The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutVOL_3_Appendix H Appendices Appendix H Traffic Study General Plan Update and Anociated Spei:ijic Plam EIR The Planning Center ~ Appendices This page intentionally left blank. General Plan Update and Associated SPecific Plam EIR The Planning Center City of San Bernardino Arrowhead Sprin2s Specific Plan TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS & MITIGATION MEASURES Prepared by TRANSTECH ENGINEERS 198 N. ARROWHEAD AVENUE, SUITE 1 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92408 TEL: 909-595-8599 DECEMBER 29, 2004 H-l PREP ARER'S CERTIFICATION TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS & MITIGATION MEASURES ARROWHEAD SPRINGS SPECIFIC PLAN SAN BERNARDINO, CALIFORNIA This is to certify that the above titled traffic study has been prepared under the supervision of M. Yunus Rahi, Ph.D, P.E, a California Registered Professional Engineer. ~ ~ ~ 12-29-04 M. Yunus ~ahi, Ph.D, P.E Date ,~~~'tESS~~~, ~ 'cv~ ~n Yr>':~" ,,\;. //.c~ /~L v/!,y,', (:, ,\ /; ,,-;V/y,\ '..fl.!"'. Ie \~ "') I~ ^ / \ ( 0(6 ';\"fi', \ I ~ ~[XP..' 06<iO-2C>O/::l::) S:;)I ~* ~IO CJ918.\ . * I ,\ ,J' \ / '" II \/\ " ",-;/ ,\v1" / ",.C I V \ \-/./ (~::-:</ ~\, (' ~--~" <::\ //1/ ~~ C r, \/ ~"~';/ ......----==_==-:~......----- /~;:~~;)f-ESS!~~~ // \\j /::" YT>'"'( :\~ // '.'l<<;',>J,fU Ll1(;':' <I; \\ // L~</~{~'\, --\J)\ ~ \\ ;! - i j. ><0' .~ ) I ~'::';I~ ")7\~ \ I( Dc" I,~EXP. 05 30 200sL);o:J i \\ * \ riO. TR1726 . * I '\ cf\ \ / .-::Ji \\/f'.. tjr IF->II' / ~// \~0 /".[' "~~~'~::-// 0~~~/ "-~ ( \; '>..,) .'/ ">..}t C ,iI\.._~;:;::/' --~ Professional Engineer's Stamp Arrowhead Springs SpecUic Plan: Traffic Impact Study &Mitigation Measures 12~29~2004 H-2 Pagci TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS & MITIGATION MEASURES ARROWHEAD SPRINGS SPECIFIC PLAN SAN BERNARDINO, CALIFORNIA TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION PAGE TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY & MITIGATION MEASURES Introduction ...... ............. ..... "'''' ....... ........... ....... ...... ..... .............. ....... ......... ............. 1 Project Description.................................................................................................. 1 Project Access.. .......................................................................... ............................. 3 Study Methodology....... ........ ............. ..... ......... ........... .... ... ....... ..............................4 Traffic Generation and Distribution.................. ............. ......................................... 7 Traffic Analysis.. .......... ..... ...... .... .............. ............ ............ ................. ....... .... ........ 11 Mitigation Measures....... ... ............................... .......... ..... ......... .......... ...... .......... ... 25 Cone lusi ons ........................................................................................ ................... 29 TABLES Table 1: Level of Service Definitions ..................................................................... 5 Table 2: Level of Service Criteria........................................................................... 6 Tahle 3: Trip Generati on ......................................................................................... 8 Table 4: Existing 2003 ADT and LOS on Ruadways ...........................................11 Table 5: Intersection LOS Summary: Existing (2003) Conditions ....................... 12 Table 6: 2007 ADT and LOS on Roadways .........................................................13 Table 7: Arrowhead Springs Trip Distribution (Phase 1) ..................................... 14 Table 8: Intersection LOS Summary: Future (2007) Conditions.......................... 18 Table 9: 2030 ADT and LOS on Roadways ......................................................... 19 Table 10: Arrowhead Springs Trip Distributiun (Build-out) ................................ 20 Table 11: Intersection LOS Summary: Future (2030) Conditions........................ 24 Table 12: Before and After Mitigation LOS Summary (2007 Conditions) .......... 26 Table 13: Before and After Mitigation LOS Summary (2030 Conditions) .......... 28 Arrowhead Springs Specif'ic Plan: Traffic Impact Study &Mitigation Measures 12-29-2004 H-3 Page ii TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTD.) FIGURES Figure 1: Vicinity Map.................. ............ .............. ................................................ 2 Figure 2: Trip Distribution Percentages ................................................................10 TECHNICAL ApPENDIX Arrowhead Springs Specific Plan: Traffic Impact Study &Mitigation Measures 12-29-2004 H-4 Page iii TRAFFIC IMPACT ANAL VSIS & MITIGATION MEASURES ARROWHEAD SPRINGS SPECIFIC PLAN SAN BERNARDINO, CALIFORNIA INTRODUCTION This report presents the findings of a traffic impact analysis conducted to evaluate traffic impacts associated with proposed specific plan developments in the Anowhead Springs community of San Bemardino County. The Arrowhead Springs Specific Plan, developed in compliance with the City of San Bernardino guidelines, provides the framework for incorporation of the community of Arrowhead Springs into the City when adopted by the City Council. The purpose of the traffic impact analysis is to identify and mitigate any potential traffic impacts anticipated from proposed developments under the Specific Plan. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The proposed Arrowhead Springs Specific Plan consists of a total of 1,916 acres, ami accommodates the development of the following: . 1,350 single-family detached and multi-family residential units . 1,049,190 square feet of commercial and office uses . A 199-acrc, IS-hole public golf course . A new 300-room hotel . A conference center . Reuse of the historic Arrowhead Springs Hotel . Reuse and expansion of the historic An.owhead Springs spa/resort The proposed developments would be accommodated within approximately 506 aeres of the total 1,916 acres of the Specific Plan. The remaining lands would be preserved to provide a scenic backdrop and multi-purpose recreational amenity unique in Southern California. Figure 1 shows a vicinity map of the project. Arrowhead Springs Specific Plan: Traffic Impact Study &Mitigation Measures 12-29-2004 H-S Page I Figure 1: Vicinity Map ARROWHEAD SPRINGS DEVELOPMENT VICINITY MAP Q) ~ <C P ro S ~30th St. SR-30 PROJECT ~ SITE 40th SL. ~ if] 1=1 o [f] ..... ~ H cO ~ Lynwood (j) ? <t cO lf1 o Dr er: ...... Q) ~" -~- ~ CITY OF SAN BERNAR INO u- N Q) > <C b.O ..... ... ..... ...... H (j) ~ if] Arrowhead Springs Specific Plan: Traffic Impact Study &Mitigation Measures 12-29-2004 H-6 Page 2 PROJECT ACCESS The proposed Arrowhead Springs Specific Plan developments would be acce~sed from the west off State Route 18 (Rim of the World Highway) via Old Watennan Canyon Road and Arrowhead Springs Road and from the south off 40th Street via a new access road connecting the project with 40th Street. Additionally, access improvements would be provided south of 40th Street through construction of new streets and/or widening/improvement of existing roadways between 40th Street and State Route 30 Freeway interchanges at Waterman A venue. A number of alternative alignments have been identified for the southern acces~ improvements and their impact and feasibility of development have been analyzed. These alternative alignments are as follows: Alternative 1: A new north-south expressway would traverse through the Arrowhead Springs Development connecting Highway 18 to the north with 30th Street to the south. Between 40th Street and 30th Street, the proposed expressway would be aligned along the west side of existing Flood Control basin. Approximately 70% of traffic to and from Highway 18 currently using Waterman Avenue is expected to be diverted to the new expressway. Alternative 2: Same as Alternative 1, except that between 30th Street and 40th Street the ex.pressway would be aligned along the center of existing Flood Control basin. Alternative 3: Same as Alternative 1, except that between 30th Street and 40th Street the expressway would be aligned along the east SIde of existing Flood Control basin. Alternative 4: Same as Alternative 1, except that between 30th Street and 40th Street the expressway would be aligned along Harrison Street with appropriate radius of curvature and widening of the street along the west side to connect with the proposed access road north of 40th Street and 30th Street on the south. Alternative 4A.l: Same as Alternative 4, except the expressway would be aligned along Harrison Avenue up to 40th Street on the north and with appropriate radius of curvature and widening of the street along the west side to connect with 30th Street on the south. The project traffic would travel along 40th Street between Harrison Street and the Arrowhead Springs Specific Plan: Traffic Impact Study &Mitigation Measurr-:s 12-29-2004 H-7 Page 3 project access road. The segment of 40th street and the intersection of 40th Street and Harrison Street would be adequately improved to accommodate additional traffic. Alternative 5: A new north-south expressway would traverse through the Arrowhead Springs Development connecting Highway 18 to the north with 40th Street to the south. Traffic to and from the expressway would then turn west and east to travel on 40th Street to Waterman A venue as well as to Harrison Street and Sterling A venue. Approximately 70% of traffic to and from Highway 18 currently using Waterman Avenue is expected to be diveIted to the new expressway. Alternative 6: No new expressway would be built. Highway 18 traffic would continue to use existing alignment up to and through Waterman Avenue. Traffic to and from Arrowhead Springs Development would use a proposed collector street through the site to access Highway 18 to the north and 40th Street to the south. This traffic would then travel east or west to access Harrison Street, Waterman Avenue, Valencia A venue, Sterling A venue, etc. Detailed analysis of these alternative alignments have been conducted separately and documented in "Arrowhead Parkway Alternative Roadway Alignments Fatal Flaw Analysis", Based on this analysis, Alternative 4A.l has been recommended as pm1 of Arrowhead Springs Specific Plan developments. STUDY METHODOLOGY The Highway Capacity Manual (HeM) method developed by Transportation Research Board was used in calculating the peak hour intersection capacity and level of service at 16 key intersections. This method is based on increase/decrease in operational delay in traffic movement due to peak hour traffic volumes at the intersections. There are 6 levels of service defined for various amounts of delay experienced by traffic. These are LOS A, LOS B, LOS C, LOS D, LOS E, and LOS F. LOS A defines a minimum delay, ideal traffic conditions while LOS F defines the worst delay and congested traffic conditions. LOS is defined as the maximum capacity condition. For urban intersections, a LOS D condition is the worst traffic conditions acceptable. Traffic mitigation measures are usually required for an intersection when existing or future traffic projection at that intersection results in a LOS worse than LOS D. A complete description of the meaning of level of service can be found in the Highway Research Board's Special Report 209 titled Highway Capacity Manual (HCM). The manual establishes the definitions for levels of service A through F. Arrowhead Springs Specific Plan: Traffic Impact Study &Mitigation Measures 12-29-2004 H-8 Page 4 Brief descriptions of the SIX levels of service, as extracted from the manual, are listed in Table 1. Table 1 LEVEL OF SERVICE DEFINITIONS LOS Description No approach phase is fully utilized by traffic and no vehicle waits longer than A one red indication. Typically, the approach appears quite open, turns are made easily and nearly all drivers find freedom of operation. This service level represents stable operation, where an occasional approach B phase is fully utilized and a substantial number are approaching full use. Many drivers begin to feel restricted within platoons or vehicles. This level still represents stable operating conditions. Occasionally, drivers C have to wait through more than one red signal indication, and backups may develop behind turning vehicles. Most drivers feel somewhat restricted. This level encompasses a zone of increasing restriction approaching instability at the intersection. Delays to approaching vehicles may be substantial during D short peaks within the peak period; however, enough cycles with lower demand occur to permi t periodic clearance of developing queues, thus preventing excessive hackups. Capacity occurs at the upper end of this service leveL It represents the most E vehicles that any particular intersection can accommodate. Full utilization of every signal cycle is seldom attained no matter how great the demand. This level describes forced flow operations at low speeds, where volumes exceed capacity. These conditions usually result from queues of vehicles F backing up from restriction downstream. Speeds are reduced substantially and stoppages may occur for short or long periods of lime due to congestion. In the extreme case, both speed and vulume can drop to zero. The thresholds of level of service for unsignalized and signalized intersections are shown in Table 2, as follows: Arrowhead Springs Specific Plan: Traffic Impact Study &Mitigation Measures 12-29-2004 H-9 Page 5 Table 2 LEVEL OF SERVICE CRITERIA Two-Way or AU-Way Stop Controlled Signalized Intersection Level of Service Intersection Average Delay per Vehicle (see) Average Delay per Vehicle (see) A O~1O #10 B > 10 ~ 15 > 10 - 20 C > 15 - 25 > 20 - 35 D > 25 - 35 > 35 - 55 E > 35 - 50 > 55 - tm F >50 > 80 or a V Ie ratio equal or greater than LO "0_.0"- LOS D is the minimum threshold at all key intersections in the City of San Bernardino. However, for roadways, the City's minimum threshold is LOS C. The traffic study guidelines require that traffic mitigation measures be identified to provide for operations at the minimum threshold levels. For the study area intersections, the TRAFFlX computer software, Version 7.6 has been utilized to determine intersection levels of service. Levels of service are presented for the entire intersection, consistent with the HCM Operation Delay methodology. While the level of service concepts and analysis methodology provide an indication of the performance of the entire intersection, the single letter grade A through F cannot describe specific operational deficiencies at intersections. Progression, queue fonnation, and left-turn storage are examples of the operational issues that affect the performance of an intersection, but do not factor into the strict calculation of level of service. However, the TRAFFIX software docs provide an output that quantifies operational features at intersections, such as vehicle clearance, queue formation, and left-turn storage requirements. A project's traffic impact is determined based upon whether or not traffic volume associated with the project deteriorates the level of service at an intersection location to an unacceptable LOS E or F. According to the City of San Bernardino Traffic Impact Study Guidelines, traffic impacts at an intersection are to be considered "significant" when any of the following changes in the volume to capacity (V/C) ratios occur between the '"without project" and the "with project" conditions: Arrowhead Springs Specific Plan: Traffic Impact Study &Mitigation Measures 12~29-2004 H-IO Page 6 LOS C D E,F V IC with Proiect Increases > 0.0400 > 0.0200 > 0.0100 The LOS and vie ratio~ above arc based on the delay methodology outlined in the Highway Capacity Manual. TRAFFIC GENERATION AND DISTRIBUTION Various components of Arrowhead Springs Specific Plan developments are expected to generate approximately 29,640 new vehicular trips per day on an average weekday, of which approximately 1,442 trips will be during the AM commuter peak hour (one hour between 7 AM and 9 AM) and 2,417 trips will be during the PM commuter peak hour (one hour between 4 PM and 6 PM). These estimates are based on proposed land use information of Arrowhead Springs Development and trip generation rates for these land uses published by Institute of Transportation Engineers (Reference: "Trip Generation", 6th Edition, ITE) and other applicable trip generation data and information. Table 3 shows traffic generation estimates for Arrowhead Springs Devdopment. Figure 2 shows project traffic distribution percentages on various roadway segments under the preferred alternative alignment scenarios (Alignment 4A.l). Arrowhead Springs Spec(fic Plan: Traffic Impact Study &Mitigation Measures 12-29-2004 H-ll Page 7 Table 3 TRIP GENERATION BY ARROWHEAD SPRINGS DEVELOPMENT AT PHASE I AND FULL PROJECT BUILD-OUT Traffic Rates Average Daily Traffic AM Peak Hour Traffic PM Peak Hour Traffic Land Use & ITE Code Size & Composition & Volume Volume Volume Unit --"--~ Vol Type % Total IN J OUT~ ~Total ~L IN OUT Tot;lLJ IN OUT PHASE I la. Hotel (330)*: 193 Cars & Rate 8.00 50% 50% 037 72% 28% 0.49 43% 57% Trucks 100% ._--~--_.- ___w__ ---_._-~_._-- Conf.Ctr./Bungalows/Spa Room Yol 1,544 772 772 71 51 20 95 41 54 ---~-~-- --- ~- ~_.~.._-~- ------- ~_._---- lb. Holel (330): 115 Cars &. Rate 800 50% 50% 037 72% 28% 0.49 43% 57% I-----~.-- -- Trucks 10U% Annex Room Vol 920 460 460 43 31 12 56 24 32 ----. .-. 2. Spa (Included in I a above) ------_.~-- 3a Condo (230): 285 C:ar~ &. Rate 5.86 50% 50% 0.44 17% 83% 0.54 67% 33% Trucks 100% Townbomesl Hilltown DU Vol 1,670 835 835 125 21 104 154 103 51 :lb. C:ommercial (820): Cars&. Rate 42.92 50% 50% 1.03 61% 39% 3.74 48% 52% Trucks 100% Golf"related:22,000 sf 34,167 Vol 1,466 733 733 35 21 14 128 61 66 Chapel*: 1.5UO sf aSF P,lss-By Rate 145<) 50% 50% 035 61% 39% 127 48% 52% Trips 34% ---. -- -- ~~ Spring HOllse*: 2,667 sf Yol 499 249 249 12 7 5 41 21 23 Hilltown Shops: 8,000 sf Net Trips 968 484 484 23 14 9 84 40 44 199 Cars & Rate 5.04 50% 50% 0.21 74% 26% 0.30 34% 66% 4 Golf Course (430) JOO% Acre Trucks Vol 1,003 501 501 42 31 11 60 20 39 ---- _ H___ .- "------- -~-----_._- ._~~ - -- ~-- - ~ -- - - . ~ -. ~~-- Sa. Estate Homes (2iO.: 24 Cars & Rate <J 57 50% 50% 075 25% 759;' 101 M% 36% Trucks 100% Res. North DU Vol 230 115 115 18 5 14 24 16 9 6a. Estate Homes (210): 12 Cars & Rate 9.57 50% 50% 0.75 25'l 75% 1.01 64% 36% 100% Res. South DU Trucks Vol 115 57 57 9 2 7 12 8 4 3UO Cars & Rate 3.4~ 50% 50% 0.07 63% 37% O.W 59% 41% 6b. Senior Housing (253) Trucks 100% DU Vul 1,044 522 522 21 13 8 30 18 12 .-.-- _._.__._..~ ------ ... ---- "----.--- -----.--- ---..------ _______..__n ... -- ~ TOTAL NET TRIPS BY ALL USES IN PHASE 1 7,494 3,747 3,747 352 169 liB 516 270 246 (Continued to Next Page...) Arrowhead SprinRs SpecUic Plan: Traffic Impact Study &Mitigation Measures 12-29-2004 H-12 Page 8 Table 3 (Cond.) TRIP GENERATION BY ARROWHEAD SPRINGS DEVELOPMENT AT PHASE I AND FULL PROJECT BUILD-OUT ---_._-- ~----~- ~ ~~-- - ---~- Traffic Average Daily Traffic AM Peak Hour Traffic PM Peak Hour Traffic Land Use & ITE Code Size & Composition Rates Volume Volume Volume Unit & Vol Type % Total IN OUT Total IN OUT Total IN OUT ---~-- ---~-- PHASE II ~- 5b. Condo (230): 429 Cars & 100% Rate 5Jl6 5U% 5U% 0.44 17% 83% 0.54 67% 33% -- Trucks Vol 2,514 1,257 1,257 189 32 157 232 155 76 Townhomesl Res. North OU 7. Hotel (330): 300 Cars & Rate 8.00 50% 50% 0.37 72% 28% 0.49 43% 57% Trucks 100% .-- ---.- --- ____.u_ _. IHEI Room Yol 2,400 1,200 1,200 111 80 31 147 63 84 ~._. --~ ------ ~.~.._.__._... .... -. f'~.." .. 250,000 Cars & Rate 1101 50% 50% 1.56 88% 12% 149 17% 83% ll. Office (710) Trucks 100% GSF Vol 2,753 1,376 1,376 390 343 47 373 63 309 ~-~- _..- -- 9a Commercial (820): Cars & RaLe 42.92 50% 50% 103 61% 39% 3.74 48% 52% 100% Village Walk:200,000 sf 200,000 Trucks Vol 8,584 4,292 4,292 20G 126 80 748 359 389 GSF Pass.By Rate 14.59 50% 50% 0.35 61% 39% 1.27 48% 52% 34% Trips Vol 2,919 1.459 1,459 70 43 27 254 122 132 -------- --~-_._-- -,._-~._- -........-.. - --.---- Net Trips 5,665 2,833 2,833 136 83 53 494 237 257 ~ 9b Cundu (230): 266 CalS & Rate 586 50% 50% 044 17% 83% 054 67% 33% 100% Village Walk mr Trucks Vol 1,559 779 779 117 20 97 144 96 47 9c. Apartments (220) 34 Cars & 100% Rate 6.72 50% 50% 0.51 20% 80% 0.62 65% 35% Trucb Village Walk OU Yo! 228 114 114 17 3 14 21 14 7 "-----~ ..... _.~--_. .---- ~~- ---- .- .. -..----- n__ ____ 10 Restaurant (831) 20,000 Cars & Rate 89.95 50% 50% 081 50% 50% 749 67% 33% 100% Windy Point GSr Trucks Yol 1,799 900 900 16 8 8 150 100 49 TOTAL NET TRIPS BY ALL USES IN PHASE II 16,918 8,459 8,459 977 570 407 1,560 729 830 TOTAL NET TRIPS BY ALL USES AT BUILD-OUT /24,412 12'206_~2~~~L~~~J 738 1591 2,075 -, 999 1,076 --~--~---~-~- Land Use Codes/notes: 820 = Shopping Center; 330 = Resort HOLel; 430 = Golf Course; 253 = Senior Housing 83 l = QUlllity Restaurant; 710 = Offin'; 230 = CunuominiumlTuwnhuuse 210 = Single Family Detached Houses; 220 = Apartments " = Existing Land Uses Arrowhead Springs Specific Plan: Traffic Impact Study &Mitigation Measures 12-29-2004 H-]3 Page 9 Figure 2: Trip Distribution Percentages ARROWHEAD SPRINGS DEVELOPMENT TRIP DISTRIBUTION PERCENTAGES WITH PROJECT+EXPRESSWAY AT BUILD-OUT ~--{. \'0 \\ I PROJECT 150/0 SITE 50/0 >-< U 850/0 ~ P-. N :><: r:Ll ~ 100/0 <C SOlo 100/0 ~ 40th St. Q.) ~ ..., >- UJ (j) <r: 0 >- 0::; c: (\) . <C 4%.~1O/0 ~ 0 >- (j) <r: 00 ~ :;.. ~ (.) . .-t 40/0 <C .... H 10/0 ci:i H H ci:i S 0 ro (fj b1J ....... cd ~ 0 ~ -----,-~ r:c, ...... Q) 30th SL Lynwood Dr. ....... -t-J H ,...., , (j) ci:i 0 I-t-J 400/0 >- SR-30 !UJ ,0>- ~ --A- I '- ~ 250/0 '--...- / ~- 100/0 CITY OF S N BERNA DINO Arrowhead Springs Specific Plan: Traffic Impact Study &Mitigation Measures 12-29-2004 H-14 Page 10 TRAFFIC ANALYSIS A total of 10 mid-block roadway locations and 16 intersections were selected to evaluate the traffic impacts under various scenarios and roadway alignment alternatives with and without Arrowhead Springs Development. Average daily traffic (ADT) counts as well as peak hour traffic counts of turn movements were conducted during the months of March and April, 2003 to determine existing traffic volume conditions. The ADT volumes with and without Arrowhead Springs Development were estimated for the 10 mid-block roadway locations for comparison purposes. The capacity and level of service (LOS) calculations were also conducted for peak hour traffic conditions at these mid-block locations. Table 4 shows existing 2003 ADT volumes and levels of service (LOS) on mid-block locations. Table 4 EXISTING 2003 A VERAGE DAILY TRAFJ:i"IC (ADT) VOLUMES AND LOS ON ROADWAYS IN THE VICINITY OF ARROWHEAD SPRINGS DEVELOPMENT Existi ng 2003 Conditions Roadways Facility No. of Capacity, .~--_.."- Type Lanes Veh/day (C ) Volume, vie Veh/day (V) Ratio LOS --~--,------,----- ~" . -.--.--- --_.._._..~ New Road (Project to 40th Collector 2 10,000 0 0.000 A S1.) Harrison Parkway (40th St Major 4 40,000 0 0.000 A to 30th St) Arterial --."...-" ---.-----.-. ..------.--.------. ~-- _ _. _ ._..m~.." -- - -"-- -- ---.------.. ...~- IIighway 18 N/O Waterman Major 4 40,000 19,194 0.480 A A venue Arterial Waterman Avenue SIO 40th Major 4 40,000 17,170 0.429 A Street Arterial ~- ~_...-_.~.__.~-- ~ -----~. - f-- ~. ~_._- . _._---------~-- Waterman Avenue N/O Major 4 40,000 21,220 0.531 A 30th Street Arterial 40th Street E/O Waterman Major 4 40,000 10,150 0.254 A A venue Arterial -- Harrison Street SIO 40th Secondary 2 12,000 960 0.080 A Street Arterial .sterling Avenue SIO Major 2 15,000 1,510 0.101 A Foothill Drive Arterial Valencia A venue SIO 40th Secondary 2 12,000 4,110 0.343 A Street Arterial .. ....."".. .._----"~._-"..- Valencia Avenue N/O 30th Secondary 2 12,000 4,320 0.360 A Street Arterial - .----.-- Note: Existing ADT volumes on were determined based on Caltrans publications, existing 24-hour traffic counts or peak hour traffic counts, assuming that PM peak hour volume represents approx. 10% of ADT volumes. Arrowhead Springs Spec~fic Plan: Traffic Impact Study &Mitit;ation Measures 12-29-2004 H-15 Page 11 Table 5 shows existing 2003 ADT volumes and levels of service (LOS) at key intersection locations. Table 5 INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE SUMMARY (Existing 2003 Conditions) Existing Conditions Intersection Peak Hour LOS Delay VIe: e---- 1. Waterman Avenue at 40th AM C 25.3 0.592 Street - ~----- PM C 29.3 0.47 2. Waterman Avenue at Parkdale AM B 10.5 0.573 Drive -~--- ---------- PM B 11.3 0.485 .-. -_._~. . 3. Waterman Avenue at 36th AM D 33.6 Street (Unsignalized) PM C 21.6 4. Waterman Avenue at 34th AM D 26.0 Street (Unsignalized) PM D 29.4 -~._- .._- . 5. Waterman Avenue at Marshall AM A 3.2 0.486 Blvd PM A 4.0 0433 ... 6. Waterman Avenue at 30th AM C 25.5 0.747 Street - ~----"'. PM C 22.9 0.609 ~ ---------- 7. Valencia Avenue at 40th AM B 9.9 0.300 Street M.. PM B 11.3 0332 ~.. 8. Arrowhead Springs Road at AM NA 40th Street PM NA ~--~.- 9. Harrison Street at 40th Street AM B 12.1 (Unsignalized) ~ ~ ~._------ PM B 13.3 -~--_...._---- ...-- 10. Del Rosa Avenue at Foothill AM B 11.2 Blvd (Unsignalized) ---."-- PM B 115 11. Sterling Avenue at Foothill AM A 7.8 0.156 ~_._. Blvd PM A 7.9 0.131 ~-_._.__.._-- .-...-- 12. Valencia Avenue at 30th AM 8 14.7 0.231 Street PM B 149 0.255 AM NA 13. 30th Street at Lynwood Drive - ---- --~-_. PM NA -. 14_ Del Rosa Avenue at Lynwood AM B 15.8 0.429 ..~ Drive PM B 15.3 0.556 --~._--- - - ~._-~- 15. Sterling Avenue at Lynwood AM B 12.5 0.462 Drive PM B 12.6 0.437 16. 30th Street at Lynwood Drive AM B 13.3 (Unsignalized) --~.-------- --..---. - PM B 14.2 Note: vIe ratios are nol calculated for unsignalized intersections. Arrowhead Springs Specific Plan: Traffic Impact Study &Mitigation Measures 12-29-2004 H-16 Page 12 The project will have 2 phases of development Phase 1 will be completed by the year 2007 prior to construction of Harrison Parkway with its preferred alignment. See Table 3 for the land uses to be developed under Phase 1. Traffic from project will use the existing system of circulation network. However, site-specific roadway and intersection improvements will be completed for existing intersections and roadways based on project-related impacts expected with Phase 1 traffic volumes. Therefore, roadway and intersection traffic analysis was conducted separately for Phase 1 development and the 2030 build-out development including the proposed Harrison Parkway construction. Table 6 shows the results of roadway LOS analysis with and without Phase 1 development by 2007. Table 7 shows Project Phase 1 trips at key intersections during the AM and PM peak hours. Table 6 2007 A VERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC (ADT) VOLUMES AND LOS ON ROADW A YS IN THE VICINITY OF ARROWHEAD SPRINGS DEVELOPMENT ~~ - M.. 2007 W/O Project 2007 With Project Capacity, Conditions Conditions Diff. in Facility No. of ~__M Roadways Type Lanes Veh/day Volume, V/C Volume, VIC V/C by (C) Veh/day Ratio LOS Vehiday Ratio LOS Project (V) (V) .~ ~._-_.~- New Road (Project to Collector 2 10,000 0 0.000 A 0 0.000 A 0.000 40th S1.) -~~. Harrison Parkway (40th Major 4 40,000 0 0.000 A 0 0.000 A 0.000 St to 30th St) Arterial Highway 18 N/O Major 4 40,000 20,730 0.518 A 27.474 0.687 B 0.169 Waterman A venue Arterial ~. -~- Waterman A venue SIO Major 4 40,000 18,544 0.464 A 23,789 0.595 A 0.131 40th Street Arterial ___.."___.0___ Waterman Avenue N/O Major 4 40,000 22,918 0.573 A 2R,163 0.704 B 0.131 30th Street Arterial ~. n~_ 40th Street EIO Major 4 40,000 10,962 0.274 A 11,7 11 0.293 A 0.019 Waterman Avenue Arterial ---~ Harrison Street SIO Secondary 2 12,000 1,037 0.OR6 A 1,412 0.118 A 0.031 40th Street Arterial Sterling A venue S/O Major 2 15,000 1,631 0.109 A 2,006 0.134 A 0.025 Foothill Drive Arterial - ~-,--~--- .~----_.- ~~ Valencia A venue S/O Secondary 2 12,000 4,439 0,370 A 4,439 0.370 40th Street Arterial A 0.000 Valencia Avenue N/O Secondary 2 12,000 4,666 0.389 A 4,666 0.389 30th Street Arterial A 0.000 ~_. Note: A 2% per year traffic growth factor was assumed through year 2025 due to normal traffic growth in the area. The 2% yearly growth rate assumption was made per discussion with City staff. Arrowhead Springs Specific Plan: Traffic Impact Study &Mitigation Measures 12-29-2004 H-17 Page 13 Table 7 ARROWHEAD SPRINGS TRIP DISTRIBUTION (Phase 1 Without Expressway) DAILY TOTAL 7,494 Intersection DIR AM IN AM OUT II AM TOTAL II PM IN PM OUT PM TOTAL Waterman/30th NL 0 0 0 0 0 0 ---...- -~. NT L06 0 106 170 0 170 NR 0 0 0 0 0 0 SL 0 0 0 0 0 0 ST 0 20 20 0 27 27 ._-~. SR 0 116 116 0 154 154 ~ ~-- EL 0 0 0 0 0 0 ET 0 0 0 0 0 0 ER 0 0 0 0 0 0 WL 0 18 18 0 25 25 -_._~~~_..__.._~ ---_.~-- WT 0 0 U 0 0 0 WR 18 0 18 30 0 30 Waterman/Marshall NL 0 0 0 0 0 U r-~-~- ~--_._.~ NT 124 0 124 200 0 200 ___M_ .--.- ~------~--- NR 0 0 0 0 0 0 SL 0 0 0 0 0 0 -~._._- ST 0 136 136 0 181 181 - - - ~_. .... --------- SR 0 0 0 0 0 0 I----~~-_. - -------- EL 0 0 0 0 0 0 ET 0 0 0 0 0 0 ._-~- ER 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~---- WL 0 0 0 0 0 0 -. ---- _u_ ------- WT 0 0 0 0 0 0 -- -~---..__.~------ WR 0 0 0 0 0 0 ---- Waterman/34th NL 0 0 0 0 0 0 NT 124 0 124 200 0 200 ---- -.--------.---- --- NR 0 0 0 0 0 0 - SL 0 0 0 0 0 0 ST 0 136 136 0 181 181 ---- SR 0 0 0 0 0 0 -. - EL 0 0 0 0 0 0 -- .~. ET 0 0 0 0 0 0 -- --.------.-- ER 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ .~. ~- WL 0 0 0 0 0 0 .-- _H "_ ----_.~ ----.-.- WT 0 0 0 0 0 0 ------- Arrowhead Springs Specific Plan: Traffic Impact Study &Mitigation Measures 12-29-2004 H-18 Page 14 I WR 1_~9__~J_____o__ _~ 0 II 0 I 0 ~ 0 ~ Waterman/36th NL 0 0 0 0 0 0 NT 124 0 124 200 0 - 200 -~.. NR 0 0 0 0 0 0 SL 0 0 0 0 0 0 ST 0 136 136 0 181 181 .- SR 0 0 0 0 0 0 -~ . EL 0 0 0 0 0 0 ET 0 0 0 0 0 0__ ER 0 0 0 0 0 0 WI, 0 0 0 0 0 0 WI' 0 0 0 0 0 0 WR 0 0 0 0 0 0 WatcrmanIParksdale NL 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~"~~ -. NT 124 0 124 200 0 200 NR 0 0 0 0 0 0 SL 0 0 0 0 0 0 ---- ST 0 136 136 0 181 181 -~~ --- r-- SR 0 0 0 0 0 0 EL 0 0 0 0 0 0 ET 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~_..~ ER 0 0 0 0 0 0 . ~ . ._---~----- WL 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~_._-~.__.~---- .. -~-- WT 0 0 0 0 0 0 WR 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ ---.....--. ..- - . ---- Watennan/40th NL 0 0 0 0 0 0 - --- NT 7 0 7 11 0 11 NR 118 0 118 189 0 189 SL 0 0 0 0 0 0 'n _.._..__... ST 0 7 7 0 10 10 ~ ----...---- SR 0 0 0 0 0 0 -.-....-....- _n__ _ EL 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~_._--_. ~ ---.-.-- ------ -- ET 17 0 17 27 0 27 ER 0 0 0 0 0 0 WL 0 129 129 0 172 172 ---- ------_._--,_.~.- u.____. _ WT 0 IR 18 0 25 25 -~---_.._. --~-------- WR 0 0 0 0 0 0 -. .-- ~- Lynwood/JOth NL 0 0 0 0 0 0 NT 0 0 0 0 0 0 -- ~_._._. NR 0 0 0 0 0 0 ---. -_._- SL 0 0 0 0 0 0 .-. .. ST 0 0 0 0 0 0 -- --------- SR 0 0 0 0 0 0 - - - ~---_.._. - - --...- EL 0 0 0 0 0 0 Arrowhead Springs Specific Plan: Traffic Impact Study &Mitigation Measures 12-29-2004 H-19 Page 15 ET 0 0 0 0 0 0 f-- ----- -~~-_._.-- ER 0 0 0 0 0 0 WL 0 0 0 0 0 0 WT 0 0 0 0 0 0 WR 0 0 0 0 0 0 '-- ----- ------- -~ ~- -----~ Lynwood/Del Rosa NL 0 0 () 0 0 0 NT 7 0 7 11 0 11 -. NR 0 0 {) 0 0 0 SL 0 0 () 0 0 0 ST 0 7 7 0 10 10 SR 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~.__. .--- ~ EL 0 0 {) 0 {) 0 ET 0 {) 0 0 0 0 ER 0 0 0 0 0 0 WL 0 0 0 0 0 0 WT 0 0 0 0 0 0 ---- ---- -~---- --.-.---- - .--.-- WR 0 0 0 0 {) 0 Lynwood/Sterling NL 0 0 0 0 {) {) NT 2 {) 2 3 0 3 --- -.--. --. ---.-- --------.- ~--- --.--.-- -... .-..- .-.-----.---.-.---- NR 0 0 {) 0 0 0 SL 0 0 () 0 0 0 ST 0 2 2 0 2 2 . ...-- SR 0 0 0 0 {) 0 -- EL 0 {) 0 0 0 {) -~--_._----- E1' U 0 0 0 {) 0 ER 0 {) 0 0 {) 0 WL 0 {) {) 0 0 {) --- .-- -_._- WT 0 0 0 0 U {) .- f--- ._~- ._u__ ______ WR 0 {) 0 0 0 0 Harrison/40th NL 0 0 0 0 () 0 NT 0 0 {) 0 {) {) -.----. -------- NR 0 0 0 0 U 0 _._---- SL 0 0 0 {) 0 0 S1' 0 0 {) 0 0 0 SR 0 0 0 {) 0 0 - --------- EL {) 0 0 0 0 0 .-----.-- ET 0 9 9 0 12 12 ER 0 {) 0 0 0 0 WL 0 0 0 0 0 0 - .-..- .----- WT 8 0 8 14 {) 14 --~_.. ----- WR 0 0 {) 0 0 0 -- Dei RosaIFoothill NL {) 0 _~~=r-~l = u I 0 I NT 7 0 0 11 -------- ----...-.------- NR 0 0 {) 0 ---.- Arrowhead Springs Specific Plan: Traffic Impact Study &Mitigation Measures 12-29-2004 H-20 Page 16 SL 0 2 2 0 2 2 -_.._--~ ___.__.u______ , --..-..--...----------- 51' 0 7 '7 0 10 10 SR 0 0 0 0 0 0 EL 0 0 0 0 0 0 -----. ET 0 0 0 0 0 0 ER 0 0 0 0 0 0 WL 0 0 0 0 0 0 WT 0 0 0 0 0 0 --_.~--~-- ---.- _._~------_.__..- -. ~--~~--~ - -- ----.. ~_._- -- WR 2 0 2 3 0 3 SterlinglFoothill NL 2 0 2 3 0 3 NT 0 0 0 0 0 0 .~,--~._- ------~-,--_.- .. --~- __..._._.._.__m..._.__. NR 0 0 0 0 0 0 SL 0 0 0 0 0 0 81' 0 0 0 0 0 0 SR 0 0 0 0 0 0 EL 0 0 0 0 0 0 ------,~- -1----- ~ ~-- ._--~~- ~-- --- ET 0 0 0 0 0 0 ER 0 2 2 0 2 2 WL 0 0 0 0 0 0 - -- WT 0 0 0 0 0 0 ----~-----_. - .--..------.- ... u_ __ - _'H .- ---.--------- WR 0 0 0 0 0 0 Expressway/40th NL 0 0 0 0 0 0 -------~- NT 0 0 0 0 0 0 - ~_... - --- ..-- NR 0 0 0 0 0 0 ---~_. SL 0 9 9 0 12 12 51' 0 0 0 0 0 0 SR 0 147 147 0 196 196 'H .. ____. -- EL 134 0 134 216 0 216 - -..--------- ET 0 0 0 0 0 0 ER 0 0 0 0 0 0 WL 0 0 0 0 0 0 -~ - -- "-.------- WT 0 0 0 0 0 0 .- - ..-- WR 8 0 8 14 0 14 ------~ __ - ..__~______ n_ Arrowhead Springs Specific Plan: Traffic Impact Study &Mitigation Measures 12-29-2004 H-21 Page 17 Table 8 shows the results of intersection LOS analysis with and without Phase 1 development by 2007. Peak 2007 Conditions Without Project 2007 Conditions With Phasl: I Intersection Hour LOS Delay vie LOS Delay vIe .~ _..._~-~ 1, Waterman Avenue at 40th AM C 26.8 0.670 C 26.5 0.677 -~ Street PM C 25.2 0.528 C 26.0 0.599 ----~...._,--- 2. Waterman Avenue at Parkdale AM B 11.2 0.641 B 11.0 0.693 Drive -~ PM B 11.7 0.543 B 11.2 0.604 --- 3. Waterman Avenue at 36th AM E 45.1 F 64.9 Street (Unsignallzed) --~_. PM D 26,9 E 43.7 4. Waterman Avenue at 34th AM F 81.1 A 1.3 Street (Unsignalized) PM F 55.9 F 73.6 .--- - 5. Waterman Avenue at Marshall AM A 3.4 0,544 A 3.5 0.586 Blvd -- --- PM A 4.2 0.486 A 4.1 0.547 _._.~ 6. Waterman Avenue at 30th AM C 29.0 0.843 C 30.7 0,885 Street ,- - PM C 24.2 0.693 C 24.8 0.725 7. Valencia Avenue at 40th AM Street .- ... ,.- PM 8. Arrowhead Springs Road at AM NA C 21.5 0.335 40th Street PM NA C 20,2 0.493 - - __on 9. Harrison Stre"t at 40th Street AM B 12.8 8 13,0 (Unsignalized) --. .. .-"- PM B 14.4 B 14.7 ~._. 10. Del Rosa Avenue at Foothill AM B 11.9 B 12.1 Blvd (Unsignalized) -.--.-- . PM B 12.3 B 12.5 ---- 11. Sterling Avenue at Foothill AM A 7.9 0.176 A 7.9 0.179 Blvd - --.. PM A 8.0 0.149 A 8.1 0.154 ---.---- 12. Valencia Avenue at 30th AM Street PM 13. 30th Street at lynwood Drive AM NA ~----- (Unsignalized) PM NA -- -------_._~- . 14. Del Rosa Avenue at Lynwood AM B 15.1 0.308 B 15.1 0.310 Drive .-.--.-" PM 8 14.2 0.374 B. 14.1 0.377 . ._ ._u_~_ 15. Sterling Avenue at Lynwood AM 8 14.1 0.509 B 14.0 0.545 Drive PM B 12.6 0.437 B 14.2 0.513 ... 16. 30th Street at Lynwood Drive AM B 12.4 B 12.4 (Unsignalized) . ---- PM A 7.5 A 7.5 -. - - ,. Table 8 INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE SUMMARY (Future 2007 Conditions With and Without Project Phase I) [Note: VlC ratios are not calculated for unsignalized intersections.] The following intersections are expected to he impacted by Phase 1 Project related traffic: 1. Waterman Avenue and 36th Street 2. Waterman Avenue and 34thcStre-et Arrowhead Springs Specific Plan: Traffic Impact Study &Mitigation Measures 12- 29- 2004 H-22 Page 18 Table 9 shows the results of roadway LOS analysis with and without Project build-out by 2030. Table 10 shows Project build-out trips at key intersections during the AM and PM peak hours. Table 9 2030 A VERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC (ADT) VOLUMES AND LOS ON ROADWAYS IN THE VICINITY OF ARROWHEAD SPRINGS DEVELOPMENT 2030 W/O Project 2030 With Project Capacity, Conditions Conditions DiU. in Facility No. of Roadways Type Lanes Vehlday Volume, vie Volume, vie V/C by (C) Vehlday LOS Vehfday LOS Project (V) Ratio (V) Ratio .~. ----.....- ~._._- New Road (Project to Major 4 40,000 0 0.000 A 20,750 0.519 A 0.519 40th St.) Arterial ~~ -~._.. --~--- Harrison Parkway (40th Major 4 40.000 0 0.000 A 11\,309 0.458 A 0.458 St to 30th St) Arterial Highway 18 N/O Major 4 40,000 24,062 0.fi02 A 25,283 0.632 B 0.031 Waterman Avenue Arterial Waterman Avenue S/O Major 4 40,000 24,062 0.602 A 24,062 0.602 A 0.000 40th Street Arterial .-.....-........-- Waterman Avenue N/O Major 4 40,000 24,062 0.602 A 24,062 0.602 A 0.000 30th Street Arteri a 1 40th Street E/O Major 4 40,000 17.908 0.448 A 19,129 0.478 A 0.031 \\1 aterman A venue Arterial -- I--- -.---- ~ --.-.--- Harrison Street S/O Secondary 2 12,000 0 0.000 A 0 0.000 A 0.000 40th Street Arterial ~.. - ----- --...-- . Sterling A venue SIO Major 2 15,000 2,166 0.144 A 3.387 0.226 A 0.081 Foothill Dri ve Arterial Valencia Avenue S/O Secondary 2 12,000 4,794 0.399 A 6,015 0.501 A 0.102 40th Street Arterial ~ ~_ u~ Valencia A venue N/O Secondary 2 12,000 5,039 0.420 A 6,259 0.522 A 0.102 30th Street Arterial Notes; The 2030 condition assumes that a new roadway will be constructed to join 30th Street with 40th Street along an alignment immediately west of Harrison Street. The new roadway is projected to attract approximately 70% of existing traffic from Highway 18, 40th Street and Waterman Avenue. The project generated traffic is assumed to be distributed as follows; 15(fo to and from Highway 18 north of the site, 5% to and from 40th Street west of Waterman Avenue, 70% to and from SR-30 using the new roadway connecting 30th Street with 40th Street, and 10% to and from 40th Street cast of the new roadway connecting the site with 40th Street. Without new roadway, project traffic will be distributed 75% to the west on 40th Street and 10% to the east on 40th Street (using Harrison Street, Del Rosa Avenue or Sterling Avenue). Arrowhead Sprinxs SpecU"ic Plan: Traff"ic Impact Study &Mitigation Measures 12-29-2004 H-23 Page 19 Table 10 ARROWHEAD SPRINGS TRIP DISTRIBUTION (At Project Build-out) DAIL Y TOTAL 24,412 Intersection DfR AM IN AM OUT AM TOTAL II PM IN PM OUT PM TOTAL II Waterman/30th NL 0 0 0 0 0 0 NT 22 0 22 40 0 40 - NR 443 0 443 599 0 599 ~- - ~---_.------ SL 0 0 0 0 0 0 f---- - . ...u...... ---~~ 51' 0 6 6 0 11 11 SR 0 18 18 0 32 32 EL 0 0 0 0 0 0 - --..- -~._._-_.~--- ET 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~-- ~- ._---~- ER 0 0 0 0 0 0 WL 0 S9 59 0 108 108 - - WT 0 355 355 0 646 646 1--. .~~ WR 7 0 7 10 0 10 ----~ ~--- -_.~ .. __ .__n.. _._ --~.,_._- _._------ Waterman/Marshall NL 0 0 0 0 0 0 NT 30 0 30 40 0 40 NR 0 0 0 0 0 0 -. ____. ___u_ SL 0 0 0 0 0 0 -~ --. ---. ST 0 24 24 0 43 43 SR 0 0 0 0 0 0 EL 0 0 0 0 0 0 -- ~ ~ -- --.-- ...__.---~ ~--._._...~..- ET 0 0 0 0 0 0 .. - --.- ---------------- fiR 0 0 0 0 0 0 -. _'n'" ..--- WL 0 0 0 0 0 0 WT 0 0 0 0 0 0 WR 0 0 0 0 0 0 - ............._.~-- ------ ~ . __..__._n._______ Watcrman/34th NL 0 0 0 0 0 0 -.--- .. NT 30 0 30 40 0 40 NR 0 0 0 0 0 0 SL 0 0 0 0 0 0 .. a . ~.. S1' 0 24 24 0 43 43 -.---------- SR 0 0 0 0 0 0 -- ---.- - - _.~ EL 0 0 0 0 0 0 .- - --~ fiT 0 0 0 0 0 0 I--- ---- -_.._~_._.. ---- ER 0 0 0 0 0 0 WL 0 0 0 0 0 0 WI' 0 0 0 0 0 0 Arrowhead Springs Specific Plan: Traffic Impact Stud}' &Mitigation Measures 12-29-2004 H-24 Page 20 I WI{ I 0 I 0 II 0 II 0 I 0 11 0 II Waterman/36th NL 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~-- .------ ---~._.._-~. -- NT 30 0 30 40 0 40 NR 0 0 0 0 0 0 SL 0 0 0 0 0 0 ST 0 24 24 0 43 43 SR 0 0 0 0 0 0 EL 0 0 0 0 0 0 ET 0 0 0 0 0 0 -.-..-- ER 0 0 0 0 0 0 WL 0 0 0 0 0 0 WT 0 0 0 0 0 0 WR 0 0 0 0 0 0 - WatermanlParksdale NL 0 0 0 0 0 0 -- ---- ._----~ NT 30 0 30 40 0 40 NR 0 0 0 0 0 0 SL 0 0 0 0 0 0 ST 0 24 24 0 43 43 ---~_._.- SR 0 0 0 0 0 0 EL 0 0 0 0 0 0 ET 0 0 0 0 0 0 ER 0 0 0 0 0 0 -~. - -- _._.~ --. WL 0 0 0 0 0 0 - -- 1------.--- ...-- -... WT 0 0 0 0 0 0 WR 0 0 0 0 0 0 WatermanJ40th NL 0 0 0 0 0 0 .- ~~ --~.. ---- -.-... ~._---- NT 30 0 30 40 0 40 -.--.- -- -..-- NR 0 0 0 0 0 0 SL 0 0 0 0 0 0 ST 0 24 24 0 43 43 ~- 1------------------ SR 0 0 0 0 0 0 - --- ----- -- -------.----- EL 0 0 0 0 0 0 --- f------ ---..--" ET 74 0 74 100 0 lOO ER 0 0 0 0 0 0 WL 0 0 0 0 0 0 W1' 0 59 59 n 108 lO8 --- -.- - ---.-.- ~---_._---~--- WR 0 0 0 0 0 0 .-.. - --------. - ~.__.__._--- L ynwood/30th NL 0 0 0 0 0 0 NT 0 0 0 0 0 0 .. -..-..-.- "..--.. NR 517 0 517 699 0 699 SL 0 0 0 0 0 0 ....-... .... S1' 0 0 0 0 0 0 .. -.- SR 0 0 0 0 0 0 -- -- -..-- ---- EL 0 0 0 U 0 0 -- - ------- Arrowhead Springs Specific Plan: Traffic Impact Study &Mitigation Measures 12-29-2004 H-25 Page 21 ET 0 0 0 0 0 0 ER 0 0 0 0 0 0 -. -~ f--~-. -- -.- --- _m mmm_______ WL 0 414 414 0 753 753 WI 0 0 0 0 0 0 WR 0 0 0 0 0 0 -- --.-... -_. ....------ LynwoodJDel Rosa NL 0 0 0 0 0 0 NT 30 0 30 40 0 40 NR 0 0 0 0 0 0 SL 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ f---------~.-.- ST 0 24 24 0 43 43 SR 0 0 0 0 0 0 EL 0 0 0 0 0 0 ET 0 0 0 0 0 0 - - ~....._--_.- ER 0 0 0 0 0 0 -- - . WL 0 0 0 0 0 0 .-- - H__ ___ WT 0 0 0 0 0 0 WR 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ _ u _._~_____..~~__._~ Lynwood/Sterling NL 0 0 0 0 0 0 ---~-~_.__._._. -f--..._-~- ._~~-----~-- NT 7 0 7 10 0 10 NR 0 0 0 0 0 0 SL 0 0 0 0 0 0 - - -. ._---- 5T 0 6 6 0 11 11 --~._.._- - ,.--.---- SR 0 0 0 0 0 0 -------------- --_._._~ --..----...- EL 0 0 0 0 0 0 ET 0 0 0 0 0 0 ER 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~_._---- -~ WL 0 0 0 0 0 0 -- -- -...--. WT 0 0 0 0 0 0 ----- WR 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~-- - --....-.--..---. ---...-- Harri:-;onl40th NL 517 0 517 699 0 699 ---.-...--.------ NT 0 0 0 0 0 0 . ___ __.u__ __.._ f---mm__~ -- NR 0 0 0 0 0 0 SL 0 0 0 0 0 0 5T 0 0 0 0 0 0 SR 0 0 0 0 0 0 - -- --- EL 0 0 0 0 0 0 _m ~----~ ---- ET 0 30 30 0 54 54 ER 0 414 414 0 753 753 WL 0 0 0 0 0 0 - . __.m.... __ WT 37 0 37 SO 0 50 ..---. WR 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ - __m__ --- _..~----~ - -_._---------- Del RosalFoothill NL 0 0 0 0 0 0 NT 30 0 30 40 0 40 NR 0 0 0 0 0 0 Arrowhead Springs Specific Plan: Traffic Impact Study &Mitigatir)11 Measures 12-29-2004 H-26 Page 22 SL 0 6 6 0 11 11 ST 0 24 24 0 43 43 ---- SR 0 0 0 0 0 0 -- ---.------- EL 0 0 0 0 0 0 ET 0 0 0 0 0 0 ER 0 0 0 0 0 0 -~ WI. 0 0 0 0 0 0 ..-- WT 0 0 0 0 0 0 WR 7 0 7 10 0 10 --------.-..-----.-----------. ._------~ Sterling/FoothilI NL 7 0 7 10 0 10 ~ -- H NT 0 0 0 0 0 0 _._-- NR 0 0 0 0 0 0 SI. 0 0 0 0 0 0 - -- -~ ST 0 0 0 0 0 0 --_..._--~- - SR 0 0 0 0 0 0 EL 0 0 0 0 0 0 ET 0 0 0 0 0 0 -- ER 0 6 6 0 11 11 ----. WL 0 0 0 0 0 0 --_.~-~ - WI' 0 0 0 0 0 0 WR 0 0 0 0 0 0 --- Expreliliway/40th NL 0 0 0 0 0 0 -----.--.-.. ....-... NT 0 0 0 0 0 0 NR 0 0 0 0 0 0 -- SL 0 443 443 0 807 807 ST 0 0 0 0 0 0 SR 0 59 59 0 108 [08 -- EL 74 0 74 100 0 100 ------ .. - ET 0 0 0 0 0 0 ER 0 0 0 0 0 0 WL 0 0 0 0 0 0 .~-,. WT 0 0 0 0 () 0 WR 554 0 554 749 0 749 ---._-~---_.._--,- -.--.- Arrowhead Springs Specific Plan: Traffic Impact Study &Mitif?ation Measures 12~29-2004 H-27 Page 23 Table 11 shows the results of intersection LOS analysis with and without Project build-out by 2030. Table 11 INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE SUMMARY (Build-out 2030 Conditions With and Without Project) Peak 2030 Ba,e Conditions 2030 Base + Project Conditious lnlt'rse<;tioll Hour -~~. LOS Delay vIe LOS Delay vIe 1. Waterman Avenue at 40th AM C 28.5 0.820 C 30.8 0.856 Street PM D 42.9 0.982 0 51.5 1.033 2. Waterman Avenue at Parkdale AM A 3.7 0.553 A 3.7 0.559 Drive ... PM A 5.3 0.651 A 5.3 0.662 ---. --.--- 3. Waterman Avenue at 36th AM F 54.8 F 58.4 Street (Unsignalized) PM F 87.5 F 99.1 .-. 4. Waterman Avenue at 34th AM D 26.7 D 27.5 Street (Unsignalized) .. ..- PM F 110.6 F 125.2 5. Waterman Avenue at Marshall AM A 4.6 0.626 A 4.6 0.633 Blvd -...... PM A 5.0 0.633 A 5.0 0.644 .... 6. Waterman Avenue at 30th AM F 138.9 1.215 F 115.6 1222 Street PM F 96.5 1.180 F 88.8 1200 _....n.~ 7. Valencia Avenue at 40th AM C 15.0 0.667 Street -. -" PM F 72.4 1.129 --_...- 8 Arrowhead Springs Road at AM NA C 22.4 0.784 40th Street PM NA F 143.5 1.271 .. -.....-- 9. Harrison Street at 40th Street AM D 26.6 F Overflow (Unsignalized) .... PM F Overtlow F Overflow 10. Del Rosa Avenue at Foothill AM B 14.8 C 15.7 1-----_... ... _..- Blvd (Unsignalized) PM C 17.5 C 20.2 ..~ ..--- 11. Sterling Avenue at Foothill AM A 8.1 0.245 A 8.2 0.253 Blvd PM B 102 0.419 B 10.4 0436 - ~------ 12. Valencia Avenue at 30th AM A 1.0 0.137 Street .~ .----...- PM B 12.7 0.304 ----. ~ ---- AM NA 13. 30th Street at Lynwood Drive ---- PM NA ---~------ 14. Del Rosa Avenue at Lynwood AM B 16.6 0.558 B 16.5 0.564 ._~ Drive PM B 12.7 0.612 B 12.6 0.623 -- 15. Sterling Avenue at Lynwood AM B 11.2 0.366 B 11.2 0.372 Drive --.. PM C 20.0 0.775 C 20.5 0.781 16. 30th Street at Lynwood Drive AM A 9.7 D 25.8 (Unsignalized) PM B 11.5 F 185.3 "-~-- ---.--- [Note: vIe ratios are not calculated for unsignalized intersections.] Arrowhead Springs Specific Plan: Traffic impact Study &Mitigation Measures 12~29-2004 H-28 Page 24 The following intersections are expected to be impacted by the Project related trafflc at build- out: 1. Waterman Avenue and 30th Street 2. Harrison Street and 40th Street 3. Waterman Avenue and 36th Street 4. 30th Street and Lynwood Drive 5. Waterman Avenue and 40th Street 6. Waterman Avenue and 34th Street 7. Arrowhead Village Road (Expressway) and 40th Street MITIGATION MEASURES Traffic mitigation measures were identified for those intersections where future level of service with Arrowhead Springs Development indicates an unacceptable condition, i.e., LOS E or worse. Phase 1 Mitigation Measures The following mitigation measures were identified for the two intersections expected to be impacted by Phase 1 project traffic: 1. Waterman Avenue @ 36th Street will operate at LOS F and E during the AM and PM peak hours, respectively. With signalization with permitted phasing the intersection will operate at LOS A during both peak hours. 2. Waterman Avenue @ 34th Street will operate at LOS E and F during the AM and PM peak hours, respectively. With signalization with permitted phasing the intersection will operate at LOS A during both AM and PM peak hours. Table 12 shows the results of intersection LOS analysis before and after above mitigation measures. Arrowhead Springs Specific Plan: Traffic Impact Study &Mitigation Measures 12-29-2004 H-29 Page 25 Table 12 BEFORE AND AFTER MITIGATION LEVEL OF SERVICE SUMMARY 2007 Conditions Peak Conditions Before Mitigation Conditions After Mitigation Intersection Hour e-----.-.--. ~- - ~---~~~~~---~ -~--~-- LOS Delay vie LOS Delay vie 1 . Waterman Avenue at AM C 26.5 0.677 40th Street PM C 26.0 0.599 2. Waterman Avenue at AM B 11.0 0.693 Parkdale Drive PM B 11.2 0.604 -~ ~._-~--~ _._~--- 3. Waterman Avenue at AM F 64.9 A 3.8 0.572 36th Street PM E 43.7 B 3.4 0.501 4. Waterman Avenue at AM A 1.3 A 3.3 0.569 34th Street PM F 73.6 A 3.3 0.517 5. Waterman Avenue at AM A 3.5 0.586 ----.- Marshall Blvd PM A 4.1 0.547 ~~ 6. Waterman Avenue at AM C 30.7 0.885 30th Street PM C 24.8 0.725 7. Valencia Avenue at 40th AM .._.~~..~~.- Street PM ~~ f--. ~~- --.--.--- 8. Arrowhead Springs AM C 21.5 0.335 ------- Road at 40th Street PM C 20.2 0.493 9- Harrison Street at 40th AM B 13.0 Street PM B 14.7 -- 10. Del Rosa Avenue at AM B 12.1 ---...--.-------"- Foothill Blvd PM B 12.5 -..------ 11. Sterling Avenue at AM A 7.9 0.179 -~.~--- Foothill Blvd PM A 8.1 0.154 12. Valencia Avenue at AM 30th Street PM ---... .~.- ------- 13. 30th Street at Lynwood AM _..._-~--- ~_~prive (Signalized) PM ----.--. 14~ Del Rosa Avenue at AM B 15.1 0.310 Lynwood Drive PM s- 14.1 0.377 15~ Sterling Avenue at AM S 14.0 0.545 . - Lynwood Drive PM B 14.2 0.513 .- --......- -- ------~~-- 16. 30th Street at Lynwood AM B 12.4 -~--- Drive (Unsignalized) PM A 7.5 -~ Note: Only those intersections operating at unacceptable LOS D, E or F were Mitigated per CMP guidelines. Arrowhead !:J'prings Specific Plan: Traffic Impact Study &Mitigation Measures 12-29-2004 8-30 Page 26 Project Build-out Mitigation Measures The following mitigation measures were identified for the two intersections expected to be impacted by Phase 1 project traffic: 1. Waterman A venue @ 30th Street will operate at LOS F during both AM and PM peak hours under 2030 conditions with project. With protected phasing and 1 additional WB right turn lane, and 1 additional SB right turn lane, both with overlap right turn phasing the intersection will operate at LOS D during both AM and PM peak hours. 2. Harrison Street @ 40th Street will operate at LOS F during both AM and PM peak hours, under 2030 conditions with project (assuming the intersection remains unsignalized with existing lane configurations). With signalization, permitted phasing and 2 NB left turn lanes, 1 NB right turn lane, an exclusive EB right turn lane and an exclusive WE left turn lane, the intersection will operate at LOS Band e during the AM and PM peak hours, respectively. 3. Waterman Avenue @ 36th Street will operate at LOS F during both AM and PM pcak hours under 2030 conditions with project. With signalization and permitted phasing the intersection will operate at LOS A and B during the AM and PM peak hours, respecti vely. 4. 30th Street @ Lynwood Drive is an unusual intersection. Currently the intersection is uncontrolled in the NS direction and stops in the EW directions, with heavy NB right turn and WB Left turn movements. With existing configurations the intersection operates at LOS D and F during AM and PM peak hours, respectively. If the intersection is reconfigured to align with Arrowhead Parkway and with signalization the intersection will operate at LOS A during both peak hours with the addition of project traffic to 2030 model output. 5. Waterman Avenue @ 40th Street will operate at LOS D with a vie of 1.033 during the AM peak hour. With the addition of an exclusive right-turn lane in each direction and westbound right-turn overlap phasing the intersection will operate LOS Band e during the AM and PM peak hours, respectively. 6. Waterman Avenue @ 34th Street will operate at LOS D and F during AM and PM peak hours, respectively, under 2030 conditions with project. With signalization and permitted phasing the intersection wiU operate at LOS A during both peak hours. 7. Arrowhead Village Road (Expressway) (gJ 40th Street will operate at LOS e and F during AM and PM peak hours, respectively, under 2030 conditions with project. With signalization with protected EW phasing and the intersection configuration of; 2 SB left turn lanes, 1 SB right lane, 2 EB thm lanes, 1 EB left turn lane, 2 W B thru lanes and 1 WB right turn lane the intersection will operate at LOS Band e during AM and PM peak hours respectively under 2030 model conditions with project traffic. Arrowhead Springs Specific Plan: Traffic Impact Study &Mitigation Measures 12-29-2004 H-31 Page 27 Table 13 shows the results of intersection LOS analysis before and after above mitigation measures. Table 13 BEFORE AND AFTER MITIGATION LEVEL OF SERVICE SUMMARY 2030 Conditions Peak Conditions Before Mitigation Conditions After Mitigation Intersection _..._.... Hour LOS Delay vie LOS Delay vie 1. Waterman Avenue at AM C 30.8 0.856 C 27.1 0.764 40th Street PM D 51.5 1.033 C 32,1 0.881 2. Waterman Avenue at AM A 3,7 0,559 --.--- Parkdale Drive PM A 53 0.662 3. Waterman Avenue at AM F 58.4 A 3.4 0.537 36th Street PM F 99.1 B 11.4 0.782 4, Waterman Avenue at AM 0 27.5 A 2.8 0.544 34th Street PM F 125.2 A 3.5 0.610 ~~-- -- _.... . "_...~-_._----- AM A 4.6 0.633 5. Waterman Avenue at ..__dd......._ .... Marshall Blvd PM A 5.0 0.644 ----_.._._-- ~"---_._. 6, Waterman Avenue at AM F 115.6 1.222 D 51.7 0.928 30th Street PM F 88.8 1.200 D t---- 38.9 0.912 - 7. Valencia Avenue at 40th AM ..- --~ --. -. --_._--~~ - Street PM - -.. - 8 Arrowhead Springs AM C 22.4 0.71l4 B 15.5 0.503 Road at 40th Street PM F 143.5 1.271 C 21.7 0.747 9. Harrison Street at 40th AM F Overflow B 14.8 0.607 Street PM F Overflow C 28.7 0.907 -. . .---~.- 10. Del Rosa Avenue at AM C 15.7 ~----- Foothill Blvd PM C 20.2 -----..----- 11. Sterling Avenue at AM A 8.2 0.253 Foothill Blvd PM B 10.4 0.436 - ~-----~ 12. Valencia Avenue at AM .m .-- 30th Street PM 13. 30th Street at Lynwood AM Drive (Signalized) PM .-- 14. Del Rosa Avenue at AM B 16.5 0.564 ----.--.--.- _....__.._--~-- Lynwood Drive PM B 12.6 0.623 . -------- 15. Sterling Avenue at AM B 11.2 0.372 .-. Lynwood Drive PM C 20.5 0.781 16. 30th Street at Lynwood AM D 25.8 A 8.9 ~- Drive (LJ_nsi.9I1<'\~~~~L__ __ PM F 185.3 C 19.0 Note: Only those intersections operating at unacceptable LOS D, E or F were Mitigated per eMP guidelines. Arrowhead Springs Specific Plan: Traffic Impact Study &Mitigation Measures 12-29-2004 H-32 Page 28 CONCLUSIONS Arrowhead Springs Specific Plan consists of developing a mix of residential, commercial and entertainment land uses in the Arrowhead Springs area of San Bernardino County on the north and adjacent to the City of San Bernardino. The project's traffic impact analysis was conducted using SanBAG's Congestion Management Program requirements as well as the City of San Bernardino's Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines. The project development has been divided in two phases for this analysis - Phase I is expected to be completed by 2007 and Phase II by the build-out year of 2030. No new roadways would be added to the existing circulation system to handle the Phase I estimated traffic volumes. For the build-out traffic scenario, a new expressway ~ Arrowhead Parkway -joining 40th Street on the north and 30th Street on the south along the western alignment of Harrison Street was incorporated for traffic impact analysis. The project's significant traffic impacts were determined for the both Phase I and build-out traffic scenarios and appropriate mitigation measures were identified. Arrowhead Springs Specific Plan: Traffic Impact Study &Mitigatiu/1 Measures 12-29-2004 H-33 Page 29 Arrowhead Sprines Specific Plan TECHNICAL ApPENDIX Arrowhead Springs Specific Plan: TraJric Impact Study &Mitigation Measures 12-29-2004 H-34 Arrowhead Sprioes Specific Plan INTERSECTION TURNING MOVEMENT COUNTS THE INFORMATION IN THIS APPENDIX IS A V AILABLE AT THE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT OF THE CTY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLEASE CONTACT TERRI RAHHAL, PRINCIPAL PLANNER Arrowhead Springs SpecUic Plan: Traffic Impact Study &Mitigation Measures 12 29 2004 H-35 Arrowhead Sprin2s Specific Plan INTERSECTION LOS CALCULATIONS: EXISTING 2003 CONDITIONS THE IN.F 0 RMA TION IN THIS APPENDIX IS A V AILABLE AT THE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT OF THE CTY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLEASE CONTACT TERRI RAHHAL, PRINCIPAL PLANNER Arrowhead Springs Specific Plan: Traffic Impact Study &Mitigation Measures 12-29-2004 8-36 Arrowhead Sprines Specific Plan INTERSECTION LOS CALCULATIONS: PHASE I (2007) CONDITIONS THE INF'ORMATION IN THIS APPENDIX IS AVAILABLE AT THE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT OF THE CTY OF SAN BERNAlilllNO PLEASE CONTACT TERRI RAHHAL, PRINCIPAL PLANNER Arrowhead Springs Specific Plan: Traffic Impact Study &Mitigation Measures 12-29-2004 H-37 Arrowhead'Sprin2S Specific Plan INTERSECTION LOS CALCULATIONS: BUILD-OUT (2030) CONDITIONS THE INFORMATION IN THIS APPENDIX IS A V AILABLE A T THE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT OF THE CTY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLEASE CONTACT TERRI RAHHAL, PRINCIPAL PLANNER Arrowhead Springs Spec{fic Plan: Traffic Impact Study &Mitigatiun Measures 12-29-2004 H-38