HomeMy WebLinkAbout37-Planning
. CI-k OF SAN BERNARDQO - REQUUT FOR COUNCIL Ae:lON
rrf~
From:
R. Ann Siracusa
Director of Planning
Planning
Subject:
Appeal of Conditional Use
Permit No. 87-43
Dept:
Date:
October 19, 1.987
pi
C'
- .:-~. ~ ~
( 2
,-.1
. ,
.
None.
?'"
\~i ~
~
""': :::
o
Synopsis of Previous Council action:
,
I,:::
Recommended motion:
Deny the appeals.
R. Ann Siracusa
Contact person: R Ann ~ir;:U"t1A~
Phone: 384-5057
Supporting data attached: Staff Report
Ward: 3
FUNDING REQUIREMENTS:
Amount:
Sou rce:
Finance:
Council Notes:
^"n....n1'" 1+.nrY'> 1\1..... ~ '1 .
. CIW OF SAN BERNARDOo - REQUOT FOR COUNCIL AOON
STAFF REPORT
Subject: Appeal of Conditional Use Permit No. 87-43
Mayor and Council Meeting of November 16, 1987
BACKGROUND
On September 22, 1987, the Planning Commission approved on the Consent Agenda,
Conditional Use Permit No. 87-43 to establish a retail center with two fast-food
drive-thru restaurants at 666 South "E" Street, subject to conditions which
included an Engineering Department requirement to pay a participation fee of
approximately $63,460.00 or upgrade the traffic signalization of the intersec-
tion of Inland Center Drive, Mill Street and "E" Street.
The appeal of this condition is based on the applicants opinion that the fee
assessed is inequitable in the fact that no other development in the vicinity
which has been approved in the last 18 months, has been required to participate
in the intersection upgrading (see attachment "B"). The appeal was received
October 7, 1987.
In addition to this appeal, an appeal was received from the adjacent property
owner stating the two parcels approved under Conditional Use Permit No. 87-43
for development included their property which is a separate parcel adjacent to
the south.
ANALYSIS
The signal upgrade of the five point intersection of Inland Center Drive,
Mi 11 Street and "E" Street is necessary to improve traffi c f1 ow in the vi ci nity.
The applicant provides the following analysis based on research of Planning
Department and Engineering Department files:
Traffic Fee Analysis
1. REVIEW OF PLANS NO. 85-133 (Music Plus)
APII 141-071-74
To construct a 3,500 square foot commercial development located
at the southwest corner of "E" Street, Mi 11 Street and Inland
Center Drive in the C-3, General Commercial zone.
Approved December 5, 1985
Traffic Mitigation: None
75.0264 10 -;'{ -cf(?
c
,r"
Memorandum to the Mayor an~uncil
Appeal of Conditional Use Permit No. 87-43
Meeting of November 16, 1987
,........\
-...I
~)
2. REVIEW OF PLANS NO. 85-119 (Mill Run Plaza)
API 136-162-1,6,7,33,37
To develop a 24 building industrial and commercial complex of
approximately 8.3 acres in the M-2, Heavy Industrial zone at the
northwest corner of Mill Street and "G" Street. The buildings
will total 91,356 square feet.
Approved July 31, 1986
Traffic mitigation: Contribute $12,500 as this subdivision's fair
share of the cost of a traffic signal at the intersection of Mill
and "G" Streets.
3. REVIEW OF PLANS NO. 86-27 (Warehouse Records & Radio Shack)
API 136-111-02
To add 4,000 square feet to existing retail stores and add 9 new
retail stores totaling 12,662 square feet located on the west
side of South "E" Street between Mi 11 Street and Rialto Avenue in
the C-M, Commercial-Manufacturing zone.
Approved April 17, 1986
Traffic mitigation: None.
4. REVIEW OF PLANS NO. 86-99 (Inland Center Mall)
API 136-531--1,02,03,04,07
To add 30,000 square feet to the Inland Center Mall located be-
tween I-215, Inland Center Drive, Orange Show Road and "E" Street
in the C-M, Commercial-Manufacturing zone.
Approved November 26, 1986
Traffic mitigation: None.
However, this analysis is incomplete with regard to full traffic mitigation,
fees collected, and sites analysis.
The second appeal of Conditional Use Permit No. 87-43 was received on
September 30, 1987 from Daniel Hanin, attorney representing the adjacent pro-
perty owners. The appeal is based on a claim by the adjacent property owners
that a portion of their property is included in the proposal for development
(see attachment "C").
Based on this appeal, the applicants retained a registered civil engineer to
conduct a survey of the two parcels covered in the approved Conditional Use
Permit No. 87-43. The survey was completed and submitted to the Planning
Department. Subsequently, the Planning Department submitted the survey to the
Engineering Department for verification. The result is that the parcels
included in the site plan for Conditional Use Permit No. 87-43 include only
those parcels and none of the property on the adjacent parcel (see attachment
"D", memo from the Engineering Department).
/0 -1'1 - il
c
,..., ~
Memorandum to the Mayor anb-touncil -.;
Appeal of Conditional Use Permit No. 87-43
Meeting of November 16, 1987
,
,_",41'
CONCLUSION
1. Upgrading the signals at the intersection of Inland Center Drive,
"E" Street, and Mill Street is necessary to mitigate traffic
hazards and congestion in the vicinity. The current intersection
signalization was provided by others and the applicant has been
requested to provide modification for their additional impact on
the existing system.
2. None of the adjacent parcels are involved in the proposed devel-
opment.
Staff recommends that the Council:
1. Deny appeal and allow the developer to pay the traffic fee of
$ 63,460.00 or the estimated $ 45,000.00 to improve the signal.
Modify the condition of the Engineering Department requiring par-
ticipation in the traffic signal upgrade by determining a "fair
share" of the fee to be paid by these applicants.
2. Deny the appeal that the proposed project includes property not
under control of the applicants.
Prepared by: Sandra Paulsen, Associate Planner for
R. Ann Siracusa, Director of Planning
Planning Department
Attachments: Attachment A - Statement of Official Planning Commission Action.
Attachment B - Letter of Appeal - Applicant.
Attachment C - Letter of Appeal - Attorney representing adjacent
property owners.
Attachment D - Memo from San Bernardino Engineering Department.
Attachment E - Planning Commission Staff Report.
kdm
SR:CUP87-43Pl-3
/0 - 1', - # 7"
---~---I--
c
_ATTACHMENT "A" ~
--.....I
r',
...,..I
"
.............:...............,...
.....-.-. ..
..
........:..-........................,. .
...~.. .,.,.;.;.:.....:.... .... . .-.
city of San Bernardino
STATEMENT OF OFFICIAL PLANNING' COMMISSION ACTION
PROJECT
Number:
Conditional Use Permit No. 87-43
Applicant:
The Sorrento Group
ACTION ".
,..
.'-"," .
-. ... .
. .;..'." ~. .
MeetingDate:'Septefub'er '2i~-'i9li;f"
.~-'., .
x
Approved Adoption of
Adoption of Request
Findings of Fact and
(Attachment "A").
Negative Declaration and
Subject to the Following
Conditions of Approval
Denied.
Other.
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. The proposed retail and restaurant uses conform with the
objectives of the General Plan which designates the site
general commerical/recreational, as well as the
redevelopment plan which encourages development and
revitalization of the properties within the 'boundaries
of the project area.'
.,
2.' ,The proposed use will ,not adversely affect the adjoining
.. ,land uses and ,the growth and development of the area in
...' """lj:ich'., it is.' propof3ed to, pe, locat.edin that ,the
commercial activity of the surrounding 'properties will
be enhanced'by the redevelopment of the vacant auto
dealership.
3. The size and shape of the site proposed for the, use is
adequate to allow the full development of the proposed
use in a manner not detrimental to the particular area
nor to the peace, health,~afety and general welfare of
the surrounding community in that all r.equirements of
the San Bernardino Municipal Code impJ.""uented to insure
.th~.PE!ace, 'health;, safety and, general.welfare have been
met. ' '
"
. ,
4.
'the' tniffic generated bythepropos'ecij-.tise .will not
impose an undue burden upon the streets end highways
designed and improved to carry the traffic in the area
c
-
City of San Bernardino
STATEMENT OF OFFICIAL PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
,,'.---Conditional., UsePermit..No. 87-43
Page 2
(
....">0.,
.."
'-"
...
".I
.........;..
..........-.....
:-.....~...._.:.;.....'.:..;. ~.'. ."
in that the proposed rephasing of . the signal at Mill
Street/E Street/Inland Center Drive will increase the
level of service beyond that which exists and so the
development will improve traffic in the area.
5. Granting Conditional Use Permit 87-43 under conditions
imposed will not be detrimental to the peace, health,
safety, and general welfare of the citizens of San
_ Be~nardino in that traffic ,congestion and circulation
, .pr.oblems' ,will be~dequateiy" ,addressed, and 'nO other
health,safe~y o-r"we:l.farec-Oiiceri'fS ~ere"':'iden-tifiea~ .' '"
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
..
This project was approved subject to the conditions and
standard requirements contained in Attachment A.
VOTE
Ayes: Corona, Lindseth, 'Lopez, Nierman, 'Sharp, Stone
Nays: None
Abstain: None
Absent: .'.."Brown, Cole
Signa ure
"R. Ann Siracusa, 'Di:I;ector .of
"""', 'print or Type Name and'Title--
certify that this Statement of
reflects the final determination
o the City of San Bernardino.
\
(~
Official Action
of the Planning
I, hereby,
accurately
Commissio
'1
Da e
Plannin9-
RAS/mkf
DOCUMENTS:PCAGENDA
PCACTION
. '
. '
. ,
.-..... .
"::"
,;
":r~
"'V"'THE SOARENTO GA<QJp
...~~
'-"
tJd , ',. ,L i .'
~ i:~ " ,$ I:
-. -' I .J
L:..
,-.,,....._ "'... i,..""'"
'. -"". "I .~....,
October 6, 1987
C!iY FLAN;'~;:'.i3 :(Ltr;:'/iENT
SAN BE.R~;~.RDiiiO. CA
Honorable Mayor Wilcox & Council Members
City of San Bernardino
300 North "0" Street
San Bernardino, CA. 92418
RE: Conditional Use Permit 87-43
Appeal of Conditions
~ ::::I
fT1
0
fT1
0 ::;:::
C"J ."
-< -=>
~ I
-
.
-
-;;
::=0 ~
co ;...;.
(it ~
:0
the 0- -r.
are
Your Honorable Mayor Wilcox and Council Members:
The Sorrento Group is appealing conditions placed upon
Conditional Use Permit 87-43. The conditions which we
appealing are the following:
1. Planning Department condition #1 page 7 requiring "a cost
estimate for design and construction to upgrade the straffic
signal at Mill Street/ME" Street/Inland Center Drive/ to a nine
phase signal shall be required."
2. Public Works/Engineering Department condition 665 page 20
stating "traffic singal participation fee in the amount of $10.00
per vehicle trip based on ADT. Total amount of fee - $10.00 x
6,346 - $63,460 or the estimated cost of traffic signal
modifications per the approved traffic study, whichever is less."
We are appealing these conditions because we feel the
traffic mitagation fee placed upon The Sorrento Group is unfair
and inequitable.
We have been informed by the Engineering department, by Mr. Mike
GrUbbs, that traffic mitigation fees, as this fee is categorized,
has been in practice for over six years. However several projects
which were recently constructed or are under construction currently
that have a direct impact upon the signal were not required to
to participate in upgrading the signal. Attached to this letter
is a list of several projects that are surrounding our project
and have a definite impact on the signal yet were not required
to participate in traffic mitigation. Therefore we feel tbat
the traffic mitigation fee has been placed upon The Sorrento Group
arbitarily and indiscrimately which is supported by the records of
the City Planning Department.
The Sorrento Group is willing to particiate in traffic mitigation
but we feel that such fees required to improve the signal should be
shared with other new developments that have an impact on the
sign~l. The traffic p~cblem at this Inlcr"cctlo. is qot new.
Dealing with this problem has an old solution which was the
implementation of traffic mitigation fees. We are
requesting that the practice of traffic mitigation fees be
scrutinized carefully and that The Sorrento Group's traffic mitigation
fee be adjusted to a lower rate that reflects a fair and equitable
participation fee.
310 WILSHIRE BLVD., SUITE 206 . SANTA MONICA, CALIFORNIA 90401 · (213) 395-6577
c
~
....'"
.......,
~
<.)
--
We suggest that this matter be given serious consideration since
the scope and range of setting such fees sre applicable to all
new projects in San Bernardino.
We appreciate your attention to this matter.
Very truly yours,
, ~ (J~~
Alan Gottlieb
THE SORRENTO GROUP
AG/cs
cc: Planning Department
.
2
.
~THE
"'""
SORRENTO GRtup
'"-'"
Traffic Migation History
1. REVIEY OF PLANS 85-133 (Music Plus)
AP!1 141-071-74
To construct a 3,500 sq. ft commercial development located at the
Southwest corner of 'E'Street & Mill Street & Inland Center Dr.
in C-3 general commercial zone:
approved December 5, 1985
traffic mitigation: NONE
2. REVIEY OF PLANS 85-119 (Mill Run Plaza)
APi 136-162-1,6,7,33,37
To develop a 24 building industrial and commercial complex of
approximately 8.3 acres in the M-2 zone at the Northwest Corner
of Mill Street & G Street. The buildings will total 91,356
square feet.
approved July 31, 1986
traffic mitigation: Contribute $12,500 as this subdivision's fair
share of the cost of a traffic signal at the intersection of Mill
Street & G Street.
3. REVIEY OF PLAN 86-27 (Yherehouse Records & Radio Shack)
APO 136-111-02
To add 4,000 square feet to existing retail stores and add 9 neW
retail stores totaling 12,662 square feet located on the west
side of South E Street between Mill & Rialto in the C-M zone
approved April 17, 1986
traffic mitigation: NONE
4. Review of Plan~ 86-99 (Inland Center Mall)
APO 136-531-01,02,03,04,07
To add 30,000 square feet to the Inland Center Mall located
beween 1-215, Inland Center Drive, Orange Show Road & 'E' Street
in the C-M zone
approved Novembver 26, 1986
traffic mitigation: NONE
310 WILSHIRE BLVD., SUITE 206 · SANTA MONICA, CALIFORNIA 90401 · (213) 395-6Sn
->
-:-.c
.......
-
" c,
~
~
~
'J
~
LAWRENCE S. EISENHART
Consulting Engineer
~
W'
OFFICE: 22400 BARTON ROAD. SUITE 200
GRAND TERRAC:. CA 92324
MAIL: P.O. BOX 3052. SAN BERNARDINO. CA 92413
Telephone: (714) 824-1794
..
September 18. 1987
Mr. Alan Gottlieb
THE SORRENTO GROUP
310 Wilshire Blvd., Suite
Santa Monica. California
206
90401
Re: Traffic Signal at the Intersection of Mill Street/Inland Center Drive/
"E" Street - City of San Bernardino
Dear Mr. Gottlieb:
..'
You asked that I prepare a cost estimate for modification of the existing
traffic signal at the intersection of Mill Street/Inland Center DriverE"
Street to provide for a nine-phase system.
I have prepared the cost breakdown below based upon the attached revised
design. This design provides for a new model 170 controller assembly to
replace the existing type 100 controller, two new poles to provide left turn
;phases for northbound and southbound traffic on "E" Street and re-wire of
the intersection. .
Model 170 Controller Assembly .
$10,000.00
Nine Phase Software & Circuitry
$ 1,500.00
2 - 45' Mast Arm Poles
$10.000.00
16 - Wire Intersection
$ 7.500.00
Traffic Control and Signal Turn-on
$ 2.500.00
,Design and Inspection
. . . . .
$ 7.500.00
SUB-TOTAL
$39,000.00
Contingencies 15% $ 6.000.00
TOTAl
$45,000.00
.
.c
"
""
,
-
-#
'-'
.~
This estimate assumes that all other existing traffic signal hardware, poles
and mast arms, loop detectors, etc. are in good repair and do not have to be
upgraded or replaced.
Sincerely,
k~~~tJ
consult~E~ineer
LSE:ra
cc: City of San Bernardino
87-17
.,.,
.
c
/......\\TTACHMENT "c"
'-'
~.
--
,
,...J
.." "l ERr LAW O"FIC~S OF' .'
RECE\V~\'-C\ I\;. HANIN & JOHNSON, INC.
'87 SE.P 30 P 3 :35
It. PAQ,.C.SStONAI.. eORPOI'IATION
SUITt:: 200
.....E...CR I'U:W "0"11; STAT!: eAR
.~8 SOUTH ATLANTIC SOUl.E:....ARO
MONTEREY PARK, CALIF'ORNIA 91754
TELEPHONE: (BISI 281-1910
TELECOPIER 18181 28'-1890
CHENG & CHeNG
4'" "LR., NO. 024
J141NG CMUAH t. ROAD
TA,PCI. TAIWAN, R. O. C.
TE-L: 1021 711-2821/713-3233
EOWA.RO O. JOHNSON"'
DANIl!:1.. "",AN'N-
0" eou",",st:1..
TIMOTM'!' ,.. I..C E:
NORIIo4A'" I..IEBERMA....
ARNOLD ,.RECO\..ANO
September 28, 1987
IN RESPONSE: RE:'i::R TO
"ILE NO.
863-002
City of San Bernardino
300 North D street
San Bernardino, California 92418
Attention: Ms. Shauna Clark
00 ~@ ~awrn ill)
SEP 3 () 1987
Re: Appeal to City Counsel from Planning
Commission Hearinq
GlT'I PlAN[;i:~G ,,~. ,d ;',;ENT
SAN BERNARDINO, CA
Dear Ms. Clark:
In accordance with the instructions provided on the
september 22, 1987 Planning Commission Agenda, this appeal is
being made to item 6 - Conditional Use Permit 87-43 and the
ruling thereon made by the Planning Commission at the September
22, 1987' Planning Commission Hearing.
Our office represents Robert Dickerman and Diana
speckels who are property owners of an approximately 30,000
square foot parcel ad~acent to and directly south of the
approximate 2.64 acres identified in the Conditional Use Permit
87-43 Application. At the time of the hearing before the
Planning Commission, one of the prinicpals of the Sorrento Group
addressed the Planning Commission and requested that the request
for the Conditional Use Permit be approved without any discussion
from the general public. I strenuously objected, and made my
objections known on the record. In addition, another individual
who was present at the meeting similarly raised an objection and
requested to be heard on the matter.
Notwithstanding the fact that the Planning Commission
indicated that the matter would be resolved without having a
public hear ing, the Planning Commission did gi ve l:i(~ an
opportunity of making some generalized comments.
Part of my concern with respeqt to the approval of the
Conditional Use Permit stem from the fact that the property owned
by my clients was originally contemplated to be used as part of
th.e overall development being proposed by the applicants for the
--~~----~--I--
Cep~emuec ,0, ~'Ol
age 2
,.....'....
~,
-""
...)
'-'
--'
Condition Use Permit. It is our understanding that the
applicants have entered into escrow with the Chrysler Corporation
who are the fee holders of the property being purchased
consisting of approximately 2.64 acres. No proof of. such escrow
has however ever been tendered for our review or inspection.
'.;}
The Sorrento Group after allegedly entering into an
escrow with the Chrysler Corporation have approached my client in
order to purchase the immediately adjacent property owned by my
client. Negotiations have broken down and my client is not
willing at this time to sell his property to the Sorrento Group.
Notwithstanding the refusal of my client to so. sell the property,
the Sorrento Group had prepared tentative drawings for the
development of the property which included my client's adjoining
yet unavailable land.
After raising this issue to the Planning Commission,
one of the principals of the Sorrento Group addressed the
Planning Commission and very clearly indicated that revised plans
did not effect my clients property whatsoever. I requested a
showing of proof and a confirmation from the Planning Commission
to that effect, but was informed that the Planning Commission
could not make such a showing and that my client would be relying
soley on the representations of the Sorrento Group as to their
truth and accuracy. After being given continued assurances, on
the record, by the representative from the Sorrento Group, in
front of the Planning Commission, that the proposed development
did not in any way affect my client's property, I agreed to
withdraw my objection to the Conditional Use Permit.
Having withdrawn my objection, and after the
Conditional Use Permit was approved by the Planning Commission, I
left the hearing room at which time I was followed by the two
principal owners of the Sorrento Group. While in the hallway
outside of ear shot of the Planning Commission, I introduced
myself to the prin~ipals of the Sorrento Group and was summarily
informed that notwithstanding the representations made to the
Planning Commission, the Sorrento Group did in fact intend to
take an assignment of a Ground Lease from the Chrysler
Corporation for my clients property. '
By taking such assignment of the ground lease, my
client's property becomes immediately subjected to the
development plans proposed by the Sorrento Group for the
development of their property and the corresponding development
of my client's property.
I was shocked and appalled at what the representatives
from the Sorrento Group told me outside of the Planning
Commission hearing. I expressed to the Sorrento Group that not
only can they not take an assignment of the lease, but that
Chrysler was in substantial violation'of the lease, that I was
'C~~ie;;;e ~~28~~ 19B7 -----
Page 3
r
'-'
.......
:)
-'
planning on immediately instituting Unlawful Detainer proceedings
against Chrysler, that my client would not permit the property CO
be used as a subservient tenement to the proposed development by
the sorrento Group of the property directly to the north, and
'that my client would not permit a prescriptive easement to be
created on the property by the anticipated excessive usage of my
client's property in servicing the ingress and egress of the
Sorrento GrouP development. To that effect, our offices have
been instructed, and we will immediately be ,preparing a lawsuit
in order to prevent the unauthorized usage of the property owned
by Mr. Dickerman and Ms. speckels.
The representations made by the Sorrento Group to the
Planning Commission that their proposed development did not in
any way affect my client's property is at best questionable
although their motive is quite evident.
There are numerous other issues that the City Counsel
should consider in approving any Conditional Use Permit for the
proposed development by the Sorrento Group. Those issues include
the fact that in a worse case scenario, the adjoining property
owned by my client's will no longer be subjected to any Ground
Lease in seven (7) years. Upon the expiration of the Ground
Lease, my client is planning on developing the property which
will necessitate the raising and removal of all existing
improvements on the property. Any anticipated usage of that
property by the Sorrento Group will be therefore materially
affected. Cars will not be able to flow freely across from the
sorrento GrouP parking lots onto my client's property as that use
would not be consistent with my client's intended development.
A number of other critical issues should also be
considered by the City Counsel all of which would be more
appropriately addressed at the time that the counsel has its
hearing. Therefoie, it is respectfully requested that the appeal
of the Conditional Use Permit 87-43 be granted and that an open
hearing with all concerned citizens involvement be permitted to
occur at the October 5, 1987 City Counsel Hearing.
'.
Very _truly yours,
HANIN &'70H~;>~~.
./ . "
~
"
/
DH:drn
cc: Mr. Bob Dickerman
~TY OF SAN BER~ARDiNo" ---,
-.....I
MEMORANDUri
-
To ANN SIRACUSA, Director
Pl~nning Department
Subject C. U. P. 87-43: Two Fast Food Restaurants &
Retail Center at 666 South "E" Street
From
ROGER G. HARDGRAVE, Dir
Public Works/City Eng.
October 20, 1987
FHe No. 11.42
(C.U.P. No. 87 4J)
Date
Approved
Date
At the request of Sandra Paulsen, we have reviewed the Legal
Description and A.L.T.A. Survey (by Richard Siegmund, L.S. 3490)
submitted by the applicant for the subject project.
The description and survey provided correctly represents Assessor's
Parcel Nos. 136-501-6 and 18. These two parcels are the site
of the proposed project.
No other properties are included in the description or survey.
I am returning the A.L.T.A. Survey print which is attached. Please
retain it in your files.
ROGER G. HARDGRAVE
Director of Public Works/City Engineer
~w
MICHAEL W. UBBS
Senior Civil Engineer
MWG:pa
Attachment
.
00
~@~uw~
rID
OCT 2:~ 1987
.. t'il!l'!~-''''' nl'"'~"~ ..... , r:: [\1-1
CITV PI,',,' ,", 't" ~ ..., . ,:. \ ',11.,
I I .. . .." ..-
S'" ~",,.,."""ll'!f' CA
MI., u&:.I\.""\'\o" ..:..1,
. =~"-:':: ./
,,,,"',j " --,-,.- - ~ "C;
_ .4"":_, .,.11--.... '"' \.J~- ,:.;:......
"";"1' ./.
- ", \" -'. ...~.,j!'
,
"-
~~\TTACHMENT "E" ,.,
'- '-'
"\
...J
./
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DEPARTMENT
SUMMARY
AGENDA ITEM
HEARING DATE
WARD
6
9/22/87
3
APPLICANT'
The Sorrento Group
310 Wilshire Blvd. #206
Santa Monica, CA 90401
Chrysler Realty Corp, '
5600 New King St. #350
Troy, MI
W
(J)
<t
o
Conditional Use Permit
Number 87-43
OWNER,
t;
W
::>
o
llJ
0:
"
<t
W
0:
<t
The applicant requests approval under authority of San Bernardin
Municipal Code Section 19.26.020(B) 9. to construct a 38,040
square foot shopping center with two fast-food, drive through
restaurants.
The subject site encompasses 2.64 acres located on the west side
of E Street south of Mill at 666 South E Street.
EXISTING GENERAL PLAN
PROPERTY LAND USE ZONING DESIGNATION
SlJBJEC7' ABANDONED CAR LOT C-M COMMERCIAL-REC .
NORTH COMMERCIAL C-M COMMERCIAL:-REC.
SOUTH COMMERCIAL C-M COMMERCIAL-REC.
EAST ORANGE SHOW FAIRGRNDS 0 COMMERCIAL-REC.
viEST FLOOD CONTROL CHANNEL 0 FLOOD CONTROL
.
GEOLOGIC I SEISMIC IQ{y ES FLOOD HAZARD DYES OZONE A C SEWERS ~ES )
HAZARD ZONE DNO ZONE }{2J NO OZONE B ONO
DYES DYES .
HIGH FIRE AIRPORT NOISE I REDEVELOPMENT
HAZARD ZONE ~O CRASH ZONE ~NO PROJECT AREA
...J o NOT o POTENTIAL SIGNIFICANT Z ~ APPROVAL
ex APPLICABLE EFFECTS 0
.... WITH MITIGATING - ~
Zen MEASURES NO E.I.R. ti CONDITIONS
We!) o EXEMPT o E,I.R. REQUIRED BUT NO 1.1.0 0
::=!:Z u..~ DENIAL
Z- SIGN IFICANT EFFECTS
00 WITH MITIGATING ~::=!: 0 CONTINUANCE TO
a:Z MEASURES en::=!:
::;iL ~O 0
Z o SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS 0
ILl SIGNIFICANT SEE ATTACHED E,R. C. ILl
EFFE CTS MINUTES a:
NOV. 1981 REVISED JUL't 1982
~
""'"
"
CITY OF SAN BERNAI3DINO PLANNING DEPARTMENT
CASE Conditional Use
OBSER"ATIONS Permit No. 87-43
,,1-\ I ~~;~~:GI1~E ~/22/87.
PAGE ')
.~
I. REQUEST
The applicant requests approval under authority of San
Bernardino Municipal Code Section 19.26.020(B)9. to
construct a 38,040 square foot commercial center with
two fast food drive through restaurants. The subject
site is an irregularly shaped 3.2 acre parcel located on
the west side of E Street, south of Mill Street, at 666
South E Street .in the C-M (Commercial Manufacturing)
zone. See location map, Exhibit A.
2. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
The proposed commercial center is comprised of four
buildings totalling 38,040 square feet. Two buildings
totalling 33,600 square feet are proposed for retail
uses. The two remaining buildings of 2,240 square foot
and 2,200 square feet are the proposed fast food pads.
See Site Plan, Exhibit "B".
Architectural treatment on the retail structure includes
off white plaster walls with bron,ze glass high lighted
by blue fabric awnings as recommended by the Central
City South Redevelopment Project Area Plan. The fast
food elevations include a plaster finish with clay tile
roof and color band accents on 2,200 square feet build
ing "B", which will be El Pollo Loco; and off white
stucco and.tile roof on building "D", the 2240 square
foot pad, which will probably be an Arby's (See eleva-
tions Exhibit "CD).
3. TRAFFIC CIRCULATION AND PARKING
The parking proposed is 214 spaces. Code requires l35
for the proposed retail use and 74 for the proposed
drive through restaurants for a total of 209 required
spaces. Internal circulation for traffic and refuse
co~lection adequate as proposed.
Access to, the site will be two driveways off
Street, the locations of which have been approved
.City Engineering Department.
of E
by the
4. GENERAL PLAN, ZONING AND LAND ~SE
The subject
facturing)
property is in the C-M (Commercial, Manu-
zone. The existing General Plan land use
j
,...."'"
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DEP AIJTMENT
CASE Condit1onal Use
OBSER~~TIONS P",rmit No. 87 41
'. AGENDA ITEM h
HEARING DATE q /V /87
PAGE 3
,
designation is Commercial-Recreation. The property is
currently a vacant auto dealership. The proposed
commercial development is allowed by Conditional Use
Permit in the C-M zone and is consistent with the
General Plan.
5. SURROUNDING LAND USES
Immediately north and south of the site are commercial
developments. Adjacent to the west is an improved flood
control channel. Located to the east across E Street is
the National Orange Show Fairgrounds.
6. ENVIRONMENTAL CLEARANCE
At the Environmental Review Committee meeting of 7/23/87
it was determined that a traffic study and a
liquefaction study would be required to assess traffic
impact generated by the proposed development and to
determine the potential of liquefaction of the soil
during earthquake shaking. Both studies were submitted
to the Planning Department and routed to the appropriate
parties and agencies.
The Traffic Engineer commented that mitigation measures
should be incorporated to require upgrading of the
signalization at the intersection of Mill Streett" E"
Street/Inland Center Drive. See Exhibit "D." A
condition ~eflecting such is included.
The results of the liquefaction study indicate that the
on-site soil subsurface structure coupled with the
proposed construction should not cause structural damage
during an earthquake (see Initial Study, Exhibit E).
On August 24, 1987, an initial study was prepared and
publically noticed as available for review and comment.
No comments were received.
At the meeting of Septembec lO, 1987, the Environmental
Review Co~mittee recommended a negative declaration be
adopted.
7.
AGENCY COMMENT
l
Other than the above referenced comment received from
the Engineering Department, the only comment received
includes a request from the San Bernardino County Health
o
c
..'"'.... .~_..'" ~'."'"
< '\ )
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DEPARTMENT
CASE Conditional Use
OBSER"ATIONS Permit No. 87-43
YM I.. ~~~~~N"G11~~E ~/22/87
PAGE 4
'-
Department that the applicant submit plans for the food
establishment to the DEHS/Food Section for review and
approval prior to construction.
8. STAFF ANALYSIS
The proposed facility is a use that is a desirable
convenience to certain sectors of the population.
Located in a convenient commercial district, the pro-
posed fast-food, drive-through restaurant will provide
accessibility to quick meals for customers of adjacent
retail uses. The proposed project will provide
aesthetic upgrading of the South "E" Street area north
of Mill Street.
9. CONCLUSION
The proposed development is consistent with the Central
City South Redevelopment Project Plan which encourages
the elimination of vacant commercial structures and the
revitalization of the area with new commercial
endeavors. The project meets all the requirements of
Title 19 with regard to parking, landscaping and
setbacks. The proposed uses are in conformance with
those permitted in the C-M zone. The project will not
have an adverse impact on the environment with the
implementation of alternate phasing of the signals at
the intersection of Mill Street/"E" Street/Inland Center
Drive. .
c
...)
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DEPARTMENT
cUP 87-43
c
./' .....,
'- j
Q
CASE
FINDINGS of FACT
6
'l/22/R7
'i
AGENDA ITEM
HEARING 'DATE
PAGE
I. The proposed retail and restaurant uses conforms with
the objectives of the General Plan which designates the
site general commerical/recreational, as well as the
redevelopment plan which encourages development and
revitalization of the properties within the boundaries
of the project area.
2. The proposed use will not adversely affect the adjoining
land uses and the growth and development of the area in
which it is proposed to be located in that the
commercial activity of the surrounding properties will
be enhanced by the redevelopment of the vacant auto
dealership.
3. The size and shape of the site proposed for the use is
adequate to allow the full development of the proposed
use in a manner not detrimental to the particular area
nor to the peace, health, safety and general welfare of
the surrounding community in that all requirements of
the San Bernardino Municipal Code implemented to insure
the peace, health, safety and general welfare have been
met.
4. The traffic generated by the proposed use will not
impose an undue burden upon the streets and highways
designed and improved to carry the traffic in the area
in that the proposed rephrasing of the signal at Mill
Street/E Street/Inland Center Drive will increase the
level of service beyond that which exists and so the
development will improve traffic in the area.
5. Granting Conditional Use Permit 87-43 under conditions
imposed will not be detrimental to the peace, health,
safety, and general welfare of the citizens of San
Bernardino in that traffic congestion and circulation
problems will be adequately addressed, and no other
health, safety or welfare concerns were identified.
,......
,...'",
;
- .-
CITY OF SAN BEFl,NARDINO PLANNING DEPARTMENT
CASE CUP 87-43
J
FINDINGS of FACT
6
9/22/87
6
AGENDA ITEM
HEARING. DATE
PAGE
RECOMMENDATION
Based on the Observations and Findings of Fact contained in
this report, and subject to the Standard Requirements and
Conditions attached, Staff recommends adoption of the
Negative Declaration and approval of Conditional Use Permit
87-43.
Respectfully submitted,
R. Ann Siracusa
Director of Planning
S:-d!UL~
Sandra Paulsen
Associate Planner
.
\..
.
c
(J ,,,,",\ )
-
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DEPARTMENT
CASE Conditional Use
O S Permit No. 87-43
AGENDA ITEM 6
CONDITI N HEARING DATE 9/22/87
PAGE 7
I. A cost estimate for design and construction to upg:ade
the traffic signal at Mill Street/REo Street/Inland
Center Drive/ to a nine phase signal shall be required.
2. Subject to the requirements of the San Bernardino County
Health Department regarding submission of plans for the
food establishments for review and approval prior to
issuance of building permits.
3. Subject to the conditions of the Department of Parks and
recreation.
4. The applicant shall submit four (4) sets of landscape
plans to the Planning Department for review and approval
prior to submission of construction plans to the Depart-
ment of Building and Safety for Plan Check.
.
~
I
c
"'''
....,
-"
"-./
,
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
""
CASE CUP 87-43
6
9/22/87
R
~
""
STANDARD
REQUIREMENTS
AGENDA ITEM
HEARING DATE
PAGE
\..
r
COMMERCIAL, INDUSTRIAL
1.
Conditional Use Permit 87-43 shall be in effLct for a period of 12 months
from the date of approval. However, if no development has been initiated at
the end of the 12-month period, the application shall expire. Additional
time may be approved upon request of the applicant prior to expiration of
the 12-month period. Expiration Date: September 22, 1988
---1...-
PARKI NG:
a. This development shall be required to maintain a minimum of ~9stan-
dard off-street parking spaces.
b. All parki ng and dri vi ng ai sl es shall be surfaced wi th two inches of AC
over a suitable base or equivalent as approved by the City Engineer.
Parking spaces shall be striped and have wheel stops installed at least.
three feet from any building, wall, fence, property line, or walkway.
c. Whenever an off-street parking area is adjacent to or across an alley
from property zoned residential, a solid' decorative wall six feet in
height shall be erected and maintained along the property line so as to
separate the parking area physically from the residentially zoned pro-
perty provided such wall shall be three feet in height when located
within the required front or street side yard setback. Where no front
or street side yard is required, such wall shall be three feet in
height when located within ten feet of the street line.
d. Whenever an ~ff-street parking area is located across the street from
property zoned for residential uses, a solid decorative wall or equiva-
lent landscape berm not less than three feet in height shall be erected
and maintained along the street side of the lot not closer to the
street than the required depth of the yard in the adjoining residential
area. No fence or wall located in the front setback shall obscure the
required front setback landscaping.
..
3.
REFUSE ENCLOSURES:
Whenever refuse bins are located within or adjacent to a parking area used
by the public, they shall be enclosed by a decorative wall six feet in
height along the rear and sides and screened gate(s) six feet in height
along the front.' The enclosure shall not be placed ~:itt>in the j'equired
front or street side yard setback area. Exact location and size of refuse
enclosures are to be determined by the Planning Department and Division of
Public Services Superintendent.
.
"'"
NJtf '84
~
S.R. 10ft.. B
'AGE 1011 S
.
c
t'"'
-
r",
.....,
",~)
-'......-
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
CASE CUP 87 43
6
9/22/87
9
STANDARD
REQUIREMENTS
AGENDA ITEM
HEARING DATE
PAGE
r-
""
WALLS:
The intent and purpose of this section is to prevent trees and other
landscaping from damaging public improvements.
a. Street trees must be installed at a mnimum of 30 feet on center.
Vari eti es and exact locati on shall be determ ned by the Di rector of
Park and Recreation.
b. All required setbacks abutting a public right-of-way shall be
landscaped (except for walks and driveways which bisect or encroach
upon the required landscape area).
c. Three copies of a landscape plan (including plant material
specifications) shall be submitted to the Planning Department and Park
and Recreation Department for review and approval.
d. All required landscaping shall be protected from parking areas and
shall be provided with automatic sprinkler facilities which shall be
maintained in'an operative condition.
", .'
, e.
, ,
I nteri or p lanti ng sh all be requi red and mai ntai ned equa 1 to at 1 east
five percent of the open surfaced parking area excluding the area of
landscaping strip required by subsection "b" and shall include at least
one tree for every five spaces or major fraction thereof. Measurements
shall be computed from the inside of perimeter walls or setback lines.
f. The required setback(s) from the north , south ,east X .
west property line shall be densely landscaped with mature trees,
shrubs, and groundcover. A 2-foot landscaped earthen berm shall be
erected and maintained within the setback along the above indicated
property line.
--5-, ILLUMINATION:
a. All lighting fixtures in the parking'areas shall be directed away from
adjacent properties and the public right-of-way.
\..
MAV ....
.J
SIt. fORM .
PAGE Z 01 3
.
c
"
,
-
.....,;
.)
r
CASE CUP 87-43
,"
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
"
STANDARD
REQUIREMENTS
AGENDA- ITEM
HEARING DATE
PAGE
6
9/22/87
10
~
""
r-
-2..:-
7 ;
8.
9.
-""
,
.J.!L.... '.
~~- .
11. '.
""'-
Nay' 84
MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT:
a. Air conditioning and vent ducts shall be directed away from any adja-
cent residential uses.
b. All mechanical equipment located on the roof shall be screened and
located away from adjoining residential uses. Screening design shall
be approved by the Planning Department.
Compli ance wi th all recommendations of the Geology Report shall be requi red
(if appli cable).
Grading and revegetation shall be staged as required by the City Engineer
in order to reduce the amount of bare soil exposed to precipitation.
During construction, the City Engineer may require a fence around all or a
porti on of the peri phery of the si te to mi ni mi ze wi nd and debri s damage to
adjacent properties. The type of fencing shall be approved by the City
Engineer to assure adequate project site maintenance, clean-up and dust
control.
Within 75 feet of any single-family residential district, the maximum
height of any building shall not exceed one-story or 20 feet unless the
Commission determines that due to unusual topographical or other features,
such restrictive height is not practical.
A 11 utili ty lines shall be installed underground subject to excepti ons
approved by the PJanning Department and the City Engineer.
,No Certificate of Occupancy shall be issued prior to compliance with these
Standard Requirements as well as all provisions of the San Bernardino
Municipal Code. '
SIGNS:
All signs shall be in conformance with San Bernardino Municipal Code
Section 19.60. Three copies of a plot plan and elevation of the sign drawn
to seal e shall be submi tted to the PI anni ng Department for revi ew and
approval prior to issuance of the sign permit from the Building and Safety
Department. I
a. Monument-type signs shall not be located within the required setback
for the zoning district in which the sign is located. The monument
si gn shall be located a mi ni mum of 5. feet from the property li ne. If
the monument si gn is located wi thi n the setback, it shall not exceed
an overall height of 3 feet.
b. All freestanding signs must have 8 feet of clearance between average
ground level and the bottom of the sign.
.)
SR. FORM 8
PAGE S OF S
.
c
"...,
~
,--.,
:.J
-'"
..,,;
CITY
OF
SAN
BERNARDINO
~
CUP 87-43
CASE
STANDARD
REQUIREMENTS
AGENDA ITEM
HEARING 'DATE .
PAGE
6
9/22/87
11
~
....
r-
,
"
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
POLICE DEPARTMENT REQUIREMENTS
SECURITY LIGHTING
Lighting levels on the exterior of building is to provide a minimum of one
(1) foot candle of "maintained" illumination on the parking surface from
dusk until the termination of business each operating day.
All exterior doors to building shall be equipped with an illumination
device capable of providing a minimum of one (1) foot candle of maintained
illumination at ground level during hours of darkness.
All exterior lighting devices are to be inaccessible to common reach or
climbing shall be protected by weather and vandalism-resistant and be
va1da1 resistant. All exterior lighting shall be projected so as not to
cast light onto adjoining properties.
All roof openings giving access to the building shall be secured with
either iron bars, metal gates, stamped metal or shall be alarmed and meet
with approval of the Police Department.
Interior night lighting shall be maintained in those areas that are visible
from the street (ground floor only).
DOORS, LOCKS, AND WINDOWS
17.
18.
'\...
MAY 84
Swinging exterior glass doors, wood or metal doors with glass panels, solid
wood or metal doors shall be constructed or protected as follows:
.
a. Wood doors shall be of solid core construction with a minimum thickness
of 1 3/4 inches.
b. Hollow metal doors shall be constructed of a minimum equivalent to six-
teen U. S. guage steel and have sufficient reenforcement to maintain
the designed thickness of the door when any locking device is installed
such as reenforcement being able to restrict collapsing of the door
around the locking device.
c. Except when double cylinder dead bolts are utilized, any glazing uti-
lized within 40' of any door locking mechanism shall be constructed or
protected as follQw:;; Fully tempered g'lass or rated burglary :~sistant
glazing or iron or steel grills of at least 1/8" metal with the maximum
2" mesh secured on the inside of the glazing may be utilized or the
glazi ng shall be covered with iron or. steel bars of at least 112" round
or 1" x 1/4" flat metal, space not more than' 5" apart and secured on
the inside of the glazing.
All swinging exterior wood and steel doors shall be equipped as follows:
~
S.R. FORM C
PAGE I OF 1$
~
c
,"
'-'
--,
v
,''''',
....)
.. .""
,
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
CASE CUP 87-43
)
6
9/22/87
12
~
""
STANDARD
REQUIREMENTS
AGENDA ITEM
HEARING DATE
PAGE
\.
,
a. A single or double door shall be equipped with a double or single
cyl i nder dead bo 1 t. The bo 1t sh all have a mi ni mum proj ecti on of 1" and
be constructed so as to repel cutting tool attack.
b. The dead bolt shall have an embedment of at least 3/4" into the strike
receiving the projected bolt. The Cylinder shall have a cylinder
guard, a minimum of five pin tumblers and shall be connected to the
inner portion of the lock by connecting screws of at least 1/4" in
diameter. The recommendation does not apply when panic hardware is
required or an equivalent device is approved by the Building Code.
19.
Double doors shall be equipped as follows:
a. The active leaf of double doors shall be equipped with metal flush
bolts having a minimum embedment of 5/8" into the head and threshhold
of the door frame. Double doors shall have an astragal constructed of
steel, a minimum of .125" thick which will cover the opening between
the doors. This astragal shall be a minimum of 2" wide and extended a
mi ni mum of 1" beyond the edge of the door to whi ch it is attached. The
astragal shall be attached to the outside of the active door by means
of welding or wi th nonremovable bolts spaced apart on not more than 10"
centers. Hinges for outswinging doors shall be equipped with nonremo-
vable hinge pins or a mechanical inner lock to preclude removal of the
door from the exterior by removing the hinge pins. Strike plates shall
be a mi ni mum of 3!" in 1 ength and secured to the jamb wi th screws a
mi ni mum of 2!" in 1 ength.
Wi ndows:
20.
.
a. All moveable windows shall be equipped with a locking device and shall
be constructed in a fashion to restrict them from being lifted out of
its track when in closed position.
21.
Garage type doors; rolling overhead, solid overhead, swinging, sliding or
accordion style.
a. The above-described doors shall conform to the following standards:
(l)
Wood doors shall have panels a minimum of five-sixteenths (5/16)
inch in thickness with the locking hardware being attached to the
support framing,
Aluminum doors shall be a minimum thickness of .0215 inches and
riveted together a minimum of eighteen (lS) inches on center along
the outside seams. There shall De a full width horizontal beam
attached to the main door structure which shall meet the pilot, or
pedestrian access, door framing within three (3) inches of the
strike area of the pilot or pedestrian access door.
(2)
\.
WAY '84
~
B.R. FORM C
PAGE Z Of 15
-
" ,
"'"
---
-
'\
....)
,"'-
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
CASE CUP 87-43
6_
9/n/Bl
11.
STANDARD REQUIREMENTS
AGENDA ITEM
HEARING 'DATE
PAGE
,
(3) Fiberglass doors shall have panels a minimum density of six (6)
ounces per square foot from the bottom of the door to a height of
seven (7) feet and panels in residenti al structures shall have a
density of not less than five (5) ounces per'square foot.
b. Where sliding or accordion doors are utilized, they shall be equipped
with guide tracks which shall be designed so that the door cannot be
removed from the track when in the closed and locked position.
"'Ii
c. Doors that exceed sixteen (16) feet in width shall have two (2) lock
receiving points; or, if the door does not exceed nineteen (19) feet, a
single bolt may be used if placed in the center of the door with the
locking point located either in the floor or door frame header_
d. Overhead doors shall be equipped with slide bolts which shall be
capable of utilizing padlocks with a minimum nine-thirty-seconds (9/32)
inch shackle.
(1) Slide bolt assemblies shall have a frame a minimum of .120 inches
in thickness, a bolt diameter a minimum of one-half (t) inch and
protrude at least one and one-half (11) inches into the receiving
guide. A bolt diameter of three-eights (3/8) inch may be used in a
residential building.
(2) Slide bolt assemblies shall be attached to
which are nonremovable from the exterior.
to attach such assemblies.
the door with bolts
Rivets shall not be used
e. Padlocks used with exterior mounted slide bolts shall have a hardened
steel shackle a minimum of nine-thirty-seconds (9/32) inch in diameter
with heel and toe locking and a minimum five (5) pin tumbler operation.
The key shall be nonremovab1e when in an unlocked operation.
f. Doors utilizing a cylinder lock shall have a minimum five (5) pin
tumbler operation with the bolt or locking bar extending into the
receiving guide a minimum of one inch.
OTHER REQUIREMENTS
22.
Roof top address numbers shall be provided. They shall be a minimum of
three (3) feet in length and two (2) feet in width and of contrasting color
to background" Numbers ')1 a'll be placed par-a 11 e 1 to s \ ree\ -iddres sa',
assi gned.
At the entrances
sh a 11 be erected
contain names of
locations in the
of complex, an illuminat~d map or directory of project
with va1da1-resistant cover. The directory shall not to
tenants but only address numbers, street names, and their
complex. North shall be at the top and so indicated.
"-
MAV '84
~
SA. FORM C
.......,.,..~ ,.
c
.'~ '...
......,
J
'-'
'-'
CITY dF SAN BERNARDINO
STANDARD REQUIREMENTS
CASE CUP 87-43
AGENDA ITEM
HEARING' DATE
PAGE
6
9/22/87
14
'2h.
"'"
Each building in the complex shall display street address numbers placed in
a prominent location as near the street as practical. Numbers shall be a
minimum of six (6) inches in height and a contrasting color to the
background.
~ All individual offices and buildings within the complex shall be clearly
identified by numbers, letters, or a combination thereof.
~
'\..
MAY '84
The exterior business walls shall be posted with Municipal Code
Section 9.52.070 relative to trespass.
The interior cashier/sales counter shall be located so it is visible from
the building exterior. The floor area inside the counter shall be elevated
a minimum of six (6) inches above the floor of the business.
Access Controls
An access control override device shall be provided for use by Police
Department personnel to gain immediate access.
Common walls shall be as sound proof as possible.
Lockable cold beverage (beer) cases shall be locked at 2:00 a.m.
A pre-set gas monitoring system that allows for prepayment of gasoline
shall be installed to reduce petty theft attempts.
A photo-electric beam across entry door which will audibly notify or ring
when customers enter the store shall be installed.
Ice machines shall not be installed in front of store windows.
.
Utilization of outside intercom speakers is prohibited.
The placement of outside public telephones shall be restricted to an area
immediately adjacent to the front door of the store.
There shall be a minimum of twenty (20) foot candles of illumination per
square foot of surface area adjacent to gas pumps.
Any display of light should take into account adequate positioning of fix-
tures in order that "stray" light does not affect adjoining property
owners.
Perimeter fencin~ or,cruss fencing to prevent criminal movement or actI-
vity shall be installed.
Reflective wall-mounted mirrors shall b~ installed to discourage
shopli fti ng.
The placement of machinery (compressor equipment) shall be away from resi-
dential areas to abate the intensity of noise.
..
S.R. FORM C
'AGE .. Of l!t
c
'",
"'''"'',
...,i
-
-
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
CASE CUP 87-43
STANDARD
REQUIREMENTS
AGENDA ITEM
HEARING DATE
PAGE
6
9/22/87
1 ~
~
\..
26.
27.
...2..8.....-
29.
....3!l.-
31.
32.
33.
14_
2L
36.
"'-
MAY '84
"'
BUILDING AND SAFETY DEPARTMENT
Submit plans prepared by a Registered ~, Architect or Civi 1
or Structural Engineer.
Submit a complete lateral and structural analysis prepared by a Registered
Civil or Structural Engineer or Architect.
Submit State of California Title 24 Energy Calculation Forms
for x.~i.KA..Ki, non-residential buildings including a signed compliance
statement.
Submit calculations and structural drawings, prepared by a
Structural Engineer or Architect, for the following items:
trusses, GLU.LAM.BMS.
Registered Civil
Submit floor plan of existing structure. Label all uses and existing
materials of construction.
three (3)
Submit txa complete sets of construction plans including:
a. Copy of conditions.
b. Soils and/or liquefaction report.
,-
.... c. Energy calculations.
d. Structura 1 calculation.
.
: Submit a preliminary (!lIljllillh~Jl) (soils and geology with liquifica-
tion analysis) report prepared by a person licensed to do so.
Submit a single line drawing of the electrical service. Show all equip-
ment, conduit and wire sizes and types. Show the service ground size and
grounding electrode.
Submit panel schedule(s) and electrical plans.
Permit required for demolition of existing building(s) on site.
Submit a plan of 'the.heating, ventilating or air conditioning system.
(Clearly identify the location and rating of the equipment and the sizes
and material of all ducts, registers and the location of all fire dampers.)
Show means of providing mechanical ventilation as required by the ~ 1982
Uniform Building Code.
Submit gas pipe loads, sizing calculations and isometrics.
.
~
S.R. 'ORM C
PME . OFIS
c
......
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
CASE CUP 87 43
-.J
_'~--.:.......::r,
6 '..) J'
Q/?7/P,7
16
~
STANDARD REQUIREMENTS
AGENDA ITEM
HEARING DATE
PAGE
~
.....ll......
""
Provide a plot plan showing the location of the proposed sewer system.
Submit a letter clearly indicating the intended use or all areas of the
building: List the materials to be used and the products produced giving
the amount or each kept in the building. If the building is used for more
than one purpose, Ii st all other uses.
18. Submit i sometri c pI ans or the cold and hot water and drai n-waste and vent
systems.
,q
Show compli ance with Ti tle 24 for the physi cally handi capped in the
followi ng: Restrooms
40.
Submi t plans approved by the County Health Department. Fast Foods
I ndi cate methods of comp 1 i ance for sound attenuati on (exteri or, i nteri or
party walls, floor/ceiling assembly, ceiling) as per study, U.B.C., local
or State Law.
Show compli ance wi th requi rements of hi gh fi re areas.
For structures located within hign wind'areas:
a. Design structure, including roof covering, using 20 p.s.f. wind load.
41. _ Other: Assessor's Parcel No., Worker's Compensation Insurance naming City
as Certificate Holder. City License.
47 ";'} DEPOSIT $3300.00, PLAN CHECK FEE
'0
, ." '.. , .~. ~ .. ,I.,
.
, ,-
,
""
..
.J
MAY"
SA. FOR" C
P.f.H, . Of' IS
c
r
,....~
\.J
2)
...)
CITY
OF
SAN BERNARDINO
<J
CASE CUP 87-43
AGENDA ITEM
HEARING DATE
REVIEWED BY
PAGE
6
9/22/87
STANDARD REQUIREMENTS
17
.J
r
P'IR1!: DEPARTMENT REQUIREMENTS
::::.
OENERAL REQUIREME.t'lTS:
[J Provide one extra set oC construction plAns to Buildinl{ and Wet)' {or Fire D~ment use at. time of plan cnedC~
(J Contact Fire Department (or ~ttc or detailed requiremenu - IMPORTAlrfT..
[J The deYei~r snall ~l"OVlde (or !ldequate Fire Flow u computeo by the rire Prevendon Bureau. Fire Flow shaJ1 )e b&.sed
on squ.are Cootqe. constrUction Cearures and e~ intormation as supplied by tne deveJ.oper and may be taken (rom two
hydrants.
ACCESS<
[) Provide two diUerent routes oC l~'evess to tne pf'Cget'ty ent.rance. The routes snau be paved.. all-weatnu.
[I Provlde an access roadway to eacn tluildimr Cor fire apparatus.. Access roadway shaU .have an al1-weatner drivinrJ surlac:e
oC not less tt1an 20-(ee( oC unoostrUcted wldth.
[J Extend roadway to witJUn lSQ-(eet oC aU portions ot th. exterior walls ot aU sim{.l~tory buildings.
(J E%tend roadway to within SO-teet oC the exterior wall.l oC all multiple-story buil~
(J Provide "No PARKINO" sicns wheneyet' Parkinlr oC vehides would possibly redUce the clearance oC KCesI ~dw.)'3 to less.
than the required width. Signs are to read "FIRE LANE -110 PARKINO" (All caps). "M_C. Sec. 15.16'.
[] Dead-end streets shall not exceed SO~eet in lefii'th and shall haYe a minimw~l 3.5-Coot radius tutn<ll"Ound.
[] ne names ot any new streets (putlUe or private) shall be submitted to the Plre Department Cor approvaL
44.
SITE:
[) All access roadS and streets IU"8 to be constrUcted and usaDle prior to combustible construction.
43. IX] Private rInt hydrants snall be installed to protect each buildinc located more than lSl).o(eet from the cart) Un.. :olo fire hydrant
3hou1d be witnin 4O-Ceet oC ury exterior waIL The hydrants sna1l be Wet .Barrel type. with one zt-iftcft-and one +--iadI outlet..
and ~ed by the fire Deputment. Fire hydrants are to be protected from cWna(e by providlnsr suitable tratnc bU'rien..
",. area around the fire hydr1Ult.sMJ.l be desiJlD&ted as. "NO PARKINC" zcne by paintinlr an 8-1ndt wide. red strtpe Cor 15-(..t
ill eacft di.reetion in Crant oC the hydrant in sucn a manner !Mt it will not be blodced by ~ed ven:ic1es.. SuiUDLe "NO
P AJlKING" sicns are required.
[) PuI>IIc lIre IrJ<Innts sIIaIl be pI'OVided aIcnIr streets at 30~..t intortab tor c:ommerda1 and mul_dant!a1 ...- and at
SOHeel' in'tWftLs Cor resideatial areu.. In:staUettoe snan conConn to City ~eations and be installed. price- to u ...,.,;hl_
cawInICtIon or ~
BtIILDnrG.
t<) Tbe __ 01 the strU<:t1lNo ill six inch ......-Js. _ be inn&1lecI ... the buiIdInir or in otller _eel Iocad... ill such a
IIUIIIDW as to be visibl. trom Ute tranuce street.. Tbe colar of the numberS shall ~tnst. _ita color of the ~voJIId..
[] Identify _en eM aDd electric met... with the ftWIlber ot the unit wl'lidl it serri~
pq FIre a1i."'J.~s must be installed prior to the buildinr beiDC ~ied. n.. minimum radnr lor any rtre -tL...............-- is
ZA 10 Ble. _..... _OIl 01 lIre ~ ..... be _ that no int.arior pU't 01 the buiIdlDC io """' T$-{_ ....-
If ~ II trom . tire ....tb.-.~.
t< ) AIlIluildlnp. _ thU .-t!a1 _ 5,000 ........ t.... _ be prowidad whll an au_de lIre'oprillkIer ~. 'V'04
tit HPPA...- .
Cc I SutNlUt p1aM tor UI. ar. ~ system to me PIre ~..t prior to be-,: . -rinI' 1A_l1on on 1M system.
[] T.....im~_w_&_tsillal1.spr..... ..4t;)o..;l..MT...tobe~_.--4bytlteP'J.r,., ~priartocandr\lcU__
[J Pftrride aD automatic tlre alarm ~ t:tJraucboutl.. P1aa DI~ be ,. _..A .'." tbe Fire Departm_r.pr;orto ~
[1 1'Ire Departm...c cormectica .to ~ i . 1- systeaalstudpl1':" system. Jftai1 be ~~t'1!lICI at cwO line.
45.
46.
"4'7.
,,' - {
>
NOTE: Tb. ApC)i1can;t mun ~ I.. -...tifW. any ~ in thae or other reQU:irenaena...
ADD~ INFORMATION:
>
FPB 170 7/86
C'
CiTY OF SAN BERNARDINO PUBLIC WORKS/ENGR.
'~ CASE Conditional Use
Permit No. 87-43
STANDARD REQUIREMENTS AGENDA ITEM ~/22/87
HEARING DATE
PAGE 18
,...,
.J
'\
I
,
'-
'-'
Project Descri pti on: C.U.P. No. 87-43 Construct 2 Drive-thru Restaurants and
Retail Center at 666 South "E" Street
Date:
Page
September 15, 1987
1 of 3 pages
Prepared By: MWG
Rev i e\1ed By:
GRK
Applicant: Sorrento Group
NOTE TO APPLICANT: Where separate Engineering plans are required,
the applicant is responsible for submitting the Engineering plans
directly to the Engineering Division. They may be submitted prior
to submittal of Building Plans_
Drainage and Flood Control
48. All necessary drainage and flood control measures shall be
subject to requirements of the City Engineer, which may be based
in part on the recommendations of the San Bernardino Flood
Control District. The developer's Engineer shall furnish all
necessary data relating to drainage and flood control.
49. A local drainage study will be required for the project. Any
drainage improvements. structures or storm drains needed to
mi ti gate downstream impacts or protect the development shall be
desi gned and constructed at the developer's expense, and
right-of-way dedicated as necessary.
50.
All drainage from the development
approved public drainage facility.
drainage facilities and easements
satisfaction of the City Engineer.
shall be
If not
shall be
directed
feasible.
provided
to an
proper
to the
Grading
51. If more than l' of fi 11 or 2' of cut is proposed, the sHe/plot!
grading and drainage plan shall be signed by a Registered Civil
Engineer and a grading permit will be required. The grading plan
shall be prepared in strict ac.cordance with the City's "Grading
Policies and Procedures" and the City's "Standard Drawings",
unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer in advance_
52.
If more than 5,000 cubic yards of
9 r a d i il 9 bon d \'I i 11 be \- Eo qui red and the
in accordance with Section 7012 (cl of
earthwork is oroposed, a
grading shall be su~ervised
the Uniform Building Code.
l
c ~ ~
\
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PUBLlCWORKS/ENGR.
~ CASE Conditional Use
Permit No. 87-43
STANDARD REQUIREMENTS ~~~~~N~ 1~~~E ~/22/87
PAGE 19
Project Description: C.U.P. No. 87-43 Construct 2 Drive-thru Restauran s
and Retail Center at 666 South "E" Street
Date:
Page
September 15, 1987
2 of ~ pages
Prepared 8y:M~
Reviewed By:
GRK
53.
A liquefaction report is required for the site.
must be submitted and approved prior to issuance
permit. Any grading requirements recommended by
liquefaction report shall be incorporated in the
This report
of a grading
the approved
grading plan.
54. An on-site Improvement Plan is required for this project. Where
feasible, this plan shall be incorporated with the grading plan
and shall conform to all requirements of Section 15.04-167 of the
Municipal Code (See "Grading Policies and Procedures"), The
on-site Improvement Plan shall be approved by the City Engineer.
55. A reciprocal easement shall be recorded prior to grading plan
approval if reciprocal drainage, access, sewer, and/or parking is
proposed to cross lot lines, or a lot line adjustment shall be
recorded to remove the interior lot lines.
Utilities:
56. Design and construct all public utilities to serve the site in
accordance with City Code, City Standards and requirements of the
serving utility, including gas, electric, telephone, water, sewer
and cable TV.
57. Utility services. shall be placed underground and easements
provided as required.
58. All existing overhead utilities adjacent to or traversing the
site on either side of the street shall be undergrounded 1n
accordance with Ordinance No. MC-601 (Subdivisions) or Resolution
No. 87-189 (Non-subdivisions).
Existing utilities
relocated at the
Engineer.
60. Sewers within private streets or private parking lots will not be
maintained by the City but shall be designed and constructed to
Ci ty Standards and inspected under a Ci ty On-Si te Constructi on
Permit. A private sewer plan designed by the Developer's
Engineer and approved by the City. Engineer will be required.
This plan can be incorporated in the grading plan, where
practi cal.
which interfere with new construction shall be
Developer's expense as di rected by the Ci ty
59.
r
r'" r...... ",".,,",
"-" '-' v
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PUBLIC WORKS/ENGR.
CASE Conditional Use>
Permit No_ 87-43
STANDARD REQUIREMENTS ~~~~?N~ 16~E ~/22/87
PAGE 20
...J
r
Project Description: C.U.P. No_ 87-43 Construct 2 Drive-thru Restaurants
and Retail Center at 666 South "E" Street
Date:
Page
September 15, 1987
3 of ~ pages
Prepared 8y: MWG
Reviewed By:
GRK
Street Improvement and Dedications:
61. All public streets within and adjacent to the development shall
be improved to include combination curb and gutter, paving,
handicap ramps, street lights, sidewalks and appurtenances,
including, but not limited to, traffic signals, traffic signal
modification, relocation of public or private facilties which
interfere with new construction, stiping, signing, pavement
marking and markers, and street name signing. All design and
construction shall be accomplished in accordance with the City of
San Bernardino "Street Improvement Policy" and City "Standard
Drawings", unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer.
Street lighting, when required, shall be designed and constructed
in accordance with the City's "Street Lighting Policies and
Procedures". Street lighting shall be shown on street
improvement plans except where otherwise approved by the City
Engineer.
Required Engineering Permits:
62. Grading permit (if applicable).
On-site improvements construction permit (except buildings - see
Building and Safe~y)
Off-Site improvements construction permit
Applicable Engineering Fees:
63. Plan check and inspection fees for off-site improvements.
64. Plan check and inspection fees for on-site improvements (except
buildings; see 8uilding and Safety).
65.
Traffic signal participation fee
vehicle trip based on ADT.
Total amount of fe~ = $10.00
estimated co,t of traffic signal
traffic study, whichever is less.
in the amount of $10.00 per
x 6,346 = "$63,460.00 or the
modifications per the approved
)
C
J:
)>
C
iii
.)
)-
II
o
m
...
D
o
o
)>
D
n
I
-
-4
m
n
-4
C
]I
m
fJ
'U
...
)>
2
2
-
2
lil
-
~
-
..
:=
~
"Z
ftC
-
~
~
..
..
~
Ww
,~
."
!!..
.z
w..
.......
.n
..
..~
.
w.
w_
=0
.-
a
C
;:
~
..
~
/;
~
~
~
W
W
~
W
~
~
~
~ ~:
~
~
<
..
~
C;
'!'
~
.
~
w
;
;
:;
.;
r-{
~
-
~
..
;::
~
~"72~
00000
i ; ;. f I
i i
~. .
~ i -
-
~
Ii
i
c
I.!
c.o,....t-'le~c.I....1... DEV&l...O""I"'1E.NT
~'".. S.....T.. ~a' "'"T..eaT
.""N 1!l.......,,~C:O,"'O, c:."
'=
"
:;:
~
~
~
~
<
, W
~ '"
C; >< n
'!' ::T C
.... "0
. cr
. ... 00
.. l"t .....
. I
1 .,.
n w
,-'
~
C
~
-
=
~
~
~
-
W
~
o
-
..
.
..
.
.
.
~
~
-
o
..
~
C
~
~
~
<
W
-
o
..
,-)
~. .
.
..
.
.
,>' t
..
G
I
r-
-.----t
.. I
'.)
El
~
..
,
~
~
~
~
-
W
~
W
..
.
.
~
<a
".':-':'-:-
"'-.
, '.
,
:at'A17loA&11t
.S':~,
~~
..r~...!::i...'":I._._
-.---
~.- ...-..-
=
l>
c
fiJ
l>
,.')>
D
0
m
r
D
0
D
)>
D
n
1:
-
-I
m
n
-I
c:
D
m
~
'D
r
)>
2
2
-
Z
GJ
M"
~
-
~
:=
S
;lCZ
ftC
....
~
~
.
..
~
WM
~
. ~'"
..z
w~
.. '"
.on
......- .., '. ....z~
..~
.. .
WoO . '"
w_
='0
.-
<;)
.
-~. .-.-.:
,I
.
, '
: ~
~
c::O,..I""IE'RCI....L- DGVEL.OPM6N'T
..&GO aOU'TOl .... "'T....T
...." B...N"'...P'....O. 4'"
,
w
::!
~
:z
...
-
!
~
~
.
~
.,
~e
.~
z
- - 1
i. ~'q ~;~ ':' W"W"t !:r
llll!1i1!;~il tj'lhH:!i:1
1,1I1.':'i',;; II f~ illl:I;.J
,1(1.",;(:,.1'1'1",
I..i'i'j.;. 1,1.I'il
; :ijiiil,;I, :lj:' i'I
Ill~!: I!. ~L..:..._I
._~._~-<
,..q.II"~:
l! t. i'I" <
, : "I' ,
i ~ ~."I: I Ii a
, it. ",
':,! "'Ii I
! !,
, ,
.
~
titi
I itt
I! il
., .-
.
~
I,
, I . ~ '
- p....l 1,
(i,
e' '
~1.
~
~
,':: ;:
- ~~
j:L
~ " :1 :
" -:t " "
I, . f :I'
.__u_~~~:.::
'~j"/-I
.. .
~_-.: i
'......"
'"
X
:r
,...
.,.
,...
....
n
c::
'"
ex>
..,
I
.0-
'"
n
,"
i! ! !
!, Ii
. ~... .' I ;.
~ .Jo~ '.
~
- I
i Ii
i 'I
!" i
lHtjl; iG:
l t-:'.:r 'i f
f'rdl> IJ I
; ,h.,:$..
.il': 1I-}
..,_;7.-
'-,
I
I
I
I .
i,j
J f
:: lB' ~~tl'"''''
C .,' ~~.g~.. .._1:
_ ~-.~ . "':P~ -.~~ ._<__
~ ,~' , .
o -----...
, . E-';::':- -..-.,y,
,.
. z"
)
c
ra
.,.,~
~
D
D
m
r
D
o
D
,~
D
n
I:
-
-I
m
n
c
D
m
fJ
'U
r
~
2
2
-
2
GJ
-
~
-
.
=
~ " ;
~ HI!I.!\:
::q . i .!,. I r 1
nC .;'11 l:!i. i..
.... l:~ ;~. I,!:
~J! ;i
~ i i!
5 i
::-w
-.
..~
."
!!..
.z
-.....
..
.n
.
....
. .
w.
w_
~~
\ \ \ \
=f-W\""
~\,
\ \ \
\ \
\
1 \
!, \.
t
I h
I
IQ
I~
1
i i ~ i 1- ~;!; J I ,. d! I! i
:: I! ! ..... ;: ! : j" i !!. J ,i !
. " ! _ J :! i:; I J II ~: II' ;
!r;,~.,:,:;,'l 'jdi ill i i:
; '* _ . ! ! t I j l! i :
~ ! i l i i 1~.!"(
I! I! t I: i i
UUll!!!
~ I' I ;....~-i-t ".'
~
.......:."
n
.no
,
. :: . . ~
:-:"
i ~
-
lJ)
-l
m
1J
r
)>
z
-
n
)
r
.
-
.
0:.
. SITE PLAN
,
,
I
J
~I
41
, I
ril J~
;1
~ ; .
J I
III'
-I
4,
.<1
I
I
,-I
k'
.
-
'"'1<
4 _
4 0
. -
:Z
,)
. ....~ -t
-<
""\
'-'"
K;:=
"""-,,
."
'.
:r
l>
1)
. /
.- .
. .
It ./
. ~'I'i"".!""'~"-'
""'-~ ,',/.
-~.-~ ..
'.. .. l~ ~ _
~11~jr".. r,.,' ..,'<. ~.. /'
, t= i: ----- =1 -
'~'Q , !b" I!" ~\
'- \2~ ~, -ro~\
\......" .'..........
': E'~ .. ').
I.... ...- .;"
. '~<::Ji~. ",.. .~,
'i:'II~!J ~
$ t~JJlill~!~-~. "",
tt- i I I I~l i'f ~-,
- . -,
'OJ, - !l! ~: ~ i
!S i' \
~ ! ! 1"'''~ . \l I I.- ,~,
. " ': /. ~' , I
.
,
.'
0,
0,
.
0
~
.
.
0
,
.
,
.
~
,
.
,
'"
" ()
::r c:
,... '"
c-
,..P ,... CXl
\ .. ...,
; ". ; I
'.
. p . ~
~. '" \.J
.
~
.
,
~
.. !
,..
'=I'~"
- . r
g eo
. .'
;'!
--, ..
: ~1~! "_ et~
,~.~~~ ~ -
,~ ~
~':~. ~,;.~ .. ~~1
,~j...,"t-:;i:' :.J:
c.J.:~~.-.~!j .-- '~-.:..':;'I'..-:_::~'
11'1_' rill'Il'",'e'.
'-~-.~~ - - - -f.'- - -";oJ
.'
".
'.
"
i
.
~ ~;-' ::: .
, .'
.
.
~I '
. . . ...
,.:-:':' --::,a ,'g"
.,,', ">:'~':"V':';~ u~~~~,.
,',. ,...,,~.;ge~Il,
~ '~<a~ ~
V i ~ij ~
~ .~~:;
i ;I;!JJ':
._<U J
COMMEI:CIA L DE.YElDPMEIll
G.6 '5OUTII .t.~ 9TY.t.ET
lOA'" ~tl6J,()MO CALIf
,. II 3JL~
. ~~,
C , .o...:!.-~_-:.B2
3 ':'" .:......-a.:..n...~ .--.--
o -----
z .' .- - ..-
::=.~
.
ct,TY OF SAN Be ~~~~'~O Q... M~.MORANDU~
To MIKE GRUB8S, Senior Civil~ngineer
Subject C.U_P. 87-43 n Proposed Commercial Complex on the
West Side of "E" Street Near'Inland Center Shopping
FromRAFAT RAIE
Assistant Traffic Engineer
Date August 27, 1987
Mall Fil.e No. 13.47
Approved
Date
The traffic impact report for the subject project was reviewed to examine the
need for mitigation due to the added traffic.
The report included extensive signal operation analysis for both Orange Show
Road/"E" Street and Mill StreetlInland Center Orive/"E" Street intersections.
The signal analysis sheet for Mill StreetlInland Center Drive/"E" Street
intersection recommended a new phasing to reduce the weighted average delay
per vehicle from 50 to 37 seconds, increasing the level of service for the
whole intersection from "E" to "0".
We recommend that a condition of approval be added to require a cost e,t.imate
for design and construction to upgrade the traffic signal at Mill Street/
Inland Center Drive/"E" Street to a nine-phase signal. This estimated cost
paid by the developer as a mitigation fee should not exceed $63,460 which is
the normal traffic signal participation fee based on $10.00 per trip.
"~~
~AT S. RAIE
Assistant Traffic Engineer
RSR: imb
cc: ~on Running, Planning
Lawrence Eisenhart, Consulting Engineer
The Sorrento Group
.
OOlli@~UW~[])
AUG 27 1987
CITY F!.:.,;;:';:~!G r::r,'U17i~.'iENT
SAr~ eE~AflOlNO. CA
~t": : ,
"
'.~" .:'A~ ~?~l" i
-'~. ."
CUP 87-43
Exhibit D
.
c
o EXHIBIT "E"
-
"'"
~
-..I
,. CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DEPARTMENT ""
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE
ENVIRONMENTAL
~
IMPACT
CHECKLIST
~
,. ""
A. BACKGROUND
l. Case Number (s) : Conditional Use Permit No. 87-43 Date: 7/22/87
2. Project Description: To allow alcoholic beverages for off-site sale
at a proposed shopping center, to allow on-site bear and wine sales at a
proposed restaurant, and to allow 2 drive thru restaurants at the pro-
posed center.
3_ General Location: 666 South liE" Stree~_ ,__~___, -----"-- ~- --.
...-
B. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
YES MAYBE NO
i. -
l. Could project change proposed uses of land, as indi-
cated on the General Plan, either on project site or
within general area? .x.
- -
2. Would signif ican t increases in either noise levels,
dust odors, fumes, vibration or radiation be gener-
ated from project area, either during construction
or from completed project other than those result-
ing from normal construction activity? X
- - -
,
3. Will project involve application, use or disposal
of hazardous or toxic materials? X
- - -
4. Will any deviation from any es tab lished environ-
mental standards (air, water, noise ,. light, etc. )
and/or adopted plans be requested in connection
with project? X
- - -
5. Will the project require the use of significant
amounts of energy which could be reduced by the
use of appropriate mitigation measures? X
- - -
6. Could the project create a traffic hazard or
congestion? X
- - -
7. Could project resul t in any subs tan ~ial change in
quality, quantity, or access ib ili ty of any portion
of region's air or surface and ground water re-
sources? X
~\ - - -
~
MAY '81
EAe. fORM A
PAGE I Of 3
CUP 87-43
.
"q
~:(.._.
''3
--.......
YES
MAYBE
NO
8. Will project involve construction of facilities in
an area which could be flooded during an inter-
mediate regional or localized flood?
x
I
I
\
9. Will project involve construction of facilities or
services beyond those presently available or pro-
posed in near future?
x
10. Could the project result in the displacement of
community residents?
x
11. Are there any natural or man-made features in pro-
ject area unique or rare (i.e. not normally
found in other parts of country or regions)?
x
12. Are there any known historical or archaelogical
sites in vicinity of project area which could be
affected by project?
x
13. Could the project affect the use of a recrea-
tional area or area of important aesthetic value
or reduce or restrict access to public lands or
parks?
x
14. Are there any known rare or endangered plant
species in the project area?
x
15. Does project area serve as habitat, food source,
nesting place, source of water, migratory path,
etc., for any rare or endangered wildlife or fish
species?
x
16. Will project be located in immediate area of any
adverse geologic nature such as slide prone areas,
highly erosible soils, earthquake faults, etc.?
x
17. Could project substantially affect potential use
or conservation of a non-renewable natural
resource?
x
18. Will any grading or excavation be required in
connection with project which could alter any
existing prominent surface land form, i.e., hill-
side, canyons, drainage courses, ete?
x
19. Will any effects of the subject project together
or in c.onjunction tilth effects of other projet'tr;
cause a cumulative significant adverse impact on
the environment?
x
MAY '81
lAC. FORM A
'AGE :l OF 3
C r (1 CUP 87-43 ;:)......
~
'~
C. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AND CilllULATIVE EFFECTS
If any of the findings of fact have been answered YES or MAYBE, then a brief
clarification of potential impact shall be included as well 'as a discussion
of any cumulative effects (attach additional sheets if needed).
6. Request traffic study addressing impact on "E" Street and also circulation
at the proposed 1 way driveway.
16. Shows hi"h potential for liauefaction on maps - reauest study and pro-
posed mitigation.
D. MITIGATION MEASURES
Describe type and anticipated effect of any measures proposed to mitiga te or
eliminate potentially significant adverse environmental impacts:
.
---.-
E. DETERMINATION
On the basis of this initial evaluation,
0 We find the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the
environment and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
o We find that although the proposed project could have a significant
effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in
this case beca~se the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet
have be~n added to ~he project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION WILL BE PREPARED.
., o We find 'the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environ-
ment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL It~ACT REPORT is required.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO, CALIFORNIA
Vali.~ Cl?HY'
(Secretary)
DATE: ~/tJI11f;>1 .
.... ~
NAY '81
ERe. FOR" A
...cr: 3 OF 3
c
~., EXHIBIT "E" ,....,
--
'-'
,....,."
...."I
.....,
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
\)
NOTICE OF PREPARATION OF A NEGATIVE .DECLARATION
,.
August 27, 1987
From:
City of San Bernardino Planning Department
300 North "D" Street
San Bernardino, California 92418
Contact Person: Sandra Paulsen
To: Environmental Review Committee
Valerie Ross-Planning Dept.
. Mike 1 , Park-Fire Dept.
Rafat Raie~Engineering(Traffic)
Charles Dunham_Building ,and Safety
John Haeger-R.D.A.
Mike Grubbs-Engineering
Deai Shuker-Police Dept.
Project: To construct a commercial center with 33,600 square
feet of retail space and two fast food restaurants
totaling 4,440 squ~r~ feet on approximately 3,2 acres
at. 666 South E Street.
The City of San &ernardino proposes to adopt a Negative Declaration
for the above referenced project. The Environmental Review
Committee found that the project will not have significant effect
on the environment on the basis of the attached rnitial Study and
mitigation measures (if applicable)_ '
Any environmental comments you have should be received in this office
no later than' Wednesday , September 9, 1987.
If you do not respond in writing, we will assume that you have no
opinions and/or recommendations on the aoove project,
. /-
/1
.-.....
..
-
-
......../
....
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
INITIAL STUDY
FOR A
COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT AT
666 South -E- Street
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NUMBER 87-43
Prepared by: Sandra Paulsen
Planning Department
300 North D Street
San Bernardino, CA 92418
(714) 384-5057
Prepared for: Sorrento Group
310 Wilshire Blvd.
Santa Monica, CA 90401
.
August 24, 1987
.
c
,-
'--
--.
...)
"',
-'
'~
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ITEM
PAGE
Environmental Impact Checklist
1
Project Description
Environmental Impacts
Mitigation Measures
4
4
5
Preliminary Environmental
Description Form
7
Figures
Figure I
Vicinity Map
6
Appendix
(I) Traffic Study
.
(2) Liquefaction Study
~
CITY OF
c C;
SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING
~
DEPARTMEN'T '",
..
c
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE
ENVIRONMENTAL
Ilo..
IMPACT CHECKLIST ~
.~ ""
A. BACKGROUND
l. Case Number (s) : Conditional Use Permit 1187-43 Date: 8/20/87 -
2. Project Description: to construct a retail shopping center and
Allow on-site sale of beer and wine and to provide two fast
food drive thru restaurants.
3. General Location: west side of liE II Street at 666 South E.
(Code authority 19.26.020 (B) 9-drive thru
( B. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
YES MAYBE NO
l. Could project change proposed uses of land, as indi-
cated on the General Plan, either on project site or
within general area? X
- -
2. Would significant increases in either noise lev~ s,
dust odors, fumes, vibration or radiation be gener-
ated from project area, either during construction
or from completed project other than those result- X
ing from normal construction activity?
- -
.
3. Will project involve application, use or disposal
of hazardous or toxic materials? X
- -
4. Will any deviation from any established environ-
mental standards (air, water, noise, light, etc. )
and/or adopted plans be requested in connection
with project? X
- -
5. Will the project require the use of significant
amounts of energy which could be reduced by the
use of appropriate mitigation measures? X
- -
6. Could the project c~eate a traffic hazard .
or
congestion? X
- -
7. Could project result in any substant~al change in
quality, quantity, or accessibility of any portion
of region's air or surface and ground water re-
sources? X
\.. .J
MAY !!II
(1)
EAt. FORM A
PAGE I Of 3
l"
,
-
",
-
8. Will project involve construction of facilities in
an area which could be flooded during an inter-
mediate regional or localized flood?
9. Will project involve construction of facilities or
services beyond those presently available or pro-
posed in near future?
lO. Could the project result in the displacement of
community residents?
ll. Are there any natural or man-made features in pro-
ject area unique or rare (i.e. not normally
found in other parts of country or regions)?
l2. Are there any known historical or archaelogical
sites in vicinity of project area which could be
affected by project?
lJ. Could the project affect the use of a recrea-
tional area or area of important aesthetic value
or reduce or restrict access to public lands or
parks?
l4. Are there any known rare or endangered plant
species in the project area?
lS. Does project area serve as habitat, food source,
nesting place, source of water, migratory path,
etc., for any rare or endangered wildlife or fish
species?
l6. Will project be located in immediate area of any
adverse geolQgic nature such as slide prone areas,
highly erosible soils, earthquake faults, etc.?
17. Could project substantially affect potential use
or conservation of a non-renewable natural
resource?
l8. Will any grading or excavation be required in
connection with project which could alter any
existing prominent surface land form, i.e., hill-
side, canyons, drainage courses, etc?
19. Will any effects of the subject project together
or in conjunction WJ.th effects of other proj eels
cause a cumulative significant adverse impact on
the environment?
"""
MAY 'et
(2)
YES
MAYBE
x
'"\~
- ."'"
'~
NO
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
'~
EAc.. FORM A
PAlSE 2 Of '5
. ~
c C) "'") )
'" -..'\
C. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AND CUMULATIVE EFFECTS .
If any of the findings of fact have been answered ~ES or MAYBE, then a brief
clarification of potential impact shall be included as well as a discussion
of any cumulative effects (attach additional sheets if needed).
r
D. MITIGATION MEASURES
Describe type and anticipated effect of any measures proposed to mitigate or
eliminate potentially significant adverse environmental impacts:
Liquefaction study and mitigation measures cleared with Dr.
Williams and Building and Safety; traffic engineering to connnent
on traffic study submitted on 8/12/87.
.
E. DETERMINATION
On the basis of this initial evaluation,
o We find the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the
environment and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
0 We find that although the proposed project could have a significant
effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in
this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet
have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION WILL BE PREPA.1U:D.
o We find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environ-
ment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO, CALIFORNIA
(Secretary)
DATE:
"-- ~
MAY '81
(3)
ERe. FORM A
PAGE 3 OF 3
c
""""
"'-'
'-"
"
.~
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
A. BACKGROUND
I. The proposed project is the development of a retail
shopping center containing 33,600 square feet of retail
floor area and two fast food restaurants totalling 4,440
square feet. The project is located on approximately
3.2 acres at 666 South E Street.
B. ENVIRONME~ITAL IMPACTS
6. Could the proiect create a traffic hazard or conqes-
tion?
After project completion, increases in traffic at the
intersection of Mill and E Streets and Orange Show Road
and E Streets could be impacted.
16.
Will proiect be located in
qeoloqic nature such as
erosible soils, earthquake
immediate area
slide prone
faults, etc.?
of any adverse
areas, hiqhlv
The proposed project is located in an area which is
determined to be highly susceptible to liquefaction
should a strong earthquake occur on any of the major
faults which traverse San Bernardino.
C. Mitiqation Measures
.
1. Traffic
Intersectio!L9f "E" Street and Mill Street
The CAPSSI-85 computer runs for this intersection
indicates that the intersection can oeprate at an
acceptable level of service after site generated traffic
is added. There are no suggested changes in
intersection geometries. It is recommended that the E-W
Split Phase arrangement for Mill Street be changed to
left turns with overlap and left turn phases be added
for N-S. . The recommended cycle lengths and minimum
green times are Indicated on the comput~[ runs.
(4)
.
c
-
v
-,.,
v
".,
.....I
'03
Intersection of "En Street and Or~nqe Show Road
The CAPSSI-85 computer runs for this intersection
indicate the intersection can operate at an acceptable
level of service after site generated traffic is added.
There are no suggested changes in intersection geo-
metrics. The recommended cycle lengths and minimum green
times are indicated on the computer runs.
2. Liquefaction
The proposed site was evaluated on statistical data to
make a prediction of recurrence interval during earth-
quake shaking on both the San Jacinto and San Andreas
faults. The results of the calculations in relation to
subsurface soils, earthquake shaking, magnitude and
interval indicate the consistancies of the on-site soils
and the type of construction proposed would result in a
highly unlikely damage to structure due to liquefaction.
.
(5)
.
c
,'.,
v
FIGURE 1
r,
V
-.)
<;)
,,~"'''O_'.z l""'lj~'.' .1..., ~'~-;~ ~".~.;.M . l
iT !!;l ~ ~ II ;l M.... .J. '. I..~ -- ST . :.-r...,:......,~ "~'_'
'$~I w:.a:~r": ..... -. -i . ~;-j!!!!2 'i ST W~:~ ","All ;
i!' I>:'.:l! Sf -' ^ '1fjl5TH ~ PO.; - .~... r! -;l :n.
S'fIJP--____ _ -. ~ s-r- ~ I.... -.no;<II.~~!tf..:l.. MOw"'
. i -=.- :J.n~_ _ - .,,17.... I U) ~r:...L ~ 3! >-
i ~~ I...j lDa'I' n ~ ......, - ~1 j~~" d
~ ~-i.... ~ .::.L . .. ~ Of 3RD ~~ te.-:~ -.... L~ :._ 8
; ': ./ ~ ~2'"' :;;' !\LV- ~.' I "'" ;i..;:~ ':!f~.L:f.~\ .:_;r:;~ -:
~ E ~"""" .j =~r sltiliI i. ~. = ,'. !~.., -! ~ .. : 50 I ~T
V 5 . . II.liJ;: lOll]' lA II '-:il ~ I AY
'. -'.ir*...: ..l,_-- - _ ==~. -!::..;_-. .
[.!f~:: "': i~~;, :,SITE. I -
!"- . . I... ~, . '
, ~ '7;:"~ L-T'!- ~. ~t..,. ;-'>IT I~ I 11"':'~sr ~ ;;'
'. ...~; ":l t Jg it, I IJ :; I ~ ..;~ ~io-l1'.(
;)' ST i ~'1 "",'~ o.uc .... I J 5&.., !I OIoKC I 1(" 2\!1 F,E I,.r-~
~ . ~.. J ~ . ';\. ,rl;4E i 0;; . ~ .,
~-+- ~ _..'" - "'fil1u.' \" I al ~ t.. '.. & .... 7' l-loIIU.
-t _'5J",~~ --:e, - -. .-,et '~, ~fs;----""'-t'...! --_
Z t.. ~..SI"EJWOU. IT" '- L.___ 11 I
. f '. 2 . '--...~ .......~.. !SI't ~&.l':iT t ~ ~
. I........_IFI. I _Ii "'IA"'>:-:-7";""';-..'} ~ ::a J.
,'t mST ~. __ 11 '! ... u'." ~""""'~;;'/"; II: if'
. -. - . iJ .,,:.E=J'l .:...... I;; '. I :;.,- ..:r ;..:: . ./' : d ~.~
'\ ~ Ii . i ., e-iU ,. I_~. , " -: [--'~:~~~>L !'TI ~. ...; T
~., ...., .., ~.. :.....~ ~ ':>-: OIl
,,, /to. _ - ;~::. :.:.... 1ST <c I -
I i.... ':./ l:t,.. ~ 1.4.. ;"..?i.~. : I t I Z _ ;
: ~~.... ;;0: /, .~. ' w"'~ "c,~ :z -rr',;~- .-e
.. 17 ~ ~ ~ ,,~;,~ ~ '4"j-'7 J.:.' 1__= i I :: I - -
"". '" ~ ~ of. , . ... '" I \- I
~ l "L., - '>! ..~. ~~~ ..~ 0" ,_. -- ~ ,~IO"IS n
::l~ '- 151 >!:iI .:-~..'?' I '. ~..r I ~ '{j' ~ ~ I . I'
I ~,~., II;... ~ . : ' r j ~ ~ I ~ ... .
S . 0 . ~ .0 .~ ~ --. ~_\.
~ t.~ ,~ ,~ . ~. i:. ,':"""~~.., K iI "":.. .:! l Do; :rr"o
_~ i =I~ ~ ~ a "..*.:c.~~'~.",,,., ~).,\~O.~'~~;. ,.('.....:.... i I ~ ~~~
'-cr~ ~... '. .' ......~"'-"~' " . b.,_w J 13.
:... ~c . .., ~...'~ ,...., ... ....
'-..~~21'." . ....":.>../ I ~...,'~,
t.I...__. ...........,:;.___ _____LW_______ ___~_--:oI___
VICINITY
MAP
NO-r 70 SCAt..5
(6)
CITY OF
SAN
'".)
BERNARDINO PLANNING
";
-"~',.
DEPARTMENT \
.
c
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE
PRELIMINARY ENVIRONMENTAL DESCRIPTION FORM
~ ~
A. GENERAL INFOm~TION
1. Applicant/Developer
The Sorrento Group
Individua1's/Firm's Name
2. Contact Person (213) 395-6577
TElEPHONE NO.
Michael Reeves/Alan Gottlieb
Name
310 Wilshire Blvd #206
Street Address
310 Wilshire Blvd. #206
Street Address
Santa Monica, CA 90401
City State
Zip
Santa Monica, CA 90401
City State Zip
3. Address'/Genera1 Location of Project
666 South E Street
Across the street "westside of ESt," from Fairgrounds Entrance
4. Assessor's Parcel Number(s) 136-501-06
5. Description of Project retail shopping center (RP 87-54)
Establish drive thru restaurant and retail shops:
B. PHYSICAL SITE
6. Indicate any unique topographic features prior to any grading:
None
7. Describe the general type and extent of development within one-quarter
(l,;) mile of tbe project :_Inla~.~ shoppi,nr, cente! directly t_o the
west of site, Orange Show Fairgrounds directly to the east of site
adjacent to site on the north Midas' Mufflers, Color Tile, Wendy's
and Straw Hat Pizza: to the south are car lots and auto service
.L
\...
AUG. '85
(7)
.J
EAe. FORM 8
PAGE I OF 4
.
c ........ "'" ~==>-....
~ ...J
...~
';
C. FLORA AND FAUNA
8. List types of vegetation and trees in proj ec t area: None
"-
9. List types of wildlife found in project area: None
10. Types of wildlife to be displaced by the project: None
.
D. LANDFORM
11. If applicable, estimate cubic yards of grading involved in project:
cut = fill =
12. Maximum height and grade of constructed slopes:
13. Methods used to prevent soil erosion in project area: N/A
--
E. PROJECT DEVELOPMENT
14. Zoning 15. General Plan Designation:
a. Present C-M Commercial/Recreation
b. Proposed' C...M
16. Present Land Use:
17. Footage and/or 122.200 18. No. of Units:
Sq. 2.87 acres
Acreage of Site
19. Parking Provided 176. ~p!:l"os
20. Surrounding Land Uses/Zoning:
Land Use Zoning
Auto Service C-M
North~ --,.~-_._--~ _.....- .- --. ._~_._.-. ------.-.- .,- -.'--'
Car l.ot C-M
South:
East: Orange Show Fairground 0
West: Inland Shopping Ctr. 0
~ ',J
AUG. 85
(8)
EAC. FORM B
PAGE 2 OF 4
"'"
l...,..
r~
, ,
, - "., ~~
.~
F. ARCHAELOGICAL/HISTORICAL
21. Is there any known archae logical or historical signifi~ance of the site
area or within ~ mile from the proposed site? If so, explain:
None. -
G. HUMAN SAFETY POTENTIAL
22. Will the project produce significant increases in either noise levels,
dust, odors, fumes, vibration, or radiation either during construction
or when completed? Explain: Nn
I
\
H. FACILITY AND SERVICE I~WACTS
23. If applying for a Conditional Development Permit, Tentative Subdivision
Map or Change of Zone, describe:
a. Distance to nearest municipal facility from project:
1. Fire . H; miles 5. Library 1 1/4 milp!=: (Connty)
2. Police 1:1., miles 6. Sewer At prnp..rry
3/4 elementary
3. Schools 1 mi 1 P. C:JWr. 7. Water at property
4. Pa"ks 13,; m. Lytle Creek 8. Flood Channel adiacent to
rear of property
b. How will the proposed project disrupt or affect the capabilities of
the following services and facilities: water supply, sewage disposal,
solid waste disposal, electrical power, natural gas and telephone:
Sewers are in place will not affect, will require telephonE
telephone wires are in place , elec-rical is in place. will
not affect but will reQuir~ more than is present, water
. is' in' p.laee.
l' c. What School District is the proposed project in? San Bernardino
~
AUG ',,,
(9)
EAC. FOR" 8
PAGE )<:JF"
-
,...
, "' J
'-' \. i
, ""'l
.~
1. MITIGATION MEASURES (Attach additional sheets, if necessary).
Describe type and anticipated effect of any measures proposed to mitigate or
eliminate potentially significant adverse environmental impacts:
Currently building are vacant and are an adverse affect on the
revitalizing of E Street. Buildings need to be demolished to
,
use the land for its highest and best use.
J. CERTIFICATION
24. I hereby certify that the statements furnished above and in the attached
exhibits present the data and information required for this initial eval-
uation to the best of my ability, and that the facts, statements, and
information presented are true and correct to the best of my knowledge
and belief.
Date Signature Alan Gottleib
For
,
.
~
AUG 85
(10)
E.R.C. FOR" 8
PAGE 4 OF 4
_....._-~._..j
.,-
'-"
,-.
"--
<"",""
~
.....<i<V'
Appendix 1
TRAFFIC STUDY
FOR
A COMMERCIAL COMPLEX
IN THE
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
Prepared For:
The Sorrento Group
310 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 206
Santa Monica, California 90401
Prepared By:
Lawrence S. Eisenhart
Consulting Engineer
22400 Barton Road, Suite 200
Grand Terrace, California 92324
Phone: (714) 824-1794
,
) .
....-..
,,-
'-
....-.'''.
'-
-
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Subject
Paqe No.
INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . .
1
EXISTING CONDITIONS
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2
PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS AND LAND USE . . . . . . . . . . .. 3
TRIP GENERATION
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5
Fast Food
Shops
.
.
.
.
.
.
5
7
.
. .
.
. .
TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
11
TRAFFIC IMPACTS
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
13
Intersection Capacity Analysis .
Driveway Configuration. . . .
.
. .
13
13
MITIGATION MEASURES
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
16
Intersection of "E" Street and Mill Street . . . 16
Intersection of "E" Street and Orange Show Road 16
Driveway Configuration . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS .. , . . . . . . . , . . - 17 '
APPENDIX
Manual Peak Hour Traffic Counts ..
Explanation of Intersection Capacity
Level of Service Descriptions (LOS)
CAPSSI-85 Computer Runs . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
Utilization (ICU)
I
rI
1
1
)
1J
:;
:I
I
1;
~
11
c
~
r
\...-'
............
v
~\'.~c~<:11~~f~ -~ "'"' ,,, ~Il" :i:,~ n ! ~~ ~~'3'~jIL r ^' ..1'1. '.,.. .,'~; "g~~~., ""~:1' ill:1l
... '\) ,m il i D ~ e!R!(C( :!LJ ~ 5 tt e;,.?i t:; ~ - "')- ~I ~ ~-- -, ~. 0 ~~.
, . .-.' . : '. go < I " ;. . w ,( 0 ! & ~ '" _ < I .
. ~ .:: 9Aote LINE ',.oe II' ST ~ "0' ~ " .. .. (0. BA... "'? 'O~ _ LINE.... " 1'10 I ~... .~t:l! ,n c:. .~ S1 ~....;J (
\. . ~I I' . . >~. .,)~. o!~~'''!'''' ",I 0""',( ".. Sf ~""-"-~~1"
.'.... If> - I l;llI'''o ;;:;$;'4 ST 3i~ ~ I II..... 'ill::., ST.,~ 0( ;;:Io~r-- .ST-' "." CO" ;..
. ,I 611 ~I .. 1ST Cl. I ~ !oT tn :<: _~ I OLIVE : SoT '~.u.....~~j"
'. i ~I ~I t;; ~L ~ 0 IV . ~ -~ ~ I sr ~ z ~I 10'. , <T., D\'" ~c... j~1
',::! :> I ...1 ,:ii Z,. .,11 e ro.. 10'" -I !! ,;0 .. ~ .
. ~ :!:II '~~~l(,.jol 'u ;'''';A''ro, ,: ~~( ST .. a: :t TE""lE.J~T 'V", ~.'
:. ~_JJ. STl,_~n"~~7. o~';=:L 1.!~~+~- o-,.r r.lttrt;!o'J.'- ..a::>_~ "'l ____l.....,.....
----\.. -.., d - fii.ol -~- M~ -.- Q. ~ ':':''1 ;. Ii "I '.1.-1 9TH <(<( >' ~ I ~l t ST t; ..,.
", ~ '. f~~ '%~~., ~I, 1_ ~ r.r')l~; .. I:~ I ~ ~ -~ Sf ; 1<10 "'~~~I f'. r....l~1 I
". :.. '_u "',~" j t: 8TM 31sT ~"'';'A''''''''r' "1l~_:'1 i I'" n.. 2;: I) n CJ') ,;~ 1 I L. . I
~" ~ ; Cl[~~..O~ ... 5 '" .. ;',"1> 'M I,.no Sf "'j~ I~I!...-; ~!I ,..;.-,-,,,,,,--J;''-; -";,) ""1'
....~. "'\'"' ~ WE ~'". ~~l;'" 0 .l1vHl~E. ,n "'<;' I: 1 ~ Sf ~1C..~~i~. ".' ~ ~~T~E ~.:(~i~:"~:;;~'::'i 1"""":.I ~ 1 !
\~ .... .. 1 l' t;; J.= :1 $f ~ ~ a :. .. I~ ~w ~ :OiL ...:z" in.,.,..:.;~' ....~ ~ -.;.--
\~ '/\.~f6N Ill~ ~;"i1~~S~~~W;': - '~,:.~.~ I,~i~~~ti~~{~ :J~~~~1'~:~ .. 1
'\. ~~!:fIA~..~i.., ~r:a~::: ~I},.." ~~. ~~yii~~,..,~:~.~isT' ~J.?ri~IJ ~ /,
",~ it. I J J .::ii ,;:~ ~ 11~ :J: _. ^ ST 5TH ICf""~ ~~~;( po.i ,"" -j . A_fA. 'ST '(} ~I .iJ
-----; l--<-~"I.\;~"~,'~';"" - .... .-- _h~__' .. ' ",."71 ~ ;:?:":~:.:':>..~'; ,",O"'+EREY'.loOl
,. .. ./ 4TH";,,- \:.~~i~",:~ I S~T I e ~ : :' ~ MW 10;1 D ..:;- ,~tti=i:~ A -, ~;'7 4" li~i 1
.." ......... ~~"' ". -=co i_ ~ i._.l 8 I <(;1
~~ ',\,~' ,,~'.P ............, A,','O' ,. ~f"'j':'" ~,3RO .,"". -.un'.f!~~~II"1 ,,'.. ST";
0; ~ ....' "-"I>" H::t ~,(J::.,;;;:':":;"~I' ".'A,,' -
of ~~.~...r.'" : ~ ~~~ lii ~;:. - r."ii. J ~1!f71.~' 11-0'" n}" :""';'(;":>: ::<~1 :: f~1 @ J.....,: I
~<l.~~SI I ~"... ...11.. lfil~ \ '~t' r : I ~JO-I ....... I
...,uoGAr1.!.. .,......... ,\ I RtAlTO "\Avi "lIKINGs ~ s~ i'#I~;' -1JS'\ '~~\RIALT'o} :~:: ~ :J I AV; 'UAlTOI,AV .;
~A'~_~.i\_..:a;:~~_BJ ElUrJ_~~~ . -~ ~: _l("_~ . ~~t ~. ~ ~_I_l ~"'m. --~
~.,.".... ~. "0 .. -.' ~ ... ~- ~ -: ': "o:,''':t ,".if.'. " )' I:
':F='~~ r.~\~~r-v--~< ~ ~rii:s' ';;d"~~~' I1[NOEA~hr. .LlL ~(;~~rB~; Sf ~'l----'.!.-~'C~ I~~~"" ~ l I
J.t.~tlT ~r~~~~ I j. ~ f;: ~ ..Q!! CpN S!. ~ ~Ic -J Jt: I >- p: a,,~ ,- ~ _, . w.,!,'
'O~,!!..,: ,L . ,~ ("":",, .,,15T '-~ ,- & J ~.. .' -"1"0" .. . I 'd \"
lCIf.!! In :0 ~~:RANCl5CO ~~ WAlHUT l"" ''';,l;'~";i . -~t.!... =215.~ Y~I ",A' H ~s, ~ ~c:c .';1'10"11.1'0 u' I\.'!:I' ~.;
~ >"~1"I''''''>~,..r,!,T~~ ~1. "'T ~ 'c:.<<;' I .~S1 ~ ~ r ~lo!-r~ ~,~ MUU If' .
~ <, L!!.. i -?~~.t ST\\~ '0:1;0":'. ., 0 i ~ l/,~, 0.. i-e-.J 5.'5-,. s.- ~~""n' ~ ~ t!~ e5 ~ .",..~, . .
".D,',~ .L~i" '0 ~..::- ~. .',' 1 .~ .a";;; ~ 7-l" ~,
!Mlll~ ST s~ .._ t:. ~m~_ .. ::----;;;, ('O'J" ,." MILL"~'M~ , :;:....... :~o ..,_ST~]7 "'JI MlllST 8 :
--:== ~ -.. -'!j!.."I:.-\ -\-~ ~+'-= ,"u" .'-:;;"~; .;.'~,,", '"....r;~ "-;0' ..._r,".-';;;.-' Jf t< - -~~1
~ " l"t 31:0 f,rI" ~:J,6(- \' I ~ ESPERANZA. . .~ I ~ o).. ;..~" 1-':'':' ~ 8
::!: ~I_=rcn I,. ~~J ~ ~ I '" '"FI' IT ~~:"lI~1 \..:. ~, ..:~ .~...u..,,, Sf . ~ S~, ,I "
,.... "~~'T.J llf ,:>""""" 1I ~\\;. . ~ ... ~ ~u.I". I I ...", A',~. ',' n' . - ...",
.$ ON! tY2 It" n ~ '".. q.' STl > ..... erH..",..tfl'/m~~~ :.c :'J::'":' ~.a.,;;~.'~.i\..::~,', :,{;".l'~",:.',,"~,':.;l ~ ~ lii I :
IUOlr?i-.r ". I-OUNGE. IN exi;!..t4!!., ~..!==.O "(li.::;~," ! .:,...... . _ ' ~. _hOLDf.).~
.. ~ ~ a[~ '~";~"" PUASAHTIIW. IN~. - ~ ~l-~ "~'Il' :1...... t " :t;<<.~~~~;.~ .~;:.~t-~~. ~~:;:,::~!I _...!;;t CIU.~.Q!. :
: ~ < it ~ '_0' . NIC"L~ AI'f' ~"~.~ ~ J' 1:::r~ .. LtI411'. '"" ". ....,1I... :C:::>.:: ........, CENTRA.l .. l.y 3= I
.. a:: Q., ....!il.. I -- v ' 0( 11" .Ill."......:. "c'"" r:i.' ..~ ,~..~.:.:~91 -. >1 ;;::;':' ,
s x"'. I')! ('.... ST' y" ~ . '? Taus .....~.. "'"___ A'" .. .fZ" INl,ANQ . ~..... l,..rI>OCf >-
UACM IlII ~J:!JI UI\I'if/,t;f"i'fiJ', ~' ~i.r:I'O.AY~ :~ ~I'~fi" C"lllt -: ~:";:::~:--~U--~i 'lC 1"-; )-.~;J ~
:.RT~ ""'LN T_. T ,.' :6'-....... _,'. ~ >Q. =0"'" 1:Z _ " ~ ".'" .~,:)t.i3: I I I 2: oil if '
'.. -~.' ~~ -t!,- H ~I<'I ':; yo -.;;~ I> ..~~-. -. .;Q'''';''l'W''h- ~ i 1.rr - - ~1r-r7;
IS:;! lltJRFI ~!:~, 1ST g;jlO>I =t / \..61 ! ~:1 ct~;'" '.,5lo ...~~ ":; 0"'""'_1" i~'", I"'?-..z~
~I(! -:-=:. ~ ~ ;, "" L .~-r~ ~ :=1..J,n ~ ~ !~~~"~....~ r, .:...... ~ OA"I"lG~ W......AO" "" I..A -- I" I I
... . M. 0 itI c.~ ".. lU"is > ~ I~" ~ r 0 ~ f~'\IS .-.T i ;
.. 11' OA' ~ Zl~2' a.; . 'fItf.~ -J l '" ST)., ~ co ,.} ~ I . :~ I '" I .......n. ., I
'M ~ ~ lIr>' -"-I"" ;':!i 11 I ~ ~ m ')7.. ..'. 4 ;' ~ ,1" : I I ;
J,t J !l' M' g ~ ,J;. ~ ~- ~o ~ ~~ g:~iW-&~,t,~.;:!t. ',,- '0':"" ~';.',~' ~.."':.'~.' '~N"~'. ~ ,,,.' sr'J I
'_' -6,",,,",,,, ,'- m x'8g":.;:.~ o'~';~i'i:'~' ~/~;..... ., -,,~. ,~ ~"...' ~,I,',
-.}~ to '5 -!!.'.. ....,.. ~"I;;: ~~ ?K"t-~ ~ . 1
Il.l ! ......RTI".=-~ "" ...... ., ACT iC~ :\ ::;;;'l\ ~~c;;~ t!' ,. ,;.,..,t" ~~ ~ 1'W'.oC'I""cQl."SI:
;(: ...~... 8 l~" .J- ,"'. >_'1'., ., ~ -<J.. .~~ __ I '''.:::..!................; ~
oC ~-:n: Q I- C .. ~ "Iii!'" ~,. (;, *J- .:r.7>~-~ - Loo~~ ""!:~:...ot, .:.:~} - /'" .:'=:;s'
N
w ~6 E
... ...--
P\r~
S
SCALE . 1" - 1/2 mi.
.
LOCATION MAP
S:fntlr,:::. 1
~~
-
'-'
-
.~
I
)
)
i
J
~
The Sorrento Group of Santa Monica, California is proposing to construct a
commercial complex on approximately 3.2 acres of land located in the City of
San Bernardino, California. The site was once occupied by an automobile
agency (Inland Center Dodge) and lies adjacent to the west side of "E" Street
near the Inland Center Shopping Mall. The site in relation to the surrounding
area is shown on the LOCATION MAP (Figure 1).
The City of San Bernardino has requested the developer furnish a traffic study
to determine if vehicular traffic generated by the new development will have
an adverse impact on area circulation and, if so, can the impact be mitigated
to the satisfaction of the city.
I
i
I'
I
1
II
i
1
!
l
.
1
..
City of San Bernardino staff has been contacted to determine concerns and
provide a study focus. In this regard, the study will address the following
issues based upon the site plan prepared by Haugaard Elrod: Architecture &
Planning of Pasadena, California:
1. The impact that vehicular traffic will have on the intersection of
"E" Street and Mill Street north of the site.
2. The impact that vehicular traffic will have on the intersection of
"E" Street and Orange Show Road south of the site.
3. The driveway configuration especially the planned exit only driveway
for the fast food restaurant located in the center of the site.
l
'~
I
-1-
1i
]I
li
]I
j
]i
1t
if
1i
1
.
!J
11
m
~
g
~
~
~
<:.~ISTING CONDITIONS
c
,_.......
"
-
'c"..I'
The site is unoccupied. It was used as an automobile agency, I-nland Center
Dodge.
The adjacent land use includes commercial along the west side of "E" Street
and the Orange Show grounds occupy the area on the east side of "E" Street
across from the subject site.
"E" Street is a major faci lity striped for two lanes for each direction of
traffic flow and includes a continuous turn lane between Mill Street north of
the site and Orange Show Road south of the site.
The peak hour for traffic flow on "E" Street, Mi 11 Street and Orange Show Road
is in the afternoon, and falls within the two hour period between 4 p.m. and 6
p.m.
,
-2-
.
~RC:>SED IMPROVEMENTS AND LAND US~
,......
.....,;
~".
l
i
~
The project consists of developing the site as shown on the SITE DEVELOPMENT
PLAN (Figure 2). It is planned to provide the following facilities on the
~
..
site:
Buildinq Floor Area
"An _ SHOPS 22.500 sq. ft.
"B" - FAST FOOD 2.200 sq. ft.
"c" - SHOPS 11,100 sq. ft.
"0" - FAST FOOD 2.240 sq. ft.
i
!
~
I
I
Access to "E" Street will be via two. two-way 28 foot commercial driveways and
one. one-way exit driveway for the Building "B" fast food restaurant.
j
.
Existing paving and curb and gutter along "En Street will remain. There is no
proposed changes in street width or pavement striping.
l
I
.
,
i
I
I
-3-
.
,./
../V .'
...
.."~
..
.d.
,....
,",...
-
$
I
31
~
]
j
"v
~...
0"
..
SHOP elo~II-OH'''S "A"
,.,.'J"
,\ 9
\' .AO ~
\\ ...,<'.....!.!:c _.
G~'c;i1 r--;. ....c~:/; ;
-=-l::j ~C6IIo'_ ~
.....-~,. :~ .~
~ I --i'~
......-:> ~ ! --& l--;- tR O~5'1C$
~~'\1Y I ~ I ---,f.k:::::.:~
· ~.' ':;:,::v.~ ~ =r1;<-:::',
~ ~ :,: =i I
. . .... 'S" I -.t'rT-
i ~....~..,. c:... ~1: ..;..::~_!!~...=!:!:t,... F;;;OO "'J.H:_~~
. ..:="o~o -C'~' --- -~ "eo" I
::1..'2....0. {:; ~. -;i ;.;;; I I
. --:t
. ; , J , ---"11 ~
~ p ~cJ III" rr,tll..,.. I~! I i
~_,.. ._.,,6 I) ~~jl' '.. J
~:'-::J3') f U ...
.,"(",1, 1: IlJO; ~.
...-g....e.... "'iiiit
l
-
00
o
~v
)
l
l
J
.......
1J
J
--~
-
j
,
l
00
],
-;
-
"
-..-)
,,'/
~,\ ~.
...
, .
I. ,
!: ,
~
~
1C\....q...'5.
(=.N)
...
....
Iii III i
.
11
/'
.."r............
....-....
....-.
~0,,%/// ~~ : : F2
CoO' ., ! i :-;
".c; (l~ I "'"
- ,-
"r'J '
: USoI't\luo.na
~
CDC:'-'fo".;J
!..---hf'HI'~
; _ln1lo1l1.1.....----i
. d
~.
U. ~~
:-::"..~:'"-~$.
~~:?~...:t:
DO
.
~
s....OP
BL.DG, 'e.
1f.100+
"h
w-
e...
'llUpr
I. p I :..~
10" 0 ..
..LI
~-:.
100":;
. . .,:. '~',..&.
"
SOU Ttt -e- STREET
SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN
]
~,
.o!l
Figure 2
-4-
.
1
1
11
J,
J
JJ
:I
)
~
,
~
.
U
i
f
J
c
,-.,
....,)
\
.....,;
c
'Q
TRIP ~ENERATIO~
In order to access the traffic impacts on area circulation due to development,
it is necessary to estimate the volume of traffic generated, then distribute
this traffic to the street system.
Trip generation factors for various land uses have been established from
studies made by governmental agencies, research institutes and consulting
traffic engineers nationwide. Trip generation data used for this study is
based upon information included in the Institute of Transportation Engineer's
publication, "TRIP GENERATION".
Because major impacts on area circulation occur during peak hours, this
analysis will deal with peak hour volumes. However, daily generated volumes
are also include for information.
Since the site will include different land uses, a brief explanation of each
and how the data is used in the study follows:
Fast Food
Trip generation factors for fast food restaurants are shown on Figure 3. The
generation factors provid~ trips per 1000 square feet of building area.
These generation rates assume that all trips are "new", i.e., the trips are'
generated because the facility is there.
It has been recognized by transportation engineers for some time that con-
venience oriented land use types (e.g. banks, fast food restaurants, gasoline
stations ,and convenience markets) have different trip characteristics than
other use types. A significant portion of the trips generated by the~"! uses
are simply trips directed from traffic already on adjacent streets or nearby
facilities such as commuters during peak hours ~ill stop on their way to and
. from work to pick-up a small item such as a pack of cigarettes, or to fill
their vehicle with fuel. Since not all the trips generated by the facility
are "new" trips to the facility, a reduction in the effective trip generation
rate is justified. The reduced trips are referred to as "pass by" trips.
-5-
..at
I
j
11
11
I
~
I.
~
~
~
I
I_
~.....
.,,,.,.,,,
'*""".
'-'
'-' 'wi .
Several studies have been made to determine the percentage of pass by trlps
for different land uses, These studies show that the pass by percentage
varies by the type. and size of used represented, the time of day, the
geographic location of the site relative to an urban center, and the nature of
the streets and highway system serving the area,
,,,.,..,;;"
The Mc'Donalds Corporation has made such a study of it's facilities and the
results will be used in this study and it is shown on MC'DONALDS CORPORATION
CAR COUNTS BY HOUR OF THE DAY (Figure 4).
This chart shows by hour of the day the average of trips generated by the
drive through restaurant. Also, the chart indicates during the 5 p.m. - 6
p.m. peak hour the restaurant is generating 32.5% of the calculated peak hour
trips.
Using the trip generation data from Figure 3, the floor area for the~fast
food restaurants from the SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN (Figure 2) and the percentage
of peak hour trips from Figure 4, the volume of traffic is estimated. Table 1
below summarizes the trip generation estimate for the afternoon peak hour,
5:00 p.m. - 6:00 p.m. and is modified using the derived percentage of traffic
generated solely by the fast food restaurants.
TABLE 1
.
" ,
FAST FOOD RESTAURANT AFTERNOON PEAK:HOUR DAIL Y
.
Flgure 3 ENTER EXIT TOTAL 2-WAY
. . .
GENERATION RATE 44.4 41.9 78.8 553
(PER 1;000 S.F.)
GENERATED TRIPS
(4,440 S.F.) 197 18~ 350. 2,455
PERCENT GENERATED 32.5 32.5 32.5 33.6
, BY FACILITY
GENERATED TRIPS 64 60 11<l B25
BY FACILITY ,
.
-6-
(
,-,
'-
'-"
,/
I
l
!
I
I
I
Sho~
Since there are no separate identified tenants for the individual shops for
this study, the general category, shopping center, will be used,
Trip generation factors for a shopping center are.shown on Figure 5. For this
study it is assumed that the factors shown for the afternoon peak hour occur
during the study peak hour, 5:00 p.m. - 6:00 p.m.
Using ,the total building area for the shops from the SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN
(Figure 2) and the trip generation factors from I'i'gure 5 the totals al'e shown
in TABLE 2 below:
I,
l
SHOPPING CENTER AFTERNOON PEAK ,HOUR DAILY'
. . .
Figure' 5 ENTER EXIT TOTAL 2-WAY .
GENERATION RATE
(PER 10OOS.F.) 6.8 7.0 15.5 115.8
GENERATED TRIPS
(33,600S.F.) 228 235 521 3,891
TABLE 2
,
In order to determine impacts the afternoon peak hour trips from the two
facilities on the site discussed above are combined and shown in TABLE 3
below:
TABLE 3
COMBINED USES AFTERNOON PEAK HOUR ,DAILY
ENTER EXIT TOTAL 2-WAY
. ,
TABLE 1
FAST FOOD RESTAURANT 64 60 114 825
, TABLE 2 228
SHOPPING CENTER 235 521 3,891
TOTAL 292 295 635 4,716
-7-
.
.1.
I
1J
:I
J
[J
[J
')
j
!
I
c
-
........
..-.,
"'-t<I
::J
..
I ~
SUMMARY OFTRIP GENERATION RATES
..
Land Use/Building Type Drive-In Restaurant ITE Land Use Code 833
Independent Variable-Trips per l,OOO Square Feet
Average Number Average Size of
Trip Maximum Minimum Correlation 01 Independent
Rate Rate Rate Coelticient Studies Variable/Study
..
Average Weekday Vehicle Trip Ends 553 828 376 6 2.68'
Peak A.M. Enter 49.7* 1 1.59
.,
Hour Between Exit 40.2* 1 1.59
of 7 and 9 Total 89.9* 1 1. 59
,', Adjacent P.M. Enter
17.0 4 3.57
Street Between Exit 14.6 4 '<."7
Traffic 4 and 6 Total 31.6 73.0 21.l 4 '< "7
~.
Peak A.M. Enter
Hour Exit
of Total
Generator P.M. Enter 44.4 A '< "7
Between Exit 41.9 A '< "7
12 and 1 Total
7P. P. lQA 7 '<7 n 11 ., no
~ Saturday Vehicle Trip Ends
"'" Peak Enter
,
Hour of Exit
--c
Generator Total
Sunday Vehicle Trip Ends
Peak Enter
Hour of Exit
ti Generator Total
~ Source Numbers 4, 5
-- --,------
! lTE Technical Committee 6A-6-Trip Generation Rates
. Date: July 1975 . .
*Represents Dunkin Donuts Restaurant
~
~
-8-
Figure 3
I
.
l-
I
.
.
I
.
i
I'
I
I
II
II
II
11
I
.
it
1., /'-,
...."" ~ )
.~
frldoy
Percent "raffte
Pe.rcent 5 taro Avg. Trans. Tnnsl te.nerD'ted by tars Ceneralel:!
Time Da I1v Sa 1cs !!!E ~ ~ Cor ~ McDonald's by KcDonal~'s
-
7 ~m - a am 2.6St $ 90 $1.85 ~9 1.11 W 12.2t G
Sam-'am 2.9) 100, 1.85 5~ 1.11 ~9 21.6 11
, am - 10 am . ).28 112, 1.85 61 p9 56 28.~ 16
.
.
10 om - 11 om ).2i i09 1.85 : 59. 1:~9, 5~ , )1.9 18
, ,
'10m - 12 pm 8.09 276 ,2.2) ,12~ . I.ls' 108 )7.'- ~\
12 pm - , pm 12.7~, ' ~)~ 2;23 "5 1.15: 170 M.)' 77
I' pm - 2 pm 8.0 272 , ~.2) ,: 122 : I.l~ 107 )6.l ')9
" - ' , .
2 pm- 3 pm S.27 ' 179 2.00 . , 90, I.l~ 79 28.7 2)
~ .'
3 pm - ~ pm ~.77 162 2.00 81 1.1~, 71 26.7 I'
. ,
It pm - 5 p'; 5.2& 179 ,2.~5 . ',73 1.?7 69 25.' 18
5 pm - 6 pm 9.17 312 2.~S 127 1.07 119 32.5 )9
6 pm - . 7 pm, ll.~~ 390 2.~5 ' 159 I.ll ' 1~) 37.3 53
7 pm - 8 pm 8.~1 29&, ,2.~S 121 1.11 ,109 3&.3 ' Ito
. .
8 pm: 9 pm 5.55 , 18~ 2.ItS :! 77' 1.2), . &) )).) 21
.'
. :.2.1& :.
, pr:> - 10 pm . ~.)~ 1\9 ,69, ' 1.23 5& 30.) .17
'2.16 ,:~6 ' .
10 pm - 11 pm 2.87 '8, .. ,1.2i 38 28.1 . 11
"." . "
l1pm-12p" 1.68 -E ~ ~ . ..'1.23 ...!.!. ~ -!.
$)~O~ ..' 2.22 .. 1,533 ' " '1.1) 1,35& 33.6t '55
,
Me DONALDS CORPORATION
. . ' .
. CAR COUNTS
BY HOUR OF THE DAY
Figure' 4
'!I
-9-
[J
lJ
II
1
J
]
~
1
i
i
I
I
I
rC ;,'...... f..'.... ) .
~I,....- '- ,
....;
SUMMARY OF TRIP GENERATION RATES
land Use/Building Type Shopping Center - 0 to 49,999 Gr. Sq. FtlTE Land Use Code 820
Independent Variable-Trips per 1,000 Gross Square Feet
Average Number Average Size of
Trip Maximum Minimum Correfation of fndependent
Rate Rate Rate Coefficient Studies Variabfe/Study
.
Average Weekday Vehicle Trip Ends 115.8 270.9 21.5 18 30.7
Peak A.M. Enter l.l 4 20.3
Hour Between Exit 0.9 4 20,3
of 7 and 9 Total 3.5 7 26.8
Adjacent P.M. Enter 7.2 6 23.4
Street Between Exit 7.2 6 23.4
Traffic 4 and 6 Total l4.7 l4 30.3
Peak A.M. Enter
Hour Exit
of Total 8.S 7 36.3
Generator P.M. Enter 6.8 7 22 9
Exit 7.0 7 ?? Q
Total gC; 1/; ?Q Q
Saturday Vehicle Trip Ends lC;'; ~ ~ <In ~
Peak Enter ,
.
Hour of Exit
Generator Total
Sunday Vehicle Trip Ends
Peak Enter
Hour of Exit
Generator Total
Source Numbers '-, 3 4r 6, 19, 59, 64 72, 7<;, 7R -~----~_." .. .._-,-.----.~---
ITE Technical Committee 6A-6-Trip Generation Rates
.
Date: 1975
,
-lO-
Flgur", 5
r'
/
\"y
1'.'""
'"'
--.;
~)
-
I
-~
TRIP OISTRIBUTIO~
I
I
I
Traffic generated by the proposed development is distributed on a logical
basis using an analysis of the location of the site with regard to anticipated
trip desires. As stated before, peak hour traffic data will be used in deter-
mining traffic impacts.
I
I
I
The site is situated in an area that is completely surrounded by various com-
mercial endeavors. An existing street system is available to handle local
traffic as well. The 1-215 freeway which provides area wide traffic distribu-
tion is located approximately one-half mile to the west. The local streets,
Orange Show Road, Inland Center Drive, and Hnl Street an havefu'll inter-
change facilities with the freeway. There are also parallel surface major
streets to the east.
~
~
I
u
i
Using the above analysis and discussion with Hr. Rafat Raie, Assistant City
Traffic Engineer, for this study it is assumed that trips generated by the
development with be distributed equally north and south along "E" Street.
Distribution at the intersection of "E" Street and Hill Street and "E" Street
and Orange Show Road are, included in the intersection analysis section of
this study. Using the above trip distribution analysis the assignment from'
the site is shown graphically on the TRIP DESIRE DIAGRAM (Figure 6).
~
,
I
I
i
I
I
I
I
-11-
tl~
\,.,,.,..
u
U
G
,
!
rn
i
~
I
~
I
I
rg
u:i
[I
J
I
J
J
I
I
)
I
~
~
- -------+
r'
-
.'......,
J
\
. /
~ -
SITE
. AFTERNOON TOTAL TRIPS
ENTER " EXIT
2~2 " 295
148 ~' ./
1.46~
,
~146'
'- ... 148
TRIP DESIRE DIAGRAM
Figure 6
,~.
J
1
1
J
]
)
I
B
g
;
..
~
I
I
c
:)
"
'-'
r
....,..,
TRAFFIC2~rACTS
Intersection Capacit~nalysis
In order to determine the impact that traffic generated from the site wi 11
have on the capacity of the intersections of "E" Street and Mi 11 Street and
.<'
"E" Street and Orange Show Road peak hour turning counts were taken manually
through the peak hour period between 4 p.m. and 6 p.m. These counts are ap-
pended to this study.
The turning counts are used in a methodology that has been developed for
capacity analysis known as Intersection Capacity Util ization (ICU). The ICU
calculation will provide an intersection level of Service (lOS). The explana-
tions of both ICU and lOS are appended to this study.
In order to assist in repetitive calculations for the ICU analysis, a computer
program known as CAPSSI-85 issued (CAPSSI-85 is an acronym for Capacity of a
Single Signalized Intersection) is used. This allows engineers to investigate
many alternative solutions to alleviate capacity problems and increase the lOS
at an intersection with relative ease.
For this study, the distributed trips from the SITE OESIRE DIAGRAM (Figure 6)
are co,-bined with the mahual turning counts at each intersection. CAPSSI-85
computer runs are made using different traffic signal cycle lengths and alter-
nate geometrics. The most efficient combination of traffic signal cycle
length and geometrics are shown for the city's consideration. The CAPSSI-85
computer runs are appended to this study.
Driveway Confiquration
The City has expressed concern with the driveway configuration shown on the
SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN (Figure 2). The concern 1:; for the "EXIT ONLY" driveway
for the middle fast food restaurant "B". It has been suggested that the exit
drive and the north commercial drive be combined similar to the south commer-
cial drive. This alternative is shown on ALTERNATE DRIVEWAY SCHEME (Figure
71.
_1'1:_
l
c
!,",'''-
-
'-'
'-"
B
'0
j
, Disadvanta~
J
]
The exit only driveway could create undesirable wrong way moves which require
the wrong-way motorist to back into "E" Street to seek alternate driveways.
For the proposed driveway configuration shown on ALTERNATE DRIVEWAY SCHEME
(Figure 7) the following are advantages and disadvantages:
~
~
Advantaqe
This will eliminate the potential wrong way moves into an exit only driveway.
,..,
J
Disadvantages
j
This will offset the north driveway and require vehicles entering the compl~x
to make undesirable right angle turns to proceed to aisles to the shops.
~
1
I
.
J
.J
)
I
,
]
]
~
J
~
rn
]
:
].
1
]
J --
J
i
I
J
!
i
!
----I
.....~,
,..,
-
~
.~
~
0'"
.....
0"
c.
/'
....~/~' .
..'"
c.
.;1,; ,
..,
-=,
I ~~'-II ' ~.>"J
. I' . \' ~ .::.
.. I . t,.-,
:"'1,
'), ~.
.,.~.
SHOP O~'''''OIt....:::;. "'A.#
0"
"
,.'"
. 10 ......"...
4,J:I'.M)
U'
--
In Iii i III r~
.,/
~,......~...
c:::n.
(,~ .~
.,., ,
; ~ 'u-o.,,~
. ~
(O<.::;..,....T..Y
I
_"...... ..::ri
_Ij',.....-::j
cd
,.
oCLO~
"'......-.
,.........
.'
"u ., ,"" ,. m
''''','0''//' 0 " : ["'i'i";
<0 . . . .. '
,
'00::;
\\ . <;?
" AQ ~
. ;,.y<'~ "Z- \
..""., Uo<>=<~' I-; . .:c-r."
(..;;:;""' ~ !7.-;;~\;.:':;-<-! 'I
c:@, "-loG .i:z:sJ
.._" .. f -t'~
" . - I. 1-7 11" O'S'JC!S
-.;--;-~' ----l... ~
I --:~:. _
=~r~. -
!!!~ ~r'
~
=----ll
, .
.~~;...-=-~~
.,';:c.....R
.i:...;::!"': ..
;:!' ...
,
--'
""
S~OP
6\"0(:.. "c.
!I.IOO+
.
.
,
I
.
..1~_;1!r! m-
....
,.
.
~
U'
.,.
"
.
-:-
.
.
'.:..~...~..~-
",nc..OO;
I I
IJ":;'-'
soU.H
-6- S"iRe.E.T
.
ALTERNATE DRIVEWAY SCHEME
Flgure.7
I
'-
.....>.,
.....-,
,
'"j
"'-'
--
~
HITIGATION HE~SURES
!
Intersection of "EO Street and Mill Street
)
The CAPSSI-85 computer runs for this intersection indicates that the intersec-
tion can operate at an acceptable level of service after site generated traf-
fic is added.
B
1
There are no suggested changes in intersection geometries. It is recommended
that the E-W Split Phase arrangement for Mill Street be changed to left turns
with overlap and left turn phases be added for N-S. The recommended cycle
lengths and minimum green times are indicated on the computer runs.
]
]
Intersection of "EO Street and Oranqe Show Road
~
The CAPSSI-85 computer runs for this intersection indicates the intersection
can operate at an acceptable level of service after site generated traffic is
added.
]
.d
There are no suggested changes in intersection geometries. The recommended
cycle lengths and minimum green times are indicated on the computer runs.
!
Driveway Confiquration
.
! The determination of the alternate driveway configurations should be based on
weighing the advantages and disadvantages of each.
I
For the proposed driveway configuration shown on the SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN
i (Figure 2) the fOllowing are the advantages and disadvantages.
I
Advantaqe
I
II
This will allow north driveway ingress and e9ress for the shops to flow
. straight through the complex and vehicular traffic can flow smoothly through
the drive aisles without undesirable right angle turns.
I
l
a
"
c
"
,.,.'"
........
-..,/
.;
RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS
The study calculated the vehicles generated by tile development of the site and
distributed these trips to "E" Street then to the intersections of Mill Street
on the north and Orange Show Road on the south.
Computer generated capacity analysis were pedormed for each intersections.
Using the recommended changes shown on the analysis. each intersection will
continue to operate at an acceptable level of service after development of the
site.
l
The advantages and disadvantages of the driveway configUI"'ation for the site
were discussed. It is my opinion that the driveways proposed on the SITE
DEVELOPMENT PLAN (Figure 2) be approved. The potential for wrong way moves
into a properly signed exit only driveway are minimal. The city has allowed
this treatment at other locations. In fact. Wendy's fast food restaurant just
north of the site has an exit only driveway and seems to be functioning with
little problem. .
1
I
]
...
.1
~~
1
CONSULTING ENGINEER
RCE 13493
RTR 40
,
j
]
~
1
[J
rJ
-17-
.
c
I
I
I
)
I
a
a
m
~
~
I
I ~: I
11
I
D
I
II
D
,"
r'"
'-'
'-'.
:)
--
<3
APPENDIX
MANUAL PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC COUNTS
EXPLANATION OF INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION (ICU)
LEVEL OF SERVICE DESCRIPTIONS (LOS)
CAPSSI-85 COMPUTER RUNS
,
l'j'
11
D
i
i
I
I
m
m
~
:;1
~
s
~
~
J
J
\
\.
"" !'""l < I
1 ,-" '\
'- """ ,
11. ~ -a
0 '"
~ 0
~ "" ro c: U') C> m C' M r-. r-. C>
:?: ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
3
I- 0
J:: Z
US V>
US >- 0) 0
en en \0 CO CO ..". ..". r-. C> U')
::c < c I- '" Q) '" 0 Q) Q) r-. r-. ,
'" .... ~ ~
en 0 '- U
C> US
z!:!: ..J en ..". \0 \0 \0 '" \0 en
00 U') ..". LO ..". LO LO M M
f- . ~
,
W ~
W ,..;
::J: lU -a
'" CO
.... 0 WI
1(1.) "" 0: co LO co M en LO r-. '"
< '" M '" ..". M M M ..".
3
. 0 0
J:: Z
l- V>
0) b
Z 0) en - en LO ~ \0 ..". LO C> '" '"
> c .... '" '" '" '" LO M '" r-.
0) '" .... ....
:J f- '- U
u C> UJ
0 ... 0:
Z r-. \0 .... ..". CO .... '" ..".
VI - ..J M en M '" r-. ..". ~ en
~ 0 0 .... .... ~ .... ...... ~
U c .
c en
p ~
U .U
':)
- 0: Zo:
U. UJ '<0 en 0 \0 .... co 0 .... 0:1-
> ." :)
U. ..... Vl 0: \0 C> \0 r-. ..... \0 \0 LO ....0
0: '" ....
<C 0) ....Z
-a UJ '-
'" (/) ..... Z 11.<
a: 0 Vl 0
a: a:I LO en ..... ..". "" 0 ..... '" UJen
.. - (/) M M M "" M M '" C>
I- 3 0 w .... .... .... ..... .... ~ .... ..... ..... ..JUJ
0
J:: U (/)en
VI UJ
0) <:)
...I C1l Z~ ,
c --I 0 .... CO ..... M LO en '" a:I
'" LO M '" '" '" '" ..... '" 0
<C '- 00 UJ ~
C> ....~
.. ::>
-a
c Z..J
Z '" :)U
.....
<( 0) 0>-
0) Uu
'-
~ ..... <0 UJIl:
Vl z 0: LO CO M ..... "" M ~ C>
, '" .... '" ~ M '" '" .... 100
.....
w 0) ....
0) z 00
'-
..... 0 ....=:
11.0 Vl .... 0 0 en "" co 0 en
- (/) "" co 0 LO LO '" <'oJ 0
O.~ .... ,..... .... "" ..... ..... .... d .... (I) UJ
w
Z~ U Zo
z UJ C:::l
O:I-Z o;g Z!:!: :)..J
-'- ..J ..... en ttl Q) en ..... ..". LO
:)::co: ....~ 00 en 0 ..... en 0 CO ..... ..... ....U
....O::l ..... ..... .... ~ IZ
....-.... Uc :)-
UJ", (/) ttl 0 ttl 0 U') 0 on 0
::c<.... (/)Vl .... M "" 0 .... M ..". 0 ..
OC:u. UJ~ .. .. .. .. .. .. .. en
c: "" "" ..". LO on LO ttl \0 us
-....UJ UJ>- ::l:O I , , I I , , I I-
c:en..J ........ -UJ
II II I' Z- ....10 0 ttl 0 ttl 0 ttl 0 ttl 0
c:en..J 0 .... M ..". C> .... M "" Z
_U .. .. .. .. .. .. ..
"" ",- ..". "" U') ttl on ttl
'.
"
~
1 r
,.
I
I
i
I
,
~
I
,
"
~,
a,
d
~ '
I
I
I
I
r;/ "",," ,) I ,^,.
.... I
u..
0 >.
"'I '" co ~ M co I"- 0> M 0>
-0 +" 3:
,~ QJ 0:: ~ ~ ~
.... QJ
..... s...
t- +" Z
W V>
W >- ~ 0 :: 0 ." co I"- \D \D
- en N N 0> co ~ N
:r: ~ ~ t- ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
'~
en 0 ::;: u
w
Z .0:: ~ 0> ." <i'> ~ 0 0>
..J 0> I"- co I"- co \D
0 0
t- . I"-
co
I
W ."
N
W ,
I"-
~ iii co
t- +" W :; , co ." <i'> 0 M ~
~ QJ Cl: M '<:-J M M ~ N
QJ
. 0 ....
+" :z
l- V>
~ d ~ '<i'> 0> <i'> 0> I"- ~
Z - en 0 0> 0> l"- I"- I"-
~ ~ ......
QJ .~
> ::;;: u
:::> ~ W
0 , :; , Cl:
~ z_ ..J g: ...... ." <i'> <i'> \D I"-
00' ." ,." M N ." M
() '" .
~ en
~ ~
() ~ ,u
'::l
- QJ Cl: ZCl:
U. > Cl:t-
,~ W
.... <:0 ~ ::l
U. Cl > V> Cl: .~ M ." M 0> N
+-> ,<i'> ." I"- \D M ." t-o
<C -0 Cl: QJ t-Z
<= W QJ
'" s... Z u..~
~ en +->
0: <= co V> 0 ~ 0> N 0> M <i'> ...... Wen
- - en i\D <i'> <i'> '" <i'> co
I- -... 0 w ~ ...... ...... ...... ...... ..Jw
U en en
+-> W
QJ ~::l
..J QJ Cl: .~
.... Z '..J '" 0> \D 0> ." \D co
+-> - ...... ...... 0
<( Vl 0 0 wu)'
:::> ~ I-w
~
.~ Z..J
Z :;: ::lU
-... 0>-
<( +-> Uu
QJ
~ QJ wCl:
s... to co I"- \D ...... ...... 0 N
+-> z Cl: coO
Vl +" ...... ...... N M N ...... N
QJ t-
QJ 00
W s... Z
+" 0 t-;:l:
u..g Vl \D N 0> \D co N ......
0; t- en ." \D \D \D \D '" I"- (fJ1ll
w . , ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... .... ......
s... = U , ZQ
Z z~ w Cl::J
Cl:t-Z 0.... zCl: 0> \D I"- 0> l"- I"- ...... :J..J
-QJ ..J ...... N N N N N ." t-u
::l;:cCl: t-tO 00 .
t-Cl::l u:;; 'z
t--t- :J_
LtJVl (fJ ~ '" a '" a 1O C)
;:c~t- en ...... M ." 0 ...... M ..
ClCI:u.. w~ ...... .. .. .. .. .. (fJ
Cl: . ...... ...... ...... N N N W
_t-w w>- :::i:Cl I I-
Cl:(f)..J , , , , I ,
I-t- -w ,l.C 0
II II I' ~u t-co '''" C) <i'> C) '" 0 1O
CI:(f)..J :~ 0 ...... M ." a ...... Z
.. .. .. .. .. ..:.:
~ - ~ ~ N
'.
't
B
!
D
g
~,
~
ii
e
;q
~
;'l,
:a
l
1
i
1
Q
~
~
J
~
~
!
~
~
~ C -............
"'MI '-..,;
LL >,
0 '"
MI "0
VI 0:
'"
::>
l-
I- Z
W 0
W >-
:c q: l- I,/)
I,/) 0 0
w
Z!!: ...I
..... 00 ' '
<Xl
l- . I
<Xl
N ,
W I
....
W ..
i~ w
I- 0:
q:
. 0
I- Z
d
Z - I,/)
~ .
::> 0 -
UJ
0 0:
, z_ ...I
VI 00 ' '
() ,~
'" " .
> " I,/)
,~ '" ~
S- o
U 0 .0
S- '::1
- '" 0: Zo:
U. ...,
" w 0:1-
'" ::I
u.. L> > 0: 1-0
.", 0:
<( " UJ I-z
'" Z
~ I,/) LLq:
0: " co 0 UJI,/)
- - I,/)
I- ..... 0 I- , ..JUJ
..., , 0 1,/)1,/)
'" UJ q:::I
..J '" Z!!:
S- '...I co
..., 0
<( VI 00 UJ ~
~ I-~
::> ~
.~ Z..J
::E
Z '" ::10
-.. >
'~ 0>-
<( ..., S- 00
'" 0
'"
~ S- S- wO:
..., '" co 0: 0 '" .... .... '" '" .-< coO
VI ..., W .... '<t' '<t' '<t' M N M
" z I-
= '"
w L> Z 00
0 "0 0 I-;:E
LL" " - I,/) '" LO .-< 0 .... '" M
0:0 '" I- '<t' .". LO LO LO LO on I,/)UJ
~ ..
s- " 0 Zc
z~ -
Z W 0:::>
O:I-Z o~ zO: ...I <Xl '<t' '<t' M LO '" '" ::>...1
::I:ca: -co 1-0
I- 00
1-0::1 o~ IZ
1--1- ::>-
:cq:1- UJVI I,/) g LO C) LO 0 LO C) ..
I,/) UJ= .. .-< M '<t' 0 .-< M I,/)
00:u. .-< .. .. " .. .. ,.
0: .-< .-< .-< N N N UJ
_I-UJ w>- :EO I I-
0:1,/)...1 , I I , I ,
1-1- -w lO 0
II II II z- I-co '<t' 0 LO 0 lO 0 LO
0:1,/)...1 _0 .. C) .-< M '<t' 0 .-< Z
N .. .. .. .. .. ..
"
.I
l
rt\1l
LS
rm
II
[J
[I
[I
rj'
J,
J
I
J
J
E
)
J
I
J
,...,"'""
'-0)
"'..,....
-
'-"
,'~
EXPLANATION 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 term~ 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 SO percent
times 3 lanes, or 2400 vehicles per hour.
The technique used to compare the volume and capacity of 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 inter-
section 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 ~nd the signal
wou1d,just accommodate approaching traffic.
ICU analysis consists of (a) determining the proportion of
signal time needed to serve each conflicting movement o~ traffic,
(b) summing the time requred to the total time, (c) comparing
the total time required to the total time available. For example,
if for north-south traffic the northbound traffic ,is 1600 vehic-
les per hour, the ,southbound traffic is l200 vehicles per hour,
and the capac1ty of either direction is 3200 vehicles per hour,
then the northbound traffic is critical and requires 1600/3200 of
SO 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,
[M
~
[J)
[J
rI
[I
[I
i
[i' ,
11
~
J
J
J
)
D
!
:i.
~
"'."
.......
:)
r",
-
~
...,;
\}
they are incorporated into the analysis. The critical movements
are usually the heavy left turn movements and the opposing
through movements.
Level of service is used to describe the quality of traffic
flow. Levels of service A to C operate quite well. Level of
service C is typically the standard to which rural roads .are
designed, and level of service D is the standard to which urban
roadways are typically designed. Level of service D is char~cter-
ized by fairly restricted traffic flow. Level of service E is the
maximum volume a facility can accommodate and will result in
possible stoppages of momentary duration. Level of service F
occurs when a facility is overloaded and is characterized by
stop-and-go traffic with stoppages of long duration. A descrip-
tion of the various levels of traffic service appears on the
following page, along with the relationship between ICU and level
of traffic service.
The ICU calculation assumes that an intersection is signa-
.
lized and that the signal is ideally timed. Although calculating
ICU for an unsignalized intersection is invalid, the presumption
is that a signal can be installed and the calculation shows
whether the geometrics are capable of accommodating the expected
volume. It is possible to have an ICU well below lOa percent, yet
have severe traffic congestion. This would occur if one or more
movements is not getting sufficient time to satisfy its demand,
and excess time exists on other movements. This is an operational
problem which should be remedied.
Capacity is often defined in ter~s of roadway width; how-
ever, standard lanes have approximately the same capacity whether
they are II or 14 feet wide. A typical lane, whether a through
lane or a left turn lane, has a capacity of approximately 1700
I'
!
I
I
1
1
:I
J
J
J
i
W
i
J
!
B
D
i
i
c
" ~
~,.."
-
'-'
~
vehicles per hour, with nearly all locations showing a capacity
greater than 1600 vehicles per hour per lane. This finding is
published in the August, 1978 issue of the ITE Journal in the
article entitled, "Another Look at Signalized Intersection Capa-
city" by William Kunzman. For this study, a capacity of 1600
vehicles p,er hour per lane will be assumed for both through and
left turn lanes. '
The yellow time can either be assumed to be completely used
and no penalty applied~ or it can be assumed to be only partially
usable. Total yellow time accounts for less than 10 percent of a
cycle, and a penalty up to five 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 cap,acities have been assumed to be only 1600 vehicles
per hour per lane when in general they are l700.
The leU 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 on the intersection capacity utilization.
._'""
...)
'.
~
J
c
,-
~
,,-...,
'-wi
'~
:i
1j
II
II
II
II
[i'
II
J
[J
[1.
rs
is
[J.
iI
!1
[jj"
'.
.,-:
LEVEL OF SERVICE DESCRIPTIONS
Level of ICU
Servi<;e Traffic Flow guali.ty Value
A. Low volumes; high speeds; speed 'not restrict-
ed by other vehicles; all signal cycles clear 0.00-0.80
\lith no vehicles vaiting through more than
one signal cycle.
B. Operating speeds beginning to be affected by
other traffic; between one and ten percent
of t.he signal cycles have one or more ve- 0.81-0.85
hicles which vait through more than one sig-
nal cycle during peak traffic periods.
C. Operating speed and maneuverability closely
controlled by other traffic; between 11 and
30 percent of the signal cycles have one or 0.86-0.90
more vehicles which wait through more than
one signal cycle during peak traffic periods;
recommended ideal design standard. .
D. Tolerable operating speeds; 31 to 70 percent
of the signal' cycle have one or more vehicles 0.91-0.95
which wait through than signal cycle .
more one .
during peak traffic periods; often used as
design standard in urban areas.
E. Capacity: the maximum traffic volume an in-
tersection can accommodate; restricted
speeds; 71 to 100 percent of the signal 0.96-1.00
cycles have one or more vehicles which wait
through more' than one signal cyc:Je during
peak traffic p~riods. ,
F. Long gueues of traffic; unstable flow; stop-
.
pages of long duration; traffic volume and Not mean-
traffic speed can drop to z.ero; traffic ingfu1
volume will be less than the volume which
occurs at Level of Service E.
c
I
~
I
I
,
,
,
,
,
~
1
I
I
j
~-
~
I
~
~
I
J
~
'~
ORANGE SHOW
.,r'
--
"E" STREET
..~~~
/ I \.
~ .j ,~
,!,
I 5291-'"/
I' 436\-: ~,~
11451-";:
,
~ 4 ;Y"
...~~~
....,;,c
)
~ .
:' '-1 ,421
-'IE- --I 4241 ,-
/-{ 1971
f
. .. ..0
ROAD
EXISTING TRAFFIC
PM PEAK HOUR
4:l5 ,- 5:15
-..,~,
<:
--
~ ~
\
,.I
I
"'"
'-"
'~
ME" STREET
ORANGE SHOW
.
~~~
/ I "
.#, t , ~,. ,\
~)' @', :'--1 521
" ~. , ....~-1 5121
I 712l-/.' CD @ '/ -r 2241
. I 620~-:-:-',~ f'
I 1561-, ,',
,
. .. .."
ROAD
,
@,G) ,
~ 4;J1"
.~~,~ -
'tJEJEJ
(g)'CRITICAl MOVEMENT
EXISTING TRAFFIC
PEAK l5 MIN. X 4
~-,
"-.'",,,,-
'.....'
.......
v
CAP S S I 3 5
INTEF:SECTION U\h\ClTY AN,'.LYSIS
PER 1';'85 HIGHWAY C,\PAClTY MA~,IUt\L
.~
SBD.
BLANI<
SOLUTION USING REQUIRED CYCLE TIME
LANE GF.:OUPS
E 8( OPANGE SHm~ CM 1 C~l 2 CM 3 Cl1 4 5 5
-------------------------
PI?ak 15 ~li n Fl'Jw (vph) 444 512 450 575 124 152
Saturation Flow (vph) 5000 3600 1700 350(1 1700 3600
Lost Timl?s (sI?o:onds) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
RelativI? Saturation - 'X' 0.43 0.75 0.88 0.5'3 0.24 0.18
Grt'I?n Timl?s (I?ffl?ctivI?) 26 24 38 28 38 28
Mov,;,l))I?nt Timl?s 28 25 40 30 40 30
Mi ni f'nLlm Time-s 28 25 9 30 9 30
Progrl?ssion Adj. ractoy 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
AVI?ragl? D,;,lays (sI?c/vI?h) '"':\':' 3'3 43 35 25 29
~~
LI?vI?l of Se-r vi I: e- D D- E+ D., C.. D~
Av OUI?UI? @ start of 9r t?e-n 12 14 11 15 3 4
VI?hicll?s stopping 0(,) 87 94 95 92 5'3 78
Do Vt.--hicle-s Cll?ar YES YES YES YES YES YES
Cd tical Move-me-nts WI?i gh t I?d Av DI?lay (S€'6C) = 38 Le-vI?l of Service- = D-
Whole Int~rs€'cti':)n WI?ightl?d Av DI?lay (see) = 36 LI?v",l of Servi.:e = D-
Requirl?d Cycll? LI?ngth is 125 seconds
Int\?rsection Capacity Utilization (leU) = 0.59
,
EXISTING TRAFFIC
PEAK l5 MINUTES X 4
EXISTING GEOMETRICS
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
c
ORANGE SHOW
j
" I 611-/
I I-- -:- ~
I t-,
,
".....,-
'-'
"E" STREET
..~~~
I I \.
.# t'~
...<....
'...,/
\,
'-I
-C- --I
/-1
f
51
I
I
ROAD
A ,.
~ ;JI'" :
, ~~6 .'
:
.'
",
PROJI:C'I' 'l'RAFl!IC
PM PEAK HOUR
c
.
I;>
1
I
f
i
]
I
1
I
l
~
I
11
.
~
.I
~1
j
l
~
:,
J
'I
~
I '
~
i
I
J
Ij
U
ORANGE. SHOW
I
I
I
"'"'
~
"EM STREET
..~~~
/ ; I \.
.# t~
, ~
71}--/
J-~~
\-,
,
,
~ 4 /::r
~~O
...."
-....I
\
'~
.cE- - -l
/-1
f
.. ..
61 ROAD
I
I
rROJECT TRAFFIC
Pi'! PEAK HOUR
WITH
PEAK HOUR FACTOR
APPLIED
c
"'..',
,\
,..,
v
~......,1
-:.>
-e STREET
, .
i
I
I
I
l
I
I
I
I
I
!
I
!
I
1
1
l
I
a
I
~
I
Q
I
~
I
1
~~~
/ I \.
,.# {, ~ \ .
~: ,@ ,," -I ,581
,. @4--[5"121," '.
, /-1 2241
l'
'.
- .. .'
ROAD
ORANGE SHOW
. ~.
t 783}--/, CD
I 62 o}-: _oJ-
\ 156t-"':.
,
,
", @
@) .'
1 ' :v"
~ If. /"
..~~~
(~}CRIT1CAL MOVEMENT
EXISTING PM PEAK HOUR
TRAFFIC <ADJ.)
lLUS
PROJECT PM PEAK HOUR
TRAFFIC (ADJ.)
I '
I
,
I
,
,
~
!
!
I
c
,..,.,
..............,
V
:J
-
'0
CAP S S 1-8 5
INTERSECTION CAPACITY ANALYSIS
PEl': 1':185 HI13HWAY CAPl,CITY ~I,\NU/\L
SBD.
BLANK
SOLUTION USING REQUIRED CYCLE TIME
E & ()RANGE SHOW
-------------------------
P~ak 15 Min Flow (vph)
Saturation Flow (vph)
Lost Tim~s (s~conds)
R~lativ~ Saturation - 'X'
Gr~~n Tim~s (~ff~ctiv~)
Movement Times
Mini",olum Times
Progression Adj. Factor
Av~rag~ Delays (s~c/v~h)
L".v~l of S~rvic~
Av Queu~ @ start of gr~~n
V~hicl~s stopping ('l.)
Dc. V~hicl~s Clear
,
I
Critical Mov~m~nts
IWhOl~ Int~rs~ction
CM 1
LANE '3ROUPS
CM 2 CM 3 CM 4
5
6
4(;8 512 4E.0 E.EA 142 280
5000 3(;00 1700 3600 1700 3600
2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
0.44 0.7(; 0.90 0.78 0.28 0.33
2(; -,~ 37 28 37 28
..t..,.j
28 ......C" 39 30 39 30
LoJ
28 -,~ 9 30 9 30
LoJ
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
32 40 44 37 25 30
D D- E+ D- C- D+
13 14 11 18 '" 7
~
87 95 9(; 95 70 77
YES YES YES YES YES YES
W~ight~d Av D~lay
W~ight~d Av Delay
(set:) = 38
(se-c) = 36
Level of S~rvic~ =
L~v~l of S~rvic~ =
D-
O-
R~quired Cycle L~ngth is 123 s~conds
Int~rs~ction Capacity Utilization (ICU) = 0.72
,
EXISTING PLUS PROJECT TRAFFIC
<Adjusted For Peak l5 Min.)
EXISTING GEOMETRIeS
] c
"
]
'I
J
~
;
j
I
I
I
-~
/...,~
....)
-
v
CAP S S I - 8 5
INTERSECTION CAPACITY ANALYSIS
PEF: 1 '385 HI GHWA Y CAPt,C I TY MANU/IL
SBD.
BLANK
SOLUTION USING REQUIF:ED CYCLE TIME
E t< ORANGE SHOl~
Peak 15 Min Flow (vph)
Saturation Flow (vph)
Lost Times (seconds)
Relative Saturation - 'X'
Green Times (effective)
M':lven>ent Ti mes
Minimum Tim<?s
Progression Adj. Factor
Averag.. Delays (sec/veh)
Level of Service
Av Queue @ start of green
Vehicles stopping ({.)
Do Vehicles Clear
CM 1 Cl1 2
LANE GF~OUPS
CM 3 CM ..; :3 6
.'
460 57(, 124 1 c---;o
,,-
1700 3600 1700 3600
2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
0.87 0.6'3 0.24 0.18
35 26 36 26
38 28 38 28
9 28 9 28
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
39 "':'0':' 23 27
ww
D- O C- 0+
10 14 3 4
95 '32 E.9 78
YES YES YES YES
I
Critical Movements
,Whole Intersection
Required Cycle Length is 11(, seconds
Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) =
444 512
5000 3600
2.0 2.0
0.43 0.78
24 21
2E. 23
2E. ?"?
_w
1.00 1.00
31 3'3
0 0-
11 14
87 95
YES YES
W..ight..d Av Delay (s..c) =
W..ight..d Av Delay (s..c) =
.
~~
oJ"
L~vel of Service =
Level of S..rvic.. =
D-
O
34
0.E.9
EXISTING TRAFFIC
PEAK l5 MINUTES X 4
EXISTING GEOMETRICS
5 SECONDS "WALK"
t fl...." /"'"'
\.,...
'-' -
"
CAP S S I - 8 5
I NTEf<:SECT I ON CAPAC I TV M,AL VS I S
PEF: 1':185 HIGHWAV U\P/,CITV t1ANUl\L
SBD.
BLANK
SOLUTION USING f<:EQUIf~ED CYCLE TIME
LANE GF:OUPS
E & ORAN'3E SHOW CM 1 eM ~, Ct1 '" CM 4 5 6
~ w
-------------------------
Peak 15 11in Fl'J'" (vph) 444 512 460 576 124 488
SatLlration Flo... (vph) 5000 3500 3200 3600 3200 3600
Lost Tim,;,s (seconds) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2..0 2.0
Re-lativ~ G:\turation - 'X' 0.36 0.66 0.77 0.58 0.21 0.49
Gr,;,en Tim,;,s (effe.:tive) 24 21 18 26 18 26
Mt:)vt?we.nt Tim~s 26 23 20 28 20 28
Minimum Tiw,;,s 26 23 9 28 9 28
Progression Adj. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Av,;,rage Delays (s,;,c/veh) 24 28 "'''' 24 26 23
ww
Level of Servic,;, .c- D+ D C- D+ C-
Av Queue- @ start of 9 r ee-n 9 11 10 1-' 3 10
"-
Vehicles stopping (%) 83 92 95 88 81 74
Do V,;,hi c 1 ".s Cl,;,ar YES YES YES YES YES YES
~critical Movements - Weighted Av Delay (see) = 27 Level of Servic,;, = D+
Whole Int,;,rsection - Weight."d Av O,;,lay (s,;,c) = 26 Le-Vt~l of S,;,rvic,;, = 0+
Required Cy.: 1 e Length is 98 se.:onds
Intersection Capacity Utilization ( I cm = 0.60
,
EXISTING TRAFFIC
PEAK l5 MINUTES X 4
DOUBLE LEFT TURN LANES ON "E" STREET
5 SECONDS "WALK"
I
I
I
/'1""'. .
'-
~
MILL
, ~ .
'~'. J 149f-/
..... . .:\ 392~-)-
'" L~'o
"'
"
,
, .
~.
."'~ .0
',; ,541
~--4 4541 .
/-1 2481: .'
f '
~, J.
~~~~
r-
.E~ STREET. '
:~~~
~/ I \
-.," ~
'~
. . ,J .; .
,~~(1)" ,
.~ ,~~ --.a..,
,,~.. ,~
()~~ -</. . z:y /
~i~'~
,~.~
/
,
"
.'
S:rREET'
"
"
..
"..0
r::([~TING
l'H p" ,TRAFFIC
EAK HOUR
12'45
. - 1:45
\
;t'^~
/ -"'
,
,-
"'~
--
.....,)
'"
"E"
. STREET.'
.'
n cg}~RITICAL M~~~';{' :~~~
.' "NT / I'
. MILL .' ....... \y """
.
."' .... 4' . @) ....
>,,~,1176~/ "
. ,.; '..1 420f- ::c;...'" > .-
..,:' , 212L .' \:.!.' .
. 1-' .' ,
,~ .'. '. 0,.';
., ., .
..
~ "
, ",' ,..-..: " ' ,
:~;'_' 2~"""~ ' 721,.. ~:rREET .
@. ~.-::l,4961 ",. .-
)-1 3961'
'i .. ,-,-
@..
~ - 1 '
'\ "1',; #'
..~~~
-e.:.
.'.
, '/.
C'~F'"
" <> ,~'-<; ,
'? 1';. ,~ '
, "'t- ~ '()
,~,~
.'
/
;~TING TRAFFIC
15 MIN. X 4
.
...
c
,-
,.,.,....
.J
.......
'-"
.C}
CAP S S I - 8 5
INTEF.:SECTION CAPACITY At-UILYSIS
PER 1985 HI GHloJA Y CAP,\C I TY I"IA~lUAL
saD
BLANK
SOLUTION USING REQUIF.:ED CYCLE TIME
LANE Gf<:OUPS
E g. MILL t-< INLAND CENTEF.: CM 1 CM 2 CM 3 CM 4 5
-------------------------
P~ak 15 Min FI.';)w (vph) 632 568 455 280 438
Saturat i .';)n Flow (vph) 3600 3500 1550 1700 1550
Lost Tim<?s (s<?c.';)nds) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
R~lativ" Saturatic,tl - 'X' 0.8':! 0.58 0.95 0.88 0.91
GY~etl Time-s (<?ff~.:tiv~) 21 25 33 19 33
Mov~m~nt Tim~s 23 ,27 35 21 35
Minimum Time-s 10 27 25 10 25
PY':.lgre.ssiotl Adj. Fact.';)r 1.00 1.00 1.00 LOO 1.00
Average D~lays (sec/veh) 42 30 49 48 43
L~v~l of Servic~ E+ D E E E+
Av Qu<?u<? @ start of gr~~n 15 13 10 7 9
Vehicles st.';)pping (i..) 97 91 98 98 69
Do Veh i.: 1 es Cl<?ar YES YES YES YES YES
Critical Movemetlts Weighted Av Delay (s<?c) = 41 Level of S<?rvic~ = E+
I ,Whol <? Intersecti':'r1 ;- W<?ight",d Av Delay (se.: ) = 41 Lev~l of Service = E+
Requir<?d Cycl~ L~ngth is 107 s~conds
lnters<?ction Capacity Utilization (ICU) = 0.85
,
EXISTING TRAFFIC
PEAK 15 MINUTES X 4
./,'
,r/
'..' r-,~
I 23,r~
.,
.:---c
,
I
I '
I
!
;,
i
"
N
MILL
\
.
.
!
j
.
1
l'
t
,
.
1
~
,
t_
. -
.~
,lit( .
,'/'j "
. . ~. if)&:' - -.b..,
(\~~' ~
<>~ 1'~ "1,k
"to-: ~ ~
~,~
/
~
,'~ I S!REET
-t:"~' I' .-
>--1 341
t
......>""
"E~ STREET'
Q~O
/ I
,kW \.
. , ~
, .
""I
'\. ~ #'
.~~~
.
PROJECT TRAFF
PM '0 IC
,t F./\K HOUR
.
c
"JO'/
. '
MILL
.
---+--,
'~
/'
.
~
"-4
~:"'-l
'/-1
f
~ ,~
~~~~
"E~ STREET'
O~Q
,k/ 'I ,
" " 'A...
, .
.
......;
"
I
I'
391
"
S!REET
:
01:...
PROJEC'j'
PM _ TRAFFIC
PEAK HOUR
WITH
PEAK H
APPLIE~UR FACTOR
.
c.
'@"CR'ITICAL ~OVE. ,
.. MENT
MILL
, . . /. .
. , 176~/.
I 420r-: ::.~ Q)'
I 2421-< :.
.,
I '.
~
,/
""""
_./
<;)
.E~, STREET. '
.~~~
.,k! I ,
..,..",. ~
@
. .
. .'
'~ ~'
, ,: J,...;( .,
~'\.;.,/, '
'~/ .
. nOt)< --~.
, ./, -"" 0
c>","<.' , .~
a~ 1- "1.y. <.Y /
"i~ ~,
~,,?
.
~
~. " . -
@ /-1 . 72Y .STRE~~.
~--14961"; . . .-
/-J 4351' .
f
@
~' I
" ~ . -
~~~H
-
~
~.. .
EXISTING P
1l0UR TRA M PEAK
PLUS FFIC (ADJ,)
PROJECT PM
HOUR TRAFFI~~J.)
l
~
I
I
....
l'" "
'-
.......
-
~
.
CAP S S I - 8 5
INTERSECTION CAPACITY ANALYSIS
PER 1985 HIGHWAY CAPACITY MANUAL
SBD
BLANK
SOLUTION USING PREDETEF.:t'IINEO CYCLE TIMES
!
.
LANE GROUPS
E t,'MILL & INLANO CENTER CM 1 CM 2 CM 3 CI1 4 5
-------------------------
P...ak 15 Min Flow (vph) E.62 568 498 320 498
Saturation Flow (vph) 3600 3600 1550 1700 1550
Lost Tim~s (s...conds) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
R...lativ... Saturation - 'X' 0.93 0.77 0.96 0.96 0.96
Gr......n Tim...s (...ffe-ctive-) 24 25 41 24 41
Move-me-nt Tim...s 26 27 43 26 43
Minimum Tinle-s 10 27 25 10 25
Progr...ssion Adj. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Av...rag.. O...lays (s..c/v...h) 51 38 51 65 51
L..v...l of Se-rvic.. E D- E F E
Av Qu...ue- @ start of gr.....n 18 15 12 9 12
V...hicl e-s stopping (1.) 98 94 98 99 66
Do V...hicle-s Cl..ar YES YES YES YES YES
Critical M.:;ove-m",nts - We-ight..d Av O..lay (s",c) = 50 Le-ve-l of S..rvio:.. = E
Whole- Inte-rse-ction W...ighte-d Av O..lay (se-c) = 50 L...ve-l of S...rvic... = E
Pre-de-t..rmin",d Cycle- L..ngth is 122 s...conds
Inte-rse-ction Capacity Utilization (ICU) = 0.90
,
EXISTING TRAFFIC
PLUS
PROJECT TRAFFIC
(ADJUSTED FOR PEAK 15 MINUTE)
" '
\,.,.-
I
I . "
1'<!'i'cR'I~I'~AL M'OVE" 0
, , MENT
I MIL~
I"
I
1-0' .!..
. L 1760-/' '
o. or 420~ :=:.~ 1
I 2421- 0.. " ,:
, "'
~ "
.,
" ./ ~ 1
J .
" ('~ ~ .' : , ~o .' ~ IV
<>-? 1'~""~ ' ,
, /t- ~ <:> '
~.1>
J;l ~~
, 9L?L2 '
'/ I
..k. 0 '. 't '~,
. " '@) @) 0 ~'"' . .... 00 ' .
. :' ,-t 721' STREET
f2' .... . .
\::)~ - -I 4.,96", ,; 0 . ;
/-:1 4351-
f '
.0
,
'.
I
p
I
I
I
i
f.
l
, ,
..
~
.
--... ~
....,.
,/
"E~ STREET'
@) @
""" ~,
~~~~
,
0"
.'
~
,
~.
.'
~.
.e~: .
. 0,
MITIGATION III
LEFT TURN SIGNALS
ON
"E"
(STREET
NOT REC
OMMENDED)
",.". .-,...... ,............
L -' .....) .j
.~
CAP S S 1 - 8 5
INTERSECTION CAPACITY ANALYSIS
PER 1985 HI GHWA Y CAPAC I TY M.\NUM_
saD
BLANK
SOLUTION USING REqUIRED CYCLE TIME
E & MILL & INLAND CENTER
P~ak 15 Min Flow (vph)
Saturation Flow (vph)
Lost Tim~s (s~conds)
R~lativ~ Saturation - 'X'
Gr~~n Tim~s (~ff~ctiv~)
Mov~m~nt Times
Minirl"!um Times
Progr~ssion Adj. Factor
Av~rag~ D~lays (s~c/v~h)
L~v~l of S~rvic~
Av Qu~u~ @ start of gr~~n
V~hicles stopping <i0
Do V~hicl~s Cl~ar
LANE GROUPS
CM 1 CM 2 CM 3 CM 4
651
1750
4.0
0.97
51
55
37
1.00
52
E
15
98
YES
568
360';:'
2.0
0.85
25
27
27
1.00
47
E
17
97
YES
-......--
1"'''',
w~
1550
2.0
0.91
12
14
9
1.00
82
F
5
99
YES
732
3100
2.0
0.89
34
36
25
1.00
45
E+
20
97
YES
100
1550
2.0
0.70
14
9
1.00
54
E
91
YES
5
6
12
1082
4650
2.0
0.88
34-
36
25
1.00
41
E+
30
74
YES
3
Critical Mov~m~nts - W~ight~d Av D~lay (sec) = 50 Lev~l of S~rvic~ = E
i~hole Int~rsection - W~ight~d Av Delay (s~c) = 47 Level of S~rvic~'= E
Required Cycle Length is 134 seconds
Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) = 0.91
,
MITIGATION Il
LEFT TURN SIGNALS ON "E" STREET
(NOT RECOMMENDED)
NOTE: Proportion move~ent time to volumes (320 Inland
Center Drive and 33l Mill Street or 27 Seconds and
28 Seconds) Minimum Time on Mill Street Satisfied
j'
"
\....
-
,*,J
.~
,
"
"E~ STREET'
'0:CR'I~I'~AL MOVE" .
, MENT
. '
MILL
,..... .~@)'
~" ..' , 176r:-<,
1 420r: :-':~ 2
I 2421-- '.,. ,',
, ....
~ 0."
:,
".' ~ '2
~'.;- .
. ,;:~,~:.-~
<>-? 1'..>-"'1.k (}/ /
. /J, ~ (),
,~.'?
.~~~
.k(,~ \.
, " ~
.' @' - ~,~..... . ,.' . ".."
f6\ ._ :'. ;-1 , 72\ '.' ~:rREET .
\V-;<--I 4961 ." ...-
, /-143Sr
01' .
@) @
~l
"", ~ ", -
:~~~H
.
,.
.'
,
.'
. .
,
,
:
"
.....
.
MITIGATION 02
l.EFT TURN SIC
W NALS
ITH OVERLAP
"En ON
STREET AND
HILL STREET
(RECmlMENDED)
/
i
! .
I
c
/"......
'-'
''-''
~
CAP 5 S I - 8 5
I NTEF.:SECT I ON CAPI\C I TY AN(,L VS I S
PER 1985 HIGHWAY CAPACITY MANUAL
S8D
BLANK
SOLUTION USING REQUIF.:ED CYCLE TIME
E & MILL & INLAND CENTER
LANE GROUPS
CM 1 CM 2 eM 3 eM 4 5
-------------------------
'.
P~ak 15 Min Flow (vph)
Satuyation Flow (vph)
Lost Tim€<s (s~conds)
R~lativ~ Satuyation - 'X'
GY~~n Tim~s (~ff~ctiv",)
Mov~m~nt Tim~s
Minimum Tim~s
Progr~ssi em Adj. Factor
Av~rag", D~lays (s",c/v",h)
L",v~l of S~rvic~
Av Qu",u", @ start of gr",,,,n
V",hicl",s stopping (X)
Do V~hicl",s C1",ar
435
3600
2.0
0.89
16
18
9
1.00
51
E
12
98
YES
651
1750
4.0
0.89
49
53
53
1 . 00
34
D
12
93
YES
132
1550
2.0
0.8'3
11
9
1.00
71
F
4
99
YES
1082
4650
2.0
0.87
31
13
33
25
1 . 00
36
D-
26
96
YES
Critical Movem",nts - W",ight",d Av D~lay (sec) = 40
Whol~ Int~rs",ction W",ight",d Av D~lay (sec) = 37
17f,
1800
2.0
0.72
16
18
'3
1.00
44
E+
86
YES
.;
5
484 100
3600 1550
2.0 2.0
0.a-t63 O. 68
51 11
53 13
53 9
1.00 1.00
17 47
C+ E
9 3
57 90
YES YES
-'
7
8
Required Cycl~ Length is 118 seconds
Intersection Capacity Utilization (leU) = 0.89
MITIGATION 112
,
7"~'
,:,,<.
3100
2.0
0.88
31
33
53
1.00
3'3
0-
18
74
YES
Level of S",rvice = E+
L",vel of Service = 0-
LEFT TURN SIGNALS FOR "E" STREET AND MILL STREET
(RECOMMENDED)
NOTE: PROPORTION MOVEMENT TIME TO VOLUME (320 Inland
Center Drive and 33l Mill Street Drive 26 Seconds
and 27' Seconds). '
VIC Ratios respectively are 92.5 and 86.8
/.,-.....
'-' ..../
APPENDIX 2
t
,
~"
~t
Addendum to Soils Investigation
Liquefaction Report
Proposed Commercial Development
666 South E Street
~
San Bernardino, California
July 29. 1987
. .
File:, 444-7093 (Add)
,
- Prepared By-
Sladd~n Engineering
8782 STANTON AVE. SUITE E
BUENA PARK, CA 90821
(213)884-4121
(714)52300952
.
.~
~
Slodden engineering
....,."
...
--
-~".,.r
,
.,..-.'
Adden~ to Soils Investigation
Liquefaction Report
Proposed Commercial Development
666 South E Street
San Bernardino, California
July 29, 1987
File: 444-7093 (Add)
This report is an addendum to our Soils Investigation, File: 444-7093,
dated May 22, 1987 which covered subsurface soil conditions at the sub-
"
ject site. That report was prepared for the lightly loaded single story
commercial structures planned for construction.
As the building site is within Zone A of the City of San Bernardino map
showing liquefaction zone boundaries city officials have required that
this report be prepared. Its scope was discussed with Mr. Floyd Williams
a City consultant who was also 'present during our field drilling and
sampling work.
,
'fwo additional test borings were drilled to depths of 30.0 feet for this
investigation. The approixmate boring locations are shown on the attached
sketch as Borings 8 and 9. An 8-inch diameter hallow stem augar was used
to advance the test holes. Undisturbed samples were obtained at 5.0 foot
intervals using the standard penetration test in accordance with method
. ASTM D 1586-67. Field dry densities and moisture contents of the samples
were determined and'are recorded 'on the attached boring logs together w~th
the results of the standard penetration test,and the determined ground
.
water depth. The soils were logged in the field and their classifications
Slodden Englneetlng
.........
File: 444-7093 (Add)
July 29, 1987
Page 2
checked in the laboratory by mechanical analyses. Typical grain size
accumulation curves are attached to this report. Calculations for evalu-
ation of liquefaction potential for different magnitude earthquakes were
performed and are also attached.
The subgrade soil types are revealed by our original test holes and these.
additional test borings showed 3.0 feet of medium loose silty sand merg-
ing to medium dense tine to medium sand. Beneath 10.0 feet are denser
and coarser sands containing some gravel. Standard penetration test
results show this material to range frOlil"dense to very ~ense. ' Some
cobbles were noted between 10.0 and 15.0 feet in out test holes. Ground
water was found at a depth of 17.5 feet in Boring 8 and 18.5 feet in
Boring 9.
Soil liquefaction, or the complete loss of internal strength, can occur
when saturated cohesionless materials are subjected to dynamic loads such
as earthquake indu~ed vibrations. Such an occurance is most probable
when poorly graded and loose sands or silty sands are present beneath
the ground water level. In addition when the 10% passing size for the
soil is less than O.Olmm or the gradation uniformily coefficient is
greater than 10 liquefaction is unlikely to occur.
The San Bernardino area is in a ~egion of large ncale crust~l disturbance
by faulting at the intersection of the east-west trending Transverse
Range Province represented by the San ~ern3rdino Mountains and the
alluvial filled structural depression between the San Jacinto fault on
Slodden EngIneerlng
'\
File: 444-7093
July 29, 1987
Page 3
(Add)
'~
<0
the west and the San Bernardino Mountains on the north and northeast.
The San Andreas fault zone is located at the base of the San Bernardino
Mountains. Ground surface elevation within the general central city area
ranges from a high of 1,056 feet to a low of 1,004 feet above mean sea
level USGS datum with surface sloped in a southeasterly direction.
In general, the area is underlain by approximately 1,200 feet of alluvial
materials and covered-by artificial fill materials at various locations
and of varying depths.
The numerous faults in Southern California include active, potentially
active and inactive faults. The criteria of these major groups, as
established by the Association of Engineering Geologists, notes active
faults as having shown historical activity and includes. the nearby
San Jacinto and San Andreas faults in this catagory. Closest potentially
active faults are Loma Linda and Banning faults along which no known
historical ground surface rupture or earthquakes have occured; however,
they do show indications of geologically recent activity.
For the purpose of this report and analysis the active San Jacinto and
and San Andreas faults have'been utilized. The closest known active
.
fault to the subject property is the Claremont fault of the San Jacinto
fault system locat~d about o~e mile to the southwest of the subject sit~,
Topographic evidence of recent movement is preserved along its trace
across San Bernardino Valley and in the San Timoteo Badlands. Recent
SlocIclen Englneertng
,~ /" C
-
~
",...,~""
........"
i
File: 444-709~ (Add)
July 29, 1987
Page 4
~
studies by students at the University of California at Riverside developed
information that rupture in the San Bernardino Valley occurred in the
,last few thousand years. Unfaulted flood plain deposits do overlie the
fault trace in places. The age of these materials has not been determined.
They could date to the 1938 flood on the Santa Ana River.
Significant earthquakes have occurred on faults of the San Jacinto Systems.
They include the magnLcude 6.8 San Jacinto-Hemet earthquake in 1918, the
. I magnitude 6.2 San Bernardino earthquake in 1923, and the magnitude 6.5
Ocotillo Wells earthquake in 1968.
The active San Andreas fault is located about 4.5 miles from the proposed
development at the base of the San Bernardino Mountains. The freshness
of fault scarps along with historic earthquakes attest to its activity.
Strong earthquakes such as the 1857 Fort Tejon and the 1948 Desert Hot
Springs earthquakes were related to faults of the San Andreas System.
The Mill Creek and Mission Creek faults are part of the San Andreas
,
System.
.
"
When designing for earthquake forces, statistical data are utilized to
make a prediction of a recurrence interval. Lamar, Merifield and Proctor
(1973) have estimate recurrence intervals at a point on the fault for
the nearby San Jacint~ System ~s follows: Magnitude 6, 100 years; magni-
tude 7, 400 years; and magnitude 8, 2000 years. The recurrence intervals
for the San Andreas fault are,:
Magnitude. 6, 10 years; magnitude 7, 40
i
i
'L
I
,
years; and magnitude 8, 200 years.
Slodden engineering
...-"'"
.~' ..,
"-
File: 444-7093 (Add)
July 29, 1987
Page 5
.......
-"
_/
The max\mum credible earthquake that might occur on the nearby San Jacinto
fault has been estimated to be magnitude 7.0. The recurrence interval
for such an earthquake at a given point has been estimated to be 400 years
by Lamar et aI, 1973. 'The maximum probable earthquake for the San,Andreas
fault which is within five miles of the project'site is estimated to b~
in the magnitude 7.2 to 7.6 range. The recurrence interval for such an
earthquake on the San Andreas fault is less than 200 years (Lamar et al
1973). Such earthquaKes have been estimated to possibly generate maximum
bedrock outcrop acceleration at the property in the O.50g range.
The duration of strong shaking and magnitude of an earthquake relationship
has been investigation by Housner. The relationships for the noted maxi-
mum creditable earthquake that might occur are as follows:
Ha~nitude
Duration
7.0
7.5
8.0
24 Sec.
30 Sec.
34 Sec.
,
The work of Marachi and Dixon (1972) for several sites in Southern Cali-
.
fornia suggests that the ground acceleration due to an earthquake with a
return period of 100 years would be: Glendale - 0.19g, Long Beach - 0.18~
Los Angeles - 0.19g, and San Bernardino - 0.16g. The ground acceleration
is somewhat less than the maximum bedrock outcrop acceleration previously
noted and therefore an acceleration of 0.35g has been included in the
. ,
attached calculations. This value was utilized based on the type, con-
figuration, loading and usage of the proposed structures.
Slodden Englneellng
'r-ile: 444-7093 (Add)
July 29, 1987
Page 6
.......,'.
.~,
'I>
The attached calculations were based on the possibility of ground water
rising some 8.5 feet to be within 9.0 feet of the now existing ground
surface. Based on the attached calculations, the existing depth to ground
'water and the provision for any possible decrease in ground water depth,
the consistencies of the on-site soils and the type of construction pro-
posed any damage from liquefaction is considered to be highly unlikely.
Respectfully submitted,
"
dden E~:lPJ
CE 10936 Exp. 12-31-88
JHF:az
References:
(1) "Soils Investigation. Proposed Commercial Development,
666 South E Street. San Bernardino. Ca.... Sladden
Engineering, May 22. 1987.,
(2) "Soil Mechanics in Engineering ,Practice", Karl Terzaghi &
Ralph:B. Peck.
(3) "San BernardinQ Seismic Conditions", Ultrasysters & Glenn A.
Brown and Associates.
(4) "Simplified Procedures for Evaluating Soil Liquefaction
Potential", H. Bolton See'd & Izzat M. Indriss. '
A.S.C.E. Procedures, Vol. 97. No. SM9. Sept., 1971.
(5) "Evaluation of Liquefaction Potential Using Field Performance
Data", H. Bolton Seed & Izzat M. Indriss,
A.S.C.E. Procedures, Vol. 109. No.3, March 1983.
Slodden Englneerlng
')~
"'",
J>.,y,
~ .\
>. \
00-
"1-
o
".
,
\
e ,eCf
l\ ,
O. \
~ \ \~4
1
\>
,- -
I
_~_J
,el
I
I
6
.
\!'"
t.
-
o
J.
51
~
~
\.
\ 'l.
\
\
,
,
\
,
,
,
,
/""
-.......
T
I
7
.
,
'\'
.r . .
l\Y \
l\ \
~ ',. "3
,
,
,
,
,
\
,
"
- - -.1_
.,.-.",
'-"
.
G.
l---'-'~-'
I - I, '"' c> \'"S I
'e
I ';
I
- --
_ __..I
...
I
,
\
,
,
,
,
\
\
La C-t>..'\\QN P\..r...N
';.c'A. \..e:. : \", (. l:>'
. ,o;..P~O"J<.', \-oc:.A.\,\l:>l-I.S. \e.~\ ~OR.\~(, ')
"'!
r\\..t.', 444 - '10''1>
<,
t
"\
~
"-'
!Ii
IJ
r:I
...
'"
uJ
~
....
i
I
Slodden Englneertng
- LOG J
BORING
'~ ~
BORING NO, 8
PRO.JE.CT: ESt. - San Bernardino O....TE: 7-29-87
.
0-
l- e >- I
I- I- III
1&1 0 Z a: I-
ILl - I&.
lL Z In J Z
I III 1&1 Z J I- l&I
SOIL. C\.. ....SS I ,.IC.... T ION '! " J IlJ U III l-
ll. 0 ..
,I- III III - ~
(TyPE COl-OR &. CONSISTENCY) II. J ~ ). m 0 0
III ( a: J' 1 u
0 III 0
0
ilty Sand, Brown, Loose
Lt. ..
Brown, Medium Dense
Fine to Medium 1 106 11
Trace of Gravel 0
Medium to Coarse, Dense
10 2 111 3
More Gravel @
Occassiona1 Cobbles
Ground Water 15 3 @ 8
, Very Dense -20 4 117 16
@
25 5 127 12
@
30 6 118 16
@
35
()- Standard Penetration Test
40
-,
0;,-.1.)'
Slodclen EngIneering
,
()-Standard Penetration Test
40
SlodcMn Englneet1ng
..
L
\!) 100
Z go
tII eo
tII 70
~ eo
eo
~ AO
~ .:!IO
~ 20
W I
A.
100
80
.80
it)
eo
~ eo
Z AO
W 30
U 20
I:
W 10
A. 0
,. :"
:,' .Z
ell
tII
~
~RAIN S-?zE,M M ,..I I
ACCUMULATION CURVE I
DATE: 7-29-87 I
FINE COARSE I
CL.AV-t--SIL T -T-SAND-+- SAND~GRAVEL
, US STANDARD SIEVES'
~~~
200
o
!II
o
~ ~
(j d
o
o
~ t '
_Z
'f
o
I
I
;
I
I
I
~ -
z z z z z z z -
I I " ..-
B< rill!!: 8 ! "
D ptllt 10 Ft. /
r, ",..~'" <:, ~"..l
, ,/
T
, I 1 !
/' I ! I
, ,
" v i 1 ;
0
- I I i
) ~8a I. 8l;i ~~
Q ~ ~ ~ II'
0 ~ --
PARTICLE SIZE. MM
o RS
--trl NE C. A Eo,
-CL...AY-+- SI L... T SAND -rSANDT- GR....VEL...--
~US STANDARD SIEVES
o~o 0 ~ ~ ~ 'ff
t" 'i 0 'i
, III - .0
dOd Ci (j Ci 0 2 III t_
z z Z z Z 2 Z ~ ,jfl
, /'
Be rir ll!: "Q ./
DE otl 15 Ft.
ME di\ III te Co' rs '/
S~ nd
"
1/
1/
,/ ,
I
"" : i
~ ~ ~ ~ 0 ~ ' gs Q ~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~ ,~ ~ ~~ ~~
8
dO 0 0
PARTICLE SIZE, MM
SIodden Ellgln..tIng
(C-'
,
I
I
" 100
Z go
III eo
III '70
~ eo
.eo
I- AO
~ 30
~ 2:)
IaJ I
Q.
" 100
Z go
III 80
III
( '70
Q. eo
I- .eo
Z .olIO
IaJ 30
U 20
IE:
1&1 10
Q. 0
~
~
I
I
I
/"'''.
~. ."
~
~RAIN S,.ZE.MM
ACCUMULATION CURVE ~
DATE: 7-29-87
FIN e: COARSE
CL.AV-i--SIL. T -t--SAND-r SAND"'t'-GRAVEL.
, US STANDARD SIEVES'
~~~
~ dO
o
III
Ci
~ ~
d Ci
o
o
't
o
Z t .
- _ z
I
I
I
I
'/
I
I
I
I
I
z z z z z z z ~ . =
1 /'
Bt rHO' 8 I ,
DE :ot 20 Ft. /
M di Un t Co r~e
S nd i / I
I , I
I
/ ,
I
/1 ! :
./ I I Ii
0
,.. " : : I
) ~8o '~ 1/\
g ~ -' ~~ ~~
PARTICL.E SIZE. MM
,.INE
COARSE
-CL.AV-+- SI L. T -tSAND -t=SAND+-- GRAVEL.--
US STANDARD SIEVES
o ~ O' 0 ~ 2 z ff
~ Ii 0 Ii
lit - 10
, adO d d d 0 2 lit ~-
Z Z Z Z Z Z Z " ...
,,'
. II "
.,C It- /
",
,/
"
/'
" I
.... : I
~ ~ ~ 0 ~ g~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~
g (j 0 0
PARTIC.L.E SIZE, MM
SIadden El9r' ur1ng
.
-,
1
.
\
I
.......
V
-....,
".-........
-
,-,'
...
F \I...>e. '. 4." 4, -ICI'n (t>. )
.-"2..q - 81
.~
t::.y^l...UI~\\ON ~C>~ L\ ~ue.."c.\\~ ?d\E~\T\"L... L4-)
c.""~C,'tC.. @ \b' (WP-;Tt:.(l.. e.~)
To''''''- o\J'C'.'iZ.'2:.u~oe:.t-\ ?,?!:":'u~\!. {Yo" \(:)' )('I\~ Il/fTl . \\';~ "'t11-
Ef'T-'". ....,,~~~~~o~r-l ??-'t:",<"l\2.1!: G~ . 9)(.\\c; -t-\)/. 5"l..~:\08'a"'/n1.
I ' ft ()
r-- ~ cr.. ~ \ t:) S 91fT" C ,,1: \." ~". \
, r:. ,~,(\-\-~.s-,) .,.7., -'? "-\,e. "Z.7x\.S-- 8,.0
~L~~ ~Ou"" '==
AT \0' r~:J;-" o.qg (~,~ '"Z..)
'S"H2..l:.":.S 1;2~\,,,. ~ "t!~oy>c=o R',\ l::AfLT'n ~ ~""\"-I!'
-r~
-
-
o , "15
~ . 1;f. . . r l.
'a t".
(' )G\S'o) (0 "\8)
Ch1:t' "' .
o'Ot.
~.'
.....
-
l!), (,,~
.",. 0 . "1.. "to
F~"''M(Flc...~) ?b\~T" of 1:"" -= 0,"2..'1.. i ~,: 4t;)
~o' .
\.. ~c.l..o"',\ M.. ~/",-
.
. ..
t-\ 0 />\ '?f> Jt...fl.:C:'NT L\ ~~ Co rA c..rle.r) ,
In- C;V~lu \. ot:.f-'i't\... 1\ \.1.. vii L"c:. r llt'L
, No' Afi>A\2.c....,.
~,7 Ao
Ll ~ \,) ~ f' Ac.. TI 0,3 ,
. ..
Slodden Englneetlng
>
,
~:t
s
,
. .
!
. ,
I
.
}
,
&
: ,
.
w .
,..~
"-'
00
.
"'0
C.
0.2 04 01 0.1
00
t2
o.
'-,
00
02
.C.........,O'T
IOr"o4().eo...,
,
"
OJ.
1,4
0.1
00
II
2
30
4()
"
Ranq. far diU.,,,,, """'"
SOIl pofll..
o
;
.:
.
~50
..
.
o
60
70
10
to
.Recommended Cu.".. lor DelennIMllon 01 C.
,..
100
-RANGE OF VALUES OF r" FOR DIFFERENT SOIL PRonLES
.
0..-10.10.,.
..-0,.40.10....
"~"..... br S"T
oz 0.4
Q& 01
10
~\~. \
it
8
,=
..
i i 04
il
I-
.
.
I tr 0)
fA
.-
. .
u'
.
..~:
"'.
... .. 02
. .
.:: i
. -
EO;
:.
: ~
.. i
.. jOt
~!
.:i
0'
. - : I I : I
::: :$l~': .
.." _, _! ",,1"'/
.:.: ;:: ~:~:
.., a; ~ .., It:
I I l,'
, l ,
. .
, .
.
,
,"".#'
0,)
(1:--1.
t.-C't"_.I,
0.4 0.5 06
0,7
08
~
09 1.0
~\C.,. 7-
,
o
o 10 JO )Q 40
.....,.... ,......,.t... .........c.. ... .. ",.../ft
~\c.,. "'
Slodden Englneerlng
.
c
/'....
'-'
.....,",
\
'....;
.~ '.....
-I
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DEPARTMENT
AGENDA
ITEM #
lOCATION
CASE
CUP 87-I,J
6
9/22/87
"'"
"'"
HEARING DATE
M.I
C-N
- '--'~'----''---''''I ~'
- ' ATHOI pi ~ .. .. " '-rt:
. . . .
"
ffi B EE ~~~
. 1'~800'
CoM
M-I
c ,
101-2
.
~
~
M-I
"
.
'0'
..
... M.2 ·
.
"
.
. ,..,
,~
..
COM
.
~
~
M-2 ~
u
.
101-1
CoM
,
C'M
c.",
M",
"..2
~~~
C-M
CoM
M'\
C M
n
JC
C-,3 C-'
CoM CoM
1.1-2,
.0.
101-2
I T CoM
"
C'M f SITE:
~ ~ ..
o
'0"
T c...