behalf of California-American Water (CAW) to satisfy the requirements of California Water Code Section 10910 (Senate Bill 610) for the Conejo Summit Development (Project).
As required by Senate Bill 610, this WSA assessed whether the total projected water supplies available during average, single dry, and multiple dry water years during a 20-year projection will meet the projected water demand for the Project, in addition to CAW’s existing and planned future uses. The water demands of the proposed Project were accounted for in CAW’s 2015 Urban Water Management Plan for the Southern Division - Ventura County District. This WSA concludes that CAW’s total projected water supplies are sufficient to meet the projected water demand for the Project.
This WSA is approved by California American Water on February 18, 2021 and is being provided to the City of Thousand Oaks as the Lead Agency for the Project to support your determination of whether water supplies will be sufficient to satisfy the demands of the project in addition to planned and future uses.
Should you have any concerns or require additional information regarding this WSA please contact me.
Sincerely,
Mark Reifer
Engineering Manager – Project Delivery
Water Supply Assessment
Proposed Conejo Summit Project
Prepared by:
LOS ANGELES
706 S. Hill Street, 11th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90014
WESTLAKE VILLAGE
920 Hampshire Road, Suite A5
Westlake Village, CA 91361
December 2020
Meridian Consultants i Rancho Conejo Summit Project WSA 301-001-20 December 2020
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page
LIST OF ACRONYMS ......................................................................................................................... iii
1.0 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................ 1
1.1 Purpose and Acknowledgement ............................................................................................. 1
1.2 Legislation ............................................................................................................................... 2
1.3 California America Water Company ....................................................................................... 5
1.4 Calleguas Municipal Water District ......................................................................................... 6
1.5 Climate .................................................................................................................................. 10
1.6 Service Area Population ........................................................................................................ 11
1.7 Definitions ............................................................................................................................. 12
2.0 PROPOSED PROJECT ....................................................................................................................... 13
3.0 WATER SUPPLY SOURCES ................................................................................................................ 18
3.1 Overview ............................................................................................................................... 18
3.2 Calleguas Municipal Water District ....................................................................................... 19
3.3 Cal-Am Ventura County Water District ................................................................................. 24
4.0 WATER SUPPLY RELIABILITY ............................................................................................................ 26
4.1 Water Reliability ................................................................................................................... 26
4.2 Water Shortage Contingency Planning ................................................................................. 29
4.3 Drought Planning .................................................................................................................. 30
5.0 WATER CONSERVATION DEMANDS ................................................................................................ 31
5.1 City of Thousand Oaks Water Conservation Ordinance ....................................................... 31
5.2 Cal-Am Water Conservation Measures ................................................................................. 33
6.0 WATER DEMANDS ........................................................................................................................... 34
6.1 Baseline Targets .................................................................................................................... 34
6.2 Sales to Other Water Agencies ............................................................................................. 35
6.3 Additional Water Uses and Losses ........................................................................................ 35
6.4 Total Water Use .................................................................................................................... 36
6.5 Wholesale Water Demands .................................................................................................. 36
6.6 Historic and Projected Water Use by Sector ......................................................................... 37
7.0 WATER DEMAND ANALYSIS FOR PROPOSED PROJECT ................................................................... 38
7.1 Project Demand Analysis ...................................................................................................... 38
7.2 Average Water Year .............................................................................................................. 40
7.2 Dry Water Years .................................................................................................................... 40
8.0 REGULATORY MEASURES ................................................................................................................ 44
8.1 Outdoor Water Use (Landscaping) Conservation ................................................................. 45
8.2 Indoor Water Use Conservation ........................................................................................... 44
9.0 SUMMARY ...................................................................................................................................... 47
10.0 ORGANIZATIONS AND PERSONS CONSULTED ................................................................................ 47
11.0 REFERENCES ................................................................................................................................... 48 Meridian Consultants ii Rancho Conejo Summit Project WSA 301-001-20 December 2020
List of Tables
Table Page
1 Precipitation and Evapotranspiration in the Ventura County Area - 2019/2020........................... 11 2 Historic, Current and Projected Cal-Am Service Area Population .................................................. 12 3 Rancho Conejo Summit Project Details .......................................................................................... 14 4 Proposed Project Water Demand .................................................................................................. 15 5 Average Year MWD Supply, Demand and Deliveries for 2020-2040 ............................................. 19 6 Calleguas Planned Sources of Supply (2010-2043) ........................................................................ 24 7 Cal-Am Ventura County District Demand Projections Provided to Wholesale Suppliers (2020- 2043) ............................................................................................................................................... 24 8 Calleguas Supply Reliability Projections-Average Year Conditions ................................................ 27 9 Calleguas Supply Reliability Projections-Single Dry Year................................................................ 28 10 Calleguas Supply Reliability Projections-Multiple Dry Year Conditions ......................................... 28 11 Cal Am Ventura County District’s Three-year Minimum Water Supplies ...................................... 30 12 Baseline, Interim Target, and Target Per Capita Water Use .......................................................... 34 13 Cal-Am Ventura County District Non-Revenue Water ................................................................... 35 14 Cal-Am Ventura County District Water Actual Water Deliveries (2010 – 2019) ............................ 36 15 Cal-Am Ventura County District Projected Water Use (2015-2043) .............................................. 36 16 Cal-Am Ventura County District Normal Year Water Demand Projections from Calleguas .......... 37 17 Cal-Am Ventura County District Historic and Future Water Demand by Sector ............................ 37 18 Average Year Supply and Demand Assessment (2020 to 2043) .................................................... 40 19 Single and Multiple Dry Water Years Supply and Demand Assessments (2023 to 2027) .............. 42 20 Single and Multiple Dry Water Years Supply and Demand Assessments (2028 to 2032) .............. 42 21 Single and Multiple Dry Water Years Supply and Demand Assessments (2033 to 2037) .............. 43 22 Single and Multiple Dry Water Years Supply and Demand Assessments (2038 to 2043) .............. 43 List of Figures
Figure Page
1 Cal-Am Ventura County District Service Area .................................................................................. 8 2 Calleguas Service Area ...................................................................................................................... 9 3 Project Location .............................................................................................................................. 16 4 Conejo Summit Site Plan ................................................................................................................ 17 Meridian Consultants iii Rancho Conejo Summit Project WSA 301-001-20 December 2020
LIST OF ACRONYMS
ac acre
af acre-feet, equal to approximately 325,851 gallons
afy acre-feet per year
BMP Best Management Practice, one of the water conservation methods BO Biological Opinion
BOR Bureau of Reclamation
Cal-Am California American Water Company
CALFED CALFED Bay-Delta Program
CCDP Conejo Creek Diversion Project
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
City Unless otherwise specified means the City
CII Commercial, Industrial, and Institutional land uses cfs Cubic feet per second
Calleguas Calleguas Municipal Water District
CRA Colorado River Aqueduct
CUWCC California Urban Water Conservation Council
du/ac dwelling units per acre
DWR California Department of Water Resources
ESA Endangered Species Act
gpd gallons per day
gal/ac gallons per acre
gal/du gallons per dwelling unit
gal/du/day gallons per dwelling unit per day
gal/ksf gallons per thousand square feet
gpm gallons per minute
hcf hundred cubic feet, equal to 748 gallons
HECW high efficiency clothes washer
HCTP Hill Canyon Wastewater Treatment Plant
Meridian Consultants iv Rancho Conejo Summit Project WSA 301-001-20 December 2020
IRP Integrated Resources Program
ksf thousand square feet
MWELO Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance
mg/L milligrams per liter
mgd million gallons per day
MWD Metropolitan Water District of Southern California
psi pounds per square inch
PWS Public Water System
QSA Quantification Settlement Agreement
RPA Reasonable and Prudent Alternative
SB Senate Bill
SCAG Southern California Association of Governments
SWP State Water Project
TDS total dissolved solids
ULFT ultra low flow toilets
UWMP Urban Water Management Plan
WSA Water Supply Assessment
WSAP Water Supply Allocation Plan
WSMD Water Surplus and Drought Management
Meridian Consultants 1 Rancho Conejo Summit Project WSA 301-001-20 December 2020
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Purpose and Acknowledgement
This Water Supply Assessment (WSA) was prepared on behalf of Thousand Oaks Master, LLC (Applicant) for the proposed Conejo Summit Project (proposed Project) for California-American Water (Cal-Am) to satisfy the requirements of California Water Code (CWC) Section 10910 (Senate Bill 610) for this proposed Project.
The proposed Project lies within the city limits of the City of Thousand Oaks (City). The proposed Project lies within Cal-Am’s Ventura County District water service area.
The City is the Lead Agency for the Project’s environmental review which is required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). As required by Senate Bill 610 (SB 610), Cal-Am is responsible for assessing whether the total projected water supplies available during average, single dry, and multiple dry water years during a 20-year projection will meet the projected water demand for the proposed Project, in addition to Cal-Am’s existing and planned future uses. A water supplier’s Urban Water Management Plan (UMWP) serves as a foundational document for a WSA. As explained in Section 7.1 of this WSA, the water demands of the proposed Project were not accounted for in Cal-Am’s 2015 UWMP for the Southern Division - Ventura County District (2015 UWMP), as submitted to the California Department of Water Resources (DWR) in June 2016.1
This WSA includes the following:
x Description of the Project and proposed water demand; x Overview of Cal-Am’s water system;
x Information on Cal-Am’s current and projected water demands in the Ventura County District water service area;
x Information on Cal-Am’s current and projected water supplies; x Discussion of water supply reliability;
x Comparison of water supplies and water demands for average, single dry, and multiple dry years; and x Determination of water supply sufficiency and a description of the facilities necessary to provide additional water supplies to serve the demands of the proposed Project.
This WSA is based on information provided in the water supply and demand data from the Cal-Am Ventura County District 2015 UWMP2 for their Ventura County District. Content from the 2015 UWMP has been 1 California American Water Company, 2015 Urban Water Management Plan, June 2016.p. 2-3. 2 California American Water Company, 2015 Urban Water Management Plan, June 2016.
Meridian Consultants 2 Rancho Conejo Summit Project WSA 301-001-20 December 2020
updated and incorporated into this document and reflects the supply and demand information that will be presented in the 2015 UWMP. Additional information from other sources is also incorporated into this WSA to document supplies from all sources, including purchased water. Documentation includes identifying and quantifying water rights, contracts, and/or entitlements to the supply. Cal-Am must provide the results of the assessment to the City, as the Lead Agency, for inclusion in the CEQA document for the project. Further, as Cal-Am is a retail water purveyor and receives water from the Calleguas Municipal Water District (Calleguas), information from the Calleguas’ 2015 UWMP3 has been included as appropriate.
It is noted that this WSA addresses the overall water supply available to meet the demands of Cal-Am’s existing customers, development of the proposed Project, and other future demands within the Cal-Am Ventura County District service water service area. The WSA does not address the physical infrastructure of the water delivery system within the service area since the focus is on the overall water supply.
1.2 Legislation
1.2.1 Urban Water Management Act
The California Urban Water Management Planning Act (UWMP Act),4 requires all urban water suppliers with more than 3,000 connections or distributing more than 3,000 acre feet per year (afy) to complete an UWMP every five years ending in ‘5’ and ‘0’. The Ventura County District does not release information on total connections; per the 2015 Cal-Am Ventura County District UWMP5 covers the Ventura County District and
the two service areas it contains: Thousand Oaks and Las Posas; combined the two service areas exceed 3,000 customers and deliver 3,000 AFY or more; the 2020 UWMP for the Ventura District will include the El Rio system for a total of three service areas. The UWMP Act is administered by DWR, who is responsible for compiling data for Statewide and regional analysis, and publishing the accepted documents online for public access.
The UWMP is a valuable planning document used for multiple purposes:
x Serves as valuable resource to the community and other interested parties regarding water supply and demand, conservation and other water related information; x Meets a statutory requirement of the California Water Code; 3 Calleguas Municipal Water District, 2015 Urban Water Management Plan, June 2016. 4 California Water Code, Division 6 Part 2.6, §§10610 - 10656), Urban Water Management Planning Act. 5 California American Water Company, 2015 Urban Water Management Plan, June 2016, p. 3-1 Meridian Consultants 3 Rancho Conejo Summit Project WSA 301-001-20 December 2020
x Provides a key source of information for city and county General Plans. WSAs, and Written Verifications of Water Supply;
x Supports regional long-range planning documents including City and County General Plans; x Provides a standardized methodology for water utilities to assess their water resource needs and availability;
x Serves as a critical component of developing Integrated Regional Water Management Plans (IRWMPs); and
x Provides a resource for regional involvement in the California Water Plan.
1.2.2 SB 610
Senate Bill (SB) 6106 amended the Public Resources Code to incorporate CWC requirements for certain types of development projects to improve the link between information on water supply availability and certain land use decisions made by cities and counties. SB 610 seeks to promote more collaborative planning between local water suppliers, cities, and counties by requiring detailed information regarding water availability to be provided to the city and county decision-makers prior to approval of specified large development projects.
Under SB 610, water suppliers must prepare WSAs for projects meeting certain project size criteria and deliver them to local governments for inclusion in any environmental documentation. The criteria that trigger preparation of a WSA are shown below with this Project’s applicable criteria marked with an “x.” x A proposed residential development of more than 500 dwelling units. x A proposed shopping center or business establishment employing more than 1,000 persons or having more than 500,000 square feet of floor space.
x A proposed commercial office building employing more than 1,000 persons or having more than 250,000 square feet of floor space.
x A proposed hotel or motel, or both, having more than 500 rooms. x A proposed industrial, manufacturing, or processing plant, or industrial park planned to house more than 1,000 persons, occupying more than 40 acres of land, or having more than 650,000 square feet of floor area.
x A mixed-use project that includes one or more of the projects specified in this subdivision. 6 SB 610, Costa. California Water Code, Division 6, Conservation, Development and utilization of State Water Resources, Part
2.10, Sections 10910 – 10915.Water Supply Planning to Support Existing and Planned Future Uses. effective January 1, 2002.
Meridian Consultants 4 Rancho Conejo Summit Project WSA 301-001-20 December 2020
x A project that would demand an amount of water equivalent to, or greater than, the amount of water required by a 500-dwelling unit project.
The proposed Project is a commercial and industrial development, as described in more detail in the Project Description section. The proposed Project includes future development of approximately 353,401 square feet of office and industrial space and exceeds the mixed-use project threshold of 250,000 square feet of commercial floor space.
The City has determined that the Project is subject to review under CEQA7 and the State CEQA Guidelines8 The City has determined that the Project is a “project” as defined in California Water Code Section 109129 and has determined that a CEQA review is required for the proposed Project. The Project requires a WSA because it proposes construction of uses that exceed the thresholds of a development that would demand an amount of water equivalent to, or greater than, the amount of water required by a proposed commercial office building employing more than 1,000 persons or having more than 250,000 square feet of floor space.
The WSA reviews and makes a finding of reasonable sufficiency of water supplies that either are available or will be available to the City to meet future demands for the period from year 2023 to year 2043.
1.2.3 Other Legislation
In November 2009, the California legislature passed the comprehensive 2009 Delta/Water Legislation.10 The package consists of five bills, whose content reflects the inextricable linkages between the health of the California Delta and California's Statewide water supply management practices and policies. The bills descend directly from those goals set out in the blue-ribbon Delta Vision Strategic Plan, a December 2008 document with findings and recommendations for managing the Delta as a crucial component of California's water supply system.
The 2009 Delta/Water Legislation—in codifying policies such as a 20 percent per capita urban use reduction target, mandatory monitoring of groundwater levels, new measuring requirements for agriculture, enhanced penalties for improper diversion, alongside establishing a new governance structure for the Delta—directly implements some of the Delta Vision Strategic Plan's most important recommendations. 7 California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Public Resources Code, Section 21000 et seq. 8 CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, Section 15000 et. seq. 9 California Water Code, Division 6, Conservation, Development and utilization of State Water Resources, Part 2.10, Sections 10912.
10 2009 Comprehensive Water Legislation Package consists of four bills adopted on November 4, 2009 - SBX7-1 (Simitian) Delta Governance • SBX7-6 (Steinberg) Groundwater Monitoring • SBX7-7 (Steinberg) Water Conservation • SBX7-8 (Steinberg) Water Diversions.
Meridian Consultants 5 Rancho Conejo Summit Project WSA 301-001-20 December 2020
Of the five bills identified in the 2009 Delta/Water Legislation package, the Urban and Agricultural Water Conservation bill (“SBX7 7”)11 would have the greatest influence on the City, Calleguas, and MWD. This bill establishes a Statewide urban water conservation target of 10 percent by 2015 and 20 percent by 2020. This target is consistent with the Governor’s February 2008 proposal and is part of the legislation recommended by the Delta Vision Strategic Plan.12 “SBX7 7” also provides options for how water agencies can achieve higher levels of water conservation but requires those options to meet a per capita reduction in water use.
1.3 California American Water Company
1.3.1 Cal-Am System Description
Cal-Am is a privately owned public utility providing water services to over 630,000 people in 50 communities throughout California that is regulated by the California Public Utility Commission (CPUC), CPUC Utility #U210W. Therefore, its facilities, operations, and financial structure (including customer rates) are subject to extensive regulation by the CPUC, as well as environmental, health, safety and water quality regulations by federal, State, and local governments. The CPUC sets rules and regulates public utility companies in California.
The intent of the regulations set by the CPUC is to ensure provision of high-quality water service at a fair price. All increases in service rates are directly related to the cost of providing quality service and are subjected to a public review process and approval by the CPUC.
Cal-Am is operated by three Division Offices: Northern Division; Central Division; and Southern Division. The Northern Division includes the Sacramento County and Larkfield Districts, the Central Division includes the Monterey County District, and the Southern Division includes the Ventura County, Los Angeles County and San Diego County Districts.
The Cal-Am Ventura County District contains three Public Water Systems (PWSs) – Thousand Oaks, Los Posas Valley and El Rio; PWSs are the systems that provide drinking water for human consumption. These systems are regulated by the State Water Resources Control Board (Board), Division of Drinking Water with separate operating permits with the State Water Resources Control Board Division of Drinking Water (DDW).
The Cal-Am Ventura County District service area covers approximately 26.6 square miles and is located within southern Ventura County along highway 101, northwest of Los Angeles. The service areas consist of: 1) approximately one half of the City of Thousand Oaks (25 square miles) and 2) portions of unincorporated Ventura County identified as Las Posas Valley (1.6 square miles). Since the 2015 Cal-Am Ventura County District UWMP was completed, the Cal-Am Ventura County District acquired the El Rio water system. 11 California Department of Water Resources, Water Conservation Act of 2009 (Senate Bill X7-7), November 2009. 12 California Resources Agency, Delta Vision Strategic Plan, October 2008.
Meridian Consultants 6 Rancho Conejo Summit Project WSA 301-001-20 December 2020
Combined the three service areas exceed 3,000 customers and deliver 3,000 AFY or more and will be included as part of the Ventura County District’s 2020 UWMP.
Figure 1: Cal-Am Service Area shows the Cal-Am Ventura County District service area.
1.3.2 Cal-Am Ventura County District 2015 Urban Water Management Plan The Cal-Am Ventura County District 2015 UWMP for Cal-Am’s Southern Division Ventura County District,13 is the current applicable document for use in planning future water demand and supplies. Currently, Cal-Am is in the process of preparing the 2020 UWMP; 2020 UWMPs are due to DWR by July 1, 2021.14 Cal-Am’s 2015 UWMP was prepared based on guidance from the DWR 2015 Urban Water Management Plans Guidebook for Urban Water Suppliers (UWMP Guidebook).15 The Final 2015 Southern Division Ventura County District UWMP was formally adopted by California American Water on June 30, 2016. The implementation of this plan shall be carried out as described unless significant changes occur between the adoption of this plan and the 2020 plan.
Cal-Am is a member of the California Urban Water Conservation Council (CUWCC) and is a signatory to the CUWCC Memorandum of Understanding (CUWCC MOU).16 The CUWCC MOU outlines Best Management Practices (BMPs) that correspond with the Demand Management Measures (DMM) outlined in the UWMP Act. The UWMP Act allows CUWCC members to submit their CUWCC BMP reports in lieu of completing a DMM section if the member is in full compliance with the BMPs.
1.4 Calleguas Municipal Water District
1.4.1 Overview and Description
Calleguas is an independent special district that was formed by the voters of southern Ventura County in 1953 for the purpose of providing a safe, reliable water supply. Named for the watershed in which it is located, Calleguas is a public agency established under the Municipal Water District Act of 1911.17 It is 13 California American Water, 2015 Urban Water Management Plan for the Southern Division - Ventura County District, adopted June 30, 2016.
14 California Department of Water Resources, Urban Water Management Plans, https://water.ca.gov/Programs/Water-Use-AndEfficiency/Urban-Water-Use-Efficiency/Urban-Water-Management-Plans, accessed October 7, 2020. 15 California Department of Water Resources, 2015 Urban Water Management Plans Guidebook. 16 California Urban Water Conservation Council (CUWCC), Memorandum of Understanding Regarding Urban Water Conservation in California (MOU), adopted September 1991, amended January 2016. 17 Municipal Water Act of 1911, California Water Code Section 71000.
Meridian Consultants 7 Rancho Conejo Summit Project WSA 301-001-20 December 2020
governed by a five-member board of directors elected by voters to represent each of the five geographic divisions within the Calleguas service area.
In 1960, Calleguas became a member agency of the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWD), which provides wholesale water from the Colorado River via the Colorado Aqueduct and from northern California via the State Water Project (SWP). Metropolitan is comprised of 26 member agencies, and Calleguas is the fifth largest member agency in terms of average annual water deliveries.
Approximately three-quarters of Ventura County residents rely on Calleguas for all or part of their water.
Calleguas distributes high quality drinking water on a wholesale basis to 19 cities, local water agencies, and investor-owned and mutual water companies throughout southeast Ventura County. These retail purveyors receive water through 140 miles of large-diameter pipeline operated and maintained by Calleguas. In turn, these purveyors (listed below) deliver water to area residents, businesses, and agricultural customers. Only a small portion of the water delivered by Calleguas (approximately 5 percent) is used for agricultural purposes. Agricultural demands are generally met by other agencies or private entities using untreated surface water, recycled wastewater, and groundwater from various basins underlying the area.
Calleguas’ mission is to provide its service area with a reliable supplemental supply of regional and locally developed water in an environmentally and economically responsible manner. Calleguas distributes high quality drinking water on a wholesale basis to 19 retail water purveyors, who in turn deliver water to area residents, businesses, and agricultural customers. All but one of the major cities in Ventura County rely upon Calleguas to provide a reliable imported water source to meet municipal and industrial water demands.
Calleguas’ primary job is importing and distributing water from MWD; water that arrives via the State Water Project (SWP) from northern California. To increase reliability, Calleguas can also pump water from its Las Posas Aquifer Storage and Recovery Project (Las Posas ASR Project) well field.
Figure 2: Calleguas Service Area shows Calleguas’ service area and purveyor boundaries. Calleguas’ service area encompasses approximately 366 square miles. Land use in the area is primarily residential, commercial, industrial, and agricultural. Although a large portion of the water use in Ventura County is for agricultural purposes, these demands are generally served by other agencies or private entities using untreated surface water, recycled wastewater, and groundwater from various basins underlying the area.
Cal-Am Service Area
FIGURE 1
SOURCE:
301-001-20
California American Water, 2015 Urban Water Management Plan
APPROXIMATE SCALE IN MILES
2 1 0 4
N
Legend:
Ventura County District Service Areas
Project Site
Note: Map does not include El Rio water system acquired by theCal-Am Ventura County District.
Erbes
Rd
Santa Rosa Rd
E O sl en
Rd
E
Potrero Rd
Borchard Rd
W
Hillcrest Dr
ekalt se WN
l B
W Lynn Rd
West al ke
Bl
N yL Rnn d
E
Ka
nan Rd
L
ni de or
a C nyon Rd
M N
oo
pr a kr d R
Agoura R
d
E Thousand Oaks Bl
Sunset
Hills
Bl
E Janss Rd
E
Avenida
De Los Arbol
S Reino Rd
Triunfo Canyon Rd
E H illcrest Dr
Rancho Conejo
Potrero Rd
L
a
Granada
Dr
e W
ndy Dr
Hampshire Rd
OldConejo
Rd
Via Las Brisas
W O sl en
Rd
Kana n
Rd
W Potrero Rd
Madera Rd
M
oorpark Rd
Thousand Oaks Bl
W Janss Rd
S Ventu Park Rd
S Westlake Bl
se W
alt
ke
Bl
Calleguas Service Area
FIGURE
2 SOURCE:
301-001-20
California American Water, 2015 Urban Water Management Plan
APPROXIMATE SCALE IN MILES
1 0.5 0 2
N
City of Thousand Oaks
Municpal Service Center
(805) 449-2499
24-Hour Emergency Contact
(805) 496-6084
California American Water Company
(805) 498-1266
24-Hour Emergency Contact
(805) 331-5807
California Water Service
(805) 497-2757
24-Hour Emergency Contact
(805) 497-2757, press 3
Camrosa Water District
(805) 482-4677
24-Hour Emergency Contact
(805) 482-4677, press 0
City Limits
Meridian Consultants 10 Rancho Conejo Summit Project WSA 301-001-20 December 2020
1.4.2 Calleguas 2015 UWMP
Water planning is an essential function of water suppliers but becomes critical as California grapples with ongoing drought and expected long-term climate changes. Prior to the adoption of the UWMP Act,18 there were no specific requirements that water agencies conduct long-term resource planning.
Plan components that are required to be addressed and evaluated include:
x Water deliveries and uses
x Water supply sources
x Efficient water uses
x Demand management measures
x Water shortage contingency planning
The Final 2015 Calleguas UWMP was formally adopted by the Calleguas Board of Directors on June 14, 2016.19 Currently, Calleguas is in the process of preparing the 2020 UWMP.
1.5 Climate
Thousand Oaks has a Mediterranean climate as evidenced by warm dry summers followed by moist, cool winters. Maximum summer temperatures can exceed 100 degrees Fahrenheit, and winter temperatures occasionally drop below 32 degrees Fahrenheit. Average rainfall ranges from 12 to 14 inches. The majority of this rainfall occurs during the winter months.
Table 1: Precipitation and Evapotranspiration in the Ventura County Area – 2019/2020 presents monthly climate data in more detail.
18 California Water Code, Division 6 Part 2.6, Section10610 - 10656),Urban Water Management Planning Act. 19 Calleguas Municipal Water District, 2015 Urban Water Management Plan, June 2016.
Meridian Consultants 11 Rancho Conejo Summit Project WSA 301-001-20 December 2020
Table 1
Precipitation and Evapotranspiration in the Ventura County Area - 2019/2020 Criteria Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Total ETO
(inches) 2.78 3.78 3.32 3.59 4.46 6.77 6.37 6.59 3.54 3.33 3.00 2.12 Total Rainfall
(inches) 1.07 0.87 3.59 1.92 1.74 2.55 1.11 0.00 0.18 0.06 3.16 4.35 Degrees Fahrenheit 56.2 57.2 54.3 60.3 63.8 65.9 67.7 71.2 69.5 66.2 59.8 54.8 _________
Source: Data from California Irrigation Management Information System (CIMIS), Central Coast Valley Station - Station 217in Moorpark (period of record is from September 2019 to August 2020)
https://cimis.water.ca.gov/UserControls/Reports/MonthlyReportViewer.aspx.
1.6 Service Area Population
In the greater Southern California region, the population growth rate from 2015 to 2020 is an extension of the slow growth pattern observed during the 2000-2010 period. According to estimates by the California Department of Finance, California's population grew by 7.3% (or 2.7 million) from 2010 to the end of 2019.20 Ventura County, California's estimated population is 851,297 with a growth rate of 0.02% in the past year according to the most recent United States census data.21 The historical, current and projected populations for Cal-Am’s Ventura County District water service area within the City of Thousand Oaks and adjacent unincorporated area of Ventura County are shown in Table 2, Historic, Current and Projected Cal-Am’s Ventura County District Service Area Population – 2015 to 2035.
It is not anticipated that the commercial and industrial use on the proposed Project will result in significant number of new permanent residents within the Ventura County water service area in excess of these projections.
20 California Department of Finance, “Demographics,” http://www.dof.ca.gov/forecasting/demographics/Estimates/. 21 World Population Review, https://worldpopulationreview.com/us-counties/ca/ventura-county-population.
Meridian Consultants 12 Rancho Conejo Summit Project WSA 301-001-20 December 2020
Table 2
Historic, Current and Projected Cal-Am Ventura County District Service Area Population 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035
Population 63,423 64,700 65,438 66,178 66,926
________
Source: Cal-Am Ventura County District 2015 UWMP, Table 3-4.
The population projections for California American Water’s service areas are based on 2010 census data, DWR’s Population Tool, and growth rates from SCAG’s Draft 2016 Growth Forecast adjusted for the District's service area.
1.7 Definitions
For the purposes of this WSA, the following defined terms are used:
x Purchased Water: The amount of water purchased from Cal-Am’s wholesale supply sources and put into the distribution system based on metered flows at each supply connection. x Groundwater production: The amount of water produced from Cal-Am groundwater supply sources and put into the distribution system based on metered flows at each well. x Consumption: The amount of billed metered water consumed by customers. x Demand: The amount of water distributed through the entire water system, which is the sum of groundwater production and purchased water. Demand includes non-revenue water, which is equal to the difference between water put into the distribution system and consumption. x Unit Factor: The calculated amount of water demand per unit (e.g., acre, square feet: sq. ft or SF, dwelling unit, etc.) of a specific type of use (e.g., land use, development type, business type, etc.).
Meridian Consultants 13 Rancho Conejo Summit Project WSA 301-001-20 December 2020
2.0 PROPOSED PROJECT
The proposed Rancho Conejo Summit Project (proposed Project) would provide for the development of a commercial and industrial center in the Rancho Conejo Specific Plan area of the City. Figure 3: Project Location, shows the location of the Rancho Conejo Summit Project within the City. The site is bound by Rancho Conejo Boulevard, Corporate Center Drive and Conejo Spectrum Street. Currently there is no address for the Project site; however, it includes the following assessor parcels: Parcel 1 - 667-0-340-045, 055, 065, 075, 085, 095, 105, 125, 135, 145,155, 185; 195 and Parcel 2 – 667-0-340-030.
The proposed Project will consist of 15 buildings totaling approximately 754,222 square feet of office and manufacturing areas. In addition, 391,831 square feet of landscaping will be provided. The details of the proposed Project are shown in Table 3: Rancho Conejo Summit Project Details. Initial construction for the proposed Project is anticipated to be completed by 2023 and initial operations to commence by that date.
The proposed site plan is shown in Figure 4: Rancho Conejo Summit Site Plan.
Because the proposed Project will exceed the requirements SB 610 and consists of a commercial office building employing more than 1,000 persons or having more than 250,000 square feet of floor space, it is subject to the requirement of SB 610 and this water supply assessment has been prepared.
Water demands were estimated for the proposed Project’s water use factors obtained from other water supply and other WSAs with comparable uses including the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power and the Cal-Am Southern Division – Los Angeles County District. Water use for the proposed Project was calculated for the uses identified.
As shown in Table 4: Proposed Project Water Demand, the total estimated water demand for the proposed Project for each component is shown. Based on anticipated operations of the proposed Project the following annual water demand:
x Office and Manufacturing: 5.5 days per week (5-day work week plus 0.5 day of weekend time) for 52 weeks for a total of 343.9 acre-feet per year (afy); and Meridian Consultants 14 Rancho Conejo Summit Project WSA 301-001-20 December 2020
x Landscaping: up to 3 days of exterior water use per week for 52 weeks for a total of 49.1 afy.22 Based on the estimated annual water demand for the prosed Project is 393.0 afy.
Table 3
Conejo Summit Project Details
Office
Use
Ground Floor
(SF)
Mezzanine
(SF)
Manufacturing
(SF)
Total
(SF)
Landscaping
(SF)
Building 1A 2,500 2,500 28,552 33,552 26,537
Building 1B 4,000 2,500 33,396 39,896 10,553
Building 1C 5,000 2,500 32,400 39,900 9,684
Building 1D 2,000 2,500 58,068 62,568 33,838
Building 1E 2,500 2,500 69,101 74,101 16,900
Building 1F 2,500 2,500 47,924 52,924 12,200
Building 1G 2,500 2,500 45,460 50,460 22,170
Building 2 2,500 2,500 33,748 38,748 26,749
Building 3 14,000 0 35,368 49,368 76,916
Building 4A 1,000 800 40,167 41,967 14,245
Building 4B 1,000 800 30,770 32,570 26,906
Building 5A 1,000 2,500 86,580 90,080 31,745
Building 5B 1,000 2,500 19,265 22,765 9,566
Building 6A 4,000 6,000 25,515 35,515 16,933
Building 6B 2,500 2,500 84,808 89.808 56,889
Totals 48,000 35,100 671,122 754,222 391,831
22 The exterior/landscape water demands are consistent with the landscape water efficiency standards are governed by the Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (MWELO) enacted in 2015 via Executive Order B-29-15 (EO) that tasked the Department of Water Resources (DWR) with revising the 2010 updated MWELO to increase water efficiency standards for new and retrofitted landscapes through encouraging the use of more efficient irrigation systems, graywater usage, and onsite storm water capture, and by limiting the portion of landscapes that can be covered in turf. The EO also required that agencies report on their implementation and enforcement of local ordinances by December 31, 2015. The law directs Land Use Authorities (cities and counties) to ensure MWELO compliance on development projects with landscaped areas of 500 square feet or more. This applies to residential, commercial, industrial and institutional projects that require a permit, plan check, or design review. Land Use Authorities are responsible for enforcing the ordinance. The City of Thousand Oaks has incorporated its requirements into the Municipal Code, Title 10, Utilities, Chapter 2, Water, Article 11, Water Conservation.
Meridian Consultants 15 Rancho Conejo Summit Project WSA 301-001-20 December 2020
Table 4
Proposed Project Water Demand
Use
Office
Demand
Factor
Subtotal
Office
Demand Manufact.
Demand
Factor
Subtotal
Manufact.
Demand Landscaping
Demand
Factor
Subtotal
Landscape
Demand
Total Water
Demand
Acrefeet Ground Floor Mezz.
SF SF g/d/SF gpd SF g/d/SF gpd SF g/d/SF gpd gpd
Building 1A 2,500 2,500 0.15 750 28,552 0.08 2,284.20 26,537 0.093 2,467.90 5,502.10 0.02 Building 1B 4,000 2,500 0.15 975 33,396 0.08 2,671.70 10,553 0.093 981.4 4,628.10 0.01 Building 1C 5,000 2,500 0.15 1,125 32,400 0.08 2,592.00 9,684 0.093 900.6 4,617.60 0.01 Building 1D 2,000 2,500 0.15 675 58,068 0.08 4,645.40 33,838 0.093 3,146.90 8,467.40 0.03 Building 1E 2,500 2,500 0.15 750 69,101 0.08 5,528.10 16,900 0.093 1,571.70 7,849.80 0.02 Building 1F 2,500 2,500 0.15 750 47,924 0.08 3,833.90 12,200 0.093 1,134.60 5,718.50 0.02 Building 1G 2,500 2,500 0.15 750 45,460 0.08 3,636.80 22,170 0.093 2,061.80 6,448.60 0.02 Building 2 2,500 2,500 0.15 750 33,748 0.08 2,699.84 26,749 0.093 2,487.657 5,937.50 0.02 Building 3 14,000 0.15 2,100 35,368 0.08 2,829.44 76,916 0.093 7,153.188 12,082.63 0.04 Building 4A 1,000 800 0.15 270 40,167 0.08 3,213.36 14,245 0.093 1,324.785 4,808.15 0.01 Building 4B 1,000 800 0.15 270 30,770 0.08 2,461.6 26,906 0.093 2,502.258 5,233.86 0.02 Building 5A 1,000 2,500 0.15 525 86,580 0.08 6,926.4 31,745 0.093 2,952.285 10,403.69 0.03 Building 5B 1,000 2,500 0.15 525 19,265 0.08 1,541.2 9,566 0.093 889.638 2,955.84 0.01 Building 6A 4,000 6,000 0.15 1,500 25,515 0.08 2,041.2 16,933 0.093 1,574.769 5,115.97 0.02 Building 6B 2,500 2,500 0.15 750 84,808 0.08 6,784.64 56,889 0.093 5,290.677 12,825.32 0.04 Totals 48,000 35,100 12,465 671,122 53,690 391,831 36,440 102,595 0.31 ________ Notes: SF – square foot, g/d/SF – gallons per day per square foot, gpd – gallons per day r ec ca i
FIGURE 3
SOURCE:
301-001-20
Google Earth - 2020
APPROXIMATE SCALE IN MILES
1 0.5 02
N
Project Site
City of Thousand Oaks Boundary
C e Su i Si e la
FIGURE 4
SOURCE:
301-001-20
HPA Architects - February 2020
APPROXIMATE SCALE IN FEET
600 300 0 1200
N
Meridian Consultants 18 Rancho Conejo Summit Project WSA 301-001-20 December 2020
3.0 WATER SUPPLY SOURCES
3.1 Overview
This report addresses the requirements of Section 10910 of the California Water Code (Senate Bills 610 [SB 610] for the proposed Project in the City and with Cal-Am’s service area. The Code requires a WSA be prepared for any “project” that would consist of one or more of the following:
x A proposed residential development of more than 500 dwelling units. x A proposed shopping center or business establishment employing more than 1,000 persons or having more than 500,000 square feet of floor space.
x A proposed commercial office building employing more than 1,000 persons or having more than 250,000 square feet of floor space.
x A proposed hotel or motel, or both, having more than 500 rooms. x A proposed industrial, manufacturing, or processing plant, or industrial park planned to house more than 1,000 persons, occupying more than 40 acres of land, or having more than 650,000 square feet of floor area.
x A mixed-use project that includes one or more of the projects specified in this subdivision. x A project that would demand an amount of water equivalent to, or greater than, the amount of water required by a 500-dwelling unit project.
As previously noted, the proposed Project is a commercial and industrial development, as described in more detail in the Project Description section. The proposed Project includes future development of approximately 353,401 square feet of office and industrial space and exceeds the mixed-use project threshold of 250,000 square feet of commercial floor space. The City has determined that the Project is subject to review under CEQA23 and the State CEQA Guidelines24
As the proposed Project would be constructed by, and start operation in, 2023, the WSA reviews and makes a finding of meet future demands for the period 2023 to 2043. 23 California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Public Resources Code, Section 21000 et seq. 24 CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, Section 15000 et. seq.
Meridian Consultants 19 Rancho Conejo Summit Project WSA 301-001-20 December 2020
3.2 Calleguas Municipal Water District
3.2.1 Water Supply and Demand
In 1960, Calleguas became a member agency of the MWD, which provides wholesale water from the Colorado River via the Colorado Aqueduct and from northern California via the State Water Project (SWP).
MWD is comprised of 26 member agencies, and Calleguas is the fifth largest member agency in terms of average annual water deliveries. Nearly all of the potable water delivered by Calleguas to its member purveyors is purchased from MWD.
MWD’s overall supply and demand projections for their member agencies and service area, including Calleguas, are for 2020 to 2040 shown in Table 5: Average Year MWD Supply, Demand and Deliveries – 2020 to 2040.
Table 5
Average Year MWD Supply, Demand and Deliveries – 2020 to 2040 2020 2026 2030 2035 2040
Supplies
In Region Supplies and Programs 693,000 774,000 852,000 956,000 992,000 California Aqueducta
1,760,000 1,781,000 1,873,000 1,899,000 1,899,000
Colorado River Aqueductb 1,200,000 1,200,000 1,200,000 1,200,000 1,200,000 Total 3,653,000 3,755,000 3,925,000 4,055,000 4,091,000 Demands
Total Demands on MWD 1,586,000 1,636,000 1,677,000 1,726,000 1,765,000 IID-SDCWA Transfers and Canal Linings 274,000 282,000 282,000 282,000 282,000 Total MWD Deliveriesc
1,860,000 1,918,000 1,959,000 2,008,000 2,047,000
________
Source: Calleguas 2015 UWMP, Appendix F, Table 2-6.
Notes:
a - California Aqueduct includes Central Valley transfers and storage program supplies conveyed by the aqueduct. b - Maximum CRA deliveries limited to 1.20 MAF including IID-SDCWA transfer and exchange and canal linings. c - Total demands are adjusted to include IID-SDCWA transfer and exchange and canal linings. These supplies are calculated as local supply, but need to be shown for the purposes of CRA capacity limit calculations without double counting.
3.2.2 Imported Water
In 1953, faced with recurring droughts, an expanding population and economy that would soon exhaust local drinking water supplies, voters in southern Ventura County united to form Calleguas for the purpose of providing the region with a reliable supply of high quality supplemental water. Finding a dependable water source for a semiarid region such as Ventura County was no simple feat: adequate rainfall is unreliable, rivers are seasonal, and groundwater often brackish and unsuitable for both urban and agricultural uses. Due to the geographic location of its service area, Calleguas receives exclusively SWP water under normal operating Meridian Consultants 20 Rancho Conejo Summit Project WSA 301-001-20 December 2020
conditions. The SWP is a 700-mile network of reservoirs, aqueducts, and pumping facilities that convey water from the northern Sierra Nevada Mountain Range to Northern California, the San Francisco Bay Area, the San Joaquin Valley, the Central Coast, and Southern California.
Following a thorough evaluation of potential water sources, MWD turned to the planned SWP's system of canals, reservoirs and pumping plants to be built to convey water captured from the snow covered peaks of the Sierras to many regions throughout the State. To secure water from the State system, voters approved another ballot measure in 1960 so that Calleguas could join MWD, a State water contractor.
Water delivered to Calleguas is treated by MWD at the Joseph Jensen Filtration Plant in Granada Hills and is typically delivered to Calleguas through MWD’s West Valley Feeder No. 2 Pipeline. The West Valley Feeder No. 2 Pipeline is capable of delivering up to 300 cubic feet per second (cfs) of water to the East Portal of Calleguas’ eight- foot-diameter Perliter Tunnel. The East Portal is located in the City of Chatsworth and is Calleguas’ sole connection to MWD.
From this point, water is conveyed through the Perliter Tunnel into Simi Valley, where it is distributed through Calleguas’ transmission system, stored in Lake Bard, or injected into the Fox Canyon aquifer. During planned and emergency shutdowns of imported supply, Lake Bard and the Las Posas Aquifer Storage and Recovery Project (Las Posas ASR Project) provide reliable water supplies to Calleguas’ customers.
Lake Bard is located in the center of the Calleguas service area and can store approximately 10,500 AF of water, of which 7,500 AF is readily available with existing facilities. Water stored in Lake Bard is treated at the Lake Bard Water Filtration Plant (LBWFP), which has a treatment capacity of 65 million gallons per day (mgd).
Water from the LBWFP can be delivered anywhere in Calleguas’ service area.
The Las Posas ASR Project is located west of Moorpark and can store an estimated 50,000 AF of water in the Fox Canyon aquifer of the East Las Posas Basin through injection into 18 dual-purpose injection and extraction wells. Water stored in the aquifer is pumped out through the same eighteen wells, disinfected, and delivered into Calleguas’ transmission system. Currently, water from the Las Posas ASR Project can be delivered to Camarillo, Moorpark, Somis, Oxnard, Port Hueneme, and nearby unincorporated areas. A pump station is fully operational as of 201925 that enables the Las Posas ASR Project water to be delivered to Calleguas’ entire service area.
Per the 2015 UWMP for the Ventura County District, Cal-Am provides domestic water to western Thousand Oaks, Newbury Park, and an unincorporated area north of Camarillo; the entire supply is potable water from 25 Calleguas Municipal Water District, Board of Director Meeting, Meeting Minutes, August 2019.
Meridian Consultants 21 Rancho Conejo Summit Project WSA 301-001-20 December 2020
Calleguas’ imported supply.26 Except for the newly acquired El Rio system which is supplied by local groundwater and not by Calleguas imported water.
3.2.3 Groundwater Basin Description/Supply
Groundwater has been used in Ventura County since the late 19th century, primarily for irrigation, but also for municipal and industrial water supply. With the passage of California’s Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) in 2014, prudent management of the State’s critical groundwater basins is now a primary water resource concern and mandated by State law. SGMA requires adoption of groundwater water sustainability plans by January 31, 2020 for all basins defined by the State as either a high or medium priority and subject to critical overdraft, and by January 31, 2022 for all other high or medium priority basins.
Historically, the aquifer system in southern Ventura County has been in a state of overdraft, which has led to seawater intrusion. The non-consumptive portion of imported water utilized by the majority of Calleguas purveyor customers is treated at local wastewater treatment facilities and discharged to the Calleguas Creek watershed. This water ultimately percolates into the aquifers, serving as an important source of recharge.
Unfortunately, over the past several decades, wastewater discharges, urban and agricultural runoff, applied irrigation, and native marine sediments have caused the aquifers to become increasingly saline. Increasing chloride concentrations have rendered many wells unsuitable for potable or irrigation purposes.
Calleguas has incorporated groundwater storage strategies and transfer agreements into its water resources portfolio; all groundwater is stored in the East Los Posas Basin.27 In addition to the Las Posas Aquifer Storage project (ASR) Project, Calleguas has periodically stored water through in lieu means since the early 1990s.
Under this storage method, Calleguas has supplied imported water to well operators who, in turn, reduce groundwater pumping. The reduction in pumping results in the creation of storage credits. Such storage credits are then transferred to Calleguas. In this way, groundwater can be stored and subsequently pumped during periods when imported supplies are curtailed.
Calleguas also accumulated additional groundwater storage credits through the Conejo Creek Diversion Project (CCDP).28 The CCDP consists of a diversion structure and pipelines that were jointly constructed by Calleguas and the Camrosa Water District (Camrosa). Recycled wastewater from the City of Thousand is diverted from Conejo Creek and used for agricultural and landscape irrigation within Camrosa Water District’s service area. Water that is not used within the Camrosa Water District is provided to the Pleasant Valley County Water District for agricultural irrigation in lieu of groundwater pumping. In return, Calleguas received 26 Calleguas Municipal Water District, 2015 UWMP, p.3-2. 27 Calleguas Municipal Water District, 2015 UWMP, pp. 6-4 and 6-5. 28 Calleguas Municipal Water District, 2015 UWMP, pp. 6-4 and 6-5.
Meridian Consultants 22 Rancho Conejo Summit Project WSA 301-001-20 December 2020
groundwater storage credits from Fox Canyon Groundwater Management Agency (FCGMA) equal to the amount of water delivered. By agreement, historically some of these credits were pumped from wells operated by the United Water Conservation District (UWCD) to meet demands in the Cities of Oxnard and Port Hueneme. In 2014, Calleguas turned over all of its project facilities and obligations to Camrosa but retained the groundwater storage credits that it had accrued as a project participant up to that time.
As a result of drought conditions, Calleguas extracted stored water to help meet regional water demands from 2008 through 2011.29 Calleguas is actively working with other groundwater pumpers in the Las Posas basins to develop a sustainable groundwater management plan consistent with SGMA that mitigates impacts on adjacent groundwater pumpers due to future operation of the Las Posas ASR Project.
As noted, all of the groundwater deliveries are provided on the Oxnard Plain, and not to the Cal-Am service area in the City of Thousand Oaks and Newbury Park.
3.2.4 Recycled Water and Desalinated Water
Recycled Water
Calleguas has actively supported the development and use of recycled wastewater within its service area. In the 1990s, Calleguas built recycled water delivery systems within the Conejo and Simi Valleys and continues to own, operate, and maintain those facilities.
In the 2000s, Calleguas built recycled water facilities as a participant in the CCDP, as previously noted. The CCDP consists of a diversion structure and pipelines that were jointly constructed by Calleguas and Camrosa.
Recycled wastewater from the City is diverted from Conejo Creek and used for agricultural and landscape irrigation within Camrosa Water District’s service area. Water that is not used within the Camrosa Water District is provided to the Pleasant Valley County Water District for agricultural irrigation in-lieu of groundwater pumping. As previously noted, Calleguas turned over ownership, operation, and maintenance of those facilities to Camrosa Water District in 2014.
In 2016, Calleguas began conveying treated wastewater from the City of Oxnard AWPF to agricultural customers for irrigation in-lieu of groundwater pumping. The AWPF water is transported through the SMP, which is currently operating at very low capacity as a brine discharge facility. Because the AWPF water is extremely low in salinity, even when blended with the brine discharge in the SMP, it provides water of a 29 Calleguas Municipal Water District, 2015 UWMP, p. 6-6.
Meridian Consultants 23 Rancho Conejo Summit Project WSA 301-001-20 December 2020
quality suitable for agricultural irrigation. This activity is expected to continue until Oxnard builds a permanent pipeline to convey the water to these agricultural customers.
Although Calleguas does not operate any wastewater treatment facilities, it does own and operate a limited number of recycled water pipelines and pumping facilities. Calleguas has historically purchased recycled water from Triunfo Sanitation District and VCWWD No. 8 (City of Simi Valley) and delivered the water to customers for irrigation and landfill activities. Calleguas also conveys recycled water from the City of Oxnard AWPF to agricultural customers in an unincorporated area east of Oxnard. Calleguas does not provide any supplemental treatment to the recycled water it distributes.
Seawater Desalination
In 2000, the MWD created the Seawater Desalination Program (SDP) and solicited projects from its member agencies. Calleguas does not currently utilize desalinated water and has no plans to pursue such at this time.
3.2.5 Written Contracts or Other Proof of Entitlement
As a member agency of Metropolitan, Calleguas benefits from transfer agreements made through Metropolitan. To date, Calleguas has not pursued independent transfer agreements.
3.3.6 Water Sources
The Cal-Am Ventura County District purchases its entire supply of water from Calleguas for the service area in the western portion of the City of Thousand Oaks and the adjacent unincorporated area.
Calleguas Municipal Water District
Calleguas is a wholesale water agency that delivers water to Cal-Am’s Ventura County District. Calleguas’ service area is shown in Figure 5-3. Calleguas’ primary source of water is SWP water purchased from MWD.
Typically, Calleguas delivers water from MWD directly to its retail customers. However, Calleguas has the ability to store excess water from MWD and local supplies in Lake Bard or at its Las Posas Aquifer Storage and Recovery well field for future delivery. The Calleguas is working with other local agencies to increase the utilization efficiency of its local water supplies and is participating in numerous groundwater and desalination projects to reduce its reliance upon imported water.
Table 6: Calleguas Planned Sources of Supply (2010-2043) shows the planned sources of supply for Calleguas. For the year included the 20 year forecast in this WSA for the proposed Project (2043), the amount shown has been extrapolated for comparison purposes only. The extrapolation for future water Meridian Consultants 24 Rancho Conejo Summit Project WSA 301-001-20 December 2020
supplies or years 2040 and 2043, where applicable, did not assumed any increase in supply beyond the projection of either Cal-Am in the 2015 UWMP or Calleguas in their 2015 UWMP. Further, the future demands and deliveries for 2040 and 2043 assumed that Cal-Am would achieve the same demand requirements as for 2035 via ongoing conservation measures as required under current legislation and thru future improvements.
Table 6
Calleguas Planned Sources of Supply (2010-2043)
Source 2020 2035 2030 2035 2040 2043a
Afy
Imported MWD Water 121,925 125,169 124,974 124,183 124,824 124,824 Recycled Wastewater 1,770 1,790 1,790 1,790 1,790 1,790 Totals 123,695 126,959 126,764 125,973 126,614 126,614
_________
Source: Calleguas Municipal Water District, 2015 Urban Water Management Plan, June Table 6-9. a -Date for 2040 and 2043 extrapolated.
afy – acre feet per year
3.3 Cal-Am Ventura County Water District
Cal-Am’s Ventura County District purchases all of its water from Calleguas as shown in Table 7: Cal-Am Ventura County District Demand Projections Provided to Wholesale Suppliers (2020-2043). For the years included in the 20 year forecast in this WSA for the proposed Project (2023, 2040 and 2043); the amounts shown have been extrapolated for comparison purposes only. The amounts for 2023 were extrapolated based on a straight line project from year 2020 to year 2025, while out year extrapolations (years 2040 and 2043) were done on a straight line basis using the year 2035 amounts.
Cal-Am’s Ventura County District purchases all of the potable water required to meet the service area demands from Calleguas. There is no maximum or minimum water purchase amount with Calleguas.
However, Cal-Am does not maintain a purchased order or agreement with Calleguas noting that Calleguas does not have this concept of agreement/purchase orders for water delivery.30 30 Email correspondence with Mr. Jacob Quick, P.E., Senior Project Engineer, California American Water Company, October 7, 2020.
Meridian Consultants 25 Rancho Conejo Summit Project WSA 301-001-20 December 2020
Table 7
Cal-Am Ventura County District Demand Projections Provided to Wholesale Suppliers (2020-2043) Wholesaler 2020 2023a 2025 2030 2035 2040 a 2043 a
Calleguas 16,946 17,060 17,137 17,331 17,527 17,527 17,527 _________
Source: California American Water, 2015 Urban Water Management Plan for the Southern Division - Ventura County District, June 2016. Table 4-11. a – amounts extrapolated for 2023, 2040 and 2043.
3.3.1 Surface Water
The Cal-Am Ventura County District does not have its own surface water supply. Sources of supply for the wholesale water agencies that supply Cal-Am’s Ventura County District are discussed in Section 2.2. Currently, the water is delivered through eleven turnouts. Ten of the turnouts distribute water into the Thousand Oaks service area where the proposed Project is located and one turnout feeds the Las Posas service area; the El Rio system has two groundwater wells that service customers.
3.3.2 Groundwater
Cal-Am does not extract groundwater due to the poor quality of the groundwater within the Thousand Oaks and Los Posas service areas. Contaminant plumes from local industries have required the Cal-Am to import all of its potable water supplies to those service areas. In El Rio, Cal-Am extracts groundwater through two wells to provide service to its customers; Cal-Am did not service El Rio in 2015.
3.3.4 Recycled Water Opportunities
Cal-Am does not own or operate wastewater collection or treatment facilities or recycled water distribution facilities. However, the wastewater collection and treatment agencies for Cal-Am Ventura County District’s service areas (Thousand Oaks, Los Posas Valley and El Rio) are currently recycling the wastewater or will be considering recycled water in the near future. Cal-Am is continually looking for opportunities and working with its regional partners to increase the use of recycled water within the service area.
Wastewater System Description
Wastewater produced within Cal-Am’s Ventura County District’s service area is treated by two separate agencies. The City treats the wastewater produced from the Thousand Oaks service area at the Hill Canyon Treatment Plant, and the City of Oxnard treats wastewater from users within Cal-Am’s Las Posas and El Rio service areas at the Oxnard Wastewater Treatment Plant. The Hill Canyon Treatment Plant treats Meridian Consultants 26 Rancho Conejo Summit Project WSA 301-001-20 December 2020
approximately 98 percent of the Cal-Am’s wastewater; however, this water is not available to the City of Thousand Oaks or Newbury Park portions of the Cal-Am service area.
Recycled Water Use Optimization
The largest potential use for recycled water within Cal-Am’s Ventura County District is for landscape irrigation at public parks, golf courses, government offices, schools, and commercial and industrial complexes. Cal-Am does not project any recycled water will be used within the Thousand Oaks portion of the Ventura County District service areas in the next 20 years.
3.3.5 Future Water Projects
Cal-Am develops capital improvement projects as a part of the Comprehensive Planning Studies (CPSs) which are periodically prepared for each service area. CPSs are typically prepared on a five to eight-year cycle with interim updates prepared as conditions change or the need arises. Each service area is evaluated for specific needs from which a prioritized list of projects is developed. Projects are generally classified into one of several categories as follows: Source of Supply, Storage, Conjunctive Use, and Water Quality / Water Efficiency. Some projects meet multiple planning goals across two or more of the listed categories. A storage project, for example, not only provides increased system reliability but also assists in meeting peak hour demands often delaying the need for additional source of supply.
3.3.6 Written Contracts or Other Proof of Entitlement
The Cal-Am Ventura County District purchases imported water from Calleguas which in turn has transfer agreements with MWD. However, Cal-Am does not maintain a purchased order or agreement with Calleguas noting that Calleguas does not have this concept of agreement/purchase orders for water delivery.31
4.0 WATER SUPPLY RELIABILITY AND SHORTAGE CONTINEGNCY PALNIG
4.1 Water Reliability
Calleguas has committed to provide water to meet 100 percent of the Cal-Am Ventura County District’s demand, even in the event of an extreme water shortage. With the exception of one emergency connection in the Los Posas Valley, and for the two groundwater wells in El Rio the Ventura County District receives all of its water from the Calleguas and thus has the same supply reliability as its wholesaler. 31 Email correspondence with Mr. Jacob Quick, P.E., Senior Project Engineer, California American Water Company, October 7, 2020.
Meridian Consultants 27 Rancho Conejo Summit Project WSA 301-001-20 December 2020
Calleguas utilizes imported and local water supplies. Imported water from Calleguas, which is purchased from MWD, is affected by multiple factors. MWD’s supply is imported from the Colorado River and Bay- Delta through the Colorado River Aqueduct (CRA) and the SWP, respectively. The local and imported supplies are affected by legal, environmental, water quality and climatic factors. x Legal: Supply allocations from the CRA are dictated through legal agreements and, in some cases, court settlements. Supply from the SWP is affected by legal factors, including the Bay-Delta Accord, which changed operating criteria of the SWP and can significantly reduce supply to MWD in dry years. Several of the groundwater basins within the Calleguas service area are regulated to ensure that the groundwater resources are utilized in the best interest of the public and for the common benefit of the all the water users.
x Environmental: Several species of fish located in the Bay-Delta have been listed as endangered, which has led to decreased pumping by the SWP and environmental litigation. Numerous environmental regulations limit the discharge of brine waste from desalination facilities. These regulations may impact Calleguas and its retail water providers by limiting utilization of local brackish groundwater resources. x Water Quality: Disinfection byproducts pose water quality issues for the SWP. Disinfection byproducts form when organic carbon and bromide in the source water react with disinfectants at the water treatment plant. Groundwater inflows into the SWP also pose arsenic concerns. Total dissolved solids (TDS) levels in the Ventura County groundwater are increasing due to discharges from local wastewater treatment facilities. Increased groundwater treatment may be required to utilize local groundwater supplies.
x Climatic: Variable hydrology in the basins that feed the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta affects SWP supply.
The supply reliability for the Cal-Am’s Ventura County District is wholly dependent upon the supply reliability of its wholesale agency - Calleguas. The Ventura County District’s arrangement with Calleguas provides 100 percent reliability of supply and thus, the Ventura County District’s supply reliability is set at 100 percent for all scenarios.
According to its 2015 UWMP, Calleguas has sufficient surplus to meet future demands under average year conditions. According to its 2015 UWMP, Calleguas has sufficient surplus to meet future demands under average year conditions. Calleguas’ average year condition supply projections are shown in Table 8: Calleguas Supply Reliability Projections-Average Year Conditions.
Under single dry year conditions, Calleguas projects to maintain a supply surplus through 2035. Table 9:
Calleguas Supply Reliability Projections-Single Dry Year shows the supply projections for Calleguas under single dry year conditions.
Meridian Consultants 28 Rancho Conejo Summit Project WSA 301-001-20 December 2020
Under multiple dry year conditions, Calleguas projects to maintain a supply surplus through 2035. Table 10:
Calleguas Supply Reliability Projections-Multiple Dry Year Conditions shows the supply projections for Calleguas under multiple dry year conditions.
Table 8
Calleguas Supply Reliability Projections-Average Year Conditions 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2043a
Volume (afy)
Supply Totals 123,695 126,959 126,764 125,973 126,614 126,614 Demand Totals 99,744 97,634 100,247 102,746 102,746 102,746 Difference 23,951 29,325 26,517 23,227 23,868 23,868
Total demand if
planned local projects
are developed
115,729 120,119 122,932 125,631 125,631 125,631
Difference if planned
local projects are not
developed
7,996 6,840 3,832 342 983 983
_________
Source: Calleguas, 2016 UWMP, Table 6-9 and
Cal-Am, 2015 Urban Water Management Plan for the Southern Division - Ventura County District, June 2016. Table 6-3. a -Date for 2043 extrapolated.
Table 9
Calleguas Supply Reliability Projections-Single Dry Year 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 a 2043 a
Volume (afy)
Supply Totals 124,525 127,864 127,675 126,887 126,887 126,887 Demand Totals 111,228 108,347 110,724 113,642 113,642 113,642 Difference 13,347 19,517 16,951 13,245 13,245 13,245
_________
Source: California American Water, 2015 Urban Water Management Plan for the Southern Division - Ventura County District, June 2016. Table 6-4. a -Date for 2040 and 2043 extrapolated.
afy – acre feet per year
Meridian Consultants 29 Rancho Conejo Summit Project WSA 301-001-20 December 2020
Table 10
Calleguas Supply Reliability Projections-Multiple Dry Year Conditions 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 a 2043 a
Volume (afy)
First Year
Supply 123,004 130,040 130,609 129,933 129,933 129,933
Demand 105,006 101,439 103,744 106,518 106,518 106,518
Difference 17,998 28,601 26,865 23,415 23,415 23,415
Second
Year
Supply 123,004 130,040 130,744 129,933 129,933 129,933
Demand 105,006 101,439 103,744 106,518 106,518 106,518
Difference 17,998 28,601 26,865 23,415 23,415 23,415
Third
Year
Supply 123,004 130,040 130,609 129,933 129,933 129,933
Demand 105,006 101,439 103,744 106,518 106,518 106,518
Difference 17,998 28,601 26,865 23,415 23,415 23,415
_________
Source: California American Water, 2015 Urban Water Management Plan for the Southern Division - Ventura County District, June 2016. Table 6-5. a -Date for 2040 and 2043 extrapolated
afy – acre feet per year
4.2 Water Shortage Contingency Planning
4.2.1 Water Supply Shortage Stages and Conditions
Cal-Am is regulated by the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC); accordingly, California American Water must obtain CPUC approval for any water conservation programs, including voluntary and/or mandatory measures. Cal-Am has Rule 14.1 on file with CPUC to obtain CPUC approval for a staged water conservation plan for the Ventura County District, which complies with UWMP Act requirements for a Water Shortage Contingency Plan. Conditions that require stages of action are defined in Section B of Rule 14.1. In the event of a 50 percent reduction in supply, Cal-Am would implement the mandatory conservation measures described within Section H to achieve a 50 percent reduction in demand.
4.2.2 Catastrophic Supply Interruption Plan
In the event of a sudden and catastrophic loss of water supply, the Cal-Am Ventura County District has written an Emergency Response Plan (ERP), which is used to guide Cal-Am’s employees. The ERP contains detailed action items to the following list of events that might result in a drastic loss in supply.
In the event of a power outage, Cal-Am’s Ventura County District ’s first response task is to activate/check the status of emergency power supply. Cal-Am will assign a monitor to oversee the status of the emergency supply during the incident and report any problems to the Incident Commander. Once the power has been Meridian Consultants 30 Rancho Conejo Summit Project WSA 301-001-20 December 2020
restored, all affected equipment will be reset and restarted. The overall strategy is to determine if the reason for the outage is local to the plant or regional and the estimated time to return power. This will provide the Ventura County District with the degree of significance of the situation, which will help assess the need to secure additional diesel fuel for generators. The treatment process would also be operated to minimize the effects of the power loss.
The first response in the event of an earthquake is to perform a system audit to determine the extent of damage to utilities, piping, and processes. This audit will allow the Ventura County District to concentrate staff and resources on issues that need to be addressed immediately. Additional staff will be required for sampling, analysis, equipment repair, manual equipment and process operation, and communication. A report of the damage will be issued to the Incident Commander followed by a list of supplies that are necessary for repairs.
4.2.3 Three-year Minimum Water Supply
The minimum supply for the Cal-Am Ventura County District is equal to the driest three-year historic sequence in the history of the Ventura County District’s supply. Through its agreement with Calleguas, the Cal-Am Ventura County District purchases 100 percent of its potable water demand for the Thousand Oaks service area. Thus, there has never been a time when demand could not be fully met with purchased water from Calleguas. Thus, it is assumed that the supply from Calleguas meets 100 percent of Cal-Am’s Ventura County District’s Thousand Oaks service area demand. Table 11: Cal-Am Ventura County District Three-year Minimum Water Supplies shows the three-year minimum water supplies in acre feet per year for the Ventura County District.
Table 11
Cal-Am Ventura County District’s Three-year Minimum Water Supplies Supply Source 2016 2017 2018
acre-feet
Calleguasa 13,573 14,155 14,741
_________
Source: California American Water, 2015 Urban Water Management Plan for the Southern Division - Ventura County District, June 2016. Table 6-6.
Notes:
a - Calleguas supply is assumed to be 100% of the Ventura County District’s demand. Calleguas is required to meet 100% of the Cal-Am Ventura County District’s potable water demand.
Water amount measured in acre feet per year (afy).
Meridian Consultants 31 Rancho Conejo Summit Project WSA 301-001-20 December 2020
4.3 Drought Planning
Calleguas, MWD and DWR are implementing several water supply strategies to ensure that sufficient supply is available in drought conditions. These strategies include investments in conservation; water recycling; transfer agreements; storage; and supply. Based on these investments Calleguas , MWD, and DWR, anticipate that there will be sufficient supply available to meet forecasted purveyor demands.
DWR Strategies
Bay-Delta Conservation Plan – The primary objective of the Bay-Delta Conservation Plan is to restore the Bay-Delta in such a way that results in a more resilient ecosystem and more reliable supplies. Several alternatives for achieving the plan’s objectives have been proposed and have been evaluated by DWR as part of an Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement.
MWD Strategies
Transfer & Storage – The MWD is implementing transfer agreements and storage strategies to increase the reliability of the SWP and Colorado River supplies.
Transfer Opportunities – The MWD has developed water transfer agreements between agriculture and municipal water users to improve supply reliability.
Calleguas Strategies
Las Posas Aquifer Storage and Recovery - The Calleguas and MWD have banked water within the Las Posas groundwater basin. This water can be pumped to maintain deliveries during times when surface water supplies are limited.
Lake Bard – Lake Bard provides the Calleguas with a local source of supply. The lake can store approximately 8,000 acre-feet of water and the treatment plant has a capacity of 100 cubic feet per second (cfs). These supplies can be utilized when imported supplies are curtailed.
Salinity Management Project – The salinity management project treats local groundwater that is too saline for potable use. This enables the Calleguas to increase groundwater supplies and improve regional supply reliability.
Meridian Consultants 32 Rancho Conejo Summit Project WSA 301-001-20 December 2020
5.0 WATER CONSERVATION MEASURES
5.1 City Water Conservation Ordinance
The City of Thousand Oak’s City Council eliminated the Level One water restrictions on May 30, 2017, by adopting the Water Conservation Ordinance;32 as such, the City is currently under the permanent water conservation requirements. Details on each conservation level are below.
Although the drought has been declared over, preparations for the next water shortage are underway and many changes in how California manages its' water are expected. By January 2021, each water agency will be given a draft water budget based on the population served and the irrigated landscape areas within their boundaries. In the future it will be the responsibility of the water agency to meet these budgets, and fines from the state for noncompliance are possible. Also, the agencies are required to develop water shortage contingency plans for six different conservation levels:
x 10 percent reduction
x 20 percent reduction
x 30 percent reduction
x 40 percent reduction
x 50 percent reduction
x More than a 50 percent reduction in water usage.
These following water conservation measures are taken from the permanent water conservation measures, which were adopted by an ordinance in 2009. Also, there is no watering during or 48 hours after any rain (State law).
x Watering is prohibited between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. x No excessive water flow or runoff is permitted
x No washing down hard or paved surfaces
x Re-circulating water is required for decorative water fountains and features x Washing vehicles, other than at commercial car wash facilities, must be done with a self-closing shut off nozzle on the hose
x Drinking water in food establishments will be served only upon request x Lodging establishments must provide guests options to decline daily linen services 32 City of Thousand Oaks, Municipal Code, Title 10, Utilities, Chapter 2, Water, Article 11, Water Conservation., June 2009.
Meridian Consultants 33 Rancho Conejo Summit Project WSA 301-001-20 December 2020
x Single-pass cooling systems may not be installed
x Non-recirculating commercial car wash and laundry systems are prohibited in new systems x Restaurants are required to use water conserving dish wash spray valves Level One City Water Conservation Measures
x Outdoor watering restricted to 3 days a week (April to October) and two days a week (November to March), for no more than 15 minutes per station.
x Leaks, breaks or malfunctions must be fixed within 72 hours. x The City requests that pools or spas be emptied and re-filled for routine maintenance during a drought declaration.
Level Two City Water Conservation Measures
x Outdoor watering restricted to 2 days a week (April to October) and 1 day a week (November to March), for no more than 15 minutes per station.
x Leaks, breaks or malfunctions must be fixed within 48 hours. x Filling or re-filling ornamental lakes or ponds with potable water is prohibited except to the extent needed to sustain aquatic life provided that such animals are of significant value and have been actively managed within the water feature before a declaration of a supply shortage level. x Refilling of more than one foot or initial filling of residential swimming pools or outdoor spas with potable water is prohibited (This was waived during the most recent drought).
Level Three City Water Conservation Measures
x No outside irrigation with potable water, except for the following:
Maintenance of trees and shrubs by hand-watering
Maintenance of existing landscaping necessary for fire protection, erosion control or stormwater protection
Maintenance of plant materials identified to be rare or essential to the well-being of the protected species.
Maintenance of landscaping within active public parks and playing fields, day care centers, golf course greens and school grounds, provided that it does not exceed two days a week. x Leaks, breaks or malfunctions must be fixed within 24 hours. x Limits on new potable water service (see the ordinance for details).
Meridian Consultants 34 Rancho Conejo Summit Project WSA 301-001-20 December 2020
5.2 Cal-Am Water Conservation Measures
Call-Am has implemented the following schedule for water as a conservation measure;33 using the watering schedule below, customers may run their irrigation systems three days per week:
x Odd-numbered addresses
Monday, Thursday, and Saturday
x Even-numbered addresses
Tuesday, Friday, and Sunday
x No watering on Wednesday
Other conservation considerations include:
x To avoid evaporation, please water outdoors before 9:00 AM or after 5:00 PM x Watering is limited to a total of 15 minutes per station per allowed day x Low-flow irrigation systems (Including drip irrigation and micro spray) that emits less than two gallons per hour are exempt from day of week and time limitations.
33 Cal-Am, Ventura Conservation. https://www.amwater.com/caaw/Conservation/District-Resources/Ventura/.
Meridian Consultants 35 Rancho Conejo Summit Project WSA 301-001-20 December 2020
6.0 WATER DEMANDS
The methodology for developing demand projections incorporates ongoing and future water conservation efforts to reflect a reduced per capita usage as required by SB7.
6.1 Baseline and Targets
The calculation of SB7 baseline and target per capita water use is shown in Table 12: Baseline, Interim Target and Per Capita Water Use for the baseline, compliance, interim target, and target daily per capita water use for the Ventura County District expressed in gallons per capita per day (gpcd). As shown, the 2020 per capita use target is 234 gpcd.
Table 12
Baseline, Interim Target, and Target Per Capita Water Use Parameter
Water Use
(gpd)
Baseline Per Capita Water Use 290
2015 Per Capita Use 197
2015 Interim Water Use Target 262
2020 Per Capita Use 234
_______
Source: California American Water, 2015 Urban Water Management Plan for the Southern Division - Ventura County District, June 2016.
Table 4-1.
Since 1996, the Cal-Am Ventura County District’s per capita water use has varied. As shown in Table 12, the per capita water use in 2015 was well below the 2020 target. The declining trend in per capita water use from 2007 through 2015 is attributed to a combination of factors such as economic conditions, prolonged drought conditions, and State-mandated conservation regulations. It is assumed that these factors have resulted in subsequent physical (e.g., turf replacement, water fixture replacement, etc.) and behavioral changes (e.g., irrigating less or quicker showers due to various media conservation campaigns and materials) in customer demand patterns associated with effective conservation programs. While physical conservation related changes result in essentially permanent demand reductions, behavioral changes may not yield permanent demand reductions. State-mandated emergency water conservation regulations may have a short-term impact on demand reductions during drought conditions, but it is assumed that there will be a rebound to average demands due to customers’ behavioral changes over the long-term. By nature, the State-mandated emergency regulations are temporary, but SB7 requirements are long-term. Therefore, for the purposes of Meridian Consultants 36 Rancho Conejo Summit Project WSA 301-001-20 December 2020
projecting long-term Ventura County District-wide water use, the per capita water use between 2016 and 2020 is linearly interpolated to meet the 2020 target, which is similar to the 2011-2015 average gpcd.
6.2 Sales to Other Water Agencies
Although Calleguas has two emergency connections to the Crestview Mutual Water Company to deliver water in emergencies, Calleguas does not have any contracts to sell water to other agencies as a wholesaler.
Additionally, Calleguas does not plan to sell water to other agencies in the future.
6.3 Additional Water Uses and Losses
Table 13: Cal-Am Ventura County District Non-Revenue Water shows the current and projected amount of non-revenue water (NRW) for the Ventura County District. NRW is defined as the water losses plus authorized unbilled (metered and unmetered) water consumption. In the Ventura County District, there are authorized unbilled accounts. Thus, NRW is the difference between the amount of water that Cal-Am purchases from the Calleguas and the amount of water Cal-Am delivers to its customers.
The Cal-Am Ventura County District operating reports are used to determine historical non=revenue water (NRW). NRW as a percentage of total production has varied significantly in the past five years from 3.1% in 2011 to 7.6% in 2015. NRW in 2015 was 1,020 AFY thus, for 2015 to 2035, the annual NRW is assumed to be constant at 1,020 AFY because the amount of water lost in the distributions system should not be impacted by changes in demand. Cal-Am’s Ventura County District actual water use for the past 10 years (2010 to 2019) is shown in Table 14: Cal-Am Ventura County District Water Actual Water Deliveries (2010 – 2019), Table 13
Cal-Am Ventura County District Non-Revenue Water
Water Use 2015 2020 2023a 2025 2030 2035 2040 a 2043a
Non-revenue Water 1,020 1,020 1,020 1,020 1,020 1,020 1,020 1,020 _________
Source: California American Water, 2015 Urban Water Management Plan for the Southern Division - Ventura County District, June 2016. Table 4-9.
a - Date for 2040 and 2043 extrapolated.
Meridian Consultants 37 Rancho Conejo Summit Project WSA 301-001-20 December 2020
Table 14
Cal-Am Ventura County District Water Actual Water Deliveries (2010 – 2019) Water
Deliveries
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
Afy
Ventura
County
District
14,252.8 14,956.0 16,872.4 17,655.0 17,095.1 14,031.0 13,377.2 14,587.5 14,858.6 13,667.7 _________-
Source: Email correspondence with Mr. Jacob Quick, P.E., Senior Project Engineer, California American Water Company, October 7, 2020. afy – acre feet per year
6.4 Total Water Use
Table 15: Cal-Am Ventura County District Projected Water Use (2015-2043) shows the current and projected total water use for Cal-Am’s Ventura County District. Total water use includes water delivered to customers, water sold to other agencies, and non-revenue water. For the years included in the 20 year forecast in this WSA for the proposed Project (2023, to 2043); the amounts shown have been extrapolated for comparison purposes only.
Table 15
Cal-Am Ventura County District Projected Water Use (2015-2043) Water Use 2015 2020 2023a 2025 2030 2035 2040a 2043a
Total Water Deliveries 12,996 15,926 16,040 16,117 16,311 16,507 16,507 16,507 Non-revenue water 1,020 1,020 1,020 1,020 1,020 1,020 1,020 1,020 Totals 14,016 16,946 17,060 17,137 17,331 17,527 17,527 17,527 _________
Source: California American Water, 2015 Urban Water Management Plan for the Southern Division - Ventura County District, June 2016. Table 4-10.
a -Date for 2040 and 2043 extrapolated.
Water amount measured in AFY (acre-feet per year). The amounts for 2023 were extrapolated based on a straight line project from year 2020 to year 2025, while out year extrapolations (year 2043) were done on a straight line basis using the year 2040 amounts.
6.5 Wholesale Water Demands
Cal-Am Ventura County District purchases all of its water from Calleguas. Table 16: Cal-Am Ventura County District Normal Year Water Demand Projections from Calleguas shows the amount of water projected to be purchased from Calleguas provided that the full supply from Calleguas is available per the requirements of the contract. For the out years that would include the 20 year forecast for the proposed Project (2023, to 2043); the amounts shown have been extrapolated for comparison purposes only. The projections shown in Table 16 are slightly different than those in Table 15 as a result of Cal-Am’s projections factoring in future per Meridian Consultants 38 Rancho Conejo Summit Project WSA 301-001-20 December 2020
capita growth projections for population increase;34 Calleguas did not use that method in their future projections but rather estimated deliveries on percentage of overall increase in demands (which would include residential as well as non-residential demands).35 Table 16
Cal-Am Ventura County District Normal Year Water Demand Projections from Calleguas Water Use 2015 2020 2023a 2025 2030 2035 2040 2043a
Annual Cal-Am Normal Year
Demand Projections 14,031 16,938 17,035 17,130 17,324 17,520 17,718 17,718 _________
Source: Calleguas, 2015 Urban Water Management Plan. Appendix B a -Date for 2043 extrapolated.
Water amount measured in AFY (acre-feet per year). The amounts for 2023 were extrapolated based on a straight line project from year 2020 to year 2025, while out year extrapolations (year 2043) were done on a straight line basis using the year 2040 amounts.
6.6 Historic and Projected Water Use by Sector
Table 17: Cal-Am Ventura County District Historic and Future Water Demand by Sector show the past, current and projected demands. Use is identified into eight sectors as follows: Residential, Commercial, Industrial, Fire, OPA, Co Acct., Resale, and Miscellaneous. Residential encompasses both single- and multifamily residential water use. Fire includes both fire hydrants and fire services. OPA, which stands for “other public authority,” includes government accounts and schools. The “Other or Miscellaneous” sector primarily consists of construction meter usage and public and private fire service connections. No raw or recycled water is provided in the service are and so all numbers presented below are for potable water deliveries. Cal-Am is continually looking for opportunities and working with its regional partners to increase the use of recycled water within the service area.
34 See Cal-Am Ventura County District 2015 UWMP, Appendix F, Demand Project Methodology. 35 See Calleguas Municipal Water District, 2016 UWMP, Appendix F – Metropolitan’s Draft Overall Supply Capability Tables and Supply/Demand Projections for Calleguas’ Service Area.
Meridian Consultants 39 Rancho Conejo Summit Project WSA 301-001-20 December 2020
Table 17
Cal-Am Ventura County District Historic and Future Water Demand by Sector Water Use Sector 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040a 2043a Residential 10,049 8,082 9,904 10,023 10,144 10,266 10,266 10,266 Commercial 1,176 2,815 3,086 3,086 3,160 3,198 3,198 3,198 Industrial 1,415 1,477 1,810 1,810 1,854 1,877 1,877 1,877 Institutional/Government 892 - - - - - - -
Landscape 1,320 - - - - - - -
Fire - 18 22 22 22 22 22 22
OPA - - - 1,113 1,127 1,140 1,140 1,140
Misc. - - 4 4 4 4 4 4
Total 14,852 12,996 15,926 16,117 16,311 16,507 16,507 16,507 _________
Source: California American Water, 2015 Urban Water Management Plan for the Cal-Am Southern Division - Ventura County District, June 2016.
Tables 4-2 to 4-6.
a - Date for 2040 and 2043 extrapolated. The amounts for out year extrapolations (year 2-4- and 2043) were done on a straight line basis using the year 2035 amounts.
Water amount measured in AFY (acre-feet per year)
Meridian Consultants 40 Rancho Conejo Summit Project WSA 301-001-20 December 2020
7.0 WATER DEMAND ANALYSIS FOR PROPOSED PROJECT
7.1 Project Demand Analysis
Cal-Am’s 2015 UWMP for the Ventura County District states that future water demand projections incorporate ongoing and future water conservation efforts to reflect a reduced per capita usage as required by SB7 and CWC Section 10910(c)(1).36,37 As previously noted, the calculation of SB7 baseline and target per capita water use in the Cal-Am Ventura County District 2015 UWMP is shown in Table 12 for the baseline, compliance, interim target, and target daily per capita water use for the Ventura County District.
Projections for commercial and industrial connections and future water demand in the Cal-Am Ventura County District 2015 UWMP were based on the assumption that these uses would grow at the same rate as population.38 The basis of the population growth rate was the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) 2016 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS). In preparing the 2015 UWMP, for the Ventura County District, Cal-Am also solicited input from local land use planning agencies, including the City of Thousand Oaks for areas within the City limits and the County of Ventura for the unincorporated areas, from November 2013 through November 2014. As such, any future projects and development was included in the land use plans at that time; further, future development was accounted for in the SCAG growth projections provided in the 2016 RTP/SCS. Any future project that would result in changes to land use planning after the local agencies land use input process (after November 2014),39 would not be accounted for in SCAG’s 2016 RTP/SCS projections and not accounted for in the Ventura County District 2015 UWMP.
The Project site is located entirely within the City of Thousand Oaks. Currently, all 49.62 acres comprising the Project site is designated “Industrial” in the City of Thousand Oaks General Plan Land Use Map.40 Prior to May 2015, the majority of the Project site, 39.73 acres, (those areas east and south of Conejo Center Drive [building sites 1A thru 1G, and 2] and north of Rancho Conejo Boulevard [building sites 5A, 5B, 6A and 6B] was designated in the General Plan for “Industrial Uses,” the remainder of the Project site (9.9 acres) west of Conejo Center Drive [building sites 3, 4A and 4B] was designated as “High Density 36 California American Water, 2015 Urban Water Management Plan for the Southern Division - Ventura County District, Appendix A – Baseline Daily per Capita Use Memorandum, May 12, 2016. 37 State Water Resources Control Board, California Water Code, Section 10910 (c)(1), Stats. 1995, Ch. 881, Sec. 4. 38 Email correspondence with Mr. Jacob Quick, P.E., Senior Project Engineer, California American Water Company, October 7, 2020.
39 As of November 2014, the majority of the Project site, 39.73 acres, (those areas east and south of Conejo Center Drive [building sites 1A thru 1G, and 2] and north of Rancho Conejo Boulevard [building sites 5A, 5B, 6A and 6B] was designated in the General Plan for “Industrial Uses,” the remainder of the Project site (9.9 acres) west of Conejo Center Drive [building sites 3, 4A and 4B] was designated as “High Density Residential.” 40 City of Thousand Oaks, General Plan Land Use Map, adopted October 20, 2015.
Meridian Consultants 41 Rancho Conejo Summit Project WSA 301-001-20 December 2020
Residential.” The City amended the General Plan Land Use Map in May 2015 to change the land use designation to “Industrial,” and the Rancho Conejo Specific Plan from “High Density Residential” to “Employment Park.”41 In addition this change, as portion of the Project site (Parcel 2; Building 5A) was changed from “Conejo Valley High School Site” to “Employment Park” per Amendment 15 to the Rancho Conejo Specific Plan (Specific Plan No.7) on January 13, 2015; this change did not have any effect on water demand estimates.
The land use designations at the time the Cal-Am completed their inventory planning data (November 2014) were used for the preparation of water demand projects in the 2015 UWMP for the Cal-Am Ventura County District were “Industrial Uses” for 39.73 and 9.9 acres “High Density Residential” for the Project site. Those uses were considered and are part of the future water demand projections in the Cal-Am Ventura County District 2015 UWMP.
The conversion of the land from residential use to industrial use as part of the 2015 General Plan amendment process would result in a corresponding change in the water demand estimates in the Cal-Am Ventura County District 2015 UWMP. As noted in the City’s Negative Declaration, the approximate industrial building space for the parcels that had their land use designation change would be available for up to 150,935 sq. ft. of “Industrial” development.42 As such, the Negative Declaration noted that future industrial development of the portion the Project site that was re-designated as part of the General Plan amendment would require 9,056 gpd or 7.94 afy.43 However, there was no separate consideration estimated in the Negative Declaration for landscape irrigation. The water demands for the proposed project (see Table 4) are estimated to be 11, 144 gpd or 9.78 AFY with a landscape irrigation water demand is 5.26 afy; the total demand is 15.04 afy.
As the water demand projections in the Ventura County District 2015 UWMP considered this area to be residential use, and the water demand was estimated based on per capita basis based on population and density, resulting 234 gallons per capita per day (gpcd). According to the City’s General Plan, “Residential High Density” can be developed at a density of 15 to 30 dwelling units per acre. For the 9.9 acres of the portion of the project re-designated, this would be from 148 to 297 units. The California Department of Finance (DOF) estimates the average persons per household to be 2.78 people44 which would result in a 41 City of Thousand Oaks, Negative declaration 2915-70251, Land Use Amendment 2015-70251/Specific Plan Amendment SPA 2015-70138, May 27, 2015.
42 City of Thousand Oaks, Negative declaration 2915-70251, Land Use Amendment 2015-70251/Specific Plan Amendment SPA 2015-70138, May 27, 2015. p. 25.
43 Assumes same annual water uses days for the proposed Project of 5.5 days per week for 52 week or 286 days per year. 44 California Department of Finance, E-5 Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State, 2011-2020 with 2010 Census Benchmark, http://www.dof.ca.gov/Forecasting/Demographics/Estimates/E-5/, accessed October 9, 2020.
Meridian Consultants 42 Rancho Conejo Summit Project WSA 301-001-20 December 2020
population of 408 to 825. This would result in a water demand of 86,472 gpd to 193,050 gpd (42.55 AFY to 85.39 AFY).45
As the water demand for “Industrial” use (15.04 afy) of the areas that was previously designated as “Residential High Density” (42.55 AFY to 85.16 AFY) is less than the amount that would have been included in the Cal-Am Ventura County District 2015 UWMP estimate, the future water demand for the Project was accounted for in the Cal-Am Ventura County District 2015 UWMP.
Therefore, the proposed Projects water entire demand can be considered to be included in the future water demand projections in the Cal-Am Ventura County District 2015 UWMP.
7.2 Average Water Year
Table 18: Average Year Supply and Demand Assessment (2020-2043), compares average water year supply and demand in five-year intervals for Cal-Am’s Ventura County District Service Area. The analysis considers the 20 year period required for WSAs to evaluate water supply. As such, with the Project’s first year of operation is 2023, the 20 year period is from 2023 to 2043.
As previously noted, the extrapolation for future water supplies or years 2040 and 2043, where applicable, did not assumed any increase in supply beyond the projection of either Cal-Am in the Ventura County District 2015 UWMP or Calleguas in their 2015 UWMP. Further, the future demands and deliveries for 2040 and 2043 assumed that Cal-Am would achieve the same demand requirements as for 2035 via ongoing conservation measures as required under current legislation and thru future improvements.
As previously noted, Calleguas has agreed to supply any additional demand requirements that the Ventura County District may require. Further, as indicated in Table 14, over the past 5 years (2015 to 2019) the Ventura County District has averaged deliveries of 14,104.4 afy; this is less than the 2020 estimate of 15,926 afy. As such, the Ventura County District has achieved substantial conservation and reduced its overall deliveries than projected in the Cal-Am Ventura County District 2015 UWMP.
Therefore, because the proposed Project is included in the Average Demand estimates for the period from 2023 to 2043, it is expected that Cal-Am’s Ventura County District’s typical average year supply will be sufficient.
45 Assumes 365 days for domestic water use.
Meridian Consultants 43 Rancho Conejo Summit Project WSA 301-001-20 December 2020
Table 18
Average Year Supply and Demand Assessment (2020 to 2043) 2020 2023a 2025 2030 2035 2040 a 2043 a
Afy
Average Demandb 15,926 16,040 16,117 16,311 16,507 16,507 16,507 Average Supplyc 16,938 17,053 17,130 17,324 17,520 17,718 17,825 Non-Revenue Water
(NRW) 1,020 1,020 1,020 1,020 1,020 1,020 1,020
Supply (Deficit)d (8) (7) (7) (7) (7) 191 298
Additional supply
available from Calleguas 8 7 7 7 7 0 0
_________
a - Date for 2023, 2040 and 2043 extrapolated. The amounts for 2023 were extrapolated based on a straight line project from year 2020 to year 2025, while out year extrapolations (year 2040 and 2043) were done on a straight line basis using the year 2035 amounts. b – from Table 17.
c --- from Calleguas 2015 UWMP Appendix B - see Table XX d – Surplus (Deficit) = Average Supply less Average Demand less NRW
7.3 Dry Water Years
Tables 19 through 22: Dry Water Years Supply and Demand Assessments, provide a comparison of the water supply and demands for single dry and multiple dry water years for the 20 year period for the proposed Project’s operational from 2023 to 2043. As the water demand for the proposed Project water is part of the future year projections in the Cal-Am Ventura County District 2015 UWMP, it is expected that Cal-Am’s Ventura County District’s single and multiple dry year supply will be sufficient for the 20 year period from 2023 to 2043.
Via Calleguas, the Cal-Am Ventura County District has access to additional water supplies via projects designed to drought-proof purveyors during dry years. A key element that would benefit the Thousand Oaks service area of the Ventura County District include the expansion of the Lake Bard Treatment Plant. It is expected that the Cal-Am, as a retail customer of Calleguas, would receive some additional supplies in a drought lasting up to three years to meet any foreseeable deficit. If extreme multiyear shortages occurred beyond what MWD and Calleguas could provide, Cal-Am would invoke various water conservation ordinances and activities, provided in the Section 5.0 of this WSA. It is unlikely that minor deficits would force Cal-Am to implement any of the water shortage actions listed
Table 19: Single and Multiple Dry Water Years Supply and Demand Assessments (2023 to 2027) demonstrates that the Cal-Am Ventura County District’s service area would be expected to utilize a portion of Calleguas reserves to ensure adequate supplies of imported water to meet the Ventura County District’s demands during single dry and multiple dry year scenarios for the period 2023 to 2027.
Meridian Consultants 44 Rancho Conejo Summit Project WSA 301-001-20 December 2020
Table 20: Single and Multiple Dry Water Years Supply and Demand Assessments (2028 to 2032) illustrates single and multiple dry year water supply and demand for the Cal-Am Ventura County District’s service area for years 2028 through 2032 is expected that Cal-Am’s Ventura County District’s typical average year supply will be sufficient.
Table 21: Single and Multiple Dry Water Years Supply and Demand Assessments (2033 to 2037) illustrates single and multiple dry year water supply and demand for the Cal-Am Ventura County District’s service area or years 2033 through 2037. As shown, it is expected that Cal-Am’s Ventura County District’s supply will be sufficient to meet demands during this period.
Table 22: Single and Multiple Dry Water Years Supply and Demand Assessments (2038 to 2043) illustrates single and multiple dry year water supply and demand for the Cal-Am Ventura County District’s service area for years 2038 through 2043. As shown, it is expected that Cal-Am’s Ventura County District’s supply will be sufficient to meet demands during this period.
As noted above, Tables 19 through 22 show that with the existing water system and the addition of facilities and programs there will be an adequate supply for single and multiple dry years for the projected 20-year operational period of the proposed Project period (2023 to 2043) required for this WSA.
Table 19
Single and Multiple Dry Water Years Supply and Demand Assessments (2023 to 2027) Average
Water Year
2023c
Single Dry
Water Year
2024c
Multiple Dry Years
2024c 2025 2026c
Afy
Average Demand 16,040 16,078 16,078 16,117a 16,155
Average Supply 17,053 17,091 17,091 17,130b 17,168
Non-revenue Water
(NWR) 1,020 1,020 1,020 1,020 1,020
Surplus (Deficit)d (7) (7) (7) (7) (7)
Additional supply
available from Calleguas 7 7 7 7 7
__________
Notes:
a -from Table 17.
b -from Calleguas 2015 UWMP Appendix B; extrapolated for out years - see Table 16 c -- Date for 2023, 2024 and 2026 extrapolated. The amounts were extrapolated based on a straight line project from year 2020 to year 2025. d – Surplus (Deficit) = Average Supply less Average Demand less NRW Meridian Consultants 45 Rancho Conejo Summit Project WSA 301-001-20 December 2020
Table 20
Single and Multiple Dry Water Years Supply and Demand Assessments (2028 to 2032) Average
Water Year
2028c
Single Dry
Water Year
2029c
Multiple Dry Years
2029c 2030 2031c
Afy
Average Demanda
16,233 16,272 16,272 16,311 16,349
Average Supplyb 17,246 17,285 17,285 17,324 17,383
Non-revenue Water (NWR) 1,020 1,020 1,020 1,020 1,020
Surplus (Deficit)d (7) (7) (7) (7) 14
Additional supply available from
Calleguas 7 7 7 7 0
__________
Note
a - from Table 17.
b - from Calleguas 2015 UWMP Appendix B; extrapolated for odd years – see Table XX c - -Date for 2028, 2029 and 2031 extrapolated. The amounts were extrapolated based on a straight line project from year 2025 to year 2030 d – Surplus (Deficit) = Average Supply less Average Demand less NRW Table 21
Single and Multiple Dry Water Years Supply and Demand Assessments (2033 to 2037) Average
Water
Year
2033c
Single Dry
Water
Year
2034c
Multiple Dry Years
2034c 2035 2036c
Afy
Average Demanda 16,428 16,467 16,467 16,507 16,507
Average Supplyb 17,441 17,480 17,480 17,520 17,559
Non-revenue Water 1,020 1,020 1,020 1,020 1,020
Surplus (Deficit)d (7) (7) (7) (7) 32
Additional supply available
from Calleguas 7 7 7 7 0
__________
Note
a - from Table 17.
b - from Calleguas 2015 UWMP Appendix B; extrapolated for odd years] see Table XX c -- Date for 2033, 2034 and 2036 extrapolated. The amounts were extrapolated based on a straight line project from year 2030 to year 2035
d – Surplus (Deficit) = Average Supply less Average Demand less NRW Meridian Consultants 46 Rancho Conejo Summit Project WSA 301-001-20 December 2020
Table 22
Single and Multiple Dry Water Years Supply and Demand Assessments (2038 to 2043) Average
Water
Year
2038c
Single Dry
Water
Year
2039c
Multiple Dry Years
2039c 2040 2041c
Afy
Average Demanda 16,507 16,507 16,507 16,507 16,507
Average Supplyb 17,538 17,678 17,678 17,718 17,757
Non-revenue Water 1,020 1,020 1,020 1,020 1,020
Surplus (Deficit)d 11 151 151 491 230
Additional supply
available from Calleguas 0 0 0 0 0
__________
Note
a - from Table 17.
b - from Calleguas 2015 UWMP Appendix B; extrapolated for odd years c - Date for 2038, 2039 and 20241extrapolated. The amounts were extrapolated based on a straight line project from year 2035.
d – Surplus (Deficit) = Average Supply less Average Demand less NRW Meridian Consultants 47 Rancho Conejo Summit Project WSA 301-001-20 December 2020
8.0 REGULATORY MEASURES
Cal-Am’s Ventura County District has adequate supplies for the 20-year period (2023 to 2043) to meet the proposed Project’s demand. In addition, the proposed Project will be required to implement various water conservation measures in accordance with applicable regulatory measures identified in the 2019 California Green Building Standards Code.46
8.1 Outdoor Water Use (Landscaping) Conservation
8.1.1 Regulatory Requirements
The proposed Project will be required to implement the mandatory nonresidential outdoor water efficiency and conservation measures of the 2019 California Green Standards Building Code.47 These include:
5.304.2 Outdoor water use in landscape areas equal to or greater than 500 square feet. When water is used for outdoor irrigation for new construction projects with an aggregate landscape area equal to or greater than 500 square feet requiring a building or landscape permit, plan check or design review, one of the following shall apply:
1. A local water efficient landscape ordinance that is, based on evidence in the record, at least as effective in conserving water as the updated model ordinance adopted by DWR per Government Code Section 65595 (c).
2. The California Department of Water Resources Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (MWELO) commencing with Section 490 of Chapter 2.7, Division 2, Title 23, California Code of Regulations.
5.304,4 Outdoor water use in landscape areas of 2,500 square feet or less. Any project with an aggregate landscape area of 2,500 square feet or less may comply with the performance requirements of MWELO or conform to the prescriptive compliance measures contained in MWELO’s Appendix D.
5.304.5 Graywater or rainwater use in landscape areas. For projects using treated or untreated graywater or rainwater captured on site, any lot or parcel within the project that has less than 2,500 square feet of landscape and meets the lot or parcel’s landscape water requirement (Estimated Total Water Use) entirely with treated or untreated graywater or through stored rainwater captured on site is subject only to Appendix D Section (5).
The proposed Project will use 0.31 acre-feet per day or 49.1 AFY of water for irrigation. 46 California Code of Regulation, Title 24, Part 11, California Building Standards Commission. 2019 California Green Building Standards Code, Effective January 1, 2020. https://codes.iccsafe.org/content/CAGBSC2019/cover. 47 California Code of Regulation, Title 24, Part 11, California Building Standards Commission. 2019 California Green Building Standards Code, Effective January 1, 2020. https://codes.iccsafe.org/content/CAGBSC2019/cover.
Meridian Consultants 48 Rancho Conejo Summit Project WSA 301-001-20 December 2020
8.2 Indoor Water Use Conservation
Three primary approaches to saving water indoors:
1. Hardware solutions, such as replacing a high-flow fixture with a water- efficient version;
2. Operational solutions, such as finding alternatives to using water for cleaning tasks, instituting a regular leak inspection and repair program, and optimizing the water efficiency of appliances; and
3. Personnel solutions, such as educating employees to conserve water and to report leaks.
The proposed project will be required to implement the mandatory nonresidential indoor water efficiency and conservation measures of the 2019 California Green Standards Building Code.48 These include:
5.303.1 Meters. Separate submeters or metering devices shall be installed for the uses described in Sections 5.303.1.1 and 5.303.1.2.
5.303.1.1 New buildings or additions in excess of 50,000 square feet. Separate submeters shall be installed as follows:
1. For each individual leased, rented, or other tenant space within the building projected to consume more than 100 gal/day (380 L/day).
2. Where separate submeters for individual building tenants are unfeasible, for water supplied to the following subsystems shall have provisions to monitor water use for the following:
a. Makeup water for cooling towers where flow through is greater than 500 gpm (30 L/s). b. Makeup water for evaporative coolers greater than 6 gpm (0.04 L/s). c. Steam and hot-water boilers with energy with energy input more than 500,000 Btu/h (147 kW).
5.303.1.2 Excess consumption. A separate submeter or metering device shall be provided for any tenant within a new building or within an addition that is projected to consume more than 1,000 gal/day. 48 California Code of Regulation, Title 24, Part 11, California Building Standards Commission. 2019 California Green Building Standards Code, Effective January 1, 2020. https://codes.iccsafe.org/content/CAGBSC2019/cover.
Meridian Consultants 49 Rancho Conejo Summit Project WSA 301-001-20 December 2020
9.0 SUMMARY
Sufficient water supplies exist to support the proposed Project based on the following facts:
x Cal-Am Ventura County District has been identified as the primary public water supplier for the proposed Project.
x The total estimated water demand for the proposed Project at buildout is 393 afy. x The estimated water demand for the proposed Project was included in the Cal-Am Ventura County District 2015 UWMP. However, as a result of land use designation changes for portions of the Project Site that occurred after the adoption of the 2015 UWMP, the water demand for uses changed. The water demand projections in the Ventura County District 2015 UWMP considered a portion of the Project Site to be residential use (“Residential High Density”). That land use designation was changed in 2015 to “Industrial” use. Since the estimated water demand for industrial uses is less than the water demand for residential uses included in the Cal-Am Ventura County District 2015 UWMP estimate, the future water demand for the Project was accounted for in the Cal-Am Ventura County District 2015 UWMP. x Cal-Am Ventura County District receives all of its water supplies as imported surface water from Calleguas Municipal Water District, which receives its water from the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California.
x Existing water supply sources are available to Calleguas Municipal Water District to meet Cal-Am Ventura County District’s demands for imported surface water.
x Conclusions in the WSA are based on the Cal-Am Ventura County District 2015 UWMP and Calleguas Municipal Water District 2015 UWMP.
x Cal-Am Ventura County District has sufficient supplies in normal, single dry and multiple dry years to meet demands.
x Cal-Am Ventura County District has access to additional water supplies from Calleguas Municipal Water District should they be needed to meet additional demands. x The proposed Project is required to install water conservation measures and to follow the conservation measures of the Cal-Am Ventura County District and the City of Thousand Oaks’ landscape irrigation ordinance.
Meridian Consultants 50 Rancho Conejo Summit Project WSA 301-001-20 December 2020
10.0 ORGANIZATIONS AND PERSONS CONSULTED
California America Water Company, Ventura County District Jacob Quick, P. E., Senior Project Manager
Mark Reifer, P.E., Engineering Manager - Project Delivery City of Thousand Oaks, Community Development Department Iain Holt, AICP, Senior Planner
Meridian Consultants 51 Rancho Conejo Summit Project WSA 301-001-20 December 2020
11.0 REFERENCES
Cal-Am, Ventura County District Conservation. https://www.amwater.com/caaw/Conservation/DistrictResources/Ventura/ California American Water Company, 2015 Urban Water Management Plan for the Southern Division - Ventura County District, adopted June 30, 2016.
California American Water, 2015 Urban Water Management Plan for the Southern Division - Ventura County District, Appendix A – Baseline Daily per Capita Use Memorandum, May 12, 2016.
California Code of Regulation, Title 24, Part 11, California Building Standards Commission. 2019 California Green Building Standards Code, Effective January 1, 2020. https://codes.iccsafe.org/content/CAGBSC2019/cover
California Department of Finance, “Demographics,”
http://www.dof.ca.gov/forecasting/demographics/Estimates/https://worldpopulationreview.com/u s-counties/ca/ventura-county-population
California Department of Finance, “Demographics,”
http://www.dof.ca.gov/forecasting/demographics/Estimates/ California Department of Finance, E-5 Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State, 2011-2020 with 2010 Census Benchmark,
http://www.dof.ca.gov/Forecasting/Demographics/Estimates/E-5/ accessed October 9, 2020.
California Department of Water Resources, 2015 Urban Water Management Plans Guidebook.
California Department of Water Resources, Urban Water Management Plans, https://water.ca.gov/Programs/Water-Use-And-Efficiency/Urban-Water-Use-Efficiency/UrbanWater-Management-Plans, accessed October 7, 2020.
California Department of Water Resources, Water Conservation Act of 2009 (Senate Bill X7-7), November 2009
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Public Resources Code, Section 21000 et seq; California Resources Agency, Delta Vision Strategic Plan, October 2008California Water Code, Division 6 Part
2.6, §§10610 - 10656), Urban Water Management Planning Act. Calleguas Municipal Water District, 2015 Urban Water Management Plan, June 2016.
California Resources Agency, Delta Vision Strategic Plan, October 2008 California Urban Water Conservation Council (CUWCC), Memorandum of Understanding Regarding Urban Water Conservation in California (MOU), adopted September 1991, amended January 2016.
California Water Code, Division 6 Part 2.6, §§10610 - 10656), Urban Water Management Planning Act.
Meridian Consultants 52 Rancho Conejo Summit Project WSA 301-001-20 December 2020
California Water Code, Division 6, Conservation, Development and utilization of State Water Resources, Part
2.10, Sections 10912.
Calleguas Municipal Water District, 2015 Urban Water Management Plan, June 2016.
Calleguas Municipal Water District, Board of Director Meeting, Meeting Minutes, August 2019.
CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, Section 15000 et. seq.
City of Thousand Oaks, Article 11. Water Conservation, June 2009 City of Thousand Oaks, General Plan Land Use Map, adopted October 20, 2015.
City of Thousand Oaks, Negative Declaration 2915-70251, Land Use Amendment 2015-70251/Specific Plan Amendment SPA 2015-70138, May 27, 2015. p. 25.
Municipal Water Act of 1911, California Water Code Section 71000.
SB 610, Costa. California Water Code, Division 6, Conservation, Development and utilization of State Water Resources, Part 2.10, Sections 10910 – 10915.Water Supply Planning to Support Existing and Planned Future Uses. effective January 1, 2002.
State Water Resources Control Board, California Water Code, Section 10910 (c)(1), Stats. 1995, Ch. 881, Sec.
4. USEPA, Wastewater Technology Fact Sheet. Package Treatment Plants. https://www3.epa.gov/npdes/pubs/package_plant.pdf
World Population Review , https://worldpopulationreview.com/us-counties/ca/ventura-county-population 2009 Comprehensive Water Legislation Package consists of four bills adopted on November 4, 2009 - SBX7- 1 (Simitian) Delta Governance • SBX7-6 (Steinberg) Groundwater Monitoring • SBX7-7 (Steinberg) Water Conservation • SBX7-8 (Steinberg) Water Diversions.
REMY MOOSE MANLEY APPEAL
ATTACHMENT/
EXHIBIT 1
Attachment 1 – Additional Corporation Information in Support of “Application for Appealing to the Planning Commission a Decision of the Community Development Department” Appellant: G.I. Industries dba Waste Management
Directors / Officers:
x Director and President:
Michael S. Hammer
800 Capitol Street, Suite 3000
Houston, Texas 77002
United States of America
x Director, Vice President, and
Secretary:
Courtney A. Tippy
800 Capitol Street, Suite 3000
Houston, Texas 77002
United States of America
x Vice President:
Joseph J. Cassin
800 Capitol Street, Suite 3000
Houston, Texas 77002
United States of America
x Vice President:
Douglas E. Corcoran
800 Capitol Street, Suite 3000
Houston, Texas 77002
United States of America
x Vice President and Assistant
Secretary:
Peter J. Demolder
800 Capitol Street, Suite 3000
Houston, Texas 77002
United States of America
x Vice President and Assistant
Treasurer:
Mark A. Lockett
800 Capitol Street, Suite 3000
Houston, Texas 77002
United States of America
x Vice President, Chief Financial
Officer, and Controller:
Leslie K. Nagy
800 Capitol Street, Suite 3000
Houston, Texas 77002
United States of America
x Vice President and Treasurer:
David L. Reed
800 Capitol Street, Suite 3000
Houston, Texas 77002
United States of America
x Vice President:
James A. Wilson
800 Capitol Street, Suite 3000
Houston, Texas 77002
United States of America
x Assistant Treasurer:
Jeff R. Bennett
800 Capitol Street, Suite 3000
Houston, Texas 77002
United States of America
x Assistant Secretary:
Catherine Riegle Finley
800 Capitol Street, Suite 3000
Houston, Texas 77002
United States of America
x Assistant Secretary:
Asteghik Khajetoorians
800 Capitol Street, Suite 3000
Houston, Texas 77002
United States of America
x Assistant Secretary:
Robert E. Longo
800 Capitol Street, Suite 3000
Houston, Texas 77002
United States of America
REMY MOOSE MANLEY APPEAL
ATTACHMENT/
EXHIBIT 2
April 4, 2022
VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
[email protected]
[email protected]
Honorable Chairman Newman
Honorable Planning Commissioners
Planning Commission
City of Thousand Oaks
2100 Thousand Oaks Blvd.
Thousand Oaks, CA 91362
Re: Appeal of March 24, 2022 Administrative Hearing Officer Approval of Development Permit (DP) 21-70408 for 2498 and 2550 Conejo Center Drive (APNs 667-0-080-015 and 667-0-080-035)
Dear Honorable Chairman Newman and Planning Commissioners:
On behalf of our client G.I. Industries dba Waste Management (“WM”), we hereby appeal the March 24, 2022 decision of the Administrative Hearing Officer to approve the above referenced Development Permit (DP) which, as described by City staff, would allow the construction of a 21,440 square foot waste-collection truck dispatch center, offices, truck maintenance and storage area, and compressed natural gas (“CNG”) re-fueling facility (the “Project”).
I. Environmental review of the Project is required under CEQA.
As detailed in our March 24th comment letter and supporting attachments addressed to Mr. Geoff Ware, Administrative Hearing Officer (“AHO Letter”), 1 the City must require the preparation of at least some form of environmental review of the Project pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) (Pub. Resources Code, § 21000 et seq.). This is because there is a reasonable possibility that the construction and operation of the Project will have a significant effect on the environment due to unusual circumstances.
1 A full and complete copy of our March 24th comment letter with supporting attachments is included with this appeal as Exhibit 2 and is hereby incorporated by reference as if fully set forth herein. All issues raised in the March 24th comment letter, including the expert comment letters prepared by Mr. Neal Liddicoat and Mr. Scott Cashen, are also raised in this appeal for the Planning Commission’s consideration.
Andrea K. Leisy
[email protected]
Honorable Chairman Newman
Honorable Planning Commissioners
April 4, 2022