CC - Item 2B - Tentative Tracp map No 53447 Conditional Use permit 02-888 throught 02-894 - Box 070TO: HONORABLE MAYOR
AND MEMBERS OF
ROSEMF¢�1I� CITY COUNCIL
FROM: BILL CRWll, CITY MANAGER
DATE: APRIL 3, 2003
CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS 02 -888 through 02 -894; APPEAL
(8719 Mission Drive)
A. BACKGROUND
This is a request to develop a sixteen (16) lot, single- family, detached residential development within
the Single Family Residential (R -1) zoning district, located at 8719 Mission Drive. At the February 3, -.
2003 Planning Commission meeting, the Commission unanimously approved the proposed
subdivision. During the appeal period, this project was appealed by Council Member Imperial on
behalf of a neighbor adjacent to the subject site.
This property was previously utilized as a wholesale nursery in conjunction with a single -family
residence. However, over the past several years the nursery use has not been operational. The
property was sold last year to Nevis Homes, a residential developer.
B. ANALYSIS
The project proposal is to develop the property with sixteen single - family homes, including a new 34-
foot wide public through street with access from both Mission Drive and Zerelda Street. The
proposed subdivision includes thirteen new lots along this public street and a three lot, "flag lot"
subdivision projecting to the east midway between Mission Drive and Zerelda Street.
The General Plan Land Use Map designates this area of the City as Low Density Residential with an
allowable density of up to seven dwelling units per acre. With an overall site area of approximately
2.4 acres, the maximum number of dwelling units allowed for the site would be seventeen.
COUNCIL AGENDA
APR .Q. 8 2000
ITEM Nol.
All of the homes are proposed to be two -story with four bedrooms and range in size from
approximately 2,500 to 2,660 square feet, each with a three -car garage. The architect has designed
seven different floor plans for the development with seven different exterior elevations to create a
distinctive neighborhood that does not simply duplicate the same floor plan, elevations and color
schemes.
As noted in the minutes attached to this report, the neighbors that addressed the Planning
Commission at the February 3, 2003 public hearing had several areas of concern related to this
project. Their concerns included the following: 1) A Cul -de -sac or gated street design would be
preferable to a through street; 2) Two Story Homes should not be allowed in the City; 3) Lack of
visibility due to block wall installation at the intersection of Zerelda Street and the new street; 4)
The need for pedestrian sidewalks along the north side of the site; 4) Street light intensity 5)
Inadequate sewer and plumbing infrastructure; 6) Lack of Proactive outreach to the School Districts;
and 7) Lack of proactive neighborhood outreach by the City and the Developer.
Staff responses to the areas of neighborhood concern are as follows:
Issue: Street should be a cul -de -sac design.
Staffs Response: A cul -de -sac design would require a paved cul -de -sac radius of42 feet with a right
of way radius of 52 feet to accommodate SUV and other large passenger type vehicles as well as all
commercial, emergency and municipal service vehicles. This circular turn around area would require
the developer to lose the two lots at the north or south end of the project site. The longer dead -end
streets get, they become more isolated and difficult it becomes to reach many properties because the
properties along them are accessible from only one direction. Lengthy dead end streets begin to
assume the function of higher -order streets (i.e. residential collector road). Also, a dead -end street
would be a variation from the majority of the street system throughout the City, which is laid out in a
traditional city grid pattern which offers a superior internal street connection and traffic circulation.
The LA County Fire Department (Land Development Unit) will not allow a cul -de -sac design if the
street is over 1,000 feet in length. The subject street is approximately 912 feet in length, very near
what the fire department would deny.
Issue: Street should be a gated design.
Staffs Response: A gated design would require that the street become a private street, which the
City would then relinquish control over the routine maintenance issues associated with public streets.
The street maintenance issues would have to be addressed through the creation of a Home Owners
Association and CC &R's that would govern the maintenance issues. Also the LA County Fire
Department would require the gates to be set back fifty feet from both Mission and Zerelda and
TTM 53447
CC Staff Report
Page 2 of 6
include turn around areas for the fire apparatus. These required turn around areas at the north and
south portions of the site would also require that the developer remove two lots within the
development or reconfigure the entire project with smaller lot sizes.
Issue: Two story homes should not be allowed in the City of Rosemead
Staffs Response: The zoning ordinance currently allows the construction of two -story homes.
Two -story home design does allow larger yard areas and or larger size homes that are more
marketable in today's housing environment. The City has adopted a Conditional Use Permit (CUP)
process to regulate the overbuilding of residential lots with homes that would be detrimental to an
existing neighborhood. The threshold for the requirement of a CUP for larger homes is any structure
with over 2,500 square feet of living area. This CUP requirement gives the City a tool to further
control design elements of proposed residential projects to ensure that they are compatible with the
existing neighborhood. The CUP process for this project resulted in a superior aesthetic design and
conditions that mitigate any foreseeable negative impacts on the future maintenance or additions to
the proposed residences.
Issue: Lack of visibility at Zerelda Street due to proposed block wall installation
Staffs Response: The block walls proposed for the development will step down to three feet in
height within the areas that require visibility near Mission Drive and Zerelda Street.
Issue: The need for sidewalks along the north side of the site
Staffs Response: The developer has been conditioned by staff to install curb, gutter landscaped
parkway and sidewalks along the south side of Zerelda Street as part of the widening and
reconstruction of this public street.
Issue: Street light intensity
Staffs Response: The developer will be required to submit a lighting plan to the City Engineer and
Southern California Edison for the type and location of the fighting standards. The street light layout
and design will be in accordance with Illuminating Engineers Society Standards (IES).
Issue: Inadequate sewer and plumbing infrastructure
Staffs Response: Responses back from the water purveyor that serves this portion of Rosemead
(California- American Water Company) provided a notice to the City that they would supply water
service to this development provided the developer pays for the installation of new water main. The
Los Angeles County Department of Health Services which also governs the Sewerage and
Subdivision program responded that they have no objection to the proposed subdivision. The City
Engineer also reviewed the existing sewer system and has determined that there is adequate sewer
TTM 53447
CC Staff Report
Page 3 of 6
capacity to accept increased flows from the development.
Issue: Lack of proactive outreach to the School Districts
Staffs Response: The Planning Department as a regular course of business sends notice of projects
to all reviewing agencies, including the affected school districts. The response from the Rosemead
School District Business Manager was one of "no objection at this time ". At a $2.14 per square foot
school impact fee the developer will be required to pay the Rosemead School District approximately
$90,000 in impact fees.
Issue: Lack of proactive outreach to the neighborhood by the City and the Developer
Staffs Response: It was suggested to the developer that public outreach to the neighborhood be
conducted. However, the developer considered the size of the project to be under the threshold of a
project size that they would typically initiate proactive neighborhood seeping sessions. A public
hearing notice was sent out 25 days prior to the Planning Commission meeting to 130 property
owners in the immediate neighborhood. During the three weeks prior to the Commission hearing
staff received one positive telephone call from an adjacent property owner and one negative inquiry
from a second, adjacent property owner. With the small amount of responses coming into the
Planning Department staff did not anticipate that a neighborhood outreach meeting beyond the
required public hearing notice was warranted.
In addition to the above comments that were brought up during the public hearing at the Planning
Commission, staff also met with three concerned neighbors the week following the public hearing.
These neighbors had the following concerns: 1)The geometry and alignment of the new street in
relation to the existing streets; and 2) An adjacent property owner's front yard fencing conditions;
Staff responses to the additional areas of neighborhood concern are as follows:
Issue: Concern regarding street geometry, alignment and traffic flow
Staffs Response: Mission Drive is the one major arterial in the City of Rosemead that traverses the
City at an irregular angle rather than the typical ninety- degree, north -south east -west, grid layout.
Therefore, all streets that intersect with Mission Drive create obtuse angle alignments. Although this
is not the preferred method of layout, the City inherited this particular street layout from the County
of Los Angeles subdivision practices during the housing boom years after World War II (mid 1950's),
prior to City incorporation. The obtuse angle street intersection with Mission Drive exists throughout
the City as well as adjacent cities surrounding Rosemead.
TTM 53447
CC Staff Report
Page 4 of 6
Staff did require the developer to take an extra step on this project and prepare a traffic study. This
study is attached for review. Although not the perfect design, the developer did satisfy the concerns
of the Deputy Traffic Engineer with regards to intersection layout. Staff has agreed to add a
condition of approval to the project requiring the installation of north/south stop controls at the
intersection of Bartlett Avenue and Zerelda Street which will slow traffic on Bartlett.
The issue of the new street and Bartlett Avenue being spaced too close was also an area of concern.
However, staff has researched other municipalities and referenced traffic engineering guides and
determined that the spacing is within acceptable industry standards. On low - volume streets (such as
the proposed street) a distance of 125 feet is considered adequate. The distance between the
proposed street and Bartlett Avenue is approximately 160 feet. Although the Dubonnet Drive cul-
de -sac is slightly off -set with the proposed street, it is not a concern due to the very low volume of
traffic that enters that dead end street segment. There are only five residential lots that occupy that
cul -de -sac.
Issue: Concerns with an adjacent property owner's front yard fencing conditions;
Stajfs Response: The property owners ofthe parcel adjacent to the northeast comer of the project
site (8732 Zerelda) are concerned with the future of their front yard fencing. This parcel is an
irregular shaped triangular parcel approximately 6,360 square feet in size, with a curvilinear front lot
line. The property is also improved with a wood fence that is approximately six feet in height that
extends the entire length of their westerly property line. The City's zoning ordinance requires that
fences within the front yard setback area (20 feet in R -I zone) not exceed a height of four feet.
Therefore the existing fencing does not conform to the City's regulations related to allowable fencing.
With the installation of a new street, 8732 Zerelda Street will now become a "corner lot ". The
owner's are now concerned that their children will not be able to utilize the front yard as a play area
due to the low height of the wall and the proximity to the new street. The owner's are also concerned
that they will not be allowed to continue to park their recreational vehicles in their front yard setback.
However, staff believes that the preferred design for the neighborhood would be to remove the
vehicles and replace the property line fence with a new decorative, step down block wall.
In conclusion, Staff supports the developer's original design and is of the opinion that this is the best
of the available alternatives for street and parcel layout for the proposed and existing neighborhood.
TTM 53447
CC Staff Report
Page 5 of 6
E. RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council UPHOLD the Planning Commission's decision of
approval of TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 53447 & CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS 02 -888
through 02 -894 as currently designed.
Attachments:
I. Tract Map 53447
2. Site, Floor & Elevation Plans
3. Site Photos
4. Traffic Impact Analysis, dated 10/17/02
5. Planning Commission Staff Report, dated February 3, 2003
6. Planning Commission Resolution 03 -08
7. Planning Commission Minutes, dated February 3, 2003
TTM 53447
CC Staff Report
Page 6 of 6
transport, Lion plonnim • lixiic engineenno
acoustical ; air duality studies
October 17, 2002
Ms. Maggie Teng
NEVIS HOMES, LLC.
255 E. Santa Clara Street, Suite 210
Arcadia, CA 91006
Subject: 8719 Mission Drive, Rosemead Traffic Impact Analysis (Revised)
Dear Ms. Teng:
RK ENGINEERING GROUP, INC. is pleased to submit this revised traffic study for your
project located at 8719 Mission Drive in the City of Rosemead. The project consists of
16 single - family detached residential dwelling units.
Based upon this review, the project can be accommodated within the planned circulation
system, if the recommended improvements are implemented. These recommendations
are included in the "Findings" section of this report.
RK ENGINEERING GROUP, INC. is pleased to provide this traffic impact study for use in
assessing the circulation features of the 8719 Mission Drive project development. If you
have any questions regarding this study, please do not hesitate to call at (949) 474 -0809.
Sincerely,
RK ENGINEERING AVC 9iry 2
I(
w N0. c <�
0555 �
t EXP.12/31/05
Robert Kahn, P.E. \ W Q Frank Yeh
Principal 0Tx r%2AFF\G� Transportation Planner
F OF 0
FY: RK: rd /804
JN:1487 -02 -01
Attachments
21) ?01 ..��•. birch _.Jr,r,L aiilr '_0
newport beach. colifomi.: -) _bbl
. ;el'»9.4: =8nuW
8719 MISSION DRIVE ROSEMEAD
TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS (REVISED)
ROSEMEAD, CALIFORNIA
Prepared for:
Ms. Maggie Teng
NEVIS HOMES, LLC.
255 E. Santa, Clara Street, Suite 210
Arcadia, CA 91006
Prepared by:
RK ENGINEERING GROUP, INC.
20201 S.W. Birch Street, Suite 250
Newport Beach, CA 92660
Robert Kahn, P.E.
Frank Yeh
October 17, 2002
RK: FY: rd /804
JN:1487 -02-01
INTRODUCTION............................................................................. ............................... 1
FINDINGS...................................................................................... .:......I...................... 5
ExistingConditions ........ :.... ............................................................................... .... 5,
ProposedDevelopment ........................................................... ............................... 5
Recommendations..... :.......................................................................................... 7
EXISTINGCONDITIONS ................................................. ............................................. 9
StudyArea Street System ..................................................... ............................... 9
ExistingTraffic ........................................................................ ............................... 9
Existing Intersection Analysis .................................................. ............................... 9
PROJECTDEVELOPMENT ......................................... :. .......................................... ... 15
TripGeneration ........................:............................................. ............................... 15
TrafficAssignment ................................................................. ............................... 15
EXISTING PLUS PROPOSED PROJECT TRAFFIC CONDITIONS ........................... 21
Existing Plus Proposed Project Traffic Volumes .................... ............................... 21
IntersectionAnalysis ...................................:........................... ......I........................ 21
SignificantTraffic Impact ......................................................... ............................... 21
ON -SITE CONSIDERATIONS ....................................................... ............................... 27
SiteAccess ......................................... : .............................. . ....... ................. ... ..... .. 27
On-Site Circulation ................................................................ ............................... 29
TRAFFIC COUNT WORKSHEETS...: ...................................................... ................... A
EXISTING TRAFFIC CALCULATION WORKSHEETS ................. ............................... B
EXISTING PLUS PROJECT CALCULATION WORKSHEETS ................... ..... : .......... . C
I ICT
OE EXHIBITS
FXHIBIT
PAGE
ALOCATION
MAP ................................................................ .........................:.....
2
BSITE
PLAN ......................................................................... ...............................
3
C
EXISTING NUMBER OF THROUGH LANES AND INTERSECTION
CONTROLS...................................................................... ...............................
10
D
EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES ..... :...............................................................
11
E
PROJECT TRIP DISTRIBUTION ..................................... ...............................
18
F
PROJECT TRAFFIC. VOLUMES ...................................... .......:.......................
20
G
EXISTING PLUS PROJECT TRAFFIC VOLUMES .......... ...............................
22
H
CIRCULATION RECOMMENDATIONS ........................... ............... .................
28
r
I IST OF TABLE,
TABLE PAGE
1 PROJECT INTERSECTION ANALYSIS SUMMARY ...... ..............:...........:.... 6
2 INTERSECTION ANALYSIS FOR EXISTING TRAFFIC CONDITIONS ...... 13
3 PROJECT TRIP GENERATION RATES ........................ ............................... 16
4 PROJECT TRIP GENERATION ..................................... ............................... . 17
5 INTERSECTION ANALYSIS FOR EXISTING PLUS PROJECT
TRAFFICCONDITIONS : ............................................ .................................... 23
6 INTERSECTION SIGNIFICANT IMPACT SUMMARY ... ............................... 25
8719 MISSION DRIVE ROSEMEAD
TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
ROSEMEAD, CALIFORNIA
INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this traffic impact analysis is to evaluate the development of the 8719
Mission Drive, Rosemead from a traffic circulation standpoint. The project site is located
at 8719 Mission Drive between Walnut Grove Avenue and Muscatel Avenue within the
City of Rosemead (see Exhibit A).
The project site is to be developed as a.16 dwelling unit single- family detached homes.
The site plan for the project is shown on Exhibit B.
This traffic impact analysis includes an evaluation of existing and existing plus project
traffic conditions for the study area.
Pursuant to discussions with City of Rosemead staff, the study area was analyzed for the
following two (2) intersections:
Walnut Grove Avenue (NS) at:
. Mission Drive (EW)
Muscatel Avenue (NS) at:
. Mission Drive(EW)
Based upon this evaluation, the proposed project can be accommodated within the
planned circulation system, if the circulation system is implemented as discussed in this
report.
1
EXHIBIT A
LOCATION MAP
i
N
1487- 02- 01 -EX_A
8719 MISSION DRIVE. ROSEMEAD,
engineering
group, inc.
2
ZERELDA AVE.
-
GRAND AVE.
A
O
PRESA AVE.
m
m
DUBONNET AVE.
m
D
0
M SS
<
o N
pR
o
SITE
RD.
LOWER A ZUSp
BARTLETT AVE.
n >
> > �
G1 Z
C
0 .
D
70 0
r O
m
�
p m
<
>
m
m
VALLEY BLVD.
i
N
1487- 02- 01 -EX_A
8719 MISSION DRIVE. ROSEMEAD,
engineering
group, inc.
2
1487- 02 -01 -Ex 6
8719 MISSION DRIVE. ROSEMEAD, Califomia
RI�f
EXHIBIT B
SITE PLAN
engineering
group, inc.
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
4
The following findings have been reached for existing conditions and for the proposed
development. .
1. The project site is currently occupied by one single- family dwelling and storage yard
and is not generating significant traffic.
2. . Existing highways in the vicinity of the project include Mission Drive, Walnut Grove,
Avenue, Muscatel Avenue, Grand Avenue, Rosemead Boulevard, and Valley
Boulevard.
3. Existing intersection levels of service are shown on Table 1. As shown on Table 1,
the study area intersections are currently operating at Level of Service "D" or better
during the peak hours.
1. The proposed 16 single - family detached homes are projected to generate a total
of approximately 153 trip -ends per day with 12 vehicles per hour during the AM
peak hour and 16 vehicles per hour during the. PM peak hour.
2. As shown in Table 1, the study area intersections are projected to operate at Level
of Service "D" or better during the peak hours for existing plus project conditions. .
3. As shown in Table 6, the project is not expected to have significant traffic impact at
any study area intersections.
_. 5
TABLE 1
PROJECT INTERSECTION ANALYSIS SUMMARY
INTERSECTION
- EXISTING
EXISTING PLUS PROJECT
ICU'
LOS'
ICU'
LOS'
AM
I PM
AM
I PM
AM
I PM
AM
I PM
Walnut Grove Ave. (NS) at:
Mission Dr. (EW)
0.718
0.861
C
D
0.718
0.862
C
D
Muscatel Ave. (NS) at:
• Mission Dr. (EW)
0.588
0.696
A
B
0.588
0.697
A
B
Intersection Capacity Utilization
' Level of Service
j:\rkta bles\rk 800 \rk 804th
JN:1487 -02 -01
Circulation recommendations for the project are shown in Exhibit H, and summarized
below. For details please refer to the remaining chapters of this report.
1. The project proposes a north -south street ( "A" Street) to connect with Mission
Drive and Zarelda Street. It is recommended that both northbound "A" Street at
Zarelda Street and southbound "A Street at Mission Drive intersections be
controlled with stop signs. The street should be built according to City of
Rosemead Street cross - section standards.
2. Site access into the project from Mission'Drive would be best provided by creating
left turn pocket on eastbound Mission Drive at "A" Street, and two -way left turn
medians east of "A" Street and Dubonnet Avenue. This would require removal of
on- street parking for this segment of Mission Drive. See "On Site Considerations"
chapter for details: Sight distance at the project access driveways should be
reviewed with respect to City of Rosemead sight distance standards at the time of
preparation of final grading, landscape and street improvement plans.
3. The project is not expected to have significant traffic impact at any study area
intersections. However, parking should be restricted in the segment, indicated on
Exhibit H to provide for two -way left turn median and left turn. lanes into the project.
Red curb and "No Parking" signage should be provided in the segment.
4. Within the project site, it is recommended that no parking be allowed on the
accessway to the three units east of "A" Street, and on the east side of "A" Street.
5. The intersection of the "A" Street and Zerelda Avenue occurs at an angle and is off-
set slightly to the west of Dubonnet Avenue. If possible, it is recommended that "A"
r
7
Street be aligned to the east to line up with Dubonnet Avenue as shown in
Exhibit,H.
6. "A" Street should be named Dubonnet Avenue to maintain continuity of the street
name with the existing segments of Dubonnet Avenue north and south of the site,
and to prevent confusion.
Existing highways in close proximity to the project include Mission Drive,.Walnut Grove
Avenue, Muscatel Avenue, Grand Avenue, Rosemead Boulevard, and Valley Boulevard.
The existing number of through travel lanes and intersection controls on these roadways
is shown on Exhibit C.
Existing traffic volumes on arterial highways throughout the study area are shown on
Exhibit D. Average Daily Traffic (ADT) volumes are based upon the peak hour counts
collected for RK ENGINEERING GROUP, INC. using the following formula:
ADT = PM Peak Hour Volume = PM Peak Volume x 12 .
0.083
This formula is based upon the assumption that peak hour traffic is generally
approximately 8.3% of daily traffic. For example, the daily traffic counts collected for
Zarelda Street west of Muscatel is 98 vehicles. The PM peak hour Volume is 8 vehicles.
The daily traffic is 98/8 or 12.25 times the PM peak volume. Traffic count worksheets are
provided in Appendix "A ".
The City of Rosemead technique used to assess the operation of a signalized intersection
is known as the Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU). To calculate the levels of service,
the volume of traffic using the intersection is compared with the capacity of the
intersection. The following saturation flow rates are used for signalized intersections:
1. Two Phase - 1,600 vehicles per hour
2. Three Phase - 1,600 vehicles per hour
3. Four or more phases - 1,600 vehicles per hour
7
1.
1IL
T ,
GRAND AVE.
PRE
r
Miss /o/v oR
BARTLETT AVE.
O
EXHIBIT C
EXISTING NUMBER OF THROUGH LANES
AND INTERSECTION CONTROLS
AVE.
D
r
a Z
C
0
A
O
m
m
ZERELDA AVE.'
SITE
�I
I
I
_ I
DUBONNET
C
!n
D
m
m
r
D
m
r r-
T
O
N
m
m
m
D
0
m
0
LONER AZ-
LEGEND:
®
=TRAFFIC SIGNAL .
O = ALL WAY STOP _
-r = STOP SIGN
L _ = DEFACTO RIGHT TURN
4 = NUMBER OF LANES
I- U = UNDIVIDED
N
1487- 02- 01 -EX _C - - engineering
B71S MISSION DRIVE, ROSEMEAD, Califomia group( inc.
10 LU
V
EXHIBIT D
EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES
LEGEND:
10120 = AM /PM PEAK HOUR TURNING MOVEMENTS
98 = VEHICLES PER DAY
N
1487- 02.01.Ex D engineering
8719 MISSION DRIVE. ROSEMEAD, Califomia
group, inc.
1 1
The level of services are defined in terms of volume to capacity (V /C) ratio as follows:
LEVEL OF
SERVICE
VOLUME -TO-
CAPACITY RATIO
A
0.00-0.6
B
0.61 -0.70
C
0.71 - 0.80.
D
0.81 -0.90
E
0.91 - 1.00
F
1.01 and up
The levels of service for existing intersections in the vicinity of the project are shown in
Table 2.
Existing intersection level of service calculations are based upon AM and PM peak hour
turning movement counts made for RK ENGINEERING GROUP, INC. in January, 2002.
Traffic count worksheets are provided in Appendix "A ". The study area intersections in
the vicinity of the site are currently operating at Level of Service "D" or better during the
peak hour.
Intersection analysis worksheets are included in Appendix "B ".
12
TABLE 2
INTERSECTION ANALYSIS FOR EXISTING TRAFFIC CONDITIONS
INTERSECTION
TRAFFIC
CONTROL
INTERSECTION APPROACH LANES'
PEAK HOUR
NORTHBOUND
SOUTHBOUND
EASTBOUND
WESTBOUND
ICU'
LOS'
L T R
L T R
L T R
L T R
AM
I PM
AM
PM
Walnut Grove Ave. (NS) at:
• Mission Dr. (EW)
TS
1 2 1
1 2. 0
1 2 0
1 2 0
0.718
0.861
C
D
Muscatel Ave. (NS) at:
• Mission Dr. (EW)
TS
0.5 0.5 1
1 0.5 0.5
1 ' 2 0
1 2 0
0.588
0.696
A
B
When a right turn is designated, the lane can either be striped or unstriped. A curb side through lane 19 feet or
greater in width is assumed to provide an unstriped right turn lane too.
L = Left; T = Through; R = Right
2 Intersection Capacity Utilization
3 Level of Service
4 TS = Traffic Signal; CSS = Cross Street Stop, None = One -Way Street
j:irkta blestrk 800\rk804tb
J N:1487 -02 -01 13
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
14
Trip generation represents the amount of traffic that is produced or, attracted to a
development. The traffic generation for this project has been estimated, based upon the
specific land use that has been planned for the proposed development. The proposed
project is 16 dwelling units of single - family detached homes.
Trip generation rates are 'based upon the latest data collected by the Institute of
Transportation Engineers (ITE). Trip generation rates utilized in this study are included in
Table 3.
Both daily and peak -hour trip generation for the proposed project are shown in Table 4.
The proposed development is projected to generate a total of approximately 153 trip -ends
per day with 12 vehicles per hour during the AM peak hour and 16 vehicles'per hour
during the PM peak hour.
Trip distribution represents the directional orientation of traffic to and from the project site.
Trip distribution is heavily influenced by the geographical location of the site, the location
of residential, commercial and recreational opportunities and the proximity to the regional
freeway system. The directional orientation of traffic was determined by evaluating
existing and proposed land uses and highways within the community and. existing traffic
volumes in the study area.
Trip distribution for this study has been based upon near -term conditions, based upon
those highway facilities, which are in place. The trip distribution patterns for the project
are graphically depicted on Exhibit E as approved by the City of Rosemead staff.
15
TABLE 3
PROJECT TRIP GENERATION RATES
LAND USE
UNITS2
PEAK -HOUR
DAILY
AM
PNv
IN
OUT
IN
OUT
Single - Family Detached
Residential
DU
0.19
0.56
0.65
0.36
9.57
Institute of Transportation Engineers, Trip Generation, Sixth Edition, 1997, Land Use Category 210.
2 DU = Dwelling Units ,
j : \rktables \rk800 \rk804tb 16
JN:1487 -02 -01
TABLE 4
PROJECT TRIP GENERATION
LAND USE
QUANTITY
PEAK-HOUR
DAILY
AM
PM
IN .
OUT
IN
OUT
Single - Family
Detached Residential
16 DU
3
9
10
6
153
DU =Dwelling Units
j: \rkta b1es \rk800 \rk804tb 17
JN:1487 -02 -01
EXHIBIT E
PROJECT TRIP DISTRIBUTION
11487.02.01_Ex_E engineering
SNS MISSION DRIVE, ROSEMEAD, California group, inc.
18
F RD
I
The assignment of traffic from the site to the adjoining roadway system has been based
upon the site's trip generation, trip distribution, proposed arterial highway and local street
systems, which would be in place by the time of occupancy of the project site. Based on
the identified project trip generation and distributions, project related traffic volumes are
shown on Exhibit F.
19 '
EXHIBIT F
PROJECT TRAFFIC VOLUMES
OR2 1 0I0 2QQ `on
000 _vt woo _v2
JIL vt J oIo
olof l I r °f,J I F
011—
0
OON 10
00—1 000 000
ZERELDA AVE
BL
LEGEND:
10/20 = AM /PM PEAK HOUR TURNING MOVEMENTS
15 = VEHICLES PER DAY
N
1487 - 0201 -EX_F engineering
8719 MISSION DRIVE, ROSEMEAD, Califcmia group( Inc.
20
GRAND AVE.
A
O
PRESA AVE.
m
m
m
•
DUBONNET VE.
D
0
M/
SS /ON
m
o .
OR.
IS
.
SITE:
AZUSARD.
75
I
LOWER
I
45 I
BARTLETT AVE.
r�
w '
46
to
Z
�
Z
m C
L7
C
N
m
�
O
IT
y
o
m
m
BL
LEGEND:
10/20 = AM /PM PEAK HOUR TURNING MOVEMENTS
15 = VEHICLES PER DAY
N
1487 - 0201 -EX_F engineering
8719 MISSION DRIVE, ROSEMEAD, Califcmia group( Inc.
20
0
Once and the proposed project traffic are assigned to the street network are added to
existing traffic volumes in the study, the traffic impact can be, assessed. Exhibit G shows
traffic volumes for existing plus proposed project traffic conditions.
Intersection levels of service for existing plus proposed project traffic conditions have
been calculated and are shown in Table 5. Table 5 shows calculations based on the
existing geometrics at the intersections. As shown in Table 5, the study area intersections
are projected to operate at Level of Service "D" or better during the peak hours.
Level of service calculation worksheets are included in Appendix "C
The City of Rosemead defines "significant impact" as traffic causes an increase in
vehicle /capacity (V /C) ratio. by 0.02 or more. If this is true, the intersection must be
mitigated to existing V/C or better. If the existing level of service is LOS "D ", the project
V/C needs to be mitigated back to the existing V /C.
21
EXHIBIT G
EXISTING PLUS PROJECT TRAFFIC VOLUMES
Q
m
tD °m
rmrn 40167
`
mme
-33/19
— 867/572
x160 /104
-
— 860/606
x108/47
40/120
42/79
l I r
423/1091— l r
151I109r rim
-
505/1170-
75/70r
mmm
_Mmo
om-
OrNN
t+r m
ZERELDA
AVE.
GRAND AVE.
O
PRESA AVE.
m
m
m
DUBONNET VE.
D
o
4f/&,S.
m
_
r
ipN
713
0
.
SITE:
AZUSA RD.
25 %ss
�I
I
LOW ER
I
I
J
S10
.
BARTLETT
AVE.
cn
N
D
23
Z
rn
626
G)
N
Z
b
O0
C
D
-C
I
n
c
m
m
m
O
r
r
D
o
m
m
D
m
LEGEND:
10/20 = AM /PM PEAK HOUR TURNING MOVEMENTS
113 = VEHICLES PER DAY
I
N
1487- 02- 01 -EX _G engineering
8719 MISSION DRIVE, ROSEMEAD, California _ group, inc,
22
TABLE 5
INTERSECTION ANALYSIS FOR
EXISTING PLUS PROJECT TRAFFIC CONDITIONS
When a right turn is designated, the lane can either be striped or unstriped. A curb side through lane 19 feet or
greater in width is assumed to provide an unstriped right turn lane too.
L = Left; T = Through; R = Right
z Intersection Capacity Utilization
3 Level of Service
TS = Traffic Signal; CSS = Cross Street Stop; None = One -Way Street
1:\rktables \rk800 \rk804tb 23
JN:1487 -02 -01
INTERSECTION APPROACH LANES'
PEAK HOUR
TRAFFIC
NORTHBOUND
SOUTHBOUND
EASTBOUND
WESTBOUND
ICU,
LOS'
L T R
L T- R
L T R
L T- R
AM
I PM
AM
I PM
INTERSECTION
CONTROL'
Walnut Grove Ave. (NS) at:
-
• Mission Dr. (EW)
TS
1 2 1
1 2 0
1 2 0
1 2 0
0.718
0.862
- C
D
Muscatel Ave. (NS) at:
• Mission Dr. (EW)
TS
0.5 0.5 1
1 0.5 0.5
1 . 2 0
1 2 0
0.588
0.697
A
B
When a right turn is designated, the lane can either be striped or unstriped. A curb side through lane 19 feet or
greater in width is assumed to provide an unstriped right turn lane too.
L = Left; T = Through; R = Right
z Intersection Capacity Utilization
3 Level of Service
TS = Traffic Signal; CSS = Cross Street Stop; None = One -Way Street
1:\rktables \rk800 \rk804tb 23
JN:1487 -02 -01
For purposes of this calculation, the "Project- Related Increase in V /C" shall mean the
change in V/C between the future V/C ratio with the proposed project and the existing V/C
ratio without the proposed project.
Table 6 summarizes project traffic impact at the study area intersections. The proposed
project is not expected to have significant traffic impact at any of the intersections.
Therefore, no off -site roadway improvements are needed.
For purposes of this calculation, the "Project- Related Increase in ADT" shall mean the
change in ADT between the future ADT with the proposed project and the existing ADT
without the proposed project.
Existing average daily traffic on Zerelda Street is 98 trips. The proposed project
generates approximately 15 daily trips on Zerelda Street east of "A" "Street. The total daily
trips with project would then be 113 trips. The addition of the project traffic is insignificant,
and no physical mitigations are required.
West of "A" Street on Zerelda Street, the existing ADT is less than 98 trips due to
distribution to local Streets. The 45 trips (30 %) traveling on Zerelda Street between "A"
Street and Dubonnet Avenue would bring the ADT to a maximum of approximately 143
trips. This traffic level is still a low volume for this type of street and thus not significant,
and does not require any physical mitigations.
t
24
TABLE 6
INTERSECTION SIGNIFICANT IMPACT SUMMARY
j:trktables7k800Vk804tb 25
JN:1487 -02 -01
EXISTING CONDITIONS
EXISTING PLUS PROJECT
PEAK
LEVEL OF
LEVEL OF
CHANGE
INTERSECTION
HOUR
ICU
SERVICE
ICU
SERVICE
IN ICU
Walnut Grove Ave. (NS) at:
• Mission Dr. (EW)
AM
0.72
C
0.72
C
0.00
PM
0.86
D
0.86
D
0.00
Muscatel Ave. (NS) at:
• Mission Dr. (EW)
AM
0.59,
A
0.59
A
0.00
PM
0.70
B
0.70
B
0.00
j:trktables7k800Vk804tb 25
JN:1487 -02 -01
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
26
The project proposes a new north -south street connection temporarily called "A" Street
to Mission Drive and Zerelda Street. It is recommended that both northbound "A" Street
at Zarelda Street and southbound "A" Street at Mission Drive intersections be controlled
with stop signs. The alignment of this new "A" Street at Zerelda should line up with
Dubohnet Avenue if plausible by cutting the curb into a small portion of the property to
the east, creating a 900 turn angle and aligning directly across Dubonnet Avenue, as
shown in Exhibit H. The street should be built according to City of Rosemead street
cross - section standards.
Sight distance and visibility of vehicles exiting the project access -point onto eastbound
Mission Drive is excellent due to,the obtuse angle looking southeast at the intersection.
Any vehicles exiting at the new "A" Street would be able to see clearly southeastward
down Mission Drive. Looking west, vehicles parked on. the north side of Mission Drive
west of the project may block some visibility of eastbound traffic on Mission Drive. Thus,
parking restriction at 8719 Mission Drive and east of the proposed intersection may be
desirable to facilitate this visibility. This restriction would affect the property owner of
the lot fronting Mission Drive and the property immediately to the east of the project site
by removing parking along this frontage. These issues should be reviewed with respect
to City of Rosemead sight distance standards at the time of preparation of final grading,
landscaping and street improvement plans.
The existing lane striping on Mission Drive is a double - yellow line median, and provides
on street parking on both sides of the street. In order to serve the development with the
best and safest project access, the lane striping pattern on Mission Drive at "A" Street
should be changed to add an eastbound left turn lane onto "A" street. This lane should
provide, at a minimum, a 50 -foot pocket, a 60 -foot parabolic transition, and a 125 -foot
27
REALIGNMENT OF
PROJECT STREET TO
ALIGN WITH
DUBONNETAVE.
50 FOOT LEFT
TURN POCKET
185 FEET "
TRANSITION
EXHIBIT H
CIRCULATION RECOMMENDATIONS
` 1
w
1
w
NO PARKING
LEFT TURN MEDIAN, PAINT RED CURB
PERMITTED ON
.a
EAST SIDE OF THE
PROJECT STREET
PERMITTED
NO PARKING
PERMITTED ON
EAST SIDE OF THE
PROJECTSTREET
INSTALL STOP
SIGN, STOP BAR
AND STOP LEGEND
50 FOOT LEFT
TURN POCKET
185FEET
TRANSITION
engineering
group, inc.
.i
i
PAINT LEFT TURN POCKET WITH 2 -WAY
LEGEND:
LEFT TURN MEDIAN, PAINT RED CURB
AND INSTALL'NO PARKING" SIGNAGE
-�- =STOP SIGN
I
ON BOTH SIDES ON ENTIRE STRETCH
II -?Js
WITH WIDENED MEDIAN. -NO PARKING -
N MAP NOT TO SCALE
RESTRICTION MAY BE IMPLEMENTED
FOR PEAK HOUR ONLY.
1487- 02 -01 -EX H
8719 MISSION DRIVE, ROSEMEAD. Califomia
28
PERMITTED
NO PARKING
PERMITTED ON
EAST SIDE OF THE
PROJECTSTREET
INSTALL STOP
SIGN, STOP BAR
AND STOP LEGEND
50 FOOT LEFT
TURN POCKET
185FEET
TRANSITION
engineering
group, inc.
.i
i
transition back to the centerline, with a total length of 235 feet. A two -way left turn
striped median should be added between Dubonnet Avenue and "A" _Street. A
westbound left turn lane east of bubonnet Avenue should also be created with above-
described specifications for Dubonnet Avenue.
The provision of the suggested lane striping modification above would require the
removal of on- street parking on the both sides of Mission Drive. As Exhibit H indicates,
this parking restriction would extend 235 feet east of the existing Dubonnet Avenue,
and 235 feet west of "A" Street. Red Curb and /or "No Parking" signs should be installed
along the entire stretch. This affects ,parking for several homes and may be a
potentially large impact to these residents. In order to minimize this impact for residents
in the evenings, parking restriction may be implemented only during peak hours (rush
hours).
"A" Street should be named Dubonnet Avenue to maintain continuity with the existing
segments of Dubonnet Avenue north and south of the site, and to prevent confusion. i
The proposed "A" Street would be 32 feet wide and would not be wide enough to provide
parking on both sides. Thus, parking should be restricted to the west side of "A" Street,
and on the access way for the 3 dwelling units on the east side of "A" Street.
Internal traffic signing and striping should be implemented in conjunction with detailed
construction plans for the project.
The circulation recommendations are summarized in Exhibit H.
29
1 '
u
0
TRAFFIC COUNT WORKSHEETS
SOUTHLAND CAR COUNTERS
VEHICLE AND MANUAL COUNTS
N -S STREET:
WALNUT GROVE
DATE:
01/30/02
CITY: ROSEMEAD
E -W STREET:
MISSION DR.
DAY:
WEDNESDAY
PROJECT# 0250002A
m
NORTHBOUND
SOUTHBOUND
EASTBOUND
WESTBOUND
NL
NT
NR
SL
ST
SR -
EL
ET
ER
WL
WT
WR
TOTAL
LANES:
1
2
0
1
2
0
1
2
0
1
2
0
6:00 AM
6:15 AM
6:30 AM
6:45 AM
7:00 AM
24
43
10
15
93
10
7
71
31
24
146
15
489
7:15 AM
27
52
6
7
110
7
4
74
35
33
157
11
523
7:30 AM
39
60
25
21
141
9
9
85
32
30
184
10
645
7:45 AM
56
63
41
27
161
11
11
107
33
36
195
9
750
. 8:00 AM
40
52
32
20
154
9
10
118
37
41
200
10
723
8:15 AM
54
57
27
19
130
7
9
105
46
47
244
13
758
8:30 AM
45
51
21
13
119
10
10
93
35
35
227
8
667
8:45 AM
34
43
17
14
111
8
7
81,
30
27
- 203
10
585'
9:00 AM
9:15 AM
9:30 AM
9:45 AM
10:00 AM
-
10:15 AM
10:30 AM
10:45 AM
11:00 AM
11:15 AM
11:30 AM
11:45 AM
TOTAL
NL
NT _
NR
SL
ST
SR
EL
ET
ER
WL
WT
WR
TOTAL
VOLUMES=
319
421
179
136
1019
71
67
734
279
273
1556
86
5140
AM Peak Hr Begins at
745 AM
PEAK
VOLUMES=
195
223
121
79
564
37
40.
423
151
159
866
40
2898
ADDITIONS
SIGNALIZED
m
SOUTHLAND CAR COUNTERS
VEHICLE AND MANUAL COUNTS
N -S STREET:
WALNUT GROVE
DATE:
01/30/02
CITY: ROSEMEAD
E -W STREET:
MISSION DR.
DAY:
WEDNESDAY
PROJECT# 0250002P
"
NORTHBOUND
SOUTHBOUND
EASTBOUND
WESTBOUND
NL
NT
NR
SL
ST
SR
EL
ET
ER
WL
WT
WR
TOTAL
LANES:
1,
2
0
1,
2
0
1
2
0
1
2
0
1:00 PM
1:15 PM
1:30 PM
1:45 PM
2:00 PM
2:15 PM
2:30 PM
2:45 PM
-
3:00 PM
3:15 PM
3:30 PM
3:45 PM
4:00 PM
34
179
35
16
84
15
22
231
22
18
116
12
784
4:15 PM
36
198
50
17
87
16
24
236
23
20
127
14
848
4:30 PM
37
203
42
18
91
19
28
242
25
20
133
16
874
4:45PM
43
206
47
20
92
15
31
263
29
24
147
'19
936
5:00 PM
42
211
48
21
109
16
30
276
27
27
143
-17
967
5:15 PM
48
224
52
23
104
16
32
281
27
29
145
15
996
5:30 PM
43
217
49
22
99
14
27
270
26
23
136
16
942
5:45 PM
44
206
46
18
96
13
26
253
30
26
122
13
893
6:00 PM
6:15 PM
6:30 PM
6:45 PM
TOTAL
TOTAL
NIL
NT
NR
SL
ST
SIR
"EL
ET
ER
WL
WT
WR
VOLUMES=
327
1644
369
155
762
124
220
2052
209
187
1069
122
7240
PM Peak Hr Begins at.
445
PEAK
VOLUMES= 176 858 196 .86
ADDITIONS: SIGNALIZED
PM
404 61 120 1090 109 103 571
a
67 3841
SOUTHLAND CAR COUNTERS
VEHICLE AND MANUAL COUNTS
N -S STREET: .
MUSCATEL
DATE:
01/30/02
CITY: ROSEMEAD
E -W STREET:
MISSION DR.
DAY:
WEDNESDAY
PROJECT# 0250001A
ADDITIONS: SIGNALIZED
NORTHBOUND
SOUTHBOUND
EASTBOUND
WESTBOUND
NIL
NT
NR
SL
ST
SR
EL
ET
ER
WL
WT
WR
'TOTAL
LANES:
0
1
0
0
1
0
1
2
0
1
2
0
6:00 AM
6:15 AM
,
6:30 AM
6:45 AM
7:00 AM
12
3
21
6
12
6
6
78
12
6
157
1
320
7:15 AM
21
9
19
9
18
9
5
73
9
13
171
4
360
7:30 AM
30
15
16
11
21
11
7
99
13
12
183
5
423
7:45 AM
32.
17
19
8
20
16
12
142
21
21
184
8
Soo
8:00 AM
33
13
22
3
24
20
11
135
24
29
196
6
516
8:15 AM
37
15,
23
7
22
23
9
125 -
17
32
245
10
565
8:30 AM
29
- 9
18
6
18
19
10
101
13
26
234
9
492
8:45 AM
22
"12
19
6
16 .14
8
94
10
19
209
7
436
9:00 AM
9:15 AM
9:30 AM
9:45 AM
10:00 AM
10:15 AM
10:30 AM
10:45 AM
11:00 AM
,
11:15 AM
11:30 AM
11:45 AM
"
TOTAL
NIL
NT
NR
SL
ST
SR
EL'
ET
ER
WL
WT
WR
TOTAL -
VOLUMES=
216
93-
157
56
151
118
68
847
119
158
1579
50
3612
AM Peak Hr Begins at
745 AM
PEAK
VOLUMES=
131
54
82
24
84
78
42
503
75
108
859
33
2073
ADDITIONS: SIGNALIZED
N -S STREET: MUSCATEL
E -W STREET: MISSION DR.
SOUTHLAND CAR COUNTERS
VEHICLE AND MANUAL COUNTS
DATE: 01/30/02 CITY: ROSEMEAD
DAY: WEDNESDAY PROJECTS 0250001P
PM Peak Hr Begins at 445 PM
PEAK
VOLUMES= 132 87 109 10 54 8 79 1177 70 47 604 18 2395
ADDITIONS: SIGNALIZED
NORTHBOUND
.SOUTHBOUND
EASTBOUND
WESTBOUND
NL
NT
NR
SL
ST
SR
EL
ET
ER
WL
WT
WR
TOTAL
LANES:
0
1
0
0
1
0
1
2
0
1
2
0
1:00 PM
1:15 PM
1:30 PM
1:45 PM
2:00 PM
2:15 PM
2:30 PM
245 PM
3:00 PM
-
3:15 PM
'3:30 PM
3:45 PM
4:00 PM
21
15
20
3
8
2
16
256
. 14
9
126
4
494
4:15 PM
25
18
27
5
10
2
16
263
13
10
134
4
527
4:30 PM
26
19
31
4
10
2
19
266
18
9
140
5
549
445 PM
32
22
29
3
14
3
22
273
20
12
151
5
586
5100 PM
31
21
28
3
12
2
21
296
17
13
156
4
604
5:15 PM
34
18
28
2
11
1
18
312
16
12
156,
3
611
5:30 PM
35
26
24
2
17
2
18
296
17
10
141
6
594
5:45 PM
28
21
23'
2
14
1
17
284
16
9
135
4
554
6:00 PM
6:15 PM
6:30 PM
6:45 PM
TOTAL
NL
NT
NR
SL
ST
SR
EL
ET
ER
WL
WT
WR
TOTAL
VOLUMES=
232
160
210
24
96
15
147
2246
131
84
1139
35
4519
PM Peak Hr Begins at 445 PM
PEAK
VOLUMES= 132 87 109 10 54 8 79 1177 70 47 604 18 2395
ADDITIONS: SIGNALIZED
Location: Zerelda w/o Muscatel
Rosemead
Volumes for Wed.
1/30/02
RSMEADI
AM Period EB
1NB
PM Period
EB
W B
1200-12:15 0
0
12:00 -12:15
1
1
12:15- 12:30 0
0
- 12:15 -12:30
0
1
12:30 -12:45 1.
0
12:30 -12:45
(7
0
12:45 -1:00 0 1
1 7
2 12:45 -1:00
1 2
1 3 5
1:00 -1:15 0 -
0
1:00 -1:10
1
1
1:15 -1:30 0
- 0
1:15 -1:30
1
0
1:30 -1:45 0
0
1:317 -1:45
0
0
145 -2:00 0 0
1 1
1 1:45 -2:00
0 2
1 2 4
2:00 -2:15-
1
0
2:00 -2:15
1
1
2.15 -2:30
0
0
2:15 -2:30
3
0
2:30 -2:45
0
0
. - 2:30 -2:45
1
0
2:45-3:00
0 1
0 0
1 2:45 -3:00
0 5
1 2 7
3:00 -3:15
0
0
3:00 -3:15
0
0
3:15 -3:30
0
0
3:15 -3:30
1 -
0
3:30 -3:45
0
0
3:30 -3:45
0
1
3:4511:00
0 0
0 0
0 3:45-4:00
0 1
1 - 2 3
4:00 -4:15
0
0
4:00 -4:15
4:15 -4:30
1
1
- 4:15 -4:30
4:30 -4:45
0
0
4:30 -4:45
4:45 -5:00
0 1
0 1
2 4:45 -5:017
5:00 -5:15
1
1
5:0(7-5:15
5:155:30
1
0
5:15 -5:30
5:30 -5:45
0
0
530 -545
5:45 -6:00
0 2
0 1
3 5:45 -6:00
6:00 -6:15
1
0
6:00 -6:15
6:15 -6:30
0
0
- 6:15 -6:30
6:30 -6:45
2
1
6:30-6:45
7:00 -7:15
- 1
0
7:00 -7:15
7:15 -7:30
0
0
7:15 -7:30
7:30 -7:45
1
1
7:30 -7:45
7:45 -8:00
2
4 0
1 5 7:45 -8:00
8:00 -8:15
0
0
8:00 -8:15
8:15 -8:30
1
2
8:15 -8:30
8:30 -8:45
0
1
8:30 -8:45
8:45 -9:00
0
1 2
5 6 8:45 -9:00
9:00 -9:15
- 1
0
9:00 -9:15
9:15 -9:30
1
1
9:15 -9:30
9:30 -9:45
0
0
9:30 -9:45
9:45 -10:00
3
5 0
1 6 9:45 -10:00
10:00 -10:15 -
1
- 0
10:00 -10:15
10:15- 10:30 _
0
1
10:15 -10:30
10:30 -10:45
0
1
10:30 -10:45
1045 -1100
1
2 0
2 4 10:45 -11:00
11:00 -11:15
0
(7
11:00 -11:15
11:15 -11:30
1
_ 1
11:15 -11:30
11:30 -11:45
1
0
1130 -11:45
11:45- 12:00
0
2 1
2 4 11:45 -12:00
Total Volumes
23
16
39
Dailv Totals
0
1
2
1
�
0
0
1
1
0
1 -
2 4
0
3
7
0
2
1
7
3
2
0
1
]
0
1 5
0 2
0
6
8
0.
1
0
1
1
]
0
2 3
0
0
1
2
2 3
2
4
7
1-
2
0
0
0
1
0
1 -
0 1
1
4 5
1
0
1
1
2
0
1
0 4
0
1 5
0
1
-
1
0
0
1
0
0 1
0
2 3
0
0
1
]
0
]
0
1
2
3
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
1
2
27
32
59
50 48 98
EXISTING TRAFFIC
CALCULATION WORKSHEETS
f -, -
Exis-ng AM Mon Feb 11,. 2002 16:05:06 Paae 2 -1
8719 Mission Drive
TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
Rosemead, California
-----------------------------
Level-Of Service Computation Report
ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length €) Method (Base Volume Alternative)
# ««x #1-kFT * *i *fRF£xk4 * *kikRR #1-4 * * * #xkkR * # * #kYki * }fi4k # ## *R1- *£T # # # #fi *R *T * * * #RRii4k4
Intersection 91 Walnut Grove & Mission
i! # }# #*fkRk£ #Y4Y * *xi #k *£T #ix£ *i #f fix}«£ F# i#} Tk 4F«# # #k # }x4Ri }x #4f44 *R « # #4 }4R4f *tx!
Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol. /Cap. (x): - 0.718
Loss Time (sec): 10 (Y +R = 4 sec) Average Delay (sec /veh): xxxxxx.
Optimal Cycle: 52 Level Of Service: - C
Aocroach: North Bound .South Sound. East Bound West Bound
Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
------------ __ ____ ______ _ __ ____ _____ _ __ _ __ _ _____ _________ ___ __
Control: Permitted Permitted Permitted Permitted
Rights: Include - Include Include Include
Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Lanes: 1 0 2 0 1 1 0 1 -1 0 1 0 1' 1 0 1 0 1 1 0
------------- --------------- --------------- --------------- ---------------
Volume Module: > Count Date: 30 Jan 2002 « AM '
Base Vol: 195 223 121 79 564 37 40 423 151 159 866 40
Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 _.00
Initial Bee: 195 223 121 79 564 37 40 423 151 159 866 40
User Adj: 1.D0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00
P".-IF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
PHF Volume: 195 223 121 79 564 37 40 _ 423 151 159 866 40
Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced Vol: 195 223 121 79 564 37 40 423 151 159 866 40
PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 ,1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Final Vol.: 195 223 121 79. 564 37 40 423 151 159 866 40
------------ --------------- --------------- --- ______- _-- _- -------------- _I
Saturation Flow Module:
Sat /Lane: 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600
Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lanes: 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.88 0.12 1.00 1.47 0.53 1.00 1.91 0.09
Final Sat.: 1600 3200. 1-600 1600 3003 197 1600 2358 842 1600 3059 141
___________________________ ------ _-------- --------------- ---------------
Capacity Analysis Module:
Vol /Sat: 0.12 0.07 0.08 0.05 0.19 0.19 0.03 0.18 0.18 0.10 0.28 0.28
Crit Moves:
iik 4£ TxkT «iif4RFx ##4tR #iik4T # #4kSk * #i #* 1-4} t}** tRi *Fxt4}i£ *4f *41R££t4}k111kF + #kf*
Tra M x 7.5.1115 (c) 2001 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to RK ENGINEERING GROUP
Existng PM Mon Feb 12, 2002 16:07:16 Page 2 -1
8719 Mission Drive
'TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
Rosemead, California
-----------------------------------
Level Of Service Computation Report
ICU 1(LOSS as Cycle Length %) Method (Base Volume Alternative)
S+ YrI xRF Yk4}# xYx4lFxYxTxx{ xff x* xFx{ x!} ! #x #w4#YRTRRx } *x*4Y *k * *x *xY +! }* #1x+44 *xxxF
Intersection 91 .Walnut Grove & Mission
xwYlf xxx *x + ## xxx * +rxxxl +'i *xx +Yxx* *xxx ++xxxww +w +xxxTx *xwxx {# *xxxx *kxf * * +Y +Y4 +xxxx
Cycle (sec): 1-00 - Critical Vol. /Cap. (X): 0.861
Loss Time (sec): 10 (Y +R = 4 sec) Average Delay (sec /veh): xxxxxx
Optimal Cycle: 84 Level Of Service: -D
!* rxx wRx+ TRf} xYR4+ R{kY4lT #44w# { *Y4Yxx {}{ #Yfxf *t!F *xxx +144xRTx4Y44* #w +xf Txx+#*x **
Approach: North Bound South Bound. East Bound West Bound
Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
------------ --------------- ---------------- '---------------- ---------------
Control: Permitted Permitted Permitted Permitted
Rights: - - Include Include Include Include
Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Lanes: 1 0 2 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1' 0 1 0 1 1 0
------------ --------------- I--------------- I--------------- ---------------
Volume Module: >> Count Date: 30 Jan 2002 c< PM - -
Base Vol: - 176 858 196 86 404 61 120 1090 109 103 571 67
Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Initial Bse: 176 858 196 86 404 61 120 1090 109 103 571 67
User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.0o 1.00 1.00 1.00 '1.00
PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00' 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.0o 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00.1.00 1.00
PHF Volume: 176 858 196 86 404 61 120 1090 .109 103 571 67
Reduct Vol: 0. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced Vol: 176 858 196 86 404 61 120 109.0 109 103 571 67
PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Final Vol.: 176 858 196 86 404 61 120 1090 109 103 571 67
------ -- -- -- --------------- --------------- ------- -------- --------------- �
Saturation Flow Module:
Sat /Lane: 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 -1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600
Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00- 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lanes: 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.74 0.26 .1.00 1.82' 0.18 1.00 1.79 0.21
Final Sat.: 1600 3200 1600 1600 2780 420 1600 2909 291 1600 2864 336
---------_-- I ----------- ---- II--------- - - - --- --------------- ---------------
Caoacity Analvsis Module:
Vol /Sat: 0.11 0.27 0.12 0.05 0.15 0.15 0.08 0.37 0.37 0.06 0.20 0.20
Cr it Moves: * "` +• *x 4xff Txfx
wR R. x{{ YYf xT x* xx {YxRR *w14 *wxxx +Tf *xxr4frrx +flf +xxxxTxxxxY #xx *x {xk *xxx *xx44Tr1414
Traf`ix 7.5.1115 (c) 2001 Dowling ASSOC. Licensed to RR ENGINEERING GROUP
Existng AM Mon Feb 11, 2002 16:05:06 Page 3 -1
8719 Mission Drive ,
TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
Rosemead, California -
-------- ----- -------------- ----- - ---P'
Levee Of Service Computation Report
ICU 1(Lcss as Cycle Length 8) Method (Base Volume Alternative)
Inters=ection 42 Muscatel & Mission "
Cvcle (sec): 70 - Critical Vol. /Can. (X): 0.588
Loss Time (sec): 7 (Y +R = 4.sec) Average Delay (sec /veh): xxxxxx
Optimal Cycle: 31 Level Of Service: A
R++ xF% iY44****%+ R41t Rx{* rtiRYt#*#+*+ 4Y4} f * *4R # *RrtR41f!# *tR *R #ifR4R *t * # *f rtrt +*l441f
Approach: North Bound South Bound. East Bound West Bound
Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
------------- I --------------- 1 ----------------- __ ____- ____--- _ ---------------
Control: Permitted Permitted Permitted Permitted
Rights: Include Include Include Include
Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Lanes: 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0. 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0
__ ____ ______ ---------------- --------------- --------------- ---------------
Volume Module: >> Count Date: 30 Jan 2002 « AM
Base Vol: iii 54 82 24 84 78 42 503 75 108 859. 33
Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
initial Bee: 131 54 82 24 64 78 42 503 75 108 859 33
User Adj.: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.0o 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.,00 1.00 1.00
PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00. 1.00
ngc Volume: 131 54 62 24 84 75 42 503 75 108 859 33
Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced Vol: 131 54 82 24 84 76 42 503 75 108 659 33
PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Final Vol.: 131 54 82 24 84 78 42 503 75 108 859 33
------------ --------------- --------------- , ______- _- _- _- __I---------------
Saturation Flow Module:
Sat /Lane: 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600
Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00. 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lanes: 0.71 0.29 1.00 0.22 0.78 1.00 1.00 1.74 0.26 1.00 1.93. 0.07
Final Sat.: 1133 467 1600 356 1244 1600 1600 2785 415 1600 3062 lib
------------- --------------- ---------------- --------------- ---------------
Capacity Analysis Module:
Vol /Sat: 0.12 0.12 0.05 0.07 0.07 0.05 "0.03 0.18 0.16 0.07 0.22 0.26
Crit Moves: * *ff fxf* *Rx4 + * **
Y* Rf*%***} xx**+ 4l hRRR##lf txt* *rtR } } }RtR * * *R #fi } * *FRxx } ** %f x4xlRtRlR }x +iRff }RRf ##xf
Traf'_ix 7.5.1115 (c) 2001 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to RK ENGINEERING GROUP
Existng PM Mon Feb 11, 2002 16:07:16 Page 3 -1
_ ________________ __ ___ - -____
8719 Mission Drive
TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
Rosemead, California
____ ___________ ________________ ____ __
Level Of Service Computation Report
ICU !(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Base Volume Alternative)
* x**#} Yx++ xx*+ Yt+ x* xxxk+ f+ h+*### lhfikt# xrF* Y# 4* r!+ *RT * *tf * # # }fr *kT * * #RkR # } }kxxfiYx
Intersection #2 Muscatel & Mission '
x+ xrxxrxx++ lxx#* xY+*+***x r+ rlx# xf+++ r#* r# RRf#+ 4R+ x *+rx +xx # #!!x *Rxxx + #x # # +4 * #x }4f
Cvcle (sec): 70 Critical Vol. /Cap. (X): 0.696
Loss Time (sec): 7 (Y +R = 4 sec) Average Delay (sec /veh): xxxxxx
Optimal Cycle: 39 Level Of Service: B
Approach: North Bound South Bound, East Bound west Bound
Movement; L'- T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
___________________________ --------------- _______________H____
Control: Permitted Permitted, Permitted Permitted
Rights: -Include Include Include Include
Min. Green: 01 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Lanes: 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1. 0 1 1 0
____________I___ _______ _____ --------------- --------------- ____________ -__�
Volume Module: >> Count Date: 30 Jan 2002 << PM
Base Vol: 132 87 109 i0 54 6 79 1177 70 47 '604 18
Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Initial Bse: 132 87 109 10 54 8 79 1177 70 47 604 18
User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1;00 1.00 1.00
PHF Adj: 1.D0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
PHF Volume: 132 87 109 10 54 8 79 1177 70 47 604 18
Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 -0 0 0 0 0 0 0
,Reduced Vol: 132 67 109 10 54 6 79 1177 70 47 604 18
PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
MLF Adj: 1.00 i.00 1.00 1.00 i.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Final Vol.: .132 87 109 10 54 8 79 1177 70 47 604 16
------------ I --------------- --------------- --------------- ___________ -_ -_
Saturation Flow Module:,
Sat /Lane: 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600
Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lanes: 0.60 0.40 1.00 0.16 0.84 1.00 1.00 1.89 0.11 1.00 1.94 0.06
Final Sat.: 964 636 1600 250 1350 1600 1600 3020 180 1600 3107 93
_____________________ ______ ______________ --------------- ---------------
Capacity Analysis Module:
Vol /Sat: 0.14 0.14 0.07 0.04 0.04 0.01 0.05 0.39 0.39 0.03 0.19 0.19
Crit Moves:
Yx#+ft kf* x# hxR4R1+ lRR++ r+* RRhRrrlR+ x}}} Yh R} h+* rf YR F +R +i #Y *hflRx+R* * + ** # *hTk + +kR}
Tra_ °_`ix 7.51115 (c) 2001 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to RK ENGINEERING GROUP
EXISTING PLUS PROJECT
CALCULATION WORKSHEETS
Existing + Project AM Mon Feb 11, 2002 14:05:51 Page 5 -1
8719 Mission Drive
TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
Rosemead, California
-----------------------------------
Level Of Service Computation Report
ICU !(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Future Volume Alternative)
4* xkxw** Rxr+ x*%* rt4w+*{ Y* r*+* xx% Rk* xx** x* kkk%% 4** x *Rrtk + + * #f *x *rtkRR %kk +* %*xTxxT *R*
Intersection k1 Walnut Grove & Mission
* wxkrY4+ �F xk +xlxx +kkxrwxx * %x *xxxw %rYxxx *x+ xrt *krtlxf {Txx +xRxx +ll w.rtxxx +x + + + +lxrxxlx
Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol. /Cap. (X): 0.718
Loss Time (sec): 10 (Y +R = 4 sec) Average Delay (sec /veh): xxxrxx
Optimal Cycle: 52 Level Of Service: C
TTxkix++ 4Rx+* YR% 11xFk4Yr* x+ k* 4w# RF YY++ rw4x% fit%{ x +4RrhR +trt {rY4xllxxxT +kR +xYYwih+
Approach: North Bound South Bound, East Bound West Bound
Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T R
------ - - - - -- --------- - - - - -- --------------- II --------------- II -- --- ----- - - - - -
I
Control: - Permitted Permitted Permitted Permitted
Rights: Include Include Include Include
Min. Green..: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Lanes: 1 0 2 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 0. 1 ! 0 1 0 1 1 0
--------------------------- --------------- II --------- ------ ---------- - - - - -
I
Volume Module: >> Count Date: 30 Jan 2002 « AM
Base Vol: 195 223 121 79 564 37 40 423, 151 159 866 40
Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Initial Bse: 195 223 121 79 564 37 40 423 151 159 866 40
Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 - 1 0
PasserByVOl: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -0 0 0 0 0
Initial Fur: 195 223 121 79 564 37 40 423 151 160 867 40
User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.O0 1.00 1.00
PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
PH.- Volume: 195 223 121 79 564 37 40 423 151 160 867 40
Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced Vol: 195 223 121 79 564 37 40 423 151 160 867 40
PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1:00 1.00
MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Final Vol.: 195 223 121 79 564 37 40 423 151 160 867 40
--------------------------- ---------------- --------------- ---------- - - - --�
Saturation. Flow Module:
Sat /Lane: 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600
Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lanes: 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.68 0.12 1.00 1.47 0.53 1.00 1.91 0.09
Final Sat.: 1600 3200 1600 1600 3003 197 1600 2358 642 1600 3059 141
----------- _I ---- ---- -- - - - -- --------------- --------------- ---------- - - - - -I
Capacity Analysis Module:
Vol /Sat: 0.12 0.07 0.08 0.05 0.19 0.19 0.03 0.16 0.18 0.10 0.26 0.28
Crit Moves:
*+kx44 +lxRR + { +44wxT* xrt% kxAR++ xxxx+ Tx+ x{ x++ Yx4xRr! *lrtxkA %4 *x *x *Y #k +rx"Rxxt* + *kxT+
Traffix 7.5.11-15 (c) 2001 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to RK ENGINEERING GROUP
Existing + Project PM Mon Feb 11, 2002 14:22:42 Page 5 -1
8719 Mission Drive
TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
Rosemead, California
------- ------ --------
Level Of Service Computation Report
ICU 1(LOSS as Cycle Length &) Method (Future Volume Alternative)
Intersection $1 Walnut Grove & Mission
Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol. /Can. (X): 0.862
Loss Time (sec)': 10 (Y +R = 4 sec) Average Delay (sec /veh):, xxxxxx
Optimal Cycle: 84 Level Of Service: D
Rf } R}#*+,!*} FWxil Tx}fi 1Y*## WRR* Riil WRif# 1F}} i# n!! RR! #RRi #Wi*Rl1R #i4iR1R * *R }R } #R#
Aonroach: North Bound South Bound, East Bound West Bound j
Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
---------- -- --------------- II--- -- - - - - -- II ------- ------- -II--------- - - -_ - -
I
Control.: Permitted Permitted Permitted Permitted
Rights: Include Include Include Include
Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Lanes: 1 0 2 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1. 0
--------------------------- --------------- II --------------- - - - - --
Volume Module: >> Count Date: 30 Jan 2002 « PM
Base Vol: 176 858 196 86 404 61 120 1090 109 103 571 67
Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Initial 2se: 176 858 196 86 404 61 120 1090 i09 103 571 67
Added Vol: 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 '- 1 0
PasserByVOl: 0 0 0 .0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ,
initial Fut: 176 858 19B 86 404 61 120 1091 109 104 572 67
User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 i.00 1.00 1.00
PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
PHF Volume: 176 858 198 86 404 61 120 1091 109 104 572 67
Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced Vol: 176 858 198 86 404 61 120 1091 .'109 _ 104 572 67
PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
MLF Adj: 1.00 1 -00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 .
Final Vol.: 176 858, 198 86 404 61 120 1091 109 104 572 67
------ - - - --- --------------- --------------- --------------- ---------------
Saturation Flow Module:
Sat /Lane: 1600 1600 1600. 1600.1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 (<
Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1 0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lanes: 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.74 0.26 1.00 1.82 0.16 1.00 1.79 0.21 r.
Final Sat.: 1600 3200 1600 1600 2780 420 1600 2909 291 1600 2864 336
-----_------ I --------------- --------------- ---- ----- ------ ---------- - - - - -
I i
Capacity Analysis Module:
Vol /Sat: 0.11 0.27 0.12 0.05 0.15 0.15 0.08 0.36 0.37 0.07 0.20 0.20
Crit Moves:
Traffix 7.5.1115 (c) .2001 DOwlinc Assoc. Licensed to RK ENGINE °_RING GROUP
Existing + Project AM Mon Feb 11, 2002 15:S9:44' Page 6 -1
8719 Mission Drive
TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
Rosemead, California
Level Of Service Computation Report
ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length 8) Method (Future Volume Alternative)
*++ xxrzx* kR+ xxxxxRx***+ wxk+++# xkxf* k+{ x}**+* x+ x+ wxxkkx f +twwx # * * * + + *R *xxtx+ + * * +kx
Intersection 4.2 Muscatel & Mission
** YR} x* kkx*} xx+ xR* k*+ ttx#f xw, x* kf kRYY* k#* k++ xkxRkki {Rx *Rx + * +k *R + *R # #kf:{xYt + +xt *#
Cycle (sec): 70 Critical Vol. /Cap. (X): 0.588
Loss Tame (sec): 7 (Y +R = 4 sec) Average Delay (sec /veh): Yox
Ootimal Cvcle: 31 Level Of Service: A
* *nx xz+ x*{ xxw}}++ t} zxl++ x*f+ rxxxx* kx++++ zxx++* x* x+x * * *k + *fw #Rk + *f++ +xR * # +kx* +ff
Approach: North Bound South Bound. East Bound West Bound
Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
------------ I--------------- II---------`----- II--------------- II---------- - - - - -I
Control: Permitted Permitted Permitted Permicted
Rights: Include Include Include include
Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Lanes: 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0
------------ --------------- 11 -------
- - -- ------ I- -------------- il- - - - - -- ------- II--------- -- ---- II--------- - - - - - -
Volume Module: >> Count Date: 30 Jan 2002 « AM
Base Vol: 131 54 82 24 84 78 42 503 75 108 859 33
Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Initial 13se: 131 54 82 24 84 78 42 503 75 108 859 33
Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 0
PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Initial Put: 131 54 82 24 64 78 42 505 75 108 860 33
User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00.1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00, 1.00 1.00 1.00 i.001
PHF Volume: 131 54 82 24 84 78 42 505 75 108 860 33
Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -0
Reduced Vol:, 131 54 82 24 84 78 42 505 75 108 860 33
PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
MLF Adj: i.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Final Vol.: 131 54 82 24 84 78 42 505 75 108 660 33
------------ --------------- II--------------- 11--------------- II---------------
I
"Saturation Flow Module:
Sat /Lane: 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600. 1600 1600 1600 1600
Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lanes: 0.71 0.29 1.00 0.22 0.78 1.00 1.00 1.74 0.26 1.00 1.93 0.07
Final Sat.: 1133 467 1600 356 1244 1600 1600 2786 414 1600 3062 118
-_---------- I --------------- II--------------- II--------------- II---------- - - - --
I
Capacity Analysis Module:
Vol /Sat: 0.12 0.12 0.05 0.07 0.07 0.05 0.03 0.18 0.18 0.07 0.28 0.28
Crit Moves:
Fi+ 1k4+ YR++T Fkxl+lw**{l T+ x+++*+++ x+* R++ Rxx+*** xkRRiR + + +k # *f * +hRR }RRi*k+4 + +! *x *Rk
Traffix 7.5.1115 (c) 2001 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to RK ENGINEERING GROUP
I
Existing + Project PM Mon Feb 11, 2002 15:55:27 Page 6 -1
8719 Mission Drive
TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
Rosemead, California
------ ---- --- --------- --
Level Of Service Computation Report
ICU 1(LOSS as Cycle Length %) Method (Future Volume Alternative) <
Intersection #2 Muscatel & Mission
Cvcle (sec): 70 Critical Vol. /Cap. (X): _0.697
Loss Time (sec): 7 (Y +R = 4 sec) Average Delay (sec /veh): xxxxxx
Optimal Cycle: 39 Level Of Service: B
* XY* X* YY+*** YY**** Y***+ YYX* X* YX+*** XYY***+** YX* XX * * * + + * + + * * * * + +YXX * * * + + +YX +XX * **
Approach: North Bound South Bound, East Bound west Bound
Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
------------ --------------- ------------ -- II------------- -- II------ ---- - - - - -I
Control: Permitted Permitted Permitted Permitted
Rights: include Include Include Include
Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Lanes: 0 1 0 0. 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0
------------ --------------- --------------- 117 -------------- ---------------
Volume Module: PM ,
Base Vol: 132 87 109 10 54 8 -79 1177 70 47 604 18
Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Initial Bse: 132 87 109 10 54 8 79 1 1-77 70 47 604 18
Added Vol: 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 1
PasserByVOl: D 0 0 0 0^ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Initial Fut: 133 88 109 10 54 8 79 1178 70 47 606 19
User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 -
PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 i.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
PBF Volume: 133 88 109 10 54 8 79 1178 70 .47 606 i9
Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced Vol: 133 88 109 10 54 8 79 1178 70 47 606 19
PCE Adj:- 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Final Vol.: 133 88 109 10 1 54 8 79 1178 70 47 606 19
------ - - -- -- --------------- II--------------- II --------------- H ---------------- I
Saturation Flow Module:
Sat /Lane: 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600' 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 e-
Ad3ustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 -1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lanes: 0.60 0.40 1.00 0.16 0.64 1.00 1.00 1.89 0.11 1.00 1.94. 0.06
Final Sat.: 963 637 1600 250 1350 1600 1600 3021 179 1600 3103 97 -
--------_--- I --------------- II----- - - - - -- --- II------- -------- II----- --- -- - -_ - -I
Capacity Analysis Module:
Vol /Sat: 014 0.14 0.07 0.04 0.04 0.01 0.05 0.39 -0.39 0.03 0.20 0.20
Crit Moves:
Traffix 7.5.1115 (c) 2001 Dowlino Assoc. Licensed to RK ENGINEERING GROUP