Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout46- Planning & Building Services CITY OF SAN BER1, . RDINO - REQUEST , JR COUNCIL ACTION General Plan Amendment No. 90-06 & From: Al Boughey, Director Subject: Development Code Amendment No. Dept: Planning & Building Services 92-01 , NW of Palm & I-215 Freeway. Mayor and Common Council Meeting Date: January 27 , 1993 March 8, 1993 Synopsis of Previous Council action: On June 2 , 1989 , the Mayor and Common Council adopted the General Plan and the land use designation on the 29 . 7 acre amendment site became RU-1 , Residential Urban and on the adjacent 7 . 1 acre parcel , CG-1 , Commercial General . On May 3 , 1991 , the Mayor and Common Council adopted the Development Code (effective on June 3 , 1991) which implements the General Plan land use designations . Recommended motion: That the public hearing be closed and the resolution be adopted that certifies the EIR, adopts Findings and Statements of Overriding Consideration, approves the Mitigation Monitoring Program, approves the General Plan Amendment No. 90-06 to change the land use designations from RU-1 and CG-1 to CG-5 and realigns Little League Drive and to adopt the ordinance which approves Development Code Amendment No. 92-01 to add CG-5 to the Development C e. a r e Al Bo Contact person: Al Boughey, Director Phone: 384-5357 Supporting data attached: Staff Report, Resolution, Ward: 5 Ordinance FUNDING REQUIREMENTS: Amount: $875 . 00 Source: (Acct No.) 772-171-24515 (Acct. Description) Fish & Game/County Fees for EIR j Finance: ��- Council Notes: 75-0262 Agenda Item No. CITY OF SAN BERR_-4RDINO - REQUEST h OR COUNCIL ACTION STAFF REPORT SUBJECT: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 90-06 AND DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT NO. 92-01 REQUEST/LOCATION The applicant requests to change the General Plan land use designation from RU-1, Residential Urban to CG-1, Commercial General on approximately 29.7 acres of land. A preferred alternative to the project proposes the adoption of a new commercial designation (CG-5, Commercial General - Verdemont Area) and redesignation of the 29 . 7 acre site from RU-1, Residential Urban to CG-5 and of an adjacent 7 . 1 acre parcel (also owned by the project proponents) from CG-1 to CG-5. The adoption of the CG-5 designation will involve a map amendment to the Land Use Plan and text amendments to the General Plan and the Development Code. In addition, the project proposes to realign Little League Drive to follow the Cable Creek Channel and will require an amendment to the General Plan Circulation Plan Map. The project site, consisting of 29.7 acres of land and the adjacent 7. 1 acre parcel are located at the intersection of Little League Drive and Palm Avenue in the northwest portion of the City. Locally, the project site is bounded by the Cable Creek Flood Control Channel on the north, Little League Drive on the south, the southern extension of Magnolia Avenue and the 7. 1 acre parcel on the east and the southern extension of Chestnut Avenue on the west. (Refer to Attachment 4, Site Location, Proposed Land Use Designation and Realignment of Little League Drive Map) KEY ISSUES There are several key issues identified as follows: Based upon the CG-1 floor area ratio (FAR) of 0.7, the applicant's proposal potentially could result in over 900, 000 square feet of commercial space. The adjacent 7 . 1 acre parcel could result in 216,500 square feet for a cumulative total of 1, 122, 100 square feet. The CG-5, with a FAR of 0.25, could result in a total of 400, 700 square feet; (about) 323 ,400 on the 29.7 acre site and 77, 300 on the 7. 1 acre site 5.0264 General Plan Amendment No. 90-06 and Development Code Amendment No. 92-01 Mayor and Common Council Meeting of March 8, 1993 Page 2 - Because the applicant's proposal potentially could result in impacts in nearly all environmental categories, an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was prepared for the project. (Refer to Exhibits 1-A and 1-B) The EIR indicates that the applicant's proposal (CG-1) may result in either local or regional impacts in nearly all environmental categories evaluated. These impacts cannot be fully mitigated. The EIR indicates that the preferred alternative (CG-5) would reduce the project impacts to below a level of significance with the exception of an impact relating to the loss of available housing. (This impact is considered a significant unavoidable adverse impact to the City; however, the loss of available housing is offset by the fact that the project will aid in balancing the jobs/housing ratio at the sub-regional level. ) Statements of Overriding Considerations have been prepared for each significant unavoidable adverse or significant unavoidable cumulative impact for adoption of the CG-5 designation. (Refer to Exhibit 2 of Attachment 2) ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION Please refer to the analysis, attachments and exhibits contained in Attachment 1, Planning Commission Staff Report. COMMENTS RECEIVED On December 11, 1992, staff received written comments in opposition to the project from two Verdemont Area residents - a Mr. Bryant Shea of 3226 Sunflower Avenue and Mr. Steve Durst of 3227 Sunflower Avenue. Copies of the letters were distributed to the Planning Commission prior to the meeting of December 15, 1992. Mr. Shea voiced his and Mr. Durst's concerns during the public hearing. Both individuals are opposed to any commercial development in the area. (See Attachments B-1 and B-2) On January 25, 1993 , Mr. Kevin Mitchell contacted staff by telephone to discuss his concerns, as follows: 1. ) wind and dust during construction of the site; 2 . ) the change in the Al Guhin General Plan Amendment No. 90-06 and Development Code Amendment No. 92-01 Mayor and Common Council Meeting of March S, 1993 Page 3 Park entrance resulting from the proposed realignment of Little League Drive; and, 3 . ) mitigation options contained in the Mitigation Monitoring Program for improvements to the Cable Creek Channel. The Draft FEIR contains a letter from Mr. Mitchell in the Response to Comments. All of Mr. Mitchell's comments were addressed in the Response to Comments with the exception of those relating to wind and dust during construction. Because this project is a General Plan Amendment and a Development Code Amendment, no development is proposed at this time. However, any development proposed for the site will be subject to all applicable City and South Coast Air Quality Management District standards and regulations regarding construction dust. MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL OPTIONS The Mayor and Common Council may: 1. Deny the applicant's proposal for General Plan Amendment No. 90-06 and approve the preferred alternative for General Plan Amendment No. 90-06 and Development Code Amendment No. 92-01, certify the Final EIR, adopt the Statements of Overriding Consideration and approve the Mitigation Monitoring Program based upon the findings in the resolution. 2. Approve the applicant's proposal for General Plan Amendment No. 90-06, certify the Final EIR, adopt the Statements of Overriding Consideration and approve the Mitigation Monitoring Program and deny the preferred alternative for General Plan Amendment No. 90-06 and Development Code Amendment No. 92-01 and direct staff to prepare findings for that determination. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION The Planning Commission voted 6-0, with one abstention to recommend to the Mayor and Common Council the certification of the EIR, preparation of Statements of Overriding Considerations, approval of the Mitigation Monitoring Program, denial the applicant's proposal (CG-1) , approval of the preferred alternative (CG-5) , the realignment of Little League Drive and the amendment to the Development Code to establish the CG-5 land use designation/zone. General Plan Amendment No. 90-06 and Development Code Amendment No. 92-01 Mayor and Common Council Meeting of March 8, 1993 Page 4 STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Mayor and Common Council : 1. Certify the Environmental Impact Report (Exhibits 1-A and 1-B of Attachment 2) ; 2 . Adopt the Statements of Overriding Consideration based on the appropriate findings pursuant to CEQA (Exhibit 2 of Attachment 2) ; 3 . Approve the Mitigation Monitoring Program (Attachment C, Draft FEIR) [Exhibit 1-B (Attachment C) of Attachment 2) ; 4. Approve the Preferred Alternative to change the land use designation on the subject property and the adjacent 7. 1 acre parcel from RU-1, Residential Urban and CG-1, Commercial General, respectively, to CG-5, Commercial General (Verdemont Area) , a new land use designation with a reduced FAR of 0.25 based on the Findings contained in the resolution (Attachment 2) ; 5. Approve General Plan Amendment No. 90-06 to realign Little League Drive as shown on Attachment 4 and based on the Findings contained in the resolution (Exhibit 6 of Attachment 2) ; and, 7. Approve Development Code Amendment No. 92-01 to add the new Commercial General land use designation to the Development Code base on the Findings of Fact (Exhibit 1 of Attachment 3) . Prepared by: Deborah Woldruff, Associate Planner for Al Boughey, Director Planning and Building Services Attachment A: Site Location, Proposed Land Use Designation and Realignment of Little League Drive Map Attachment B: Comments Received General Plan Amendment No. 90-06 and Development Code Amendment No. 92-01 Mayor and Common Council Meeting of March 8, 1993 Page 5 Attachment 1: Planning Commission Staff Report (December 15, 1992) Attachments: 1 - General Plan Amendment No. 90-06, Findings of Fact (Applicants Proposal, Preferred Alternative and Realignment of Little League Drive) 2 - Development Code Amendment No. 92-01, Findings of Fact 3 - Project Benefits (for Statement Of Overriding ! Considerations 4 - Proposed Realignment of Little League Drive Exhibits: A - Draft Environmental Impact Report (Not included) B - (Draft) Final Environmental Impact Report (Not included) Attachment 2 : Resolution Exhibits: 1-A Draft Environmental Impact Report (Previously distributed) 1-B (Draft) Final Environmental Impact Report (Mitigation Monitoring Report is included as Attachment C) (Previously distributed) 2 - Statements of Overriding Consideration 3 - Text Changes to the General Plan 4 - Site Location Map 5 - Legal Descriptions 6 - Realignment Map Attachment 3: Ordinance Attachment: 1 - Text Changes to the Development Code ATTACHMENT "A" SI', LOCATION , PROPOSED LAND USE DL. .GNATION AND REALIGNMENT OF LITTLE LEAGUE DRIVE MAP m 0 J J Q � 2 Y Q = 3nN3AV W1Vd O H .n Z (3) Lr) \ A. \\\\\ Ov \ A/ 3(W3AV 111N1S3H0 �O Z $ a J Q t W J Q Q t _ O= W Q N a W Z Q W Q (A co> O Q cc WOO 44 Lu O W Q U J V $ W 1 r W Au r 3a 1 O 1 ti Q cc O 1 Q Y m 3AIMO 3no V31 31LLIl u w :J � Yl •�� U > w W N Attachment "B-1" Dear members of the planning commission, I have received notice concerning general plan amendment NO. 90-06 and development code NO. 92-01, for changing the zoning between the extensions of Magnolia Ave and Chestnut Ave north of Little League Dr. in the Verdemont area. I talked to Debra Woodruf about this proposal and she told me that this area is capable of supporting more services than are currently available and that the cities amendment to this proposal could reduce the negative impacts as stated in the environmental impact report. This report states in section 4.2 NO PROJECT\SITE DEVELOPMENT PER EXISTING GENERAL PLAN\ZONING: Aesthetics; Development of the site under this alternative would have less of an effect on visual resources when compared to the project, due to the reduction in structural massing and site coverage associated with single family detached residential development. What this means is that commercial development will not look as nice as homes and the cities amendment to the proposal might lessen these affects. I would like to remind the commission that the people that live and pay taxes in the Verdemont area moved there because this area is a nice area not because services are close to where they live. Just because this area can support some services should not be the only consideration when planing a city. San Bernardino has traditionally mixed commercial, industrial, and residential together, giving the city a stigma of ugliness. The Verdemont area has the potential to be one of the nicest parts of the city. To do this, San Bernardino must change the way it thinks if it wants the Verdemont area has to compete with north Fontana, Rancho Cucamonga, and Upland; these areas are nice places to live and people pay a lot to live there. Rancho Cucamonga is still growing even in these slow times, even with the extremely high premiums that are attached to each lot and that city has much tougher restrictions on building. I know that the 36.8 additional acres of commercial buildings right in the middle of the Verdemont area will create an eye sore of asphalt, concrete and advertising signs that will deface this area and cost the city in future nice home construction and growth rate. People do not spend $250,000 for a home if the area is ugly and not planed well. I think that this area should not be rezoned no matter how much the owner of the property is willing to give the city. The negative affects of this proposal far out weigh the good. Sincerely _ ) 1 Bryant Shea _ 3226 Sunflower Ave San Bernardino Ca 92407 Attachment "B-2" Dear members of the San Bernardino Planning Commission, In regards to the general plan amendment no. 90-06 and development code amendment no. 92-01, I wish to voice my disapproval. I understand that staff proposes an alternative land use designation for the project sight between Magnolia and Chestnut, but any kind of commercial building is completely unacceptable. I moved into this house in the Verdemont area six months ago, and have realized that my sales person is like a recruiting officer. She made me all kinds of promises and they were all lies. Nothing about the house or my lot size or my drainage was correct. Now I find out that the area I inquired about, the area she promised would do no commercial building because of the RU-1 zoning, is now being considered for re-zoning. I just moved 65 miles from my work in L.A. just to get away from the "City" , and all the trouble that is associated with it. Aesthetically you are talking a travesty. If you drive down the 215 south and look to the left, you will see beautiful new homes with gorgeous green mountains behind them, assuming it is not one of our smoggy days. If you look to the right, you see run down houses and lots of land being used as junk yards, dump sights, and permanent yard sale areas. If you want to put up ugly looking buildings, or any type of co® ercial project, do it over there. The community will still be served in the same way, the same jobs will still be created, and our residential area will remain quiet and beautiful. Of course though I am opposed to any kind of commercial building in the general vicinity though because of what traditionally happens. Downtown is a perfect example. The Carousel Mall is beautiful, but I can't take my four kids there because of the gangs, and drug dealers that use it as a hang out. Residential districts that were once nice, have been sold at cheaper rates, to people who can't afford any kind of improvement on the property except for security bars on the windows and doors. I wanted to move to Rancho Cucamonga or Alta Loma because of the many, many square acres of houses, and very limited commercial building except in generalized areas. They were well overpriced, not because of the house quality, but because of the quiet, and comfortable feeling the surrounding gave. Please don't do to my little corner of your city what you have done the rest of it. I have enough trouble sending my wife alone to the store, without having the store come to us. The members of your commission won't have to live here in ten years after you've made a mockery of our community, but we will. Please leave the zoning as it is. The 7.1 acres of CG-1 property is more than enough, and if you want to rezone something, put it back to RU-l. Truly disturbed, Steve Durst 2407 C 3227 Sunflower Ave. San Bernardino Ca. 9 _ CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING j� AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT AGENDA ITEM 6 SUMMARY HEARING DATE ' WARD APPUCANT: ervices, Inc. LU [NO.NERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 90-06 25864 Business Center Dr. Ste F CA 92374 V D DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT OWNER: Verdemont Associates 92-01 P.O. Box 3925 Ontario, CA 91761 7proposal to change the General Plan land use designation from RU-1, ial Urban to CG-1, Commercial General on approximately 29.7 acres. N ect EIR has identified that project could be reduced through the W pn of a new Commercial General designation with a reduced floor area M ratio (FAR) . Staff proposes approval of the alternative designation for the Wproject site and an adjacent 7.1 acre parcel (concurrently designated CG-1). The project also includes an amendment to the Circulation Plan Map to realign Little League Drive. The subject property is specifically located between W the extensions of Magnolia Avenue and Chestnut Avenue between Little League 'Drive and the Cable Creek Flood Control Channel Easement in the Verdemont Q Area. EXISTING GENERAL PLAN PROPERTY PRO_ LAND USE ZONING DESIGNATION Subject Vacant RU-1 Residential Urban North Vacant RL Residential Low South Little League Dr, I-215 with IL Industrial Light Light Industrial Uses/Vacant (beyond) East Residential Subdivision RE Residential Estate West Al Guhin Park PP Public Park GEOLOGIC/SEISMIC ❑ YES FU=HAZARD 13 YES ❑ 20NE A (=LLN —J HAZARD ZONE: ft NO ZONE: ❑ NO ❑ ZONE B HIGH FIRE ❑ YES AIRPORT NOISE/ ❑ YES REDEVELOPMENT ❑ YES HAZARD ZONE:X2 NO CRASH ZONE NO PROJECT AREA: ENO ❑ AP ❑ EF �IFICANT 0 a APPUCABL E EFFECTS WITH ❑ APPROVAL Z W NO EJA MITIGATING MEASURES C ❑ CONDITIONS W .2_Z ❑ EXEMPT ❑ E.I.R.RECUIRED BUT NO W Z 4 ¢ C SIGNIFICANT�EFFECTS F-W DENIAL ** Z M > W ❑ CONTINUANCE TO Z ❑ NO SIGNIFICANT WSIGNIRCAUT EFFECTS V ** Approval of the Preferred W EFFECTS SEE AM ACHED ER.C. W alternative to establish XERC Recommendationsuized in ¢ a_ new CG designation Reporr tee.,.'°° PLAN4= PAIGE I OF 1 144q Attachment 1 t GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 90-06 AND DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT NO. 92-01 AGENDA ITEM: 6 HEARING DATE: December 15, 1992 Page 2 REQUEST The applicant requests to change the General Plan land use designation from RU-1, Residential Urban to CG-1 General on a Commercial approximately 29.7 acres Of land. Based upon the CG-1 floor area ratio (FAR) of 0. 711 this project potentially could result in over 900, 000 square feet of commercial space. Because of the potential impacts of the project, an Environmental Report (EIR) was prepared. Impact A preferred alternative to the project, identified and evaluated in the EIR, proposes the adoption of a new commercial general designation with a reduced FAR of 0.25. designation will re The adoption of a new and the General Plan. l It should bamendments oted that theenewocoemt Code designation would be titled CG-5, Commercial General commercial Area) . (Verdemont t The 7.1 acre parcel located east and adjacent to the amendment site is also being evaluated as part of the designated CG-1 and staff project. The parcel is p as part of the area for redesignation under the a ternativencommercial general designation. Finally, the project proposes to realign Little Lea follow the Cable Creek Channel and will re �e Drive to General Plan Circulation Plan Map. quire an amendment to the LOCATION The project site, consisting of 29.7 acres of land and the adjacent 7. 1 acre parcel are located at the intersection of Little League Drive and Palm Avenue in the northwest portion of the City. Locally, the project site is bounded by the Cable Creek Flood Control Channel on the north, Little League Drive on the south, the southern extension of Magnolia Avenue and the 7. 1 acre parcel on the east and the southern extension of Chestnut Avenue on the west. (See Site Vicinity and Land Use Designation Map, Attachment A) GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 90-06 AND DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT NO. 92-01 AGENDA ITEM: 6 HEARING DATE: December 15, 1992 Page 3 SITE AND AREA CHARACTERISTICS Site Characteristics The amendment site is roughly rectangular in shape and includes two parcels (Assessor Parcel Numbers (APN) 261-181-01 and 261-181-11 (portion) ] . A small portion of APN 261-181-11 extends across the flood control channel to the northeast. This small piece of land (less than 2 acres) , designated RL, Residential Low, is excluded from the General Plan Amendment. The 7.1 acre piece is roughly triangular in shape and includes one parcel (Assessor Parcel Number 261-182-08) . The aggregate site (all three parcels) , containing a total of 36.8 acres, is undeveloped and slopes gently from the north/northwest to the south/southeast generally toward the Cable Creek Flood Control Channel. The 100 year flood plain is contained within the channel and the 500 year flood plain extends across the site in the form of shallow sheet flows. Vegetation on the site is comprised of four distinct plant communities: Mixed Annual Grassland-Shrub, Annual Grassland, Windrows (olive trees) and Riversidian Alluvial Fan Sage Scrub. In addition, canyon live oak and walnut trees are scattered on the site and may have been an original part of the alluvial sage scrub habitat. Wildlife associated with the site include small mammals, lizards and a variety of bird species. Area Characteristics The amendment site is located in the Verdemont Area and within the lower, southerly reach of the Cajon Pass. The Verdemont Area can be described as an upland area within a few miles of the foothill of the San Bernardino Mountains. The land located north of the Cable Creek Flood Control Channel and north of Irvington Avenue is vacant and designated RL, Residential Low. East of the extension of Chestnut Street and south of Irvington Avenue is a small residential development of 1 acre lots in the RE, Residential Estate land use designation. South of those homes and north of Cable Creek is a vacant parcel designated RL, Residential Low. Between Cable Creek and Little League Drive, east of the extension of Chestnut Avenue, is the 7 . 1 acre parcel, GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 90-06 AND DEVELOPMENT CODE AMEND14EENT ZTEM2 01 6 HEARING DATE: December 15, 19992 Page 4 that has been included as part of the amendment designated CG-1, arcel is Palm Avenue with CO-1, site. East of the 7 . 1 acre p Commercial Office and CG-1 designated lands located beyond to the east. Little League Drive forms the southern boundary of the amendment site with I-215 located south A1,Guhin. Park t designated PPe extension of Magnolia Av enue is the amendment site the land is Public Park. Northwesterly vacant and designated PF, Public Facility. South of the site and across Little League Drive is I-215 and the associated CalTrans landscape easement. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEOA) STATUS Initial Study re pared by staff, was presented to the The Initial Study, P P on May 24 , 1990- The ERC Environmental Review Committee (ERC)nmental Impact Report (EIR) was needed to determined that an Enviro osal. evaluate the environmental impacts associated with the p ro P Notice of Preparation The Notice of Preparation (NOP) for the project was filed with the rnor's Office California Gove of Planning and Research, State of Clearinghouse on September 19,, 1 r review periods forlthe2NOP the CEQA Guidelines. The Y public began on September 19, 1991 and ended on October 18, 1992. Comments received from Responsible environmental sissuesAandcconcernstto public further clarified be addressed in the EIR. (Copies of the letterthe Volume Iin in to the NOP are contained in Appendix A of Appendices, Draft EIR. ) During the public review period, a Public Scoping Meeting was held on September 30, 1991 to solicit public at the Feldheym Library project. input regarding the potential environmental effects of the roj Staff Review Prior to releasing the Draft EIR to the public, Planning staff and members of the Environmental/nts lrev. wed Review k drafts represent various City Depart GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 90-06 AND 1 DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT NO. 92-01 AGENDA ITEM: 6 HEARING DATE: December 15, 1992 Page 5 of the document. The review of the screencheck drafts was extensive, beginning in December 1991 and continuing until the Notice of Completion and Draft EIR were released on March 26, 1992. Notice of Completion/Draft Environmental Impact Report As previously noted, the Notice of Completion (NOC) and the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) were filed with the California Governor's Office of Planning and Research, State Clearinghouse on March 26, 1992 pursuant to Section 15085 of the CEQA Guidelines. The 45 day public review period for the NOC began on March 30, 1992 and ended on May 15, 1992 . Five letters containing comments were received during the 45 day public review period. Copies of the comments and the City's responses are contained in the Final EIR. The comments proved to be instructive and resulted in some text changes which are also reflected in the Final EIR. Alternatives to the Proposed Project CEQA requires that EIRs evaluate possible alternatives to the proposed project. The DEIR, in Section 4.0, evaluated the following alternatives: 1) No Project/No Development; 2) No Project/Development Per Existing General Plan/Zoning; 3) New General Plan Designation and Zoning District; and, 4) Alternative Site Analysis. Staff has reviewed the alternatives and feels they represent a reasonable range. (Draft) Final Environmental Impact Report Section 15088 of the CEQA Guidelines requires that Lead Agencies evaluate comments on environmental issues received from persons who have reviewed the DEIR and prepare a written response. As indicated in the previous discussion, the proposed or draft Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) contains copies of the comments received during the NOC public review period and the City's written response to the comments. Recent legislative changes (effective January 1, 1992) require that the Lead Agency's response to comments must be distributed to the persons and agencies who commented at least 10 days prior to certification of the EIR. Copies of the draft FEIR were distributed as required on November 30, 1992 and the document became available to the public on that date. Note: The draft FEIR does not become "final" until certification by the Mayor and Common Council. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 90-06 AND 1 DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT NO. 92-01 AGENDA ITEM: 6 BEARING DATE: December 15, 1992 Page 6 Mitigation Monitoring Program (MMP) The mitigation measures identified in the EIR are implemented through the Mitigation Monitoring Program. The Mitigation Monitoring Program was prepared to include any changes resulting from the draft FEIR and is contained within that document as Attachment C. significant Environmental Effects And Significant Cumulative Environmental Effects Of The Applicant-*s Proposal And The Preferred Alternative The EIR addresses the areas of environmental concern, environmental effects associated with both the applicant's proposal and the preferred alternative and proposes mitigation. The Summary Matrix Of The Proposed Project indicates the environmental categories affected, local (project) and/or regional (cumulative) impacts and level of significance after mitigation (DEIR, Executive Summary, Page 1-1) . Generally, the applicant's proposal may result in potentially significant or significant impacts in all of the environmental categories. The majority of impacts can be mitigated to below a level of significance with the exception of impacts to Population/Housing, Traffic/Circulation and Air Quality. These impacts are considered to be unavoidable adverse impacts at the local level. Implementation of the applicant's proposal may also result in potentially significant and significant cumulative impacts to Public Services/Utilities, Traffic/Circulation, Air Quality and Noise. While the impacts to Public Services/Utilities and Noise can be mitigated, the impacts to Traffic/Circulation and Air Quality cannot be fully mitigated. These impacts are considered to be significant unavoidable adverse cumulative impacts at the regional level. The preferred alternative would result in a significant unavoidable adverse impact in the Population/Housing category relating to the loss of available housing. This impact is considered to be an impact to the City and is not a cumulative impact that affects available housing on a regional scale. The analysis in the DEIR indicates that this negative impact is off-set by the that fact that the project will aid in balancing the jobs/housing ratio at that sub-regional level. - 1 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 90-06 AND DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT NO. 92-01 AGENDA ITEM: 6 HEARING DATE: December 15, - 1992 Page 7 Findings for a Statement of Overriding Considerations Pursuant to Section 15091 through Section 15093 of the CEQA Guidelines, a public agency cannot approve a project for which an EIR has been completed that identifies one or more significant unavoidable environmental effects unless it makes one or more written findings for each effect. The lead agency is required to support each finding with substantial evidence in the record, and to adopt a Statement of Overriding Consideration for each unavoidable environmental effect. This requires the public agency to balance the benefits of a proposed project against its unavoidable environmental risks. Therefore, any recommendation of the Planning Commission to the Mayor and Common Council for approval of General Plan Amendment (GPA) No. 90-06/Development Code Amendment (DCA) No.92-01 (as proposed by the applicant) should include a list of the project benefits that the Planning Commission feels outweigh the significant effects and the cumulative significant effects and warrant the approval of the project. Note: A list of project benefits is contained in Attachment 3. Environmental Review Committee (ERC) Recommendation On August 20, 1992, the ERC reviewed the Environmental Impact Report prepared for the amendment project (GPA 90-06/DCA 92-01) and concurred with the analysis that the applicant's proposal would result in significant unavoidable adverse impacts (as previously discussed) . The ERC recommended that the Planning Commission recommend to the Mayor and Common Council that the EIR be certified pending the preparation of a Statement of Overriding Considerations and that the preferred alternative (New General Plan Designation and Zoning District) identified in the EIR be approved. ANALYSIS FOCUS OF THE PROJECT ANALYSIS It should be noted that while the applicant has included a Conceptual Site Plan in the Draft EIR, the EIR and this Staff Report evaluate the proposed amendments to the General Plan and Development Code with regard to the most intense uses allowed under the CG-1, Commercial General land use designation. The analysis is done in this manner because the applicant has not submitted \ GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 90-06 AND DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT NO. 92-01 AGENDA ITEM: 6 HEARING DATE: December 15, 1992 Page 8 specific development plans and is under no obligation to develop the subject property as outlined on the Conceptual Site Plan. This section of the Staff Report summarizes the analysis contained in the EIR (DEIR and Draft FEIR) and evaluates the applicant's proposal and the preferred alternative based on the EIR analysis. Persons interested in detailed discussions of the environmental impacts of the project should refer to the EIR documents. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES As indicated in the DEIR, the general plan amendment will result in potentially significant impacts to biological resources at the time of commercial development. The site currently contains four distinct plant communities - mixed annual grassland shrub, annual grassland, alluvial scrub and a windrow of olive trees. All four of the plant communities, distributed- in patchy stands throughout the 29.7 acre site, show evidence of disturbance. The central portion of the site is considered to be the most disturbed area. The adjacent 7.1 acre parcel is composed almost entirely of mixed annual grassland shrub. Due to the disturbed state of the existing plant communities, the site and the adjacent parcel are not considered to have important habitat value. No known sensitive or endangered plant species were found on the site. As previously stated, the site does contain two small stands of alluvial scrub. Two plant species that can occur in alluvial scrub habitat are the Santa Anna River woolly star and the sender-horned spineflower. The Santa Anna River woolly star is listed as endangered by the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) . The California Native Plant Society (CNPS) has placed the woolly star on List 1B. However, the woolly star is perennial and would have been sighted during the biological survey that was conducted on the site (August, 1991) . Because the woolly star is a perennial plant species, its presence would have been observed during the August 1991 survey of the site. However, this species was not found to be present on the site. Like the woolly star, the slender-horned spineflower is also listed as an endangered species by the CDFG and USFWS and has been placed on List 1B by the CLAPS. The spineflower is a small annual plant which tends to occur only in sandy soil in relatively undisturbed alluvial scrub habitat. Due to the disturbed state of the site's alluvial scrub habitat coupled with the limited availability of sandy soils (on the site) , the potential for the plant being present is low. The spineflower was not sighted during previous GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 90-06 AND l DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT NO. 92-01 AGENDA ITEM: 6 HEARING DATE: December 15, 1992 Page 9 surveys of the site; however, the plant is only visible during its blooming period in the springtime. As such, the DEIR identifies the need for two springtime surveys to determine if the slender- horned spineflower is present on the site. The Mitigation Monitoring Program lists the requirement for the two surveys as mitigation that must be completed prior to project approvals for the development of the site and the adjacent 7. 1 acre parcel (if it is included in a development plan for the subject property) . The likelihood of the spineflower being present on the site is considered to be a potentially significant impact. If the spineflower is found on the site during either of the two surveys, the Mitigation Monitoring Program identifies further mitigation to ensure that the this plant and its habitat are preserved. (Preservation of the spineflower would of necessity also result in preservation of the alluvial scrub habitat) . The proposed mitigation will reduce this potentially significant impact to below a level of significance. Project impacts for the applicant's proposal and the preferred alternative are identified as the loss of plant communities and associated wildlife habitat and wildlife. These losses represent incremental reductions to the plant communities, wildlife habitat and wildlife and are not considered to be significant impacts. The proposed mitigation measures would reduce these impacts to below a level of significance. LAND USE Compatibility At this time, the subject property and the adjacent 7. 1 acre parcel are vacant. Implementation of the applicant's proposal or the preferred alternative ultimately will result in commercial development on the site thereby changing the character of the site and the surrounding area. However, the DEIR indicates that changing the land use designation on the site from RU-1 to CG-1 or CG-5 would not result in any land use related impacts on the surrounding area. The site is separated and buffered on three sides by man-made barriers (existing streets and the flood control channel) . The eastern boundary of the amendment site abuts the 7. 1 acre parcel which is adjacent to Palm Avenue. Intensity of Commercial Uses While the applicant's proposal is not anticipated to result in any significant land use impacts, it would result in commercial \ GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 90-06 AND DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT NO. 92-01 AGENDA ITEM: 6 HEARING DATE: December 15, 1992 Page 10 intensification of the site. The floor area ratio (FAR) for the CG-1 designation is 0.7 which could result in up to 905, 600 square feet of commercial space on the 29.7 acre site. The adjacent 7. 1 acre parcel could yield up to 216, 500 square feet of commercial space. A comprehensive development project on the two sites combined could result in up to 1, 122, 100 square feet of commercial space. This issue is addressed in the DEIR and identified as a potentially significant impact of the project. The mitigation proposed to reduce this impact to below a level of significance is the establishment of a new commercial general land use designation with an FAR of 0.25. The concept described in the preceding paragraph is the basis for the preferred alternative. A FAR of 0.25 would result in 323,433 square feet of commercial space on the 29.7 acre site. The adjacent 7. 1 acre parcel would yield 77,319 square feet of commercial space. A development project on the two sites combined would result in about 400,752 square feet of commercial space which is a notable reduction from the applicant's proposal. POPULATION AND HOUSING Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) Overview This section of the DEIR evaluates the consistency of the amendment proposal with the Southern California Association of Government's (SLAG) Growth Management Plan (GMP) and Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) . These two programs are related to the Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) . The GMP focuses on attaining specified jobs/housing balance ratios while the RHNA addresses existing and future housing needs in the region. Jobs/Housing The analysis in the DEIR indicates that the jobs/housing ratio for the City of San Bernardino is currently stable and forecast to remain so through the year 2010. Conversely, the East San Bernardino Valley (ESBV) subregion is expected to worsen and become increasingly housing-rich/job poor through the year 2010 based on SCAG projections. On a regional and subregional level, the applicant's proposal and- the preferred alternative each would have a beneficial impact by providing jobs. Both amendment proposals are consistent with the GMP in that either one would incrementally contribute to further balancing the jobs/housing ratio at the subregional level. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 90-06 AND DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT NO. 92-01 AGENDA ITEM: 6 HEARING DATE: December 15, -1992 Page 11 Local/Regional Housing Needs Redesignation of the site to a commercial designation would result in the loss of potentially 267 dwelling units from the City's future housing stock. While development under the applicant's proposal or the preferred alternative would result in a reduction of the City's housing stock, the impact is lessened by the amount of housing available in the areas immediately adjacent to the City. The loss of future housing is further offset by the fact that the either amendment proposal would contribute to balancing the ESBV subregional jobs/housing ratio. TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION Traffic Impacts The proposed amendment will result in significant impacts to traffic and circulation in the area. Commercial development under the CG-1 designation will result in increased vehicle trips. The analysis in the DEIR compares the vehicle trips generated by the amendment project with the existing site conditions and with the vehicle trips generated by an RU-1 development on the site. Several of the intersections in the area currently operate at unacceptable levels of service during peak hours. The levels of service at these intersections during peak hours are anticipated to worsen over time even with no development occurring on the project site. By the year 2010, the majority of intersections in the area will be operating at unacceptable levels of service. Implementation of the proposed CG-1 designation will incrementally contribute to the situation. The mitigation measures identified for the project in the DEIR include roadway improvements that will help to improve the conditions at local intersections. However, these mitigation measures will not reduce the impacts to below a level of significance. The Alternatives section of the DEIR indicates that the preferred alternative would result in lower vehicle trips. In effect, traffic and circulation impacts resulting from the preferred alternative could be mitigated to below a level of significance. Proposed Realignment of Little League Drive The current alignment of Little League Drive is considered to be substandard for a collector roadway by the City's Public Works Department. The street has a sharp turn along the westerly and GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 90-06 AND 1 DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT NO. 92-01 AGENDA ITEM: 6 HEARING DATE: December 1S, -1992 Page 12 northerly boundaries of Al Guhin Park. For this reason, the existing alignment would not adequately accommodate the additional traffic generated by the proposed project. The proposed alignment, which follows the Cable Creek Flood Control Channel along the south side, is considered to be functionally superior to the existing alignment. The new alignment, planned as a four lane roadway with an 88 foot right-of-way, will provide a connection between Little League Drive West and Palm Avenue. In addition, it will provide access to the project site and Al Guhin Park and essentially serve the same purpose as the existing alignment. As such, the realignment is not anticipated to result in any significant impacts or changes_ in the circulation of the Verdemont area. AIR QUALITY Short-term Construction Emissions The applicant's proposal and the preferred alternative will result in short-term construction emissions during future construction of the commercial center. While the short-term impacts represent potentially significant impacts, the proposed mitigation_ will reduce these impacts to below a level of significance. Long-term Mobile Emissions Commercial development of the site under the applicant's proposal will result in increased long-term air pollutant emissions when compared with the existing site conditions and residential development under the current RU-1 designation. This potentially significant project impact will incrementally contribute to regional air quality degradation. As such, the impact to air quality is considered to be an unavoidable adverse cumulative impact that cannot be fully mitigated. The carbon monoxide (CO) levels in the local area were measured by two Air Receptors (AR-1 and AR-2) . AR-1 is located southeast of the subject property and across Palm Avenue. AR-2 is located northwest of the site and south of Cypress Avenue. It was found that CO levels in the area do not exceed federal and State 1-hour standards. However, approval of the applicant's proposal would result in an exceedance of State standards for the predicted eight hour concentrations at AR-1 in the year 2001. This impact is considered a local significant impact of the applicant's proposal that cannot be mitigated to below a level of significance. And, - � GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 90-06 AND DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT NO. 92-01 AGENDA ITEM: 6 HEARING DATE: December 15, 1992 Page 13 because the impact will incrementally contribute to regional air quality degradation, it is a significant cumulative impact. The preferred alternative would generate less vehicle trips and would eliminate the CO 8-hour exceedance of the State standard. In addition, the preferred alternative would result in lower long-term mobile emissions thereby reducing air quality impacts to below a level of significance - both locally and regionally. OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS The EIR also evaluates impacts in the environmental categories, as follows: geology; hydrology; man-made hazards; public services and utilities; aesthetics/light and glare; and, noise. In each category, the environmental impacts are identified as being significant or potentially significant. However, these impacts are considered to be mitigable to below a level of significance for the applicant's proposal and for the preferred alternative. GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY The discussion of the EIR analysis indicates that the applicant's proposal will result in commercial development that is too intense for the surrounding area. The preferred alternative will result in commercial development that is reduced in scale and intensity of use while providing needed services to the residential neighborhood. At this time, the nearest commercial center is located in the State College area which necessitates Verdemont residents traveling about 7 miles for their groceries. The intent of the General Plan is to locate commercial services and jobs in proximity to residents and to establish new locations for commercial development as new residential growth occurs [General Plan Goal iG(j) and Objective 1. 19) . Considerable residential growth has occurred in the Verdemont area while commercial growth has not kept up. Language contained in the Economic Development Element indicates the intent of the City is to generate growth that provides jobs and enhances the quality of life (General Plan Objectives 4. 1 and 4.2) . Implementation of the preferred alternative will provide jobs and enhance the quality of life by providing commercial services to Verdemont residents. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 90-06 AND DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT NO. 92-01 AGENDA ITEM: 6 HEARING DATE: December 15, 1992 Page 14 COMPATIBILITY As previously stated, the project site and the adjacent 7 . 1 acre parcel are separated and buffered from the surrounding residential neighborhood by roadways and the Cable Creek Flood Control Channel. In terms of project design, commercial development on the site would be subject under either proposal would be subject to the Development Code standards for the CG-1. It should be noted that the only difference between the CG-1 and the preferred alternative is the FAR. (The FAR for the CG-1 is 0.7 and the proposed FAR for the preferred alternative (CG-5) is 0.25. ] Therefore, approval of either amendment project would result in the application of the CG- 1 standards. COMMENTS RECEIVED Comments were received during the Notice of Completion public review period for the DEIR. These comments and the City's responses to the comments are contained in Draft FEIR (Response to Comments) . CONCLUSIONS The applicant's proposal would result in a number of environmental impacts. In the areas of population/housing, traffic/circulation and air quality, impacts from the project could not be mitigated to below a level of significance. The preferred alternative would lessen the majority of project impacts to below a level of significance. The exception would be in the area of population/housing whereby the loss of future housing from the City's inventory could not be mitigated. While this impact is identified as significant to the City, it is not significant regionally. The area surrounding the City more than meets regional housing needs. The potential jobs created by commercial development on the site is identified as a beneficial project impact that contributes to balancing the subregion's jobs/housing ratio. The proposed realignment of Little League Drive is considered to be a superior alignment in terms of accommodating traffic and enhancing traffic safety. As such, the realignment is not expected to result in any adverse impacts to traffic or circulation patterns in the Verdemont area. \ GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 90-06 AND DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT NO. 92-01 AGENDA ITEM: 6 BEARING DATE: December 15, 1992 Page 15 The preferred alternative meets the intent of the General Plan to locate commercial services and jobs in proximity to residential districts. The project site is bounded by roadways and the Cable Creek Channel which provide buffering for the surrounding residential uses. Commercial development on the site would be subject to applicable Development Code standards for site design and layout. Therefore, the preferred alternative is considered to be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. RECOMMENDATIONS Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend to the Mayor and Common Council the: 1. Certification of the Environmental Impact Report; 2. Preparation of a Statement of Overriding Considerations based on the appropriate findings pursuant to CEQA; 3. Approval of the Mitigation Monitoring Program (Attachment C, Draft FEIR) ; 4. Denial of General Plan Amendment No. 90-06 to change the land use designation on the subject property from RU-1, Residential Urban to CG-1, Commercial General based on the Findings of Fact (Attachment 1) ; 5. Approval of the Preferred Alternative to change the land use designation on the subject property and the adjacent 7. 1 acre parcel from RU-1, Residential Urban and CG-1, Commercial General, respectively, to CG-5, Commercial General (Verdemont Area) , a new land use designation with a reduced FAR of 0.25 based on the Findings of Fact (Attachment 1) ; 6. Approval of General Plan Amendment No. 90-06 to realign Little League Drive as shown on Attachment 4 and based on the Findings of Fact (Attachment 1) ; and, \ GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 90-06 AND DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT NO. 92-01 AGENDA ITEM: 6 HEARING DATE: December IS, 1992 Page 16 7. Approval of Development Code Amendment No. 92-01 to add the new Commercial General land use designation to the Development Code base on the Findings of Fact (Attachment 2) . Res ectfull submitted, A Bo , Dire for Planning Building Services Deborah Woldruff ssociate Planner Attachments: 1 - General Plan Amendment No. 90-06, Findings of Fact (Applicants Proposal, Preferred Alternative and Realignment of Little League Drive) . 2 - Development Code Amendment No. 92-01, Findings of Fact. 3 - Project Benefits (for Statement Of Overriding Considerations 4 - Proposed Realignment of Little League Drive Exhibits: A - Draft Environmental Impact Report (Previously Distributed) B - (Draft) Final Environmental Impact Report (Previously Distributed) GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 90-06 AND DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT NO. 92-01 AGENDA ITEM_ : 6 HEARING DATE: December 15, 1992 Page 17 ATTACHMENT 1 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 90-06 FINDINGS OF FACT Applicants Amendment Proposal (CG-1, FAR 0.7) 1. The proposal to amend the General Plan land use designation from RU-1, Residential Urban to CG-1, Commercial General on the amendment site is not consistent with the General Plan in that the CG-1 designation would permit commercial uses that are too intense for the surrounding low intensity residential uses. 2. Certain elements of the map amendment proposal would be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience, or welfare of the City. The Environmental Impact Report evaluated these issues and determined that approval of the proposed amendment would result a number of significant unavoidable adverse impacts and significant cumulative unavoidable adverse impacts. 3. The proposed map amendment will affect the balance of land uses within the City by reducing the amount of residentially designated land available for development. 4 . The amendment site is physically suitable for the CG-1, Commercial General land use designation in that site is large enough to accommodate CG-1 development, access to the site is available, provision has been made for services and utilities and commercial uses on the site would be compatible with existing and future use in the surrounding area. Preferred Alternative Amendment Proposal (CG-5, FAR 0.25) 1. The proposal to amend the General Plan land use designation from RU-1, Residential Urban to a new Commercial General designation on the amendment site is consistent with the General Plan in that the new commercial designation would permit the development of lower intensity commercial uses that -\ GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 90-06 AND DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT NO. 92-01 AGENDA ITEM: 6 BEARING DATE: December 15, 1992 Page IS would be compatible with the surrounding, low intensity residential uses. 2. Except for the impact to housing, the elements of the map and text amendment proposal would not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience, or welfare of the City. The Environmental Impact Report identified the loss of future housing units to be a significant adverse impact. If the preferred alternative is to be approved, the Mayor and Common Council will need to adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations for the significant impact. 3. The proposed map amendment will affect the balance of land uses within the City through the loss of future housing units. The Environmental Impact Report identified the loss of future housing units to be a significant adverse impact. If the preferred alternative is to be approved, the Mayor and Common Council will need to adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations for the significant impact. 4. The amendment site is physically suitable for the proposed commercial general designation in that site is large enough to accommodate low intensity commercial development. Circulation Plan Amendment (Realignment of Little League Drive) 1. The proposed realignment of Little League Drive will change the Circulation Plan and does not conflict with General Plan policies. 2. The proposed amendment will not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience, or welfare of the City in that the new alignment will enhance traffic safety in the area by providing an improved alignment. 3. The amendment to realign Little League Drive on the Circulation Plan will not affect the balance of land uses within the City. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 90-06 AND DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT NO. 92-01 AGENDA ITEM: 6 HEARING DATE: December 15, 1992 Page 19 4. Realignment of Little League Drive will enhance the level of public services available to the surrounding area by providing a more direct route into and through the area. \ GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 90-06 AND DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT NO. 92-01 AGENDA ITEM: 6 HEARING DATE: December 15, 1992 Page 20 ATTACHMENT 2 DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT NO. 92-01 FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The amendment is consistent with the General Plan in that proposed text additions for the new commercial general designation will implement the General Plan to provide commercial services and jobs in proximity to residents. 2. The proposed amendment would be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience or welfare of the City in that it would result in the loss of future housing units. The Environmental Impact Report identified the loss of future housing units to be a significant adverse impact. If the preferred alternative is to be approved, the Mayor and Common Council will need to adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations for the significant impact. ATTACHMENT 3 PROJECT BENEFITS: • Project will be revenue producing to the City,generating more revenues than the cost to provide City services. • Project will provide commercial services to an area where there is/will be sufficient market demand. Because of the added convenience, vehicle miles will be reduced for residents in Verdemont that would otherwise travel to more distant commercial centers. Proximity of goods and services will positively contribute to traffic conditions and the associated degradation of air quality, • The commercial center provides an employment generating use in a subregion that is housing rich. Consequently, the project is positively contributing to a more balanced jobs to housing ratio, and a reduction in regional vehicle miles travelled. • Job opportunities for all segments of the population, including students as well as opportunities for management positions and business ownership will be expanded. • The center has immediate access to a major, regional freeway facility, thus avoiding the placement of vehicles on the local street network. • The center is required to realign and extend Little League Drive resulting in better, more efficient local circulation. As a consequence of this action, the applicant will be responsible for adjustments to the park Muster Plan. This action will increase the net useable area in the park considered by the Parks Department as an overall benefit to the park design. • If deemed necessary, the project applicant is required to pay fees on a fair share basis that will apply to the construction of a fire station and provision of personnel, ultimately improving the level of fire protection services in the Verdemont area. • The project will be required to provide signalization and contribute on a fair share basis to widening improvements for various roadways to accommodate project and cumulative area traffic conditions. • The project will provide aesthetic benefit. Improved landscaping and new streets and hardscape will address former man-made modifications in the project vicinity that currently detract from the area's appearance. Although a subjective benefit, the aesthetic improvements will contribute to the quality of life as well as the"self image" of the Verdemont area. ATTACHMENT 4 z �W 0 G ~ Q Z 3nN3AV w1Vd z (,) Q / \ 3 \ \ �A 3nN3AV Pv DiNJ.S3H� �tm \ w u Q 0 CY IL q L6 (1 Q � �o g I W ; 1'4A ?,7i 1 f � C _ ywr C I T Y O F C an Bernardino 0 D E P A R T M E N T OF P L A N N I N G A N D S U I L D I N G S E R V I C E S A L 8 0 0 0 H E Y , A I C P 0 1 R E C T O R December 4, 1992 Dave Mlnarsky E.C.E. Services, Inc. 25864 Business Center Drive, Ste F Redlands, CA 92374 RE: General Plan Amendment 90-06 and Development Code Amendment No. 92-01 Dear Mr. Mlynarsky: Please be advised that the above projects are scheduled on the Planning Commission agenda for Tuesday, December 15, 1992. The meeting will be held at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, First Floor City Hall, 300 North "D" Street, San Bernardino. If you have any questions regarding the attached staff report, please contact me at (714) 384-5057. Sincerely, Deborah Woldruff Associate Planner cc: Tom Flesh Verdemont Associates P.O. Box 3925 Ontario, CA 91761 Paul Ireland Hogle-Ireland Development Consulting Group 19752 MacArthur Blvd. , Ste 210 Irvine, CA 92715 DW:das pcagenda PRIDE IN PROGRESS 0 0 N O R T H O S T R E E T S A N 9 E R N A R O 1 N O C A L I F 0 R V 1 A 9 2 4 1 ! - 0 0 0 1 (T 1 4) 304-507115057 • fapf+oa Mftw far,f1mv stamp af" Proof of Publication CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DIVISION =� o/FIGAL NOTKZ on etc HlARrq POOTKE is HlRIE11Y ofV- M THAT THE CITY OF STATE OF CALIFORNIA, PLANNING RCOA MISSION County of San Bernardino, M A Pus�Rn�o DeQ.M111lR 1 I"t, aJ 7:1111110 f AL IN THE COON- The undersigned hereby certifies as follows: CIL CHAMaERS CITY 3M NORN -D- I am a citizen of the United States, over the age of twenty-one years, and not a ' CCA IF° party to nor interested in the above-entitled matter; I am the principal clerk of the IN�iTEMS: FOLLOW- party of a newspaper, to wit, The Sun; the same was at all times herein mentioned a DtEV�rrJOq NT PER- newspaper of general circulation printed and published daily,including Sunday,in the MR *cow City of San Bernardino, in the County of San Bernardino, State of California; said em Is arc nvu= shaped Parcel of land newspaper is so published every day of the year as and under the name of The Sun,said mnsiswm of so" 17.4 has been adjudged a newspaper of eneral circulation b the Su ~ acres 60010•to theca a newspaper g Y Poor �a PPOPW Awe and Court of the State of California, in and for the County of San Bernardino,by a judg- h.unna a unnlaaa of aholw isa tact an s men+ of said Superior Court duly made, ide d filed and entered on June 20, 1952, in the Miner+A 111.wed venue and b*- we ioraaw Seoul tM foe► records and files of said Superior Court in that certain proceeding entitled In the Mat- Floret of the caeenm.of Randall Avenue. 1718 ap- ter of the Ascertainment and Establishment of The Sun as a Newspaper of General Cir- +► mouses M culation, numbered 73084 in the records of civil proceedings in said Superior Court llu ►a and by judgment modifying the same,also made,filed and entered in said proceeding; a� laA.or�al Not. the notice or other process or document hereinafter mentioned was set, printed and I that nft*to published in type not smaller than nonpareil and was preceded with words printed in black face type not smaller than nonpareil describing and expressing in general terms �s1**in the purport or character of the notice intended to be given; and the Sllaua»ntean, General Plan OFFICIAL NOTICE OF PUBLIC DARING /YYOUNG O►+ a�'AT W/1 f� Santa 92-15, 90-06, 92-04, 92-26 GENERAL N0.PL N AtMO 011eAVVIB f TtENTT Na Ml�1 -supiaef aroperty is of which the annexed is a true printed copy,was published in each edition and issue of M1e ex- .uRRO aim Q+astriut Aavenuee said newspaper of general circulation, and not in any supplement thereof,on each of Horn+ of Little Leaoua the following dates, to wit: nrlw 'no Chen- 1'"Wo s nI aVer{-. cant reouests nwrwai of a General elan Amend. want to cones the Genw- at Plan land use desionm- lion from RU-11 WsidrMW UrOan b CG-1, DECEMBER 4, 1992 aCaoenvno+rirreUl G ral n a land Tt proiett acres rmrrueeei tmped Repoli 4E1R) hat itlereltled that reduced Warman fra lion at a now conwnen:tel I certify nder penalty of perjury that the foregoing aanaral IaeuO"�°es�ana- Y Pe Y Pe 1 rY ego' g is true and correct, tug aasla'e el� t�s� } + , She seeisc site and an ed- . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , .,-. . '. . . :_ -?". . 'I!. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .... i1iCMt 7.1 acre Per *I i ,the W i�q- 4 DEC✓"SEER 92 guess an alt,wtefnafit Is Executed on the . . . . . . . . . . day of . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 19 . . . . . . . . ., at the C1relNallon Plan Map ro San Bernardino, in said County and State. tlrhia r. NM Utll. Lease IIQ.s Owner. �/erdeflteM AssoChst' Applicairilt IUM 3 k OSM4 11 AAA s,+st�t'1dMf s w b- largo corAmm"of acres�Itol�wd��a the south` wall� of Mira- RIORIe Avenue arq ^.515 OFFICIAL NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING COMMISSION WILL HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING ON TUESDAY, DECEMBER 15, 1992 AT 7: 00 P.M. IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL, 300 NORTH "D" STREET, SAN BERNARDINO, CALIFORNIA 92418, FOR CONSIDERATION OF: DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT NO. 92-12 - This City-initiated amendment changes the locational criteria for the establishment of large family day care homes in single family land use districts, Citywide. Environmental Determination: Exempt from CEQA, Section 15061. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 90-06 AND DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT NO. 92-0 - A proposal to change the General Plan land use designation from RU-1, Residential Urban to CG-1, Commercial General on approximately 29.7 acres of land, specifically located between the extensions of Magnolia Avenue and Chestnut Avenue north of Little League Drive following the Cable Creek Flood Control Channel Easement in the Verdemont Area. An Environmental Impact Report (EIR) , prepared to evaluate the potential environmental impacts of the- project, has identified that a new commercial general land use designation would reduce the project impacts. The preferred alternative to the project will also be considered for approval. If approved, text amendments to the General Plan and the Development Code will be required for inclusion of the new commercial general designation into those documents. The project site has been expanded to include an adjacent 7.1 acre parcel (east) in the EIR evaluation and it is also being considered for redesignation to the alternative commercial general designation. Finally, the project includes an amendment to the Circulation Plan Map to realign Little League Drive. Environmental Determination: EIR Certification DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT NO. 92-11 - To change: Chapter 19.28, Landscaping Standards, to reflect water conservation measures as required by Assembly Bill - AB 325, the State mandated Water Conservation In Landscaping Ordinance. This amendment will be Citywide. THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO REQUESTS YOUR PARTICIPATION IN EVALUATING THIS PROPOSAL. THE PLANNING COMMISSION WILL REVIEW THE PROJECT AND CONSIDER THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT IN MAKING ITS DETERMINATION ON THIS PROJECT. THE PUBLIC IS WELCOME TO SPEAK AT THE PUBLIC HEARING OR TO SUBMIT WRITTEN COMMENTS PRIOR TO THE HEARING. SHOULD YOU DESIRE FURTHER INFORMATION, PLEASE DO NOT HESITATE TO CALL THE PLANNING AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT AT CITY HALL OR PHONE (714) 384-5057. Official Notice of Public Hearing Planning Commission Meeting December 15, 1992 Page 2 IF YOU CHALLENGE THE RESULTANT ACTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION IN COURT, YOU MAY BE LIMITED TO RAISING ONLY THOSE ISSUES YOU OR SOMEONE ELSE RAISED AT THE PUBLIC HEARING DESCRIBED IN THIS NOTICE, OR IN WRITTEN CORRESPONDENCE DELIVERED TO THE CITY PLANNING DIVISION AT, OR PRIOR TO, THE PUBLIC HEARING. SUBMITTED: December 1, 1992 PUBLISH: December 3, 1992 (1/8 page Display Ad to run in the Inland Empire Section) CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING AND BUILDING SERVICES (714) 384-5057 WP:PCLEGALS 12-15-92DA "ITY OF SAN BERNARDINO CERTIFICATE OF MAILING I hereby certify that at 3:00 on December 3, 1992 I caused to be deposited in the United States Mail at the San Bernardino City Hall letters giving notice of a public hearing to be conducted by the Planning Commission, as follows: DP (III) 92-15 GPA 92-04 VAR 92-26 GPA 90-06/DCA 92-01 DATE OF PUBLIC HEARING: December 15, 1992 The above described letters were sent by first-class mail, postage prepaid and addressed as per attached list: J64 DATE PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF Subscribed and sworn to before me This day ofC'Q {, ��� CITY CLERK CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING COMMISSION SUBJECT: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 90-06 AND WARD# DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT NO. 92-01 5 PROPERTY LOCATION: Subject property is located between the extensions of Magnolia Avenue and Chestnut Avenue north of Little League I>rive following the Cable Creek Flood Control Channel a Easement in the Verdemont Are . PROPOSAL: The applicant requests approval of a General Plan Amendment to change the General Plan land use designation from RU-1, Residential Urban to CG-1, Commercial General on approximately 29.7 acres of land. The. project Environmental Impact Report (EIR) has identified that project impacts could be reduced through the adoption of a new commercial general land use designation. Staff proposes approval of the alternative land use designation for the project site and an adjacent 7.1 acre parcel (currently designated CG-1) . Finally, the project includes an amendment to the Circulation Pi ,,__Map to realign Little League Drive. an PUBLIC HEARING LOCATION: SAN BERNARDINO CITY HALL l t COUNCIL CHAMBERS 300 NORTH "D"STREET SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92418 r HEARING DATE AND TIME: Tuesday, December 15, 1992 7:00 R v ' N •' .m A datdted dw.aQtlora of thapropoaal le an Yrttaa Ptwaiap mad eLd"Seniow IT o.o.rarwxac cry w�.a yo,n,owd ern�unr nlennria+.houc ms oravo.rwbrbm. �� P"'fe hfarep,Prr•osrrrd tame ~ Pfwrmap aM Buitdirp Sfnoas Ospaemwr n parson 11 a br phdraiap(71y JK5057. Y 1' The PWmirp canrnasion is reparwtrq pw pw**wicn.r you am unwtw b • attw you nay man of m osn comma ra infawalar in appaition baba prapaad b Use l4 Plannnp and Bull"SfrvI' papINUTIS .San Banrdino GlY HOL=0 Nash W Suave.San Bfrrurdaro.Cddonia mmus Ofdaions of the Plenrrinq Commsaion NO fMad oaraornaap txwldrap tea,can, . daiond Use PwrmtL 196viww at P*m Twom a Tray Maps and Vaianew unless aPPatlad b tars Mayor and Coned.Appalls to ttaa Maya and CMNNW fto be rr\de in wr"%W"the Onanda ft ttrw appeaL and nsal be auantlse b ft cry Gwk aWV with the apwgw4 s tow wahin trlewn days at Wa damion(alit days for Parotl Maps and Tanta"Tract Maps).. Iar rhatgw.Gaawal Plan Anwadrnwasand Anwdnwr to the Muniapd Coda y r was aumn0caly be tamer to the Maya and Cooney to find aalrt M You cftdlrge the reaurant acton of du Pwnmv conwromm M mart,you may \ be lnrtad b siting"thaw issues you a aorrawr flee raiaad al the publie harm" deacribed n the naim,arinwrawr bdaeC4yPIa1r1ag0ivsbn • at.a prior w nave pubic faaariap lOdEridYiLSaanmo11 en MWA hrrw wet h-swirls.iq OOtiOa an as sw �i.ruoD �"nw wwrwa�s PI PAGE t OF 1 (4-111% i QPZ _ T r O r Q ; C C r C C G r rr L r'. C, � ° r' r r _ _ C C Lr C-1 0- 0 000 perties Inc Tr Cc affioway Z > <= MO 64155 L- > > (r cc > > C. C 1z C C f32,251 33 L C 7 C lino CO Flood C C on File _C _= C C L 3 Lr L C C: Lr C .� 2 T - — - f— V, Ir C C. C (,- -- T- z C; C. C- L INC, N P-- Lr C C 1z r C•• 1 11 0 C f- r'. V. Geography LN 01 C_- Parkway 01 , CA 92407 C a: > > Ic > 1-1607 Ic <: 4C r z T c.- E C C I-- f C fr T C C m- f-- r -6-� - C C C vm �ino County C --.,c %- Or L District C I- C L Ir. C C > �- L fr .- m Lr. r- or c-.: a > t. 2ncl Floor on file) c Ir C z a: U7 L-- C-, f 4-; L, Iz. C C C \C, > cr C L, C, C a- E C -251-650000 C C- tr I,-.- "r -C C: T. C: 0, on C. lanning Stre,,et, Suite 260 kway CA 92626 92407 C-1 01 . OPR 21 4 > c C >C > r C Ix. C > it C. C C L: a: C q:a C C C C C C C C. C C T. C C- Z C: C. _0 c7v -i�b) 1 RESOLUTION NO. 2 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDI:NO CERTIFYING THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT; AND ADOPTING FINDINGS, STATEMENTS OF 3 OVERRIDING CONSIDERATION AND MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM; ADOPTING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 90-06 TO AMEND THE GENERAL PLAN 4 LAND USE PLAN MAP AND TEXT AND CIRCULATION PLAN MAP. 5 SECTION I. Recitals 6 (a) WHEREAS, the Mayor and Common Council adopted the General 7 Plan for the City of San Bernardino by Resolution No. 89-159 on 8 June 2, 1989 ; and 9 (b) WHEREAS, on May 24, 1990, the Environmental Review 10 Committee determined that General Plan Amendment No. 90-06, a 11 Proposal to amend the General Plan Land Use Map and to amend the 12 General Plan Circulation Plan Map could have a significant effect 13 on the environment and thus warranted the ;preparation of an 14 Environmental Impact Report pursuant to the California 15 Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) ; and 16 (c) WHEREAS, the intent of the City to prepare a Draft 17 Environmental Impact Report was made known to the public, 18 responsible agencies and other interested persons for their 19 concerns and comments from September 19, 1991 to October 18, 1991, 20 as required by CEQA; and 21 (d) WHEREAS, the City held a public scoping meeting on 22 September 30, 1991 to solicit public comment on the preparation of 23 the Draft EIR; and 24 (e) WHEREAS, a Draft Environmental Impact Report was prepared 25 to address General Plan Amendment No. 90-06 and other alternatives' 26 impacts in compliance with CEQA and local regulations; and 27 (f) WHEREAS, the Draft EIR was made available to the public, 28 1 1 responsible agencies and other interested persons for their review 2 and comment from March 30, 1992 to May 15, 1992 , as required by 3 CEQA; and 4 (g) WHEREAS, the Draft EIR identified a preferred alternative 5 to the applicant's proposal which would also result in a text 6 amendment to the General Plan to create CG-5, Commercial General - 7 Verdemont Area, a new commercial general land use designation 8 having a reduced floor area ratio (FAR) of 0.25; and 9 (h) WHEREAS, the implementation of the new CG-5, Commercial 10 General - Verdemont Area land use designation would result in a 11 text amendment to the Development Code, Development Code Amendment 12 No. 92-01 was added to the project (General Plain Amendment No. 90- 13 06) and evaluated in the Draft EIR; and 14 (i) WHEREAS, verbal and written comments were received on the 15 Draft EIR; and 16 (j ) WHEREAS, these comments were responded to both orally and 17 in writing as required by CEQA; and 18 (k) WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted a noticed 19 public hearing on December 15, 1992 in order to receive public 20 testimony and written and oral comments on General Plan Amendment 21 No. 90-06 and Development Code Amendment No. 92-01; and 22 (1) WHEREAS, the Planning and Building Services Department 23 Staff Report dated December 15, 1992, which summarizes the 24 potential effects of the applicant's proposal (CG-1, Commercial 25 General) and the preferred alternative (CG-5, Commercial General - 26 Verdemont Area) , the Circulation Plan Map Amendment and the 27 Development Code Amendments identified in the Draft EIR and the 28 2 I FEIR and summarizes the General Plan Amendments, and Development 2 Code Amendments was reviewed by the Planning Commission; and 3 (m) WHEREAS, the proposed Mitigation Monitoring Program was 4 reviewed by the Planning Commission in compliance with CEQA; and 5 (n) WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, after receiving public 6 testimony, recommended certification of the Environmental Impact 7 Report, adoption of the Findings and Statements of Overriding 8 Consideration, adoption of the Mitigation Monitoring Program, 9 approval of the preferred alternative (CG-5, Commercial General - 10 Verdemont Area) for General Plan Amendment No. 90-06, the 11 Circulation Plan Map amendment for General Plan Amendment No. 90-06 12 and approval of Development Code Amendment No. 92-01; and 13 (o) WHEREAS, the Mayor and Common Council conducted a noticed 14 Public hearing on March 8, 1993 and fully reviewed and considered 15 the Draft EIR, Final EIR, Mitigation Monitoring Program, Findings 16 and Statements of Overriding Consideration, the Planning Division 17 staff reports and the recommendations of the Planning Commission. 18 SECTION II. Environmental Impact Report 19 NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, FOUND AND DETERMINED THAT THE 20 MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL HEREBY CERTIFY: 21 A. The Environmental Impact Report (EIR) , for General Plan 22 Amendment No. 90-06 (CG-5, Commercial General - Verdemont Area 23 and the Circulation Plan Amendment) and, Development Code 24 Amendment No. 92-01, has been completed in compliance with the 25 California Environmental Quality Act. The EIR and all the 26 evidence and information contained therein is attached hereto 27 as Exhibit 1-A [Draft EIR] and Exhibit 1-B [Final EIR] and 28 3 1 incorporated herein by reference; 2 B. The EIR was presented to the Mayor and Common Council who have 3 reviewed and considered the information in the EIR prior to 4 adopting General Plan Amendment No. 90-0E5 (CG-5, Commercial 5 General - Verdemont Area and the Circulation Plan Amendment) 6 and Development Code Amendment No. 92-01; 7 C. The Final EIR has identified all significant environmental 8 effects of General Plan Amendment No. 90-06 (CG-5, Commercial 9 General - Verdemont Area and the Circulation Plan Amendment) 10 and Development Code Amendment No. 92-01 and there are no 11 known potentially significant environmental effects not 12 addressed in the Final EIR; 13 D. Although the Final EIR identifies certain significant 14 environmental effects that would result if General Plan 15 Amendment No. 90-06 (CG-5, Commercial General - Verdemont Area 16 and the Circulation Plan Amendment) and Development Code 17 Amendment No. 92-01 are adopted, all significant effects that 18 can feasibly be avoided or mitigated will be avoided or 19 mitigated by the implementation of the mitigation measures as 20 set forth in the Mitigation Monitoring Program for the Final 21 EIR. The Mitigation Monitoring Program and all information 22 contained therein is attached hereto as Attachment C of 23 Exhibit 1-B [Final EIR] and incorporated herein by reference; 24 E. Potential mitigation measures and other project alternatives 25 not incorporated into or adopted as part of General Plan 26 Amendment (CG-5, Commercial General - Verdemont Area and the 27 Circulation Plan Amendment) and Development: Code Amendment No. 28 4 1 92-01 were rejected as infeasible, based on specific economic, 2 social or other considerations as set forth in the Statements 3 of Overriding Consideration. The Statements of Overriding 4 Consideration and all the evidence and information contained 5 therein is attached hereto as Exhibit 2 and incorporated 6 herein by reference; 7 F. The Mayor and Common Council have given great weight to the 8 significant unavoidable adverse environmental impacts. The 9 Mayor and Common Council find that the significant unavoidable 10 adverse impacts are clearly outweighed by the economic, social 11 and other benefits of General Plan Amendment No. 90-06 (CG-5, 12 Commercial General - Verdemont Area and the Circulation Plan 13 Amendment) and Development Code Amendment No. 92-01, as set 14 forth in the Statements of Overriding Consideration; 15 G. The findings contained in the Statements of Overriding 16 Consideration with respect to the significant impacts 17 identified in the Final EIR are true and correct, and are 18 based upon substantial evidence in the record, including 19 documents comprising the Final EIR. The Statements of 20 Overriding Consideration are attached hereto as Exhibit B and 21 incorporated herein by reference. 22 H. The Final Environmental Impact Report, Mitigation Monitoring 23 Program, and the Findings and Statements of Overriding 24 Consideration reflect the independent review and analysis and 25 the independent judgement of the City of San Bernardino. 26 SECTION III. Findings 27 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL OF THE 28 5 1 CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO THAT: 2 A. Amendments to the Land Use Plan map and text: 3 1. General Plan Amendment No. 90-06 and Development Code 4 Amendment No. 92-01, are consistent with the General 5 Plan, in that the new CG-5, Commercial General - 6 Verdemont Area land use designation would permit the 7 development of lower intensity commercial uses that would 8 be compatible with the surrounding, low intensity 9 residential uses. 10 2. The map amendment will affect the balance of land uses 11 within the City in that the Environmental Impact Report 12 identifies the loss of future housing units as a 13 potentially significant adverse impact on a regional 14 scale. This impact is addressed in the Statements of 15 Overriding Consideration which were prepared pursuant to 16 CEQA. 17 3 . Except for the potentially significant adverse impact to 18 housing, all the elements of the map and text amendment 19 would not be detrimental to the public interest, health, 20 safety, convenience, or welfare of the City. 21 4. All elements of the General Plan Amendment and the 22 Development Code Amendment will ensure development of 23 desirable character which will be compatible with 24 existing and proposed development in the surrounding area 25 in that future commercial development on the site will be 26 subject to all applicable standards and requirements of 27 the City's Development Code. 28 6 1 5. The General Plan Amendment site, which includes 36.8 2 acres, is physically suitable for the requested land use 3 designation and the anticipated development as analyzed 4 in the Environmental Impact Report, which determined the 5 development desirable and appropriate for the site, all 6 public services and infrastructure are available to the 7 project site and any development permissible under the 8 CG-5, Commercial General - Verdemont Area would not 9 impact on these facilities. 10 6. The General Plan Amendment and Development Code Amendment 11 will ensure that development of retail and commercial 12 service uses on the site will be of a size, scale, 13 density/intensity and character that will be compatible 14 with existing and proposed development in that the 15 General Plan goals, objectives and policies established 16 for the CG-5, Commercial General - Verdemont Area land 17 use designation are intended to encourage high quality 18 development of a nature consistent with surrounding 19 developments in the Verdemont Area. 20 B. Amendment to the Circulation Plan map: 21 1. The amendment to realign Little League Drive on the 22 Circulation Plan will not affect the balance of land uses 23 within the City. 24 2. The realignment of Little League Drive will enhance the 25 level of public services available to the surrounding 26 area in that it will provide a more direct route into and 27 through the area. 28 //// 1 3 . The realignment of Little League Drive will change the 2 Circulation Plan Map and does not conflict with General 3 Plan policies. 4 4 . The amendment to the Circulation Plan map will not be 5 detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, 6 convenience, or welfare of the City in that the new 7 alignment will enhance traffic safety in the area by 8 providing an improved alignment. 9 SECTION IV. Certification of the Environmental Impact Report 10 NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, FOUND AND DETERMINED by the 11 Mayor and Common Council that the Environmental Impact Report is 12 certified, the Statements of Overriding Consideration are adopted 13 and the Mitigation Monitoring Program is adopted. 14 SECTION V. Amendments 15 NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR. AND COMMON COUNCIL 16 OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO THAT: 17 A. The Land Use Element of the General Plan of the City of San 18 Bernardino is amended by adding text which consists of a goal, 19 objective and policies for the CG-5, Commercial General - 20 Verdemont Area land use designation. A copy of the text for 21 the CG-5, Commercial General - Verdemont Area land use 22 designation is attached hereto as Exhibit: 3 and incorporated 23 herein by reference. 24 B. The Land Use Plan of the General Plan of the City of San 25 Bernardino is amended by changing approximately 29.7 acres 26 from RU-1, Residential Urban and 7 . 1 acres from CG-1, 27 Commercial General to CG-5, Commercial General - Verdemont 28 8 1 Area. The location of this amendment is outlined on the map 2 entitled Exhibit 4 and is more specifically described in the 3 legal descriptions entitled Exhibits 5-A through 5-B, copies 4 of which are attached hereto and incorporated herein by 5 reference. 6 C. The General Plan Circulation Plan is amended as outlined on 7 the map entitled Exhibit 6, a copy of which is attached hereto 8 and incorporated herein by reference. 9 D. The text and map amendments described in Section V. , 10 Subsections A. through C. are designated as General Plan 11 Amendment No. 90-06 and shall take effect upon the effective 12 date of an accompanying ordinance adopting Development Code 13 Amendment No. 92-01 which implements General Plan Amendment 14 No. 90-06 (CG-5, Commercial General - Verdemont Area) . 15 SECTION VI. Text Change And May Notations 16 This resolution and the amendments affected by it shall be 17 inserted in an appropriate location in the Land Use Element of the 18 General Plan and noted on such appropriate General Plan maps which 19 have been previously adopted and approved by the Mayor and Common 20 Council and which are on file in the office of the City Clerk. 21 SECTION VII. Notice Of Determination 22 The Planning Division is hereby directed to file a Notice of 23 Determination with the County Clerk of the Country of San Bernardino 24 certifying the City's compliance with the California Environmental 25 Act in preparing and adopting the Environmental Impact Report and 26 Mitigation Monitoring/Reporting Program. 27 28 9 1 RESOLUTION . . .CERTIFYING THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT; AND ADOPTING FINDINGS, STATEMENTS OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATION AND 2 MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM; AND ADOPTING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 90-06. 3 I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing resolution was duly 4 adopted by the Mayor and Common Council of the City of San 5 Bernardino at a meeting therefore held on the 6 day of 1993 , by the following vote to 7 wit: 8 Council Members AYES NAYS ABSTAIN ABSENT 9 ESTRADA _ 10 REILLY _ 11 HERNANDEZ _ 12 MAUDSLEY _ 13 MINOR _ 14 POPE-LUDLAM _ 15 MILLER _ 16 17 City Clerk 18 The foregoing resolution is hereby approved this 19 day of 1993. 20 21 W.R. Holcomb, Mayor City of San Bernardino 22 Approved as to 23 form and legal content: 24 JAMES F. PENMAN City Attorney n 25 BY: 26 27 28 10 1 ORDINANCE NO. 2 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO AMENDING SECTIONS 19 . 06. 010 (2) AND 19 . 06. 030 (1) AND TABLE 06. 01. - COMMERCIAL AND 3 INDUSTRIAL DISTRICTS LIST OF PERMITTED USES, TABLE 06. 02 - COMMERCIAL ZONES DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS AND TABLE 06. 03 - COMMERCIAL 4 AND INDUSTRIAL DISTRICTS SPECIFIC STANDARDS OF THE SAN BERNARDINO MUNICIPAL CODE (TITLE 19 -THE DEVELOPMENT CODE') TO ESTABLISH THE 5 CG-5, COMMERCIAL GENERAL - VERDEMONT AREA LAND USE DESIGNATION/ZONE, PERMITTED USES AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS. s THE MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO DO 7 ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: 8 SECTION 1. Page II-61, Section 19. 06. 010 (2) , is amended as 9 follows: [See Exhibit 1, (Page II-61 of the Development Code) 10 attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. ] 11 a) Reletter Item H. CR-1, (COMMERCIAL REGIONAL-MALLS) 12 DISTRICT to Item I. ; 13 b) Add new Item H. 14 "H. CG-5 (COMMERCIAL GENERAL-VERDEMONT AREA) DISTRICT 15 This district is intended to provide for the 16 continued use, enhancement, and new development of 17 retail, commercial service uses and other related 18 commercial uses along I•-215 and major 19 transportation corridors and intersections within 20 the Verdemont Area to serve the needs of residents; 21 reinforcing existing commercial corridors and 22 centers, and establishing new locations as new 23 residential growth occurs. " ; 24 c) Reletter Item. I. CR-2 (COMMERCIAL REGIONAL-DOWNTOWN) 25 DISTRICT to Item. J. ; 26 SECTION 2 . Page II-62, Section 19 . 06.010 (2) , is amended as 27 follows: [See Exhibit 2 , (Page II-62 of the Development Code) 28 1 1 attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. ] 2 a) Reletter Item J. CR-3 (COMMERCIAL REGIONAL-TRI- 3 CITY/CLUB) DISTRICT to Item K. ; 4 b) Reletter Item K. CR-4 (COMMERCIAL REGIONAL-AUTO PLAZA) 5 DISTRICT to Item L. ; 6 c) Reletter Item L. CCS-1 (CENTRAL CITY SOUTH) DISTRICT to 7 Item M. ; 8 d) Reletter Item M. CCS-2 (CENTRAL CITY SOUTH) DISTRICT to 9 Item N. ; 10 e) Reletter Item N. CCS-3 (CENTRAL CITY SOUTH) DISTRICT to 11 Item 0. ; 12 f) Reletter Item O. CH (COMMERCIAL HEAVY) DISTRICT to Item 13 P" 14 SECTION 3 . Page II-63 , Section 19. 06. 010 (2) , is amended as 15 follows: [See Exhibit 3, (Page II-63 of the Development Code) 16 attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. ] 17 a) Reletter Item P. OIP (OFFICE INDUSTRIAL PARK) DISTRICT 18 to Item Q. 19 SECTION 4 . Pages II-64, II-65, II-66, II-67, II-68, II-69, 20 II-70, II-71, II-72 , II-73 , II-74, II-75 and II-76, Section 21 19.06.020, Table 06. 01 is amended as follows: [See Exhibits 4-A 22 through 4-M, (Pages II-64, II-65, II-66, II-67, II-68, II-69, II- 23 70, II-71, II-72 , II-73 , II-74 , II-75 and II-76 of the Development 24 Code) attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. ] 25 26 a) Retitle the "CG-1" column heading to read "CG-1 and CG- 511 . 27 SECTION 5. Page II-81, Section 19.06. 030 (1) , Table 06. 02 is 28 //// 2 I amended as follows: [See Exhibit 5, (Page 11-81 of the Development 2 Code) attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. ] 3 a) Retitle the "CG-1" column heading to read 11CG-1 and CG- 4 5 11 . 5 SECTION 6. PAGE II-83 , Section 19. 06. 030 (1) is amended as 6 follows: [See Exhibit 6, (Page II-83 of the Development Code) 7 attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. ] 8 a) Retitle the "SITE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS CG-1, (COMMERCIAL 9 GENERAL) DISTRICT" to read "SITE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS 10 CG-1, (COMMERCIAL GENERAL) DISTRICT AND CG-5, (COMMERCIAL 11 GENERAL-VERDEMONT AREA) DISTRICT" . 12 SECTION 7. PAGE II-90, Section 19. 060. 030 (2) , Table 06. 03 is 13 amended as follows: [See Exhibit 7, (Page II-90 of the Development 14 Code) attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. ] 15 a) Retitle the "CG-1" column heading to read 11CG-1 and CG- 16 511 . 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3 1 ORDINANCE. . .AMENDING SECTIONS 19. 06. 010 (2) ANI) 19 . 06. 030 (1) AND TABLE 06. 01 - COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL DISTRICTS LIST OF PERMITTED 2 USES, TABLE 06. 02 - COMMERCIAL ZONES DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS AND TABLE 06. 03 - COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL DISTRICTS SPECIFIC 3 STANDARDS OF THE SAN BERNARDINO MUNICIPAL CODE (TITLE 19 -THE DEVELOPMENT CODE) TO ESTABLISH THE CG-5, COMMERCIAL GENERAL - 4 VERDEMONT AREA LAND USE DESIGNATION/ZONE, PERMITTED USES AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS. 5 I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing ordinance was duly adopted 6 by the Mayor and Common Council of the City of San Bernardino at a 7 meeting, therefore, held on the day of 8 1993 , by the following vote! to wit: 9 Council Members: AYES NAYS ABSTAIN ABSENT 10 ESTRADA _ 11 REILLY _ 12 HERNANDEZ _ 13 MAUDSLEY _ 14 MINOR _ 15 POPE-LUDLAM _ 16 MILLER _ 17 18 City Clerk 19 The foregoing ordinance is hereby approved this day 20 of , 1993 . 21 W. R. Holcomb, Mayor 22 City of San Bernardino 23 Approved as to form and legal content: 24 JAMES F. PENMAN, 25 City Attorney 26 By: 27 28 4 CL_.AMHRC]AL DISTRICTS-19A6 F. CG-3 (COMMERCIAL GENERAL-UNIVHRSTTy VILLAGE) DISTRICT This district provides for the development of properties adjacent to California State University at San Bernardino along North Park Boulevard,Kendall Drive,and University Parkway for commercial and personal service uses to meet the needs of students, faculty,and visitors. G. CG-4 (COMMERCIAL GENERAL,-THEME CENTER[SD DISTRICT This district is intended to promote the upgrading and enhancement of Mount Vernon Avenue,between 4th and 9th Streets,by establishing an ethnic-the med specialty commercial center,including retail,restaurant, entertainment,gift shops and similar uses. Additionally,this district shall facilitate the reuse of the railroad depot and adjacent properties for retail/specialty commercial and similar uses. Permitted and conditionally permitted uses and development standards for the Mt Vernon Corridor (Paseo Las Placitas)are contained in Chapter 19.10,Special Purpose Dis- tricts,Section 19.10.030. MC 830 4-6-92 H. CG-5 (COMMERCIAL GENERAL-VERDEMONT AREA) DISTRICT This district is intended to provide for the continued use, enhancement, and new development of retail, commercial service uses and other related commercial uses along I-215 and major transportation corridors and intersections within the Verdemont Area to serve the needs of residents; reinforcing existing commercial corridors and centers, and establishing new, locations as new residential growth occurs. I. CR-1 (COMMERCIAL REGIONAL-MALLS) DISTRICT This district is intended to maintain and enhance Central City and Inland Center Malls and adjacent properties as the principal region-serving retail centers of the City. J. CR-2 (COMMERCIAL REGIONAL-DOWNTOWN) DISTRICT This district is intended to permit a diversity of regional-serving uses in the Downtown area including local, county, and state governmental/administrative, professional offices, cultural/historical and entertainment, convention facilities, hotels/motels, financial establishments, restaurants, supporting retail and services, educational institutions, public open spaces, and residential and senior citizen housing. Development of sites exclusively for residential uses shall have a minimum contiguous area of 1 gross acre, with a maximum density of 47 units per gross acre. Senior citizen and senior congregate care housing shall permit a maximum density of 130 units per gross acre, subject to the approval of a Conditional Use Permit. II-61 Exhibit 1 4/93 Cr,_ _MERCIAL DISTRICTS 19.06 K. CR-3 (COMMERCIAL REGIONAL-TRI CITY/CLUB) DISTRICT This district is intended to permit a diversity of regional-serving uses including corporate and professional offices, retail commercial, entertainment (theaters, nightclubs, etc. ) , financial establishments, restaurants (excluding drive-throughs in the Tri- City/Commercenter area only) , hotels/motels, warehouse/promotional retail, supporting_ retail and services, and similar uses. L. CR-4 (COMMERCIAL REGIONAL-AUTO PLAZA) DIS97RICT This district is intended to provide for the development of new and used automobile and truck sales and related retail and service uses in the Auto Plaza area. M. CCS-1 (CENTRAL CITY SOUTH) DISTRICT This district is intended to permit general retail type uses. Standards are contained in Chapter 19. 13 . N. CCS-2 (CENTRAL CITY SOUTH) DISTRICT This district is intended to permit service commercial uses. Standards are contained in Chapter 19.13 . O. CCS-3 (CENTRAL CITY SOUTH-FLOOD CONTROL CHANNEL) DISTRICT This district is intended to provide for the flood control channel. Standards are contained in Chapter 19. 13 . P. CH (COMMERCIAL HEAVY) DISTRICT This district is intended to accommodate automobile and truck sales and repair facilities, lumberyards, and related hardware sales, plant nurseries, light industrial manufacturing and storage facilities, and similar uses requiring extensive outdoor or indoor space for their sales, service, and/or storage, excluding neighborhood commercial uses. 11-62 Exhibit 2 4/93 M.-MERC.0 DISTRICTS-19.06 Q. OIP (OFFICE INDUSTRIAL PARIO DISTRICT This district is intended to establish the Waterman Avenue corridor and other appropriate areas as distinctive office industrial parks and corporate centers serving City and regional needs. Supporting retail/commercial services may be located in Corporate Office Industrial Park structures. 19.06.020 DEVELOPMENT PERMITTED AND CONDTTIONALLY PERMITTED USES: Table 06.01 represents those uses in the commercial/industrial land use districts which are subject to a Development Permit(D)or Conditional Use Permit(C.): The organization and numerical ordering of Table 06.01 is based on the Standard In- dustrial Classification System as defined in Section 19.02050 of this Development Code. II-63 Exhibit 3 4/93 CO_ AERCbkL DISTRICTS-19.06 „y N W = O U J Q 0 CL O U 0 U to [t V C? (.., U cn N Q W U wi oQ W N � za Ut U Q GJ� N 94 ,...7 v W U O Z z V y � t r m Z m v _E v E m L° 0 m co g m m mm m m C m ca Co cc 0 = C C t� �p 7 U r w m � L � C C t� O Cf V 7 O Rf 5 a � N cc E c Qf p)O < %- Co > CL Z Co X P- 0 CD 0 < a Q vi Q LL LL. C13 U O m C m c7i C� U-64 Exhibit 4-A 4/93 ONII11MCLkL DISTRICTS-19.06 CN T In U D CL O o U Q U N Q U T Q U IV C7 U N U r--i LO i b i. u c7 N U O 0 0 Z � U � a� r r T 0 � m H C 0 m C O � � C aC co t0 v d O m v y O V y .~.. m O a C m 0 7 C R! m 0 0 Ol O C ... O C O W - .0 .3 CD C •. `1 Y O O CIS O. a C � t0 CMc � c&Za mEDU EU � � E � omv, ECO JCL coa m .o c`caas '� cc C C > O C 0 0 O a O 0 x 0 0 O m ° a C O E � 4 m cd S ty U w ca tL m N N H- F- C. Q s � m er cci cc r: c N N N N U-65 Exhibit 4-B 4/93 COI. AMCI U DISTRICTS-19.06 uyCY p p p p U p CU�II r p , W o U = o 0 0 o U U o U o 0 coo J o U U o U a O o Q U U o N U r U U p M U N U Ln C7 � CJ p U ra U N U O U U c ss ", m a C c '0 N a C cd N c a a x L V ca cm c C t � C v c4 V C C N O > G. +� ... '� p dl 02 - t0 X c w � � E c ON = c m m�c� wo y o m � m cc �C Eo Imo `� � c °m m cXC �; ° � ~ E � m Co m mm U _� � > > a co c H m :y m eyo tiUu � � c m c E = o cm °gym m m .. Eor_ � a co Sri m � a � � V � � � c0m •- q J d LL .. C L x m C y O m •C w O x N N n a a w N U a m a cc Q E c7 J a cII to U m cr) e') cry N N N N � N N N M O II-" Exhibit 4-C 4/93 JNSURCIAL DISTRICTS-19.06 ca N T O O w _ d = U U U O U U p O 0 p U O O O O CL _ U O O O O O v cr U O 2 O O U N cr O O T r O O U � O O C7 V O O U Mu O O N ci ... C Z m U a 75 Q c m m v bi y E .r _m L G. p m m m v m ° � � Eo .. E d, E �am v c E m Q C C _a C V 3 W Qf m rte0 C c is o c m a ° � � � 'vi � E m wm m mr. r m C Q m — E o 5 E ai o £ c m Eo cc a � c � o cco � ci � mC m 00 aai .0 E -0a E E as g r. r ° c Cis r'n � mo m � 7a U � E' m o cog c � rte0 -`- 10,0 cc v = cow a � 0cm �° ca , � cc cc o 0 r m E m c E - r a U. = cc CV) cr) CV) cr) c) Cr) c°•) Li 11-67 Exhibit 4-D 4/93 CONUgMC ALISTRICTS-19.06 N U U o 0 0 0 U U o U o w U U U p p U = U U U U U o 0 o U p U U U U U o p p o IL_ O U U o 0 V U U U U U o U o p U U U o Q U U U O U o U N U U o U o V U U U o It U U U o U o M (Oj U U o U o N � v o U o Ln ur7 U U U o U O Urd U N U U U D 6 U U U o D U U U U o ao � c coo W � c°o m CL = N .r. N as m Z � •� o c cc E .a at t =, ; c aD to >% c o w m m m a C r 0 — N E -0 p dl N .r co � 8 p Co 0 m m C tm C O V m cc � r � Z i� m ¢� m m c ago, � � CD CD o = m — a o Q n c o� ai i� CD c 3 Sri m °' co0o C E � co _m C 'O N d1 Q C� W O N E V C O O C N C O ` ` n O m t � ... o � a E= � a � out 't U w V 3 Ln N L6 L to L II-68 Exhibit 4-E 4/93 :ONW,ERC AL DISTRICTS-19.06 p U U O p W U = U O U U U a O p p U U U U U U C) U N U p O U U O p p U p p U U O U U p p O � U U O U U U p p LO i b i U �U U D U U O U U U p p U as m o i a m = m m as m m ° CD CL m ao — N O m C m a w m m w as L 40 m co 0 w m > m -0 °f = o a m o c `y" 'ev c N E o` .0 00 = m t ed Q m m m '� O m '� " Y b c0 m a E -- m N m m c 'm w U m °—' E US °D 0 m E .0 oU m c' m m cm —� w a~ E� a i S o 7 m m 75 c to = c 3 c 0 m O O O O c) cr) �n C7 ui ca r: W) 11-69 Exhibit 4-F 4/93 CC WMC.AL DISTRICTS-19.06 N O O 000000000 0000 0 U 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 coca O 0 W J U a O 0 0 2 0 U U C[ O U V 0 b U O 000000000 0000 p O N U 0 0 0 000000000 0000 O 0 T ac 0 0 0 000000000 0000 O O Cb U O U U p , 000000000 0000 O 0 co V 0 0 0 0 000000000 0000 0 0 N U 0 U U O 000000000 O O O O O 0 USU 0 U U 0 000000000 0000 0 p N U 0 0 00 0000 0 O . T U 0 0 04 0000 0 p U 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Coco U U N j CC 40 C RJ = Y CL Go > m � O Cm m U _ O w O e"v o a m E co CL a O o o CC s _ O O � 030 m m O 1 C GO ce ac � m °> o OY m w 0 C W C 2 'Q g. °off E � g0 > .23 m a U ca = v, o cc 0 :3 mul = 0a31 U. I ZO C O C T Qf Q O a 0 C N N 6 V N4 , 1n �Gf1C6 C y O m _m TN � � IV It qt QC6 CNiMcrii00)i R! L= � .. O W 1CO m Q) QfQfMMMMMMO) 1Q1C1Q1 C �j y C .. L W) U) 'n `n 'n m � In Ln Wn �n Un LL 0 Z c c6 O '� an = C; r O co II-7D Exhibit 4-G 4/93 DMMUMCIAL DISTRICTS-19.06 N p •- p p p p p U p W a.2 J O p p p p p p U er U Up p p p p U p N Up p p p p UU U p Up p p p p p Up p p p p U p C? Up p p p p U p N ' C7 p p p p p UU U U U p Ln p p UM p p p U U p U p p p p p p U 0 p p v CD o� m �� Y C� 0 O o m 0 ,. ma o0 x O 10 j t 0 E are m C m = m O 0 0 m r O c�0 t o ce w m = 0 0t EQ � ^ o° 0) m a !! CD cmi cm 0 0 S .6 E � � � � c Z C m m [tl m m M «, E 10 U m p�O m caa m m CJ c"a c o c m c cQo c o 20 m co CL � mN � c`oN m cE Q -9 vs m C N N c m O p $ N !"7 i cn O C c 0 = C = V O ^ O O O O a CQ cD ccliD coo cui0 c^O cV 11-71 Exhibit 4-H 4/93 CU.&AMC ALL DISTRICTS-19.06 N 0 O O Coco p U D w O = U OU Jp U U p U U ODUUUU a O O O O O UO O U U O U U ODUUUU U O 0 U O UUU U00 p 0 CM UO O O O O O U O O O U O O U O U 00 O O O N U 000 p O O Up U O U 0 � bLn UfoU OOU O O O U0 U O U 0 U O O 0 O O O O O z U 00 r � m o cm c o _ �m c mm a 0) CD co E .°°. v N m m "� x = m tQ N N O a .�. m m co m O p ca C m a) f� ttf m p CD (A � M 0 w 0 r � L � tII p C t`7 Cgs C> ` C E a V 49 w C p p m p . C p C �` >' t4 C L U w r y 0 ca m a) a) Q) N :.. mw � Z US EELE m cca CMCmCCc0a) t0m � o cELO cUm m co > ga ; �, ,Y mm cp� � a � � � t0 N 2' j co m C m p Q N ; C N 'fl to C Y p 3 cC y o,f� � Oti m2 g IU CD CO o .` PCL ca ma EQQUQ m NC 0 CD r r CO N tNA � 0 p a t7 '� t7� r � N !V 0) N NNN p NNM MV V 6 II-72 Exhibit 4-I 4/93 -OMMMC AL DISTRICTS-19.06 N O O O UO 0000000 O O U W S p U J p p U O O O U Q U U O O UO UOODUOU O p U N U O Q UOODUOU O U U O U r U O UO UOOU OU p C3 Up UO OU O U CJ Up pp OU O U N C7 0 O UO UOODUOU O U U O U � LO 0 0 1 O O UO UOODUOC.) O U O U N ' O U U U O U O U O U O U U O U U O D p m cc CD v c C O C :L.t 0 C C H r t 3 m 013 CL 00 0 �C � � 0 V cm d1 � _� " CO V ca -0 C 'm 'a r C a to 0 U ` m 0 C m = C E C ° m :ti O 0 .0 ca Q1 co ea � � o. � > 0 � GOF- mU � � N Z ce°i2Q � m m o °' c m m _ ai � o N vs v Q Q Q N r cr)CO W rn � cc C6 � i. Q y P- S m 00 Go m -j cm W � co cc co co II-73 Exhibit 4-J 4/93 CO. AERCUL DIST'R.ICTS-19.06 vyN U O O O O W S U J U U p p Op pU p p p O = 0 O p U Q O U co Up p O p O O O O N Up U pU O O O O D O p cb Q O p O U U p O O p O O N U p OU O p O O O Ln 'r. 0 p a O O O O O U rt3 U 6a UU C G G O p p U p UU O C O p p p U U U m a4 m m o -= m c N c m m E c — :° � m c mom- E m m �° Z r. E •- d) m 0 to O m Q N � CO Cc w -0 O D Z E m E U 1p c0 cm - Q i m N W mOU :ti E I a L � ¢ .r02 � � � � > mac am o o — c N m M 0 C _ cc 2 V i a V m C � cr) M C mU Fwd m � V ca CD co coco c0 ni � � co W m c W ca m ' 5 Q N Cgs ^ Q1 r CD cc Go co —3 CD II-74 Exhibit 4-K 4/93 .OMMERQAL DISTRICTS-19.06 a ° •- p ° ° ° ° p p a p W ° ° a o in a o J ° p a ° 0 ° p p p p a p U ° U p a p U ° a ° IL N U ° ° ° ° ° ° ° a ° U V- & ° ° a ° a ° a ° a ° N a ° U ca U a c m c E CF � o E c o m m CD o o m E m c � 3 • c — w E a .� c° m ° ° c m 0 a o o Q o o c � m �, `° �, ° a cg Ica m c cc w m o N ° � a a c " m � 2 m E � ca c� a c � m my � � mo c > om Q m '� ,am = o Co ` = o � E � �. Q Qaa Um W a E C C _� Z C = C N C M C N > -0 E ° = m O a p p W LL vi co am Qm Qmcc Qm Z � o 0 0 0° °o o° r r r r r r ui Cb ]C II-75 Exhibit -L 4/93 'OMN=CIAL DISTRICIS-19.06 �N a � IL 'L a a F. IL E- a a v IL IL N p U a T IL IL v a N O b U a ,--� Ln C7 1 7 a H c N 0 UU U a p D T .r O U a ° U ~ O O Z _a t- O N ca C pO � C ° V CD m 7 cr tI1 m mm � ~ m C O QT Q N m � •�.. t mU co cm a o, � -- >. N m ^ ' O « U �, � �� cc0 w.�°� E a ° o ° U- O ` m z N _m m - a�a mm 00 cx � � � U EZm coo man O Y T T T T T Z H II-76 Exhibit 4-M 4/93 QQ-AQMCIALISTRI(•'T'C N O O O O O v O - 1� U to g N 1A N _a O O N O O p O r 1A V O p O ° ° ^ to vi v m CD N O L O N O c C O O p p b .:. N ° U O �- 10 r � N Q O Cl O O O O H U p `c O m r "- Uo o O o O A E w ° CD 40 cm wQ 0 cri = 24) oz m = ° sm Q E Cl � r o a; o o o p O N c m - C) O O 0 O O O N C; C W �I F" IA O N maZ pro .' O W _ � � QW r C7 � C7 C o o ° gs CD, r m .s2 •- E„ iG U M U N Q ea m L a .Q �r QI cc rGW �q E2 EE C a O N C C N E E m g V ' h CL E ° c �- �4D" E cc m Cl) CD Q c � ° Cg Q m m CC cc Z n 5 N ¢ E � 5 W Z � 00 Z z c c t L W h m co H a -cc W P E � � = cc 4D E W co E m E L- w E TL Zi m IE To W l0 W 11 W W W 0 3 ^Cj ^ ^ o co �n � = II�81 Exhibit 5 4/93 C0h04ERaAL DISTRICTS_19.06 SITE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS CO-2 .(COMMERCIAL OFFICE-CONVERSION) DISTRICT MIN.LOT AREA: 10,000 SQUARE FEET MAX.LOT COVERAGE.-50% I I 10 MIN. REAR SETBACK `' 'f MAX HEIGHT 10'MIN. SIDE SETBACK W AI1N. fJKW YARD SMACK SITE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS CG-1, (COMMERCIAL GENERAL) DISTRICT AND CG-5, (COMMERCIAL GENERAL-VERDEMONT AREA) DISTRICT MIN.LOT AREA: 10 000 SQUARE FEET MAX LOT COVERAGE 50% 1 1 . X f 0 MIN MAX REAR SETBACK' HEIGHT 0'ARN SFDESEMACJr' 10'ARIL FROIIIT YARD SETBACK EXCEPT IFADJACVUTO A RMDEMIAL LAND USE DISTRICT, THE MINIMUM SIDE OR REAR SETBACK SHALL BE 10 FEET. II' Exhibit 6 4/93 C bg=CIALLSTRIM-19 06 N + + + + + + + + + W + + + + + J + + + + + + a p + + + + + _ + + + + + + + + + + U V + + + + + + + V V3 a & + + + + + + + + N ^ v + + + + + + + + + + + J 7 Qao + + + + + o � p + + + + + + + + + + CP3 Z6 + + + + + + + + + n'y N V + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Z LI + + + + + + + + + + + Qa u � �id U v + + + + + + + U + + + + + ± 0 Ov + + + + + + + + co = o, o m X m O C W = Q � O Q Qb co C C Co ca C' V w m Q mce, El mo = 0m _ v O N O O .� O` O «. N1 G) m V �i O C� C t C = N ` N O m QC m m =Oo '+ LLO. ¢ a. v� ?. a. Cs E y C ca F. m C O D C C U C E N o E ¢ — m E —f� m o� o o mo s- CY t m m t = o o > > U ` g U I.. OD C ?+ m O _ D ° O C 900 1000 W IL QID d uiu: Cf = _ � Y _i � ZOb Q ¢ co -9 II�90 Exhibit 7 4/93 FINDINGS AND STATEMENT OF tERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS REGARDING ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF THE GENERAL PLAN AMENDIIIENT NO. 90-06 AND DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT NO. 92-01 The City Council of the City of San Bernardino, in approving the General Plan Amendment No. 90-06 and Development Code Amendment No. 92-01, makes the findings and adopts the statement of overriding considerations herein set forth. The Environmental Impact Report on the project identifies possible signifi- cant adverse environmental impacts of the project in a number of areas. Mitigation measures have been developed and imposed which mitigate impacts in most areas. Imposition of mitigation measures will mitigate impacts in most areas to a level of insignificance. These impacts and mitigation measures, the rationale for their effectiveness, and the reasons why other mitigation is not necessary or feasible, are described in Section A. Three areas of impacts are mitigated to some extent after the imposition of mitigation measures, but not to a level of insignificance. These impacts and mitigation measures, the rationale for their effectiveness, and the reasons why other mitigation is not necessary or feasible, are described in Section B. The project offers benefits which have been balanced against its unmitigable environmental effecu. These are described in Section C. The Environmental Impact Report analyzes a range of alternatives to the project The New General Plan and Zoning Designation Alternative has bear chosen in favor of the proposed project, as described in Section D. Finally, conclusions are given in Section E. SECTION A. IMPACTS MITIGATED TO A LEVEL OF INSIGNIFIC_A The City Council finds that, in the following areas, the projects environnm a:. tal impacts are significant; but are mitigated to a level of insigni&ance by changes which have been required in, of incorporated into, the project to avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effor-Ls. 1. Geology Potential Impam The project site may contain a questionable fault, as identified by the City of San Bernardino General Plan. Implementation of the mitigation measure wilt protect the project site from geotechnical hazards and reduce impacts to below a level of significance. 1 Exhibit 2 Findings Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the Final EIR. Facts in Support of Findings The project's potential geological impacts have been eliminated or substan- tially lessened to a level of less than significant by virtue of the mitigation measure identified in the Final EIR The mitigation measure is as follows: 3.1.1 Upon submittal of any applications for development of the site, the project applicant shall submit a geotechnical investigation for use in the environmental review of the project. The geotechnical investigation shall be reviewed by the City's Consulting Geologist to determine its adequacy and be accepted by the City Engineer. The investigation shall be conducted by a certified engineering geologist to determine the potential surficial changes associated with fault presence and shall consist of 1) a review of aerial pho- tography, 2) a site walkover, and 3) an evaluation of well water depth in the site vicinity to determine the potential for fault intercept. Should the fault's presence be detected on the project site, the geotechnical engineer shall recommend modifications to the proposed building designs as required to provide adequate protection from a potential went associated with the fault. 2. Hydrol Fotentw Intp�acts Portions of the project site are within the 100-year floodplain, and project development will increase site run off and decrease site percolation rates. Implementation of the mitigation measure will control storm water and eliminate the 100-year flood zone from the project site. This is required to protect the proposed site uses and improvements from flooding hazards and to comply with the City of San Bernardino standards for commercial develop- ment. Consequently, impacts associated with flood hazards on the project site will be reduced to below a level significance. Development of the site will also create a source of new urban pollutants from motorized vehicles (oil, antifreeze), and fertilizers, herbicides and pesti- cides. These urban pollutants may incrementally contribute to the decline in local surface water quality, or ultimately in groundwater supplies. Similarly, during grading, sedimentation and siltation will be generated also having a cumulative effect on water quality. Findings Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the Final EIR 2 Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency. Facts in Support of Findings The project's potential hydrological impacts have been eliminated or substan- tially lessened to a level of less than significant by virtue of the mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR. The mitigation measures are as follows: 3.2.1 Prior to final map approval, the project applicant shall meet with the City Engineer for purposes of selecting a flood control improvement program for the project site. The flood control program shall consist of the following options: • Erect a scour wall along the north boundary of the project area from Magnolia Avenue to Chestnut Avenue. • Modify Cable Creek Channel by providing a rectangular concrete channel 60 feet wide and 10 feet deep, or a trapezoidal rock-lined channel 50 feet wide and 14 feet deep, with 2:1 side slopes. • Elevate the project site so that Magnolia Avenue can act as a flood_ intercept, diverting water into Cable Creek Channel. Use of Magnolia Avenue to divert run-off to Cable Creek Channel would require inclu- sion of appropriate drainage structures in the roadway design to minimize impacts on adjacent properties. ITC-1 The applicant and/or technical engineering representative shall coordi- nate proposed project flood control improvements with the County Trans- portation/Flood Control Department to determine their compatibility with planned County flood control improvements. Included in those discussions shall be how the project will conform to the latest Federal Insurance Administration flood insurance requirements, including but not limited to, elevation, compaction, and erosion protection of building pads and flood proofing utilities. TFC-5 The applicant shall meet with the County Transportation/Flood Con- trol Department to determine the project's fair share cost for downstream flood control improvements. The formula for determining fair share shall be based on the project's percentage share of additional runoff to the projected flood volumes for Cable Creek. WQCB-1 The applicant and /or engineering representative shall coordinate with the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Santa Ana Region, to determine the potential water quality certification requirements under Section 401 of the Clean Water Act. WQCB-2 The applicant and/or engineering representative shall coordinate with the Regional Water Quality Control Board to determine the applicability of an NPDES or WDR permit for the proposed project. 3 WQCB-3 The applicant and/or engineering representative shall coordinate with the Regional Water Quality Control Board to determine the NPBES requirements that are expected to become effective on October 1, 1992. Compliance with the stormwater regulations may include, but not limited to, development of a comprehensive, long term, post construction stormwater management plan, which incorporates structural and non-structural best management practices (BMPs). 3. BioloQv Potential Impacts There is a low potential for the slender-horned spineflower (a State and fed- erally listed endangered species) to exist on the project site. The project will result in a loss of plant communities and associated wildlife and wildlife habitat. No mitigation is required for the majority of the biological resources con- tained or potentially contained on site, except for the slender-horned spineflower. With implementation of the measure for the spineflower, in- cluding the assumption that the spineflower is discovered on site and a Section 10a permit and applicable plans and monitoring procedures are implemented, there will be no impacts to biological resources that cannot be mitigated to below a level of significance. Findings Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the Final EIR. Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency. Facts in Support of Findings The project's potential biological impacts have been eliminated or substan- tially lessened to a level of less than significant by virtue of the mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR. The mitigation measures are as follows: 3.3.1 Prior to any subsequent project approvals, a minimum of two spring- time surveys of the project site (i.e., 29.7 acre parcel) and adjacent parcel (i.e., 7.1 acre parcel), if included in a combined development plan, shall be conducted by a qualified botanist to determine the potential presence of the slender-horned spineflower. 4 If the springtime surveys locate this species, subsequent mitigation (also required prior to tentative parcel or tract map approval) would require the following processes: • Redesign of the project to avoid the habitat area containing the spineflower, and permanent protection of the population provided through fencing or some other type of barrier to prevent entry into the habitat. • If redesign of the project is not feasible, then application for a Sec- tion 10(a) permit must occur and a mitigation plan must be prepared for approval by the USFWS. The plan must demonstrate that no other alternative is feasible and that taking of this species is unavoidable. The mitigation plan should address the following alternatives: Purchase of suitable habitat containing known populations of the spineflower in an adequate replacement ratio. Preferably, the habitat area purchased will be as close to the Verdemont ' site as is feasible. This area would then be placed in perma- nent protection by the use of one or more mechanisms, including designation of a conservation easement, donation to a wildlife protection agency or other public entity that can provide permanent protection, or donation to a private entity - (such as The Nature Conservancy) that will provide permanent _ protection of the population. joint effort with another private entity or a public agency to develop a mitigation plan and/or purchase habitat elsewhere for permanent protection. Development of a mitigation/transplantation program that will include the following elements: Spineflower populations shall be located and staked by a qualified botanist prior to clearing and grubbing of the site. The clearing and grubbing operation will be monitored to ensure that these populations will be protected. Construction roads should be wetted by operators using the roads at regular frequencies to minimize the blowing of dust onto populations of the spineflower. This will minimize fugitive dust blowing onto these populations and help maintain a stable road surface. All temporary and permanent roads should be bermed at final grade to minimize runoff of water, mud and other substances onto adjacent populations of the spineflower. The height of the berm should be a mini- mum of eight inches. 5 Adoption and implementation by the project propo- nent of a revegetation plan and study. The revegeta- tion plan shall be implemented concurrent with imple- mentation of the development plan. An appropriate site or sites will be selected by a quali. fied botanist for reseeding of the spineflower, prefera- bly close to existing populations in the project area. Selection of the sites shall occur concurrent with the adoption of a preferred route. Habitat shall be replaced at a ratio acceptable to the USFWS. The revegetation plan shall be monitored in accor- dance with a monitoring plan developed in coordina- tion with the USFWS. In addition, the plan will include maintenance and monitoring goals established by a qualified botanist. These goals will include but not be limited to: Protection of the mitigation sites from access by fencing or other protective barriers. Removal by project proponent or designee of invasive weeds Such as Avena barbata and others that may prevent successful seeding establishment. Regular monitoring by a qualified botanist through annual checks on the seeding effort. Development of appropriate performance stan- dards in coordination with the USFWS. In the event the initial revegetation effort fails, the revegeta- tion by seeding and outplanting would be continued until suc- cessful establishment occurs. The monitoring period will be extended from the date of the new seeding until the perfor- mance standards are met. 4. Land Use Potential Impacts The proposed project will require a General Plan Amendment and zone change from Urban Residential (RU-1) to Commercial General (CG-1). Project implementation will have a significant adverse effect on surrounding land use intensity. The proposed land use concept will ultimately change the character of the existing undeveloped site into an urban commercial center. 6 There are,.,)adverse project effects on land use compatibility; and mitigation is, therefore, unnecessary. Wth the implementation of the Mitigation Mea- sure 3.4.1 to restrict land use development intensity and land use type, the land use impacts will be mitigated to below a level of significance. This finding is consistent with implementation of the applicant's concept plan, as well as with implementation of the New General Plan Designation and Zon- ing District Alternative. Findings Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the Final EIR. Facts in Support of Findings The project's potential land use impacts have been eliminated or substantially lessened to a level of less than significant by virtue of the mitigation mea- sures identified in the Final EIR These mitigation measures are as follows: 3.4.1 A new General Plan and Zoning designation be established that imposes a 0.25 FAR for the commercial designation. The new designations shall be established as a General Plan Amendment and Zone Change action, with corresponding map and text adjustments to these planning programs- The type and character of uses contained within the new designations shall be equivalent to the objectives for the Commercial General (CG-1) existing designation. CT-2 The applicant, in conjunction with the Public Works Department shall meet with Caltrans District 8 personnel to determine the setback constraints associated with the proposed site plans. 5. Man-Made Hazards Potential Impacts Future tenants of the proposed project may store and/or utilize hazardous materials, as permitted by the City's Development Code. Implementation of the mitigation measures or Development Code provisions will ensure that the use, generation or storage of hazardous materials or man-made hazards in association with the commercial uses of the proposed GPA will be mitigat- ed to a level below significance. Findings Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the Final EM 7 Facts in Support of Findings The project's potential man-made hazards impacts have been eliminated or substantially lessened to a level of less than significant by virtue of the mitiga- tion measures identified in the Final EIR These mitigation measures are as follows: 3.5.1 A Conditional Use Permit shall be required for any new commercial, industrial, or institutional or accessory use, or major addition to an existing use, that involves the manufacture, storage, handling or processing of hazard- ous materials in sufficient quantities that would require permits as hazardous chemicals under the Uniform Fire Code, with the following exceptions: • Underground storage of bulk flammable and combustible liquids; and • Hazardous materials in container sizes of ten gallons or less that are stored or maintained for the purposes of retail or wholesale sales. 3.5.2 All businesses required by Chapter 6.95 of the California Health and , Safety Code to prepare hazardous materials release response plans shall submit copies of these plans, including revisions to the Planning Division at the same time these plans are submitted to the administrating agency which is responsible for administering these provisions. 3.5.3 Underground storage of hazardous materials shall comply with alI applicable requirements of Chapter 6.7 of the California Health and Safety Code, and Article 79 of the Uniform Fire Code. 3.5.4 Above-ground storage tanks for any flammable liquids shall meet aH standards of the City Fire Department. 3.5.5 No use may operate that utilizes toxic substances or produces toadc waste without the approval of a Conditional Use Permit pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 19.36 (Conditional Use Permits). As a condition of approval for a Conditional Use Permit, the operator must prepare a toudc substance and waste management plan which will provide for the safe use and disposal of these substances. 6. Population Housi a Potential Impacts The proposed land use change would result in an improvement in the sub- region's job/housing balance due to addition of jobs in a sub-region that is housing rich. Findings The proposed General Plan Amendment from Urban Residential uses to Commercial General results in a reduction in the local population forecasts (due to fewer residences) and an increase in employment (due to the cre- ation of long-term jobs). This change will assist in balancing the sub-regional 8 jobs/hous...g ratio which is currently and forecast to be housing rich and job poor. Consequently, the proposed action will in and of itself result in a benefit to the sub-region. Facts in Support of Findings In the Final EIR, Table 3.6.D, Jobs/Housing Balance Impacts, the prop D ed project's impact to the subregional jobs/housing balance ratio is analyzed. The results reflect the proposed project's effect on applicable jobs/housing balances. As shown in this table, the proposed project has a beneficial impact on the sub-regional jobs/housing balance ratio. 7. Public Services/Utilities Potential Impacts The proposed project will incrementally increase the demand for public services and utilities in the project area. The project will incrementally increase demand on school facilities and fire protection services, both of which are currently at unacceptable levels of service. With implementation of the mitigation measures, no significant unavoidable adverse impacts due to fire hazards, or demands for police protection, water, sewer, solid waste disposal, park facilities, gas and electricity and phone service will occur. Due to existing service deficiencies in the areas of public school and fire protection, fees collected on behalf of the proposed GPA, in concert with fees collected for future and reasonably foreseeable projects, will mitigate the cumulative impacts to these services. Findings Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the Final EIR Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency. Facts in Support of Findings The project's potential public services and utilities impacts have been elimi- nated or substantially lessened to a level of less than significant by virtue of the mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR. These mitigation mea- sures are as follows: 9 3.7.1 Project plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Police Departme- nt to determine the need for any additional crime prevention measures and to ensure the following measures have been incorporated into the final project design: • Adequate lighting shall be provided in all parking and walkway areas to provide for public safety. • Landscaping materials obscuring surveillance of the project site shall be minimized. 3.7.2 Project plans shall be reviewed by the City of San Bernardino Fire De- partment to ensure that the following measures are incorporated into the final project design: • The project shall comply with all applicable code and ordinance re- quirements for construction, access, water mains, fire flows and fire hydrants. • Fire flow regulations shall be in conformance with City of San Bernar- dino Fire Department requirements. 3.7.3 The project shall be reviewed by the City of San Bernardino Fire De- partment to determine the need for any additional fire prevention and fire protection personnel. If the Department determines such need exists, the applicant shall participate on a fair basis and pay fees (mitigation measure 4.2.3.2.4 of the General Plan EIR, March 24, 1989) that will apply to the con- struction of a new fire station and personnel in the Verdemont area, ulti- mately improving the level of fire protection service to the community. The applicant shall coordinate with the Planning and Building Services and Fire Departments to determine the fair share participation formulas. 3.7.4 Prior to issuance of building permits, developer fees of $0.26 per square foot shall be paid to the San Bernardino City Unified School District 3.7.5 If determined necessary by the School District, as a condition of the project Tentative Tract Map, the applicant may be requested to participate in the formation of, and contribute to a Mello-Roos District, should developer fees be inadequate to finance the cost of required school facilities. 3.7.6 The project applicant shall consult with the Southern California Gas Company to incorporate energy conservation measures into the project 3.7.7 The project applicant shall coordinate with the Southern California Edison Company for the relocation or removal of existing overhead uw*- mission lines within the project site. 3.7.8 The project applicant shall consult with the Southern California Edison Company to incorporate conservation measures into the project 3.7.9 The project applicant shall pay all applicable water connection fees. 10 3.7.10 The project applicant shall coordinate with the San Bernardino Mu- nicipal Water District for the installation of a new water main. 3.7.11 The project shall comply with all adopted City water conservation measures. 3.7.12 The project applicant shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Planning Director that landscaped areas will be drip-irrigated and planted with drought-tolerant vegetation to the extent feasible. 3.7.13 The project applicant shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Planning and Building Services Department that water conserving plumbing fixtures will be included in the project. 3.7.14 The project shall pay all applicable sewer connection fees. 3.7.15 The project applicant shall comply with all source reduction or recy- cling requirements as contained in the City's Source Reduction and Recycling Element. 3.7.16 The applicant shall be responsible (i.e., fiscally or as agreed by the City) for modifying the Al Guhin park master plan as required to compensate for adjustments in park design due to the realignment of Little League Drive. The applicant shall also be responsible for installing landscaping in the aban- doned Little League Drive right-of--way that is equal to or greater than the loss associated with the realignment. Such modifications and installation of landscape materials shall be reviewed and approved by the Parks, recreation and Community Services Department. 3.7.17 The applicant shall consult with the San Bernardino Parks, Recreation and Community Services Department to ensure that the western portion of the site plan is compatible with the ultimate park plans for Al Guhin Park. 3.8.1 The project applicant will incorporate landscaping and trees into the site plan (as set forth in Development Code, Section 19.28) to enhance the adjacent park aesthetics and assure compatibility with neighboring uses. 8. Aesthetic jzht and Glair Potential Impacts Project implementation will alter views of the site when compared to existing site conditions (Le, vacant). Since the City's existing General Plan designa- tion for the site, albeit a residential designation, is of an urban nature, pro- ject implementation would result in a similar developed condition of the site when compared to the existing site designation. The project will result in increased light and glare from the site when com- pared to the existing condition and when compared to development under the existing General Plan designation. 11 The proposed GPA has the potential to produce greater amounts of lighting in the area than the existing General Plan designation. There will also be a noticeable effect and change from the existing residential land use designa- tion to a commercial use for the site. Nonetheless, the site has been desig- nated for urban development and, consequently, the change in terms of aesthetics will not be significant. The listed mitigations will also ensure that potential impacts associated with site design are reduced to below a level of significance. Findings Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the Final EIR. Facts in Support of Findings The project's potential aesthetics and light and glare impacts have been elimi- nated or substantially lessened to a level of less than significant by virtue of the mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR. These mitigation mea- sures are as follows: 3.8.2 The project proponent shall prepare a detailed lighting plan illustrat- ing the locations of all parking lot lights, illuminated signs, store front signs, security/wall mounted lights and accent lighting. This plan will be subject to the review through the development approval process and may require approval by the Development Review Committee or the Planning Commis- sion, depending on the type of development permit required. The City Police Department shall also review the plan as required to address safety and security purposes. The plan shall demonstrate that all lighting fixtures in the parking lot area and behind the commercial structures are appropriately shielded as necessary, to minimize illumination of adjacent residences. 3.8.3 The applicant shall demonstrate that adequate screening, in the form of berms, walls or fencing, have been incorporated into the project to shield residences to the northeast and east from glare associated with the head- lights of cars in the parking lot. This plan will be subject to the review through the development approval process and may require approval by the Development Review Committee or the Planning Commission, depending on the type of development permit required. The City Police Department shall also review the plan as required to address safety and security purposes. 3.8.4 The project applicant will incorporate screening or shielding tech- niques into the lighting plan to ensure that project lights do not compromise the vision of freeway drivers. KM-4 Prior to issuance of the Conditional Use Permit, the applicant shag prepare a plan to 1) relocate the olive trees to another location on the site at applicant/developer expense (including but not limited to the area along the I-15 Freeway), 2) incorporate the olive trees into the site plan, either in-place or as components of the landscape amenity plans at applicant/developer expense, or 3) relocate onto the adjacent park (with prior approval from the 12 Department of Parks and Recreation) to enhance park aesthetics at appli- cant/developer expense. 9. Noise Potential Impacts Construction of the project will result in short-term noise impacts due to noise generated by construction equipment. Project implementation will result in increased noise levels on site and adjacent to roadway in the project vicinity when compared to both existing site conditions and site development under current General Plan designations. The project may be subject to excessive railroad noise. Provided the mitigation measures are implemented, the proposed project will not result in significant noise impacts. Findings Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the )anal EIR. Facts in Support of FmdinV The project's potential noise impacts have been eliminated or substantially lessened to a level of less than significant by virtue of the mitigation mea- sures identified in the Final OR. These mitigation measures are as follows: 3.11.1 The project proponent shall provide evidence to the City that con- struction related activities shall be limited to the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. Monday through Saturday and prohibited on Sundays and holidays in order to minimize disruption to existing residential neighborhoods. The contractor shall be required to equip all construction vehicles and equipment with functioning and properly maintained muffler systems (attainable noise levels are shown in Table 3.11.13). Additionally, noisy operations such as stockpiling and/or vehicle staging shag be conducted as far as possible from noise sensitive receptors (e.g., existing residential developments). 3.11.2 The project proponent shall submit a construction route plan to the Public Works Department for approval. The Plan shall demonstrate avoid- ance of congested roadways, avoidance of sensitive receptors and minimizing of trips and trip length to the extent feasible. 3.11.3 The project proponent shall submit a detailed acoustical analysis that evaluates existing and future traffic and/or railroad noise levels at on-site and off-site sensitive receptors. Noise attenuation measures shall be identified and implemented where necessary to reduce any noise levels that exceed the City's interior (45 dBA Itia and exterior (65 dBA Ld,) standards. 13 B. IMPAC,fS NOT MITIGATED TO INSIGNIFICANCE 1. Population/Housing Potential Impacts The proposed project will result in a locally significant adverse impact to the City's potential residential development inventories (i.e., a 1.1 percent reduc- tion). Such a reduction of housing through the change in land use to com- mercial general also reduces the opportunity to provide affordable housing in this location. The project will result in a demand for an additional 905 housing units (as a result of generating 1,811 employees), over and above the housing demand contemplated by the City of San Bernardino General Plan Housing Element and SCAG's Regional Housing Needs Assessment. The project will change the City's 2010 jobs/housing balance from 1.35 to 1.37. Based on the removal of potential housing opportunities due to the GPA, as well as the indirect housing demand generated by project employees, the proposed project will result in significant unavoidable housing needs im- pacts. Findings Specific economic, social or other considerations make infeasible any mitiga- tion measures to assist in balancing the local job/housing ratio. However, selection of the New General Plan Designation And Zoning District Alterna- tive provides a partial solution to the ultimate reduction in impacts at the local level, while continuing to assist in balancing the regional job/housing ratio. Facts in Support of Findings The adverse impact associated with the population and housing effects re- lates to the loss of available housing. This impact is considered to be an impact to the City and is not a cumulative impact that affects mailable hous- ing on a regional scale. The analysis in the Draft EIR indicates that this negative impact is offset by the fact that this alternative will aid in balancing the job/housing ratio at the sub-regional level. 14 2. Traffic/Circulation Potential Impacts The project will result in increased vehicle trips when compared to both the existing site conditions, as well as to development of the site under current General Plan designations, causing several intersections to operate at unac- ceptable levels of service. For the proposed GPA, the intersection at Palm Avenue and I-215 Westbound Ramps, in both the 1996 Background Plus Maximum Development Intensity and the 2001 Background Plus Maximum Development Intensity scenarios, will operate at unacceptable service levels as presented in Table 3.9.13 in the Final EIR. This is considered a significant unavoidable adverse impact of the proposed GPA. Findings Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental ' effect identified in the Final EIR. Specific economic, social or other considerations make infeasible convention- al traffic mitigation measures to reduce impacts to below a Ievel of signifi- cance. However, selection of the New General Plan Designation And Zoning District Alternative provides a solution to the ultimate reduction in traffic impacts by reducing the square footage and trip generation, thus lowering the level of service to an acceptable level. Facts in Support of Findings Except for the intersection at Palm Avenue and I-215 Westbound Ramps, in both the 1996 Background Plus Maximum Development Intensity and the 2001 Background Plus Maximum Development Intensity scenarios, the project's potential traffic impacts have been eliminated or substantially less- ened to a level of less than significant by virtue of the mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR. These mitigation measures are as follows: 3.9.1 Palm Avenue4-215 Westbound Ramps- Modification of stop sign con- trol to provide all-way stop control under 1996 cumulative -conditions. Under 2001 cumulative conditions, this intersection would have sufficient peak hour approach volumes to warrant signalization. 3.9.2 Palm Avenue/I-215 Eastbound Ramps - Modification of stop sign con- trol to provide all-way stop control. 3.9.3 The project shall be responsible for construction of realigned little League Drive from its intersection with little League Drive/Frontage Road to the easterly project boundary, where realigned little League Drive would connect with the existing alignment of Little League Drive. 3.9.4 The project applicant shall submit for the City Traffic Engineer's approval a detailed access analysis for the proposed project. The analysis 15 will need to include an assessment of access location operations, as well as a striping plan for little League Drive. 3.9.5 The project shall be responsible for payment of its Fair share contribu- tion to widening of the e:risting section of Little League Drive from the east- erly project boundary to Palm Avenue. With the addition of project traffic to 1996 background conditions, the following improvements would be required: 3.9.6 Palm Avenue/Litde League Drive - Addition of a separate eastbound right turn lane. 3.9.7 Palm Avenue/I-215 Westbound Ramps - Signalization and the addition of a second westbound right turn lane. With the addition of project traffic to 1996 background conditions, the following improvements would be required: 3.9.8 Palm Avenue/Little League Drive -Addition of a separate southbound right turn lane and a separate eastbound right turn lane. 3.9.9 Palm Avenue/I-215 Westbound Ramps- Signalization, and the addition . of a second southbound through lane and a second westbound right turn lane. With the addition of project traffic to 1996 background conditions, the following improvements would be required: 3.9.10 Palm Avenue/Little League Drive - Addition of a second northbound left turn lane, a southbound right turn lane, and dual eastbound right turn lanes. 3.9.11 Palm AvenueA-215 Westbound Ramps-Signalization, and the addition of a second southbound through lane, a second southbound right turn tare and a second westbound right tarn lane. Even with these modifications, this intersection would continue to operate at unacceptable levels of service. With the addition of project traffic to 2001 background conditions, the following improvements would be required: 3.9.12 Palm Avenue/Little League Drive - Addition of a second northbound left turn lane, a southbound right turn lane, and dual eastbound right turn lanes, and dual westbound left turn lanes. 3.9.13 As a condition of parcel map approval, Palm Avenue/1-215 Westbound Ramps - Signalization, and the addition of a second southbound through lane, a second southbound right turn lane, and a second westbound right turn lane. Even with these improvements, this intersection would continue to operate at unacceptable levels of service. 16 CT-3 The applicant/builder shall pay applicable road fees, subsequent to the adoption of a City--wide road fee program. Even with the implementation of the above mitigation measures for the proposed GPA, the intersection at Palm Avenue and I-215 Westbound Ramps, in both the 1996 Background Plus Maximum Development Intensity and the 2001 Background Plus Maximum Development Intensity scenarios, will oper- ate at unacceptable service levels. Unlike the proposed GPA, selection of the New General Plan Designation And Zoning District Alternative results in the mitigation of traffic impacts to a level below significance. 3. Air Ouality Potential Impacts Implementation of the proposed mitigation measures will reduce the ' stationary and mobile sources emissions. Nonetheless, significant direct im- pacts to air quality relative to the 8-hour carbon monoxide (CO) standard will occur. Additionally, even after the implementation of trip reduction strategies, the large number of project vehicle trips, in conjunction with other cumulative projects, would probably contribute to regional air quality degradation unless all three tiers of additional air quality control measures proposed by the AQMP were fully implemented. Consequently, the project will have a significant cumulative effect on air quality. Findings Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the Final EIR. Specific economic, social or other considerations make infeasible additional mitigation measures(other than proposed below) to reduce CO impacts (Le., relative to the 8-hour CO standard eaceedance).to below a level of signifi- cance. However, selection of the New General Plan Designation And Zoning District Alternative provides a solution to the ultimate reduction in CO im- pacts by reducing the square footage and traffic, thus lowering the total plus background emissions to an acceptable level. Facts in Support of Findings Except for the exceedance of eight-hour State standard for CO, the project's potential air quality impacts have been eliminated or substantially lessened to a level of less than significant by virtue of the mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR. These mitigation measures are as follows; 3.10.1 During construction, the contractor shall be responsible for ensuring that trucks used for hauling excess material are covered to minimize loss of material, flagmen assist trucks moving into traffic and that peak hour truck travel is minimized. 17 3.10.2 The project proponent shall provide a dust control plan to the Public Works Department and the Planning and Building Services Department for approval. The dust control plan shall specify steps that would be taken to comply with SCAQMD Rule 403, which restricts fugitive dust emissions. Mea- sures outlined in the plan shall include: daily watering of graded areas and washing of equipment tires before leaving the construction site. 3.10.3 The contractor shall discontinue construction activities during second stage smog alerts and discontinue grading activities during period of high winds (i.e., 25 mph or greater). Once grading has been completed, if subse- quent site construction (or portions of the site) is delayed more than one month, the site shall be stabilized to avoid wind blown dust hazards on adjacent uses and from affecting driving conditions on the I-15 Freeway. Stabilization shall include spreading soil binders on site, unpaved roads and parking areas; and re-establishing ground cover on construction site through seeding and watering. Stabilization techniques, locations and conditions are subject to approval of the Public Works Department and the Planning and Building Services Department. 3.10.4 All construction equipment shall be maintained in good operating condition so as to reduce operational emissions. On a quarterly basis the project proponent shall submit to the Planning and Building Services Depart- ment proof in the form of a letter, indicating that all construction equipment is being properly serviced and maintained. 3.10.5 Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall provide evidence to the City of San Bernardino demonstrating compliance with appli- cable SCAQMD regulations. 3.10.6 The developer shall work with Omni Trans in the planning of transit improvements, such as bus.shelters, benches and bus stop pedestrian access, which will facilitate transit usage among residents and patrons to the shop. ping center. 3.10.7 The applicant shall submit for review and approval by the Director of Planning and Building Services Department a plan that provides information on reducing vehicular trips. The plan should encourage a reduction of vehicular trips by including information regarding public tnmsportation opportunities, and by providing bicycle racks and other trip reducing Con- cepts. The applicant shall distribute the approved plan to all future gait tenants within the project. 3.10.8 The project proponent shall submit a detailed Trip Reduction Plan (TRP) to the satisfaction of the Planning and Building Services Department, the Public Works Department, SCAG and SCAQMD. The TRP shall Conform to SCAQMD Regulation XV and any other AQMP control measures applicable to the proposed project. 3.10.9 The project proponent shall submit a Customer Trip Reduction Plan (CTRP) to the satisfaction of the Planning and Building Services Department and the Public Works Department. 18 3.10.10 Trie project proponent shall submit a Parking Management Plan (PMP) to the satisfaction of the Planning and Building Services Department. Parking is evaluated as part of the development review process. 3.10.10 The project proponent shall submit a Shipping and Receiving Plan (SRP) to the satisfaction of the City's Transportation Coordinator. KM-6 The applicant shall demonstrate to the Planning Division, that archi- tectural features have been incorporated into the project buildings which consider the effects of wind velocity. Such features may include, but are not limited to wind screens, berms or shields; building orientation and design; and double door entry (automatic sliding doors) with breezeway buffer. Selection of the New General Plan Designation And Zoning District Alterna- tive will reduce traffic due to the reduced floor area ratio (e.g., 0.25 FAR). Specifically, the CO threshold criteria would not be exceeded for the eight hour State standard. SECTION C. PROTECT BENEFITS The City Council finds that the project will provide the following economic, social and other benefits to the City: 1. Project will be revenue producing to the City, generating more reve- nues than the cost to provide City services. 2. Project will provide commercial services to an area where there is*W be sufficient market demand. Because of the added convenience, vehicle miles will be reduced for residents in Verdemont that would otherwise travel to more distant commercial centers. Proximity of goods and services will positively contribute to traffic conditions and the associated degradation of air quality. 3. The commercial center provides an employment generating use in a subregion that is housing rich. Consequently, the project is positively contributing to a more balanced jobs to housing ratio, and a reduc- tion in regional vehicle miles travelled 4. Job opportunities for all segments of the population, including stu- dents as well as opportunities for management positions and business ownership will be expanded. 5. The center has immediate access to a major, regional frecway facility, thus avoiding the placement of vehicles on the local street network. 6. The center is required to realign and extend little League Drive t+e- sulting in better, more efficient local circulation. As a consequence of this action, the applicant will be responsible for adjustments to the park Master Plan. This action will increase the net useable area in the park considered by the Parks Department as an overall benefit to the park design. 19 7. If deemed necessary, the project applicant is required to pay fees on a fair share basis that will apply to the construction of a fire station and provision of personnel, ultimately improving the level of fire protection services in the Verdemont area. S. The project will be required to provide signalization and contribute on a fair share basis to widening improvements-for various roadways to accommodate project and cumulative area traffic conditions. 9. The project will be an aesthetic benefit. Improved landscaping and new streets and hardscape will address former man-made modifica- tions in the project vicinity that currently detract from the area's appearance. Although a subjective benefit, the aesthetic improve- ments will contribute to the quality of life as well as the "self image" of the Verdemont area. SECTION D. ALTERNATIVES The City Council finds that the EIR describes a reasonable range of alterna- tives to the project, or to its location, and that the City Council has evaluated the comparative merits of the alternatives, has rejected the No Project Alter- native, the No Project/Site Development Per Existing General Plan/Zoning Alternative, and the Alternative Sites and has chosen the New General Plan Designation And Zoning District Alternative in favor of the proposed project as summarized below-. 1. No Project/No Devebpment With the No Project/No Development alternative, the site would remain in its undeveloped condition Although implementation of this alternative would eliminate the projeces, environmental effects, the No Project/No Development alterative would not achieve the project objectives or fulfill the land use designation proposed in the existing General Plm Specifically, this alternative would not take advantage of the site's proximity to a major freeway interdnnge that accommodates commercial development due to higher than average traffic volumes. This alternative would also not be consistent with the General Plan Land Use Element goals and objectives listed in Section 3.4,as it would not encourage a cohesive pattern of Stowth extending outward from the developed portions of the City. Implementation of this alternative would also not assist in attaining the goals of the Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) which encourages placement of employment generating land uses in housing rich arras such as the City of San Bernardino. This alternative would not alter the existing visual environment nor would it result in increases in ambient and peripheral light emissions. The site would remain vacant and unimproved and would be devoid of the aesthetic value associated with either improved or natural open space. 20 This alternative would not affect existing commercial centers in the City of San Bernardino. Under this alternative, customers would patronize other commercial areas within the City. This alternative represents a short-term avoidance of the identified environ- mental effects of the project. It is likely that the site would be developed in the near future due to the availability of services and utilities, ease of ac- cess/location of freeway and arterial crossroads, the need for minimal site preparation and general lack of physical constraints to development. Consequently, although the No Development alternative is superior in the short-term, the long-range development opportunities would likely result in the implementation of urban uses on site and the attendant environmental impacts. 2. No Project/Site Development Per Existing General Plan/Zoning Under the existing General Plan (RU-1) low density residential designation, the site could be developed with 267 residential units, including single family attached and detached residential units. It can be assumed that Little League Drive would be realigned adjacent to Cable Creek. It is also assumed that the adjacent 7.1 acre parcel would be= developed as CG-1 Commercial General land uses, yielding up to 216,500 .- square feet of commercial uses. Impacts that would be incrementally reduced under this alternative include traffic, noise, local air quality, and aesthetics/light and glare. This is not a significant benefit when compared with the proposed GPA, as the EIR includes mitigation which will reduce these impacts and does not identify any of these topics as unavoidable significant impacts, with the ex- ception of cumulative air quality impacts which occur for both this alternative and the project The reduction in land use intensity impacts under this alternative, however, is considered a significant benefit of this alternative as the EIR identifies significant land use impacts to the surrounding residential areas(adsdng and planned) with project implementation. In terms of project objectives, this alternative would not achieve the appli- cant's desire to take advantage of the site's proadmity to the freeway and growing residential consumer base in order to develop the site with com- mercial uses. Implementation of this alternative would also not facilitate attainment of the goals of the AQMP which encourage development of com- mercial (employment generating) uses in housing rich areas, as is the case with the subregion. 3. New General Plan Designation And Zoning District 21 Under this alternative, a new General Plan designation and zoning district (i.e., amendment to the Development Code) would be created. The catego- ries would establish a numdmum development intensity that would be similar to the applicant's Concept Plan illustrated in Figure 2.8.1. Accordingly, a development intensity of approximately 325,000 square feet of commercial development would be allowed for the 29.7 acre parcel, approxi- mately a 0.25 floor area ratio (FAR), for the new designation. Also, the designation would permit the types of uses envisioned in the appli- cant's Concept Plan that would be consistent with commercial uses at the community scale. Compared with the proposed project, this alternative would result in incre- mental reductions in traffic, noise, air quality and aesthetics effects. For traffic impacts, unlike the proposed GPA, this alternative does not result in any traffic impacts that cannot be mitigated. However, with the exception of population and housing effects, the EIR identifies that all of the project's effects to these topics can be mitigated to a level below significance. The adverse impact associated with the population and housing effects relates to the loss of available housing. This impact is considered to be an impact to the City and is not a cumulative impact that affects available housing on a regional scale. The analysis in the Draft EIR indicates that this negative impact is offset by the fact that this alternative will aid in balancing the job/housing ratio at the sub-regional level. Under this alternative, similar impacts are anticipated to land use compatibili- ty due to the similarity in characteristics between commercial uses for the proposed GPA and this alternative. The most dramatic difference between this alternative and the proposed GPA focuses on land use intensity. This alternative, which reflects implementation of Mitigation Measure No. 3.4.1, eliminates the impact on land use intensity that would occur with implementation of the proposed GPA, should the mitigation measure be determined infeasible. In summary, this alternative would reduce or elimi- nate land use intensity impacts, which has been identified as a significant impact associated with the proposed GPA. SECTION E. CONCLUSIONS The City Council finds that: 1) All feasible mitigation measures identified in the EIR have been required in, or incorporated into, the project, as described above in Sections A and B. Certain mitigation measures, as identified above, are within the responsibility of other jurisdictions. 2) A range of alternatives to the project has been evaluated, as described above in Section D. Each of the alternatives considered in the EIR and as described above contain features that suggest environmental superiority when compared to the proposed GPA. 22 The No Project/No Development Alternative, although not accomplishing any of the project objectives, also does not generate environmental impacts. With the No Project/No Development Alternative, however, none of the benefits would be achieved (i.e., Overriding Considerations) that are likely to occur with the proposed project. This alternative, therefore, is determined to be an infeasible means of attaining the project objectives and/or the bene- fits of the project, and is rejected. With the No ProjecVSite Development Per Existing General Plan/Zoning Alternative, none of the significant adverse impacts that are associated with the proposed project would occur. Development would occur according to the current General Plan designation and planned local and regional fore- casts would not be affected. However, the project objectives would not be achieved, nor would the majority of the project benefits (Overriding Consid- erations). This alternative, therefore, is determined to be an infeasible means of attaining the project objectives and/or the benefits of the project, and is rejected. 3) With the New General Plan Designation And Zoning District Alternative, , the project objectives would be achieved, as well as the project benefits (Overriding Considerations). Similarly, all the project significant impacts associated with the proposed GPA will be mitigated, with the exception of the local housing opportunities (and improved jobs/housing ratio). This remaining impact is only an impact locally, however, and is actually a benefit regionally as described in Section A. Consequently, this alternative is consid- ered the environmentally superior and preferred alternative to the proposed GPA. 4) Mitigation Measures incorporated into the proposed GPA, as part of the measures recommended in the EIR, will substantially lessen the adverse environmental effects. Most effects have been reduced to a level of insignifi- cance, all feasible mitigation measures identified in the EIR that would fur- ther reduce the impacts have been imposed on the project. In addition, other than the New General Plan Designation And Zoning District Alternative, there is no feasible alternative that would implement the project objectives, despite the apparent reduction in potential impacts. To the extent that any remaining unavoidable adverse effects attributed to this project exist, or have not been mitigated to insignificance, such remaining adverse effects are acceptable in light of the social, economic and other benefits of the pro- posed GPA, as set forth in Section C above, because the project's benefits outweigh those unavoidable adverse effects. Similarly, should the New Gen- eral Plan Designation And Zoning District Alternative be selected over the proposed GPA, the social, economic and other benefits of this alternative also as set forth in Section C above, outweigh the unavoidable adverse effect on local job/housing and affordability. 23 ISSUE FOURTEEN: WHAT SHOULD BE THE FUNCTIONAL ROLE, USES PERMI ) PHYSICAL FORM AND CHARACTER OF COMMUNITY-SERVING COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT IN THE VERDEMONT AREA> Goal It shell be the goal of the City of San Bernardino to: is Continue existing and establish new commercial districts in the Verdemont Area which provide commercial retail and services that are limited in size and density/intensity and conveniently located for Verdemont Area residents. objective It shall be the objective of the City of San Bernardino to: 1.53 Provide for the continued use, enhancement, and new development of commercial retail and service uses and other related commercial uses along I-215 and major transportation corridors and intersections within the Verdemont Area to serve the needs of residents; reinforcing existing commercial corridors and centers, establishing new locations as new residential growth occurs. Policies It shall be the policy of the City of San Bernardino to: Permi•:ted Uses 1.53. 10 Permit a diversity of community-serving commercial uses in areas designated "Commercial General - Verdemont Area" (CG-5) and in accordance with Policy 1. 19. 10 (I1. 1) . Densi:y/Intensity and Height 1.53.20 Permit a maximum floor area ratio of 0.25 and height of two stories (30 feet) except on parcels immediately abutting a freeway where the height may be increased by Conditional Use Permit (I1.1) . 1. 53 .21 Allow for modifications of the height to preserve significant viewsheds from adjacent properties and open space (I1. 1) . Desi :z and Development Guidelines 1.53 . 30 Require that new commercial developments be designed in accordance with Policies 1. 19.30 through 1. 19. 35 (I1. 1, I1. 6 and I1.9) . Exhibit 3 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 90-06 - LOCATION MAP 'r.04001 t Ms. CG-1 to CG-5 w4. APN - zO Irk.1� 261 182-10) St Lk 4k FL Elli —�--3nhMW T !� :l RU-1 to CG-5 1 �® z ;•� - (APNs 261-181-01 & 11) •► •tip • I / •►' _ I W •�l Exhibit 4 CTY Ol - SAN BERNA , l . 1 j .GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 90-06 e `T I T L E -Jegal Description THE LAND REFERRED TO IS DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: PARCEL APN 261-182-10 (CG-1 TO CG-5) THAT PORTION OF BLOCKS 65 AND 66, IRVINGTON LAND AND WATER COMPANY SUBDIVISION AND THE RIGHT OF WAY OF CAJON AVENUE, AS VACATED BY AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, RECORDED IN BOOK 730, PAGE 369, OFFICIAL RECORDS, IN THE COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS PER PLAT RECORDED IN BOOK 1, PAGE 32 , RECORDS OF SURVEY, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: ALL OF SAID BLOCKS 65 AND 66 AND VACATED RIGHT OF WAY OF CAJON AVENUE. EXCEPTING THEREFROM ANY PORTION LYING NORTHERLY OF THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF A 130.00 FOOT EASEMENT GRANTED TO SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY BY DEED RECORDED NOVEMBER 15, 1948, IN BOOK 2321, PAGE 57, OFFICIAL RECORDS. ALSO EXCEPTING THEREFROM ANY PORTION LYING SOUTHERLY OF THE NORTHERLY LINE OF THE EASEMENT AS GRANTED TO THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO BY DEED RECORDED APRIL 18, 1972, IN BOOK 7911, PAGE 578, OFFICIAL RECORDS. EXHIBIT 5-A CITY JF SAN BERKARDINO GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 990-06 TITLE; Legal Description THE LAND REFERRED TO IS DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: PARCELS APNs 261-181-01 AND 3.1 (PORTION) (RU-3. TO CG-5) THAT PORTION OF LOTS 1 THROUGH 11, INCLUSIVE, OF TRACT NO. 3167, AS RECORDED IN BOOK 42 OF MAPS, PAGE 59, RECORDS OF SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AND THAT PORTION OF BLOCK 71, IRVINGTON LAND AND WATER COMPANY SUBDIVISION, AS PER PLAT RECORDED IN BOOK 3 OF MAPS, PAGE 9, RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY AND STATE, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: ALL OF SAID LOTS 1 THROUGH 11 AND ALL OF BLOCK 71, LYING NORTHEASTERLY OF SAID TRACT 3167. EXCEPTING THEREFROM ANY PORTION LYING NORTHERLY OF THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF A 130. 00 FOOT EASEMENT GRANTED TO SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY BY DEED RECORDED NOVEMBER 15, 1948, IN BOOK 2321, PAGE 57, OFFICIAL RECORDS. ALSO EXCEPTING THEREFROM ANY PORTION LYING SOUTHERLY OF THE NORTHERLY LINE OF THE EASEMENT AS GRANTED TO THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO BY DEED RECORDED APRIL 18, 1972, IN BOOK 7911, PAGE 578, OFFICIAL RECORDS. EXHIBIT 5-13 m 0 ON I J � •�� m N LITTLE LEAGUE DRIVE m a I a y I .► I u I - m I Oo s O r O N O I < 1 am i � a � m y � s �d O m DA Y n sons m CHESTNUT IV AVENUE rc O Y s N ^ 2 1 � D h�l � PALM AVENUE tT s << M� C i m D O � z Exhibit 6 C I T Y O F S A N B E R N A R D I N O Plannin7 and Building Services Department MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and Common Council FROM: Al Boughey, Director {tS-- SUBJECT: Distribution of EIR for General Plan Amendment No. 90-06 and Development Code Amendment No. 92-01 DATE: February 26, 1993 COPIES: City Administrator's Office, City Attorney's Office and City Clerk's Office Attached please find copies of Volume I (DEIR) , Volume II (Technical Appendices) and the Response to Comments (FEIR) for the above referenced project. This project is scheduled on the agenda for the Mayor and Common Council of March 81 1993 . The documents have been labeled as Exhibits to the Resolution (Attachment 2) in the Mayor and Common Council Staff Report. Please note that copies of the EIR are available for public review at the Planning Division public counter and at the Feldheym Library through the reference counter. �xh�b�t I-A Vo1 • z VERDEMONT GPA 90-6 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT VOLUME I March 26, 1992 Prepared for: City of San Bernardino Planning and Building Services Dept. 300 North D Street San Bernardino, CA 92418 Prepared by: Hogle Ireland Development Consulting Group 3403 10th Street, Suite 520 Riverside, California 92501 (714) 781-9310 LSA Project #HID101 TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-1 2.0 INTRODUCTION/PROJECT DESCRIPTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-1 2.1 PROJECT LOCATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-1 2.2 PLANNING HISTORY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-1 2.3 ENVIRONMENTAL PROCEDURES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-4 2.4 EFFECTS FOUND NOT TO BE SIGNIFICANT . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-5 2.5 ISSUES OF CONCERN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-6 2.6 DISCRETIONARY ACTIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-7 2.7 PROJECT SPONSORS AND CONTACT PERSONS . . . . . . . . . 2-11 2.8 PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-11 2.9 PROJECT OBJECTIVES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-15 3.0 SETTING/IMPACTS/MITIGATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-1 3.1 GEOLOGY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-1 3.2 HYDROLOGY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-17 3.3 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-23 3.4 LAND USE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-33 3.5 MAN-MADE HAZARDS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-47 3.6 POPULATION AND HOUSING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-54 3.7 PUBLIC UTILITIES/SERVICES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-66 3.8 AESTHETICS/LIGHT AND GLARE 3-78 3.9 TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-86 3.10 AIR QUALITY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-105 3.11 NOISE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-125 4.0 ALTERNATIVES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-1 4.1 NO PROJECT/NO DEVELOPMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-1 4.2 NO PROJECT/SITE DEVELOPMENT PER EXISTING GEN- ERAL PLAN/ZONING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-6 4.3 NEW GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION AND ZONING DIS- TRICT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.4 ALTERNATIVE SITE ANALYSIS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-15 5.0 CEQA RELATED TOPICS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-1 5.1 GROWTH-INDUCING IMPACTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-1 5.2 IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENT OF RESOURCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-1 5.3 UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-1 5.4 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LONG AND SHORT-TERM USES OF THE ENVIRONMENT AND MAINTENANCE AND ENHANCEMENT OF LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVI- TY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-2 03/26/92(I:V3ID101\MASTERI.DC)C) 11 6.0 ORGANIZATIONS AND PERSONS CONSULTED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-1 7.0 LIST OF PREPARERS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-1 8.0 REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-1 03/26/92(I:\HID101\MASTERI.DOC) ju LIST OF FIGURES PAGE 2.1.1 - Regional Location . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-2 2.1.2 -Vicinity Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-3 2.6.1 - Proposed General Plan Amendment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-9 2.8.1 - Concept Site Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-12 3.1.1 - Faults That May Generate Damaging Surface Rupture . . . . . . . . . 3-3 3.1.2 - Major Fault Zones . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-8 3.1.3 - Maximum Credible Rock Acceleration From Earthquakes . . . . . . 3-10 3.1.4 - Liquefaction Susceptability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-11 3.2.1 - 100-Year Flood Plain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-18 3.4.1 - Existing General Plan Designations and Land Use in Immediate Project Vicinity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-34 3.4.2 - Existing Regional Land Uses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-35 3.4.3 - Cumulative Projects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-43 3.6.1 - SCAG Region and Subregional Planning Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-55 3.9.1 - Intersection Location Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-88 3.9.2 - Trip Distribution Patterns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-95 3.10.1 -Air Quality Receptor Locations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-119 3.11.1 - Land Use Compatibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-126 3.11.2 - Noise Measurement Locations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-128 4.4.1 -Alternative Site Locations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-17 03R6/92(I:\HID101\MASTERI.DOC) iv LIST OF TABLES PAGE 2.8A- Proposed Building Area by Square Feet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-14 3.1.A - Significant Faults Potentially Affecting the City of San Bernardino . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-4 3.1.13 - Historic Earthquakes Greater Than Mercalli VI, 1769-1972 . . . . . 3-12 3.4A- Development Intensity Potential . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-41 3.4.B - Cumulative Projects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • • • • • 3-45 3.6A- Demographic Forecasts For East San Bernardino Valley . . . . . . . 3-56 3.6.B - Proposed Project Summary of Socioeconomic Data . . . . . . . . . . 3-58 3.6.0 - Employment Generation Assumptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-58 3.6.D - Project Impacts to Regional and Local Jobs/ Housing Balances (Year 2010) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-59 3.6.E - Existing Housing Needs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-63 3.9.A- Existing Intersection Levels of Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-90 3.9.13 - Future Background Intersection Levels of Service . . . . . . . . . . . 3-92 3.9-C - Trip Generation Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-94 3.9.D - Background Plus Project Intersection Levels of Service . . . . . . . 3-96 3.9.E - Contributions to CMP Network . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-100 3.10A- Health Effects Summary of the Major Criteria Air Pollutants . . 3-107 3.10.B -Air Quality Levels Measured at the San Bernardino Monitor- ing Station No. 203 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-112 3.10-C - Comparison of Emissions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-117 3.10.D - Predicted 1-Hr/8-Hr CO Concentrations in PPM . . . . . . . . . . . 3-118 3.11A- Field Noise Measurement Data Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-129 3.11.13 - Noise Associated With Typical Construction Equipment . . . . . 3-131 3.11-C - Modelled Noise Exposure (Ldn) at Selected Sensitive Recep- tors Along Site Access Roads . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-133 4.OA-Alternatives Matrix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-2 4.3A- Land Use Intensity for Alternative 4-3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-12 03/26/'92(1AHID101\MAS1'ERI.DOQ `, y w � .II O a+ � w rr w � y G c� E O u v � � C � F 0 0 c . b 0 CJ CJ 4J 'n 0 O 4 t1 .a c .a •ti .c ? 8 v v v t� t� > > > > > o v v 0 > O (.� y 0 0 0 0 0 L 0 0 �I 4.1 -0 p v I v b v c v -v c E O v7 T. �+ a+ a+ r � 'y a+ C •O � i+ i tC � C, Z Z Z Z Z Z per'•, Z vi cn � C 'b V c c a D a � u h cc a. a V' ate, per. u v tw cl a v s o o O u v cV? a H 4w cn a Z ea . d v N C�7 x cs� ao. ow Q E Z Z N 4 O a � E v u [ 0 U Lam` t'. b o y b C vVV ;% h •C 0 0 cr_ V 40 C p .� 0 u C cu u o aU. 0 .2 r �: C. O 0 n' G Oa c cn v v u -0 v v G v v v w '�. E H v •v a a'b C ° a'O _ EL . a� v 11 = o � S U ow ova ca' a� 'cv �' c � •o •� 'tiE � c o a = v m o u ; E � v � � Yvu � ooav `" cco _ 0J vii •� 4J � C '.r 41 'G —" M'�+ •E .0 U U to v i .O r�i� •� r. O y v W Q v 0 ,lM w v •L V v LL G. �' " 1. v U W w h E v Op.� w :D F wG Cccc Der b 0. v .0 O h � 0 M H � y ees z > � z Ri v Vi C V a.+ •L7 C v v a+ u G v u L1. G S �O 0 U C w 41 C +• y b 7u V5 �,,, V C +. •� C v� C a Q � a C o ._ 0 a �}v 4 0 o o vb � oU c N d c�i o "" v c .c C 0 cC i cl = v C EN °U vvv v � C. u L.a:i D �, C U W 41 L. w d.v o wn. c ° •boo 0 yvj C C au 0 • • • rA V v °o CL v v V O W a+ ti � y � •� ECO g a o cod C 0 r; V a — 0 d � o O II' C h v v U C 0 ow u a UO C 0 0..� h iU V C c_ v O. v a V `n +. O to.0 0. �' v1 V L. a+ G 0 .ti Gr u 6d y a 0 a+ v i E c� v v •C U v 0. w C C.0 aw C Ca � � yrc :c p o0.� c vC3 '� ov � v0 '� e v z vc ° W40 yUUUU o .c ° ate, a. o a� p y v y > LL c. t� v 0 0 y v > o. 6. b Q' �' S�'.-p a o 0 0.v 0 O a v G h v 0 O a �' w G cd v eCa h 4 0 CL a, a 'p v C � h 0 0. ° u v � � v o •o � � � � g6a cz "r o °' '(U T s a CO. i.L O y o V a v W tC b u �' a' v •V .. h M kA O r, F a vq � its v, 0 a c� � � � •� � � .0 F b c� b •• oA v b V p Q. = W 0 a O 0 ;Z A v v c/a C w ..+ !j m C v u LL M y ++ v v10 0�0 _ o -Z .. •O p r 4J 0 0 v p•i w '•" � O � E• � c� �S v '� C � w v � [ U O FFi--i-� C0 Q O s O c v 0 0 = oA O q v = OA 7 O v 7 +± C O v 0 �. a v O z c WV ri 0 0 a3 G p ... w i+ C Ow F � V � d a a x M K, M 0 V A � z0 ch I Ld I 0 O. v p c v OQ to 4, ° 4r a b . v u a � •a �, v � v C ,0 p. a -� aco o�n c ° o y E" v c oA a � o � y � a .ao +I [ .tip Ec av � `' E •° [ � oaFOv O v �., ovc cov" hc o cl O, 0 O. !�-' Saba hoc ° arc AaE , V � d � a H 0 a � V M � � M C M O U a V A � z �0 C O�A � a+ � •� C �� 4 � � a+ ��. v� �.+ � .t7 � v C C p � �„ � •a h O. C .+ � `� i �vv `� v � > ov y � 3aa •3vu o a b � 0 � c � , � o � � a � Ln v U v v u -O v Cl cl Z 0 � v o w v � _ ma y •a � O � w v � 7 O.�v 1••1 V a N F � x M O 00 CA d a Ada W5 to o a ° _, � RS v � C � `� ,v Ll.•� "fl v .a FDA CA Vi W - y v .c cn � v °1 .� v vz h to-0 v Ov cb7 U. a, = a. v, o z Oho u a cC u aa.0c c , F � PLO wo F V � M C 0 F A � c �s O c v v U v b 0 SO o Q `+ U f�Li] [ v WOO t0 O v v v 3 v v E L v to C C"O 0 rG > c� O1 4J O S C. 45 O s t O O C C C x 'ti C lu �.. v m to a F � a F O p M C M O 0 r, � u u � c H v � ] � v � o b �c IN 145 cl w 0 u 0;F V can y m vU � cv v a o o C u " c c cn 3 �'•° c a, �'' o � b F y "6O 0 v a C V Cov � ocs q V ~ Lr 0 �' C `" v � aoaa 'v0 C) Z a vv 0 ocn E 0 v . o � o � � p 'ti u .� M O u to .+ �j G i�3 N w u 0 ins v :1 is CL p a v RS p cr, h 'u a O v d � vclu � � ° vo. E a C) Gcc a � oo v C7 v v oa C. ocn � •� E 7 c v p v cei C -- C h o [ M Fes-+ u 'ti u Q,= F uu u v E u M 0 r, � a � o u UAL d M.0 � P-A u cC ao CJ CJ �+ C V� OfJ h h t� u E op 04 v O cQ aE �? ` o � a o0 c ° cis ° E v C y v rA {V1 C •� �° ° v0 a+ N ate, o s Z � c� p M "� 0 � •�.ti w p C O y Q y " tn �. yooa �. Gov C) lac _ vy � 44 u 0 = 0 4 0 v � .0 •p c� C � � � C v �-- � h O a � � o QE � yyuv 6 a � C CL S O v i F a o � v U C p H c 6. � U 5 0 v v c N M O N d � Q E V p =y= a v v v� ° v° o " ` c a v r- m y 0 v o 'I c c••°- Mav Et v, M u u s e� ` a � 4 �q moo70 aw n, 0 = v o ° tC v y 0. h y v C. O V M O :. ate+ N v .� K. O V Q �' .yC •y w y w y v v v " .� v 0. ++ Vi v may 0 z 'E o � -0 V�jj CF v fn y 0 0 Cy O v v p.� H F a N o� F � � x 0 a � o a h `U N eft M C 0 M r" c7da � z V Sy I�1 z 0 d v v a 0 z 0 � v l� v .r� .n o Lw w � ' ° C M " °'°'° 3 bft J4 E J2 aa, 40 c � m y o a,c .°C ° a. o Ica 0 m u b ° v v o v o v C b v 0 Nr r; v •v -� � as v fA Lw v w ` h v v C L L 0 7 0 = o o � � V d v "a ,o O U v Q ''" G. C v G r.� Q � p 0 Lam . Z J2 .ti C «. cm r v 0 .r Z a C '0 a x � u v c v O a Q U w M .. >. o0 o cL " p v v aCO v s v NNp v O O. ju y C v C L �' G C p �aova cy Z � � c a v v u v y = ... � � ewe y p, •1.. v � � O � C C v v v Ll, cl 12 _ V C y 0 LL > v v C O 0� VJ v v C p4 p ap � w 0 A O O m O pmp a C ti a Lw �, b a. n..- •a •a v F v v = v O G 0 v v C4 4 O 00 a; u u c� N 0 r, rA � v a Ada c U v O u C > "o v o c `� p CL cd .� `'" ,� --' w � v ;ti � � � .� c •> Ems• 'ti � 0. w o d u4 � oc > o � — v >. � cc (�• 4 4J �,w C 0 0 c ces � " � � � c o � v � � �u v •� u c .a 04 O G .D 0 p C. d G 6. t�/ RS v 0 v >. w z. CL w 0 " U " F 0 5 w U v E c 0 s y o > yv pE law o b .ac.L Cd F V U � a > W oa, 4qV c M C 0 r, r; V a V A � M, O � � a b car G Vj � � ftS y v� c c o E a vd� D v° y p v y o a v � m � v 'oho v O '0 "U E c •o a V v L y D v v s c v p o . cg cF .Syo, b cs � �: 5 p n y " C3 V vOi c v0 0 v O O �_ � o ° rzL. en V W � Mi r 0 r•, r, d a U A � u :� � 'O� Ll. u i •u h V. °' � c � � � � DoE •aE � H h •� v v L E v v y O cyc G v O C v 42, O b i h 0 O u v 8 t C u u0 u ^CL u g 0 v u cl u �+ y '� C C a � _ o n. o W a. c.V 3 V W v � e a aq c a 4 � v o 0 00 r; V A OW3 G G C to c 0 G � _ .0 Q' H ••• .O ter v v v y a h 0 U _ 0 O. L 0 y s O G 0 � p OA •0 a � o E. u � a, 3 oA v h °• v v v v > E v m £ p � GCL a.� G m v ah . v 0 i v p v y G v y O > b 'ti p U 0 O b = p 0 " a 0 O E 0 E V u S p u a n, u E v G ,� •d G v G O c W V1 a off " " `" [ " � rs. n.Ll c..a a, c.G a a m ti ZCl V W � x � q ° M C 0 r, � V a A0" SOW L y M C. ' c L o. ° E 0 °. U G a. v a. •d ,� � � V C ,C� v y a a � � �bo � CaE s 4 v ° v y 0 v `r C tC to �Or Z u P v v C C v� C Q •� v c w. U • v s cl 'n C.Q. :a . E, Ov ,a = yyc mp0 o� ° � vvv 6. ° `' s ° v r CL ) c- v im .; v E r � 0s •o 0 h c.y Nd C s D > cCa v O v C a. y U ,n cc � 41 C v G' C _u C 7 Z u O. 4'v� Ll. v) h O. a•C. > v1 C7 F vj a V a W a 4qU � M � 0 0 N y � n tC CW 0 � o U M. q O-A a� u Z0 (A -p vc 0 d a c 0-4z n u M 'y a 4 � u 0 d E v o a c ea o v N o 0 � •� c L > � c y n, � � � m a G o% �' N .., p c c b c m ca u ao ca v u w cn ��7 S V � v E V •� M +� v Q, ca ca ca y v ° � 0 p v c 0. E x 'O to 0 .� u v � V u u c � ow-R u bv _ — u t ° a — n — > C O t C cC ctS >> c v h i� 0 y a Lw O a c o C H C C = > C O G v '.ow a0w s 3 a n. u ° Ems-- E D ° CL o u ►�" aQ y c� O p O v v C co u u 0. 0 "o ab a v v a O h � vo � _ vvco ° '� obvoG ° �,° 8 a v cG. v v y •;� v .� C 0" evd yC •C c v ap c 'Q C C r r�� V C .0 a' y v u to v tr G Lw O� O iA M ow C� u0 O [/� �/ W b V O •� E"' ,�..' 4r � O •v 'b fn O r, N � V a U A � ^� o � Ecv � s C � G"� id U a�1 ❑ C. to to C crc 8 y C 0 .v v E a °. vc va. 00_o � v ° � o ob u v �n v h D h v W v U C ,:� p O O a v t m O — O � cy -d3 = > aoCay ' oa> V5 G. Ou C. ++ O. C G. 'b � .E V b ° v y v ° C. ?' ct ° G v o E > 'o F � � a U y; o M O N N n'GE" .2 � � � •�;, v Win. ° 3 � a � � �. � �,E L W "" 0 au Or L v ►:� y a ~" W c b v a v v v moo > � v -v � ° o= v 'ti :tio E u > H ° c7 Q a`o o as O M °u a s .a ° v � � � � � a •v y y C •v C �C C v C� b 0 yrypr, v y � O � a0 :0:rG 0 o Qj � a ° . 3c N C N a p z 0 '� *a a 0 4 u OA C ar 0a C � � 0 � ¢ � � C � ¢ Ou y •� �l y C „0 C v CL _ U a v 1,11 C s 0 CS O a^Co Im- C •+' � ? +' v C V 0 y o aa o, � cvv .°JCVCO � c U v a C y C M Fes- C 3 y c W. L7 u u C M O M N h � V a V A � rLL «S C O C W�W 41 � w O Q v M•� � � '� OCQ a 0 u a u 0 b h v v C w v vv v 0 , °U v Q o� `y y aC o+n � p u CL v O C, Jo. p OA v V v G, o d a ay c n. c y o °QC o u Q6 o 0 Z O '� ti vii n.w cd v .� n o o a C v ¢ o 0 '° 3 vc ° v sod Eb o V ZD d °cn a � � ai � LYr O C 0 N � v a VQ mow 0 m Cd 0 u u u '0 u C � v •[ pq � V � '"' •Cd � ar h v r. I-N � v a ti y " v a a c� Eb � � o .$ b '0a �r 0 lh Cy V L d h 0 a to ca ° c y v °" a o c7 � - z o o .� 0E � � � yv .0 0 d [ 6. 0 :t s N cy C C O 0 N O 0 oo v n� 0 N "O '. v QO W wl 4 v r. o W C v a gb � X 4b g r. b g ° a H � d a tivv N CN M 0 r . � q k o 2 % $ 7 � q § 2 2 f 2 2 � § § ° § o _ � — ■ — o — m = § � - / \ U � § © ] E 2 k o a § \ o § ) q q � � CL � � s § b-4 § C. � k � 2 k E / "0 2 « £ § G ( § 2 § v § / � q $ Q � � § J � � � § 9 N Fes" � � � �� � t� v ~ vM•� ? � '� � � o � � pC_p C v U -C C w o c v [ v � 'ti � 0 � •a � 'ea s c 'v3 '.. v0o °� '0v ° Q v0 y C °'° x E o —c.o v o > o . v o � v ° c 'v v GL Q �+ C U '�+ U �+ U b v vu E E = ° o � ov 'fly vti 'N ao° rz cv s� cd � E a u y u C = W E L � vQ7 b ' `� '� v � b � � .� � .a � vyg .a v F v > a '� o ao IZ v �' Q1 C � y i 0 � � y ° f� y 0 - •f� �+ Q� v ��aU+, ►� v C y fC C y 0 f..+. GA -- v CL 0 p a v -- M'ti z WL � 0 � s u � •p C p h au, "my dvo �. cn � m G � s c v to � U' H 0 a+ C 'd y p .- y «+ •� p, 0 -C tO �+ y U o 'b 0 'b .v ' 0 'O v ce v 0 G act y � �' C 0 crr v '. M L. -- Q = to bo d -a V . OA u Oa � `� � Oq C C � CA v U C v ° v � � to ° N a oC) q > u u o v , 0 w to C to 0 a as € °- ov °A � a.+ u ~ �. o 0 r N � V a A � a on .. c ca ao o � oG � o 0a .�v 5n, c� bA L a� v > a 0 o v v 0 b 0 rUq M. 0 0 G C..� V b v b s c v y � u �' E v p 0 ca u 0 ay. a av v a �, a ao U c �j r 0. v V .0 y y ." c� -. V) �+ a=+ C cS cC �O. v O v v if V .E v a' E E 'u ^ °a' •�' a'a, F ' _'3 s v vE u L Z0 o., y v>Q.z 0 V 0 C.-C. 0 c > p a as h � � •a w E s y 0 0 v a p p u '° v s y v a v `v c c u °''ti 4 � •v `� c � v u > > y c `gymu _ ° .n ° 0vi , s eo � � •� ,� � Q v .ti � h � �, u au h e osEv '� 0va4 �,' aG .a O •� a+ C v G, CA a, p r- � -0 C7 u 0� 'b U u u OQ v a+ F h G a �, L C Vj o � x o � ca3 'v � u' c� E 0 00 N V a U Q � a d a^ a E a� •u fl.L '� v � v �Q ,o 0 v "cn va c � cCa ° c U p a� • u 0 n. 5 C > E v p u a E- .c v a °4 au v v O c Q a° 'c oom w c c � v •� c � � C v F c v c � ° c G na•v ao _ � v o � a• o�c � � ovEO �. v •- c c v � � v c � � :c d � cce V- v a U v cl v E O u cl �C = •a+ � v� cn Q. O O C M. t O c 6. v v cc 6 o v A v v O c 0 c � c0 0 F � d � a N P ti M C M O N r-i t� O h v u d a � A WO v cG 0 w c `.4 a mad S v o > zv v 6 0 v S ,a c o 0 0 c Q1 b �, rh b4 a+ W �. 0 0 0 0 a� ayh,, „ v v o :�c+ Q� V iA Ir � lr Q• Ir�•� � �.' Id"' p•, C v LL7 u v cca r, U o a o0 a.•- vn d w to b 0 E v CL aJ W O dU vv aoo NNN o v 4 v o'° n, a, ° = c v y C. C v h y m o CU p 0 bQ h a�+ C Ri h y O C O u _ CL C y ~ c C c O u W C cd O Q O 0 o p E G o" � � b s ' v � " °•-C7 on � •� a�+ O a+ .^� G V M1 p c al Gm h v N !y �' M U 'a 0 0 .. � � / V � - � 2 � � E 2 m - � ) © o IV a 2 2 f g 2 o f o u S c / it a 'i 2 « G § 2 / � )/ q © � � § k \ 0 a uu 0 ALTERNATIVES SUMMARY The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires that an EIR include a discussion of reasonable project alternatives which are "capable of eliminating any significant adverse environmental effects or reducing them to a level of insignifi- cance, even if these alternatives would impede to some degree the attainment of the project objectives or would be more costly" (CEQA, Section 15126(d)(3)). The following alternatives are evaluated in this EIR: 4.1 - No Project/No Develop- ment; 4.2 - No Project/Site Development per Existing General Plan/Zoning; 4.3 - Creation of a new General Plan Designation and Zoning District; and 4.4 - Alterna- tive Site Analysis. It should be noted that the Alternative Site Analysis is not summarized below. The following provides a brief description of each project alternative followed by a summary of each alternative's environmental superiority (if any). NO PROJECT/NO DEVELOPMENT With the No Project/No Development alternative, the site would remain in its unde- veloped condition. Although implementation of this alternative would eliminate the project's environ- mental effects, the No Project/No Development alternative would not achieve the project objectives or fulfill the land use designation proposed in the existing General Plan. Specifically, this alternative would not take advantage of the site's proximity to a major freeway interchange that accommodates commercial development due to higher than average traffic volumes. This alternative would also not be consistent with the General Plan Land Use Element goals and objectives listed in Section 3.4, as it would not encourage a cohesive pattern of growth extending outward from the developed portions of the City. Implementation of this alternative would also not assist in attaining the goals of the Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) which encourages placement of employment generating land uses in housing rich areas such as the City of San Bernardino. This alternative would not alter the existing visual environment nor would it result in increases in ambient and peripheral light emissions. The site would remain vacant and unimproved and would be devoid of the aesthetic value associated with either improved or natural open space. This alternative would not affect existing commercial centers in the City of San Bernardino. Under this alternative, customers would patronize other commercial areas within the City. 1-31 This alternative represents a short-term avoidance of the identified environmental effects of the project. It is likely that the site would be developed in the near future due to the availability of services and utilities, ease of access/location of freeway and arterial crossroads, the need for minimal site preparation and general lack of physi- cal constraints to development. Consequently, although the No Development alternative is superior in the short- term, the long-range development opportunities would likely result in the implemen- tation of urban uses on site and the attendant environmental impacts. NO PROJECT/SIDE DEVELOPMENT PER EXISTING GENERAL PLAN/ZONING Under the existing General Plan (RU-1) low density residential designation, the site could be developed with 267 residential units, including single family attached and detached residential units. It can be assumed that Little League Drive would be realigned adjacent to Cable Creek. It is also assumed that the adjacent 7.1 acre parcel would be developed as CG-1 Commercial General land uses, yielding up to 216,500 square feet of commer- cial uses. Impacts that would be incrementally reduced under this alternative include traffic, noise, local air quality, and aesthetics/light and glare. This is not a significant benefit when compared with the proposed GPA, as the EIR includes mitigation which will reduce these impacts and does not identify any of these topics as unavoidable significant impacts, with the exception of cumulative air quality impacts which occur for both this alternative and the project. The reduction in land use intensity impacts under this alternative, however, is con- sidered a significant benefit of this alternative as the EIR identifies significant land use impacts to the surrounding residential areas (existing and planned) with project implementation. In terms of project objectives, this alternative would not achieve the applicant's desire to take advantage of the site's proximity to the freeway and growing resi- dential consumer base in order to develop the site with commercial uses. Imple- mentation of this alternative would also not facilitate attainment of the goals of the AQMP which encourage development of commercial (employment generating) uses in housing rich areas, as is the case with the subregion. NEW GEATSA7.PLAN DESIGNATION AND ZONING DISTRICT Under this alternative, a new General Plan designation and zoning district (i.e., amendment to the Development Code) would be created. The categories would 1-32 establish a maximum development intensity that would be similar to the applicant's Concept Plan illustrated in Figure 2.8.1. Accordingly, a development intensity of approximately 325,000 square feet of com- mercial development would be allowed for the 29.7 acre parcel, approximately a 0.25 floor area ratio (FAR), for the new designation. Also, the designation would permit the types of uses envisioned in the applicant's Concept Plan that would be consistent with commercial uses at the community scale. Compared with the proposed project, this alternative would result in incremental reductions in traffic, noise, air quality and aesthetics effects. For traffic impacts, unlike the proposed GPA, this alternative does not result in any traffic impacts that cannot be mitigated. However, the EIR identifies that all of the project's effects to these topics can be mitigated to a level below significance. Under this alternative, similar impacts are anticipated to land use compatibility due to the similarity in characteristics between commercial uses for the proposed GPA and this alternative. The most dramatic difference between this alternative and the proposed GPA focuses on land use intensity. This alternative eliminates the impact on land use intensity that would occur with implementation of the proposed GPA. In summary, this alternative would reduce or eliminate land use intensity impacts, which has been identified as a significant impact associated with the proposed GPA. 1-33 2.0 INTRODUCTION/PROJECT DESCRIPTION The purpose of this Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is to address the potential environmental impacts associated with a proposed General Plan Amendment (GPA) and commercial development changing the existing Gen- eral Plan designation of the 29.7 acre parcel on the north side of the I-215 Freeway in the City of San Bernardino. The project applicant (i.e., property owner) also owns an adjacent parcel which totals approximately 7.1 acres but is not included in the request for the General Plan Amendment. The smaller parcel, however, has been incorporated into the overall planning effort and is an essential component of the site plan. It is the intent of this document to disclose all project-related impacts that would occur as a direct result of implementing the requested discretionary actions, and to recommend measures to mitigate identified impacts to below a level of significance. The environmental document will be used by the City of San Bernardino decision makers prior to acting on all aspects of the pro- posed project. The document will also be used to assist in determining the need for additional environmental analysis when subsequent construction level approvals and permits are sought by the project applicant. 2.1 PROJECT LOCATION The project site is located at the intersection of Little League Drive and Palm Avenue in the northwest portion of the City of San Bernardino. Locally, the site plan is bordered by the existing alignment for Little League Drive (and the I-215 Freeway), Magnolia Avenue (and Al Guhin Park), and the Cable Creek Flood Control Channel. Figures 2.1.1 and 2.1.2 locate the proposed project in the region and vicinity. 2.2 PLANMNG HISTORY The project site is designated in the General Plan for urban residential devel- opment (RU-1). The recently concluded General Plan Update program saw this site become the subject of considerable local public controversy. At the time, the site was also considered for a commercial designation due to the apparent shortage of commercial land uses in this portion of the City. How- ever, the local residents were concerned with the amount of commercial uses that could be potentially developed on the site given its prominence along the I-215 Freeway, and potential intensity for the type of commercial desired under the constraints of the Commercial General (CG-1) land use designa- tion. Consequently, the potential commercial land use opportunity was abandoned. The project applicant desires to change the designated land use on the 29.7 acre site from residential to commercial in order to satisfy demand that potentially exists in the area for commercial uses. The applicant's adjacent 03/26/92(I`,HID101\MASTERI.DOC) 2-1 i ► 15 Project Site I ► /Los Angeles Co. San Bernardino Co. / San Bernardino so I _ _ Riverside � — I 10 Long Beach 91 ` 15 Riverside Co. is f 15 Hemet Palm Springs .i:• �L 74 •; Santa Ma 1% 74 Orange 79 Co. Lake ' Elsinore Vista 7 9 •. San Diego Co. 15 e San Dieg17. 12/4/91(HID1111) Figure 2.1.1 LSDNot to Sale Verdemont GPA No. 90-6 Mm6nw� Regional Location 1 l� it �1/ � � � �J ! '/ —_ _^,,�3��—� •_ to z WO �v door'.. ✓�� �� _' �'i° �� .lo JA,') ��,- ��� ��'r�R Ip� I � I � I\ ��r��a�-�J�iON1Ut1VNfl --_ �`� •� .y `-1�l "-11�� fS< .P. '.�'` � , '• �.iIII i i %�n :/: � �(= �t�' `:� cCo 0(111- } �J -S / j ��^ � •' .i� ••(: moo , / .j ..—� �, ;�' F', ol �y �Y � 0 c f c cF' 7.1 acre parcel is designated for commercial development (CG-1). Although the applicant may currently develop neighborhood level commercial uses on the 7.1 acre parcel, inclusion of the adjacent 29.7 acres is essential if a com- prehensive community level commercial development is constructed. The project applicant has retained a team of professionals to conduct the necessary technical studies and provide services as required to evaluate project impacts and the necessary improvements. These technical studies are incorporated by reference into this report. The studies include: • Traffic Impact Analysis, LSA Associates, Inc. • Biological Assessment, LSA Associates, Inc. • Noise Analysis, LSA Associates, Inc. • Air Quality Analysis, LSA Associates, • Preliminary Drainage Study, Sierra Engineering • Liquefaction Investigation, Inland Foundation Engineering, Inc. Complete versions of these reports are included in the Appendix. References are provided in the document where information has been obtained from these reports. 2.3 ENVIRONMENTAL PROCEDURES This EIR has been prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) of 1970, as amended (Public Resources Code, Section 21000 et seq.); the State Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act, 1970, as amended (California Administrative Code, Section 15000 et seq.); and Procedures, Objectives and Criteria for Implementing the California Environmental Quality Act, 1970, as amended, adopted by the City of San Bernardino. The City of San Bernardino is the Lead Agency for the project and has re- sponsibility to prepare and certify this EIR. Information contained in this EIR is intended to be used by the City of San Bernardino in the decision making process. Mitigation measures have been identified throughout, with the goal of reducing potential adverse impacts, if possible, to below a level of signifi- cance. In accordance with Section 15063 of the State CEQA Guidelines, the City of San Bernardino prepared an Initial Study for the proposed project and distributed it (September 19, 1991) along with the Notice of Preparation 03/26/9200 ED101WASTERI.DOC) 2-4 (NOP) for the EIR to the State Clearinghouse, responsible agencies and other interested parties. By distributing the NOP, the city hoped to obtain public and agency input and determine the full range and scope of environmental issues related to the project so that they could be adequately addressed in the EIR. The NOP, NOP distribution list, and resulting comments are con- tained in Appendix A. The City also conducted a scoping session on September 30, 1991. The purpose of the scoping session was to present the project to the public and to obtain their input regarding project issues. The information obtained from the public was used in the preparation of this Environmental Impact Report. This EIR is being prepared as a Project EIR in response to the actions re- quested by the applicant. According to the CEQA Guidelines, a Project EIR is the most common type of EIR which examines the environmental impacts of a specific development project. A Project EIR focuses primarily on the chang- es in the environment that would result from development of the project, including planning, construction and operation. 2.4 EFFECTS FOUND NOT TO BE SIGNIFICANT During preparation of the Initial Study, the City of San Bernardino deter- mined that certain environmental effects of the project would not be signifi- cant and, therefore, they are not discussed in the EIR. The following is a list of items which the City of San Bernardino determined would not be signifi- cantly affected by the project: • Landform - The project site does not contain any unusual landforms or geologic features that would be altered or destroyed during grad- ing. • Odor - The proposed GPA will not contain uses that are typically associated with the creation of objectional odors. • Hazardous substances and fire hazards - The project site is not locat- ed within a high fire hazard zone as identified by the City of San Bernardino General Plan. Therefore, project development will not result in high fire hazard risk. Likewise, the proposed project will not involve the disposal of hazardous materials so as to result in the risk of exposure. • Air and rail traffic - Since the project site is not located in the vicinity of air or rail traffic facilities, project implementation will not impact such facilities. • Circulation patterns - Realignment of Little League Drive as proposed by the project will correct substandard curve radii. The realignment 03/26/92(1AH1D 101MASTER 1.DOC) 2-5 will have a beneficial safety impact and will not result in disjointed roadway patterns or significant adverse environmental impacts. • Parks and schools - Since the proposed project will not directly add population to the project area, impacts to park and recreation and school facilities were determined to be insignificant during the Initial Study process. • Based upon analyses conducted during the Initial Study process, the proposed project is not located within a sensitive cultural resource area. Therefore, project implementation will not result in adverse impacts to prehistoric or historic archaeological resources 2.5 ISSUES OF CONCERN Based on public input during the recent comprehensive General Plan Update and the analysis contained in the Initial Study, the City of San Bernardino has determined issues of concern. The following is a list of project issues: • Change in land use from potential residential to potential Commercial General uses, • Maximum intensity of Commercial General land use, • Project aesthetics as viewed from adjacent freeway vantage points and residential lands to the east, • Additional project-generated traffic volumes assigned to the local circulation network, • Circulation geometrics constrained by the area's physical limitations, • Increase in local and regional air emissions associated with increased commercial-generated vehicle trips, • Development of a commercial land use in a high wind hazard area, including building siting/orientation constraints and wind direction concerns, • Potential impacts on water resources, including flood hazards and necessary flood control improvements, • Increase in local ambient project generated noise effects associated with increased commercial-generated vehicle trips, • Potential impact on local public services and ability to provide ade- quate service, particularly for police and fire services and medical aid. 03/26/92(1AH1D i 01\MASTER 1.DOC) 2-G In addition to these topics, the EIR includes several sections required by CEQA, such as cumulative impacts, growth inducing impacts, irreversible and irretrievable commitment of resources, unavoidable adverse impacts, relation- ship between long and short-term uses of the environment, and alternatives. The City has also expressed concern regarding the processing procedures necessary to obtain the appropriate General Plan designation and its rela- tionship to the proposed project site plan. As is discussed in Section 1.6, Discretionary Actions, the General Plan designation requested by the appli- cant has the potential to allow substantially greater development intensity than the applicant has proposed in the project site plan. The City is con- cerned that, if the GPA is approved 1) the site plan may never be developed at the lower intensity should market or other conditions affect project feasi- bility, or 2) the project may be constructed at the proposed site plan intensi- ty, only to be razed at a later date and rebuilt at the higher intensity. Should either condition occur, the site would retain a development intensity at the CG-1 (Commercial General) intensity, which has been a demonstrated con- cern of the local community. To allow other options for approval by the decision makers, this EIR will examine an alternative that would establish a new General Plan designation with a maximum commercial development intensity similar to that proposed in the site plan. To accomplish that objective and allow the introduction of a new designation, an amendment to the Development Code would also be required in order to establish the corresponding development provisions and guidelines. 2.6 DISCRETIONARYACTIONS Implementation of the proposed project would require the following dis- cretionary actions by the City of San Bernardino: 1) Certification of the EIR, 2) approval of a General Plan Amendment and concurrent zone change, and 3) approval of a Development Permit requiring site plan approval. These approvals, along with required future approvals, are outlined below and are further described in the land use discussion (Section 4.1). General Plan Amendment/Zone Change Land Use Element In March 8, 1990, a General Plan Amendment (GPA) application (GPA-90-6) was submitted to the City as a request to change the site's General Plan Land Use Element designation from Low Density Residential (RU-1) to Com- mercial General (CG-1). Figure 2.6.1 illustrates the applicant's proposed GPA. Under the CG-1 designation, a floor area ratio (FAR) of 0.70 is the allowable development intensity. The CG-1 designation is permitted in 0326/92(1AJiID 101\MASTER 1.DOC) 2-7 commercial corridors throughout the City, unless designated otherwise, and at intersection nodes. Allowable uses within the CG-1 category include general retail, restaurants, furniture stores, household goods, supermarkets, drugstores, liquor stores, building materials and supplies, small offices, and other similar uses. An alternative General Plan Amendment has also been evaluated in this EIR as required to assess the impacts of a commercial designation that permits the same uses as the CG-1 designation, but with a reduced FAR to 0.25. This alternative is addressed in this EIR as Alternative 4.3, New General Plan Designation and Zoning District. Such designation is not contained within the City's existing General Plan and would need to be created. If this desig- nation (e.g., CG-5) is established, an amendment to the General Plan land Use Element is required, including amendments to both map and text. Circulation Element In conjunction with the Land Use Element GPA request, is a request to amend the Circulation Element, modifying the alignment of Little League Drive from the current alignment adjacent to the I-215 Freeway to an align- ment along the south side of the Cable Creek flood control channel. Little League Drive has the designation of collector in the Circulation Element with an ultimate 88 foot right-of-way; a change to this designation has not been requested. Zoning The City of San Bernardino has brought its zoning map into conformance with the General Plan. Consequently, all zoning designations throughout the City correspond precisely with the General Plan land use designations and vice versa. In principle, the General Plan and zoning are in synchrony and have been combined into a single land use plan. Because the City has com- bined the General Plan and zoning into a single map, it is not necessary for the applicant to make a separate request to change the site's zoning. Approv- al of the GPA will automatically result in a corresponding change of site zoning. Development Code Amendment As mentioned above, a new General Plan designation (e.g., CG-5) may be required with this project as presented in Alternative 4.3 of this EIR. A corre- sponding designation would also be required in the City's Development Code, together with text change, thus maintaining General Plan and Develop- ment Code (zoning) consistency. An amendment has been filed with the City for this change and is noted as DCA-92-01. 03/26/'92(IAH1D101VAASTERI.DOC) 2-8 W M W W M � 2 Alt W Q Q J H Z Z C7 U) a W U • '��•�IRVINGTON AVENUE ....... c4e�F c9�t »..................... .�. \ `: � = :M. ............. ................ .................. "•:«:::::: =i:::::�••:::::::::::»•::::iiii �• � WASHINGTON ST. si :::::::::::...................:.:. .... .......... ..�??cis: ♦ cFti M. BE =iiiii \ 9q� •:ii: Fq� SF� M F KENDALL DRIVE Sourcc: City of San Bcrnardino 12!3/UI(HID11)1) Figure 2.6.1 N�< «� 5��1� LSD Proposed General Plan Amendment Development Permit The project applicant has prepared a site plan that covers both the 29.7 acre parcel proposed for the GPA and the 7.1 acre parcel that currently possesses a commercial designation. The site plan has been designed to yield a total of 325,000 square feet of commercial land use, with a 0.25 FAR on the 29.7 acre parcel. On the 7.1 acre parcel, a total of 55,000 square feet of commercial use is proposed. Together, the 36.8 acres are proposed for 380,000 square feet of commercial development with a 0.24 FAR Additional details on the site plan are presented in the Project Characteristics section of this EIR Future Approvals Future discretionary actions that may be required prior to project construc- tion, including preparation of tentative and final tract or parcel maps, grad- ing permits, National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) per- mits, building permits, occupancy permits and Section 404 (U.S.Army Corps of Engineers) and Streambed Alteration Agreement/1603 agreement (Califor- nia Department of Fish and Game). 03/26/92(I:\TIID101\MASTERI.DOC) 2-10 2.7 PROJECT SPONSORS AND CONTACT PERSONS Lead Agency: City of San Bernardino Planning and Building Services Department 300 North D Street San Bernardino, California 92418 Contact Person: Deborah Woldruff (714) 384-5057 Project Applicant: Verdemont Associates 11040 Santa Monica Boulevard Suite 340 Contact Person: Mike Flesch Los Angeles, California 90025 M (213) 312-9929 Environmental Consultants: Hogle-Ireland Development Consulting Group and LSA Associates, Inc. 3403 10th Street, Suite 520 Riverside, California 92501 Contact Persons: Alan Rubin (HIDCG) Bill Mayer (LSA) (714) 787-9222 (HIDCG) (714) 781-9310 (LSA) 2.8 PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS The proposed General Plan Amendment (GPA) project consists of a shopping center that is intended to serve the community of Verdemont. As mentioned above under Discretionary Actions, the shopping center will be constructed on three parcels: 1) two parcels (APN 261-181-01 and 11) totalling approxi- mately 29.7 acres which is the subject of the GPA; and 2) one parcel (APN 261-182-10) of approximately 7.1 acres which contains an appropriate Gener- al Plan designation and, therefore, does not require amending. Figure 2.8.1 provides an illustration of the proposed concept site plan as submitted by the project applicant. Regional freeway access (I-215) is obtained from the Palm Avenue inter- change (see previous Figure 2.2.1). Site access is currently secured from Little League Drive which intersects Palm Avenue, then extends north adja- cent to the project site and along Al Guhin Park, intersecting with the contin- uation of Little League Drive which parallels Magnolia Avenue. In this vicini- ty, Little League Drive extends as a freeway overcrossing, connecting with Kendall Drive to the south of I-215. The alignment for Chestnut Avenue, a roadway that is planned but not yet constructed and extends through the site in a northeasterly direction, is not proposed as a circulation component of the project and will not be implemented. 03/76!92(1:\1iM101\ MASTER1.DOC) 2-11 N CL 1E ,1 /I m Y.Ir lr 1111 1 I� ii %/ % 1 IIYJ� k► f��A9 I 1 , u III l YV� r_ / � nn lurlur� wp nr ... lot r1111111.f111Yd I / Y - we t- -^ tl L 7. ,u • 1 W P�Rn I^ OWN!II. 111 V,! N �� 1� I W = CC � l � cc /; , I 1 111 �Il�ui•..i lll, „ 1� 1 I I ' ~ � 1 —LLY nnll,u',1rllr n z� fl � � T' W a L) 1Y�" �� I i ••'•'•"'I" IIr111 r 111 11. Q �� W : �� � �Q rl• 1.. rlll l:l� CL IL wI � I • r' I O! `` C Irr• n'�rll�.nr n�rlrr�,r~�'r r 'r'II 1 LW _ •1 E 1 I I Y II Irl ll ll 1111 1y rL ..�lW �I r ° 7,' ' 9� �� tl a 11• r 111 1 I" � ► II W 4. � !r � i�l � Lrn 11111..n .1 r? a u11 •'• Of 1 ./ � 11111111111�1�111� pr•IIIIL'I!,IIl11!1•� a:,� UJ U L 111111 11 1 == 1 U Lr C 71- rr.I rlrl rr rlrll ll lll� � •• � {�I 1 � � N 4 1 CL R .. � I r. •r.11 s IUD`-----•'I: ;;,. e` ;��«•I o' yT Ln r1111, 1 _ i y n�I WXI 1 W(�� ' . = - 1IG X11 I iil _ V. < 3 J I _ rl The site plan proposes to realign Little League Drive to a new alignment extending parallel to the Cable Creek flood control channel. The purpose for the realignment, as further described in the Traffic and Circulation Sec- tion, is to eliminate roadway curves with substandard radii where Little League Drive curves around the west side of Al Guhin Park. Although the current radii sufficiently manage existing traffic volumes, the roadway will require straightening to accommodate project implementation and projected traffic increases, together with the need to improve the roadway geometrics to Collector standards. Under the proposed plan, there would no longer be a freeway frontage road immediately adjacent to the project site. Little League Drive will be improved to a four lane roadway with a 88 foot right-of- way. Project implementation would also require improvement of Magnolia Avenue to a two lane roadway. Within the boundaries of the Concept Plan, a total of 380,000 square feet of commercial uses would be constructed in a combination of stand-alone and attached buildings. Table 2.8.A defines the square footage for each building as well as parking allocation per building. According to the plan, a chain of buildings will extend along the freeway frontage, with larger buildings con- nected to alternating smaller buildings. The largest building (105,000 square feet) on the site will anchor the northern end of this chain, while a 10,500 square foot building will anchor the southern end. A stand-alone building of 15,000 square feet is proposed for the most southerly site location. Stand-alone buildings are also proposed to front immediately along the new Little League alignment (ranging from 4,500 square feet to 14,000 square feet). Along Magnolia Avenue, three buildings in a chain (ranging from 10,000 square feet to 15,000 square feet) will occupy the northerly end of the site. The majority of the site parking area is proposed in the site interior, with the buildings surrounding the parking area. Parking will also be located at the rear of several buildings, particularly for the larger chain of buildings, to serve employee parking needs as well as peak seasonal parking requirements. In total, 2,082 spaces will be provided using a typical 9'x19' space dimension (minimum parking dimension for 90°angled parking per Development Code 19.24). The parking ratio calculates to one space per 182 square feet of commercial use or 5.5 spaces per 1,000 square feet of development. Site access (ingress/egress) will be provided through the use of several roads that are private driveways. The primary site entrances will occur along Little League Drive, where five divided entryways and one undivided entryway will be located at regular intervals. Five smaller entrances will be provided along Magnolia Avenue to serve the most northerly uses and buildings. One of these entrances will serve the employee parking and service loading require- ments for the chain of buildings adjacent to the freeway. 03/76'92(I:V3ID1o1\MASTERI.DOC) 2-13 Table 2.8.A. Proposed Building Area by Square Feet Building Square Footage Parking Provided A 105,000 B 24,200 C 35,000 D 18,500 E 50,000 F 18,300 G 25,000 H 10,500 I 15,000 J 12,000 K 15,000 L 30,000 M 14,000 N 10,000 O 7,500 P 5,500 Q 4.500 TOTAL (17 Buildings) 380,000 2,082 03/26/920AHM I MWASfER L DOC) 2-14 Loading docks and trash enclosures will be located to the rear of the build- ings in the largest chain of buildings, as well as the three buildings adjacent to Magnolia Avenue. By locating these facilities to the rear of the buildings, trash and loading activities will be screened from customer parking areas. The smaller, stand-alone buildings adjacent to the new Little League align- ment will require loading and trash facilities, which could be shared if dis- tance precludes sharing of loading and trash facilities with the other build- ings on site. 2.9 PROJECT OBJECTIVES Applicant Objectives It is the goal of the project applicant to take advantage of the project's prox- imity to a major intersection in order to develop the site with a commercial center. This center is intended to serve existing and future residential devel- opment in Verdemont. Provision of employee generating uses on-site in close proximity to residential development would also fill subregional jobs/housing balance objectives as San Bernardino is within a sub-region which currently experiences an excess of housing over employment opportu- nities. Specific applicant objectives are: • To encourage a cohesive pattern of growth extending outward from the developed sections of the city. • To encourage and promote flexibility and individuality in develop- ment. • To encourage the grouping of convenience and service facilities into integrated centers providing a full range of goods and services prop- erly related to the community served. • To maintain an economic balance among land uses in the Verdemont Community. The City of San Bernardino General Plan Land Use and Urban Design for Public Spaces Element has developed goals and objectives related to future development within the City. The following is a listing of Land Use and Urban Design for Public Spaces Element goals as they pertain to the site: Goal 1A Provide for the continuation and development of suffi- cient land uses to serve the housing, commercial, edu- cational, cultural, recreational, and social needs of existing residents and population growth. Goal 1G(j) Achieve a pattern and distribution of land uses which locate commercial and human services, recreation, and jobs in proximity to residents. 0326/92(.\HM101\MASnRI.DOC) 2-15 Goal 1H Continue existing and establish new residential, com- mercial, industrial, open space, and public districts which are uniquely characterized by their functional role, permitted uses, density/intensity, and physical form. Objective 1.19 Provide for the continued use, enhancement, and new development of retail, personal service, entertainment, office and related commercial uses along major trans- portation corridors and intersections to serve the needs of residents; reinforcing existing commercial corridors and centers and establishing new locations as new residential growth occurs. Objective 4.15 Make land available for new development in, and in- tensification of, existing local-serving commercial cor- ridors and to establish new commercial areas, as need arises with population growth, along major transporta- tion corridors in proximity to residential neighbor- hoods. 03/26i'92(IAHID101\WSnRI.DOC) 2-16 3.0 SETTING/IMPACTS/MITIGATION 3.1 GEOLOGY The following analysis is summarized from the City of San Bernardino's Technical Background Report, Geologic and Seismic Section, prepared for the General Plan Update, as well as a technical liquefaction investigation prepared for the site by Inland Foundation Engineering, Inc. A complete copy of the technical liquefaction investigation can be found in Appendix B. Se#ing Primary geologic and seismic hazards that could affect portions of the City of San Bernardino planning area include strong ground shaking, fault rupture, and potential liquefaction. The planning area lies in a region where numer- ous faults are probably capable of generating moderate to large earthquakes. The Bunker Hill-San Timoteo Basin, which includes the cities of Rialto, Colton, Loma Linda, Redlands and San Bernardino, lies in the area between the active San Andreas Fault zone on the northeast and the active San Jacinto Fault zone on the southwest (Fife and others, 1976). The City of San Bernar- dino planning area is a broad gently sloping lowland that flanks the south- west margin of the San Bernardino Mountains. The lowland is underlain by alluvial sediments eroded from bedrock in the adjacent mountains and washed by rivers and creeks into the valley region where they have accumu- lated in layers of gravel, sand, silt and clay. Sediment accumulation has continued for a few million years, during which time increasing thicknesses of sediments have gradually buried the original hill and valley topography of the Bunker Hill-San Timoteo Basin. Shandin Hills and other smaller hill areas in the Basin are remnants of the original topography. Younger sedimentary deposits consist of late Pleistocene alluvium outcrop- ping on the older alluvial fans northeast of the City and underlying the youn- ger Holocene alluvium of the San Bernardino Valley. The project site is geologically located on undifferentiated Holocene alluvium, gravel, sand, silt and clay, and is uncemented and unconsolidated. Floodplain deposits from the Santa Ana River, Cajon Creek and Lytle Creek, in the vicinity of metropol- itan San Bernardino, are comprised predominately of sand, sandy silt and silt. The alluvial fan and Foodplain deposits interfinger and form a highly variable and oftentimes laterally discontinuous layering of various sizes of alluvial materials. Soil profiles are thin and slightly developed on younger alluvial deposits, but are progressively thicker and better developed on the older alluvium (Carson and Matti, 1986). The City of San Bernardino lies in a region where numerous faults are proba- bly capable of generating moderate to large earthquakes (Fife and others, 1974; Yerkes, 1985; Carson and Matti, 1986). The major faults are related to the San Andreas system which generates earthquakes as blocks on either side 03lR6/92(I\JUD101WASTERLDOC) 3-1 of the fault plane slide laterally past one another. Subsidiary faults, which may have developed from complicated stresses within the San Andreas system, generate earthquakes as blocks on either side of the fault plane slide up or down relative to each other. One of the most critical and difficult steps in the evaluation of fault activity is the determination of whether or not faults in an area being considered for development are "active" in the sense of potentially producing a damaging earthquake. Generally, active faults are considered likely to undergo renewed movement within a period of concern to humans. Faults that are currently slipping, that display earthquake activity, or that have had historical surface rupture, clearly are active with respect to land use planning. How- ever, except in the above clear-cut uses, it is difficult to differentiate with certainty between faults capable of precise or predictable future movement and those that cannot move under the state of stress existing in a particular region (Ziony and Yerkes, 1985). Known active faults display a wide range of behavior and even today the processes determining fault activity are only partially understood. The regional faults that may generate earthquakes or surface rupture in a portion of Southern California are mapped in Figure 3.1.1 (Ziony and Yerkes, 1985). These faults are subdivided into categories of faults with historical (past 200 years) surface rupture, faults with Holocene (past 10,000 years) surface rupture, and faults with late Quaternary (past 750,000 years) surface rupture. Specific characteristics of these faults are summarized in Table 3.1.A. Damaging earthquakes could also occur on many other faults in the region, but their distance from the San Bernardino planning area or magni- tude limitations suggest that the resulting ground shaking and related dam- age would be less than is anticipated for most of the faults in Table 3.1 A. However, it is important to note that earthquake activity from unmapped subsurface faults is a possibility that is currently not predictable. The earth- quake magnitudes in Table 3.1A represent maximum credible or an upper bound earthquake that might occur on the fault, and a more probable earth- quake magnitude as related to potential fault rupture length. The relative threat of earthquake damage posed by a given fault is related to the magnitude of the generated earthquake, the fault's distance from the City, its long-term slip rate, and the elapsed time since the last major earthquake. The earthquake magnitude, distance, and subsurface geologic characteristics provide a measure of potential ground shaking (acceleration). Table 3.1A also shows the average recurrence interval (where known) for earthquakes as correlated to the fault's slip rate. In general, faults which lower slip rates or which produce earthquakes of higher magnitude, will have longer recurrence intervals between major earthquakes, whereas a higher slip rate or lower magnitude correlates with more frequent earthquakes. Since long-term probability of an event is an imperfect measure of current earthquake poten- tial, an event of long recurrence interval could still pose a significant threat if the elapsed time since the last event approaches or exceeds the average recurrence time. For many faults in the region, the lapsed time since the last 03/2.6.'92(1AH1D101\MAMRI.DOC) 3-2 I 1 D• tt7• 116':5' \ \ 34.45' O Lancaster \ tSa,� °a M 11Y. "?Q,? O Palmdale WAVE DESERT % \ \ Nadi \\ OViclorville 6 ANDES \ North Frontal \ Sa � 41)0" � ` ea San F nando s SAN GABRIEL MOUNTAINS Sa' �Cleghorn a/ C�Cucamonga Madre °'c\ Pasadena SAN BERNARDINO MOUNTAINS O Burbank ' Cucamonga-Sierra Madre �O�CCt Holly 00 eO�`\\ 0 O Los Angeles °/ San Bernardino Pomona °4 ..� o(\ S `` Santa Monica dq I\ WhiR�CrQ� \ F 34• Q Riverside a whrtlier anning A \ A°o ° O °� Banning \ 0 Corona \\ Aie Long Beach°o° �0 � si'ti r Vee" aq mac 0 Santa Ana y \'�O� ` HemetO O \ e EXPLANATION 9 � �O -1-11—Fault with historical surface rupture Fault with Holocene(past 10.000 years) surface rupture 'e.� Fault with late Quaternary!past 750.000 �mss. � Years)surface rupture o 0 10 20 30`t:LES 0 10 20 30 40 KJOh1ETCSS (After Ziony and lerkes, 1985) 1 1 a' 33•,5 117• 115.45 Sourcc: City of San Bernardino Gcncral Plan 12/4/91(HID]01) Figure 3.1.1 LSA Faults That May Generate Damaging Surface Rupture O O O O O �uy o 8 4 'a' N `T `Q' •C N `T N N `C CL r 0 OP 09 M N j0 `• C C v v v � v v u u C u C C C to tt v L C C d v u d d u v co +� U N 'V r- 00 r- ♦+ e � U � V , I I I I I 1 at v U M U O N O O O OD v1 N O n 00 �p 00 O p � o F r w 00 n Ow = ^ ca CO O !0 t� eeu No- m x 'o C GJ E p c: 0 v 0 0 �q \ .— •, C eg,u '� z N n �a 0 v 0 r o 2 CR 2 U Z U m a nZ seismic event is specifically unknown, thus making earthquake predictions more subjective. The following describes the characteristics of the faults near the project site: San Andreas Fault System The San Andreas Fault system, including the north and south branches, forms the dominant fault feature in the City of San Bernardino area and throughout much of western California. Two of California's largest historic earthquakes have occurred along this fault in 1857 near Fort Tejon and in 1906 near San Francisco. Both of these earthquakes, generated by San Andreas Fault move- ment, have been estimated at 8 plus magnitudes with surface displacements of 16 to 36 feet and fault rupture lengths of 200 plus miles. The fault seg- ment between Parkfield and Cajon Pass, which produced the 1857 event, currently has a very low level of seismic activity. Two different earthquake histories have been documented within the above segment. The portion from near Parkfield to Tejon Pass experiences great earthquakes of magni- tude 8 plus roughly every 250 years (Sieh and Jahns, 1984); whereas the segment between Tejon Pass and Cajon Pass experienced major to great earthquakes (magnitude 7 and greater) on an average of every 145 years (Sieh, 1984). The latter segment last broke during the 1857 Fort Tejon earthquake 130 years ago. The fault segment southeast of Cajon Pass and within the San Bernardino planning area has not experienced a major earthquake for at least 265 years and possibly for as long as 600 years. Various earthquake studies suggest that the fault segment between Cajon Pass and the Salton Sea is the location for the next great earthquake in California with probabilities of between 2 and 5 percent per year or about 50 percent in the next 20 or 30 years (Wesson and Wallace, 1985). Future earthquake predictions of magnitude and displacement cannot precisely be determined along the San Andreas Fault; however, regional studies indicate that a magnitude 8.0 or larger earth- quake could be expected to occur in the future and should be considered for planning and design purposes (Ziony and Yerkes, 1985). San,jacinto Fault System The San Jacinto Fault system includes the Glen Helen, San Jacinto and Loma Linda faults in the planning area (Fife and others, 1976; Ziony and Yerkes, 1985). These faults display Late Quaternary to Holocene activity with small earthquakes evident near their fault traces. In terms of numbers of damaging earthquakes, the San Jacinto Fault zone has been the most prolific in histor- ical time (Yerkes, 1985). At least ten events have taken place from 1958-1980 over a fault length of 120 miles, with about half of these events causing damage in the San Bernardino-Riverside area. Regional studies suggest that a magnitude 7.0 to 7.5 earthquake is possible on the San Jacinto Fault system 03/26l92(IMID101WASTERI.DOC) 3-5 that would affect the San Bernardino planning area (Fife and others, 1976; Ziony and Yerkes, 1985; Matti and Carson, 1986). Cucamonga-Sierra Madre Fault System This fault system is part of a reverse and thrust fault zone that bounds the southern margin of the eastern San Gabriel Mountains, approximately ten miles northwest of the Central City area. The Cucamonga Fault is not known to have generated a significant earthquake in historic time, but a series of fault scarps in Holocene alluvial fan deposits at the southeastern base of the San Gabriel Mountains attests to a succession of ground-rupturing earth- quakes in the past (Matti and Carson, 1986). Earthquake scenarios that could affect the San Bernardino planning area range from magnitude 6.5 to 6.75 (Fife and others, 1976; Matti and Carson, 1986). Rialto-Colton Fault This consists of two echelon strands with a total length of about 16 miles that trend in a northwest direction. No surface offset is evident for this fault, but small earthquakes have occurred near its subsurface trace (Ziony and Yerkes, 1985). The fault is about 4 miles west of the City. Clegborn Fault This is a single strand trending northwest with probable Holocene offset and numerous small earthquakes associated with the eastern end of the 14 mile long trace. The fault is located along the northwest end of the San Bernard- ino Mountains about 13 miles northwest of the City. Banning Fault Zone The Banning Fault zone consists of two to three strands in a zone about 2.5 miles wide trending from northwest to west with a total length of about 27 miles. Holocene strata are offset in the zone and numerous small earth- quakes are also closely associated with the zone. The fault zone is located about 16 miles south-southeast of the City. Red Hill Fault This is a presumed single strand fault trending northwest to nearly east-west with a length of about 9 miles. This fault extends through the Pomona area about 10 miles west of the City. Holocene strata have been offset at the eastern end and scattered small earthquakes have occurred near the fault trace. 03/26/92(I:\jJM 101\MASTER 1.DOC) 3-6 The California Division of Mines and Geology has designated certain faults within the San Bernardino planning area as part of the State of California Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zones. The Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zones Act was signed into California law in 1972. The purpose of the Act is to prohibit the location of most structures for human occupancy across the traces of any active faults within the Special Studies Zones, thereby mitigating the hazard of fault rupture. Unless proven otherwise, the area within 50 feet of an active fault is presumed to be underlain by that fault. Any fault along which there has been surface displacement during the last 11,000 years (Holocene Epoch) is defined by the California State Mining and Geology Board as an active fault. These faults are considered to be those most likely for renewal movement during the lifetime of any structures in a particular project and may be a possible source for surface ground displacement. In addition, the Alquist-Priolo Act also requires the State Geologist to establish Special Studies Zones to encompass all potentially active fault traces of the San Andreas and San Jacinto faults. Potentially active faults are those that show evidence of surface displacement during Quaternary time (the last 2 million years). Special Studies Zones boundaries extend approximately 500 feet in each direction from major active faults and about 200 to 300 feet away from well defined minor faults. Site specific geologic reports are required for develop- ments within these Zones in order to ascertain the precise location of, and setbacks from, any active faults. In addition, active faults may also exist outside the Zones on any Zone map. Therefore, fault investigations are recommended for critical and important developments proposed outside the Special Studies Zones (Hart, 1977). Special Studies Zones for the San Bernardino planning area, and the active faults within these Zones are shown in Figure 3.1.2. The San Andreas Fault system and the San Jacinto Fault system, including the Glen Helen and Loma Linda faults, are included within these Zones. Also included in Figure 3.1.3 are questionable faults approximately located by Fife and others (1976) as identified in a geologic hazards study of the area for the California Division of Mines and Geology. The project site is located at the edge of a question- able fault. The questionable faults paralleling the San Andreas Fault were identified as groundwater barriers underlying certain urbanized portions of the City. The entire San Bernardino planning area has been regionally designated as a high severity zone where major probable damage of probable maximum intensity IX or X may occur from a maximum expectable earthquake. Gener- al structural damage on the Modified Mercalli Intensity Scale for IX and X includes masonry seriously damaged if reinforced, and destroyed if unreinforced, and general damage to wood frame structures. Regional stud- ies have suggested that various intensities of damage could be caused by either a maximum credible earthquake of 8.5 magnitude on the San Andreas Fault system, a maximum credible earthquake of 7.5 magnitude of the San Jacinto Fault system, a maximum credible earthquake of 6.5 magnitude of the 03 46/92(I:\HID101\MASTERI.DOC) 3-7 N c^, C � N f4 T a Q N O O Q SO a 'D m ,, u — cs m ma Q ,� o E o s a 4 .4cti `mv LL. 45 k } me iocflEea io ^ ° tl E o E V c rn E O N. •O l0 .4 C •x H _ _ } rltd ,S trtotlt H ° Ae'" Q N } X X IS .3. Co l• f� �`� At WYNA-In �4 }�► ISO 11 � v tat OYIYty Ar IS MOGOd e � of aS / �-lCV y Cucamonga-Sierra Madre Fault system, or a maximum credible earthquake of 7.5 magnitude on the Whittier-Elsinore Fault system (Fife and others, 1976). Resultant peak ground acceleration is summarized for the planning area in Figure 3.1.3. Table 3.1.B lists historic earthquakes in the project region. Regional peak ground accelerations for the planning area include .80+ from the San Andreas Fault system, .70+ g •57g Jacino Fault system, .58g-.35g for the Cucamonga-Sierra Madre Fault system, and t3Og for the Whittier-Elsinore Fault system (Figure 3.1.3). Generally, peak ground accelerations of .35g to .8Og could cause damage intensities of IX to X or greater on the Modified Mercalli Intensity Scale (AEC, 1973). Peak ground accelerations may contribute less to cumulative damage potential than repeat- ' able cycles of less intense shaking (Clopine, 1987). Liquefaction is a process whereby strong earthquake shaking causes sediment layers that are saturated with groundwater to lose strength and behave as a fluid. This subsurface process can lead to near-surface or surface ground failure that can result in property damage and structural failure. During an earthquake, seismic waves travel through the earth and vibrate or shake the ground. In cohesionless granular material having low relative density, the vibration can disturb the particle framework leading to increased compaction of the material and concomitant reduction of pore space between the grains. If the sediment is saturated, water occupying the pore spaces resists this compaction and exerts ore p pressure which reduces the contact stresses between the sediment grains. With continued shaking, transfer of intergran- ular stress to pore space water can generate strength and change from a solid state to a liquefied state. This mechanical transformation can cause various kinds of ground failure at or near the surface. It is important to note that liquefaction of subsurface water saturated sediment does not always cause surface ground failures. If surface ground failure does occur, it is usually expressed as lateral spreading, flow failures, ground oscillation and/or gen- eral loss of bearing strength (Matti and Carson, 1986). Sand boils (injections of fluidized sediment) can commonly accompany these different types of failure. As mentioned above, a liquefaction study was conducted for the project site due to the potential for liquefaction in the area as identified in Figure 3.1.4, Liquefaction Susceptibility, in the Technical Background Report. The pur- pose of the investigation was to estimate the liquefaction potential of the soils underlying the project site. The work included field exploration, field testing, laboratory testing, and an engineering analysis. Three exploratory borings were drilled and logs of the material encountered were made on site by a staff geologist. These logs are presented in Appendix B, Liquefaction Investigation. 0326192(1:\HID 101\NtASTER 1.DOC) 3-9 M v� M cd U � � s an � f 6 O o q E S 'g 'a } O u m u q q E 3 m x LL r../ E E- ELL— m S c*h m E A E� E� Em °t_n __ } U Ar a m LL LL W :Ar ArA,l O O t � U O O O O m N q N q N q in O n QJl' tit it IV 10 $' R $ IL E E E a a z SAVfrout 111111110— Ar a. ��11t1tgltM I \� ICI mot- s li -AA In Pt Ar t �4 I -- y o (�}Mc Z SEC o OLL QJ c U = � f`I M U �+ cmo«oC., N D0 NC 3Y' - 00330 cc C= _ Coon tD 0=—M ND 7 M 0 N� N«. m""AOC C &0m t4— t0 M N••-J3 0 m B. m 0 �C o w o w D=ELL _ 0 <w Qo� N-0a` aEC7)Cc _o O .., o� ova St"v°•`°o- - �E0 Q= U cv) cO— FA 4) C=>o�2°'E co Go ltd N r(D0gnOO�j,t) � 4-I v= cMOO CCa_gym= y cmdV)m o� 02 = �taa ; 3m �= -gym ��tn m�SmrA_ Cc= CA, CS" .N..7 m C N C C N tD L. to OLL... m I-- I •..r <4 Q cc~0 O V O N C o-E N� C.) � I r, ►-•a E.J E�� �a�vm0NNxR� 0o/ ov2 UMa.%M cc C11 G� 0 O 'to= N N-C CD = —Ipt Deb Q q Q 0 4M Cr D-o C c C Q N jD I M <�� o` Z� oo�c --- rrY o Q N�a rI a at tl ail 0000cNd 7 — -_ f 2 1 2 1 O t1L L O O t9 y L N Q r I / I SAY Wild I IS rWpr1Y 1 1 Z N 3 N N Um—ELL �. �, t 1I76I3IA ` m e 'I I MY uNMi �n W 1' .`.�-----------i`l 1 I` 4 f 1— --I a� L _I ```� __/ Irl• of I I !r— ry r Il ' .+ , = ` *AV YrWMISM ` � 2 ' / ` IreY uouN�7r1 =`_c I— I ` tD 1�S IS rU— IS n rr� r•Y Oyawtl IJ �W/rd G•\ \�I �I- I-- I IS added lO U U C L R r`I Table 3.1.13 - Historic Earthquakes Greater Than Mercalli VI, 1769-1972 Estimated or Estimated Observed Intensity at Local Date Epicenter Epicenter Magnitude Damage 1769 July 28 Unknown 8(?) Unknown 1812 Dec 8 Offshore VIII-IX - Mission San Gabriel, Los Angeles County. 1812 Dec 21 Off Santa X - Probably would have caused Barbara coast damage. 1852 Nov 27-30 Big Pine Fault X(?) - Surface faulting(?) in Lockwood Valley. Could have damaged San Bernardino. 1855 July 10(11?) Unknown VIII - Mission San Gabriel, Los Angeles County. Could have damaged San Bernardino. 1857 Jan 9 35-N, 119-W, X-XI 8+ San Bernardino; possible fault near Fort Tejon (estimated) breakage on San Andreas and on San Andreas San Jacinto faults. Fault 1889 Aug 27 350N, 118°W VI - Pomona; probably also in study area. 1890 Feb 9 34-N, 117.5-W VI+ - Pomona; probably also in (on San Jacinto study area. Fault) 1899 July 22 35.5-N, 117.5-W VIII - San Bernardino, Highland and (on San Patton; and near Mitchell Ele- Andreas Fault) mentary School(?) 1899 Dec 25 33.5-N, 116.5-W IX - Study area. Landslides, lurch (on San Jacinto cracks, and probable surface Fault) faulting near Hemet, Riverside County. 1907 Sept 19 34-N, 117-W VII - San Bernardino, Redlands and (on San San Jacinto. Andreas Fault) 1918 Apr 12 33.75 0N, 117OW VI-VII 6.8 Damage centered in San (on San Jacinto (in San Bernardino, Jacinto Valley. Lurch cracks in Fault) Redlands and downtown San Jacinto; possi- Riverside) ble surface faulting. 1918 Apr 22 34-N, 117.5-W VI Corona; probably also study (on Whittier area Fault, Elsinore Fault) 03R6/92(I:\IIID101\IASTERI.DOC) 3-12 Table 3.1.13 - Historic Earthquakes Greater Than Mercalli VI, 1769-1972 (Continued) Estimated or Observed Estimated Intensity at Local Date Epicenter Epicenter Magnitude Damage 1923 July 22 34-N, 117.25-W VII 6.25 Damage to schools in (in San Bernardino, San Bernardino. Patton, Harlem Springs, and Redlands) 1930 Jan 15(2) 34.2-N, 116.9-W VII 5.2 and 5.1 Study area. (VI near San Bernardino) 1948 Dec 4 33.9-N, 116.4-W VII 6.5+ Study area. (on San (VII near Desert Hot Andreas Fault) Springs;VI in San Bernardino) 1965 Apr 15 34.7-N, 117.5 0W VI 4.5 Study area. (San Andreas (VI in San Bernardino Fault) Valley) 1968 Apr 8 33.2-N, 116.1-W VII 6.4 Study area. (VI in study area) 1970 Sept 12 34.3-N, 117.5-W VII 5.4 Study area. (San Andreas or (VI-VII throughout San Jacinto study area) faults) 1971 Feb 9 34.4-I, 118.4-W VIII XI 6.4 Study area. Masonry water (San Fernando (VI in study area) tank on Yorba-Slaughter Ranch Fault) collapsed. Damage to plaster in Colton and San Bernardino. (Fife, 1974) 03 26/92(I.\IH DIO1\MASTERi.Doc) 3-13 The project site is underlain by predominately granular soils consisting of silty sands and sands with gravel and traces of clay. Groundwater was not encountered during the investigation. Mottling was observed at a depth of approximately 30 feet in Boring No. 1 and 20 feet in Boring No. 2. A review of the site and published literature suggests that high groundwater occurs between 30 and 90 feet of the existing ground surface. The most conservative projection for groundwater is the USGS publication 86-562, entitled Liquefaction Susceptibility in the San Bernardino Valley and Vicini- ty, Southern California which estimates groundwater to be approximately 30 to 50 feet beneath the existing ground surface. Because of observations regarding possible mottling, the geologists assumed a high groundwater depth of 30 feet, which seems to be in compliance with the most conserva- tive estimates. In Boring No. 2, calculations were made using a high ground- water depth of 20 feet. This demonstrates the low likelihood of liquefaction. The property lies in the vicinity of several active faults. These include the San Jacinto Fault, Glen Helen Fault and the San Andreas Fault. Although there are also several others, these are the faults which will have the most influence upon the site and will impose the greatest horizontal acceleration. A horizontal ground acceleration of 0.54g was utilized in the liquefaction i analysis. Project Impacts Implementation of the project (i.e., General Plan Amendment) will ultimately result in the construction of a commercial center in an area that may have potential geological hazards. This is due to the proximity of the questionable fault extending parallel to Kendall Drive and terminating in the vicinity of the project site. The City's General Plan indicates that where a questionable fault may be present, there is a possibility that additional geotechnical evaluation may be warranted. It should be noted that specific geotechnical or seismic concerns have not been demonstrated for the proposed commercial center and that site geological conditions do not provide sufficient evidence that a significant geotechnical or seismic impact will occur with project implemen- tation. A subsequent evaluation will provide an indication of the fault's presence on the project site as well as the potential building or foundation design modifications that may be needed should the questionable fault ex- tend into the project site. Regardless of the findings, with a subsequent evaluation, the project will not be significantly impacted by geotechnical conditions. In determining Factors of Safety for liquefaction analyses, according to Inland Foundation Engineering (Lawrence Strahm, President, March 11, 1992), a Factor of Safety below 1.25 is cause for a liquefaction concern; between 1.25 and 1.50 is cause for only marginal concern; and above 1.50 does not pres- ent any cause for concern. 032E/'92(I:'JiID101\ SASnRI.noc) 3-14 The results of the liquefaction analysis indicate that Factors of Safety gen- erally exceed 4.99 throughout the depths investigated. This is with the exception of Boring No. 2 where Factors of Safety are greater than 1.55 using ultra conservative parameters. These ultra conservative parameters include a non-drought condition, wherein the highest depth for groundwater that could be expected in non-drought conditions was included in Factors of Safety calculations. As mentioned in setting, for Boring No. 2, the calcula- tions for determining Factors of Safety incorporated a high groundwater depth of 20 feet. During site drilling (boring), no groundwater was encoun- tered at depth of 40 feet. With a Factor of Safety greater than 1.55 for Bor- ing No. 2, in the opinion of Inland Foundation Engineering, Inc., this Factor of Safety is not hazardous and the liquefaction potential is sufficiently low to not constitute a significant impact. Cumulative Impacts Impacts related to geology and soils are based primarily on site specific conditions and cannot be considered in cumulative terms. The this is in instances where geologic features (e.g., earthq exception to uake faults) mi ght affect an extensive area, or where development of a project might affect the geology of adjacent real estate or an improvement (e.g., due to landslides). Nonetheless, the proposed project is not affected by any of the specific geo- logic conditions mentioned above as the effects relating to geology and soils can be mitigated. As such, the cumulative impact study area relates to the project area only, and does not extend beyond the site to adjacent areas. The cumulative geologic impacts associated with this project, together with the surrounding properties and potential developments are not considered significant with implementation of the project specific mitigation measures. Mitigation Measures 3.1.1 Upon submittal of any applications for development of the site, the project applicant shall submit a geotechnical investigation for use in the environmental review of the project. The geotechnical investiga- tion shall be reviewed by the City to determine its adequacy and be accepted by the City Engineer. The investigation shall be conducted by a qualified geotechnical engineer to determine the potential surficial changes associated with fault presence and shall consist of 1) a review of aerial photography, 2) a site walkover, and 3) an evalua- tion of well water depth in the site vicinity to determine the potential for fault intercept. Should the fault's presence be detected on the project site, the geotechnical engineer shall recommend modifications to the proposed building designs as required to provide adequate protection from a potential event associated with the fault. 0326/92(1:CHID 101\MASTER 1.D0c) 3-15 Level of Sign ficance After Mitigation Implementation of the above mitigation measure will protect the project site from geotechnical hazards and reduce impacts to below a level of significance. 0326/92(I:\I IID l O1\MASTER l.DOC) 3-16 3.2 HYDROLOGY The information presented below is summarized from the City of San Bernardino's Technical Background Report, Storm Drains and Flood Control Sections, prepared for the General Plan Update, as well as a technical drain- age study prepared for the site. A preliminary drainage study was prepared by the City of San Bernardino using the San Bernardino County Hydrology Manual in order to predict the probability of flooding on the project site. The drainage study employed the rational method of calculation and ana- lyzed the 100-year storm frequency. A copy of the technical drainage study can be found in Appendix C. Setting The project site is located within the larger Santa Ana River watershed which ultimately drains into the Pacific Ocean near Newport Beach. Cajon Creek Wash, which conveys drainage into the Santa Ana River near the southerly border of the City of San Bernardino, extends along the south side of the I-215 Freeway. The City's storm drain system is divided into sub-areas based upon the San Bernardino County Flood Control District's Comprehensive Storm Drain Plans, Nos. 3, 4, 6 and 7, prepared by Omer H. Brodie and Associates, May 6, 1975, CM Engineering Associates,June 18, 1979, and CM Engineering Associ- ates, December 29, 1982, respectively. The City of San Bernardino follows these Master Plans when developing storm drain systems. The project site is located in subarea 4. The following is a description of Subarea 4. Subarea 4 corresponds to Area "E" of Comprehensive Storm Drain Plan No. 7 and covers the northwesterly portion of the City's planning area. Major facilities in this area include Cable Creek channel, Devil Creek Diversion channel, and the Macy storm drain. Subarea 4 is moderately developed in residential, commercial and light indus- trial uses, with substantial industrial and residential development northwest of University Parkway. Many large canyons drain through this subarea; and, therefore, all proposed storm drains originating in the foothills or below canyons are designed for 100-year storms. Improvements are not proposed for drainage at the bottom of deep canyons. These channels will be left in their natural state. Most proposed tributary storm drains are designed for 10-year storms. In the vicinity of the project site, according to the Federal Emergency Man- agement Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Maps, the 100-year flood plain extends adjacent to the site in the unimproved Cable Creek flood control channel. To the northwest of the project site and Little League Drive, adja- cent to the I-215 Freeway, is an area of 100-year flooding potential. This area drains into Cable Creek and ultimately into the Cajon Creek Wash. Figure 3.2.1 illustrates the 100-year flood plain for the region and for the project site. 03/26/92(i\HID101WASnRI.D0C) 3-17 M � E O � c cc — LZ•I c o° O LL a, o 4D ¢ ✓_ L1.1 N LL M, m� Vo I LL ii I `r♦ 1 r C `p RirJ Cb Q I wr I ---" !'1!' -I I `--� rr, I � •°r Wild !4 ffAfflr I PAY Halal I 1+- I I � ` —r 1- I'Ill@ Wald Dr CIE° _ I (� I Mr...all � I =I —� — ^� i I i •rw ''ter:;: J l c —I DAMirfeA °Ill!♦ JlfAV wwfA 711 leftels r — I I - � i lt� 1 I _• I r_-1 c I I IcP q / ' = s �e� •I i 19 wf0f4 C c c z U p :1 7 •v rl rn - Elevate the project site so that Magnolia Avenue can act as a flood intercept, diverting water into Cable Creek Channel. Use of Magnolia Avenue to divert run-off to Cable Creek Chan- nel would require inclusion of appropriate drainage structures in the roadway design to minimize impacts on adjacent prop- erties. Level of SignUtcance After Mitigation Implementation of the above mitigation measure will control storm water and eliminate the 100-year flood zone from the project site. This is required to protect the proposed site uses and improvements from flooding hazards and to comply with the City of San Bernardino standards for commercial development. Consequently, impacts associated with flood hazards on the project site will be reduced to below a level significance. 0326i92JAHID101WASTER1 DOC) 3-22 lessingia (Lessingia glandulosa). Shrubs common in this community include artemisia (Artemisia dracunculus), California buckwheat (Eriogonum fasciculatum), California sagebrush (Artemisia californica) and chrysopsis (Cbrysopsis villosa). Trees are also scattered throughout this section of the property and include olive trees (Oleo europea), Freemont cottonwood (Populus fremontii) and western sycamore (Platanus racemosa). Annual Grassland This plant community is composed primarily of the annual grassland species found in the annual grassland-shrub mix habitat. Other species observed in this habitat include deerweed (Lotus scoparius), stephanomeria (Stepbanomeria virgata) and eriogonum (Eriogonum gracile). Windrows There is a windrow of olive trees running northeast to southwest across the northern one-third of the site. This plant community does not constitute a substantial stand; however, the presence of trees in a relatively flat terrain has increased habitat diversity for wildlife. Alluvial Scrub According to the 1986 Verdemont Area Plan, there were two small stands of alluvial scrub in the vicinity of the project site. These stands of alluvial scrub (also variously known as alluvial fan scrub, alluvial fan sage scrub, or River- sidean alluvial sage scrub) occurred at the northern and southern ends of the project site. Since the 1986 Area Plan, the northern stand of alluvial scrub has been re- moved by the development of Al Guhin Park. The southern stand has been impacted by various activities, including the improvement of the intersection of Little League Drive and Palm Avenue and the building of Cable Creek Channel. A remnant of the southern stand of alluvial scrub lies adjacent to the Cable Creek Channel. This area is dominated by stands of ryegrass (Elymus condensatus), mulefat (Baccbaris glutinosa), golden aster (Cbrysopsis villosa), squaw bush (Rbus trilobata) and redberry (Rbamnus crocea). Alluvial scrub is different from coastal sage scrub in some key characteristics. Like coastal sage scrub, alluvial scrub varies in its characteristics depending upon the age of the stand, contributions from surrounding plant communi- ties and the amount of disturbance that has taken place. The most important 03,205/92(1:ViID101\M SM1.D0C) 3-24 disturbance factor in alluvial sage scrub is scouring by floodwaters. There are three stages of this community that are successional (Smith, 1980). The first stage is the youngest, composed of largely unvegetated flood-abraded wash strewn with large cobbles and boulders. The second stage is composed of terraces that have remained undisturbed for at least 30 years, with subse- quent development of woody shrubs. The third and final stage is composed of areas that have been undisturbed for 50 years or more and have devel- oped a complex habitat of small trees, woody shrubs, subshrubs and small areas of grassland. The habitat present on the project site is predominately at the second stage, although additional shrubs and trees such as canyon live oak (quercus chrysolepis) occur in scattered localities upstream of this stand of alluvial scrub. The presence of these trees and isolated shrubs indicates that the alluvial scrub was probably more extensive in the past and existed in older (and possibly younger) successional stages. In addition, these individual plants indicate that the isolated stands at the northern and southern bound- aries of the project site were possibly connected at one time. Cable Creek Cable Creek has been completely channelized along the entire reach extend- ing across the property. There are no remaining plant communities along the channel in this reach. Plant Community Distribution The plant communities are distributed in patchy stands on the project site. The entire site shows disturbance of all plant communities, although this disturbance is greatest in the central portions of the site. Western 29.7 Acre Parcel (proposed GPA 90-6) The majority of the northern one-half of this parcel is covered by the mixed weedy grassland-shrub plant community. The southern half of this parcel is dominated by the annual grassland plant community, with the olive tree windrow serving to divide the two areas. Cable Creek Channel crosses the northeastern corner of this parcel. There is a small depression located somewhat centrally in the northern one- half section of this parcel. The depression does not appear to be a stream bed channel. At the western end or "head" of the depression, the slopes are as equally steep as the sides. Similarly, the eastern "toe" of the depression ends abruptly. These features are characteristic of a manmade depression and not a streambed or stream course. However, the disturbance in this area 03/26.192(IAHIDIOAMAMRI.DOC) 3-25 is so great as to preclude absolute identification of the former character of this depression. Eastern 7.1 Acre Parcel This parcel is composed almost entirely of annual grassland, although scat- tered shrubs occur throughout. The isolated stand of alluvial scrub is in the extreme eastern portion of the site and is limited to the narrow"neck" of the property between the curve of Little League Drive and Cable Creek. This i parcel is not a part of the GPA 90.6. Cable Creek Channel forms the northern boundary of this parcel, with Little League Drive forming the southern boundary. These two features become t parallel and nearly meet at the eastern boundary, forming the narrow neck that is occupied by the alluvial scrub. Wildlife I Wildlife activity on the site was limited, due both to the relatively low level of habitat complexity and the weather. Wildlife species seen included Beechey ground squirrel, northern mockingbird, mourning dove, side-blotched lizard and black-tailed jackrabbit. These are all common species and are relatively unaffected by habitat disturbance. Sensitive Resources No known sensitive species were located on the project site. Canyon live oak and walnut trees were present as scattered individuals, but neither spe- cies existed in woodlands or formed major stands. It is also possible that these species may have been deliberately planted; however, their distribution along the apparent former drainage of Cable Creek suggests they may have been part of the alluvial scrub habitat. The only potentially sensitive habitat located on site is the alluvial scrub. This habitat exists only in a remnant stand, reduced in extent from the stand mapped in 1986, and presumably further reduced from the original stand. At present, the alluvial scrub does not provide substantial wildlife habitat due to its decreased size, human-related disturbance in the scrub, and human- related disturbance and activities in surrounding areas (including the chan- nelization of Cable Creek and the improvement of Palm Drive). In addition, due to the upstream disturbance and the channelization of Cable Creek, this community is no longer self-sustaining. The control and channeling of flood- waters and related scouring by Cable Creek Channel will result in the loss of remaining alluvial scrub elements through conversion to other plant commu- nities. 03/26i92(1AH1D1O1\MAMR1.DOQ 3-26 There are two plant species listed as endangered that occur in alluvial scrub habitat. The Santa Ana River woolly star (Eriastrum densifolium var. sanctorum) is a perennial sub-shrub found in coastal scrub habitat on allu- vial deposits. The historic range extended approximately 60 river miles, in- cluding a stretch along Lytle Creek and Cajon Creek. The woolly star is listed as endangered by both the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), and has been placed on List 1B by the California Native Plant Society (CNPS). The current distribution is limited to approximately 18 river miles of the Santa Ana River floodplain (Zembal, et al., 1984), which includes the project site. This estimate of distance is misleading because the populations along these 18 river miles are limited to discrete stands spaced at varying intervals and do not form one continuous stand or population. Population estimates range from 20 to 1,300 plants for different sites. According to Zembal, et al, (1984), approximately 80 to 90 percent of the original populations have been eliminated. As stated above, this subspecies has also been reported as occurring in the Lytle Creek and Cajon Creek washes, although the taxonomy(classification of subspecies) of these reported populations is in question (Wheeler, 1988). Because the woolly star is a perennial plant species, it presence would have been apparent during the (August) survey. This species was not observed on site. The slender-horned spineflower (Centrostegia leptoceras) is a small annual plant which occupies sandy openings in coastal scrub on old stable benches and alluvial deposits of river beds (Sanders, 1988, in URS, 1988). The spineflower is listed as endangered by both CDFG and USFWS, and has been placed on List 1B by the CNPS. The spineflower is an annual species that is only observable from April through July. The original populations of this small plant were sparsely distributed throughout many foothill locations in Southern California. It formerly occurred in Bautista Creek Canyon, Temescal Canyon, Hemet and Elsinore in Riverside County; in Tujunga Wash, Mint Canyon, Santa Anita Wash, Limekiln Canyon Wash and Rubio Wash in Los Angeles County; and in Arrowhead Springs and washes in Colton and Highland, Cajon Canyon,and along the Santa Ana River in San Bernardino County. The populations in Hemet and Elsinore (Riverside County), Santa Anita Wash, Limekiln Canyon Wash and Rubio Wash (Los Angeles County), and in Arrowhead Springs and washes in Colton and Highland (San Bernardino) have since been extirpated. The known range of this species in 1984 was from Tujunga Valley in the western edge of the San Fernando Valley, east to the Santa Ana River near Redlands, and south to the San Jacinto River floodplain near Hemet and Temescal Canyon near Elsinore. 03/26/92(I:\JiID101\MASTERI.DOC) 3-27 According to the California Natural Diversity Data Base (CNDDB), there are a total of 18 recorded localities, only four of which had been confirmed as still extant in 1984. One of these localities includes the populations in the Santa Ana River. Population estimates over the entire range of the species vary from 1,000 in Bautista Canyon to less than 100 in Temescal Canyon. The Verdemont Area Plan identifies a population of this species (and the woolly star) west and upstream of the project site across Little League Drive. As discussed above, the alluvial scrub habitat on the project site is highly dis- turbed. In addition, the extent of sandy soil is limited to a small expanse adjacent to Cable Creek Channel. Therefore, the likelihood of this spineflower species being present is low. However, because of the proximity and location upstream of a known population, there is the potential for this species to be present on site. The Verdemont Area Plan recommends spring- time surveys in order to locate this species in the Verdemont Area. There- fore, surveys for this species will have to be conducted in the late spring/early summer to determine whether or not it is present on site. Impacts Impacts from development of the project site are limited due to prior site disturbance which has already removed most of the native vegetation. The prior disturbance has also removed all remaining plant communities except alluvial scrub which is common throughout Southern California. The overall impacts of the project will be: • Loss of plant communities and associated wildlife habitat. The removal of the annual grassland and annual grassland-shrub mix com- munity will result in the incremental reduction of the plant communi- ties in the San Bernardino Valley region. This incremental reduction is not considered to be significant. • Loss of wildlife. The removal of the wildlife habitat will result in the removal of wildlife from the project site. This removal will occur in two ways. The more mobile animals, such as the jackrabbit and bird species, will probably leave the site at the start of construction and search for habitat elsewhere. If surrounding habitats are at their carrying capacity for these species, there will be an incremental reduc- tion in the populations for each species affected. The less mobile species such as the side-blotched lizard may be destroyed outright as the result of construction. This loss will contribute to the incremen- tal reduction of populations of these species in the San Bernardino Valley area. These reductions are not considered to be significant because the species affected are common species and are not presently threatened with extinction from the region. 03/26/92(I:\IiID101\MASTERI.DOC) 3-28 • Wildlife movement. The project site does not serve as a major wild- life movement corridor, both because of the presence of human activ- ity and structures in the surrounding areas and because there are no major topographic features to facilitate movement. • Sensitive Resources. No sensitive species were observed. As dis- cussed above, there is a low potential for the slender-horned spineflower to be present on site. Because the spineflower is a listed species, any taking of this species as the result of construction would be considered an illegal take and is prohibited under the federal Endangered Species Act. It should be noted, however, that even without site development the alluvial scrub habitat occupied by the spineflower will probably con- vert over time to an upland habitat. The normal scouring action of floodwaters has been eliminated by containment of floodwaters with- in the Cable Creek Channel. Therefore, any population of spineflower, which also depends upon scouring for regeneration, will probably disappear along with the alluvial scrub habitat. • With regard to the alluvial scrub habitat, if the spineflower is present, protection of spineflower habitat will likely also protect alluvial scrub habitat on and off site. If the spineflower is not present, the alluvial scrub habitat will be impacted by the project. This habitat, isolated and degraded, is a small remnant of a formerly much larger habitat. In addition, because of the containment of floodwaters in the Cable Creek Channel, the habitat will probably convert over time to an upland habitat. Therefore, this impact is not considered to be signifi- cant. However, the loss of this habitat will result in a minor contribu- tion to the cumulative loss of this habitat in the San Bernardino Val- ley area; this cumulative loss is considered to be significant. • Other impacts. Other impacts include light, glare and noise. Due to the already disturbed nature of most of the surrounding areas, with the attendant reduction in wildlife habitat values, these impacts are not considered to be significant. Cumulative Impacts Cumulative biological impacts have been incorporated into the project bio- logical analyses as described in the above "Impacts" discussion. In analyzing impacts, regional habitat loss for general biological conditions, together with specific loss of sensitive plant and animal species are considered, due to changes in the area's growth patterns. Similarly, the indirect impacts associ- ated with the project and area growth are included as required to adequately assess the effects on biological conditions. With the mitigation measures outlined below, the project's effect on the cumulative biological conditions have been considered. 03/26/92(IAHM101\MASTERI.D0C) 3-29 Mitigation Measures Mitigation measures are only required to determine the presence of the slender-horned spineflower and, if discovered, to identify various measures to protect and/or mitigate the species in accordance with the Endangered Species Act and USFWS requirements. The following measure and subse- quent procedures are required: 3.3.1 Prior to any project approvals, a minimum of two springtime surveys of the project site (i.e., 29.7 acre parcel) and adjacent parcel (i.e., 7.1 acre parcel), if included in a combined development plan) shall be conducted by a qualified botanist to determine the potential presence of the slender-horned spineflower. If the springtime surveys locate this species, subsequent mitigation (also required prior to tentative parcel or tract map approval) would require the following processes: Redesign of the project to avoid the habitat area containing the spineflower, and permanent protection of the population provided through fencing or some other type of barrier to prevent entry into the habitat. If redesign of the project is not feasible, then application for a Section 10(a) permit must occur and a mitigation plan must be prepared for approval by the USFWS. The plan must dem- onstrate that no other alternative is feasible and that taking of this species is unavoidable. The mitigation plan should address the following alternatives: Purchase of suitable habitat containing known popula- tions of the spineflower in an adequate replacement ratio. Preferably, the habitat area purchased will be as close to the Verdemont site as is feasible. This area would then be placed in permanent protection by the use of one or more mechanisms, including designation of a conservation easement, donation to a wildlife pro- tection agency or other public entity that can provide permanent protection, or donation to a private entity (such as The Nature Conservancy) that will provide permanent protection of the population. Joint effort with another private entity or a public agency to develop a mitigation plan and/or purchase habitat elsewhere for permanent protection. • Development of a mitigation/transplantation program that will include the following elements: o326i92(1AHM101\MASTERI.DOC) 3-30 Spineflower populations shall be located and staked by a qualified botanist prior to clearing and grubbing of the site. The clearing and grubbing operation will be monitored to ensure that these populations will be protected. Construction roads should be wetted by opera- tors using the roads at regular frequencies to minimize the blowing of dust onto populations of the spineflower. This will minimize fugitive dust blowing onto these populations and help maintain a stable road surface. All temporary and permanent roads should be bermed at final grade to minimize runoff of water, mud and other substances onto adjacent populations of the spineflower. The height of the berm should be a minimum of eight inches. Adoption and implementation by the project proponent of a revegetation plan and study. The revegetation plan shall be implemented concurrent with implementation of the develop- ment plan. An appropriate site or sites will be selected by a qualified botanist for reseeding of the spineflower, preferably close to existing popula- tions in the project area. Selection of the sites shall occur concurrent with the adoption of a preferred route. Habitat shall be replaced at a ratio acceptable to the USFWS. The revegetation plan shall be monitored in accordance with a monitoring plan developed in coordination with the USFWS. In addition, the plan will include maintenance and monitor- ing goals established by a qualified botanist. These goals will include but not be limited to: Protection of the mitigation sites from access by fencing or other protective barriers. Removal by project proponent or designee of invasive weeds such as Av- ena barbata and others that may pre- vent successful seeding establishment. 03/76'92(I:\JIID1o1\MASTERI.DOC) 3-31 Regular monitoring by a qualified bota- nist through annual checks on the seed- ing effort. Development of appropriate perfor- mance standards in coordination with the USFWS. In the event the initial revegetation effort fails, the revegetation by seeding and outplanting would be continued until successful establishment occurs. The monitoring period will be extended from the date of the new seeding until the performance standards are met. Level of Sign t"cance After Mitigation No mitigation is required for the majority of the biological resources con- tained or potentially contained on site, except for the slender-horned spineflower. With implementation of the above measure for the spineflower, including the assumption that the spineflower is discovered on site and a Section 10a permit and applicable plans and monitoring procedures are implemented, there will be no impacts to biological resources that cannot be mitigated to below a level of significance. o3/26,92(I:\IiID101\MASTERI.DOC) 3-32 3.4 LAND USE The following section describes existing and proposed land uses in the pro- ject area, and also lists relevant planning programs that may influence the proposed project. Many of the potential impacts associated with land use are discussed for specific environmental issues in the individual sections of this report. Thus, the following discussion will focus on potential existing and future conflicts between on-site and off-site land uses or land use incompati- bility. Setting Existing On-site Land Use The project site is located in the northwestern portion of the City of San Bernardino in an area known as the Verdemont community. While portions of Verdemont are sparsely developed, recent development has been more intense, resulting in some "urban" areas. A considerable amount of the land in Verdemont is undeveloped. The 29.7 acre project site is vacant and undeveloped. Various grassland shrubs and trees occupy portions of the site, as further described in the Bio- logical Resources section of this EIR. The site slopes gently downhill from northwest to southeast or in the same direction that Cable Creek flows. The grade is approximately two percent. Figures 3.4.1 and 3.4.2 illustrate the existing land uses surrounding the project site and in the region, respec- tively. Existing Surrounding Land Use Like the project site, most of the surrounding lands are vacant or are in an undeveloped condition. However, there are certain existing land uses that reflect some urbanization. On the north side of the site, a flood control channel conveys runoff through Cable Creek. To the north of the channel is undeveloped land. Directly to the south of the site is the I-215 Freeway (Barstow Freeway) with undeveloped open space to the south of the freeway. On the west side of the site is Al Guhin Park, a publicly owned community park facility. Next to the park are little league baseball fields which are part of the Little League Baseball Association facilities. Immediately east of the site is the Palm Avenue interchange, a vacant parcel and a single family resi- dential tract. Previous Figure 3.4.1 illustrates the land uses on the site and in the immediate vicinity. 03R6/92(1AHM101\MASTERI.D0C) 3-33 W Z W W Z Q W Q PF Little League o RL ? RL Facility (Vacant) (Vacant) IRVINGTON AVENUE cAe`F CAPER PILO R L °o R PP C in E a Tly) Al Guhin Park WASHINGTON ST. 31 RL 9q1� M `ant) vrT�F��c CG-1 KENDALLDRIVE /2r5 A�VE�. (Vacant) IL IL Sourcc: Citv of San Bernardino 12/4/91(HIDtoi) Figure 3.4.1 Not to Scalc LSD Existing General Plan Designations c c3 cl cu cc Q) U) 4 a a) G) a CL n a) C13 co Q) m E o mo 0 -0 CL ..T umals- ------------ ........... @AT wW""-�. A M , 4-V ouaultf 5r ------- .......... General Plan/Zoning for the Project Site and Surrounding Area In the City of San Bernardino, the General Plan Land Use Designation and Zoning are one in the same. Consequently, there is complete consistency between these two land use programs. According to the Land Use Element of the San Bernardino General Plan, the project site is designated as RU-1, Residential Urban, on the west side of Cable Creek. The area surrounding the site on the north side of the property is designated RL., Residential Low; to the south is the I-215 Freeway (Barstow Freeway); property on the south side of I-215 is designated Industrial (I); to the west the parcel is designated Public Park (PP) (Al Guhin Park) and Public Facilities (PF) (Little League fields); and to the east the land use designations are Commercial General (CG-1), RL (Residential Low) and RE (Residential Estate). Previous Figure 3.4.1 illustrates the existing General Plan designations for the site and the i surrounding area. For the project site, the General Plan Land Use designation of RU-1 (Residen- tial Urban) designation allows single-family residential units, duplexes, sec- ond dwellings, mobile home parks, mobile home subdivisions, small lot subdivisions, and multi-family units. The designation permits up to 9 dwell- ing units per gross acre with a minimum lot size of 7,200 square feet, except for small lot subdivisions which can be 5,000 square feet. Also, for Se- nior/Senior Congregate Care, up to 14 units per gross acre are permitted. The gross area of the RU-1 parcel is approximately 29.7 acres. The maximum number of residential units (at 9 dwelling units per gross acre) permitted for this designation is 267 units. For the RU (Residential Urban) District designation, the Development Code sets standards and design guidelines which are intended to promote the development of detached and attached units, duplexes, mobile home parks, and small lot subdivisions as part of a planned residential development where the intent is to consolidate lots to achieve maximum open space. The RU-1 District requires a minimum lot size of 7,200 square feet. The RU District allows a maximum density of 8 dwelling units per gross acre and permits the development of senior congregate care housing at a maximum density of 12 units per gross acre with a marketing feasibility study and a conversion plan. The maximum number of units permitted in the RU-1 District (at 8 units per gross acre) is 237 units. Impacts The anticipated land use effects from implementation of the proposed pro- ject are addressed in the following section. The effects are discussed in the following order: 1) compatibility with existing on-site and off-site land uses, and 2) effects on the General Plan and Zoning. 03/26/92(1:\TiIDio1\MASTERI.DOC) 3-36 Compatibility with Existing On-Site and Off-Site Land Uses The proposed land use concept will ultimately change the character of the existing undeveloped site into an urban commercial center. All of the unde- veloped open space will be transformed into buildings, parking areas, streets and sidewalks, and formal landscaping. The site is located in an area that is transitioning into low intensity urban uses, but remains largely undeveloped in the surrounding vicinity. The exception is the community park use, ball fields and the nearby residential uses, which are indicators that the area is going through the transition. In terms of compatibility with the off-site uses, the proposed commercial concept does not produce any significant effects for adjacent surrounding uses. To the west, the community park will not be affected by the commer- cial center due to the separation of uses through improvement Magnolia Avenue and because the proposed concept places the primary commercial activity in the center of the 29.7 acre parcel, buffering the park with commer- cial buildings along the perimeter. This architectural buffer will reduce the potential for nuisance impacts on the park that are associated with the pro- posed commercial uses. The flood control channel (Cable Creek) to the north buffers the commercial uses from the parcel north of the channel. In addition, this parcel is currently vacant and, therefore, is not affected by the proposed commercial uses re- gardless of the channel buffer. Similarly, the I-215 Freeway provides an effective buffer to properties located to the south of the freeway. These properties are currently vacant and are not affected by the proposed commer- cial uses. Directly east of the project site is a 7.1 acre parcel which is also owned by the project applicant. This parcel, like the project site, is vacant. It is the project applicant's intent to consolidate and develop both parcels under a single plan, thus ignoring the parcel lines. The adjacent parcel is designated for Commercial General (CG-1) use in the General Plan and CG-1 (Commer- cial General) District by City Zoning classification of the Development Code. Consequently, because the land use and land use intensity are identical for both parcels, the proposed General Plan Amendment would be compatible with the adjacent 7.1 gross acre parcel. To the east of the 7.1 acre parcel is the Palm Avenue I-215 interchange, vacant land and a single family residential subdivision (approximately seven dwelling units). The proposed commercial uses are considered compatible with the interchange and the existing vacant land. Residential uses are typi- cally compatible with commercial uses, especially when buffered by roads or other infrastructure (freeway, flood control channel). Also, because the resi- dential subdivision is not immediately adjacent to the project site, the pro- posed commercial uses will also be compatible with the existing residential 03iZ6/92(1AH1D101\MASTER1 DOC) 3-37 uses. Similarly, to the north of the project site the vacant lands are compati- ble with the proposed project commercial designation and are also compati- ble with the General Plan designation of RL (Residential Low) for the same reasons as described above. In summary, since the project site is bordered on three sides by the Cable Creek flood control channel and the I-215 Freeway, the project will not result in land use incompatibilities. Similarly, because of the improvement of Magnolia Avenue on the west side of the project, combined with the building buffer, no land use incompatibilities are anticipated with the adjacent com- munity park. General Plan and Zoning Implementation of the proposed commercial land use concept will require an amendment to the City's General Plan and a Zone change. As indicated in the Project Description, the applicant is requesting a General Plan Amendment and Zone change from the existing RU-1 designation to a CG-1 (Commercial General) General Plan designation. The amended General Plan designation would eliminate the potential for the development of resi- dential uses on the project site. This action would effectively reduce the total number of residential units in the City of San Bernardino by 267 dwell- ing units, or cause those units to be relocated elsewhere in the City. Such relocation to another site would probably require a General Plan Amendment to create additional compensating residential land use potential where not currently permitted or to increase the density on an existing residentially designated and Zoned parcel. The Housing Element of the General Plan indicates that for the Northwest Quadrant of the City, in which the project is located, a total potential of 6,272 single and multi-family dwelling units could be developed at build out. Without the potential units from the site, this number would be reduced to 6,005 units. In the Residential Urban designation, the General Plan forecasts a total potential of 4,672 units (19 percent of all potential units) in the Northwest Quadrant which would be reduced to 4,405 units (17 percent of all potential units). See also the discussion regarding housing needs under Housing, Population and Employment of this EIR. By applying the Development Code standards and guidelines, residential development of would have a similar effect when compared with the existing General Plan and Zoning. The primary difference focuses on the total maxi- mum units allowed in the Development Code RU-1 District (237 units) when compared to the RU (Urban Residential) General Plan category (267 units). With the proposed General Plan Amendment and Zone change, the site would be designated as Commercial General (CG-1) with a corresponding Development Code District of CG-1. It is the objective of the General Plan 03R6/92(I:\H1D101UMASTERI.DOC) 3-38 and Zoning Commercial General designation and the Development Code CG- 1 District to provide for the continued use, enhancement, and new develop- ment of retail, personal service, entertainment, office and related commercial uses along major transportation corridors and at intersections to serve the needs of the residents, reinforcing existing commercial corridors and centers and establishing new locations as new residential growth occurs. The permitted uses in the General Plan and Zoning Commercial General (CG-1) designation include a variety of community-serving retail and service uses (grocery stores, apparel and accessories, furniture and home furnish- ings, garden supplies, restaurants, book stores, cleaning establishments, shoe repair, beauty salons/hair styling, and similar services), entertainment uses, and professional and financial offices. Further, the designation will permit the development of new and used car dealerships and auto-related retail and service uses (excluding auto body and paint) with a Conditional Use Permit to ensure compatibility with adjacent uses. To the west of the project site, the Al Guhin Community Park is planned and built as a Public Park (PP). Therefore, the proposed project will have the same effect on the park as described under "Impacts - Compatibility with Existing On-Site and Off-Site Land Uses". Planned uses to the south of the project site (south of the I-215 Freeway) are Industrial Light (IL). Implemen- tation of the proposed project commercial uses will not result in a land use incompatibility with the planned industrial uses. Commercial uses generally do not affect the quality of industrial uses. Rather, an industrial use might be incompatible with a commercial use depending on the type of industry and associated activities. However, with the 1-215 buffer, sufficient distance and barrier circumstances eliminate any potential land use incompatibility with industrial uses south of the 1-215 Freeway with the proposed project com- mercial uses. The vacant parcels to the north and east of the 7.1 acre parcel that are planned for residential uses RL (Residential Low) and RE (Residential Estate) are compatible with the proposed commercial uses. Commercial and resi- dential uses are typically compatible particularly especially when buffered by roads or other major infrastructure elements (freeway, flood control chan- nel). Also, because the adjacent parcels that are residentially designated are not immediately adjacent to the project site, land use compatibilities that may be associated with locating commercial uses adjacent to residential uses are precluded. In summary, the proposed commercial uses are compatible with the adjacent uses under the existing conditions and as forecast in the General Plan build out because of the type of uses (park, residential and commercial) and because of the infrastructure buffers separating the site from the park and residential uses. Density/intensity and height requirements in the Commercial General (CG-1) designation permit a maximum floor area ratio (FAR) of 0.7 and a height of 03/26/92(1AHID101\MA.STER1MOC) 3-39 two stories (30 feet), except on parcels immediately abutting a freeway where the height may be increased by a Conditional Use Permit. The designation also allows for modifications of the height to preserve significant viewsheds from adjacent properties and open space. With a 0.7 FAR, the potential development intensity for commercial uses on the 29.7 acre project site is 905,600 square feet. The CG-1 District contains development standards that require a minimum lot area of 10,000 square feet, with a maximum lot cover- age of 50 percent. Implementation of the proposed Commercial General (CG-1) designation would enlarge the amount of commercial in the immediate area due to the adjacent existing 7.1 acre parcel, already designated Commercial General (C- G-1). With the two parcels combined, a total of 36.8 gross acres of Commer- cial General (CG-1) would be designated on the site for an intensity of 1,122,100 square feet. Although the proposed commercial use is a land use type that is compatible with the adjacent surrounding uses, the intensity of the proposed commer- cial uses also requires evaluation. As presented above, the potential devel- opment intensity of the project site is 905,600 square feet and the adjacent 7.1 acre parcel potential is 216,500 square feet. Together, the combined square footage is approximately 1,122,100 square feet using a 0.7 FAR as applied to gross site acreage. When compared with the adjacent parcels, the project site, together with the adjacent 7.1 parcel, presents a development intensity that is substantially greater than the intensity potential of the sur- rounding parcels. Implementation of the Commercial General (CG-1) General Plan designation and corresponding CG-1 District will create an intensity on the 29.7 acre project site that is out of character with the surrounding land uses, despite the compatibility of the commercial use with the surrounding uses. When combined with the potential commercial uses on the adjacent 7.1 acre parcel, the development intensity has a corresponding increase and further aggra- vates this intensity incompatibility. Table 3.4A demonstrates the difference in potential development intensity between the proposed commercial uses and the planned uses on the adjacent parcels. As shown in the table, the potential development intensity for the CG-1 District is substantially greater than for the land uses surrounding the project site. Similarly, the table illustrates that the potential project development intensity is approximately double the intensity of the current RU-1 District intensity for the site. If project approval to the CG-1 designation occurs, the development would be guided by the standards and guidelines contained in the Development Code for the CG-1 District. These guidelines do not directly control intensi- ty; however, with the required setbacks, height restrictions, parking and landscaping requirements, etc., included in the CG-1 District, the full devel- opment potential could be significantly affected if site conditions sufficiently constrain project design. This could result in an inability to achieve the full 03/16/92(1:\JiH)101\NtASTER1.DOC) 3-40 � 1000 905,600 w 900 F- ? 800 w 700 � � 600 J j 500 , w O ILL 400 O w 300 w U- 200 w Q D 100 , Q 0 0 CG-1 RL RE PP RU-1 GENERAL PLAN LAND USE CG-1: Commercial General RL: Residential Low RE: Residential Estate PP: Public Park RU-1: Urban Residentail Note: Comparison of Development Intensities is for the 29.7 Acre Project Site Sourcc: LSA Associatcs. Inc. 1214191(HIDIOI i Table 3AA LSACompairson Of Development Intensities ntensit�es site intensity potential. Nonetheless, because such constraints are specula- tive, the full development intensity must be used as the basis for assessment and drawing conclusions. The project applicant has prepared a land use concept for the combined 29.7 and 7.1 gross acre parcels to assess the site's potential. Figure 2.8.1 in the Project Description illustrates this proposed concept, considering all the development constraints for the CG-1 District, including setbacks, lot cover- age, building height, parking requirements, etc. A total of 380,000 square feet of commercial development illustrated in the concept plan. Compared with the potential allowable development intensity, the concept represents a difference of 742,100 square feet of commercial uses, approximately a 66 percent reduction in development intensity. If the same principle is applied to the project site alone (i.e., General Plan Amendment parcel of 29.7 acres without the adjacent 7.1 acres), a total of 325,000 square feet of development is shown on the concept plan compared to the maximum site potential of 905,600 square feet (representing a 64 percent reduction in development intensity). Cumulative Impacts The Verdemont Community and surrounding vicinity is an area that has had recent development activity as well as a number of recent planning decisions on development projects. In general, residential development comprises the largest proportion of new and future development as noted in Figure 3.4.3 and Table 3.4.B. Most of these residential projects are small to moderate in size ranging from 10 to 76 single family lots. A total of 16 single family residential projects in that range are either approved or are in public hear- ings. A mobile home park is proposed that includes 202 lots, and a condo- minium is planned with 27 units. In addition, a proposal for 37 acres of heavy industrial use is in public hearings. Impact Summary From the above analysis and discussion, with the implementation of the proposed commercial uses at proposed General Plan level intensities, the following effects will occur: a) For both existing and future (i.e., General Plan) surrounding land uses, the proposal will not result in any significant land use incompat- ibilities. b) Project implementation will have a significant effect on surrounding land use intensity, due to the notable difference in land use intensity potential when comparing the proposed General Plan intensity to the potential intensity for surrounding uses. 03R6/92'1AHH)101\MASTER1.DOC) 3-42 `" J L� ) �� i ���C � 1 Vii", :-t'-= �'= .•`.. SAP, • C4 tia�' 1 _ _���`•-l\Ftr��� ._ ��'M -_ .I ..-... .�,r�- G11 ��\ _ . . .�ItW.1 _��l�f G\1 � >� I; � m - I `1 o I I N �� \( y� 'l�'. '•Grp L r=te •`�1fr -`-1� � �-------;" ' = 1 I _ O �� �"r'�/� ZI �O� i¢ � •�,.` :��5�� �—O /lac. � �"�ti J I 1'0 SD p r � I ' '/ "�1►� � 10 � �' r �/ ley°S'•"ti �•2 1 _ o a�� r1. Mitigation Measures For land use compatibility, no mitigation is required between the site and adjacent uses due to the existing buffers that will provide adequate separa- tion (freeway, flood control channel, and roadway). For land use intensity, no mitigation is feasible except for reducing the overall floor area ratio (FAR) and restricting the type of commercial uses contained on the site. Conse- quently, to mitigate the adverse land use intensity effects, the following is required: 3.4.1 As a condition of project approval, a new General Plan and Zoning designation be established that imposes a 0.25 FAR for the commer- cial designation. The new designations shall be established as a Gen- eral Plan Amendment and Zone Change action, with corresponding map and text adjustments to these planning programs. The type and character of uses contained within the new designations shall be equivalent to the objectives for the Commercial General (CG-1) exist- ing designation. 0326/92(1:\IiID101\M ASrER1.DOC) 3-44 Table 3.4.13 - Cumulative Projects Key to Map Site Project No. Applicant Location Description No. 1 RP91-19 Monnig Dev. Off of Olive 76 single family and Ohio lots 2 TT14209 - Near Palm and 41 lots Washington 3 CUP89-04 - South of Kendall 202 mobile at Pine home lots 4 TT14328 Sunflower South side of - property Washington, near Walnut 5 TT14044 West Irvington Ave. 77 single family American between Olive lots property and Walnut 6 TT14997 Robert Stove 330 ft. west 10 single family of Palm Ave. lots 7 TT15228 James Sterclipt Magnolia and 18 single family Wm. Houser Ohio Ave. lots 8 TT15188 Chang T. and N. Verdemont, 41 single family Ling Hung east of Chestnut lots 9 TT14473 Vernon Limited Magnolia and 35 single family Verdemont lots 10 TT15263 Sierra W. Palm, 194 ft. 25 single family Engineering from Verdemont lots 11 TT15187 Dora Odom Kendall by Pine 27 condo- and University miniums 12 TT14687 Pacific land Palm and 22 single family Verdemont lots 13 TT14791 Spectrum NE corner Olive 20 single family Investment and Ohio lots 14 TT14789 Chestnut Hill Verdemont Dr. 64 single family Estates lots 15 TT13572 Melvin Harrison Palm and Ohio 32 single family lots 16 TT14949 Huang Vernon Near Chestnut and 21 single family Verdemont lots 03/26/92(I:\IiID101\MASTERI.DOC) 3-45 Table 3.4.B - Cumulative Projects (Continued) Key to Map Site Project No. Applicant Location Description No. 17 TT14881 Ohio Partners NW corner of Ohio 14 single family and Verdemont lots 18 PM13885 H.A.B. Land I-215, Cable and 37.36 acres Development Co. Devil Creek industrial heavy 19 TT15273 William Dieterle West side of Palm, 20 single family and C.W.W. 500 ft. no. of lots Verdemont 20 TT14352 Donald Huber Palm and 69 single family Verdemont lots 21 SP 90-01 Calmat Cajon Creek/ Specific Plan/ Aggregate Level of Sign fcance After Mitigation As mentioned above, there are no adverse project effects on land use compat- ibility; and mitigation is, therefore, unnecessary. With the implementation of the above measure to restrict land use development intensity and land use type, the land use impacts will be mitigated to below a level of significance. This finding is consistent .vitb implementation of the applicant's concept plan, as well as with implementation of Alternative 4.3. 03R6/92(I.WM101\MASTER1.n0C) 3-46 3.5 MAN-MADE HAZARDS The Initial Study (see Appendix A), raised the issue of hazards resulting from man-made conditions, specifically the use and storage of hazardous materials. Contact was made with the City fire and police departments. Each agency was requested to provide input on this issue, and to outline any concerns regarding storage and use of hazardous materials in the range of uses that are permitted in the CG-1, Commercial General designation. Their responses are provided in Appendix E, Correspondence. i Setting Currently, both the project site (29.7 acre parcel) and the adjacent parcel (7.1 acre parcel) are vacant and undeveloped. Historically, the sites have not been developed and may have been used for agriculture purposes, including citrus or other grove type agricultural production. Today, only a windrow of olive trees remains. The potential for the presence of hazardous materials on both sites would have been introduced as a result of agricultural production (e.g., weed killer, fertilizers, etc.) or by illegal dumping. In any event, hazards associated with these materials are not immediately known and the sites are not considered to be hazardous based on the information currently available. It should be noted that an Initial Site Assessment (ISA) has not been performed on the sites to determine the potential presence for hazardous materials through a comprehensive records search (an ISA is not currently warranted given site conditions and former land use). There are two known facilities in the project vicinity that are considered important to hazardous materials issues. The first is an underground fuel pipeline (Cal-Nev pipeline) which is located within the Southern Pacific Transportation Company right-of-way to the south of the I-215 Freeway. This line does not present any hazards to the project site. The second facility is the County of San Bernardino Cajon Boulevard Landfill, located south of Cajon Boulevard. While the landfill is no longer used as an active landfill, the Ca1Mat DEIR and comments from various agencies indicate a concern regarding the migration of leachate and methane gas. Due to the distance of the closed landfill to the project site, these issues do not create hazards for the proposed project. The City of San Bernardino Development Code (Title 19) contains provisions which regulate the use of hazardous materials and toxic substances for the various zoning districts. Principally, the regulations are intended to facilitate proper reporting of information to the City, County and State, as appropri- ate, and to allow the City to review development proposals for safety consid- erations. 03/26/'92(I:\1iM1o1\1ASnRI.DOC) 3-47 Impacts Implementation of the proposed GPA will result in the development of a range of commercial uses on the project site. The Development Code lists these permitted uses for the CG-1, Commercial General District. After a review of these uses, those uses that potentially store, use or generate hazardous materials or wastes were identified as noted in Table 3.5.A. Also included in the table are those uses that only require approval of a Develop- ment Permit, or those uses that need Conditional Use Permit approval and supporting documentation. As shown in Table 3.5.A, a number of service and retail commercial uses could be considered in the Concept Plan and many of those uses could store and/or utilize hazardous materials in conjunc- tion with the use. The Development Code also specifies various requirements or provisions with regard to the storage, handling and use of hazardous materials for com- mercial and other uses in the City. The following relevant passages are extracted from the Code (page III-9, Section 19.20.030): • A Conditional Use Permit shall be required for any new commercial, industrial, or institutional or accessory use, or major addition to an existing use, that involves the manufacture, storage, handling or pro- cessing of hazardous materials in sufficient quantities that would require permits as hazardous chemicals under the Uniform Fire Code, with the following exceptions: Underground storage of bulk flammable and combustible liquids; and Hazardous materials in container sizes of ten gallons or less that are stored or maintained for the purposes of retail or wholesale sales. • All businesses required by Chapter 6.95 of the California Health and Safety Code to prepare hazardous materials release response plans shall submit copies of these plans, including revisions to the Director at the same time these plans are submitted to the administrating agency which is responsible for administering these provisions. • Underground storage of hazardous materials shall comply with all applicable requirements of Chapter 6.7 of the California Health and Safety Code, and Article 79 of the Uniform Fire Code. • Above-ground storage tanks for any flammable liquids shall meet all standards of the City Fire Department. 03/26/92(I:\HID101VKASTERI.DOC) 3-48 Table 3.5.A - List of Permitted Uses and Specific Standards With Possible Hazardous Materials Storage/Production: CG-1 Designation Possible Hazardous Materials storage/ Uses Required Permit Production Veterinary Services C Commercial Printing D X Railroad Transportation D X Local and Suburban Transit and D Inter-urban Highway Passenger Transport U.S. Postal Service C Heliport or Helipad C Pipelines C X Arrangement of Passenger D Transport Electricity, Gas and Sanitary D X Services Mobile Home Dealers C General Merchandise Stores D X Mini-malls' D g Food Stores D X Convenience Stores' C g Automotive Dealers' C X Gasoline Service Stations' C g Apparel and Accessory Stores D Home Furniture, Furnishings D and Equipment Stores Eating Places D X Drive-up and Drive-thru' C g Drinking Places (Alcohol) C Miscellaneous Retail Drug Stores D X Liquor Stores C X Sporting Goods/Bikes D X Books D Stationary D Hobby/Games/*roys D Camera D X Gift/Novelty/Souvenirs D Luggage/Leather D Sewing/Fabrics D Florist D Tobacco D News Stand D Optical D Depository Credit Institutions D 03/26/92(lAHlD101\MASTERI.D0C) 3-49 Table 3.5-A- List of Permitted Uses and Specific Standards With Possible Hazardous Materials Storage/Production: CG-1 Designation (Continued) Possible Hazardous Materials storage/ Uses Required Permit Production Non-depository Credit D Institutions Security and Commodity D Brokers, Dealers, Exchanges and Services Insurance Carriers D Insurance Agents, Brokers and D Service Real Estate D Holding and Other Investment D Offices Hotels/Motels C X Sports/Rec. Camps and RV Parks C i Laundromats D X Dry Cleaners D X Funeral Parlors C X Medical Equipment Rental/Lease D Equipment Leasing D X Truck Rental C X Passenger Car Rental and D X Leasing RV, Utility Trailers Rental C X Parking D Auto Repair C X Car Wash C X Auto Services other than Repair X and Gasoline Services Station C Misc. Repair Services D X Watch,Jewelry, Clock Repair D X Movie Theater C Videotape Rentals D Discos (No Alcohol) C Dance Studios/Schools D Theatrical Producers D Bowling Alley C Comm. Sports C Misc. Indoor D Misc. Outdoor C 03/26/92(IAHM101\MASTER1.D0C) 3-50 Table 3.5A- List of Permitted Uses and Specific Standards With Possible Hazardous Materials Storage/Production: CG-1 Designation (Continued) Possible Hazardous Materials Storage/ Uses Required Permit Production Health Services D X Alcohol and Drug Treatment C Legal Services D Educational Services C Social Serviced D Day Care Facilities D Community Care Facilities) C Museums, Art Galleries and D Botanical and Zoological Gardens Membership Organizations D Religious (Churches, etc.) C Engineering, Accounting, D X Research, Management and Related Services Misc. Services D X Police and Fire Protection D g Admin. of Human Resource D Programs Admin. of Environ. Quality and D Housing Programs National Security and Internal D Affairs Antennae, Satellite and Vertical D Equestrian Trails P Fences and Walls D Temporary Use T Legend: C—Conditional Use Permit; D--Development Permit; P--Permitted T—Temporary Use Permit 1—Specific Standards for these uses 03/26/92(lAH]DI01\MAMRI.D0C) 3-51 • No use may operate that utilizes toxic substances or produces toxic waste without the approval of a Conditional Use Permit pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 19.36 (Conditional Use Permits). Prior to consideration of a Conditional Use Permit, the operator must prepare a toxic substance and waste management plan which will provide for the safe use and disposal of these substances. Adherence to the above Development Code requirements (i.e., Section 19.20.030) will minimize the risks associated with hazardous materials in the planned commercial uses. As mentioned in Setting, several agencies were contacted to request their concerns on hazardous materials usage in the planned commercial uses. The City Fire Department indicated that specific conditions and permits would be determined for each building or use proposing to use these materials at a Development Review Committee meeting. If a facility moves into a building that was constructed on speculation (i.e., built prior to securing a building tenant), the specific requirements would be imposed on the tenant at the Certificate of Occupancy inspection. In summary, although hazardous materials are permitted in commercial and other uses in the City, they are controlled and regulated by the City through compliance with Development Code Section 19.20.030, and may require permits issued by the County Department of Health Services and State De- partment of Health Services. These controls and permit requirements will ensure that the use, generation and storage of hazardous materials and wastes will be conducted in a safe and controlled manner. Cumulative Impacts Implementation of the proposed project is not expected to have a significant effect due to the land uses proposed (i.e., project does not contain land uses known to generate, store or process significant quantities of hazardous mate- rials or wastes), and the required local and statewide regulations controlling their use. Also, in the immediate area surrounding the project site, no other land uses are present that may contribute towards a hazardous materials or waste concern. Consequently, the proposed project is viewed as not having a cumulative impact on the environment. Mitigation Measures Although there are no specific measures required to mitigate the potential effects of man-made hazards, the following are required, where appropriate, to comply with the City's Development Code Section 19.20.030: 3.5.1 A Conditional Use Permit shall be required for any new commercial, industrial, or institutional or accessory use, or major addition to an 03/26P92(I:WID1o1VKASTERI.DOC) 3-52 existing use, that involves the manufacture, storage, handling or pro- cessing of hazardous materials in sufficient quantities that would require permits as hazardous chemicals under the Uniform Fire Code, with the following exceptions: Underground storage of bulk flammable and combustible liquids; and Hazardous materials in container sizes of ten gallons or less that are stored or maintained for the purposes of retail or wholesale sales. 3.5.2 All businesses required by Chapter 6.95 of the California Health and Safety Code to prepare hazardous materials release response plans shall submit copies of these plans, including revisions to the Director at the same time these plans are submitted to the administrating agency which is responsible for administering these provisions. 3.5.3 Underground storage of hazardous materials shall comply with all applicable requirements of Chapter 6.7 of the California Health and Safety Code, and Article 79 of the Uniform Fire Code. 3.5.4 Above-ground storage tanks for any flammable liquids shall meet all standards of the City Fire Department. 3.5.5 No use may operate that utilizes toxic substances or produces toxic waste without the approval of a Conditional Use Permit pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 19.36 (Conditional Use Permits). Prior to consideration of a Conditional Use Permit, the operator must prepare a toxic substance and waste management plan which will provide for the safe use and disposal of these substances. Level of Signticance After Mitigation Implementation of the above measures or Development Code provisions will ensure that the use, generation or storage of hazardous materials or man- made hazards in association with the commercial uses of the proposed GPA will be mitigated to a level below significance. 03/26/92(I:\I-iID101\MASTERI.DOC) 3-53 3.6 POPULATION AND HOUSING Setting The Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) and the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) adopted an updated Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) on July 12, 1991, which forecasts attain- ment of all federal and State (i.e., 1990 California Clean Air Act amendments) clean air standards. It has been the policy of the two regional agencies that development projects demonstrate consistency with the SCAG forecasts used as the basis for the AQMP, comply with all applicable rules and regulations, and include all feasible measures to mitigate local impacts. Essentially, the AQMP provides for two major programs directed toward reducing the length of commute trips and minimizing the extent of emissions generated as the result of roadway congestion. The two programs are the Growth Management Plan (GMP) and the Regional Mobility Plan (RMP). The GMP focuses on attaining specified jobs/housing balance ratios, while the RMP contains a comprehensive set of regional transportation improvements and management techniques. Together, the GMP and RMP address the cum- ulative air quality impacts resulting from the interaction among regional transportation systems, the location of major employment centers and the location of residential areas in relation to employment opportunities. An additional component of the AQMP is SCAG's Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA). The RHNA addresses both existing and future housing needs in the SCAG region. Only project consistency with SCAG's GMP and RHNA policies is considered in this discussion. For project compliance with AQMP rules and regulations and related air quality mitigation measures, as well as compliance with the RMP, please refer to Section 3.10, Air Quality. Jobs/Housing The project site is located within the East San Bernardino Valley (ESBV) subregional planning area, as defined in SCAG's GMP (please refer to Figure 3.6.1, SCAG Region). SCAG has set a ratio of 0.76 as a performance goal for the ESBV subregion. This performance goal means that growth (i.e., from 1984 to 2010) in the ESBV subregion should occur in an overall ratio of 0.76 jobs added per housing unit added. Attainment of subregional performance goals will ensure regional consistency with the GMP. Table 3.6.A., Demo- graphic Forecasts, presents the GMP demographic data for the ESBV subre- gion as well as for the City of San Bernardino. SCAG considers a subregion "balanced" if its jobs/housing ratio was 1.27 in 1984 or will be 1.22 in 2010. These balance markers represent regional averages for the given horizon year. Those subregions with ratios greater than the balance markers are 0326i92(1:1IID101\MASnRI.DOC) 3-54 cr; s- a� Q � cis GD C C .0 x � � Q U m cr N \ m H `8 J W N _ � Z m C.D � Z W 'c a N N W - 0 R 2 Q c m N E td — �-. ® E 771 3 fn ni Table 3.6.A- Demographic Forecasts For East San Bernardino Valley and City of San Bernardino East San Bernardino Valley 1 1984 1988 2010 Population 379,400 451,100 774,800 Housing 145,800 174,500 323,400 Employment 135,500 N/A 270,300 Jobs/Housing Balance 0.93 N/A 0.84 City of San Bernardino 19842 19883 20102 Population 131,026 148,370 228,348 Housing 50,665 54,567 95,988 Employment 67,604 N/A 129,416 Jobs/Housing Balance 1.33 N/A 1.35 N/A: Not Available 'Source: SCAG Growth Management Plan, February, 1989. 2Source: SCAG Draft City Projections, February, 1987. 3Source: City of San Bernardino General Plan Housing Element, adopted June, 1989. 03/26/92(1AIiMIO1\MAMRI.DOC) 3-56 considered job-rich, while those with ratios less than the markers are consid- ered housing-rich. As indicated in Table 3.6.A, the jobs/housing balance for the City of San Bernardino is projected to remain in a relatively stable, slight- ly job-rich condition into the year 2010. In contrast, the jobs/housing bal- ance ratio for the ESBV subregion is expected to worsen (i.e., become even more housing-rich) into the year 2010. City Land Use Designations As mentioned in Section 3.4, Land Use, the project site is located within the City of San Bernardino and is currently designated by the San Bernardino General Plan to accommodate residential uses (267 dwelling units on approx- imately 29.7 acres). Please refer to Section 3.4, Land Use, for detailed Gener- al Plan assumptions. Project Impacts Various proposed project approvals (see Section 2.0, Introduction) would redesignate the project site to accommodate commercial uses with an inten- sity of 905,600 square feet. Project socioeconomic data and the assumptions used to generate these data are presented in Tables 3.6.13, Socioeconomic Summary, and 3.6.C, Employment Generation. Regional Analysis Table 3.6.D, jobs/Housing Balance Impacts, analyzes the proposed project's impact to the subregional and local jobs/housing balance ratios. Essentially, this table extracts the current project site socioeconomic data from area totals then replaces the current project site data with proposed project socio- economic data. The results (shown in Column E) reflect the proposed proje- ct's effect on applicable jobs/housing balances. As shown in this table, the proposed project has a beneficial impact on the subregional jobs/housing balance ratio. On a regional level, the proposed project would add jobs to a "housing rich" area. The GMP provides evaluation criteria for assessing project consistency with the GMP. The criterion relevant to the proposed project is as follows: • Housing projects in job-rich subregions and job development projects in housing-rich subregions [emphasis added] would not be subject to review and conditional permitting as long as they contribute to fur- ther balancing at the subregional level. Such projects should be encouraged and granted additional incentives (GMP, VII-6). 0326192(DRID101VKASURLDOC) 3-57 Table 3.6.B - Proposed Project Summary of Socioeconomic Data Population 0 persons Housing 0 dwelling units Employment 1,8111 jobs jobs/Housing Balance N/A Table 3.6.0 - Employment Generation Assumptions Building Employee Generated Coverage Generation Factor2 Employees Commercial/ 905,600 sq. ft. 1/500 sq. ft. 1,811 Retail TOTAL 1,811 1 Table 3.6.0 delineates the assumptions used in obtaining this estimate. 2 Employee generation factors were obtained from Dennis Wambem, Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, telephone communication, December 4, 1989. 03/26/92(1AHID101\M AS`MJ.DOC) 3-58 Table 3.6.13 - Project Impacts to Regional and Local Jobs/ Housing Balances (Year 2010) A B C D E East Project Total San Bernardino ESBV Site Net Proposed New Valley(ESBV) Per GMP Per GPI ESBV Project ESBV Population 774,800 694 774,106 0 774,106 Housing 323,400 267 323,133 0 323,133 Employment 270,300 0 270,300 1,811 272,111 Jobs/Housing Balance 0.84 N/A 0.84 N/A 0.84 COSB Per SCAG Project Total The City of San Draft City Site Net Proposed New Bernardino (COSB) Projections Per GPI COSB Project COSB I Population 228,348 694 227,654 0 227,654 Housing 95,988 267 95,721 0 95,721 Employment 129,416 0 129,416 1,811 131,227 I jobs/Housing Balance 1.35 N/A 1.35 N/A 1.37 A= Total Socioeconomic data per relevant planning programs B = Project site socioeconomic data per City of San Bernardino General Plan assumptions C = Total socioeconomic data without project site per City of San Bernardino General Plan data assumptions(A-B=C) D= Proposed project socioeconomic data E= Total socioeconomic data with project site assumptions(C+D=E) I San Bernardino General Plan assumptions: nine residential units per gross acre; 2.60 persons per household. 03/26/'92(lAHID1o1\M SM1.DOC) 3-59 As mentioned previously, SCAG projects a 2010 jobs/housing balance ratio of 0.84 for the ESBV subregion with a growth performance goal of 0.76. Pro- jects that aid in achieving this goal (i.e., adding more jobs than housing) are considered to be within the jobs/housing balance performance goals. Since the proposed project would replace a residential use designation with an employment generating use (i.e., commercial uses), it incrementally aids in achieving the subregional performance goal. The fact that the project's incremental contribution to further balancing of the subregional and local ratios is not detectable on Table 3.6.D,jobs/Housing Balance Impacts, is due to the project's small size relative to the large area under consideration; no single development project can actually realize the subregional performance goal. The proposed project is consistent with the above SCAG policy through its addition of jobs to the housing-rich ESBV subregion. Therefore, the project should not be subject to review and conditional permitting by SCAG or the AQMD. Such projects should be encouraged and granted addi- tional incentives (GMP, VIII-6). It is a GMP policy to "encourage growth to occur in and around activity centers [and] transportation node corridors ...... (GMP, p.111-8). This policy relates to the assumption that future project employees will desire to work proximate to their homes. The proposed project is consistent with GMP policies by providing employment opportunities proximate to existing and proposed residential uses. The proposed project's proximity to existing and proposed residential uses and to the 1-215 freeway results in further project consistency with the GMP (see Section 3.4, Land Use, for more details re- garding proximate developments). A recent survey of employee residence locations for the Irvine Business Complex and Irvine Spectrum concentrated employment centers confirmed the validity of the above policy (The Research Network Ltd., 1989). The results of that survey demonstrate that employee residence patterns reflect the desire to live in close proximity to employment centers. Thus, projects that result in employment centers in close proximity to housing opportuni- ties can have a beneficial effect on reducing regional vehicle miles traveled (VMT). Local Analysis On a local level, the proposed project would result in the contribution of jobs to an existing "job-rich" area (please refer to Table 3.6.1)). Specifically, the City of San Bernardino jobs/housing balance ratio would increase from 1.35 to 1.37. While the City's General Plan does not specifically address the issue of jobs/housing balance, the City's General Plan Land Use Element states that "the City contains insufficient employment opportunities for its residents. As a consequence, there is a need to provide for the development of uses that will provide additional employment for residents of the City and adjacent areas" (General Plan, page 1-17). Therefore, despite the project's relatively minor negative effect (i.e., contributing to a job-rich condition) on 03/26/92(I:\I3ID1o1\MASTERI.DOC) 3-60 the City's jobs/housing balance, this effect is considered consistent with the City's General Plan land use policies. Local Housing Needs Analysis The provision of affordable housing as defined in the City's Housing Ele- ment', as well as the provision of a broad range of housing opportunities are addressed within the goals and policies of the San Bernardino General Plan Housing Element: Goals • Facilitate the development of a variety of housing types to meet the needs of all income levels in the City. • Assist in the development of adequate housing to meet the needs of low and moderate income households. Applicable Policies • Accommodate the production of new housing units on currently vacant or underutilized land at densities and standards designated in the land Use Element of the General Plan (12.1). • In compliance with State Government Code Section 65915, provide a 25 percent density bonus or equivalent financial value to any residential developer who agrees to make 25 percent of units affordable to house- holds at 80 percent of median income or 10 percent of units affordable to households at 50 percent of median income (12.18). • Encourage non-profit housing development by providing support to non-profit housing developers in order to use special funding sources such as State and federal tax credits and property tax exemptions (12.28, 12-32). • Reduce fees and development review standards for in-fill housing pro- jects (12.21). 1 A household is defined as "in need" when it is a lower income house- hold (income of 80 percent or less of the County's median income [i.e., County median income was $30,300 in 1988]) paying over 30 percent of its income for housing. Federal and State agencies regard an income-to-housing costs ratio greater than 30 percent as an "inordinate share of income" for housing, called "overpaying." 03r26/92(1AH1D101\MAMR1.DOC) 3-61 The proposed project is not consistent with the above goals and policies of the City of San Bernardino General Plan Housing Element. Project imple- mentation would redesignate the site from a residential use to a commercial use designation (please refer to Section 3.4, Land Use, for details regarding the project's land use effects). Development of the project would perma- nently preclude the development of housing (including senior and affordable housing) on the site. The significance of this project effect should be assessed against the total number of potential future dwelling units in the City of San Bernardino. The City's General Plan Housing Element estimates that 25,190 potential dwelling units could be provided within the current city limits (General Plan, page 2- 24). The project's removal of approximately 267 dwelling units from this inventory represents an approximate 1.1 percent reduction of the City's total potential future residential development. This housing deficit could be "made up" through a number of approaches: 1) the City could redesignate an existing commercial parcel for residential uses; 2) the City could apply its density bonus program to future residential development; 3) the City could annex additional land suitable for residential development; or 4) the City could increase the density limits for future devel- opment of land already designated for residential uses. However, because the above remedial actions are not within the scope of the proposed project, implementation of such actions cannot be assumed for proposed project impact mitigation. Therefore, the project's incremental impact to the City's potential residential development inventories (i.e., 1.1 percent reduction) is considered locally significant. Regional Housing Needs Analysis Affordable housing at the regional level is addressed in SCAG's Revised Re- gional Housing Needs Assessment, December, 1988 (RHNA). The RHNA defines housing need as the number of lower income households paying more than 30% of their income for housing. This definition is similar to the City of San Bernardino definition of affordable housing. The RHNA forecasts future housing needs by income levels. The four household income catego- ries are defined by State law as follows: • Very low (less than 50% of median); • Low (50% to 80% of median); • Middle (80% to 120% of median); and • Upper (more than 120% of median). According to the RL-LNA, the City of San Bernardino has existing and future housing needs that should be met. Tables 3.6.E and 3.6.F present the rele- vant RHNA data. 03/26/92(I:u3ID101VKASTERI.DOC) 3-62 Table 3.6.E - Existing Housing Needs' Total LIHH Overpay Total Households/ for Shelter LIHH2 Shelter City of San Bernardino 54,473/27,345 11,775 County of San Bernardino 427,801/117,963 70,741 Table 3.6.17 - Future (By 1994) Housing Needs by Income Category, Total Very Low3 Low3 Middle3 High3 Total City of 1,159 1,865 1,799 3,198 8,021 San Bernardino County of 14,580 20,303 18,317 39,457 92,656 San Bernardino 1 Source: SCAG's 1988 Revised Regional Housing Needs Assessment 2 Lower income households (includes very low and low categories) 3 See previous discussion for definitions of these income categories 0326/92(1AH1D101\MASTERI.D0C) 3-63 As indicated in Tables 3.6.E, Existing Housing Needs, and 3.6.13, Future Hous- ing Needs, both the City of San Bernardino and County of San Bernardino middle and high income housing needs represent a greater percentage of the total need. According to the RHNA, 62.3 percent of the City's future housing need is in the higher income categories (middle and upper) while nearly 62.4 percent of the Countywide future housing need is in the same higher income category. As discussed in Section 3.4, Land Use, the project site is currently designated for residential uses, which could include the provision of affordable housing units (i.e. senior and mobile home housing). The RU-1 General Plan designa- tion allows up to 9 units per acre of conventional housing and up to 14 units per acre of senior congregate care housing. Consequently, this designation exhibits a potential for housing construction in the affordable range, due to these allowable densities. Because the RHNA identifies a need for affordable housing in the City, and the project site's potential to provide affordable housing is eliminated, if the General Plan Amendment to CG-1 is approved, the effect is considered a significant local impact on affordable housing. Regarding the additional need for employee housing generated by the pro- posed project, the City's General Plan Housing element states that, in 1980, 57 percent of the City's total of 47,780 working residents were employed within the City limits. Approximately 83 percent of employed residents commute less than one-half hour to their place of employment. While it is not feasible to estimate the exact number of future project employees who will desire to relocate to the City of San Bernardino, some general assumptions can be made, based upon the above 1980 trends. Due to the localized nature of the City's employment base, it can be assumed that a substantial percentage of future project employees would already reside within the City of San Bernardino. For purposes of this analysis, 50 percent of the project's 1,811 employees (i.e., 906 employees) are assumed to already reside within the area. Of the remaining 905 employees, a worst case scenario of one dwelling unit per employee is assumed, resulting in the need for 905 additional housing units. This represents approximately 3.6 percent of the City's future housing inven- tories. When this percentage is added to the 1.1 percent of the future hous- ing inventories lost as a result of the proposed project (see previous discus- sion under Local Housing Needs Analysis), it becomes evident that the pro- ject will result in an approximately 4.7 percent future housing opportunity deficit. The project related housing need (i.e., 905 units) and the project's removal of existing housing opportunities (i.e., 267 units) would not have been in- cluded in either local or regional housing needs assessments due to the project site's existing residential use designation; no employment generating uses (or the attendant housing demand associated with such uses) were assumed for the project site. Therefore, the proposed project will result in 03/26/92(1AJiM101\MASTERI.D0Q 3-64 the demand for additional housing, over and above the housing demand contemplated by the City of San Bernardino General Plan Housing Element and SCAG's Regional Housing Needs Assessment. This is considered a signifi- cant impact of the proposed project. Cumulative Impacts The project's effects on the cumulative housing environment have been considered in the "impacts" section as discussed above. Jobs/housing ratio calculations have been considered for the City of San Bernardino and the SCAG subregion as required to determine the cumulative effect. Mitigation Measures None feasible. Level of Significance After Mitigation Based on the removal of potential housing opportunities due to the GPA, as well as the indirect housing demand generated by project employees, the proposed project will result in significant unavoidable housing needs im- pacts. 03/26i92(1AHW101\MASTERI.DOC) 3-65 3.7 PUBLIC UTILITIES/SERVICES Applicable public service and utility agencies were contacted to determine the extent of eadsting services and potential impacts related to provision of ser- vices to the proposed GPA. Appendix E contains agency responses. Setting IPolice Protection The City of San Bernardino Police Department provides emergency response, preventative patrol, traffic enforcement and crime related investigative servic- es to the project area. Police Department main facilities are currently located at 466 W. Fourth Street, with 5 other substations within the City. The near- s est facility, less than .25 miles from the project site, is the Community Service Office located at 911 Kendall Drive, at Palm Avenue. The Community Service Office provides high community profile for the Department and serves as the liaison between the district and the Department. The office is staffed with Community Service personnel who are not sworn (carry no weapons). Patrol vehicles are dispatched out of the main facility located in the City's downtown. The department divides the City into 6 patrol areas, and main- tains a continuous mobile patrol. Therefore, response times are not depen- dent on the location of Police Department facilities. City-wide average re- sponse times for emergency calls is approximately 4 minutes, and 18 minutes for non-emergency requests. The Police Department has recently purchased a larger main facility, located at 701 North E Street. The move-in date is not known at this time. Occupancy of the new building will not effect response times to the project area. Fire Protection Fire suppression, fire prevention, and emergency medical services are pro- vided to the project area by the City of San Bernardino Fire Department. Two stations currently serve the project area. Station #5 is located at 1640 Kendall Drive, and Station #7 is located at 282 W. 40th Street. Each station maintains 3 on-duty paid personnel and each has one engine company. The normal response compliment for a commercial fire would be two engines and one ladder truck. Station #11, located at 450 E.Vanderbuilt Way, would provide hazardous materials response to the project site. The City's General Plan requires emergency response times of 3 minutes. According to the San Bernardino Fire Department, due to the Verdemont area's distance from the first-in responding fire station, response times to the project area are current- ly 6 to 9 minutes (longer than recommended). 0326/92(1:\IID101\MASTERI.D0C) 3-66 Public Scbools The San Bernardino City Unified School District (SBCUSD) provides public school services to the project area. The schools within the area as of Novem- ber 20, 1991 are as follows: • Kimbark Elementary School, 18021 Kerwood Drive, Devore • Shandin Hills Middle School, 4301 Little Mountain Drive, San Bernardino • Cajon High School, 1200 Hill Drive, San Bernardino Two of these schools are operating above capacity at this time. Kimbark Elementary School has a current enrollment of 841 students, and a capacity of 389-455. The school is using 11 portable buildings to accommodate the additional students. Shandin Hills Middle School has an enrollment of 1,011 students, and a capacity of 964. Cajon High School currently enrolls 2,200 and has a capacity of 2,476 students. The SBCUSD has indicated that during the past five years district-wide enrollment has increased by approximately 1,800 students per year. A new elementary school is under construction near the corner of Belmont Avenue and Little League Drive. Funding for new school facilities comes in part from the collection of developer fees pursuant to AB 2926. Fees are assessed at$0.26 per square foot for commercial/industrial development, and at $1.58 per square foot for residential development. Public Transit Omni Trans provides public transit service to the City of San Bernardino. There is currently no public transit service to the project area. Omni Trans has indicated that they have no route planned for the area, but may serve the area in the future if fiscal constraints allow. Natural Gas Natural gas is provided to the project area by the Southern California Gas Company. The project area is currently serviced through a 3-inch gas main in Little League Drive. The system has the capacity to serve the project, as long as the Gas Company is notified with demand and load data in advance of project development to adjust pressure, or plan construction as needed. 03/26/92(1AHID101\MAMRI.DOC) 3-67 Electricity Electricity is currently provided to the project area by the Southern California Edison Company. Overhead distribution facilities are located in the area and directly within the project site. These include 33 Kilovolt (Kv) and 12 Kv lines in the southern portion of the project site. There are currently no un- derground electrical facilities in the project area. Water Domestic water service to the project area is provided by the City of San Bernardino Municipal Water District (SBMWD). A 5 million gallon reservoir and pressure zone (elevation 1913 feet) for the area is located near the intersection of Cajon Boulevard and Kendall Avenue. The reservoir is fed via Lytle Creek and the Bunker Hill Aquifer, and is currently operating at 60 percent transmission capacity and'90 percent reservoir storage capacity. The project would be served from a 24 inch main located along Cajon Boulevard at Palm avenue (across the freeway from the project site). The SBMWD is operating under a bond funded 5-stage master plan of water system capital improvements, which include provisions for additional storage production and transmission facilities in the pressure zone serving the project area. Increased service needs are based on a conservative City growth rate of approximately 3.5 percent. The first of the year-long stages has been completed, and additional work will commence when funding is available. Funding for bond issuance comes primarily from new construction fees. Wastewater Sewer service to the project area is also provided by the City of San Bernar- dino Municipal Water District. The project area is currently serviced through a 15 inch sewer line within Little League/Frontage Road and an 8 inch line within Chestnut Avenue, crossing Irvington Avenue. After discharging into these lines, the wastewater is conveyed through the trunk sewer line to the San Bernardino Waste Water Treatment Plant (WW f?), operated by the City of San Bernardino. The WWTP has a design capacity of 28 million gallons per day (mgd) for primary and secondary sewage treatment, and a 3 mgd capacity for tertiary treatment. The WWTP currently provides tertiary treat- ment at full capacity. This reclaimed water is then used for landscape irriga- tion in local freeway medians and the San Bernardino Golf Course, and for wash down and other uses in the WWTP. Current flow into the treatment facility is approximately 25.5 mgd. 03/26/92(I:W1D101\MASURI.D0C) 3-68 Solid Waste Solid waste disposal service to the project area is provided by the City of San Bernardino Public Services Department, Refuse Division. Waste is transport- ed to the Mid Valley Landfill, located in Fontana. This facility currently receives approximately 5,000 tons of solid waste per day, and has a projected life span of approximately 5 to 10 years. In the event that this landfill site becomes unavailable, the San Timoteo landfill in Redlands would be used. At current permitting capacity, San Timoteo has a projected life span of approxi- mately 20 to 25 years. Recently passed waste reduction legislation (Assembly Bill 939) requires that every city and county in California implement programs to recycle, reduce at the source and compost 25 percent of their solid waste by 1995, and 50 percent by the year 2000. The deadline for preparation of a plan describing how each city and county will meet these requirements was July 1, 1991. The City's Source Reduction and Recycling Element was adopted by resolu- tion on March 2, 1992. The project will be required to conform to the provi- sions of these plans. Telephone Service General Telephone (GTE) provides telephone service to the project area. Cable Service Chambers Cable currently services the project area. Cable lines are installed in conjunction with telephone service lines, and can be aerial or under- ground. Chambers cable has a main overhead cable line located along Belmont, crossing Magnolia one block north of the project site. Parks S Recreation The City of San Bernardino Parks, Recreation and Community Services De- partment maintains and operates two parks in the project area. AI Guhin Park is a 23 acre facility located on the north side of Magnolia, adjacent to the project site. The park presently has 7 acres developed, and 16 acres planned for development as funds become available. Present facilities in- clude open space and picnic facilities. A baseball field is planned for future development. Buckboard Park is planned for development on a 15 acre parcel located south on Kendall Drive, at Buckboard Drive and Kendall Way, approximately 1.25 miles from the project site. There are currently no devel- oped facilities on this site. Construction is projected to begin within a year, and will include picnic areas and basketball and tennis courts. 03R6/92(1-\IiID101VNASTERI.DOC) 3-69 impacts Police Protection The San Bernardino Police Department has indicated that the proposed GPA will not significantly impact police services to the project area (see Appendix E), although each project in the Verdemont area incrementally impacts the Department's ability to service the area. Nonetheless, the project, when ultimately developed should contain adequate security features to ensure the safety of the project's patrons. Fire Protection On November 25, 1991 the Fire Department met with members of the City's Planning and Building Services Department and an independent consulting firm to discuss upgrades to current fire services in the Verdemont area. Fire response services have not kept pace with the recent growth in this area, and emergency response times to the Verdemont area currently do not meet the City of San Bernardino General Plan requirement of 3 minutes. The proposed GPA will incrementally increase demands for fire protection services in the project area. Although the proposed GPA by itself will not create a need for additional facilities or personnel, the City of San Bernar- dino Fire Department has indicated that future cumulative demands may necessitate the construction of an additional Fire Station in the Verdemont area. Public Schools While the proposed development will not directly increase student enroll- ment in the San Bernardino City Unified School District, the proposed GPA may attract employees desiring to relocate to the City of San Bernardino (see Section 3.6, Population and Housing). This increase in population within the District may create the need for additional school facilities. The SBCUSD has indicated that developer fees may not be sufficient to provide funding for additional facilities. According to the SBCUSD, the proposed GPA will have a growth inducing effect on the Verdemont area, and even providing appro- priate fees are paid to the District, the project will have a significant impact to school services in the project area. The District has expressed a desire for participation in a Verdemont Area Mello-Roos Community Facilities District, which would enhance the Districts ability to provide additional classroom space in the area. 03/26/92(I:ViID101\MASTERI.DOC) 3-70 Public Transit According to Omni Trans, the proposed GPA will not impact their current or planned future service. There is currently no public transit service to the project area. Omni Trans has indicated that they may plan for service to the project area in the future (no sooner than fiscal 1994-1995), if the demand for service is shown to exist. The transit agency sets priorities for their service demands when creating new transit routes. Transit service is aimed primarily at commuters, then service to medical centers, with shopping and other services listed last. Therefore, future transit service to the proposed GPA would be a low priority. With no current transit service, none planned for the near future, and the low priority of shopping center routes, there are no anticipated impacts to public transit service or to Omni Trans as a result of project implementation. Natural Gas Based on annual use factors provided by Southern California Gas Company of 34.8 cubic feet per square foot for commercial uses, the proposed GPA will demand approximately 31,514,000 cubic feet of natural gas per year. Gas service to the project will be provided by connecting into the main in Little League Drive. According to the Gas Company, no significant impacts with regard to provision of natural gas to the site is expected from project implementation. Also the Gas Company does not foresee a need to expand their existing system to service the project site. Electricity Southern California Edison Company has indicated that they can service the proposed GPA without significant adverse impact to their operations. The existing overhead transmission lines within the project boundaries would need to be relocated. According to the Edison Company, the City may re- quire that new electric facilities for the proposed GPA be placed under- ground. The expected generated energy demand depends on the specific types of commercial uses ultimately accommodated by the proposed GPA. Southern California Edison Company's standard generation rates for the project's probable uses are as follows: Small office building 8.5 Volt-amps per square foot Fast food restaurants 20.5 Volt-amps per square foot Sit-down restaurants 14.5 Volt-amps per square foot Large retail 4.2 Volt-amps per square foot Small retail 8.6 Volt-amps per square foot 03/.6/92(I:\HID101VKASTLRI.DOC) 3-71 Large food store 8.5 Volt-amps per square foot Small food store 13.9 Volt-amps per square foot Miscellaneous repair 7.3 Volt-amps per square foot The average rate for these uses would be 10.75 Volt-amps per square foot. At the project's proposed 905,600 square feet, the average peak usage would be 9,735,200 Volt-amps. According to the Southern California Edison Company, they can provide adequate service to the project area. Water According to the City of San Bernardino Municipal Water District no water main exists in the streets adjacent to the project site, therefore a new water main extension from the current 24 inch main in Kendall Drive is required in order to provide metered water service and fire protection to future devel- opments. Water needs for commercial uses are determined by fire flow needs requirements as specified by the Fire Department. The Water District has stated that actual water use by commercial developments is not signifi- cant when determining service requirements. Fire flow requirements for a building that is approximately 105,000 square feet equipped with sprinklers is 2,875 gallons per minute. Wastewater The City Sanitation Department is empowered by the California Health and Safety Code to charge a fee for the privilege of connecting to the Sanitation Department's Sewerage System. Connection fees are required to facilitate necessary expansions to the Sewerage System. The expected maximum average wastewater flow to be generated by the proposed GPA is 38,400 gallons per day. This estimation for the 29.7 acre site plan is calculated using the City's Sanitation District's average generation factor of 0.002 cubic feet per second (1,292.6 gallons per day) per acre. This estimate for wastewater is well within the capacity of the existing facilities. Therefore, there will be no significant impact on the City's ability to service the proposed GPA. Solid Waste The City of San Bernardino indicates that the proposed GPA would not adversely impact their ability to provide solid waste service the project area, and that the impact on the Mid Valley landfill facility due to the project will not be significant (see Appendix E). 03/26/92(1AHID101\MASTERI.DOC) 3-72 Telepbone Service General Telephone (GTE) has indicated it's ability to serve the proposed GPA without significant impact to their operations. Service connections will be determined by GTE when final site plans are submitted. Cable Service Chambers Cable has indicated that the proposed GPA would not adversely impact their ability to service the project area. Cable service lines can be extended to the project site. Additionally, the main cable line along Belmont is not expected to be impacted by the proposed realignment of Little League Drive. Parks &Recreation The City of San Bernardino Parks, Recreation and Community Services De- partment receives funds for the development and maintenance of park land in part through developer fees of 1 percent of construction valuation at building permit issuance for residential uses, and currently has no fees for commercial development. The Parks Department determines the need for park land using a standard generation rate of 5 acres per 1000 population. According to the Parks Department, the City currently has a city-wide park land deficit of approxi- mately 380 acres. The City is preparing a Master Plan that includes provi- sions for needed park land, however the Parks Department is unsure if suffi- cient financial resources are available in the City to achieve the desired ratio. While the proposed development will not directly increase population in the City of San Bernardino, the proposed GPA will create jobs, therefore attract- ing families and new area residents. But, according to the Parks Department, the project is not expected to significantly increase demands for parks and recreational services. The Parks Department has indicated that due to the potential increase in traffic generated by the shopping center, increased safety considerations will need to be incorporated into the site plan design prior to completion of A] Guhin Park. The realignment of Little League Drive to its proposed alignment adjacent to Cable Creek will result in some displacement of existing park land at Al Guhin Park. This area primarily consists of turf at the present time. Because the current alignment of existing Little League drive will no longer be used, the right-of-way will be abandoned, and could be used to expand the park acreage. In total, the loss of park land due to the roadway realignment is more than offset by the gain in land area associated with the roadway aban- donment. It should be noted that these potentially land exchanges will have an effect on the park master plan and in particular, park design. However, 03/26/920AHM101WASrER1.DOC) 3-73 because the proposed roadway alignment abuts the flood control channel and does not divide the park, the effect to the park character can be main- tained with adjustments to the park master plan. Cumulative Impacts Fire Protection According to the San Bernardino Fire Department, the proposed GPA will incrementally increase demands for fire protection services in the Verdemont area. At present the response times to the project area currently do not meet City standards of 3 minutes, and increasing growth in the Verdemont area will require upgrading of fire services. Although the proposed GPA in and of itself will not create a need for additional facilities or personnel, the Fire Department has indicated that future cumulative demands may necessitate the construction of an additional Fire Station in the Verdemont area. Public Schools While the proposed GPA will not directly increase student enrollment in the San Bernardino City Unified School District (SBCUSD), the proposed GPA may attract employees desiring to relocate to the City of San Bernardino. Additional residential units built or otherwise made available to take advan- tage of this proposed GPA and it's employment opportunities could lead to an increase in population in the Verdemont area. This increase in popula- tion within the District will create the need for additional school facilities. The District has indicated that developer fees may not be sufficient to pro- vide funding for additional facilities, and has expressed a desire for participa- tion in a Verdemont Area Mello-Roos Community Facilities District, which would enhance the Districts ability to provide additional classroom space. Mitigation Measures Police Protection 3.7.1 Prior to issuance of a development permit or site plan approval, project plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Police Department to de- termine the need for any additional crime prevention measures and to ensure the following measures have been incorporated into the final project design: - Adequate lighting shall be provided in all parking and walkway areas to provide for public safety. - Landscaping materials obscuring surveillance of the project site shall be minimized. 0326/92(I:\HID101\MASTERI.DOC) 3-74 Fire Protection 3.7.2 Prior to issuance of a development permit or site plan approval, the project shall be reviewed by the City of San Bernardino Fire Depart- ment to ensure that the following measures are incorporated into the final project design: - The project shall comply with all applicable code and ordinance re- quirements for construction, access, water mains, fire flows and fire hydrants. - Fire flow regulations shall be in conformance with City of San Bernar- dino Fire Department requirements. 3.7.3 Prior to issuance of a development permit, the project shall be review- ed by the City of San Bernardino Fire Department to determine the need for any additional fire prevention and fire protection personnel. If the Department determines such need exists, the applicant shall participate on a fair basis and pay fees (mitigation measure 4.2.3.2.4 of the General Plan EIR, March 24, 1989) that will apply to the construc- tion of a new fire station and personnel in the Verdemont area, ulti- mately improving the level of fire protection service to the community. The applicant shall coordinate with the Planning and Fire departments to determine the fair share participation formulas. Public Schools 3.7.4 Prior to issuance of building permits, developer fees of $0.26 per square foot shall be paid to the San Bernardino City Unified School District. 3.7.5 If determined necessary by the School District, as a condition of the project Tentative Tract Map, the applicant may be requested to partici- pate in the formation of, and contribute to a Mello-Roos District, should developer fees be inadequate to finance the cost of required school facilities. Public Transit None required. 03/25,1920AHM101WASTERLDOC) 3-75 Natural Gas 3.7.6 Prior to site plan approval, the project applicant shall consult with the Southern California Gas Company to incorporate energy conservation measures into the project. Electricity 3.7.7 Prior to issuance of a development permit, the project applicant shall coordinate with the Southern California Edison Company for the relo- cation or removal of existing overhead transmission lines within the project site. 3.7.8 Prior to the issuance of a development permit, the project applicant shall consult with the Southern California Edison Company to incor- porate conservation measures into the project. Water 3.7.9 Prior to issuance of grading permits, the project applicant shall pay all applicable water connection fees. 3.7.10 Prior to issuance of a development permit, the project applicant shall coordinate with the San Bernardino Municipal Water District for the installation of a new water main. 3.7.11 Prior to issuance of a development permit, the project shall comply with all adopted City water conservation measures. 3.7.12 Prior to issuance of a development permit, the project applicant shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Planning Director that land- scaped areas will be drip-irrigated and planted with drought-tolerant vegetation to the extent feasible. 3.7.13 Prior to issuance of a development permit, the project applicant shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Planning Director that water conserving plumbing fixtures will be included in the project. Wastewater 3.7.14 Prior to building permit issuance, the project shall pay all applicable sewer connection fees. 03/26/92(1AHID101\M ASnRI.DOC) 3-76 Solid Waste 3.7.15 Prior to issuance of a development permit, the project applicant shall comply with all source reduction or recycling requirements as con- tained in the City's Source Reduction and Recycling Element. Telephone Service None required. Cable Service None required. Parks and Recreation 3.7.16 As a condition of the project Tentative Tract Map, the applicant shall be responsible (i.e., fiscally or as agreed by the Parks Department) for modifying the A] Guhin park master plan as required to compensate for adjustments in park design due to the realignment of Little League Drive. The applicant shall also be responsible for installing landscap- ing in the abandoned Little League Drive right-of-way that is equal to or greater than the loss associated with the realignment. Such modi- fications and installation of landscape materials shall be reviewed and approved by the City Parks Director. 3.7.17 Prior to site plan approval, the applicant shall consult with the San Bernardino Parks, Recreation and Community Services Department to ensure that the western portion of the site plan is compatible with the ultimate park plans for AI Guhin Park. Level of Sign fcance After Mitigation With implementation of the above mitigation measures, no significant un- avoidable adverse impacts due to fire hazards, or demands for police protec- tion, water, sewer, solid waste disposal, park facilities, gas and electricity and phone service will occur. Due to existing service deficiencies in the areas of public school and fire protection, fees collected on behalf of the proposed GPA, in concert with fees collected for future and reasonably foreseeable projects, will mitigate the cumulative impacts to these services. 03/26/92(1:\HID101VKASnRI.DOC) 3-77 3.8 AESTHE77CS/LIGHT AND GLARE Setting This section analyzes the potential effects of the General Plan Amendment (GPA) on visual resources as well as the potential for light and glare effects of the GPA. This section begins with a description of existing visual resourc- es and sources of light and glare in the project vicinity, followed by a de- scription of existing views of the site and relevant planning programs. In describing the visual resources associated with the site, both the 29.7 acre parcel (proposed GPA parcel) and the adjacent 7.1 acre parcel will be dis- cussed. Visual Cbaracter The topography of the site and surrounding areas is generally uniform, sloping gently in a southeasterly direction at approximately a one to two per- cent gradient. There are no prominent landforms on the site. A small de- pression that is approximately five to ten feet deep is located near the north- ern site boundary. The adjacent freeway is level to slightly elevated (approx- imately one to two feet) as it extends along the southern site boundary. On the north side of the Cable Creek flood control channel, the site is sur- rounded to the north and east by vacant properties and a low density, large lot residential neighborhood exists approximately 400 feet to the southeast. Of the seven or eight homes, three to four homes are oriented towards the site with views that extend across a vacant parcel, across the flood control channel and across the site to the freeway. Also to the southeast is the Palm Avenue interchange with the I-215 freeway where a convenience store, gas station and small offices are located. To the south of the I-215 Freeway is a combination of vacant parcels, large lot single family residences and vacant or underutilized industrial land. To the west of the site is the AI Guhin Com- munity Park, which is a local park that is predominantly manicured turf with off road unpaved parking, picnic facilities and small trees. Across Cable Creek and following the extension of Little League Road are several little league ball fields. The present character of the Verdemont area is rural, with large-lot custom homes, a few residential tracts scattered among former agricultural property, vacant lands and rural residential densities. On the east side of Palm Avenue, north of Cable Creek, is a recently constructed apartment complex. The Land Use Section of this report describes in detail land uses immediately adjacent to the site. 03/26/92(1!\IiID101VWASTERI.DOC) 3.78 Light and Glare The project site is vacant and produces no light. The ambient light level in the nearby residential areas is very low, with the primary stationary light sources being head lights on the freeway and local roadways. The closest little league field is not equipped with night lighting, while the larger ball field (approximately one-quarter mile from the site boundary) does utilize night lighting. Of these light sources, lighting from the little league fields is the only notable source due to the intensity required for ball games. This source is present only seasonally, during spring and summer months, when league activity occurs, and then is only periodic and for limited duration. The other light source (residential) is negligible. Headlights from cars driving on the freeway and Little League Drive represent transitory light sources. Fxisting Views of the Project Site from Adjacent Uses The most prominent views of the site occur from the I-215 Freeway. Motor- ists travelling north along the I-215 have views directly into the project site and beyond to the vacant parcels east of Cable Creek. These views continue up into the foothills and are framed by the San Bernardino Mountains and skyline. Motorists southbound on the I-215 have similar views through the tall median vegetation. Visitors to Al Guhin Park also have views directly into the site. Similar to the park views, views from the vacant parcel to the north extend across the site to the freeway. The residential tract to the northeast of the site is not locat- ed in an area that has significant panoramic view potential. Views from this area extend across vacant land, the Cable Creek Flood Control Channel and to the site and freeway facility in the distance. Relevant Urban Design Issues The San Bernardino General Plan contains an Urban Design for Public Spaces Element to guide future development of various districts within the City. The project site lies within the Verdemont Residential District which is de- scribed below. The Verdemont Residential District essentially includes the entire Verdemont community north of the I-215 Freeway. As described in the City's General Plan, Verdemont is the extreme northwest portion of the planning area between Cable Canyon and Devil Canyon. It was formerly rural, steadily sloping bench lands, with a grid system of roads aligned to be parallel and perpendicular to the mountain range. Many of the roads are unpaved and planted with olive tree and gum tree windrows. The area has been designat- ed in the existing General Plan for development and is experiencing rapid 0326/92(IA Ji1D101\MASTERI.DOC) 3-79 construction with single-family housing, creating a strong image of suburbanization. The only existing urban design structure in the vicinity is the I-215 Freeway which is noted as a major path and secondary barrier. Because the I-215 is a major pathway, it also functions as an entryway into the City for visitors travelling south on the I-215 freeway. For these travellers, the I-215 intro- duces visitors to the City and provides a first impression of City character. No other urban design features, such as nodes, pathways, landmarks etc., are noted in the Verdemont community. Few features in the site vicinity would be considered to have important aesthetic value. The exception is the adjacent local park that is attractively landscaped with several acres of green turf, small randomly distributed trees and a free standing picnic shade structure. The surrounding area is predomi- nantly disturbed vacant land with native and introduced plant materials. The adjacent residential street is well maintained, but is not an important aesthet- ic feature to the vicinity. Impacts This section analyzes the visual effects of the proposed GPA, the effects of the GPA on light and glare, and project compatibility with the relevant General Plan programs. To determine potential effects of the GPA, the applicant's conceptual site plan (previous Figure 2.8.1) has been used as the basis for discussion to represent commercial build out of the site. The proposed General Plan Amendment would change the land use designa- tion of the project site from Low Density Residential to General Commercial. In order to evaluate the impacts from this proposed change, this section will compare the visual impacts resulting from build out of the site as residential development with visual impacts resulting from site build out as commercial development. Visual Character and Compatibility Existing General Plan Designation Should the site remain designated for Urban Residential, its visual character upon build out would be different from the existing neighborhoods adjacent to the site designated for Commercial General, Residential Low, Residential Estate and Public Park. The difference would result primarily from the high- er densities permitted by the RU-1 designation (i.e., 9 units per acre) com- pared to the lower, rural densities generally found throughout Verdemont, the park and adjacent undeveloped parcels. A notable exception is the apart- ment complex located along Palm Avenue, as well as other isolated residen- 0326/92(1:ViID101\MASTERi.DOC) 3-80 tial tracts in the community. In addition, a number of small residential tracts are planned and approved as noted on previous Figure 3.4.3. Although build out of a residential tract would be slightly different in charac- ter from uses in the immediate area, a new tract would be visually similar with many of the residential uses in the Verdemont community. With respect to the park, the new residential tract could augment the park features by complimenting the landscaping, thereby not compromising the aesthetic features associated with the park. Development of the tract would not visual- ly affect the adjacent vacant parcels since these parcels do not have important visual features to protect. In summary, should the site develop according to the Urban Residential designation, it would have a different visual appear- ance when compared with the adjacent land uses (existing and planned) but would be similar to the residential uses recently developed and approved for construction. The site would be graded for building pads and roadways. One- and two- story residential buildings would be placed on the site at densities that could accommodate single family attached and detached homes. According to the Development Code, Section 19.04, buildings in the RU-1 zone are subject to a height limitation of 35 feet. Such development would alter existing views from the adjacent vantages by placing development on the site and interrupt- ing some views from adjacent parcels. Specifically, views for park visitors and from adjacent vacant parcels would be modified by placing residential structures on the currently vacant site. Views from the freeway would be altered by construction of a residential development. Short-range views from the freeway would extend into the front or back yards of the residences, depending on site layout. If the resi- dential structures backed up to the freeway (most likely scenario with realignment of Little League Drive), views into the backyards would probably be intercepted by walls (noise walls) or fences. Long-range views beyond the development to the foothills and San Bernardino Mountains would remain similar to the existing condition except for potential intermittent obstructions from buildings ranging to 35 feet in height. A minimum rear yard setback of ten feet for the RU-1 District would have little effect in minimizing the inter- mittent obstructions. Proposed General Plan Amendment Build out of the site as General Commercial may occur on the project site and adjacent parcel similar to the Concept Plan (previous Figure 2.8.1) in the Project Description. The concept plan illustrates the potential configuration of structures on the site; as previously mentioned, this site plan has been used to document potential visual impacts of the GPA. As illustrated in previous Figure 2.8.1, parking areas are proposed primarily to the project site interior with buildings of various sizes located along the parcel perimeter. The structures would primarily be oriented towards the site interior, except 03/26M(IAHID101\MASTERI.DOC) 3-81 for the buildings along both Little League Drive (as realigned) and Magnolia Avenue, which would also be oriented towards the street. The larger chain of buildings and anchor tenant stores would all be oriented towards the interior parking area with the rear of the buildings facing the I-215 Freeway. It has been assumed that many of these structures will be two story commer- cial buildings (30 feet maximum), as permitted in the Development Code (Section 19.06), typical of newer commercial centers. Like the residential discussion above, commercial uses need not compromise the park's aesthetic features, and could enhance the aesthetic value of the adjacent park by providing street trees and additional landscaping. Although views from the park and the adjacent vacant parcels would be modified, development of the site would not impact those views as there are no fea- tures within the their viewshed that are of significant aesthetic value. Views from the I-215 Freeway will be modified with construction of the proposed commercial center. Placement of the large chain of buildings and the anchor tenant stores adjacent to the freeway corridor will obstruct short- range views. It can be expected that either a wall, fence or hedge will be provided as a screen adjacent to the freeway. The San Bernardino Develop- ment Code requires installation an eight foot wall, fence or hedge uses adja- cent to a public right-of-way to screen all commercial. Consequently, this type of barrier would be a suitable screen for the loading areas at the rear of the buildings from passing freeway motorists. Some of these facilities may be visible over the top of the barrier due to the slightly elevated freeway condi- tion. Similarly, rear building facades would be visible from freeway line of sight for portions of buildings extending above the barrier. Long-range views beyond the proposed commercial development to the foothills and San Bernardino Mountains would remain similar to the existing condition, with the possible intermittent view obstruction of the tallest structures closest to the freeway. The obstruction could be more severe if the structures were placed on the property line (i.e., zero setbacks are permitted in the CG-1 District), although this condition does not occur with the concept plan. Light and Glare At the project scoping session, residents raised concerns regarding light and glare with a specific concern for cumulative glare. As mentioned in the Setting Section, the closest major stationary light source is associated with the little league ball field (only one of the two fields is lighted) that is over one-quarter mile from the project site and is approximately 70 to 80 feet in elevation higher than the site. The existing ball field light source, together with the new project site light source, will represent the only major station- ary light sources in the vicinity. The discussion below contrasts the potential light and glare impacts between land uses permitted under the existing and proposed General Plan land use designations. 03/26/92(I:ViID101\MASTERI.DOC) 3-82 Existing General Plan Designation Implementation of the existing General Plan designation of the site (e.g., residential) would introduce new sources of light from interior and exterior lighting (e.g., security lighting). Additionally, street lighting and periodic headlights from vehicular traffic would introduce new sources of light onto the site and would add to ambient light levels in the project vicinity. Light and glare from residential uses generally occur at a low level and do not present a potential to affect adjacent uses nor do they normally combine with other light sources to create cumulative glare. Proposed General Plan Amendment Implementation of the GPA and the resulting commercial development of the site would create additional light and glare from illuminated signs, parking lot lighting, safety lighting, security lighting, and loading area lighting, etc. Vehicle headlights of cars in the parking lots could potentially shine onto future residences to the northeast and east, if not shielded. Light and glare emitted from the proposed commercial center could affect the adjacent residential areas designated in the existing General Plan, similar to any commercial use located near residential uses. The future residential areas across Cable Creek would be affected primarily by store front and parking lot lighting, as well as by lighting along the realigned Little League Drive. The effect, however, will not be significant as this source of lighting would not be expected to radiate directly into the adjacent areas, but would only appear as a new light source in a formerly darkened area. In addition, the physical separation provided by Cable Creek increases the distance for glare to filter down. For the larger chain of buildings adjacent to the freeway, lighting would be required for both security reasons and for illumination of loading dock areas. This source would be most visible from the I-215 Freeway, but would not have an effect on motorists unless the lighting is aimed directly at on-coming vehicles. In the vicinity of the project site, there will be two major light sources after development of the proposed site and including the existing source from the nearby ball fields. There is a considerable distance, however, between these two sources; and as a result, the sources would not blend or cause a cumula- tive increase in the total ambient light and glare level. Rather, the two sourc- es will represent two locations where light and glare are emitted. It should also be noted that the current land use direction for the Verdemont area (particularly the site vicinity) does not include uses that would produce significant light and glare sources. The potential cumulative light and glare effects are restricted to those from the project and the ball field, as the other future light and glare sources will not be significant. 03/26/92(I:Vi1ID101\MASTERI.DOC) 3-83 Relevant Urban Design Issues The Urban Design for Public Spaces Element of the City's General Plan addresses urban features that are considered important in guiding future development of the City. As mentioned in the Aesthetics Setting Section, the urban feature most relevant to the Verdemont area focuses on the I-215 Freeway as a gateway into the City of San Bernardino. A gateway is intended to create a prominent image of the City. As such, it is important to maintain the integrity of an entry and minimize the potential to compromise the immediate surroundings. For the motorists entering San Bernardino along the I-215 Freeway, the entry experience reflects predominantly disorderly rural conditions, including scattered vacant and unimproved parcels along the freeway corridor. Consequently, the entry does not yet contribute to a positive experience. It is expected that, as the Verdemont community begins to create a strong image of suburbanization (per the Urban Design for Public Spaces Element), the entry experience will significantly improve. Conse- quently, since development of the proposed commercial center would con- tribute towards the image of suburbanization, its development would also contribute to a positive entry statement or experience for 1-215 motorists, assuming the center's architectural design is attractive. This conclusion is also based on the Verdemont community continuing its transition to a subur- ban character and that vacant parcels on both sides of the freeway corridor will infill along with the proposed commercial center. Development of the site with either residential or commercial land uses would change the views and visual character of the site from vacant land to that of suburban development. The proposed project is considered consis- tent with the urban design objectives contained in the General Plan Urban Design for Public Spaces Element, as the project could assist in serving as an entry into the City of San Bernardino. Additionally, the project will undergo site plan review which will ensure development of the site in accordance with General Plan objectives. Cumulative Impacts The area influenced by the proposed project extends beyond the project boundaries and into the adjacent viewshed. In addition, views of the project area as experienced by visitors travelling into the City are considered to be cumulative, and are affected by proposed project plans. Both these circum- stances have been addressed in the "Impacts" section as discussed above as required to adequately address project impacts. Consequently the project's effect on cumulative area conditions has been considered and is not signifi- cant, with incorporation of the mitigation measures outlined below. 03/26/92(I:\HID101\MASTERI.DOC) 3-84 Mitigation Measures 3.8.1 Prior to issuance of a Development Permit, the project applicant will incorporate landscaping and trees into the site plan (as set forth in Development Code, Section 19.28) to enhance the adjacent park aes- thetics and assure compatibility with neighboring uses. 3.8.2 Prior to issuance of a Development Permit, the project proponent shall prepare a detailed lighting plan illustrating the locations of all parking lot lights, illuminated signs, store front signs, security/wall mounted lights and accent lighting. This plan will be subject to the review through the development approval process and may require approval by the Development Review Committee or the Planning Commission, depending on the type of development permit required. The City Police Department shall also review the plan as required to address safety and security purposes. The plan shall demonstrate that all light- ing fixtures in the parking lot area and behind the commercial struc- tures are appropriately shielded as necessary, to minimize illumination of adjacent residences. 3.8.3 Prior to issuance of a Development Permit, the applicant shall demon- strate that adequate screening, in the form of berms, walls or fencing, have been incorporated into the project to shield residences to the northeast and east from glare associated with the headlights of cars in the parking lot. This plan will be subject to the review through the development approval process and may require approval by the De- velopment Review Committee or the Planning Commission, depending on the type of development permit required. The City Police Depart- ment shall also review the plan as required to address safety and secur- ity purposes. 3.8.4 Prior to issuance of a Development Permit, the project applicant will incorporate screening or shielding techniques into the lighting plan to ensure that project lights do not compromise the vision of freeway drivers. Level of Sign t"cance After l~er Mitigation The proposed GPA has the potential to produce greater amounts of lighting in the area than the existing General Plan designation. There will also be a noticeable effect and change from the existing residential land use designa- tion to a commercial use for the site. Nonetheless, the site has been desig- nated for urban development and, consequently, the change in terms of aesthetics will not be significant. The above listed mitigations will also ensure that potential impacts associated with site design are reduced to below a level of significance. 03R6/92(1A 1ID101\MASTERI.DOC) 3-85 3.9 TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION A technical Traffic Impact Analysis was prepared by LSA Associates, Inc. dated December 16, 1991 for the Verdemont GPA project. The analysis evaluates traffic impacts for existing conditions and cumulative growth conditions for years 1996 and 2001. Also included in the analysis is the proposed GPA as well as the applicant's Concept Plan. Appendix F contains the analysis in- cluding all technical intersection calculations and signal warrant analyses. Setting Existing Arterial Highway System The key roadways in the vicinity of the project site are described below. Barstow Freeway (I--215) - The Barstow Freeway (I-215) is a four lane free- way and is the primary regional facility in the vicinity of the project site. In the vicinity of the project, I-215 is constructed as a four lane freeway (two lanes in each direction). To the northwest, I-215 joins I-15, which provides access to the northerly parts of San Bernardino County. To the southeast, I- 215 provides access to the Cities of San Bernardino and Riverside. Access to I-215 is provided via a full interchange at Palm Avenue. Palm Avenue - Palm Avenue is a key north-south roadway through the Verdemont area. Palm Avenue extends from Cajon Boulevard on the south- westerly side of I-215 to immediately north of Pennsylvania Avenue. Palm Avenue is constructed as a two lane roadway with left turn pockets at inter- sections. Access to I-215 is provided via a full interchange on Palm Avenue. Little League Drive - Little League Drive contains two segments. The first, referred to as Little League Drive (West) for purposes of this analysis, is a two lane roadway extending from Kendall Drive on the southwesterly side of I-215 to immediately north of Pennsylvania Avenue. The second segment, referred to as Little League Drive (South) for purposes of this analysis, is a two lane roadway extending from Little League Drive (West) to Palm Avenue. Direct access to the project site is provided via Little League Drive (South). Kendall Drive - Kendall Drive is a four lane roadway extending southeasterly from Palm Avenue at its intersection with Little League Drive (South) to the north-central part of the City of San Bernardino. Intersection Levels of Service Five intersections in the vicinity of the study area were selected for analysis. These intersections, and the existing stop control, are summarized below. 03/26/92(1:\HID101\MASTERI.DOC) 3-86 1. Palm Avenue/Little League Drive (South)/Kendall Drive - Four- way Stop Control. This intersection is examined as a signal- ized intersection, as the City is currently pursuing signaliza- tion. 2. Palm Avenue/I-215 Northbound Ramps - Stop Sign Control on Off-ramp. 3. Palm Avenue/I-215 Southbound Ramps - Stop Sign Control on Palm Avenue. 4. Palm Avenue/Cajon Boulevard - Stop Sign Control on Palm Avenue. 5. Little League Drive (West)/Little League Drive (South) - Stop Sign Control on Little League Drive (South). Figure 3.9.1 illustrates the locations of the analysis intersections. A general indication of peak hour operations is provided by determining the peak hour level of service (LOS) for the intersection. The LOS of an intersec- tion is designated by the letters "A" through "F", with LOS A representing optimal intersection operation and LOS F representing an overcapacity sit- uation. Peak hour LOS B through E represent various intermediate levels of operation between LOS A and LOS F. Appendix A of the Traffic Impact Analysis (Appendix F) provides a general discussion of the level of service categories. The City of San Bernardino has established LOS D operations as the thresh- old of acceptability for peak hour intersection operations. Therefore, mitigations must be implemented for the peak hour is LOS E or worse. For signalized intersections, the Highway Capacity Manual' (HCM) opera- tions analysis methodology was used to determine levels of service. Level of service criteria for signalized intersections are based upon stop delay per vehicle. Delay is measured in terms of driver discomfort, frustration, fuel consumption, and lost travel time. The LOS is calculated for two movements: 1) the LOS for the worst turn movement from the major street to the minor street (termed the major street approach LOS), and 2) the LOS for the worst turn movement from the minor street to the major street (termed the minor street approach LOS). . For all-way stop control intersections, the HCM analysis methodology pro- vides a volume/capacity (v/c) ratio based on the total intersection approach ' Highway Capacity Manual, Transportation Research Board National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1985. 03/26/92(1AH1D101\MASnRI.D0C) 3-87 -- a M U C � O C O U U CA V-0 N en 7AV WWd z � a 0 RAV lru�vs�n E- ti� O� �Q o. 3AV ° v[7otmvw g o 3 � ko m t 2l0 3f1Jtri 3'I1.LI'I 0 volumes as a proportion of the capacity which can be accommodated. The capacity of the intersection is a function of the demand volume split between the two roadways (north-south and east-west). The methodologies described above were utilized to determine the existing conditions at the five key intersections in the project vicinity. Table 3.9.A summarizes the existing AM and PM peak hour levels of service for these intersections. As the level of service analysis indicates, all intersections under investigation are currently operating at acceptable levels of service during both the AM and PM peak hours. It should be noted that the intersection of Palm Ave- nue/Little League Drive is currently operating at LOS D during the PM peak hour. The minor street movement of the intersection of Palm Avenue/1-215 Eastbound Ramps (from the off-ramp to Palm Avenue) is also currently oper- ating at LOS D during the PM peak hour. The traffic analysis examines two future background traffic condition scenari- os: 1. Existing plus Five Year Growth Conditions. This scenario includes forecast background growth for a five year horizon. For purposes of this analysis, this scenario is referred to as the 1996 background conditions. 2. Existing plus Ten Year Growth Conditions. This scenario includes forecast background growth for a ten year horizon. For purposes of this analysis, this scenario is referred to as the 2001 background conditions. A discussion of each of these background scenarios, along with an assess- ment of traffic conditions at the intersections under investigation is present- ed below. Forecast Volume Development Forecast traffic volumes for the 1996 and 2001 background conditions were developed through application of growth factors to the existing volumes. According to the City Public Works Department, typical growth in the City is approximately five percent per year. Assuming five percent growth per year compounded annually, existing traffic volumes would be expected to increase by approximately 28 percent over a five year period (to 1996), and by approximately 63 percent over a ten year period (to 2001). Hence, these growth factors were applied to existing volumes to develop forecast volumes for the 1996 background conditions and the 2001 background conditions. 03/26,M2(1:\I1ID101\MASnRI.DOC) 3-89 Table 3.9-A-Existing Intersection Levels of Service Existing AM PM INTERSECTION Major/Minor Major/Minor 1.Palm Ave./Little League-Kendall LOS C LOS D 2.Palm Ave./I-215 WB Ramps A/C A/C 3.Palm Ave./I-215 EB Ramps A/B A/D 4.Palm Ave./Cajon Boulevard A/A A/A 5.Little League Dr./Frontage Road A/A A/A (Note:Where applicable,Major/Minor LOS represent levels of service for left turns from the major and minor streets, respectively,for unsignalized intersections.) 03 125!92(o.-WIDIOATABLEA WQ!) Peak Hour Intersection Levels of Service Table 3.9.13 summarizes the existing AM and PM peak hour levels of service for the levels of service at the five key intersections in the project vicinity for the 1996 background and 2001 background scenarios. 1996 Background Conditions. As Table 3.9.13 indicates, the following intersections are expected to operate at unacceptable levels of service under 1996 background conditions. Palm Avenue/I-215 Eastbound Ramps - This intersection is expected to oper- ate with a minor street movement (from the off-ramp to Palm Avenue) of LOS E during the PM peak hour. Improvement of operations to acceptable levels of service would require modification of stop sign control to provide all-way stop control. With all-way stop control, this intersection would oper- ate at LOS A during the PM peak hour. 2001 Background Conditions. As Table 3.9.13 indicates, the following intersections are expected to operate at unacceptable levels of service under 2001 background conditions. Palm Avenue/I-215 Westbound Ramps - This intersection is expected to oper- ate with minor street movements (from the off-ramp to Palm Avenue) of LOS E during both the AM and PM peak hours. Improvement of operations to ac- ceptable levels of service would require modification of stop sign control to provide all-way stop control. With all-way stop control, this intersection would operate at LOS C during both the AM and PM peak hours. Palm Avenue/1-215 Eastbound Ramps - This intersection is expected to oper- ate with a minor street movement (from the off-ramp to Palm Avenue) of LOS F during the PM peak hour. Improvement of operations to acceptable levels of service would require modification of stop sign control to provide all-way stop control. With all-way stop control, this intersection would oper- ate at LOS A during the PM peak hour. Impacts Trip Generation The trip generation rates and algorithms used for this analysis were taken from the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation (5th 03R6/92(DOED101WASTERL.DOC) 3-91 Table 3.9-B-Future Background Intersection Levels of Service Existing Cum.Growth 1996 Cum.Growth 2001 AM PM AM PM AM PM INTERSECTION Major/Minor Major/Minor Major/Minor Major/Minor Major/Minor Major/Minor 1.Palm Ave./Littic League-Kendall Existing Control(Signalized) LOS C LOS D With Widening — — LOS B LOS C LOS C LOS D 2.Palm Ave./I-215 WB Ramps Existing Stop Control A/C A/C A/D A/D A/E A/E Multi-way Stop Control — — LOS B LOS B LOS C LOS C 3.Palm AVe./I-215 Ell Ramps Existing Stop Control A/B A/D A/C A/E A/D A/F Multi-way Stop Control — — LOS A LOS A LOS A LOS A 4.Palm Ave./Cajon Boulevard Existing Stop Control A/A A/A A/A A/A A/A A/A S.Little League Dr./Frontage Road Existing Stop Control A/A A/A A/A A/A A/A A/A (Note:Where applicable,Major/Minor LOS represent levels of service for critical left turns from the major and minor streets,respectively,for unsignalizcd intersections.) 03125191(0:1 HID1011TABLEB WQ!) Edition)'. Trip rates for residential uses as permitted under the existing General Plan designation were taken from ITE rates for single family detached housing (land use 210). Trip rates for the proposed commercial uses were developed using ITE trip generation algorithms for shopping centers (land use 820). Table 3.9.0 summarizes the trip generation rates utilized in this analysis for the project site under existing and proposed General Plan designations. In addition, this table summarizes the directional AM and PM peak hour trip generation (corresponding to adjacent street peak hour conditions) and ADT trip generation resulting when these algorithms and rates are applied to the development intensities for the existing General Plan designation, the proposed Concept Plan, and the maximum intensity which would be allowed under the proposed General Plan Amendment (GPA) designation. As Table 3.9.0 indicates, the project site, under the current General Plan designations, could generate 14,100 daily trips, of which 460 trips would occur during the AM peak hour and 1,352 trips would occur during the PM peak hour. Under the proposed Concept Plan, the project site would gener- ate 16,300 daily trips (16 percent greater than under the current General Plan designations), of which 357 trips would occur during the AM peak hour (22 percent less than under the current General Plan designation) and 1,536 trips would occur during the PM peak hour (14 percent greater than under the current General Plan designations). Under maximum intensities per the proposed GPA, the site would generate 35,000 daily trips (148 percent great- er than under the current General Plan designations). Of these, 675 trips would occur during the AM peak hour (47 percent greater than under the current General Plan designations) and 3,225 trips would occur during the PM peak hour (139 percent greater than under the current General Plan designations). Trip Distribution and Assignment Trip distribution and assignment patterns for the project site were developed in consultation with City staff based on the relative location of surrounding residential development which would be served by the proposed commercial development. Figure 3.9.2 illustrates these trip distribution patterns. Peak Hour Intersection Levels of Service Table 3.9.13 summarizes the AM and PM peak hour levels of service for each of the appropriate project scenarios. ' Trip Generation (4th Edition), Institute of Transportation Engineers, Washington, D.C., 1987. 03,'26/92(I:\HID101\MASTERI.DOC) 3-93 a o N O M F a. W [<i ro) b N N T V 0 as N co nom„i N N VM1 �D r 8� 0 a 8 L O .O. r .4Y V CC Z C C � P 5 M N r V x 7� < O 1 q1 dN O O a 7 U 7ib y 00 1 C RS Q e C �, H O Cl M m 0 N lu E N 000 N N O E� fl M M..+ N t �.C. C F E FE�a Qy E y R C to {z LL. ts. U C a Q � u U4 o u o & c to 3 to oao FV. Ea o U C C a c v E v O c� � o _ \�"--_ - �— `;__ �✓/cif: � /� ;�i I�U�. „ ��:_ ��'�;.._ • v C �.`" - �"✓� ROM /�I w �� BM W �� 5% _�i♦ �_ �' � 1896 _ t c tiE.p� BM 1872 \ ti k 15 �e9 �- BM 1870 �: r Pet' — � •Ce `mac- � i �Yt��_ ���_ '1215 ..1� PR •� TION am n •1779 '' 2% ,.•�� � ,–\�'_'.� t6s ,�it ,-�:20% Well B 1694 _ _Ir2r, - 55% 3% E� Cr ruT,oN Arl� its �cten Wete1 RQUbilltation Facility Sewage Sourcc: USGS Topographic Maps. 'Dcvorc & San Bcrnardino North" Ouadrangics. 12/5/91(H1D1111) Figure 3.9.2 L S-A 11 100t) 2000 Project Trip Distribution u ~ ' fA fA V1 V A W W W w W h CA M A g w W W U M w w w w w 0 0 0 0 0 0 � p U w w w U W w w w A O O O p ' A 0 0 0 u U U U U d u E � 0 0 0 0 ' m 0 0 0 N u " w w U w w w t77 pp �q In g Z; U U u w U w w oa 0. W o O p I 1 1 0 0 0 u e m � rA 0 0 1 t l o o g o tU w � O L gyp" e A U w a E 6 7 e 1 I I 1 t t 1 y d d n 0 ow e U co Ca r 70 � a M S m m y 1 1 1 t C 0 0 00 a 6 n y 0 0 I 1 CL to cc cc cc a v o ° a C N N n' C6 p " G w a N m rA ril 1: u a B 6 s s 3 a r B Im c w m e a "u ° B rA '^ cc u as v B M ,� a Z a m z S r' w e C w 3 to w A N m N N E E E u N 1996 Background Plus Concept Plan. As Table 3.9.13 indicates, the follow- ing intersections are expected to operate at unacceptable levels of service under 1996 background plus Concept Plan conditions. Palm Avenue/Little League Drive - This intersection is expected to operate at LOS F during the PM peak hour. Improvement of operations to acceptable levels of service would require a separate eastbound right turn lane. With this improvement, this intersection would operate at LOS C during the PM peak hour. Palm Avenue/I-215 Westbound Ramps- This intersection is expected to oper- ate with minor street movements (from the off-ramp to Palm Avenue) of LOS E during both the AM and PM peak hours. Improvement of operations to ac- ceptable levels of service would require signalization and the addition of a second westbound right turn lane. With these improvements, this intersec- tion would operate at LOS D during the AM peak hour and at LOS B during the PM peak hour. Palm Avenue/I-215 Eastbound Ramps - This intersection is expected to oper- ate with a minor street movement (from the off-ramp to Palm Avenue) of LOS F during the PM peak hour. Improvement of operations to acceptable levels of service would require modification of stop sign control to provide all-way stop control. With all-way stop control, this intersection would oper- ate at LOS A during both the AM and PM peak hours. 2001 Background Plus Concept Plan. As Table 3.9.D indicates, the follow- ing intersections are expected to operate at unacceptable levels of service under 2001 background plus Concept Plan conditions. Palm Avenue/Little League Drive - This intersection is expected to operate at LOS F during the PM peak hour. Improvement of operations to acceptable levels of service would require a separate southbound right turn lane and a separate eastbound right turn lane. With these improvements, this intersec- tion would operate at LOS C during the PM peak hour. Palm Avenue/T215 Westbound Ramps - This intersection is expected to oper- ate with minor street movements (from the off-ramp to Palm Avenue) of LOS E during the AM and LOS F during the PM peak hour. Improvement of operations to acceptable levels of service would require signalization (see Signal Warrant Analysis section) and the addition of a second southbound through lane and a second westbound right turn lane. With these improve- 03.26.'92(1A1iID101\MASTERI.DOC) 3-97 ments, this intersection would operate at LOS C during the AM peak hour and LOS B during the PM peak hour. Palm Avenue/1-215 Eastbound Ramps - This intersection is expected to oper- ate with a minor street movement (from the off-ramp to Palm Avenue) of LOS E during the AM peak hour and LOS F during the PM peak hour. Im- provement of operations to acceptable levels of service would require modifi- cation of stop sign control to provide all-way stop control. With all-way stop control, this intersection would operate at LOS A during the AM peak hour and at LOS B during the PM peak hour. 1996 Background Plus Proposed GPA. As Table 3.9.1) indicates, the fol- lowing intersections are expected to operate at unacceptable levels of service under 1996 background plus maximum intensity conditions. Palm Avenue/Little League Drive - This intersection is expected to operate at LOS F during the PM peak hour. Improvement of operations to acceptable levels of service would require the addition of a second northbound left turn lane, a southbound right turn lane, and dual eastbound right turn lanes. Palm Avenuell-215 Westbound Ramps - This intersection is expected to oper- ate with minor street movements (from the off-ramp to Palm Avenue) of LOS E during the AM and PM peak hours. Improvement of operations at this intersection would require signalization, as well as a second southbound through lane, a second southbound right turn lane, and a second westbound right turn lane. Even with these modifications, the intersection would con- tinue to operate at unacceptable levels of service. Palm Avenuell-215 Eastbound Ramps - This intersection is expected to oper- ate with a minor street movement (from the off-ramp to Palm Avenue) of LOS E during the AM peak hour and LOS F during the PM peak hour. In addition, during the PM peak hour, the major street movement (from Palm Avenue to the on-ramp) is expected to operate at LOS F. Improvement of operations to acceptable levels of service would require modification of stop sign control to provide all-way stop control. With all-way stop control, this intersection would operate at LOS A during the AM peak hour and LOS D during the PM peak hour. 2001 Background Plus Proposed GPA. As Table 3.9.13 indicates, the fol- lowing intersections are expected to operate at unacceptable levels of service under 2001 background plus maximum intensity conditions. 03/26/92(1AJ11D101\MAMRI.DOC) 3-98 Palm Avenue/little League Drive - This intersection is expected to operate at LOS F during the PM peak hour. Improvement of operations to near accept- able levels of service would require the addition of a second northbound left turn lane, a southbound right turn lane, dual eastbound right turn lanes, and dual westbound left turn lanes. With these significant improvements, the intersection would operate at LOS B during the AM peak hour and LOS D during the PM peak hour. Palm Avenue/I-215 Westbound Ramps-This intersection is expected to oper- ate with minor street movements (from the off-ramp to Palm Avenue) of LOS E during the AM and LOS F during the PM peak hours. Improvement of operating conditions would require signalization (see Signal Warrant Analysis section), as well as the addition of a second southbound through lane, a second southbound right turn lane, and a second westbound right turn lane. Even with these improvements, this intersection would continue to operate at unacceptable levels of service. Palm Avenue/I-215 Eastbound Ramps - This intersection is expected to oper- ate with a minor street movement (from the off-ramp to Palm Avenue) of LOS E during the AM peak hour and LOS F during the PM peak hour. In addition, during the PM peak hour, the major street movement (from Palm Avenue to the on-ramp) is expected to operate at LOS F. Improvement of operations to acceptable levels of service would require Improvement of operations to acceptable levels of service would require modification of stop sign control to provide all-way stop control. With all-way stop control, this intersection would operate at LOS B during the AM peak hour and LOS D during the PM peak hour. Congestion Management Plan Analysis Per State of California legislation, the County of San Bernardino and the San Bernardino Association of Governments (SANBAG) are currently in the pro- cess of preparing a Congestion Management Plan (CMP) for the County. As part of the CMP requirements, all regionally significant projects are required to examine potential impacts on the County's CMP roadway network. At the present time, the specific analysis requirements and the final CMP network have not been determined. The City has requested that a prelimi- nary CMP analysis be performed for the proposed GPA, in which project contributions to regionally significant facilities (i.e. I-215 and SR-30) be documented. At this time, no additional analysis is required. Depending on the final CMP requirements, additional analysis of impacts may be required. Table 3.9.E summarizes the AM and PM peak hour project contributions to I- 215 and SR-30. The project contributions are provided for both the pro- posed Concept Plan and the proposed GPA. 03/26/92(1AH1D101\ MASTERI.D0Q 3-99 n �o `- 7 V) 00 M M 00 N 00 N `C �D 00 = `C \0 Co 0 00 n `P M N N ,.. x 0 x L z •r N N O n �O `C M N .� .-+ O 0 e" pa N .. 00 M M pp N 00 N `0' \0 00 v '' W `Q' b co G w Ch N n M NMi O G �, V o M N O C 0 p b `P N x 0 a M v\ v\ O We .+ ao w \0 M .-� O N .�-i .N.+ 00 b � N �.. W M Go N .Mr L i 0 0] 00 V\ V\ O n o0 O V\ n a0 x x L y v U E ° m Oov� v� o N co av n000 E y 4 z M ~ ~ `NQ' N Vl\. + n M 0 .� W n M u M 0 a h > > 0 �rr 0. ; N n LA `OC' N N M n 0 A. B eft N .+ 06 0 v 0 a cY � x 0 a 0 V Z n M M o M .+ p U ° m O M n N O �D `0• M N .� W N ,..i M ae aeaeaeaeaeaeaeae y V\ N N N N 0 O V\ `V0' M NV\i O V\ O w O L 7 > C cc v Oppt, 0 9L p o C 3 tf1 G ?,+ U U OC eC +1 v a + 0 � c i „„,� Z L o0G v ��. Vi 0 a. in M R < 7 W I h "� 3 < E �er < v v � v, 00 3 o E >°° � 0 E ? K° > vt o - °o r � € a O E x 2ar�' z° oa. ain mi,: JS a s 8f7 0\ LT. U. h � M O Little League Drive Realignment As discussed in Section 2.8 - Project Characteristics, the proposed the Gener- al Plan Amendment contains a change in the circulation system in the vicinity of the project site. Currently, Little League Drive is located on the southwest boundary of the project site, adjacent to I-215. Concern has been expressed by the City Public Works/Engineering Department that the design of Little League Drive northerly of the project site is substandard for a collector roadway. As previously referenced Figure 2.1.2 illustrates, Little League Drive has a sharp turn along the westerly and northerly edges of Al Guhin Park. This horizontal alignment would be inadequate to accommodate the addi- tional traffic generated by the proposed project. To rectify the substandard design features of existing Little League Drive, the project proposes to realign Little League Drive along the Cable Creek Flood Control Channel. Consis- tent with the City's General Plan, realigned Little League Drive will be a four lane roadway with an 88 foot right of way. The realigned Little League Drive will essentially serve the same purpose as the existing roadway. The roadway will continue to provide a connection between Little League Drive West and Palm Avenue, as well as to provide access to the project site and Al Guhin Park. Therefore, the realignment of Little League Drive is not expected to result in any significant changes in circulation patterns in the Verdemont area. The project would be responsible for construction of realigned Little League Drive from its intersection with Little League Drive/Frontage Road to the easterly project boundary, where realigned Little League Drive would connect with the existing alignment of Little League Drive. Since a specific site plan or project access has not been determined, it will be necessary to perform a detailed access analysis prior to parcel map approval. This analysis will need to include an assessment of access location operations, as well as a striping plan for Little League Drive. In addition, the project will be responsible for its fair share contribution to widening of the existing section of Little League Drive from the easterly project boundary to Palm Avenue. 0326/92(1:\HID101\MASTERI.DOC) 3-101 Mitigation Measures The results of the traffic impact analysis indicate that the following measures will be required to mitigate unacceptable levels of service in the vicinity of the project site. Cumulative Background Traffic Conditions Under cumulative background conditions (without the addition of project traffic), the following measures will be required: 3.9.1 Palm Avenuell-215 Westbound Ramps - Modification of stop sign con- trol to provide all-way stop control under 1996 cumulative conditions. Under 2001 cumulative conditions, this intersection would have suffi- cient peak hour approach volumes to warrant signalization. 3.9.2 Palm Avenuell-215 Eastbound Ramps - Modification of stop sign con- trol to provide all-way stop control. Concept Plan 3.9.3 The project shall be responsible for construction of realigned Little League Drive from its intersection with Little League Drive/Frontage Road to the easterly project boundary, where realigned Little League Drive would connect with the existing alignment of Little League Drive. 3.9.4 Prior to parcel map approval, the project applicant shall submit for the City Traffic Engineer's approval a detailed access analysis for the pro- posed project. The analysis will need to include an assessment of access location operations, as well as a striping plan for Little League Drive. 3.9.5 The project shall be responsible for payment of its fair share contribu- tion to widening of the existing section of Little League Drive from the easterly project boundary to Palm Avenue. 1996 Background Plus Concept Plan. With the addition of project traffic to 1996 background conditions, the following improvements would be re- quired: 3.9.6 Palm Avenue/Little League Drive - Addition of a separate eastbound right turn lane. 3.9.7 Palm AvenuelI-215 Westbound Ramps - Signalization and the addition of a second westbound right turn lane. 03/26/92(I:\IiID101\MASTERI.DOC) 3-102 2001 Background Plus Concept Plan. With the addition of project traffic to 1996 background conditions, the following improvements would be re- quired: 3.9.8 Palm Avenue/Little League Drive - Addition of a separate southbound right turn lane and a separate eastbound right turn lane. 3.9.9 Palm Avenue/I-215 Westbound Ramps - Signalization, and the addition of a second southbound through lane and a second westbound right turn lane. i Proposed GPA 1996 Background Plus Proposed GPA. With the addition of project traffic to 1996 background conditions, the following improvements would be re- quired: 3.9.10 Palm Avenue/Little League Drive - Addition of a second northbound left turn lane, a southbound right turn lane, and dual eastbound right turn lanes. 3.9.11 Palm Avenue/I-215 Westbound Ramps - Signalization, and the addi- tion of a second southbound through lane, a second southbound right turn lane and a second westbound right turn lane. Even with these modifications, this intersection would continue to operate at unacceptable levels of service. 2001 Background Plus Proposed GPA. With the addition of project traffic to 2001 background conditions, the following improvements would be re- quired: 3.9.12 Palm Avenue/Little League Drive - Addition of a second northbound left turn lane, a southbound right turn lane, and dual eastbound right turn lanes, and dual westbound left turn lanes. 3.9.13 Palm Avenue/T215 Westbound Ramps - Signalization, and the addi- tion of a second southbound through lane, a second southbound right turn lane, and a second westbound right turn lane. Even with these improvements, this intersection would continue to operate at unacceptable levels of service. Level of Impact After Mitigation With the above improvements in place, traffic impacts resulting from the Concept Plan will be mitigated to below a level of significance. However, for the proposed GPA, the intersection at Palm Avenue and I-215 Westbound 03/26/92(I:\IiID 101VMA.STERI.DOC) 3-103 Ramps, in both the 1996 Background Plus Maximum Development Intensity and the 2001 Background Plus Maximum Development Intensity scenarios, will operate at unacceptable service levels as presented in Table 3.9.D. This is considered a significant unavoidable adverse impact of the proposed GPA. 0326/92(I:\H1D101\MAMRI.DOC) 3-104 3.10 AIR QUALITY The following discussion contains analyses of the air quality computer model runs conducted for the proposed Verdemont General Plan Amendment. The computer model runs were conducted by ISA in December, 1991, and the results are included as Appendix G. Setting Climate and Meteorology Annual average temperatures vary little from place to place in Southern California. However, seasonal temperature variability is more extreme in areas distant from the Pacific Ocean. For example, the annual average tem- peratures in San Bernardino range from 48°F to 79°F, while at Los Angeles International Airport they range from 54°F to 69°F. Rainfall is distinctly seasonal, practically all occurring between November and April. Annual average rainfall of 16 inches in San Bernardino compares to 14 inches in downtown Los Angeles. Although these temperature and precipitation profiles would ordinarily classify the region as semi-arid, surface humidity in Southern California is significantly higher than the norm in other similar areas due to the marine influence. Annual average relative humidities range from 57 percent in the eastern interior to 70 percent at the coast. Wind speeds throughout the Verdemont area are typically higher than aver- age, primarily due to the influence of the San Bernardino Mountains and the Cajon Pass to the north. According to fifteen years of data made available from California State University at San Bernardino, during summer months, wind speeds are rarely below 20 miles per hour (mph) at the University location. From November through April, wind speeds often exceed 30 mph, with gusts of 45 mph to greater than 90 mph. Over the fifteen year period, the average wind speed on an annual basis ranged from a low of 28 mph to a high of 53 mph. The dominant daily wind pattern is a diurnal sea breeze followed by a nocturnal land breeze. This regime is broken only by occa- sional winter storms, tropical disturbances and infrequent strong northeaster- ly Santa Ana flows from the mountains and deserts to the north. All the above features of Southern California's climate come from the inter- action of meteorological influences with the area's topography. Most impor- tant of all meteorological influences is the Pacific High, a semi-permanent high pressure cell centered over the eastern Pacific. During the late spring, summer, and early fall, descending warm air from the Pacific High blankets a cooler layer of air closer to the ground. This stable temperature inversion inhibits the vertical dispersion of air pollutants. Coupled with abundant sunshine and light surface winds, both common at this time, the increased 03a6/92(1:ui1D101\AIAMRI.DOC) 3-105 quantities of photochemically produced air pollutants are not readily dis- persed. The region's most serious air quality problems occur then. The movement of the Pacific High south with the coming of winter does not bring universal relief from air quality problems. Although the overall inver- sion is absent, smaller scale, surface based inversions (caused by cooling of air in contact with the ground) can form. Valley floors in the region's inter- ior are especially susceptible. Such areas have a high potential for air pollu- tant buildup, specifically carbon monoxide, during nocturnal periods when temperatures and wind speeds are low. Air Quality Management The proposed project is located in the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB) and, jurisdictionally, it is the responsibility of the South Coast Air Quality Manage- ment District (SCAQMD) and the California Air Resources Board (CARE) to regulate air quality in the SCAB. SCAQMD sets and enforces regulations for stationary sources in the basin, while CARB is charged with controlling mobile sources (i.e., motor vehicle emissions). Currently, most of the effort to improve air quality in the United States is directed toward the control of five criteria pollutants: photochemical oxi- dants (ozone), carbon monoxide (CO), suspended particulate matter (note: originally the standard applied to particulates of any diameter, termed total suspended particulates or TSP, but the standard was recently changed to apply only to particulates less than 10 microns in diameter, termed PM10), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), and sulfur dioxide (S02). Federal and State primary standards currently exist which provide acceptable durations for specific pollutant levels in order to protect sensitive receptors from the adverse health effects indicated in Table 3.10.A. Federal and State standards for ozone, carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide and suspended particulates are not met in SCAB and thus, the Basin is con- sidered a non-attainment area for these pollutants. SCAQMD, in coordina- tion with the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), has prepared the 1991 Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) which outlines strategies to attain federal and state air quality standards. According to the AQMP, attainment of all federal health standards is to occur no later than the year 2000 for carbon monoxide and nitrogen dioxide, 2005 for PM10 and 2010 for ozone. State standards would be attained no later than the year 2000 for nitrogen dioxide and 2010 for carbon monoxide. State standards for ozone and PM10 would not be achieved until after 2010. It should be noted that the State standards for ozone and PM10 would not be attained with full implementation of the current AQMP and that future AQMP revi- sions would need to identify additional control measures to attain these standards. 03/26/92(1AH1D101\MASTERI.DOC) 3-106 Table 3.10.A - Health Effects Summary of the Major Criteria Air Pollutants Criteria Air Pollutant Adverse Effects Ozone (03) • Eye irritation. • Respiratory function impairment. Carbon Monoxide • Impairment of oxygen transport in the blood (CO) stream, increase of carboxyhemoglobin. • Aggravation of cardiovascular disease. • Impairment of central nervous system function. • Fatigue, headache, confusion, dizziness. • Can be fatal in the case of very high concentra tions in enclosed places. Sulfur Dioxide (SOx) • Aggravation of chronic obstructive lung disease. • Increased risk of acute and chronic respiratory illness. Nitrogen Dioxide • Risk of acute and chronic respiratory disease. (NOx) Suspended • Increased risk of chronic respiratory disease Particulate (PMIO) with long exposure. • Altered lung function in children. • With SOz, may produce acute illness. • Particulate matter 10 microns (PM10) or less in size may lodge in and/or irritate the lungs. Source: Bay Area Air Quality Management District. 03,26/92(T:v3mio1\ML'k ERi.noc) 3-107 California Clean Air Act The California Clean Air Act of 1988 (CCAA) requires all air districts in the State to endeavor to achieve and maintain State ambient air quality standards for ozone, carbon monoxide, sulfur dioxide, and nitrogen dioxide by the earliest practicable date. Plans for attaining California standards were to have been submitted to the California Air Resources Board no later than June 30, 1991. The Act specifies that districts must focus particular attention on reducing the emissions from transportation and area wide emissions sources. Each district plan is to achieve a five percent annual reduction, averaged over consecutive three-year periods, in district wide emissions of each non-attain- ment pollutant or its precursors. The CCAA divides districts into moderate, serious, and severe air pollution categories, with increasingly strict control requirements mandated for each. Severe air pollution category districts are those that cannot attain and main- tain the applicable State standards until December 31, 1997, or later. In addition, these pollution districts must achieve an average passenger vehicle ridership during weekday commute hours of 1.5 or more by 1999, with no net increase in vehicle emissions after 1997. Finally, these pollution districts must reduce overall population exposure to ambient pollutant levels in excess of the applicable standards by at least 50 percent of 1986-1988 levels by December 31, 2000. The proposed project is located in a district desig- nated as having a severe air pollution problem. 1991 Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) SCAQMD and SCAG have adopted the 1991 AQMP which is the current framework for achieving attainment of federal and State air quality standards in the South Coast Air Basin. The 1991 AQMP is a revision of the 1989 AQMP, previously adopted by SCAQMD and SCAG, to address the require- ments of the California Clean Air Act, as well as identify measures to reduce toxic contaminants and global warming precursors. SCAG and SCAQMD adopted the 1991 AQMP on June 6, 1991 and July 12, 1991, respectively. Therefore, the 1991 AQMP is the appropriate planning document for the determination of a project's air quality conformance with the CCAA under CEQA. The 1991 AQMP was transmitted by SCAQMD to the California Air Resources Board (CARB) for review and approval. Once the Plan is approved by CARB, it will be submitted to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for inclusion in the State Implementation Plan (SIP). Upon approval by EPA, the AQMP will also serve as the framework for all future air pollution control efforts for federal actions in SCAB. The 1991 AQMP is similar to the 1989 AQMP; however, it includes additional Tier I, II and III control measures as well as marketing incentive based strate- 0326/92(I:\HID101\MASTERI.DOC) 3-108 gies to meet targets for emission reduction. The 1991 AQMP Tier I control measures are scheduled for adoption by the implementing agencies (federal, State and local agencies) by 1995. The 1991 AQMP also includes revisions to the 1989 AQMP conformity guidelines. The short-term, or Tier I, component of the 1991 AQMP is action-oriented. It identifies specific control measures and control technology which can be implemented by 1995, or for which control measures or technology presently exists. They consist mainly of stationary source controls that will be the subject of SCAQMD rules and CARB adopted tailpipe emissions standards and performance requirements for motor vehicles. Tier II measures include already demonstrated control technologies, but require advancements that can reasonably be expected to occur in the near future. When necessary, these advancements are promoted through regula- tory action, such as by setting of standards at levels that force the advance- ment of existing technology, or by establishing a system of emission charges that provide an economic incentive to reduce emissions. Tier II measures focus mainly on transportation sources and the use of coatings and solvents. All of the Tier II goals are expected to be achieved by 2000, except for trans- portation facility funding and construction which may continue up to 2007. Tier III measures depend on substantial technological advancements and breakthroughs that are expected to occur throughout the next two decades. This requires an aggressive expansion of Tier II research and development efforts. After achieving Tier II goals, Tier III measures must be implemented on an accelerated schedule to achieve attainment as early as feasible. The 1991 AQMP measures exceed the emission reduction requirements of the CCAA in terms of pollution exposure per capita, but will not meet the five percent per year emission reduction target required in the CCAA. The CCAA requires that per capita exposure to unhealthful pollutant levels be reduced by 25 percent in 1994, by 40 percent in 1997, and by 50 percent in 2000. The 1991 AQMP measures exceed these requirements for ozone, carbon monoxide and nitrogen dioxide (PM1, is not subject to the CCAA). Although the Plan does not meet the CCAA target for a five percent emissions reduc- tion per year, the Plan achieves the CCAA alternate target for emissions re- ductions to the "maximum extent feasible." The 1991 AQMP is complementary to two other planning documents devel- oped by SCAG: The Growth Management Plan (GMP) and the Regional Mobility Plan (RMP). The GMP includes land use strategies that focus on measures to reduce the number and length of automobile trips. The under- lying premise for the land use measures is that trips and mode choices are not only a function of the transportation system, but are also functions of housing density, the locations of land uses, and the way land uses relate to the transportation system. Regarding housing density, the GMP encourages providing housing opportunities in job rich subregions and in close proximi- ty to existing employment centers. It also encourages providing housing at 03/26/92(1AH1D101\MASURI.DOC) 3-109 densities/locations that facilitate the use of high occupancy vehicle (HOV)/ transit modes. With respect to locations of land uses, the GMP encourages growth in and around activity centers and transportation corridors. The GMP policies are directed at local governments who have the responsibility for making land use decisions. Through implementation of GMP policies, local agencies can direct the locations of future housing and employment to bring about a more beneficial balance of jobs and housing within subregional areas. Recommended transportation improvements focus on implementation of the RMP, which is incorporated in the 1991 AQMP, and includes infrastructure improvements bus system expansion, high occupancy vehicle lanes, traffic signal synchronization, and traffic pattern optimization. Regional Air Quality Problems Ozone is the most severe regional air quality problem in SCAB. Unlike many air pollutants, ozone is not emitted directly into the atmosphere, but is produced in the atmosphere by a complex series of photochemical reactions involving reactive organic compounds (ROC) and nitrogen oxides (NOx). No single source accounts for most ROC and NOx emissions; the many sources are spread throughout SCAB. SCAB's intense heat and sunlight during the summer months are ideal for the formation of ozone. While SCAB's peak ozone levels are usually measured at stations near the foot of the San Gabriel Mountains, violations of ozone standards are frequent and widespread throughout the interior portions of SCAB. Currently, SCAB experiences maximum ozone concentrations which are approximately three times the federal standard. In contrast to ozone, problems with carbon monoxide (CO) are more local- ized in SCAB because CO is a non-reactive pollutant, with one major source: motor vehicles. Ambient CO distributions closely follow the spatial and temporal distributions of vehicular traffic, and are strongly influenced by meteorological factors. SCAB currently experiences maximum CO levels in excess of twice the federal standard. The CO standards are frequently ex- ceeded in those parts of SCAB subject to a combination of high traffic density and the occurrence of radiation inversions during the winter months. The CO problem is most severe in areas centered on the cities of Lynwood, Haw- thorne and Burbank in Los Angeles County. In contrast, Riverside and San Bernardino Counties have relatively low monitored CO levels. Suspended particulates are composed of natural and man-made materials which include soil, biological materials, sulfates, nitrates, organic com- pounds, and lead. Particulates of all sizes, termed TSP, and of diameters smaller than ten microns, termed PMM attain their highest ambient concen- trations well downwind (eastward) of the most densely populated portions of SCAB, since gaseous air pollutants react to form particulates only after several hours of transport. In addition, there is a larger natural component 03/26/920AHID101WASTERLDOC) 3-110 to the particulate concentrations in the less urbanized eastern areas of SCAB due to the collection and suspension of soil by the wind. The area of maxi- mum PM10 concentrations in SCAB is centered in the urbanized areas of Riverside and San Bernardino Counties. On average, SCAB experiences PM10 levels that are twice the federal standard. The major sources of NOx compounds which have an important role in the formation of ozone are vehicular, residential, and commercial fuel combus- tion. NO2 is the most abundant form of ambient NOx. It should be noted that SCAB is the only area in the Country that fails to meet the nitrogen dioxide standard. About one-fifth of SCAB, primarily coastal and central Los Angeles County and northern Orange County, is subject to violations of the NO2 standard. Riverside County is less affected by NO2 emission exceed- ances. The sulfur dioxide and lead standards are currently being met throughout SCAB. Local Regulatory Background In response to the unique air quality problems in SCAB, the City of San Bernardino has developed an Air Quality Element for its General Plan. The City's Air Quality Element contains programs, goals, objectives, and policies designed to promote better air quality consistent with the provisions of the AQMP. The City's policies include the implementation and participation in Transportation Demand Management programs for new developments and developing Park and Ride programs. Local Air Quality Problems Criteria pollutant levels near the project site can be obtained by reviewing data collected at the San Bernardino monitoring station No. 203, located along 4th Street in the City of San Bernardino, approximately 20 miles from the project site. The data collected at this station is the only data available in the vicinity of the project site to represent the ambient air quality. This station monitors ozone (03), carbon monoxide (CO), oxides of nitrogen (NOx), sulfur dioxides (SOD, reactive organic gases (ROG), and fine particu- late matter (PM10). Air quality data monitored at the San Bernardino Station from 1987 to 1990 is provided in Table 3.10.B. The air quality data indicates that ozone is the air pollutant of primary con- cern in the local project area. Ozone is not directly emitted by mobile or stationary sources. It is the result of the chemical reactions of other pollut- ants, most importantly hydrocarbons and nitrogen dioxide, in the presence of bright sunlight and is considered a secondary pollutant. All areas of the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB) contribute to the ozone levels experienced in San Bernardino, with the more significant areas being those directly upwind. 03/26/920NHID101WASTER1-DOC) 3-111 Table 3.10.B -Air Quality Levels Measured at the San Bernardino Monitoring Station No. 203 California Federal Max. Days State Pollutant Standards Standards Year Conc. Std. Exceeded Carbon Monoidde > 9.1 ppm > 9.5 ppm 1987 6.7 0 for 8 hours for 8 hours 1988 7.6 0 1989 8.1 0 1990 6.0 0 Carbon Monoidde > 20 ppm > 35 ppm 1987 11 0 for 1 hour for 1 hour 1988 9 0 1989 11 0 1990 9 0 Ozone _> 0.10 ppm > 0.12 ppm 1987 .25 166 for 1 hour for 1 hour 1988 .28 173 1989 .30 159 1990 .29 129 Nitrogen Dioxide > 0.25 ppm Mean NO2 1987 .19 0 for 1 hour > 0.0534 1988 .19 0 PPM 1989 .18 0 1990 .20 0 Sulfur Dioxide _> 0.25 ppm 0.14 ppm 1987 .03 0 for 1 hour for 24 hours 1988 .02 0 1989 .03 0 1990 .01 0 PM10 > 150 > 50 ug/m3 1987 211 59.0% ug/m3 for 24 hours 1988 289 71.4% for 24 hours 1989 271 74.6% 1990 235 58.3% Source: South Coast Air Quality Management District Note: PPM - Pollutant parts by volume per million parts of air. 03/26/92(IAHIDl0l\MAMRI.DOC) 3-112 As illustrated in Table 3.10.13, on average, ozone levels exceeded State stan- dards on 157 days of the year, while federal standards were exceeded, on average, 108 days per year. Therefore, it is anticipated that high levels of ozone would be a common occurrence on the project site. One hour and eight hour carbon monoxide standards and nitrogen dioxide standards have not been exceeded in the last four years at the San Bernardino Station. Levels of carbon monoxide and nitrogen dioxide are attributable primarily to automobile traffic and usually do not reach high levels except near major congested roadways such as freeways and in central business districts such as downtown Los Angeles. Additionally, the City of San Bernardino (and particularly the project site) is subject to relatively high wind levels which significantly aid in the dispersion of this localized pol- lutant. Particulates levels in the area are due to natural sources (i.e., high winds), grading operations and motor vehicles. It should be noted that the Califor- nia standard for total suspended particulates has been redefined to particles less than 10 micrometers aerodynamic diameter (PM10). The monitoring data indicates that for the sample of particulates monitored, as much as 75% of the sample exceeded State standards. Impacts According to CEQA, a significant air quality impact is one which violates any ambient air quality standard; contributes substantially to an existing or pro- jected air quality violation; or exposes sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. Air quality impacts are usually divided into short-term and long-term impacts and fall under two major categories: • Short-Term Construction Emissions: Airborne dust and emissions from heavy equipment during the grading and construction phases of the proposed project. • Long-Term Mobile Emissions: Vehicle emissions resulting from traffic traveling to and from the proposed project (mobile source emissions) and emissions from off-site electrical power generation and on-site natural gas combustion (stationary source emission). It should be noted, that although both long-term emission sources are evalu- ated in this analysis, stationary emissions generally contribute only a small amount of the total mobile emission for the project when compared to project-related vehicle emissions. 03/26/92a:viID101WASrER1.DOC) 3-113 Short-Term Impacts Fugitive Dust Temporary impacts would result from project construction activities. Air pollutants would be emitted by construction equipment, and dust would be generated during grading and site preparation. Construction activities for large development projects are estimated by the U.S. Environmental Protec- tion Agency ("Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors) to add 1.2 tons of fugitive dust per acre of soil disturbed per month of activity. If water or other soil stabilizers are used to control dust as required by SCAQMD Rule 403, the emissions can be reduced by 50 percent. Applying the above factor to the approximately 36.8 acre project site, a six month grading cycle would result in the release of an estimated 5 tons per day of particulate emissions. With implementation of dust control require- ments on Rule 403 and other measures outlined below, this estimate would be reduced to 2.5 tons per day. The particulates or "fugitive dust" generated is composed primarily of inert silicates, rather than the complex organic particulates released from combustion sources that can be harmful to health. Dust generated by grading activities usually becomes more of a local nui- sance than a health problem. With this level of control, short-term health- related air quality impacts due to construction-related dust are considered to be adequately mitigated and are not considered to be a significant impact. Construction Emissions Heavy-duty equipment emissions are difficult to quantify because of day to day variability in construction activities and equipment used. Typical emis- sion rates for construction equipment were obtained from SCAQMD Air Quality Handbook. For this type of project, four pieces of heavy equipment may be expected to operate at one time during grading and site preparation. This equipment includes a scraper, loader, grader and water truck. If all of the equipment operated for eight hours per day, the following emissions would result: 30 pounds per day of carbon monoxide, 80 pounds per day of nitrogen oxides, 6 pounds per day of hydrocarbons, 9 pounds per day of sulfur oxides, and approximately 7 pounds per day of particulates. Using the same period of time for grading and site preparation as was used to generate fugitive dust emissions (six months, five working days per week), the fol- lowing heavy duty equipment emissions would be generated by the project: • Carbon Monoxide 3,900 pounds • Nitrogen Oxides 10,400 pounds • Hydrocarbons 780 pounds • Sulfur Oxides 1,170 pounds • Particulates 910 pounds 03/16,"92(1:\HID101\MASrERi.DOC) 3-114 It should be noted that actual project total and daily emissions would be less, given that it is unlikely that all four pieces of equipment would operate simultaneously for eight hours per day. The project emissions on a daily basis represent a very small contribution to the City of San Bernardino daily emissions. For example, according to the 1991 AQMP, San Bernardino Coun- ty baseline emissions (1987) of carbon monoxide are approximately 500 tons per day, whereas the project will contribute less than 0.02 tons per day. The project emissions represent a minor contribution to County regional emissions and, therefore, do not represent a significant short-term impact. Fugitive dust emissions, together with exhaust emissions generated during construction,without mitigation, could combine to create a potentially signif- icant short-term construction impact in the Basin. However, with implemen- tation of the controls as presented under the Mitigation Measures subheading of this section, these short-term construction-related emissions can be reduced to levels which SCAQMD considers to be below a level of signifi- cance. Long-Term Impacts The analysis of long-term impacts on air quality has been divided into two areas, regional emissions and local emissions. Wind Effects As discussed in Setting, the Verdemont area is characterized by often ex- tremely windy conditions. The wind velocities can potentially create a safety hazard due to flying objects, broken windows and difficult to open doors on buildings. Such conditions could have an effect on the proposed project where future building orientation may expose doorways or windows to wind impacts. Several architectural features can be incorporated into the building design to prevent hazards associated with wind impacts. These features would be considered in conjunction with site plan review and/or building permits. Regional Emissions The main source of regional emissions generated by the project will be from motor vehicles. Other emissions generated by future on-site activities are combustion of natural gas on site for space heating and off-site generation of electricity. In order to determine the regional impacts of the proposed project, an air quality analysis was performed using the URBEMIS3 computer model devel- oped by CARB. The results of the baseline project emission analysis for the year 2001 are presented in Table 3.10.0 (URBEMIS3 computer output is pro- vided in Appendix B); these emissions are also compared with County and 0325/92(1\H1D101VKASfER1.D0C) 3-115 SCAB baseline emission inventories. The term "baseline" implies that the emission estimates in Table 3.10.0 reflect only emission controls currently in effect. Those proposed by the 1991 AQMP and recently enacted CARB tail- pipe reduction standards are not included in the emission factors run for the air quality modelling effort. The County emissions for the year 2001 were derived utilizing standard mathematical techniques of interpolation based on a projected emissions inventory developed by CARB for years 2000 and 2010. The 2001 projected emissions inventory was utilized for comparison because it reflects the year of estimated ultimate General Plan build out of the area in the vicinity of the project site. 03/26/92(I:\I3ID1o1VKASTERI.DOC) 3-116 Table 3.10.0 - Comparison of Emissions Contaminant CO NOx sox PM10 TOG* ROG•• Emission Per Day Vehicular 5316.5 624.5 74.1 240.6 325.0 306.3 On-Site Natural Gas Consumption 2.1 12.8 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.6 Off-Site Electrical Generation 7.3 41.7 4.4 1.5 0.4 0.4 Total Project (ibs/d2y) 5632.2 679.0 78.5 42.1 326.0 307.3 Emissions per day Project Emissions (lbs/d2y) 5632.2 679.0 78.5 42.1 326.0 307.3 San Bernardino Co. Year 2001 (ton/d2y) 402.5 551.9 90.6 1183.6 1013.5 683.9 Project Emissions as a Percent of County Emissions Percent of County Emissions 0.70% 0.06% 0.04% 0.03% 0.0003% 0.02% • Total Organic Gases •• Reactive Organic Gases Source: CARB 2000 and 2010 Projected Emissions Inventory 03/2"2(1:\xm101\MASTER1.D0C) 3-117 As shown in Table 3.10.C, future project emissions of reactive organic gases (ROG), a primary precursor to ozone, represent 0.02 percent of total County ROG emissions projected for year 2001. Projects which represent one per- cent or more of regional emissions are typically considered to represent a significant change in regional emissions. Project emissions would not have a measurable effect on this or any other criterion pollutant levels since they represent less than one percent of regional emissions totals. Therefore, significant changes in regional air quality are not expected as a result of this project. Local Emissions To determine the proposed project's effect on local air quality, the CALINE4 dispersion model, supplemented by background carbon monoxide (CO) data obtained from SCAQMD monitoring data, was utilized to determine existing roadway CO levels at nearby sensitive residential receptors and to evaluate any changes due to the project and other cumulative developments. Figure 3.10.1 illustrates the location of the air quality receptors modelled in this analysis. As the Figure indicates, Air Receptor (AR-1) is located along the eastern side of Palm Avenue approximately 160 feet north of the Kendall/ Little League/Palm intersection. Air Receptor (AR-2) is located west of Little League Drive south of the intersection of Little League/Frontage Road. Car- bon monoxide is used as an indicator of a project's direct and indirect traffic impact on local air quality because CO does not readily disperse in the local environment. The results of the CALINE4 calculations are provided in Table 3.10.D. (Model input data summaries are provided in Appendix B). Table 3.10.13 - Predicted 1-Hr/8-Hr CO Concentrations in PPM Existing 1991 Future 2001 Future 2001 w/GPA AR-1: Palm Avenue 11.0/8.2 11.1/8.3 13.6/10.2* AR-2: Little League 10.0/7.4 10.0/7.5 10.1/7.6 * = Exceedance of State standards Notes: Ambient background level (1-Hr/8-Hr) = 9.7/7.2 ppm Federal and State standards for 1-Hr/8-Hr CO emissions are 35/9.5 ppm and 20/9.1 ppm, respectively. As illustrated in Table 3.10.1), none of the receptors modelled exceed the federal and State standards for the 1-hour CO emissions, with or without the 03/26/92(I:\IM101\MASrER1.DOC) 3-118 _ �" � 7�sr ate` •`'�/� ' \ J�1 ^\o.i i �^� �ael� � /I'1 1 ✓/ �"��'�\�ZB°�_ 000 0= aL / i i r • lam'. ; •.. �--i`� —' Apr `", 7 �.,z _ 7i Res ,6�- .' .` /r •� �'�\ �--�i BM _ ��_ o - i �� r. 1896 �� n� v �- a. n-.,004 .. .p� BM 1872 � ,4 �,� �E � • 8M Pet' ARZ�c ce PROJECT a� 'pus LOCATION °/ ia �n 1779 •� �� �� ��•• r. ;�� AR l +� e6e \l �, 6 1694 �Z e,= ., i l /5 �lib� .: 1720 682 �N it �� n oaf Glen Helen �. . /Rehabilitation Facility Sewage _rho° / Source: USGS Topographic Maps, "Devore & San Bernardino North" Quadrangles. 12/5/91(HIDIUI) Figure 3.10.1 N AR1 Air Quality Receptor L S— A Scale in Feet 0 1000 2000 Air Quality Receptor Locations proposed project. However, the predicted eight hour concentrations at the Palm Avenue receptor (AR-1) under the Year 2001 plus General Plan Amend- ment condition, would exceed the State CO standards. It should be noted that in order to identify worst case emission level, the ambient background level remained constant throughout each of the scenari- os analyzed. It is anticipated that, with implementation of the vehicle fleet turnover and emission reduction requirements recently adopted by CARB and the control measures outlined in the 1991 AQMP, the future ambient back- ground levels would actually be less than the existing level of 9.7/7.2 ppm by 2001. Thus, the concentrations outlined in Table 3.10.D may be overestimat- ed. However, according to CEQA, significant air quality impacts occur when any ambient air quality standard is violated. With the worst case analysis per- formed for this project, the eight hour concentrations at Air Receptor AR-1 modeled would exceed the federal and State standards and a significant project impact on local air quality would occur at this location. The project's contribution to projected exceedances is approximately 1.9 ppm. This is considered a significant project impact. i It should be noted that as a result of mitigation measures proposed in Sec- tion 4.2 (Traffic and Circulation), CO concentrations at AR-1 for cumulative build out (Future 2001) and project (Future 2001 w/GPA) conditions will be slightly reduced due primarily to improvements in level of service at the adjacent impacted intersection. Based on the results of the analysis of the quantities and dispersal patterns of pollutants associated with the project, it is concluded that other air pollut- ants emitted by the project would not result in a measurable increase in air quality levels. Mitigation measures intended to increase vehicular capacity at intersections and thereby reduce carbon monoxide emissions will also reduce mobile source emissions of these other contaminants. Cumulative Impacts As presented in the Future 2001 condition analysis (and illustrated in Table 3.10.D), cumulative projects would contribute to the deterioration of the air quality on the local and regional levels. With the addition of the proposed project, significant project air quality impacts are predicted on the local level. It should be noted that the impacts are a result of combining other future projects and the proposed project contributing to the exacerbation of exist- ing and projected regional air quality in the South Coast Air Basin. There- fore, the project's incremental addition to cumulative air quality degradation within the region is considered a significant unavoidable cumulative impact. 03/26N.2(1:\HM101\MAMRI.DOC) 3-120 AQMP Conformity SCAG has released "Conformity Review Procedures Related to Growth Man- agement," (September, 1991), hereafter referred to as the Conformity Guide- lines. This document states that an individual project is subject to an AQMP conformity review if the following two conditions are met: (1) the local jurisdiction has not adopted an Air Quality Element and/or revised the Land Use and Circulation Elements of their General Plan to be consistent with the AQMP, and (2) the project is considered of statewide, regional or area wide significance as specified in the Inter-Governmental Review Handbook and described in Appendix A of the Conformity Guidelines. As indicated previously, the City of San Bernardino has developed an Air Quality Element as part of it's General Plan. The City, however, has not revised the Air Quality Element in order to fully comply with Appendix IV E to the 1991 AQMP. As outlined in Appendix A of the Conformity Guidelines, construction of commercial developments with 500,000 square feet or more is considered a minimum criterion for determining regional significance of a proposed project. The General Plan Amendment plus the adjacent 7.1 acre CG-1 site consists of 1,122,100 square feet and, thus, exceeds the "Minimum Criteria For General Development Project Review," outlined in Appendix A of SCAG's conformity guidelines. Therefore, the project is subject to an AQMP conformity review. For the project to be considered in compliance with the AQMP, three project compliance criteria must be demonstrated: Criterion No. 1: the project is contributing to attainment of the subregional jobs/housing performance ratio; Criterion No. 2: demonstrate that vehicle trips (VT) and vehicle miles traveled (VMT) resulting from the project have been reduced to the greatest extent feasible by implementing transportation demand management strate- gies; and Criterion No. 3: The EIR needs to demonstrate that the project: (a) will not have a negative impact on air quality in the long term; (b) has in- cluded the transportation, land use and energy conservation measures pre- sented in Appendix IV-E of the 1991 AQMP to the extent possible; and (c) has been analyzed, in terms of air quality, on a city, subregional and regional level, depending on the scope of the project. The following provides a discussion on the AQMP conformity for the pro- posed General Plan Amendment project. The Concept Plan and No Project alternatives do not require AQMP conformity review as they do not exceed the "Minimum Criteria For General Development Project Review," outlined in Appendix A of SCAG's conformity guidelines. Therefore, the Concept Plan alternative for 380,000 square feet of commercial development and the No Project alternatives are not considered regionally significant projects and would not require conformity review by the AQMD. The first test of conformity is this project's effect on the subregional jobs/ housing balance. The proposed commercial project is located in the housing rich East San Bernardino Valley Subregion as identified in the GMP. The East 03/26,,92(1\HM101WASURLDOC) 3-121 San Bernardino Valley Subregion had a job/housing balance of 0.93 in 1984; this is projected to decrease to 0.84 by the year 2010. By comparison, the City of San Bernardino had a jobs/housing ratio of 1.33 in 1984 which is projected to increase to a ratio of 1.35 in the year 2010 (please refer to Section 3.6, Housing and Population for an explanation of jobs/housing balance ratios). The GMP states that projects which contribute to further balancing of subregional ratios should be encouraged and granted additional incentives. Because the proposed commercial project would generate jobs in an identified housing rich subregion, it incrementally contributes towards attainment of the subregional jobs/housing ratio performance goal. Until transportation demand management strategies have been included as part of the project, compliance with the second test cannot be established. Similarly, since the EIR air quality analysis shows that project contributions to future CO problems in San Bernardino are considered significant, compli- ance with the third test has not been demonstrated. Thus, without the implementation of significant motor vehicle trip reduction measures, this project cannot be considered to conform to the AQMP. Mitigation Measures Short-term (Construction) Emissions 3.10.1 During construction, the contractor shall be responsible for ensuring that trucks used for hauling excess material are covered to minimize loss of material, flagmen assist trucks moving into traffic and that peak hour truck travel is minimized. 3.10.2 Prior to issuance of any grading permit, the project proponent shall provide a dust control plan to the Director of Planning and Building Services for approval. The dust control plan shall specify steps that would be taken to comply with SCAQMD Rule 403, which restricts fugitive dust emissions. Measures outlined in the plan shall include: daily watering of graded areas and washing of equipment tires before leaving the construction site. 3.10.3 During construction, the contractor shall discontinue construction activities during second stage smog alerts and discontinue grading activities during period of high winds (i.e., 25 mph or greater). 3.10.4 All construction equipment shall be maintained in good operating condition so as to reduce operational emissions. On a quarterly basis the project proponent shall submit to the Director of Planning and Building Services proof in the form of a letter, indicating that all con- struction equipment is being properly serviced and maintained. 03/26/92(IAHID101VMASTERI.D0C) 3-122 Long-term (Mobile Source) Emissions 3.10.5 Prior to issuance of a Development Permit, the applicant shall provide evidence to the City of San Bernardino demonstrating compliance with applicable SCAQMD regulations. 3.10.6 Prior to issuance of a Development Permit, the developer shall work with Omni Trans in the planning of transit improvements, such as bus shelters, benches and bus stop pedestrian access, which will facilitate transit usage among residents and patrons to the shopping center. 3.10.7 Prior to issuance of a Development Permit, the applicant shall submit for review and approval by the Director of Planning and Building Ser- vices a plan that provides information on reducing vehicular trips. The plan should encourage a reduction of vehicular trips by including information regarding public transportation opportunities, and by providing bicycle racks and other trip reducing concepts. The appli- cant shall distribute the approved plan to all future retail tenants within the project. 3.10.8 Prior to issuance of a Development Permit, the project proponent shall submit a detailed Trip Reduction Plan (TRP) to the satisfaction of the Planning and Building Services Department, SCAG and SCAQMD. The TRP shall conform to SCAQMD Regulation XV and any other AQMP control measures applicable to the proposed project. 3.10.9 Prior to issuance of a Development Permit, the project proponent shall submit a Customer Trip Reduction Plan (CTRP) to the satisfac- tion of the City Planning and Building Services Department. 3.10.10 Prior to issuance of a Development Permit, the project pro- ponent shall submit a Parking Management Plan (PMP) to the satisfaction of the City of San Bernardino Planning and Build- ing Services Department. Parking is evaluated as part of the development review process. 3.10.10 Prior to issuance of Certificates of Occupancy, the project proponent shall submit a Shipping and Receiving Plan (SRP) to the satisfaction of the city of San Bernardino Transportation Coordinator. Level of Sign ficance Ater Mitigation Implementation of the above mitigation measures will result in no significant direct impacts to air quality as a result of project implementation with the exception of a significant impact relative to the 8-hour CO standard exceed- ance at AR-1. Additionally, even after the implementation of trip reduction strategies, the large number of project vehicle trips, in conjunction with 03/-16/92(I:\I3ID101\MASTERI.DOC) 3-123 other cumulative projects, would probably contribute to regional air quality degradation unless all three tiers of additional air quality control measures proposed by the AQMP were fully implemented. Consequently, the project will have a significant cumulative effect on air quality. 03/26/'92(1:\1iID101\MASTERI.DOC) 3124 3.11 NOISE The following is a summary of a technical noise study conducted for the proposed project by LSA Associates, Inc. (LSA) in December, 1991. A copy of the technical noise study can be found in Appendix H. Setting Noise Definitions Noise is defined as unwanted sound, and is known to have several adverse effects on people, such as hearing loss, speech interference, sleep inter- ference, physiological responses and annoyance. From these known effects of noise, federal and State criteria have been established to protect the public health and safety and to prevent disruption of certain human activities. Sound is technically described in terms of loudness (amplitude) and frequen- cy (pitch). The standard unit of measurement for the loudness of sound is the Decibel (dB). Since the human ear is not equally sensitive to sound at all frequencies, a special frequency dependent rating scale has been devised to relate noise to human sensitivity. The A-weighted decibel scale (dBA) per- forms this compensation by discriminating against frequencies in a manner approximating the sensitivity of the human ear. Noise Assessment Criteria Several rating scales have been developed for the analysis of the adverse effects of noise on the community, including traffic generated noise. These scales include the Equivalent Noise Level (L e q), Day-Night Average Noise Level ) (Ld„ , and the Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL). Appendix H explains the technical variations of these measurement scales. Essentially, Leq is an energy measurement. Ldn and CNEL are similar to Leq, but they both represent a 24 hour time period and apply a time weighted factor, which places greater significance on noise events occurring during the evening and/or night hours (when sleep disturbance is a concern). "Time weighted" refers to the fact that noise that occurs during certain sensitive time periods is penalized for occurring at these times. The highest instantaneous measurement during any period is referred to as Lm . The California Office of Noise Control (ONC) has established guidelines and/or standards for acceptable community noise levels that are based on the Ldr, or CNEL rating scale. These guidelines are contained in the Noise Ele- ment of the City of San Bernardino General Plan, June 1989, and are repre- sented in Figure 3.11.1. 0326/92 UA1i1D 101\MASTER I.DOC) 3-125 COMMUNITY NOISE EXPOSURE LAND USE CATAGORY Ldn OR CNEL, dB INTERPRETATION 55 60 65 70 75 90 RESIDENTIAL -LOW DENSITY NORMALLY ACCEPTABLE SINGLE FAMILY, DUPLEX, ........... MOBILE HOMES Specified land use is sofisfictofy, band upon the assumption that any buildings involved am of normal conventional construction, without RESIDENTIAL -MULTI FAMILY any special noise insulation requirements. L zz ZZZ�2 zzz TRANSIENT LODGING ............ ................. HOTELS,MOTELS =CONDITIONALLY ACCEPTABLE New oDristruction or development should be SCHOOLS, LIBRARIES, undertaken only after a detailed analysis of CHURCHES, HOSPITALS, the noise reduction requirements is made and NURSING HOMES needed noise insulation fea-re included in the design. Conventional consbvction, but with AUDITORIUMS, CONCERT HALLS, ...... closed windows and fresh air supply systems .... ........... ................ AMPHITHEATRES or air conditioning will normally suffice. SPORTS ARENA. OUTDOOR SPECTATOR SPORTS .............. MM NORMALLY UNACCEPTABLE New oonstruchon or development should PLAYGROUNDS, generally be disocuraged. If new construction NEIGHBORHOOD PARKS or development does proceed,a detailed analysis of the noise reduction requirements GOLF COURSES. RIDING STABLES. must be made and needed noise inniletion WATER RECREATION, feamm included in the design. CEMEITRIES OFFICE BUILDINGS - BUSINESS. CLEARLY UNACCEPTABLE COMMERCIAL& PROFESSIONAL New construction or development dmdd generally not be undertaken. INDUSTRIAL, MANUFACTURING, 7777T777M UTILITIES. AGRICULTURE Source: Office of Noise Control, Califomia Department of Health 12/12191(HIDIOI) Figure 3.11.1 Land Use Compatibility LSD for Community Noise Environments The Noise Element of the City of San Bernardino General Plan establishes maximum noise level standards for different types of land uses within the City, based upon existing federal and State guidelines. For noise sensitive land uses (i.e., private residences, hotels, hospitals, schools, churches and public parks), the City limits exterior noise levels to below 65 dBA Ldn and interior noise levels to below 45 dBA Ldp. While 70 dBA Ldn is the maximum exterior noise level allowed under the ONC noise compatibility guidelines, 65 dBA Id,, is the City's recommended goal for noise sensitive land uses. To control intermittent noise and non-transportation related noise, commu- nities have developed noise ordinances. The City of San Bernardino Noise Ordinances are designed to protect adjacent land uses from non- transportation related noise sources, such as music, amplified sound, machin- ery equipment, mechanical equipment, and activities on private property. Non-transportation noise generated by the proposed commercial project might include noise associated with parking lot activities such as car stereo music, amplified sound from public address systems, leaf blowers and other landscaping equipment. Existing Noise Sources Traffic is the predominant source of noise in the Verdemont area. As shown in Figure 3.11.2, the project site is bordered along the south by the Barstow Freeway (I-215) and to the east by Palm Avenue. Both the I-215 and Palm Avenue are considered significant sources of roadway noise. In addition to traffic generated noise, the Santa Fe Railroad is located approximately 1,000 feet southwest of the project site. The project site is subjected to brief, slightly audible noise from infrequent railroad operations. At the time of LSA's site visit, two trains passed by. In both instances, the trains were inau- dible from our measurement locations, except for slight whistle noise. The project site is currently vacant, with no active uses presently on-site. Noise sensitive uses adjacent to the project site include an apartment com- plex located to the east of Palm Avenue, north of Kendall Drive and Al Guhin Park to the west. Currently, there are no noise sensitive uses to the north or south of the project site. Existing Roadway Noise Levels Noise measurements were taken off-site, as shown in Figure 3.11.2. Appen- dix H contains a discussion of the type of measuring equipment and meth- odologies used. The average noise level (Leq) and the instantaneous maxi- mum noise level (L,,,a.) during the measurement periods are given for each measurement location in Table 3.11.A. 03/26,'92(I:\HID101VMASTERI.DOC) 3-127 0_­�"J'-'i 1 v �--'-P � Cr,� r `�, I /J� �i_ �1 .�����/,��`` ,�"��• - _fir(','/ o\�,� t=�//. • �� ��. - � i —- C NA_MAAL Q'P Res BM �= ��O -_�• - ��ii - / k- 1896 E.pti BM 1872 R/<�es< �. ,A 9 P h:o • BM 1870.—�, \'S c v \ ° Pet NR2 e ce ' PROJECT > LOCATION 115 1 '�"f`. •1779 `: ?i.. / d. \. N� \\Veil \, o, NR1 � _ � � �'� —gee^ ';' .••..''• F B 1694 �� r Well \ \V "+ M 1< •2 t6 0, 12D6 r4iGq i _ OCt^N' • • I �' ,��. Glen Nae� ROLabllltation Facility r } r�f_ C DISDosa Sourcc: USGS Topographic Maps. 'Devore & San Bcrnardino North" Quadranglcs. 12/5/91(HID101) Figure 3.11.2 NR1 Noise Receptor LSAScale in Fec t' 1000 2000 Off-Site Noise Measurement Locations Table 3.11.A - Field Noise Measurement Data Summary Measurement Measurement Period Location9' NRl: Palm Avenue, Start: 12/2/91; 17:10 65.9 dBA 75.4 dBA 10 feet from Duration: 10 min. curbside NR2: Little League Start: 12/2/91; 15:45 55.5 dBA 67.5 dBA Drive, 180 feet Duration: 10 min. from curbside Source: LSA Associates, Inc. 03/26/92(I.ViID101\MASTERI.DOC) 3.129 Impacts Impacts as a result of project generated noise are discussed in two catego- ries. They are: short-term, construction related noise impacts, and long-term operational noise impacts. The long-term noise impacts are further divided between noise impacts to the surrounding, previously existing community, and noise impacts on the project area. Sbort-Term Noise Impacts Some noise disturbance in the adjacent existing noise sensitive areas is ex- pected during project construction. These disturbances will be due to grad- ing, construction of new buildings and roadway realignment. Construction will require the use of a number of pieces of heavy equipment, such as bull- dozers, backhoes, graders, concrete mixers, etc. In addition, trucks, both heavy and light, will be required to haul away excavated material and to deliver gravel, concrete, lumber and other building materials. Table 3.11.13 presents noise levels typical of common construction equipment. The operation of such equipment will result in the generation of both steady and episodic noise significantly above the ambient levels currently experi- enced near the noise sensitive areas closest to the project site. The noise levels in Table 3.11.13 decrease at a rate of approximately six dBA per doubling of the distance. Therefore, at 100 feet the noise levels will be about 6 dBA less than reported in Table 3.11.13. Similarly, at 200 feet the noise levels would be 12 dBA less than indicated in the table. Intervening structures or topography will act as a noise barrier, and will reduce noise levels further. Although construction noise will be a short-term impact, there is the poten- tial for significant disruption of nearby residents without mitigation. The City of San Bernardino Noise Ordinance limits any construction related activity to between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m., Monday through Saturday. Even though enforcement of the Noise Ordinance will reduce potential short-term construction impacts to an insignificant level, local residents may still perceive this noise as a nuisance. Long-Term Noise Impacts According to CEQA, a significant long-term noise impact is one that substan- tially increases the ambient noise levels for adjoining areas. In community noise assessment, changes in noise levels greater than three dBA are often identified as significant, while changes of less than one dBA are not discern- ible. In the range of one to three dBA, residents sensitive to noise may perceive a slight change. In laboratory testing situations, humans are able to detect noise level changes of slightly less than one dBA. However, in a com- munity 03/26/92(I:ViID101VKASTERI.DOC) 3-130 Table 3.11.11 - Noise Associated With Typical Construction Equipment Noise el at 55 Feet B Without Noise With Feasible Noise Equipment Type Control Control2 Earthmoving: Front Loaders 79 75 Backhoes 85 75 Dozers 80 75 Tractors 80 75 Scrapers 88 80 Graders 85 75 Trucks 91 75 Pavers 89 80 Materials Handling: Concrete Mixers 85 75 Concrete Pumps 82 75 Cranes 83 75 Derricks 88 75 Stationary: Pumps 76 75 Generators 78 75 Compressors 81 75 Impact: Pile Drivers 101 95 Jack Hammers 88 75 Rock Drills 98 80 Pneumatic Tools 86 80 Other: Saws 78 75 Vibrators 76 75 1 Taken from Noise From Construction Equipment and Operations, Bu- ilding Equipment, and Home Appliances, prepared by Bolt, Beranek, and Newman for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, December 31, 1971. 2 Estimated levels obtained by selecting quieter procedures or machines and implementing noise control features requiring no major redesign or extreme cost. 03/16;'92r[:\I;ID101\AMSnRI.DOC) 3-131 noise setting, noise exposure takes place over a long time period and changes in noise levels occur over months or years, rather than the immed- iate comparison made in a laboratory situation. Therefore, the level at which changes in community noise levels become discernible is likely to be some value greater than one dBA; and three dBA appears to be appropriate for most people. Table 3.11-C presents a comparison of the modelled noise levels for one existing scenario and three future scenarios. The future scenarios include future without project, future with Concept Plan, and future with General ' Plan Amendment (GPA). Noise levels for the existing and future project scenarios are modelled using traffic volumes as identified in the Traffic Study prepared by LSA (Appendix B). Table 3.11-C indicates that the noise sensi- tive areas (NR1, the apartment complex and NR2, the park site) have modelled existing noise levels of less than the 65 dBA Ldn standard. The table also shows that future without project noise levels increase 1.5 dBA to 2 dBA over the existing conditions due to future traffic increases. The apartment complex (NR1) located along Palm Avenue experiences future noise levels of less than 65 dBA Ldn for the future without project and future with Concept Plan scenarios and greater than 65 dBA Ldn for the future with GPA scenario (see Table 3.11.C). It should be noted that, although NR1 has a future with GPA noise level that exceeds the City's recommended standard of 65 dBA Ldn, it is still well below the ONC maximum standard of 70 dBA Ldn as stated in the Noise Element for the City of San Bernardino. The pro- jected future with project noise level increases over future without project noise levels are not considered significant (greater than 3 dBA). The park site (NR2) along Little League Drive experiences future noise levels of much less than 65 dBA Ldn for all three future scenarios (see Table 3.11.C). Although future with project noise level increases of 3.5 dBA to 6.6 dBA are expected to occur over future without project noise levels for this site, the future noise levels are still well below the 65 dBA Ldn standard. The proposed project commercial uses will be subject to meeting the 45 dBA Ldn interior noise standards specified by the California Noise Insulation Standard and the Noise Element for the City of San Bernardino. Since no specific building plans have been proposed for this project, the indoor noise reduction requirements cannot be determined. However, most new South- ern California dwellings with windows closed generally provide 22 to 25 dB outdoorfindoor attenuation for roadway noise. Providing that future struc- tures would achieve an outdoor/indoor noise attenuation of 22 to 25 dB, only future structures located within areas with projected noise levels in excess of 67 dBA Ldn should be reviewed in order to determine whether the interior noise levels will comply with the 45 dBA Ldn interior noise require- ment. This review would ensure that future interior noise levels on site remain below a level of significance. 03/26/92(I:\HID101\MASTERI.DOC) 3-132 Qp H M v � 00 �p v 00 `~ u �i > ►.a � v °� m o � 0000 v cn p m n ZUF.. 0 '� N C r, 0 Sv 3axiy o ° Sao t v v �a—D v u,q p v c � �-d d '•ti [ v v k v 4 v .n w 00 M � •' r- V h v u VJ N C O� « o v O ao c 'o '° v E o v v v v v U v y v (4 « c 3 �n v « c� Ca Lu GJJ > o v O N o 14 C Q Q 0a 02 Ca E w � ..� v 0 C6 v a .. a z z w U V W 0 x C N NM M1 Existing noise sensitive uses such as the apartment complex along Palm Avenue must have interior noise levels which comply with the 45 dBA I'd. interior noise standard. For the future with GPA scenario, traffic noise levels at the apartment complex can be mitigated through the construction of a noise barrier or through installation of additional acoustic insulation (e.g., window upgrades, provision of a means of mechanical ventilation as an alternative to open windows, control of outside noise intrusion through building shell openings, etc.) to attenuate exterior noise. Cumulative Impacts Noise modelling for the proposed project utilizes the same regional transpor- tation planning forecasts and modelling required to analyze local regional traffic and circulation impacts. The noise analyses, summarized in the "Im- pacts"section discussed above, cumulatively analyzes noise effects and is expressed in "Future Without Project, Future With Concept Plan, and Future With GPA" conditions (see Table 3.11.C). Consequently, the area's year 2001 cumulative noise conditions, as affected by the proposed project, have been adequately addressed. Cumulative project noise impacts are not considered i significant with implementation of the mitigation measures outlined below. I Mitigation Measures Construction Noise 3.11.1 In accordance with the City's Noise Ordinance, the project proponent shall provide evidence to the City that construction related activities shall be limited to the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. Monday through Saturday and prohibited on Sundays and holidays in order to minimize disruption to existing residential neighborhoods. The con- tractor shall be required to equip all construction vehicles and equip- ment with functioning and properly maintained muffler systems (attainable noise levels are shown in Table 3.11.13). Additionally, noisy operations such as stockpiling and/or vehicle stag- ing shall be conducted as far as possible from noise sensitive recep- tors (e.g., existing residential developments). 3.11.2 Prior to site plan approval, the project proponent shall submit a con- struction route plan to the City Engineer for approval. The Plan shall demonstrate avoidance of congested roadways, avoidance of sensitive receptors and minimizing of trips and trip length to the extent feasi- ble. 0383/'92(1:••.HM101%SECT3C.EM) 3-134 Traffic Noise 3.11.3 Prior to site plan approval, the project proponent shall submit a detailed acoustical analysis that evaluates existing and future traffic and/or railroad noise levels at on-site and off-site sensitive receptors. Noise attenuation measures shall be identified and implemented where necessary to reduce any noise levels that exceed the City's interior (45 dBA Ld,,) and exterior (65 dBA Ldp) standards. Level of Signkance After Mitigation Providing the above mitigation measures are implemented, the proposed project will not result in significant noise impacts. 03/23/92(1:••.HM101••.SECT3C.UR) 3-135 4.0 ALTERNATIVES The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires that an EIR include a discussion of reasonable project alternatives which are "capable of eliminating any significant adverse environmental effects or reducing them to a level of insignificance, even if these alternatives would impede to some degree the attainment of the project objectives or would be more costly" (CEQA, Section 15126(d)(3)). If the environmentally superior alternative is determined to be the No Project alternative, then the EIR must identify an environmentally superior alternative among the other alternatives. The following alternatives are evaluated in this section: 4.1 - No Project/No Development; 4.2 - No Project/Site Development per Existing General Plan/ Zoning; 4.3 - Creation of a new General Plan Designation and Zoning Dis- trict; and 4.4 - Alternative Site Analysis. The development assumptions, as well as the potential environmental consequences for each of the topics contained in the EIR, follow. Table 4.0.A provides a summary of the alterna- tives analysis. 4.1 NO PROJECT/NO DEVELOPMENT A discussion of this alternative is required by CEQA Guidelines, Section 15126(d). With the No Project/No Development alternative, the site would remain in its undeveloped condition. This is not consistent with the City's General Plan Land Use Element which designates the site for Urban Residential Develop- ment. This alternative would have little effect on adjacent lands which are presently planned for urban development. In this location (i.e., adjacent to the freeway and freeway accessible), the property has prime development potential because of its visibility. If the surrounding lands build out and the site remains vacant, there ultimately could be a slightly negative effect on the adjacent parcels because of its unimproved condition. An inability to utilize the potential of such a prime location could also have a negative effect on the City and the neighborhood. Eartb Resources Geotechnical constraints would not be an issue under this alternative. With- out development, hazards and constraints associated with buildings and property improvements would not be a factor. Geotechnical disturbances that may occur in the future would not have an effect on vacant property. 03/13/92(1:••.HID101,-SECT3C.EM) 4-1 � N N Y 0 zO Q E E E E E E v � v E � zz V) V� V) (n V)z M Q N z O wz e 0 0 E E E w x Q � a z5�x ry a u V a u �a a/ N h N N h V N N N N N 0 ov aL a V) O H C. O C6 o c s v A t o cl y y C cc7 c o aeva c o a z po. o E h A m y N v � � N 0 Water Resources Without site development, hazards associated with flooding would be irrele- vant. The property would remain unimproved and there would be no effect from flooding. Similarly, if the site remains unimproved, there would not be an increase in site runoff nor a decrease in site percolation potential. Biological Resources This alternative would not have an effect on the existing site habitat or wild- life species. Site habitat, although degraded, will continue to support local wildlife species. Because the biological report did not identify any sensitive plant or wildlife species or conclude that the site was locally or regionally important, preservation of the site habitat through this alternative does not present a significant biological resource benefit. Land Use Implementation of this alternative will result in an underutilization of the project site and its development potential. The existing General Plan desig- nation (RU-1) would remain unfulfilled, and the assumptions contained in the City's (and SCAG's) long-range development forecasts would not occur with respect to the potential residential uses on the site. Similarly, the pro- posed General Plan Amendment would not occur, limiting the availability of commercial services to the existing commercially zoned properties in the Verdemont community or elsewhere in the region. This alternative would not have development intensity and therefore would avoid the adverse poten- tial development intensity conditions that are associated with the proposed General Plan Amendment. Also with this alternative, as surrounding parcels are built out, the project site would ultimately be slightly incompatible with the surrounding uses. This conclusion is based on the site remaining vacant and undeveloped without any physical improvements. In this condition, the site could be considered aesthetically displeasing, particularly if it becomes overgrown, weedy and accumulates trash. Man Made Hazards If the site were to remain vacant in this alternative, there would be no direct hazard associated with hazardous materials storage or toxic substances. The only potential indirect concern would focus on illegal dumping and disposal. The uses proposed in the General Plan Amendment are not considered to have negative hazardous materials consequences on the environment and, therefore, this alternative is not superior. 03/23/92(1:,.HID101••.SEC73C.EM) 4-3 Housing/Population/Employment This alternative would not generate additional population, create jobs or housing. Consequently, this directly contrasts with the existing General Plan designation which has the potential to generate housing and additional population as would the proposed General Plan Amendment which would create employment opportunities. This alternative would not affect the regional jobs/housing balance, but would also not contribute to achievement of the City's housing allocation as forecast by the Southern California Associ- ation of Governments (SLAG). Public Services and Utilities This alternative would not require any City services, other than the services that currently exist (police and fire protection services). Similarly, this alter- native would not require the extension of public utilities to service the site (water, sewer, natural gas, electricity, telephone, etc.). This alternative would not consume water and energy resources, nor use sewage treatment plant capacity. Aesthetics This alternative would not result in site improvements since the property this site would remain vacant and undeveloped. Because the site is in a location where General Plan growth is forecast, according to the surrounding urban land use designations, the area will transition into a character which is urban and will reflect urban architecture and landscape architecture. If the site remains vacant, there will be a potential for aesthetic conflict between the site and the surrounding uses. This is due largely to the site's potential to become overgrown and weed-infested and as a result of illegal trash dumping that is often associated with vacant properties of this type. Tra,,�tc No traffic would be generated under this alternative as the site would remain in its current undeveloped condition. Table 3.9.A illustrates the levels of service for study area intersections under the existing, undeveloped condi- tions. Surrounding intersections and roadway levels of service (LOS) would not be affected by the project; Little League Drive would not require realign- ing or improving, which otherwise would be necessary. Similarly, it would not be necessary for Little League Drive to divide AI Guhin Park in conjunc- tion with the realignment which otherwise would be necessary, to improve the existing substandard alignment. Nonetheless, as shown in Table 3.9.13, in years 1996 and 2001, the traffic from cumulative area development will create levels of service in both B and P categories. 03/23/'92(1:%HED101-,SEC73C.EM) 4-4 Air Quality This alternative would not affect air quality in the area because no construc- tion activity or project traffic would be generated from the site. It would not contribute to any existing criteria pollutant violations or cause any measur- able emissions. Noise This alternative, as with air quality, would not result in any change in ambi- ent noise levels. Noise levels would not be affected because there would be no increases in traffic or stationary noise sources. The future No Project condition indicates that noise levels will increase in the area, in conjunction with future traffic volumes, but will not exceed threshold noise standards at the modelled locations. Conclusions Although implementation of this alternative would eliminate the project's environmental effects, the No Project/No Development alternative would not achieve the project objectives or fulfill the land use designation proposed in the existing General Plan. A listing of these objectives is included in the Project Description (Section 2.0). Specifically, this alternative would not take advantage of the site's proximity to a major freeway interchange which ac- commodates commercial development due to higher than average traffic volumes. This alternative would also not be consistent with the General Plan Land Use Element goals and objectives listed in Section 3.4, as it would not encourage a cohesive pattern of growth extending outward from the devel- oped portions of the City. Implementation of this alternative would also not assist in attaining the goals of the Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) which encourages placement of employment generating land uses in housing rich areas such as the City of San Bernardino. A complete discussion of the goals of the AQMP is included in Section 3.10 of the EIR. This alternative would not alter the existing visual environment nor would it result in increases in ambient and peripheral light emissions. The site would remain vacant and unimproved and would be devoid of the aesthetic value associated with either improved or natural open space. This alternative would not affect existing commercial centers in the City of San Bernardino. Under this alternative, customers would patronize other commercial areas within the City. This alternative represents a short-term avoidance of the identified environ- mental effects of the project. It is likely that the site would be developed in the near future due to the availability of services and utilities, ease of ac- cess/location of freeway and arterial crossroads, the need for minimal site 03/13/92(1:•..HID101%SECT3C.EIR) 4-5 preparation and general lack of physical constraints to development. Conse- quently, although the No Development alternative is superior in the short- term, the long-range development opportunities would likely result in the implementation of urban uses on site and the attendant environmental impacts. 4.2 NO PROJECT/SITE DEVELOPMENT PER EXISTING GENERAL PLAN/ZONING Under the existing General Plan (RU-1) low density residential designation, the site could be developed with 267 residential units, including single family attached and detached residential units. It can be assumed that Little League Drive would be realigned adjacent to Cable Creek. It is also assumed that the adjacent 7.1 acre parcel would be developed as CG-1 Commercial Gener- al land uses, yielding up to 216,500 square feet of commercial uses. Eartb Resources Similar to the proposed General Plan Amendment (GPA), geotechnical con- straints would not be an issue under this alternative. The anticipated resi- dential development on this parcel would not expose persons or residents to unusual geotechnical hazards associated with building safety. Adherence to building codes and standard engineering building design would provide ade- quate protection for most seismic events. Nonetheless, as with all construc- tion projects in Southern California, small risks are inevitable due to the potential seismic event that is beyond current standard design technology. Water Resources Similar to the proposed GPA, the residential uses would require protection from flooding hazards. With the improvements and mitigation measures recommended in this EIR, the development would be adequately protected from flood related hazards. Biological Resources Site development in residential uses would not have a significant local impact on the biological resources. This conclusion is based on the EIR statement that indicates that the site does not contain plant or wildlife habitat that is locally important, nor of rare, threatened or endangered status. Nonetheless, loss of the alluvial sage scrub would have a cumulative effect on this habitat. 03/23/92(1:%HM101••SEC13C.M) 4-6 Land Use This alternative represents development of the site according to the existing General Plan designation and, therefore, is consistent with the planned land uses in the area. In terms of land use compatibility, this alternative is considered compatible with the existing park use to the west, and planned low density residential uses north and east of the site. It is also compatible with the existing large lot residents approximately 400 feet to the east of the site. It would also be compatible with the adjacent 7.1 acre parcel designated for CG-1 for the same reasons described for the project, but would not benefit from any physical barriers separating residential from commercial, as is the case for the proposed GPA. In other words, this alternative would place residential uses immediately adjacent to commercial uses unless buffers were required mitiga- tion to minimize land use incompatibility. Thus, this alternative would be slightly more compatible (due to like residential uses) with the majority of the surrounding uses and would not require mitigation to enhance com- patibility between uses, except as required to buffer the 7.1 acre parcel from the residential uses. In terms of land use intensity, this alternative is substantially lower in overall land use intensity when compared to the proposed GPA. As shown in Table 3A A, the proposed GPA is approximately twice the development intensity of this alternative. This alternative would generate an intensity of approximately 453,900 square feet of development compared to the proposed GPA intensity of approximately 905,600 square feet of development. The figure also shows that this alternative is closer in development intensity to the surrounding uses, although the RU-1 land use designation is approximately three times more intense than the surrounding planned uses. Nonetheless, this alterna- tive has been anticipated in the General Plan with consideration given to the adjacent planned development intensities. Man Made Hazards Development of this alternative would not result in any concerns with regards to man-made hazards. Residential uses are not typically associated with hazardous materials storage, use, spills or disposal. Consequently, man- made hazards would not be an issue with the implementation of this alterna- tive. There is little benefit associated with this alternative when compared with the proposed GPA, because the proposed GPA also does not present any significant issues with respect to man-made hazards. Housing/Population/Employment Implementation of this alternative would fulfill the objectives of the General Plan for this parcel by permitting the development of approximately 267 03/23/'920:,-HID101%SEMC.EIR) 4-7 single family attached and detached residential units. The objectives for providing housing as outlined in the Housing Element would be accomplish- ed and additional population would be added to the City's base. More importantly, this parcel represents an important potential to provide afford- able housing, an important goal of the City, in light of the RU-1 designation and convenient freeway access. Implementation of this alternative would, however, have a negative influence on the region's job/housing balance by contributing additional housing to an already housing rich subregion. The effect on the balance would not be measurable, however, and the balance would remain at 0.84 as projected for the year 2010. Conversely, the City's jobs/housing balance is job rich and this alternative would enhance the local jobs/housing balance, although this is of considerably less significance than the regional balance. The effect on the City's balance would be measurable, changing the balance from 1.35 to 1.37 compared to a desired balance of 1.22. Public Services and Utilities Provision of public services and utilities for a residentially developed site would place a similar or greater burden on the providers when compared to a commercial designation. Both police and fire protection services would be similar to the proposed GPA, contributing to the cumulative demand for those services and being beyond the acceptable response time zone for fire protection. Residential uses may have a greater demand for services than for the proposed GPA for several services. These would include water consump- tion and sewage conveyance and treatment. This alternative would have greater and more direct impacts on schools and library because residential uses directly generate the demand for those services. In conclusion, this alternative would have equal of greater demand for public services and utili- ties when compared with the proposed GPA. Aesthetics Residential development of the site under this alternative would have less of an effect on visual resources when compared to the project, due to the reduction in structural massing and site coverage associated with single family detached residential development. It would also be expected that this alternative would generate building and landscape architectural features which would be consistent with the themes associated with adjacent residen- tial uses. Due to the types of land uses proposed for this alternative (e.g., residential), it can be expected that it would also produce less light and glare than the project. 03/23/92(1:••.HID101*,SECT3C.EIR) 4-8 Traff1"C As shown on Table 3.9.C, the traffic generated by residential uses on the 29.7 acre project site result in the generation of 2,600 vehicles per day or approxi- mately 6 times fewer vehicles per day than are generated from Alternative 4.3, New General Plan Designation (i.e., Concept Plan). Since the impacts to the circulation system from Concept Plan traffic can be mitigated, then it is presumed that this alternative, likewise would not result in unacceptable levels of service that could not be mitigated. This conclusion is also extend- ed to the condition where the 29.7 acre parcel would be developed into residential uses, and the 7.1 acre adjacent parcel would be developed into CG-1 commercial uses at a 0.75 floor area ratio. Table 3.9.0 illustrates that these two parcels have the potential to generate 14,100 trips per day, which remains below the Concept Plan traffic generation potential. Air Quality Similar to the project, build out of this alternative would result in short term emissions from construction equipment. Compared to the project, this alternative represents a decrease in traffic generated and, as such, would decrease emissions from development of the site. In the cumulative condi- tion, like the project, future violations of air quality standards (i.e., CO con- centrations) could occur for sensitive local receptors. However, the thresh- old for determining the significance of air pollutants would not be exceeded. Unlike the project, this alternative does not promote attainment of the AQMP objectives which encourage employee-generating land uses in housing rich sub-regions, thus assisting in balancing the jobs to housing ratio. Noise Similar to the proposed project, implementation of this alternative would result in short-term increases in the noise environment from construction activities. Traffic levels would be reduced under this alternative, and traffic noise levels would be correspondingly reduced when compared with the proposed GPA. The traffic volumes (average daily traffic) of the combined 29.7 and 7.1 acre parcel developments would be approximately 15 percent lower than the Concept Plan. Consequently, noise levels in the future condi- tion for this alternative, like the Concept Plan, would be below the threshold standards established by the City. Conclusions Impacts which would be incrementally reduced under this alternative include traffic, noise, local air quality, and aesthetics/light and glare. This is not a significant benefit when compared with the proposed GPA, as the EIR in- cludes mitigation which will reduce these impacts and does not identify any 03/23/92(1:••.HID101%SFMC.M) 4-9 of these topics as unavoidable significant impacts, with the exception of cumulative air quality impacts which occur for both this alternative and the project. The reduction in land use intensity impacts under this alternative, however, is considered a significant benefit of this alternative as the EIR identifies significant land use impacts to the surrounding residential areas (existing and planned) with project implementation. In terms of project objectives, this alternative would not achieve the appli- cant's desire to take advantage of the site's proximity to the freeway and growing residential consumer base in order to develop the site with com- mercial uses. Implementation of this alternative would also not facilitate attainment of the goals of the AQMP which encourage development of com- mercial (employment generating) uses in housing rich areas, as is the case with the subregion. 4.3 NEW GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION AND ZONING DISTRICT Under this alternative, a new General Plan designation and zoning district (i.e., amendment to the Development Code) would be created. This designa- tion would be approved for both the 29.7 acre and 7.1 acre parcels in con- junction with a General Plan Amendment and Zone Change. The categories would establish a maximum development intensity that would be similar to the applicant's Concept Plan illustrated in Figure 2.8.1. Accordingly, a devel- opment intensity of approximately 325,000 square feet of commercial devel- opment would be allowed for the 29.7 acre parcel, and approximately 55,000 square feet of commercial on the adjacent 7.1 acre parcel for an average of approximately a 0.24 floor area ratio (FAR), for the new designation. Also, the designation would permit the types of uses envisioned in the applicant's Concept Plan that would be consistent with commercial uses at the commu- nity scale. Earth Resources Similar to the proposed General Plan Amendment (GPA), geotechnical con- straints would not be an issue under this alternative. The anticipated com- mercial development on this parcel would not expose persons or patrons to unusual geotechnical hazards associated with building safety. Adherence to building codes and standard engineering building design would provide ade- quate protection for most seismic events. Nonetheless, as with all construc- tion projects in Southern California, small risks are inevitable due to the potential seismic event that is beyond current standard design technology. Water Resources Similar to the proposed GPA, this alternative would require protection from flooding hazards. With the improvements and mitigation measures recom- 03/23/92(1:••.HM101,.SEC13C.EM) 4-10 mended in this EIR, the development would be adequately protected from flood related hazards. Biological Resource Site development in this alternative would not have a significant local impact on the biological resources. This conclusion is based on the EIR statement that indicates that the site does not contain plant or wildlife habitat that is locally important, nor of rare, threatened or endangered status. Nonetheless, loss of the alluvial sage scrub would have a cumulative effect on this habitat. Land Use This alternative would require a GPA (to both map and text) as the develop- ment intensity proposed for the 29.7 acre site and 7.1 acre adjacent parcel are not consistent with the existing General Plan designations. The GPA would establish a new General Plan designation and an amendment to the Development Code would be required to establish new FAR and standards for the new zoning district or to reference the FAR and standards contained in the CG-1 district, as appropriate. In terms of land use compatibility, similar to the project, because of the physical barriers (i.e., planned Magnolia Avenue and Cable Creek) this alter- native is considered compatible with the existing park use to the west, and planned low density residential uses north and east of the site. It is also compatible with the existing large lot residents approximately 400 feet to the east of the site. It would also be compatible with the adjacent 7.1 acre parcel designated for CG-1 for the same reasons described for the project. Thus, this alternative would be similar in compatibility to the proposed GPA (due to common commercial uses) and would not require mitigation to enhance compatibility between uses. In terms of land use intensity, this alternative is substantially lower in overall land use intensity when compared to the proposed GPA. As shown in Table 4.3-A, the proposed GPA is more than twice the development intensity of this alternative. This alternative would generate an intensity of approximately 325,000 square feet of development compared to the proposed GPA intensity of approximately 905,600 square feet of development. This alternative is also closer in development intensity to the surrounding uses and is approximately two times more intense than the surrounding planned uses. Man Made Hazards Development of this alternative would not result in any concerns with regards to man-made hazards. Although there may be a potential for storing hazardous materials in some of the commercial uses (e.g., paints, thinners, 03/23/92(1:%HID101%SECT3C.ER) 4-11 1000 905,600 z 900 w Z 800 H / w 700 0 600 J C:j CO 500 w o u- 400 325,000 O w 300 / w w 200 w j100 0 0 CG-1 Alternative 4.3 GENERAL PLAN LAND USE CG-1: Commercial General Sourcc: LSA Associatcs. Inc. 12/4/91(HIDIOI) Table 4.3.A Land Use Intensity LSA For Alternative 4.3 weed killers, etc.), such storage is not viewed as a significant issue according to the City fire and police departments and would be closely reviewed at site plan review. Consequently, man-made hazards would not be an issue with the implementation of this alternative. There is little benefit associated with this alternative when compared with the proposed GPA, because the pro- posed GPA, similar to this alternative, does not present any significant issues with respect to man-made hazards. Housing/Population/Employment Implementation of this alternative would create jobs from the commercial uses; for 325,000 square feet of commercial uses the project would have ap- proximately 650 employees. As with the proposed GPA, this alternative would not achieve the General Plan land use objective for the project site, which is RU-1 (Urban Residential). Conversely, this alternative would be incrementally beneficial to the subregional jobs/housing balance by incre- mentally adding jobs to an employment poor condition, although not to the same extent as would occur with the proposed GPA. Similarly, this alterna- tive would have a slightly negative effect on the local City jobs/housing bal- ance by contributing jobs to a locally job rich condition, while removing housing that could have potentially added to the affordable housing stock in the City. Nonetheless, this alternative positively contributes to the regional jobs/housing balance, and also contributes to the City's objective of creating additional jobs, despite the current local job rich condition. Public Service and Utilities This alternative would have the same effect on public services and utilities when compared to the project, but would be proportionately reduced due to the reduction in development intensity. Consequently, this alternative would be superior to the proposed GPA due to a reduction in the amount and demand for public services and utilities. Aesthetics Similar to the proposed project, this alternative would alter the site from its presently undeveloped condition to commercial development. Similar to the proposed GPA, the buildings would be expected to be a maximum of approx- imately 30 feet in height, taking up no more than 25 percent of the gross site acreage. It would also be expected that the 29.7 acre parcel would be com- bined with the adjacent 7.1 acre CG-1 parcel to form a single site plan. It should be noted, however, that the 7.1 acre parcel could have a substantially greater development intensity than the 29.7 acre parcel due to the CG-1 land use status. In summary, this alternative would have similar effects on area aesthetics, including adjacent and freeway views, when compared with the project. The predominant difference would focus on the reduced building 03/23/92(1:%HID101••.SECT3C.EM) 4-13 bulk for this alternative compared to the potential bulk in the proposed GPA. This alternative would represent an incremental reduction in ambient light when compared to the proposed GPA, due to the reduction in development intensity and resulting reduction in signage or parking lot lighting as a smal- ler commercial center. Tra ffli Section 3.9, Traffic and Circulation section, includes a detailed discussion of the traffic effects from the applicant's Concept Plan on the area circulation network. In conclusion, although the Concept Plan will generate a total of 16,300 vehicles per day, mitigation is available to mitigate Concept plan traffic plus background conditions for the years 1996 and 2001. Air Quality Implementation of this alternative would create similar short-term, construc- tion related air quality impacts as would the proposed GPA. Decreased traffic levels would, however, result in an incremental reduction in emission levels compared with the GPA. Specifically, CO threshold criteria would not be exceeded. Like the proposed GPA, this alternative would generate jobs in a housing rich subregion and would assist in balancing the jobs/housing ratio, which would reduce vehicle miles travelled, a major Air Quality Man- agement Plan objective. Noise Noise from construction activities would be similar to that generated by construction of the proposed GPA. As shown on Table 3.11.C, future noise levels modelled for the Concept Plan are below the threshold standards established by the City. Also as illustrated in Table 3.11.C, due to the de- crease in ADT, this alternative would result in less traffic noise when com- pared with the proposed GPA. Conclusions Compared with the proposed GPA, this alternative would result in incremen- tal reductions in traffic, noise, air quality and aesthetics effects. For traffic impacts, unlike the proposed GPA, this alternative does not result in any traffic impacts that cannot be mitigated. However, the EIR identifies that all of the project's effects to these topics can be mitigated to a level below significance. Under this alternative, similar impacts are anticipated to land use compatibility due to the similarity in characteristics between commercial uses for the proposed GPA (as mitigated) and this alternative. 03/23/92(1:••.HID101••.SEC13C.EM) 4-14 4 ALTERNATIVE SITE ANALYSIS Evaluation of alternative off-site locations for development of the proposed project was undertaken in response to the outcome of the Citizens of Goleta Valley versus Board of Supervisors (1988) 197 Cal. App. 3rd 1167, 242 Cal. Rptr. 339, as refined by the most recent case ruling [Citizens of Goleta Valley versus Board of Supervisors (1990), 91 Daily Journal DA.R. 1291. An alterna- tive site analysis was conducted to identify other potentially feasible sites which could accommodate the project development and which may be capa- ble of eliminating or reducing significant adverse environmental effects asso- ciated with the proposed project. An area encompassing potential alternative sites was selected through the application of the following primary screening criteria: • Alternative sites should contain at least 30 vacant acres as would be required to accommodate the type and size, as well as building cover- age and parking provision requirements of the commercial project proposed by the project applicant. • Due to the commercial nature of the proposed project, alternative sites should be both visible and easily accessible (i.e., proximate to a freeway interchange) from a major freeway. Additionally, alternative sites should be located within an area of sufficient market base to ensure project viability. For purposes of selecting a site within a common market area, the study area focuses on the Verdemont community and the west end of the City of San Bernardino. • While alternative sites need not necessarily have an existing commer- cial General Plan designation, project implementation on an alterna- tive site cannot be incompatible with surrounding existing and planned land uses. In the case of the proposed project, heavy indus- trial uses are considered incompatible. Therefore, alternative sites should not be designated or be adjacent to heavy industrial uses. Application of the above screening criteria defines the study area of potential alternative site selection to the I-215 corridor, between Devore Road near the San Bernardino city limits and University Parkway vicinity. This area general- ly has good access and visibility from the I-215 freeway, compatible land use designations, and available vacant parcels of sufficient size to accommodate the proposed project. Figure 4.4.2 illustrates the area considered for poten- tial alternative sites. Following the above criteria, three sites were selected for the alternatives assessment. These sites are also illustrated on Figure 4.4.2. The three sites are: Site 1 - is adjacent to Little League Drive (north-south alignment) and the I-215 Freeway; Site 2 - is southwest of the Palm Avenue/1-215 inter- change, located in between Cajon Boulevard and the 1-215 Freeway; Site 3 - is southwest of the University Parkway/1-215 interchange in between Cajon Boulevard and the I-215 Freeway. 03/23/92(1:-,HID101••.SECT3C.EM) 4-15 As discussed in Section 3.0, the project as proposed will result in potentially significant adverse impacts. Therefore, potential alternative sites should be assessed and recommendations based on the likelihood that the significant unavoidable project impacts identified in Section 5.3 will be substantially reduced or eliminated. Methodology and Secondary Criteria In accordance with CEQA, the discussion of alternatives need not be exhaus- tive; however, the discussion is required to produce information sufficient to permit a reasonable choice of alternatives so Far as environmental aspects are concerned. The following secondary criteria were developed to analyze the alternative project sites previously identified in Figure 4.4.1. 1. Alternative sites should not include sites that are currently occupied by urban development, sites for which a specific development pro- posal has been initiated within the last two years (and is currently being processed), or sites for which a development proposal has been approved. These sites are eliminated because the project could not occupy a developed site, and because sites with approved develop- ments include projects for which permits may have already been issu- ed, construction begun, and/or mitigation or other conditions of approval implemented. 2. Alternative sites should not be contained in any committed or dedi- cated open space area that has been or will be reserved for the gen- eral public. 3. Alternative sites should have an existing General Plan designation which allows some level of commercial use. However, the necessity for a General Plan Amendment to allow these uses would not preclu- de a site from consideration, as long as the site could accommodate a commercial development without resulting in land use incompatibili- ties with existing or proposed uses in the site vicinity. It should be noted that an EIR is not ordinarily an occasion for the reconsidera- tion or overhaul of fundamental land use policy. 4. Alternative sites should not be located within an Alquist-Priolo Special Studies (earthquake) Zone. 5. Alternative sites should not be substantially located within the 100- year floodplain. Application of Screening Criteria/Results The above criteria were applied to the following alternative sites as presented in Figure 4.4.1. 03/23/92(1:••.HM101%SEMCEIR) 4-16 f ��• L l\ /( • _9 % ----1 • P�r,� 98 Ry ~ • \� Ohi 0 O L Ole \ •• IL\� '�� iQ � .i 4 1 F.� \ � tudy1 Arca For Alternative Sitcs m , , -� '�, • arc ' PROJECT LOCATION �� iE •• C, _1"�L R,L' , � � for /�. •-trs � Rs� or �. Q Alternative Site Locations K ` «//t�✓ try rr) Source. city or San Bernardino Gcncral Plan 12/4/91(HIDlol) Figure 4.4.1 LSA Scale in Feet mm%mmmm� Alternative Site Locations • Site 1 - This site has a General Plan designation of Residential Estate (RE, 1.0 dwelling units per gross acre). Existing adjacent land uses include: a single family residence and pet cemetery to the south and vacant land to the west, low density residential to the north and the Little League complex to the east. Vacant lands are planned for Resi- dential Estate densities or Residential Low densities. The site is not within an Alquist-Priolo fault zone. This site lies within the Cable Creek 100-year flood plain. • Site 2 - This site has a General Plan designation of Industrial Heavy (IH). It is located in an area that is developing into industrial uses and is served by a private roadway called Industrial Parkway. The area is well suited for industry due to proximity of rail and freeway facilities. Portions of this site have been developed as industrial. The site is immediately adjacent to the 1-215 Freeway (north) and is sur- rounded by planned industrial uses to the east, south and west. In addition, further south of this site is land planned for mineral extrac- tion. The site is not within an Alquist-Priolo fault zone, but is tra- versed by faults with only approximate locations established, which warrants the possibility for additional evaluation. The site is not located within a 100-year flood plain. • Site 3 - This undeveloped site is located on property utilized by Culligan Water for drying pearlite used in water softening agents. In the past, the pearlite has been spread in drying beds across the prop- erty. Culligan no longer actively utilizes this property for drying bed purposes. The site has a General Plan designation of Industrial Light (IL). Portions of the site are occupied by buildings that support the Culligan operations. To the north of the site is a topographical hill- side feature that is planned for Industrial Light uses but also is restricted by the Hillside Overlay Management District. This hillside feature screens a significant portion of the site from the 1-215 free- way, and is completely screened from the University Parkway/1-215 Interchange. Therefore, site visibility is low, seen only from certain freeway vantages immediately east and south of the site. To the southwest of the site is Cajon Boulevard and the Santa Fe Rail Road line. Further west and south are low density, rural residences devel- oped in clusters (i.e., randomly developed among vacant lots). To the northwest is vacant property. General Plan designations for the area include Commercial General, Commercial Heavy and Office Industrial Park. The site is not within an Alquist-Priolo fault zone, but is tra- versed by faults with only approximate locations established, which warrants the possibility for additional evaluation. The site is adjacent to (southeast of) a retention basin (within the 100-year flood plain) but is not located within a 100-year flood plain. With application of the criteria, Alternative Site 1 is eliminated from consider- ation because development of this site would likely result in similar or great- 03/23/92(1:••.HID101••.SEMC.EM) 4-18" er impacts to hydrology (due to 100-year flood plain intrusion). Since the purpose of selecting an alternative project site would be to reduce impacts associated with the proposed project site, and since Alternative Site 1 does not accomplish this purpose, this site is eliminated from further consider- ation. Sites 2 and 3 would have similar effects as the project. Both sites would likely warrant roadway improvements due to the increase in development intensity and attendant traffic increases compared with the site's existing General Plan designations and lower traffic potential. For Site 2, the im- provements would be similar to those needed for the proposed GPA as Site 2 affects most of the same intersections as the proposed GPA. For Site 3, intersections and roadway improvements would be similar in magnitude to the proposed GPA, and would probably include freeway inter- change/intersection improvements and at Cajon Boulevard and University Parkway. In addition, for Site 3, future development in the immediate site vicinity would warrant significant roadway improvements due to the project- ed cumulative development intensity for that area. Both Site 2 and 3 have been disturbed, although Site 2 contains some rem- nant vegetation cut off from other habitat communities by existing infrastruc- ture. Both sites would have similar air quality and noise affects due to their similar relationship to local roadways and the freeway. Both sites would require similar flood control improvements. Similarly, both sites would result in similar land use impacts due to land use intensity increases for CG-1 over either the IL or HL designation when compared with the project site. Alternative site 2 would have similar aesthetic effects when compared with the project site as there are no significant visual features in the vicinity of Site 2. For Site 3, the adjacent undeveloped hillside, if considered a significant visual feature, would be affected by development of the site due to its prox- imity to the site. For public services and utilities, the primary difference between the project site and the alternatives focuses on fire protection. Site 2 would, however, be subject to similar service problems when compared with the site due the similar distance and response time constraints. Two City fire stations and one Central Valley Fire District fire station are near Site 3. Consequently, it would be expected that Site 3 would be within an acceptable response time zone. Conclusion Because implementation of the project at these sites would require addi- tional amendments to the General Plan and because such additional amend- ments could negatively affect regional planning efforts (i.e., SCAG's demo- graphic forecasts designed to help attain regional and subregional jobs/housing balance goals), alternative Sites 2 and 3 do not eliminate any of the project impacts and, as such, are not superior to the proposed GPA site. 03/23/92(1:,.HID 101-%SECTS C.M) 4-19 5.0 CEQA RELATED TOPICS 5.1 GROWTH-INDUCING IMPACTS The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Section 15126(g), and Government Resources Code, Section 21100(g), requires an EIR to discuss the ways in which a project could foster economic or population growth, or construction of additional housing, either directly or indirectly. Growth inducing impacts are typically the result of providing urban services and extending infrastructure to an undeveloped area. Provision of these services can reduce development constraints to surrounding areas and may create opportunities for landowners in the vicinity to pursue development of their property that otherwise may not have occurred. However, since the proposed project will create an additional demand for housing, over and above the housing needs contemplated in the City of San Bernardino Housing Element and SCAG's Regional Housing Needs Assess- ment, the proposed project is indirectly growth inducing. Although project development would respond to an existing demand for commercial uses, new jobs would be created resulting in an in-migration of persons requiring housing in the vicinity (see Section 3.6, Population and Housing). This could indirectly foster the construction of heretofore non-contemplated additional housing within the City of San Bernardino. Thus, the proposed project will result in a significant unavoidable growth inducing impact. 5.2 IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENT OF RESOURCES The environmental changes produced by project implementation will occur mainly through physical alteration. Construction of the project will result in an irreversible commitment of building materials, water and electricity to the project. Project implementation will modify the existing surface relief of the site, resulting in a visual change of the site. As development occurs on the site, it is unlikely that the land will be returned to its current undeveloped status. There will be increased vehicular traffic, resulting in consumption of petroleum based fuels and a commensurate increase in air pollution as a result of vehicle pollutant emissions. Similarly, an increase in energy demand is expected for power and climate control, which will indirectly increase consumption of fossil fuels used in natural gas and electricity production, with commensurate increase in air pollution emissions. 5.3 UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS As a requirement of CEQA, Section 15126(b), the EIR must identify those unavoidable adverse impacts for which either no mitigation or only partial mitigation is feasible. These impacts are, therefore, inevitable consequences 03/13/92(1:••.HM101••SECT3C.EM) 5-1 inherent in the project and its ultimate construction. Potential project impacts have been discussed in Sections 3.1 through 3.11, and unavoidable adverse impacts are summarized below. POPULATION AND HOUSING A General Plan Amendment that changes the land use from residential uses to commercial uses will result in the removal of potential housing opportuni- ties, including the loss of affordable housing opportunities. In addition, there will be an indirect effect on housing demand due to the housing de- mand generated by new project employees. TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION With the implementation of a commercial project with a potential 0.7 floor area ratio and associated traffic generation, together with cumulative area traffic, will cause the intersection at Palm Avenue and Little League Drive to operate an level of service E in the AM peak hour. This service level exceeds the acceptable limit for traffic impact in the City of San Bernardino. AIR QUALITY With the increased traffic generation expected from the General Plan Amend- ment and the cumulative area development, the 8-hour carbon monoxide State standard will be exceeded for the location defined by Palm Avenue and Cable Creek (i.e., Air Receptor 1). This exceedance cannot be mitigated through conventional trip reduction strategies and is, therefore, a significant impact. 5.4 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LONG AND SHORT-TERM USES OF THE ENVIRONMENT AND MAINTENANCE AND ENHANCEMENT OF LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY CEQA Guidelines, Sections 15126(e) and 15127, and Government Resources Code, Section 21000(e), require EIRs to contain a discussion of the pur- ported reasons which justify proceeding with the project in the present, rather than reserving an option for further alternatives. The discussion must also examine the impacts which narrow the range of beneficial environmental uses or pose long-term risks to public health and safety. Justification for near-term development, rather than reserving the option of further alternatives, rests primarily on three points: 1) the proposed project meets the present need for "employment generating" commercial uses in close proximity to the rapidly developing, housing rich East San Bernardino Valley subregion and will positively affect the jobs to housing balance; 2) the 03/23!92(1:%HM101%SEC73C.ER) 5-2 increase in tax base revenue to the City of San Bernardino; and 3) develop- ment at any point in the future would produce environmental impacts similar to those associated with the present proposal. The site is surrounded by existing urban development. Therefore, the pro- ject will not narrow the range of beneficial uses of the environment, as these uses have previously been narrowed by virtue of adjacent development. Additionally, no health or safety impacts from the project have been identi- fied. 03/23/92(1:••.HID101,-SEC13C.EM) 5-3 6.0 ORGANIZATIONS AND PERSONS CONSULTED CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO Valerie Ross, Senior Planner Deborah Woldruff, Associate Planner John Hoeger, Economic Development Department SIERRA ENGINEERING Gary Hartzell STANLEYR. HOFFMAN ASSOCIATES Dennis Wambem 03/23/92(I:••.HID1o1%SEC13C.EIIt) 6-1 7.0 LIST OF PREPARERS Alan Rubin, Project Manager Bill Mayer Paul Mayo Kevin Fincher Karen Kirtland Pat Jertberg Ramzi Amari Sharon Downs Deborah Baer Mike Greene Rob Blough 03/23/'92(I:-.HID101••.SECT3C.EM) 7.1 8.0 REFERENCES Air Quality Management Plan, South Coast Air Quality Management District, July, 1991. Air Quality Handbook, South Coast Air Quality Management District, Revised, April, 1987. City of San Bernardino, General Plan Update, Technical Background Report, February, 1988, Envicom Corporation. City of San Bernardino General Plan Environmental Impact Report, March 24, 1989, Envicom Corporation. City of San Bernardino General Plan,June 2, 1989, Envicom Corporation. City of San Bernardino Development Code, May, 1991, Jacobson and Wack, Urban Design Studio. Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors, U.S. Environmental Protec- tion Agency, 19_. Draft City Projections, Southern California Association of Governments, February, 1987. Growth Management Plan, Southern California Association of Governments, February, 1989. Liquefaction Investigation, Inland Foundation Engineering, Inc. Preliminary Drainage Study, Sierra Engineering. Revised Regional Housing Needs Assessment, Southern California Association of Governments, December, 1988. 03/23/92(I:••.HID101••.SEC13C.EM) 8-1 1 -A Vol �?r VERDEMONT GPA 90-6 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT Volume II - Appendices March 23, 1992 Prepared for: City of San Bernardino Planning and Building Services Dept. 300 North D Street San Bernardino, CA 92418 Prepared by: Hogle Ireland Development Consulting Group 3403 10th Street, Suite 520 Riverside, California 92501 (714) 781-9310 LSA Project #H0101 TABLE Or CONTENTS FOR APPENDICES APPENDIX A - NOP, NOP DISTRIBUTION LIST AND COMMENTS APPENDIX B - LIQUEFACTION ANALYSIS APPENDIX C - DRAINAGE STUDY APPENDIX D - BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES INFORMATION APPENDIX E - CORRESPONDENCE APPENDIX F - TRAFFIC STUDY APPENDIX G -AIR QUALITY ANALYSIS APPENDIX H - NOISE DATA 1 APPENDIX A - NOP/NOP DISTRIBUTION LIST AND COMMENTS 03/19/92(1:•..HID101••.MASTER.DOC) CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DEPARTMENT INITIAL STUDY GENERAL PT.AW JkUgXpH= No. 90 6 Projec Des i2 i2., To change the land use designation from RU-1, Residential Urban and RL, Residential Low to CG-1, General'on approximately 32 acres of land in the Verdemo Commercial nt area, of to change the RU-1 land use designation to CN, Commercial Neighborhood. Project Locatic • This project is located between the extensions of Magnolia Avenue and Chestnut Avenue, north of Little League Drive and south of Irvington Avenue following the Cable Creek Flood Control Easement. D tes May 15, 1990 �clicant(s ) Name and Address Tom Flesh 11040 Santa Monica Blvd. , Suite 340 Los Angeles, CA 90025 PrO2ertY Owner(s) Name and Add esss Verdemont Associates P.O. Box 3925 Ontario, CA 91761 Initial Stu , Preoa sd by Deborah Woldruff, Associate Planner City of San Bernardino Department of Planning and Building Services J00 Nortn 'D" Street San Bernardino, CA 92418 1 . 0 INTRODUCTION This report is provided by the City of San Bernardino as an Initial Study for General Plan Amendment No. 90-6 which proposes to change the land use designation from RU-1 , Residential Urban and RL, Residential Low to CG- 1 , Commercial General on two contiguous approximately 32 acres, located between the extensionslof Magnolia Avenue and Chestnut Avenue, north of Little League Drive following the Cable Creek Flood Control Easement. Staff has proposed two alternative amendment Options of a land use designation as follows : Commercial General and CN, CG- 1, Commercial Neighborhood. The alternatives are explained more fully in Section 2 . 0 , Project Description . As stated in Section 15063 of the California Environmental Quality Act guidelines , the purposes of an Initial Study are to: 1 Provide the Lead Agency with information to use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) or a Negative Declaration; 2 • Enable an applicant or Lead Agency to modify a project, mitigating adverse impacts before an EIR is prepared, thereby enabling the project to qualify for Negative Declaration ; 3 • Assist the preparation of an EIR, if one is required, by: (A) Focusing the EIR on the effects determined to be significant, (B) Identify the effects determined not to be significant, and (C) Explaining the reasons for determining that Potentially significant effects would not be significant . 4 . Facilitate environmental assessment early in the design of a project ; 5 . Provide documentation of the factual basis for the finding in a Negative Declaration that a project will not have a significant effect on the environment ; INITIAL STUDY FOR GPA 90-6 6 . Eliminate unnecessary EIRs ; 7 . Determine whether a previously prepared EIR could be used with the project. 2 . 0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The applicant ' s request is to amend the City ' s General Plan Land Use Plan map to change the land use designation from RU-1, Residential Urban and RL, Residential Low to CG-1, Commercial General for a site located on the north side of Little League Drive between Chestnut Avenue and Magnolia Avenue. The site is comprised of two parcels of land, roughly rectangular in shape, consisting of approximately 32 acres combined (Assessor Parcel Nos . 261-181-01 and 261-181- 11 ) . The RU- 1 designation permits single and multi-family residential development at a density of 9 dwelling units per gross acre and RL permits single family development at a density of 3 . 1 dwelling units per gross acre. The CG-1 designation permits a diversity of community-serving retail and service uses, entertainment uses , and professional and financial Offices . Exhibit A is a site vicinity map. Exhibit B shows the land use designations and existing land uses in the area. Exhibit C shows Alternative 1 , the amendment requested by the applicant . Alternative 2 , as shown on Exhibit D would change only the RU-1, Residential Urban land use designation south of Cable Creek to CG-1, Commercial General . The land designated RL, Residential Low would remain the same. Alternative 3 , as shown on Exhibit E, similiar to Alternative 2 , would change only the RU- 1 land use designation to CN, Commercial Neighborhood. The land designated RL would remain the same. The CN permits local serving commercial uses which are generally less intensive than those permitted in areas designated as Commercial General . INITIAL STUDY FOR GPA 90-6 2 . 1 Amendment Site Characteristics The site is comprised of two, undeveloped parcels of land approximately 32 acres in size. The Cable Creek Flood Control Easement bisects the site at an angle across its northeast corner. The property fronts on Little League Drive between Chestnut Avenue and Magnolia Avenue. 3 . 0 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 3 . 1 Environmental Setting The site is roughly rectangular in shape with an uneven boundary on the north side. The property is undeveloped and slopes gently downward from the north/northwest to the south/southeast . Vegetation includes approximately 20 to 30 trees and shrubs of varying size and specie. Near the northern boundary, Cable Creek is approximately 40 feet wide and cuts across the site at an angle from the west/northwest to east/ southeast. The 100 year flood plain follows the boundaries of Cable Creek, an unimproved channel and the 500 year flood plain extends across the entire site. In addition to flooding, the property is subject to a number of other environmental constraints . The site is located in an area of high liquefaction and in Zone C of the Foothill Communities Protective Greenbelt Plan, an area of Moderate Fire Hazard. It is also located in a High Wind Hazard Area and in a Biological Resource Management District. The neighboring land north of the flood control easement and north Irvington Avenue is vacant and designated RL. Little League Drive forms the southern boundary of the site with I-215 running parallel and adjacent to it. East of the extension of Chestnut Street and south of Irvington Avenue is a small residential development of 1 + or - acre lots which is designated RE, Residential Estate. South of those homes and north of Cable Creek is a vacant parcel designated RL. Between Cable Creek and Little League Drive, east of the extension of Chestnut Avenue, is a parcel that is vacant and designated CG- 1 . The land located on the west side of the extension of Magnolia Avenue is designated PP, Public Park and is vacant adjacent to this site with the developed portion of Al Guhin Park to the west. Northwesterly of the site the land is vacant and designated PF, Public Facility. (See Exhibit B. ) %,QTY OF SAN BER144,,.ADINO PLANNING DEPARTMENT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT CHECKLIST A. BACKGROUND Application Number: Project Description: Location: LLCo d h� , �; Pr i � INC�rrk n¢ -�s��yt — 1 Environmental Constraints Areas: t General Plan Designation: Zoning Designation : ' B. ENVIBONMENTAL IMPACTS Explain answers, where appropriate, on a separate attached sheet . 1 . Ea1tbR.gs rces Will the proposal result in: Yes No Maybe a . Earth movement (cut and/or fill) of 10, 000 cubic yards or more? b. Development and/or grading on a natural slope greater than 15% grade. c • Development within the Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone? d. Modification of any unique geologic or physical feature? REVISED 12187 PAGE 1 OF 8 Yes No Maybe e. Soil erosion on or off the X project site? f. Modification of a channel , creek or river? g. Development within an area subject to landslides, mudslides, liquefaction or other similar hazards? h. Other? 2 . AIR_RESOURCES: Will the result in: Proposal a. Substantial air emissions or an effect upon ambient air quality? b. The creation of objectionable odors? C . Development within a high wind hazard area? 3 . WATER RESOURCES: proposal result in: Will the a. Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff due to impermeable surfaces? b . Changes in the course or flow of flood waters? X C. Discharge into surface waters or any alteration of surface water quality? d. Change in the quantity or quality of ground waters? e. Exposure of people or property to flood hazards? f . Other? X REVISED 12/87 PAGE 2 OF 8 YeS No Maybe 4. BIOLOGIQ RESOURCE,gr Could the proposal result in: a. Change in the number of any unique, rare or endangered species of plants or their habitat including stands of trees? b. Change in the number of any unique, rare or endangered species of animals or their habitat? C'CAL,4-nnu.�e�{vre�f- c. Other? - m,�n (t=5 Uue u ne) �_ 5 • NO_ISE_: Could the proposal result in: a. Increases in existing noise levels? b. Exposure of people to exterior noise levels over 65 dB or interior noise levels over 45 dB? c • Other? 6. LAND USE: Will the proposal result in: a. A change in the land use as designated on the General Plan? b . Development within an Airport District? c. Development within "Greenbelt" —�- Zone A,B, or C? d. Development within a high fire hazard zone? e. Other? REVISED 10/87 PAGE 3 OF a Yes wo Maybe 7. MAN-MADL HAZARDS: Will the project: a. Use, store, transport or dispose of hazardous or toxic materials (including but not limited to oil , pesticides, chemicals or radiation) ? b. Involve the release of hazardous substances? C. Expose people to the potential health/safety hazards? d. Other? 8 . -HOUSING: Will the proposal : a. Remove existing housing or create a demand for additional housing? in cUle is P nd d4 f�O nG� ,h� i C1 b. Other? !��+ !,,r,,n rc,r�l =� Pl omr- iz 9. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION: Could the proposal result in: a. An increase in traffic that is greater than the land use designated on the General — Plan? b . Use of existing, or demand for new, parking facilities/ structures? c. Impact upon existing public transportation systems? d. Alteration of present patterns Of circulation? e. Impact to rail or air traffic? f. Increased safety hazards to vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? REVISED 10/87 PAGE 4 OF 8 Yes No Maybe 9. A disjointed pattern of roadway improvements? h. Other? —ILL- 10- PUBLIC SERVICE'S Will the proposal impact the following beyond the capability to provide adequate levels of service? a. Fire protection? b. Police protection? x C . Schools (i .e. attendance, boundaries , overload, etc. ) ? d. Parks or other recreational facilities? e. Medical aid? f. Solid waste? X 9. Other? 11 . UTILITIES: Will the proposal : a. Impact the following beyond the capability to provide adequate levels of service or require the construction of new facilities? 1 . Natural gas? f 2 . Electricity? -- — 3 . Water? 4. Sewer? 5 . Other? b. Result in a disjointed pattern of utility extensions? C. Require the construction of new facilities? REVISED 10/87 PAGE S OF 8 �o"�!•�•+r!a r+waun Yes NO Maybe 12. AESTBEMS: a. Could the proposal result in the obstruction of any scenic view? b• will the visual impact of the project be detrimental to the surrounding area? c . Other? 13 . C-VW!RAL RF_SO R FS: Could the proposal result in: a. The alteration or destruction of a prehistoric or historic archaeological site? b. Adverse Physical or aesthetic impacts to a prehistoric or historic site, structure or object? V c. Other? CT �r En l r0 v1 Me 14 . Mandatory Findings of Significance (Section 15065) The California Environmental Quality Act states that if any of the following can be answered yes or maybe, the project may have a significant effect on the environment and an Environmental Impact Report shall be prepared. a. Does the project have the Potential to degrade the quality of the environment , substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate REVISED 10/87 PAGE 6 OF 8 Yes No Maybe important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? _ b. Does the project have the potential to achieve short term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? (A short-term impact on the environment is one which occurs in a relatively brief, definitive period of time while long-term impacts will endure well into the future. ) Y, C. Does the project have impacts which are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (A project may impact on two or more separate resources where the impact on each resource is relatively small , but where the effect of the total of those impacts on the environment is significant . ) _�- d. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? C. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION AND MITIGATION MEASURES (Attach sheets as necessary. ) i REVISED 10/87 PAGE 7 OF 8 INITIAL STUDY FOR GPA 90-6 3 . 2 Environmental Effects 3 . 2 . 1 Earth Resources l . a . At the project specific stage, it may be necessary to elevate the site to divert offsite drainage and to facilitate onsite drainage. The elevation of 32 acres (by fill ) could result in earth movement of more than 10 , 000 cubic yards . (Refer to Item 3 . 2 . 3 . Water Resources, 3 . b. , e. for discussion of preliminary drainage study) . l . e. , f. Soil erosion on or off the site may be occuring as a result of sheet flows from cable creek. This may be mitigated by modification of the channel . Refer to Section 3 . 2 . 3 . , Water Resources . 1 . g. The amendment site is not located in an Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone but is located in an area susceptible to high liquefaction. Inland Foundation Engineering, Inc . prepared a Liquefaction Investigation Report for the amendment site and a contiguous parcel to the east (AP No. 261- 182-10 ) . The engineer concluded that the liquefaction potential is sufficiently low and that no mitigation will be necessary. INITIAL STUDY FOR GPA 90-6 3 . 2 . 2 • Air Resources 2 .a. Presently, the site is not developed and has no effect on the air quality in the area. However, a 32 acre site developed either for residential or commercial uses could affect air quality because of increased air emissions in the area. However, an intensive commercial development would have a more substantial and detrimental effect. 2 . c. The amendment site is located in the High Wind Hazard Area. Because the site is undeveloped, amending the land use designations will not change or increase the wind hazard. Any future development on the site must be designed to minimize the effects of high winds and building construction must comply with all applicable City ordinances and State law. 3 . 2 . 3 . Water Resources Cable Creek is an easement that bisects the site at an angle across its north end. The 100 year flood plain is contained within the unimproved channel and designated Zone A by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) . The 500 year flood plain extends across the entire site and is designated Zone B by FEMA. INITIAL STUDY FOR GPA 90-6 3 . a. If the property were developed using the current residential land use designations , impermeable surfaces such as interior streets , sidewalks , driveways , building pads and perhaps , patios would be constructed. As a result , absorption rates would be decreased thereby increasing surface runoff. A large commercial development, however , would require extensive parking areas in addition to interior streets , sidewalks , driveways , building pads and would result in substantially decreased absorption rates . Surface runoff would be increased correspondingly. A preliminary drainage study was prepared by the applicant but it does not address potential changes in absorption rates or in the rate and amount of surface runoff due to impermeable surfaces as a result of future development . 3 . b.and e. The drainage study indicates that storm runoff from Cable Creek causes flooding on the site in the form of sheet flows . The specific mitigation will be determined at the project development stage based on the type of project being proposed. 3 . c. , d. As discussed in 3 . a. , either residential or commercial development would involve the construction of impermeable surfaces . However, a commercial development on the site would require more impermeable surface areas to facilitate parking, site circulation and pedestrian movement than would a residential development . Impermeable surfaces such as asphalt or concrete collect solid exhaust particulates and other air emission solids as well as engine fluids , residue from automobile tires and other chemical pollutants . During periods of rain, surface pollutants are washed into the water ways . Cumulatively, such pollutants can change the quality of surface and ground waters in an area . The quantity of ground water also can be affected because impermeable surfaces change water absorption rates . INITIAL STUDY FOR GPA 90-6 3 . 2 . 4 . Biological Resources 4 .a. , b. The site is within the Biological Resource Management District . A Biologic Report , prepared by Joe Gorman, Ph.D. Associates , indicates that the property lies within a band of Inland Coastal Sage Scrub Association on the southwest slopes of the San Bernardino Mountains . A contiguous Chaparral Association lies upslope. The site is covered by a number of trees , shrubs and grasses which the study describes as being native. While the biologic report does not list any unique, rare or endangered plants , the site investigation was done in mid March. As such, it is possible that many species of plants were not yet in evidence. According to the biologic study, actual sightings and evidence of various small mammals indicate the property is a habitat for Jackrabbits , Cottontails , Gophers , Ground Squirrels and possibly Coyote and Merriam' s Kangaroo Rat . The study also indicates that the site is visited by domestic horses, dogs and cats . A fair number of bird species were listed, as well . Also sighted were two species of lizard and several species of invertebrates , some of which remain unidentified. The Cable Creek Flood Control Easement was dry during the study and no fish were seen . The study offered several suggestions for mitigation of impacts relating to development of the site which conflict with storm drain improvements necessary to alleviate flooding concerns . Any future development could result in biological impacts . Prior to development , potential biological impacts should be evaluated with regard to the type and intensity of the proposed development . Mitigation measures resulting from the evaluation should be incorporated into the site design consistent with lessening the threat of flooding. 4 .c. Cable Creek is an intermittent stream (blue line) and as such, the California Department of Fish and Game will require permits for any modifications . INITIAL STUDY FOR GPA 90-6 3 . 2 . 5 . Noise 5.a- , b. Any future commercial development potentially would increase noise levels over the current residential designations . Proximity to I-215 will add to noise levels for any type of development . Mitigation would ensure that commercial uses are not subject to and don ' t create interior noise levels above 45 dBa and exterior noise levels above 65 dBa. 3 . 2 . 6 . Land Use 6 .a. The proposed amendment and alternative amendments will change the General Plan land use designation. 6 . c. The Foothill Communities Protective Greenbelt Plan places the site within Zone C, an area of Moderate Fire Hazard. The site also is located in a High Wind Hazard area. During periods of hot, dry weather, the risks of fire and rapid spreading of fire may be increased substantially by high winds . Development considerations are addressed at the project specific stage. 6 . e. A CG-1 land use designation on this site could generate up to approximately 975, 000 square feet of commercial uses based on the Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of 0 . 7. Section 15206 B. of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) categorizes shopping centers over 500 , 000 square feet as regionally significant. The FAR for the CN, Commercial Neighborhood land use designation is 0 . 35 which could permit up to 484 , 000 square feet of floor area. A shopping center this large is nearly of regional significance as defined in CEQA. INITIAL STUDY FOR GPA 90-6 3 . 2 . 7 • Man-made Hazards 7 .a. Commercial uses permitted by the CG- 1 and CN land use designations could result in the storage, sale and use of toxic materials on the site. Such materials could include paints , dry cleaning fluids , engine fluids , fertilizers and pesticides not normally found in quantity in residential areas . These types of issues are addressed at the project specific stage and mitigation measures are required when necessary. 3 . 2 . 8 • Housing 8 . b. Alternatives 1 , 2 and 3 would result in the loss of 230 Potential dwelling units from the City ' s future housing stock on undeveloped residential lands . However, commercial development on the site could cause an increase in the area ' s residential development by providing services attractive to home buyers . Commercial development also could influence other developers to request similar general plan amendments in the Verdemont area. 3 . 2 . 9 • Transportation/Circulation 9.a. The traffic study submitted by the applicant for the site indicates that at buildout, residential development would generate a maximum of 1 , 700 daily trips on Little League Drive and in the area. Little League Drive is designated as a collector street and can carry a maximum of 10 , 000 to 12 , 000 daily trips . Commercial development at buildout could generate up to 23 , 000 daily trips which would impact Little League Drive, the intersection at Palm and Kendall and the Palm Avenue Off ramp . The City' s traffic engineer feels that traffic concerns can be mitigated at the project specific stage. In either case, development on the site will result in increased traffic volumes which in turn , will cause increases in noise levels , traffic hazards and a decrease in the areas ' air quality. Cumulatively, these secondary impacts could be detrimental to the special character of the Verdemont area. INITIAL STUDY FOR GPA 90-6 9.c. Intensive commercial activity in the Verdemont area may affect the existing public transportation systems . However, an assessment of potential impacts is not possible until the project specific stage. 9. d. , f. Little League Drive is a collector street that is traveled minimally. A major commercial development having the potential to generate up to 23 , 000 daily trips would alter present circulation Patterns . Correspondingly, increased traffic volumes in the area will increase safety hazards to vehicles , bicyclists and pedestrians . 3 . 2 . 10 Public Services 10 a. , b. , e. Residential or commercial development will impact services for police and fire protection and medical aid. The nearest fire station , which also provides medical aid, is locatedapproximately 4 miles away at 1640 Kendall Drive. Police service is provided by the main police station, located in the downtown area, approximately 7 miles away. 10 . f. Commercial development generates more solid waste than does residential development . The City and its neighboring municipalities are approaching landfill capacity. Disposal and/or recycling of solid waste should be addressed. 3 . 2 . 11. Aesthetics 12 .a. The site is situated between I-215 and the San Bernardino Mountain Range in the vicinity of Cajon Pass . Any future development conceivably could obstruct scenic views from I-215 to the surrounding area. Much would depend on the specific site design and the proposed building heights and elevations . INITIAL STUDY FOR GPA 90-6 12 . b. Development plans will be reviewed for site and building design and landscaping at the project specific stage to ensure compatibility and quality design. 3 . 2 . 12 . Cultural Resources 13 . c. Commercial development of this size in the Verdemont Area could affect the social environment. A regional type shopping center would draw large numbers of people into the area on a daily basis . The result would be increased traffic and congestion , traffic hazards , noise, decreased air quality. 3 . 2 . 13 . Mandatory Findings of Significance 14 .c. The applicant ' s amendment proposal and staff' s alternative amendment proposals potentially would have impacts in all but one of the thirteen environmental categories included in the Environmental Impact Checklist . These potential impacts constitute primary and secondary impacts that would result from an actual commercial development on the site. The potential impacts of this amendment proposal may be individually limited, but the cumulative impacts may affect the unique character of the Verdemont area. The scope, intensity and long term implications of these impacts are not known. D. DETERMINATION On the basis of this initial study, aThe proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. The proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, although there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described above have been added to the project . A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. © The proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO, CALIFORNIA f. l`'lo�T on Y 0a&- Name and Title Si ature Date: REVISED 12/87 PAGE 8 OF 8 CST ur- SAN B- EA A- iiu GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. O-6 [TITLE Land Use Designations and Existina Use PF (Vacant) RL RL (Vacant) (Vacant) R L R PP C in le I a ly) (Vacant) RL cant) CG-1 —_.__ (_���, •� (Vacant) IL IL EXHIBIT B CIT l OF b A N BED, 'ARuit f6--- GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. O-6 TITLE Alternative 1 *IQq L to Cr-1 Hfli .. .. \: EXHIBIT C CIT OF SAN ritf " ARDIN ► GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO.TITLE Alternative 2 ................. . Ll d1Q � 3;ieeecciics?e �c:c:. S1riti6TOM sT. iN S1A�E� EXHIBIT D CIT ,. OF SAN BE h- Scott Shira, Planning Manager San Bernardino Unified School Local Agency Formation Commission Planning & Development 175 West 5th Street 777 North "F" Street Second Floor San Bernardino, CA 92410 San Bernardino, CA 92415-0490 William Shum City of Rialto CSUSB Planning Department Facilities Planning 150 South Palm Avenue 5500 University Parkway Rialto, CA 92376 San Bernardino, CA 92407 Helen Kipzynski City of Fontana 8150 Cable Canyon Road Planning Department San Bernardino, CA 92407 8353 Sierra Avenue Fontana, CA 92335 Barbara Sky & Chris Saldecke Harris Street Bernardino, CA 92411 County of San Bernardino Jerry Long Land Management Department Southern Calif. Edison Company 385 North Arrowhead Avenue Inland District San Bernardino, CA 92415-0180 287 Tennessee Street Redlands, CA 92372 Russ Colliau State Clearinghouse Office of Planning & Research 1400 Tenth Street Sacramento, CA 95814 Richard Malacoff San Bernardino County Caltrans/Environmental Review Planning Department Transportation Planning, Br. B East Valley Planning Team P.O. Box 231 385 North Arrowhead Avenue San Bernardino, CA 92402 San Bernardino, CA 92415 Kenneth Guidry, Chief San Bernardino County Flood Control District 8" East Third Street ernardino, CA 92415 STATE OF CALIFORNIA :If(�T�;!S ��C 1�!✓ PETE WILSON, Governor GOVERNOR'S OFFICE OF PLANNING AND RESEARCH 1400 TENTH STREET " SACRAMENTO. CA 95814 S E P 2 7 �9y1 C'' i�� d'-HNARDINO DATE: Sep 25, 1991 DE1, _ i_A;;r.;raC- t, TO: Reviewing Agency RECEIVED RE: CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO's NOP for BY L.S.n in)(; GPA #90-02 OCT 0 3 1991 SCH # 91092082 Attached for your comment is the CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO's Notice of Preparation of a draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the GPA #90-02 . Responsible agencies must transmit their concerns and comments on the scope and content of the EIR, focusing on specific information related to their own statutory responsibility, within 30 days of receipt of this notice. We encourage commenting agencies to respond to this notice and express their concerns early in the environmental review process . Please direct your comments to: DEBORAH WOLDRUFF CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO 385 NORTH D STREET SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92418 with a copy to the Office of Planninq and Research. Please refer to the SCH number noted above in all correspondence concerning this project. If you have any questions about the review process, call Russell Colliau at (916 ) 445-0613 . Sincerely, David C. Nunenkamp Deputy Director, Permit Assistance Attachments cc: Lead Agency AT 1 z _ 0 pp, CoC p = Z Zt FYar�'i •��• ��'� yyC�'� �O<P<� ,�oomVt. (<j D�<� W t�<.°O. n y$:° C (; atlas < a< ?< v '��U'� i�im Y.0 u > -° b � > U r g O °v < up z .� b9� �jai $ « b 6c�= < a _ r.`. if ocedo �N stP �z� s np Jyy�_ Q ppN� Nf'� HL:NVf UmH� Z ud��N `7 N O ❑ 3N H 0 L OGX"r❑ 0 �� = e o El 7 U9 N u o 8� Iv -� 6x� a m w a a =M y°c ° t H a1° a moGa v 3 e as M. 3 U $ aS� . � rs : 6 ynp SN = �a s^ Nil O }� YNap �C.10 3 Y Y j eV 7�...-Cx rf w y�7 Q t ■ H ,f°OOV ° i 7 9 13 C4 op�H 0 �e� Z ` • o .2 p ��+f -.t !�^V+ s3' m teee' °3 —yP y C' rv�P a I fi rnP <Oy 5$ is a ?1.>C J • C 3. H b ll m ' A : HP <HdLNP OV1�O.vfP �tA�cdH _ ❑ ❑ M ❑ W ❑ N ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ m 1pp�1 3<� u pa0 m r HV M yyPn i.5...< U !� y f p'— at-2:! �gk V� l�� m C �r P' <r `906 6� L` PP �C' ri Cv s.u� .0 8< VD iju<� E' j( ri 9 7n ,u.o E.J� �o s 7e� m ;.y E s, Sm •P�n UN = «' n y0 =T <Or.�P aOm�,:� ■U'^ Yf�y-j.N r 0�2m act<8 c �i-yS� yco .r j :a.-o, L 4 �UQ -gmxE ,,�Sm 9� m arz N •em 6-a c 2 o.7r �C 5: CUU"nCHO �u'aHg �cSa $ c'�j 5�Q `Ser` s fi- --i5 �' �C f� 55 -� f •� �Usm.o <Uo:HFi �f:JO:�vS:p <CiNVIr El El ❑ ❑ ❑ m b gg h cE �p o b5 Ss e m 3p �J u� •cJ °•voi .7 Dams _b p m• � OC dU^ va`i � �0 N �iyai� Oyae � � g uo.. � 70 < � :�� as <°_T At �° � Uxa �Spca y6ji it�m sX < e �° <� �� of or(>m TdtP� t oyC7^ .11 � �ue '•`��U— i.0< din Y °�U 1� 9'y��°< ; j� 6< r��< " CUN 6E e f h H r 3H m $p pr. Y'7 Y iUy C C'r erUe^n iU... $QQQ NC XILI<4P R.� �Ha �rA 92❑ ❑ i ❑ ❑ - ❑ ❑ ❑ M P N N L N 6 p 8 - P O c 3y� g 8mp y r f daxcs �f Ix � u < a`4 7� E~ �a�p' � rV C�� 0� 9 a, eyyyc 359Q gi��3 �3 a8s"�9 '� �. •3g� E OZN > > p 5 N 7! N .- p Q •.5 N 3 >,Z 67 P SOB''�YYO[mEeg �ZN V >.•e C YiNP �i�f rlfy�VR ZVf e�fNf fP Z ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 1b G M ` STATI Of CAU"NIA— USINESS, TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSING AGENCY PlTE WItEON, DO»ngI DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION D13TRICT S. LO. BOX 231 &*N B/RNAROINO, CAUPORNIA P2402 TOO (714) 30460 October 7, 1991 r 08-8Bd-215-14 . 1 Ms. Deborah Woldruff City of San Bernardino 300 North I'D" Street San Bernardino, CA 92410 Dear Ms. Woldruff: Ganerbl plan Amdnriegnt (GPA) No-, 90-6 We have reviewed the above-referenced document and request consideration of the following comments: O A traffic study is needed for the Draft Environmental Impact Report and should include the following from a worst case scenario viewpoint: existing and future average daily traffic (ADT) volumes, traffic generation (including peak hour) , traffic distribution, analysis of peak hour demand and capacity using delay methodology for intersections along with current and projected Capacities of local roads and state highways Might be impacted. Specifically, impacts on State Route 215/Palm avenue Interchange and State Route 215/Little League Drive Overcrossing must be included. o Discussion of the impacts should also include traffic safety and any impact associated with the construction, maintenance, and operation of any anticipated highway improvements. In addition, the report should list the funding source of any potential improvements to the State highway. o Given the intense population growth coupled with increasing traffic congestion, demand mitigation programs are a necessary part of the solution to traffic congestion. The city of San Bernardino should develop a plan that facilitates the use of carpooling, vanpooling, public transit, and accommodations for both pedestrians and bicycles as mitigations for the effect Of cumulative traffic. Ms. Deborah Woldruff October 7 , 1991 Page Two o All commercial development within the project should form a Transportation Management Association (TMA) , which includes: flex-time work scheduling, compressed work week, and use of on-site rideshare coordinators. The Specific Plan should indicate preferential parking areas for those who rideshare and location and standards for bus bays at the discretion of the local transit company. o It is recognized that there its considerable public concern about noise levels adjacent to heavily traveled highways. Certain types of land use may not be appropriate near a major highway and/or may require special noise attenuation measures. Development of this property should include any necessary noise attenuation. We look forward to working with you in order to reduce overall, congestion throughout the area. If you have any questions, please call Tom Meyers at (714) 383-6946 or FAX (714) 383-4936. Sincerely, HARVEY J. SAWYER, Chief Transportation Planning San Bernardino County Coordination Branch I hAIVSPORTATION/FLOI i Iiuiv ii h0L DEPARTMENT \0III//*./ COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO � /ir PUBLIC WORKS GROUP 825 East Third Street • San Bernardino, CA 92415-0835 • (714) 387-2800 rii Fax No. (714) 387-2667 KEN A. MILLER September 27 , 1991 Director City of San Bernardino Department of Planning & Building Services 300 North D Street San Bernardino, CA 92418 File: 2-309/1. 00 Tract 10454 REFERENCE: ZONE 2 - CABLE CREEK CHANNEL - GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT - GPA#90-02 Gentlemen: Reference is made to your Notice of Preparation for GPA#90-02 dated September 4 , 1991, requesting the Flood Control District 's review and comments. The site is located adjacent to the District's Cable Creek Channel, between the extensions of Magnolia Avenue and Chestnut Avenue, in the northwest portion of the City of San Bernardino. We have recently reported on this zone change by letter dated May 29, 1990 (copy attached) . Our comments remain the same. We still have not received the review fee for this site. Our current Flood Hazard Review fee is $325 . 00. There will be no further review of, or permits issued for this site until this fee has been received. Should you have any further questions or need additional information, please feel free to contact Mike Fox of this office, or me at (714) 387-2515. Very truly yours, KENNETH D. Ry, Chief Water Resour s Division KDG:MLM:jm Attachment Document name: 5391 v i i 1�j1 TRANSPORTATION/Fl-Goa CONTROL COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDIN ��;�������� ENVIRONMENTAL DEPARTMENT ��� PUBLIC WORKS AGENCY 825 East Third Street • San Bernardino, CA 92415-0835 • (714) 387-2800 j \�� KEN A. MILLER May 29, 1990 ���� �\ Director File #: 2-309/1. 00 Tract 10454 City of San Bernardino Planning Department 300 North D Street San Bernardino, CA 92418 REFERENCE: ZONE 2 - CABLE CREEK CHANNEL - ZONE CHANGE - CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO Gentlemen: Reference is made to your agency comment sheet ^dated April 6, 1990 with accompanying property owner's map, requesting the Flood Control District's review and comments. The site is located adjacent to Cable Creek Channel , between Magnolia Avenue and Chestnut Avenue, in the northwest portion of the City of San Bernardino. Cable Creek Channel, which serves to outlet debris-laden flood flows from a large mountainous tributary area, has interim rail and wire improvements which will handle runoff from minor storms. The channel is not considered adequate to convey major flood flows due to serious debris and erosion potential . Serious erosion and flooding occurred along Cable Creek during the floods of 1969. Since there are very few structures within the Cable Creek Channel's overflow limits, this facility has been considered to provide an adequate level of interim protection for the area. Each new development within the channel 's tributary area may increase the frequency, volume and rate of flow in the channel. The increased frequency of flow greatly increases the channel's required routine maintenance. The increased volume and rate of flow during major storms not only adversely impacts the channel, but may increase the flood duration, limits and damages. with the proposed encroachment of development into the overflow limits and the increased runoff generated by the new development within the tributary area, the channel will no longer provide an adequate level of protection. The Flood Control District presently holds fee title on Cable Creek at this site, and easement through the site to Chestnut Avenue. That portion of the site lying within the Flood Control District's easement should be dedicated to the District in fee title. Page 2 May 29, 1990 ZONE 2 - CABLE CREEK CHANNEL The City Engineering Department and the Flood Control District are working together on what can be done to improve Cable Creek in this area. With the City's proposed construction of culverts at Palm Avenue and Little League Drive and the Chestnut Avenue Storm Drain, it will be necessary to provide, at a minimum, interim improvements along Cable Creek Channel. Unless permanent improvements are constructed, then either a building setback or onsite protection would need to be provided to protect any proposed development. It is further noted that the greater portion of the site is located in Zone B and the remainder in Zone A as determined by the Federal Insurance Administration (F.I.A. ) . Provisions for flood proofing the site per F. I .A. requirements should be coordinated with the City Engineer's Office. At time of development our recommendations would be as follows: 1. Each new development within the tributary area should be responsible for its fair share of cost for the needed improvements. Each new development should also address and mitigate any adverse downstream impacts on the channel and/or private properties from the increased flows generated by the new development. 2. In an attempt to protect and minimize structural damage resulting from erosion until permanent improvements are constructed for Cable Creek Channel, the Flood Control District recommends a minimum building setback of 100 feet from the existing Flood Control District right of way. This setback could be reduced if interim protection measures are constructed. 3. Development: within the overflow areas shall meet the latest flood insurance requirements including, but not limited to, elevation, compaction, and erosion protection of building pads and flood proofing utilities. It is assumed the City will at a minimum, enforce the latest F.I.A. requirements. Page 3 May 29, 1990 ZONE 2 - CABLE CREEK CHANNEL 4 . A six (6) foot block wall, chain link fence, or other Flood Control District approved barrier shall be constructed along the Flood Control District's right of way adjacent to the site. 5. A permit will be required for any encroachment onto Flood Control District's right of way, and a minimum of six (6) weeks processing time should be allowed. 6. Section 16. 0212 (g) of the County Code sets the fee for this review and analysis at $215. 00. This fee is to be submitted directly to the Flood Control District Office with an indication that it is for Flood Hazard Review of ID#4820, File # Tract 10454. The fee should be mailed to: San Bernardino County Flood Control District Water Resources Division 825 E. Third Street, Room 120 San Bernardino, CA 92415-0835 There will be no further review of, or permits issued for this site until the fee has been received. Should you have any further questions concerning this matter, please feel free to contact Jay J. Johnson of the office, or me at (714) 387-2515. Very truly yours, KENNETH D. G Chief Water Resources Division Transportation/Flood Control Department KDG:JJJ:MGM:jm Document name: 4820 C I T Y O F S A N B E R N A R D I N O INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM TO: MIKE GRUBBS, Senior Civil Engineer FROM: ANWAR WAGDY, Traffic Engineer SUBJECT: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT FROM RU-1 TO CG-1 LITTLE LEAGUE DRIVE; GPA 90-6 DATE: May 8, 1990 COPIES: File No. 13 .47 Although the submitted trip generation comparison for the referenced subject did not make a conclusive recommendation, I feel such a "worst case analysis" is reasonable. I conclude that the higher trips from the proposed zone change -could be accommodated by our normal mitigation measures when the actual project is submitted. There is plenty of reserve capacity on the adjacent street to accommodate this project. No significant adverse impact is expected. ANWAR WAGDY Traffic Engineer -- cc: Deborah Woldruff, Planning and Building Services r ' p M AY � FRI/ 0 9 CI SAj� N FR8�rrfitt if:N'T .1 STATE OF CALIFORNIA—BUSINESS, TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSING AGENCY GEORGE DEUKMEJIAN, GoNrnw DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT 8, P.O. BOX 231 SAN BERNARDINO, CALIFORNIA 92402 • TDO (714) 383-4609 April 9 , 1990 Development Review 08-SBd-215-14 . 4/14 . 6 Your Reference : GPA 90-6 Verdemont Associates City of Sari Bernardino 300 North "D" Street San Bernardino , CA 92418 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW Thank you for the opportunity to review the proposed general plan amendment located along north side of Little League Drive between Magnolia Avenue and Chestnut Avenue in the city of San Bernardino. This proposal is somewhat removed from an existing state highway . Although the traffic and drainage generated by this proposal does not appear to have a significant effect on the State highway system, consideration must be given to the cumulative effect of continued development in this area. Any measures necessary to mitigate the cumulative impact of traffic and drainage should be provided prior to or with development of this area. We have no specific comment on this proposal . If additional information is desired, please call our Development Review Section at ( 714) 383-4671 . i H. N . LEWANDOWSKI District Permits Engineer Y M ivi� w,+w3 : M .2— 1 �1►1G1� 1 1 300 NORTH D" STREET S. B., CA. 92418 (7- .384-5057 L - - 0 AGENCY COMMENT SHEET' OOE HED IS A COPY OF: aerk..-al Plea Qrrir+dmenf CGPA 90-19� T DESCRIPTION: _ U.mk4 22 n avt• st ow essf-s ast&mli 90 (signal ) (do e) THIS APPLICATION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE CITY PLANNING DEPARTMENT AND THE -ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE. PLEASE REVIEW THE EN- CLOSED MAPS AND RETURN THIS SHEET WITH YOUR COMMENTS AND/OR RECOMMENDATIONS BEFORE THE E. R.C. DATE. IF DISAPPROVED, PLEASE STATE REASONS. KEEP THE ATTACHMENT FOR. YOUR FILES IF YOU SO DESIRE. E.R.C. DATE Te PLANNING COMMISSION 0ATE'Zo6e& erj%j ed THE FOLLOWING RECOMMENDATIONS APPLY TO THE ABOVE RENCED IIEMG9) L) APPROVAL DENIAL APR 01 1990 D_EV i i I (signature) (agency) (date) ACT'>tt .q ERC Mom K CITY OF SAN ERNARUINO FLANN, G UtPAH- 'MENT 300 NORTH "D" STREET S. B., CA. 92418 (714) 384-5057 AG ENCY COMMENT SHEET]' ATTACHED IS A COPY OF: General PROJECT DESCRIPTION : L Z>rVi ndW!• At4h east-s��+if�easf nn'le. .�L.L•L�1- o i e�A � � (signal ) (da e) THIS APPLICATION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE CITY PLANNING DEPARTMENT AND THE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE. PLEASE REVIEW THE EN- CLOSED MAPS AND RETURN THIS SHEET WITH YOUR COMMENTS AND/OR RECOMMENDATIONS BEFORE THE E. R.C. DATE. IF DISAPPROVED, PLEASE STATE REASONS. KEEP THE ATTACHMENT FOR. YOUR FILES IF YOU SO DESIRE. E. R.C. DATE:_T'e PLANNING COMMISSION DATE j 7obldg!lyr,�ihed THE FOLLOWING RECOMMENDATIONS APPLY TO THE ABOVE REFERENCED: IIEM(S): APPROVAL DENIAL The developer will be required to furnish Southern California Edison Company two (2) copies of the final map, including title sheets, no later than two (2) weeks prior to recording the tract. The subdivider shall comply with all current regulations and rules of the Southern California Edison Comp filed the Public Utilities Commission for the installation of underg led with round any as fi overhead electric utilities within this tract. MAY 0 4 '1990 CIT{ ; -- _.. :T (signature) �� °� '9O (agency) (da e) OCT.'i6 ur ERC FORM K FOF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DEPARTMENT 300 NORTH "D" STREET S. B., CA. 92418 (714) 384-5057 G ENCY COMMENT SHEET ATTACHED IS A COPY OF : era; Y 2A i,.neft.?,,,,en4 CGPA 90-L-) PROJECT DESCRIPTION L P-06" Ae 41f neml Ran -I an 4wo ILS Zryi n Qvt• at an eesf-5604forasia n'It. e.. i A.P K 9d (signat ) (d THIS APPLICATION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE CITY PLANNING DEPARTMENT AND THE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE. PLEASE REVIEW THE EN- CLOSED MAPS AND RETURN THIS SHEET WITH YOUR COMMENTS AND/OR RECOMMENDATIONS BEFORE THE E. R.C. DATE. IF DISAPPROVED, PLEASE STATE REASONS. KEEP THE ATTACHMENT FOR. YOUR FILES IF YOU SO DESIRE. E.R.C. DATE:MGM d kli- uMI&PLANNING COMMISSION DATE=r°bede�e rrru hed THE FOLLOWING RECOMMENDATIONS APPLY TO THE ABOVE REFERENCED IIEM(S): O APPROVAL n DENIAL The San Bernardino City Unified School District is currently in the State School Building Program. Developer fees collected by the District are inadequate to finance a e costs associated with sc oo cons ruc ion. a is ric requests the establishment of a supplemental tee to tinance new school off-site improvements required by the an Bernardino and not considered eligible expense y CP State. Additionally, the District reques s L v, irk f establishment of a separate fee which will ge fa an mim v dUe for the purchase of a high school, mi e sc oo G elementary school sites in the Verdemont/Devore area. San Bernardino City Unified School District April 10, 1990 WgmVay4h.csb (agency) ' - j ( e) APR i V i..l rk e A PROJECT REVIEW RiOLTMG Ib: Kike Grrbbe . Engineenag -) Steve Lumak- Parks and Recz,r�o -N4ikel Paris - Fire Department Moe Emme e- Redevelo Pmt Agency Charles Dunham - Buildings Safety Key-.z. Sr_es - Refuse IIlis Williams . Water Depuu Rolm �'.aeit -Post' Moft Council Ward tkS Funwe?* { '� ENGUGMaNG From: Planning Department ems.-•-- IDebor&L A>.y, - , '990 Date: y b/90 IAA ldeaff NARDIN Attached Arc The Plans For : MUNICIPAL I ER D _ E.zempt From CEQA Subject To CEQA P%16C resp� by FT�, y/.l0/q 0 Tkis Item Has Been Scheduled For T3e DRC-ERC Meeting Cif ro be rtKt PROJECT DESCRIPTIO-N AAr UP af - 1 a t1fenuiv or uA Sam iwvd:2g: Ode op -i a CTIY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING JEPART'ME ryTq U PROJECT REVIEW ROUTING 4I,A�(9 / 9 TO: %ke Grubbs - Engineenn > > g (-� Steve Kupsak - Parks and R Mikel Park- Fire Department rcreatioo Moe Estevene - Redevelopment Agency Charles Dunham - Building,& Safety EIlis Williams - Water Department Kevin Barnes - Refuse Council Ward #S Robin Clark - Police Department Future Planning From: Planning Department e.xt. 5057 I)ebor46 v. S✓s. Date: Wo Waif Attached Are The Plans For: q F-Tempt From CEQA Subject To CEQA P leaSe respond by Fr%&4j, y/,a 0/q 0 This Item Has Been Scheduled For The DRC,'ERC Meeting Of dtflenitru� PROJECT DESCRIPTION Ile sf � G STATE OF CAUFORNIA - CALIFORNIA REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD PETE WILSON,Governor SANTA ANA REGION NOV 9 2010 IOWA AVENUE, SUITE 100 I, ] RIVERSIDE, CA 92507-2409 PHONE: (714)782-4130 i November 20, 1991 NOV 2 1 I�y� Ms. Deborah Woldruff City of San Bernardino 385 North D Street San Bernardino, CA 92418 NOTICE OF PREPARATION (NOP) OF DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (EIR), GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT (GPA) NO. 90-06, SAN BERNARDINO, SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, SCH # 91092082 Dear Ms. Woldruff: We have reviewed the NOP for this project. In response to the statutory concerns of this office, the Draft EIR should address the following: I. Water Quality A. Potential impacts of the proposed project on surface and groundwater quality: Construction activities (including grading) that could result in water quality impacts. Soil characteristics related to water quality (potential for erosion and subsequent siltation, increase or decrease in percolation) . - Impacts of waste generation, treatment and disposal. - Impacts of toxic substances handling and/or disposal (if appropriate) . B. Mitigation of Adverse Impacts. II. Water, Wastewater and Solid Waste Service A. Water - Availability of water for the proposed project. - Existing infrastructure: location of water supply lines, tie-ins. - Applications or permits required for water acquisition. - Impact or calculated project demand on water supply. Ms. Deborah Woldruff -2- November 20, 1991 City of San Bernardino B. Waste Disposal/Treatment - Types and amounts of waste materials generated by project. - Proposed waste treatment and disposal methods. Existing infrastructure: * treatment facilities: location, current capacity, treatment standards; master treatment facilities expansion plan (if appropriate) * treatment plant collector system; location of major trunk lines and tie-ins, current capacity * disposal facilities: location, capacity - Applications or permits required to implement waste disposal . - Impact of calculated project waste volume on capacity of existing and proposed treatment and disposal facilities. In addition, either a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit for any discharge of wastes to surface waters or a Waste Discharge Requirements (WDR) permit for any discharge of wastes to land will be required from this Regional Board. These discharges of wastes can be those associated with, but not limited to, dewatering during construction, dredging activities, or stormwater runoff from industrial areas, construction sites and/or facilities which use hazardous materials. Also, the new stormwater regulations, published by EPA on November 16, 1990 in the Federal Register (40 CFR Parts 122 , 123 and 124) , require a NPDES permit for runoff from construction sites of five acres or more. Any proposed use of reclaimed water will also require that a Report of Waste Discharge be filed with this office. Please note that the time frame for the issuance of a permit can be as long as 180 days from the time the permit application is accepted as complete. We look forward to reviewing the Draft EIR when it becomes available. If you have any questions, please call me at (714) 782- 3292 . Sincerely, <Z:;4 Augustifle nijielo, Water Resources Control Engineer Regulations Section cc: Russell Colliau, State Clearinghouse AEA17/4069sbc.nop APPENDIX B - LIQUEFACTION ANALYSIS 03/19/92(1:1.HID101 •N ASTER.DCC) q 0 LIQUEFACTION INVESTIGATION LITTLE LEAGUE DRIVE & CHESTNUT AVENUE SAN BERNARDINO, CALIFORNIA INLAND FOUNDATION ENGINEERING, INC. Consulting Soil Engineers `� San Jacinto,California LIQUEFACTION INVESTIGATION LITTLE LEAGUE DRIVE & CHESTNUT AVENUE SAN BERNARDINO, CALIFORNIA Prepared for: Safety Investment Company 11040 Santa Monica Boulevard Suite #340 Los Angeles, California 90025 Prepared by: Inland Foundation Engineering, Inc. 1310 South Santa Fe Avenue San Jacinto, California 92383 March 7 , 1990 �AGN0Lt W �MtlE i IIIIIIUIInnJIUt!llwue!iu–,+� ,�� '— �� Z *"4k loop'� to r r SL w J. J. n 0 c J rD -h d J r n m a rD J CL �\ cu c P4 cn v � �• r<D a d 9v W 7o 0) < Vf 0 P-0 ry p rD J — G �. o m o Q° o -1 � `t n m Z -' rD O a O a in n C-t 0 �• �+ w -n �• rD P C � 7J c m rD z n o ;30ring No. 1 Project No. 26-001 projectLittle League & iestnut Date 11/7/89 ,ample Types S .P .T. 2," I .D . Rings Hammer Weight 140 lbs -Drop 30 inches SOIL PROPERTIES sample moisture dry relative soil depth S `D -jil description and remarks content density compaction type P percent lbs/cf percent ° T - -0 8 Silty sand , fine to medium, vrith 2. 1 109.5 - 8 Igravel , brown. 6 9.9 89.4 - Shl Z 5 3 I 9 4 8 11 3.0 119.3 _ 16 10 18 19 I Silty sand, medium to coarse, with 15 12 gravel , with trace of metamorphic 2.7 116.9 - 21 schist. 50 I 20 4 8.1 - - 6 31 I 25 4 7 .7 - - Sri X 6 i 11 4.0 30 8 - - 4 Possible mottling. 1 i 14 I - 35 17 I Possible mottling. 3.8 - - i 0 1 I Possible mottling. 2.5 - - 40 21 33 I 49 41.5 Feet - End of Boring 45 1 I BORING L O G Liquefaction Investigation Figure Little League Drive & Chestnut Avenue No. Inland Foundation Engineering, Inc. San Bernardino. California 1 Boring No. 3 Project S326-001 Project Little Lear & Chestnut Date 11/7/89 Sample Types S .P .T. 2," I .D . Rings llarnmer Weight 140 lbs . Drop 30 inches SOIL PROPERTIES sample moisture dry relative soil depth S soil description and remarks content density compaction type percent lbs/cf percent T.1 Silty sand, fine to coarse, with trac of gravel , brown. 5 7 0 9 10 5.8 - - 15 6 10 17 20 17 3.9 - - Z7 Z5 6 Sand, medium to coarse, with trace 5.2 - - 1 9 1 of silt, brown. - 30 8 2.7 - - 12 if lE Evidence of mottling. 2.2 - - Zf Sand, medium to coarse, with trace of silt, brown. 40 2.8 - - 45 41.5 Feet - End of Boring BORING L O G Liquefaction Investigation Figure Little League Drive & Chestnut Avenue No. Inland Foundation Fngineering, Inc. San Bernardino, California 3 222IIIIIiiti2t2222IItSi222ttttt2ttltllt2t22 3 I I PETAL2 - IBM-PC VERSION t t I t PEnetraticn Testing And Liauefaction, I I An Interactive Computer Progras I I I t Program By: Albert T. F. Chen, t 1 U.S.G.S., O.E.Y.E. t 1 t I Progras Adapted to Run on IBM-PC by: I I Thosas F. Blake, C.E.G., P.E. I 1 September 12, 1986 t I t 3IIttII122I2ItI2122t1I2ttIlt22322tiltllt222 Safety Investment - 5326-001; BORING NO. 1 The site consists of 1 layers w/ depths, saturated and wet densities: - 1 -41.5 (ft) 130.0 (pcf) 120.0 (pcf) Input eq. sag.= 8.50 Max. acc. = .54 9 Design ground water table depth = 30.0 ft. Testing ground water table depth = 50.0 ft. SPT haszer efficiency assigned = .78 Count Depth Design stress (psi) Testing stress (psi) SPT blow Fic2/gravel Remark (ft) effective total effective total count content i 30.0 3600.0 Z�Ivo.0 3600.0 3600.0 36.0 .25 3938.0 411150.0 4200.0 Q00.0 71.0 3 40.0 4276.0 4900.0 4800.0 4800.0 81.0 .25 Count Death Modified Relative In-situ Liauefaction Factor Fore pre__. Correction (ft) 1.c, NI d2-,sity stress ratio stress ratio of safety ratio applied 1 30.0 37.2 .97 .32 1.99(NA) 4.99(NA) .00 L 35.0 67.9 1.00 .34 1.99(NA) 4.99(NA) '00 3 40.0 12.5 1.00 .35 1.99(NA) 4.99(NA) .00 I t ;A = Not acplicab'.2 or no. accurate 12 Inland Foundation Engineering, Inc. 2IJIIt1iIiIiIIIItiI ilf3Ifltti2212tIttt2II2f 1 3 3 PETAL - IBM-PC VERSION t I t 1 PEnetration Testin; And Liq::efaction, 1 I An Interactive Co:outer Program 1 I 2 t Progran By: Altert T. F. Chen, 1 3 U.S.G.S., O.E.V.E. 2 1 1 I Program Adapted to Run on I°M-PC by: 1 t The:as F. Blake, C.E.G., P.E. I 3 September 12, 1996 1 2 1 221It2212tIIt221it22I2tt2t2It2ttii1l2tI2222 Safety Investment - S326-0101;BORING NO. 3 The ssite consists of 1 lavers w/ dept�s, saturated and wet densities: 1 42.0 (ft) 130.0 (pcf) 1 pcf) Input e.. cag.= ?.�0 Max. acc. _ .54 9 Oesicn ground water table depth = 30.0 ft. Testing ground water table depth = 50.'9 ft. SPT hamaer efficiency assiened = .18 Count Depth Design stress (psf) Tacting stress (psf) SPT blow F /gravel Remark (ft) effective total effective total --cunt content 1 '0.0 3000.0 3600.0 3600.0 3600.0 30.0 .25 4250.0 4200.0 4200.0 62.0 .25 1i).0 416.0 4900.0 4900.0 4800.9 91.0 .25 Count Cepth Mcaified Relative I^-situ Liquefactian Factor -ore press. Correctizn 'ft) o 11 ` density/ 5 l.---- :.� ratio stress ratio of safety ratio 1 `.0 '1.'': .S1 .32 1.99(NA) 4,99(NA) nn 1.00 74 1.97INA) 4.99(NA) .00 4;1.9 91.5 1.00 .35 1.7901A) 419901A) 00 1 t = Ict appl:cacle cr -,ot acc;.ra;= it Inland Foundation Engineering, Inc. APPENDIX C - DRAINAGE STUDY 03/19/92(1:-,1D101 MASTER.DOC) PRELIMINARY DRAINAGE STUDY COMMERCIAL CENTER NORTH OF LITTLE LEAGUE DRIVE BETWEEN MAGNOLIA AND CHESTNUT AVENUE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY -- ------- ------- H i °e°° QOM�S�• NETH A. POWERS RCE 33820 ' <R.C.E:• 33820 s° j ° E�(P. 6/36/90 e�i i METHOLOGY The following criteria has been used to analyse the probable storm flows impacting the project site. 1. Data Source: San Bernardino County Hydrology Manual . 2 . Rational Method of calculation used. i3 . 100 year storm frequencies calculated. ANALYSIS OF OFFSITE DRAINAGE 1. The proposed site being located to the south side of Cable Creek Channel and east of Magnolia Avenue, with the northern boundary at the flood control right of way, a major offsite will be impacting the proposed site from the North. With the existing unimproved Cable Creek Channel and based on the approved master hydrology analysis for Verdemont area, Cable Creek Channel is inadequate to convey the storm water in the 100 year storm. Therefore the excess storm water not intercepted by the channel will be washing out the proposed site. 2 . Based on the Master Hydrology Study, a 12 , 750 CFS of storm runoff in Cable Creek Channel are impacted at Magnolia Avenue which is the site northern boundary. Only 10, 475 CFS can be intercepted by Cable Creek Channel at that location based on the channel existing section. Thererfore, 2 , 500 CFS will be sheet flowing and flooding the proposed site. 3 . A proposed scour wall along the north boundary of the site from Magnolia Avenue to Chestnut will be a solution for protecting the proposed site. 4 . Another solution will be to improve Cable Creek Channel rbased on the ultimate condition to convey the storm water downstream the channel into proposed box culvert on Palm Avenue. A rectangular concrete channel with 60 feet wide and 10 feet deep will be adequate to intercept the Q100, or a trapezoidal rock lined channel 50 feet wide and 14 feet deep with a 2 : 1 side slope will also be adequate to intercept and convey the Q100. 5. Also, improvement of Cable Creek Channel between Little League Drive and Magnolia Avenue will also be required since that section of the channel is not adeqaute to intercept the storm runoff or the proposed site has to be elevated so Magnolia Avenue will be an interceptor for the offsite drainage impacting the propoosed site from the vacant land to the west of the site and south of Cable Creek Channel. ANALYSIS OF ONSITE DRAINAGE 1. Most of the onsite storm water from the development will be conveyed east on Little League Drive. This runoff will then be intercepted by Cable Creek Channel downstream west of Palm Avenue. pqcA allyggoft VAR*&A i -J1 . r so Q n it a PitoralklONAL (� w 1 orrle[l %XY 141 wAloeN eooltl � MUl=c rLUl , 694 r,0 PAOM ►tnN1�1+ON VVV""" .TTT..____"` _.. — ..... PA,drW1 SN.c o w � . s San Bernardino County Rationa- Hydrology Program (Hydrology Manual Date - August 1986) CivilCADD/Civi1DESIGN Engineering Software, (c) 1990 Version 2 . 2 Rational Hydrology Study Date: 2/21/90 ********* Hydrology Study Control Information ********** ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Rational hydrology study storm event year is 100 . 0 Computed rainfall intensity: Storm year = 100 . 00 1 hour rainfall p = 1. 450 (In. ) Slope used for rainfall intensity curve b = 0. 6000 Soil antecedent moisture condition (AMC) = 3 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 1. 000 to Point/Station 2 . 000 **** INITIAL AREA EVALUATION **** COMMERCIAL subarea type Decimal fraction soil group A = 0. 000 Decimal fraction soil group B = 0. 000 Decimal fraction soil group C = 0. 000 Decimal fraction soil group D = 1. 000 SCS curve number for soil (AMC 2) = 75 . 00 Adjusted SCS curve number for AMC 3 = 91. 00 Pervious ratio(Ap) = 0 . 1000 Max loss rate(Fm) = 0 . 017 (In/Hr) Initial subarea data: Initial area flow distance = 1850 . 000 (Ft. ) Top (of initial area) elevation = 1750. 000 (Ft. ) C Bottom (of initial area) elevation = 1700 . 000 (Ft. ) Difference in elevation = 50. 000 (Ft. ) Slope = 0. 02703 s (%)= 2 . 70 TC = k(0. 304) * (length^3)/ (elevation change) ] ^0 . 2 Initial area time of concentration = 12 . 688 min. Rainfall intensity = 3 . 683 (In/Hr) for a 100. 0 year storm Effective runoff coefficient used for area (Q=KCIA) is C = 0. 896 Subarea runoff = 101.716 (CFS) Total initial stream area = 30. 830 (Ac. ) Pervious area fraction = 0. 100 Initial area Fm value = 0. 017 (In/Hr) End of computations, total study area = 30 . 83 (Ac. ) _ The following figures may be used for a unit hydrograph study of the same area. Note: These figures do not consider reduced effective area effects caused by confluences in the rational equation. Area averaged pervious area fraction(Ap) = 0 . 100 Area averaged SCS curve number = 75.. 0 N Jo. Date Sierra Engineering �7 CIVIL ENGINEERS • LAND SURVEYORS • LAND PLANNERS 91i4b.�l r'A A"/) DIVISION Of PROJECT 2000.INC. �E�S'Gvr By Sheet of -- � ill Ili II I ! .' : I ili � ! � Iilll 1' I� II it xt s�Ti<� C��s �� ��Twcfit/ /1"1g4.vcz'•�r' �'(/L-, /�,u.0 C1/� i✓.u' ��X. !3 I I � , Isr,j{ ,e9�IF j �I S = l II9 it , ) i q : I l I I I I III I I III I I � I i I ICI . ! I l I 11 I _ Iili 1i i I li Ii I I i I ill l ! i r � • • S• I . E.R•R•A• • E N G I N E E R I.N•G• Engineering - Surveying - Planning 25864 Business Center Dr. , Suite F Redlands, California 92374 •Telephone. (714) • 799�8080 .. Fax:( 714) 799-8070 • fro <------- ( 60. 00' ) ---------> - 1 -Total Depth ( 9 . 651 ) - -* * * * * * * * * * * * *- -Bulk Depth ( 7 . 651 ) - -* * * * * * *^^Water Surface ( 5 . 10' ) ^^* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Rectangular Open Channel ------------------------ Flowrate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 , 865 . 596 CFS Velocity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 . 044 fps Depth of Flow . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5. 100 feet Critical Depth. . . . . . . . . . . . . 0. 000 feet Bulk Depth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 . 650 feet - Total Depth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 . 650 feet Base Width . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60. 000 feet Slope of Channel . . . . . . . . . . 1. 900 % X-Sectional Area . . . . . . . . . . 306 . 000 sq. ft. Wetted Perimeter . . . . . . . . . . 70 . 200 feet AR^ (2/3) 816. 540 0 . 013 Mannings 'n' P4 . . . . . . . . t S I E R R A E N G I N E E R I N G Engirfeering - Surveying - Planning 25864 Business Center Dr. , Suite F • Rddlands, California 92374 Telephone (714) 799-8080 Fax: (714) 799-$070 <------------ -------- ( 106 . 00 ' ) --------------:-------> I ******- - - - - Channel Depth ( 14 . 00' ) ***- - - Bulk Depth ( 12 . 00' ) - - *** *** *** *** I <--1-------- ( 82 . 00' ) ------------> *** Water Depth ( 8 . 001 ) ^^^^^^*k* *** *** ** *** �** I <----- ( 50 . 00' ) ----> I *** ************************ i ] Trapezoidal Channel ------------------- Flowrate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 , 973 . 184 CFS Velocity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 . 570 fps Depth of Flow . 4 . . . . . . . . . . . 8 . 000 feet Critical Depth . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 . 000 feet Bulk Depth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 . 000 feet Freeboard . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 . 000 feet Total Depth 14 . 000 feet Width at Water Surface . . . . 82 . 000 feet - Top Width . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106. 000 feet Slope of Channel . . . . . . . . . . 1. 900 0 Left Side Slope . . . . . . . . . . . 2 . 000 1 Right Side Slope 2 . 000 1 Base Width 50 . 000 feet X-Sectional Area 528 . 000 sq. ft. Wetted' Perimeter 85 . 777 feet AR- (2/3) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1, 773 . 409 Mannings 'n' 0. 028 M M 2 x 8 x 16 CAP BLOCK 8 x 8 x 16 CONC. BLOCK 0 0 •4 • 32" 4" 66 • 48" 4" t w •6 • 24" I VARIES w 2000 PSI CONCRETE I 1 . r i in I24" MIN •6 • 8" ' VARIES •6 • 6" FOOTING LONG. STEEL •6 (TYPI ' 3" CLEAR ' (TYP) 9'-3" ' SCOUR WALL. ti i!Fit v � I �`• BFI! NIL, . ---� nag Moir N �G pall Asp ���.oC �.�� APPENDIX D - BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES INFORMATION 03119/92(1:'••HID101%NIASTER.DOC) VERDEMONT GPA BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT December 4, 1991 Prepared for: Hogle Ireland Development Consulting Group 3403 10tb Street Suite 520 Riverside, CA 92501 Prepared by: LSA Associates, Inc. 3403 10th Street, Suite 520 Riverside, California 92501 (714) 781-9310 LSA Project #HID101 M Associates,Inc. TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 METHODS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 LITERATURE REVIEW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 FIELD SURVEYS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 RESULTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 TOPOGRAPHY AND SOILS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 PLANT COMMUNITIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 WILDLIFE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 SENSITIVE RESOURCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 APPENDIX A- PLANT SPECIES OBSERVED APPENDIX B -ANIMAL SPECIES OBSERVED 12/04/91(1••.HID101••.BIO.RPT) jj L&4 Assoctases,Inc LIST OF FIGURES PAGE 1 - Project Site . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 12/04/910:-,HID101%.BIO.RPT) 111 LSA Awaciates,Inc. INTRODUCTION The project site is located in the Verdemont area of San Bernardino. The proposed project is a General Plan Amendment from Residential to Commer- cial General land use for a 29.7 acre portion of the site (Figure 1). This report also covers an adjacent 7.1 acre parcel under the same ownership. METHODS The property had been previously surveyed by Joe Gorman PhD Associates (1990). LSA reviewed the report prepared by Joe Gorman PhD Associates. and recommended an update of the work for the EIR. LITERATURE REVIEW Prior to the field work, LSA reviewed the work prepared by Joe Gorman PhD Associates. We also reviewed the Conservation and Open Space Element of the Verdemont Area Plan prepared by the City of San Bernardino. FIELD SURVEYS LSA conducted field surveys of the property on August 10, 1991. The field surveys consisted of reconnaissance surveys both by car and on foot. Notes were taken of all species observed, and general notes were made on the condition of the habitats present. RESULTS TOPOGRAPHY AAD SOILS The site is located at the base of the San Bernardino Mountains on the for- mer floodplain of Cable Creek. The site is flat, with an overall slope of less than 10 percent trending to the southwest. Cable Creek currently flows along a manmade channel along the northeastern boundary of most of the property. There are two soil types present on the property. The northeastern half of the property occurs on Soboba stony loamy sand. This series of soils con- sists of excessively drained, nearly level to moderately sloping soils. They form on alluvial fans in granitic alluvium. The southwestern half of the property occurs on Tujunga gravelly loamy sand. This series of soils consists of somewhat excessively drained, nearly level to moderately sloping soils. Like the Soboba soils, these soils form on alluvial fans in granitic alluvium. 12/04/'91(1:--.HM 101••.B10.RPT) � 3n&3nr _ it cli • ward— — 1 r I � i ti ( •! I C�(a ---36.v3nv m .� .. 1nNt53N�- •- i cr 0 r u� r CA I �•�l t\. cc m v O l r�r 1h Jo < ti I LSA Associates,Inc PLANT COMMUNITIES There are four distinct plant communities on site. These plant communities show the effects of past practices on site, including agriculture (possibly orchards) and weed control measures. The site has also been used by off- road vehicle (ORV) users and as a dumping site for trash. MLved Annual Grassland-Shrub This community consists of typical weedy grasses such as red brome (Bromus rubens), wild oats (Avena barbata), cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum) and ripgutgrass (Bromus diandrus). Other species include slender wild mustard (Brassica geniculata), scalebroom (Lepidospartum squamatum) and les- singia (Lessingia glandulosa). Shrubs common in this community include artemisia (Artemisia dracunculus), California buckwheat (Eriogonum fasciculatum), California sagebrush (Artemisia californica) and chrysopsis (Cbrysopsis villosa). Trees are also scattered throughout this section of the property, and include olive trees (Oleo europea), Fremont cottonwood (Populus fremontii) and western sycamore (Platanus racemosa). Annual Grassland This plant community is composed primarily of the annual grassland species found in the annual grassland-shrub mix habitat. Other species observed in this habitat include deerweed (Lotus scoparius), stephanomeria (Stepbanomeria virgata) and eriogonum (Eriogonum gracile). Windrows There is a windrow of olive trees running northeast to southwest across the northern one-third of the site. This plant community does not constitute a substantial stand, however, the presence of trees in a relatively flat terrain increases habitat diversity for wildlife. Alluvial Scrub According to the Verdemont Area Plan, there were two small stands of alluvi- al scrub in the vicinity of the project site. These stands of alluvial scrub (also variously known as alluvial fan scrub, alluvial fan sage scrub, or Riversidean alluvial sage scrub) occurred at the northern and southern ends of the pro- ject site. Since the 1986 Area Plan, the northern stand of alluvial scrub has been re- moved by the development of the Al Guhin Park. The southern stand has 12!04/91(1:••.HID 101-,BIO.FJM 3 LSA Awodates�Inca been impacted by various activities, including the improvement of the inter- section of Little League Drive and Palm Avenue and the building of Cable Creek Channel. A remnant of the southern stand of alluvial scrub lies adjacent to the Cable Creek Channel. This area is dominated by stands of ryegrass (Elymus condensatus), mulefat (Baccbaris glutinosa), golden aster (Cbrysopsis villosa), squaw bush (Rbus trilobata) and redberry (Rbamnus crocea). Alluvial scrub is different from coastal sage scrub in some key characteristics. Like coastal sage scrub, alluvial scrub varies in its characteristics depending upon the age of the stand, contributions from surrounding plant communi- ties and the amount of disturbance that has taken place. The most important disturbance factor in alluvial sage scrub is scouring by floodwaters. There are three stages of this community that are successional (Smith, 1980). The fast stage is composed of largely unvegetated flood-abraded wash strewn with large cobbles and boulders. The second stage is composed of terraces that have remained undisturbed for at least 30 years, with subsequent devel- opment of woody shrubs. The third and final stage is composed of areas that have been undisturbed for 50 years or more and have developed a complex habitat of small trees, woody shrubs, subshrubs and small areas of grassland. The habitat present on the project site is predominately at the second stage, although additional shrubs and trees such as canyon oak (Quercus cbrysolepis) occur in scattered localities upstream of this stand of alluvial scrub. The presence of these trees and isolated shrubs indicates that the alluvial scrub was probably more extensive in the past and existed in older (and possibly younger) successional stages. In addition, these individual plants indicate that the isolated stands at the northern and southern end of the project site were probably connected at one rime. Cable Creek Cable Creek has been completely channelized along the entire reach extend- ing across the property. There are no plant communities left along the channel in this reach. Plant Community Distribution The plant communities are distributed in patchy stands on the project site. The entire site shows disturbance of all plant communities, although this disturbance is greatest in the central portions of the site. 12/04/91(1:-,HM101••.BIO.PM 4 144 Asa»datt;Inc. Western 29.7 Acre Parcel (proposed GPA 90-6) The majority of the northern one-half of this parcel is covered by the mixed weedy grassland-shrub plant community. The southern half of this parcel is dominated by the annual grassland plant community, with the olive tree windrow serving to divide the two areas. Cable Creek Channel crosses the northeastern corner of this parcel, and separates a small triangle of land to the northeast. The habitat on this small triangle is composed primarily of annual grassland, although a row of olive trees occurs along the northern boundary. There is a small depression located somewhat centrally in the northern one- half section of this parcel. The depression does not appear to be a stream bed channel. At the western end, or "head" of the depression, the slopes are as equally steep as the sides. Similarly, the eastern "toe" of the depression ends abruptly. These features are characteristic of a manmade depression and not a streambed or stream course. However, the disturbance in this area is so great as to preclude absolute identification of the former character of this depression. Eastern 7.1 Acre Parcel This parcel is composed almost entirely of annual grassland, although scat- tered shrubs occur throughout. The isolated stand of alluvial scrub is in the extreme eastern portion of the site, and is limited to the narrow"neck" of the property between the curve of Little League Drive and Cable Creek. Cable Creek Channel forms the northern boundary of this parcel, with Little League Drive forming the southern boundary. These two features become parallel and nearly meet at the eastern boundary, forming the narrow neck that is occupied by the alluvial scrub. WILDLIFE Wildlife activity on the site was limited, due both to the relatively low level of habitat complexity and the weather. The temperature during the survey was in the 90s (degrees Fahrenheit) and the wind was between 0 and 5 miles per hour. Wildlife species seen included Beechey ground squirrel, northern mocking- bird, mourning dove, side-blotched lizard and black-tailed jackrabbit. These are all common species and are relatively unaffected by habitat disturbance. 12/04/91(1:%HID 101•••BIO.RPT) 5 LSA Assodates,Inc. SENSITIVE RESOURCES Sensitive species are those plants and animals occurring or potentially occur- ring on the project site which are endangered, threatened, rare or declining rapidly at a local, regional, State or national level. Legal protection for these species varies widely, from the comprehensive protection extended to endan- gered species to no legal status at present. No known sensitive species were located on the project site. Canyon oak and walnut trees were present as scattered individuals, but neither species existed in woodlands or formed major stands. It is also possible that these species may have been deliberately planted, however their distribution along the apparent former drainage of Cable Creek suggests they may have been part of the alluvial scrub habitat. Santa Ana River Woolly Star There are two plant species listed as endangered that occur in alluvial scrub habitat. The Santa Ana River woolly star (Eriastrum denstfolium var. sanctorum) is a perennial sub-shrub found in coastal scrub habitat on alluvi- al deposits. The historic range extended approximately 60 river miles, in- cluding a stretch along Lytle and Cajon Creeks. The woolly star is listed as endangered by both California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), and is placed on List 1B by the Cali- fornia Native Plant Society (CNPS). The current distribution is limited to approximately 18 river miles of the Santa Ana River floodplain (Zembal, et al., 1984). This estimate of distance is misleading, because the populations along these 18 river miles are limited to discrete stands spaced at varying intervals, and do not form one continuous stand or population. The study area for the proposed action falls within this 18 river mile stretch. Population estimates range from 20 plants to 1300 for different sites. According to Zembal, et al, (1984), approximately 80 to 90 percent of the original populations have been extirpated. As stated above, this subspecies has also been reported as occurring in the Lytle Creek and Cajon Washes, although the taxonomy (classification of subspecies) of these reported populations is in question (Wheeler, 1988). This species is listed as endangered by both CDFG and USFWS and is placed on List 1B by CNPS. Because the woolly star is a perennial plant species, its presence would have been apparent during the survey. This species was not observed on site. 12/04/'91(I:•,HID 101%BIO.RYn 6 LSA Associates,Inc Slender-borned Spineflower The slender-horned spineflower (Centrostegia leptoceras) is a small annual plant which occupies sandy openings in coastal scrub on old stable benches and alluvial deposits of river beds (Sanders, 1988, in URS, 1988). The spineflower is listed as endangered by both CDFG and USFWS, and is placed on List 1B by the CNPS. The original populations of this small plant were sparsely distributed throughout many foothill locations in Southern California. It formerly oc- curred in Bautista Creek Canyon, Temescal Canyon, Hemet and Elsinore in Riverside County, in Tujunga Wash, Mint Canyon, Santa Anita Wash, Limekiln Canyon Wash and Rubio Wash in Los Angeles County and in Arrowhead Springs and washes in Colton and Highland, Cajon Canyon and along the Santa Ana River in San Bernardino County. The populations in Hemet and Elsinore (Riverside County), Santa Anita Wash, Limekiln Canyon Wash and Rubio Wash (Los Angeles County) and in Arrowhead Springs and washes in Colton and Highland (San Bernardino) have since been extirpated. The known range of this species in 1984 was from Tujunga Valley in the western edge of the San Fernando Valley, east to the Santa Ana River near Redlands and south to the San Jacinto River floodplain near Hemet and Temescal Canyon near Elsinore. According to the California Natural Diversity Data Base (CNDDB), there are a total of 18 recorded localities, only four of which had been confirmed as still extant in 1984. One of these localities includes the populations in the Santa Ana River. Population estimates over the entire range of the species vary from 1,000 in Bautista Canyon to less than 100 in Temescal Canyon. The spineflower is an annual species that is only observable from April through July. The Verdemont Area Plan identifies a population of this spe- cies (and the woolly star) west and upstream of the project site across Little League Drive. Alluvial Sage Scrub As discussed below, the alluvial scrub habitat on the project site is highly dis- turbed. In addition, the extent of sandy soil is limited to a small expanse adjacent to Cable Creek Channel. Therefore, the likelihood of this species being present is low. However, because of the proximity and location up- stream of a known population, there is a potential for this species being present on site. The Verdemont Area Plan recommends springtime surveys in order to locate this species in the Verdemont Area. Therefore, surveys for this species will have to be conducted in the late spring/early summer to determine whether or not it is present. 12/04/91(1:••.HID101%B10AP7) 7 LSA As dales,Inc The only sensitive habitat located on site is the alluvial scrub. This habitat exists only in a remnant stand, reduced in extent from the stand mapped in 1986 and presumably further reduced from the original stand. At present, the alluvial scrub does not provide substantial wildlife habitat due to its decreased size, human-related disturbance in the scrub and human-related disturbance and activities in surrounding areas (including the channelization of Cable Creek and the improvement of Palm Drive). In addition, due to the upstream disturbance and the channelization of Cable Creek, this community is no longer self-sustaining. The control and channeling of floodwaters and related scouring by Cable Creek Channel will result in the loss of remaining alluvial scrub elements through conversion to other plant communities. IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Project impacts are limited. Prior disturbance has already removed most of the native vegetation formerly present, and the remaining plant communities, with the exception of the alluvial scrub, are common throughout Southern California. The overall impacts of the project will be: • Loss of plant communities and associated wildlife habitat. The re- moval of the annual grassland and annual grassland-shrub mix com- munity will result in the incremental reduction of the plant communi- ties in the San Bernardino Valley region. This incremental reduction is not considered to be significant. • Loss of wildlife. The removal of the wildlife habitat will result in the removal of wildlife from the project site. This removal will occur in two ways. The more mobile animals, such as the jackrabbit and bird species, will probably leave the site at the start of construction and search for habitat elsewhere. If surrounding habitats are at their carrying capacity for these species, there will be an incremental reduc- tion in the populations for each species affected. The less mobile species such as the side-blotched lizard may be killed outright as the result of construction. This loss will contribute to the incremental reduction of populations of these species in the San Bernardino Val- ley area. These reductions are not considered to be significant be- cause the species affected are common species and are not presently threatened with extirpation from the region. • Wildlife movement. The project site does not serve as a major wild- life movement corridor, both because of the presence of human activ- ity and structures in the surrounding areas and because there are no major topographic features to facilitate movement. • Sensitive Resources. No sensitive species were observed. As dis- cussed above, there is a low potential for the slender-horned 12/04/'91(1:••.HIDI01'%BIO.PJM 8 LSA Asmdates,Inc. spineflower to be present on site. Because the spineflower is a listed species, any taking of this species as the result of construction would be considered an illegal take and is prohibited under the federal Endangered Species Act. If the springtime surveys locate this species, mitigation would require the following process: Redesign of the project to avoid the habitat area containing the spineflower, and permanent protection of the population provided through fencing or some other type of barrier to prevent entry into the habitat. With regard to permanent protection of the population on site, one thing that should be noted is that the alluvial scrub habitat occupied by the spineflower will probably convert over time to an upland habi- tat. The normal scouring action of floodwaters has been eliminated by containment of floodwaters within the Cable Creek Channel. Tle, any population of spineflower, which also depends upon scouring for regeneration, will probably disappear along with the alluvial scrub habitat. If redesign of the project is not feasible, then the applicant will need to apply for a Section 1O(a) permit and develop a mitigation plan to be approved by the USFWS. The plan must demonstrate that no other alternative is feasible and that tak- ing of this species is unavoidable. The mitigation plan can include the following alternatives: Purchase of suitable habitat containing known popula- tions of the spineflower in an adequate replacement ratio. Preferably, the habitat area purchased will be as close to the Verdemont site as is feasible. This area would then be placed in permanent protection by the use of one or more mechanisms, including designation of a conservation easement, donation to a wildlife pro- tection agency or other public entity that can provide permanent protection, or donation to a private entity (such as The Nature Conservancy) that will provide permanent protection of the population. Joint effort with another private entity or a public agency to develop a mitigation plan and/or purchase habitat elsewhere for permanent protection Develop of a mitigation/transplantation program that will include the following elements: Spineflower populations shall be located and staked by a qualified botanist prior to clearing and grubbing of the site. The clearing and 1 ZI04/91(I:-,HM101%BI0JUM 9 LSA A&IodaUs,Inc grubbing operation will be monitored to ensure that these populations will be protected. Construction roads should be wetted by opera- tors using the roads at regular frequencies to minimize the blowing of dust onto populations of the spinefiower. This will minimize fugitive dust blowing onto these populations and help maintain a stable road surface. All temporary and permanent roads should be bermed at final grade to minimize runoff of water, mud, and other substances onto adjacent populations of the spinefiower. The height of the berm should be a minimum of eight inches. Adoption and implementation by the project proponent of a revegetation plan and study. The revegetation plan shall be implemented concurrent with implementation of the develop- ment plan. An appropriate site or sites will be selected by a qualified botanist for reseeding of the spineflower, preferably close to existing popula- tions in the project area. Selection of the sites shall occur concurrent with the adoption of a preferred route. Habitat shall be replaced at a ratio acceptable to the USFWS. The revegetation plan shall be monitored in accordance with a monitoring plan developed in coordination with the USFWS. In addition, the plan will include maintenance and monitor- ing goals established by a qualified botanist. These goals will include but not be limited to: Protection of the mitigation sites from access by fencing or other protective barriers. Removal by project proponent or designee of invasive weeds such as Av- ena barbata and others that may pre- vent successful seeding establishment. Regular monitoring by a qualified bota- nist through annual checks on the seed- ing effort. 12/0,4/91(1:-%HID 101%BIO.RM 10 LSA Aawdots;Ina Development of appropriate perfor- mance standards in coordination with the USFWS. In the event the initial revegetation effort fails, the revegetation by seeding and outplanting will be contin- ued until successful establishment occurs. The moni- toring period will be extended from the date of the new seeding until the performance standards are met. • With regard to the alluvial scrub habitat, if the spineflower is present, protection of spineflower habitat will, for all practical purposes, pro- tect alluvial scrub habitat either on or off site. If the spineflower is not present, the alluvial scrub habitat will be impacted by the project. This habitat is isolated and degraded and is a small remnant of a formerly much larger habitat. In addition, because of the contain- ment of floodwaters in the Cable Creek Channel, the habitat will probably convert over time to an upland habitat. Therefore, this im- pact is not considered to be significant. However, the loss of this habitat will result in a minor contribution to the cumulative loss of this habitat in the San Bernardino Valley area; this cumulative loss is considered to be significant. • Other impacts. Other impacts include light and glare, noise, hazard- ous and toxic waste spillage and fire incidence. Due to the already disturbed nature of most of the surrounding areas, with the existing reduction in wildlife habitat values, these impacts are not considered to be significant. 12/04/91(1:-,HID101-%BI0.RM 11 LSA Ats dales,lnc REFERENCES Abrams, L.E., 1960. Illustrated Flora of the Pacific States. Stanford Universi- ty Press, Stanford, California. 4 vols. American Ornithologists' Union, 1983. Cbecklist of North American Birds. Sixth Edition. AOU, Washington, D. C. American Ornithologists' Union. 1989. Thirty-seventh supplement to the American Ornithologists' Union Cbecklist of Nortb American Birds. AUK 106:532-538. Burt, W. H. and R. P. Grossenheider, 1986. A Field Guide to the Mammals in Nortb America Nortb of Mexico. Houghton Mifflin Company. Bos- ton. California Department of Fish and Game, 1989. 1989 Annual Report on the Status of California's State Listed Tbreatened and Endangered Plants and Animals. The Resources Agency. California Department of Fish and Game, 1990a. List of Special Animals. California Department of Fish and Game, 1990b. List of Special Plants. California Natural Diversity Data Base, 1985. Centrostegia leptoceras, Rare Plant Status Report. California Natural Diversity Data Base, 1985. Eriastrum densifolium ssp. sanctorum, Rare Plant Status Report. California Native Plant Society. 1988. Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants of California. Spec. Pub. No. 1 (3rd ed.), CNPS, Sacramento, CA. Garrett, K. and J. Dunn, 1981. Birds of Soutbern California: Status and Dis- tribution. Los Angeles Audubon Society, Los Angeles, CA. 408 pp. Ingles, Lloyd G., 1965. Mammals of the Pacific States, Stanford University Press, Stanford, California, 506 pp. Michael Brandman Associates, 1987. Cburcb Street Sand and Gravel Mining Environmental Assessment. Report prepared for C.L. Pharris Sand & Gravel, Inc. Highland, California. Munz, P. A., 1974. A Flora of Southern California. University of California Press: Berkeley, CA. 12/04/91(1:-,HM101--.BIO.RM 12 LSA Associates,Inc National Geographic Society, 1983.Field Guide to the Birds of North Ameri- ca. Chief Consultants: Jon L. Dunn and Eirik A. T. Blom, National Geographic Society, Washington, D.C. 464 pp. Remsen,Jr.,J.V., 1978. Bird Species of Special Concern in California. Non- game Wildlife Investigations,Wildlife Management Branch Administra- tive Report No. 78-1. Report prepared for the California Department of Fish and Game. Smith, J. P. and IL York, 1984. Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants of Cal fornia. California Native Plant Society, Spec. Pub. No. 1 (3rd edition), Berkeley, CA Stebbins, R. C., 1966. A Field Guide to Western Reptiles and Ampbibians. Houghton Mifflin; Boston. URS Consultants, 1987. Santa Ana River Resource Sooping Protect. Report submitted to the San Benutdino County Land Management Depart- ment Office of Planning. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1989. "Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; Animal notice of review'. Federal Register Vol. 54, No. 4. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1990. "Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; review of plant taxa for listing as endangered or threatened species; notice of review",Federal Register Vol 55. No. 35. Wheeler,J., 1988. "Recent ecological investigations and present status of the endangered Santa Ana River wooly-star, Eriastrum densifolium ssp. sanctorum (Milliken) Mason", Crossosoma Vol 14. No. 3. Williams, D.F., 1986. Mammalian Species of Special Concern in California. Wildlife Management Division Administrative Report 86-1. Report pre- pared for the California Department of Fish and Game. Zembal, R. and K. J. Kramer, 1984. The known limited distribution and unknown future of Santa Ana River Wooly-star (Eriastrum), Crossoma Vol. 10, No. 5. 12.64/91(1:•,HID101••.BIO.PJM 13 LSA Associates,Inc. APPENDIX A- PLANT SPECIES OBSERVED * denotes non-native species ANGIOSPERMAE: DICOTYLEDONES DICOT FLOWERING PLANTS Anacardiaceae Sumac family Rbus ovata Sugar bush Rbus trilobatata Squaw bush Asteraceae Sunflower family Ambrosia acantbicarpa Ragweed Artemisia cal fornica California sagebrush Artemisia dracunculus Tarragon Baccbaris salicifolia Mulefat CbfYropsis villosa Hairy golden aster Heliautbus annus Common sunflower Heterotbeca grandiflora Telegraph weed Le pidospartum squamatum Sole broom Lessingia glandul fera Valley lessingia Senecio douglasii Shrubby butterweed Stepbanomeria virgata Twiggy wreathplant Boraginaceae Borage family Amsinckia intermedia Common fiddleneck Brassicaceae Mustard family * Brassica geniculata Short-podded mustard Cactaceae Cactus family Opuntia parryi Valley cholla Caprifoliaceae Honeysuckle family Sambucus mexicana Mexican elderberry Chenopodiaceae Saltbush family * Salsola kali Russian thistle Euphorbiaceae Spurge family Croton cal fornicus California croton Fabaceae Pea family Lotus scoparius Deerweed Fabaceae Beech family Quercus cbrysolepis Coast live oak 12,/04/91(1:,.HID 101,.BIO.PJM A-1 LSA Asvociatws,Inc. Geraniaceae Geranium family * Erodium cicutarlum Red-stemmed 6laree Hydrophyllaceae Waterleaf family Pbacelia ramosissima Branching phacelia Juglandaceae Walnut family Juglans calffornica California walnut Lamiaceae Mint family * Marrubium vulgare Horehound Salvia columbariae Chia Oleaceae Olive family * Olea europea European olive Platanaceae Sycamore family Platanus racemosa California sycamore Polygonaceae Buckwheat family Eriogaonum fasciculatum California buckwheat Eriogonum gracile Slender woolly eriogonum Rhamnaceae Buckthorn family Rbamnus crocea Little-leaved redberry Rosaceae Rose Family Cercocarpus betuloides California mountain mahogany Prunus ilicifolia Holly-leaved cherry Salicaceae Willow family Populus fremontii Cottonwood Solanaceae Nightshade family Datura meteloides Jimson weed * Nicotiana glauca Tree tobacco ANGIOSPERMAE: MONOCOTYLEDONES MONOCOT FLOWERING PLANTS Agavaceae Agave family Yucca wbipplei Spanish bayonet Poaceae Grass Family * Arundo donax Giant reed * Avena barbata Slender wild oat * Bromus diandrus Ripgut grass * Bromus rubens Red brome * Bromus tectorum Cheat grass Elymus condensatus Giant wild rye Nomenclature follows Munz, 1974 and Abrams, 1960. lzro4/91(I:%H11Dl of-•.BIO.RPT) A-2 LSA A&wciatts,Inc. APPENDIX B - ANIMAL SPECIES OBSERVED This is a list of the amphibians, reptiles, birds and mammals noted on the project site during the LSA survey Presence may be noted if a species is seen or heard, or identified by tracks, scat or other signs. REPTILIA REPTILES Iguanidae Iguanid Lizards Uta stansburiana Side-blotched lizard AVES BIRDS Accipitridae Kites, Hawks, and Eagles Buteo jamaicensis Red-tailed hawk Co�umbitdae Pigeons and Doves Zoudda macroura Mourning dove Mimidae Mimic thrushes Mimus polyglottos Nortbern mockingbird MAMMALIA MAMMALS Leporidae Rabbits and Hares Sylvilagus auduboni Audubon cottontail Lepus californicus Black-tailed jackrabbit Sciuridae Squirrels Spermopbilus beecbeyi Beechey ground squirrel Nomenclature follows American Ornithologists' Union, 1989, Ingles, 1965, and Stebbins, 1966. 12//04/91(1:•.HIDlol-..BIO.PJM B-1 APPENDIX E - CORRESPONDENCE 03/19/92(1:-..HID101••.MAS'M.DOC) C I T Y O F RECEIVED an bernardino BY L.S A we OCT 18, 1991 F I R E D E P A R T M E N T W I L L I A M L W R I G H T October 16, 1991 LSA Associates, Inc. 3403 10th Street, Suite 520 Riverside, CA 92501 Dear William, In reference to your letter dated October 4 , 1991, the specific conditions and permits will be explained at the DRC meeting on each facility. If a facility moves into a Spec Building without going through DRC these requirements will be stated at the Certificate of Occupancy inspection. Information that was requested on the underground fuel pipeline location in that area would be obtained from Cal-Nev Pipeline in Colton. CY Z-1 R. Paul Allaire Fire Inspector RPA/lob (LSA) cc: General Correspondence File PRIDE IN PROGRESS 7 1 4 3 8 4 5 2 8 6 F A X 7 1 4 : 3 8 4 - 5 4 7 0 M Associates.Inc. FIRE SERVICE RESPONSE SHEET Mr. Dan Dickerson, Deputy Battalion Chief City of San Bernardino Fire Dept. For your convenience, we have provided space on this questionnaire for your answers to be used as an attachment to your response. If you choose to answer these questions in a letter format, please number your responses to correspond to the questions. 1. What types of services do you provide in this area? 57 fzo cr/TitiU 2. Will the proposed land use adversely impact the types of services you provide? If yes, how? //VO 3• What standard Factors for estimating service demands do you use (e.g. personnel required per number of residential units)? 4. Will the project create a need for expanding existing facilities or staff or con- structing a new facility? Please explain. 7-/->/s' /S ,,-1 ��t7>�Z�ht�� �r� l/G�Dr�c%,� � .a.Pc�,� TIC" F i�- 5�-•��>i c�=s �:.i�c 4lJC7� � >�T 7�frS i��" ,v�• �.�ri�c-z �.�,�c g v,9ic.t6<<,. 5. Are there any current plans for expansion of your facilities? If yes, please briefly describe. 6. What are the names and locations of your facilities serving the area and the distances and response times to the project location? ;9Y'i S ' Co G_�/ C� �/r F 4> 1r ter, 7. Do you foresee any problems in servicing tris project? If yes, please explain. f ✓'a is �lu>�C c 3 ��c� �i /c-,/��,��s %ter` 8. Can you recommend any measures for mitigating project impacts that might be incorporated into the project? 09/17/91(L'AIID101 RLSroVSE FMS) LSATELEPHONE CONVERSATION RECORD ISA Associates, Inc. Date: October 16, 1991 Staff. Mayer Project Number: HID101 Project Name: Verdemont Subject: Hazardous Materials Contact Name: Title: Organization: Fire Department (City) Phone Number: Notes The Fire Department does not have jurisdiction over Hazardous materials that are stored underground. This responsibility is the County of San Bernardino, Department of Health Services. To the best of the Fire Dept's knowledge, no "pipelines" extned within the influence of the project site. The closest pipeline extends along the railroad tracks on the south side of the freeway, within the railroad r/w. The Fire Department becomes involved with project review of hazardous materials when the project goes before the Development Review Committee and the Environmental Review Committee. At that time, they will consider the effects of hazardous materials on specific uses within a project. The Dept. will prepare a statement outlining the process for reviewing projects and will indicate the type of permits that could be required from various agencies with jurisdiction over Hazmat uses. 10/16/91(I:\IiID101\HAZMAT.71EL) f psi W.R.'BOB"HOLCOMB Mayor ESTHER ESTRADA First Ward _ JACK REILLY Second Ward ..,.''v.. - J S Third Ward S an bernardino MICHAEL MAUDSLEY -- Fourth Ward TOM MINOR Fifth Ward P O L I C E D E P A R T M E N T VALERIE POPE-LUDLAM D A N I E L A R O B B I N S Sixth Ward C H 1 = C. p O L i C E NORINE MILLER Seventh Ward William E. Mayer Principal LSA Associates, Inc. 3403 10th Street, Suite 520 Riverside, Ca 92501 October 14, 1991 Dear Mr. Mayer: In reviewing your development proposal for the Verdemont area on the north side of the I-215 freeway in the City of San Bernardino, I have found no significant impacts from a police standpoint as far as public safety. The construction of a shopping center would be quite beneficial to the community of Verdemont. With respect to the pipeline question, there are some questions raised. In the past we experienced two disasters which occurred back-to-back caused by the close proximity of a pipeline and a railroad track. Initially, a train derailed, causing a great amount of damage to a residential area and killing several people. During the aftermath which followed, the pipeline ruptured and exploded causing a great deal more damage and killing additional people. Needless to say, this is not an occurrence we would like repeated. As far as production and storage of hazardous materials and/or toxic substances, the police department does not usually have any concerns separate from the fire department in general . Applications are reviewed on a case-by-case basis. In summary, the primary concern of the police department would be the placement of a pipeline as it relates to any conditions which might compromise the integrity of that pipeline and the proximity of any structures or populated areas to the pipeline. Sincerely, Daniel A. Robbins Chief of Police fifer L. Kauffman Sergeant PRIDE .e Community Progra IN PROGRESS P O S T O F F I C E B O X 1 5 5 9 S A N B E R N A R D I N C A L I F O R N I A 9 2 4 0 1 - 1 5 5 9 7 1 4 1 3 8 4 - 5 7 4 2 � //�� LSA Assocwtes,In r POLICE SERVICE RESPONSE SHEET RECEIVED BY L.S.A.. +Nr. OCT 0 2 1991 Daniel A. Robbins, Chief of Police City of San Bernardino Police Department For your convenience, we have provided space on this questionnaire for your answers to be used as an attachment to your response. If you choose to answer these questions in a letter format, please number your responses to correspond to the questions. 1. What types of services do you provide in this area? Emergency Response, Preventative Patrol , Crime Report Recording and Follow-Up Investigations. 2. Will the proposed land use adversely impact the types of services you provide? If yes, how? No. 3• What standard factors for estimating service demands do you use (e.g., personnel required per number of residential units)? We use a combination of number of officers per 1 ,000 population and structured versus unstructured time available. 4. Will the project create a need for expanding existing facilities or staff or con- structing a new facility? Please explain. No. 5. Are there any current plans for expansion of your facilities? If yes, please briefly describe. We have purchased a larger main facility. Our move-in date is unknown at this time. •. ..a, thle , locations�•. are .aa. ;�:l:i: :i;iCt iv�u�ivi7S 01 your ilc"ities seev'ing ahe area and the distances and response times to the project location? Our response times are not dependent on the locations of our facilities as our units are continually mobile. Response to this location would be reasonably consistent with responses to other areas 7. b'o you 614ee any problems in servicing this project? If yes, please explain. No. 8. Can you recommend any measures for mitigating project impacts that might be incorporated into the project? There is no impact of significance created by the proposed project. 09,'17'91(I:'•.HID101%RESPONSEIMS) (7, 3� - LSA TELEPHONE CONVERSATION RECORD LSA Associates, Inc. Date: October 24, 1991 Staff. Project Number: /t Project Name: - Subject: 8 ,2 c-),I SE C t2�P Contact Name: Title: Organization: Phone Number: Notes _ J ` 0'2 1 L t ((' 7t ry2, CL LC-Cfi 7t' ►�L�� Vic t LSATELEPHONE CONVERSATION RECORD LSA Associates, Inc. Date: _October 21, 1991 Staff: Project Number: C� / Project Name: Subject: Contact Name: Lt - Title: Organization: S !� Phone Number: y � Notes /4U�C-v-,-j Z\ Lt l�i 0 ® COT 2 2 1991 Disk Wi .26; — ---- October 25, 1991 William E. Mayer, Principal LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. 3403 10th Street, Suite 520 Riverside, California 92501 Dear Mr. Mayer: Thank you for your letter dated October 4, 1991. We have reviewed the initial information provided to include the proposed site and the list of potential businesses. These businesses do not appear to be out of the ordinary, but without a list of the hazardous/toxic materials produced or stored, it is difficult to determine the impact to the surrounding community. We, therefore, prefer to reserve comment until the notice of completion period in March-May of 1992, when we have an opportunity to examine the draft Environmental Impact Report in greater detail. In order to assist you in identifying potentially impacted areas, we would like to point out key developments we feel should be addressed in the EIR. • Commercial areas to the south • Industrial areas to the west • Glen Helen Regional Park • 3 detention facilities and 2 Sheriff's Training Facilities to the southwest • I-215 - main north/south thoroughfare In closing, it is also important to note the wind conditions in this area can be severe and ever changing and would shorten the evacuation time tremendously in the event of an accident. If I can be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you. Sincere Rodne . Hoops, ieutenant RESE CH & P NING UNIT SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT 655 East Third Street • San Bernardino, California 92415-0061 Post Office Box 569 • San Bernardino, California 92402-0569 LSATELEPHONE CONVERSATION RECORD LSA Associates, Inc. Date: _October 21, X19911 Staff: Project Number: Project lba, mg• Subject: Contact Name: (� S ► <-LX Title: �' '� F��Qcti�Ps�l� ►� ���C '� ll iti Organization: Phone Number: C 7( y 2 -�Z E>(1— Notes e S e.t� /1 L L 97, 15 P02 JW IS1 Aao�1�M;lnt. UnLITY RESPONSE SHEET Mr. Kt;vin Barnes, Superintendent of Sanitation City of San Bernardino Dept. of Public Services For your convenience, we have provided space on this answers to be used as an amtchment to your response. I youticnnain For your these questions in a letter format, please number your responses to to to the questions. 1. Whet level of sen•ice do you presently provide to the projecr area? /r � �r' Rrr�rtJd w1,6K 7�. 2. will the proposed project adversely imIrdct the types of service, you Provide? If yes, hover? /yo 3. What standard consumption or generation rates do you use in assessing service demands? �✓'iQ�/e —t,�/,v' re�ccse est,�x�'dn r e,�e o�Pwr�i cHlctr 6isriht�J �N�/�r��s$J, 41 V411 the project create a need for expanding existing facilities or std or con- structing a nM facili ? Please ccplain. A� s.ric r !' . 5. Are there any current plans for expansion of your fa.etilties? If yu, please briefly describe. 6. Whar are the locations and capacity of your facilities seeing the area and how near capacity zee they now operating? N� ?• Can you recommend any measures for mitigating project impacts that might be incorporated into the project? �jt/�/ k�OM �✓i 8�./ eri Girt✓�CO��K�•f".- ���O'S a j Oi/.7/9 i(I.'•.1IID i O 1'.}235rGNSE.FMS j f LSA As aci ves,!nc Anibal WATER UTILITY RESPONSE SHEET CC Bernard Blandon Kersey Bill Bryden LSA Associates, Inc Mr.Joseph F. Stejskal, Director of 10-17-91 Engineering, Construction and Maintenance City of San Bernardino Municipal Water District For your convenience, we have provided space on this questionnaire for your answers to be used as an attachment to your response. If you choose to answer these questions in a letter format, please number your responses to correspond to the questions. 1• What level of service do you presently provide to the project area? Water - Water reclamation does not include sewer collection system. 2• Will the proposed project adversely impact the types of services you provide? If yes, how? No. 3. What standard consumption or generation rates do you use in assessing service demands? Water demand based on fire flow required, equivalent fixture units for comparable commercial uses within the Cityy. 4• Wi71 the project create a need for expanding existing facilities or staff or con- structing a new facility? Please explain. Off-site transmission main required (size to be determined by fire flaw and peak daily water demand) . 5. Are there any current plans for brief] describe. 5-year Master Plant of rwatleress Sf 1 improvements which include additional stora a them pcapital and transmission facilities in pressure zone servingtion this project. 6. What are the locations and capacity of your 6cilities serving the area and how near capacity are they now operating? Storage project is a 5 MG reservoir located ateCajon Boulevarded and Kendall Avenue (elevation 19131 ) - operating at approximately oximately 60% transmission capacity and 90% of resery it 7• Can you recommend any measures for mitigating project impacts that mighpaclgy. be incorporated into the project? No. 09/17/91(1:%HID 101%RFSPONSE.FMS) "-" DEC 13-'91_ 01:06PM LSA :12-10-91 11 :55 SM REDLANDS HDQ.-'YJ ! M 714??$ $076;a 2/ 2 RESPONSE SHEET Soud ern Cabfon2ia Gas company Jack Peen For your c0avemniencx, ". have provided space on thi% quesdonnaire fot your arenpp to be used as an attachnmMt to your response. If you ahoy to aarwer These guadtm In , letter Fornnat, please number your responses to cormpand to the- que4tlaow. 1. What are The 10"do ss, tYM and cipmwirY of yow facllldea stirring the sites snd how near aPadfY acs~ They now operating? x AOY PA-jecw-" 46 40 ACS OL— -pglY1 C6"Q'I�f.� /A'S � . 2. Vh"l"d Of do you pmsently provide m the p"ftt MOO) :F t wise -7. -V4- Ae ex . 3. Ate theft any Current plans for eogwmdon of yarn f%cjUtks? if M pkme briefly da scribe. _ 1 0 4. Will the project =ate a need for expanding a tistieg hdiltleet at 304 QonMucting a Caw facility Or otherwise adversely impact the types of services you provider P4msse ev1vJn. ! k 5. Vhat standard can-%un%Pdcn oc gofters4on rates do you use in assysing service de. mands? St• 4ca r 799 70'66%s Am k A a_m-Y% MULL, �'oa•wsWtter►a -- WMAG ro WIDE Ut►awrm" IA.( "YVPCS OF 6. Can you reeomcmtnd,etry uses fEw mitipang pt*ftt innpaft tbst nUght be uteorl a. rated majo the project. ~m-•tsnoi%zmw noc} DEC 13 191 01:07PM LSA - P.3 LSA MEMO" CONVE1MnON RECORD CALL To AL 1 n � l • � PHONE NO 8 • ,v �,�, � �j✓w��i' CALL FROM TIME ❑PM BY Si�a�r�CT k/ d f L r t J o 7r31l91 roan o t..PHON€.RM GTE CALIFORNIA 1500 Crafton Avenue,8ox 1-18 Nentone, California 92359 November 269 1991 In Reply Refer To 3660D C17F L S A Associate59 Inc. Attention: Debra Herrera One Park Plata Suite 500 Irvine, CA 9271+ Re: Verdesont Shopping Center aentleseni 9TE California Incorporated Will provide telephone service to the above-refereated area in accordance with the current tariffs Filed With the California Public Utilities Commission, Further study may r"uire a change in the planned schedule, cost or route for providing telephone facilities. In such instance, we shall inforo you by mail of the changed cirtuestances. Further inquiries relating to this proiect, may be directed to S. J. Anderson at 714 794-8279. Thank you for your attention. Very truly yours, E. Williams Operations Supervisor Division OSP Engineering SAS rw San Barsardino City Unified Bd=l DiStriat nailities► Plannim and lgcrnt Debra Herrera, LSA Associates Subject: Data: November 21, 1991 (n� Verftmo= GPA Frm! Scott sun ( J O Dictated by: SS:ej / #Vexdem.gpa Mss : Question 41 Kimbark Elemeatary, 18021 Kenwood Drive, Darvore 92407 MmYlin Hills Middle, 4301 Little Mountain Drive, San Bernardino 92407 Cajon High, 1200 Hill Drive, San Bernardino 92407 Kimbark is 7 miles fz= the project, Shandin Hills 3 miles, and Cajon is 4 milers. #2 Camel= Enrol l wnt Kimbark 389-455 11 841 SharK in Hills 964 0 1,011 Cajon 2,476 0 2,200 #3 Siml=bMay m lrA-Family Prue-SCi=l (ages 3 & 4) .142 Pre-tiSck=l (ages 3 & 4) .121 ElmneYitary .468 Zlemmit xy .397 Saoondary .231 Seoor .y .169 Adult Erlucatim .272 Adult Education .314 04 Yes. A new elementary school is under constr=tion near the corner of Bebwnt Avenue and Little League Drive. #5 Yes. During the past five years the San Bernardino City Unified School District has grown by pjraimate y 1,800 stWents per year. This p=ject will have a growth inducing affect ci the Vet area, as residential units are built to take advantage of the now =zuw=ial service area. Participation in a Verdemont Area Mello-Rots CFD in lieu of required developer fees would ei anoe the District's ability to provide additional classroom space in the ar+aa. UA M vaWos;ina RESPONSE SHEET" City of San Bernardino pazks, Recreation and CommurlltY Services Dep4=ent Annie F. xamo` f For your COnvenitmt, we have prarided space on this ues used as an att }�mCnt to your response, If 9 �nnaire for ),Our answrca to ix format, please number you choose to answer these questiow in a letttr Yout responses to correspond to the questions. 1' What am � lions, types and c avity of your fadlities seMng the area and how nCW opeMting? Al Guhin Park located on north side of Magnolia from proposed development, presently has 7 acres developed of the 23 acres available; future park (Buckboard Park) located south on Kendall Drive at Buckboard Dr. & Kendall Ave. Presently this 15 acre park is undeveloped. 2. �F?tat J of service �'S'M prtseruly provide to the of developed and undeveloped acreage at the pajboovvee park areas;areas; inn'additionce we oversee the maintenance work of all landscape maintenance assessment district sites in the area and inspection and supervision-of any new landscape construction by developers in the area. 3. Are there any current plans for expansion of your fadlitits? If yea, please briefly de. The remaining undeveloped 16 acres at Al Guhin Park will aa3be. be phased in as funds become available; the undeveloped Buckboard Park is projected to be under construction within a year. 4. Wilt the project create a and for M w facility or otherwise adversely expanding existing fidllties or sta ff oanaou yg a Y role p the types of$swipes YOU provide? Fleme =�o. However, due to the potential of in traffic that will be generated by the shopping center, increased safety considerations will need to be incorporated into the design and completion of Al Guhin :Dark. - S- What•standard consuInPdon or generation rates 'nand:? you use in as Ming service da- Park and Recreation service demands are based on residential population density with the City standard for park acreage being 5 acres per 1,000 population. ran}+nu r4=MIn0rt&ut ......o�aw il,r nuuganng project iri1 rated into the ? pis that might be incorp0. of the shopping center and thow eito Might erelate dtoaAl GuhinePark before design any specific recommendation. -ark be._ore making I0M/9L(L%Cdn01*,=ftF•Doc) P.5 Table 3-1 � Hlstorical Demand by the Type of O=upancy Demands Per Square Font by awl&ng Type All Oftate Zones CZ 1 Cz 3,S,,7 CZ 9 S�9- %Annual Avg.Peak Avg.Pack Avg.Peen Type %Po�q►.r Load Vole- No. Buz Volt•Amps Volt-Amps 9 YYPe Factor factor Per 5q.R Per$Q.FL Pet Sq.Ft. 1 L&8B 0150e Sikh. a30K s.f_) 85 42 3.9 4.7 d 2 Small 00ce sick g.(s30Ksf.} 34 7.6 8.6 727 3 Fat Food FlestauT ,:3K 5.1.) 88 44 20.5 20.5 4 Sit-flown Reabur�(a3K&L) 87 49 25.6 132 14S 17.s 5e ReW a30K s f-) 89 45 3.8 42 6 sna Retail(40K sJ.) 90 7.6 37 8.6 8.6 123 7 Fwd Stoop(a30iC 21.) 89 79 8.5 as 13.7 $ &TW Food Stole(c30K s f.} I 88 ( 58 13.8 13 9 9 Hak"raw VVhW 1 79 54 8.1 17.8 15.6 10 Non- II p wl:h A/C Whse. 83 34 5,i 5.1 g,s 104 Nome non A1C IARtse g5 Z8 0.7 0.7 0.7 11 ! and Sec.school 79 25 5 7 10.1 12 and LtnaQCSases 84 t 7S 5.8 82 9.0 73 H06Pitals 85 I 55 4.8 6.7 14 HGI CRr*X 14.5 45 6.8 6.8 128 15 hlalels and Molars 86 45 4.7 q g 16 Aura Rsp&Shops 81 28 6.5 9.3 fi.7 11.5 17 bfcsa tRep�r('ry,eec) 80 30 7-3 7.3 14.3 18 --Tt: (indoor) 93 37 7.5 t27 eyg 1 19 Bowkv!! SA 20 - 6.3 6.5 S.5 U.S Post Offices 82 47 5.7 6.7 21 tiAc�Palg 8.4 and V ( 48 7 S.6 15.7 -- °Q•PmO4 78 40 5.4 5.4 23 Sake<y P 74 48 10.0 10.0 24 ADwrei 82 31 49 6.0 25 Ft mgwe�' 77 4.7 .. 26 Paper Piid-:(oontpiriefs,eta) 75 t3.4 5.7 -$ 27 � 81 37 8.5 9.1 9.1 28 phndo Ptoduoes t35' 46 11.4' 77.4- 29 Meal itioa 77 77 9.0 9.4 u 30 7elapt Gwrm.CertGer 85' $1 8.t• .. t1.4• Notes:1)Power factor is the same In each di=e zoo for each bu0dng type. . 2)•PO tr tractor esdmated X 85%,Wa defier=lad ftm actual kW/.85. 3)"kWACierd data for CGmvft Zone 9. 4)i4W factor averaged hW the three date tone groups. (I ForMula: Wa = b�Q•fL X VAIIII ft. 1.000 Volt-fires is the apPWOM pawer(kya)vvNch is obi by dMding the real power(kW)by!�*power factor expressed as a deoftnal,e.g., M. QS COMMER =ANDUSTRIAL SUBSYSTEMS "Colw'"im Odeon csoaputy Appmval EftecttVe Date 3-$ DiSbibutlion Design standards Manual _ 01-01797 r,b LSA TMEPHONE COITION RECORD CAA TO ��„ `��i 1 N A�(`N S PHONE NO. S• Z- DATE I J 1,.;� n I I CALL FROM 7� _ - lit-el TIME �l D ❑AM t PM BY SUBJECT VP�r A P_ rn Del� (1'1 ` 414"J, Lu 00 Yn l,� 2 v -f . u v P� cl A t a Q �a s Ycv-s <.. r 07/3 tr91(acnoi,.PH0NE.REn TELEPHONE CONVERSATION RECORD LSA CALL TO 'T�i� _ O�J PHONE NO. O rs C4.6 lr 3 3 (�. >4 S-L DATE CALM..-FROM � � TIME 0 AM 0 PM BY \3�10 bl i� ✓,4- sUBJBC r ��- e f2►-a..ff ��1 ►� G P CI.C7 -6 4 L►� N��.L�/ens-� e.s G��iVy�dry o � 07/3 1/91(OCT101•.PHONEREC) LSA 7''Ef EPHONE CONVERSATION RECORD CALL TO PHONE NO.AdOl1f1 S! d DATE _�l� Ig1I CALL FROM 10 r t- e_r✓ .�'�}- TIME a_ I o ❑AM AfPM BY S Z± suBlEcT Vcr4 e m o,,*i (—P,4- -ter o–6 Yk i N lS IDULWC �-� /V/N Se./-L.) ( cc_) 4,4 -a2 l 11,4-- y-�� ��-�t,,1 � Yi-C , &,,.j ce r s S ` 4� /-o �- cc+ e_j T K-,(N LIJ U ti S N 1 - -S-fr��-� ` S . t3P ►�,v�,.-�( raw ?y// 07131.91(0CT10I,PNaNB.REC) L Lci JHry r—MN1MRU1tvv rlLH114ry , V utrHK � MtN 1 00 NORTH STREET S. B., CA. 92418 (71 384-5057 NCY COMMENT SHE ET ATTACHED IS A COPY OF : �enera p/„_ PROJECT DESCRIPTION L ' Lft"Ib M4 aLA eat ZrVi Qvt• at 4q east-seaff�east an'It. (signal ) (da e) THIS APPLICATION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE CITY PLANNING DEPARTMENT AND THE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE. PLEASE REVIEW THE EN- CLOSED MAPS AND RETURN THIS SHEET WITH YOUR COMMENTS AND/OR RECOMMENDATIONS BEFORE THE E. R.C. DATE. IF DISAPPROVED, PLEASE STATE REASONS. KEEP THE ATTACHMENT FOR. YOUR FILES IF YOU SO DESIRE. E.R.C. DATE:_TeM.eiinr PLANNING COMMISSION DATE'T 32fdglf THE FOLLOWING RECOMMENDATIONS APPLY TO THE ABOVE REFERENCED: IIEV(,S : APPROVAL [] DENIAL ) The developer will be required to furnish Southern California Edison Company two (2) copies of the final map, including title sheets, no later than two (2) weeks prior to recording the tract. The subdivider shall comply with all current regulations and rules of the Southern California Edison Company as filed with the Public Utilities Commission for the installation of underground or overhead electric utilities within this tract. (signature) (agency) (da e) ERC FORM K FOF SAN F''RNARDINO PLANNI )` DEPARTMENT 300 NORTH '0" STREET S. B., CA. 92418 (7141 384-5057 GENCY COMMENT SHEET )* ATTACHED IS A COPY OF: PROJECT DESCRIPTION : L X� �v�s�'!� nave• alto^ ess#-s astan'lac. .�feL•l;[i- 01 A.P K Y' (signot ) (da f e) THIS APPLICATION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE CITY PLANNING DEPARTMENT AND THE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE. PLEASE REVIEW THE EN- CLOSED MAPS AND RETURN THIS SHEET WITH YOUR COMMENTS AND/OR RECOMMENDATIONS BEFORE THE E. R.C. DATE. IF DISAPPROVED, PLEASE STATE REASONS. KEEP THE ATTACHMENT FOR. YOUR FILES IF YOU SO DESIRE. E.R.C. DATE:Tahe eld'trru eAPLANNING COMMISSION DATE'TObc roA►iAed THE FOLLOWING RECOMMENDATIONS APPLY TO THE ABOVE REFERENCED 1TEM(3): 0 APPROVAL nn DENIAL The San Bernardino City Unified School District is currently in the State School Building Program. Developer fees 'collected by the District are inadequate to inance a e costs associated with sc oo cons ruc ion. e is ric requests the establishment of a sup p emen a tee to finance new school off-site improvements require qu by the the an Bernardino and not considered eligible expense y 1 �c CP State. Additionally, the District 're es s e ,T+ establishment of a separate fee which will ge eatae> e for the purchase of a high school, m1 e sc oo L v elementary school evore sites in the Verde mont o811�g�y / area. � i I San Bernardino City Unified School District April 10, 1990 i2i9m tapi4h.csb (agency) ' - - ( e) 1.1 I y . COP cn�Y r PR0J'7.dCT REVIEW RCUMG r0: %Si"Grrbbs - Eagineenn %_1 Ste+ Parks and Ramon N ikel Paris - Fire Department ldoe i mmese- Redevelo Pmt Agencv C'barles Dunham - Buildings Safety Re,,-_r sa z_e., - Refuse Ellis Williams - Water Rolm Caat -Pot' Council Ward #S Forum m F ' V E mmnzZg ENGPIELMNG From: Planning Department est. ��' lDefooftU Dw, _ - X990 Date: �//b/90 Ws Idraff' NARDIN Attached Are Tae Plans For : MUNICIPAL 1107ER D Exempt From CEQA Subject To CEQA P 1Azx resPa�d by Fr , y/,ao/q 0 1lis Item Has Been Scheduled For �3e DRC-ERC Meeting a_To tae rfril"d PROJECT DESCRIPTION L to Cc- a r o Al CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING L)FPARMWE PROJECT REVIEW R Apo ROUTING ���/c 919 �. TO: X1w Grubbs - 9 ?� O Engineering 12) Steve Ku salt • Parks and 1�fikel Park- Fire Department p Recreation Charles Dunham - Building,& Safety Moe Estevene - Redevelopment Agencv Ellis Williams - Water Department Kevin Barnes - Refuse Council Ward #S Robin Clark - Police Department Future Planning From: Planning Department en 5057 Deborah Date: /90 Wo ldraff Attached Are The Plans For : 40-` ETempt From CEQA Subject To CEQA P lease respond by Fridab, y/,a 0/q 0 This Item Has Been Scheduled For The DRC,ERC Meeting f 8 o be a..ttrni�r.w� PROJECT DESCRIPTION - � L aft � sf � G APPENDIX F - TRAFFIC STUDY 03/19/92(1:-+HID101-•.KkSTER.D>C) VERDEMONT GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS January 2, 1992 Prepared for: City of San Bernardino Planning and Building Services Department 300 North D Street San Bernardino, California 92418 Prepared by: LSA Associates, Inc. 3403 10th Street, Suite 520 Riverside, California 92501 (714) 781-9310 LSA Project #IIID101 I-SA Aswdates,Inc. TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Little League Drive Realignment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 EXISTING CONDITIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Existing Arterial Highway System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Intersection Levels of Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 BACKGROUND TRAFFIC CONDITIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Forecast Volume Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Peak Hour Intersection Levels of Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Signal Warrant Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 PROJECT TRAFFIC CONDITIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Trip Generation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Trip Distribution and Assignment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 PROJECT TRAFFIC IMPACTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Peak Hour Intersection Levels of Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Signal Warrant Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 Congestion Management Plan Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 MITIGATION MEASURES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 Cumulative Background Traffic Conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 Concept Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 Maximum Development Intensity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 APPENDIX A- LEVEL OF SERVICE CRITERIA APPENDIX B - LEVEL OF SERVICE CALCULATIONS APPENDIX C - FORECAST TRAFFIC VOLUMES 01ro2P92(I:\HM101\TRAFFIC.RPT) 11 LSA Associates,Inc LIST OF FIGURES PAGE 1 - Vicinity Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 2 - Conceptual Site Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3 - Intersection Location Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 4 - Project Trip Distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 LIST OF TABLES PAGE A - Existing Intersection Levels of Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 B - Future Background Intersection Levels of Service . . . . . . . . . . . 11 C - Future Background Signal Warrant Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 D - Trip Generation Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 E - Background Plus Project Intersection Levels of Service . . . . . . . 18 F - Background Plus Project Signal Warrant Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 G - Contributions to CMP Network . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 01ro2/92(I:\HID101\TRAFFIC.RP1) iii LSA Associates,Inc. VERDEMONT GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS INTRODUCTION This report presents the results of a traffic analysis performed to assess the impacts of the proposed Verdemont General Plan Amendment (GPA). The analysis examines the impacts of proposed project development relative to projected traffic conditions in the vicinity of the project site for five and ten year horizons (i.e. 1996 and 2001, respectively). In addition, this analysis examines the direct impacts of project development along Little League Drive, which will provide direct access to the project site. PROJECT DESCRIP77ON Figure 1 illustrates the location of the Verdemont General Plan Amendment area. The project area is bordered by the Cable Creek Flood Control Chan- nel on the northeast, existing Little League Drive on the south and south- west, and Al Guhin Park on the northwest. The project consists of two parcels. The proposed General Plan Amendment only relates to the 29.7 acre westerly parcel. For purposes of this analysis, however, the 7.1 acre easterly parcel is also included in the analysis of traffic impacts, as the actual development planned for the project area will cover both parcels. Both parcels of the project site are vacant. The westerly parcel (for which the GPA is proposed) currently has a General Plan designation of RU-1 (Residential Urban),which would allow development of 267 residential units. Under the proposed General Plan Amendment, the General Plan designation would be changed to CG-1 (General Commercial), with a maximum permit- ted development intensity of 905,600 square feet of commercial uses. The easterly parcel is currently designated CG-1, with a maximum permitted development intensity of 216,500 square feet of commercial development. With the proposed GPA, the project area would be permitted to be devel- oped with a maximum of 1,122,100 square feet of commercial uses. While the maximum development intensity permitted for the project site with the GPA would be 1,122,100 square feet of commercial uses, the concept plan for the site proposes development with 380,000 square feet of commer- cial uses (34 percent of the maximum allowable intensity). Figure 2 illus- trates the concept plan for the current application. For purposes of this analysis, both maximum allowable development intensi- ty for the project area and the proposed concept plan are examined. 01/02/92(IAHID101\TRAFFIC APT) r -- -r,��,��� ---_ a ,••, • r � ((II � II �I i i � ��, 111 i rw- 1•.� u }` _� .fir• I J x• I � ��� `erg �-. - , D �I � , I m ' - � �-»� � /<••:: ^•Y -\ O '..�� .' ����i,� <� .—� •¢ d dd\fin . f �i' t 1 o- _ "� • _� > rA c{tee N � c� bA ,� r. ' E91 til, 1 gas }� C r gg:I lily 1 / �. lilt. II11 Oil I tin -� /� Ca 1G 111111 4L -��- • I 111:11 fill 1#11111 U.1 w J I� Jnlllltl:!Iltl tt1�11n C 1 J W LLI L) w y¢. 1—�I W UI c ' M �� /� � C I �1 n• � , i ON.� 1�r UJ . I = i Z ) L !V i (' W 'i' 111 1 1 1 1 1 i• 1 V Y _ Z E1 ...... 1 O — I Cl E X111 1�. �l 1 1r nl (ftiv ~�IX' - 1 � I � 11 016 F al w x tk J — LSA Associates,Ina Little League Drive Realignment In addition to the proposed land use development, the General Plan Amend- ment contains a change in the circulation system in the vicinity of the project site. Currently, Little League Drive is located on the southwest boundary of the project site, adjacent to I-215. Concern has been expressed by the City Public Work"ngineering Department that the design of Little League Drive northerly of the project site is substandard for a collector roadway. As previ- ously referenced Figure 1 illustrates, Little League Drive has a sharp turn along the westerly and northerly edges of AI Guhin Park. This horizontal alignment would be inadequate to accommodate the additional traffic gener- ated by the proposed project. To rectify the substandard design features of existing Little League Drive, the project proposes to realign Little League Drive along the Cable Creek Flood Control Channel. Consistent with the City's General Plan, realigned Little League Drive will be a four lane roadway with an 88 foot right of way. The project would be responsible for construction of realigned Little League Drive from its intersection with Little League Drive/Frontage Road to the easterly project boundary,where realigned Little League Drive would connect with the existing alignment of Little League Drive. Since a specific site plan or project access has not been determined, it will be necessary to perform a detailed access analysis prior to parcel map approval. This analysis will need to include an assessment of access location operations, as well as a striping plan for Little League Drive. In addition, the project will be responsible for its fair share contribution to widening of the existing section of Little League Drive from the easterly project boundary to Palm Avenue. EXISTING CONDITIONS This section describes the current traffic conditions in the vicinity of the project site. Existing Arterial Higbway System Previously referenced Figure 1 illustrates the key roadways in the vicinity of the project site. These roadways are described below. Barstow Freeway (1-215) - The Barstow Freeway (1-215) is a four lane free- way and is the primary regional facility in the vicinity of the project site. In the vicinity of the project, I-215 is constructed as a four lane freeway (two lanes in each direction). To the northwest, I-215 joins I-15, which provides access to the northerly parts of San Bernardino County. To the southeast, I- 215 provides access to the Cities of San Bernardino and Riverside. Access to I-215 is provided via a full interchange at Palm Avenue. oiroz/9z(1:\xmioi\11tAFF1c.PJM 4 LSA Anodates,Inc. Palm Avenue - Palm Avenue is a key north-south roadway through the Verdemont area. Palm Avenue extends from Cajon Boulevard on the south- westerly side of I-215 to immediately north of Pennsylvania Avenue. Palm Avenue is constructed as a two lane roadway with left turn pockets at inter- sections. Access to I-215 is provided via a full interchange on Palm Avenue. Little League Drive - Little League Drive contains two segments. The first, referred to as Little League Drive (West) for purposes of this analysis, is a two lane roadway extending from Kendall Drive on the southwesterly side of I-215 to immediately north of Pennsylvania Avenue. The second segment, referred to as Little League Drive (South) for purposes of this analysis, is a two lane roadway extending from Little League Drive (West) to Palm Avenue. Direct access to the project site is provided via Little League Drive (South). Kendall Drive - Kendall Drive is a four lane roadway extending southeasterly from Palm Avenue at its intersection with Little League Drive (South) to the north-central part of the City of San Bernardino. Intersection Levels of Service Five intersections in the vicinity of the study area were selected for analysis. These intersections, and the existing stop control, are summarized below. 1. Palm Avenue/Little League Drive (South)/Kendall Drive - Four- way Stop Control. This intersection is examined as a signal- ized intersection, as the City is currently pursuing signaliza- tion. 2. Palm Avenue/I-215 Northbound Ramps - Stop Sign Control on Off ramp. 3. Palm Avenue/I-215 Southbound Ramps - Stop Sign Control on Palm Avenue. 4. Palm Avenue/Cajon Boulevard - Stop Sign Control on Palm Avenue. 5. Little League Drive (West)/Little League Drive (South) - Stop Sign Control on Little League Drive (South). Figure 3 illustrates the locations of the analysis intersections. A general indication of peak hour operations is provided by determining the peak hour level of service (LOS) for the intersection. The LOS of an intersec- tion is designated by the letters "A' through "F", with LOS A representing optimal intersection operation and LOS F representing an overcapacity sit- uation. Peak hour LOS B through E represent various intermediate levels of operation between LOS A and LOS F. Appendix A provides a general discus- oiroz.p2a-\HM101\TRAFrrC."T) 5 M � O a.. � O 4 O a O C 3AV YrWcl N z z v x �(J 0 �a 3Ad U �Q oa aQ a x h A 3AV ry VIIC)KDVW `- >. qq 2 3 IdQ 311Ove1 fl'ILLI'I ^ S w LSA Associate;Inc. sion of the level of service categories. The City of San Bernardino has established LOS D operations as the thresh- old of acceptability for peak hour intersection operations. Therefore, mitigations must be implemented for the peak hour is LOS E or worse. For signalized intersections, the Hfgbway Capacity Manual' (HCM) opera- tions analysis methodology was used to determine levels of service. Level of service criteria for signalized intersections are based upon stop delay per vehicle. Delay is measures in terms of driver discomfort, frustration, fuel consumption, and lost travel time. Appendix A contains a description of the various levels of service with corresponding stop delay per vehicle. Appendix B contains the LOS calculation sheets. In determining the stop delay and associated level of service, the HCM opera- tions analysis methodology utilizes signal timing and phasing information. The signal timing and phasing information for each intersection by peak hour was developed using the Signal Operations Analysis Package (SOAP). The SOAP program utilizes traffic volumes by turn movement and number of lanes to identify the optimal signal timing and signal phasing to accommo- date peak hour traffic through the intersection being examined. Appendix C contains SOAP calculation sheets for signalized intersections. For unsignalized stop sign controlled intersections, the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) unsignalized intersection analysis methodology is utilized to determine peak hour operations and levels of service. For two-way stop controlled intersections, the HCM analysis methodology provides a level of service (LOS) based on the amount of reserve capacity available for each turn movement to and from the minor street approach per hour. The methodolo- gy assumes unimpeded through traffic along the major street, thereby result- ing in acceptable levels of service for these through traffic movements. Therefore, the LOS is calculated for two movements: 1) the LOS for the worst turn movement from the major street to the minor street (termed the major street approach LOS), and 2) the LOS for the worst turn movement from the minor street to the major street (termed the minor street approach LOS). Reserve capacity for each of these movements range from greater than 400 vehicles per hour for LOS A, to less than zero for LOS F. LOS D corre- sponds to a residual capacity of 100 or more vehicles. For all-way stop control intersections, the HCM analysis methodology pro- vides a volume/capacity (v/c) ratio based on the total intersection approach volumes as a proportion of the capacity which can be accommodated. The capacity of the intersection is a function of the demand volume split between the two roadways (north-south and east-west). An appropriate level of ser- vice can then be assigned based on the v/c ratio. ' Higbway Capacity Manual, Transportation Research Board National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1985. 01 ro2/92(1AHID101\TRAPFIC.RFT) 7 LSAALWdates,Inc. The methodologies described above were utilized to determine the existing conditions at the five key intersections in the project vicinity. Table A sum- marizes the existing AM and PM peak hour levels of service for these inter- sections. As the level of service analysis indicates, all intersections under investigation are currently operating at acceptable levels of service during both the AM and PM peak hours. It should be noted that the intersection of Palm Ave- nue/Little League Drive is currently operating at LOS D during the PM peak hour. The minor street movement of the intersection of Palm Avenue/I-215 Eastbound Ramps (from the off-ramp to Palm Avenue) is also currently oper- ating at LOS D during the PM peak hour. BACKGROUND TRAFFIC CONDITIONS The traffic analysis for the proposed project examines two future background traffic condition scenarios: 1. Existing plus Five Year Growth Conditions. This scenario includes forecast background growth for a five year horizon. For purposes of this analysis, this scenario is referred to as the 1996 background conditions. 2. Existing plus Ten Year Growth Conditions. This scenario includes forecast background growth for a ten year horizon. For purposes of this analysis, this scenario is referred to as the 2001 background conditions. A discussion of each of these background scenarios, along with an assess- ment of traffic conditions at the intersections under investigation is present- ed below. Forecast Volume Development Forecast traffic volumes for the 1996 and 2001 background conditions were developed through application of growth factors to the existing volumes. According to the City Public Works Department, typical growth in the City is approximately five percent per year. Assuming five percent growth per year compounded annually, existing traffic volumes would be expected to increase by approximately 28 percent over a five year period (to 1996), and by approximately 63 percent over a ten year period (to 2001). Hence, these growth factors were applied to existing volumes to develop forecast volumes for the 1996 background conditions and the 2001 background conditions. Appendix C contains the forecast background traffic volumes for the five and ten year growth conditions. 01/0Z92(1AH1D101\TRAFF1c.Rrr) 8 LSAAmciates,Inc. Table A-Existing Intersection Levels of Service Existing AM PM INTERSECTION Major/Minor Major/Minor 1.Palm Ave./Little League-Kendall LOS C LOS D 2.Palm Ave./I-215 WB Ramps A/C A/C 3.Palm Ave./I-215 EB Ramps AB A/D 4.Palm Ave./Cajon Boulevard A/A A/A 5.Little League Dr./Frontage Road A/A A/A (Note:Where applicable,Major/Minor LOS represent levels of service for left turns from the major and minor streets, respectively, for unsignalized intersections.) 01/02/92(0:\HID1011TABLEAWQ!) LSA AssodWes,Inc. Peak Hour Intersection Levels of Service The analysis methodologies described under the Existing Conditions section were utilized to determine the levels of service at the five key intersections in the project vicinity for the 1996 background and 2001 background scenarios. Table B summarizes the existing AM and PM peak hour levels of service for these intersections. 1996 Background Conditions As Table B indicates, the following intersections are expected to operate at unacceptable levels of service under 1996 background conditions. Palm AvenueIT215 Eastbound Ramps - This intersection is expected to oper- ate with a minor street movement (from the off-ramp to Palm Avenue) of LOS E during the PM peak hour. Improvement of operations to acceptable levels of service would require modification of stop sign control to provide all-way stop control. With all-way stop control, this intersection would oper- ate at LOS A during the PM peak hour. 2001 Background Conditions As Table B indicates, the following intersections are expected to operate at unacceptable levels of service under 2001 background conditions. Palm AvenueQ--215 Westbound Ramps -This intersection is expected to oper- ate with minor street movements (from the off-ramp to Palm Avenue) of LOS E during both the AM and PM peak hours. Improvement of operations to ac- ceptable levels of service would require modification of stop sign control to provide all-way stop control. With all-way stop control, this intersection would operate at LOS C during both the AM and PM peak hours. Palm AvenuelI-215 Eastbound Ramps - This intersection is expected to oper- ate with a minor street movement (from the off-ramp to Palm Avenue) of LOS F during the PM peak hour. Improvement of operations to acceptable levels of service would require modification of stop sign control to provide all-way stop control. With all-way stop control, this intersection would oper- ate at LOS A during both the AM and PM peak hours. Signal Warrant Analysis In addition to examining the intersection levels of service, the approach volumes for unsignalized intersections were examined to determine if signal- ization would be warranted. ot/02/92(1AHM1o1\TRAFF1C-FJ ) 10 LSA Associates,Inc Table B-Future Background Intersection Levels of Service Existing Cum.Growth 1996 Cum.Growth 2001 AM PM AM PM AM PM INTERSECTION Major/Minor Maior/Minor Major/Minor Major/Minor Major/Minor Major/Minor 1.Palm Avc./Litdc Leaguc-Kcndall Existing Control(Signalized) LOS C LOS D With Widening — — LOS B LOS C LOS C LOS D 2.Palm Avc./I-215 WB Ramps Existing Stop Control A/C A/C A/D A/D A/E A/E Muld-way Stop Control — — LOS B LOS B LOS C LOS C 3.Palm Ave./I-215 ED Ramps Existing Stop Control A/B A/D A/C A/E A/D A/F Multi-way Stop Control — — LOS A LOS A LOS A LOS A 4.Palm Avc./Cajon Boulevard Existing Stop Control A/A A/A A/A A/A A/A A/A 5.Little Lague Dr./Frontage Road Existing Stop Control A/A A/A A/A A/A A/A A/A (Note:Where applicable,Major/Minor LOS represent levels of service for critical left turns from the major and minor streets,respectively,for unsignalizcd intersections.) 01/02/92(0:WID1011TABLEB.WQ!) LSA Au»ciatas�Ina The desirability of signalizing existing intersections can be related to safety and traffic volume considerations. The need for signalization is determined through signal warrant analysis procedures established by the Federal High- way Administration (FHWA) and Caltrans. The Caltrans Traffic Manual' provides a number of signal warrants for use in determining whether inter- sections should be signalized. Since this traffic analysis examines peak hour intersection volumes and impacts, the peak hour warrants were examined (per Traffic Manual Figure 9-8). Signal warrants are based on the minimum approach volume requirements for the major street (total of both approaches) and the minor street (one direction only). These volume requirements have been established for two levels of development: urban and rural. According to Caltrans' Traffic Man- ual, "When the 85 percentile speed of major street exceeds 40 miles per hour, or the intersection lies within a built-up area of an isolated community having a population less than 10,000, the location is considered rural. All other areas are considered urban." All roadways in the vicinity of the Master Plan area have travel speeds of less than 40 miles per hour, and are therefore considered urban in nature. Determination of whether an intersection war- rants signalization is based on the plotting of major and minor street vol- umes on a graph (Figure 9-8 of the Traffic Manual). If the plotted point exceeds the threshold line, signalization is warranted. Table C summarizes the two-way major street approach volumes and one-way minor street approach volumes for the analysis intersections under the exist- ing, 1996 background, and 2001 background conditions. As the signal warrant analysis indicates, none of the signalized intersections under investigation will have sufficient approach volumes to warrant signal- ization under the 1996 background conditions. The intersection of Palm Avenue/I-215 westbound ramps will have sufficient peak hour approach volume to warrant signalization under 2001 background conditions. It should be noted, however, that the intersection level of service analysis indicates that this intersection would operate at acceptable levels of service with all-way stop control under 2001 background conditions. PROJECT TRAFFIC CONDITIONS Trip Generation The trip generation rates and algorithms used for this analysis were taken from the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation (5th ' Caltrans, Traffic Manual, Sacramento, 1977. 01/0?l92(I:\1iID101\TRAFFIC.RPT) 12 Ci fi ti y d y� V dJ N 2142 z z z z z z z z z B �= zz° z zzz° z° zz zzz° ad 02 •NO' 0 .00, v O v M O p i N N � � v O py M N O��Q\ ch V1 COp `pC O� .-+ 00 4.6 !r lw Ea � v p p Qp Q 0 Q `a 00 `4v O� IT N N O M 00 M N W � v `w MWWWY Q1 1. is 1� �p � 00 V� N O `d' V) y i Oho 8 M 0 p N N M V\ v •q QC N N N N N N .-. — .-a - .-.i ..-i N N N N N N ..-i - ..-i — — - � d w v � N N V W trrr Teti Te p e aQ v EE EE WEE TWEE m > > g > > p oG o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 c U U U U ; U U > U U 0 3 � c C ►�i r r U v E E E - v c� LSA Associates,Inc. Edition)'. Trip rates for residential uses as permitted under the existing General Plan designation were taken from ITE rates for single family detached housing (land use 210). Trip rates for the proposed commercial uses were developed using ITE trip generation algorithms for shopping centers (land use 820). ITE uses two sets of algorithms for shopping center trip generation. One set of rates is for centers less than 600,000 square feet in size, and the second is for center greater than 600,000 square feet in size. The algorithms for centers with less than 600,000 square feet were used to generate trips for the proposed concept plan, while the algorithms for cen- ters with greater than 600,000 square feet were used to generate trips for the maximum intensity project. Table D summarizes the trip generation rates utilized in this analysis for the project site under existing and proposed General Plan designations. In addition, this table summarizes the directional AM and PM peak hour trip generation (corresponding to adjacent street peak hour conditions) and ADT trip generation resulting when these algorithms and rates are applied to the development intensities for the existing General Plan designation, the proposed concept plan, and the maximum intensity which would be allowed under the proposed General Plan designation. As this summary indicates, the project site, under the current General Plan designations, could generate 14,100 daily trips, of which 460 trips would occur during the AM peak hour and 1,352 trips would occur during the PM peak hour. Under the proposed concept plan, the project site would gener- ate 16,300 daily trips (16 percent greater than under the current General Plan designations), of which 357 trips would occur during the AM peak hour (22 percent less than under the current General Plan designation) and 1,536 trips would occur during the PM peak hour (14 percent greater than under the current General Plan designations). Under maximum intensities per the proposed GPA, the site would generate 35,000 daily trips (148 percent great- er than under the current General Plan designations). Of these, 675 trips would occur during the AM peak hour (47 percent greater than under the current General Plan designations) and 3,225 trips would occur during the PM peak hour (139 percent greater than under the current General Plan designations). Trip Distribution and Assignment Trip distribution and assignment patterns for the project site were developed in consultation with City staff based on the relative location of surrounding residential development which would be served by the proposed commercial development. Figure 4 illustrates these trip distribution patterns. ' Trip Generation (5th Edition), Institute of Transportation Engineers, Washington, D.C., 1991. 01/02/92(I.\HM101\TRAFF1C."7) 14 / ( C CAM Ln ) q K r_ § � k r � � ■ � � § � r § ( q } a LPN � § � � « c 2 � � f � z 2 d is } o w c ( J e � ON A � 0 0 6 c6 e ) 2 F ` � z » F& r ± Q § § 6 6 6 6 \ § ) / k § $ ° 7 \ $ r CF . Gm ) o0 R ff ( /E 2 \ J4 0 ttt � c § 2 c c = c = £ § 2 } \ •� � -�� ��.— �.. mac, q ��r.' ..����_�')� -- -- --------- ��= r+ ------ NATiONAL G Res 194, 1896 W \ ti C� •� ) �_ _` /,1894 ak, J� \i, a aoo4. . �ti BM 1872 VA A q �/� 15E . `� •i' �i 1 V. \� Pet' y� r `3 PROJECT •ce •lzls � LOCATION , • EIM •1779 15% 2% � 9. Ve 20% „ ,a - — X720 � B 1694 1 \\G -1720 . 1660 I �e 3% E� N '.: 11 0 It � —11 SST:t �DT10N n� Glen Kelen Rekabihta6on Facility /v, i60C �-- Sewage Dispo6ai -' V Source: USGS Topographic Maps, "Devorc & San Bernardino North" Quadrangles. 12/5/91(HID101) Figure 4 Scaie in Feet � � L 0 1000 2000 Project Trip Distribution LSA Assodates,Inc. PROJECT TRAFFIC IMPACTS This section discusses the impacts of project generated traffic on the future background conditions in the vicinity of the project site. The impact assess- ment examines peak hour intersection levels of service, as well as the need for signalization of additional intersections. Peak Hour Intersection Levels of Service The analysis of project impacts on intersection levels of service at the five key intersections in the project vicinity for four project scenarios: 1. 1996 Background plus Concept Plan 2. 2001 Background plus Concept Plan 3. 1996 Background plus Maximum Intensity 4. 2001 Background plus Maximum Intensity Table E summarizes the AM and PM peak hour levels of service for each of these project scenarios. 1996 Background Plus Concept Plan As Table E indicates, the following intersections are expected to operate at unacceptable levels of service under 1996 background plus concept plan conditions. Palm Avenue/Little League Drive - This intersection is expected to operate at LOS F during the PM peak hour. Improvement of operations to acceptable levels of service would require a separate eastbound right turn lane. With this improvement, this intersection would operate at LOS C during the PM peak hour. Palm Avenue/I-215 Westbound Ramps -This intersection is expected to oper- ate with minor street movements (from the off-ramp to Palm Avenue) of LOS E during both the AM and PM peak hours. Improvement of operations to ac- ceptable levels of service would require signalization (see Signal Warrant Analysis section) and the addition of a second westbound right turn lane. With these improvements, this intersection would operate at LOS D during the AM peak hour and at LOS B during the PM peak hour. Palm AvenuelI-215 Eastbound Ramps - This intersection is expected to oper- ate with a minor street movement (from the off-ramp to Palm Avenue) of LOS F during the PM peak hour. Improvement of operations to acceptable levels of service would require modification of stop sign control to provide all-way stop control. With all-way stop control, this intersection would oper- ate at LOS A during both the AM and PM peak hours. 01/0Z'92a:\xID101\1xAFtIC.FJ Tj 17 U 0 Q Q A RI U U U U < p� M Qa H y M i y H y y H y + 0 u � W U U w A w w U < v, 6 rA O O ' ' 0 rn h 0 O w a s g g a a O �q w W U W 07 R1 �y H 1 I 1 A7 v' 0 m ' q + i " o `o as w U A Q A < < < E X 0 0 0 ' O ` .^, 8 0. E a a a a a b Q a E ? O 1 I I 1 O 1 I I a d U t c U p0 < " W V cc < 0 w h " a O 0 9 a a m 0w M E P o m m E u E a c N z e 9 w cc w q N p, U U C C p� U C » U u U w c Z u h 6 w aG w m e O 0 �p b E o U C ^ 0 0 � �- r r W � w x � h �, a a "u P S g r N to eo a r s " m ° o a Q ec a o a a 8 " m m c m m c c u Cc W [- '\a c N W C N a e � E `U E E E u 96 16 C LSA Auadates,Inc 2001 Background Plus Concept Plan As Table E indicates, the following intersections are expected to operate at unacceptable levels of service under 2001 background plus concept plan conditions. Palm Avenue/Little League Drive - This intersection is expected to operate at LOS F during the PM peak hour. Improvement of operations to acceptable levels of service would require a separate southbound right turn lane and a separate eastbound right turn lane. With these improvements, this intersec- tion would operate at LOS C during the PM peak hour. Palm Avenue/T215 Westbound Ramps- This intersection is expected to oper- ate with minor street movements (from the off-ramp to Palm Avenue) of LOS E during the AM and LOS F during the PM peak hour. Improvement of operations to acceptable levels of service would require signalization (see Signal Warrant Analysis section) and the addition of a second southbound through lane and a second westbound right turn lane. With these improve- ments, this intersection would operate at LOS C during the AM peak hour and LOS B during the PM peak hour. Palm Avenue/I-215 Eastbound Ramps - This intersection is expected to oper- ate with a minor street movement (from the ofd ramp to Palm Avenue) of LOS E during the AM peak hour and LOS F during the PM peak hour. Im- provement of operations to acceptable levels of service would require modifi- cation of stop sign control to provide all-way stop control. With all-way stop control, this intersection would operate at LOS A during the AM peak hour and at LOS B during the PM peak hour. 1996 Background Plus Mavimum Intensity As Table E indicates, the following intersections are expected to operate at unacceptable levels of service under 1996 background plus maximum intensi- ty conditions. Palm Avenue/Little League Drive - This intersection is expected to operate at LOS F during the PM peak hour. Improvement of operations to acceptable levels of service would require the addition of a second northbound left turn lane, a southbound right turn lane, and dual eastbound right turn lanes. Palm Avenue/I-215 Westbound Ramps- This intersection is expected to oper- ate with minor street movements (from the off-ramp to Palm Avenue) of LOS E during the AM and PM peak hours. Improvement of operations at this intersection would require signalization, as well as a second southbound through lane, a second southbound right turn lane, and a second westbound right turn lane. Even with these modifications, the intersection would con- tinue to operate at unacceptable levels of service. 01ro2/92(I:\HID101\rxAFFtc.FJM 19 LSA Associates,Inc. Palm AvenuelI-215 Eastbound Ramps - This intersection is expected to oper- ate with a minor street movement (from the off-ramp to Palm Avenue) of LOS E during the AM peak hour and LOS F during the PM peak hour. In addition, during the PM peak hour, the major street movement (from Palm Avenue to the on-ramp) is expected to operate at LOS F. Improvement of operations to acceptable levels of service would require modification of stop sign control to provide all-way stop control. With all-way stop control, this intersection would operate at LOS A during the AM peak hour and LOS D during the PM peak hour. 2001 Background Plus Maximum Intensity As Table E indicates, the following intersections are expected to operate at unacceptable levels of service under 2001 background plus maximum intensi- ty conditions. Palm Avenue/Little League Drive - This intersection is expected to operate at LOS F during the PM peak hour. Improvement of operations to near accept- able levels of service would require the addition of a second northbound left turn lane, a southbound right turn lane, dual eastbound right turn lanes, and dual westbound left turn lanes. With these significant improvements, the intersection would operate at LOS B during the AM peak hour and LOS D during the PM peak hour. Palm AvenuelI-215 Westbound Ramps -This intersection is expected to oper- ate with minor street movements (from the off-ramp to Palm Avenue) of LOS E during the AM and LOS F during the PM peak hours. Improvement of operating conditions would require signalization (see Signal Warrant Analysis section), as well as the addition of a second southbound through lane, a second southbound right turn lane, and a second westbound right turn lane. Even with these improvements, this intersection would continue to operate at unacceptable levels of service. Palm Avenue/I-215 Eastbound Ramps - This intersection is expected to oper- ate with a minor street movement (from the off-ramp to Palm Avenue) of LOS E during the AM peak hour and LOS F during the PM peak hour. In addition, during the PM peak hour, the major street movement (from Palm Avenue to the on-ramp) is expected to operate at LOS F. Improvement of operations to acceptable levels of service would require Improvement of operations to acceptable levels of service would require modification of stop sign control to provide all-way stop control. With all-way stop control, this intersection would operate at LOS B during the AM peak hour and LOS D during the PM peak hour. 01/02/92(I:\Ji1Dtot\TRAFFIC.FJM 20 LSA Avociates,Inc Signal Warrant Analysis In addition to examining the intersection levels of service, the approach volumes for unsignalized intersections were examined to determine if signal- ization would be warranted. Table F summarizes two-way major street approach volumes and one-way minor street approach volumes for the analysis intersections under the exist- ing, 1996 background, 2001 background, 1996 background plus concept plan, 2001 background plus concept plan, 1996 background plus maximum intensity, and 2001 background plus maximum intensity conditions As the signal warrant analysis indicates, with the development of the pro- posed concept plan, both the intersections of Palm Avenue/I-215 westbound ramps and Palm Avenue/I-215 eastbound ramps would have sufficient ap- proach volumes to warrant signalization. Likewise, both these intersections would warrant signalization with development of the maximum intensity project. Congestion Management Plan Analysis Per State of California legislation, the County of San Bernardino and the San Bernardino Association of Governments (SANBAG) are currently in the pro- cess of preparing a Congestion Management Plan (CMP) for the County. As part of the CMP requirements, all regionally significant projects are required to examine potential impacts on the County's CMP roadway network. At the present time, the specific analysis requirements and the final CMP network have not been determined. The City has requested that a prelimi- nary CMP analysis be performed for the proposed project, in which project contributions to regionally significant facilities (i.e. I-215 and SR-30) be documented. At this time, no additional is required. Depending on the final CMP requirements, additional analysis of impacts my be required. Table G summarizes the AM and PM peak hour project contributions to I-215 and SR-30. The project contributions are provided for both the proposed concept plan and the maximum intensity development. MI77GATION MEASURES The results of the traffic impact analysis indicate that the following measures will be required to mitigate unacceptable levels of service in the vicinity of the project site. O1A)2/92(I:ViID1o1\11tAFFIC.PJM 21 r h yy� V V N x Z �� x Z Z �� �� �� Z Z x Z Z x Z z Z Z Z Z Z Z Iz B � Q s y Y.. Zxz �u" >` . zzzzzzZ zzzzzzZ zzzzzzZ rt .. �{ ' h V � `C' N 0M h `nT � O 00 N .+ `0' .•� `0' � O O M M 00 0� �O O �O O� `C '" I� > py 6. M O� O� M V\ 00 `0' ON M � O a .r Cp `tf' .r O \D N ON N r O i � N N 1� - M O & n & M W 00 `C 5. �o M N V� M `0' in ^' Vl h xn 1/� f- 00 ..+ N M N M N M .�. .-+ ..-� ..-i v V � � pp Q ►►Oyy Q 'tl' 00 O n N 'd O�`Q O� `C O� `C g O M r `C N 1/� 00 M N N 0� O Il go WI ••=i .r .+ .-+ N M M `Q' .-1 -+ N .a N .-i N .+ N N M M v .a. H ng ONO OMO � r °aS Mn � � S o oo � N � M � � � na$ a i « � M `Q' \O V1 1- �o r- .+ N N N N N N I�QI M C N N N N N N N N N N N N N N - - - - — - - .+ — - - .+ - — 1�1 CL O N N N N N N N N N N N N N N - - -r -+ -+ -+ - - - .-+ -+ - .--i -+ w It �' C �pp� 8~ e u u w u u c c r u u c e o i a u u ,= i i u u UU U > > a c7 � UU > c W > > + + 6 E > > + + E E > > + + u > > + + E E w d OG C = N E + + y r + + + +E E .0 r Q 3 > > rl > > V 11 > = 00 C � � � � � = C7 V � � u C7 Vrt F 4j u+' 8 > > a > E E > > C E E ua� E E T o E E > > ° v = = u = e u = = p V U w w o U U a U U U V R = 7 0 = = 7 = 7 7 7 7 v > E E a E E a E E u E E c o = e = = a = _ E V V E V U E V V u V U ry M `7 N c ti V C x c x L Y v Y U ',�' •� a0 cNr1 rNe'� ° pnppp N ago N `N0� No a0 00 V� M N `w N o Ex Ex m M V\ Vl\ O v - Go V� v er . 0 � ° w ao v� M z r+ N O, 00 �o `C' N r�+ W M N --� Y C N `P M N x x Z v .59 u �° E a' pq 00 W V\ O 00 p" pq r n a0 0 z M .� .+ `R' M N .. n M O . W n M U 0 a u a C O Q 4 V1 V\ O M O \0 O M n 0 0 M 0. 7 cn .r n VN `C N N o. ; M N .+ .+ a u x v 0 .Q 0 0 C � V C3 P. n M M v N - ° ° M. n cf%z ~ W N G7 u � ae ae ae ae ae ae ae ae ae ae ae ae . ae ae ae h V\ N N O V\ V\ O O V\ O V\ O V\ O V\ L 7 � C ea v < 01 en N v 0. O c g 04 r �+ Lc u cn � vC� v G7 < SC E O u v p�p C E V 0 C 0 0 C 0. R C < Q Z ; PC v O Vi > 7 � L � V) � M � 6 co m N r < t r < y u S V C O a Y O > � > yr 0 ~ h q>� v 0 F F v N ti LSA Amdates,Inc. Cumulative Background Tra.#7c Conditions Under cumulative background conditions (without the addition of project traffic), the following measures will be required: • Palm Avenue/I-215 Westbound Ramps - Modification of stop sign control to provide all-way stop control under 1996 cumulative condi- tions. Under 2001 cumulative conditions, this intersection would have sufficient peak hour approach volumes to warrant signalization. • Palm Avenue/I--215 Eastbound Ramps - Modification of stop sign control to provide all-way stop control. Concept Plan Project Improvements • The project shall be responsible for construction of realigned Little League Drive from its intersection with Little League Drive/Frontage Road to the easterly project boundary, where realigned Little League Drive would connect with the existing alignment of Little League Drive. • Prior to parcel map approval, the project applicant shall submit for the City Traffic Engineer's approval a detailed access analysis for the proposed project. The analysis will need to include an assessment of access location operations, as well as a striping plan for Little League Drive. • The project shall be responsible for payment of its fair share contribu- tion to widening of the exsting section of Little League Drive from the easterly project boundary to Palm Avenue. 1996 Background Plus Concept Plan With the addition of project traffic to 1996 background conditions, the following improvements would be required: • Palm Avenue/Little League Dive - Addition of a separate eastbound right turn lane. • Palm Avenue/I-215 Westbound Ramps -Signalization and the addition of a second westbound right turn lane. 01/02/ri2(1:\HID101\TRAFFIC.PJM 24 LSA Associates,Inc 2001 Background Plus Concept Plan with the addition of project traffic to 1996 background conditions, the following improvements would be required: • Palm Avenue/Little League Drive -Addition of a separate southbound right turn lane and a separate eastbound right turn lane. • Palm AvenuelI-215 Westbound Ramps - Signalization, and the addi- tion of a second southbound through lane and a second westbound right turn lane. Maximum Development Intensity 1996 Background Plus Maximum Development Intensity With the addition of project traffic to 1996 background conditions, the following improvements would be required: • Palm Avenue/Little League Drive - Addition of a second northbound left turn lane, a southbound right turn lane, and dual eastbound right turn lanes. • Palm AvenuelI-215 Westbound Ramps - Signalization, and the addi- tion of a second southbound through lane, a second southbound right turn lane and a second westbound right turn lane. Even with these modifications, this intersection would continue to operate at unacceptable levels of service. 2001 Background Plus Maximum Development Intensity With the addition of project traffic to 2001 background conditions, the following improvements would be required: • Palm Avenue/Little League Drive - Addition of a second northbound left turn lane, a southbound right turn lane, dual eastbound right turn lanes, and dual westbound left turn lanes. • Palm Avenue/1-215 Westbound Ramps - Signalization, and the addi- tion of a second southbound through lane, a second southbound right turn lane, and a second westbound right turn lane. Even with these improvements, this intersection would continue to operate at unacceptable levels of service. 0iro2/92(I:V3ID101\TRAFrtC-"T) 25 LK4 Aswdates�Inc APPENDIX A - LEVEL OF SERVICE CRITERIA 01ro2/1)2(1:v IID101\TRAFFIc.RPI) LSA Aswdatt;Inc. Table A-1 -Vehicular Levels of Service for Arterials Level of Service Description A Level of Service A describes primarily free flow operations at average travel speeds usually about 90 percent of the free flow speed for the arterial class. Vehicles are completely unimpeded in their ability to maneuver within the traffic stream. Stopped delay at signalized intersections is minimal. B Level of Service B represents reasonably unimpeded operations at average travel speeds usually about 70 percent of the free flow speed for the arterial class. The ability to maneuver within the traffic stream is only slightly re- stricted and stopped delays are not bothersome. Drivers are not generally subjected to appreciable tension. C Level of Service C represents stable operations. However, ability to maneu- ver and change lanes in midblock locations may be more restricted than in LOS B, and longer queues and/or adverse signal coordination may contrib- ute to lower average travel speeds of about 50 percent of the average free flow speed for the arterial class. Motorists will experience an appreciable tension while driving. D Level of service D borders on a range on which small increases in flow may cause substantial increases in approach delay and, hence, decreases in arterial speed. This may be due to adverse signal progression, inappropri- ate signal timing, high volumes, or some other combination of these. Aver- age travel speeds are about 40 percent of free flow speeds. E Level of Service E is characterized by significant approach delays and aver- age travel speeds of one-third the free flow speed or lower. Such opera- tions are caused by some combination of adverse progression, high signal density, extensive queuing at critical intersections, and inappropriate signal timing. F Level of Service F characterizes arterial flow at extremely low speeds below one-third to one-quarter of the free flow speed. Intersection congestion is likely at critical signalized locations, with high approach delays resulting. Adverse progression is frequently a contributor to this condition. Source: Highway Capacity Manual Special Report 209, Transportation Research Board, 1985. 01/02!92(I:\HID 101\TRAFFIC.RPT) LSAAnodatt;Inc Table A-2 -Vehicular Levels of Service at Signalized Intersections Level of Service Description V/C Ratio A Level of Service A describes a condition where the approach 0.00-0.60 to an intersection appears quite open and turning movements are made easily. Little or no delay is experienced. No vehi- cles wait longer than one red traffic signal cycle. The traffic operation can generally be described as excellent. B Level of Service B describes a conditions where the approach 0.61-0.70 to an intersection is occasionally fully utilized and some de- lays may be encountered. Many drivers begin to feel some- what restricted within groups of vehicles. The traffic opera- tion can generally be described as very good. C Level of Service C describes a condition where the approach 0.71-0.80 to an intersection is often fully utilized and back-ups may occur behind turning vehicles. Most drivers feel somewhat restricted, but often not objectionably so. The driver occa- sionally may have to wait more than one red traffic signal indication. The traffic operation can generally be described as good. D Level of service D describes a condition of increasing restric- 0.81-0.90 lion causing substantial delays and queues of vehicles on ap- proaches to the intersection during short times within the peak period. However, there are enough signal cycles with lover demand such that queues are periodically cleared, thus preventing excessive back-ups. The traffic operation can gen- erally be described as fair. E Capacity occurs at Level of Service E. It represents the most 0.91-1.00 vehicles that any particular intersection can accommodate. At capacity there may be long queues of vehicles waiting up- stream of the intersection and vehicles may be delayed up to several signal cycles. The traffic operations can generally be described as poor. F Level of Service F represents a jammed condition. Back-ups 1.01+ from locations downstream or on the cross street may restrict or prevent movement of vehicles out of the approach under consideration. Hence, volumes of vehicles passing through the intersection vary from signal cycle to signal cycle. Be- cause of the jammed condition, this volume would be less than capacity. Source: Transportation Research Circular No. 212, Transportation Research Board, 1980. 01/02/92(I:\FIID 101\TRAFFIC.RPT) LSA tissodates.Inc. Table A-3 -Vehicular Levels of Service at Unsignalized Intersections Level of Reserve Service Description Capacity A Little or no delay to minor street traffic. >= 400 B Short traffic delays to minor street traffic. 300-399 C Average traffic delays to minor street traffic. 200-299 D Long traffic delays to minor street traffic. 100-199 E Very long traffic delays to minor street traffic. 0-99 F Demand volume exceeds capacity of the lane. Extreme delays < 0 will be encountered with queuing which may cause severe con- gestion affecting other movements in the intersection. This condition usually warrants improvement to the intersection. Source: Higbway Capacity Manual Special Report 209, Transportation Research Board, 1985. oirov92(1AHU)101\TRAFFIC.RPT) ISAAmciates,Inc. Multi-way Stop Control LOS Criteria Two-By-Two Lane Intersection Demand Split LOS A LOS B LOS C LOS D LOS E 50/50 670 950 1,200 1,430 11900 55/45 630 900 1,140 1,350 1,800 60/40 600 850 1,080 1,280 1,700 65/35 560 800 1,010 1,200 1,600 70/30 530 750 960 1,130 1,500 Two-By-Four Lane Intersection Demand Split LOS A LOS B LOS C LOS D LOS E 50/50 980 1,400 1,800 2,100 2,800 55/45 940 1,350 1,720 2,030 2,700 60/40 910 1,300 1,660 1,950 2,600 65/35 890 1,280 1,630 11910 2,550 70/30 880 1,250 1,610 1,880 2,500 Four-By-Four Lane Intersection Demand Split LOS A LOS B LOS C LOS D LOS E 50/50 1,260 1,800 2,200 2,700 3,600 55/45 1,190 1,700 2,090 2,550 3,400 60/40 1,120 1,600 1,970 2,400 3,200 65/35 1,090 1,550 1,880 2,330 3,100 70/30 1,050 1,500 1,820 2,250 3,000 The above tables have been derived from Chapter 10 "Unsigualized Intersections" of the 1985 Highway Capacity Manual. 12/31/91(0..WID10114-WAYLOS WQ!) L4AAmociatts,Inc APPENDIX B - LEVEL OF SERVICE CALCULATIONS O I ro 2/92(I:v;ro 101\TRAFFIC.xrr> LSA Awocfatts,Inc. 1. Palm Avenue/Little League Drive 01ro2/92(I:\H]Dioi\TWFIc.xrr) 1985 HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS SUMMARY REPORT INTERSECTION. .LITTLE LEAGUE/PALM AREA TYPE. . . . .OTHER ANALYST. . . . . . .STELLA DOIRON DATE. . . . . . . . . . 11-19-1991 TIME. . . . . . . . . .AM COMMENT. . . . . . .EXISTING -------------------------------------------------------------------------- VOLUMES GEOMETRY EB WB NB SB EB WB NB SB LT 2 286 4 68 LTR 12.0 L 12.0 L 12.0 LTR 12.0 TH 3 6 61 299 12.0 TR 12.0 T 12.0 12.0 RT 1 21 137 1 12.0 12.0 R 12.0 12.0 RR 0 0 0 0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- ADJUSTMENT FACTORS GRADE HV ADJ PKG BUSES PHF PEDS PED. BUT. ARR. TYPE N N Y/N Nm Nb Y/N min T EB 0.00 2.00 Y 20 0 0.90 50 N 0.0 3 WB 0.00 2.00 Y 20 0 0.90 50 N 0.0 3 NB 0.00 2.00 Y 20 0 0.90 50 N 0.0 3 SB 0.00 2.00 Y 20 0 0.90 50 N 0.0 3 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- SIGNAL SETTINGS CYCLE LENGTH = 81 .9 PH-1 PH-2 PH-3 PH-4 PH-1 PH-2 PH-3 PH-4 EB LT X NB LT X TH X TH X RT X RT X PD X PD X WB LT X SB LT X TH X TH X RT X RT X PD X PD X -------------------------------------------------------------------------- LEVEL OF SERVICE LANE GRP. V/C G/C DELAY LOS APP. DELAY APP. LOS EB LTR 0.045 0.122 20.5 C 20.5 C WB L 0.572 0.328 18.3 C 17.8 C TR 0.074 0.328 12.2 B NB L 0.022 0. 122 24.0 C 12. 1 B T 0. 174 0.219 16.8 C R 0.296 0.437 9.7 B SB LTR 0.875 0.331 26.6 D 26.6 D -------------------------------------------------------------------------- INTERSECTION: Delay = 20.2 (sec/veh) V/C = 0.639 LOS = C 1985 HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS SUMMARY REPORT ************************************************************************** INTERSECTION. .LITTLE LEAGUE/PALM AREA TYPE. . . . .OTHER ANALYST. . . . . . .STELLA DOIRON DATE. . . . . . . . . . 11-19-1991 TIME. . . . . . . . . .PM COMMENT. . . . . . .EXISTING -------------------------------------------------------------------------- VOLUMES GEOMETRY EB WB NB SB : EB WB NB SB LT 1 213 14 52 : LTR 12.0 L 12.0 L 12.0 LTR 12.0 TH 7 8 274 94 : 12.0 TR 12.0 T 12.0 12.0 RT 6 88 406 1 : 12.0 12.0 R 12.0 12.0 RR 0 0 0 0 : 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- ADJUSTMENT FACTORS GRADE HV ADJ PKG BUSES PHF PEDS PED. BUT. ARR. TYPE N N Y/N Nm Nb Y/N min T EB 0.00 2.00 Y 20 0 0.90 50 N 0.0 3 WB 0.00 2.00 Y 20 0 0.90 50 N 0.0 3 NB 0.00 2.00 Y 20 0 0.90 50 N 0.0 3 SB 0.00 2.00 Y 20 0 0.90 50 N 0.0 3 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- SIGNAL SETTINGS CYCLE LENGTH = 55.5 PH-1 PH-2 PH-3 PH-4 PH-1 PH-2 PH-3 PH-4 EB LT X NB LT X TH X TH X RT X RT X PD X PD X WB LT X SB LT X TH X TH X RT X RT X PD X PD X -------------------------------------------------------------------------- LEVEL OF SERVICE LANE GRP. V/C G/C DELAY LOS APP. DELAY APP. LOS EB LTR 0.073 0. 180 12.2 B 12.2 B WB L 0.419 0.333 11.2 B 10.5 B TR 0.267 0.333 8.8 B NB L 0.051 0.180 14.3 B 48.4 E T 0.948 0.180 37.2 D R 1 .063 0.360 57.2 E SB LTR 0.381 0.306 10.0 B 10.0 B -------------------------------------------------------------------------- INTERSECTION: Delay = 33.1 (sec/veh) V/C = 0.696 LOS = D 1985 HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS SUMMARY REPORT ************************************************************************** INTERSECTION. .LITTLE LEAGUE/PALM AREA TYPE. . . . .OTHER ANALYST. . . . . . .STELLA DOIRON DATE. . . . . . . . . . 11-19-1991 TIME. . . . . . . . . .AM COMMENT. . . . . . .CUM 1996 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- VOLUMES GEOMETRY EB WB NB SB EB WB NB SB LT 3 365 5 87 L 12.0 L 12.0 L 12.0 L 12.0 TH 4 8 78 382 TR 12.0 T 12.0 T 12.0 T 12.0 RT 0 27 175 0 12.0 R 12.0 T 12.0 TR 12.0 RR 0 24 150 0 12.0 12.0 R 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- ADJUSTMENT FACTORS GRADE HV ADJ PKG BUSES PHF PEDS PED. BUT. ARR. TYPE N M Y/N Nm Nb Y/N min T EB 0.00 2.00 Y 20 0 0.90 50 N 0.0 3 WB 0.00 2.00 Y 20 0 0.90 50 N 0.0 3 NB 0.00 2.00 Y 20 0 0.90 50 N 0.0 3 SB 0.00 2.00 Y 20 0 0.90 50 N 0.0 3 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- SIGNAL SETTINGS CYCLE LENGTH = 59.2 PH-1 PH-2 PH-3 PH-4 PH-1 PH-2 PH-3 PH-4 EB LT X NB LT X TH X TH X RT X RT X PD X PD X WB LT X X SB LT X X TH X X TH X X RT X X RT X X PD X X PD X X -------------------------------------------------------------------------- LEVEL OF SERVICE LANE GRP. V/C G/C DELAY LOS APP. DELAY APP. LOS EB L 0.012 0.169 15.6 C 14.2 B TR 0.018 0. 169 13.2 B WB L 0.554 0.432 10.2 B 10.1 B T 0.012 0.432 6.2 B R 0.003 0.865 0.4 A NB L 0.019 0.169 15.6 C 12.6 B T 0. 151 0. 169 13.6 B R 0.069 0.338 8.6 B SB L 0.249 0.230 14.2 B 14. 1 B TR 0.612 0.230 14.1 B -------------------------------------------------------------------------- INTERSECTION: Delay = 12.4 (sec/veh) V/C = 0.411 LOS = B 1985 HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS SUMMARY REPORT INTERSECTION. .LITTLE LEAGUE/PALM AREA TYPE. . . . .OTHER ANALYST. . . . . . .STELLA DOIRON DATE. . . . . . . . . . 11-19-1991 TIME. . . . . . . . . .PM COMMENT. . . . . . .CUM 1996 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- VOLUMES GEOMETRY EB WB NB SB EB WB NB SB LT 1 272 18 66 L 12.0 L 12.0 L 12.0 L 12.0 TH 9 10 350 120 TR 12.0 T 12.0 T 12.0 T 12.0 RT 8 112 518 0 12.0 R 12.0 T 12.0 TR 12.0 RR 0 24 130 0 12.0 12.0 R 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- ADJUSTMENT FACTORS GRADE HV ADJ PKG BUSES PHF PEDS PED. BUT. ARR. TYPE N N Y/N Nm Nb Y/N min T EB 0.00 2.00 Y 20 0 0.90 50 N 0.0 3 WB 0.00 2.00 Y 20 0 0.90 50 N 0.0 3 NB 0.00 2.00 Y 20 0 0.90 50 N 0.0 3 SB 0.00 2.00 Y 20 0 0.90 50 N 0.0 3 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- SIGNAL SETTINGS CYCLE LENGTH = 52.2 PH-1 PH-2 PH-3 PH-4 PH-1 PH-2 PH-3 PH-4 EB LT X NB LT X TH X TH X RT X RT X PD X PD X WB LT X X SB LT X X TH X X TH X X RT X X RT X X PD X X PD X X -------------------------------------------------------------------------- LEVEL OF SERVICE LANE GRP. V/C G/C DELAY LOS APP. DELAY APP. LOS EB L 0.003 0.192 13.0 B 11 .3 B TR 0.075 0. 192 11 .2 B WB L 0.459 0.389 9.4 B 7.3 B T 0.016 0.389 6.3 B R 0. 106 0.778 0.9 A NB L 0.062 0. 192 13. 1 B 21 .5 C T 0.598 0. 192 13.3 B R 0.956 0.383 29.7 D SB L 0.190 0.228 12.4 B 11 .2 B TR 0.194 0.228 10.5 B -------------------------------------------------------------------------- INTERSECTION: Delay = 16.0 (sec/veh) V/C = 0.376 LOS = C 1985 HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS SUMMARY REPORT ************************************************************************** INTERSECTION. .LITTLE LEAGUE/PALM AVENUE AREA TYPE. . . . .CBD ANALYST. . . . . . .STELLA DATE. . . . . . . . . . 12-17-1991 TIME. . . . . . . . . .AM COMMENT. . . . . . .2001 CUMULATIVE -------------------------------------------------------------------------- VOLUMES GEOMETRY EB WB NB SB : EB WB NB SB LT 3 466 7 111 : L 12.0 L 12.0 L 12.0 L 12.0 TH 5 10 99 487 : TR 12.0 T 12.0 T 12.0 T 12.0 RT 0 34 223 0 : 12.0 R 12.0 T 12.0 TR 12.0 RR 0 34 223 0 : 12.0 12.0 R 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- ADJUSTMENT FACTORS GRADE HV ADJ PKG BUSES PHF PEDS PED. BUT. ARR. TYPE N N Y/N Nm Nb Y/N min T EB 0.00 2.00 Y 20 0 0.90 50 N 0.0 3 WB 0.00 2.00 Y 20 0 0.90 50 N 0.0 3 NB 0.00 2.00 Y 20 0 0.90 50 N 0.0 3 SB 0.00 2.00 Y 20 0 0.90 50 N 0.0 3 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- SIGNAL SETTINGS CYCLE LENGTH = 68.3 PH-1 PH-2 PH-3 PH-4 PH-1 PH-2 PH-3 PH-4 EB LT X NB LT X TH X TH X RT X RT X PD PD WB LT X X SB LT X X TH X X TH X X RT X X RT X X PD PD -------------------------------------------------------------------------- LEVEL OF SERVICE LANE GRP. V/C G/C DELAY LOS APP. DELAY APP. LOS EB L 0.015 0.146 19.0 C 17.2 C TR 0.030 0.146 16.1 C WB L 0.703 0.483 12.6 B 12.5 B T 0.014 0.483 5.9 B R 0.000 0.966 0.0 A NB L 0.035 0.146 19.0 C 16.9 C T 0.246 0.146 16.7 C R 0.000 0.293 0.0 A SB L 0.361 0.224 17.3 C 23.8 C TR 0.888 0.224 25.3 D -------------------------------------------------------------------------- INTERSECTION: Delay = 18.7 (sec/veh) V/C = 0.690 LOS = C 1985 HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS SUMMARY REPORT ************************************************************************** INTERSECTION. .LITTLE LEAGUE/PALM AVENUE AREA TYPE. . . . .CBD ANALYST. . . . . . .STELLA DATE. . . . . . . . . .12-17-1991 TIME. . . . . . . . . .PM COMMENT. . . . . . .2001 CUMULATIVE -------------------------------------------------------------------------- VOLUMES GEOMETRY EB WB NB SB EB WB NB SB LT 2 347 23 85 L 12.0 L 12.0 L 12.0 L 12.0 TH 11 13 446 153 TR 12.0 T 12.0 T 12.0 T 12.0 RT 10 143 661 0 12.0 R 12.0 T 12.0 TR 12.0 RR 0 31 173 0 12.0 12.0 R 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- ADJUSTMENT FACTORS GRADE HV ADJ PKG BUSES PHF PEDS PED. BUT. ARR. TYPE N N Y/N Nm Nb Y/N min T EB 0.00 2.00 Y 20 0 0.90 50 N 0.0 3 WB 0.00 2.00 Y 20 0 0.90 50 N 0.0 3 NB 0.00 2.00 Y 20 0 0.90 50 N 0.0 3 SB 0.00 2.00 Y 20 0 0.90 50 N 0.0 3 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- SIGNAL SETTINGS CYCLE LENGTH = 86.2 PH-1 PH-2 PH-3 PH-4 PH-1 PH-2 PH-3 PH-4 EB LT X NB LT X TH X TH X RT X RT X PD PD WB LT X X SB LT X X TH X X TH X X RT X X RT X X PD PD -------------------------------------------------------------------------- LEVEL OF SERVICE LANE GRP. V/C G/C DELAY LOS APP. DELAY APP. LOS EB L 0.013 0.116 25.6 D 22.5 C TR 0.169 0.116 22.2 C WB L 0.677 0.374 19.5 C 15.1 C T 0.024 0.374 11.0 B R 0.153 0.747 2.0 A NB L 0.145 0.116 26.1 D 37.6 D T 0.465 0.349 14.3 B R 1.069 0.465 60.5 F SB L 0.384 0.161 25.1 D 15.8 C TR 0.159 0.394 10.9 B -------------------------------------------------------------------------- INTERSECTION: Delay = 28.1 (sec/veh) V/C = 0.593 LOS = D 1985 HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS SUMMARY REPORT ************************************************************************** INTERSECTION. .LITTLE LEAGUE/PALM AREA TYPE. . . . .OTHER ANALYST. . . . . . .STELLA DOIRON DATE. . . . . . . . . .11-19-1991 TIME. . . . . . . . . .AM COMMENT. . . . . . .PROJ 1996 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- VOLUMES GEOMETRY EB WB NB SB EB WB NB SB LT 16 365 147 87 L 12.0 L 12.0 L 12.0 L 12.0 TH 30 53 78 382 T 12.0 T 12.0 T 12.0 T 12.0 RT 83 27 175 22 R 12.0 R 12.0 T 12.0 TR 12.0 RR 30 27 175 0 12.0 12.0 R 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- ADJUSTMENT FACTORS GRADE HV ADJ PKG BUSES PHF PEDS PED. BUT. ARR. TYPE N N Y/N Nm Nb Y/N min T EB 0.00 2.00 Y 20 0 0.90 50 N 0.0 3 WB 0.00 2.00 Y 20 0 0.90 50 N 0.0 3 NB 0.00 2.00 Y 20 0 0.90 50 N 0.0 3 SB 0.00 2.00 Y 20 0 0.90 50 N 0.0 3 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- SIGNAL SETTINGS CYCLE LENGTH = 58.7 PH-1 PH-2 PH-3 PH-4 PH-1 PH-2 PH-3 PH-4 EB LT X NB LT X X TH X TH X X RT X RT X X PD X PD X X WB LT X X SB LT X TH X X TH X RT X X RT X PD X X PD X -------------------------------------------------------------------------- LEVEL OF SERVICE LANE GRP. V/C G/C DELAY LOS APP. DELAY APP. LOS EB L 0.062 0.170 15.5 C 11 .2 B T 0. 110 0. 170 13.3 B R 0.148 0.341 8.7 B WB L 0.562 0.426 10.4 B 9.9 B T 0.078 0.426 6.5 B R 0.000 0.852 5. 1 B NB L 0.449 0.215 15.8 C 14.3 B T 0.109 0.233 11 .4 B R 0.001 0.448 5.8 B SB L 0.335 0. 170 16.6 C 18.6 C TR 0.793 0.189 19.0 C -------------------------------------------------------------------------- INTERSECTION: Delay = 14.3 (sec/veh) V/C = 0.537 LOS = B 1985 HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS SUMMARY REPORT ************************************************************************** INTERSECTION. .LITTLE LEAGUE/PALM AREA TYPE. . . . .OTHER ANALYST. . . . . . .STELLA DOIRON DATE. . . . . . . . . . 11-19-1991 TIME. . . . . . . . . .PM COMMENT. . . . . . .PROJ 1996 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- VOLUMES GEOMETRY EB WB NB SB EB WB NB SB LT 78 272 502 66 L 12.0 L 12.0 L 12.0 L 12.0 TH 163 164 350 120 T 12.0 T 12.0 T 12.0 T 12.0 RT 491 112 518 77 R 12.0 R 12.0 T 12.0 TR 12.0 RR 218 33 97 0 12.0 12.0 R 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- ADJUSTMENT FACTORS GRADE HV ADJ PKG BUSES PHF PEDS PED. BUT. ARR. TYPE N M Y/N Nm Nb Y/N min T EB 0.00 2.00 Y 20 0 0.90 50 N 0.0 3 WB 0.00 2.00 Y 20 0 0.90 50 N 0.0 3 NB 0.00 2.00 Y 20 0 0.90 50 N 0.0 3 SB 0.00 2.00 Y 20 0 0.90 50 N 0.0 3 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- SIGNAL SETTINGS CYCLE LENGTH = 77.1 PH-1 PH-2 PH-3 PH-4 PH-1 PH-2 PH-3 PH-4 EB LT X NB LT X X TH X TH X X RT X RT X X PD X PD X X WB LT X X SB LT X TH X X TH X RT X X RT X PD X X PD X -------------------------------------------------------------------------- LEVEL OF SERVICE LANE GRP. V/C G/C DELAY LOS APP. DELAY APP. LOS EB L 0.395 0.130 24.0 C 30.5 D T 0.681 0. 149 24. 1 C R 0.924 0.279 36.2 D WB L 0.655 0.272 21 .2 C 16.5 C T 0.350 0.292 14. 1 B R 0. 132 0.564 5. 1 B NB L 0.734 0.449 15.9 C 8.8 B T 0.255 0.449 8.6 B R 0.442 0.898 0.6 A SB L 0.334 0.130 23.5 C 22.4 C TR 0.599 0. 130 22.0 C -------------------------------------------------------------------------- INTERSECTION: Delay = 16.1 (sec/veh) V/C = 0.720 LOS = C 1985 HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS SUMMARY REPORT ************************************************************************** INTERSECTION. .LITTLE LEAGUE/PALM AREA TYPE. . . . .OTHER ANALYST. . . . . . .STELLA DOIRON DATE. . . . . . . . . . 11-19-1991 TIME. . . . . . . . . .AM COMMENT. . . . . . .PROJ2001 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- VOLUMES GEOMETRY EB WB NB SB : EB WB NB SB LT 16 365 147 87 : L 12.0 L 12.0 L 12.0 L 12.0 TH 30 53 78 382 : TR 12.0 T 12.0 T 12.0 T 12.0 RT 83 27 175 22 : 12.0 R 12.0 T 12.0 TR 12.0 RR 0 0 0 0 : 12.0 12.0 R 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- ADJUSTMENT FACTORS GRADE HV ADJ PKG BUSES PHF PEDS PED. BUT. ARR. TYPE N M Y/N Nm Nb Y/N min T EB 0.00 2.00 Y 20 0 0.90 50 N 0.0 3 WB 0.00 2.00 Y 20 0 0.90 50 N 0.0 3 NB 0.00 2.00 Y 20 0 0.90 50 N 0.0 3 SB 0.00 2.00 Y 20 0 0.90 50 N 0.0 3 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- SIGNAL SETTINGS CYCLE LENGTH = 69.7 PH-1 PH-2 PH-3 PH-4 PH-1 PH-2 PH-3 PH-4 EB LT X NB LT X X TH X TH X X RT X RT X X PD X PD X X WB LT X X SB LT X TH X X TH X RT X X RT X PD X X PD X -------------------------------------------------------------------------- LEVEL OF SERVICE LANE GRP. V/C G/C DELAY LOS APP. DELAY APP. LOS EB L 0.073 0.143 19.6 C 24.4 C TR 0.704 0.143 25.1 D WB L 0.508 0.472 10.2 B 9.1 B T 0.070 0.472 6.5 B R 0.027 0.944 0.1 A NB L 0.565 0.171 22.1 C 14.9 B T 0.106 0.241 13.3 B R 0.401 0.412 9.6 B SB L 0.398 0.143 21.2 C 18.8 C TR 0.702 0.214 18.3 C -------------------------------------------------------------------------- INTERSECTION: Delay = 15.3 (sec/veh) V/C = 0.618 LOS = C 1985 HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS SUMMARY REPORT ************************************************************************** INTERSECTION. .LITTLE LEAGUE/PALM AREA TYPE. . . . .OTHER ANALYST. . . . . . .STELLA DOIRON DATE. . . . . . . . . .11-19-1991 TIME. . . . . . . . . .PM COMMENT. . . . . . .PROJ2001 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- VOLUMES GEOMETRY EB WB NB SB : EB WB NB SB LT 78 347 507 85 : L 12.0 L 12.0 L 12.0 L 12.0 TH 165 167 446 153 : TR 12.0 T 12.0 T 12.0 T 12.0 RT 494 143 661 77 : 12.0 R 12.0 T 12.0 TR 12.0 RR 0 0 0 0 : 12.0 12.0 R 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- ADJUSTMENT FACTORS GRADE HV ADJ PKG BUSES PHF PEDS PED. BUT. ARR. TYPE (X) (%) Y/N Nm Nb Y/N min T EB 0.00 2.00 Y 20 0 0.90 50 N 0.0 3 WB 0.00 2.00 Y 20 0 0.90 50 N 0.0 3 NB 0.00 2.00 Y 20 0 0.90 50 N 0.0 3 SB 0.00 2.00 Y 20 0 0.90 50 N 0.0 3 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- SIGNAL SETTINGS CYCLE LENGTH = 120.0 PH-1 PH-2 PH-3 PH-4 PH-1 PH-2 PH-3 PH-4 EB LT X NB LT X X TH X TH X X RT X RT X X PD X PD X X WB LT X X SB LT X TH X X TH X RT X X RT X PD X X PD X -------------------------------------------------------------------------- LEVEL OF SERVICE LANE GRP. V/C G/C DELAY LOS APP. DELAY APP. LOS EB L 0.614 0.083 45.7 E TR 1.652 0.358 WB L 0.969 0.235 62.0 F 36.0 D T 0.205 0.509 10.4 B R 0.181 0.744 2.9 A NB L 1.034 0.322 70.7 F 39.3 D T 0.450 0.324 20.9 C R 0.966 0.646 28.3 D SB L 0.669 0.083 48.3 E 75.4 F TR 1.046 0.086 84.9 - F -------------------------------------------------------------------------- INTERSECTION: Delay = * (sec/veh) V/C = 1.278 LOS = * 1985 HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS SUMMARY REPORT ************************************************************************** INTERSECTION. .LITTLE LEAGUE/PALM AREA TYPE. . . . .OTHER ANALYST. . . . . . .STELLA DOIRON DATE. . . . . . . . . . 11-19-1991 TIME. . . . . . . . . .AM COMMENT. . . . . . .PROJ 2001 W/MIT -------------------------------------------------------------------------- VOLUMES GEOMETRY EB WB NB SB EB WB NB SB LT 16 365 147 87 L 12.0 L 12.0 L 12.0 L 12.0 TH 30 53 78 382 T 12.0 T 12.0 T 12.0 T 12.0 RT 83 27 175 22 R 12.0 R 12.0 T 12.0 T 12.0 RR 30 27 175 8 12.0 12.0 R 12.0 R 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- ADJUSTMENT FACTORS GRADE HV ADJ PKG BUSES PHF PEDS PED. BUT. ARR. TYPE N N Y/N Nm Nb Y/N min T EB 0.00 2.00 Y 20 0 0.90 50 N 0.0 3 WB 0.00 2.00 Y 20 0 0.90 50 N 0.0 3 NB 0.00 2.00 Y 20 0 0.90 50 N 0.0 3 SB 0.00 2.00 Y 20 0 0.90 50 N 0.0 3 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- SIGNAL SETTINGS CYCLE LENGTH = 64.3 PH-1 PH-2 PH-3 PH-4 PH-1 PH-2 PH-3 PH-4 EB LT X NB LT X X TH X TH X X RT X RT X X PD X PD X X WB LT X X SB LT X TH X X TH X RT X X RT X PD X X PD X -------------------------------------------------------------------------- LEVEL OF SERVICE LANE GRP. V/C G/C DELAY LOS APP. DELAY APP. LOS EB L 0.068 0. 156 17.6 C 13.0 B T 0.120 0. 156 15. 1 C R 0.162 0.311 10.4 B WB L 0.494 0.485 8.9 B 8.5 B T 0.068 0.485 5.7 B R 0.000 0.970 5. 1 B NB L 0.530 0.182 19.5 C 17.3 C T 0.125 0.204 13.5 B R 0.001 0.386 7.8 B SB L 0.367 0.156 18.9 C 18. 1 C T 0.705 0.177 18.2 C R 0.039 0.333 9.4 B -------------------------------------------------------------------------- INTERSECTION: Delay = 14.3 (sec/veh) V/C = 0.507 LOS = B 1985 HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS SUMMARY REPORT ************************************************************************** INTERSECTION. .LITTLE LEAGUE/PALM AREA TYPE. . . . .OTHER ANALYST. . . . . . .STELLA DOIRON DATE. . . . . . . . . . 11-19-1991 TIME. . . . . . . . . .PM COMMENT. . . . . . .PROJ 2001 W/MIT -------------------------------------------------------------------------- VOLUMES GEOMETRY EB WB NB SB EB WB NB SB LT 78 347 507 85 L 12.0 L 12.0 L 12.0 L 12.0 TH 165 167 446 153 T 12.0 T 12.0 T 12.0 T 12.0 RT 494 143 661 77 R 12.0 R 12.0 T 12.0 T 12.0 RR 254 44 173 37 12.0 12.0 R 12.0 R 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- ADJUSTMENT FACTORS GRADE HV ADJ PKG BUSES PHF PEDS PED. BUT. ARR. TYPE N N Y/N Nm Nb Y/N min T EB 0.00 2.00 Y 20 0 0.90 50 N 0.0 3 WB 0.00 2.00 Y 20 0 0.90 50 N 0.0 3 NB 0.00 2.00 Y 20 0 0.90 50 N 0.0 3 SB 0.00 2.00 Y 20 0 0.90 50 N 0.0 3 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- SIGNAL SETTINGS CYCLE LENGTH = 86.2 PH-1 PH-2 PH-3 PH-4 PH-1 PH-2 PH-3 PH-4 EB LT X NB LT X X TH X TH X X RT X RT X X PD X PD X X WB LT X X SB LT X TH X X TH X RT X X RT X PD X X PD X -------------------------------------------------------------------------- LEVEL OF SERVICE LANE GRP. V/C G/C DELAY LOS APP. DELAY APP. LOS EB L 0.441 0. 116 28.0 D 29.6 D T 0.698 0. 147 27. 1 D R 0.860 0.263 31.9 D WB L 0.727 0.313 23.4 C 17.5 C T 0.302 0.345 13.4 B R 0.142 0.658 3.6 A NB L 0.786 0.423 20.3 C 11 . 1 B T 0.345 0.423 10.9 B R 0.544 0.847 1 .6 A SB L 0.481 0.116 28.6 D 24.0 C T 0.432 0. 116 23.3 C R 0. 163 0.232 17. 1 C -------------------------------------------------------------------------- INTERSECTION: Delay = 16.9 (sec/veh) V/C = 0.744 LOS = C 1985 HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS SUMMARY REPORT ************************************************************************** INTERSECTION. .LITTLE LEAGUE/PALM AREA TYPE. . . . .OTHER ANALYST. . . . . . .STELLA DOIRON DATE. . . . . . . . . .11-19-1991 TIME. . . . . . . . . .AM COMMENT. . . . . . .MAX1996 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- VOLUMES GEOMETRY EB WB NB SB : EB WB NB SB LT 28 365 273 87 : L 12.0 L 12.0 L 12.0 L 12.0 TH 54 93 78 382 : TR 12.0 T 12.0 T 12.0 T 12.0 RT 157 27 175 43 : 12.0 R 12.0 T 12.0 TR 12.0 RR 0 0 0 0 12.0 12.0 R 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- ADJUSTMENT FACTORS GRADE HV ADJ PKG BUSES PHF PEDS PED. BUT. ARR. TYPE M (%) Y/N Nm Nb Y/N min T EB 0.00 2.00 Y 20 0 0.90 50 N 0.0 3 WB 0.00 2.00 Y 20 0 0.90 50 N 0.0 3 NB 0.00 2.00 Y 20 0 0.90 50 N 0.0 3 SB 0.00 2.00 Y 20 0 0.90 50 N 0.0 3 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- SIGNAL SETTINGS CYCLE LENGTH = 78.2 PH-1 PH-2 PH-3 PH-4 PH-1 PH-2 PH-3 PH-4 EB LT X NB LT X X TH X TH X X RT X RT X X PD X PD X X WB LT X X SB LT X TH X X TH X RT X X RT X PD X X PD X -------------------------------------------------------------------------- LEVEL OF SERVICE LANE GRP. V/C G/C DELAY LOS APP. DELAY APP. LOS EB L 0.144 0.128 23.0 C 65.3 F TR 1.040 0.182 71.0 F WB L 0.642 0.373 16.9 C 14.5 B T 0.136 0.427 8.8 B R 0.032 0.801 1.0 A NB L 0.680 0.263 22.5 C 15.3 C T 0.081 0.317 12.1 B R 0.284 0.581 5.4 B SB L 0.447 0.128 25.0 C 28.1 D TR 0.876 0.182 28.8 D -------------------------------------------------------------------------- INTERSECTION: Delay = 25.6 (sec/veh) V/C = 0.803 LOS = D 1985 HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS SUMMARY REPORT ************************************************************************** INTERSECTION. .LITTLE LEAGUE/PALM AREA TYPE. . . . .OTHER ANALYST. . . . . . .STELLA DOIRON DATE. . . . . . . . . .11-19-1991 TIME. . . . . . . . . .PM COMMENT. . . . . . .MAX1996 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- VOLUMES GEOMETRY EB WB NB SB : EB WB NB SB LT 163 272 1034 66 : L 12.0 L 12.0 L 12.0 L 12.0 TH 331 333 350 120 : TR 12.0 T 12.0 T 12.0 T 12.0 RT 1024 112 518 161 : 12.0 R 12.0 T 12.0 TR 12.0 RR 0 0 0 0 : 12.0 12.0 R 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- ADJUSTMENT FACTORS GRADE HV ADJ PKG BUSES PHF PEDS PED. BUT. ARR. TYPE M M Y/N Nm Nb Y/N min T EB 0.00 2.00 Y 20 0 0.90 50 N 0.0 3 WB 0.00 2.00 Y 20 0 0.90 50 N 0.0 3 NB 0.00 2.00 Y 20 0 0.90 50 N 0.0 3 SB 0.00 2.00 Y 20 0 0.90 50 N 0.0 3 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- SIGNAL SETTINGS CYCLE LENGTH = 120.0 PH-1 PH-2 PH-3 PH-4 PH-1 PH-2 PH-3 PH-4 EB LT X NB LT X X TH X TH X X RT X RT X X PD X PD X X WB LT X X SB LT X TH X X TH X RT X X RT X PD X X PO X -------------------------------------------------------------------------- LEVEL OF SERVICE LANE GRP. V/C G/C DELAY LOS APP. DELAY APP. LOS EB L 1.284 0.083 TR 2.977 0.408 WB L 1.509 0.118 T 0.468 0.443 15.4 C R 0.188 0.562 8.3 B NB L 1.740 0.390 T 0.294 0.390 16.3 C R 0.626 0.780 4.5 A SB L 0.520 0.083 42.8 E TR 1.377 0.083 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- INTERSECTION: Delay = * (sec/veh) V/C = 2.253 LOS = * 1985 HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS SUMMARY REPORT ************************************************************************** INTERSECTION. .LITTLE LEAGUE/PALM AVENUE AREA TYPE. . . . .OTHER ANALYST. . . . . . .STELLA DATE. . . . . . . . . . 12-13-1991 TIME. . . . . . . . . .1996 MAX COMMENT. . . . . . .ALL AM -------------------------------------------------------------------------- VOLUMES GEOMETRY EB WB NB SB : EB WB NB SB LT 28 365 273 87 : L 12.0 L 12.0 L 12.0 L 12.0 TH 54 93 78 385 : T 12.0 T 12.0 L 12.0 T 12.0 RT 157 27 175 43 : R 12.0 R 12.0 T 12.0 T 12.0 RR 136 27 175 14 : R 12.0 12.0 TR 12.0 R 12.0 12.0 12.0 R 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- ADJUSTMENT FACTORS GRADE HV ADJ PKG BUSES PHF PEDS PED. BUT. ARR. TYPE N (%) Y/N Nm Nb Y/N min T EB 0.00 2.00 Y 20 0 0.90 50 N 0.0 3 WB 0.00 2.00 Y 20 0 0.90 50 N 0.0 3 NB 0.00 2.00 Y 20 0 0.90 50 N 0.0 3 SB 0.00 2.00 Y 20 0 0.90 50 N 0.0 3 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- SIGNAL SETTINGS CYCLE LENGTH = 56.3 PH-1 PH-2 PH-3 PH-4 PH-1 PH-2 PH-3 PH-4 EB LT X NB LT X X TH X TH X X RT X RT X X PD PD WB LT X X SB LT X TH X X TH X RT X X RT X PD PD -------------------------------------------------------------------------- LEVEL OF SERVICE LANE GRP. V/C G/C DELAY LOS APP. DELAY APP. LOS EB L 0.103 0.178 14.7 B 12.2 B T 0.190 0.178 12.8 B R 0.029 0.355 7.6 B WB L 0.564 0.425 10.1 B 9.3 B T 0.137 0.425 6.4 B R 0.000 0.849 0.0 A NB L 0.456 0.213 15.0 C 14.2 B TR 0.116 0.220 11.3 B R 0.001 0.433 5.8 B SB L 0.321 0.178 15.6 C 15.1 C T 0.682 0.185 15.5 C R 0.072 0.362 7.6 B -------------------------------------------------------------------------- INTERSECTION: Delay = 12.8 (sec/veh) V/C = 0.661 LOS = B 1985 HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS SUMMARY REPORT ************************************************************************** INTERSECTION. .LITTLE LEAGUE/PALM AVENUE AREA TYPE. . . . .OTHER ANALYST. . . . . . .STELLA DATE. . . . . . . . . .12-13-1991 TIME. . . . . . . . . .1996 MAX COMMENT. . . . . . .ALL PM -------------------------------------------------------------------------- VOLUMES GEOMETRY EB WB NB SB : EB WB NB SB LT 163 272 1034 66 : L 12.0 L 12.0 L 12.0 L 12.0 TH 331 333 350 120 : T 12.0 T 12.0 L 12.0 T 12.0 RT 1024 112 518 161 : R 12.0 R 12.0 T 12.0 T 12.0 RR 517 33 136 82 : R 12.0 12.0 TR 12.0 R 12.0 12.0 12.0 R 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- ADJUSTMENT FACTORS GRADE HV ADJ PKG BUSES PHF PEDS PED. BUT. ARR. TYPE N N Y/N Nm Nb Y/N min T EB 0.00 2.00 Y 20 0 0.90 50 N 0.0 3 WB 0.00 2.00 Y 20 0 0.90 50 N 0.0 3 NB 0.00 2.00 Y 20 0 0.90 50 N 0.0 3 SB 0.00 2.00 Y 20 0 0.90 50 N 0.0 3 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- SIGNAL SETTINGS CYCLE LENGTH = 104.4 PH-1 PH-2 PH-3 PH-4 PH-1 PH-2 PH-3 PH-4 EB LT X NB LT X X TH X TH X X RT X RT X X PD PD WB LT X X SB LT X TH X X TH X RT X X RT X PD PO -------------------------------------------------------------------------- LEVEL OF SERVICE LANE GRP. V/C G/C DELAY LOS APP. DELAY APP. LOS EB L 0.698 0.153 37.3 D 25.3 D T 0.845 0.244 32.6 D R 0.626 0.398 17.1 C WB L 0.764 0.234 34.2 D 24.6 C T 0.639 0.325 20.8 C R 0.129 0.558 7.1 B NB L 0.863 0.426 24.8 C 18.9 C TR 0.439 0.426 13.8 B R 0.206 0.852 0.9 A SB L 0.452 0.096 35.3 D 29.2 D T 0.410 0.096 29.1 D R 0.379 0.192 24.2 C -------------------------------------------------------------------------- INTERSECTION: Delay = 22.4 (sec/veh) V/C = 0.915 LOS = C 1985 HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS SUMMARY REPORT ************************************************************************** INTERSECTION. .LITTLE LEAGUE/PALM AVENUE\ AREA TYPE. . . . .CBD ANALYST. . . . . . .STELLA DATE. . . . . . . . . . 12-26-1991 TIME. . . . . . . . . .2001 MAX COMMENT. . . . . . .AM -------------------------------------------------------------------------- VOLUMES GEOMETRY EB WB NB SB EB WB NB SB LT 28 466 274 111 L 12.0 L 12.0 L 12.0 L 12.0 TH 55 95 99 487 TR 12.0 T 12.0 T 12.0 T 12.0 RT 157 34 223 43 12.0 R 12.0 T 12.0 TR 12.0 RR 0 34 223 0 12.0 12.0 R 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- ADJUSTMENT FACTORS GRADE HV ADJ PKG BUSES PHF PEDS PED. BUT. ARR. TYPE (9'0) N Y/N Nm Nb Y/N min T EB 0.00 2.00 Y 20 0 0.90 50 N 0.0 3 WB 0.00 2.00 Y 20 0 0.90 50 N 0.0 3 NB 0.00 2.00 Y 20 0 0.90 50 N 0.0 3 SB 0.00 2.00 Y 20 0 0.90 50 N 0.0 3 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- SIGNAL SETTINGS CYCLE LENGTH = 118.7 PH-1 PH-2 PH-3 PH-4 PH-1 PH-2 PH-3 PH-4 EB LT X NB LT X X TH X TH X X RT X RT X X PD PD WB LT X X SB LT X TH X X TH X RT X X RT X PD PD -------------------------------------------------------------------------- LEVEL OF SERVICE LANE GRP. V/C G/C DELAY LOS APP. DELAY APP. LOS EB L 0.242 0.084 38.8 D TR 1.244 0.166 WB L 0.840 0.404 31.3 D 28.2 D T 0.135 0.486 12.8 B R 0.000 0.890 0.0 A NB L 0.872 0.229 47.9 E 40.7 E T 0.113 0.318 21.7 C R 0.000 0.548 0.0 A SB L 0.733 0. 110 49.0 E 91.2 F TR 1 .098 0.200 99.7 F -------------------------------------------------------------------------- INTERSECTION: Delay = * (sec/veh) V/C = 1 .095 LOS = * 1985 HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS SUMMARY REPORT ************************************************************************** INTERSECTION. .LITTLE LEAGUE/PALM AVENUE\ AREA TYPE. . . . .CBD ANALYST. . . . . . .STELLA DATE. . . . . . . . . . 12-26-1991 TIME. . . . . . . . . .2001 MAX COMMENT. . . . . . .PM -------------------------------------------------------------------------- VOLUMES GEOMETRY EB WB NB SB EB WB NB SB LT 163 347 1039 85 L 12.0 L 12.0 L 12.0 L 12.0 TH 334 336 446 153 TR 12.0 T 12.0 T 12.0 T 12.0 RT 1026 143 661 161 12.0 R 12.0 T 12.0 TR 12.0 RR 0 42 173 0 12.0 12.0 R 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- ADJUSTMENT FACTORS GRADE HV ADJ PKG BUSES PHF PEDS PED. BUT. ARR. TYPE M N Y/N Nm Nb Y/N min T EB 0.00 2.00 Y 20 0 0.90 50 N 0.0 3 WB 0.00 2.00 Y 20 0 0.90 50 N 0.0 3 NB 0.00 2.00 Y 20 0 0.90 50 N 0.0 3 SB 0.00 2.00 Y 20 0 0.90 50 N 0.0 3 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- SIGNAL SETTINGS CYCLE LENGTH = 120.0 PH-1 PH-2 PH-3 PH-4 PH-1 PH-2 PH-3 PH-4 EB LT X NB LT X X TH X TH X X RT X RT X X PD PD WB LT X X SB LT X TH X X TH X RT X X RT X PD PD -------------------------------------------------------------------------- LEVEL OF SERVICE LANE GRP. V/C G/C DELAY LOS APP. DELAY APP. LOS EB L 1 .426 0.083 TR 3.334 0.398 WB L 1.808 0.140 T 0.512 0.455 18.2 C R 0.172 0.595 8.3 B NB L 2.003 0.378 T 0.429 0.378 21.2 C R 0.657 0.757 6.7 B SB L 0.744 0.083 54.5 E TR 1 .668 0.083 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- INTERSECTION: Delay = * (sec/veh) V/C = 2.805 LOS = * 1985 HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS SUMMARY REPORT ************************************************************************** INTERSECTION. .LITTLE LEAGUE/palm AREA TYPE. . . . .CBD ANALYST. . . . . . .STELLA DATE. . . . . . . . . . 12-26-1991 TIME. . . . . . . . . .2001 MAX COMMENT. . . . . . .am + 2nd wbl -------------------------------------------------------------------------- VOLUMES GEOMETRY EB WB NB SB : EB WB NB SB LT 28 466 274 111 : L 12.0 L 12.0 L 12.0 L 12.0 TH 55 95 99 487 : T 12.0 L 12.0 L 12.0 T 12.0 RT 157 34 223 43 : R 12.0 T 12.0 T 12.0 T 12.0 RR 137 34 116 22 : R 12.0 R 12.0 T 12.0 R 12.0 12.0 12.0 R 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- ADJUSTMENT FACTORS GRADE HV ADJ PKG BUSES PHF PEDS PED. BUT. ARR. TYPE N N Y/N Nm Nb Y/N min T EB 0.00 2.00 Y 20 0 0.90 50 N 0.0 3 WB 0.00 2.00 Y 20 0 0.90 50 N 0.0 3 NB 0.00 2.00 Y 20 0 0.90 50 N 0.0 3 SB 0.00 2.00 Y 20 0 0.90 50 N 0.0 3 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- SIGNAL SETTINGS CYCLE LENGTH = 49.7 PH-1 PH-2 PH-3 PH-4 PH-1 PH-2 PH-3 PH-4 EB LT X NB LT X X TH X TH X X RT X RT X X PD PD WB LT X X SB LT X TH X X TH X RT X X RT X PD PD -------------------------------------------------------------------------- LEVEL OF SERVICE LANE GRP. V/C G/C DELAY LOS APP. DELAY APP. LOS EB L 0. 101 0.201 12.3 B 11 .3 B T 0.189 0.201 12.6 B R 0.027 0.402 6.8 B WB L 0.523 0.352 10.1 B 9.1 B T 0.119 0.553 4.0 A R 0.000 0.905 203.2 F NB L 0.494 0.219 13.4 B 11 .4 B T 0.147 0.245 11 .2 B R 0.234 0.465 6.1 B SB L 0.402 0.201 13.6 B 16.4 C T 0.779 0.227 17.5 C R 0.051 0.429 6.3 B ----------------------------------------------------------------------�--- INTERSECTION: Delay = 12.4 (sec/veh) V/C = 0.707 LOS = B 1985 HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS SUMMARY REPORT ************************************************************************** INTERSECTION. .LITTLE LEAGUE/palm AREA TYPE. . . . .CBD ANALYST. . . . . . .STELLA DATE. . . . . . . . . . 12-26-1991 TIME. . . . . . . . . .2001 MAX COMMENT. . . . . . .pm + 2nd wbl -------------------------------------------------------------------------- VOLUMES GEOMETRY EB WB NB SB : EB WB NB SB LT 163 347 1039 85 : L 12.0 L 12.0 L 12.0 L 12.0 TH 334 336 446 153 : T 12.0 L 12.0 L 12.0 T 12.0 RT 1026 143 661 161 : R 12.0 T 12.0 T 12.0 T 12.0 RR 137 34 116 22 : R 12.0 R 12.0 T 12.0 R 12.0 12.0 12.0 R 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- ADJUSTMENT FACTORS GRADE HV ADJ PKG BUSES PHF PEDS PED. BUT. ARR. TYPE N M Y/N Nm Nb Y/N min T EB 0.00 2.00 Y 20 0 0.90 50 N 0.0 3 WB 0.00 2.00 Y 20 0 0.90 50 N 0.0 3 NB 0.00 2.00 Y 20 0 0.90 50 N 0.0 3 SB 0.00 2.00 Y 20 0 0.90 50 N 0.0 3 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- SIGNAL SETTINGS CYCLE LENGTH = 79.2 PH-1 PH-2 PH-3 PH-4 PH-1 PH-2 PH-3 PH-4 EB LT X NB LT X X TH X TH X X RT X RT X X PD PD WB LT X X SB LT X TH X X TH X RT X X RT X PD PD -------------------------------------------------------------------------- LEVEL OF SERVICE LANE GRP. V/C G/C DELAY LOS APP. DELAY APP. LOS EB L 0.730 0.163 31 .0 D 77.7 F T 0.894 0.259 36.4 D R 1.149 0.422 100.6 F WB L 0.805 0.170 30.4 D 29.1 D T 0.874 0.266 33.6 D R 0.254 0.437 10.8 B NB L 0.924 0.444 23.8 C 15.3 C T 0.365 0.444 11.2 B R 0.625 0.889 1 .7 A SB L 0.491 0.126 26.1 D 23.9 C T 0.441 0. 126 24.8 C R 0.562 0.253 21 .6 C -------------------------------------------------------------------------- INTERSECTION: Delay = 37.2 (sec/veh) V/C = 1 .014 LOS = D LSAAswcuaes�Inc 2. Palm Avenue/1--215 Westbound Ramps 01/02l9z(1:\fM 101\TRAFFIC.RPI) 1985 HCM: UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS Page-1 ********************************************************************* IDENTIFYING INFORMATION --------------------------------------------------------------------- AVERAGE RUNNING SPEED, MAJOR STREET. . 30 PEAK HOUR FACTOR. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 AREA POPULATION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150000 NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET. . . . . . . . . I-215 Westbound Ramps NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET. . . . . . . Palm Avenue NAME OF THE ANALYST. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . R. Ammari DATE OF THE ANALYSIS (mm/dd/yy) . . . . . . 11-18-1991 TIME PERIOD ANALYZED. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . AM Peak Hour OTHER INFORMATION. . . . Existing INTERSECTION TYPE AND CONTROL --------------------------------------------------------------------- INTERSECTION TYPE: 4-LEG MAJOR STREET DIRECTION: NORTH/SOUTH CONTROL TYPE EASTBOUND: STOP SIGN CONTROL TYPE WESTBOUND: STOP SIGN TRAFFIC VOLUMES --------------------------------------------------------------------- EB WB NB SB ---- ---- ---- ---- LEFT 0 47 17 0 THRU 1 7 151 281 RIGHT 0 60 0 338 NUMBER OF LANES AND LANE USAGE --------------------------------------------------------------------- EB WB NB SB ------- ------- ------- ------- LANES 1 3 2 2 ADJUSTMENT FACTORS Page-2 --------------------------------------------------------------------- PERCENT RIGHT TURN CURB RADIUS (ft) ACCELERATION LANE GRADE ANGLE FOR RIGHT TURNS FOR RIGHT TURNS ------- ---------- ---------------- ----------------- EASTBOUND 0.00 90 20 N WESTBOUND 0.00 90 20 N NORTHBOUND 0.00 90 20 N SOUTHBOUND 0.00 90 20 N VEHICLE COMPOSITION --------------------------------------------------------------------- % SU TRUCKS % COMBINATION AND RV'S VEHICLES % MOTORCYCLES ----------- ------------- ------------- EASTBOUND 0 0 0 WESTBOUND 0 0 0 NORTHBOUND 0 0 0 SOUTHBOUND 0 0 0 CRITICAL GAPS --------------------------------------------------------------------- TABULAR VALUES ADJUSTED SIGHT DIST. FINAL (Table 10-2) VALUE ADJUSTMENT CRITICAL GAP -------------- -------- ----------- ------------ MINOR RIGHTS EB 5.50 5.50 0.00 5.50 WB 5.50 5.50 0.00 5.50 MAJOR LEFTS SB 5.50 5.50 0.00 5.50 NB 5.50 5.50 0.00 5.50 MINOR THROUGHS EB 6.50 6.50 0.00 6.50 WB 6.50 6.50 0.00 6.50 MINOR LEFTS EB 7.00 7.00 0.00 7.00 WB 7.00 7.00 0.00 7.00 IDENTIFYING INFORMATION --------------------------------------------------------------------- NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET. . . . . . I-215 Westbound Ramps NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET. . . . Palm Avenue DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALYSIS. . . . . 11-18-1991 ; AM Peak Hour OTHER INFORMATION. . . . Existing CAPACITY AND LEVEL-OF-SERVICE Page-3 --------------------------------------------------------------------- POTEN- ACTUAL FLOW- TIAL MOVEMENT SHARED RESERVE RATE CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY MOVEMENT v(pcph) c (pcph) c (pcph) c (pcph) c = c - v LOS P M SH R SH ------- -------- --------- ------------ ------------ --- MINOR STREET EB LEFT 0 325 302 > 302 > 302 > B THROUGH 1 415 406 > 406 406 > 405 405 >A A RIGHT 0 781 781 > 781 > 781 > A MINOR STREET WB LEFT 52 271 265 265 214 C THROUGH 8 317 311 311 303 B RIGHT 66 996 996 996 930 A MAJOR STREET SB LEFT 0 941 941 941 941 A NB LEFT 19 543 543 543 524 A IDENTIFYING INFORMATION --------------------------------------------------------------------- NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET. . . . . . I-215 Westbound Ramps NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET. . . . Palm Avenue DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALYSIS. . . . . 11-18-1991 ; AM Peak Hour OTHER INFORMATION. . . . Existing 1985 HCM: UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS Page-1 ********************************************************************* IDENTIFYING INFORMATION --------------------------------------------------------------------- AVERAGE RUNNING SPEED, MAJOR STREET. . 30 PEAK HOUR FACTOR. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 AREA POPULATION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150000 NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET. . . . . . . . . I-215 Westbound Ramps NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET. . . . . . . Palm Avenue NAME OF THE ANALYST. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . R. Ammari DATE OF THE ANALYSIS (mm/dd/yy) . . . . . . 11-18-1991 TIME PERIOD ANALYZED. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . PM Peak Hour OTHER INFORMATION. . . . Existing INTERSECTION TYPE AND CONTROL --------------------------------------------------------------------- INTERSECTION TYPE: 4-LEG MAJOR STREET DIRECTION: NORTH/SOUTH CONTROL TYPE EASTBOUND: STOP SIGN CONTROL TYPE WESTBOUND: STOP SIGN TRAFFIC VOLUMES --------------------------------------------------------------------- EB WB NB SB ---- ---- ---- ---- LEFT 0 36 44 0 THRU 1 6 403 140 RIGHT 0 162 0 172 NUMBER OF LANES AND LANE USAGE --------------------------------------------------------------------- EB WB NB SB ------- ------- ------- ------- LANES 1 3 2 2 ADJUSTMENT FACTORS Page-2 --------------------------------------------------------------------- PERCENT RIGHT TURN CURB RADIUS (ft) ACCELERATION LANE GRADE ANGLE FOR RIGHT TURNS FOR RIGHT TURNS ------- ---------- ---------------- ----------------- EASTBOUND 0.00 90 20 N WESTBOUND 0.00 90 20 N NORTHBOUND 0.00 90 20 N SOUTHBOUND 0.00 90 20 N VEHICLE COMPOSITION --------------------------------------------------------------------- % SU TRUCKS % COMBINATION AND RV'S VEHICLES % MOTORCYCLES ----------- ------------- ------------- EASTBOUND 0 0 0 WESTBOUND 0 0 0 NORTHBOUND 0 0 0 SOUTHBOUND 0 0 0 CRITICAL GAPS --------------------------------------------------------------------- TABULAR VALUES ADJUSTED SIGHT DIST. FINAL (Table 10-2) VALUE ADJUSTMENT CRITICAL GAP -------------- -------- ----------- ------------ MINOR RIGHTS EB 5.50 5.50 0.00 5.50 WB 5.50 5.50 0.00 5.50 MAJOR LEFTS SB 5.50 5.50 0.00 5.50 NB 5.50 5.50 0.00 5.50 MINOR THROUGHS EB 6.50 6.50 0.00 6.50 WB 6.50 6.50 0.00 6.50 MINOR LEFTS EB 7.00 7.00 0.00 7.00 WB 7.00 7.00 0.00 7.00 IDENTIFYING INFORMATION --------------------------------------------------------------------- NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET. . . . . . I-215 Westbound Ramps NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET. . . . Palm Avenue DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALYSIS. . . . . 11-18-1991 ; PM Peak Hour OTHER INFORMATION. . . . Existing CAPACITY AND LEVEL-OF-SERVICE Page-3 --------------------------------------------------------------------- POTEN- ACTUAL FLOW- TIAL MOVEMENT SHARED RESERVE RATE CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY MOVEMENT v(pcph) c (pcph) c (pcph) c (pcph) c = c - v LOS p M SH R SH ------- -------- --------- ------------ ------------ --- MINOR STREET EB LEFT 0 250 204 > 204 > 204 > C THROUGH 1 383 369 > 369 369 > 368 368 >B B RIGHT 0 936 936 > 936 > 936 > A MINOR STREET WB LEFT 40 286 275 275 235 C THROUGH 7 334 321 321 315 B RIGHT 178 889 889 889 710 A MAJOR STREET SB LEFT 0 698 698 698 698 A NB LEFT 48 779 779 779 731 A IDENTIFYING INFORMATION --------------------------------------------------------------------- NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET. . . . . . I-215 Westbound Ramps NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET. . . . Palm Avenue DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALYSIS. . . . . 11-18-1991 ; PM Peak Hour OTHER INFORMATION. . . . Existing 1985 HCM: UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS Page-1 ********************************************************************* IDENTIFYING INFORMATION --------------------------------------------------------------------- AVERAGE RUNNING SPEED, MAJOR STREET. . 30 PEAK HOUR FACTOR. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 AREA POPULATION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150000 NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET. . . . . . . . . 1-215 Westbound Ramps NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET. . . . . . . Palm Avenue NAME OF THE ANALYST. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . R. Ammari DATE OF THE ANALYSIS (mm/dd/yy) . . . . . . 11-18-1991 TIME PERIOD ANALYZED. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . AM Peak Hour OTHER INFORMATION. . . . Cumulative Growth 1996 INTERSECTION TYPE AND CONTROL --------------------------------------------------------------------- INTERSECTION TYPE: 4-LEG MAJOR STREET DIRECTION: NORTH/SOUTH CONTROL TYPE EASTBOUND: STOP SIGN CONTROL TYPE WESTBOUND: STOP SIGN TRAFFIC VOLUMES --------------------------------------------------------------------- EB WB NB SB ---- ---- ---- ---- LEFT 0 60 22 0 THRU 1 9 193 359 RIGHT 0 77 0 431 NUMBER OF LANES AND LANE USAGE --------------------------------------------------------------------- EB WB NB SB ------- ------- ------- ------- LANES 1 3 2 2 ADJUSTMENT FACTORS Page-2 --------------------------------------------------------------------- PERCENT RIGHT TURN CURB RADIUS (ft) ACCELERATION LANE GRADE ANGLE FOR RIGHT TURNS FOR RIGHT TURNS ------- ---------- ---------------- ----------------- EASTBOUND 0.00 90 20 N WESTBOUND 0.00 90 20 N NORTHBOUND 0.00 90 20 N SOUTHBOUND 0.00 90 20 N VEHICLE COMPOSITION --------------------------------------------------------------------- % SU TRUCKS % COMBINATION AND RV'S VEHICLES % MOTORCYCLES ----------- ------------- ------------- EASTBOUND 0 0 0 WESTBOUND 0 0 0 NORTHBOUND 0 0 0 SOUTHBOUND 0 0 0 CRITICAL GAPS --------------------------------------------------------------------- TABULAR VALUES ADJUSTED SIGHT DIST. FINAL (Table 10-2) VALUE ADJUSTMENT CRITICAL GAP -------------- -------- ----------- ------------ MINOR RIGHTS EB 5.50 5.50 0.00 5.50 WB 5.50 5.50 0.00 5.50 MAJOR LEFTS SB 5.50 5.50 0.00 5.50 NB 5.50 5.50 0.00 5.50 MINOR THROUGHS EB 6.50 6.50 0.00 6.50 WB 6.50 6.50 0.00 6.50 MINOR LEFTS EB 7.00 7.00 0.00 7.00 WB 7.00 7.00 0.00 7.00 IDENTIFYING INFORMATION --------------------------------------------------------------------- NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET. . . . . . I-215 Westbound Ramps NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET. . . . Palm Avenue DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALYSIS. . . . . 11-18-1991 ; AM Peak Hour OTHER INFORMATION. . . . Cumulative Growth 1996 CAPACITY AND LEVEL-OF-SERVICE Page-3 --------------------------------------------------------------------- POTEN- ACTUAL FLOW- TIAL MOVEMENT SHARED RESERVE RATE CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY MOVEMENT v(pcph) c (pcph) c (pcph) c (pcph) c = c - v LOS p M SH R SH ------- -------- --------- ------------ ------------ --- MINOR STREET EB LEFT 0 237 211 > 211 > 211 > C THROUGH 1 316 305 > 305 305 > 304 304 >B B RIGHT 0 705 705 > 705 > 705 > A MINOR STREET WB LEFT 66 189 182 182 116 D THROUGH 10 229 221 221 211 C RIGHT 85 995 995 995 910 A MAJOR STREET SB LEFT 0 897 897 897 897 A NB LEFT 24 432 432 432 407 A IDENTIFYING INFORMATION --------------------------------------------------------------------- NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET. . . . . . I-215 Westbound Ramps NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET. . . . Palm Avenue DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALYSIS. . . . . 11-18-1991 ; AM Peak Hour OTHER INFORMATION. . . . Cumulative Growth 1996 1985 HCM: UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS Page-1 ********************************************************************* IDENTIFYING INFORMATION --------------------------------------------------------------------- AVERAGE RUNNING SPEED, MAJOR STREET. . 30 PEAK HOUR FACTOR. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 AREA POPULATION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150000 NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET. . . . . . . . . I-215 Westbound Ramps NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET. . . . . . . Palm Avenue NAME OF THE ANALYST. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . R. Ammari DATE OF THE ANALYSIS (mm/dd/yy) . . . . . . 11-18-1991 TIME PERIOD ANALYZED. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . PM Peak Hour OTHER INFORMATION. . . . Cumulative Growth 1996 INTERSECTION TYPE AND CONTROL --------------------------------------------------------------------- INTERSECTION TYPE: 4-LEG MAJOR STREET DIRECTION: NORTH/SOUTH CONTROL TYPE EASTBOUND: STOP SIGN CONTROL TYPE WESTBOUND: STOP SIGN TRAFFIC VOLUMES --------------------------------------------------------------------- EB WB NB SB ---- ---- ---- ---- LEFT 0 46 56 0 THRU 1 8 514 179 RIGHT 0 207 0 220 NUMBER OF LANES AND LANE USAGE --------------------------------------------------------------------- EB WB NB SB ------- ------- ------- ------- LANES i 3 2 2 ADJUSTMENT FACTORS Page-2 --------------------------------------------------------------------- PERCENT RIGHT TURN CURB RADIUS (ft) ACCELERATION LANE GRADE ANGLE FOR RIGHT TURNS FOR RIGHT TURNS ------- ---------- ---------------- ----------------- EASTBOUND 0.00 90 20 N WESTBOUND 0.00 90 20 N NORTHBOUND 0.00 90 20 N SOUTHBOUND 0.00 90 20 N VEHICLE COMPOSITION --------------------------------------------------------------------- % SU TRUCKS % COMBINATION AND RV'S VEHICLES % MOTORCYCLES ----------- ------------- ------------- EASTBOUND 0 0 0 WESTBOUND 0 0 0 NORTHBOUND 0 0 0 SOUTHBOUND 0 0 0 CRITICAL GAPS --------------------------------------------------------------------- TABULAR VALUES ADJUSTED SIGHT DIST. FINAL (Table 10-2) VALUE ADJUSTMENT CRITICAL GAP -------------- -------- ----------- ------------ MINOR RIGHTS EB 5.50 5.50 0.00 5.50 WB 5.50 5.50 0.00 5.50 MAJOR LEFTS SB 5.50 5.50 0.00 5.50 NB 5.50 5.50 0.00 5.50 MINOR THROUGHS EB 6.50 6.50 0.00 6.50 WB 6.50 6.50 0.00 6.50 MINOR LEFTS EB 7.00 7.00 0.00 7.00 WB 7.00 7.00 0.00 7.00 IDENTIFYING INFORMATION --------------------------------------------------------------------- NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET. . . . . . I-215 Westbound Ramps NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET. . . . Palm Avenue DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALYSIS. . . . . 11-18-1991 ; PM Peak Hour OTHER INFORMATION. . . . Cumulative Growth 1996 CAPACITY AND LEVEL-OF-SERVICE Page-3 --------------------------------------------------------------------- POTEN- ACTUAL FLOW- TIAL MOVEMENT SHARED RESERVE RATE CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY MOVEMENT v(pcph) c (pcph) c (pcph) c (pcph) c = c - v LOS p M SH R SH ------- -------- --------- ------------ ------------ --- MINOR STREET EB LEFT 0 172 127 > 127 > 127 > D THROUGH 1 286 271 > 271 271 > 270 270 >C C RIGHT 0 891 891 > 891 > 891 > A MINOR STREET WB LEFT 51 201 190 190 140 D THROUGH 9 242 230 230 221 C RIGHT 228 833 833 833 605 A MAJOR STREET SB LEFT 0 617 617 617 617 A NB LEFT 62 701 701 701 639 A IDENTIFYING INFORMATION --------------------------------------------------------------------- NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET. . . . . . I-215 Westbound Ramps NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET. . . . Palm Avenue DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALYSIS. . . . . 11-18-1991 ; PM Peak Hour OTHER INFORMATION. . . . Cumulative Growth 1996 1985 HCM: UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS Page-1 ********************************************************************* IDENTIFYING INFORMATION --------------------------------------------------------------------- AVERAGE RUNNING SPEED, MAJOR STREET. . 30 PEAK HOUR FACTOR. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 AREA POPULATION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150000 NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET. . . . . . . . . I-215 Westbound Ramps NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET. . . . . . . Palm Avenue NAME OF THE ANALYST. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . R. Ammari DATE OF THE ANALYSIS (mm/dd/yy) . . . . . . 11-18-1991 TIME PERIOD ANALYZED. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . AM Peak Hour OTHER INFORMATION. . . . Cumulative Growth 2001 INTERSECTION TYPE AND CONTROL --------------------------------------------------------------------- INTERSECTION TYPE: 4-LEG MAJOR STREET DIRECTION: NORTH/SOUTH CONTROL TYPE EASTBOUND: STOP SIGN CONTROL TYPE WESTBOUND: STOP SIGN TRAFFIC VOLUMES --------------------------------------------------------------------- EB WB NB SB ---- ---- ---- ---- LEFT 0 77 28 0 THRU 1 11 246 458 RIGHT 0 98 0 551 NUMBER OF LANES AND LANE USAGE --------------------------------------------------------------------- EB WB NB SB ------- ------- ------- ------- LANES 1 3 2 2 ADJUSTMENT FACTORS Page-2 --------------------------------------------------------------------- PERCENT RIGHT TURN CURB RADIUS (ft) ACCELERATION LANE GRADE ANGLE FOR RIGHT TURNS FOR RIGHT TURNS ------- ---------- ---------------- ----------------- EASTBOUND 0.00 90 20 N WESTBOUND 0.00 90 20 N NORTHBOUND 0.00 90 20 N SOUTHBOUND 0.00 90 20 N VEHICLE COMPOSITION --------------------------------------------------------------------- % SU TRUCKS % COMBINATION AND RV'S VEHICLES % MOTORCYCLES ----------- ------------- ------------- EASTBOUND 0 0 0 WESTBOUND 0 0 0 NORTHBOUND 0 0 0 SOUTHBOUND 0 0 0 CRITICAL GAPS --------------------------------------------------------------------- TABULAR VALUES ADJUSTED SIGHT DIST. FINAL (Table 10-2) VALUE ADJUSTMENT CRITICAL GAP -------------- -------- ----------- ------------ MINOR RIGHTS EB 5.50 5.50 0.00 5.50 WB 5.50 5.50 0.00 5.50 MAJOR LEFTS SB 5.50 5.50 0.00 5.50 NB 5.50 5.50 0.00 5.50 MINOR THROUGHS EB 6.50 6.50 0.00 6.50 WB 6.50 6.50 0.00 6.50 MINOR LEFTS EB 7.00 7.00 0.00 7.00 WB 7.00 7.00 0.00 7.00 IDENTIFYING INFORMATION --------------------------------------------------------------------- NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET. . . . . . I-215 Westbound Ramps NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET. . . . Palm Avenue DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALYSIS. . . . . 11-18-1991 ; AM Peak Hour OTHER INFORMATION. . . . Cumulative Growth 2001 CAPACITY AND LEVEL-OF-SERVICE Page-3 --------------------------------------------------------------------- POTEN- ACTUAL FLOW- TIAL MOVEMENT SHARED RESERVE RATE CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY MOVEMENT v(pcph) c (pcph) c (pcph) c (pcph) c = c - v LOS p M SH R SH ------- -------- --------- ------------ ------------ --- MINOR STREET EB LEFT 0 161 135 > 135 > 135 > D THROUGH 1 228 215 > 215 215 > 214 214 >C C RIGHT 0 624 624 > 624 > 624 > A MINOR STREET WB LEFT 85 125 118 118 33 E THROUGH 12 151 143 143 131 D RIGHT 108 971 971 971 863 A MAJOR STREET SB LEFT 0 844 844 844 844 A NB LEFT 31 327 327 327 296 C IDENTIFYING INFORMATION --------------------------------------------------------------------- NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET. . . . . . I-215 Westbound Ramps NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET. . . . Palm Avenue DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALYSIS. . . . . 11-18-1991 ; AM Peak Hour OTHER INFORMATION. . . . Cumulative Growth 2001 1985 HCM: UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS Page-1 ********************************************************************* IDENTIFYING INFORMATION --------------------------------------------------------------------- AVERAGE RUNNING SPEED, MAJOR STREET. . 30 PEAK HOUR FACTOR. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 AREA POPULATION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150000 NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET. . . . . . . . . I-215 Westbound Ramps NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET. . . . . . . Palm Avenue NAME OF THE ANALYST. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . R. Ammari DATE OF THE ANALYSIS (mm/dd/yy) . . . . . . 11-18-1991 TIME PERIOD ANALYZED. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . PM Peak Hour OTHER INFORMATION. . . . Cumulative Growth 2001 INTERSECTION TYPE AND CONTROL --------------------------------------------------------------------- INTERSECTION TYPE: 4-LEG MAJOR STREET DIRECTION: NORTH/SOUTH CONTROL TYPE EASTBOUND: STOP SIGN CONTROL TYPE WESTBOUND: STOP SIGN TRAFFIC VOLUMES --------------------------------------------------------------------- EB WB NB SB ---- ---- ---- ---- LEFT 0 59 72 0 THRU 1 10 656 228 RIGHT 0 264 0 280 NUMBER OF LANES AND LANE USAGE --------------------------------------------------------------------- EB WB NB SB ------- ------- ------- ------- LANES 1 3 2 2 ADJUSTMENT FACTORS Page-2 --------------------------------------------------------------------- PERCENT RIGHT TURN CURB RADIUS (ft) ACCELERATION LANE GRADE ANGLE FOR RIGHT TURNS FOR RIGHT TURNS ------- ---------- ---------------- ----------------- EASTBOUND 0.00 90 20 N WESTBOUND 0.00 90 20 N NORTHBOUND 0.00 90 20 N SOUTHBOUND 0.00 90 20 N VEHICLE COMPOSITION --------------------------------------------------------------------- % SU TRUCKS % COMBINATION AND RV'S VEHICLES % MOTORCYCLES ----------- ------------- ------------- EASTBOUND 0 0 0 WESTBOUND 0 0 0 NORTHBOUND 0 0 0 SOUTHBOUND 0 0 0 CRITICAL GAPS --------------------------------------------------------------------- TABULAR VALUES ADJUSTED SIGHT DIST. FINAL (Table 10-2) VALUE ADJUSTMENT CRITICAL GAP -------------- -------- ----------- ------------ MINOR RIGHTS EB 5.50 5.50 0.00 5.50 WB 5.50 5.50 0.00 5.50 MAJOR LEFTS SB 5.50 5.50 0.00 5.50 NB 5.50 5.50 0.00 5.50 MINOR THROUGHS EB 6.50 6.50 0.00 6.50 WB 6.50 6.50 0.00 6.50 MINOR LEFTS EB 7.00 7.00 0.00 7.00 WB 7.00 7.00 0.00 7.00 IDENTIFYING INFORMATION --------------------------------------------------------------------- NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET. . . . . . I-215 Westbound Ramps NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET. . . . Palm Avenue DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALYSIS. . . . . 11-18-1991 ; PM Peak Hour OTHER INFORMATION. . . . Cumulative Growth 2001 CAPACITY AND LEVEL-OF-SERVICE Page-3 --------------------------------------------------------------------- POTEN- ACTUAL FLOW- TIAL MOVEMENT SHARED RESERVE RATE CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY MOVEMENT v(pcph) c (pcph) c (pcph) c (pcph) c = c - v LOS p M SH R SH ------- -------- --------- ------------ ------------ --- MINOR STREET EB LEFT 0 110 67 > 67 > 67 > E THROUGH 1 201 185 > 185 185 > 184 184 >D D RIGHT 0 836 836 > 836 > 836 > A MINOR STREET WB LEFT 65 134 122 122 57 E THROUGH 11 162 149 149 138 D RIGHT 290 765 765 765 474 A MAJOR STREET SB LEFT 0 519 519 519 519 A NB LEFT 79 622 622 622 543 A IDENTIFYING INFORMATION --------------------------------------------------------------------- NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET. . . . . . I-215 Westbound Ramps NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET. . . . Palm Avenue DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALYSIS. . . . . 11-18-1991 ; PM Peak Hour OTHER INFORMATION. . . . Cumulative Growth 2001 u p Y > ^' �+ F, N 8 > ' 0. d p + Da h� 00 � S OOO `�a, ao $ .w > O 8 e C6 pNp�� O O M M Q N A H G e ` N + .+a O 4 ^ cc O O O h O OD ON cc O O O n N W Q G o0 U3 ^� (�v " O a �D a0 �O N- N W I.i 9 > N O �! C �VQ 8 O w go go H �• + ie '� h N 0 0 � N O 0 0 �a, oD Cv� a � o OF o O W n N O C > n N N p M > Ncc �N N c o o n 0. O N O N 4 G C < N F- O 8 'v' N.i 0 N W 0 U W 'o L 6 `� hoc o s c u > > c c v ? m q S S rse90 t ; 0 cyEru e 0 en 8 F C7 a N 1985 HCM: UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS Page-1 ********************************************************************* IDENTIFYING INFORMATION --------------------------------------------------------------------- AVERAGE RUNNING SPEED, MAJOR STREET. . 30 PEAK HOUR FACTOR. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 AREA POPULATION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150000 NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET. . . . . . . . . I-215 Westbound Ramps NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET. . . . . . . Palm Avenue NAME OF THE ANALYST. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . R. Ammari DATE OF THE ANALYSIS (mm/dd/yy) . . . . . . 11-18-1991 TIME PERIOD ANALYZED. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . AM Peak Hour OTHER INFORMATION. . . . Cumulative Growth 1996 + Project INTERSECTION TYPE AND CONTROL --------------------------------------------------------------------- INTERSECTION TYPE: 4-LEG MAJOR STREET DIRECTION: NORTH/SOUTH CONTROL TYPE EASTBOUND: STOP SIGN CONTROL TYPE WESTBOUND: STOP SIGN TRAFFIC VOLUMES --------------------------------------------------------------------- EB WB NB SB ---- ---- ---- ---- LEFT 0 60 22 0 THRU 1 9 211 435 RIGHT 0 200 0 438 NUMBER OF LANES AND LANE USAGE --------------------------------------------------------------------- EB WB NB SB ------- ------- ------- ------- LANES 1 3 2 2 ADJUSTMENT FACTORS Page-2 --------------------------------------------------------------------- PERCENT RIGHT TURN CURB RADIUS (ft) ACCELERATION LANE GRADE ANGLE FOR RIGHT TURNS FOR RIGHT TURNS ------- ---------- ---------------- ----------------- EASTBOUND 0.00 90 20 N WESTBOUND 0.00 90 20 N NORTHBOUND 0.00 90 20 N SOUTHBOUND 0.00 90 20 N VEHICLE COMPOSITION --------------------------------------------------------------------- % SU TRUCKS % COMBINATION AND RV'S VEHICLES % MOTORCYCLES ----------- ------------- ------------- EASTBOUND 0 0 0 WESTBOUND 0 0 0 NORTHBOUND 0 0 0 SOUTHBOUND 0 0 0 CRITICAL GAPS --------------------------------------------------------------------- TABULAR VALUES ADJUSTED SIGHT DIST. FINAL (Table 10-2) VALUE ADJUSTMENT CRITICAL GAP -------------- -------- ----------- ------------ MINOR RIGHTS EB 5.50 5.50 0.00 5.50 WB 5.50 5.50 0.00 5.50 MAJOR LEFTS SB 5.50 5.50 0.00 5.50 NB 5.50 5.50 0.00 5.50 MINOR THROUGHS EB 6.50 6.50 0.00 6.50 WB 6.50 6.50 0.00 6.50 MINOR LEFTS EB 7.00 7.00 0.00 7.00 WB 7.00 7.00 0.00 7.00 IDENTIFYING INFORMATION --------------------------------------------------------------------- NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET. . . . . . I-215 Westbound Ramps NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET. . . . Palm Avenue DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALYSIS. . . . . 11-18-1991 ; AM Peak Hour OTHER INFORMATION. . . . Cumulative Growth 1996 + Project CAPACITY AND LEVEL-OF-SERVICE Page-3 --------------------------------------------------------------------- POTEN- ACTUAL FLOW- TIAL MOVEMENT SHARED RESERVE RATE CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY MOVEMENT v(pcph) c (pcph) c (pcph) c (pcph) c = c - v LOS p M SH R SH ------- -------- --------- ------------ ------------ --- MINOR STREET EB LEFT 0 166 131 > 131 > 131 > D THROUGH 1 275 265 > 265 265 > 264 264 >C C RIGHT 0 674 674 > 674 > 674 > A MINOR STREET WB LEFT 66 163 157 157 91 E THROUGH 10 198 191 191 181 D RIGHT 220 989 989 989 769 A MAJOR STREET SB LEFT 0 879 879 879 879 A NB LEFT 24 390 390 390 366 B IDENTIFYING INFORMATION --------------------------------------------------------------------- NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET. . . . . . I-215 Westbound Ramps NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET. . . . Palm Avenue DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALYSIS. . . . . 11-18-1991 ; AM Peak Hour OTHER INFORMATION. . . . Cumulative Growth 1996 + Project 1985 HCM: UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS Page-1 ********************************************************************* IDENTIFYING INFORMATION --------------------------------------------------------------------- AVERAGE RUNNING SPEED, MAJOR STREET. . 30 PEAK HOUR FACTOR. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 AREA POPULATION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150000 NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET. . . . . . . . . I-215 Westbound Ramps NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET. . . . . . . Palm Avenue NAME OF THE ANALYST. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . R. Ammari DATE OF THE ANALYSIS (mm/dd/yy) . . . . . . 11-18-1991 TIME PERIOD ANALYZED. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . PM Peak Hour OTHER INFORMATION. . . . Cumulative Growth 1996 + Project INTERSECTION TYPE AND CONTROL --------------------------------------------------------------------- INTERSECTION TYPE: 4-LEG MAJOR STREET DIRECTION: NORTH/SOUTH CONTROL TYPE EASTBOUND: STOP SIGN CONTROL TYPE WESTBOUND: STOP SIGN TRAFFIC VOLUMES --------------------------------------------------------------------- EB WB NB SB ---- ---- ---- ---- LEFT 0 46 56 0 THRU 1 8 576 624 RIGHT 0 629 0 258 NUMBER OF LANES AND LANE USAGE --------------------------------------------------------------------- EB WB NB SB ------- ------- ------- ------- LANES 1 3 2 2 ADJUSTMENT FACTORS Page-2 --------------------------------------------------------------------- PERCENT RIGHT TURN CURB RADIUS (ft) ACCELERATION LANE GRADE ANGLE FOR RIGHT TURNS FOR RIGHT TURNS ------- ---------- ---------------- ----------------- EASTBOUND 0.00 90 20 N WESTBOUND 0.00 90 20 N NORTHBOUND 0.00 90 20 N SOUTHBOUND 0.00 90 20 N VEHICLE COMPOSITION --------------------------------------------------------------------- % SU TRUCKS % COMBINATION AND RV'S VEHICLES % MOTORCYCLES ----------- ------------- ------------- EASTBOUND 0 0 0 WESTBOUND 0 0 0 NORTHBOUND 0 0 0 SOUTHBOUND 0 0 0 CRITICAL GAPS --------------------------------------------------------------------- TABULAR VALUES ADJUSTED SIGHT DIST. FINAL (Table 10-2) VALUE ADJUSTMENT CRITICAL GAP -------------- -------- ----------- ------------ MINOR RIGHTS EB 5.50 5.50 0.00 5.50 WB 5.50 5.50 0.00 5.50 MAJOR LEFTS SB 5.50 5.50 0.00 5.50 NB 5.50 5.50 0.00 5.50 MINOR THROUGHS EB 6.50 6.50 0.00 6.50 WB 6.50 6.50 0.00 6.50 MINOR LEFTS EB 7.00 7.00 0.00 7.00 WB 7.00 7.00 0.00 7.00 IDENTIFYING INFORMATION --------------------------------------------------------------------- NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET. . . . . . I-215 Westbound Ramps NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET. . . . Palm Avenue DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALYSIS. . . . . 11-18-1991 ; PM Peak Hour OTHER INFORMATION. . . . Cumulative Growth 1996 + Project CAPACITY AND LEVEL-OF-SERVICE Page-3 --------------------------------------------------------------------- POTEN- ACTUAL FLOW- TIAL MOVEMENT SHARED RESERVE RATE CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY MOVEMENT v(pcph) c (pcph) c (pcph) c (pcph) c = c - v LOS p M SH R SH ------- -------- --------- ------------ ------------ --- MINOR STREET EB LEFT 0 75 12 > 12 > 12 > E THROUGH 1 128 115 > 115 115 > 113 113 >D D RIGHT 0 670 670 > 670 > 670 > A MINOR STREET WB LEFT 51 88 78 78 27 E THROUGH 9 108 96 96 87 E RIGHT 692 802 802 802 110 D MAJOR STREET SB LEFT 0 572 572 572 572 A NB LEFT 62 386 386 386 324 B IDENTIFYING INFORMATION --------------------------------------------------------------------- NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET. . . . . . I-215 Westbound Ramps NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET. . . . Palm Avenue DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALYSIS. . . . . 11-18-1991 ; PM Peak Hour OTHER INFORMATION. . . . Cumulative Growth 1996 + Project 1985 HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS SUMMARY REPORT ************************************************************************** INTERSECTION. . I-215 WESTBOUND/PALM AREA TYPE. . . . .OTHER ANALYST. . . . . . .STELLA DATE. . . . . . . . . .12-26-1991 TIME. . . . . . . . . . 1996 + CONCEPT COMMENT. . . . . . .AM + SIG MOD -------------------------------------------------------------------------- VOLUMES GEOMETRY EB WB NB SB : EB WB NB SB LT 0 69 22 0 : 12.0 L 12.0 L 12.0 T 12.0 TH 0 0 211 435 : 12.0 R 12.0 T 12.0 R 12.0 RT 0 200 0 438 : 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 RR 0 0 0 0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- ADJUSTMENT FACTORS GRADE HV ADJ PKG BUSES PHF PEDS PED. BUT. ARR. TYPE N (%) Y/N Nm Nb Y/N min T EB 0.00 2.00 Y 20 0 0.90 50 N 0.0 3 WB 0.00 2.00 Y 20 0 0.90 50 N 0.0 3 NB 0.00 2.00 Y 20 0 0.90 50 N 0.0 3 SB 0.00 2.00 Y 20 0 0.90 50 N 0.0 3 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- SIGNAL SETTINGS CYCLE LENGTH = 50.7 PH-1 PH-2 PH-3 PH-4 PH-1 PH-2 PH-3 PH-4 EB LT NB LT X TH TH X X RT RT PD PD WB LT X SB LT TH TH X RT X RT X PD PD -------------------------------------------------------------------------- LEVEL OF SERVICE LANE GRP. V/C G/C DELAY LOS APP. DELAY APP. LOS WB L 0. 119 0.438 6.4 B 6.6 B R 0.419 0.438 6.6 B NB L 0.068 0.213 12.1 B 4.6 A T 0.293 0.562 3.8 A SB T 0.777 0.349 13.2 B 52.2 E R 1 . 150 0.349 90.9 F -------------------------------------------------------------------------- INTERSECTION: Delay = 35.2 (sec/veh) V/C = 0.648 LOS = D 1985 HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS SUMMARY REPORT ************************************************************************** INTERSECTION. . I-215 WESTBOUND/PALM AREA TYPE. . . . .OTHER ANALYST. . . . . . .STELLA DATE. . . . . . . . . . 12-26-1991 TIME. . . . . . . . . .1996 + CONCEPT COMMENT. . . . . . .PM + SIG MOD -------------------------------------------------------------------------- VOLUMES GEOMETRY EB WB NB SB EB WB NB SB LT 0 54 56 0 12.0 L 12.0 L 12.0 T 12.0 TH 0 0 576 624 12.0 R 12.0 T 12.0 R 12.0 RT 0 629 0 258 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 RR 0 0 0 0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- ADJUSTMENT FACTORS GRADE HV AN PKG BUSES PHF PEDS PED. BUT. ARR. TYPE M N Y/N Nm Nb Y/N min T EB 0.00 2.00 Y 20 0 0.90 50 N 0.0 3 WB 0.00 2.00 Y 20 0 0.90 50 N 0.0 3 NB 0.00 2.00 Y 20 0 0.90 50 N 0.0 3 SB 0.00 2.00 Y 20 0 0.90 50 N 0.0 3 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- SIGNAL SETTINGS CYCLE LENGTH = 120.0 PH-1 PH-2 PH-3 PH-4 PH-1 PH-2 PH-3 PH-4 EB LT NB LT X TH TH X X RT RT PD PD WB LT X SB LT TH TH X RT X RT X PD PD -------------------------------------------------------------------------- LEVEL OF SERVICE LANE GRP. V/C G/C DELAY LOS APP. DELAY APP. LOS WB L 0.084 0.483 12.7 B 111.8 F R 1 .193 0.483 120.3 F NB L 0.306 0.120 36.9 D 24.3 C T 0.870 0.516 23.1 C SB T 0.983 0.396 42.1 E 35.6 D R 0.598 0.396 19.8 C -------------------------------------------------------------------------- INTERSECTION: Delay = 56.0 (sec/veh) V/C = 1.161 LOS = E 1985 HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS SUMMARY REPORT ************************************************************************** INTERSECTION. . I-215 WESTBOUND/PALM AREA TYPE. . . . .OTHER ANALYST. . . . . . .STELLA DATE. . . . . . . . . .12-26-1991 TIME. . . . . . . . . .1996 + CONCEPT COMMENT. . . . . . .am + wbr -------------------------------------------------------------------------- VOLUMES GEOMETRY EB WB NB SB EB WB NB SB LT 0 69 22 0 12.0 L 12.0 L 12.0 T 12.0 TH 0 0 211 435 12.0 R 12.0 T 12.0 R 12.0 RT 0 200 0 438 12.0 R 12.0 12.0 12.0 RR 0 0 0 0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- ADJUSTMENT FACTORS GRADE HV ADJ PKG BUSES PHF PEDS PED. BUT. ARR. TYPE N N Y/N Nm Nb Y/N min T EB 0.00 2.00 Y 20 0 0.90 50 N 0.0 3 WB 0.00 2.00 Y 20 0 0.90 50 N 0.0 3 NB 0.00 2.00 Y 20 0 0.90 50 N 0.0 3 SB 0.00 2.00 Y 20 0 0.90 50 N 0.0 3 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- SIGNAL SETTINGS CYCLE LENGTH = 50.7 PH-1 PH-2 PH-3 PH-4 PH-1 PH-2 PH-3 PH-4 EB LT NB LT X TH TH X X RT RT PD PD WB LT X SB LT TH TH X RT X RT X PD PD -------------------------------------------------------------------------- LEVEL OF SERVICE LANE GRP. V/C G/C DELAY LOS APP. DELAY APP. LOS WB L 0.119 0.438 6.4 B 5.9 B R 0.224 0.438 5.8 B NB L 0.068 0.213 12.1 B 4.6 A T 0.293 0.562 3.8 A SB T 0.777 0.349 13.2 B 52.2 E R 1.150 0.349 90.9 F -------------------------------------------------------------------------- INTERSECTION: Delay = 34.8 (sec/veh) V/C = 0.530 LOS = D 1985 HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS SUMMARY REPORT INTERSECTION. . I-215 WESTBOUND/PALM AREA TYPE. . . . .OTHER ANALYST. . . . . . .STELLA DATE. . . . . . . . . . 12-26-1991 TIME. . . . . . . . . . 1996 + CONCEPT COMMENT. . . . . . .pm + wbr -------------------------------------------------------------------------- VOLUMES GEOMETRY EB WB NB SB : EB WB NB SB LT 0 54 56 0 : 12.0 L 12.0 L 12.0 T 12.0 TH 0 0 576 624 : 12.0 R 12.0 T 12.0 R 12.0 RT 0 629 0 258 : 12.0 R 12.0 12.0 12.0 RR 0 0 0 0 : 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- ADJUSTMENT FACTORS GRADE HV ADJ PKG BUSES PHF PEDS PED. BUT. ARR. TYPE N (%) Y/N Nm Nb Y/N min T EB 0.00 2.00 Y 20 0 0.90 50 N 0.0 3 WB 0.00 2.00 Y 20 0 0.90 50 N 0.0 3 NB 0.00 2.00 Y 20 0 0.90 50 N 0.0 3 SB 0.00 2.00 Y 20 0 0.90 50 N 0.0 3 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- SIGNAL SETTINGS CYCLE LENGTH = 76.0 PH-1 PH-2 PH-3 PH-4 PH-1 PH-2 PH-3 PH-4 EB LT NB LT X TH TH X X RT RT PD PD WB LT X SB LT TH TH X RT X RT X PD PD -------------------------------------------------------------------------- LEVEL OF SERVICE LANE GRP. V/C G/C DELAY LOS APP. DELAY APP. LOS WB L 0.107 0.380 11.6 B 16.6 C R 0.811 0.380 17.0 C NB L 0.213 0.172 20.6 C 9.3 B T 0.724 0.620 8.2 B SB T 0.870 0.447 18.4 C 16.1 C R 0.529 0.447 10.5 B -------------------------------------------------------------------------- INTERSECTION: Delay = 14.3 (sec/veh) V/C = 0.928 LOS = B ISA Associates,Inc APPENDIX C - FORECAST TRAFFIC VOLUMES 01/02/92(1AJM101\TRAFFIC.RPT) a B N M N r M M a .r M O O C pppp < N 0 0 0 0 .Q N h 0 � 0 — A `^P \0 `R q 6. V\ `r c M 3 8 •� ccV V\ N �Q v y CL. h M V1 N. n n v tOi1 00 VN N A � ^I ^1 y. y gu a O O O O n n O O W < O O O O NM+ N OMO O `v O ers cl � ° Q ` a ;° v°-, °-° � 0o .. aaon ° � M N N.I 4.6 V i V� � O M`� O M 00 N Q v Q 00 N aD O C � v < `P N O N M O N Q6, > a > z .aFoC .� FoCaFo4 .tFa 0 zzzV) cuw Bt N :1 �i J C; M 3 g N 00 O O p M�O O cc M V\ . r \0 0 0 5 0 0 0 V- 00 B N L C a B C Ar c n C N � N E � O O � N O cc 00 g 6-N 00 N O O M M O cc O, S G r�i a 0. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 �+ 4+ d b a p NN o 0 0 N v cl - N 0 0 0 -a , 00 `O 3 \ Oy V N O O O O O $ O� n ICI O O 'L a .tea, 0 0 0 �O O � Q d v x � � � 4M ooNW) 0 0 0 .,n, n$ O .� F04aFoGaFm -tFoC Cl\ a > a owzzzh wmlw= N N J J 7 T B 3 t �O w W `NQ' s+ N a w O h v c E B gN eh a O T V 00 O � VN N N �QB v vo o n o c o o 0 0 0 0 U ° „ �� ,°n` 0a$ rw $ on ry V `M' N N V iol v\0 V OV ON 3 O h 0 a w C O�n n en ODD N V MV.\ `Ol x ao `T N .+ N N M1 N O N O a a oe .aFmp-aa � °C 0 � z z z o (4H m m m B M X N ti a r N N M n � n 3 V� M 1!., N t\ 3 `T N O- CN `00' - � a000 °,° 0000000 °DQ c "�� .• � � �o Ma ap n ,� n � < 1/\ N M N yM ,� N `Q' N N N 1/� M go v B t a N `T 0. Q. +, n v en� � V �yy ^ir en wi M N b M N NN N h M M b T +Q �id y to N N N N N Y1 M M 0p 3 7 Co 0 U O w V i N O b V. N N r M O N N N n '+P D M N .+ ` N � � .r 0 ►��yy km e O O� O, n M Qr > a > wmmmmr�amr`'amm � � a Z Z Z O C A C A W W W tL B N ti a � p ^ 3 N 0. 3 < O ao a In In °f) caoo � ,p000 0o Mo ,� c � o., a N N .�Q, C C N O JO O M B N � 0 0. 62 n � :2 O O o N go �B �0 NM +r L i0+ •i0r 4J � 00 C 0. v G v 04 C w my � oo ° oo oao oN 0 c o 0 � c v v o > a mm � ag mmcz -j c 0 Z Z Z v) www � � 6 1n N h 1985 HCM: UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS Page-1 ********************************************************************* IDENTIFYING INFORMATION --------------------------------------------------------------------- AVERAGE RUNNING SPEED, MAJOR STREET. . 30 PEAK HOUR FACTOR. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 AREA POPULATION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150000 NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET. . . . . . . . . I-215 Westbound Ramps NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET. . . . . . . Palm Avenue NAME OF THE ANALYST. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . R. Ammari DATE OF THE ANALYSIS (mm/dd/yy) . . . . . . 11-18-1991 TIME PERIOD ANALYZED. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . AM Peak Hour OTHER INFORMATION. . . . Cumulative Growth 2001 + Project INTERSECTION TYPE AND CONTROL --------------------------------------------------------------------- INTERSECTION TYPE: 4-LEG MAJOR STREET DIRECTION: NORTH/SOUTH CONTROL TYPE EASTBOUND: STOP SIGN CONTROL TYPE WESTBOUND: STOP SIGN TRAFFIC VOLUMES --------------------------------------------------------------------- EB WB NB SB ---- ---- ---- ---- LEFT 0 77 28 0 THRU 1 11 264 534 RIGHT 0 221 0 557 NUMBER OF LANES AND LANE USAGE --------------------------------------------------------------------- EB WB NB SB ------- ------- ------- ------- LANES 1 3 2 2 ADJUSTMENT FACTORS Page-2 --------------------------------------------------------------------- PERCENT RIGHT TURN CURB RADIUS (ft) ACCELERATION LANE GRADE ANGLE FOR RIGHT TURNS FOR RIGHT TURNS ------- ---------- ---------------- ----------------- EASTBOUND 0.00 90 20 N WESTBOUND 0.00 90 20 N NORTHBOUND 0.00 90 20 N SOUTHBOUND 0.00 90 20 N VEHICLE COMPOSITION --------------------------------------------------------------------- SU TRUCKS % COMBINATION - AND RV'S VEHICLES % MOTORCYCLES ----------- ------------- ------------- EASTBOUND 0 0 0 WESTBOUND 0 0 0 NORTHBOUND 0 0 0 SOUTHBOUND 0 0 0 CRITICAL GAPS --------------------------------------------------------------------- TABULAR VALUES ADJUSTED SIGHT DIST. FINAL (Table 10-2) VALUE ADJUSTMENT CRITICAL GAP -------------- -------- ----------- ------------ MINOR RIGHTS EB 5.50 5.50 0.00 5.50 WB 5.50 5.50 0.00 5.50 MAJOR LEFTS SB 5.50 5.50 0.00 5.50 NB 5.50 5.50 0.00 5.50 MINOR THROUGHS EB 6.50 6.50 0.00 6.50 WB 6.50 6.50 0.00 6.50 MINOR LEFTS EB 7.00 7.00 0.00 7.00 WB 7.00 7.00 0.00 7.00 IDENTIFYING INFORMATION --------------------------------------------------------------------- NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET. . . . . . I-215 Westbound Ramps NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET. . . . Palm Avenue DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALYSIS. . . . . 11-18-1991 ; AM Peak Hour OTHER INFORMATION. . . . Cumulative Growth 2001 + Project CAPACITY AND LEVEL-OF-SERVICE Page-3 --------------------------------------------------------------------- POTEN- ACTUAL FLOW- TIAL MOVEMENT SHARED RESERVE RATE CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY MOVEMENT v(pcph) c (pcph) c (pcph) c (pcph) c = c - v LOS p M SH R SH ------- -------- --------- ------------ ------------ --- MINOR STREET EB LEFT 0 116 84 > 84 > 84 > E THROUGH 1 199 186 > 186 186 > 185 185 >D D RIGHT 0 595 595 > 595 > 595 > A MINOR STREET WB LEFT 85 108 101 101 16 E THROUGH 12 129 121 121 109 D RIGHT 243 961 961 961 718 A MAJOR STREET SB LEFT 0 826 826 826 826 A NB LEFT 31 296 296 296 265 C IDENTIFYING INFORMATION --------------------------------------------------------------------- NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET. . . . . . I-215 Westbound Ramps NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET. . . . Palm Avenue DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALYSIS. . . . . 11-18-1991 ; AM Peak Hour OTHER INFORMATION. . . . Cumulative Growth 2001 + Project 1985 HCM: UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS Page-1 IDENTIFYING INFORMATION ---------------------------------------------------------------- AVERAGE RUNNING SPEED, MAJOR STREET. . 30 PEAK HOUR FACTOR. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 AREA POPULATION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150000 NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET. . . . . . . . . I-215 Westbound Ramps NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET. . . . . . . Palm Avenue NAME OF THE ANALYST. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . R. Ammari DATE OF THE ANALYSIS (mm/dd/yy) . . . . . . 11-18-1991 TIME PERIOD ANALYZED. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . PM Peak Hour OTHER INFORMATION. . . . Cumulative Growth 2001 + Project INTERSECTION TYPE AND CONTROL ------------------------------------------------------------------ INTERSECTION TYPE: 4-LEG MAJOR STREET DIRECTION: NORTH/SOUTH CONTROL TYPE EASTBOUND: STOP SIGN CONTROL TYPE WESTBOUND: STOP SIGN TRAFFIC VOLUMES --------------------------------------------------------------------- EB WB NB SB ---- ---- ---- ---- LEFT 0 59 72 0 THRU 1 10 718 673 RIGHT 0 686 0 319 NUMBER OF LANES AND LANE USAGE --------------------------------------------------------------------- EB WB NB SB -- ------- ------- LANES 1 3 2 2 ADJUSTMENT FACTORS Page-2 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- PERCENT RIGHT TURN CURB RADIUS (ft) ACCELERATION LANE GRADE ANGLE FOR RIGHT TURNS FOR RIGHT TURNS ------- ---------- ---------------- ----------------- EASTBOUND 0.00 90 20 N WESTBOUND 0.00 90 20 N NORTHBOUND 0.00 90 20 N SOUTHBOUND 0.00 90 20 N VEHICLE COMPOSITION --------------------------------------------------------------------- SU TRUCKS % COMBINATION - AND RV'S VEHICLES % MOTORCYCLES ----------- ------------- ------------- EASTBOUND 0 0 0 WESTBOUND 0 0 0 NORTHBOUND 0 0 0 SOUTHBOUND 0 0 0 CRITICAL GAPS --------------------------------------------------------------------- TABULAR VALUES ADJUSTED SIGHT DIST. FINAL (Table 10-2) VALUE ADJUSTMENT CRITICAL GAP -------------- -------- ----------- ------------ MINOR RIGHTS EB 5.50 5.50 0.00 5.50 WB 5.50 5.50 0.00 5.50 MAJOR LEFTS SB 5.50 5.50 0.00 5.50 NB 5.50 5.50 0.00 5.50 MINOR THROUGHS EB 6.50 6.50 0.00 6.50 WB 6.50 6.50 0.00 6.50 MINOR LEFTS EB 7.00 7.00 0.00 7.00 WB 7.00 7.00 0.00 7.00 IDENTIFYING INFORMATION --------------------------------------------------------------------- NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET. . . . . . I-215 Westbound Ramps NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET. . . . Palm Avenue DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALYSIS. . . . . 11-18-1991 ; PM Peak Hour OTHER INFORMATION. . . . Cumulative Growth 2001 + Project CAPACITY AND LEVEL-OF-SERVICE Page-3 ----------------------------------------------------------- POTEN- ACTUAL FLOW- TIAL MOVEMENT SHARED RESERVE RATE CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY MOVEMENT v(pcph) c (pcph) c (pcph) c (pcph) c = c - v LOS P M SH R SH ------- -------- --------- ------------ ------------ --- MINOR STREET EB LEFT 0 75 0 > 0 > 0 > E THROUGH 1 95 79 > 79 79 > 78 78 >E E RIGHT 0 630 630 > 630 > 630 > A MINOR STREET WB LEFT 65 75 62 62 -3 F THROUGH 11 95 79 79 68 E RIGHT 755 737 737 737 -18 F MAJOR STREET SB LEFT 0 478 478 478 478 A NB LEFT 79 334 334 334 255 C IDENTIFYING INFORMATION -------------------------------------------------------------------- NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET. . . . . . I-215 Westbound Ramps NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET. . . . Palm Avenue DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALYSIS. . . . . 11-18-1991 ; PM Peak Hour OTHER INFORMATION. . . . Cumulative Growth 2001 + Project 1985 HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS SUMMARY REPORT ************************************************************************** INTERSECTION. . I-215 WESTBOUND/PALM AREA TYPE. . . . .OTHER ANALYST. . . . . . .STELLA DATE. . . . . . . . . . 12-26-1991 TIME. . . . . . . . . .2001 + CONCEPT COMMENT. . . . . . .AM + SIG MOD ------------------------------------------------------- VOLUMES GEOMETRY EB WB NB SB EB WB NB SB LT 0 88 28 0 12.0 L 12.0 L 12.0 T 12.0 TH 0 0 264 534 12.0 R 12.0 T 12.0 R 12.0 RT 0 221 0 557 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 RR 0 0 0 0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 -------------------------------------------------------- ADJUSTMENT FACTORS - GRADE HV ADJ PKG BUSES PHF PEDS PED. BUT. ARR. TYPE (q) N Y/N Nm Nb Y/N min T EB 0.00 2.00 Y 20 0 0.90 50 N 0.0 3 WB 0.00 2.00 Y 20 0 0.90 50 N 0.0 3 NB 0.00 2.00 Y 20 0 0.90 50 N 0.0 3 SB 0.00 2.00 Y 20 0 0.90 50 N 0.0 3 -------------------------------------------------------- SIGNAL SETTINGS CYCLE LENGTH = 57.8 PH-1 PH-2 PH-3 PH-4 PH-1 PH-2 PH-3 PH-4 EB LT NB LT X TH RT TH X X RT PD PD WB LT X SB LT TH TH X RT X RT X PD PD --------------------------------------------------------- LEVEL OF SERVICE LANE GRP. V/C G/C DELAY LOS APP. DELAY APP. LOS WB L 0. 165 0.401 8.4 B 8.8 B R 0.505 0.401 9.0 B NB L 0.095 0. 194 14.5 B 4.9 A T 0.345 0.597 3.9 A SB T 0.822 0.405 14.4 B R 1 .262 0.405 --------------------------------------------- ---------- INTERSECTION: Delay = * (sec/veh) V/C = 0.731 LOS = * 1985 HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS SUMMARY REPORT ************************************************************************** INTERSECTION. . I-215 WESTBOUND/PALM AREA TYPE. . . . .OTHER ANALYST. . . . . . .STELLA DATE. . . . . . . . . . 12-26-1991 TIME. . . . . . . . . .2001 + CONCEPT COMMENT. . . . . . .PM + SIG MOD ---------------------------------------------------------- VOLUMES GEOMETRY EB WB NB SB : EB WB NB SB LT 0 69 72 0 : 12.0 L 12.0 L 12.0 T 12.0 TH 0 0 718 673 : 12.0 R 12.0 T 12.0 R 12.0 RT 0 686 0 319 : 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 RR 0 0 0 0 : 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 --------------------------------------------------------- ADJUSTMENT FACTORS - GRADE HV ADJ PKG BUSES PHF PEDS PED. BUT. ARR. TYPE N M Y/N Nm Nb Y/N min T EB 0.00 2.00 Y 20 0 0.90 50 N 0.0 3 WB 0.00 2.00 Y 20 0 0.90 50 N 0.0 3 NB 0.00 2.00 Y 20 0 0.90 50 N 0.0 3 SB 0.00 2.00 Y 20 0 0.90 50 N 0.0 3 --------------------------------------------------------- SIGNAL SETTINGS CYCLE LENGTH = 120.0 PH-1 PH-2 PH-3 PH-4 PH-1 PH-2 PH-3 PH-4 EB LT NB LT X TH RT TH X X RT PD PD WB LT X SB LT TH TH X RT X RT X PD PD ----------------------------------------------------------- LEVEL OF SERVICE LANE GRP. V/C G/C DELAY LOS APP. DELAY APP. LOS WB L 0. 108 0.481 13.0 B R 1 .308 0.481 NB L 0.371 0.127 36.9 D 60.6 F T 1.078 0.519 62.9 F SB T 1.071 0.392 65.8 F 52.4 E R 0.747 0.392 24.0 C ------------------------------------------- - ------ INTERSECTION: Delay = * (sec/veh) V/C = 1.346 LOS - * 1985 HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS SUMMARY REPORT ************************************************************************** INTERSECTION. . I-215 WESTBOUND/PALM AREA TYPE. . . . .OTHER ANALYST. . . . . . .STELLA DATE. . . . . . . . . . 12-26-1991 TIME. . . . . . . . . .2001 + concept COMMENT. . . . . . .pm + wbr & sbr ------------------------ ------------------------ VOLUMES GEOMETRY EB WB NB SB : EB WB NB SB LT 0 69 72 0 : 12.0 L 12.0 L 12.0 T 12.0 TH 0 0 718 673 : 12.0 R 12.0 T 12.0 R 12.0 RT 0 686 0 319 : 12.0 R 12.0 12.0 R 12.0 RR 0 0 0 0 : 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 ----------------------------------------------- ADJUSTMENT FACTORS - GRADE HV ADJ PKG BUSES PHF PEDS PED. BUT. ARR. TYPE (%) N Y/N Nm Nb Y/N min T EB 0.00 2.00 Y 20 0 0.90 50 N 0.0 3 WB 0.00 2.00 Y 20 0 0.90 50 N 0.0 3 NB 0.00 2.00 Y 20 0 0.90 50 N 0.0 3 SB 0.00 2.00 Y 20 0 0.90 50 N 0.0 3 ------------------------------------------------ SIGNAL SETTINGS CYCLE LENGTH = 91 .9 PH-1 PH-2 PH-3 PH-4 PH-1 PH-2 PH-3 PH-4 EB LT NB LT X TH RT TH X X RT PD PD WB LT X SB LT TH TH X RT X RT X PD PD ---------------------------------------- LEVEL OF SERVICE LANE GRP. V/C G/C DELAY LOS APP. DELAY APP. LOS WB L 0.141 0.369 14.7 B 25.1 D R 0.912 0.369 26.1 D NB L 0.291 0.162 25.9 D 16.3 C T 0.884 0.633 15.3 C SB T 0.891 0.471 21.4 C 17.6 C R 0.332 0.471 9.9 B ---------------------------------------- ---------- INTERSECTION: Delay = 19.5 (sec/veh) V/C = 1.057 LOS = C 1985 HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS SUMMARY REPORT ************************************************************************** INTERSECTION. . I-215 WESTBOUND/PALM AREA TYPE. . . . .OTHER ANALYST. . . . . . .STELLA DATE. . . . . . . . . . 12-26-1991 TIME. . . . . . . . . .2001 + concept COMMENT. . . . . . .am + wbr & sbr ---------------------- -------------------------- VOLUMES GEOMETRY EB WB NB SB EB WB NB SB LT 0 88 28 0 12.0 L 12.0 L 12.0 T 12.0 TH 0 0 264 534 : 12.0 R 12.0 T 12.0 R 12.0 RT 0 221 0 557 12.0 R 12.0 12.0 R 12.0 RR 0 0 0 0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 --------------------------------------- ADJUSTMENT FACTORS - GRADE HV ADJ PKG BUSES PHF PEDS PED. BUT. ARR. TYPE N N Y/N Nm Nb Y/N min T EB 0.00 2.00 Y 20 0 0.90 50 N 0.0 3 WB 0.00 2.00 Y 20 0 0.90 50 N 0.0 3 NB 0.00 2.00 Y 20 0 0.90 50 N 0.0 3 SB 0.00 2.00 Y 20 0 0.90 50 N 0.0 3 ----------------------------------------- SIGNAL SETTINGS CYCLE LENGTH = 57.8 PH-1 PH-2 PH-3 PH-4 PH-1 PH-2 PH-3 PH-4 EB LT NB LT X TH RT TH X X RT PD PD WB LT X SB LT TH TH X RT X RT X PO PO -------------------------------------- LEVEL OF SERVICE LANE GRP. V/C G/C DELAY LOS APP. DELAY APP. LOS WB L 0.165 0.401 8.4 B 7.8 B R 0.270 0.401 7.5 B NB L 0.095 0.194 14.5 B 4.9 A T 0.344 0.599 3.9 A SB T 0.822 0.405 14.4 B 12.2 B R 0.675 0.405 10.2 B ------------------------ -------------------------- INTERSECTION: Delay = 10.2 (sec/veh) V/C = 0.607 LOS = B 1985 HCM: UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS Page-1 IDENTIFYING INFORMATION --------------------------------------------------- AVERAGE RUNNING SPEED, MAJOR STREET. . 30 PEAK HOUR FACTOR. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 AREA POPULATION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150000 NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET. . . . . . . . . I-215 Westbound Ramps NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET. . . . . . . Palm Avenue NAME OF THE ANALYST. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . R. Ammari DATE OF THE ANALYSIS (mm/dd/yy) . . . . . . 11-18-1991 TIME PERIOD ANALYZED. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . AM Peak Hour OTHER INFORMATION. . . . Cumulative Growth 1996 + Maximum Intensity INTERSECTION TYPE AND CONTROL ------------------------------------------------------ INTERSECTION TYPE: 4-LEG MAJOR STREET DIRECTION: NORTH/SOUTH CONTROL TYPE EASTBOUND: STOP SIGN CONTROL TYPE WESTBOUND: STOP SIGN TRAFFIC VOLUMES --------------------------------------------------------- EB WB NB SB LEFT 0 60 22 0 THRU 1 9 227 503 RIGHT 0 310 0 444 NUMBER OF LANES AND LANE USAGE --------------------------------------------------------- EB WB NB SB ------- ------- ------- ------- LANES 1 3 2 2 ADJUSTMENT FACTORS Page-2 --------------------------------------------------------------------- PERCENT RIGHT TURN CURB RADIUS (ft) ACCELERATION LANE 'zRADE ANGLE FOR RIGHT TURNS FOR RIGHT TURNS ------- ---------- ---------------- ----------------- EASTBOUND 0.00 90 20 N WESTBOUND 0.00 90 20 N NORTHBOUND 0.00 90 20 N SOUTHBOUND 0.00 90 20 N VEHICLE COMPOSITION --------------------------------------------------------------------- % SU TRUCKS % COMBINATION - AND RV'S VEHICLES % MOTORCYCLES ----------- ------------- ------------- EASTBOUND 0 0 0 WESTBOUND 0 0 0 NORTHBOUND 0 0 0 SOUTHBOUND 0 0 0 CRITICAL GAPS --------------------------------------------------------------------- TABULAR VALUES ADJUSTED SIGHT DIST. FINAL (Table 10-2) VALUE ADJUSTMENT CRITICAL GAP -------------- -------- ----------- ------------ MINOR RIGHTS EB 5.50 5.50 0.00 5.50 WB 5.50 5.50 0.00 5.50 MAJOR LEFTS SB 5.50 5.50 0.00 5.50 NB 5.50 5.50 0.00 5.50 MINOR THROUGHS EB 6.50 6.50 0.00 6.50 WB 6.50 6.50 0.00 6.50 MINOR LEFTS EB 7.00 7.00 0.00 7.00 WB 7.00 7.00 0.00 7.00 IDENTIFYING INFORMATION --------------------------------------------------------------------- NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET. . . . . . I-215 Westbound Ramps NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET. . . . Palm Avenue DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALYSIS. . . . . 11-18-1991 ; AM Peak Hour OTHER INFORMATION. . . . Cumulative Growth 1996 + Maximum Intensity CAPACITY AND LEVEL-OF-SERVICE Page-3 -------------------------------------------------------------------- POTEN- ACTUAL FLOW- TIAL MOVEMENT SHARED RESERVE RATE CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY MOVEMENT v(pcph) c (pcph) c (pcph) c (pcph) c = c - v LOS P M SH R SH ------- -------- --------- ------------ ------------ --- MINOR STREET EB LEFT 0 124 83 > 83 > 83 > E THROUGH 1 240 231 > 231 231 > 229 229 >C C RIGHT 0 647 647 > 647 > 647 > A MINOR STREET WB LEFT 66 141 135 135 69 E THROUGH 10 171 164 164 154 D RIGHT 341 981 981 981 640 A MAJOR STREET SB LEFT 0 863 863 863 863 A NB LEFT 24 355 355 355 331 B IDENTIFYING INFORMATION --------------------------------------------------------------------- NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET. . . . . . I-215 Westbound Ramps NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET. . . . Palm Avenue DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALYSIS. . . . . 11-18-1991 ; AM Peak Hour OTHER INFORMATION. . . . Cumulative Growth 1996 + Maximum Intensity 1985 HCM: UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS Page-1 ********************************************************************* IDENTIFYING INFORMATION ----------------------------------------------------------------- AVERAGE RUNNING SPEED, MAJOR STREET. . 30 PEAK HOUR FACTOR. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 AREA POPULATION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150000 NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET. . . . . . . . . I-215 Westbound Ramps NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET. . . . . . . Palm Avenue NAME OF THE ANALYST. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . R. Ammari DATE OF THE ANALYSIS (mm/dd/yy) . . . . . . 11-18-1991 TIME PERIOD ANALYZED. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . PM Peak Hour OTHER INFORMATION. . . . Cumulative Growth 1996 + Maximum Intensity INTERSECTION TYPE AND CONTROL --------------------------------------------------------------------- INTERSECTION TYPE: 4-LEG MAJOR STREET DIRECTION: NORTH/SOUTH CONTROL TYPE EASTBOUND: STOP SIGN CONTROL TYPE WESTBOUND: STOP SIGN TRAFFIC VOLUMES --------------------------------------------------------------------- EB WB NB SB LEFT 0 46 56 0 THRU 1 8 643 1114 RIGHT 0 1094 0 300 NUMBER OF LANES AND LANE USAGE --------------------------------------------------------------------- EB WB NB SB ------- ------- ------- ------- LANES 1 3 2 2 ADJUSTMENT FACTORS Page-2 --------------------------------------------------------------------- PERCENT RIGHT TURN CURB RADIUS (ft) ACCELERATION LANE GRADE ANGLE FOR RIGHT TURNS FOR RIGHT TURNS ------- ---------- ---------------- ----------------- EASTBOUND 0.00 90 20 N WESTBOUND 0.00 90 20 N NORTHBOUND 0.00 90 20 N SOUTHBOUND 0.00 90 20 N VEHICLE COMPOSITION --------------------------------------------------------------------- SU TRUCKS % COMBINATION AND RV'S VEHICLES % MOTORCYCLES ----------- ------------- ------------- EASTBOUND 0 0 0 WESTBOUND 0 0 0 NORTHBOUND 0 0 0 SOUTHBOUND 0 0 0 CRITICAL GAPS --------------------------------------------------------------------- TABULAR VALUES ADJUSTED SIGHT DIST. FINAL (Table 10-2) VALUE ADJUSTMENT CRITICAL GAP -------------- -------- ----------- ------------ MINOR RIGHTS EB 5.50 5.50 0.00 5.50 WB 5.50 5.50 0.00 5.50 MAJOR LEFTS SB 5.50 5.50 0.00 5.50 NB 5.50 5.50 0.00 5.50 MINOR THROUGHS EB 6.50 6.50 0.00 6.50 WB 6.50 6.50 0.00 6.50 MINOR LEFTS EB 7.00 7.00 0.00 7.00 WB 7.00 7.00 0.00 7.00 IDENTIFYING INFORMATION --------------------------------------------------------------------- NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET. . . . . . I-215 Westbound Ramps NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET. . . . Palm Avenue DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALYSIS. . . . . 11-18-1991 ; PM Peak Hour OTHER INFORMATION. . . . Cumulative Growth 1996 + Maximum Intensity CAPACITY AND LEVEL-OF-SERVICE Page-3 --------------------------------------------------------------------- POTEN- ACTUAL FLOW- TIAL MOVEMENT SHARED RESERVE RATE CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY MOVEMENT v(pcph) c (pcph) c (pcph) c (pcph) c = c - v LOS P M SH R SH ------- -------- --------- ------------ ------------ --- MINOR STREET EB LEFT 0 75 0 > 0 > 0 > E THROUGH 1 95 70 > 70 70 > 69 69 >E E RIGHT 0 485 485 > 485 > 485 > A MINOR STREET WB LEFT 51 75 55 55 5 E THROUGH 9 95 70 70 62 E RIGHT 1203 771 771 771 -433 F MAJOR STREET SB LEFT 0 527 527 527 527 A NB LEFT 62 187 187 187 125 D IDENTIFYING INFORMATION --------------------------------------------------------------------- NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET. . . . . . I-215 Westbound Ramps NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET. . . . Palm Avenue DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALYSIS. . . . . 11-18-1991 ; PM Peak Hour OTHER INFORMATION. . . . Cumulative Growth 1996 + Maximum Intensity 1985 HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS SUMMARY REPORT ************************************************************************** INTERSECTION. . I-215 WESTBOUND/PALM AREA TYPE. . . . .OTHER ANALYST. . . . . . .STELLA DATE. . . . . . . . . . 12-26-1991 TIME. . . . . . . . . .1996 MAX COMMENT. . . . . . .AM + SIG MOD ----------------------------------------------------------------------- VOLUMES GEOMETRY EB WB NB SB : EB WB NB SB LT 0 69 22 0 : 12.0 L 12.0 L 12.0 T 12.0 TH 0 0 227 503 : 12.0 R 12.0 T 12.0 R 12.0 RT 0 310 0 444 : 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 RR 0 0 0 0 : 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 ------------------------------------------------------------------------- ADJUSTMENT FACTORS - GRADE HV ADJ PKG BUSES PHF PEDS PED. BUT. ARR. TYPE (9'0) N Y/N Nm Nb Y/N min T EB 0.00 2.00 Y 20 0 0.90 50 N 0.0 3 WB 0.00 2.00 Y 20 0 0.90 50 N 0.0 3 NB 0.00 2.00 Y 20 0 0.90 50 N 0.0 3 SB 0.00 2.00 Y 20 0 0.90 50 N 0.0 3 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- SIGNAL SETTINGS CYCLE LENGTH = 58.6 PH-1 PH-2 PH-3 PH-4 PH-1 PH-2 PH-3 PH-4 EB LT NB LT X TH TH X X RT RT PD PD WB LT X SB LT TH TH X RT X RT X PD PD -------------------------------------------------------------------------- LEVEL OF SERVICE LANE GRP. V/C G/C DELAY LOS APP. DELAY APP. LOS WB L 0.121 0.430 7.6 B 9.9 B R 0.661 0.430 10.4 B NB L 0.077 0.188 14.9 B 5.3 B T 0.310 0.570 4.3 A SB T 0.820 0.382 15.2 C 34.7 D R 1.065 0.382 56.8 E -------------------------------------------------------------------------- INTERSECTION: Delay = 24.1 (sec/veh) V/C = 0.805 LOS = C 1985 HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS SUMMARY REPORT ************************************************************************** INTERSECTION. . I-215 WESTBOUND/PALM AREA TYPE. . . . .OTHER ANALYST. . . . . . .STELLA DATE. . . . . . . . . . 12-26-1991 TIME. . . . . . . . . .1996 MAX COMMENT. . . . . . .PM + SIG MOD -------------------------------------------------------------------------- VOLUMES GEOMETRY EB WB NB SB : EB WB NB SB LT 0 54 56 0 : 12.0 L 12.0 L 12.0 T 12.0 TH 0 0 643 1114 : 12.0 R 12.0 T 12.0 R 12.0 RT 0 1094 0 300 : 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 RR 0 0 0 0 : 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- ADJUSTMENT FACTORS - GRADE HV ADJ PKG BUSES PHF PEDS PED. BUT. ARR. TYPE N N Y/N Nm Nb Y/N min T EB 0.00 2.00 Y 20 0 0.90 50 N 0.0 3 WB 0.00 2.00 Y 20 0 0.90 50 N 0.0 3 NB 0.00 2.00 Y 20 0 0.90 50 N 0.0 3 SB 0.00 2.00 Y 20 0 0.90 50 N 0.0 3 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- SIGNAL SETTINGS CYCLE LENGTH = 120.0 PH-1 PH-2 PH-3 PH-4 PH-1 PH-2 PH-3 PH-4 EB LT NB LT X TH TH X X RT RT PD PD WB LT X SB LT TH TH X RT X RT X PD PO -------------------------------------------------------------------------- LEVEL OF SERVICE LANE GRP. V/C G/C DELAY LOS APP. DELAY APP. LOS WB L 0.084 0.486 12.6 B R 2.065 0.486 NB L 0.350 0.105 38.4 D 35.7 D T 0.975 0.514 35.5 D SB T 1.698 0.409 R 0.672 0.409 20.8 C -------------------------------------------------------------------------- INTERSECTION: Delay = * (sec/veh) V/C = 1.964 LOS = 1985 HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS SUMMARY REPORT INTERSECTION. . I-215 WESTBOUND/PALM AREA TYPE. . . . .OTHER ANALYST. . . . . . .STELLA DATE. . . . . . . . . . 12-26-1991 TIME. . . . . . . . . . 1996 max COMMENT. . . . . . .am + wbr, sbr & sbt ------------------------- -------------------------- VOLUMES GEOMETRY EB WB NB SB : EB WB NB SB LT 0 69 22 0 : 12.0 L 12.0 L 12.0 T 12.0 TH 0 0 227 503 : 12.0 R 12.0 T 12.0 T 12.0 RT 0 310 0 444 : 12.0 R 12.0 12.0 R 12.0 RR 0 0 0 0 : 12.0 12.0 12.0 R 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 ---------------------------------------- GRADE HV ADJ PKG ABUSESMENTPHFCTOPEDS PED. BUT. ARR. TYPE N (%) Y/N Nm Nb Y/N min T EB 0.00 2.00 Y 20 0 0.90 50 N 0.0 3 WB 0.00 2.00 Y 20 0 0.90 50 N 0.0 3 NB 0.00 2.00 Y 20 0 0.90 50 N 0.0 3 SB 0.00 2.00 Y 20 0 0.90 50 N 0.0 3 ------------------------------------------- SIGNAL SETTINGS CYCLE LENGTH = 43.0 PH-1 PH-2 PH-3 PH-4 PH-1 PH-2 PH-3 PH-4 EB LT NB LT X TH RT TH X X PD RT PD TH WB LT X SB LT RT X TH X RT X PD PD -------------------------------------------- OF LANE GRP. V/C G/C LEVEL--------------------------------------------- CLOS APP. DELAY APP. LOS WB L 0.102 0.509 4.2 A 4.0 A R 0.298 0.509 4.0 A NB L 0.058 0.249 9.4 B 4.9 A T 0.359 0.493 4.5 A SB T 0.674 0.244 10.7 B 15.0 B R 0.892 0.244 19.8 C ------------------------ -------------------------- INTERSECTION: Delay = 10.8 (sec/veh) V/C = 0.491 LOS = B 1985 HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS SUMMARY REPORT ************************************************************************** INTERSECTION. . I-215 WESTBOUND/PALM AREA TYPE. . . . .OTHER ANALYST. . . . . . .STELLA DATE. . . . . . . . . . 12-26-1991 TIME. . . . . . . . . .1996 max COMMENT. . . . . . .pm + wbr, sbr & sbt -------------------------------------------------------------- VOLUMES GEOMETRY EB WB NB SB EB WB NB SB LT 0 54 56 0 12.0 L 12.0 L 12.0 T 12.0 TH 0 0 643 1114 12.0 R 12.0 T 12.0 T 12.0 RT 0 1094 0 300 12.0 R 12.0 12.0 R 12.0 RR 0 0 0 0 12.0 12.0 12.0 R 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 ----------------------------------------------------------------- ADJUSTMENT FACTORS _ GRADE HV ADJ PKG BUSES PHF PEDS PED. BUT. ARR. TYPE N (q) Y/N Nm Nb Y/N min T EB 0.00 2.00 Y 20 0 0.90 50 N 0.0 3 WB 0.00 2.00 Y 20 0 0.90 50 N 0.0 3 NB 0.00 2.00 Y 20 0 0.90 50 N 0.0 3 SB 0.00 2.00 Y 20 0 0.90 50 N 0.0 3 ----------------------------------------------------------------- SIGNAL SETTINGS CYCLE LENGTH = 115.1 PH-1 PH-2 PH-3 PH-4 PH-1 PH-2 PH-3 PH-4 EB LT NB LT X TH TH X X RT RT PD PD WB LT X SB LT TH TH X RT X RT X PD PD ------------------------------------------------------------------- LEVEL OF SERVICE LANE GRP. V/C G/C DELAY LOS APP. DELAY APP. LOS WB L 0.087 0.470 12.8 B 82.9 F R 1 .141 0.470 86. 1 F NB L 0.288 0.128 34.8 D 29.5 D T 0.944 0.531 29.0 D SB T 0.905 0.403 26.0 D 23.8 C R 0.365 0.403 15.6 C ------------------------------------------------------------------- INTERSECTION: Delay = 46.0 (sec/veh) V/C = 1.181 LOS = E 1985 HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS SUMMARY REPORT INTERSECTION. . I-215 WESTBOUND/PALM AREA TYPE. . . . .OTHER ANALYST. . . . . . .STELLA DATE. . . . . . . . . . 12-26-1991 TIME. . . . . . . . . .2001 MAX COMMENT. . . . . . .AM + SIG MOD --------------------- ------------------------ VOLUMES GEOMETRY EB WB NB SB EB WB NB SB LT 0 88 28 0 12.0 L 12.0 L 12.0 T 12.0 TH 0 0 280 603 12.0 R 12.0 T 12.0 R 12.0 RT 0 332 0 563 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 RR 0 0 0 0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 ------------------------------------------------ ADJUSTMENT FACTORS - GRADE HV ADJ PKG BUSES PHF PEDS PED. BUT. ARR. TYPE N N Y/N Nm Nb Y/N min T EB 0.00 2.00 Y 20 0 0.90 50 N 0.0 3 WB 0.00 2.00 Y 20 0 0.90 50 N 0.0 3 NB 0.00 2.00 Y 20 0 0.90 50 N 0.0 3 SB 0.00 2.00 Y 20 0 0.90 50 N 0.0 3 ------------------------------------------------- SIGNAL SETTINGS CYCLE LENGTH = 71.4 PH-1 PH-2 PH-3 PH-4 PH-1 PH-2 PH-3 PH-4 EB LT NB LT X TH RT TH X X RT PD PD WB LT X SB LT TH TH X RT X RT X PD PD ---------------------------------------------------OF LANE GRP. V/C G/C LEVELDELAYERVICLOS APP. DELAY APP. LOS WB L 0.165 0.402 10.4 B 14.7 B R 0.757 0.402 15.8 C NB L 0.115 0.160 19.5 C 6.2 B T 0.366 0.597 4.9 A SB T 0.860 0.437 17.5 C 60.3 F R 1.181 0.437 106.1 F ------------------------------------- ------------------- INTERSECTION: Delay = 41 .4 (sec/veh) V/C = 0.869 LOS = E 1985 HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS SUMMARY REPORT ************************************************************************** INTERSECTION. . I-215 WESTBOUND/PALM AREA TYPE. . . . .OTHER ANALYST. . . . . . .STELLA DATE. . . . . . . . . . 12-26-1991 TIME. . . . . . . . . .2001 MAX COMMENT. . . . . . .PM + SIG MOD --------------------------- -------------------------- VOLUMES GEOMETRY EB WB NB SB : EB WB NB SB LT 0 69 72 0 : 12.0 L 12.0 L 12.0 T 12.0 TH 0 0 785 1163 : 12.0 R 12.0 T 12.0 R 12.0 RT 0 1151 0 361 : 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 RR 0 0 0 0 : 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 --------------- GRADE HV ADJ PKG ABUSESMENTPHfCTOPEDS PED. BUT. ARR. TYPE N N Y/N Nm Nb EB 0.00 2.00 Y 20 0 0.90 50 YNN m�0.0 3 WB 0.00 2.00 Y 20 0 0.90 50 N 0.0 3 NB 0.00 2.00 Y 20 0 0.90 50 N 0.0 3 SB 0.00 2.00 Y 20 0 0.90 50 N 0.0 3 SIGNAL SETTINGS CYCLE LENGTH = 120.0 PH-1 PH-2 PH-3 PH-4 PH-1 PH-2 PH-3 PH-4 EB LT NB LT X TH RT TH X X PD RT PD WB LT X TH SB LT RT X TH X PD RT X Po ---- -------------------------------------------------------------------- LANE GRP. V/C G/C LEVELDELAYERVICLOS APP. DELAY APP. LOS WB L 0.107 0.485 12.8 B R 2. 176 0.485 NB L 0.433 0.109 39.0 D 108.6 F T 1.190 0.514 115.0 F SB T 1.791 0.405 R 0.817 0.405 26.6 D ------------ ---------------------- INTERSECTION: Delay ---------- Y - (sec/veh) V/C = 2.069 LOS = * 1985 HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS SUMMARY REPORT ************************************************************************** INTERSECTION. . I-215 WESTBOUND/PALM AREA TYPE. . . . .OTHER ANALYST. . . . . . .STELLA DATE. . . . . . . . . .12-26-1991 TIME. . . . . . . . . .2001 max COMMENT. . . . . . .am + wbr, sbr, sbt --------------------------------------------------------- VOLUMES GEOMETRY EB WB NB SB EB WB NB SB LT 0 88 28 0 12.0 L 12.0 L 12.0 T 12.0 TH 0 0 280 603 12.0 R 12.0 T 12.0 T 12.0 RT 0 332 0 563 12.0 R 12.0 12.0 R 12.0 RR 0 0 0 0 12.0 12.0 12.0 R 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 ---------------------------------------------------------- ADJUSTMENT FACTORS - GRADE HV ADJ PKG BUSES PHF PEDS PED. BUT. ARR. TYPE N N Y/N Nm Nb Y/N min T EB 0.00 2.00 Y 20 0 0.90 50 N 0.0 3 WB 0.00 2.00 Y 20 0 0.90 50 N 0.0 3 NB 0.00 2.00 Y 20 0 0.90 50 N 0.0 3 SB 0.00 2.00 Y 20 0 0.90 50 N 0.0 3 ----------------------------------------------------------- SIGNAL SETTINGS CYCLE LENGTH = 46.4 PH-1 PH-2 PH-3 PH-4 PH-1 PH-2 PH-3 PH-4 EB LT NB LT X TH TH X X RT RT PD PD WB LT X SB LT TH TH X RT X RT X PD PD ----------------------------------------------------------- LEVEL OF SERVICE LANE GRP. V/C G/C DELAY LOS APP. DELAY APP. LOS WB L 0. 135 0.494 4.8 A 4.7 A R 0.330 0.494 4.6 A NB L 0.078 0.235 10.5 B 5.4 B T 0.433 0.504 4.9 A SB T 0.733 0.269 11.7 B 25.3 D R 1.025 0.269 39.9 D ---------------------------------------------------- INTERSECTION: Delay = 17.6 (sec/veh) V/C = 0.546 LOS = C 1985 HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS SUMMARY REPORT ************************************************************************** INTERSECTION. . I-215 WESTBOUND/PALM AREA TYPE. . . . .OTHER ANALYST. . . . . . .STELLA DATE. . . . . . . . . . 12-26-1991 TIME. . . . . . . . . .2001 max COMMENT. . . . . . .pm + wbr, sbt & sbr ------------------------- -------------------------- VOLUMES GEOMETRY EB WB NB SB : EB WB NB SB LT 0 69 72 0 : 12.0 L 12.0 L 12.0 T 12.0 TH 0 0 785 1163 : 12.0 R 12.0 T 12.0 T 12.0 RT 0 1151 0 361 : 12.0 R 12.0 12.0 R 12.0 RR 0 0 0 0 : 12.0 12.0 12.0 R 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 --------------- GRADE HV ADJ PKG ABUSESMENT FACTORS PHFPEDS PED. BUT. ARR. TYPE N N Y/N Nm Nb EB 0.00 2.00 Y 20 0 0.90 50 YNN m�0.0 WB 0.00 2.00 Y 20 0 0.90 50 N 0.0 3 NB 0.00 2.00 Y 20 0 0.90 50 N 0.0 3 SB 0.00 2.00 Y 20 0 0.90 50 N 0.0 3 ---------- ---------------------- SIGNAL SETTINGS CYCLE LENGTH = 120.0 PH- PH-1 PH-2 PH-3 PH-4 1 PH-2 PH-3 PH-4 EB LT NB LT X TH RT TH X X PD RT PD WB LT X TH SB LT RT X TH X RT X PD PD LEVEL OF SERVICE LANE GRP. V/C G/C DELAY LOS APP. DELAY APP. LOS WB L 0.118 0.440 15. 1 C R 1.283 0.440 NB L 0.364 0.130 36.7 D 63.7 F T 1.093 0.560 66.2 F SB T 0.885 0.430 24.4 C 22.3 C R 0.412 0.430 15.4 C -----------_ ---------------------- INTERSECTION: Delay ---------- Y - (sec/veh) V/C = 1 .332 LOS = * LSA A-c-tfs,Inc 3. Palm Avenuej--215 Eastbound Ramps 01ro2/92(1:wmioi\TR&FFIc.xrn 1985 HCM: UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS Page-1 IDENTIFYING INFORMATION --------------------------------------------------------------------- AVERAGE RUNNING SPEED, MAJOR STREET. . 30 PEAK HOUR FACTOR. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 AREA POPULATION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150000 NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET. . . . . . . . . I-215 Eastbound Ramps NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET. . . . . . . Palm Avenue NAME OF THE ANALYST. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . R. Ammari DATE OF THE ANALYSIS (mm/dd/yy) . . . . . . 11-18-1991 TIME PERIOD ANALYZED. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . AM Peak Hour OTHER INFORMATION. . . . Existing INTERSECTION TYPE AND CONTROL --------------------------------------------------------------------- INTERSECTION TYPE: 4-LEG MAJOR STREET DIRECTION: NORTH/SOUTH CONTROL TYPE EASTBOUND: STOP SIGN CONTROL TYPE WESTBOUND: STOP SIGN TRAFFIC VOLUMES --------------------------------------------------------------------- EB WB NB SB ---- ---- ---- ---- LEFT 20 27 5 226 THRU 34 0 28 99 RIGHT 5 122 14 16 NUMBER OF LANES AND LANE USAGE --------------------------------------------------------------------- EB WB NB SB ------- ------- ------- ------- LANES 2 2 2 2 ADJUSTMENT FACTORS Page-2 -------------------------------------------------------------------- PERCENT RIGHT TURN CURB RADIUS (ft) ACCELERATION LANE GRADE ANGLE FOR RIGHT TURNS FOR RIGHT TURNS ------- ---------- ---------------- ----------------- EASTBOUND 0.00 90 20 N WESTBOUND 0.00 90 20 N NORTHBOUND 0.00 90 20 N SOUTHBOUND 0.00 90 20 N VEHICLE COMPOSITION ------------------------------------------------------------------ SU TRUCKS % COMBINATION - AND RV'S VEHICLES % MOTORCYCLES ----------- ------------- ------------- EASTBOUND 0 0 0 WESTBOUND 0 0 0 NORTHBOUND 0 0 0 SOUTHBOUND 0 0 0 CRITICAL GAPS --------------------------------------------------------------------- TABULAR VALUES ADJUSTED SIGHT DIST. FINAL (Table 10-2) VALUE ADJUSTMENT CRITICAL GAP -------------- -------- ----------- ------------ MINOR RIGHTS EB 5.50 5.50 0.00 5.50 WB 5.50 5.50 0.00 5.50 MAJOR LEFTS SB 5.50 5.50 0.00 5.50 NB 5.50 5.50 0.00 5.50 MINOR THROUGHS EB 6.50 6.50 0.00 6.50 WB 6.50 6.50 0.00 6.50 MINOR LEFTS EB 7.00 7.00 0.00 7.00 WB 7.00 7.00 0.00 7.00 IDENTIFYING INFORMATION --------------------------------------------------------------------- NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET. . . . . . I-215 Eastbound Ramps NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET. . . . Palm Avenue DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALYSIS. . . . . 11-18-1991 ; AM Peak Hour OTHER INFORMATION. . . . Existing CAPACITY AND LEVEL-OF-SERVICE Page-3 --------------------------------------------------------------------- POTEN- ACTUAL FLOW- TIAL MOVEMENT SHARED RESERVE RATE CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY MOVEMENT v(pcph) c (pcph) c (pcph) c (pcph) c = c - v LOS p M SH R SH ------- -------- --------- ------------ ------------ --- MINOR STREET EB LEFT 22 434 324 324 302 B THROUGH 37 575 470 > 470 > 433 > A RIGHT 6 997 997 > 504 997 > 462 992 >A A MINOR STREET WB LEFT 30 487 382 382 352 B THROUGH 0 574 470 470 470 A RIGHT 134 999 999 999 865 A MAJOR STREET SB LEFT 249 998 998 998 749 A NB LEFT 6 979 979 979 974 A IDENTIFYING INFORMATION --------------------------------------------------------------------- NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET. . . . . . I-215 Eastbound Ramps NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET. . . . Palm Avenue DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALYSIS. . . . . 11-18-1991 ; AM Peak Hour OTHER INFORMATION. . . . Existing 1985 HCM: UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS Page-1 ********************************************************************* IDENTIFYING INFORMATION --------------------------------------------------------------------- AVERAGE RUNNING SPEED, MAJOR STREET. . 30 PEAK HOUR FACTOR. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 AREA POPULATION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150000 NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET. . . . . . . . . I-215 Eastbound Ramps NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET. . . . . . . Palm Avenue NAME OF THE ANALYST. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . R. Ammari DATE OF THE ANALYSIS (mm/dd/yy) . . . . . . 11-18-1991 TIME PERIOD ANALYZED. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . PM Peak Hour OTHER INFORMATION. . . . Existing INTERSECTION TYPE AND CONTROL --------------------------------------------------------------------- INTERSECTION TYPE: 4-LEG MAJOR STREET DIRECTION: NORTH/SOUTH CONTROL TYPE EASTBOUND: STOP SIGN CONTROL TYPE WESTBOUND: STOP SIGN TRAFFIC VOLUMES --------------------------------------------------------------------- EB WB NB SB ---- ---- ---- ---- LEFT 54 49 8 85 THRU 33 0 71 101 RIGHT 5 414 33 24 NUMBER OF LANES AND LANE USAGE --------------------------------------------------------------------- EB WB NB SB ------- ------- ------- ------- LANES 2 2 2 2 ADJUSTMENT FACTORS Page-2 --------------------------------------------------------------------- PERCENT RIGHT TURN CURB RADIUS (ft) ACCELERATION LANE GRADE ANGLE FOR RIGHT TURNS FOR RIGHT TURNS ------- ---------- ---------------- ----------------- EASTBOUND 0.00 90 20 N WESTBOUND 0.00 90 20 N NORTHBOUND 0.00 90 20 N SOUTHBOUND 0.00 90 20 N VEHICLE COMPOSITION --------------------------------------------------------------------- % SU TRUCKS % COMBINATION AND RV'S VEHICLES % MOTORCYCLES ----------- ------------- ------------- EASTBOUND 0 0 0 WESTBOUND 0 0 0 NORTHBOUND 0 0 0 SOUTHBOUND 0 0 0 CRITICAL GAPS --------------------------------------------------------------------- TABULAR VALUES ADJUSTED SIGHT DIST. FINAL (Table 10-2) VALUE ADJUSTMENT CRITICAL GAP -------------- -------- ----------- ------------ MINOR RIGHTS EB 5.50 5.50 0.00 5.50 WB 5.50 5.50 0.00 5.50 MAJOR LEFTS SB 5.50 5.50 0.00 5.50 NB 5.50 5.50 0.00 5.50 MINOR THROUGHS EB 6.50 6.50 0.00 6.50 WB 6.50 6.50 0.00 6.50 MINOR LEFTS EB 7.00 7.00 0.00 7.00 WB 7.00 7.00 0.00 7.00 IDENTIFYING INFORMATION --------------------------------------------------------------------- NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET. . . . . . I-215 Eastbound Ramps NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET. . . . Palm Avenue DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALYSIS. . . . . 11-18-1991 ; PM Peak Hour OTHER INFORMATION. . . . Existing CAPACITY AND LEVEL-OF-SERVICE Page-3 --------------------------------------------------------------------- POTEN- ACTUAL FLOW- TIAL MOVEMENT SHARED RESERVE RATE CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY MOVEMENT v(pcph) c (pcph) c (pcph) c (pcph) c = c - v LOS p M SH R SH ------- -------- --------- ------------ ------------ --- MINOR STREET EB LEFT 59 305 178 178 119 D THROUGH 36 628 589 > 589 > 552 > A RIGHT 6 997 997 > 622 997 > 580 991 >A A MINOR STREET WB LEFT 54 545 492 492 438 A THROUGH 0 631 592 592 592 A RIGHT 455 997 997 997 542 A MAJOR STREET SB LEFT 94 991 991 991 897 A NB LEFT 9 969 969 969 960 A IDENTIFYING INFORMATION --------------------------------------------------------------------- NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET. . . . . . I-215 Eastbound Ramps NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET. . . . Palm Avenue DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALYSIS. . . . . 11-18-1991 ; PM Peak Hour OTHER INFORMATION. . . . Existing 1985 HCM: UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS Page-1 ********************************************************************* IDENTIFYING INFORMATION --------------------------------------------------------------------- AVERAGE RUNNING SPEED, MAJOR STREET. . 30 PEAK HOUR FACTOR. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 AREA POPULATION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150000 NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET. . . . . . . . . I-215 Eastbound Ramps NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET. . . . . . . Palm Avenue NAME OF THE ANALYST. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . R. Ammari DATE OF THE ANALYSIS (mm/dd/yy) . . . . . . 11-18-1991 TIME PERIOD ANALYZED. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . AM Peak Hour OTHER INFORMATION. . . . Cumulative Growth 1996 INTERSECTION TYPE AND CONTROL --------------------------------------------------------------------- INTERSECTION TYPE: 4-LEG MAJOR STREET DIRECTION: NORTH/SOUTH CONTROL TYPE EASTBOUND: STOP SIGN CONTROL TYPE WESTBOUND: STOP SIGN TRAFFIC VOLUMES --------------------------------------------------------------------- EB WB NB SB ---- ---- ---- ---- LEFT 26 34 6 288 THRU 43 0 36 126 RIGHT 6 156 18 20 NUMBER OF LANES AND LANE USAGE --------------------------------------------------------------------- EB WB NB SB ------- ------- ------- ------- LANES 2 2 2 2 ADJUSTMENT FACTORS ---------------------------------------------------------------Page-2 PERCENT RIGHT TURN CURB RADIUS (ft) ACCELERATION LANE GRADE ANGLE FOR RIGHT TURNS FOR RIGHT TURNS ------- ---------- EASTBOUND 0.00 90 ----------------- N WESTBOUND 0.00 90 20 N NORTHBOUND 0.00 90 20 N SOUTHBOUND 0.00 90 20 N VEHICLE COMPOSITION ----------------------------------- SU TRUCKS % COMBINATION - AND RV'S VEHICLES % MOTORCYCLES ----------- ------------- EASTBOUND p WESTBOUND p p 0 NORTHBOUND p p p SOUTHBOUND p p p CRITICAL GAPS --------------------------------- TABULAR VALUES ADJUSTED SIGHT DIST. FINAL (Table 10-2) VALUE ADJUSTMENT CRITICAL GAP -------------- MINOR RIGHTS ----------- ------------ EB 5.50 5.50 0.00 5.50 WB 5.50 5.50 0.00 5.50 MAJOR LEFTS SB 5.50 5.50 0.00 5.50 NB 5.50 5.50 0.00 5.50 MINOR THROUGHS EB 6.50 6.50 0.00 6.50 WB 6.50 6.50 0.00 6.50 MINOR LEFTS EB 7.00 7.00 0.00 7.00 WB 7.00 7.00 0.00 7.00 IDENTIFYING INFORMATION ------------------------- ---------------------------- NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET. . . . . . I-215 Eastbound Ramps NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET. . . . Palm Avenue DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALYSIS. . . . . 11-18-1991 ; AM Peak Hour OTHER INFORMATION. . . . Cumulative Growth 1996 CAPACITY AND LEVEL-OF-SERVICE Page-3 ----------------------------------------------------------- POTEN- ACTUAL FLOW- TIAL MOVEMENT SHARED RESERVE RATE CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY MOVEMENT v(pcph) c (pcph) c (pcph) c (pcph) c = c - v LOS P M SH R SH ------- -------- --------- ------------ ------------ --- MINOR STREET EB LEFT 29 349 231 231 202 C THROUGH 47 503 377 > 377 > 330 > B RIGHT 7 996 996 > 408 996 > 354 990 >B A MINOR STREET WB LEFT 37 413 291 291 253 C THROUGH 0 503 377 377 377 B RIGHT 172 999 999 999 827 A MAJOR STREET SB LEFT 317 997 997 997 681 A NB LEFT 7 947 947 947 940 A IDENTIFYING INFORMATION --------------------------------------------------------------------- NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET. . . . . . I-215 Eastbound Ramps NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET. . . . Palm Avenue DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALYSIS. . . . . 11-18-1991 ; AM Peak Hour OTHER INFORMATION. . . . Cumulative Growth 1996 1985 HCM: UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS IDENTIFYING INFORMATION ---------------------------------- AVERAGE RUNNING SPEED, MAJOR STREET. . 30 PEAK HOUR FACTOR. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 AREA POPULATION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150000 NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET. . . . . . . . . I-215 Eastbound Ramps NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET. . . . . . . Palm Avenue NAME OF THE ANALYST. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . R. Ammari DATE OF THE ANALYSIS (mm/dd/yy) . . . . . . 11-18-1991 TIME PERIOD ANALYZED. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . PM Peak Hour OTHER INFORMATION. . . . Cumulative Growth 1996 INTERSECTION TYPE AND CONTROL ---------------------------------- INTERSECTION TYPE: 4-LEG MAJOR STREET DIRECTION: NORTH/SOUTH CONTROL TYPE EASTBOUND: STOP SIGN CONTROL TYPE WESTBOUND: STOP SIGN TRAFFIC VOLUMES ---------------------------------- EB WB NB SB LEFT 69 63 10 108 THRU 42 0 91 129 RIGHT 6 528 42 31 NUMBER OF LANES AND LANE USAGE --------------------------------- EB WB NB SB ----- ------- LANES 2 2 ADJUSTMENT FACTORS Page-2 ---------------------------------------- PERCENT RIGHT TURN CURB RADIUS (ft) ACCELERATION LANE GRADE ANGLE FOR RIGHT TURNS FOR RIGHT TURNS ----- ---------- ----------------- EASTBOUND 0.00 90 N WESTBOUND 0.00 90 20 N NORTHBOUND 0.00 90 20 N SOUTHBOUND 0.00 90 20 N VEHICLE COMPOSITION -------------------------------------- SU TRUCKS % COMBINATION - AND RV'S VEHICLES % MOTORCYCLES ---------- ------------- EASTBOUND p WESTBOUND p p p NORTHBOUND p p 0 SOUTHBOUND p p 0 CRITICAL GAPS ----------------------------------------- TABULAR VALUES ADJUSTED SIGHT DIST. FINAL (Table 10-2) VALUE ADJUSTMENT CRITICAL GAP -------------- -------- - MINOR RIGHTS ----------- EB 5.50 5.50 0.00 5.50 WB 5.50 5.50 0.00 5.50 MAJOR LEFTS SB 5.50 5.50 0.00 5.50 NB 5.50 5.50 0.00 5.50 MINOR THROUGHS EB 6.50 6.50 0.00 6.50 WB 6.50 6.50 0.00 6.50 MINOR LEFTS EB 7.00 7.00 0.00 7.00 WB 7.00 7.00 0.00 7.00 IDENTIFYING INFORMATION ------------------- ------------------------------ NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET. . . . . . I-215 Eastbound Ramps NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET. . . . Palm Avenue DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALYSIS. . . . . 11-18-1991 ; PM Peak Hour OTHER INFORMATION. . . . Cumulative Growth 1996 CAPACITY AND LEVEL-OF-SERVICE ------------------------------------------ Page-3 --------------------------- POTEN- ACTUAL FLOW- TIAL MOVEMENT SHARED RESERVE RATE CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY MOVEMENT v(pcph) c (pcph) c (pcph) c (pcph) c = c - v LOS p M SH R SH MINOR STREET EB LEFT 76 219 99 99 THROUGH 46 563 515 > 24 E RIGHT 515 > 469 > q 7 996 996 > 548 996 > 495 989 >A A MINOR STREET WB THROUGH 60 475 412 412 342 B 568 519 RIGHT 581 997 991 519 519 A 997 416 A MAJOR STREET SB LEFT 119 960 960 960 NB LEFT 11 932 932 842 A 932 921 A IDENTIFYING INFORMATION NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET. . . . . . I-215 Eastbound Rams NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET. . . . Palm Avenue p DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALYSIS. . . . . 11-18-1991 ; PM Peak Hour OTHER INFORMATION. . . . Cumulative Growth 1996 1985 HCM: UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS Page-1 IDENTIFYING INFORMATION ------------------------------------- AVERAGE RUNNING SPEED, MAJOR STREET. . 30 PEAK HOUR FACTOR. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 AREA POPULATION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150000 NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET. . . . . . . . . I-215 Eastbound Ramps NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET. . . . . . . Palm Avenue NAME OF THE ANALYST. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . R. Ammari DATE OF THE ANALYSIS (mm/dd/yy) . . . . . . 11-18-1991 TIME PERIOD ANALYZED. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . AM Peak Hour OTHER INFORMATION. . . . Cumulative Growth 2001 INTERSECTION TYPE AND CONTROL --------------------------------------- INTERSECTION TYPE: 4-LEG MAJOR STREET DIRECTION: NORTH/SOUTH CONTROL TYPE EASTBOUND: STOP SIGN CONTROL TYPE WESTBOUND: STOP SIGN TRAFFIC VOLUMES --------------------------------------- EB WB NB SB LEFT 33 44 8 368 THRU 55 0 46 161 RIGHT 8 199 23 26 NUMBER OF LANES AND LANE USAGE ------------------------------------------ EB WB NB SB --- ------- ------- LANES 2 2 2 2 ADJUSTMENT FACTORS ----------------------------------------------------- Page-2 PERCENT RIGHT TURN CURB RADIUS (ft) ACCELERATION LANE GRADE ANGLE FOR RIGHT TURNS FOR RIGHT TURNS EASTBOUND 0.00 ----------- 20 N ------ WESTBOUND 0.00 gp 20 N NORTHBOUND 0.00 gp 20 N SOUTHBOUND 0.00 gp 20 N VEHICLE COMPOSITION SU TRUCKS % COMBINATION - AND RV'S VEHICLES % MOTORCYCLES EASTBOUND 0 -p---- 0 WESTBOUND 0 0 0 NORTHBOUND 0 0 0 SOUTHBOUND 0 0 0 CRITICAL GAPS TABULAR VALUES ADJUSTED SIGHT DIST. FINAL - (Table 10-2) VALUE ADJUSTMENT CRITICAL GAP MINOR RIGHTS ----- --- EB 5.50 5.50 0.00 5.50 MAJOR LEFTS WB 5.50 5.50 0.00 5.50 SB 5.50 5.50 0.00 NB 5.50 550 5.50 MINOR THROUGHS . 0.00 5.50 EB 6.50 6.50 0.00 WB 6.50 6.50 6.50 0.00 6.50 MINOR LEFTS EB 7.00 7.00 0.00 WB 7.00 7.00 7.00 IDENTIFYING INFORMATION 0.00 7.00 NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET. . . . . . I-215 Eastbound Ramps ----------- NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET. . . . Palm Avenue DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALYSIS. . . . . 11-18-1991 AM Peak Hour OTHER INFORMATION. . . . Cumulative Growth 2001 CAPACITY AND LEVEL-OF-SERVICE ---------------------------------------------------------------Page_3 POTEN- ACTUAL FLOW- TIAL MOVEMENT SHARED RESERVE RATE CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY MOVEMENT v(pcph) c (pcph) c (pcph) c (pcph) c = c - v LOS p M SH R SH ------ ------------ ------------ --- MINOR STREET EB LEFT 36 258 144 144 108 D THROUGH 61 414 274 > 274 > 213 > C RIGHT 9 995 995 > 302 995 > 232 987 >C A MINOR STREET WB LEFT 48 326 194 194 145 D THROUGH 0 413 273 273 273 C RIGHT 219 998 998 998 779 A MAJOR STREET SB LEFT 405 997 997 997 592 A NB LEFT 9 904 904 904 895 A IDENTIFYING INFORMATION NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET. . . . . . I-215 Eastbound Ramps NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET. . . . Palm Avenue p DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALYSIS. . . . . 11-18-1991 ; AM Peak Hour OTHER INFORMATION. . . . Cumulative Growth 2001 1985 HCM: UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS *****************************************************************g*** IDENTIFYING INFORMATION -------------------------- AVERAGE RUNNING SPEED, MAJOR STREET. . 30 PEAK HOUR FACTOR. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 AREA POPULATION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150000 NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET. . . . . . . . . I-215 Eastbound Ramps NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET. . . . . . . Palm Avenue NAME OF THE ANALYST. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . R. Ammari DATE OF THE ANALYSIS (mm/dd/yy) . . . . . . 11-18-1991 TIME PERIOD ANALYZED. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . PM Peak Hour OTHER INFORMATION. . . . Cumulative Growth 2001 INTERSECTION TYPE AND CONTROL --------------------------- INTERSECTION TYPE: 4-LEG MAJOR STREET DIRECTION: NORTH/SOUTH CONTROL TYPE EASTBOUND: STOP SIGN CONTROL TYPE WESTBOUND: STOP SIGN TRAFFIC VOLUMES ---------------------------- EB WB NB SB LEFT 88 80 13 138 THRU 54 0 116 165 RIGHT 8 674 54 39 NUMBER OF LANES AND LANE USAGE --------------------------- EB WB NB SB ------- ------- LANES 2 2 ADJUSTMENT FACTORS Page-2 ------------------------------------------------------ PERCENT RIGHT TURN CURB RADIUS (ft) ACCELERATION LANE GRADE ANGLE FOR RIGHT TURNS FOR RIGHT TURNS ---------- ---------------- ----------------- EASTBOUND 0.00 90 20 N WESTBOUND 0.00 90 20 N NORTHBOUND 0.00 90 20 N SOUTHBOUND 0.00 90 20 N VEHICLE COMPOSITION -------------------------------------------------------- SU TRUCKS % COMBINATION - AND RV'S VEHICLES q MOTORCYCLES ----------- ------------- ------------- EASTBOUND 0 0 0 WESTBOUND 0 0 0 NORTHBOUND 0 0 0 SOUTHBOUND 0 0 0 CRITICAL GAPS --------------------------------------------------------- TABULAR VALUES ADJUSTED SIGHT DIST. FINAL (Table 10-2) VALUE ADJUSTMENT CRITICAL GAP ---------- -------- ----------- ------------ MINOR RIGHTS EB 5.50 5.50 0.00 5.50 WB 5.50 5.50 0.00 5.50 MAJOR LEFTS SB 5.50 5.50 0.00 5.50 NB 5.50 5.50 0.00 5.50 MINOR THROUGHS EB 6.50 6.50 0.00 6.50 WB 6.50 6.50 0.00 6.50 MINOR LEFTS EB 7.00 7.00 0.00 7.00 WB 7.00 7.00 0.00 7.00 IDENTIFYING INFORMATION ----------------------------------------------------------- NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET. . . . . . I-215 Eastbound Ramps NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET. . . . Palm Avenue DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALYSIS. . . . . 11-18-1991 ; PM Peak Hour OTHER INFORMATION. . . . Cumulative Growth 2001 CAPACITY AND LEVEL-OF-SERVICE --------------------------------------------------------------------- POTEN- ACTUAL FLOW- TIAL MOVEMENT SHARED RESERVE RATE CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY MOVEMENT v(pcph) c (pcph) c (pcph) cSH(pcph) c = c - v LOS P M R SH ------------ ------------ --- MINOR STREET EB LEFT 97 145 42 42 -55 F THROUGH 59 489 430 > 430 > 371 > B RIGHT 9 993 993 > 464 993 > 396 984 >B A MINOR STREET WB LEFT 88 396 320 320 232 C THROUGH 0 494 434 434 434 A RIGHT 741 996 996 996 254 C MAJOR STREET SB LEFT 152 922 922 922 770 A NB LEFT 14 886 886 886 872 A IDENTIFYING INFORMATION -------------------------------- -------- _ NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET. . . . . . I-215 Eastbound Ramps NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET. . . . Palm Avenue DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALYSIS. . . . . 11-18-1991 ; PM Peak Hour OTHER INFORMATION. . . . Cumulative Growth 2001 J n N O � � N V1 v. v-, 4 O n T WN .C. + 1Q/1� �b .� O „�� N O� nn. O N M Qn d' rA � `P N `Q' " M O h C V 00 N O OX q 0 N 0\ N G1 C > r n N v� U CL M n CL d + C p i �o r U b o OF5 W > c, a l' r, ,� e 00 o g a n N O rl >+ + o Q Or V p UF < ° Q r4 o > � a � A16 o WN V's All. CL .`7 Y w .fir V .Q, 00 h op 0. .. h .�+ to 00 h 00 ° b w > O P � � � �� .. Vii ° O rA N n N b `0 b O N 7 P O1 *IJ � G� M N 1985 HCM: UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS Page-1 ********************************************************************* IDENTIFYING INFORMATION --------------------------------------------------- AVERAGE RUNNING SPEED, MAJOR STREET. . 30 PEAK HOUR FACTOR. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 AREA POPULATION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150000 NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET. . . . . . . . . I-215 Eastbound Ramps NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET. . . . . . . Palm Avenue NAME OF THE ANALYST. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . R. Ammari DATE OF THE ANALYSIS (mm/dd/yy) . . . . . . 11-18-1991 TIME PERIOD ANALYZED. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . AM Peak Hour OTHER INFORMATION. . . . Cumulative Growth 1996 + Project INTERSECTION TYPE AND CONTROL ----------------------------------------------------- INTERSECTION TYPE: 4-LEG MAJOR STREET DIRECTION: NORTH/SOUTH CONTROL TYPE EASTBOUND: STOP SIGN CONTROL TYPE WESTBOUND: STOP SIGN TRAFFIC VOLUMES ----------------------------------------------------- EB WB NB SB LEFT 37 34 6 361 THRU 43 0 42 130 RIGHT 6 156 18 20 NUMBER OF LANES AND LANE USAGE ------------------------------------------------------- EB WB NB SB ----Z-- ----2-- ----2-- LANES 2 ADJUSTMENT FACTORS Page-2 --------------------------------------------------------------------- PERCENT RIGHT TURN CURB RADIUS (ft) ACCELERATION LANE GRADE ANGLE FOR RIGHT TURNS FOR RIGHT TURNS ------- ---------- ---------------- ----------------- EASTBOUND 0.00 90 20 N WESTBOUND 0.00 90 20 N NORTHBOUND 0.00 90 20 N SOUTHBOUND 0.00 90 20 N VEHICLE COMPOSITION --------------------------------------------------------------------- % SU TRUCKS % COMBINATION - AND RV'S VEHICLES % MOTORCYCLES ----------- ------------- ------------- EASTBOUND 0 0 0 WESTBOUND 0 0 0 NORTHBOUND 0 0 0 SOUTHBOUND 0 0 0 CRITICAL GAPS --------------------------------------------------------------------- TABULAR VALUES ADJUSTED SIGHT DIST. FINAL (Table 10-2) VALUE ADJUSTMENT CRITICAL GAP -------------- -------- ----------- ------------ MINOR RIGHTS EB 5.50 5.50 0.00 5.50 WB 5.50 5.50 0.00 5.50 MAJOR LEFTS SB 5.50 5.50 0.00 5.50 NB 5.50 5.50 0.00 5.50 MINOR THROUGHS EB 6.50 6.50 0.00 6.50 WB 6.50 6.50 0.00 6.50 MINOR LEFTS EB 7.00 7.00 0.00 7.00 WB 7.00 7.00 0.00 7.00 IDENTIFYING INFORMATION --------------------------------------------------------------------- NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET. . . . . . I-215 Eastbound Ramps NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET. . . . Palm Avenue DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALYSIS. . . . . 11-18-1991 ; AM Peak Hour OTHER INFORMATION. . . . Cumulative Growth 1996 + Project CAPACITY AND LEVEL-OF-SERVICE Page-3 --------------------------------------------------------------------- POTEN- ACTUAL FLOW- TIAL MOVEMENT SHARED RESERVE RATE CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY MOVEMENT v(pcph) c (pcph) c (pcph) c (pcph) c = c - v LOS p M SH R SH ------- -------- --------- ------------ ------------ --- MINOR STREET EB LEFT 41 305 180 180 140 D THROUGH 47 447 299 > 299 > 252 > C RIGHT 7 996 996 > 327 996 > 273 990 >C A MINOR STREET WB LEFT 37 361 225 225 188 D THROUGH 0 447 299 299 299 C RIGHT 172 999 999 999 827 A MAJOR STREET SB LEFT 397 997 997 997 600 A NB LEFT 7 943 943 943 936 A IDENTIFYING INFORMATION --------------------------------------------------------------------- NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET. . . . . . I-215 Eastbound Ramps NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET. . . . Palm Avenue DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALYSIS. . . . . 11-18-1991 ; AM Peak Hour OTHER INFORMATION. . . . Cumulative Growth 1996 + Project 1985 HCM: UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS Page-1 ********************************************************************* IDENTIFYING INFORMATION --------------------------------------------------------------------- AVERAGE RUNNING SPEED, MAJOR STREET. . 30 PEAK HOUR FACTOR. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 AREA POPULATION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150000 NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET. . . . . . . . . I-215 Eastbound Ramps NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET. . . . . . . Palm Avenue NAME OF THE ANALYST. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . R. Ammari DATE OF THE ANALYSIS (mm/dd/yy) . . . . . . 11-18-1991 TIME PERIOD ANALYZED. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . PM Peak Hour OTHER INFORMATION. . . . Cumulative Growth 1996 + Project INTERSECTION TYPE AND CONTROL --------------------------------------------------------------------- INTERSECTION TYPE: 4-LEG MAJOR STREET DIRECTION: NORTH/SOUTH CONTROL TYPE EASTBOUND: STOP SIGN CONTROL TYPE WESTBOUND: STOP SIGN TRAFFIC VOLUMES --------------------------------------------------------------------- EB WB NB SB ---- ---- ---- ---- LEFT 107 63 10 531 THRU 42 0 114 152 RIGHT 6 528 42 31 NUMBER OF LANES AND LANE USAGE --------------------------------------------------------------------- EB WB NB SB ------- ------- ------- ------- LANES 2 2 2 2 ADJUSTMENT FACTORS Page-2 --------------------------------------------------------------------- PERCENT RIGHT TURN CURB RADIUS (ft) ACCELERATION LANE GRADE ANGLE FOR RIGHT TURNS FOR RIGHT TURNS ------- ---------- ---------------- ----------------- EASTBOUND 0.00 90 20 N WESTBOUND 0.00 90 20 N NORTHBOUND 0.00 90 20 N SOUTHBOUND 0.00 90 20 N VEHICLE COMPOSITION --------------------------------------------------------------------- SU TRUCKS % COMBINATION - AND RV'S VEHICLES % MOTORCYCLES ----------- ------------- ------------- EASTBOUND 0 0 0 WESTBOUND 0 0 0 NORTHBOUND 0 0 0 SOUTHBOUND 0 0 0 CRITICAL GAPS --------------------------------------------------------------------- TABULAR VALUES ADJUSTED SIGHT DIST. FINAL (Table 10-2) VALUE ADJUSTMENT CRITICAL GAP -------------- -------- ----------- ------------ MINOR RIGHTS EB 5.50 5.50 0.00 5.50 WB 5.50 5.50 0.00 5.50 MAJOR LEFTS SB 5.50 5.50 0.00 5.50 NB 5.50 5.50 0.00 5.50 MINOR THROUGHS EB 6.50 6.50 0.00 6.50 WB 6.50 6.50 0.00 6.50 MINOR LEFTS EB 7.00 7.00 0.00 7.00 WB 7.00 7.00 0.00 7.00 IDENTIFYING INFORMATION --------------------------------------------------------------------- NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET. . . . . . I-215 Eastbound Ramps NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET. . . . Palm Avenue DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALYSIS. . . . . 11-18-1991 ; PM Peak Hour OTHER INFORMATION. . . . Cumulative Growth 1996 + Project CAPACITY AND LEVEL-OF-SERVICE Page-3 --------------------------------------------------------------------- POTEN- ACTUAL FLOW- TIAL MOVEMENT SHARED RESERVE RATE CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY MOVEMENT v(pcph) c (pcph) c (pcph) c (pcph) c = c - v LOS p M SH R SH ------- -------- --------- ------------ ------------ --- MINOR STREET EB LEFT 118 106 24 24 -94 F THROUGH 46 284 129 > 129 > 82 > E RIGHT 7 995 995 > 144 995 > 92 989 >E A MINOR STREET WB LEFT 69 225 90 90 21 E THROUGH 0 286 130 130 130 D RIGHT 581 996 996 996 415 A MAJOR STREET SB LEFT 584 936 936 936 352 B NB LEFT 11 908 908 908 897 A IDENTIFYING INFORMATION --------------------------------------------------------------------- NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET. . . . . . I-215 Eastbound Ramps NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET. . . . Palm Avenue DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALYSIS.. . . . 11-18-1991 ; PM Peak Hour OTHER INFORMATION. . . . Cumulative Growth 1996 + Project 1985 HCM: UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS Page-1 ********************************************************************* IDENTIFYING INFORMATION --------------------------------------------------------------------- AVERAGE RUNNING SPEED, MAJOR STREET. . 30 PEAK HOUR FACTOR. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 AREA POPULATION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150000 NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET. . . . . . . . . I-215 Eastbound Ramps NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET. . . . . . . Palm Avenue NAME OF THE ANALYST. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . R. Ammari DATE OF THE ANALYSIS (mm/dd/yy) . . . . . . 11-18-1991 TIME PERIOD ANALYZED. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . AM Peak Hour OTHER INFORMATION. . . . Cumulative Growth 2001 + Project INTERSECTION TYPE AND CONTROL --------------------------------------------------------------------- INTERSECTION TYPE: 4-LEG MAJOR STREET DIRECTION: NORTH/SOUTH CONTROL TYPE EASTBOUND: STOP SIGN CONTROL TYPE WESTBOUND: STOP SIGN TRAFFIC VOLUMES --------------------------------------------------------------------- EB WB NB SB ---- ---- ---- ---- LEFT 44 44 8 441 THRU 55 0 52 165 RIGHT 8 199 23 26 NUMBER OF LANES AND LANE USAGE --------------------------------------------------------------------- EB WB NB SB ------- ------- ------- ------- LANES 2 2 2 2 ADJUSTMENT FACTORS Page-2 --------------------------------------------------------------------- PERCENT RIGHT TURN CURB RADIUS (ft) ACCELERATION LANE GRADE ANGLE FOR RIGHT TURNS FOR RIGHT TURNS ------- ---------- ---------------- ----------------- EASTBOUND 0.00 90 20 N WESTBOUND 0.00 90 20 N NORTHBOUND 0.00 90 20 N SOUTHBOUND 0.00 90 20 N VEHICLE COMPOSITION --------------------------------------------------------------------- % SU TRUCKS % COMBINATION - AND RV'S VEHICLES % MOTORCYCLES ----------- ------------- ------------- EASTBOUND 0 0 0 WESTBOUND 0 0 0 NORTHBOUND 0 0 0 SOUTHBOUND 0 0 0 CRITICAL GAPS --------------------------------------------------------------------- TABULAR VALUES ADJUSTED SIGHT DIST. FINAL (Table 10-2) VALUE ADJUSTMENT CRITICAL GAP -------------- -------- ----------- ------------ MINOR RIGHTS EB 5.50 5.50 0.00 5.50 WB 5.50 5.50 0.00 5.50 MAJOR LEFTS SB 5.50 5.50 0.00 5.50 NB 5.50 5.50 0.00 5.50 MINOR THROUGHS EB 6.50 6.50 0.00 6.50 WB 6.50 6.50 0.00 6.50 MINOR LEFTS EB 7.00 7.00 0.00 7.00 WB 7.00 7.00 0.00 7.00 IDENTIFYING INFORMATION --------------------------------------------------------------------- NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET. . . . . . I-215 Eastbound Ramps NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET. . . . Palm Avenue DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALYSIS. . . . . 11-18-1991 ; AM Peak Hour OTHER INFORMATION. . . . Cumulative Growth 2001 + Project CAPACITY AND LEVEL-OF-SERVICE Page-3 --------------------------------------------------------------------- POTEN- ACTUAL FLOW- TIAL MOVEMENT SHARED RESERVE RATE CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY MOVEMENT v(pcph) c (pcph) c (pcph) c (pcph) c = c - v LOS P M SH R SH ------- -------- --------- ------------ ------------ --- MINOR STREET EB LEFT 48 227 113 113 65 E THROUGH 61 366 216 > 216 > 155 > D RIGHT 9 995 995 > 240 995 > 171 986 >D A MINOR STREET WB LEFT 48 283 147 147 99 E THROUGH 0 365 215 215 215 C RIGHT 219 998 998 998 779 A MAJOR STREET SB LEFT 485 996 996 996 511 A NB LEFT 9 899 899 899 891 A IDENTIFYING INFORMATION --------------------------------------------------------------------- NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET. . . . . . I-215 Eastbound Ramps NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET. . . . Palm Avenue DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALYSIS.. . . . 11-18-1991 ; AM Peak Hour OTHER INFORMATION. . . . Cumulative Growth 2001 + Project 1985 HCM: UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS Page-1 ********************************************************************* IDENTIFYING INFORMATION --------------------------------------------------------------------- AVERAGE RUNNING SPEED, MAJOR STREET. . 30 PEAK HOUR FACTOR. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 AREA POPULATION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150000 NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET. . . . . . . . . I-215 Eastbound Ramps NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET. . . . . . . Palm Avenue NAME OF THE ANALYST. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . R. Ammari DATE OF THE ANALYSIS (mm/dd/yy) . . . . . . 11-18-1991 TIME PERIOD ANALYZED. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . PM Peak Hour OTHER INFORMATION. . . . Cumulative Growth 2001 + Project INTERSECTION TYPE AND CONTROL --------------------------------------------------------------------- INTERSECTION TYPE: 4-LEG MAJOR STREET DIRECTION: NORTH/SOUTH CONTROL TYPE EASTBOUND: STOP SIGN CONTROL TYPE WESTBOUND: STOP SIGN TRAFFIC VOLUMES --------------------------------------------------------------------- EB WB NB SB ---- ---- ---- ---- LEFT 126 80 13 561 THRU 54 0 139 188 RIGHT 8 674 54 39 NUMBER OF LANES AND LANE USAGE --------------------------------------------------------------------- EB WB NB SB ------- ------- ------- ------- LANES 2 2 2 2 ADJUSTMENT FACTORS Page-2 --------------------------------------------------------------------- PERCENT RIGHT TURN CURB RADIUS (ft) ACCELERATION LANE GRADE ANGLE FOR RIGHT TURNS FOR RIGHT TURNS ------- ---------- ---------------- ----------------- EASTBOUND 0.00 90 20 N WESTBOUND 0.00 90 20 N NORTHBOUND 0.00 90 20 N SOUTHBOUND 0.00 90 20 N VEHICLE COMPOSITION --------------------------------------------------------------------- % SU TRUCKS % COMBINATION - AND RV'S VEHICLES % MOTORCYCLES ----------- ------------- ------------- EASTBOUND 0 0 0 WESTBOUND 0 0 0 NORTHBOUND 0 0 0 SOUTHBOUND 0 0 0 CRITICAL GAPS --------------------------------------------------------------------- TABULAR VALUES ADJUSTED SIGHT DIST. FINAL (Table 10-2) VALUE ADJUSTMENT CRITICAL GAP -------------- -------- ----------- ------------ MINOR RIGHTS EB 5.50 5.50 0.00 5.50 WB 5.50 5.50 0.00 5.50 MAJOR LEFTS SB 5.50 5.50 0.00 5.50 NB 5.50 5.50 0.00 5.50 MINOR THROUGHS EB 6.50 6.50 0.00 6.50 WB 6.50 6.50 0.00 6.50 MINOR LEFTS EB 7.00 7.00 0.00 7.00 WB 7.00 7.00 0.00 7.00 IDENTIFYING INFORMATION --------------------------------------------------------------------- NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET. . . . . . I-215 Eastbound Ramps NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET. . . . Palm Avenue DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALYSIS. . . . . 11-18-1991 ; PM Peak Hour OTHER INFORMATION. . . . Cumulative Growth 2001 + Project CAPACITY AND LEVEL-OF-SERVICE Page-3 --------------------------------------------------------------------- POTEN- ACTUAL FLOW- TIAL MOVEMENT SHARED RESERVE RATE CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY MOVEMENT v(pcph) c (pcph) c (pcph) c (pcph) c = c - v LOS P M SH R SH ------- -------- --------- ------------ ------------ --- MINOR STREET EB LEFT 139 75 9 9 -129 F THROUGH 59 240 93 > 93 > 34 > E RIGHT 9 981 981 > 106 981 > 37 972 >E A MINOR STREET WB LEFT 88 183 58 58 -30 F THROUGH 0 243 94 94 94 E RIGHT 741 995 995 995 254 C MAJOR STREET SB LEFT 617 897 897 897 280 C NB LEFT 14 863 863 863 849 A IDENTIFYING INFORMATION --------------------------------------------------------------------- NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET. . . . . . I-215 Eastbound Ramps NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET. . . . Palm Avenue DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALYSIS. . . . . 11-18-1991 ; PM Peak Hour OTHER INFORMATION. . . . Cumulative Growth 2001 + Project 1985 HCM: UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS Page-1 ********************************************************************* IDENTIFYING INFORMATION --------------------------------------------------------------------- AVERAGE RUNNING SPEED, MAJOR STREET. . 30 PEAK HOUR FACTOR. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 AREA POPULATION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150000 NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET. . . . . . . . . I-215 Eastbound Ramps NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET. . . . . . . Palm Avenue NAME OF THE ANALYST. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . R. Ammari DATE OF THE ANALYSIS (mm/dd/yy) . . . . . . 11-18-1991 TIME PERIOD ANALYZED. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . AM Peak Hour OTHER INFORMATION. . . . Cumulative Growth 1996 + Maximum Intensity INTERSECTION TYPE AND CONTROL --------------------------------------------------------------------- INTERSECTION TYPE: 4-LEG MAJOR STREET DIRECTION: NORTH/SOUTH CONTROL TYPE EASTBOUND: STOP SIGN CONTROL TYPE WESTBOUND: STOP SIGN TRAFFIC VOLUMES --------------------------------------------------------------------- EB WB NB SB ---- ---- ---- ---- LEFT 47 34 6 426 THRU 43 0 48 134 RIGHT 6 156 18 20 NUMBER OF LANES AND LANE USAGE --------------------------------------------------------------------- EB WB NB SB ------- ------- ------- ------- LANES 2 2 2 2 ADJUSTMENT FACTORS Page-2 --------------------------------------------------------------------- PERCENT RIGHT TURN CURB RADIUS (ft) ACCELERATION LANE GRADE ANGLE FOR RIGHT TURNS FOR RIGHT TURNS ------- ---------- ---------------- ----------------- EASTBOUND 0.00 90 20 N WESTBOUND 0.00 90 20 N NORTHBOUND 0.00 90 20 N SOUTHBOUND 0.00 90 20 N VEHICLE COMPOSITION --------------------------------------------------------------------- % SU TRUCKS % COMBINATION - AND RV'S VEHICLES % MOTORCYCLES ----------- ------------- ------------- EASTBOUND 0 0 0 WESTBOUND 0 0 0 NORTHBOUND 0 0 0 SOUTHBOUND 0 0 0 CRITICAL GAPS --------------------------------------------------------------------- TABULAR VALUES ADJUSTED SIGHT DIST. FINAL (Table 10-2) VALUE ADJUSTMENT CRITICAL GAP -------------- -------- ----------- ------------ MINOR RIGHTS EB 5.50 5.50 0.00 5.50 WB 5.50 5.50 0.00 5.50 MAJOR LEFTS SB 5.50 5.50 0.00 5.50 NB 5.50 5.50 0.00 5.50 MINOR THROUGHS EB 6.50 6.50 0.00 6.50 WB 6.50 6.50 0.00 6.50 MINOR LEFTS EB 7.00 7.00 0.00 7.00 WB 7.00 7.00 0.00 7.00 IDENTIFYING INFORMATION --------------------------------------------------------------------- NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET. . . . . . I-215 Eastbound Ramps NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET. . . . Palm Avenue DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALYSIS. . . . . 11-18-1991 ; AM Peak Hour OTHER INFORMATION. . . . Cumulative Growth 1996 + Maximum Intensity CAPACITY AND LEVEL-OF-SERVICE Page-3 --------------------------------------------------------------------- POTEN- ACTUAL FLOW- TIAL MOVEMENT SHARED RESERVE RATE CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY MOVEMENT v(pcph) c (pcph) c (pcph) c (pcph) c = c - v LOS p M SH R SH ------- -------- --------- ------------ ------------ --- MINOR STREET EB LEFT 52 266 143 143 91 E THROUGH 47 401 243 > 243 > 196 > D RIGHT 7 996 996 > 268 996 > 214 990 >C A MINOR STREET WB LEFT 37 322 180 180 143 D THROUGH 0 400 243 243 243 C RIGHT 172 998 998 998 827 A MAJOR STREET SB LEFT 469 997 997 997 528 A NB LEFT 7 938 938 938 932 A IDENTIFYING INFORMATION --------------------------------------------------------------------- NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET. . . . . . I-215 Eastbound Ramps NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET. . . . Palm Avenue DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALYSIS.. . . . 11-18-1991 ; AM Peak Hour OTHER INFORMATION. . . . Cumulative Growth 1996 + Maximum Intensity 1985 HCM: UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS Page-1 ********************************************************************* IDENTIFYING INFORMATION --------------------------------------------------------------------- AVERAGE RUNNING SPEED, MAJOR STREET. . 30 PEAK HOUR FACTOR. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 AREA POPULATION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150000 NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET. . . . . . . . . I-215 Eastbound Ramps NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET. . . . . . . Palm Avenue NAME OF THE ANALYST. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . R. Ammari DATE OF THE ANALYSIS (mm/dd/yy) . . . . . . 11-18-1991 TIME PERIOD ANALYZED. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . PM Peak Hour OTHER INFORMATION. . . . Cumulative Growth 1996 + Maximum Intensity INTERSECTION TYPE AND CONTROL --------------------------------------------------------------------- INTERSECTION TYPE: 4-LEG MAJOR STREET DIRECTION: NORTH/SOUTH CONTROL TYPE EASTBOUND: STOP SIGN CONTROL TYPE WESTBOUND: STOP SIGN TRAFFIC VOLUMES --------------------------------------------------------------------- EB WB NB SB ---- ---- ---- ---- LEFT 150 63 10 995 THRU 42 0 139 177 RIGHT 6 528 42 31 NUMBER OF LANES AND LANE USAGE --------------------------------------------------------------------- EB WB NB SB ------- ------- ------- ------- LANES 2 2 2 2 ADJUSTMENT FACTORS Page-2 --------------------------------------------------------------------- PERCENT RIGHT TURN CURB RADIUS (ft) ACCELERATION LANE GRADE ANGLE FOR RIGHT TURNS FOR RIGHT TURNS ------- ---------- ---------------- ----------------- EASTBOUND 0.00 90 20 N WESTBOUND 0.00 90 20 N NORTHBOUND 0.00 90 20 N SOUTHBOUND 0.00 90 20 N VEHICLE COMPOSITION --------------------------------------------------------------------- SU TRUCKS % COMBINATION AND RV'S VEHICLES % MOTORCYCLES ----------- ------------- ------------- EASTBOUND 0 0 0 WESTBOUND 0 0 0 NORTHBOUND 0 0 0 SOUTHBOUND 0 0 0 CRITICAL GAPS --------------------------------------------------------------------- TABULAR VALUES ADJUSTED SIGHT DIST. FINAL (Table 10-2) VALUE ADJUSTMENT CRITICAL GAP -------------- -------- ----------- ------------ MINOR RIGHTS EB 5.50 5.50 0.00 5.50 WB 5.50 5.50 0.00 5.50 MAJOR LEFTS SB 5.50 5.50 0.00 5.50 NB 5.50 5.50 0.00 5.50 MINOR THROUGHS EB 6.50 6.50 0.00 6.50 WB 6.50 6.50 0.00 6.50 MINOR LEFTS EB 7.00 7.00 0.00 7.00 WB 7.00 7.00 0.00 7.00 IDENTIFYING INFORMATION --------------------------------------------------------------------- NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET. . . . . . I-215 Eastbound Ramps NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET. . . . Palm Avenue DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALYSIS. . . . . 11-18-1991 ; PM Peak Hour OTHER INFORMATION. . . . Cumulative Growth 1996 + Maximum Intensity CAPACITY AND LEVEL-OF-SERVICE Page-3 --------------------------------------------------------------------- POTEN- ACTUAL FLOW- TIAL MOVEMENT SHARED RESERVE RATE CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY MOVEMENT v(pcph) c (pcph) c (pcph) c (pcph) c = c - v LOS P M SH R SH ------- -------- --------- ------------ ------------ --- MINOR STREET EB LEFT 165 75 0 0 -165 F THROUGH 46 130 0 > 0 > -46 > F RIGHT 7 991 991 > 0 991 > -53 984 >F A MINOR STREET WB LEFT 69 102 0 0 -69 F THROUGH 0 131 0 0 0 E RIGHT 581 995 995 995 415 A MAJOR STREET SB LEFT 1095 910 910 910 -185 F NB LEFT 11 882 882 882 871 A IDENTIFYING INFORMATION --------------------------------------------------------------------- NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET. . . . . . I-215 Eastbound Ramps NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET. . . . Palm Avenue DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALYSIS. . . . . 11-18-1991 ; PM Peak Hour OTHER INFORMATION. . . . Cumulative Growth 1996 + Maximum Intensity 1985 HCM: UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS Page-1 ********************************************************************* IDENTIFYING INFORMATION --------------------------------------------------------------------- AVERAGE RUNNING SPEED, MAJOR STREET. . 30 PEAK HOUR FACTOR. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 AREA POPULATION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150000 NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET. . . . . . . . . I-215 Eastbound Ramps NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET. . . . . . . Palm Avenue NAME OF THE ANALYST. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . R. Ammari DATE OF THE ANALYSIS (mm/dd/yy) . . . . . . 11-18-1991 TIME PERIOD ANALYZED. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . AM Peak Hour OTHER INFORMATION. . . . Cumulative Growth 2001 + Maximum Intensity INTERSECTION TYPE AND CONTROL --------------------------------------------------------------------- INTERSECTION TYPE: 4-LEG MAJOR STREET DIRECTION: NORTH/SOUTH CONTROL TYPE EASTBOUND: STOP SIGN CONTROL TYPE WESTBOUND: STOP SIGN TRAFFIC VOLUMES --------------------------------------------------------------------- EB WB NB SB ---- ---- ---- ---- LEFT 54 44 8 505 THRU 55 0 58 169 RIGHT 8 199 23 26 NUMBER OF LANES AND LANE USAGE --------------------------------------------------------------------- EB WB NB SB ------- ------- ------- ------- LANES 2 2 2 2 ADJUSTMENT FACTORS Page-2 --------------------------------------------------------------------- PERCENT RIGHT TURN CURB RADIUS (ft) ACCELERATION LANE GRADE ANGLE FOR RIGHT TURNS FOR RIGHT TURNS ------- ---------- ---------------- ----------------- EASTBOUND 0.00 90 20 N WESTBOUND 0.00 90 20 N NORTHBOUND 0.00 90 20 N SOUTHBOUND 0.00 90 20 N VEHICLE COMPOSITION --------------------------------------------------------------------- SU TRUCKS % COMBINATION AND RV'S VEHICLES % MOTORCYCLES ----------- ------------- ------------- EASTBOUND 0 0 0 WESTBOUND 0 0 0 NORTHBOUND 0 0 0 SOUTHBOUND 0 0 0 CRITICAL GAPS --------------------------------------------------------------------- TABULAR VALUES ADJUSTED SIGHT DIST. FINAL (Table 10-2) VALUE ADJUSTMENT CRITICAL GAP -------------- -------- ----------- ------------ MINOR RIGHTS EB 5.50 5.50 0.00 5.50 WB 5.50 5.50 0.00 5.50 MAJOR LEFTS SB 5.50 5.50 0.00 5.50 NB 5.50 5.50 0.00 5.50 MINOR THROUGHS EB 6.50 6.50 0.00 6.50 WB 6.50 6.50 0.00 6.50 MINOR LEFTS EB 7.00 7.00 0.00 7.00 WB 7.00 7.00 0.00 7.00 IDENTIFYING INFORMATION --------------------------------------------------------------------- NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET. . . . . . I-215 Eastbound Ramps NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET. . . . Palm Avenue DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALYSIS. . . . . 11-18-1991 ; AM Peak Hour OTHER INFORMATION. . . . Cumulative Growth 2001 + Maximum Intensity CAPACITY AND LEVEL-OF-SERVICE Page-3 --------------------------------------------------------------------- POTEN- ACTUAL FLOW- TIAL MOVEMENT SHARED RESERVE RATE CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY MOVEMENT v(pcph) c (pcph) c (pcph) c (pcph) c = c - v LOS p M SH R SH ------- -------- --------- ------------ ------------ --- MINOR STREET EB LEFT 59 199 87 87 28 E THROUGH 61 324 168 > 168 > 108 > D RIGHT 9 995 995 > 188 995 > 119 986 >D A MINOR STREET WB LEFT 48 250 112 112 64 E THROUGH 0 323 168 168 168 D RIGHT 219 998 998 998 779 A MAJOR STREET SB LEFT 556 996 996 996 440 A NB LEFT 9 895 895 895 886 A IDENTIFYING INFORMATION --------------------------------------------------------------------- NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET. . . . . . I-215 Eastbound Ramps NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET. . . . Palm Avenue DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALYSIS. . . . . 11-18-1991 ; AM Peak Hour OTHER INFORMATION. . . . Cumulative Growth 2001 + Maximum Intensity 1985 HCM: UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS Page-1 IDENTIFYING INFORMATION --------------------------------------------------------------------- AVERAGE RUNNING SPEED, MAJOR STREET. . 30 PEAK HOUR FACTOR. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 AREA POPULATION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150000 NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET. . . . . . . . . I-215 Eastbound Ramps NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET. . . . . . . Palm Avenue NAME OF THE ANALYST. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . R. Ammari DATE OF THE ANALYSIS (mm/dd/yy) . . . . . . 11-18-1991 TIME PERIOD ANALYZED. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . PM Peak Hour OTHER INFORMATION. . . . Cumulative Growth 2001 + Maximum Intensity INTERSECTION TYPE AND CONTROL --------------------------------------------------------------------- INTERSECTION TYPE: 4-LEG MAJOR STREET DIRECTION: NORTH/SOUTH CONTROL TYPE EASTBOUND: STOP SIGN CONTROL TYPE WESTBOUND: STOP SIGN TRAFFIC VOLUMES --------------------------------------------------------------------- EB WB NB SB ---- ---- ---- ---- LEFT 169 80 13 1025 THRU 54 0 164 213 RIGHT 8 674 54 39 NUMBER OF LANES AND LANE USAGE --------------------------------------------------------------------- EB WB NB SB ------- ------- ------- ------- LANES 2 2 2 2 ADJUSTMENT FACTORS Page-2 --------------------------------------------------------------------- PERCENT RIGHT TURN CURB RADIUS (ft) ACCELERATION LANE GRADE ANGLE FOR RIGHT TURNS FOR RIGHT TURNS ------- ---------- ---------------- ----------------- EASTBOUND 0.00 90 20 N WESTBOUND 0.00 90 20 N NORTHBOUND 0.00 90 20 N SOUTHBOUND 0.00 90 20 N VEHICLE COMPOSITION --------------------------------------------------------------------- % SU TRUCKS % COMBINATION AND RV'S VEHICLES % MOTORCYCLES ----------- ------------- ------------- EASTBOUND 0 0 0 WESTBOUND 0 0 0 NORTHBOUND 0 0 0 SOUTHBOUND 0 0 0 CRITICAL GAPS --------------------------------------------------------------------- TABULAR VALUES ADJUSTED SIGHT DIST. FINAL (Table 10-2) VALUE ADJUSTMENT CRITICAL GAP -------------- -------- ----------- ------------ MINOR RIGHTS EB 5.50 5.50 0.00 5.50 WB 5.50 5.50 0.00 5.50 MAJOR LEFTS SB 5.50 5.50 0.00 5.50 NB 5.50 5.50 0.00 5.50 MINOR THROUGHS EB 6.50 6.50 0.00 6.50 WB 6.50 6.50 0.00 6.50 MINOR LEFTS EB 7.00 7.00 0.00 7.00 WB 7.00 7.00 0.00 7.00 IDENTIFYING INFORMATION --------------------------------------------------------------------- NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET. . . . . . I-215 Eastbound Ramps NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET. . . . Palm Avenue DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALYSIS. . . . . 11-18-1991 ; PM Peak Hour OTHER INFORMATION. . . . Cumulative Growth 2001 + Maximum Intensity CAPACITY AND LEVEL-OF-SERVICE Page-3 --------------------------------------------------------------------- POTEN- ACTUAL FLOW- TIAL MOVEMENT SHARED RESERVE RATE CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY MOVEMENT v(pcph) c (pcph) c (pcph) c (pcph) c = c - v LOS p M SH R SH ------- -------- --------- ------------ ------------ --- MINOR STREET EB LEFT 186 75 0 0 -186 F THROUGH 59 112 0 > 0 > -59 > F RIGHT 9 968 968 > 0 968 > -68 959 >F A MINOR STREET WB LEFT 88 84 0 0 -88 F THROUGH 0 113 0 0 0 E RIGHT 741 986 986 986 244 C MAJOR STREET SB LEFT 1128 872 872 872 -256 F NB LEFT 14 838 838 838 824 A IDENTIFYING INFORMATION --------------------------------------------------------------------- NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET. . . . . . I-215 Eastbound Ramps NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET. . . . Palm Avenue DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALYSIS. . . . . 11-18-1991 ; PM Peak Hour OTHER INFORMATION. . . . Cumulative Growth 2001 + Maximum Intensity LSA AT"CiaUs;Inc 4. Palm Avenue/Cajon Boulevard o l/OZ/9z(I:\FIID 101\TRAFPIC.RPT) 1985 HCM: UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS Page-1 ********************************************************************* IDENTIFYING INFORMATION --------------------------------------------------------------------- AVERAGE RUNNING SPEED, MAJOR STREET. . 30 PEAK HOUR FACTOR. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 AREA POPULATION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150000 NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET. . . . . . . . . Cajon Boulevard NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET. . . . . . . Palm Avenue NAME OF THE ANALYST. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . R. Ammari DATE OF THE ANALYSIS (mm/dd/yy) . . . . . . 11-18-1991 TIME PERIOD ANALYZED. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . AM Peak Hour OTHER INFORMATION. . . . Existing INTERSECTION TYPE AND CONTROL --------------------------------------------------------------------- INTERSECTION TYPE: 4-LEG MAJOR STREET DIRECTION: NORTH/SOUTH CONTROL TYPE EASTBOUND: STOP SIGN CONTROL TYPE WESTBOUND: STOP SIGN TRAFFIC VOLUMES --------------------------------------------------------------------- EB WB NB SB ---- ---- ---- ---- LEFT 5 19 5 17 THRU 31 39 33 76 RIGHT 20 27 14 15 NUMBER OF LANES AND LANE USAGE --------------------------------------------------------------------- EB WB NB SB ------- ------- ------- ------- LANES 1 1 1 2 ADJUSTMENT FACTORS Page-2 --------------------------------------------------------------------- PERCENT RIGHT TURN CURB RADIUS (ft) ACCELERATION LANE GRADE ANGLE FOR RIGHT TURNS FOR RIGHT TURNS ------- ---------- ---------------- ----------------- EASTBOUND 0.00 90 20 N WESTBOUND 0.00 90 20 N NORTHBOUND 0.00 90 20 N SOUTHBOUND 0.00 90 20 N VEHICLE COMPOSITION --------------------------------------------------------------------- SU TRUCKS % COMBINATION AND RV'S VEHICLES % MOTORCYCLES ----------- ------------- ------------- EASTBOUND 0 0 0 WESTBOUND 0 0 0 NORTHBOUND 0 0 0 SOUTHBOUND 0 0 0 CRITICAL GAPS --------------------------------------------------------------------- TABULAR VALUES ADJUSTED SIGHT DIST. FINAL (Table 10-2) VALUE ADJUSTMENT CRITICAL GAP -------------- -------- ----------- ------------ MINOR RIGHTS EB 5.50 5.50 0.00 5.50 WB 5.50 5.50 0.00 5.50 MAJOR LEFTS SB 5.50 5.50 0.00 5.50 NB 5.50 5.50 0.00 5.50 MINOR THROUGHS EB 6.50 6.50 0.00 6.50 WB 6.00 6.00 0.00 6.00 MINOR LEFTS EB 7.00 7.00 0.00 7.00 WB 6.50 6.50 0.00 6.50 IDENTIFYING INFORMATION --------------------------------------------------------------------- NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET. . . . . . Cajon Boulevard NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET. . . . Palm Avenue DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALYSIS. . . . . 11-18-1991 ; AM Peak Hour OTHER INFORMATION. . . . Existing CAPACITY AND LEVEL-OF-SERVICE Page-3 --------------------------------------------------------------------- POTEN- ACTUAL FLOW- TIAL MOVEMENT SHARED RESERVE RATE CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY MOVEMENT v(pcph) c (pcph) c (pcph) c (pcph) c = c - v LOS p M SH R SH ------- -------- --------- ------------ ------------ --- MINOR STREET EB LEFT 6 645 605 > 605 > 600 > A THROUGH 34 768 756 > 808 756 > 747 722 >A A RIGHT 22 998 998 > 998 > 976 > A MINOR STREET WB LEFT 21 717 678 > 678 > 657 > A THROUGH 43 842 830 > 833 830 > 739 787 >A A RIGHT 30 998 998 > 998 > 968 > A MAJOR STREET SB LEFT 19 998 998 998 979 A NB LEFT 6 995 995 995 990 A IDENTIFYING INFORMATION --------------------------------------------------------------------- NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET. . . . . . Cajon Boulevard NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET. . . . Palm Avenue DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALYSIS.. . . . 11-18-1991 ; AM Peak Hour OTHER INFORMATION. . . . Existing 1985 HCM: UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS Page-1 ********************************************************************* IDENTIFYING INFORMATION --------------------------------------------------------------------- AVERAGE RUNNING SPEED, MAJOR STREET. . 30 PEAK HOUR FACTOR. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 AREA POPULATION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150000 NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET. . . . . . . . . Cajon Boulevard NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET. . . . . . . Palm Avenue NAME OF THE ANALYST. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . R. Ammari DATE OF THE ANALYSIS (mm/dd/yy) . . . . . . 11-18-1991 TIME PERIOD ANALYZED. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . PM Peak Hour OTHER INFORMATION. . . . Existing INTERSECTION TYPE AND CONTROL --------------------------------------------------------------------- INTERSECTION TYPE: 4-LEG MAJOR STREET DIRECTION: NORTH/SOUTH CONTROL TYPE EASTBOUND: STOP SIGN CONTROL TYPE WESTBOUND: STOP SIGN TRAFFIC VOLUMES --------------------------------------------------------------------- EB WB NB SB ---- ---- ---- ---- LEFT 17 4 25 20 THRU 41 69 87 20 RIGHT 2 13 16 21 NUMBER OF LANES AND LANE USAGE --------------------------------------------------------------------- EB WB NB SB ------- ------- ------- ------- LANES 1 1 1 2 ADJUSTMENT FACTORS Page-2 --------------------------------------------------------------------- PERCENT RIGHT TURN CURB RADIUS (ft) ACCELERATION LANE GRADE ANGLE FOR RIGHT TURNS FOR RIGHT TURNS ------- ---------- ---------------- ----------------- EASTBOUND 0.00 90 20 N WESTBOUND 0.00 90 20 N NORTHBOUND 0.00 90 20 N SOUTHBOUND 0.00 90 20 N VEHICLE COMPOSITION --------------------------------------------------------------------- % SU TRUCKS % COMBINATION AND RV'S VEHICLES % MOTORCYCLES ----------- ------------- ------------- EASTBOUND 0 0 0 WESTBOUND 0 0 0 NORTHBOUND 0 0 0 SOUTHBOUND 0 0 0 CRITICAL GAPS --------------------------------------------------------------------- TABULAR VALUES ADJUSTED SIGHT DIST. FINAL (Table 10-2) VALUE ADJUSTMENT CRITICAL GAP -------------- -------- ----------- ------------ MINOR RIGHTS EB 5.50 5.50 0.00 5.50 WB 5.50 5.50 0.00 5.50 MAJOR LEFTS SB 5.50 5.50 0.00 5.50 NB 5.50 5.50 0.00 5.50 MINOR THROUGHS EB 6.50 6.50 0.00 6.50 WB 6.00 6.00 0.00 6.00 MINOR LEFTS EB 7.00 7.00 0.00 7.00 WB 6.50 6.50 0.00 6.50 IDENTIFYING INFORMATION --------------------------------------------------------------------- NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET. . . . . . Cajon Boulevard NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET. . . . Palm Avenue DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALYSIS. . . . . 11-18-1991 ; PM Peak Hour OTHER INFORMATION. . . . Existing CAPACITY AND LEVEL-OF-SERVICE Page-3 ---------------------------------------------------------------- POTEN- ACTUAL FLOW- TIAL MOVEMENT SHARED RESERVE RATE CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY MOVEMENT v(pcph) c (pcph) c (pcph) c (pcph) c = c - v LOS p M SH R SH ------- -------- --------- ------------ ------------ --- MINOR STREET EB LEFT 19 612 555 > 555 > 537 > A THROUGH 45 742 720 > 670 720 > 604 674 >A A RIGHT 2 999 999 > 999 > 997 > A MINOR STREET WB LEFT 4 700 653 > 653 > 649 > A THROUGH 76 814 790 > 807 790 > 713 714 >A A RIGHT 14 995 995 > 995 > 981 > A MAJOR STREET SB LEFT 22 992 992 992 970 A NB LEFT 28 998 998 998 970 A IDENTIFYING INFORMATION --------------------------------------------------------------------- NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET. . . . . . Cajon Boulevard NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET. . . . Palm Avenue DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALYSIS.. . . . 11-18-1991 ; PM Peak Hour OTHER INFORMATION. . . . Existing 1985 HCM: UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS IDENTIFYING INFORMATION --------------------------------- AVERAGE RUNNING SPEED, MAJOR STREET. . 30 PEAK HOUR FACTOR 1 AREA POPULATION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150000 NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET. . . . . . . . . Cajon Boulevard NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET. . . . . . . Palm Avenue NAME OF THE ANALYST. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . R. Ammari DATE OF THE ANALYSIS (mm/dd/yy) . . . . . . 11-18-1991 TIME PERIOD ANALYZED. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . AM Peak Hour OTHER INFORMATION. . . . Cumulative Growth 1996 INTERSECTION TYPE AND CONTROL ------------------------------------ INTERSECTION TYPE: 4-LEG MAJOR STREET DIRECTION: NORTH/SOUTH CONTROL TYPE EASTBOUND: STOP SIGN CONTROL TYPE WESTBOUND: STOP SIGN TRAFFIC VOLUMES ----------------------------------- EB WB NB SB LEFT 6 --24 ---6 - 22 THRU 40 50 42 97 RIGHT 26 34 18 19 NUMBER OF LANES AND LANE USAGE ----------------------------------- EB WB NB SB ------ ------- LANES 1 1 ADJUSTMENT FACTORS Page-2 --------------------------------------------------------------------- PERCENT RIGHT TURN CURB RADIUS (ft) ACCELERATION LANE GRADE ANGLE FOR RIGHT TURNS FOR RIGHT TURNS ------- ---------- ---------------- ----------------- EASTBOUND 0.00 90 20 N WESTBOUND 0.00 90 20 N NORTHBOUND 0.00 90 20 N SOUTHBOUND 0.00 90 20 N VEHICLE COMPOSITION --------------------------------------------------------------------- SU TRUCKS % COMBINATION AND RV'S VEHICLES % MOTORCYCLES ----------- ------------- ------------- EASTBOUND 0 0 0 WESTBOUND 0 0 0 NORTHBOUND 0 0 0 SOUTHBOUND 0 0 0 CRITICAL GAPS --------------------------------------------------------------------- TABULAR VALUES ADJUSTED SIGHT DIST. FINAL (Table 10-2) VALUE ADJUSTMENT CRITICAL GAP -------------- -------- ----------- ------------ MINOR RIGHTS EB 5.50 5.50 0.00 5.50 WB 5.50 5.50 0.00 5.50 MAJOR LEFTS SB 5.50 5.50 0.00 5.50 NB 5.50 5.50 0.00 5.50 MINOR THROUGHS EB 6.50 6.50 0.00 6.50 WB 6.00 6.00 0.00 6.00 MINOR LEFTS EB 7.00 7.00 0.00 7.00 WB 6.50 6.50 0.00 6.50 IDENTIFYING INFORMATION --------------------------------------------------------------------- NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET. . . . . . Cajon Boulevard NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET. . . . Palm Avenue DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALYSIS. . . . . 11-18-1991 ; AM Peak Hour OTHER INFORMATION. . . . Cumulative Growth 1996 CAPACITY AND LEVEL-OF-SERVICE Page-3 --------------------------------------------------------------------- POTEN- ACTUAL FLOW- TIAL MOVEMENT SHARED RESERVE RATE CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY MOVEMENT v(pcph) c (pcph) c (pcph) c (pcph) c = c - v LOS p M SH R SH ------- -------- --------- ------------ ------------ --- MINOR STREET EB LEFT 7 597 549 > 549 > 543 > A THROUGH 44 726 712 > 773 712 > 694 668 >A A RIGHT 29 997 997 > 997 > 969 > A MINOR STREET WB LEFT 26 668 621 > 621 > 595 > A THROUGH 55 800 785 > 792 785 > 673 730 >A A RIGHT 37 997 997 > 997 > 960 > A MAJOR STREET SB LEFT 24 997 997 997 973 A NB LEFT 7 978 978 978 972 A IDENTIFYING INFORMATION --------------------------------------------------------------------- NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET. . . . . . Cajon Boulevard NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET. . . . Palm Avenue DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALYSIS.. . . . 11-18-1991 ; AM Peak Hour OTHER INFORMATION. . . . Cumulative Growth 1996 1985 HCM: UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS Page-1 ********************************************************************* IDENTIFYING INFORMATION --------------------------------------------------------------------- AVERAGE RUNNING SPEED, MAJOR STREET. . 30 PEAK HOUR FACTOR. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 AREA POPULATION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150000 NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET. . . . . . . . . Cajon Boulevard NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET. . . . . . . Palm Avenue NAME OF THE ANALYST. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . R. Ammari DATE OF THE ANALYSIS (mm/dd/yy) . . . . . . 11-18-1991 TIME PERIOD ANALYZED. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . PM Peak Hour OTHER INFORMATION. . . . Cumulative Growth 1996 INTERSECTION TYPE AND CONTROL --------------------------------------------------------------------- INTERSECTION TYPE: 4-LEG MAJOR STREET DIRECTION: NORTH/SOUTH CONTROL TYPE EASTBOUND: STOP SIGN CONTROL TYPE WESTBOUND: STOP SIGN TRAFFIC VOLUMES --------------------------------------------------------------------- EB WB NB SB ---- ---- ---- ---- LEFT 22 5 32 26 THRU 52 88 111 26 RIGHT 3 17 20 27 NUMBER OF LANES AND LANE USAGE --------------------------------------------------------------------- EB WB NB SB ------- ------- ------- ------- LANES 1 1 1 2 ADJUSTMENT FACTORS Page-2 --------------------------------------------------------------------- PERCENT RIGHT TURN CURB RADIUS (ft) ACCELERATION LANE GRADE ANGLE FOR RIGHT TURNS FOR RIGHT TURNS ------- ---------- ---------------- ----------------- EASTBOUND 0.00 90 20 N WESTBOUND 0.00 90 20 N NORTHBOUND 0.00 90 20 N SOUTHBOUND 0.00 90 20 N VEHICLE COMPOSITION --------------------------------------------------------------------- SU TRUCKS % COMBINATION AND RV'S VEHICLES % MOTORCYCLES ----------- ------------- ------------- EASTBOUND 0 0 0 WESTBOUND 0 0 0 NORTHBOUND 0 0 0 SOUTHBOUND 0 0 0 CRITICAL GAPS --------------------------------------------------------------------- TABULAR VALUES ADJUSTED SIGHT DIST. FINAL (Table 10-2) VALUE ADJUSTMENT CRITICAL GAP -------------- -------- ----------- ------------ MINOR RIGHTS EB 5.50 5.50 0.00 5.50 WB 5.50 5.50 0.00 5.50 MAJOR LEFTS SB 5.50 5.50 0.00 5.50 NB 5.50 5.50 0.00 5.50 MINOR THROUGHS EB 6.50 6.50 0.00 6.50 WB 6.00 6.00 0.00 6.00 MINOR LEFTS EB 7.00 7.00 0.00 7.00 WB 6.50 6.50 0.00 6.50 IDENTIFYING INFORMATION --------------------------------------------------------------------- NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET. . . . . . Cajon Boulevard NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET. . . . Palm Avenue DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALYSIS. . . . . 11-18-1991 ; PM Peak Hour OTHER INFORMATION. . . . Cumulative Growth 1996 CAPACITY AND LEVEL-OF-SERVICE Page-3 --------------------------------------------------------------------- POTEN- ACTUAL FLOW- TIAL MOVEMENT SHARED RESERVE RATE CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY MOVEMENT v(pcph) c (pcph) c (pcph) c (pcph) c = c - v LOS p M SH R SH ------- -------- --------- ------------ ------------ --- MINOR STREET EB LEFT 24 553 483 > 483 > 459 > A THROUGH 57 696 669 > 610 669 > 525 612 >A A RIGHT 3 999 999 > 999 > 995 > A MINOR STREET WB LEFT 6 646 589 > 589 > 584 > A THROUGH 97 768 738 > 758 738 > 637 641 >A A RIGHT 19 973 973 > 973 > 954 > A MAJOR STREET SB LEFT 29 962 962 962 934 A NB LEFT 35 997 997 997 962 A IDENTIFYING INFORMATION --------------------------------------------------------------------- NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET. . . . . . Cajon Boulevard NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET. . . . Palm Avenue DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALYSIS. . . . . 11-18-1991 ; PM Peak Hour OTHER INFORMATION. . . . Cumulative Growth 1996 1985 HCM: UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS **************************************** ************************ Page-1 IDENTIFYING INFORMATION ------ ______ AVERAGE RUNNING SPEED, MAJOR STREET. . 30 PEAK HOUR FACTOR. . AREA POPULATION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150000 NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET. . . . . . . . . Cajon Boulevard NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET. . . . . . . Palm Avenue NAME OF THE ANALYST. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . R. Ammari DATE OF THE ANALYSIS (mm/dd/yy) . • . . • . 11-18-1991 TIME PERIOD ANALYZED. . . . . . . • • • • • • • • . . AM Peak Hour OTHER INFORMATION. . . . Cumulative Growth 2001 INTERSECTION TYPE AND CONTROL --------- -------------- INTERSECTION TYPE: 4-LEG MAJOR STREET DIRECTION: NORTH/SOUTH CONTROL TYPE EASTBOUND: STOP SIGN CONTROL TYPE WESTBOUND: STOP SIGN TRAFFIC VOLUMES ---------- EB WB NB SB LEFT ---8 --31 ---8 --28 THRU 50 64 54 124 RIGHT 33 44 23 24 NUMBER OF LANES AND LANE USAGE ---EB-- WB NB SB ---- LANES 1-- 1 1 ----2-- ADJUSTMENT FACTORS ------------------ Page-2 ------------------------ PERCENT RIGHT TURN CURB RADIUS (ft) ACCELERATION LANE GRADE ANGLE FOR RIGHT TURNS FOR RIGHT TURNS EASTBOUND 0.00 ----- ----------------- 20 N WESTBOUND 0.00 90 20 N NORTHBOUND 0.00 90 20 N SOUTHBOUND 0.00 90 20 N VEHICLE COMPOSITION SU TRUCKS % COMBINATION --AND-RV'S- VEHICLES % MOTORCYCLES EASTBOUND ------------- -------o-- 0 0 --- WESTBOUND 0 0 0 NORTHBOUND 0 0 0 SOUTHBOUND 0 0 0 CRITICAL GAPS ------------------------ TABULAR VALUES ADJUSTED SIGHT DIST. FINAL - (Table 10-2) VALUE ADJUSTMENT CRITICAL GAP ---------- MINOR RIGHTS --- ----------- ------------ EB 5.50 5.50 0.00 WB 5.50 5.50 5.50 0.00 5.50 MAJOR LEFTS SB 5.50 5.50 0.00 5.50 NB 5.50 5.50 0.00 5.50 MINOR THROUGHS EB 6.50 6.50 0.00 WB 6.00 6.00 6.50 0.00 6.00 MINOR LEFTS EB 7.00 7.00 0.00 WB 6.50 6.50 7.00 0.00 6.50 IDENTIFYING INFORMATION NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET. . . . . . Cajon Boulevard ---------- NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET. . . . Palm Avenue DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALYSIS. . . . . 11-18-1991 AM Peak Hour OTHER INFORMATION. . . . Cumulative Growth 2001 CAPACITY AND LEVEL-OF-SERVICE ----------------------------------------------- Page-3 ---------------------- POTEN- ACTUAL FLOW- TIAL MOVEMENT SHARED RESERVE RATE CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY MOVEMENT v(pcph) cp(pcph) cM(pcph) c (pcph) c = c - v LOS _______ _ R SH ---------- ------------ --- MINOR STREET EB LEFT 9 534 478 > 478 > THROUGH 55 678 662 > 726 662 > 626 607 >A A RIGHT 36 996 996 > 996 > 960 > A MINOR STREET WB LEFT 34 611 555 > 555 > THROUGH 70 753 735 520 > A > RIGHT qg 997 743 735 > 590 664 >A A 997 > 997 > 948 > A MAJOR STREET SB LEFT 31 996 996 996 NB LEFT g 945 945 965 A 945 936 A IDENTIFYING INFORMATION ------------------------------- ______________ NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET. . . . . . Cajon Boulevard NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET. . . . Palm Avenue DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALYSIS.. . . . 11-18-1991 ; AM Peak Hour OTHER INFORMATION. . . . Cumulative Growth 2001 1985 HCM: UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS IDENTIFYING INFORMATION ---------------------------- AVERAGE RUNNING SPEED, MAJOR STREET. . 30 PEAK HOUR FACTOR. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 AREA POPULATION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150000 NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET. . . . . . . . . Cajon Boulevard NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET. . . . . . . Palm Avenue NAME OF THE ANALYST. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . R. Ammari DATE OF THE ANALYSIS (mm/dd/yy) . . . . . . 11-18-1991 TIME PERIOD ANALYZED. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . PM Peak Hour OTHER INFORMATION. . . . Cumulative Growth 2001 INTERSECTION TYPE AND CONTROL ----------------------------- INTERSECTION TYPE: 4-LEG MAJOR STREET DIRECTION: NORTH/SOUTH CONTROL TYPE EASTBOUND: STOP SIGN CONTROL TYPE WESTBOUND: STOP SIGN TRAFFIC VOLUMES ------------------------------ EB WB NB SB LEFT 28 --- � --41-- 33 THRU 67 112 142 33 RIGHT 3 21 26 34 NUMBER OF LANES AND LANE USAGE ----------------------------- EB WB NB SB ------- ------- LANES 1 1 ADJUSTMENT FACTORS --------------------------------------- ---------- Page-2 ---------------- PERCENT RIGHT TURN CURB RADIUS (ft) ACCELERATION LANE GRADE ANGLE FOR RIGHT TURNS FOR RIGHT TURNS EASTBOUND 0.00 --- -----90--- ------ ----------------- 20 N WESTBOUND 0.00 90 20 N NORTHBOUND 0.00 90 20 N SOUTHBOUND 0.00 90 20 N VEHICLE COMPOSITION -------------------------- SU TRUCKS % COMBINATION AND RV'S VEHICLES % MOTORCYCLES EASTBOUND 0 - -------" 0 WESTBOUND 0 0 0 NORTHBOUND 0 0 0 SOUTHBOUND 0 0 0 CRITICAL GAPS --------------------------- TABULAR VALUES ADJUSTED SIGHT DIST. FINAL -(Table 10-2) VALUE ADJUSTMENT CRITICAL GAP MINOR RIGHTS ---------- -------- ----------- ------------ EB 5.50 5.50 0.00 WB 5.50 5.50 5.50 0.00 5.50 MAJOR LEFTS SB 5.50 5.50 0.00 NB 5.50 5.50 5.50 0.00 5.50 MINOR THROUGHS EB 6.50 6.50 0.00 WB 6.00 6.00 6.50 0.00 6.00 MINOR LEFTS EB 7.00 7.00 0.00 WB 6.50 6.50 7.00 0.00 6.50 IDENTIFYING INFORMATION NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET. . . . . . Cajon Boulevard NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET. . . . Palm Avenue DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALYSIS. . . . . 11-18-1991 ; PM Peak Hour OTHER INFORMATION. . . . Cumulative Growth 2001 CAPACITY AND LEVEL-OF-SERVICE ------------------------ Page-3 --------------------------- POTEN- ACTUAL FLOW- TIAL MOVEMENT SHARED RESERVE RATE CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY MOVEMENT v(pcph) c (pcph) c (pcph) c (pcph) c = c - v LOS p M SH R SH ---------- ------------ --- MINOR STREET EB LEFT 31 484 399 > 399 > THROUGH 74 642 610 > 535 610 > 428 536 >A A RIGHT 3 998 998 > 998 > 995 > q MINOR STREET WB LEFT 8 586 515 > 515 > THROUGH 123 713 678 > 696 678 > 542 554 >A A RIGHT 23 937 937 > 937 > 914 > q MAJOR STREET SB LEFT 36 924 924 924 NB LEFT 45 997 997 887 A 997 952 A IDENTIFYING INFORMATION NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET. . . . . . Cajon Boulevard NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET. . . . Palm Avenue DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALYSIS. . . . . 11-18-1991 ; PM Peak Hour OTHER INFORMATION. . . . Cumulative Growth 2001 1985 HCM: UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS Page-1 ********************************************************************* IDENTIFYING INFORMATION --------------------------------------- AVERAGE RUNNING SPEED, MAJOR STREET. . 30 PEAK HOUR FACTOR. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 AREA POPULATION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150000 NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET. . . . . . . . . Cajon Boulevard NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET. . . . . . . Palm Avenue NAME OF THE ANALYST. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . R. Ammari DATE OF THE ANALYSIS (mm/dd/yy) . . . . . . 11-18-1991 TIME PERIOD ANALYZED. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . AM Peak Hour OTHER INFORMATION. . . . Cumulative Growth 1996 + Project INTERSECTION TYPE AND CONTROL ----------------------------------------- INTERSECTION TYPE: 4-LEG MAJOR STREET DIRECTION: NORTH/SOUTH CONTROL TYPE EASTBOUND: STOP SIGN CONTROL TYPE WESTBOUND: STOP SIGN TRAFFIC VOLUMES --------------------------------------- EB WB NB SB LEFT 6 24 6 26 THRU 40 50 42 24 RIGHT 26 41 18 50 NUMBER OF LANES AND LANE USAGE ---------------------------------------- EB WB NB SB ---- ------- ------- LANES 1 1 1 2 ADJUSTMENT FACTORS --------------------------------- Page-2 ----------------------- PERCENT RIGHT TURN CURB RADIUS (ft) ACCELERATION LANE GRADE ANGLE FOR RIGHT TURNS FOR RIGHT TURNS - EASTBOUND 0.00- -----90--- --------20 N WESTBOUND 0.00 90 20 N NORTHBOUND 0.00 90 20 N SOUTHBOUND 0.00 90 20 N VEHICLE COMPOSITION ----------------------- SU TRUCKS % COMBINATION AND RV'S VEHICLES % MOTORCYCLES -------0---- EASTBOUND p - ---'--------- 0 WESTBOUND 0 0 0 NORTHBOUND 0 0 0 SOUTHBOUND 0 0 0 CRITICAL GAPS ------------------------ TABULAR VALUES ADJUSTED SIGHT DIST. FINAL (Table 10-2) VALUE ADJUSTMENT CRITICAL GAP MINOR RIGHTS ---- EB 5.50 5.50 0.00 WB 5.50 5.50 5.50 0.00 5.50 MAJOR LEFTS SB 5.50 5.50 0.00 5.50 NB 5.50 5.50 0.00 5.50 MINOR THROUGHS EB 6.50 6.50 0.00 WB 6.00 6.00 6.50 0.00 6.00 MINOR LEFTS EB 7.00 7.00 0.00 WB 6.50 6.50 7.00 0.00 6.50 IDENTIFYING INFORMATION ------------------------- ----- NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET. . . . . . - ------------------ NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET. , , Cajon Boulevard DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALYSIS. . . . . 11-18-1991 e; AM Peak Hour OTHER INFORMATION. . . . Cumulative Growth 1996 + Project CAPACITY AND LEVEL-OF-SERVICE --------------------------------------------------- Page-3 POTEN- ACTUAL FLOW- TIAL MOVEMENT SHARED RATE CAPACITY CAPACITY RESERVE MOVEMENT v(pcph) c CAPACITY CAPACITY p(pc P h) c M(PcPh) CAPACITY c = c - v LOS - ------ R SH ----------- MINOR STREET EB LEFT 7 634 580 > THROUGH 44 779 763 > 580 > 574 > A RIGHT 29 998 763 > 810 763 > 731 719 >A A 998 > 970 > q MINOR STREET WB LEFT 26 700 651 > THROUGH 55 651 > 625 > A 838 820 > RIGHT 45 828 820 > 701 765 >A A 997 997 > 997 > 952 > A MAJOR STREET SB LEFT 29 997 997 NB LEFT 7 996 996 997 968 A 996 990 A IDENTIFYING INFORMATION NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET. . . . . . -------------- NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET. . . . PalmnAvenuevard DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALYSIS. . . . . OTHER INFORMATION. . . . Cumulative Growth 81996I+;Projectk Hour 1985 HCM: UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS *****************************************************************g Pag e e-1 IDENTIFYING INFORMATION --------- ______ AVERAGE RUNNING SPEED, MAJOR STREET. . 30 PEAK HOUR FACTOR. . AREA POPULATION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150000 NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET. . . . . . . • . Cajon Boulevard NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET. . . . . . . Palm Avenue NAME OF THE ANALYST. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . R. Ammari DATE OF THE ANALYSIS (mm/dd/yy) . . . . . . 11-18-1991 TIME PERIOD ANALYZED. . . . . • • • • • • • • • • • • PM Peak Hour OTHER INFORMATION. . . . Cumulative Growth 1996 + Project INTERSECTION TYPE AND CONTROL ----------- _ ------------- INTERSECTION TYPE: 4-LEG MAJOR STREET DIRECTION: NORTH/SOUTH CONTROL TYPE EASTBOUND: STOP SIGN CONTROL TYPE WESTBOUND: STOP SIGN TRAFFIC VOLUMES ------------ EB WB NB SB LEFT 22 ---5 --32 49 THRU 52 88 111 26 RIGHT 3 40 20 27 NUMBER OF LANES AND LANE USAGE ---EB-- WB NB SB ------ LANES -1-- ADJUSTMENT FACTORS ------------------------------------------------------ Page-2 PERCENT RIGHT TURN CURB RADIUS (ft) ACCELERATION L E -GRADE ANGLE FOR RIGHT TURNS FOR RIGHT TURNS EASTBOUND 90 - ___ 0.00 --------20---- N WESTBOUND 0.00 90 20 N NORTHBOUND 0.00 90 20 N SOUTHBOUND 0.00 gp 20 N VEHICLE COMPOSITION SU TRUCKS % COMBINATION AND RV'S VEHICLES % MOTORCYCLES EASTBOUND 0 ----------- 0 WESTBOUND p 0 p NORTHBOUND p 0 p SOUTHBOUND p 0 p CRITICAL GAPS TABULAR VALUES ADJUSTED SIGHT DIST. FINAL - (Table-10-2) VALUE ADJUSTMENT CRITICAL GAP MINOR RIGHTS ----------- EB 5.50 5.50 WB 5.50 550 0'00 5.50 MAJOR LEFTS . 0.00 5.50 SB 5.50 5.50 NB 5.50 5.50 0'00 5.50 0.00 5.50 MINOR THROUGHS EB 6.50 6.50 WB 6.00 6.00 0'00 6.50 MINOR LEFTS 0.00 6.00 EB 7.00 7.00 WB 6.50 6.50 0'00 7.00 0.00 6.50 IDENTIFYING INFORMATION NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET. . . . . . Cajon Boulevard NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET. . . . Palm Avenue DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALYSIS. . . . OTHER INFORMATION. . . . Cumulative Growth 819961+;Projectk Hour CAPACITY AND LEVEL-OF-SERVICE ------------------------------------------------ Page-3 POTEN- ACTUAL FLOW- TIAL MOVEMENT SHARED RATE CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY RESERVE MOVEMENT v(pcph) c (pcph c CAPACITY ) (PcPh) cSH(pcph) c = c - v LOS -- P M R SH ------ ------------ MINOR STREET EB LEFT 24 516 436 > THROUGH 57 676 640 > 436 > 411 > q RIGHT 3 999 999 > 571 640 > 486 582 >A q 999 > 995 > q MINOR STREET WB LEFT 6 628 562 > THROUGH 97 748 708 > 562 > 557 > q 763 708 > 617 611 >A A RIGHT 44 973 973 > 973 > 929 > q MAJOR STREET SB LEFT 54 962 962 NB LEFT 35 997 997 962 909 q 997 962 q IDENTIFYING INFORMATION ----------------------------------- NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET. . . . . . Cajon Boulevard NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET. . . . Palm DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALYSIS. . . . . OTHER INFORMATION. . . . tive Growth 8 1 Avenue; k Hour 1996 + Project Cumula 1985 HCM: UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS Page-1 IDENTIFYING INFORMATION ---------- _ AVERAGE RUNNING SPEED, MAJOR STREET. . 30 PEAK HOUR FACTOR. . . AREA POPULATION. . . . " ' • • • • • • • • • • • • • • . 150000 NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET. . . . . . . . . Cajon Boulevard NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET. . . . . . . Palm Avenue NAME OF THE ANALYST. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . R. Ammari DATE OF THE ANALYSIS (mm/dd/yy) . . . . . . 11-18-1991 TIME PERIOD ANALYZED. . . . . . . • • • • • • • • . . AM Peak Hour OTHER INFORMATION. . . . Cumulative Growth 2001 + Project INTERSECTION TYPE AND CONTROL ------------ INTERSECTION TYPE: 4-LEG MAJOR STREET DIRECTION: NORTH/SOUTH CONTROL TYPE EASTBOUND: STOP SIGN CONTROL TYPE WESTBOUND: STOP SIGN TRAFFIC VOLUMES EB Wg NB Sg --------- LEFT ---8 - 31 ---8 --32 THRU 50 64 54 124 RIGHT 33 51 23 24 NUMBER OF LANES AND LANE USAGE ---EB-- WB NB SB ---- LANES -- 1 1 1 ----2-- ADJUSTMENT FACTORS Page-2 PERCENT RIGHT TURN CURB RADIUS (ft) ACCELERATION LANE -GRADE ANGLE FOR RIGHT TURNS FOR RIGHT TURNS EASTBOUND 0.00 ----------------- 20 N WESTBOUND 0.00 gp 20 N NORTHBOUND 0.00 90 20 N SOUTHBOUND 0.00 gp 20 N VEHICLE COMPOSITION SU TRUCKS % COMBINATION AND RV'S VEHICLES % MOTORCYCLES EASTBOUND 0 -0----- 0 WESTBOUND 0 0 0 NORTHBOUND 0 0 0 SOUTHBOUND 0 0 0 CRITICAL GAPS TABULAR VALUES ADJUSTED SIGHT DIST. FINAL - - (Table 10-2) VALUE ADJUSTMENT CRITICAL GAP MINOR RIGHTS ------ -------- ----------- ------------ EB 5.50 5.50 0.00 WB 5.50 550 5.50 MAJOR LEFTS . 0.00 5.50 SB 5.50 5.50 0.00 NB 5.50 550 5.50 MINOR THROUGHS . 0.00 5.50 EB 6.50 6.50 0.00 WB 6.00 6.00 6.50 MINOR LEFTS 0.00 6.00 EB 7.00 7.00 0.00 WB 6.50 650 7.00 IDENTIFYING INFORMATION . 0.00 6.50 NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET. . . . . ----------- -------------- NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET. . . . Palm nAvenue vard DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALYSIS. . . . . 11-18-1991 ; AM Peak Hour OTHER INFORMATION. . . . Cumulative Growth 2001 + Project CAPACITY AND LEVEL-OF-SERVICE Page-3 POTEN- ACTUAL FLOW- TIAL MOVEMENT SHARED RESERVE RATE CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY MOVEMENT v(pcph) c M(pcph) c (pcph) c P SH(pcph) c R SH= c - v LOS ------- ------------ MINOR STREET EB LEFT 9 526 466 > THROUGH 55 675 657 > 466 > 458 > q 720 657 > 620 602 >A A RIGHT 36 996 996 > 996 > 960 > p MINOR STREET WB LEFT 34 608 550 > THROUGH 70 750 730 > 550 > 516 > q RIGHT 748 730 > 587 659 >A A 56 997 997 > 997 > 941 > q MAJOR STREET SB LEFT 35 996 996 NB LEFT g 945 945 996 961 q 945 936 q IDENTIFYING INFORMATION NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET. . . . . ------------------- NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET. . . . PalmnAvenuevard DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALYSIS. . . . . 11-18-1991 ; AM Peak Hour OTHER INFORMATION. . . . Cumulative Growth 2001 + Project 1985 HCM: UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS *****************************************************************ge-1 IDENTIFYING INFORMATION ------------------- AVERAGE RUNNING SPEED, MAJOR STREET. . 30 PEAK HOUR FACTOR. . . AREA POPULATION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150000 NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET. . . . . . . . . Cajon Boulevard NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET. . . . . . . Palm Avenue NAME OF THE ANALYST. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . R. Ammari DATE OF THE ANALYSIS (mm/dd/yy) . . . . . . 11-18-1991 TIME PERIOD ANALYZED. . . . . . . . • • • • • • • . . PM Peak Hour OTHER INFORMATION. . . . Cumulative Growth 2001 + Project INTERSECTION TYPE AND CONTROL ------------------- INTERSECTION TYPE: 4-LEG MAJOR STREET DIRECTION: NORTH/SOUTH CONTROL TYPE EASTBOUND: STOP SIGN CONTROL TYPE WESTBOUND: STOP SIGN TRAFFIC VOLUMES EB Wg NB Sg--- -- ------- LEFT 28 7 41 56 THRU 67 112 142 33 RIGHT 3 44 26 34 NUMBER OF LANES AND LANE USAGE ---EB-- WB NB SB -- LANES ----1" 1 ----2-- ADJUSTMENT FACTORS Page-2 PERCENT RIGHT TURN CURB RADIUS (ft) ACCELERATION LAN E GRADE - ANGLE FOR RIGHT TURNS FOR RIGHT TURNS EASTBOUND 0.00 gp WESTBOUND 0.00 gp 20 N 20 N NORTHBOUND 0.00 gp 20 N SOUTHBOUND 0.00 gp 20 N VEHICLE COMPOSITION lo SU TRUCKS % COMBINATION AND RV'S VEHICLES % MOTORCYCLES EASTBOUND 0 ---------- -------- WESTBOUND p 0 p NORTHBOUND p 0 p SOUTHBOUND p 0 p CRITICAL GAPS TABULAR VALUES ADJUSTED SIGHT DIST. FINAL - (Table-10-2) VALUE ADJUSTMENT CRITICAL GAP MINOR RIGHTS ----- -------- ----------- ------------ EB 5.50 5.50 0'00 5.50 WB 5.50 5.50 0.00 5.50 MAJOR LEFTS SB 5.50 5.50 NB 5.50 550 p'00 5.50 MINOR THROUGHS . 0.00 5.50 EB 6.50 6.50 0.00 WB 6.00 6.00 6.50 MINOR LEFTS 0.00 6.00 EB 7.00 7.00 WB 6.50 650 0'00 7.00 IDENTIFYING INFORMATION . 0.00 6.50 NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET. . . . . . Cajon Boulevard ---------- NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET. . . . Palm Avenue DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALYSIS. . . . . OTHER INFORMATION. . . . Cumulative Growth 8200111+;Projectk Hour CAPACITY AND LEVEL-OF-SERVICE ----------------------------------------------------------- Page-3 POTEN- ACTUAL FLOW- TIAL MOVEMENT SHARED RESERVE RATE CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY MOVEMENT v(pcph) c p(pcph) cM(pcph) c H R SH(pcph) c = c - v LOS _______ -------- MINOR STREET EB LEFT 31 454 361 > 361 > THROUGH 74 624 583 > 330 > g RIGHT 501 583 > 393 509 >6 A 3 998 998 > 998 > 995 > A MINOR STREET WB LEFT 8 568 490 > 490 > 482 > A THROUGH 123 693 647 > 696 647 > 516 524 >A A RIGHT 48 937 937 > 937 > 889 > A MAJOR STREET SB LEFT 62 924 924 924 NB LEFT 45 997 997 862 A 997 952 A IDENTIFYING INFORMATION NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET. . . . . . Cajon Boulevard NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET. . . . Palm Avenue DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALYSIS.. . . . 11-18-1991 PM Peak Hour OTHER INFORMATION. . . . Cumulative Growth 2001 + Project 1985 HCM: UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS IDENTIFYING INFORMATION ------------------------- AVERAGE RUNNING SPEED, MAJOR STREET. . 30 PEAK HOUR FACTOR. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 AREA POPULATION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150000 NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET. . . . . . . . . Cajon Boulevard NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET. . . . . . . Palm Avenue NAME OF THE ANALYST. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . R. Ammari DATE OF THE ANALYSIS (mm/dd/yy) . . . . . . 11-18-1991 TIME PERIOD ANALYZED. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . AM Peak Hour OTHER INFORMATION. . . . Cumulative Growth 1996 + Maximum Intensity INTERSECTION TYPE AND CONTROL --------------------------- INTERSECTION TYPE: 4-LEG MAJOR STREET DIRECTION: NORTH/SOUTH CONTROL TYPE EASTBOUND: STOP SIGN CONTROL TYPE WESTBOUND: STOP SIGN TRAFFIC VOLUMES ------------------------- EB WB NB SB LEFT -- 6 - 24 -- 6 - 29 THRU 40 50 42 97 RIGHT 26 47 18 19 NUMBER OF LANES AND LANE USAGE -------------------------- EB WB NB SB ------- LANES ADJUSTMENT FACTORS --------------- Page-2 ------------------------- PERCENT RIGHT TURN CURB RADIUS (ft) ACCELERATION LANE GRADE ANGLE FOR RIGHT TURNS FOR RIGHT TURNS EASTBOUND 0.00 90 20 ---- N WESTBOUND 0.00 90 20 N NORTHBOUND 0.00 90 20 N SOUTHBOUND 0.00 90 20 N VEHICLE COMPOSITION ------------------------ 7. SU TRUCKS % COMBINATION AND RV'S VEHICLES % MOTORCYCLES EASTBOUND 0 0----- -- ----- ------ 0 WESTBOUND 0 0 0 NORTHBOUND 0 0 0 SOUTHBOUND 0 0 0 CRITICAL GAPS ------------------------- TABULAR VALUES ADJUSTED SIGHT DIST. FINAL - (Table 10-2) VALUE ADJUSTMENT CRITICAL GAP ---------- MINOR RIGHTS --- ----------- ------------ EB 5.50 5.50 0.00 5.50 WB 5.50 5.50 0.00 5.50 MAJOR LEFTS SB 5.50 5.50 0.00 NB 5.50 5.50 5.50 0.00 5.50 MINOR THROUGHS EB 6.50 6.50 0.00 WB 6.00 6.00 6.50 0.00 6.00 MINOR LEFTS EB 7.00 7.00 0.00 WB 6.50 6.50 7.00 0.00 6.50 IDENTIFYING INFORMATION NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET. . . . . . ------------------------ NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET. . . . Palm nAvenue vard DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALYSIS. . . . . 11-18-1991 ; AM Peak Hour OTHER INFORMATION. . . . Cumulative Growth 1996 + Maximum Intensity CAPACITY AND LEVEL-OF-SERVICE ------------------------------ - POTEN- ACTUAL FLOW- TIAL MOVEMENT SHARED RESERVE RATE CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY MOVEMENT v(pcph) c (pcph) c (pcph) cSH(pcph) c = c - v LOS p M R SH ------------ ------------ --- MINOR STREET EB LEFT 7 581 527 > 527 > 521 > A THROUGH 44 719 702 > 762 702 > 683 658 >A A RIGHT 29 997 997 > 997 > 969 > A MINOR STREET WB LEFT 26 662 612 > 612 > 586 > A THROUGH 55 793 775 > 802 775 > 669 720 >A A RIGHT 52 997 997 > 997 > 946 > A MAJOR STREET SB LEFT 32 997 997 997 965 A NB LEFT 7 978 978 978 972 A IDENTIFYING INFORMATION --------------------------- --------------------------------- NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET. . . . . . Cajon Boulevard NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET. . . . Palm Avenue DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALYSIS. . . . . 11-18-1991 ; AM Peak Hour OTHER INFORMATION. . . . Cumulative Growth 1996 + Maximum Intensity 1985 HCM: UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS IDENTIFYING INFORMATION ----------------------------- AVERAGE RUNNING SPEED, MAJOR STREET. . 30 PEAK HOUR FACTOR I AREA POPULATION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150000 NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET. . . . . . . . . Cajon Boulevard NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET. . . . . . . Palm Avenue NAME OF THE ANALYST. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . R. Ammari DATE OF THE ANALYSIS (mm/dd/yy) . . . . . . 11-18-1991 TIME PERIOD ANALYZED. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . PM Peak Hour OTHER INFORMATION. . . . Cumulative Growth 1996 + Maximum Intensity INTERSECTION TYPE AND CONTROL ------------------------------- INTERSECTION TYPE: 4-LEG MAJOR STREET DIRECTION: NORTH/SOUTH CONTROL TYPE EASTBOUND: STOP SIGN CONTROL TYPE WESTBOUND: STOP SIGN TRAFFIC VOLUMES ------------------------------ EB WB NB SB LEFT 22 -- 5 --32 - 74 THRU 52 88 111 26 RIGHT 3 65 20 27 NUMBER OF LANES AND LANE USAGE ----------------------------- EB WB NB SB ------- ------- LANES --'"-- 1 1 ADJUSTMENT FACTORS Page-2 --------------------------------------------------------------------- PERCENT RIGHT TURN CURB RADIUS (ft) ACCELERATION LANE GRADE ANGLE FOR RIGHT TURNS FOR RIGHT TURNS ------- ---------- ---------------- ----------------- EASTBOUND 0.00 90 20 N WESTBOUND 0.00 90 20 N NORTHBOUND 0.00 90 20 N SOUTHBOUND 0.00 90 20 N VEHICLE COMPOSITION --------------------------------------------------------------------- SU TRUCKS % COMBINATION AND RV'S VEHICLES % MOTORCYCLES ----------- ------------- ------------- EASTBOUND 0 0 0 WESTBOUND 0 0 0 NORTHBOUND 0 0 0 SOUTHBOUND 0 0 0 CRITICAL GAPS --------------------------------------------------------------------- TABULAR VALUES ADJUSTED SIGHT DIST. FINAL (Table 10-2) VALUE ADJUSTMENT CRITICAL GAP -------------- -------- ----------- ------------ MINOR RIGHTS EB 5.50 5.50 0.00 5.50 WB 5.50 5.50 0.00 5.50 MAJOR LEFTS SB 5.50 5.50 0.00 5.50 NB 5.50 5.50 0.00 5.50 MINOR THROUGHS EB 6.50 6.50 0.00 6.50 WB 6.00 6.00 0.00 6.00 MINOR LEFTS EB 7.00 7.00 0.00 7.00 WB 6.50 6.50 0.00 6.50 IDENTIFYING INFORMATION --------------------------------------------------------------------- NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET. . . . . . Cajon Boulevard NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET. . . . Palm Avenue DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALYSIS. . . . . 11-18-1991 ; PM Peak Hour OTHER INFORMATION. . . . Cumulative Growth 1996 + Maximum Intensity CAPACITY AND LEVEL-OF-SERVICE Page-3 ---------------------------------------------------------- POTEN- ACTUAL FLOW- TIAL MOVEMENT SHARED RESERVE RATE CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY MOVEMENT v(pcph) c (pcph) c (pcph) c (pcph) c = c - v LOS P M SH R SH ------- -------- --------- ------------ ------------ --- MINOR STREET EB LEFT 24 481 390 > 390 > 366 > B THROUGH 57 655 609 > 532 609 > 447 551 >A A RIGHT 3 999 999 > 999 > 995 > A MINOR STREET WB LEFT 6 609 535 > 535 > 529 > A THROUGH 97 727 675 > 765 675 > 592 579 >A A RIGHT 72 973 973 > 973 > 901 > A MAJOR STREET SB LEFT 81 962 962 962 881 A NB LEFT 35 997 997 997 962 A IDENTIFYING INFORMATION ------------------------------------------------- NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET. . . . . . Cajon Boulevard NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET. . . . Palm Avenue DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALYSIS.. . . . 11-18-1991 ; PM Peak Hour OTHER INFORMATION. . . . Cumulative Growth 1996 + Maximum Intensity 1985 HCM: UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS IDENTIFYING INFORMATION ----------------- AVERAGE RUNNING SPEED, MAJOR STREET. . 30 PEAK HOUR FACTOR. . . . . . AREA POPULATION. . . . . . ' • • • • • • • • • • • • • • . 150000 NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET. . . . . . . . . Cajon Boulevard NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET. . . . . . . Palm Avenue NAME OF THE ANALYST. . . . • • • • • • • • • • • • • . R. Ammari DATE OF THE ANALYSIS (mm/dd/yy) . . • • • . 11-18-1991 TIME PERIOD ANALYZED. . . . . . . . • • • • • • • • . AM Peak Hour OTHER INFORMATION. . . . Cumulative Growth 2001 + Maximum Intensity INTERSECTION TYPE AND CONTROL ----------------- INTERSECTION TYPE: 4-LEG MAJOR STREET DIRECTION: NORTH/SOUTH CONTROL TYPE EASTBOUND: STOP SIGN CONTROL TYPE WESTBOUND: STOP SIGN TRAFFIC VOLUMES EB WB NB SB ---- LEFT -- 8 --31 ---$ - 35 THRU 50 64 54 124 RIGHT 33 57 23 24 NUMBER OF LANES AND LANE USAGE ---EB-- WB NB SB LANES ----1-- ADJUSTMENT FACTORS -------------------------------------------------------------- Page-2 PERCENT RIGHT TURN CURB RADIUS (ft) ACCELERATION LANE GRADE ANGLE FOR RIGHT TURNS FOR RIGHT TURNS - EASTBOUND 0.00- -----90--- 20------ N WESTBOUND 0.00 gp 20 N NORTHBOUND 0.00 gp 20 N SOUTHBOUND 0.00 gp 20 N VEHICLE COMPOSITION SU TRUCKS % COMBINATION -AND-RV'S VEHICLES % MOTORCYCLES EASTBOUND ------- -------- WESTBOUND 0 0 0 NORTHBOUND 0 0 0 SOUTHBOUND 0 0 0 CRITICAL GAPS TABULAR VALUES ADJUSTED SIGHT DIST. FINAL -(Table 10-2) VALUE ADJUSTMENT CRITICAL GAP MINOR RIGHTS --------- -------- ----------- ------------ EB 5.50 5.50 0.00 WB 5.50 550 0.00 5.50 MAJOR LEFTS . 5.50 SB 5.50 5.50 0.00 NB 5.50 550 5.50 MINOR THROUGHS . 0.00 5.50 EB 6.50 6.50 0.00 WB 6.00 600 6.50 MINOR LEFTS . 0.00 6.00 EB 7.00 7.00 0.00 WB 6.50 650 7.00 IDENTIFYING INFORMATION . 0.00 6.50 NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET. . . . . ------------------------ NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET. . . Cajon Boulevard - . Palm Avenue DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALYSIS. . , , OTHER INFORMATION. . . . 11-18-1991 AM Peak Hour Cumulative Growth 2001 + Maximum Intensity CAPACITY AND LEVEL-OF-SERVICE ------------------ - POTEN- ACTUAL FLOW- TIAL MOVEMENT SHARED RESERVE RATE CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY MOVEMENT v(pcph) cp(pcph) cM(pcph) cSH(pcph) c = c - v LOS _______ R SH MINOR STREET EB LEFT 9 518 457 > 457 > THROUGH 55 672 653 > 716 653 > 615 598 >A A RIGHT 36 996 996 > 996 > 960 > A MINOR STREET WB LEFT 34 605 547 > 547 > THROUGH 70 747 726 > 752 726 > 585 655 >A A RIGHT 63 997 997 > 997 > 934 > A MAJOR STREET SB LEFT 39 996 996 996 NB LEFT g 945 945 958 A 945 936 A IDENTIFYING INFORMATION NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET. . . . . . Cajon Boulevard NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET. . . . Palm Avenue DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALYSIS. . . . . 11-18-1991 ; AM Peak Hour OTHER INFORMATION. . . . Cumulative Growth 2001 + Maximum Intensity 1985 HCM: UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS IDENTIFYING INFORMATION ---------------------------- AVERAGE RUNNING SPEED, MAJOR STREET. . 30 PEAK HOUR FACTOR. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 AREA POPULATION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150000 NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET. . . . . . . . . Cajon Boulevard NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET. . . . . . . Palm Avenue NAME OF THE ANALYST. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . R. Ammari DATE OF THE ANALYSIS (mm/dd/yy) . . . . . . 11-18-1991 TIME PERIOD ANALYZED. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . PM Peak Hour OTHER INFORMATION. . . . Cumulative Growth 2001 + Maximum Intensity INTERSECTION TYPE AND CONTROL ---------------------------- INTERSECTION TYPE: 4-LEG MAJOR STREET DIRECTION: NORTH/SOUTH CONTROL TYPE EASTBOUND: STOP SIGN CONTROL TYPE WESTBOUND: STOP SIGN TRAFFIC VOLUMES ----------------------------- EB WB NB SB LEFT 28 ---7 --41 81 THRU 67 112 142 33 RIGHT 3 70 26 34 NUMBER OF LANES AND LANE USAGE ---------------------------- EB WB NB SB ------- ------- LANES 1 1 ADJUSTMENT FACTORS Page-2 --------------------------------------------------------------------- PERCENT RIGHT TURN CURB RADIUS (ft) ACCELERATION LANE GRADE ANGLE FOR RIGHT TURNS FOR RIGHT TURNS ------- ---------- ---------------- ----------------- EASTBOUND 0.00 90 20 N WESTBOUND 0.00 90 20 N NORTHBOUND 0.00 90 20 N SOUTHBOUND 0.00 90 20 N VEHICLE COMPOSITION --------------------------------------------------------------------- SU TRUCKS % COMBINATION AND RV'S VEHICLES % MOTORCYCLES ----------- ------------- ------------- EASTBOUND 0 0 0 WESTBOUND 0 0 0 NORTHBOUND 0 0 0 SOUTHBOUND 0 0 0 CRITICAL GAPS --------------------------------------------------------------------- TABULAR VALUES ADJUSTED SIGHT DIST. FINAL (Table 10-2) VALUE ADJUSTMENT CRITICAL GAP -------------- -------- ----------- ------------ MINOR RIGHTS EB 5.50 5.50 0.00 5.50 WB 5.50 5.50 0.00 5.50 MAJOR LEFTS SB 5.50 5.50 0.00 5.50 NB 5.50 5.50 0.00 5.50 MINOR THROUGHS EB 6.50 6.50 0.00 6.50 WB 6.00 6.00 0.00 6.00 MINOR LEFTS EB 7.00 7.00 0.00 7.00 WB 6.50 6.50 0.00 6.50 IDENTIFYING INFORMATION --------------------------------------------------------------------- NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET. . . . . . Cajon Boulevard NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET. . . . Palm Avenue DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALYSIS. . . . . 11-18-1991 ; PM Peak Hour OTHER INFORMATION. . . . Cumulative Growth 2001 + Maximum Intensity CAPACITY AND LEVEL-OF-SERVICE Page-3 --------------------------------------------------------------------- POTEN- ACTUAL FLOW- TIAL MOVEMENT SHARED RESERVE RATE CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY MOVEMENT v(pcph) c (pcph) c (pcph) c (pcph) c = c - v LOS p M SH R SH ------- -------- --------- ------------ ------------ --- MINOR STREET EB LEFT 31 421 320 > 320 > 289 > C THROUGH 74 605 555 > 464 555 > 356 481 >B A RIGHT 3 998 998 > 998 > 995 > A MINOR STREET WB LEFT 8 551 465 > 465 > 457 > A THROUGH 123 670 614 > 695 614 > 487 491 >A A RIGHT 77 937 937 > 937 > 860 > A MAJOR STREET SB LEFT 89 924 924 924 835 A NB LEFT 45 997 997 997 952 A IDENTIFYING INFORMATION --------------------------------------------------------------------- NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET. . . . . . Cajon Boulevard NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET. . . . Palm Avenue DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALYSIS. . . . . 11-18-1991 ; PM Peak Hour OTHER INFORMATION. . . . Cumulative Growth 2001 + Maximum Intensity LSA Associates,Inc. S. Little League Drive/Frontage Road 01/02/92(1:\IM101\TRAF IC.RPI) 1985 HCM: UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS Page-1 ********************************************************************* IDENTIFYING INFORMATION --------------------------------------------------------------------- AVERAGE RUNNING SPEED, MAJOR STREET. . 30 PEAK HOUR FACTOR. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 AREA POPULATION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150000 NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET. . . . . . . . . Freeway Frontage Road NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET. . . . . . . Little League Drive NAME OF THE ANALYST. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . R. Ammari DATE OF THE ANALYSIS (mm/dd/yy) . . . . . . 11-18-1991 TIME PERIOD ANALYZED. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . AM Peak Hour OTHER INFORMATION. . . . Existing INTERSECTION TYPE AND CONTROL --------------------------------------------------------------------- INTERSECTION TYPE: 4-LEG MAJOR STREET DIRECTION: NORTH/SOUTH CONTROL TYPE EASTBOUND: STOP SIGN CONTROL TYPE WESTBOUND: STOP SIGN TRAFFIC VOLUMES --------------------------------------------------------------------- EB WB NB SB ---- ---- ---- ---- LEFT 0 4 0 7 THRU 0 0 6 26 RIGHT 1 14 0 0 NUMBER OF LANES AND LANE USAGE --------------------------------------------------------------------- EB WB NB SB ------- ------- ------- ------- LANES 1 1 1 1 ADJUSTMENT FACTORS Page-2 --------------------------------------------------------------------- PERCENT RIGHT TURN CURB RADIUS (ft) ACCELERATION LANE GRADE ANGLE FOR RIGHT TURNS FOR RIGHT TURNS ------- ---------- ---------------- ----------------- EASTBOUND 0.00 90 20 N WESTBOUND 0.00 90 20 N NORTHBOUND 0.00 90 20 N SOUTHBOUND 0.00 90 20 N VEHICLE COMPOSITION --------------------------------------------------------------------- SU TRUCKS % COMBINATION AND RV'S VEHICLES % MOTORCYCLES ----------- ------------- ------------- EASTBOUND 0 0 0 WESTBOUND 0 0 0 NORTHBOUND 0 0 0 SOUTHBOUND 0 0 0 CRITICAL GAPS --------------------------------------------------------------------- TABULAR VALUES ADJUSTED SIGHT DIST. FINAL (Table 10-2) VALUE ADJUSTMENT CRITICAL GAP -------------- -------- ----------- ------------ MINOR RIGHTS EB 5.50 5.50 0.00 5.50 WB 5.50 5.50 0.00 5.50 MAJOR LEFTS SB 5.00 5.00 0.00 5.00 NB 5.00 5.00 0.00 5.00 MINOR THROUGHS EB 6.00 6.00 0.00 6.00 WB 6.00 6.00 0.00 6.00 MINOR LEFTS EB 6.50 6.50 0.00 6.50 WB 6.50 6.50 0.00 6.50 IDENTIFYING INFORMATION --------------------------------------------------------------------- NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET. . . . . . Freeway Frontage Road NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET. . . . Little League Drive DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALYSIS. . . . . 11-18-1991 ; AM Peak Hour OTHER INFORMATION. . . . Existing CAPACITY AND LEVEL-OF-SERVICE Page-3 --------------------------------------------------------------------- POTEN- ACTUAL FLOW- TIAL MOVEMENT SHARED RESERVE RATE CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY MOVEMENT v(pcph) c (pcph) c (pcph) c (pcph) c = c - v LOS p M SH R SH ------- -------- --------- ------------ ------------ --- MINOR STREET EB LEFT 0 867 855 > 855 > 855 > A THROUGH 0 959 955 > 999 955 > 998 955 >A A RIGHT 1 999 999 > 999 > 998 > A MINOR STREET WB LEFT 4 880 875 > 875 > 871 > A THROUGH 0 959 955 > 969 955 > 949 955 >A A RIGHT 15 1000 1000 > 1000 > 984 > A MAJOR STREET SB LEFT 8 1000 1000 1000 992 A NB LEFT 0 1000 1000 1000 1000 A IDENTIFYING INFORMATION --------------------------------------------------------------------- NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET. . . . . . Freeway Frontage Road NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET. . . . Little League Drive DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALYSIS.. . . . 11-18-1991 ; AM Peak Hour OTHER INFORMATION. . . . Existing 1985 HCM: UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS Page-1 ********************************************************************* IDENTIFYING INFORMATION --------------------------------------------------------------------- AVERAGE RUNNING SPEED, MAJOR STREET. . 30 PEAK HOUR FACTOR. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 AREA POPULATION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150000 NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET. . . . . . . . . Freeway Frontage Road NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET. . . . . . . Little League Drive NAME OF THE ANALYST. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . R. Ammari DATE OF THE ANALYSIS (mm/dd/yy) . . . . . . 11-18-1991 TIME PERIOD ANALYZED. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . PM Peak Hour OTHER INFORMATION. . . . Existing INTERSECTION TYPE AND CONTROL --------------------------------------------------------------------- INTERSECTION TYPE: 4-LEG MAJOR STREET DIRECTION: NORTH/SOUTH CONTROL TYPE EASTBOUND: STOP SIGN CONTROL TYPE WESTBOUND: STOP SIGN TRAFFIC VOLUMES --------------------------------------------------------------------- EB WB NB SB ---- ---- ---- ---- LEFT 0 8 1 10 THRU 1 6 12 0 RIGHT 0 21 6 0 NUMBER OF LANES AND LANE USAGE --------------------------------------------------------------------- EB WB NB SB - ------- ------- ------- ------- LANES 1 1 1 1 ADJUSTMENT FACTORS Page-2 --------------------------------------------------------------------- PERCENT RIGHT TURN CURB RADIUS (ft) ACCELERATION LANE GRADE ANGLE FOR RIGHT TURNS FOR RIGHT TURNS ------- ---------- ---------------- ----------------- EASTBOUND 0.00 90 20 N WESTBOUND 0.00 90 20 N NORTHBOUND 0.00 90 20 N SOUTHBOUND 0.00 90 20 N VEHICLE COMPOSITION --------------------------------------------------------------------- SU TRUCKS % COMBINATION AND RV'S VEHICLES % MOTORCYCLES ----------- ------------- ------------- EASTBOUND 0 0 0 WESTBOUND 0 0 0 NORTHBOUND 0 0 0 SOUTHBOUND 0 0 0 CRITICAL GAPS --------------------------------------------------------------------- TABULAR VALUES ADJUSTED SIGHT DIST. FINAL (Table 10-2) VALUE ADJUSTMENT CRITICAL GAP -------------- -------- ----------- ------------ MINOR RIGHTS EB 5.50 5.50 0.00 5.50 WB 5.50 5.50 0.00 5.50 MAJOR LEFTS SB 5.00 5.00 0.00 5.00 NB 5.00 5.00 0.00 5.00 MINOR THROUGHS EB 6.00 6.00 0.00 6.00 WB 6.00 6.00 0.00 6.00 MINOR LEFTS EB 6.50 6.50 0.00 6.50 WB 6.50 6.50 0.00 6.50 IDENTIFYING INFORMATION --------------------------------------------------------------------- NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET. . . . . . Freeway Frontage Road NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET. . . . Little League Drive DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALYSIS. . . . . 11-18-1991 ; PM Peak Hour OTHER INFORMATION. . . . Existing CAPACITY AND LEVEL-OF-SERVICE Page-3 --------------------------------------------------------------------- POTEN- ACTUAL FLOW- TIAL MOVEMENT SHARED RESERVE RATE CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY MOVEMENT v(pcph) c (pcph) c (pcph) c (pcph) c = c - v LOS p M SH R SH ------- -------- --------- ------------ ------------ --- MINOR STREET EB LEFT 0 864 842 > 842 > 842 > A THROUGH 1 970 963 > 963 963 > 961 961 >A A RIGHT 0 1000 1000 > 1000 > 1000 > A MINOR STREET WB LEFT 9 893 886 > 886 > 877 > A THROUGH 7 973 966 > 965 966 > 927 959 >A A RIGHT 23 999 999 > 999 > 976 > A MAJOR STREET SB LEFT 11 1000 1000 1000 989 A NB LEFT 1 1000 1000 1000 999 A IDENTIFYING INFORMATION --------------------------------------------------------------------- NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET. . . . . . Freeway Frontage Road NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET. . . . Little League Drive DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALYSIS. . . . . 11-18-1991 ; PM Peak Hour OTHER INFORMATION. . . . Existing 1985 HCM: UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS Page-1 ********************************************************************* IDENTIFYING INFORMATION --------------------------------------------------------------------- AVERAGE RUNNING SPEED, MAJOR STREET. . 30 PEAK HOUR FACTOR. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 AREA POPULATION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150000 NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET. . . . . . . . . Freeway Frontage Road NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET. . . . . . . Little League Drive NAME OF THE ANALYST. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . R. Ammari DATE OF THE ANALYSIS (mm/dd/yy) . . . . . . 11-18-1991 TIME PERIOD ANALYZED. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . AM Peak Hour OTHER INFORMATION. . . . Cumulative Growth 1996 INTERSECTION TYPE AND CONTROL --------------------------------------------------------------------- INTERSECTION TYPE: 4-LEG MAJOR STREET DIRECTION: NORTH/SOUTH CONTROL TYPE EASTBOUND: STOP SIGN CONTROL TYPE WESTBOUND: STOP SIGN TRAFFIC VOLUMES --------------------------------------------------------------------- EB WB NB SB ---- ---- ---- ---- LEFT 0 5 0 11 THRU 0 0 10 42 RIGHT 1 18 0 0 NUMBER OF LANES AND LANE USAGE --------------------------------------------------------------------- EB WB NB SB ------- ------- ------- ------- LANES 1 1 1 1 ADJUSTMENT FACTORS Page-2 --------------------------------------------------------------------- PERCENT RIGHT TURN CURB RADIUS (ft) ACCELERATION LANE GRADE ANGLE FOR RIGHT TURNS FOR RIGHT TURNS ------- ---------- ---------------- ----------------- EASTBOUND 0.00 90 20 N WESTBOUND 0.00 90 20 N NORTHBOUND 0.00 90 20 N SOUTHBOUND 0.00 90 20 N VEHICLE COMPOSITION --------------------------------------------------------------------- % SU TRUCKS % COMBINATION AND RV'S VEHICLES % MOTORCYCLES ----------- ------------- ------------- EASTBOUND 0 0 0 WESTBOUND 0 0 0 NORTHBOUND 0 0 0 SOUTHBOUND 0 0 0 CRITICAL GAPS --------------------------------------------------------------------- TABULAR VALUES ADJUSTED SIGHT DIST. FINAL (Table 10-2) VALUE ADJUSTMENT CRITICAL GAP -------------- -------- ----------- ------------ MINOR RIGHTS EB 5.50 5.50 0.00 5.50 WB 5.50 5.50 0.00 5.50 MAJOR LEFTS SB 5.00 5.00 0.00 5.00 NB 5.00 5.00 0.00 5.00 MINOR THROUGHS EB 6.00 6.00 0.00 6.00 WB 6.00 6.00 0.00 6.00 MINOR LEFTS EB 6.50 6.50 0.00 6.50 WB 6.50 6.50 0.00 6.50 IDENTIFYING INFORMATION --------------------------------------------------------------------- NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET. . . . . . Freeway Frontage Road NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET. . . . Little League Drive DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALYSIS. . . . . 11-18-1991 ; AM Peak Hour OTHER INFORMATION. . . . Cumulative Growth 1996 CAPACITY AND LEVEL-OF-SERVICE Page-3 --------------------------------------------------------------------- POTEN- ACTUAL FLOW- TIAL MOVEMENT SHARED RESERVE RATE CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY MOVEMENT v(pcph) c (pcph) c (pcph) c (pcph) c = c - v LOS p M SH R SH ------- -------- --------- ------------ ------------ --- MINOR STREET EB LEFT 0 839 823 > 823 > 823 > A THROUGH 0 934 927 > 998 927 > 997 927 >A A RIGHT 1 998 998 > 998 > 997 > A MINOR STREET WB LEFT 6 856 849 > 849 > 844 > A THROUGH 0 934 927 > 962 927 > 937 927 >A A RIGHT 20 1000 1000 > 1000 > 980 > A MAJOR STREET SB LEFT 12 1000 1000 1000 988 A NB LEFT 0 1000 1000 1000 1000 A IDENTIFYING INFORMATION --------------------------------------------------------------------- NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET. . . . . . Freeway Frontage Road NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET. . . . Little League Drive DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALYSIS. . . . . 11-18-1991 ; AM Peak Hour OTHER INFORMATION. . . . Cumulative Growth 1996 1985 HCM: UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS Page-1 ********************************************************************* IDENTIFYING INFORMATION --------------------------------------------------------------------- AVERAGE RUNNING SPEED, MAJOR STREET. . 30 PEAK HOUR FACTOR. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I AREA POPULATION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150000 NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET. . . . . . . . . Freeway Frontage Road NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET. . . . . . . Little League Drive NAME OF THE ANALYST. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . R. Ammari DATE OF THE ANALYSIS (mm/dd/yy) . . . . . . 11-18-1991 TIME PERIOD ANALYZED. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . PM Peak Hour OTHER INFORMATION. . . . Cumulative Growth 1996 INTERSECTION TYPE AND CONTROL --------------------------------------------------------------------- INTERSECTION TYPE: 4-LEG MAJOR STREET DIRECTION: NORTH/SOUTH CONTROL TYPE EASTBOUND: STOP SIGN CONTROL TYPE WESTBOUND: STOP SIGN TRAFFIC VOLUMES --------------------------------------------------------------------- EB WB NB SB ---- ---- ---- ---- LEFT 0 10 1 8 THRU 1 8 15 13 RIGHT 0 27 0 0 NUMBER OF LANES AND LANE USAGE --------------------------------------------------------------------- EB WB NB SB ------- ------- ------- ------- LANES 1 1 1 1 ADJUSTMENT FACTORS Page-2 --------------------------------------------------------------------- PERCENT RIGHT TURN CURB RADIUS (ft) ACCELERATION LANE GRADE ANGLE FOR RIGHT TURNS FOR RIGHT TURNS ------- ---------- ---------------- ----------------- EASTBOUND 0.00 90 20 N WESTBOUND 0.00 90 20 N NORTHBOUND 0.00 90 20 N SOUTHBOUND 0.00 90 20 N VEHICLE COMPOSITION --------------------------------------------------------------------- SU TRUCKS % COMBINATION AND RV'S VEHICLES % MOTORCYCLES ----------- ------------- ------------- EASTBOUND 0 0 0 WESTBOUND 0 0 0 NORTHBOUND 0 0 0 SOUTHBOUND 0 0 0 CRITICAL GAPS --------------------------------------------------------------------- TABULAR VALUES ADJUSTED SIGHT DIST. FINAL (Table 10-2) VALUE ADJUSTMENT CRITICAL GAP -------------- -------- ----------- ------------ MINOR RIGHTS EB 5.50 5.50 0.00 5.50 WB 5.50 5.50 0.00 5.50 MAJOR LEFTS SB 5.00 5.00 0.00 5.00 NB 5.00 5.00 0.00 5.00 MINOR THROUGHS EB 6.00 6.00 0.00 6.00 WB 6.00 6.00 0.00 6.00 MINOR LEFTS EB 6.50 6.50 0.00 6.50 WB 6.50 6.50 0.00 6.50 IDENTIFYING INFORMATION --------------------------------------------------------------------- NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET. . . . . . Freeway Frontage Road NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET. . . . Little League Drive DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALYSIS. . . . . 11-18-1991 ; PM Peak Hour OTHER INFORMATION. . . . Cumulative Growth 1996 CAPACITY AND LEVEL-OF-SERVICE Page-3 --------------------------------------------------------------------- POTEN- ACTUAL FLOW- TIAL MOVEMENT SHARED RESERVE RATE CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY MOVEMENT v(pcph) c (pcph) c (pcph) c (pcph) c = c - v LOS p M SH R SH ------- -------- --------- ------------ ------------ --- MINOR STREET EB LEFT 0 848 823 > 823 > 823 > A THROUGH 1 961 955 > 955 955 > 954 954 >A A RIGHT 0 999 999 > 999 > 999 > A MINOR STREET WB LEFT 11 882 876 > 876 > 865 > A THROUGH 9 961 955 > 961 955 > 912 947 >A A RIGHT 30 999 999 > 999 > 970 > A MAJOR STREET SB LEFT 9 1000 1000 1000 991 A NB LEFT 1 1000 1000 1000 999 A IDENTIFYING INFORMATION --------------------------------------------------------------------- NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET. . . . . . Freeway Frontage Road NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET. . . . Little League Drive DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALYSIS. . . . . 11-18-1991 ; PM Peak Hour OTHER INFORMATION. . . . Cumulative Growth 1996 1985 HCM: UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS Page-1 ********************************************************************* IDENTIFYING INFORMATION --------------------------------------------------------------------- AVERAGE RUNNING SPEED, MAJOR STREET. . 30 PEAK HOUR FACTOR. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I AREA POPULATION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150000 NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET. . . . . . . . . Freeway Frontage Road NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET. . . . . . . Little League Drive NAME OF THE ANALYST. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . R. Ammari DATE OF THE ANALYSIS (mm/dd/yy) . . . . . . 11-18-1991 TIME PERIOD ANALYZED. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . AM Peak Hour OTHER INFORMATION. . . . Cumulative Growth 2001 INTERSECTION TYPE AND CONTROL --------------------------------------------------------------------- INTERSECTION TYPE: 4-LEG MAJOR STREET DIRECTION: NORTH/SOUTH CONTROL TYPE EASTBOUND: STOP SIGN CONTROL TYPE WESTBOUND: STOP SIGN TRAFFIC VOLUMES --------------------------------------------------------------------- EB WB NB SB ---- ---- ---- ---- LEFT 0 7 0 11 THRU 0 0 10 42 RIGHT 2 23 0 0 NUMBER OF LANES AND LANE USAGE --------------------------------------------------------------------- EB WB NB SB ------- ------- ------- ------- LANES 1 1 1 1 ADJUSTMENT FACTORS Page-2 --------------------------------------------------------------------- PERCENT RIGHT TURN CURB RADIUS (ft) ACCELERATION LANE GRADE ANGLE FOR RIGHT TURNS FOR RIGHT TURNS ------- ---------- ---------------- ----------------- EASTBOUND 0.00 90 20 N WESTBOUND 0.00 90 20 N NORTHBOUND 0.00 90 20 N SOUTHBOUND 0.00 90 20 N VEHICLE COMPOSITION --------------------------------------------------------------------- SU TRUCKS % COMBINATION AND RV'S VEHICLES % MOTORCYCLES ----------- ------------- ------------- EASTBOUND 0 0 0 WESTBOUND 0 0 0 NORTHBOUND 0 0 0 SOUTHBOUND 0 0 0 CRITICAL GAPS --------------------------------------------------------------------- TABULAR VALUES ADJUSTED SIGHT DIST. FINAL (Table 10-2) VALUE ADJUSTMENT CRITICAL GAP -------------- -------- ----------- ------------ MINOR RIGHTS EB 5.50 5.50 0.00 5.50 WB 5.50 5.50 0.00 5.50 MAJOR LEFTS SB 5.00 5.00 0.00 5.00 NB 5.00 5.00 0.00 5.00 MINOR THROUGHS EB 6.00 6.00 0.00 6.00 WB 6.00 6.00 0.00 6.00 MINOR LEFTS EB 6.50 6.50 0.00 6.50 WB 6.50 6.50 0.00 6.50 IDENTIFYING INFORMATION --------------------------------------------------------------------- NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET. . . . . . Freeway Frontage Road NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET. . . . Little League Drive DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALYSIS. . . . . 11-18-1991 ; AM Peak Hour OTHER INFORMATION. . . . Cumulative Growth 2001 CAPACITY AND LEVEL-OF-SERVICE Page-3 --------------------------------------------------------------------- POTEN- ACTUAL FLOW- TIAL MOVEMENT SHARED RESERVE RATE CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY MOVEMENT v(pcph) c (pcph) c (pcph) c (pcph) c = c - v LOS p M SH R SH ------- -------- --------- ------------ ------------ --- MINOR STREET EB LEFT 0 834 815 > 815 > 815 > A THROUGH 0 934 927 > 998 927 > 996 927 >A A RIGHT 2 998 998 > 998 > 996 > A MINOR STREET WB LEFT 8 855 848 > 848 > 840 > A THROUGH 0 934 927 > 959 927 > 926 927 >A A RIGHT 25 1000 1000 > 1000 > 974 > A MAJOR STREET SB LEFT 12 1000 1000 1000 988 A NB LEFT 0 1000 1000 1000 1000 A IDENTIFYING INFORMATION --------------------------------------------------------------------- NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET. . . . . . Freeway Frontage Road NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET. . . . Little League Drive DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALYSIS. . . . . 11-18-1991 ; AM Peak Hour OTHER INFORMATION. . . . Cumulative Growth 2001 1985 HCM: UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS Page-1 ********************************************************************* IDENTIFYING INFORMATION --------------------------------------------------------------- AVERAGE RUNNING SPEED, MAJOR STREET. . 30 PEAK HOUR FACTOR. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 AREA POPULATION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150000 NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET. . . . . . . . . Freeway Frontage Road NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET. . . . . . . Little League Drive NAME OF THE ANALYST. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . R. Ammari DATE OF THE ANALYSIS (mm/dd/yy) . . . . . . 11-18-1991 TIME PERIOD ANALYZED. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . PM Peak Hour OTHER INFORMATION. . . . Cumulative Growth 2001 INTERSECTION TYPE AND CONTROL ----------------------------------------------------------------- INTERSECTION TYPE: 4-LEG MAJOR STREET DIRECTION: NORTH/SOUTH CONTROL TYPE EASTBOUND: STOP SIGN CONTROL TYPE WESTBOUND: STOP SIGN TRAFFIC VOLUMES --------------------------------------------------------------------- EB WB NB SB LEFT 0 13 2 10 THRU 2 10 20 16 RIGHT 0 34 0 0 NUMBER OF LANES AND LANE USAGE --------------------------------------------------------------------- EB WB NB SB LANES 1 1 1 1 ADJUSTMENT FACTORS Page-2 --------------------------------------------------------------------- PERCENT RIGHT TURN CURB RADIUS (ft) ACCELERATION LANE GRADE ANGLE FOR RIGHT TURNS FOR RIGHT TURNS ------- ---------- ---------------- ----------------- EASTBOUND 0.00 90 20 N WESTBOUND 0.00 90 20 N NORTHBOUND 0.00 90 20 N SOUTHBOUND 0.00 90 20 N VEHICLE COMPOSITION --------------------------------------------------------------------- SU TRUCKS % COMBINATION AND RV'S VEHICLES % MOTORCYCLES ----------- ------------- ------------- EASTBOUND 0 0 0 WESTBOUND 0 0 0 NORTHBOUND 0 0 0 SOUTHBOUND 0 0 0 CRITICAL GAPS --------------------------------------------------------------------- TABULAR VALUES ADJUSTED SIGHT DIST. FINAL (Table 10-2) VALUE ADJUSTMENT CRITICAL GAP -------------- -------- ----------- ------------ MINOR RIGHTS EB 5.50 5.50 0.00 5.50 WB 5.50 5.50 0.00 5.50 MAJOR LEFTS SB 5.00 5.00 0.00 5.00 NB 5.00 5.00 0.00 5.00 MINOR THROUGHS EB 6.00 6.00 0.00 6.00 WB 6.00 6.00 0.00 6.00 MINOR LEFTS EB 6.50 6.50 0.00 6.50 WB 6.50 6.50 0.00 6.50 IDENTIFYING INFORMATION --------------------------------------------------------------------- NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET. . . . . . Freeway Frontage Road NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET. . . . Little League Drive DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALYSIS. . . . . 11-18-1991 ; PM Peak Hour OTHER INFORMATION. . . . Cumulative Growth 2001 CAPACITY AND LEVEL-OF-SERVICE Page-3 --------------------------------------------------------------------- POTEN- ACTUAL FLOW- TIAL MOVEMENT SHARED RESERVE RATE CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY MOVEMENT v(pcph) c (pcph) c (pcph) c (pcph) c = c - v LOS p M SH R SH ------- -------- --------- ------------ ------------ --- MINOR STREET EB LEFT 0 828 797 > 797 > 797 > A THROUGH 2 950 942 > 942 942 > 940 940 >A A RIGHT 0 999 999 > 999 > 999 > A MINOR STREET WB LEFT 14 870 862 > 862 > 848 > A THROUGH 11 950 942 > 954 942 > 892 931 >A A RIGHT 37 999 999 > 999 > 962 > A MAJOR STREET SB LEFT 11 1000 1000 1000 989 A NB LEFT 2 1000 1000 1000 998 A IDENTIFYING INFORMATION --------------------------------------------------------------------- NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET. . . . . . Freeway Frontage Road NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET. . . . Little League Drive DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALYSIS. . . . . 11-18-1991 ; PM Peak Hour OTHER INFORMATION. . . . Cumulative Growth 2001 1985 HCM: UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS Page-1 ********************************************************************* IDENTIFYING INFORMATION --------------------------------------------------------------------- AVERAGE RUNNING SPEED, MAJOR STREET. . 30 PEAK HOUR FACTOR. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 AREA POPULATION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150000 NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET. . . . . . . . . Freeway Frontage Road NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET. . . . . . . Little League Drive NAME OF THE ANALYST. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . R. Ammari DATE OF THE ANALYSIS (mm/dd/yy) . . . . . . 11-18-1991 TIME PERIOD ANALYZED. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . AM Peak Hour OTHER INFORMATION. . . . Cumulative Growth 1996 + Project INTERSECTION TYPE AND CONTROL --------------------------------------------------------------------- INTERSECTION TYPE: 4-LEG MAJOR STREET DIRECTION: NORTH/SOUTH CONTROL TYPE EASTBOUND: STOP SIGN CONTROL TYPE WESTBOUND: STOP SIGN TRAFFIC VOLUMES --------------------------------------------------------------------- EB WB NB SB ---- ---- ---- ---- LEFT 0 8 0 20 THRU 0 0 8 33 RIGHT 1 24 4 0 NUMBER OF LANES AND LANE USAGE --------------------------------------------------------------------- EB WB NB SB ------- ------- ------- ------- LANES 1 1 1 1 ADJUSTMENT FACTORS Page-2 --------------------------------------------------------------------- PERCENT RIGHT TURN CURB RADIUS (ft) ACCELERATION LANE GRADE ANGLE FOR RIGHT TURNS FOR RIGHT TURNS ------- ---------- ---------------- ----------------- EASTBOUND 0.00 90 20 N WESTBOUND 0.00 90 20 N NORTHBOUND 0.00 90 20 N SOUTHBOUND 0.00 90 20 N VEHICLE COMPOSITION --------------------------------------------------------------------- SU TRUCKS % COMBINATION AND RV'S VEHICLES q MOTORCYCLES ----------- ------------- ------------- EASTBOUND 0 0 0 WESTBOUND 0 0 0 NORTHBOUND 0 0 0 SOUTHBOUND 0 0 0 CRITICAL GAPS --------------------------------------------------------------------- TABULAR VALUES ADJUSTED SIGHT DIST. FINAL (Table 10-2) VALUE ADJUSTMENT CRITICAL GAP -------------- -------- ----------- ------------ MINOR RIGHTS EB 5.50 5.50 0.00 5.50 WB 5.50 5.50 0.00 5.50 MAJOR LEFTS SB 5.00 5.00 0.00 5.00 NB 5.00 5.00 0.00 5.00 MINOR THROUGHS EB 6.00 6.00 0.00 6.00 WB 6.00 6.00 0.00 6.00 MINOR LEFTS EB 6.50 6.50 0.00 6.50 WB 6.50 6.50 0.00 6.50 IDENTIFYING INFORMATION --------------------------------------------------------------------- NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET. . . . . . Freeway Frontage Road NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET. . . . Little League Drive DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALYSIS. . . . . 11-18-1991 ; AM Peak Hour OTHER INFORMATION. . . . Cumulative Growth 1996 + Project CAPACITY AND LEVEL-OF-SERVICE Page-3 --------------------------------------------------------------------- POTEN- ACTUAL FLOW- TIAL MOVEMENT SHARED RESERVE RATE CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY MOVEMENT v(pcph) c (pcph) c (pcph) c (pcph) c = c - v LOS p M SH R SH ------- -------- --------- ------------ ------------ --- MINOR STREET EB LEFT 0 831 807 > 807 > 807 > A THROUGH 0 932 919 > 998 919 > 997 919 >A A RIGHT 1 998 998 > 998 > 997 > A MINOR STREET WB LEFT 9 856 844 > 844 > 835 > A THROUGH 0 934 922 > 956 922 > 920 922 >A A RIGHT 26 1000 1000 > 1000 > 973 > A MAJOR STREET SB LEFT 22 1000 1000 1000 978 A NB LEFT 0 1000 1000 1000 1000 A IDENTIFYING INFORMATION --------------------------------------------------------------------- NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET. . . . . . Freeway Frontage Road NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET. . . . Little League Drive DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALYSIS. . . . . 11-18-1991 ; AM Peak Hour OTHER INFORMATION. . . . Cumulative Growth 1996 + Project 1985 HCM: UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS Page-1 IDENTIFYING INFORMATION --------------------------------------------------------------------- AVERAGE RUNNING SPEED, MAJOR STREET. . 30 PEAK HOUR FACTOR. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 AREA POPULATION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150000 NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET. . . . . . . . . Freeway Frontage Road NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET. . . . . . . Little League Drive NAME OF THE ANALYST. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . R. Ammari DATE OF THE ANALYSIS (mm/dd/yy) . . . . . . 11-18-1991 TIME PERIOD ANALYZED. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . PM Peak Hour OTHER INFORMATION. . . . Cumulative Growth 1996 + Project INTERSECTION TYPE AND CONTROL --------------------------------------------------------------------- INTERSECTION TYPE: 4-LEG MAJOR STREET DIRECTION: NORTH/SOUTH CONTROL TYPE EASTBOUND: STOP SIGN CONTROL TYPE WESTBOUND: STOP SIGN TRAFFIC VOLUMES --------------------------------------------------------------------- EB WB NB SB ---- ---- ---- ---- LEFT 0 26 1 46 THRU 1 8 15 13 RIGHT 0 65 15 0 NUMBER OF LANES AND LANE USAGE --------------------------------------------------------------------- EB WB NB SB ------- ------- ------- ------- LANES 1 1 1 1 ADJUSTMENT FACTORS Page-2 --------------------------------------------------------------------- PERCENT RIGHT TURN CURB RADIUS (ft) ACCELERATION LANE GRADE ANGLE FOR RIGHT TURNS FOR RIGHT TURNS ------- ---------- ---------------- ----------------- EASTBOUND 0.00 90 20 N WESTBOUND 0.00 90 20 N NORTHBOUND 0.00 90 20 N SOUTHBOUND 0.00 90 20 N VEHICLE COMPOSITION --------------------------------------------------------------------- SU TRUCKS % COMBINATION AND RV'S VEHICLES % MOTORCYCLES ----------- ------------- ------------- EASTBOUND 0 0 0 WESTBOUND 0 0 0 NORTHBOUND 0 0 0 SOUTHBOUND 0 0 0 CRITICAL GAPS --------------------------------------------------------------------- TABULAR VALUES ADJUSTED SIGHT DIST. FINAL (Table 10-2) VALUE ADJUSTMENT CRITICAL GAP -------------- -------- ----------- ------------ MINOR RIGHTS EB 5.50 5.50 0.00 5.50 WB 5.50 5.50 0.00 5.50 MAJOR LEFTS SB 5.00 5.00 0.00 5.00 NB 5.00 5.00 0.00 5.00 MINOR THROUGHS EB 6.00 6.00 0.00 6.00 WB 6.00 6.00 0.00 6.00 MINOR LEFTS EB 6.50 6.50 0.00 6.50 WB 6.50 6.50 0.00 6.50 IDENTIFYING INFORMATION --------------------------------------------------------------------- NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET. . . . . . Freeway Frontage Road NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET. . . . Little League Drive DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALYSIS. . . . . 11-18-1991 ; PM Peak Hour OTHER INFORMATION. . . . Cumulative Growth 1996 + Project CAPACITY AND LEVEL-OF-SERVICE Page-3 --------------------------------------------------------------------- POTEN- ACTUAL FLOW- TIAL MOVEMENT SHARED RESERVE RATE CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY MOVEMENT v(pcph) c (pcph) c (pcph) c (pcph) c = c - v LOS p M SH R SH ------- -------- --------- ------------ ------------ --- MINOR STREET EB LEFT 0 757 698 > 698 > 698 > A THROUGH 1 906 877 > 877 877 > 876 876 >A A RIGHT 0 999 999 > 999 > 999 > A MINOR STREET WB LEFT 29 837 810 > 810 > 781 > A THROUGH 9 913 885 > 932 885 > 823 876 >A A RIGHT 72 999 999 > 999 > 927 > A MAJOR STREET SB LEFT 51 1000 1000 1000 949 A NB LEFT 1 1000 1000 1000 999 A IDENTIFYING INFORMATION --------------------------------------------------------------------- NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET. . . . . . Freeway Frontage Road NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET. . . . Little League Drive DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALYSIS.. . . . 11-18-1991 ; PM Peak Hour OTHER INFORMATION. . . . Cumulative Growth 1996 + Project 1985 HCM: UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS Page-1 ********************************************************************* IDENTIFYING INFORMATION --------------------------------------------------------------------- AVERAGE RUNNING SPEED, MAJOR STREET. . 30 PEAK HOUR FACTOR. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 AREA POPULATION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150000 NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET. . . . . . . . . Freeway Frontage Road NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET. . . . . . . Little League Drive NAME OF THE ANALYST. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . R. Ammari DATE OF THE ANALYSIS (mm/dd/yy) . . . . . . 11-18-1991 TIME PERIOD ANALYZED. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . AM Peak Hour OTHER INFORMATION. . . . Cumulative Growth 2001 + Project INTERSECTION TYPE AND CONTROL --------------------------------------------------------------------- INTERSECTION TYPE: 4-LEG MAJOR STREET DIRECTION: NORTH/SOUTH CONTROL TYPE EASTBOUND: STOP SIGN CONTROL TYPE WESTBOUND: STOP SIGN TRAFFIC VOLUMES --------------------------------------------------------------------- EB WB NB SB ---- ---- ---- ---- LEFT 0 9 0 23 THRU 0 0 10 42 RIGHT 2 29 4 0 NUMBER OF LANES AND LANE USAGE --------------------------------------------------------------------- EB WB NB SB ------- ------- ------- ------- LANES 1 1 1 1 ADJUSTMENT FACTORS Page-2 --------------------------------------------------------------------- PERCENT RIGHT TURN CURB RADIUS (ft) ACCELERATION LANE GRADE ANGLE FOR RIGHT TURNS FOR RIGHT TURNS ------- ---------- ---------------- ----------------- EASTBOUND 0.00 90 20 N WESTBOUND 0.00 90 20 N NORTHBOUND 0.00 90 20 N SOUTHBOUND 0.00 90 20 N VEHICLE COMPOSITION --------------------------------------------------------------------- SU TRUCKS % COMBINATION AND RV'S VEHICLES % MOTORCYCLES ----------- ------------- ------------- EASTBOUND 0 0 0 WESTBOUND 0 0 0 NORTHBOUND 0 0 0 SOUTHBOUND 0 0 0 CRITICAL GAPS --------------------------------------------------------------------- TABULAR VALUES ADJUSTED SIGHT DIST. FINAL (Table 10-2) VALUE ADJUSTMENT CRITICAL GAP -------------- -------- ----------- ------------ MINOR RIGHTS EB 5.50 5.50 0.00 5.50 WB 5.50 5.50 0.00 5.50 MAJOR LEFTS SB 5.00 5.00 0.00 5.00 NB 5.00 5.00 0.00 5.00 MINOR THROUGHS EB 6.00 6.00 0.00 6.00 WB 6.00 6.00 0.00 6.00 MINOR LEFTS EB 6.50 6.50 0.00 6.50 WB 6.50 6.50 0.00 6.50 IDENTIFYING INFORMATION --------------------------------------------------------------------- NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET. . . . . . Freeway Frontage Road NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET. . . . Little League Drive DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALYSIS. . . . . 11-18-1991 ; AM Peak Hour OTHER INFORMATION. . . . Cumulative Growth 2001 + Project CAPACITY AND LEVEL-OF-SERVICE Page-3 --------------------------------------------------------------------- POTEN- ACTUAL FLOW- TIAL MOVEMENT SHARED RESERVE RATE CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY MOVEMENT v(pcph) c (pcph) c (pcph) c (pcph) c = c - v LOS P M SH R SH ------- -------- --------- ------------ ------------ --- MINOR STREET EB LEFT 0 812 784 > 784 > 784 > A THROUGH 0 917 903 > 998 903 > 996 903 >A A RIGHT 2 998 998 > 998 > 996 > A MINOR STREET WB LEFT 10 841 827 > 827 > 817 > A THROUGH 0 919 905 > 952 905 > 911 905 >A A RIGHT 32 999 999 > 999 > 968 > A MAJOR STREET SB LEFT 25 1000 1000 1000 975 A NB LEFT 0 1000 1000 1000 1000 A IDENTIFYING INFORMATION --------------------------------------------------------------------- NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET. . . . . . Freeway Frontage Road NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET. . . . Little League Drive DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALYSIS. . . . . 11-18-1991 ; AM Peak Hour OTHER INFORMATION. . . . Cumulative Growth 2001 + Project 1985 HCM: UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS Page-1 ********************************************************************* IDENTIFYING INFORMATION --------------------------------------------------------------------- AVERAGE RUNNING SPEED, MAJOR STREET. . 30 PEAK HOUR FACTOR. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 AREA POPULATION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150000 NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET. . . . . . . . . Freeway Frontage Road NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET. . . . . . . Little League Drive NAME OF THE ANALYST. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . R. Ammari DATE OF THE ANALYSIS (mm/dd/yy) . . . . . . 11-18-1991 TIME PERIOD ANALYZED. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . PM Peak Hour OTHER INFORMATION. . . . Cumulative Growth 2001 + Project INTERSECTION TYPE AND CONTROL --------------------------------------------------------------------- INTERSECTION TYPE: 4-LEG MAJOR STREET DIRECTION: NORTH/SOUTH CONTROL TYPE EASTBOUND: STOP SIGN CONTROL TYPE WESTBOUND: STOP SIGN TRAFFIC VOLUMES --------------------------------------------------------------------- EB WB NB SB ---- ---- ---- ---- LEFT 0 28 2 48 THRU 2 10 20 16 RIGHT 0 73 15 0 NUMBER OF LANES AND LANE USAGE --------------------------------------------------------------------- EB WB NB SB ------- ------- ------- ------- LANES 1 1 1 1 ADJUSTMENT FACTORS Page-2 --------------------------------------------------------------------- PERCENT RIGHT TURN CURB RADIUS (ft) ACCELERATION LANE GRADE ANGLE FOR RIGHT TURNS FOR RIGHT TURNS ------- ---------- ---------------- ----------------- EASTBOUND 0.00 90 20 N WESTBOUND 0.00 90 20 N NORTHBOUND 0.00 90 20 N SOUTHBOUND 0.00 90 20 N VEHICLE COMPOSITION --------------------------------------------------------------------- SU TRUCKS % COMBINATION AND RV'S VEHICLES % MOTORCYCLES ----------- ------------- ------------- EASTBOUND 0 0 0 WESTBOUND 0 0 0 NORTHBOUND 0 0 0 SOUTHBOUND 0 0 0 CRITICAL GAPS --------------------------------------------------------------------- TABULAR VALUES ADJUSTED SIGHT DIST. FINAL (Table 10-2) VALUE ADJUSTMENT CRITICAL GAP -------------- -------- ----------- ------------ MINOR RIGHTS EB 5.50 5.50 0.00 5.50 WB 5.50 5.50 0.00 5.50 MAJOR LEFTS SB 5.00 5.00 0.00 5.00 NB 5.00 5.00 0.00 5.00 MINOR THROUGHS EB 6.00 6.00 0.00 6.00 WB 6.00 6.00 0.00 6.00 MINOR LEFTS EB 6.50 6.50 0.00 6.50 WB 6.50 6.50 0.00 6.50 IDENTIFYING INFORMATION --------------------------------------------------------------------- NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET. . . . . . Freeway Frontage Road NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET. . . . Little League Drive DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALYSIS. . . . . 11-18-1991 ; PM Peak Hour OTHER INFORMATION. . . . Cumulative Growth 2001 + Project CAPACITY AND LEVEL-OF-SERVICE Page-3 --------------------------------------------------------------------- POTEN- ACTUAL FLOW- TIAL MOVEMENT SHARED RESERVE RATE CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY MOVEMENT v(pcph) c (pcph) c (pcph) c (pcph) c = c - v LOS p M SH R SH ------- -------- --------- ------------ ------------ --- MINOR STREET EB LEFT 0 736 672 > 672 > 672 > A THROUGH 2 894 865 > 865 865 > 862 862 >A A RIGHT 0 999 999 > 999 > 999 > A MINOR STREET WB LEFT 31 825 796 > 796 > 765 > A THROUGH 11 902 872 > 927 872 > 805 861 >A A RIGHT 80 999 999 > 999 > 918 > A MAJOR STREET SB LEFT 53 1000 1000 1000 947 A NB LEFT 2 1000 1000 1000 998 A IDENTIFYING INFORMATION --------------------------------------------------------------------- NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET. . . . . . Freeway Frontage Road NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET. . . . Little League Drive DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALYSIS.. . . . 11-18-1991 ; PM Peak Hour OTHER INFORMATION. . . . Cumulative Growth 2001 + Project 1985 HCM: UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS IDENTIFYING INFORMATION ------------------------- AVERAGE RUNNING SPEED, MAJOR STREET. . 30 PEAK HOUR FACTOR. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 AREA POPULATION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150000 NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET. . . . . . . . . Freeway Frontage Road NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET. . . . . . . Little League Drive NAME OF THE ANALYST. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . R. Ammari DATE OF THE ANALYSIS (mm/dd/yy) . . . . . . 11-18-1991 TIME PERIOD ANALYZED. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . AM Peak Hour OTHER INFORMATION. . . . Cumulative Growth 1996 + Maximum Intensity INTERSECTION TYPE AND CONTROL -------------------------- INTERSECTION TYPE: 4-LEG MAJOR STREET DIRECTION: NORTH/SOUTH CONTROL TYPE EASTBOUND: STOP SIGN CONTROL TYPE WESTBOUND: STOP SIGN TRAFFIC VOLUMES -------------------------- EB WB NB SB LEFT 0 10 0 30 THRU 0 0 8 33 RIGHT 1 30 9 0 NUMBER OF LANES AND LANE USAGE -------------------------- EB WB NB SB ------- LANES ------- 1 1 1 ----i-- ADJUSTMENT FACTORS ------------------------------ Page-2 PERCENT RIGHT TURN CURB RADIUS (ft) ACCELERATION LANE GRADE ANGLE FOR RIGHT TURNS FOR RIGHT TURNS - EASTBOUND 0.00- -----90--- ---- - -------- 20 N ----- WESTBOUND 0.00 gp 20 N NORTHBOUND 0.00 gp 20 N SOUTHBOUND 0.00 gp 20 N VEHICLE COMPOSITION SU TRUCKS % COMBINATION AND-RV'S VEHICLES q MOTORCYCLES EASTBOUND 0 -0----- 0 WESTBOUND 0 0 0 NORTHBOUND 0 0 0 SOUTHBOUND 0 0 0 CRITICAL GAPS TABULAR VALUES ADJUSTED SIGHT DIST. FINAL -(Table-10-2) VALUE ADJUSTMENT CRITICAL GAP----- --- - MINOR RIGHTS ----- EB 5.50 5.50 0.00 ---- WB 5.50 55 5.50 0.00 5.50 MAJOR LEFTS . 0 SB 5.00 5.00 0.00 NB 5.00 500 5.00 MINOR THROUGHS . 0.00 5.00 EB 6.00 6.00 0.00 WB 6.00 600 6.00 MINOR LEFTS . 0.00 6.00 EB 6.50 6.50 0.00 WB 6.50 650 6.50 IDENTIFYING INFORMATION . 0.00 6.50 ------------------------ ---------------- NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET. . . . . . - ------------- NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET. . . Freeway Frontage Road. Little DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALYSIS. . . . . 11-18-1991gUeAMrPeak Hour OTHER INFORMATION. . . . Cumulative Growth 1996 + Maximum Intensity CAPACITY AND LEVEL-OF-SERVICE ------------------------------------------------------ Page-3 POTEN- ACTUAL FLOW- TIAL MOVEMENT SHARED RATE CAPACITY CAPACITY RESERVE MOVEMENT v(pcph) c (pcph) c (pcph) cCAPACITY CAPACITY P M SH(pcph) c = c - v LOS ------- R SH -- ------------ --- MINOR STREET EB LEFT 0 810 778 > THROUGH 0 916 778 > 778 > A RIGHT 1 898 > 998 898 > 997 898 >A A 998 998 > 998 > 997 > q MINOR STREET WB LEFT 11 844 826 > THROUGH 0 921 826 > 815 > q RIGHT 33 902 > 950 902 > 906 902 >A A 999 999 > 999 > 966 > q MAJOR STREET SB LEFT 33 1000 1000 NB LEFT 0 1000 1000 1000 967 q 1000 1000 q IDENTIFYING INFORMATION NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET. . . . . . Freeway Fronta a Road ------------- NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET. . . . g DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALYSIS. . . . . 11-18-1991 League; AM Drive Hour OTHER INFORMATION. . . . Cumulative Growth 1996 + Maximum Intensity 1985 HCM: UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS IDENTIFYING INFORMATION ------------- AVERAGE RUNNING SPEED, MAJOR STREET. . 30 PEAK HOUR FACTOR. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 AREA POPULATION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150000 NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET. . . . . . . . . Freeway Frontage Road NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET. . . . . . . Little League Drive NAME OF THE ANALYST. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . R. Ammari DATE OF THE ANALYSIS (mm/dd/yy) . . . . . . 11-18-1991 TIME PERIOD ANALYZED. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . PM Peak Hour OTHER INFORMATION. . . . Cumulative Growth 1996 + Maximum Intensity INTERSECTION TYPE AND CONTROL INTERSECTION TYPE: 4-LEG MAJOR STREET DIRECTION: NORTH/SOUTH CONTROL TYPE EASTBOUND: STOP SIGN CONTROL TYPE WESTBOUND: STOP SIGN TRAFFIC VOLUMES EB WB NB SB ---- -- LEFT 0 42 -- 1 --88 THRU 1 8 15 13 RIGHT 0 107 32 0 NUMBER OF LANES AND LANE USAGE ---EB-- WB NB SB LANES ----i-- ADJUSTMENT FACTORS ---------------------------------------------------------------Page-2 PERCENT RIGHT TURN CURB RADIUS (ft) ACCELERATION LANE -GRADE ANGLE FOR RIGHT TURNS FOR RIGHT TURNS EASTBOUND 0.00 -20- WESTBOUND 0.00 90 N 20 N NORTHBOUND 0.00 90 20 N SOUTHBOUND 0.00 90 20 N VEHICLE COMPOSITION SU TRUCKS % COMBINATION AND RV'S VEHICLES % MOTORCYCLES EASTBOUND 0 --------0----- -------- WESTBOUND 0 0 0 NORTHBOUND 0 0 0 SOUTHBOUND 0 0 0 CRITICAL GAPS TABULAR VALUES ADJUSTED SIGHT DIST. FINAL - (Table-10-2) VALUE ADJUSTMENT CRITICAL GAP MINOR RIGHTS ------ -------- ----------- ------------ EB 5.50 5.50 WB 5.50 0.00 5.50 MAJOR LEFTS 5.50 0.00 5.50 SB 5.00 5.00 0.00 NB 5.00 5.00 5.00 MINOR THROUGHS 0.00 5.00 EB 6.00 6.00 0.00 WB 6.00 6.00 6.00 MINOR LEFTS 0.00 6.00 EB 6.50 6.50 0.00 WB 6.50 650 6.50 IDENTIFYING INFORMATION . 0.00 6.50 NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET. . . . . . - Freeway Frontage Road --------------- NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET. . . . DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALYSIS. , . Little League Drive OTHER INFORMATION. . . . Cumulative Growth 819961+'MaximumkIntensity CAPACITY AND LEVEL-OF-SERVICE ---------------------------------------------------------------Page_3 POTEN- ACTUAL FLOW- TIAL MOVEMENT SHARED RESERVE RATE CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY MOVEMENT v(pcph) cp(pcph) cM(pcph) c (pcph) c = c - v LOS SH R SH MINOR STREET EB LEFT 0 666 576 > 576 > 576 > A THROUGH 1 846 796 > 796 796 > 795 795 >A A RIGHT 0 999 999 > 999 > 999 > A MINOR STREET WB LEFT 46 786 739 > 739 > 693 > A THROUGH 9 862 811 > 903 811 > 730 803 >A A RIGHT 118 998 998 > 998 > 881 > A MAJOR STREET SB LEFT 97 1000 1000 1000 903 A NB LEFT 1 1000 1000 1000 999 A IDENTIFYING INFORMATION NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET. . . . . . Freeway Frontage Road NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET. . . . Little League Drive DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALYSIS. . . . . 11-18-1991 ; PM Peak Hour OTHER INFORMATION. . . . Cumulative Growth 1996 + Maximum Intensity 1985 HCM: UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS IDENTIFYING INFORMATION ------------ AVERAGE RUNNING SPEED, MAJOR STREET. . 30 PEAK HOUR FACTOR. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 AREA POPULATION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150000 NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET. . . . . . . . . Freeway Frontage Road NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET. . . . . . . Little League Drive NAME OF THE ANALYST. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . R. Ammari DATE OF THE ANALYSIS (mm/dd/yy) . . . . . . 11-18-1991 TIME PERIOD ANALYZED. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . AM Peak Hour OTHER INFORMATION. . . . Cumulative Growth 2001 + Maximum Intensity INTERSECTION TYPE AND CONTROL ------------------------ INTERSECTION TYPE: 4-LEG MAJOR STREET DIRECTION: NORTH/SOUTH CONTROL TYPE EASTBOUND: STOP SIGN CONTROL TYPE WESTBOUND: STOP SIGN TRAFFIC VOLUMES EB WB NB SB LEFT 0 12 0 33 THRU 0 0 10 42 RIGHT 2 35 9 0 NUMBER OF LANES AND LANE USAGE ------------------------ EB WB NB SB LANES ---i-- 1 ADJUSTMENT FACTORS Page-2 PERCENT RIGHT TURN CURB RADIUS (ft) ACCELERATION E GRADE -ANGLE FOR RIGHT TURNS FOR RIGHT TURNS 0.00 EASTBOUND 90 -- --- ----------------- WESTBOUND N 20 0.00 90 20 NORTHBOUND 0.00 90 N 20 N SOUTHBOUND 0.00 gp VEHICLE COMPOSITION 20 N SU TRUCKS % COMBINATION AND RV'S VEHICLES ----------- - --------- % MOTORCYCLES EASTBOUND --- WESTBOUND p 0 p NORTHBOUND p 0 p SOUTHBOUND p 0 p CRITICAL GAPS TABULAR VALUES ADJUSTED SIGHT DIST. FINAL - (Table-10-2) VALUE ADJUSTMENT CRITICAL GAP MINOR RIGHTS ------ -------- ----------- ------------ EB 5.50 5.50 WB 5.50 5.50 0.00 5.50 MAJOR LEFTS 5.50 SB 5.00 5.00 NB 5.00 5.00 0.00 5.00 MINOR THROUGHS 5.00 EB 6.00 6.00 WB 6.00 6.00 0.00 6.00 MINOR LEFTS 6.00 EB 6.50 6.50 WB 6.50 6.50 0'00 6.50 0.00 6.50 IDENTIFYING INFORMATION --------------------------- ---------------- ---- NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET. . . . . . - - Freeway Frontage Road------ NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET. . . . DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALYSIS. . . Little League Drive OTHER INFORMATION. . . . Cumulative Growth 820091 +�Maximum kIntensity CAPACITY AND LEVEL-OF-SERVICE ---------------------------------------------------------------Page-3 POTEN- ACTUAL FLOW- TIAL MOVEMENT SHARED RESERVE RATE CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY MOVEMENT v(pcph) cp(pcph) cM(pcph) c H R SH(PcPh) c = c - v LOS ______ - -------- ------------ MINOR STREET EB LEFT 0 791 756 > THROUGH 0 901 882 > 756 > 756 > A RIGHT 998 882 > 996 882 >A A 2 998 998 > 998 > 996 > A MINOR STREET WB LEFT 13 829 809 > THROUGH 0 906 886 > 809 > 796 > A RIGHT 943 886 > 891 886 >A A 39 999 999 > 999 > 961 > A MAJOR STREET SB LEFT 36 1000 1000 NB LEFT 0 1000 1000 1000 964 A 1000 1000 q IDENTIFYING INFORMATION NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET. . . . . . . - NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET. . . . LittleyLeagueaDrivead DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALYSIS. . . . . 11-18-1991 ; AM Peak Hour OTHER INFORMATION. . . . Cumulative Growth 2001 + Maximum Intensity *98****M*********A****D*INTERSECTIONS ************ IDENTIFYING INFORMATION ------------------- AVERAGE RUNNING SPEED, MAJOR STREET. . 30 PEAK HOUR FACTOR. . AREA POPULATION. . . . . . " • • • • • • • • • • • • • . 150000 NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET. . . . . . . . . Freeway Frontage Road NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET. . . . . . . Little League Drive NAME OF THE ANALYST. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . R. Ammari DATE OF THE ANALYSIS (mm/dd/yy) . . . • . . 11.18.1991 TIME PERIOD ANALYZED. . . . . . . . • • • • • • • . . PM Peak Hour OTHER INFORMATION. . . . Cumulative Growth 2001 + Maximum Intensity INTERSECTION TYPE AND CONTROL ----------- INTERSECTION TYPE: 4-LEG MAJOR STREET DIRECTION: NORTH/SOUTH CONTROL TYPE EASTBOUND: STOP SIGN CONTROL TYPE WESTBOUND: STOP SIGN TRAFFIC VOLUMES ---------- EB WB NB SB LEFT ---� - 45 -- 2 - 90 THRU 2 10 20 16 RIGHT 0 115 32 0 NUMBER OF LANES AND LANE USAGE ---EB-- WB NB SB ----- LANES ---'i-- ADJUSTMENT FACTORS ---------------------------------------------------------------Page-2 PERCENT RIGHT TURN CURB RADIUS (ft) ACCELERATION LANE GRADE ANGLE FOR RIGHT TURNS FOR RIGHT TURNS EASTBOUND 0.00 -----90--- -- ----------------- 20 N WESTBOUND 0.00 gp 20 N NORTHBOUND 0.00 gp 20 N SOUTHBOUND 0.00 gp 20 N VEHICLE COMPOSITION SU TRUCKS % COMBINATION AND RV'S VEHICLES % MOTORCYCLES EASTBOUND ---0 ------------- ---------- 0 p WESTBOUND 0 0 0 NORTHBOUND 0 0 0 SOUTHBOUND 0 0 0 CRITICAL GAPS TABULAR VALUES ADJUSTED SIGHT DIST. FINAL - (Table-10-2) VALUE ADJUSTMENT CRITICAL GAP MINOR RIGHTS ------ -------- ----------- ------------ EB 5.50 5.50 0.00 WB 5.50 550 5.50 MAJOR LEFTS . 0.00 5.50 SB 5.00 5.00 0.00 NB 5.00 5.00 5.00 MINOR THROUGHS 0.00 5.00 EB 6.00 6.00 0.00 WB 6.00 6.00 6.00 MINOR LEFTS 0.00 6.00 EB 6.50 6.50 0.00 WB 6.50 650 6.50 IDENTIFYING INFORMATION . 0.00 6.50 NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET. . . . . . Freeway Frontage Road NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET. . . . Little League Drive DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALYSIS. . . . . OTHER INFORMATION. . . . Cumulative Gr 11-18-1991 ; k Hour owth2009 + MaximumIntensity CAPACITY AND LEVEL-OF-SERVICE ------------ Page-3 POTEN- ACTUAL FLOW- TIAL MOVEMENT SHARED RESERVE MOVEMENT RATE CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY v(pcph) c P M(pcph) c (pcph) c SH(pcph) c R SH= c - v LOS ------- ---------- --- MINOR STREET EB LEFT 0 648 555 > THROUGH 2 835 555 > 555 > q RIGHT 784 > 784 784 > 782 782 >A A 0 999 999 > 999 > 999 > q MINOR STREET WB LEFT 50 774 726 > THROUGH 11 851 799 > 726 > 676 > q RIGHT 127 896 799 > 709 788 >A A 998 998 > 998 > 872 > q MAJOR STREET SB LEFT 99 1000 1000 NB LEFT 2 1000 1000 1000 901 A 1000 ggg A IDENTIFYING INFORMATION --------------------------- ------- - NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET. . . . . . - ------------- NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET. . . Freeway-Frontage Road Little DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALYSIS.. . . . 11-18-1991gUePMrPeak Hour OTHER INFORMATION. . . . Cumulative Growth 2001 + Maximum Intensity APPENDIX G - AIR QUALITY ANALYSIS 03/19/92(1:--.HID101--.M4.STER.D)C) u v C6 V Q 7 0 V V •=i .�e � e � N •• N •• .•• N •-• fl W ib v � On Qr 00 °r,° r oll e > 0 O � U � � 0 a b C C Q � � 3 b Q pw � o. u Oj a. y Q v > 0 0 v F m z v a C = � •� C dD � U a V � � � o O a Ci Y j c u V N 'Q• M V\ N �G N � ab �, u 0 „ v •a � L r YYrriill L V 7 0 o C O O C 0 0 Y CO c v b c v • v � M L O v O V R M M C e r C O V1 4r O E v m v c o to v °0 � °O ti 0D 0 v M > > el 0. :; Ow R Y •-•� N N N N N N .yy��� R 3 • o � •= 8 moo° � + 011 u Project Name : Verdemont Concept Plan Date 12-05-1991 Analysis Year 2000 Temperature = 50 EMFAC7 VERSION EMFAC7D . . .11/88 Unit Type Trip Rate Size Tot Trips Days Op. Shopping Center 42.9/1000 Sqf 380 16302 1 Residential Commercial Home-Work Home-Shop Home-Other Work Non-Work Trip Length 8.8 3.2 5.2 8.1 5.5 q Started Cold 88.3 40.2 58.3 77.4 27.2 Trip Speed 35 35 35 35 35 Percent Trip 27.3 21.2 51.5 Vehicle Fleetmix Vehicle Type Percent Type Leaded Unleaded Diesel Light Duty Autos 72.8 0.2 97.3 2.5 Light Duty Trucks 14.3 0.6 96.8 2.6 Medium Duty Trucks 4.3 2.0 98.0 0.0 leavy Duty Trucks 3.9 18.0 82.0 N/A Heavy Duty Trucks 3.9 N/A N/A 100.0 Motorcycles 0.9 100.0 N/A N/A Project Emissions Report in Lb/Day Unit Type TOG CO NOx Shopping Center 217.6 2486.0 327.5 Project Emissions Report in Lb/Day Unit Type FUEL USE PM10 Sox Shopping Center 3699.5 112.3 34.7 Project Name : Verdemont Concept Plan Date : 12-05-1991 Analysis Year = 2000 Temperature = 75 EMFAC7 VERSION EMFAC7D . . .11/88 Unit Type Trip Rate Size Tot Trips Days Op. Shopping Center 42.9/1000 Sqf 380 16302 1 Residential Commercial Home-Work Home-Shop Home-Other Work Non-Work Trip Length 8.8 3.2 5.2 8.1 5.5 % Started Cold 88.3 40.2 58.3 77.4 27.2 Trip Speed 35 35 35 35 35 Percent Trip 27.3 21.2 51.5 Vehicle Fleetmix Vehicle Type Percent Type Leaded Unleaded Diesel Light Duty Autos 72.8 0.2 97.3 2.5 Light Duty Trucks 14.3 0.6 96.8 2.6 Medium Duty Trucks 4.3 2.0 98.0 0.0 Heavy Duty Trucks 3.9 18.0 82.0 N/A Heavy Duty Trucks 3.9 N/A N/A 100.0 Motorcycles 0.9 100.0 N/A N/A Project Emissions Report in Lb/Day Unit Type TOG CO NOx Shopping Center 152.4 1427.8 291.6 Project Emissions Report in Lb/Day Unit Type FUEL USE PM10 Sox Shopping Center 3699.5 112.3 34.7 Project Name : Verdemont Concept Plan Date : 12-05-1991 Analysis Year 2005 Temperature - 50 EMFAC7 VERSION EMFAC7D . . .11/88 Unit Type Trip Rate Size Tot Trips Days Op. Shopping Center 42.9/1000 Sqf 380 16302 1 Residential Commercial Home-Work Home-Shop Home-Other Work Non-Work Trip Length 8.8 3.2 5.2 8.1 5.5 % Started Cold 88.4 40.3 58.6 77.6 27.4 Trip Speed 35 35 35 35 35 Percent Trip 27.3 21.2 51.5 Vehicle Fleetmix Vehicle Type Percent Type Leaded Unleaded Diesel Light Duty Autos 72.8 0.0 97.5 2.5 Light Duty Trucks 14.3 0.0 97.4 2.6 Medium Duty Trucks 4.3 0.0 100.0 0.0 Heavy Duty Trucks 3.9 13.6 86.4 N/A Heavy Duty Trucks 3.9 N/A N/A 100.0 Motorcycles 0.9 100.0 N/A N/A Project Emissions Report in Lb/Day Unit Type TOG CO NOx Shopping Center 203.5 2382.1 319.0 Project Emissions Report in Lb/Day Unit Type FUEL USE PM10 Sox Shopping Center 3502.6 109.5 33.0 Project Name : Verdemont Concept Plan Date 12-05-1991 Analysis Year 2005 Temperature = 75 EMFAC7 VERSION EMFAC7D . . . 11/88 Unit Type Trip Rate Size Tot Trips Days Op. Shopping Center 42.9/1000 Sqf 380 16302 1 Residential Commercial Home-Work Home-Shop Home-Other Work Non-Work Trip Length 8.8 3.2 5.2 8.1 5.5 % Started Cold 88.4 40.3 58.6 77.6 27.4 Trip Speed 35 35 35 35 35 Percent Trip 27.3 21.2 51.5 Vehicle Fleetmix Vehicle Type Percent Type Leaded Unleaded Diesel Light Duty Autos 72.8 0.0 97.5 2.5 Light Duty Trucks 14.3 0.0 97.4 2.6 Medium Duty Trucks 4.3 0.0 100.0 0.0 Leavy Duty Trucks 3.9 13.6 86.4 N/A Heavy Duty Trucks 3.9 N/A N/A 100.0 Motorcycles 0.9 100.0 N/A N/A Project Emissions Report in Lb/Day Unit Type TOG CO NOx Shopping Center 142.2 1344.1 283.7 Project Emissions Report in Lb/Day Unit Type FUEL USE PM10 Sox Shopping Center 3502.6 109.5 33.0 Project Name : Verdemont GPA Date : 12-05-1991 Analysis Year = 2000 Temperature - 50 EMFAC7 VERSION : EMFAC7D . . .11/88 Unit Type Trip Rate Size Tot Trips Days Op. Shopping Center 31.2/1000 Sqf 1122 35010 1 Residential Commercial Home-Work Home-Shop Home-Other Work Non-Work Trip Length 8.8 3.2 5.2 8.1 5.5 % Started Cold 88.3 40.2 58.3 77.4 27.2 Trip Speed 35 35 35 35 35 Percent Trip 27.3 21.2 51.5 Vehicle Fleetmix Vehicle Type Percent Type Leaded Unleaded Diesel Light Duty Autos 72.8 0.2 97.3 2.5 Light Duty Trucks 14.3 0.6 96.8 2.6 Medium Duty Trucks 4.3 2.0 98.0 0.0 Heavy Duty Trucks 3.9 18.0 82.0 N/A Heavy Duty Trucks 3.9 N/A N/A 100.0 Motorcycles 0.9 100.0 N/A N/A Project Emissions Report in Lb/Day Unit Type TOG CO NOx Shopping Center 467.3 5338.8 703.3 Project Emissions Report in Lb/Day Unit Type FUEL USE PM10 Sox Shopping Center 7944.8 241.2 74.5 Project Name : Verdemont GPA Date : 12-05-1991 Analysis Year = 2000 Temperature - 75 EMFACI VERSION : EMFAC7D . . .11/88 Unit Type Trip Rate Size Tot Trips Days Op. Shopping Center 31.2/1000 Sqf 1122 35010 1 Residential Commercial Home-Work Home-Shop Home-Other Work Non-Work Trip Length 8.8 3.2 5.2 8.1 5.5 % Started Cold 88.3 40.2 58.3 77.4 27.2 Trip Speed 35 35 35 35 35 Percent Trip 27.3 21.2 51.5 Vehicle Fleetmix Vehicle Type Percent Type Leaded Unleaded Diesel Light Duty Autos 72.8 0.2 97.3 2.5 Light Duty Trucks 14.3 0.6 96.8 2.6 tedium Duty Trucks 4.3 2.0 98.0 0.0 Heavy Duty Trucks 3.9 18.0 82.0 N/A Heavy Duty Trucks 3.9 N/A N/A 100.0 Motorcycles 0.9 100.0 N/A N/A Project Emissions Report in Lb/Day Unit Type TOG CO NOx Shopping Center 327.2 3066.4 626.2 Project Emissions Report in Lb/Day Unit Type FUEL USE PM10 Sox Shopping Center 7944.8 241.2 74.5 Project Name : Verdemont GPA Date : 12-05-1991 Analysis Year - 2005 Temperature - 50 EMFAC7 VERSION : EMFAC7D . . . 11/88 Unit Type Trip Rate Size Tot Trips Days Op. Shopping Center 31.2/1000 Sqf 1122 35010 1 Residential Commercial Home-Work Home-Shop Home-Other Work Non-Work Trip Length 8.8 3.2 5.2 8.1 5.5 % Started Cold 88.4 40.3 58.6 77.6 27.4 Trip Speed 35 35 35 35 35 Percent Trip 27.3 21.2 51.5 Vehicle Fleetmix Vehicle Type Percent Type Leaded Unleaded Diesel Light Duty Autos 72.8 0.0 97.5 2.5 Light Duty Trucks 14.3 0.0 97.4 2.6 Medium Duty Trucks 4.3 0.0 100.0 0.0 Heavy Duty Trucks 3.9 13.6 86.4 N/A Heavy Duty Trucks 3.9 N/A N/A 100.0 Motorcycles 0.9 100.0 N/A N/A Project Emissions Report in Lb/Day Unit Type TOG CO NOx Shopping Center 437.0 5115.7 685.1 Project Emissions Report in Lb/Day Unit Type FUEL USE PM10 Sox Shopping Center 7522.0 235.2 70.8 Project Name : Verdemont GPA Date : 12-05-1991 Analysis Year a 2005 Temperature = 75 EMFAC7 VERSION : EMFAC7D . . .11/88 Unit Type Trip Rate Size Tot Trips Days Op. Shopping Center 31.2/1000 Sqf 1122 35010 1 Residential Commercial Home-Work Home-Shop Home-Other Work Non-Work Trip Length 8.8 3.2 5.2 8.1 5.5 % Started Cold 88.4 40.3 58.6 77.6 27.4 Trip Speed 35 35 35 35 35 Percent Trip 27.3 21.2 51.5 Vehicle Fleetmix Vehicle Type Percent Type Leaded Unleaded Diesel Light Duty Autos 72.8 0.0 97.5 2.5 Light Duty Trucks 14.3 0.0 97.4 2.6 Medium Duty Trucks 4.3 0.0 100.0 0.0 Heavy Duty Trucks 3.9 13.6 86.4 N/A Heavy Duty Trucks 3.9 N/A N/A 100.0 Motorcycles 0.9 100.0 N/A N/A Project Emissions Report in Lb/Day Unit Type TOG CO NOx Shopping Center 305.5 2886.5 609.3 Project Emissions Report in Lb/Day Unit Type FUEL USE PM10 Sox Shopping Center 7522.0 235.2 70.8 APPENDIX H - NOISE DATA 03/19/92(1:1-HED101%.MASTERMOC) b 8 ''� e ffie 0 CN > ti 04 y w � a � o N Z � u M � y � goz > a v° ,� t S $ M r 00 ^ N Q � O 6J G1 > �J � c oo � oo •.. v oo •.. u w •k 8 •� ' o � � v a ) ) 3 w � : = A f a p � v � � v w j ƒ $ § a e � I f■ w 2 � g / ® a > § � M U CZ \ j / \ � V HID101\RlE'DT ELEMENT NUMBER INPUT DATA ( Feet & MPH ) 1 2 1. Auto Volume 138 138 2. Medium Truck Volume 4 4 3. Heavy Truck Volume 1 1 4. Vehicle Speed 35 35 5. Dist. to Ctr. Near Lane 44 56 6. Roadway Angle, Left -90 -90 7. Roadway Angle, Right 90 90 8. Drop-Off Rate 3 3 9. Number of Lanes 1 1 10. Grade Correction 0 0 11. Dist. to Shoulder/Cut 0 0 12. Height of Shoulder/Cut 0 0 13. Distance to Barrier 10 10 14. Barrier Type 0 0 15. Height of Barrier 0 0 16. Barrier Angle, Left -90 -90 17. Barrier Angle, Right 90 90 18. Height of Observer 5 5 HIT <<ENTER>> TO CONTINUE LEQV2 OUTPUT FILE: HID101\R1E'DT CALCULATED BY. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12-12-1991 OUTPUT DATA (Based on CALIFORNIA Ref.Energy Mean Emission Levels) NO BARRIER TOTAL LEQ = 61 DBA (APPROX. L10 62 DBA ) WITH BARRIER TOTAL LEQ = 60 DBA (APPROX. L10 62 DBA) FIELD INSERTION LOSS = 0 Warning: Answers may not be valid for: distances less than 50 FT (15 M) ELEMENT NUMBER OUTPUT DATA (HOURLY LEQS) 1 2 NO BARRIER Leq Auto 56.25 55.20 Leq Med. Trucks 50.59 49.54 Leq Heavy Trucks 49.79 48.74 ELEMENT TOTALS 58.00 56.95 ELEMENT NUMBER OUTPUT DATA (HOURLY LEQS) 1 2 WITH BARRIER Barrier Atten. Auto -0.24 -0.18 Barrier Atten. Med. Trks -0. 11 -0.11 Barrier Atten. Hvy. Trks -0.06 -0.12 11.5 ft. Truck Stack Line-of-Sight Break -6.48 -6.16 Leq Auto 56.00 55.02 Leq Med. Trucks 50.47 49.43 Leq Heavy Trucks 49.73 48.62 ELEMENT TOTALS 57.81 56.80 V HID101\R1E'NT ELEMENT NUMBER INPUT DATA ( Feet & MPH ) 1 2 I . Auto Volume 26 26 2. Medium Truck Volume 1 1 3. Heavy Truck Volume 0 0 4. Vehicle Speed 35 35 5. Dist. to Ctr. Near Lane 44 56 6. Roadway Angle, Left -90 -90 7. Roadway Angle, Right 90 90 8. Drop-Off Rate 3 3 9. Number of Lanes 1 1 10. Grade Correction 0 0 11. Dist. to Shoulder/Cut 0 0 12. Height of Shoulder/Cut 0 0 13. Distance to Barrier 10 10 14. Barrier Type 0 0 15. Height of Barrier 0 0 16. Barrier Angle, Left -90 -90 17. Barrier Angle, Right 90 90 18. Height of Observer 5 5 HIT <<ENTER>> TO CONTINUE LEQV2 OUTPUT FILE: HID101\R1E'NT CALCULATED BY. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12-12-1991 OUTPUT DATA (Based on CALIFORNIA Ref.Energy Mean Emission Levels) NO BARRIER TOTAL LEQ = 53 DBA (APPROX. L10 51 DBA ) WITH BARRIER TOTAL LEQ = 53 DBA (APPROX. L10 51 DBA) FIELD INSERTION LOSS = 0 Warning: Answers may not be valid for: distances less than 50 FT (15 M) ELEMENT NUMBER OUTPUT DATA (HOURLY LEQS) 1 2 NO BARRIER Leq Auto 49.00 47.95 Leq Med. Trucks 44.57 43.52 Leq Heavy Trucks ELEMENT TOTALS 50.33 49.29 ELEMENT NUMBER OUTPUT DATA (HOURLY LEQS) 1 2 WITH BARRIER Barrier Atten. Auto -0.24 -0.18 Barrier Atten. Med. Trks -0.11 -0.11 Barrier Atten. Hvy. Trks -0.06 -0.12 11.5 ft. Truck Stack Line-of-Sight Break -6.48 -6.16 Leq Auto 48.75 47.77 Leq Med. Trucks 44.45 43.41 Leq Heavy Trucks ELEMENT TOTALS 50. 12 49.13 V HID101\R1C'DT ELEMENT NUMBER INPUT DATA ( Feet & MPH ) 1 2 1 . Auto Volume 225 225 2. Medium Truck Volume 7 7 3. Heavy Truck Volume 2 2 4. Vehicle Speed 35 35 5. Dist. to Ctr. Near Lane 44 56 6. Roadway Angle, Left -90 -90 7. Roadway Angle, Right 90 90 8. Drop-Off Rate 3 3 9. Number of Lanes 1 1 10. Grade Correction 0 0 11. Dist. to Shoulder/Cut 0 0 12. Height of Shoulder/Cut 0 0 13. Distance to Barrier 10 10 14. Barrier Type 0 0 15. Height of Barrier 0 0 16. Barrier Angle, Left -90 -90 17. Barrier Angle, Right 90 90 18. Height of Observer 5 5 HIT <<ENTER>> TO CONTINUE LEQV2 OUTPUT FILE: HID101\R1C'DT CALCULATED BY. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12-12-1991 OUTPUT DATA (Based on CALIFORNIA Ref.Energy Mean Emission Levels) NO BARRIER TOTAL LEQ = 63 DBA (APPROX. L10 64 DBA ) WITH BARRIER TOTAL LEQ = 63 DBA (APPROX. L10 64 DBA) FIELD INSERTION LOSS = 0 Warning: Answers may not be valid for: distances less than 50 FT (15 M) ELEMENT NUMBER OUTPUT DATA (HOURLY LEQS) 1 2 NO BARRIER Leq Auto 58.37 57.32 Leq Med. Trucks 53.02 51.97 Leq Heavy Trucks 52.80 51.75 ELEMENT TOTALS 60.33 59.28 ELEMENT NUMBER OUTPUT DATA (HOURLY LEQS) 1 2 WITH BARRIER Barrier Atten. Auto -0.24 -0. 18 Barrier Atten. Med. Trks -0.11 -0.11 Barrier Atten. Hvy. Trks -0.06 -0.12 11.5 ft. Truck Stack Line-of-Sight Break -6.48 -6.16 Leq Auto 58.13 57. 15 Leq Med. Trucks 52.90 51.86 Leq Heavy Trucks 52.74 51 .63 ELEMENT TOTALS 60. 14 59. 12 V HID101\R1C'NT ELEMENT NUMBER INPUT DATA ( Feet & MPH ) 1 2 1. Auto Volume 42 42 2. Medium Truck Volume 1 1 3. Heavy Truck Volume 0 0 4. Vehicle Speed 35 35 5. Dist. to Ctr. Near Lane 44 56 6. Roadway Angle, Left -90 -90 7. Roadway Angle, Right 90 90 8. Drop-Off Rate 3 3 9. Number of Lanes 1 1 10. Grade Correction 0 0 11. Dist. to Shoulder/Cut 0 0 12. Height of Shoulder/Cut 0 0 13. Distance to Barrier 10 10 14. Barrier Type 0 0 15. Height of Barrier 0 0 16. Barrier Angle, Left -90 -90 17. Barrier Angle, Right 90 90 18. Height of Observer 5 5 HIT <<ENTER>> TO CONTINUE LEQV2 OUTPUT FILE: HID101\R1C'NT CALCULATED BY. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12-12-1991 OUTPUT DATA (Based on CALIFORNIA Ref.Energy Mean Emission Levels) NO BARRIER TOTAL LEQ = 54 DBA (APPROX. L10 55 DBA ) WITH BARRIER TOTAL LEQ = 54 DBA (APPROX. L10 55 DBA) FIELD INSERTION LOSS = 0 Warning: Answers may not be valid for: distances less than 50 FT (15 M) ELEMENT NUMBER OUTPUT DATA (HOURLY LEQS) 1 2 NO BARRIER Leq Auto 51.08 50.03 Leq Med. Trucks 44.57 43.52 Leq Heavy Trucks ELEMENT TOTALS 51.96 50.91 ELEMENT NUMBER OUTPUT DATA (HOURLY LEQS) 1 2 WITH BARRIER Barrier Atten. Auto -0.24 -0. 18 Barrier Atten. Med. Trks -0. 11 -0.11 Barrier Atten. Hvy. Trks -0.06 -0.12 11.5 ft. Truck Stack Line-of-Sight Break -6.48 -6.16 Leq Auto 50.84 49.86 Leq Med. Trucks 44.45 43.41 Leq Heavy Trucks ELEMENT TOTALS 51.73 50.74 V HID101\R1CON'DT ELEMENT NUMBER INPUT DATA ( Feet & MPH ) 1 2 1 . Auto Volume 253 253 2. Medium Truck Volume 8 8 3. Heavy Truck Volume 3 3 4. Vehicle Speed 35 35 5. Dist. to Ctr. Near Lane 44 56 6. Roadway Angle, Left -90 -90 7. Roadway Angle, Right 90 90 8. Drop-Off Rate 3 3 9. Number of Lanes 1 1 10. Grade Correction 0 0 11. Dist. to Shoulder/Cut 0 0 12. Height of Shoulder/Cut 0 0 13. Distance to Barrier 10 10 14. Barrier Type 0 0 15. Height of Barrier 0 0 16. Barrier Angle, Left -90 -90 17. Barrier Angle, Right 90 90 18. Height of Observer 5 5 HIT <<ENTER>> TO CONTINUE LEQV2 OUTPUT FILE: HID101\R1CON'DT CALCULATED BY. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12-12-1991 OUTPUT DATA (Based on CALIFORNIA Ref.Energy Mean Emission Levels) NO BARRIER TOTAL LEQ = 64 DBA (APPROX. L10 65 DBA ) WITH BARRIER TOTAL LEQ = 63 DBA (APPROX. L10 65 DBA) FIELD INSERTION LOSS = 0 Warning: Answers may not be valid for: distances less than 50 FT (15 M) ELEMENT NUMBER OUTPUT DATA (HOURLY LEAS) 1 2 NO BARRIER Leq Auto 58.88 57.83 Leq Med. Trucks 53.60 52.55 Leq Heavy Trucks 54.56 53.51 ELEMENT TOTALS 61.10 60.05 ELEMENT NUMBER OUTPUT DATA (HOURLY LEQS) 1 2 WITH BARRIER Barrier Atten. Auto -0.24 -0.18 Barrier Atten. Med. Trks -0.11 -0.11 3arrier Atten. Hvy. Trks -0.06 -0. 12 11.5 ft. Truck Stack Line-of-Sight Break -6.48 -6. 16 Leq Auto 58.63 57.66 Leq Med. Trucks 53.48 52.44 Leq Heavy Trucks 54.50 53.39 ELEMENT TOTALS 60.92 59.90 V HID101\R1CON'NT ELEMENT NUMBER INPUT DATA ( Feet & MPH ) 1 2 1. Auto Volume 47 47 2. Medium Truck Volume 1 1 3. Heavy Truck Volume 0 0 4. Vehicle Speed 35 35 5. Dist. to Ctr. Near Lane 44 56 6. Roadway Angle, Left -90 -90 7. Roadway Angle, Right 90 90 8. Drop-Off Rate 3 3 9. Number of Lanes 1 1 10. Grade Correction 0 0 11. Dist. to Shoulder/Cut 0 0 12. Height of Shoulder/Cut 0 0 13. Distance to Barrier 10 10 14. Barrier Type 0 0 15. Height of Barrier 0 0 16. Barrier Angle, Left -90 -90 17. Barrier Angle, Right 90 90 18. Height of Observer 5 5 HIT <<ENTER>> TO CONTINUE LEQV2 OUTPUT FILE: HID101\R1CON'NT CALCULATED BY. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12-12-1991 OUTPUT DATA (Based on CALIFORNIA Ref.Energy Mean Emission Levels) NO BARRIER TOTAL LEQ = 55 DBA (APPROX. L10 56 DBA ) WITH BARRIER TOTAL LEQ = 55 DBA (APPROX. L10 55 DBA) FIELD INSERTION LOSS = 0 Warning: Answers may not be valid for: distances less than 50 FT (15 M) ELEMENT NUMBER OUTPUT DATA (HOURLY LEQS) 1 2 NO BARRIER Leq Auto 51.57 50.52 Leq Med. Trucks 44.57 43.52 Leq Heavy Trucks ELEMENT TOTALS 52.36 51.31 ELEMENT NUMBER OUTPUT DATA (HOURLY LEQS) 1 2 WITH BARRIER Barrier Atten. Auto -0.24 -0.18 Barrier Atten. Med. Trks -0.11 -0.11 Barrier Atten. Hvy. Trks -0.06 -0.12 11.5 ft. Truck Stack Line-of-Sight Break -6.48 -6.16 Leq Auto 51 .32 50.35 Leq Med. Trucks 44.45 43.41 Leq Heavy Trucks ELEMENT TOTALS 52. 14 51 . 15 V HID101\R1GPA'DT ELEMENT NUMBER INPUT DATA ( Feet & MPH ) 1 2 1. Auto Volume 363 363 2. Medium Truck Volume 11 11 3. Heavy Truck Volume 4 4 4. Vehicle Speed 35 35 5. Dist. to Ctr. Near Lane 44 56 6. Roadway Angle, Left -90 -90 7. Roadway Angle, Right 90 90 8. Drop-Off Rate 3 3 9. Number of Lanes 1 1 10. Grade Correction 0 0 11. Dist. to Shoulder/Cut 0 0 12. Height of Shoulder/Cut 0 0 13. Distance to Barrier 10 10 14. Barrier Type 0 0 15. Height of Barrier 0 0 16. Barrier Angle, Left -90 -90 17. Barrier Angle, Right 90 90 18. Height of Observer 5 5 HIT <<ENTER>> TO CONTINUE LEQV2 OUTPUT FILE: HID101\R1GPA'DT CALCULATED BY. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12-12-1991 OUTPUT DATA (Based on CALIFORNIA Ref.Energy Mean Emission Levels) NO BARRIER TOTAL LEQ = 65 DBA (APPROX. L10 67 DBA ) WITH BARRIER TOTAL LEQ = 65 DBA (APPROX. L10 66 DBA) FIELD INSERTION LOSS = 0 Warning: Answers may not be valid for: distances less than 50 FT (15 M) ELEMENT NUMBER OUTPUT DATA (HOURLY LEQS) 1 2 NO BARRIER Leq Auto 60.45 59.40 Leq Med. Trucks 54.98 53.93 Leq Heavy Trucks 55.81 54.76 ELEMENT TOTALS 62.56 61 .52 ELEMENT NUMBER OUTPUT DATA (HOURLY LEQS) 1 2 WITH BARRIER Barrier Atten. Auto -0.24 -0.18 Barrier Atten. Med. Trks -0.11 -0.11 Barrier Atten. Hvy. Trks -0.06 -0.12 11.5 ft. Truck Stack Line-of-Sight Break -6.48 -6.16 Leq Auto 60.20 59.22 Leq Med. Trucks 54.87 53.82 Leq Heavy Trucks 55.75 54.64 ELEMENT TOTALS 62.38 61 .36 V HID101\R1GPA'NT ELEMENT NUMBER INPUT DATA ( Feet & MPH ) 1 2 1. Auto Volume 67 67 2. Medium Truck Volume 2 2 3. Heavy Truck Volume 1 1 4. Vehicle Speed 35 35 5. Dist. to Ctr. Near Lane 44 56 6. Roadway Angle, Left -90 -90 7. Roadway Angle, Right 90 90 8. Drop-Off Rate 3 3 9. Number of Lanes 1 1 10. Grade Correction 0 0 11. Dist. to Shoulder/Cut 0 0 12. Height of Shoulder/Cut 0 0 13. Distance to Barrier 10 10 14. Barrier Type 0 0 15. Height of Barrier 0 0 16. Barrier Angle, Left -90 -90 11. Barrier Angle, Right 90 90 18. Height of Observer 5 5 HIT <<ENTER>> TO CONTINUE LEQV2 OUTPUT FILE: HID101\R1GPA'NT CALCULATED BY. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12-12-1991 OUTPUT DATA (Based on CALIFORNIA Ref.Energy Mean Emission Levels) NO BARRIER TOTAL LEO = 58 DBA (APPROX. L10 58 DBA ) WITH BARRIER TOTAL LEO = 58 DBA (APPROX. L10 58 DBA) FIELD INSERTION LOSS = 0 Warning: Answers may not be valid for: distances less than 50 FT (15 M) ELEMENT NUMBER OUTPUT DATA (HOURLY LEQS) 1 2 NO BARRIER Leq Auto 53.11 52.06 Leq Med. Trucks 47.58 46.53 Leq Heavy Trucks 49.79 48.74 ELEMENT TOTALS 55.53 54.48 ELEMENT NUMBER OUTPUT DATA (HOURLY LEAS) 1 2 WITH BARRIER Barrier Atten. Auto -0.24 -0.18 Barrier Atten. Med. Trks -0.11 -0.11 Barrier Atten. Hvy. Trks -0.06 -0. 12 11 .5 ft. Truck Stack Line-of-Sight Break -6.48 -6. 16 Leq Auto 52.86 51 .89 Leq Med. Trucks 47.46 46.42 Leq Heavy Trucks 49.73 48.62 ELEMENT TOTALS 55.35 54.33 V HID101\R2E'DT ELEMENT NUMBER INPUT DATA ( Feet & MPH ) 1 2 1 . Auto Volume 10 10 2. Medium Truck Volume 0 0 3. Heavy Truck Volume 0 0 4. Vehicle Speed 35 35 5. Dist. to Ctr. Near Lane 39 51 6. Roadway Angle, Left -90 -90 7. Roadway Angle, Right 90 90 8. Drop-Off Rate 3 3 9. Number of Lanes 1 1 10. Grade Correction 0 0 11 . Dist. to Shoulder/Cut 0 0 12. Height of Shoulder/Cut 0 0 13. Distance to Barrier 10 10 14. Barrier Type 0 0 15. Height of Barrier 0 0 16. Barrier Angle, Left -90 -90 17. Barrier Angle, Right 90 90 18. Height of Observer 5 5 HIT <<ENTER>> TO CONTINUE LEQV2 OUTPUT FILE: HID101\R2E'DT CALCULATED BY. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12-05-1991 OUTPUT DATA (Based on CALIFORNIA Ref.Energy Mean Emission Levels) NO BARRIER TOTAL LEQ = 48 DBA (APPROX. L10 43 DBA ) WITH BARRIER TOTAL LEQ = 48 DBA (APPROX. L10 42 DBA) FIELD INSERTION LOSS = 0 Warning: Answers may not be valid for: distances less than 50 FT (15 M) ELEMENT NUMBER OUTPUT DATA (HOURLY LEQS) 1 2 NO BARRIER Leq Auto 45.37 44.21 Leq Med. Trucks Leq Heavy Trucks ELEMENT TOTALS 45.37 44.21 ELEMENT NUMBER OUTPUT DATA (HOURLY LEQS) 1 2 WITH BARRIER Barrier Atten. Auto -0.29 -0.20 Barrier Atten. Med. Trks -0. 11 -0. 11 Barrier Atten. Hvy. Trks -0.06 -0. 10 11 .5 ft. Truck Stack Line-of-Sight Break -6.67 -6.27 Leq Auto 45.08 44.01 Leq Med. Trucks Leq Heavy Trucks ELEMENT TOTALS 45.08 44.01 V HID101\R2E'NT ELEMENT NUMBER INPUT DATA ( Feet & MPH ) 1 2 1 . Auto Volume 2 2 2. Medium Truck Volume 0 0 3. Heavy Truck Volume 0 0 4. Vehicle Speed 35 35 5. Dist. to Ctr. Near Lane 39 51 6. Roadway Angle, Left -90 -90 7. Roadway Angle, Right 90 90 8. Drop-Off Rate 3 3 9. Number of Lanes 1 1 10. Grade Correction 0 0 11. Dist. to Shoulder/Cut 0 0 12. Height of Shoulder/Cut 0 0 13. Distance to Barrier 10 10 14. Barrier Type 0 0 15. Height of Barrier 0 0 16. Barrier Angle, Left -90 -90 17. Barrier Angle, Right 90 90 18. Height of Observer 5 5 HIT <<ENTER>> TO CONTINUE LEQV2 OUTPUT FILE: HID101\R2E'NT CALCULATED BY. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12-05-1991 OUTPUT DATA (Based on CALIFORNIA Ref.Energy Mean Emission Levels) NO BARRIER TOTAL LEQ = 41 DBA (APPROX. L10 29 DBA ) WITH BARRIER TOTAL LEQ = 41 DBA (APPROX. L10 28 DBA) FIELD INSERTION LOSS = 0 Warning: Answers may not be valid for: distances less than 50 FT (15 M) ELEMENT NUMBER OUTPUT DATA (HOURLY LEQS) 1 2 NO BARRIER Leq Auto 38.38 37.22 Leq Med. Trucks Leq Heavy Trucks ELEMENT TOTALS 38.38 37.22 ELEMENT NUMBER OUTPUT DATA (HOURLY LEQS) 1 2 WITH BARRIER Barrier Atten. Auto -0.29 -0.20 Barrier Atten. Med. Trks -0. 11 -0. 11 Barrier Atten. Hvy. Trks -0.06 -0. 10 11.5 ft. Truck Stack Line-of-Sight Break -6.67 -6.27 Leq Auto 38.09 37.02 Leq Med. Trucks Leq Heavy Trucks ELEMENT TOTALS 38.09 37.02 V HID101\R2C'DT ELEMENT NUMBER INPUT DATA ( Feet & MPH ) 1 2 1 . Auto Volume 16 16 2. Medium Truck Volume 0 0 3. Heavy Truck Volume 0 0 4. Vehicle Speed 35 35 5. Dist. to Ctr. Near Lane 39 51 6. Roadway Angle, Left -90 -90 7. Roadway Angle, Right 90 90 8. Drop-Off Rate 3 3 9. Number of Lanes 1 1 10. Grade Correction 0 0 11. Dist. to Shoulder/Cut 0 0 12. Height of Shoulder/Cut 0 0 13. Distance to Barrier 10 10 14. Barrier Type 0 0 15. Height of Barrier 0 0 16. Barrier Angle, Left -90 -90 17. Barrier Angle, Right 90 90 18. Height of Observer 5 5 HIT <<ENTER>> TO CONTINUE LEQV2 OUTPUT FILE: HID101\R2C'DT CALCULATED BY. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12-05-1991 OUTPUT DATA (Based on CALIFORNIA Ref.Energy Mean Emission Levels) NO BARRIER TOTAL LEQ = 50 DBA (APPROX. L10 47 DBA ) WITH BARRIER TOTAL LEQ = 50 DBA (APPROX. L10 46 DBA) FIELD INSERTION LOSS = 0 Warning: Answers may not be valid for: distances Tess than 50 FT (15 M) ELEMENT NUMBER OUTPUT DATA (HOURLY LEQS) 1 2 NO BARRIER Leq Auto 47.41 46.25 Leq Med. Trucks Leq Heavy Trucks ELEMENT TOTALS 47.41 46.25 ELEMENT NUMBER OUTPUT DATA (HOURLY LEQS) 1 2 WITH BARRIER Barrier Atten. Auto -0.29 -0.20 Barrier Atten. Med. Trks -0. 11 -0. 11 Barrier Atten. Hvy. Trks -0.06 -0. 10 11 .5 ft. Truck Stack Line-of-Sight Break -6.67 -6.27 Leq Auto 47. 12 46.05 Leq Med. Trucks Leq Heavy Trucks ELEMENT TOTALS 47. 12 46.05 V HID101\R2C'NT ELEMENT NUMBER INPUT DATA ( Feet & MPH ) 1 2 I . Auto Volume 3 3 2. Medium Truck Volume 0 0 3. Heavy Truck Volume 0 0 4. Vehicle Speed 35 35 5. Dist. to Ctr. Near Lane 39 51 6. Roadway Angle, Left -90 -90 7. Roadway Angle, Right 90 90 8. Drop-Off Rate 3 3 9. Number of Lanes 1 1 10. Grade Correction 0 0 11. Dist. to Shoulder/Cut 0 0 12. Height of Shoulder/Cut 0 0 13. Distance to Barrier 10 10 14. Barrier Type 0 0 15. Height of Barrier 0 0 16. Barrier Angle, Left -90 -90 17. Barrier Angle, Right 90 90 18. Height of Observer 5 5 HIT <<ENTER>> TO CONTINUE LEQV2 OUTPUT FILE: HID101\R2C'NT CALCULATED BY. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12-05-1991 OUTPUT DATA (Based on CALIFORNIA Ref.Energy Mean Emission Levels) NO BARRIER TOTAL LEQ = 43 DBA (APPROX. L10 32 DBA ) WITH BARRIER TOTAL LEQ = 42 DBA (APPROX. L10 32 DBA) FIELD INSERTION LOSS = 0 Warning: Answers may not be valid for: distances less than 50 FT (15 M) ELEMENT NUMBER OUTPUT DATA (HOURLY LEQS) 1 2 NO BARRIER Leq Auto 40.14 38.98 Leq Med. Trucks Leq Heavy Trucks ELEMENT TOTALS 40. 14 38.98 ELEMENT NUMBER OUTPUT DATA (HOURLY LEQS) 1 2 WITH BARRIER Barrier Atten. Auto -0.29 -0.20 Barrier Atten. Med. Trks -0. 11 -0. 11 Barrier Atten. Hvy. Trks -0.06 -0. 10 11.5 ft. Truck Stack Line-of-Sight Break -6.67 -6.27 Leq Auto 39.85 38.78 Leq Med. Trucks Leq Heavy Trucks ELEMENT TOTALS 39.85 38.78 V HID101\R2CON'DT ELEMENT NUMBER INPUT DATA ( Feet & MPH ) 1 2 I . Auto Volume 35 35 2. Medium Truck Volume 1 1 3. Heavy Truck Volume 0 0 4. Vehicle Speed 35 35 5. Dist. to Ctr. Near Lane 39 51 6. Roadway Angle, Left -90 -90 7. Roadway Angle, Right 90 90 8. Drop-Off Rate 3 3 9. Number of Lanes 1 1 10. Grade Correction 0 0 11 . Dist. to Shoulder/Cut 0 0 12. Height of Shoulder/Cut 0 0 13. Distance to Barrier 10 10 14. Barrier Type 0 0 15. Height of Barrier 0 0 16. Barrier Angle, Left -90 -90 17. Barrier Angle, Right 90 90 18. Height of Observer 5 5 HIT <<ENTER>> TO CONTINUE LEQV2 OUTPUT FILE: HID101\R2CON'DT CALCULATED BY. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12-05-1991 OUTPUT DATA (Based on CALIFORNIA Ref-Energy Mean Emission Levels) NO BARRIER TOTAL LEQ = 54 DBA (APPROX. L10 53 DBA ) WITH BARRIER TOTAL LEQ = 54 DBA (APPROX. L10 53 DBA) FIELD INSERTION LOSS = 0 Warning: Answers may not be valid for: distances less than 50 FT (15 M) OUTPUT DATA (HOURLY LEQS) ELEMENT NUMBER NO BARRIER Leq Auto 50.81 49.65 Leq Med. Trucks 45.09 43.93 Leq Heavy Trucks ELEMENT TOTALS 51 .84 50.68 ELEMENT NUMBER OUTPUT DATA (HOURLY LEQS) 1 2 WITH BARRIER Barrier Atten. Auto -0.29 -0.20 Barrier Atten. Med. Trks -0. 11 -0. 11 Barrier Atten. Hvy. Trks -0.06 -0. 10 11 .5 ft. Truck Stack Line-of-Sight Break -6.67 -6.27 Leq Auto 50.52 49.45 Leq Med. Trucks 44.98 43.81 Leq Heavy Trucks ELEMENT TOTALS 51 .59 50.50 V HID101\R2CON'NT ELEMENT NUMBER INPUT DATA ( Feet & MPH ) 1 2 1 . Auto Volume 6 6 2. Medium Truck Volume 0 0 3. Heavy Truck Volume 0 0 4. Vehicle Speed 35 35 5. Dist. to Ctr. Near Lane 39 51 6. Roadway Angle, Left -90 -90 7. Roadway Angle, Right 90 90 8. Drop-Off Rate 3 3 9. Number of Lanes 1 1 10. Grade Correction 0 0 11. Dist. to Shoulder/Cut 0 0 12. Height of Shoulder/Cut 0 0 13. Distance to Barrier 10 10 14. Barrier Type 0 0 15. Height of Barrier 0 0 16. Barrier Angle, Left -90 -90 17. Barrier Angle, Right 90 90 18. Height of Observer 5 5 HIT <<ENTER>> TO CONTINUE LEQV2 OUTPUT FILE: HID101\R2CON'NT CALCULATED BY. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12-05-1991 OUTPUT DATA (Based on CALIFORNIA Ref.Energy Mean Emission Levels) NO BARRIER TOTAL LEQ = 46 DBA (APPROX. L10 38 DBA ) WITH BARRIER TOTAL LEQ = 45 DBA (APPROX. L10 38 DBA) FIELD INSERTION LOSS = 0 Warning: Answers may not be valid for: distances less than 50 FT (15 M) ELEMENT NUMBER OUTPUT DATA (HOURLY LEQS) 1 2 NO BARRIER Leq Auto 43. 15 41 .99 Leq Med. Trucks Leq Heavy Trucks ELEMENT TOTALS 43. 15 41 .99 ELEMENT NUMBER OUTPUT DATA (HOURLY LEQS) 1 2 WITH BARRIER Barrier Atten. Auto -0.29 -0.20 Barrier Atten. Med. Trks -0.11 -0.11 Barrier Atten. Hvy. Trks -0.06 -0. 10 11 .5 ft. Truck Stack Line-of-Sight Break -6.67 -6.27 Leq Auto 42.86 41 .79 Leq Med. Trucks Leq Heavy Trucks ELEMENT TOTALS 42.86 41 . 79 i HID101\R2GPA'DT ELEMENT NUMBER INPUT DATA ( Feet & MPH ) 1 2 I . Auto Volume 60 60 2. Medium Truck Volume 2 2 3. Heavy Truck Volume 1 1 4. Vehicle Speed 35 35 5. Dist. to Ctr. Near Lane 39 51 6. Roadway Angle, Left -90 -90 7. Roadway Angle, Right 90 90 8. Drop-Off Rate 3 3 9. Number of Lanes 1 1 10. Grade Correction 0 0 11 . Dist. to Shoulder/Cut 0 0 12. Height of Shoulder/Cut 0 0 13. Distance to Barrier 10 10 14. Barrier Type 0 0 15. Height of Barrier 0 0 16. Barrier Angle, Left -90 -90 17. Barrier Angle, Right 90 90 18. Height of Observer 5 5 HIT <<ENTER>> TO CONTINUE LEQV2 OUTPUT FILE: HID101\R2GPA'DT CALCULATED BY. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12-05-1991 OUTPUT DATA (Based on CALIFORNIA Ref.Energy Mean Emission Levels) NO BARRIER TOTAL LEQ = 58 DBA (APPROX. L10 58 DBA ) WITH BARRIER TOTAL LEQ = 58 DBA (APPROX. L10 57 DBA) FIELD INSERTION LOSS = 0 Warning: Answers may not be valid for: distances less than 50 FT (15 M) ELEMENT NUMBER OUTPUT DATA (HOURLY LEQS) 1 2 NO BARRIER Leq Auto 53.15 51.99 Leq Med. Trucks 48. 10 46.94 Leq Heavy Trucks 50.31 49. 14 ELEMENT TOTALS 55.78 54.62 ELEMENT NUMBER OUTPUT DATA (HOURLY LEQS) 1 2 WITH BARRIER Barrier Atten. Auto -0.29 -0.20 Barrier Atten. Med. Trks -0. 11 -0. 11 Barrier Atten. Hvy. Trks -0.06 -0. 10 11 .5 ft. Truck Stack Line-of-Sight Break -6.67 -6.27 Leq Auto 52.86 51 .79 Lea Med. Trucks 47.99 46.82 Leq Heavy Trucks 50.25 49.05 ELEMENT TOTALS 55.59 54.46 V HID101\R2GPA'NT ELEMENT NUMBER INPUT DATA ( Feet & MPH ) 1 2 1 . Auto Volume 11 11 2. Medium Truck Volume 0 0 3. Heavy Truck Volume 0 0 4. Vehicle Speed 35 35 5. Dist. to Ctr. Near Lane 39 51 6. Roadway Angle, Left -90 -90 7. Roadway Angle, Right 90 90 8. Drop-Off Rate 3 3 9. Number of Lanes 1 1 10. Grade Correction 0 0 11 . Dist. to Shoulder/Cut 0 0 12. Height of Shoulder/Cut 0 0 13. Distance to Barrier 10 10 14. Barrier Type 0 0 15. Height of Barrier 0 0 16. Barrier Angle, Left -90 -90 17. Barrier Angle, Right 90 90 18. Height of Observer 5 5 HIT <<ENTER>> TO CONTINUE LEQV2 OUTPUT FILE: HID101\R2GPA'NT CALCULATED BY. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12-05-1991 OUTPUT DATA (Based on CALIFORNIA Ref.Energy Mean Emission Levels) NO BARRIER TOTAL LEQ = 48 DBA (APPROX. L10 43 DBA ) WITH BARRIER TOTAL LEQ = 48 DBA (APPROX. L10 43 DBA) FIELD INSERTION LOSS = 0 Warning: Answers may not be valid for: distances less than 50 FT (15 M) ELEMENT NUMBER OUTPUT DATA (HOURLY LEQS) 1 2 NO BARRIER Leq Auto 45.79 44.62 Leq Med. Trucks Leq Heavy Trucks ELEMENT TOTALS 45.79 44.62 ELEMENT NUMBER OUTPUT DATA (HOURLY LEQS) 1 2 WITH BARRIER Barrier Atten. Auto -0.29 -0.20 Barrier Atten. Med. Trks -0.11 -0.11 Barrier Atten. Hvy. Trks -0.06 -0. 10 11 .5 ft. Truck Stack Line-of-Sight Break -6.67 -6.27 Leq Auto 45.49 44.42 Leq Med. Trucks Leq Heavy Trucks ELEMENT TOTALS 45.49 44.42 VERDEMONT GPA 90-6 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT RESPONSE TO COMMENTS August 5, 1992 Prepared for: City of San Bernardino Planning and Building Services Department 300 North D Street San Bernardino, CA 92418 Prepared by: Hogle Ireland, Inc. 3403 10th Street, Suite 520 Riverside, CA 92501 (714) 781-9310 LSA Project #HIDI01 1! TABLE OF ..ONTENTS PAGE KEVIN MITCHELL (IM) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 CALTRANS, DISTRICT 8 (CT) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 TRANSPORTATION/FLOOD CONTROL DEPARTMENT - (TFC) . . . . . . . . 7 FLOYD J. WILLIAMS (FW) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD - (WQCB) . . . . . . . . . . 10 ATTACHMENT A- COMMENT LETTERS ATTACHMENT B - LIQUEFACTION INVESTIGATION ATTACHMENT C - MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM 08/05/92(R:\HID101\RESPONSE.COM) 11 VERDEMC,,,,qT GENERAL PLAN AMENDMEN i (GPA 90-6) ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT RESPONSE TO COMMENTS This section of the Final Environmental Impact Report (Final EIR) for the Verdemont GPA 90-6 contains the comments received by the City of San Bernardino on the Draft EIR. Each comment has been encoded and a response prepared to address the substance of the comment. The environmental process has undergone several public review processes as required to provide public input into the environmental review process. The first public review process consisted of a Notice of Preparation (NOP) which was mailed to public agencies and interested parties. The NOP, distri- bution list and NOP comments are contained in Appendix A of the Draft EIR. The NOP was distributed on September 19, 1991 with the comment period ending October 18, 1991. A Scoping Meeting was also held to obtain public input. On September 18, 1991, a letter was circulated to area residents requesting attendance at the Scoping Meeting. The meeting was held at the Central City Library on September 30, 1991. Approximately 7-8 residents were in attendance. The Draft EIR was completed and circulated for a 45-day public review period. The Notice of Completion was filed with the State Clearinghouse, Office of Planning and Research on March 27, 1992 ending on May 11, 1992. The following comments (see Attachment A) were received by the City of San Bernardino during the 45-day public review period: Date Organization Signature May 11, 1992 Citizen Kevin Mitchell April 29, 1992 Caltrans - District 8 Harvey Sawyer April 27, 1992 Co. Transportation/Flood Control Kenneth Guidry April 4, 1992 Consulting Geologist to City Floyd Williams April 16, 1992 Regional Water Quality Control Anne Knight Board - Santa Ana Region Each comment is included in the succeeding pages, followed by the individ- ual responses. 08/05/92(R:\IiID101\RESPONSE.COM) 1 RESPONS.L TO COMMENTS KEVIN MITCHELL (KM) KM-1 Comment noted. At this stage of the project, the actual retail or commercial services have not been defined. The comments on the types of retail services suggested in the comment will be forwarded to the applicant for consideration. KM-2 The General Plan Amendment addressed in the main EIR text, if approved, would permit a development intensity of 0.70 floor area ratio (FAR). The reason for the GPA to a CG-1 des- ignation focuses on the lack of another suitable category in the group of General Plan categories that would apply to the applicant's concept. However, because the applicant has indi- cated a desire to construct a much lower FAR as demonstrated by the project concept, the EIR also evaluates an alternative (Alternative 4.3 of the Draft EIR) which facilitates the establish- ment of a new General Plan category and appropriate Devel- opment Code Amendment. This new category would allow a maximum development intensity of 0.25 FAR. Consequently, the City has the option of selecting the Alternative, which would appear to adequately address the concerns of the com- ment. 1CM-3 Improvements to Little League Drive are recommended as mitigation measures to traffic impacts. These are contained in Measures 3.9.3, 3.9.4, and 3.9.5. These measures will require the applicant to adequately improve Little League Drive to accommodate project traffic and pay a fair share for cumula- tive impacts. The City will determine the street naming during subsequent processing actions. KM-4 Implementation of the proposed project would require the removal of the olive trees addressed in the comment. Retain- ing these trees as a component of the ultimate site plan would severely impede the design options for the site plan to a point of infeasibility. The entire project area (29.7 acre and 7.1 acre parcels) are needed to accommodate the type of project envi- sioned by the applicant. Preserving the windrow would iso- late portions of the site resulting in dysfunctional circulation and access patterns. Removal of the windrow would impact both the area aesthetics, and potentially, the air quality. The olive trees, which comprise the windrow, have some aesthetic value as associated with the vegetative quality of the trees. Their presence enhances the local environmental by contribut- ing to area landscaping, despite the informal setting, offsetting the vacant land/weed intrusive condition of the site. Because the removal of the windrow is considered an impact, the fol- lowing mitigation is required to reduce the impact to a less than significant: 08/05/92(R:\I-IID101\RESPONSE.COM) 2 'KM-4 Prior to issuance of the ConL..,ional Use Permit, the applicant shall prepare a plan to 1) relocate the olive trees to another location on the site at appli- cant/developer expense (including but not limited to the area along the I-15 Freeway), 2) incorporate the olive trees into the site plan, either in-place or as com- ponents of the landscape amenity plans at appli- cant/developer expense, or 3) relocate onto the adja- cent park (with prior approval from the Department of Parks and Recreation) to enhance park aesthetics at applicant/developer expense." Incorporating the trees onto the site will mitigate any aesthetic impacts by preserving the feature on site or in proximity to the site. With respect air quality concerns, removal of the windrow will eliminate a wind break, thus altering the wind flow patterns in the immediate area. This is not considered significant, howev- er, due to the replacement of trees with on site buildings which will perform the same wind break function for down- wind properties. In addition, removal of these trees will elimi- nate any ability to cleanse the local air quality through natural pollutant uptake associated with tree metabolism. Implemen- tation of the above mitigation measure, together with the introduction of other plant materials in the landscaping plan, will ensure that the trees are not totally eliminated but will, in fact, provide enhanced air quality cleansing through a net gain in site landscaping materials. Other techniques are available to screen vehicle lighting (Miti- gation Measure 3.8.2) as well as an appropriate transition of use from project to park as required in Mitigation Measures 3.7.17 and 3.8.1. KM-5 Comment noted. Rather than limit the months of construc- tion, Mitigation Measure 3.10.3 requires grading to be discon- tinued whenever winds exceed 25 miles per hour. This mea- sure is actually more stringent than the SCAQMD Rule 403 (Mitigation Measure 3.10.2 which permits grading above 25 miles per hour and up to 60 miles per hour provided the standards contained in the rule are met (i.e., dust plume does not extend beyond the property line). In addition, once the site is graded, the earth surface will be exposed and will be subject to the high wind conditions, potentially blowing dust onto the freeway as noted in the comment. To prevent this hazard, Mitigation Measure 3.10.3 is modified to read: 3.10.3 During construction, the contractor shall discontinue construction activities during second stage smog alerts and discontinue grading activities during period of high winds (i.e., 25 mph or greater). Once grading has 08/05/92(R:\JiID101\RESPONSE.COM) 3 been completed, if subsequt.... site construction (or portions of the site) is delayed more than one month, the site shall be stabilized to avoid wind blown dust hazards on adjacent uses and from affecting driving conditions on the I-15 Freeway. Stabilization shall include spreading soil binders on site, unpaved roads and parking areas; and re-establishing ground cover on construction site through seeding and watering. Stabi- lization techniques, locations and conditions are sub- ject to approval of the Director of Planning and Build- ing Services. KM-6 On page 3-115 of the Draft EIR, a discussion is provided re- garding the wind velocity and potential effects on the future project buildings. The discussion indicates that certain archi- tecture features can be incorporated into the project design to prevent hazards from wind impacts which would be consid- ered in conjunction with site plan review. To better address this concern and provide additional guidance, the following mitigation measure is required: "KM-6 Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall demonstrate to the Planning Division, that archi- tectural features have been incorporated into the pro- ject buildings which consider the effects of wind veloc- ity. Such features may include, but are not limited to wind screens, berms or shields; building orientation and design; and double door entry (automatic sliding doors) with breezeway buffer." The latter option in mitigation measure KM-6 can assist in protecting the patron from wind hazards (including safety concerns associated with a hinged door during high wind periods) as well as provide an energy conservation function to preserve heating or air conditioning within the building. KM-7 A wind break as described could be installed between the alignment of Little League Drive and the Cable Creek Channel, unless there remains insufficient space to plant a windrow. Such requirement could be considered in conjunction with the project's landscaping plan. It should be noted that this windrow suggested by the commentor is not required to miti- gate wind impacts. Rather, wind effects can be resolved as identified in Response RM-6. KM-8 Traffic impacts cannot be fully mitigated with the proposed GPA at 0.70 FAR. If the City elects to approve the GPA, a Statement of Overriding Considerations must be adopted to balance the effects of the project with its benefits. It should be noted, however, that Alternative 4.3 does not result in unacceptable traffic impacts. This scenario accurately reflects the applicant's concept plan which can be fully mitigated. 08/05/92(R:\IiIDIOI\RESPONSE.COM) 4 Implementation of the measures ou ied in the Traffic and Circulation section will adequately address the project's effects on freeway ramps and signals, and requires fair share contri- bution to little League Drive impacts that are greater than those caused by the project. KM-9 As outlined in Mitigation Measure 3.8.1, the applicant is required to incorporate landscaping and trees into the site plan (per Development Code, Section 19.28) to enhance the adjacent park aesthetics and assure compatibility with neigh- boring uses. This measure will address the project exposures outlined in the comment. It should be noted that the scour wall graffiti issue cannot be immediately addressed without knowledge of the ultimate flood control solution for the pro- ject. Should a scour wall solution be required, the potential to minimize graffiti could be addressed in conjunction with the wall design. Nonetheless, this would not be a required mitigation measure to reduce project aesthetic impacts, rather a potential condition of site plan approval. KM-10 Comment noted. The EIR has provided three acceptable engi- neered scenarios for effectively mitigating flood hazards. The responsibility for decision is placed on the City, with input from the applicant. O8/05/92(R:\HIDIOI\RESPONSE.COM) 5 RESPONSL I'O COMMENTS CALTRANS, DISTRICT 8 (CT) CT-1 Comment noted. Implementation of the measures outlined in the Traffic and Circulation section will adequately address the project's effects on freeway ramps and signals, and requires fair share contribution to Little League Drive impacts that are greater than those caused by the project. The City does not currently have a road fee program or other mechanisms to assess developments that provide mitigation of regional or cumulative impacts. Nonetheless, the traffic study for this project considered cumulative area growth as defined by the City Traffic Engineering Department. Therefore, the traffic mitigation includes growth factors and appropriate mitigation as described above. CT-2 Comment noted. The proposed action does not include site plans at this time. Although a concept plan has been pre- pared, it is conceptual only and reflects the intent to develop the project at a much lower development intensity (0.25 FAR) than would be permitted by the proposed GPA (i.e., 0.70 FAR). At such time as the applicant prepares site plans for site plan approval, the plans will illustrate the freeway widening plans as identified in Caltrans' I-215 Route Concept Report. To ensure that the applicant complies with Caltrans freeway wid- ening program, the following measure will be added to the final EIR: CT-2 "Prior to preparation of site plans, the applicant, in conjunction with the City Traffic Engineer or designate shall meet with Caltrans District 8 personnel to determine the set- back constraints associated with the proposed site plans". CT-3 As mentioned in response CT-1, the City does not have a road fee program in place to require the applicant to pay fees con- tributing to regional and interregional roads. However, in the event that the City adopts such a program, participation shall required prior to issuance of building permits. The following mitigation measure will be included in the Final EIR: CT-3 "Prior to issuance of any new building permits, the applicant/builder shall pay applicable road fees, subsequent to the adoption of a City-wide road fee program." 08/05/92(R:\HIDIOI\RESPONSE.COM) 6 RESPONSE fO COMMENTS TRANSPORTATION/FLOOD CONTROL DEPARTMENT - (TFC) COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO TFC-1 Comment noted. To ensure that this coordination occurs, the following mitigation measure will be added to the Final EIR: Mitigation Measure No. TFC-1 "Prior to preparation of Tenta- tive Parcel Map, the applicant and/or technical engineering representative shall coordinate proposed project flood control improvements with the County Transportation/Flood Control Department to determine their compatibility with planned County flood control improvements. Included in those dis- cussions shall be how the project will conform to the latest Federal Insurance Administration flood insurance require- ments, including but not limited to, elevation, compaction, and erosion protection of building pads and flood proofing utilities." TFC-2 This comment does not have a direct effect on the EIR. None- theless, it is hereby noted that the department requires receipt of a fee of $325.00 prior to further review of, or issuance of permits. TFC-3 The technical Drainage Study (Appendix C) and Mitigation Measure 3.2.1 provides alternative solutions to the flood haz- ard issues. These include options: Erect a scour wall along the north boundary of the project area from Magnolia Avenue to Chestnut Avenue Modify Cable Creek Channel by providing a rectangular concrete channel 60 feet wide and 10 feet deep, or a trapezoidal rock-lined channel 50 feet wide and 14 feet deep, with 2:1 side slopes. Elevate the project site so that Magnolia Avenue can act as a flood intercept, diverting water into Cable Creek Channel. Use of Magnolia Avenue to divert run-off to Cable Creek Channel would require inclusion of ap- propriate drainage structures in the roadway design to minimize impacts on adjacent properties. TFC-4 Comment noted. At such time as the applicant and/or engi- neering representative meet with the Department per new Mitigation Measure identified in TFC-1 , these requirements will be coordinated. TFC-5 Project implementation will have an incremental effect on the region's flood control improvements, due to the incremental increase in runoff that is expected from site improvements. 08/05/92(R:\IiID101\MPONSE.COM) 7 Consequently, in order to satisfy the County's concern for mitigating downstream impacts, the following Mitigation Mea- sure will be included in the Final EIR: Mitigation Measure No. TFC-5 "Prior to issuance of grading permits, the applicant shall meet with the County Transporta- tion/Flood Control Department to determine the project's fair share cost for downstream flood control improvements. The formula for determining fair share shall be based on the project's percentage share of additional runoff to the project- ed flood volumes for Cable Creek." TFC-6 Comment noted. The project concept (Figure 2.8.1) illustrates the realignment of Little League Drive along the extension of Cable Creek. The roadway will provide approximately 90 feet of buffer to the edge of the channel right-of-way, and a greater distance to the channel edge. With the flood control protec- tion options identified in Mitigation Measure 3.2.1 and Re- sponse TFC-3, this concern should be adequately addressed. TFC-7 Comment noted. In order to ensure that these concerns are included in the project design, language has been included in Mitigation Measure No. TFC-1 to address these concerns. TFC-8 Comment noted. This requirement would be a condition of approval of the Parcel Map. TFC-9 It is noted that an encroachment permit will be required from the County prior to initiating flood control improvements within the Cable Creek right-of-way. TFC-10 Refer to Response TFC-2. 08/05/92(R:\IiDDIOI\RESPONSE.COM) 8 FLOYD J. WILLIAMS (FW) REGISTERED GEOLOGIST CONSULTANT TO THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO FW 1 Most of this information was noted in the Setting section of Section 3.1, Geology of the Draft EIR, but without precision or specificity. Additional analysis will be required for the site as specified in Mitigation Measure 3.1.1. This measure requires the applicant to submit a geotechnical investigation in con- junction with future entitlement needing construction level environmental review. FW 2 Comment noted. As the subsequent geotechnical investigation is conducted, information on the presence of faults will be evaluated. FW 3 Appendix B is hereby replaced with a complete and signed report prepared by Inland Foundation Engineering, Inc. and signed by Lawrence E. Strahm, President, R.C.E. 26409/G.E. 959. The updated report is attached to this Response to Com- ments document. FW4 This recommendation has been included as a mitigation requirement (Mitigation Measure 3.1.1) in the Draft EIR. Also refer to response FW 1. FW-5 Refer to response FW-3. 08/05/92(R:\IiID101\PESPONSE.COM) 9 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD - (WQCB) WQCB-1 Comment noted. The applicant shall be required to obtain a water quality certification, should one be required under Sec- tion 401 of the Clean Water Act. In order to determine this need, the following measure will be added to the Final EIR: WQCB-1 Prior to issuance of grading permits, the applicant and /or engineering representative shall coordinate with the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Santa Ana Region, to determine the potential water quality certification requirements under Section 401 of the Clean Water Act." WQCB-2 Comment noted. The applicant shall be required to obtain either a National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit for any discharge of wastes to surface waters or a Waste Discharge Requirements (WDR) permit for any discharge of wastes to land. These discharges of wastes can be those associated with, but not limited to, dewatering dur- ing construction, dredging activities, or stormwater runoff from industrial areas, construction sites and/or facilities which use hazardous materials. Any proposed use of reclaimed wa- ter will also require that a Report of Waste Discharge be filed with the Board. In order to ensure that one of these permits will be obtained, the following measure will be added to the Final EIR: WQCB-2 Prior to issuance of grading permits, the applicant and/or engineering representative shall coordinate with the Regional Water Quality Control Board to determine the applicability of an NPDES or WDR permit for the proposed project". WQCB-3 Comment noted. It would be expected that this project will conform to those NPDES requirements due to the need to obtain construction level discretionary approvals. To ensure that the project conforms to the future requirements, the following measure will be added to the Final EIR: WQCB-3 1 Prior to issuance of grading permits, the applicant and/or engineering representative shall coordinate with the Regional Water Quality Control Board to determine the NPDES requirements that are expected to become effective on October 1, 1992. Compliance with the stormwater regulations may include, but not limited to, development of a comprehen- sive, long term, post construction stormwater management plan, which incorporates structural and non-structural best management practices (BMPs)". 10 08/05/92(R:\IIID l OI\RESPONSE.COIF ATTACHMENT A - COMMENT LETTERS 08/05/92(R:V-IID l Ol\RESPONSE.COM) MHUW � m MAY 15 1992 May 11 , 1492 CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & WILDING SERVICES Subjects: Draft E/R for GPA 90-06 Purpose of Lettar : Points of Concern Attention : Debbie woldiuff "& Planning Staff Project Applicants Michael Fleseh , Verdemont Associates Dear Debbie , stal , After reading the EIR and knowing the Verdemont area , my conclusions are that the project should be given a qualified approval . The project would be well received by myself and others if it was thoughtfully KM-1 constructed , with some of the points that I will briefly list . Stores like Stater Brothers , Smiths , Home Improvement types , family restaurants and miscellaneous fill-in stores would make shopping closer and easier , while probably enhancing the VerdemontfSan Bernardino area . The following is list of concerns I have , some are already known by planning staff , but , I feel I should list them again with brief notes so as to let my feelings and concerns be known . Pointe of Concern: I . GPA of CG-1 with a potential FAR of . 70 , although the ETR and the applicants mention they will use a . 25 or less FAR build out , numerous places in the EIR the applicant refers to a . 70 FAR build out - this worries me and plan- ning staff ( 2 . 5) . All effort by planning staff , city KM-2 attorney, city council . and applicants to draft a zoning designation ( i . e . C-6 like the applicant proposed) that the project could not deviate from, either now or anytime in the future should be made . 2 . Little League drive alignment should be fully improved from Palm Avenue to Little League drive by the baseball KM-3 park . The park should be assisted in removing the old Little League drive alignment . The name of the street should be Changed (e . g . Kendall North) . 3 . The windrow of olive trees (that are in alignment with magnolia) were only mentioned in ' the EIR, and not addressed to what their fate is . My suggestion is to leave them KM-4 there , realign magnolia eastward and the trees would serve as a windbreak and diffuser of traffic lights and parking lights shinning on Al Guhen Park visitors . 4 . Grading should not be allowed between Oct . 1 , to March 1 , KM-5 because of Santa Ana winds . No amount of water can control the dust of a wind blown scarificed ( graded) field . The freeway would be closed and someone driving on the freeway could be injured . 5 . Regarding the Santa Ana winds (which reach wind velocities of 80 mph or more each year) , store fronts in this project facing northward should be constructed so as to protect KM-6 customers and employees . 6 . A wind break of trees along the canal could help mitigate some of the winds effect on the project ( i . e . a 4 to 1 ratio of wind protection would mean a 50 foot tall tree KM-7 would provide some protection for 200 feet downwind of the tree ) . 7 . Traffic flow and freeway access is not sufficiently mitigated in the EIR, staff will need to work out a viable solution with applicant . Also , the city and residents of Verdemont need to be financially protected when the veh- icle traffic this project creates , overburdens our local KM-8 intersections and freeway access , resulting in signals and/or construction of freeway off/on ramps . B . Graffiti mitigation along all block walls , building sides and rear (freeway exposure) and the possible scour wall KM-9 should be addressed . A viable solution would be medium height vegetation planted along these walls . 9 . Please do not erect a scour wall (for flood protection) if other measures are just as teaseable and aesthetically KM-10 more pleasing . Thank you for letting me state my opinions , and good luck to evepy- ne in getting a well though out add needed project to the Verdemont area . I would be glad in helping plan this project . Sinoerely , Kevin Mitchell STATE OF CALIFORNIA—BUSINESS, TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSING AGENCY PETE WILSON, Governor DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION "- ISTRICT 8• P.O. BOX 231 trii r. SAN BERNARDINO. CALIFORNIA 92402 TDD (714) 383-4609 2 R.E LY L.` ter-:� - ..,`,t•. . _ April, 20, 1992 08-SBd-215-14.1 Ms. Deborah Woldruff City of San Bernardino 300 North "D" Strset San Bernardino, CA 92410 Dear Ms. Woldruff: We have reviewed a Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for Verdemont General Plan Amendment 90-6 in the City of San Bernardino and we have the following comments: o Caltrans supports economic growth and orderly land use development; however, new development must pay its fair share for upgrading infrastructure facilities needed to serve the development. This infrastructure includes State highways and freeways. It also includes both direct and cumulative traffic impacts. All CT-1 jurisdictions should take measures available to fund improvements and reduce total trips generated. In view of the fact there are limited funds available for infrastructure improvements, we recommend the City of San Bernardino take the lead in developing a fair-share mechanism in which each project can fund improvements for the decrease in Level of Service for which it is responsible. o The I-215 Route Concept Report for this segment zalls for a ten-lane ultimate facility with total right of way of 236 feet. The City should ensure that CI'-2 appropriate building setbacks be considered in the development of this project. Ms. Deborah Woldruff April 20, 1992 Page Two o P. 10, Appendix F - Traffic Study states "improvements to the east & westbound ramps. . . " . All new projects in the area should participate on a fairshare basis in a C -3 region wide road facility plan that provides for increased capacity on the regional and interregional roads that will be negatively impacted by continued development. If you have any questions, please contact Tom Meyers at (714) 383-6908 cr FAX (714) 383-5936. Sincerely, 7 � HARVEY SAWYE , Chief Transportation Planning San Bernardino County Coordination Branch TRANSPORTATION/FLOOL CONTROL n� COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO DEPARTMENT PUBLIC WORKS GROUP $AY BE0. 0.D14p ist Third Street • San 3eardino, CA 32415-C835 • (714) 387-2800 %' KEN r MILLER m Fax No. (714) 387-7667 Director April 27, 1992 \/ City o San Bernardino Department of Planning & Building Services 300 North D Street San Bernardino, CA 52418 File: 2-309/1.00 Tract 10454 REFERENCE: ZONE 2 - CABLE CREEK CHANNEL - GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT - GPA#90-06 Gentlemen: Reference is made to your Notice of Completion/Draft EIR for GPA#90-06 dated March 26, 1992, requesting the Flood Control District's review and comments. The site is located adjacent to the District's Cable Creek Channel, between the extensions of Magnolia Avenue and Chestnut Avenue, in the northwest portion of the City of San Bernardino. We have recently reported on this GPA by letters dated May 29, 1990 and September 27, 1991 (copies attached) . Our comments remain the same, with one additional comment: Cable Creek Channel and its tributary drainage area is currently being studies and evaluated to determine the ultimate size and types of improvements and the required right TFC-1 of way for District facilities. It is recommended that prior to preparation of any construction plans, the developer's engineer contact this Division to determine compatibility with planned improvements. We still have not received the review fee for this site. Our current Flood Hazard Review fee is $325. 00. There will be no TFC-2 further review of, or permits issued for this si.:e until this fee has been received. Should you have any further questions or need additional information, please feel free to contact Mike Fox of this office, or me at (714) 387-2515. Very truly yours, V- t-- D 't, ,` j , - 0 KENNETH D. GUI Chi �!L� J Water Resource !vision APR 2 9 1992 >UJ Attachments CiTy OF S.A,4 2cFi4AADIP1Q DEPARTMENT OF PLANNiNG KDG:AA:j m/5659 3UIL-IrdG 5Er?VICES BA SPORTATION/FLOQr) CONTROL DEPARTMEN . ` %, COUNTY IC OF SAN WORKS 825 East Third Street • San Bernardino. CA 92415-0835 • (714) 387-2800 / ��� KEN A. MILLER X41 j(\)�K Director Fax No. (714) 387-2667 / 1 \ September 27, 1991 City of San Bernardino Department of Planning & Building Scr-%ices 300 North D Street San Bernardino, CA 92413 e: 2-309/1. 00 Tract 10454 REFERENCE: ZONE 2 - C".BLE CREEK C'r"y2:\'ET, - GENERAL PLAN ILMENDME`IT - GPAJ90-02 Gentlemen: Reference is made to your Notice of Preparation for GPA';90-02 dated September 4 , 1991, requesting the Flood Contrcl District' s review and comments. The site is located adjacent to the District ' s Cable Creek Channel, 1=_tween the extensions of Magnolia Avenue and Chestnut avenue, in the northwest portion of the City of San Bernardino. Ste have recently reported on this zone change :.y letter dated May 29 , 1990 (copy attached) . Our comments remain the same. lie still have not received the review fee for this site. Our current Flood Hazard Review fee is $325 . 00. There will be no further review of, or permits issued for this site until this fee has been received. Should you have any further questions or need additional information, please feel free to contact !.like Fox- of this office, or me at (714) 327-2515. Very truly yours, KENNETH D- G�TI RY, Ch i e f Water Resources Division KDG:MLM:jm Attachment Document name: 3391 Page 2 May 29 , :.990 ZONE 2 - CABLE CREEK CHANNEL The City Engineering Department and the Flood Control District are working together on what can be done to improve Cable Creek in this area. With the City's proposed construction of culverts League -Drive at Palm Avenue and Little and the Chestnut Avenue Storm Drain, it will be necessary to pro aide, at a minimum, TFC-3 interim improvements along Cable Creek Channel. Unless permanent improvements are constructed, then either a building setback or onsite protection would need to be provided t.: protect any proposed development. It is further noted that the greater portion of the site is located in Zone B and the remai.^.der in Zone' A as detazmi .ed by the Federal Insurance Administration (F. I.3. ) . Provisions for TFC-4 flood proofing the site per F. I .A. requirements should be coordinated wit! the Citv Engineer's Office. At time of development our recommendations would be as follows: 1. Each new development within the tributary area should be responsible for its fair share of cost for the needed improvements. ' Each new development should also address and TFC-5 mitigate any adverse downstream impacts on the channel and/or private properties from the increased flows genera'.;ed by the new developmmens. 2. In an attempt to protect and minimize structural damage resulting from eresion until permanent improvements are constructed for Cable Creek Channel, the Flood Control District recommends a minimum building setbac:{ of 100 feet TFC-6 from the existing Flood Control District right of way. This setback could be reduced if. interim :-otection measures are constructed. . 3 . Development within the overflow areas shall :meet the latest ^cl. ding but not limited to, flood insurance regL:ire:aerts i. TFC-7 elevation, compaction, and erosion protection of building pads and flood proofing utilit-es. _t is assumed the City will at a minimum, enforce the latest I.A.:. requirements. Page 3 May 29, 1990 ZONE 2 - CABLE CREEK CHANNEL 4 . A six (6) foot block wall, chair. link fence, or other Flood Control District approved barrier shall be constructed along TFC-K the Flood Control District's right of way adjacent to the site. 5 • A permit will be required for any encroachment onto Flood TFC-9 Control District's right of way, and a minimum of six (6) weeks processing time should be allowed. 6 . ` Section 16 . 0212 (g) of the County Code sets the fee for this review and analysis at $215. 00. This f_e is to be submitted TFC-10 directly. to the Flood Control District Office with an - indication that The fee should be�ma led to: San Bernardino County Flood Control District Water Resources Division 825 E. Third Street, Room 120 San Bernardino, CA 92415-0835 There will be no further review of, or permits issued for this site until the fee has been received. Should you have any further questions concerning this matter, please feel free to contact Jay J. Johnson of the office, or me at (714) 387-2515 . Very truly yours, KENNETH D. G . Y, CQief Water Resources Division Transportation/Flood Control Department KDG:JJJ:MGM:jm Document name: 4820 FLOYD J. WILLIAMS, Ph.D. MINING ENGINEER AND REGISTERED GEOLOGIST $ 2143 130 Sunridge Way Redlands, California 92373 MEMORANDUM (714)- � D GF�C TO: Deborah Woldruff, Associate Planner, 57 C Planning Department, City of San Bernardi FLOOD I WILLIAMS • FROM: Floyd J. Williams, Registered Geologist 140. 2143 • Consultant to the City of San Bernardino TA DATE: April 4 , 1992 C �O SUBJECT: Review of Draft EIR, 94neral Plan Amendment No. 90- 06/Development Code Amendment, your letter of April 2 , 1992 TITLE OF REPORT IQz m Verdemont GPA 90-6, Environmental Impact Report, Volumes 1 and y - 2, dated March 26, 1992 . Prepared for the City of San w a o Bernardino by Hogle Ireland Development Consulting Group, Riverside, California. Included as Appendix B is a report m entitled, "Liquefaction Investigation, Little League Drive & 4 Chestnut Avenue, San Bernardino, California. " Prepared by Inland Foundation Engineering, Inc. , dated March 7, 1990. DISCUSSION In my review I paid particular attention to the Section 3 . 1 on Geology and to Appendix B, Liquefaction Analysis. I made a site inspection today and reviewed three sets of stereo aerial photographs of the site flown in 1935, 1969, and 1971. The potential geologic hazards that require careful analysis for this site are strong shaking due to earthquakes, fault r.►ovement beneath the site, and liquefaction of soils. The San _ "Andreas fault is located about one mile northeast of the site. FW-1 The Glen Helen and the San Jacinto faults are situated from one to two miles to the southwest. Strong shaking as a result Of movement on one of these faults is likely to occur during _ t- ?the life of the project. fl_ll Q -' = Water Supply Paper 1419, published by the U. S. Geological A F= ? `' Survey, includes a map of the San Bernardino area displaying y- W -ate, ground water contours for March 1945 and groundwater barriers and faults. On this map and on subsequent published geologic FW-2 maps a fault is plotted near the southern portion of the subject property. Symbols used to indicate the location of the fault imply somewhat indefinite evidence for the fault or a lack of precision in the location. MEMORANDUM• Woldruff/Williams, GPA No 90-06 04/04/92 , Pct. 2 Appendix B is an incomplete report. Drill logs for three borings and computer analyses for zones in each boring are all FW 3 that is included. There are no stated conclusions or recommendations by Inland Foundation Engineering and the report is not signed. RECOMMENDATIONS 1. A geologic/seismic investigation of the site should be FW_4 conducted to evaluate the earthquake shaking hazard and the possibility fault rupture beneath the site. 2 . The on-site liquefaction investigation conducted by Inland Foundation Engineering should be documented by a FW-5 signed and sealed report that gives a description of the study, the conclusions, and the recommendations. 'CLSD GFO lc kJ FLOYD I. WILLIAMS N No. 2143 N'A `•e. , ,,, �� FOp CAS-CFO A 'R A 7 �L E� STATE OF CALIFORNIA-CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY PETE WILSON, Governor CALIFORNIA REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD "NTA ANA REGION ' IOWA AVENUE,SUITE 100 ERSIDE,CA 92507-2409 PHONE:(714)782-413Q April 16, 1992 Ms. Deborah Woldruff City of San Bernardino Planning and Building Services Department 300 North "D" Street San Bernardino, CA 92418 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPXCT REPORT FOR THE VERDEMONT GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 90-06, LITTLE LEAGUE DRIVE AND CHESTNUT AVENUE, SAN BERNARDINO, SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY Dgar Ms. Wcldraff: We have reviewed the EIR for the above-referenced project. A water quality certification under Section 401 of the Clean Water Act may be required from the Regional Water Quality Control Board WQCB-1 for the flood control improvements included in this project. For applicable projects within the City, either a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit for any discharge of wastes to surface waters or a Waste Discharge Requirements (WDR) permit for any discharge of wastes to land will be required from this Regional Board. These discharges of wastes can be those associated with, but not limited to, dewatering during WQCB-2 construction, dredging activities, or stormwater runoff from industrial areas, construction sites and/or facilities which use hazardous materials. Any proposed use of reclaimed water will also require that a Report of Waste Discharge be filed with this office. Please note that the time frame for the issuance of a permit can be as long as 180 days from the time the permit application is accepted as complete. Also note that the new stormwater regulations published by EPA on November 16, 1990 in the Fideral Register (40 CFR Parts 122, 123 and 124) require a NPDES permit for stormwater runoff from WQCB-3 construction sites of five acres or more. This requirement goes into effect on October 1, 1992. If you have any questions, please contact me at 714-782-3258. sincerely, p r3 Anne Knigh�Environmental Specialist ITI ; Regulations SecticZ / J, cc: Russell Colliau, S.:Lte Clearinghouse AK (33) 4310.eir ATTACHMLNT B - LIQUEFACTION INVESTIGATION 08/05/92(R:\IiID101\RESPONSE.COM) LIQUEFACTION INVESTIGATION LITTLE LEAGUE DRIVE & CHESTNUT AVENUE SAN BERNARDINO, CALIFORNIA Prepared for: Safety Investment Company 11040 Santa Monica Boulevard Suite #340 Los Angeles, California 90025 I Prepared by: Inland Foundation Engineering, Inc. 1310 South Santa Fe Avenue San Jacinto, California 92383 March 7, 1990 L INL. D FOUNDATION ENGINEERING, IN Consulting Soil Engineers P.0. Box 937 1310 S.Santa Fe Avenue San Jacinto,California 92383 (714)654-1555 FAX(714)654-0551 March 7, 1990 Project No. S326-001 Safety Investment Company 11040 Santa Monica Boulevard Suite #340 Los Angeles, California 90025 Re: Liquefaction Investigation Little League Drive & Chestnut Avenue San Bernardino, California Gentlemen: This report presents the results of a liquefaction study per- formed on three parcels which are proposed for future develop- ment. The parcels are located east of and adjacent to the inter- section of Little League Drive and Chestnut Avenue in the City of San Bernardino, California. An Assessor's Parcel Map and Prelim- inary Title Report which were provided to us by your office were used as a reference during our investigation. In addition, we have referred to a U.S .G. S . open file report 86-562 entitled "Liquefaction Susceptibility in the San Bernardino Valley and Vicinity, Southern California" . SCOPE OF WORK The purpose of our investigation was to estimate the liquefaction potential of the soils underlying the subject properties. This work included field exploration, field testing, laboratory test- ing, engineering analysis and the preparation of this report. Our investigation was performed in conformance with contemporary geotechnical engineering principles, we made no other warranty either express or implied. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The property under consideration is irregular in shape and is located on the east side of Little League Drive between Palm and Magnolia Avenues in the City of San Bernardino, California. The property is bounded on the west by Little League Drive, on the northwest by the prolongation of Magnolia Avenue, on the east by an existing flood control channel , and on the south by vacant property. The property begins approximately 200 feet north of Palm Avenue. At the time of our investigation, neither Chestnut Avenue nor Magnolia Avenue had been constructed. The property L 1 R 1 Safety Investment Company, March 7 , 1990 was vacant. The property is nearly level in topography with overall slope gradients of less than five percent. FIELD INVESTIGATION For our field investigation , three exploratory borings were drilled at the approximate locations shown on the plot plan. Logs of the material encountered during drilling were made on the site by a Staff Geologist. These Logs are shown on Figure Nos. 1, 2 and 3 . Undisturbed samples were obtained within our exploratory borings by means of driving a thin-walled steel penetration samplers with successive 30-inch drops of a 140 pound hammer. The number blows required to achieve each six inches of penetration were recorded on the Boring Logs. These are used as a measure of the strength and consistency of the soil in its present condition. Two sample types were used within the upper fifteen feet, a split tube sampler which enabled the retrieval of 2 . 5 inch I .D. brass ring was used. Below that depth, a Standard Penetration Test Sampler was used. In our laboratory, each relatively undisturbed sample was weighed and measured in order to determine its Unit Weight and Moisture Content. Because the samples obtained through Standard Penetra- tion testing are normally too disturbed, only moisture content determinations could be made on those samples. The results of this testing are shown on the Boring Logs. DISCUSSION The site is underlain by predominately granular soils consisting of silty sands and sands with gravel and traces of clay. Ground- water was not encountered during our investigation. Mottling was observed at a depth of approximately 30 feet in Boring No. 1 and 20 feet in Boring No. 2 . A review of the site and published literature suggests that high groundwater occurs between 30 and 90 feet of the existing ground surface. The most conservative projection to groundwater is the U.S .G.S . publication which estimates groundwater to be approxi- mately 30 to 50 feet beneath the existing ground surface. Be- cause of our observations of possible mottling, we have assumed a high groundwater depth of 30 feet which seems to be in compliance with the most conservative estimates. In Boring No. 2 , we have made calculations using a high groundwater depth of 20 feet. This is probably too conservative of an assumption, but demon- strates the low likelihood of liquefaction. The property lies in the vicinity of several active faults . These include the San Jacinto Fault, Glen Helen Fault and the San 2 Inland Foundation Engineering, Inc. Safety Investment Company, March 7 , 1990 Andreas Fault. Although there are also several others , these appear to be the faults which will have the most influence upon the site and will impose the greatest horizontal acceleration. We have assumed a horizontal ground acceleration of 0. 54g in our liquefaction analysis. CONCLUSIONS Our analysis was performed in conformance with the simplified procedures developed by H. B. Seed. The actual calculations were done using a personal computer and the program PETAL2 . Copies of our output are appended. The output was generated for each exploratory boring. The results of our analysis indicate that Factors of Safety generally exceed 4 . 99 throughout the depths investigated. This is with the exception of Boring No. 2 where Factors of Safety are greater than 1. 55 using ultra-conservative parameters. On this basis , it is our opinion that the liquefaction potential is sufficiently low and that no mitigation will be necessary. GENERAL The findings and recommendations of this report are based upon an interpolation of soil conditions between boring locations. Our Boring Logs accurately reflect the soil conditions at the specif- ic sites of our exploration. Variations could and may occur between boring locations . Should any variations be observed during construction or during subsequent soil investigations on the site, our office should be notified. It has been our pleasure to be of service to you on this project. If you have any questions, please contact our office. Respectful y, I /LANI !OU DATION ENGINEERING, INC. IR.C.E e E. Strahm, President 26409/G.E. 959 LES:jg Distribution: Addressee (2) A.J. Frick (1) 3 Inland Foundation Engineering, Inc. Boring No. 1 Project No. 326-001 Projects-_i ttl e League hestnut Date 11/7/89 Sample Types S .P.T. 22" I .D. Rings Hammer Weight 140 lbs . Drop 30 inches SOIL PROPERTIES sample moisture dry relative soil depth S `D -ill description and remarks content density compaction type F, o Ipercent lbs/cf percent Z. 8 Silty sand, fine to medium, with 2.1 109.5 Z 8 Igravel , brown. 6 9.9 89.4 - SM 2 5 3 9 4 8 11 I 3.0 119.3 _ 16 10 18 19 I Silty sand, medium to coarse, with 15 12 gravel , with trace of metamorphic 2.7 116.9 - 21 schist. 50 20 4 8.1 - - 6 31 25 4 " I 7.7 - - SM 6 ' 11 I - - 30 I g 4.0 I . Possible mottling. 14 22 • I i .35 7 IPossible mottling. 3.8 - - 0 1 I 40 21 Possible mottling. 2.5 - - 33 I 49 ` 41.5 Feet - End of Boring 45 I I BORING L O G Liquefaction Investigation Figure Little League Drive & Chestnut Avenue No. Inland Foundation Fnsineerins, TnC. San Bernardino, California 1 Boring No. 2 Project N 5326-001 Project Little LeaV & Chestnut Date 11/7/89 Sample Types S.P.T. 21,," I .D. Rings Hammer Weight 140 lbs . Drop 30 inches SOIL PROPERTIES sample moisture dry relative soil depth S cD oll description and remarks content density compaction type p 3 percent Ibs/cf percent T Sand, medium to coarse, with gravel , _ 4 with trace of silt, slightly damp, 1.2 102.3 7 brown. 10 1.7 104.1 - 5 5 9 9 2.5 110.4 10 3 9 10 2.3 112.2 - 15 10 8 8 Possible mottling. 2.3 _ - 20 12 17 16 25 9 2.7 - 10 10 3.5 - _ 30 1.0 2 2 . 35 6 Definite mottling. 3'7 - - 9 14 - i 40 17` 2.8 - - 24.- 38 41.5 Feet - End of Boring 45 Liquefaction Investigation Figure BORING L O G Little League Drive & Chestnut Avenue NOS Inland Foundation Fnsineering, Inc. San Bernardino, California 2 Boring No. 3 Project ' S326-001 Project Little Leao, - & Chestnut Date 11/7/89 Sample T)-pes S .P.T. 22" I .D. Rings. Hammer Weight 140 lbs . Drop 30 inches E I - SOIL PROPERTIES sample moisture dry relative soil depth S `° soil description and remarks content density compaction type F, 3 percent lbs/cf percent T Silty sand, fine to coarse, with trac of gravel , brown. 5 7 0 9 10 5.8 - - 15 6 10 17 3.9 - - 20 17 27 25 6 Sand, medium to coarse, with trace 5.2 - - 9 of silt, brown. 11 30 8 2.7 - - 12 18 � 161 41 Evidence of mottling. 2'2 - - 28 { Sand, medium to coarse, with trace of silt, brown. 40 3 2.8 33 8 45 '1.5 Feet - End of Boring BORING L O G Liquefaction Investigation Figure Little League Drive & Chestnut Avenue No. Inland Foundation Engineering, In C. San Bernardino, California 3 u O C Z y w •` Q LL cc b Y C � o C O N Z _ W V Y U L p C O Ot ep w W Oi /1 � C _ O n V v > q Q M '34 v O c Cl {L O 0 Q p L 0 V Y N m W C U J C F J Y U �O N loop� r N CO 0* as A 4 go j � r 2X22X222t2t2X2#2XSXt2X2222#t2tt2t22ttI2Xt#t t 2 2 PETAL2 - IBM-PC VERSION t I t I PEnetration Testing And Liquefaction, t 2 An Interactive Computer Program 2 t t t Program By: Albert T. F. Chen, 2 t U.S.G.S., O.E.V.E. t t t I Progras Adapted to Run on IBM-PC by: t t Thomas F. Blake, C.E.G., P.E. t t September 12, 1966 t t t Itt2t22ttltit 2t2t22tttlt22tt2222ttttt#2#222 Safety Investment - S326-001; BORING NO. 1 The site consists of 1 layers w/ depths, saturated and wet densities: 1 41.5 (ft) 130.0 (pcf) 120.0 (pcf) Input eq. oag.= 8.50 Max. acc. = .54 g Design ground water table depth = 30.0 ft. Testing ground water table depth = 50.0 ft. SPT hasser efficiency assigned = .18 Count Depth Design stress (psf) Testing stress (psf) SPT blow Fine/gravel Remark (ft) effective total effective total count content i 30.0 3600.0 36J0.'v' 3600.0 3600.0 36.0 .25 2 35.0 3938.0 4250.0 4200.0 4200.0 11.0 .25 3 40.0 4216.0 4900.0 4800.0 4800.0 81.0 .25 Count Depth Modified Relative In-situ Liquefaction Factor Pore pre__. Correction (ft) bc, N1 de7sity stress ratio stress ratio of safety ratio applies 1 30.0 37.2 .87 .32 1.99(NAl 4.99(NA) .00 2 35.0 67.9 1.00 .34 1.99(NA) 4.99(NA) .00 3 40.0 12.5 1.00 .35 1.99(NA) 4.99(NA) .00 X t NA = Not applicable or not accurate tt Inland Foundation Engineering, Inc. 1 t t PETAL2 - IBM-PC VERSION t t 1 2 PEnetration Testing And Liquefaction, 1 1 An interactive Computer Program 1 2 1 2 Program By: Albert T. F. Chen, 2 3 U.S.B.S., O.E.V.E. t t t 3 Program Adapted to Run on IBM-PC by: t 2 Thomas F. Blake, C.E.B., P.E. 2 2 September 12, 1986 t 2 t 1231222Ii;it2i1 ti22ittt23t22ttt�tt2ttttttlt Safety Investment - S326-001;BORINB NO. 2 The site consists of 1 layers w/ depths, saturated and wet densities: 1 42.0 (ft) 130.0 (pcf) 120.0 (pcf) Input eq. ■ag.= 8.50 Max. acc. = .54 g Design ground water table depth = 20.0 ft, Testing ground water table depth = 50.0 ft. SPT hammer efficiency assigned = .78 Court Depth Design stress (psf) - Testing stress (psf) SPT blow Fine/gravel Remark (ft) effective total effective total count content 1 20.0 2400.0 2400.0 2400.0 2400.0 33. 0 .25 25.0 2738.0 3050.0 3000.0 3000.0 20.0 .25 3 30.0 3076.0 3700.0 3600.0 3600.0 64.0 .25 4 35.0 3414.0 4350.0 4200.0 4200.0 23.0 .25 5 40.0 3752.0 5000.0 48.'•0.0 4800.0 52.0 .25 t C� ^t Oepth Modified Relative In-situ Liquefaction Factor Pore press. Cor-e_:ion (ft) bc, N1 density stress ratio stress ratio of safety ratio applie~ 1 20.0 40,2 .90 .33 1.99(NA) 4.99(NA) .00 2 25.0 22.3 .70 .37 .76 2.07 .02 30.0 66.1 1.00 .39 1.99(NA) 4.99(NA) .00 4 35,0 22,0 .70 .40 .K 1.55 .01 otburder. 40.0 46.6 .95 .41 1.9901A) 4.99(NA) .00 t t NA = Not applicable or not accurate it Inland Foundation Engineering, Inc. 1 22##t2i1tt2##T;SttlttTt;;TlttltSS2Stt2t2ti1 t t I PETAL - IBM-PC VERSION t I t I PEnetration Te=.tin? .-d Liquefaction, t 2 An Interactive Ccdputer Program t t I I Program By: Alert T. F. Chen, I 2 U.S.6.5., O.E.V.E. t 1 I I Program Adapted to Run on IBM-PC by: t I Thocas F. Blake; C.E.G., P.E. I I September 12, 1986 2 1 t tI II2i1I2Ittilt11ti22I I2t22222I2122t2222it2 Safety Investment - S326-001;BORING NO. 3 The site consists of 1 layers w/ dept-,s, saturated and wet densities: 1 42.0 (ft) 130.0 (pcf) 120.1 (pcf) - Input eq. aaq.= 8.Z0 Max. acc. _ .54 g Design ground water table depth = 30.0 ft. Testing ground water table depth = 50.0 ft. SPT ha-eaer efficiency assigned = .78 Count. Depth Design stress (psf) Testing stress (psf) SPT blow Fi^=_/gravel Rears (ft) effective total effective total count content 1 30.0 3600.0 3600.0 3600.0 3600.0 30.0 .25 L JJ.0 3936.0 4250.0 4200.0 4200.0 62.0 .25 J 40.0 4276.0 4900.0 4900.0 4800.0 91.0 .25 in-situ rrC':i^n � Count Depth Mccified Relative itu LiGuefac airs Factor _re press. Co_ _ J. density stre__ ratio stress ratio of safety rati'c, 1 ? .;? 31.'; 1.99(NA) 4.99(NA) 0;? 59.. 1.00 i 1.99(NA) 4.99(NA) 00 4 .°,'. 91.5 1.00 1.99(NA) 4.99(NA) 00 I t _ 1c.t app IicatIe or o`- acc;:rat_ tt L Inland Foundation Engineering, Inc. ATTACHMr,ST C - MITIGATION MONITORJiNG PROGRAM This Mitigation Monitoring Program is required as necessary to comply with AB 3180 which requires the lead agency to submit a proposed reporting or monitoring program for changes required or incorporated into the project at its request. Mitigation measures contained in the Final Environmental Impact Report for the proposed project form the basis of this program. The program is intended to provide a format for keeping track of various mitigation measures needing to reduce impacts due to the proposed project. Such program allows the lead agency to ensure that each mitigation measure has been effectively implemented and that no single measure is overlooked. This reporting mechanism consists of several components to allow easy understanding of the measure, reporting responsibilities and other require- ments. Specifically, the program lists the mitigation measure number, the mitigation measure text (in its entirety), the timing associated with its imple- mentation, the parry responsible for implementing the measure, and a space to indicating completion or compliance of the measure. It should be noted that new mitigation measures that were developed in conjunction with the Response to Comments have been included. 08/05/92(R:\ H)101\RESPONSE.COM) r. q 0 V v a 0 " U � A q v o v q ro C cc q u o = a av s Cl � � Q U o v > ` E o v A S V E � n,•q c o L q N > c ca 0 cCa C E 0 C F o ° 0 a E C7 �� •h o C7 C ° oqp ° uC ov c E ': E cC c a a F., a ro ° a v ° C "U E y u v o v c C z v c n u o E o < v is c U c lul u Ov u o CJ c v Z U U G u v a N c p q �J o v 04 d 0 u v .0 T, u h h O c� cv OA y C 7 V L .o �- v o 4 c c ^r y 0 5 o u N C y c oA o ca u v o Z �, = E u N c z a_v u s v a u v I1��1I 'ri 04 v ro L `v`, y �. - C cc u Ct y v •� v C 'ri C N /C GJ U C N v L. t L y�j N C v U yN. 0 O C • (C7 d .. .E v c c va L u 'a 5 r v o o ,o v > v v u o C ` •u •O 0 7 Oq L u `IJ 0 .� v v v r 5 C N v L M `� y y '•�_, G a d O Z L Oq 0 R 'V�' v Z C H N t L G O O u v d L O Co c t C v, u c > o"� a 3 E M c V CL N c N E c o L v ° y v c O N fC C L u v v u �0 C yCj •- > p cE•$ C m E L L L .G o C .V •C '� v 0-0•V "O .i7 O E Y O. L O D OL V v Z •V U Z C 0 4. E M v u O d 4- a L '� Z 6J v h o 0 u u u W5 > CS C Q. u N v QJ Q1 C� a O v V v a"on N N Cd V c n.Z c Cu "p h c ` > r c m aEi en " v °v a` ca � U v o Vr ° o C7 v u c c v L L o cc U n LU a. c 0q o L " c: u v 04 O. u C. z C L C C C u p M " v C 'C ca 'y E 0 O L d 'L.' Z:a 60J 7 >, u 7 .yi, C 6J v C 7 0 '� t 0 0 a 'h 04 0o N ca N h ca z a v 1) r- d u 5j � � O N a x N o N D O u a U Q d u o E .a 6 •L 6 U G 0 z cs 0 � � Q v G 0 C- u `o, c v z 0 v O u o ` L E E G c o a z v v V C C v " c u C 0 h ro 0 .v H coo °�' r°' ' ?? c v v r c 0 v Z i s = v 7 y c v ° r t o �° c " L a ' u � c u uL ros 0 v `� E n u > h o G c 0 o Gz s h .a c c h O _ L �da> 7 c ENuL h v h r vim ' 0 ° o z ao 0 i 0 m E U u v v c Z ca E p y on r o ca g y y v = L v v Go t E v v 4 E � . _ d ca v ocn c a > ..v o n o..? o a ° c °c v 6 G t >> ra c oz E ° u c �> L t u = ° v v r c Z m G'h ca iv y c .� v L O Oy = c G U Gov c •0 0 4 v v O h N " v L L u o v 0 c ao y u u v L E u 'o u ° E h U U y v D o s o C G•y v •0 0 v 0. a� 0 ° ° v t " °�' G'� a o ° v, E u v p ° U ° c 0 ° G c 7 v c h O p cc n r C z o �o '` ° t 0 u oq " c > 0 op y v� V .y — Cyi �j v y a v COp G v .0 '� L SC c7 Y ° L `n H j G a OJ C v 7 v C d Z C cz y v Q c >. v h C O L C aq 0 0 O .� Q: C O F C 0 tzl cva V L 'h v m v u 11 o G = a C s O v E ca 7 0 L > 0 CN o v E C r .4 n d 0 L c � . c � r � oc°n cai' • V► o_ a+ A 0 M C O u c E U A d u C .. Q .E E O � U p A A w � a z z � 0 v 0 C O � O a. E h O 6J V v Cl r c. -00 O CM L u C CCq L 61 O E ce G ° v ca v C C h ca O y v u C � O G •y � � C r L ~ 0 3 2 E C u O V c7 V C '� t =� 0 h e•C v r Q V C v ro v c E G a s o c c v ,C.c v c CL u c `° v o ?' rG .0 G L E u h = L c7 cn h cC L 0 V cE U O C z E > E v ° G OZ s u .E v a E u c u a C. `� y 0 c a o v ° r _ 0 ,., v 0 � v U U 0 ca O O u � v u v... G1 Z V ° u V C1 '� C L V c1 dy0 C G. h ° L C o > > C V v (dJ j u s v u 0 o B o L c ti L E c c E v - v G v � ca 3 cn v ,o y .°- c h a ow v ao o v G `= a r o o a C Z = c ao 0 0.4 n• C v U C O L V :% C L 7 -- c G ° n c h v G G r c �° E G ° 0 v v r z o .c m y = v a c v cnG_° ob E a u to Q• E v r r o � v a c E z c o c v ao z '� .o o c u ° aEi CL �r ca L 3 E m > G > a � z a � c7 0 a a v N tr �e O iG G O � O Nt § k \ � c ■ t � § » _ § \ k c Q k � q � 0 � 2 � < 2 � s § I § 2 \ { § 7 2 § Cl, © u a ƒ \ \ r ± 2 u / � c � ƒ E \ § U § : - c » 2 % n \ 3 ` » k k U e \ ) / K \ 5 }\ $ $ 3 ( k 2 ƒ§ } 2 \ 12 § 2 % \ƒ § E_ u u _ = u = _ m u # t 2 $ / % § _ o u ° E \ G ` § [ c 2 / 2 3 u @ / a e � ' 3 § \ % § \ ( @ / wo © f� nzu » ' E u o - __ o - &z , u ) o � _ � � ° ° E= % ; \ % E c /\ \ ° � E / 0 � § u = W q 2 = 2 ; 2 = ± u u u \ � ) 5 f t E u@ c C. a u ±± 7 G G * � . ® c ' ° C. u E o \ E I a ƒ ) § / \ j § j \ ƒ \ ) j \ ( k / Ob 2 � ) \ . s a 0 V v c E U Ca Q v C .. d •a v 8 � U p Q Q W � a z z 0 V o c 0 u o a a � a .c ro .� _ t E oQ � o v v c v C t u o ° c c E v v u 0 ca 0 U O u c 7 y L w t c v 0 1H h Z 7 U v v 6J pp V, —U ;n C 0 W v LI u 61 Uj 7 .G Z t d O` •O H fE G 1] •� ,: O ca r O c� o o ` v r E U" Z 0 O 0 C �- O u C G C .`_ 0 a O O4 0 L v v o cn GJ r 0 7 v 3 O ro Z E co C p `NV 0 y M •C u ao 4 n C G L C 'G >,•r y N C 6�J E C •v� C E v 7 �= 7 C u +% d GO WO O, eca T 0 v c�a v 0 C a � u 7 C y C M L V' v c c ca y 0 0 �� Li v o o c o c y v E Fc E E z o z ON o L7 ++ Q C1 L7 C � �}• a R 7 N u c � o C O V as 6 �v, O �y U A r b ra v c r c n. - c G ca c V5 v a v c v G ° O c E v 'E O n g h r 0 ` 'c E r = c y M v V ,o E E c c ° z p v c J L G c C c Z 'E ° .5 ° _° > > o o E v C L J S c v L .y 0 C 04 pq A _ �7 2 u C7 cc- E vc U a c u o o v .S E c = 0 h � •h o c f A ° c c O v c W c v v o v u y L v a v E z oC- �`oc E < 0 V Q O„ O E c •c a c c r J U s E m n, c ` ti E G h h O v O O v r F _ E �'.� 0 '0 7 N L 0 0 X C. 0 0 aG u v o O � c= ELE� v � '� � = o oc ca v c v v = v a L E c h E L v s � ovn v c v r o � •� � � � � � � o Z y v E �, c " 0& c U o ? r E r E v o O v v L O h 7 :c o o ? c E r c =c p �? °> E �--� :' ' L E •� c " ,, o •5 ca o oq o .o h .a v W a v o E v r Z c u a•C L ca 0 •� C. t. 07 OA v 'C v CJ c _, 0 7 V C O h 3 E - z E N v °v° y 'y c .o r c v = v v t L v _v u oq y 3 v �O E r c O c = v L ii. O ea v O y cl v C ._ L �; ca r 0 0 r .04 :� � u 0 y h q cCa .O Z L O Z E = C 0 E L L ca U t S :? o v o L v o c H G 0 y L 3 0 = c E (C a VII p, N h N v C c C_ v QG O td C c0 ;� cS LO C c L E �... v - O 0 i_C 6J Gn h N C0 c .Lv. '� CJ r 7 � L •� L •p 'n � v v vp� v - OA = Lcs `� C — O C 00 �p C7 O ',j v .E u u U y c ? o avo c E 0 U V .. 0 V h A N V '^ c 0 a 0 v a E !! O iy U Q C u v O v v cl cl c L G V c ` n c y c z E 0 c L c p ^T L G buA U ? 0 ._ O ._ c x u m 0 O 0 ocq n v u oC_r M v u ca ccc G Q U v nU0 LT7 0 < y E c � R v h h 0 h ca O. c d u o u o u ." . u o W C p E a r > E r 0 > o r c E s 0 E d 0 � v ocn C. c C.z c. a v G ocn a Z n Z c o v 0 .0 c 0 .v c L .0 C .0 m e > > v > > v > > y c v Z F� Vac a U" - E u E U Q o f O v or a of :° o E E V E V '>_ V �a O C V u v C) c = a O O a C v C •r y C c L y OA C '� — y o ca 0 u r 0 c M 0 m u r u E V) M u v ca U Z 4 ` L u E c L a a w R co m V) cci c m 0 V) a to c 'h r E r u E h N h c v U c r O o v 0 C- n a o E Z u a „ a u ra 04 p Z U c r E U Z a u o o a u " v •� u y .� t C E ! O v 0 C (4 C 0, r c v t r _ ° C u N c v v Z p E c'•= L C 0 •,CV, c c c U V ruc v o 'a c v`tl Z y v O a _ v 4 L > V -C u 7 o 0 s m bi' n "i 0 E _E L c � - Cn ip 0 � o u v � y h '� y C L. CN c� `' 7 0 aT 0 v �... C. y 0 •G 7 C v r c n y U x n o t n > 0 0 Z V O L n V i R V V f7 V U oL v 04c .0 M o o a0 o c u m ° `" " E C y ~ L ca 0 cv > O U 6 �• y ca •C C cyc C. Z c C u U a v .N .` O v o " n > U ca G a v v � S E T a E 0 c v m v a p o o .a v v E S o h ° v on E v v ti u n c C v s v v •p 0 .5 O° v v h .0 s 0 E Z y v p o C y c C E is s v T E r C y is C r c = U cas°`o v t o c a v v °-° °: c v C C m o- u 0 v Z v 0 a. Ou is r y ca •aa y d -N W y v y y �. y C-t y ca u C. y h U 0 to u u h t v c a Vn c 0 o E t w o E c u �a c o CCvoE 0c; r ON Ev ° sEo 5 auov dd c � s c � o4a OA ca v " c - v ea CG E v z O 0 C p - G s v y a " oq �_ v a•S v v v Z o' v c X E E po a n v E 0 C 0 c u u v U m = V a E z a au ov. E z W a D n f°C L7 .. o a o � � Sri 'ri Ki Ki a Sri � � o 00 C O d E u O � U A C O N c v 0 v v a E r E G. > li o c > c 0 E E. v o 0 is r U o n0 v E z Z v t `� o E v W N a c c u E Q r o v E - v �', ao •� a C o Z o> o z o v u z o c °` v N > c° - ro v a Z F O L E < c C a o c r �a � c v C7 C q a a v v v c c v u '3 E p! a ca c v v u L ii C j m c u cca oq v - c E 3 7 = r v o c s v N c 0 0 v v Z E v u C 0 ca Z u u c c ° s t v r Z °R3 Z ca S ro Z E c o c o n er c a o o c E o n � •O a U N O m y v 0 E c d Z Q % M 0 > c E y v c a , v u � ou c o f " r a a r c E L ro u v c L C L L >M CL O ° d C Z u O p c L O 0 M O u 0. M c1 G O > v N 7 v 0 v d U p 04 is u v v V O v r v a c L u Q cNC m pN— z C V' r v v z o cr u v u c `-' E r `o s °-' c Z cn 4 v 'v c C Z _ �' r ° c v N ii E 3 v 0 ° ° W CL > E r o > v v c > c z o E z E v o c U r .o E v N c n r a y �� c =� u �a ❑ v 0 0 0 va Ovo o `n � E .4 craze ' to"C � yZ � v ° 'E u N N o ca o. c ca > F c Z N C •C, v •� u �' y, L .�. C v v .�! •C C' L v C O L U u N S � > L L.L N U C 41 OCD y v .S c O v U L E h c ? u 6. ro E o - c c_z a . rr z � ° c .y u F o V) v .0 C. C �, C ° r L u C Ev v u E m h m c M v E L ,� o T y o N O 3 Vr c• C. o a V E v o e, y c 0 E E cc H v o c u 0 d ° c c c a 0 o c E O r E ° v r Z v �. C.0 CJ E �, t. - v U v GJ N o. a ii . (- i= G U h ca a E ` n o ca p O 0 O r3, r M r ^ r LA M M M I O a\ a 0 .Ll o. o U � Q .�+ G G c v ;• u C c c L c7 G v c v E L o o z N c a •2- c > v V c U E 0 p u C, 0 U o G c G v G u c v v C G c h ° C. 6 v v; U U U V U v� 'G Fj C C C Cl v p C v G �, ° •� •v . z Z o f u c o v c� E E .E n L ' m E c v = v = > u ° ` ° v ° o - E o o c p E p E a a` 0 a O z a?S oA > > c yci v c v c p v r E �, E o p ,o u M a 'v, ) G 4 o Q c m c v c 0 c Y S p v ci ao v o v " � E v c G v p o a c v p c v E '� 0 p '3 p O C a3 0 '°- v c 04 cv' E G c "' E u v = `v •E •u v Ep E v �> Ad ca aa. a = u U5 a E cca O v •� 0 0 C �j 0 '0 L 0 r`u E r � .'-' � E o � v � ,� L c s p a O z o = o v c v m e N .o = r v 0 u ` c c7 t % `" a h r v h C 0 61 C zEv OJ t C L U U •� G. a: •o C v U u U � L � ca c c; h c o y v v 'r u = o �.. C — C m u C V V, G n :C C1 r1 O U 0 Q U v c 0 T ` y E -C _ U L 0 c O U O S U C U n - ` — O _� o a z _� v (q L C — t L h Ou L �+•0 L O c ' c c'E c c E E 1 E (C u ° uEc � � u c0 o ugt mmaco c u G v E c E a -c v — c? a G C. v h a - cac _ G G r G p cv v n `° v V 0. v W- r v 0 G v v u u v .5 c v .5 to 'o 'a� r C. •c.a •a c o E E W .o � c z n o, u cUa a cC. a00 u n 0 a u c C v o C.E. v v u 3 .5 Fc c .5 E > 5 o"n Fc y o cl ++ o O Ca a M M 0 0 a 0 v c O " q Q v ? U v ro Q :a � `v = C c c C- C) ° = = c v u . Z u - c o U U C L L p o G Upp o v ¢ C. ¢ na. ao aV .. u u 0 c c c c U h °4 a �; n U h n y c v z o v o ° .0 U p ° v C L ] ao o � � o •9 � o > r CL U Z F a o C. a `o C. < r C u o c E c U E a c c c U .v u E ^- v E o c ° u C7 O C d o u L v GD O v u E Q a o ° W � '� U b y C C•' •C G C S C G C (% •C U � V •u p 'S a cca a cCS o c a s is c n a a C U p vi C ti c o E t -° h 0 U r. v H `aoac c v osr ° a s I,- V) O G �' ca L dz u r 0 j U u n v � .a c n = C Z U pq Z ca U L V r. Z a - c1 m O a C o c 0 U ° E Y oG ' c u OC h L >,Y c' U C U u r •� U v L U C 6! .0 L C - a C G v a v c o o `� U U 6J 61 Y 04 ci v c U E p g r z " h L a y L c O h Z 04 y a 0 U y U w v C u > C Z v 0 y U r ca c U U .0 , - U 0 p > E v E o c h °°* a o � U L c a `o -C r o 0 o u c u a Z h E E c c v v U h U t h a ro cca h ao c 0 E C. '� O L C c c r— C a u u c o c ci °-' U M ccs U u `° c a v - U U U •- C _ .-. C1C L L U _ C L Y Q 0 a �'c cv U "'t v. v a• h cS O U L a a v U •`-' L. v m o v V)i a v 3 a a L w a 0 U U _ d L u L U r 0 O L V > > U V U r U O N E p., oz L caZ Uc_ c zz E .Eo OU 0 Q A 0 v �3 Kj O d 0 c o � U � Q D L V c a y c L o u 0 u 0 V O v A o s C. U O G 0 t C v O C a T _C• a Z C CC Z d G 7 > t. u z F M u E n E y E C u c v p 4u ° a 'o L o s v c = Z O DA C CU' t0-0 > E •7 fC7 OG c7 r DG v v V v V •y F .7 M Z C O Z Z t ,v, fE Z c 7 c o o V y�-r 3 0 c a T E v r z .� 0 Sao= yt � o04 cd y r cv c C c E c > v g C. U o ° v ac, o o °c° r Z y = z v ca. > C.0 " c c c u c a•c E ° c > v by Z c V T L r L G u C� E u = c V m V — y E d v c ° o E o 0 X u ? L o r 'E o �, h y y o c NL E Z V '� QA H ••:1G L U s v u acv a u c v v ou y ^ C v z v L E L O L p 44yJJ C o •.+ v o v m . Z r v C v Cl 5 > L a n o n n v E h Z r. E v c v r o 0 o c c 4 0 m ° E p c � " c E s ° E v G o ° C C:L E o o ° L v c " r ' E c•o o r c = v C a E v u o u c h ao r u C � oG C o w c v y L .vc � — v Z ,a o U °' v •o c = R � C o a r .N v to C. C- oGVZ u h L u iv s a v p c y n v c .v Z - C V u u o > > a v p ' v ao v F- 0 c c o p y o cd c a o h c z o h E a o O G > U c Z v Z u n L a _� c c u h v v p c u C C" E u C, V d V '•'- Z v N c v c ° z Z ca o v CL c L C..E 0 d x r C x oz u v p r c r v v v o E E o n ca v V C U c .0 E F s .0 0 C. O V o 0 19 j a 53 U +•+ v� A o O Ir W t 04 M 0 N O O v c E o R U Ca v c C � a n• � u � c �, �., a v v z J u C v c E p p' O L •v U q U M L C. Q 4 G C C c v v U u E < < « r c: ci V 0 U 0 v 4- u C c o c C G v _0= 7 O E p E u '.. W C GJ C 6J C v c L C u O u > —��' G Q Z c v c U a h c E 'E `C � v � L v v 0 v 0 O Z I s a r c t c E c u r o ro O o °• � a VII V 0 O u C y c c E a E tYi OvG C L C r a v c-ts a� H 0 C r o c v h � h a 0 v 0.0 C v o n E - 0 L cs cs 0 7 C 0 O y L V L r C Z C L. C. 0 rG u O cs U C j L C �... 'C L O G v' L O > 7 T U t L L C O d c � •o c B c h �'c u � L ,o � � n o o a o c ° .= v o 'U �, C C c E b y C v H 0 0 O N v > > v v ¢ oa L 3 N L a C s 3 > v 3 r00 z v > C p co z N .� 3 u > p r c c�a o t5 v 0 c 41 v ce G E L 7 h n c OC C v v O v 0 v S �; L .iv cyS Z ` 0 C Z a ,� ` 'C z d to u :1 U U- c o cca N p r y r a o r o p � p 'a c o p a C G c t ` n� v 7 0 u C c`a C v u _ 0 u C"C. L 0 > h C ,> L O v > I 3 G o a �u c -' v N Lc � � u g o L o c r c . v c v o ' c o v • c� v c c p < a = y o < p �"� \ c E c c v L .0 ti r > G1 v v c v c c. y c c ¢ L < p E c E „ v E c v > V v p ; s o o E Z � O � r V y a �? r 0 cc M n d O u c E o � U A q u C u c c EE ` c u � V �3 a a `- o U Q - u L. u v u U C U O U C U O L O U O 0 C 0 c C `• " "' c O c O c O C C V c V C V C V C v C v .. 0 C- °- G °- o ° E o f o a a.L ° Z ° Z ° Z ° Z O z Q O U u O c O J 0 ^j u u u 'uu 0 v C. u d L c < L c ¢ J C- ¢ L a v L o Lu o Z a c � a O v c c v o v E 3 E 3 E $ E C CL G —C C. C4 L cC �Of, t C •^ L 7 r 0 C r L ie -C L tr Q 0 ` V O p L O u u c p C N O •� G 0 u v c u c L c v L v v c L d v d C O z L " C C M 6 ro v N C z C C 0 c 0 , > C C C u C v C 'C 0 O C ti L W 7 •Y v 0 ^ v Y u .n Ci Y C vv, c—Ca O a 7 CCa z ¢� O cs c ` tC cs = a v n v L 0 p 0 0 cc oCG L O c aG L v C v p y v p r ea (n L04 c 7 C C V r.O C a C .O. Z ON L O Vn 0 7 d o Q o o Z a 0 c r v '� ° m— C 0 r o c7 00 v c oo z 'c h hva No o �' ho03 u a u E 3 a L c m `= u ° 3 c L L a c c 0.4 C .> L C C C 7 c c L C n cc ¢ j L m 0 u C .0 V c a v >_ ° o c E s v v O c c c u V c - E v L C L V E •O, r c9 .� V V v o cca o r v v > c y c E c v y u > 0 u E c too c o o c to— o ° o s L o o ° m v 0 3 a E v cE n cc JL ` r v cE � ca � a' rLr > 4 L �- v c c 7 v ti L. G. p 0 v 0 0 ocn v c t O 3 0 ou `� c .. C C v u ,o .0 '�-� .M N V r O = N v M V 0 0 ° E� c N V > > O E C c ° E v v 7 C c C O C �= L C O c C m 0 C .c Z L 7 m 0 V F O r L ¢ �° R ¢ o 'o C t > " 0 > c 00 ° r _ > 0 ° � c E z a L p a O .0 a o L M . G1 r � E 7 ` E z h r E 0 E o s C n vi c u ca V � G q � u 00 ^ 'N•, M N ,G � M tY1 M r(•� � � O • 00 O r, a 0 c E u U A C LL; u � G a v hu 2' u u v E E o o " — r y c E o C E o E U p W c = � •�.S v E 0' v ou v E 0 u u W pq c p o� ca 'y z ° o v E c o L `0 c Li dS C4 m v Y c G L E a E a Q C �' L � a3 Y c •� � v � L � m Q L u C L C u ri G u �° u • a O u `� u u t° u c 'E u u cc C p"' cv aG c U U m oA c. op cc ao u c u c � c au u u U v u 0 0 ou a u > > 0 u � h ca h L o 0 a o 0 n v r L u _ O. E z c 5 c u u ao r L 'u L v ' a c c u E r� C Y N c1 Z O. (/� 0 'n Z p C r 04 c c u p E c c : H m L c a°o o g v u s m u _ y ao c u U b E p m o •� c c n c v c o c o E " r `- u `" E . E c c c o � � � ou.v o Z � E c • 0 H h .N p o a a u c °° o h c L c c v o c. v v v h m oa 3 p u a F c u c h 0 E !'� u c v h c v E v a c r u L o s ca D c _ o a ou a0 u 0 0 L u 0 �n v 0 L .G Q O O p E N G u O v N .O E C .> U `� L,, `� a OJ v C v C 7 u u u L r L u 0 Q .0 G u E p '�"' � � cs Y O = Y •� O c V ,u `_ >. O � � •V � 0 O eLa u C = .`U. 7 d L > GU C U G C `i O .0 .0 � G h 61 L V O �. tr0. C E — v, •C — 6! a 7 H O LU y 0 F n v n L v J .� G.h c`a Gv c L Z 6�1 y o OU C on r- o f c C, o c ° 3 v p _ ou o N o .o z o c E ; a 'ca ot v 2 U r °a u c r c y ° c r E L o u ° > v p u �s E c p u s u u z E c v cl c _ c o o E G y t c 00Z h L E t r O u L L 0 v h L C.m 0 C y T C cGa v a H p . C G z c v u n v 3 .5 3 U °°.o c v v U > o E u a v L L c c v Gr E u O •E y ° u A `a ° u n o 0 •o on c o r J L v •c c 0 c c z CL c u 3 c v ca v p pr D v u c '> z o n F v L ou 'v ci 'v a`o.c h a cs c c v v Fj � o y `C' N �d 'ri m m 0 a 0 v a 6 'v, V Q v . 0=G L c v .L+ C p '� •v E Z •> •� Z F G C Op 0. U v C E E `c. � c a O c nu c u Z) 0 y c 'U" a h [ o G? ° c V c r � o y a J 'o r a v o oc c 04 G z v v c Z c c 3 c a Z c u > u > > L u '> L v b� ca z "u -0 E Q E � 04 .7 n. z 'c G 'c c Y •� a - •� n.� L bt � a � ,v a 04 CCi a cV) ccn 'ECG c u u ' _ c v 0 C4 cca on a cc NO 04 Z u ccs x c " C r d'C r F .c O O C C LO j Z C c y>> CL c ti > u c c 0 E Yc,: 0 z n � c C �' oA `� u r cr o c E p E c p c i �i s cLa bbk v a cCa u > O C r u cCV c u a G 7 v a3° a cCa C [- —M 0 a 'Z u ca ? u Za mu h Vz u isa u ��rr+ E rod E " 3 r ti u a E G N E c a E L rG d cn a L Q C `' L bG v Z �„ V t v u 0 Z v c u c .Y o f h u r h tx r c s u Cu o o c c o e �`, d o ° E u E r h v c r c E G ° c5 E F d n oL E O o' c y u b u a 0 �vC L n `� v C. 0 u c c L u .. v t v u U v ^ G.S L > o en b y u Ca o o v c •u v c u 7 ¢cy c� o G c v G u v d' Z p �vc n p E u r u c c _` v U h ,cC c v a E a 'S u F- v F t c.E c� a V) cn ccv G F a cn O � o 0 a o � o x a s r 00 c z N h U C5 C O O O C M M O a 0 c o � U � Q C C ;a v cC oc4 u c p c N u 0 0 .v a v v C c v L E u c > 0 U p a.con coq C. n v v_ U a.Ez ¢ v C ¢ Z •.. o c .. v o f v o Q _ tour C L O v c U c v ,v OA 0 m 0 > t C Z O u v u M y O 0 U u r, c v O L E 0 v c Z F a o 0 0�, p G �S a v C. L c p Y z " u n c ° '° u ` c rnj F c c E E c u C� oG ° o z E � " E u R+ c 0 0 oc c c n o-c .5 C L 0 0 C Lp C C v cc- n 0 ? G h r v C S 0 h c _ a s u c 0 c z �' u c c C oA m u p U L m .� O C C = O :J 0 CJ L M L y C QJ v U = ^ L E O C V L L u E v E c - u > o N 0 0 ° 0 o O L .E " � c u C.L u o f " o Z C.•E M n L C L O .v V 'u C v .� y L C. rr c F- Z E LnC L 0 c n .E h `= C L° G a ? r v L z o •° E c c c o c o ,�, y uv- o z `0 m - vc c X ` p L y D h u Z C L 7 cv ,.., s '> is a .N c C-v " z `v E ° .c 4? ?: Z c h ° n ❑ v u L L c u 5 c Z v c c _ u c Z c _ a v o c u o E y c L ca c — 0 = 'U v _ E u m u c u `v 0 u y c o E r c ct v = y " C. M c v c �? 0 U c p `u' c c " v y u m v c u O v C. cs c > L O pC c h Cp Z h v c h c 0 T O p v C 'c oc y u v 0 v O 0 0 0 d U 0 v c 0 a L ^ "C c L '3 0 C. c o v (h� c `'- c > c a a u v V M C.= m E N o �G U CJ •p C CJ L t n C7 L Q c L L v v O 6uJ o 0 c E o a 'a E c v u 'o' a v v o a', c C. ca v .. ° v ? o u c O U u y o — c y u •� z o . ar d c o o L o r E E z v a u c v u 'o u u a az US r, 2 < > h ° zhL "h � a o ° c v o z ✓ .� M z w Mr M 0 c 0 v a e � O � V Q d wi vi O u A L vv yao v vv Ha „ 61v „ • .7 '� �. 61 0 � •E 'v .� = C �' C Z C U � � 0 Z F L T E a 0 Z .o f no > c o v � o C �. E O to .o a' � r 00 c ° v oo O v � v c � '� 'u A. m n a c A a S 'o qa� UL U r.i U C O v 0 to 0 X01, v 7 v� C C N V w 6J 'O 0 ❑ 0 % > C y 0 C 0 v w = aLO: r � b �4n "o �• a ,n v ° ° c c ci u h d uE `° vooE � t v � � o r0 vwvc °: u u ° eEa ea t a r 0 Zoo•.°: o n, � o c v C °- L s h ea n°',Z c u u u '� C �+ V 'u tC 6J c v c Z y >, v 507 d p 41 Cc. o o `' `= yy y r ° oc o aU ea r L � ELw 3 _ u o v - a6 - � oE `° o > .. Emv' dc $ � v ° 0 t7 f0 ,67J, L C C �.. u y tVi o u •G.O c tv E v C 4J R •= 0 O. h '� o cQ v a ea v _ >.._ c v � a o r v v p " 3 E °� t 0 v o u •R � � _ :: h a w a v c° �, o c n•r r a o 'a ea c v E �° u c � a 'fir a=E E E 0 0 c 0 v c 8 v O � U A u 0 GZ E a c � C O c_ L: h . O M U u c U Z C- v O u u u u v CCd U f: U cC.' U CC7 U a c c C- OL h oG o� W c c c c 04 0 :c o 0 0 z 0 v a u u a C -C 0 p 0 C u C •� r Z u r Z u E u m 7 o u E o o ,`o o n 0 E c w`c E o C o m ° o ° u o c E c c ►� O z ` — - o E a 0 a is t cs O C _ E t o �3a z L c v a c u ° a c v o chi s E C a h > > > n z C v c y = � O ca u L G v c� o v 3 u u C M y c o o 'a c c r c v c v c v c E F-+ v u d c v v 0 CL o c o V o n v v a u v c� h v o ° v z z °-' LU n E c h m V v a oo r D ones E = 0 u 0.0 v C E 0 C g C u C O G c O ✓ O p u ; h � E u v o v d z v a � U c a o U O E c u y c u u u Q. a r :: ° — c c oo v c r c cv E z' o m c cs L oo z v °n `o °v h v cs ti v u °v' 061 c o '� ° c E a > c^ c c v E c o s •0 o ° o D o v v c s E v c . z Ec ZY m 'cs .p ac u EQZLU 3 oven c`a cEa cs u U 04 G M v n C C 3 c a u °-' c u z c u c c u c 0 E w M ea v t o U r c u L M c -E z c H c a E C as o E r E u a 3 y o C- b t ' v 0 ca b pr, v v V v u �' u v C. n v v .0 c E g u o v ouA ` r a v es r 'C C) u C o ouc y a U E z ca F c u '3 E- c E c c E v u ca c7 0 A t: a u N rt a a a