1994-0405_CALIF, STATE OF_G2a_Agenda Report AGENDA ITEM April 5, 1994
TO: George Scarborough, City Manager
FROM: William M. Huber, Director of Engineering & Building
SUBJECT: Approval of Request to Change Project Scope and Funding Allocation, Multi
Modal Parking Deck(Caltrans)
RECOMMENDATION
By Resolution, approve the proposed request for change of project scope and funding for the
Multi Modal Parking Area to Option 5,provided that the acquisition price does not exceed
$41P0,000; in which case, Staff will pursue Option 4. Authorize Staff to forward the request to
the California Transportation Commission with a request for surplus funds to be allocated to City
Platform projects.
IT iIS ATION
A. Summary and Recommendation
In July 1993,the City Council awarded a design contract with Mark Tannin Architects
for the design of the Multi Modal Parking Deck.
The information gathering and preliminary design phases of this work have provided new
information which would change the scope of work for the project.
Staff is recommending that City Council approve the attached Resolution and authorize
Staff to forward the request to the California Transportation Commission, which is the
approving authority for funding on this project. The principal change in scope requested
is from a parking deck to an expanded surface parking area, described more fully as
Option 5 in the next section.
B. Background
In September of 1991, the City of San Juan Capistrano successfully applied for Transit
Capital Improvement(TCI) Program funds for the 1992-1993 Fiscal Year. The TCI
application is for the "design and construction of a single-level parking deck over the
existing Capistrano Depot surface parking lot that will add approximately 63 new spaces
directly adjacent to the Capistrano Depot for inter-city rail passengers".
FOR CITY COUNCIL AGEN ��
AGENDA ITEM
April 5, 1994
Page 2
Ten surface spaces would be permanently lost in order to provide the deck. The deck
would provide 73 spaces for a net gain of 63 spaces.
In December 1992, the City Council adopted a resolution approving the contract with
Caltrans to secure the funding and authorized Staff to prepare visual analysis of the
proposed parking deck.
The City Council reviewed the view analysis in March 1993 and authorized Staff to
process the resolution and contract with Caltrans.
In April 1993, Staff issued 18 Requests for Proposals for consulting services for the
preparation of professional architectural and engineering drawings and construction
documents for the Multi Modal Parking Deck.
Following Staff review and recommendation, City Council awarded a design services
contract to Mark Tannin Architects in July 1993.
The constraints plan, aerial survey of the site, and traffic analysis have revealed the
following issues:
1. Project Site
The current capacity of the portion of the existing parking lot proposed to be
decked is 75 spaces.
The project site has a "notch" configuration as the City has no lease or ownership
rights to the eastern part of Lot 11 of Tract 50 (DiMaio).
In 1981, the City applied for a$356,000 Caltrans Grant for the improvement of
the Multi Modal terminal and parking area. The total project cost was $591,000.
The City funded 40% of the cost. The project included acquisition of the Husby
property, and 99-year leases on two Bertolino parcels and 5,600 square feet of a
9,600 square foot lot belonging to Sue DiMaio. The 99-year leases gives the
Owners of the property the right to approve any improvements to the area.
The project funded by the 1981 grant is the existing surface parking lot except that
in 1990,the Multi Modal lot was reconfigured in conjunction with the Depot
remodeling to eliminate four bus bays and provide additional parking.
AGENDA ITEM
April 5, 1994
Page 3
In 1987, the City's Community Redevelopment Agency approved a Request for
Proposal for consultant services to design a parking deck over the Multi Modal
lot. Two preliminary designs for the proposed parking deck were developed by
Boyle Engineering, suggesting a deck would accommodate between 134 and 162
spaces. It is not clear what information these designs were based upon, but it is
likely base plans for the Multi Modal terminal were used.
In November 1987, the Agency retained Thirtieth Street Architects to design build
the parking deck. Approximately $15,000 of the total contract amount of$65,175
was expended on preliminary design work. Work was stopped once the initial
construction estimates were calculated based on the preliminary designs. It was
perceived that the construction costs were too high for the number of spaces
obtained.
In August 1991, OCTA and Caltrans encouraged the City to submit a TCI
application because of the lack of Orange County applications that year. The
grant application was due in approximately 30 days. Staff reconsidered the Multi
Modal deck proposal that had stalled because of tack of funding. Thirtieth Street
Architects put together rough conceptual drawings to estimate the number of
spaces so the application could be submitted. Thirtieth Street went back to the
preliminary work they had done in 1987 to prepare the conceptual designs.
Because of the demand for inter-city and commuter parking in San Juan
Capistrano, the application for$1,296,500 was approved.
In July 1993, the City entered into a contract with Mark Tannin Architect to
design a Multi Modal parking deck funded by the TCI grant.
The engineering survey of the site under this contract has revealed that it is
approximately 25' less in the north-south direction and approximately 15' less in
the east-west direction than represented to Caltrans with the TCI Application and
also represented to City Council when the view analysis was reviewed. The grant
application proposal is shown on Attachment 1.
The impacts of this reduction in site area will be discussed further under Parking
and Access. However,the smaller site requires a reexamination of the project
scope.
AGENDA ITEM
April 5, 1994
Page 4
2. Parking and Access
As referenced under the 'Project Site" discussion, the project was previously
believed to have sufficient site area to provide 63 additional spaces and for both a
ramp to lower level parking and Camino Capistrano access. The site reduction by
25 feet in the north-south direction and 15 feet in the east-west direction and the
results of the traffic study have resulted in a conflict between the goal to provide
63 additional parking spaces and the goal to provide good access.
i) The contract with Caltrans requires that this project provides
approximately 63 additional parking spaces for inter-city rail users, 73
new spaces on the deck less 10 spaces lost at ground. With the "notch"
configuration, the only design which will come close to accomplishing
this is with the direct access ramp to Camino Capistrano with no ramps
between the upper and lower deck.
ii) The traffic study (Attachment 2)has identified a problem with Camino
Capistrano access to the parking deck because of the traffic conflict with
the existing southbound left turn lane to Ortega Highway.
The preferred access recommended by the traffic study is from Verdugo
Street into the existing parking area and then by ramp to the parking deck.
3. Preliminary Designs
The conclusion of the preliminary design phase is that it will not be possible to
construct a parking deck providing 63 additional spaces on the existing site. Five
possible options have been studied and are discussed below together with the
original grant application proposal:
i) Grant Application
The original grant application conformed to the site "notch" configuration
and is shown on Attachment 1.
The lower level site would provide 65 spaces, 10 less than existing.
The upper level deck would provide 73 spaces.
Total parking is 138 spaces, the net increase is 63 spaces.
AGENDAITEM
April 5, 1994
Page 5
Access to and from the upper deck would be by ramp from the parking lot
and from Camino Capistrano.
Available construction grant(TCI) $1,081,000. Construction cost per
parking space $17,160 ($1,081,000/63). City cost$0.
It is important to emphasize that this design cannot be constructed as the
site is smaller than believed.
ii) Option
This option conforms to the site "notch" configuration and is shown on
Attachment 3.
The lower level site will provide 61 spaces, 14 less than existing.
The upper level deck will provide 70 spaces.
Total parking is 131 spaces,the net increase in parking spaces is therefore,
56 spaces.
Access to and from the upper deck would be from Camino Capistrano
only.
The traffic study identifies significant conflict with this access and
Camino Capistrano. This option comes within 7 spaces of the Caltrans
contract but does not provide the access recommended by the traffic study.
Right turn in, right turn out only at Camino Capistrano could be provided.
Staff does not support this concept as the best solution.
Estimated construction cost$1,267,940.
Available construction grant(TCI) $1,081,000.
City Cost $173,940.
Construction cost per parking space $22,640 ($1,267,940/56).
AGENDA ITEM
April 5, 1994
Page 6
As funding for construction is shared between Caltrans and the City, it has
been assumed that use of the parking spaces would be allocated in the
same proportion as follows:
Inter-city rail parking spaces 48.
City parking spaces 8.
iii) Option 2
This option assumes acquisition of the DiMaio property, and is shown on
Attachment 4.
The lower level site would provide 78 spaces, 3 more than existing.
The upper level would provide 71 spaces.
Total parking is 149 spaces, the net increase in parking spaces is therefore,
74 spaces.
Access to and from the upper deck would be by ramp from the parking lot.
No Camino Capistrano access is proposed. Staff believes that this is the
best ultimate configuration, unfortunately, insufficient total funds are
available at this time. The City's existing lease on the DiMaio property
contains a City obligation to provide 12 parking spaces when the
remainder of the lot is developed. Purchase of the DiMaio property would
relieve the City of this obligation.
Estimated construction cost$1,437,000.
Estimated acquisition cost $450,000.
Total cost$1,887,000.
Available construction grant(TCI) $1,081,000.
City cost $806,000.
Construction cost per parking space $25,500 (($1,437,000 +
$450,000)/74).
AGENDA ITEM
April 5, 1994
Page 7
As funding for construction is shared between Caltrans and the City, it has
been assumed that use of the parking spaces would be allocated in the
same proportion as follows:
Inter-city rail parking spaces, 44.
City parking spaces, 30.
iv) Qption
This option conforms to the site "notch" configuration and is shown on
Attachment 5.
The lower level site would provide 57 spaces, 18 less than existing.
The upper level deck would provide 61 spaces.
Total parking is 118 spaces, the net increase in parking spaces is therefore,
43 spaces.
Access to and from the upper deck would be by ramp from the parking lot.
No Camino Capistrano access is proposed. This option provides twenty
fewer spaces than the Caltrans requirement. It does provide the
recommended traffic flow. With the realignment of Ortega Highway, full
access to Camino Capistrano could be provided at that time.
Estimated construction cost $1,292,240.
Available construction grant (TCI) $1,081,000.
City cost$211,240.
Construction cost per parking space $30,052 ($1,292,240/43).
As funding for construction is shared between Caltrans and the City, it has
been assumed that use of the parking spaces would be allocated in the
same proportion as follows:
Inter-city rail parking spaces, 36.
City parking spaces, 7.
AGENDA ITEM
April 5, 1994
Page 8
V) Option 4
This option conforms to the site "notch" configuration and is shown on
Attachment 6. This option assumes a maximization of the existing site
with no deck,partly by the use of retaining walls near Camino Capistrano.
This option would produce 27 more spaces than existing.
Estimated construction cost$390,920.
Available construction grant(TCI) $1,081,000.
Grant surplus $690,079.
Construction cost per parking space $14,479 ($390,920/27)
As funding for construction is wholely Caltrans', the 27 new parking
spaces would be allocated for inter-city rail parking.
vi) Option
This option assumes acquisition of the DiMaio property and is shown on
Attachment 7. This option proposes a maximization of the site with no
deck, partly by use of retaining walls near Camino Capistrano.
This option would produce 108 spaces, 33 more than existing.
Construction cost $411,670.
Estimated acquisition cost$450,000.
Total cost$861,670.
Available construction grant(TCI) $1,081,000.
Grant surplus $219,330.
Construction cost per parking space $26,111 (($411,670 + $450,000)/33).
As funding for construction is wholely Caltrans', the 33 new parking
spaces would be allocated for inter-city rail parking.
AGENDAITEM
April 5, 1994
Page 9
As noted in Option 2, purchase of the DiMaio property would relieve the
City of its obligation to provide 12 parking spaces when the lot is
developed, Staff believes that Option 5 is the best interim option and that
parking needs in this area can best be served by ultimately constructing
Option 2 using future funding.
This scenario of constructing Option 5 now and Option 2 later means that
future parking spaces will be very expensive. Option 2 provides only 41
spaces more than Option 5. At $1,437,000 the construction cost per
parking space is over$35,000 ($1,437,000/41) for these additional Option
2 spaces.
vii) Other Options
Preparation of concrete surface parking now to receive an Option 2 deck
later would produce only 3 (78 lower level spaces per Option 2 less 75
existing spaces) more parking spaces than current parking and, if
constructed completely, would produce a large concrete surface area
which would be difficult if not impossible to landscape adequately.
Attachment 4 shows the parking configuration which would be
constructed. Increased landscaping can only be achieved at the expense of
parking spaces which would quickly reduce the number of spaces possibly
to less than the existing 75.
Staff does not recommend this course of action.
4. Excess Funds
Option 5 provides a grant surplus of$219,330.
Staff recommends that$45,000 be requested to fund cost overruns on the South
Railroad Platform project not funded from other sources, leaving $174,330.
Caltrans has indicated that it may be possible to allocate this to further platform
projects at the San Juan Capistrano Station site.
AGENDA ITEM
April 5, 1994
Page 10
City experience with platform projects to date has shown that they require
considerable allocation of Staff time which could more appropriately be used on
other City projects. The potential for these funds to be allocated to the City with
others such as Amtrak or Metrolink performing the design and construction work
and the City merely passing through funding to them from Caltrans is much more
attractive.
Staff recommends that the remaining $174,330 be allocated for further platform
project with design and construction by others.
5. Project Schedule
The following project schedule for the Multi Modal Area can be anticipated
following this City Council action:
July 1994 California Transportation Commission considers request.
Summer 1994 City reassesses the design team and makes design contract
changes.
Fall 1994 New design begins.
Summer 1995 New design complete.
Fall 1995 Begin construction.
Summer 1996 Complete construction.
COMMISSION/BOARD REVIEW RECOMMENDATIONS
N/A
FINANCIAL CONSIDERADONS
Funding for this project is by Transit Capital Improvement(TCI) grant. There is no danger of
losing funding by this action through June 1996. Caltrans has been made aware of the situation,
however, the decision to accept the change of scope rests with the California Transportation
Commission (CTC). If the CTC does not approve the City's first choice, the City will have time
to re-evaluate the options.
AGENDA ITEM
April 5, 1994
Page 11
There is no change in City funding for this project; by this action, all City funding has been
previously expended.
The current State funding allocation totals$1,296,500 as follows:
State $ Local $ Total $
Administration $40,000 $40,000
R/W Acquisition $314,000 (r) $314,000
Environmental $15,000 $15,000
Preliminary Design $70,800 (2) $70,800
Engineering Design $160,000 $160,000
Construction $1 081.500 $1-081,500
Total $1,296,500 $384,800 $1,681,300
Staff proposes the following funding allocation to design and construct Option 5. This allocation
is $279,830 less than the original allocation.
State $ Local $ Total $
Administration $40,000 $40,000
R/W Acquisition $450,000 $314,000 (1) $764,000
Environmental $15,000 $15,000
Preliminary Design $40,000 (3) $70,800 (2) $110,000
Surface Design $60,000 $60,000
Surface Construction S411,670 $411,670
Total $1,016,670 $384,800 $1,401,470
Original Grant Total $1,296,500
Surplus $279,830
(1) Existing right-of-way previously purchased by City to be credited as part of City's share
of project.
(2) Existing preliminary design costs expendeds by City for a deck option before TCI
contract was executed.
(3) Preliminary design costs now requested for Option 5.
AGENDAITEM
April 5, 1994
Page 12
NOTIFICATION
Sue DiMaio
Larry Layne, Caltrans, District 12
Viki Rudy, Caltrans, Sacramento
Mark Tannin
ALTERNATE ACTIONS
1. By Resolution, approve the proposed change of project scope for the Multi Modal
Parking Area and authorize Staff to forward the request to the California Transportation
Commission.
2. Do not approve the proposed change of scope.
3. Request additional information from Staff.
RECOMMENDATION
By Resolution, approve the proposed request for change of project scope and funding for the
Multi Modal Parking Area to Option 5,provided that the acquisition price does not exceed
$400,000; in which case, Staff will pursue Option 4. Authorize Staff to forward the request to
the California Transportation Commission with a request for surplus finds to be allocated to City
Platform projects.
AGENDAITEM
April 5, 1994
Page 13
Respectfully submitted, Pre ared by`
William M. Huber, P.E. Brian Perry, P.E., Project Manager
WMH/BP:ssg
Attachments: 1. Grant Application Proposal option
2. Traffic Study
3. Option 1
4. Option 2
5. Option 3
6. Option 4
7. Option 5
8. Resolution
2
W
�f
• �� I �, .7I Ah 'gra
Go
OA1101Y� • —-- _ — --fi A ;1
DI _ �,►,
Y��✓Y�
11'�f'rK) "MOP ttdn_
--
rK 4f
—
� ut�z pQap
aro Q CCJJrr77
( PI IN6 �lat,(Ur fly . O
196 +r
euv,/mai u}t ' p
W2 f LM
C�
D �a •
.. _ Not
VZ
r-1
tLI :Yt 3 r't'r %
''���</'•�} �T,���`��''��� ,I;� ������t•��%ftp•, l� ' .. �,,rt�f�.l✓;
+� r. :vp`jt'Q,7/,'fI�S •Ir.f. �7 `!�.1��.rt `,,,,/Jlr �ih+ t ��� �f•• . 'i
ilT' '1Iyi%�li '�I �j�1j' l.;y{'}•� �,,'.Ll ,�w�
DRAFT
San Juan Capistrano
Muth-Modal Parking Structure
Traffic Study
'CA MaS
Or IAaaoata esu
- CY
A7�A-�HMENT z
; � « <i � �ti� a �i .,-associates
Transoorceaon Pienn,ng • Traffic Eng,neenng
September 15, 1993
Mr. Mark Tannin
Mark Tannin Architects
32642 Deadwood Drive
San Juan Capistrano, CA 92675
Dear Mr. Tannin:
We are pleased to present this analysis of existing and
future traffic conditions in the vicinity of the
proposed multi-modal parking structure in the City of
San Juan Capistrano.
Sincerely,
KUNZMAN ASSOCIATES
Gary Hansen, P.E.
#1032a
4660 Sarrarca -Parkway • irvme. CA 92714 . FOX (714) 669-C26C 7avonore .7•4: !69-4231
Table of Contents
Section Page No.
1. Project Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
- Location
- Proposed Development
2 . Existing Traffic Conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
- Surrounding Street System
- Existing Travel Lanes and Intersection Controls
- Existing Traffic Volumes
- Existing Intersection Operation
- Public Transit Service
3 . Future Traffic Conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
- Ortega Highway Realignment
- Proposed Civic Center Complex
- Historic Town Center
- Year 1998 Traffic Conditions
4 . Other Traffic Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
- Site Access
- Site Egress
- Parking Utilization
Appendices
Appendix A - Explanation and Calculation of
Intersection Capacity Utilization
Appendix B - Calculation of Intersection
Levels of Service
List of Tables
Table No. Title Pace No.
1 Existing Intersection Capacity Utilization
andLane Geometrics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
2 Existing Intersection Levels of Service . . . . . . . . 9
3 Estimated Project Traffic Generation -
Civic Center Complex . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
4 1998 Intersection Capacity Utilization -
Without Project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
5 1998 Intersection Levels of Service -
Without Project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
1. Project Description
This section discusses the project ' s location and the proposed
development.
Location
The project site is located on the west side of Camino
Capistrano , north of its intersection with Ortega Highway .
Figure 1 shows the project location.
Proposed Development
The project site is proposed to be developed with a 60-75 space
parking structure. The structure could be used for either long
term parking, short term parking or a mix thereof.
2
2. Existing Traffic Conditions
The traffic conditions as they exist today are discussed below
and illustrated in Figures 2 , 3a, 3b, and 4.
Surroundina Street System
The primary roadways that will be utilized by traffic from the
parking structure include Camino Capistrano, Verdugo Street and
Ortega Highway . In the vicinity of the project site , the
following roadway conditions exist.
Camino Capistrano: This street is the primary north-south
arterial in San Juan Capistrano west of I-5. In the vicinity of
the site it is a two lane divided street with a painted median
and on-street parking.
Verdugo Street: This two lane undivided street extends
westerly from Camino Capistrano and provides access to the
AMTRAK station and Franciscan Plaza.
Ortega Highway: This east-west street provides access ato
the area in the vicinity of the site from the I-5 Freeway and
from points east of the freeway.
Existing Travel Lanes and Intersection Controls
Figure 2 identifies the existing roadway conditions in the
vicinity of the site . The number of through lanes and the
existing intersection controls are shown.
Existing Traffic Volumes
The morning and evening turning movement volumes in the vicinity
of the site are shown on Figures 3a and 3b. The volumes are
based on counts taken in August, 1993 . The hours selected
encompass northbound and southbound, AMTRAK train arrivals and
include portions of the traditional peak periods for traffic in
urban areas ( i. e. between 7 : 00 - 9 : 00 A.M. and 4 : 00 - 6 : 00
P.M. )
Existing Intersection Operation
Intersection operation was analyzed using both the Intersection
Capacity Utilization (ICU) method and the 1985 Highway Capacity
Manual (HCM) methodology.
4
Delay per vehicle in a lane group is a function of the
following:
1. Cycle length (delay is approximately proportional to cycle
length)
2 . Amount of red time faced by a lane group
3 . Amount of yellow time for that lane group
4 . The volume to capacity ratio of the lane group
The average delay per vehicle for each lane group is calculated,
and eventually an overall average delay for all vehicles
entering the intersection is calculated. This average delay per
vehicle is then used to estimate Level of Service. The Level of
Services are defined in terms of delay as follows:
Average Stopped Delay
Level gf Service Per Vehicle (Seconds)
A 0 to 5. 00
B 5. 01 to 15. 00
C 15. 01 to 25. 00
D 25.01 to 40. 00
E 40. 01 to 60. 00
F 60. 01 and up
Table 2 lists the levels of service at intersections in the
vicinity of the site and shows that both intersections are
operating at Level of Service C or better during the hours
analyzed. The worksheets are included in Appendix B.
It should be noted that both intersections are being operated by
one signal controller (and in essence as one intersection) .
This creates the need for multiple Vehicle phases and a lengthy
pedestrian phase.
The ICU methodology does not reflect the phase overlap and
pedestrian traffic at these intersections. The HCM methodology
calculations are based on 120 second signal cycles which is more
reflective of phase overlap and pedestrian crossings.
6
Table 1
EXISTING INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION
AND LANE GEOMETRICS
_ Intersection Approach
Lanes (1)
Peak
Hour
North- South- East- West- ICU-LOS
bound bound bound bound (2)
Intersection T R L T R L T R L T R L AM PM
Camino Capistrano (NS) at
Ortega Highway EW 1 1 * 1 * 1 * * * * 1 1 26-A 35-A
Verdugo Street �EW3 1 * 1 1 0 * * 1 1 * * * 31-A 39-A
(1) When a right turn lane is designated, the lane can either be
striped or unstriped. To function as a right turn lane there
must be sufficient width for right turning vehicles to travel
outside the through lanes.
(2) Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) - Level of Service
(LOS)
T = Through
R - Right
L = Left
* = Movement not possible
8
Figure 2
Existing Traffic Conditions
a
glreal 2U C
8F
0
n
9
1U
20
our � 0
Nish" 40 ,
Verdu 0
2U treat 2U
20 2U
ur
Y �
treat $
For t
Street
40 8F
Od Obie00
Stract
!0 i0
Lmlk
21) - Number of Through Trwd lona
U-Undivided O-OivWW F-Freeeay
® - Traffic Signd
- Stoup Sign
�- Four Way Slap
Kunz?wn Associates
Figure 3b 1
1993 Weekday Turning Movement Volumes — 3: 45-4: 45 PM
s .
s
♦
Ortega Higheoy
�. A
Street t
♦ v�duq� $ w
9
�p o
X15
10
110"'
Volumes rounded to nearest 5
Kunzman Associates
I Future Traffic Conditions
This section discusses future traffic conditions in the vicinity
of the site. The realignment of Ortega Highway with Verdugo
Street, the proposed Civic Center complex on Camino Capistrano,
and the development of the San Juan Capistrano Historic Town
Center are considered.
Ortega Highway Realignment
The City of San Juan Capistrano is planning to realign Ortega
Highway (east of Camino Capistrano) so that it creates a four
leg intersection with Verdugo Street within the next five years.
Figures 5a and 5b show the resultant 1993 turning movement
volumes.
Proposed Civic Center Complex
The City of San Juan Capistrano is planning to build a civic
center complex on the northeast corner of Camino Capistrano and
Acjachema Street within the next 1p years (when funds become
available) . Table 3 lists the expected morning and evening peak
hour traffic from the civic center complex and Figure 6 shows
the traffic distribution.
Historic Town Center
It is expected that some additional development will occur in
the San Juan Capistrano Historic Town Center. As directed by
the City, a one percent per year growth rate was applied to 1993
traffic volumes to reflect future growth.
Year 1998 Traffic Conditions
Cumulative traffic conditions at the intersections of Camino
Capistrano/Ortega Highway and Camino Capistrano/Verdugo Street
were analyzed in five years . Cumulative volumes include
existing traffic, traffic from the Civic Center complex and a
one percent per year growth in existing traffic. Both the
existing intersections and the realignment of Ortega Highway
with Verdugo Street were analyzed.
Table 4 shows the ICU values and Table 5 lists the HCM delays.
The ICU values indicate Level of , Service A operation for
existing intersections and with the realignment. The HCM delay
values reflect Level of Service C or better operation for both
scenarios.
14
Table 4
1998 INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION -
WITHOUT PROJECT
Evening
Peak Hour
ICU-LOS
(1)
Intersection AM PM
Camino Capistrano (NS) at
Ortega Hi44h= 28-A 41-A
Verdugo SEreeY 32-A 46-A
Verdega ugoHSuree /
35-A 50-A
(1) Intersection Capacity Utilization
(ICU) - Level of Service (LOS)
16
Auk Alm
Figure 5a
1993 Weekday Turning Movement Volumes — 7: 15-8: 15 AM
(with Realignment of Ortega Highway)
a
s
.. Ortega tsgn.ey
P �
G Q
StreetS
Verdugs �p �� �Reotq�
3'
20-
t
Vdumes rounded to eeorest S
Kunzman Associates
Figure 6
Proposed Civic Center — Traffic Distnbution
9 � a
SUeat �,
n
9
fi0f
Site art
Verau o \'
[feet
Yorho
H
25t street
For $
Strad
Dd Obiwo Street
25 - PwWl to/from Project
Sant 'Civic Center Transportation Amdyis Stuay.'
August, 1990
Kunzman Associates
4. Other Traffic Considerations
Several project alternatives involving various site
access/egress and parking schemes are being considered. This
section discusses circulation opportunities and constraints in
the vicinity of the site.
Site Access
There are two potential accesses to the parking structure - off
of Camino Capistrano at a point approximately 260 feet north of
the northerly crosswalk at Ortega highway; and via a ramp up
from the existing ground level parking lot adjacent to the
AMTRAK station.
The existing southbound left turn lane on Camino Capistrano at
Ortega Highway is approximately 2101, feet long with 90 feet of
transition . This length of leflt turn pocket can store
approximately B southbound vehicles . However , there is
insufficient distance from the end of this left turn lane to the
potential project entry to provide :for storage for northbound
vehicles on Camino Capistrano waitinto turn into the parking
19
facility . If this storage was to be provided for, the
southbound left turn lane would have to be shortened by at least
100 feet thus reducing the southbouAd storage to 4 vehicles or
less (restricting access to right turn in only would eliminate
this potential conflict) .
Access via a ramp up from the ground ,level parking would require
vehicles on Camino Capistrano to utilize either the northerly
parking lot driveway or Verdugo Str et. The signal at Camino
Capistrano/Verdugo Street provides g od access as it has a left
turn phase for northbound traffic. t the northerly parking lot
driveway, left turning traffic from Camino Capistrano has a
painted median in which to wait for laps in opposing traffic.
Site Egress
Left turning traffic outbound from the potential project exit
260 feet north of Ortega Highway ma have to wait for gaps in
traffic on Camino Capistrano. T is may cause delays for
outbound right turning traffic (die to the narrow driveway
width) and/or restrict internal circWlation by creating on-site
vehicle queues. (This problem could be minimized by restricting
egress to right turn out only) .
21
Appendices
Appendix A - Explanation and Calculation of
Intersection Capacity Utilization
Appendix 8 - Calculation of Intersection
Levels of service
APPENDIX A
EXPLANATION AND CALCULATION OF
INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION
EXPLANATION AND CALCULATION OF
INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION (ICU)
The ability of a roadway to carry traffic is referred
to as capacity. The capacity is usually greater
between intersections and less at intersections because
traffic flows continuously between them and only during
the green phase at them. Capacity at intersections is
best defined in terms of vehicles per lane per hour of
green. If capacity is 1600 vehicles per lane per hour
of green, and if the green phase is 50 percent of the
cycle and there are three lanes, then the capacity is
1600 times 50 percent times 3 lanes, or 2400 vehicles
per hour.
The technique used to compare the volume and capacity
at an intersection is known as Intersection Capacity.
Utilization (ICU) . ICU, usually expressed as a
percent, is the proportion of an hour required to
provide sufficient capacity to accommodate all
intersection traffic if all approaches operate at
capacity. If an intersection is operating at 80
percent of capacity, then 20 percent of the signal
cycle is not used. The signal could show red on all
indications 20 percent of the time and the signal would
just accommodate approaching traffic.
ICU analysis consists of (a) determining the proportion
of signal time needed to serve each conflicting
movement of traffic, (b) summing the times for the
movements, and (c) comparing the total time required to
the total time available. For example, if for north-
south traffic the northbound traffic is 1600 vehicles
per hour, the southbound traffic is 1200 vehicles per
hour, and the capacity of either direction is 3200
vehicles per hour, then t*he northbound traffic is
critical and requires 1600/3200 or 50 percent of the
signal time. If for the east-west traffic 30 percent
of the signal time is required, then it can be seen
that the ICU is 50 plus 30, or 80 percent. When left
turn phases exist, they are incorporated into the
analysis. The critical movements are usually the heavy
left turn movements and the opposing through movements.
three percent is reasonable. On the other hand, during
peak hour traffic operation the yellow times are nearly
completely used. If there are no left turn phases, the
left turn vehicles completely use the yellow time. If
there are left turn phases, the through traffic
continues to enter the intersection on the yellow until
just a split second before the red. In this study no
penalty will be applied for the yellow because the
capacities have been assumed to be only 1600 vehicles
per hour per lane when in general they are 1750.
The ICU technique is an ideal tool to quantify existing
as well as future intersection operation. The impact
of adding a lane can be quickly determined by examining
the effect the lane has an the intersection capacity
utilization.
ICU parallels another calculation procedure known as
the Critical Lane Method with one exception. Critical
Lane Method dimensions capacity in terms of
standardized vehicles per hour par lane. A Critical
Lane Method result of 800 vehicles per hour means that
the intersection operates as though 800 vehicles were
using a single lane continuously. If one assumes a
lane capacity of 1600 vehicles per hour, than a
Critical Lana Method calculation resulting in 800
vehicles per hour is the same as an ICU calculation of
50 percent since 800/1600 is So percent. It is our
opinion that the Critical Lane Method is inferior to
the ICU method simply because a statement such as "The
Critical Lana Method value in 800 vehicles per hour"
means little to most persons, whereas a statement such
a "the Intersection Capacity Utilization is 50 percent"
communicates clearly. A Critical Lana Method of ICU
correspondence table is as follows, assuming a lana
capacity of 1600 vehicles per hour.
Critical Lane corresponding
Method Result ICU Result
800 vehicles per hour 50 percent
960 vehicles per hour 60 percent
1120 vehicles per hour 70 percent
1280 vehicles per hour 80 percent
1440 vehicles per hour 90 percent
1600 vehicles per hour 100 percent
INTERSECTION SING CAPISTRANO (M-S) AND ORTEGA MUM (E-H) •
RUN TITLE: SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO MULTI MODAL PARKING FACITLITY
A
LAND USE: EXISTING CONOlT1ON5 - 1993 1
Existing G*omacrics
INTERSECTION VOLUTES AND CAPACITY UTILIZATION
....................................................................................................
MOVEMENTS LANES CAPACITY EXISTING PROJECT TOTAL
VOLUTE VOLUME VOLUME-----•---'VIC RATIO(%)
AN PN AM PM AN PM AN PM
....................................................................................................
NT 1 1600 190 335 0 0 190 335 12 21'
NR 1 1600 40 95 0 0 40 95 3 6
NL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0' 0
ST 1 1600 325 360 0 0 325 380 20' 24
SR 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
SL 1 1600 60 60 0 0 60 60 4 4'
ET 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0' 0'
ER 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
EL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
NT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
NR 1 1600 50 130 0 0 50 130 3 8
HL 1 1600 100 165 0 0 100 165 6' 10'
....................................................................................................
ICU 26 35
LEVELS OF SERVICE A A
ICU IS THE SUI OF THE CRITICAL MOVEMENTS, DENOTED SY AN ASTERISK I')
THE TURNING MOVEMENTS Apo TO TME THAQUGN VOLUTES
WHEN THERE ARE NO TURNING LANES.
N: NORTH, S: SOUTH, EI: EAST, N: NEST
T: TNROUGH, R: RIGHT, L: LEFT
INTERSECTION&INO CAPISTRANO (N-S) AMD ORTEGA NW (E-Y) •
RUN TITLE: SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO MULTI MODAL PARKING FACITLITY
u
UIUD USE: 1996 CONDITIONS (Y/0 PROJECT) 1
Existing Geometrics
INTERSECTI0N VOLLMIES AND CAPACITY UTILIZATION
...................................................................................."'.............
MOVEMENTS LANES CAPACITY EXISTING PROJECT TOTAL
VOLLME VOLUME VOLUME V/C RATIO(%)
...................................................................................................
AM PM AM PM AN PM AN PM
....................................................................................................
NT 1 1600 200 350 20 10 220 360 14 23•
NR 1 1600 40 100 0 0 40 100 3 6
NL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0• 0
ST 1 1600 340 400 10 40 350 440 22• 28
SR 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
SL 1 1600 60 60 10 50 70 110 4 7•
ET 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0• 00
ER 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
EL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
YT 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0
YR 1 1600 50 140 30 20 80 160 5 10
YL 1 1600 100 170 0 0 100 170 6• 11•
..........................................................................................."'-.....
ICU 28 41
LEVELS OF SERVICE A A
ICU IS THE SLA OF THE CRITICAL MOVEMENTS, DENOTED BY AN ASTERISK (•)
THE TURNING MOVEMENTS ANDD TO THE THROUGH VOLUMES
WHEN THERE ARE MO TURNING LANES. _
N: NORTH, S: SOUTH, E: EAST, Y: NEST
T. THROUGH, R: RIGHT, L: LEFT
INTERSECTIO
INC CAPISTRANO (N-S) AND ORTEGA NW/VEROUGTREET (E-W)
RUN TITLE: SAAR(((JUAN CAPISTRANO MULTI MODAL PARKING FACITLITY
LAND USE: 1998 CONDITIONS (W/0 PROJECT) 1
Rn(ignnwtt Gametrics
INTERSECTION VOLUMES AND CAPACITY UTILIZATION
............................................................................................ .......
MOVEMENTS LANES CAPACITY EXISTING PROJECT TOTAL
VOLUTE VOLUME VOLUME V/C RATIO(%)
....................................................................................................
AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM
....................................................................................................
NT 1 1600 200 350 20 10 220 360 16 27'
NR 0 0 30 70 0 0 30 70 0 0
NL 1 1600 40 60 0 0 40 60 3' 4
ST 1 1600 340 400 10 40 350 440 23' 28
SR 0 0 10 10 0 0 10 10 0 0
SL 1 1600 60 60 10 50 70 110 4 7'
ET 1 1600 10 30 0 0 10 30 2 7'
ER 0 0 20 80 0 0 20 80 0 0
EL 1 1600 10 10 0 0 10 10 1' 1
WT 1 1600 40 40 0 0 40 40 B• 13
WR 0 0 50 140 30 20 80 160 0 0
'....WL 1 1600 70 140 0 0 70 140 4 9-
........................................ ...........................................................
................................................................................................
ICU 35 50
LEVELS OF SERVICE A A
ICU IS THE SUM OF THE CRITICAL MOVEMENTS, DENOTED BY AN ASTERISK P)
THE TURNING MOVEMENTS ADO TO THE THROUGH VOLUMES
WHEN THERE ARE NO TURNING LANES.
N: NORTH, S: SOUTH, E: EAST, W: LEST
T: THROUGH, R: RIGHT, L: LEFT
The levels of service at the signalized intersections were
calculated using the delay method in Chapter 9 of the 1985
Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) . This method views an
intersection as consisting of several lane groups. A lane
group is a set of lanes serving a movement. If there are two
northbound left turn lanes, then the lane group serving the
northbound left turn movement has two lanes. Similarly, there
may be three lanes in the lane group serving the northbound
through movement , one lane in the lane group serving the
northbound right turn movement, and so forth.
For each lane group, there is a capacity. That capacity is
calculated by multiplying the number of lanes in the lane group
times a theoretical maximum lane capacity times 12 adjustment
factors.
Each of the 12 adjustment factors has a value of approximately
1. 00. A value less than 1. 00 is generally assigned as a less
than desirable condition occurs.
The 12 adjustment factors are as follows:
1. Peak hour factor (to account for peaking within the peak
hour)
2. Lane utilization factor (to account for not all lanes
loading equally)
3 . Lane width
4. Percent of heavy trucks
5. Approach grade
6. Parking
7. Bus stops at intersections
8. Area type (CBD or other)
9. Right turns
10. Left turns
11. Pedestrian activity
12. signal progression
The maximum lane capacity and the 12 adjustment factors to it
are all unknowns for which approximate estimates have been
recommended in the 1985 Highway Capacity Manual. For the most
part, the recommended values are not based on statistical
analysis but rather on educated estimates. Unfortunately, the
estimates for these 13 variables used in calculating capacity
are not reliable as will be discussed below.
• LEVEL OF SERVICE DESCRIPTION
Stooped
Level of Vehicle
Service Description (Seconds)
A Level of Service A occurs when 0 to 5. 0 j
progression is extremely favorable
and most vehicles arrive during the
green phase. Most vehicles do not
stop at all. Short cycle lengths may
also contribute to low delay.
B Level of Service Bgenerally occurs 5. 1 to
with good rogression and/or short 15. 0
cycle leng�hs. Moro vehicles stop
than for LLOOS A, causing higher levels
of average delay.
C Level of Be;viee qe erally results when 15. 1 to
there is falr proggr ssion and/or longer 25. 0
cycle lengths. fid vidual cycle
failures may begin o apppear in this ,
level The-number vehicles stopping
is significant at this level althou h
man still pass thr ugh the to
witiout stopping.
D Level of Service D enera11 results in 25:1 to
noticeable congestion. Lon&er delays 40.0
may result from som combination of
unravorable p ogres ion, long cycle
lengths, or high yolums to capacityy
ratios. Man vehicles stop, and the
aroyirtion of vehicles not stopping
so nos. Individual cycle failures
are noticeable.
E Level of Service E s considered to be 40. 1 to
the limit of accept la delay These 60. 0
high dela values 1 *rally indicate
poor rogyess on nq cycle lengths,
and h h volume to a ac t ratios.
Indiv �ual cycle failures are frequent
occurrences.
F Level of Service F 's conaidared to be 60.1 +
unacceptable to mos drivers. This
conditi n of W1 cc with over-
saturatlon, e. , w an arrival flow
rate exceed the ca amity of the inter-
sectlon. it pma tel c occur at high
plume to 1a c v tics belcw 1. 00
with manyv d a cycle failures.
Poor rogresal n an lop.g ele lengths
may also be me or contribute g causes
to such delay levels.
Source: "Highway Capacity Manual" Special Report 209
TransportatioTi ese rch Board, Nations ResearcA
Counepl, Washington, D.Z. , 1985, Pages 9-4 to 9-5.
IMRR%CY KN WAY f/OOAATKN U5011 1ft flG"Y OPACITY MVM FAMLSE
Intenactiaa: 1. G"ND fNISWMD OLS)Ard 01RRA am
traffic Gaditias Existing Owditlas OMI
I we Period of Analysis: M Pe*fur
Cycle Lo the 12D Sud
Dscriptw - Mf d K SI SR SL ET ERr10
in W a oul
�Oen
(1) Vohs par Mr, V 335 95 0 no 0 60 0 0 0 M 166
(2) MAW d Ls, R 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 1
(3) Tallow Interval in Sud Y 110cally,4.0 for IhoyWRid!ts ed 3.0 for Ldtd 4.00 3.00 3.00 4.87 3.00 3.00 UD 3.00 4.00 3.OD 3.00
(4) Pack fur Fam.Mf (56 for hal;fou;0.90 for Pink 15 NkuUQ 0.90 0.90 0.50 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
(5) tare Ukkh O;9111; 11. 12; U; 14t. 15• or 16 fm EN 12 10 10 12 10 11 12 10 12 t0 10
(6) Idcet Nagy lla�dcls ib; 2; 4-'6- o; 16; 15; 20; 25;or Dl 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
(7) Grade 1- •(,; -2; 0; d; 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
(8) IVkirs lassies far fur l•tilo Parkirp;0. D;Z0; D; or 101 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1
(9) Bus Stg pr fur O; 10; 20; D; a ib 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
(10) mMlw D®`•-I.Odwr) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
(11) =Turn late,71+ 10-ab saw• 1.(& 1 -upvsctut 2-Prasad With Artod 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0
(12) Padrtrtam pr far Ooilicting With Ride fun ft W.. tfq MD. M% 100;or w 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
(13) la:h lun lee T)p p-Mme/Factr=t.m• 1 •Uv�det9ad: 2•�ra0fated Wilh Septate Mrai 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2
(14) Sd rsttl Elul Ras par Mar d Oan Tial NIDI Raoa�d MR �0 b ArnWI dt5d 1801 17011 IND 1010 IND 17011 TDD 17M 1700 1®0 PID 17(10
(15) Sigel fhapraslmi)p pint; 2feir; 371tdeArrhals; i•Oood; Sd:Nnlletl 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
(16) TWW of Mout 1I*@tbw% 2490Md 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
faeces fro IdAm
(17) Ire tKil faun Oahe 9il t.m 1.00 1.10 1.00 1.10 l.m 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.00 1.00
(18) Lee IRdlh PAM*951 t.m 0.93 0.95 1.00 0.93 0.97 1.00 0.93 0.93 1.00 0.93 0.95
(19) Neary Yantis 1LDIe 9-61 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.911
(20) Bade mule 971 I.m 1.00 l.m 1.00 1.87 1.00 l.m l.m 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
(21) Parkin M� nahle 9111 1.87 1.00 1.87 t.m 0.00 1.00 1.00 O.ID 1.00 1.00 Lm LOD
(22) ease Stgpkp naiAe 9.91 1.87 1.00 I.m t.m O.OD 1.00 1.870.00 i.m 1.00 LOD 1.87
(23) ®lour x9101 1.03 1.00 1.00 1.87 1.87 1.00 t.m Lm 1.00 TAD 1.CD 1.00
(24) Ride Tun Lor IWe name 9-111 1.x0 0.85 1.87 t.m I.m 1.00 Lm 1.00 Lm 1.00 0.85 l.m
(25) Left Tun Low Type 1Ta01e 9.121 1.00 1.00 LOD 1.00 1.00 0.95 Lm 1.00 1.00 1.OD t.m 0.95
(26) Praprsrsio n factor natle 9131 0.115 0.85 1.00 OAS 0.05 1.00 0.15 0.85 1.00 0.05 OA 1.00
Caladatd SVIs
(27) Agra 4d.flow Rate in Wricls pr far, v= 1(1)•(17)7(4)1 372 106 0 422 0 67 0 0 0 0 KL UB
(25) AdMstad Stuatim Fla Rete in Wdricls per Nur of Gorr, 6= 6ee Note 11 1782 1350 0 1782 0 1551 0 0 0 0 1330 1467
(29) Flow Natio, v/s_ ((2711(2x)) 0.21 0.08 0.m 0.2G 0.87 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.m 0.11 0.12
(D) Niniu Gram Tis Re�Ared ac Mnpatim of Cycle= Oxapr of: (27)or O Sas Pd TiWXycle Langur 0.21 0.011 O.m 0.24 0.00 0.11 O.OD O.OD O.m 0.00 0.11 0.12
(31) Critical Lee Gmp= 1(3D)'s That Are Critiail 0.21 0.00 O.OD O.m O.m 0.11 O.m 0.00 O.OD 0.00 0.00 0.12 AW
(32) Gan Tis Allocated s Prgntion at Cycle, = um Nue 21 0.47 0.75 O.OD0.54 0.03 0.25 O.m 0.00 O.OD0.00 0.25 0.2E
(33) =ity In SMicls per Dar, c = 1(32) e (Al W 10030 9% 0 382 0 0 0 0 327 416
(34) ue to O pwity Ratio, v/c=a= 1(27)/(33)1 0.44 0.11 O.m 0.44 0.00 0.17 0.00 O.OD O.OD 0.00 O.K 0.44
(35) Avenpo Delay per WMicle in Smack Before Fo w kn Adjstew • 6s late 31 16.2 3.0 0.0 13.0 0.0 27.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 29.7 27.5 11.14
(36) Avrape Delay pr Nhicle in Send After hewsim Adj uwnt, d= MS)•(26)1 13.8 2.5 0.0 11.0 0.0 27.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 25.3 27.5 15.87
(37) Leel of Swale, Lab• LSae Note 41 0 A A 6 A 0 A A A A 0 0 C
$ee Notes mlast pope. ------ -- -__
� I
Z4 ?Rr
• ilI oo88oNe�o�oeo�MN RpF88888888 00888808?�
IIOOHPgNO�O�000�MN R8�6:H BHH HO� OOS SSSOSOO< I
SII 6688^No�o�aeeMN 88888888816 0088880800<
G JO ef�11 p0��������0 IIIII�����N�0.0O.0p0 O
II 'n�SHgNO�O�'OON�MN SPPHHHSHICH M�OOO�����e I
'ri opp �66�����o� Xe�eOae �efWW
II I��SPONO�O��00�MN -am,SHH1�H= 8-coca.-OO����C�O 0060 O�IRMO
'r`II 0o88�No�o�000MN 88888888816 008888o8od<
6666 0
diI 0688-No�o�oeo�MN gG88888888 00888808q? I
doo<
H II d�HPgNO�O��00�MN 8PPHHH 81Q81B .R�j,2SgH�SI2SeR I
II .-88rvNo�o�000$nN
sea 8H888816 �i�J^n Fnf�"a6"J^•'^•
N JO ------ 0000'5ONJ<
�II ISi�86tgrvo.w�ooN�MN 8g!888888K`,8 ^0�25798X�l6?qo I
� 1 Bio �oe.•����or 6666 o1QW
g II ^e8Rg ve. o. oeo�MN 8!88$8888818
o
0088880800<
rio pp C�Coo.QQ-ee��.•o 6666
R II SOB ANO�O.-OOOpMN 880488888.5 6666 d="
CCS_ IIII'1'1 'ii
H
a
l7 y
Rig
NIS] P.�
M r v
ya 107 •O
r by)O ■ ■
SE
g i NyyyN Q
11`f et df
v }*■{
Jj
R �.y 'Y 6 b • .•
OR
Hug
Sigr It sill
'd
aig.
a55y���$5
g55f5 555 Sas fit, A
N'e �sw�i-----w-
lI
INT960.11 N DELAY WI ATt01 WING 195 NIOIAIY CAA'ACITY WHA PROD K
lnesecticm 1. COUND CAPISFRVO DIS)ad oTIFG116Y (90
lrafiic C(Fditlore 1978 Oaditias w70 pojest
Ime Perid of Amlrais: AM Pat Nal'
Cycle La the 121)seoedw
Desaiptw NI Nt NL 51 SR SL ET ER IL wf Nt Ll laal
IrpA Data
(1) Vaunt per Mr. V 360 1(D 0 440 0 110 0 0 0 0 160 WD
(2) Mabe of lama, B 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1
(3) Vrlaw irt"Vol in Semtli V Pcatty 4.0 it 1Nuds7Ridgs art 3.0 for Lefts) 4.00 3.003.00 COD 3.00 3.00 4.00 3.OD 3.00 4.01 3.00 3.00
(4) Pet Mar factor, PIF O.Ob for PPaat�Inr;0.90 fa Pet 15 Nmeesl 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
(5) Lem Nbth A;9;.W.. 11. 12; 4;13; %- 15- w16 fr 15r) 12 10 10 12 10 11 12 10 10 12 10 10
(6) ftrwt Narry MdlWes 6; 2; 6•b; 116; 8; bl;25; a 3® 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
(7) Grad: 1-6; -4; -2; 0; w2; K; 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
(8) Petire Naeaers pr Naw 1.1alo Patirg; 0. 10; 2D; 3D; 00 401 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -i -1 -1 -1 -1 A �1
(9) Baas Sogpirlper Naw ID; 10; 2D;30;rr 4� 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
(101 l per• J,Otlrr) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
(11) R=iaR igen lam{)p5)-Narlfactor= 1.00. 1-Upctatat 2-Protected with S�erste Arroi 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0
(12) Pethswtars pr Oar 0a1flictim with sill t tamlAq SgetIW 200: 300) 401); or 5001 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
(13) Left horn law 1)pa/0`mzwfactm=1,00; 1' 2`hotectd with Sgrate Arrcw 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2
(%) Samratd flow Sao per liar at Wal Tim Ott)lawliaar 111011.n216Be
0 In ad w�verl MID 1700 700 1000 1 170D 1700 1800 WOO 1100 1� 1701 1700
(15) Sips[Pnope sion Twx fl=kw; 24air; 34oda Arrives;4-ito*54xallaU 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
(16) Tip of Signal n=PMW 4 Atuutd 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
factors frac Tables
07) ►ore thilfaltim j1de9-41 1.00 1.01 1.10 1.00 1.10 1.00 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.00 1.01
(18) two INdh pdNe 931 1.00 0.93 0.95 t.m 0,93 0.97 1.0) 0.95 0.93 1.00 0.93 0.95
(19) Nhicla ppdAe 9-61 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0-99
(20) fT�¢7j 1.00 1.00 IA3 LAD 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 11.00
am Pormov 11BaArs Bible 9.12 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.
(22) &sxs St�pry [fame 9-A 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 L00 1.00
(8) CSDMW-(Tah[a 9.10 1.00 1.00 1.00 11.00 1.01 1.00 1.00 1.07 1.00 1.(o 1.00 1.00
(2A) Bea Tum lam 1Jp LTdAe 9.111 1.00 0.15 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 L001.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00
(25) Ldt Tun lam TJ9e)Same 9'121 1.00 1 AD 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95
(26) htpeesim porta' (Tame 9.131 0.6 0.15 1.00 015 0.85 1.00 0.15 0.15 1.00 O.w O.w 1.00
CalaAmd Velus
(27) Ad�ctd flaw Pate n Yank es pr Nar, v• ((1)•(17)7<4D 400 111 0 40) 0 1a 0 0 0 0 178 IW
(20) AdAated Solottim fear Sate in Nhioles pr Naw Of Grein, a• ISee Note I) 1782 1330 0 1782 0 1551 0 0 0 0 1330 14117
(29) floc hrw4 Ws• WWII)) 0.22 0.00 0.00 0.27 0.00 0.08 0-00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.13 0.13
(ID) mamma Cat la hi%Ard r ftWrttm d� gQc • BaTR d: (29)or (7 Sana•Pod IiwrJ/Cycle latithl 0.22 0.08 0.00 0.27 0.00 0.13 0,00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.13 0.13
(311 Cwo
wtr tae 4600• ((o)'a Uma APS QKwraLl 0.21 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.13 O.OD 0.00 0.00 0.00 0-00 0.13 .GBG
(12) Cess law AtMumma Ptgatwm of qtu • aaa Note a 0.46 0.72 0.00 0.57 0.01 0.28 O.OD 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.20 0.21
1 Oi Lam sty n wmmcles pr rtar, a • N>?1 'I lg 96i 0 1009 0 427 0 0 0 0 766 700
1%) vskm r Comity Y4t int •N • uvw(s)l 0.48 0.12 0.00 0.4A 6.00 0.29 0.00 O.OD 0.00 0.00 0.49 0.48
it) arae Bray Pm urkta In ford Bare Pr%W tkn Adjuaat • 1506 NotO A 17.3 3.8 0.0 12.2 0.0 21.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 28.5 29.2 18.18
noArea a"P ar lances n d rooMar hq�lm Adjutant,d• [(35) (26)) %.7 3.2 0.0 10.3 0.0 26.1 0.0 0.0 o.0 0.0 27.2 29.2 16.33
(37) tool d r6vwm, to• law Ota U B A A B A 0 A A A A C O C
Sae Notes m last p®e.
SII 0o8$oNo�or000�MN R88 88888 00888808co
wi00666 000<
qII 0o86�g rvo.-o�000�nN RK;$$888$8� 0088880800<
MO X00�OC���O 0000 O
�� 0o86?�No-o�000nry R868888881Q CO888808��
Ce JGO �XY�ppO�_�pp��Ny�O [�Np0..0CC��0pp0 000<
�II M�SPO NOLO SOON�nN SPPSB HOHPH I� C o e d�S^AaO
II
OCCO 011^
$�SaONO�O��OO�nN SS,PSSSOS$18 8 8BSx�sq- I
1 .;o- 6666 eRp�
� II oo8�^No�o�000�nN R888888881Q po8B88e6??
000<
�II op8a-No�o�000�nN RS68888888 poB888p6??
0po<
$II Si�B&gNo�o��oo9nN 8C688881Q81B 3i�23g88�14°fio< I
MpO SCC ROC��_e�O O 00 O�O
�II R�86'^NO"O�OOO MN BH68$$88$ CCCOV6NM"
II C VO ��pO---C---0 O CCOC�O
1!I� H�BPRNO�O�OON�MN 8868QBQ��$ 2�2SBBxp1^•^•
I� M10 �Oe�����C� 0000 OMi MnO
$II ^e88grve�o oeo9nN
:d6-46 R688888818 60888868?
ric --=-0 0066 oe=<
4II �85?yNe -e. oee$nN 886888888,Q lg"Ivi 9100•=
'z .io
g
o
a a a A
ir
N N • � R
b
b A 6 6¢
ya or �' •• �Y+,�Us
19
y
�•i��{ b�Jb^� �g � �i_A aIs }�yV Y��i
c-� cap*=� s����•ay$ .����
�= tie Cd r •'
P. A 5�
�
YssB�� �
3�• � :SC:9C:°�RSU7YC� Y �9RR �g76g7� ���Agaga�ig
^
� y
e R9
i II ��$&gN0^O�OON�nN $RP$SS$$PS .��RRB��✓���
Int MO ^00..�_��0� X0000 OSLRe
8uoBBgno. o�000�nry RlR68888881Q Oe8888o8??
11 '^Qa C�epO.�oe��. o 0066 ,opeo<
5 S�.ad-NO�O�000 MN OHP BSHS BH✓Q -60661 CJN
( .:Ce� � �.MM:ffa�����_�uu.��:p -6066 CAM I
WII R�SBONO�O�OON�MN HPPSSSS$PS ^�SBB�g�.,., I
Xeoed oRRo
8II 8o8Borvo-o�000�MN R!�l688888818 668888686? I
6664 oeo<
II R 88Nrvo�o�000MN 88688888818
������0 6660�QJB2t8Q�jct
can
aN -8&^No^o�ooNMN 86`688888K8 t�d^888x�Y1"'^
601p6
8II Ro86torvo-o�000�nN R�Q$88888818 po68880800•
0000 000<
GII ��Sa^NO�O�000�nN S$PSSBS$Si ��19R8N��NM I
�N B�BPgIVo.-o�ooN�nN 81Sl688$8$ll;8 2{�2SBS"J�.YiPP
S II ^o �Mo po�C���p��o� d0ee 0RA6
gII ROSPgN0�O�000�MN gPppHSeSH� 66 HHSH0$00
MO X00�OC���O OCeC 00 0<
'
:o
$� �86tNNo�o_oop$nN 886888888WRJRR.AS�yI"1
's . ' -.�e--=--.:-0 -0000 ex's=
8
J
3 � F
is F
S b S 6 JI R78
¢ b
8 9 •�•$ .v
� � NDN � ^• � aA
cob- �
g eeb� bb 8g9 >� Vbg4 - y�
off
� d5 �er 5 ss
e S N
5 �@ � z
U111111,1
spa':- 5
/ y
• 1 L
����� iii.GrY_■iii I�
• • " • w�wwwwww� ` � � I � ,
w�wwwwww�
w�wwwwww�
MEN
r — -n•fie_.�.e. � ��
MIA
//////R
�Y.
�- �i+.nra�
o
,,/
11 �11 � • �� a a n /�
0000
_ iiii /
alsoI i -
SWI
OTA ON m TA ON hol hlq 10
M �- Tit'+!T'�
RESOLUTION NO. 94-4-5-2
APPROVING A REQUEST FOR CHANGE OF SCOPE AND PROJECT]FUNDING
FOR THE MULTI-MODAL PARKING DECK (CALTRANS)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN JUAN
CAPISTRANO,CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A REQUEST FOR A CHANGE OF SCOPE
AND PROJECT FUNDING THROUGH CONTRACT NO. 75V434 WITH THE STATE
OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
WHEREAS,the City of San Juan Capistrano has entered into a funding contract,Contract No. 75V434 with
the State of California Department of Transportation in the amount of$1,296,000 in State funds with an effective start date of
September I, 1993;and,
WHEREAS,the conclusion of the preliminary design phase is that it will not be possible to construct a parking
deck providing 63 additional parking spaces on the existing site; and,
WHEREAS,the City of San Juan Capistrano wishes to provide an increase in the existing parking by means
of State funding; and,
WHEREAS,Contract No. 75V434 contains a"Scope of Work" in Exhibit"A" and a"Project Cost Estimate"
in Exhibit"E".
NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED,that the City Council of the City of San Juan Capistrano does
hereby approve a request for a change of project scope as shown in Proposed Exhibit "A" and a change of project funding as
shown in Proposed Exhibit"E",both attached hereto and made a part hereof.
PASSED,APPROVED,AND ADOPTED this Sth day of April 1994,
LLENE CAUPBELL, YOR
ATTEST:
CITY CLE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss
CITY OF SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO )
I,CHERYL JOHNSON,City Clerk of the City of San Juan Capistrano,California,DO HEREBY CERTIFY
that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of Resolution No. 94-4-5-2 adopted by the City Council of the City
of San Juan Capistrano,California,at a regular meeting thereof held on the 5th day of April , 1994,
by the following vote:
AYES: Council Members Jones, flausdorfer, Nash and Mayor Campbell
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: Council Member Vasquez
(SEAL)
CHERYL JOHN N,OTY CLERK
-2-
CONTRACT NO. 75V434
PROPOSED EXHIBIT "A"
SCOPE OF WORK
The Project includes the acquisition of additional right-of-way and the design and
construction of expanded surface parking at the existing Capistrano Depot surface
parking lot that will add approximately 33 new spaces for intercity rail passengers.
A detailed site survey including boundaries, topography,existing features, and utilities
will be prepared along with a geotechnical report describing subsurface conditions
and pavement recommendations.
The surface parldng lot's design will be consistent with Historic Downtown "Mission"
area design guidelines, lighting and landscaping ordinance requirements, and other
regulatory review.
• CONTRACT NO. 7SV434
PROPOSED EXHIBIT "E"
PROJECT COST ESTIMATE
Description State Dollars Local Dollars Total Dollars
Administration $40,000 $40,000
R/W Acquisition $450,000 $314,000 $764,000
Environmental $15,000 $15,000
Preliminary Design $40,000 $70,800 $110,800
Surface Design $60,000 $60,000
Surface $411,670 $411,670
Construction
TOTAL $1,016,670 $384,800 $1,401,470