Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06.B- Community Development yu ORDINANCE (ID # 4485) DOC ID: 4485 D CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO — REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION Public Hearing From: Mark Persico M/CC Meeting Date: 07/05/2016 Prepared by: Stephanie Sanchez, (909) 384-7272 ext. 3399 Dept: Community Development Ward(s): All Subject: Ordinance of the Mayor and Common Council of the City of San Bernardino Approving General Plan Amendment 15-02 to Change the General Plan Land Use Designation of 25.25 Acres from Industrial (Approximately 11.5 Acres) and Open Space (Approximately 14.4 Acres) to Industrial, and Development Code Amendment (Zoning Map Amendment) 15-04 to Change the Zoning District from Industrial Light (IL) (Approximately 7.5 Acres), Office Industrial Park (OIP) (Approximately 4 Acres) and Public Commercial Recreation (PCR) (Approximately 14.4 Acres) to Industrial Light (IL) in Order to Allow the Development and Establishment of an Industrial Warehouse Building Containing Approximately 564,652 Square Feet Located on the Southwest Corner of Waterman Avenue and Dumas Street (FIRST READING); And, Resolution of the Mayor and Common Council of the City of San Bernardino Adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Approving Subdivision 15-05 (Tentative Parcel Map 19692) i and Development Permit Type-D 15-11 to Allow the Development and Establishment of an Industrial Warehouse Building Containing Approximately 564,652 Square Feet, Along with the Construction of the Required On-Site and Off-Site Improvements, on a Parcel Containing Approximately 25.25 Acres Located on the Southwest Corner of Waterman Avenue and Dumas Street (APN'S: 0141-431-01, 02, 03, 04, 08, 09, 10, 11, 12, 16, 20 and 21) Within the Industrial Light (IL) Zone.(#4485) Current Business Registration Certificate: Financial Impact: The proposed industrial project will result in increased property tax of an undetermined amount to accrue to the City, and job creation. Mayor to open the hearing. . . Motion: 1) Close the hearing; 2) Lay over Ordinance (see Attachment 1) for final adoption; and 3) Adopt the Resolution (see Attachment 2) adopting the Mitigated Negative Declaration; and, approving Subdivision 15-05 (Tentative Parcel Map 19692) and Development Permit Type-D 15-11, based upon the recommended Findings of Fact and Conditions of Approval. Synopsis of Previous Council Action: None Updated: 6/27/2016 by Georgeann "Gigi" Hanna DF,? � ii� ,8� : 10 Background: 4485 On May 18, 2016, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 2016-030 (please see Attachment 3) forwarding a recommendation that the Mayor and Common Council: 1) Adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration; and 2) Approve General Plan Amendment 15-02, Development Code Amendment(Zoning Map Amendment) 15-04, Subdivision 15-05 (Tentative Parcel Map 19692) and Development Permit Type-D 15-11, based upon the recommended Findings of Fact and Conditions of Approval. Protect Description: Pursuant to the requirements of Chapter 19.50 (General Plan Amendments), Chapter 19.42 (Development Code Amendments), Chapter 19.74 (Zoning Map Amendments), §19.66.020 (Subdivision Map Applications) and §19.44.020 (Development Permit Applications) and of the City of San Bernardino Development Code, the applicant is requesting the approval of General Plan Amendment 15-02, Development Code Amendment (Zoning Map Amendment) 15-04, Subdivision 15-05 (Tentative Parcel Map 19692) and Development Permit Type-D 15-11 to allow: 1) The subdivision consolidating the existing 12 parcels containing a total of 25.25 acres into one parcel; 2) The change of the General Plan Land Use Designation from Industrial and Open Space to Industrial and change the Zoning District from Industrial Light (IL) (approximately 7.5 acres), Office Industrial Park (OIP) (approximately four acres) and Public Commercial Recreation (PCR) (approximately 14.4 acres) to Industrial Light (IL); and, 3) The development and establishment of an industrial warehouse building containing approximately 564,652 square feet. Analysis: Proiect Development - The proposed industrial development has been designed to comply with development standards of the City of San Bernardino Development Code. Site Design/Access/Traffic - The proposed industrial development will be accessed by four new driveway approaches; two each on both Waterman Avenue and Dumas Street. The internal site circulation has been designed to adequately accommodate on- site vehicular circulation and access to the parking areas. Designated "paths of travel" have also been provided to ensure pedestrian safety. The City's Traffic Engineering ..w Division has reviewed and accepted the Focused Traffic Analysis prepared for the proposed industrial development, and the appropriate traffic related mitigation Updated: 6/27/2016 by Georgeann "Gigi" Hanna DPcie�Pg582j„'” 4485 measures/Conditions of Approval have been included. Architecture - The architectural design is highlighted by the prominent tower elements at the corners and midpoint of the proposed east and west elevations. Additionally, glazed windows have been added along the eastern elevation (fronting Waterman Avenue) to complement the existing office buildings located near the subject site. Landscaping - Landscaped planters will be installed on the frontages along Waterman Avenue and Dumas Street, pursuant to the requirements of the City of San Bernardino Development Code. General Plan Goals and Policies - The City of San Bernardino General Plan includes goals and policies to guide future development within the City, including the following: ❑ Enhance the aesthetic quality.of land uses and structures in San Bernardino. ❑ Enhance the quality of life and economic vitality in San Bernardino by strategic infill of new development and revitalization of existing development. ❑ Control development and the use of land to minimize adverse impacts. Through this proposal, the applicant will be revitalizing the subject property in a manner that will enhance the physical and visual qualities of the subject property thereby enhancing the aesthetics of the surrounding neighborhood. Additionally, through this proposal the existing underutilized properties will be transformed into a development that meets the City's economic development goals, while satisfying the Development Code requirements and will be adequately regulated through the Conditions of Approval in order to minimize potential impacts. Public Comments - There were no public comments submitted on the project, nor were there any public comments presented during the public hearing by the Planning Commission. There were, however, extensive comments received in response to the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration during the CEQA-mandated 30-day public review period. The application was also approved by a unanimous vote of the Planning Commission. California Environmental Quality Act: In accordance with §15063 (Initial Study) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the applicant submitted and the Planning Division accepted an Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration (available at http://sbcity.org/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?blobid=20476) and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program prepared in connection with General Plan Amendment 15-02, Development Code Amendment (Zoning Map Amendment) 15-04, Subdivision 15-05 (Tentative Parcel Map 19692) and Development Permit Type-D 15- 11. Accordingly, pursuant to §15072 and §15073 (Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration) of CEQA, a Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration was released on December 9, 2015 for the CEQA-mandated thirty (30) day public review and comment period. Cilcet � Updated: 6/27/2016 by Georgeann "Gigi" Hanna D ' � � 4485 During the CEQA-mandated 30-day public review period, comments were received in response to the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration with concerns regarding potential impacts to wildlife, traffic, air quality and public utilities, and acceptable responses to these comments were prepared (available at http-H sbcity.org/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?blobid=20477). On February 25, 2016, the Development and Environmental Review Committee reviewed the application and Environmental Determination of the Planning Division, and moved the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for General Plan Amendment 15-02, Development Code Amendment (Zoning Map Amendment) 15-04, Subdivision 15-05 (Tentative Parcel Map 19692) and Development Permit Type-D 15-11 to the Planning Commission for consideration. Conclusion: On May 18, 2016, the Planning Commission determined that the proposed project is consistent with the City of San Bernardino General Plan and Development Code, and that the application satisfies all Findings of Fact required for approval of General Plan Amendment 15-01, Development Code Amendment (Zoning Map Amendment) 15-04, Subdivision 15-05 (Tentative Parcel Map 19692) and Development Permit Type-D 15- 11. City Attorney Review: This staff report and supporting documentation has been reviewed by the Deputy City Attorney, and accepted as to form. City Attorney Review: Supporting Documents: Staff Report (DOC) Attachment 1 - Ordinance (DOC) Attachment 1 - Ordinance (Exhibit A) (PDF) Attachment 1 - Ordinance (Exhibit B) (PDF) Attachment 2 - Resolution (DOC) Attachment 2 - Resolution (Exhibit A) (PDF) Attachment 2 - Resolution (Exhibit B) (PDF) Attachment 4 - PC Staff Report (PDF) Attachment 5 - PC Minutes(PDF) Attachment 3 - PC Resolution (PDF) Attachment 6 - Display Ad (DOC) Attachment 7 - CEQA Documents(DOC) • Updated: 6/27/2016 by Georgeann "Gigi" Hanna D "" s ORDINANCE (ID #0000) DOC ID: 0000 RESOLUTION (ID #0000) CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO — REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION Public Hearing From: Mark Persico M/CC Meeting Date: 06/20/2016 Prepared by: Travis Martin, (909) 384-5313 Dept: Community Development Ward: 3 Subject: Ordinance of the Mayor and Common Council of the City of San Bernardino approving General Plan Amendment 15-02 to Change the General Plan Land Use Designation of 25.25 acres from Industrial and Open Space to Industrial and Development Code Amendment (Zoning Map Amendment) 15-04 to Change the Zoning District from Industrial Light (IL), Office Industrial Park (OIP) and Public Commercial Recreation (PCR) to Industrial Light (IL) in order to allow the development and establishment of an a industrial warehouse building containing approximately 564,652 square feet, located on the Southwest Corner of Waterman Avenue and Dumas Street. (FIRST READING); and Q Resolution of the Mayor and Common Council of the City of San Bernardino Adopting a U) Mitigated Negative Declaration and Approving Subdivision 15-05 (Tentative Parcel Map 19692) and Development Permit Type-D 15-11 to allow the development and establishment of an industrial warehouse building containing approximately 564,652 C square feet, located on the Southwest Corner of Waterman Avenue and Dumas Street. Current Business Registration Certificate: Not Applicable Y C Financial Impact: s The proposed industrial project will result in increased property tax of an undetermined amount to accrue to the City, and job creation. a Mayor to Open the Public Hearing. . . Motion: 1) Close the Public Hearing; 2) Lay over Ordinance (please see Attachment 1) for final adoption; and 3) Adopt Resolution (please see Attachment 2) adopting the Mitigated Negative Declaration; and, approving Subdivision 15-05 (Tentative Parcel Map 19692) and Development Permit Type-D 15-11, based upon the recommended Findings of Fact and Conditions of Approval. II Updated: 5/31/2016 by Mark Persico 1161111AT I Win 7fWak, 0000 Synopsis of Previous Council Action: V%W01' None Background: On May 18, 2016, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 2016-060 (please see Attachment 3) forwarding a recommendation that the Mayor and Common Council: 1) Adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration; and 2) Approve General Plan Amendment 15-02, Development Code Amendment(Zoning Map Amendment) 15-04, Subdivision 15-05 (Tentative Parcel Map 19692) and Development Permit Type-D 15-11, based upon the recommended Findings of Fact and Conditions of Approval. Project Description: Pursuant to the requirements of Chapter 19.50 (General Plan Amendments), Chapter 19.42 (Development Code Amendments), Chapter 19.74 (Zoning Map Amendments), N §19.66.020 (Subdivision Map Applications) and §19.44.020 (Development Permit LO Applications) and of the City of San Bernardino Development Code, the applicant is requesting the approval of General Plan Amendment 15-02, Development Code Amendment (Zoning Map Amendment) 15-04, Subdivision 15-05 (Tentative Parcel Map 19692) and Development Permit Type-D 15-11 to allow: v 1) The subdivision consolidating the existing twelve (12) parcels containing a total o CL of 25.25 acres into one (1) parcel. 2) The change of the General Plan Land Use Designation from Industrial and Open Space to Industrial and change the Zoning District from Industrial Light (IL, Office Industrial Park (OIP) and Public Commercial Recreation (PCR) to Industrial Light (IL). s U 3) The development and establishment of an industrial warehouse building a containing approximately 564,652 square feet (please see Attachment 4). Packe �r�5$6`° Updated: 5/31/2016 by Mark Persico MR ,,. Analysis: Project Development - The proposed industrial development has been designed to comply with development standards of the City of San Bernardino Development Code. Site Design/Access/Traffic - The proposed industrial development will be accessed by four (4) new driveway approaches; two (2) each on both Waterman Avenue and Dumas Street. The internal site circulation has been designed to adequately accommodate on- site vehicular circulation and access to the parking areas. Designated "paths of travel" have also been provided to ensure pedestrian safety. The City's Traffic Engineering Division has reviewed and ,accepted the Focused Traffic Analysis prepared for the proposed commercial development, and the appropriate traffic related mitigation measures/ Conditions of Approval have been included. Architecture - The architectural design is highlighted by the prominent tower elements at the corners and midpoint of the proposed east and west elevations. Additionally, glazed windows have been added along the eastern elevation (fronting Waterman Avenue) to complement the existing office buildings located near the subject site. N O Landscaping - Landscaped planters will be installed on the frontages along Waterman Avenue and Dumas Street, pursuant to the requirements of the City of San Bernardino a Development Code. CO General Plan Goals and Policies - The City of San Bernardino General Plan includes !a goals and policies to guide future development within the City, including the following: o CL ✓ Enhance the aesthetic quality of land uses and structures in San Bernardino. ✓ Enhance the quality of life and economic vitality in San Bernardino by strategic infill of new development and revitalization of existing development. Cn ✓ Control development and the use of land to minimize adverse impacts. E Through this proposal, the applicant will be revitalizing the subject property in a manner that will enhance the physical and visual qualities of the subject property thereby a enhancing the aesthetics of the surrounding neighborhood. Additionally, through this proposal the existing underutilized properties will be transformed into a development that meets the City's economic development goals, while satisfying the Development Code requirements and will be adequately regulated through the Conditions of Approval in order to minimize potential impacts. Public Comments — There were no public comments submitted, nor were there any public comments presented during the public hearing by the Planning Commission. The application was also approved by a unanimous vote of the Planning Commission. Updated: 5/31/2016 by Mark Persico P �kep9 �' 0000 California Environmental Quality Act: In accordance with §15063 (Initial Study) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the applicant submitted and the Planning Division accepted an Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program prepared in connection with General Plan Amendment 15-02, Development Code Amendment (Zoning Map Amendment) 15-04, Subdivision 15-05 (Tentative Parcel Map 19692) and Development Permit Type-D 15-11. Accordingly, pursuant to §15072 and §15073 (Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration) of CEQA, a Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration was released on December 9, 2015 for the CEQA-mandated thirty (30) day public review and comment period. During the thirty (30) day public review period, comments were received in response to the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration, and acceptable responses to these comments were prepared. On February 25, 2016, the Development and Environmental Review Committee reviewed the application and Environmental Determination of the Planning Division, and moved the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for General Plan Amendment 15-02, Development Code Amendment (Zoning o Map Amendment) 15-04, Subdivision 15-05 (Tentative Parcel Map 19692) and Ln Development Permit Type-D 15-11 to the Planning Commission for consideration. Q Conclusion: m On May 18, 2016, the Planning Commission determined that the proposed project is consistent with the City of San Bernardino General Plan and Development Code, and - that the application satisfies all Findings of Fact required for approval of General Plan Amendment 15-01, Development Code Amendment (Zoning Map Amendment) 15-04, Subdivision 15-05 (Tentative Parcel Map 19692) and Development Permit Type-D 15- 11. `o City Attorney Review: E r U co This staff report and supporting documentation has been reviewed by the Deputy City a Attorney, and accepted as to form. Supporting Documents: Attachment 1: Ordinance Attachment 2: Resolution Attachment 3: Planning Commission Resolution No. 2016-030 Attachment 4: Planning Commission Staff Report, dated May 18, 2016 Attachment 5: Planning Commission Minutes, dated May 18, 2016 Attachment 6: Display Ad Updated: 5/31/2016 by Mark Persico �� ^�,e _ �$ A 1 ORDINANCE NO. 2 ORDINANCE OF THE MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO APPROVING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 15-02 TO CHANGE 3 THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATION OF 25.25 ACRES FROM 4 INDUSTRIAL (APPROXIMATELY 11.5 ACRES) AND OPEN SPACE (APPROXIMATELY 14.4 ACRES) TO INDUSTRIAL, AND DEVELOPMENT CODE 5 AMENDMENT (ZONING MAP AMENDMENT) 15-04 TO CHANGE THE ZONING DISTRICT FROM INDUSTRIAL LIGHT (IL) (APPROXIMATELY 7.5 ACRES), 6 OFFICE INDUSTRIAL PARK (OIP) (APPROXIMATELY 4 ACRES) AND PUBLIC 7 COMMERCIAL RECREATION (PCR) (APPROXIMATELY 14.4 ACRES) TO INDUSTRIAL LIGHT (IL) IN ORDER TO ALLOW THE DEVELOPMENT AND 8 ESTABLISHMENT OF AN INDUSTRIAL WAREHOUSE BUILDING CONTAINING APPROXIMATELY 564,652 SQUARE FEET LOCATED ON THE SOUTHWEST 9 CORNER OF WATERMAN AVENUE AND DUMAS STREET. o Lb 10 WHEREAS, the current City of San Bernardino Development Code was initially a 11 implemented in 1991; and iO 12 WHEREAS, the current City of San Bernardino General Plan was initially ,. 13 implemented in 2005; and U 14 WHEREAS, on May 18, 2016, the Planning Commission of the City of San E Bernardino held a noticed public hearing to consider public testimony and the staff report and 15 adopted Resolution No. 2016-030 recommending adoption of the Mitigated Negative 16 E Declaration and the approval of General Plan Amendment 15-02, Development Code = 17 Amendment (Zoning Map Amendment) 15-04, Subdivision 15-05 (Tentative Parcel Map Q 18 19692) and Development Permit Type-D 15-11 to the Mayor and Common Council; and C 19 WHEREAS, notice of the public hearing for the Mayor and Common Council's 20 consideration of the proposed Ordinance was published in The Sun newspaper on June 25, 21 2016. 22 NOW THEREFORE, THE MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL OF THE 23 CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: 24 SECTION 1. The Mayor and Common Council find that the above-stated Recitals 25 are true and hereby adopt and incorporate them herein. 26 SECTION 2. Findings of Fact—General Plan Amendment 15-02. 27 Finding No. 1: The proposed amendment is internally consistent with the General Plan. 28 1 °� Pacr`e�t 'g589' a' r i 1 Finding of Fact: The proposed amendment will result in removing approximately 4 acres 2 of existing Office Industrial Park(OIP) and approximately 14.4 acres of Public-Commercial Recreation (PCR) land use designations/zoning 3 districts from the project site, resulting in the entire site having the 4 Industrial Light (IL) land use designation/zoning district. The 5 Industrial Light(IL) zone is intended to retain, enhance, and provide for 6 the new development of lighter industrial uses along major vehicular, 7 rail, and air transportation routes serving the City. The change in land 8 use/zoning would provide a single land use/zoning district over the 9 entire 25.25 acre parcel and would allow the development of an N 4 industrial warehouse, which is consistent with the light industrial uses r 10 . in the project vicinity, located to the north of the project site. The C n 11 •• project is also consistent with the following General Plan policies: LO 12 Policy 2.5.6, which requires that new development be designed to 13 complement and not devalue the physical characteristics of the V4%L 14 surrounding environment, including consideration of the site's natural E 0 15 topography and vegetation, surrounding exemplary architectural style ' 16 with tower elements along with complimentary earth-toned colors. 17 Policy 5.7.6, encourages architectural detailing, which includes richly articulated surfaces rather than plain or blank walls. Q 18 w The project site is flat and has been disturbed in the past, and therefore, 19 contains no natural vegetation. The site is surrounded to the north by 20 light industrial businesses. The proposed project will result in the a 21 construction of a 564,652 square foot industrial warehouse building 22 with ancillary parking and landscaping. The concrete tilt-up building 23 will be articulated on all sides through the use of varying parapet 24 heights, corner tower elements and the use of color and varying 25 materials to break up the mass of the building walls. The rooftop 26 equipment will be screened, and extensive landscaping will be provided along the project's Waterman Avenue and Dumas Street frontages, 27 consistent with these policies. 28 2 P t?Wl R�gt 595 1 Finding No. 2: The proposed amendment would not be detrimental to the public 2 interest, health, safety, convenience, or welfare of the City. Finding of Fact: The proposed amendment will not be detrimental to the public interest, 3 health, safety, convenience, or welfare of the City in that amendment 4 from approximately 4 acres of Office Industrial Park (OIP) and 5 approximately 14.4 acres of Public-Commercial Recreation (PCR) to 6 Industrial Light (IL) will facilitate the development of a warehouse 7 facility on a parcel that is partially developed. The project site has 8 direct access from Waterman Avenue and Dumas Street, will be fully 9 served by utility providers, will be construction in accordance with all � N, 0 applicable codes and regulations, and will not result in the need for the Ln 10 M CL excessive provision of services. 11 Finding No. 3 The proposed amendment would maintain the appropriate balance of LO V 12 land uses within the City. 13 Finding of Fact: The proposed amendment from approximately 4 acres of Office r_ 14 Industrial Park (OIP) and approximately 14.4 acres of Public- 0 15 Commercial Recreation (PCR) to Industrial Light (IL) would affect ' r 16 25.25 acres of land that are partially developed. The proposed a E 17 amendment maintains an appropriate balance of land uses by providing for the re-use of an existing industrial property. The proposed a 18 amendment will not change the balance of land uses in the City. 19 Finding No. 4 The subject parcels are physically suitable (including but not limited to, 0 20 a access, provision of utilities, compatibility with adjoining land uses, 21 and adjoining land uses, and absence of physical constraints) for the 22 requested land use designation and the anticipated land use 23 development 24 Finding of Fact: The project site is currently consists of twelve (12) parcels that are 25 proposed to be merged into one, 25.25 acre parcel. The parcel will be 26 generally flat with direct access at four (4) locations along Waterman Avenue and Dumas Street. Utilities are available directly from 27 Waterman Avenue. A 564,652 square foot industrial warehouse 28 3 �Pacl�e,�g 59,1 I building is proposed on the site. The site is sufficient in size to meet 2 parking, loading and landscaping requirements and there are no physical constraints on the site, such as steep slopes or watercourses. 3 SECTION 3. Findings of Fact — Development Code Amendment/Zoning May 4 Amendment 15-04. 5 Finding No. 1: The proposed amendment is consistent with the General Plan. 6 Finding of Fact: The proposed amendment will result in removing approximately 4 acres 7 of existing Office Industrial Park (OIP) and approximately 14.4 acres of 8 Public-Commercial Recreation (PCR) land use designations/zoning 9 districts from the project site, resulting in the entire site having the o Industrial Light (IL) land use designation/zoning district. The new 10 CL Industrial Light (IL) land use designation will provide for the 11 accommodation of the development, establishment and operation of an LO 12 industrial warehouse building containing approximately 564,652 square 13 feet, along with the construction of the required on-site and off-site ® c 14 improvements consistent with the City of San Bernardino Development O 15 Code. 16 Finding No. 2: The proposed amendment would not be detrimental to the public 17 interest, health, safety, convenience, or welfare of the City. Finding of Fact: The proposed amendment will not be detrimental to the public interest, a 18 health, safety, convenience, or welfare of the City in that amendment 19 from Office Industrial Park (OIP) and Public-Commercial Recreation 0 20 (PCR) to Industrial Light (IL) will facilitate the development, a 21 establishment and operation of an industrial warehouse building 22 containing approximately 564,652 square feet, along with the 23 construction of the required on-site and off-site improvements 24 consistent with the City of San Bernardino Development Code. The 25 project site has direct access from both Waterman Avenue and Dumas 26 Street, will be fully served by utility providers, will be construction in accordance with all applicable codes and regulations, and will not result 27 in the need for the excessive provision of services. ` 28 4 1 SECTION 4. Compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act. 2 1. The Mayor and Common Council has independently reviewed, analyzed and exercised judgment in finding that General Plan Amendment 15-02, Development Code Amendment 3 (Zoning Map Amendment) 15-04, Subdivision 15-05 (Tentative Parcel Map 19692) and 4 Development Permit Type-D 15-11 will have no significant adverse effect on the environment 5 with incorporation of the Conditions of Approval and mitigation measures; and determining 6 that the Mitigated Negative Declaration, as accepted by the Planning Commission as to the 7 effects of this proposed project, is hereby adopted. 8 2. Mitigation measures identified in the Mitigated Negative Declaration have been 9 compiled in a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for General Plan Amendment c 10 15-02, Development Code Amendment (Zoning Map Amendment) 15-04, Subdivision 15-05 ( CL Tentative Parcel Map 19692) and Development Permit Type-D 15-11. The Mayor and 11 Common Council hereby approve the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program LO LO v 12 incorporated herein by reference. 13 SECTION 5. — General Plan Amendment 15-02, attached hereto as Exhibit A and 14 incorporated herein by reference, is hereby approved. U 0 15 SECTION 6. — Development Code Amendment (Zoning Map Amendment) 15-05, r 16 attached hereto as Exhibit B and incorporated herein by reference, is hereby approved. 17 SECTION 7. — Subdivision 15-05 (Tentative Parcel Map 19692) and Development Permit Type-D 15-11, as approved by Resolution, is incorporated herein by reference. a 18 SECTION 8. - Notice of Determination: The Planning Division of the Community 19 Development Department is hereby directed to file a Notice of Determination with the County U 20 Clerk of the County of San Bernardino certifying the City's compliance with California a 21 Environmental Quality Act in adopting the Mitigated Negative Declaration. 22 SECTION 9. Severability: If any section, subsection, subdivision, sentence, or 23 clause or phrase in this Resolution or any part thereof is for any reason held to be 24 unconstitutional, invalid or ineffective by any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision 25 shall not affect the validity or effectiveness of the remaining portions of this Resolution or any 26 part thereof. The Mayor and Common Council hereby declares that it would have adopted each section irrespective of the fact that any one or more subsections, subdivisions, sentences, .� 27 clauses, or phrases be declared unconstitutional, invalid, or ineffective. 28 5 6.B.b 1 ORDINANCE OF THE MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO, CALIFORNIA APPROVING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 15-02 2 TO CHANGE THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATION OF 25.25 ACRES FROM INDUSTRIAL (APPROXIMATELY 11.5 ACRES) AND OPEN SPACE 3 (APPROXIMATELY 14.4 ACRES) TO INDUSTRIAL, AND DEVELOPMENT CODE 4 AMENDMENT (ZONING MAP AMENDMENT) 15-04 TO CHANGE THE ZONING DISTRICT FROM INDUSTRIAL LIGHT (IL) (APPROXIMATELY 7.5 ACRES), 5 OFFICE INDUSTRIAL PARK (OIP) (APPROXIMATELY 4 ACRES) AND PUBLIC COMMERCIAL RECREATION (PCR) (APPROXIMATELY 14.4 ACRES) TO 6 INDUSTRIAL LIGHT (IL) IN ORDER TO ALLOW THE DEVELOPMENT AND ESTABLISHMENT OF AN INDUSTRIAL WAREHOUSE BUILDING CONTAINING 7 APPROXIMATELY 564,652 SQUARE FEET LOCATED ON THE SOUTHWEST 8 CORNER OF WATERMAN AVENUE AND DUMAS STREET. 9 I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing ordinance was duly adopted by the Mayor c LO and Common Council of the City of San Bernardino at a regular meeting the , held on the 10 reof, Q day of , 2016, by the following vote to wit: 11 Council Members: AYES NAYS ABSTAIN ABSENT LO 12 MARQUEZ d) 13 BARRIOS c c 14 VALDIVIA 15 SHORETT ° 16 NICKEL RICHARD 17 MULVIHILL ¢ 18 c W 19 s U 20 Georgeann Hanna, City Clerk 21 The foregoing Ordinance is hereby adopted this day of , 2016. 22 23 24 R. CAREY DAVIS, Mayor Approved as to form: City of San Bernardino 25 Gary D. Saenz, City Attorney 26 27 By: 28 6 Packet'Pg, 594 (ZO-9 L edo S847) (V 3!9!9x3)eoueu!pao- yuawyoelIV:;uawyoe;;d N U � N m � m Z J L=co C w X cc CO LLJ � 0 ° 02 mZL a a -j C, opQU c� vWi vWi� o� o Q Q Lj co 2 O Oj y L Q L° Uz = D � Z z WZ LLJ O 0-� pW LU -� W �Q Z w 3 W J U � 7V211SNaN1 3sn GNV� U wiaisnGNI :-gsn oNVI a - i Q 3nN. 3nb MdWb31VM Z I � �M. W n w O X 7 J -U) xq l w �Q (% (!) 27-i£ti-It'I0 :NdV o C) O t O XjA 1S ;. �" 1 ! Q Al ;,f o 7VRll IbNl 3,S11 N V 7 �! 3 b �' ; (1 ,i G) h4 nr osa-s�-eo-o� �VYdI-LOOK6h�4�^TYCJ\'MP•U\•NS•ei..ni^M•n•�•M-z000ssssoWuraw\�H (ZO-S6 ed0 484V) (8 i!4!4x3)OOUBU!PAO-!;uaw43egy WOW40e;1y N fC co W Z d = � ao v w W O 2~ aW ma � a C� a o oQ v_c=i cwOU lz (L O v O Z z LU w w J Lli VY Z U-1 W U (dlo) >iaed wlalsnoNl U (dlo) Naed wlalsnam 301330 3NOZ U 301.730 :3NOZ CL 3nNDAV NVM:131`dM� ..... _ a s ' .f LLI C)Cl- , 4 q3 L ; Po LLJ i! X a lrk it to. dV !' U) W U) �3 elf W O o O N UQ m w J a U O I „z L is (~ SOINV yt w X '. 1 z `f $ lyj J N 4) TTO (71) 1H017 (a0d " D dl ) 7VNOIl t 3a03a 7vialsnaN1 3NOZ {" �11 iii a3WOO onand I ! I .� 11V 11E-Sl-BObt �'�P'642-LOOOCBY\�4�rYd0\�H�\aY.S uouw�oy,o�am�aN-ZOOBS6S60\A3QrU�6\�M 6.B.e 1 RESOLUTION NO. 2 RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO ADOPTING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND 3 APPROVING SUBDIVISION 15-05 (TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 19692) AND 4 DEVELOPMENT PERMIT TYPE-D 15-11 TO ALLOW THE DEVELOPMENT AND ESTABLISHMENT OF AN INDUSTRIAL WAREHOUSE BUILDING CONTAINING 5 APPROXIMATELY 564,652 SQUARE FEET, ALONG WITH THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE REQUIRED ON-SITE AND OFF-SITE IMPROVEMENTS, ON A PARCEL 6 CONTAINING APPROXIMATELY 25.25 ACRES LOCATED ON THE SOUTHWEST 7 CORNER OF WATERMAN AVENUE AND DUMAS STREET (APN'S: 0141-431-01, 02, 03,04,08,09, 10, 11, 12, 16,20 AND 21)WITHIN THE INDUSTRIAL LIGHT(IL)ZONE. N 8 LO WHEREAS, on July 1, 2015, pursuant to the requirements of Chapter 19.50 (General r 9 Plan Amendments), Chapter 19.42 (Development Code Amendments), Chapter 19.74 (Zoning c� 10 Map Amendment), §19.44.020 (Development Permit Applications) and §19.66.020 co It 11 (Subdivision Map Applications) of the City of San Bernardino Development Code, an T 12 application for General Plan Amendment 15-02, Development Code Amendment (Zoning c '10 13 Map Amendment) 15-04, Subdivision 15-05 (Tentative Parcel Map 19692) and Development 14 Permit Type-D 15-11 was duly submitted by: o 15 0 Property Owner: Newcastle Partners 16 4740 Green River Road, Suite 118 17 Corona, CA 92880 E 18 Project Applicant: Newcastle Partners 4740 Green River Road, Suite 118 19 Corona, CA 92880 a 20 Parcel Address: Southwest Corner of Waterman Avenue and Dumas Street E 21 APN'S: 0141-431-01, 02, 03, 04, 08, 09, 10, 11, 12, 16,20 and 21 y Lot Area: 25.25 acres a 22 23 WHEREAS, General Plan Amendment 15-02 and Development Code Amendment 24 (Zoning Map Amendment) 15-04 is a request to change the General Plan Land Use 25 Designation and Zoning District of a site containing approximately 25.25 acres from 26 Industrial Light (IL), Office Industrial Park (OIP) and Public-Commercial Recreation (PCR) 27 to Industrial Light(IL); and M 28 1 Packet Pg. 597 WHEREAS, Subdivision 15-05 (Tentative Parcel Map 19692) is a request to 2 consolidate twelve (12) individual parcels into one (1) parcel containing approximately 25.25 acres; and 3 WHEREAS, Development Permit Type-D 15-11 is a request to allow the 4 development and establishment of an industrial warehouse building containing approximately 5 564,652 square feet, along with the construction of the required on-site and off-site 6 improvements; and 7 WHEREAS, pursuant to requirements of §15063 of the California Environmental 8 Quality Act, the Planning Division of the City of San Bernardino accepted the Initial c 9 Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program a submitted by the applicant for General Plan Amendment 15-02, Development Code 10 00 Amendment (Zoning Map Amendment) 15-04, Subdivision 15-05 (Tentative Parcel Map Iq 11 19692) and Development Permit Type-D 15-11; and 12 WHEREAS, on February 1, 2016, pursuant to requirements of§15072 and §15073 of °- .N 13 d the California Environmental Quality Act, the Planning Division of the City of San Cd V 14 Bernardino published a Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration and c 15 commenced the required thirty (30) day public review period on the Initial Study/Mitigated N 16 Negative Declaration for General Plan Amendment 15-02, Development Code Amendment 17 (Zoning Map Amendment) 15-04, Subdivision 15-05 (Tentative Parcel Map 19692) and r Development Permit Type-D 15-11; and E 18 WHEREAS, on February 28, 2016, pursuant to the requirements of §19.50.020, 19 a §19.42.020, §19.66.150 and §19.44.030 of the City of San Bernardino Development Code, the 20 Development and Environmental Review Committee reviewed the application and moved the s c� 21 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration and General Plan Amendment 15-02, a 22 Development Code Amendment (Zoning Map Amendment) 15-04, Subdivision 15-05 23 (Tentative Parcel Map 19692) and Development Permit Type-D 15-11 to the Planning 24 Commission for consideration; and 25 WHEREAS, during the CEQA mandated thirty (30) day public review period, the 26 Planning Division of the City of San Bernardino received comments on the Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration and Initial Study prepared for General Plan Amendment 15-02, 27 28 2 Packet Pg. 598 6.B.e 1 Development Code Amendment (Zoning Map Amendment) 15-04, Subdivision 15-05 2 (Tentative Parcel Map 19692) and Development Permit Type-D 15-11; and WHEREAS, on May 3, 2016, the Planning Division of the City of San Bernardino 3 received a letter from Kimley-Horn on behalf of the Newcastle Partners responding to the 4 comments submitted regarding the Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration and Initial Study 5 prepared for General Plan Amendment 15-02, Development Code Amendment (Zoning Map 6 Amendment) 15-04, Subdivision 15-05 (Tentative Parcel Map 19692) and Development 7 Permit Type-D 15-11; and 8 WHEREAS, the Planning Division of the City of San Bernardino has accepted the LO 9 responses prepared by Kimley-Horn to the comments received on the Draft Mitigated a Negative Declaration and Initial Study prepared for General Plan Amendment 15-02, 10 CO CO Development Code Amendment (Zoning Map Amendment) 15-04, Subdivision 15-05 11 (Tentative Parcel Map 19692) and Development Permit Type-D 15-11; and 12 WHEREAS, on May 18, 2016, pursuant to the requirements of§19.52.040 of the City 13 ' of San Bernardino Development Code, the Planning Commission held the duly noticed public � 14 hearing at which interested persons had an opportunity to testify in support of, or opposition c 15 to the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting o N 16 Program submitted by the applicant for General Plan Amendment 15-02, Development Code a Amendment (Zoning Map Amendment) 15-04, Subdivision 15-05 (Tentative Parcel Map 17 19692) and Development Permit Type-D 15-11, and at which meeting the Planning t 18 Commission adopted Resolution No. 2016-030 recommending to the Mayor and Common w 19 Council the adoption of the Mitigated Negative Declaration and the approval of General Plan 20 Amendment 15-02, Development Code Amendment (Zoning Map Amendment) 15-04, _ U 21 Subdivision 15-05 (Tentative Parcel Map 19692) and Development Permit Type-D 15-11; and a 22 WHEREAS, pursuant to the requirements of Chapters 19.36, 19.42, 19.44, 19.66 and 23 19.74 of the City of San Bernardino Development Code, the Mayor and Common Council has 24 the authority to take action on the Mitigated Negative Declaration, General Plan Amendment 25 15-02, Development Code Amendment (Zoning Map Amendment) 15-04, Subdivision 15-05 26 (Tentative Parcel Map 19692) and Development Permit Type-D 15-11; and WHEREAS, notice of the July 5, 2016 public hearing for the Mayor and Common 27 Council's consideration of the proposed Resolution was published in The Sun newspaper on 28 3 Packet Pg 599 �N .rte 6.B.e 1 June 25 2016, and was mailed to property owners within a 500 foot radius of the project site 2 in accordance with Development Code Chapter 19.52. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND COMMON 3 COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO AS FOLLOWS: 4 SECTION 1. The Mayor and Common Council find that the above-stated Recitals 5 are true and hereby adopt and incorporate them herein. 6 SECTION 2. Findings of Fact—General Plan Amendment 15-02. 7 Finding No. 1: The proposed amendment is internally consistent with the General Plan. 8 Finding of Fact: The proposed amendment will result in removing the existing Office 9 9 Industrial Park (OIP) and Public-Commercial Recreation (PCR) land CL use designations/zoning districts from the project site, resulting in the 10 "' entire site having the Industrial Light (IL) land use designation/zoning It 11 district. The Industrial Light (IL) zone is intended to retain, enhance, 12 and provide for the new development of lighter industrial uses along 2 13 ' major vehicular, rail, and air transportation routes serving the City. The � 14 change in land use/zoning would provide a single land use/zoning c Y 15 district over the entire 25.25 acre parcel and would allow the c N 16 development of an industrial warehouse, which is consistent with the a light industrial uses in the project vicinity, located to the north of the 17 project site. The project is also consistent with the following General s 18 Plan policies: 19 a Policy 2.5.6, which requires that new development be designed to 20 complement and not devalue the physical characteristics of the E 21 surrounding environment, including consideration of the site's natural r 22 topography and vegetation, surrounding exemplary architectural style 23 with tower elements along with complimentary earth-toned colors. 24 Policy 5.7.6, encourages architectural detailing, which includes richly 25 articulated surfaces rather than plain or blank walls. 26 The project site is flat and has been disturbed in the past, and therefore, contains no natural vegetation. The site is surrounded to the north by 27 light industrial businesses. The proposed project will result in the 28 4 Packet Pg. 600 6.B.e 1 construction of a 564,652 square foot industrial warehouse building 2 with ancillary parking and landscaping. The concrete tilt-up building will be articulated on all sides through the use of varying parapet 3 heights, corner tower elements and the use of color and varying 4 materials to break up the mass of the building walls. The rooftop 5 equipment will be screened, and extensive landscaping will be provided 6 along the project's Waterman Avenue and Dumas Street frontages, 7 consistent with these policies. 8 Finding No. 2: The proposed amendment would not be detrimental to the public o LO T 9 interest,health, safety, convenience, or welfare of the City. Finding of Fact: The proposed amendment will not be detrimental to the public interest, 10 00 health, safety, convenience, or welfare of the City in that amendment 11 from Office Industrial Park (OIP) and Public-Commercial Recreation 12 (PCR) to Industrial Light (IL) will facilitate the development of a •2 i 13 warehouse facility on a parcel that is partially developed. The project u 14 site has direct access from Waterman Avenue and Dumas Street, will o 15 be fully served by utility providers, will be construction in accordance c N 16 with all applicable codes and regulations, and will not result in the need M for the excessive provision of services. 17 Finding No. 3 The proposed amendment would maintain the appropriate balance of Ec 18 land uses within the City. 19 a Finding of Fact: The proposed amendment from Office Industrial Park (OIP) and 20 Public-Commercial Recreation (PCR) to Industrial Light (IL) would E 21 affect 25.25 acres of land that are partially developed. The proposed Y Q 22 amendment maintains an appropriate balance of land uses by providing 23 for the re-use of an existing industrial property. The proposed 24 amendment will not change the balance of land uses in the City. 25 Finding No. 4 The subject parcels are physically suitable (including but not limited to, 26 access, provision of utilities, compatibility with adjoining land uses, and adjoining land uses, and absence of physical constraints) for the 27 28 5 Packet Pg.601 6.B.e 1 requested land use designation and the anticipated land use 2 development Finding of Fact: The project site is currently consists of twelve (12) parcels that are � 3 proposed to be merged into one, 25.25 acre parcel. The parcel will be 4 generally flat with direct access at four (4) locations along Waterman 5 Avenue and Dumas Street. Utilities are available directly from 6 Waterman Avenue. A 564,652 square foot industrial warehouse 7 building is proposed on the site. The site is sufficient in size to meet 8 parking, loading and landscaping requirements and there are no T LO physical constraints on the site, such as steep slopes or watercourses. a 9 cL SECTION 3. Findings of Fact — Development Code Amendment (Zoning Map LO 10 Amendment) 15-04. It 11 v Finding No. 1: The proposed amendment is consistent with the General Plan. 12 Finding of Fact: The proposed amendment will result in removing the existing Office •2 13 Industrial Park (OIP) and Public-Commercial Recreation (PCR) land � u 14 use designations/zoning districts from the project site, resulting in the o 15 entire site having the Industrial Light (IL) land use designation/zoning o N 16 district. The new Industrial Light (IL) land use designation will provide � for the accommodation of the development, establishment and w 17 operation of an industrial warehouse building containing approximately E 18 564,652 square feet, along with the construction of the required on-site w 19 a and off-site improvements consistent with the City of San Bernardino = 20 Development Code. 21 Finding No. 2: The proposed amendment would not be detrimental to the public r 22 interest,health, safety, convenience, or welfare of the City. 23 Finding of Fact: The proposed amendment will not be detrimental to the public interest, 24 health, safety, convenience, or welfare of the City in that amendment 25 from Office Industrial Park (OIP) and Public-Commercial Recreation 26 (PCR) to Industrial Light (IL) will facilitate the development, establishment and operation of an industrial warehouse building 27 containing approximately 564,652 square feet, along with the 28 6 Packet Pg. 602 6.B.e 1 construction of the required on-site and off-site improvements 2 consistent with the City of San Bernardino Development Code. The project site has direct access from both Waterman Avenue and Dumas 3 Street, will be fully served by utility providers, will be construction in 4 accordance with all applicable codes and regulations, and will not result 5 in the need for the excessive provision of services. 6 SECTION 4. Findings of Fact—Subdivision 15-05 (Tentative Parcel Map 19692). 7 Finding No. 1: The proposed map is consistent with the General Plan. 8 Finding of Fact: The proposed Tentative Parcel Map to accommodate the development 9 9 of the industrial warehouse building containing approximately 564,652 a square feet, along with the construction of the required on-site and off- 10 00 site improvements will provide additional economic development 11 ` opportunities with the City, the proposed project is permitted within the 12 proposed Industrial Light (IL) zone, subject to the approval of a 2 13 General Plan Amendment, Development Code Amendment (Zoning � 14 Map Amendment) and Development Permit Type-D with the o ip 15 appropriate Conditions of Approval and CEQA determination, and the 2 N 16 proposed Industrial Light (IL) zone is consistent with the proposed W 17 Industrial Light General land use designation set forth by the General Plan Land Use Map. E 18 Finding No. 2: The design and improvements of the proposed subdivision is consistent 19 a with the General Plan. c 20 Finding of Fact: General Plan Land Use Goal 2.2 states: Promote development that s U 21 integrates with surrounding land uses." The proposed Tentative Parcel a 22 Map will be consistent with the pattern of development within the 23 existing surrounding neighborhood. 24 General Plan Land Use policy 2.7.5 states: "Require that developments 25 conform to the availability of public infrastructure to accommodate its 26 demands and mitigate its impacts." The proposed Tentative Parcel Map will connect to existing water and sewer services, roads, storm drains, 27 and private utilities. 28 7 Packet Pg. 603 6.B.e 1 Finding No. 3 The site is physically suitable for the type of development. 2 Finding of Fact: The proposed project is permitted within the proposed Industrial Light (IL) zone, subject to the approval of a General Plan Amendment, 3 Development Code Amendment/Zoning Map Amendment and 4 Development Permit Type-D with the appropriate Conditions of 5 Approval and CEQA determination is permitted within the proposed 6 Industrial Light (IL) zone. The subject site as an industrial development 7 is sufficient in size to accommodate the proposal under General Plan 8 Amendment 15-02, Development Code Amendment/Zoning Map c LO r 9 Amendment 15-04, Subdivision 15-05 and Development Permit Type- D 15-11 as required by the City of San Bernardino Development Code. 10 CO Therefore, the subject site is physically suitable for the proposal. 11 Iq Finding No. 4 The site is physically suitable for the proposed density of development. 12 Finding of Fact: The development of the industrial warehouse building containing 2 13 approximately 564,652 square feet, along with the construction of the � 14 required on-site and off-site improvements is permitted within the o 15 proposed Industrial Light IL zone subject to the approval of a H 16 General Plan Amendment, Development Code Amendment/Zoning W Map Amendment and Development Permit Type-D with the appropriate c 17 Conditions of Approval and CEQA determination. The subject site as a E 18 commercial development is sufficient in size to accommodate the r 19 a proposal under Development Permit Type-D 15-11 as required by the 20 City of San Bernardino Development Code. Therefore, the subject site E 21 is physically suitable for the proposal. »° 22 Finding No. 5: The design of the subdivision and the proposed improvements will not 23 cause substantial environmental damage or substantially or avoidably 24 injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. 25 Finding of Fact: The design of the subdivision will not have any significant negative 26 impacts to wildlife or their habitat. The project site is an existing partially developed site and surrounded by urban development. No 27 28 8 Packet Pg.604 6.B.e • 1 significant negative impacts on the environment are anticipated to result 2 from re-use of the existing site. Finding No. 6: The design of the subdivision or type of improvements will not cause 3 serious public health problems. 4 Finding of Fact: The design of the proposed subdivision meets all of the applicable 5 Development Code requirements and will not result in any serious 6 public health problems. The proposed parcel will have access to 7 existing public streets. Existing utilities and public services are 8 available to serve the project site and ensure the maintenance of public 9 ' 9 health and safety. a Finding No. 7: The design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will not 10 00 conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access 11 through or use of,property within the proposed subdivision. 12 Finding of Fact: The design of the subdivision will not conflict with any public or 13 private easements. All documentation relating to easements and - u `r 14 dedications will be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer prior c 15 to recordation of the Final Map. Existing easements will be reserved in o 0 16 place or relocated, as necessary. 17 SECTION 5. Findings of Fact—Development Permit Type-D 15-11. w 18 Finding No. 1: The proposed development is permitted within the subject zoning U district and complies with all applicable provisions of the Development 19 a Code, including prescribed site development standards and applicable 20 design guidelines. U 21 Finding of Fact: The proposed development of a 564,652 square foot industrial a 22 warehouse building is a permitted use within the proposed Industrial 23 Light (IL) zone, subject to the approval of a Development Permit Type- 24 D with the appropriate Conditions of Approval and CEQA 25 determination. The proposal under Development Permit Type-D 15-11 26 will be developed in compliance with all of the applicable provisions of the City of San Bernardino Development Code, including development 27 standards and applicable design guidelines. Additionally, the Land Use 28 9 Packet Pg. 605 63 e NEW 1 Element (Table LU-2) lists the intended uses for the Industrial Light 2 (IL) zone, and permits a variety of activities that are conducted indoors, such as light manufacturing, assembly uses, warehouse and distribution, 3 administrative offices, and similar uses. Therefore, the proposal would 4 not impair the integrity and character of the subject land use district. 5 Finding No. 2: The proposed use is consistent with the General Plan. 6 Finding of Fact: General Plan and Use Policy 2.5.4 requires that all new structures 7 achieve a high level of architectural design and provide careful 8 attention to details. LO 9 General Plan Goal 4.1 encourages economic activity that capitalizes on the transportation and locational strengths of San Bernardino. 10 CO CO The proposed development of a 564,652 square foot industrial 11 `� warehouse building will provide additional economic development 12 opportunities within the City, consistent with the General Plan goal and 0 13 ' � policy cited above. Land Use Element (Table LU-2) also lists the � 14 intended uses for the Industrial Light zone, and permits a variety of o 15 uses including light manufacturing, assembly uses, warehouse and o 16 distribution, administrative offices, and other similar uses. The � proposed project has been designed with contemporary unifying 17 W architectural design elements and will be compatible with other .Ec 18 industrial warehouse and office buildings within the surrounding area. 19 a Additionally, the proposed project is permitted within the proposed 20 Industrial Light (IL) zone, subject to the approval of a Development E U 21 Permit Type-D with the appropriate Conditions of Approval and CEQA a 22 determination, and the proposed Industrial Light (IL) zone is consistent 23 with the proposed Industrial land use designation set forth by the 24 General Plan Land Use Map. 25 Finding No. 3 The proposed development is harmonious and compatible with existing 26 and future developments within the land use district and general area, as well as the land uses presently on the subject property. 27 28 10 Packet Pg. 606 J 6.B.e Finding of Fact: The proposed development of a 564,652 square foot industrial 1 2 warehouse building will be harmonious and compatible with existing and future developments within the proposed Industrial Light (IL) zone 3 and the surrounding area. The scale and density of the proposed 4 development is similar to that of the existing industrial development in 5 the area and it conforms to the development standards of the Industrial 6 Light (IL) zone. Since the proposal is consistent with both the General 7 Plan and Development Code,no land use conflict is expected to result 8 from construction of the proposed project. 9 Finding No. 4 The proposed development is in compliance with the requirements of Q the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and §19.20.030 of 10 CO the Development Code. 11 '" Finding of Fact: In accordance with §15063 of the California Environmental Quality Act 12 (CEQA), an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared 0 13 ' — in connection with General Plan Amendment 15-02, Development � 14 Code Amendment(Zoning Map Amendment) 15-04, Subdivision 15-05 c 15 (Tentative Parcel Map 19692) and Development Permit Type-D 15-11 0 fN 16 for the development, establishment and operation of an industrial W 17 warehouse building containing approximately 564,652 square feet r c d along with the construction of the required on-site and off-site E 18 improvements. In accordance with §15097 of CEQA, a Mitigation w 19 a Monitoring and Reporting Program has been prepared in order to 20 ensure that the mitigation measures are implemented to prevent E 21 � potential environmental impacts. Q 22 Finding No. 5: There will be no potentially significant negative impacts upon 23 environmental quality and natural resources that could not be properly 24 mitigated and monitored. 25 Finding of Fact: In accordance with §15063 of the California Environmental Quality Act 26 (CEQA), an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared in connection with General Plan Amendment 15-02, Development 27 Code Amendment(Zoning Map Amendment) 15-04, Subdivision 15-05 28 11 Packet Pg. 607 6.B.e 1 (Tentative Parcel Map 19692) and Development Permit Type-D 15-11 2 for the development, establishment and operation of an industrial warehouse building containing approximately 564,652 square feet 3 along with the construction of the required on-site and off-site 4 improvements. In accordance with §15097 of CEQA, a Mitigation 5 Monitoring and Reporting Program has been prepared in order to 6 ensure that the mitigation measures are implemented to prevent 7 potential environmental impact. Therefore, the proposed industrial 8 warehouse building containing approximately 564,652 square feet c LO 9 along with the required on-site and off-site improvements will be M CL completed in a manner so that it is consistent with the surrounding 10 CO CO neighborhood, and no significant negative impacts on the environment 11 are anticipated. 12 Finding No. 6: The subject site is physically suitable for the type and density/intensity •° 13 of use being proposed. 14 Finding of Fact: The proposed industrial warehouse building containing approximately o 15 564,652 square feet along with the required on-site and off-site o N 16 improvements is permitted within the proposed Industrial Light (IL) W zone, subject to the approval of a General Plan Amendment, 17 Development Code Amendment (Zoning Map Amendment) and E 18 Development Permit Type-D with the appropriate Conditions of 19 a Approval and CEQA determination. The subject site as a commercial 20 development is sufficient in size to accommodate the proposal under E 21 Development Permit Type-D 15-11 as required by the City of San a 22 Bernardino Development Code. Therefore, the subject site is physically 23 suitable for the proposal. 24 Finding No. 7 There are adequate provisions for public access, water, sanitation, and 25 public utilities and services to ensure that the proposed use would not 26 be detrimental to public health and safety. Finding of Fact: There are adequate provisions for public access, public utilities, and 27 public services for the proposed industrial warehouse building 28 12 Packet Pg.608 6.B.e 1 containing approximately 564,652 square feet along with the 2 construction of the required on-site and off-site improvements. The existing site is located adjacent to and already served by existing public 3 streets and a full range of public utilities and services. All applicable 4 Codes will apply to the proposed development. Therefore, subject to the 5 Conditions of Approval, the proposed development under Development 6 Permit Type-D 15-11 will not be detrimental to public services or 7 public health and safety. 8 Finding No. 8 The location, size, design, and operating characteristics of the proposed c LO 9 use are compatible with the existing and future land uses within the a general area in which the proposed use is to be located and will not 10 co co create significant noise, traffic or other conditions or situations that may 11 `" be objectionable or detrimental to other permitted uses in the vicinity or 12 adverse to the public interest, health, safety, convenience, or welfare of •2 13 the City. a� 14 Finding of Fact: The proposed development of the industrial warehouse building o 15 containing approximately 564,652 square feet along with the required y 16 on-site and off-site improvements conforms to all applicable Ix 17 development standards and land use regulations of the proposed r 18 Industrial Light (IL) zone. Therefore, the design of the project, in U conjunction with the recommended Conditions of Approval, will ensure r 19 a that the proposal will not create significant noise, traffic, or other 20 conditions or situations that may be objectionable or detrimental to E 21 other permitted uses in the vicinity of the site, nor will it be adverse to V a 22 the public interest, health, safety, convenience or welfare of the City. 23 The location, size, design and character of the proposed development 24 will enhance the neighborhood to the benefit of the public interest and 25 general welfare of the City. 26 SECTION 6. Compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act. 1. The Mayor and Common Council has independently reviewed, analyzed and exercised 27 judgment in finding that General Plan Amendment 15-02, Development Code Amendment 28 13 Packet Pg.'609 6.B.e 1 (Zoning Map Amendment) 15-04, Subdivision 15-05 (Tentative Parcel Map 19692) and 2 Development Permit Type-D 15-11 will have no significant adverse effect on the environment with incorporation of the Conditions of Approval and mitigation measures; and determining 3 that the Mitigated Negative Declaration, as accepted by the Planning Commission as to the 4 effects of this proposed project, is hereby adopted. 5 2. Mitigation measures identified in the Mitigated Negative Declaration have been 6 compiled in a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for General Plan Amendment 7 15-02, Development Code Amendment (Zoning Map Amendment) 15-04, Subdivision 15-05 8 (Tentative Parcel Map 19692) and Development Permit Type-D 15-11. The Mayor and 9 9 Common Council hereby approve the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program attached a as Exhibit A, and incorporated herein by reference. 10 00 SECTION 7. — General Plan Amendment 15-02, as approved by Ordinance, is 11 incorporated herein by reference. 12 SECTION 8. — Development Code Amendment (Zoning Map Amendment) 15-04, as .2 13 approved by Ordinance, is incorporated herein by reference. 14 SECTION 9. — Subdivision 15-05 (Tentative Parcel Map 19692) and Development o r 15 Permit Type-D 15-11, subject to the Conditions of Approval attached hereto as Exhibit B and y 16 incorporated herein by reference, is hereby approved. SECTION 10. - Notice of Determination: The Planning Division of the Community 17 Development Department is hereby directed to file a Notice of Determination with the County E 18 Clerk of the County of San Bernardino certifying the City's compliance with California 19 ¢ Environmental Quality Act in adopting the Mitigated Negative Declaration. 20 SECTION 11. Severability: If any section, subsection, subdivision, sentence, or 21 clause or phrase in this Resolution or any part thereof is for any reason held to be r 22 unconstitutional, invalid or ineffective by any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision 23 shall not affect the validity or effectiveness of the remaining portions of this Resolution or any 24 part thereof. The Mayor and Common Council hereby declares that it would have adopted 25 each section irrespective of the fact that any one or more subsections, subdivisions, sentences, 26 clauses, or phrases be declared unconstitutional, invalid, or ineffective. 27 HI 28 14 Packet Pg.610 6.B.e RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF 1 SAN BERNARDINO ADOPTING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND 2 APPROVING SUBDIVISION 15-05 (TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 19692) AND DEVELOPMENT PERMIT TYPE-D 15-11 TO ALLOW THE DEVELOPMENT AND 3 ESTABLISHMENT OF AN INDUSTRIAL WAREHOUSE BUILDING CONTAINING 4 APPROXIMATELY 564,652 SQUARE FEET, ALONG WITH THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE REQUIRED ON-SITE AND OFF-SITE IMPROVEMENTS, ON A PARCEL 5 CONTAINING APPROXIMATELY 25.25 ACRES LOCATED ON THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF WATERMAN AVENUE AND DUMAS STREET (APN'S: 0141-431-01, 02, 6 03, 04, 08, 09, 10, 11, 12, 16, 20 AND 21) WITHIN THE PROPOSED INDUSTRIAL 7 LIGHT(IL)ZONE. 8 I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the Mayor 9 and.Common Council of the City of San Bernardino at a regular meeting thereof, held on the M 9 day of ,2016,by the following vote to wit: CL 10 LO 11 Council Members: AYES NAYS ABSTAIN ABSENT 12 MARQUEZ .2 N 13 BARRIOS D 14 VALDIVIA o Y 15 SHORETT c N 16 NICKEL RICHARD 17 = 18 MULVIHILL E R 19 a Y 20 Georgeann Hanna, City Clerk E t U 21 r 22 The foregoing Resolution is hereby approved this day of , 2016. a 23 24 R. CAREY DAVIS,Mayor 25 Approved as to form: City of San Bernardino Gary D. Saenz, City Attorney 26 27 By. 28 15 Packet Pg. 611 (Z0-54 ed! SgVt,) {y}lgi4x3) uoi;nioseH- Z luawq:)ellV :;uauayoejiv N m � tC Ch a as o U aO+ IL C m a 0 0 0 0 tf O - ;- - _ cr U 'O c t6 bA O O — O �+ w to "O .0 C 7 N 0 0 -O N In O 2 Q c O N to 'O to U c U -O U 7 > C tU O Co 2 'N rr LL C: co @ O p Q D c n 6 bD U C - _ O N 70 O � c>3 � � C C atn N O Q c -O N U p @ cn cc : O c 'D 0 i ZO to to cn O m U N 7 .O -O U >i U to fll N U N 7 N y U (6 C cn CO �O .� y u .O 'c O 0 U N O@ -6 7 U .O C O 70 Y)T o oL) > E E E c 0- op m E CL a)a c }� y E a) C c O U cam '- � E � cE E o o a`a aci Eon � � CL 0 o > tv o > aa U aNi Ups U0 � c0 y 'p 0 N O ,� O `t- -oQa c c6 C co >, o c0 .-P m c i C C F N O U c Q +J N bA O O = c -O N N c U j E +-' O Q z3 E L N c cc as a) Q) N f N 0 O d O O tap E > c o > _O d co E nip a o taA o > o M � ° m c a L +� o g o +� a ° m o c o o �- ai +� O C U _ N Q V) C — � i O U � O U t� O N 0 " O Y m O N i i in a) O U Q O i O O cn cn w N n > M C = O O N to ) +b@ 0 N(� O U L > O V n b0 _ cn O a)w > "O C C O tO p U O O cn = = i O ° a? p C c cn n Q . j °(n 3r > U) (n c O O ° c Q � ° a o a a O U NB N O +, :3> p o * a > — U +a N m U°a 'u o CL L cq m m U ° o m 3 m m N cn U H M '° ° 4 Z (ZOg4e E) SS ( qqx) umm@sa - zzamqoe nV :juewqoe;v n m © © a . � « \ _ 2 = # . a t o E ƒ E 5 ID 5 ® � ® » © ) } 13 p / G 7 f } \ a 7 / k\ k $ \ 0 \ / \ % £ $ } e \ \) ` G ] U � Ck 0-cI ® ' _ 0 (D o = ) - § . ! t ~ :3 > 0 3 < o2 = / \ / ® OL\ \ \ ) $ \ CL E\ (n / e � $ L) - � m E E E § 22 Eo Eo k / ) \ ) � > © ec � c « 7 � _ } 2 \ ) mom G \ \ D \ \ } \ a § ) � \ E \ \ / E zm 3 ± o / $ 0 _ = j t goy Goa E Ems = ° 2 f} = f{ a - e © a ° owl Q) (D f J § t = % . a) t / = 8 = S / 7 co ) n 0 2 \ _ \ 2 a = o = 4 \ I m § . £ 6 R \ 3 c ° 0 £ q m » 3 o e £ 2 = t o e — o / $ � a = S E o m g e 2 r = m 2 e 2 3 » : / 2 ' k § \ 3 \ / 2 / § % . § 7 % » a 2 o c E 3 o e 2 k / _ \ 0 5 = / \ / 3 ® 0 0 = B / s - ® ° 7 2 ƒ $ 2 3 / ._ 0 o u e E > E 0 � . . • e § a o I = _ @ 2 E o o 5 \ / / a = o 0 0 > = e — E o 7 f \ § a s / / 5 ° m Q 2 % 4-- \ ƒ % \ / / \ 6 o E K / / % o ° E - � = 7 e = — k \ 7 2 2 # 2 = 4- 2 & z 2 2 ® @ % R c 2 = o = ° 3 ® ° @ g o c e o = o o = 0 0 o e p •- o n / f R { / c o o \ E § E \ 3 � \ = 2 « c § o 2 3 6 B ° ° — o o > 0 2 2 E e o g a a t 2 E \ ® § 2 % § 5 E o 2 c a t o » m = E g / _ > � _ > E _ / 5 § 2 } \ k i \ \ y o ® = e o E n o t = o 0 : . / § » = e m 2 m / 2 m O o L Q Q o f E c = c = 2 (Zo-g4 edE : 99VV) (y}iq!gx3) uoi;niosatl - Z;uowgoe};d :;uawgoejjv v y� T m a m CO I I I a m a o N o p — c m E m m o m o m o 0 0 m = m m o m:tR V Z c p c p c p c p c in c p U 'o c m m bA � bA bA `o co c `o as c o c .� U O Y _ -0 ° N O C ° cT7 Y O c .c C @ 0 w.� 7 M@ O 0 n3 @ .O o ° > > U E U cn ° E U Q ° a n ° c � o � a 3 c tina 3 c = a� c ° a�i a E o ° d a a°i �c o a a°i m aa) ° c in co 00 C 10 U cn _ _C U n O C O cn C aS j O C C M j 7 c Co 3 m o ° o o '� a ° o o o m o C o to v '@ ° v cn + u U a n-r, s v U a } .R c c> ° a� o a3 co ' cn 3 coo :c V CL 0 fl- E 0 scan .� a U � _0 0 a) > " O -�O ° •.a_j am cn C ° n a � ho ao cw 70- c c c 0 C U = 0 U c 0 O C 0 L C O sp O aYp N> a O �, C w aw > W CD in > 3 3; 'L 0 tin C c o ° `o v ° o v cn (7 E o ° a� a) hp c a> by c . C U O_ p U C (6 O U C CO co y ocw — c o. E .mac o_ E E N o a (n CU cn c o °' cn O o_ � E F= by L a) ++ C O U) o O ai cco ° O a� O +•' Q— a) Q" U U O E O. L r O i i N 7 6 @ a) E > C � > c N C > a a 0 °° � a uco a o E wD a c c o Q co ca ° +_ 7 4- a rl U — ui U co � o o 'o a `° ° c Q — •s c a Q 0 0 E o a C o co a -a +� +—� .� o c cn c o co co cc d C ?+ C U O O (6 (0 — C N +� O a O + � c O txp Q � � Q a) E .D) C U E O m -0 O Q- O (6 (o cB +- p O O to N O +, +� +- Co N N (o — O C C cn N O O 4- a tw M N > N O � co c6 Q O ir; O fn C L �- +J C N L a O N a m C O U ° enN c w o � c a (n L, E E O Q c6 C � c ri p o N O oa O E nn O ;4 p o c to U O O � � a C c a � a� L a) o c o a) a) c L 2 0 o F 2 L O E (n C9 C3 a tw o w z m C7 0 a C9 L m > m (Zo-54 edE 58titi) (V I!q!4x3) uo!}n!osaN- Z;uaw4pe;}y :;uaw4oeuv LO ca MWM T W a d Q tf C a) E (p 0 m a) m O m N m N m a) m a) m N CU co c pm -P-�c c pm c pm c pm c � cc a> 6 N Cf O C -Cc: bn O C ++ C ri0 O ._ C �, C bn O — C ++ C bn O G 7 m Co O p '�, 7 m �p O p '�, 7 m m O p 7 m m O p + c c 3 !r-- bna) 3 cw Wa) 3 cy nn a) 3 cv- una C p N m U N C O- m m U N C Q a) m U N C O' a) _O U N C N ° > oac > ° ac � c .5; CL > ° ac5 .� co N o - N o -p N o p co o a bn U N Un U N t10 _C N UA U -C U N \ o c m M c c m � c c c6 � C c m m e UO V -O -6 N '++ ° 'O 'O N i� a) C Q ._ C c O m 0 U ._ C C (6 0 U C C O m 0 U ._ C C O (6 D U C O m 0 I m o O m 0 7 m 0 C p Y10 Q N '4 C (n U a Q N -- C U a N +' .� N U a -0 N '+� ,� ( U a C c 3 ci � .ca c 3 m cmi i s 3 m � .c � c m @ 'ca c V D. N Q; _0 0O .) N Q;v -0 O N .� Q.0 a 0O ta) Q•U - .) >� ir � a m N N � a m N � a m N a m N N N N N :Lj� un un un an c c c c m �`o a) m C U p 0 p 0 p C U C 0 i C V5 O Q ' Q W., 4W't� 4 a1 w a o a a c W w N Q U aNi s s s N O O C C L ° O U N L ° c U () C — a) W C a) cm p cm m QC -' =cm a) Co L s + m p CL ._ a L Q o a` n Q o a` .N � o a s o 3 co E a) U C a) C a) C 0 .0 a) O -O O V1 0 7 a(6) . C U U C) Q E L Q) U m U p m U m a) 7 ca N 0 0 m C O. tz0 y o °C U a) 0 ° a) a) m ° c o p a p D o p a p D UA a a) a) c 0 *' i -0 — a) a) m — ca C: C a) c� Q o cn a? U) C U U, N cn a) V +O Q O a) Q Q O Q w O m Q H O OL O U p O U +' to a) + U C 3 O U) +� >- N O F— U O _ +O Q O O a) a) -0 O O W N Q Q 7 LO (6 M N a) (3 Lll N m N L (6 fn O C L ca C O (O a) C:L W (n I— o '� E o I— U o U0 C6 a) N a) E O I V C NO a) C I a) + Q I m _ _ o o nn = c N O p 2 c Q cn C7 o C7 C7 a E U — U' u) 3 N C7 L co (Zo-g6 edE S8tti) (V I!q!4x3) uol;nlosa�j - Z;ueLugoe;;y :;uaLugoe4ly m y_ T W IL d T £ � � N N _N N N N t' C ) E (0 aU+ ca co co m m Q) O Y .++ +_+ _ _ Y V co C Q C Q C Q 'C Q C Q E Q N � _ — — U 'o c m co M N O Y O 0 ✓O p -6 -O • O 7 0 C 'O 'Y C Y .N c c 0 7 Q 4 NC i O O O > O U V O O O 7 .00 O U_O_D p Mn U C Y LL > Q Q p C p C y O O p Y 0 O O b N C -O U N U -C il0 Yj UA O � C @ @ � C � Q CM ao = = os cCaO C p to Q.� C () Q 0 0 U C 0 .0 U C O C c � 3 .V •S -0 C U C E U N E O O p cu U N N N 0 �O O O O Y O N O Y cr O_ C 7 f/1 UA UA bA � c c @ `OF O C O C U U C O U C O U C O d C C 7 W > O W > O a W > a o �o U aNi � s s s g 3 •L C C � —O C N O U Y w C y � ") a C L d " d .N - � LO co t7 0 E E N O E O y - W U b (n T d V a fl- N N -O O- co IQ E 1— L _N �+ C L -2 O C C �O C a N �••� a E Q O i f6 %10 a' E > V c -t6 c 0 a. a o v o U E ap a c o � � — a� O 4� Co U N _ O +� T 0) (6 +� 3 (1) (1) � co Co (6 i O U — C W (0 CL -0� co .� U O U a) •� X 0 3 U Q -O N Z3 :3(6 O -0 p 07 a) U a) U C Co '� O U +� N +' — (0 Q N (n N N 4 in f6 — — N Q 0 0- C Q) CL c Co E o o ° E 3 o f0 N N E E N U 7 Q L .O Z U i fn y CL bA > N =3 O O X cL6 (n C C 0 O w W (n + Q O 0 OU O a) p Q to N N O C O U cn U U (0 bA = U +� O M bo U L _0 + a1 >, Uj ir-(n c L rn C7 > o o u 0 � � o m� a a c o oo o= U � MMOO 0 o � R "O Cl W U U 0 Q C N Z W (ZO-S6 edE 58tit,) (V t!q!ux3) uo!tn!osatl- Z;uauayoe;;d :;uaLugoet;y ti m v, cc Cb a a� o G m I I I I a .� t+ a U N fn N N N _N N N tf O Q) a5 a5 a) g Q) co N co Q) Co N (6 a)cc V Z c p c p c p c p c p c p c p c p — — — — — — — — U 'o C a5 N O C +� O C h,0 +-' O C O -p C O C c O N 'Q N '0 : •Q N '� a = C ho C o C ' 'Q ' 'Q N i i C �i i C C 0 b -- - C C U _ a) C: c --O Q 7 O N Cb LL C L C •— O O C L C O O O O C .0 «O>, •O O o O om 0 0 o p C 3 _ Q i nu y E uo c uo °c E uo O O C co N C O co C co O U C C O C C C O a-+ •� Q 0 O O 0 C O 0 O O 0 0 .8 .2 2 U C C c a O O O O CO O O CL .F. a) U Q) O '— O N O '— U a) O '— O a) O .- x a c 3 a c 3 w a c 3 a c 3 N N N N U) no uo an uo f6 w W > O W > C W > O W > N a U in C Y Y m c o s 0 ° ° o N ° E - ucN ° o °— ° 0 o - (D .2 o N t0 ° C O U = N C = O U = Y C Q 'a-J O U != y C Q p C 76 ` a ° ` a °a n n a n co co co E ~ a) s a) +.+ c O c c c c .- C ° O ° O ° O ° O C O .2 V ✓ U U U U U U C a C i N 7 O O O 7 O m (n 4D E 40 p C a O O C O O U U L L U v C nA a c o U) cn 0 � — c Co v N co E c 3 a) 0 N N N 3 +� y ° Q o .o +� a) Q o 0 O Q co o +� _ U N Q) O co C a) U }' N co (N 6 .O > U O O N o m co , 7 • U O� � O O O c Q O > O c '4O i U cn +-+ +., YO 'D +J � � O � � O +1 C (o i W n 75 a) U -C Co — -0 cu a) i (n O i Q (n U O `° 3 c N �A c o to 0 o n3 Q _ � c w- N O + O c + O L i Q � O � O U C a) Z- Co U a-- Q • O O a) U co cn E o E W O N O g 5 C o � C 0 c � o O 0 0 O 0 0 O aa�)' (n � Z a Z a) o N U Z E 0 V) -r- a) (Zo-g4 edE 591717) (V I!q!ux3) uo!;n!oseN- Z;uauay3ejjV :;uauay3ej;y co w T W CL m E Y m ° 0 co `0 In .� S ae L]. O a V) N UI V7 N N N - tf c d E m ai co a m a cai m m a a3 V Z c pco c in E CD c p0 -E p0 c pm — U 'o c Up bA O bA n �° O C c 7 p C U O c a oO o }+ 7 Q) QC ✓ O > a) C a) O -p' .p O O O Q U Q (C n-0 Q N U U 7 by to C t O bN C a i Q N ° O O b °= — Db V U a (n O )O i (n N (n U C U U O ( O C m L >LL c c QL o O O " E N m - 0 U b11 U bA c7 a F= Qo Up (p a3 i c (p a3 E c a3 @ i C a3 E s N O C O E c O c c C O :t_l O +C+ p OU — OU 0 OU '6 0 p 0 '- o p 0 °U 0 O 0 p 0 - u -,E .0 - c07 E .0 - U E c in E U Q > U a > U + C > U + > a7 y a a c 3 a Q c 3 a (a c 3 a) 3 U) uq bA to bA c c c c c > m c U m U C O U C O U C O U C O +O+ O C c C > W W =5 a p a CL a Wi > Uayi s s s y C 0°U 'cJ: 0 Y .0 to nn ° E 0 -° � -C a) Q) 0 p O O ti 7 E E a> `o_ c E m o E ° `o_ E ° m v n a) m to - (n a) ° un._ N ° m tw.(n c a . a` .(n -a Q -p �° a m _0 Q a ° 0- .(n -0 Q ° ° cc cc E L � +� c �2 o c c c c vO- c in cc ° ° ° ° ° ° m ° ° O �•' U y U U U U U U N 2 (6 i (O i (0 Q 2 2 E N N C N c C to c d Q U O 0 O �0 O Q 0 0 buD a E c � N � O C U) w C i O C 00 E a) N O O O 0 0 O 7 co N i L (a O O U v c6 C O O OL + c Q Q + _ N O ca O O . _ O c OL + c L a) (f) > c _ 0 o N ° 6 O 7 0 0 C v V N "O E N 0 U a- M L -0 O O O c Q N O 0 (O 0 YO r_O 6 O O 4J = _ (a0 O O m n — O O > E Q N O L M aN = 0 N ' O = E U +' N tp ch 0 E 6 "o N Co a0 0 v- 0 +� L+ a N -0 •° +� + c c _C � O Q } c0 Q ° O N N to (OD -- c m E +, > N uj U O O co 0 +�' U) 3 o c ° p N 'O N 'o E J ta0 co Q Q Q O > > a� Q O +� c co a� c� E a> � ti o o m a0 � c�a � 3 0 = o � °o Z o M to M o Z a) cn cn m Z m U) c L +� c O Z 4- (ZO-S4 ed! S81717) (`d I!q!ux3) uoi;njosaM - Z}uawyaejjv :;uawyoe:RV 00 cc T E O (n Q C N +O+ a v N iri iri iri iri "F"` c c E E m ID Lu Q u Y Lu .I 0 V Z c p c p c p c p c p — — U 'a c Ln O O O J O y -5 - Cc f U mc ca O N bm-.0 V�,oC C T \•D�GC cO ¢'��7�OC. Oo_ O- �+N O U aV)O Q Q .�+• aC O 0 E C'0 a E Q w =3 (6 U U U N U U = LL p U 0 N ° a OO O O O c0 _c E E O UI C O 0 O U O U) E N te N co c .- O W W > O > C °Q a o a N p a p UaNi s s 7 c � � o C p - p N C f0 F a. E Q N ` N O N O O N O O U CL CD- CL 11� 110 a j E F a) � O C i O C N N N E CL C O O ca O O N O ir a) a a un o c a) a) c O O o � CC m Ca U c0 0 a C 0 O 0 a a) +� C) a) cn 4, Q U 1- ° ° cn O a a m 0 (n d cn o U > O N c) `n c p a) (B - 0 � > ° n3 103 a con � c6 , c o a o m o c ° o c +, o m m o +� m 3 m (n 0 CO 7 � O (0 -0 } O O u0i 0 ° N +� -0 (ten -0 +� CL c� vi m c p m cn 1 O ¢ N ca O c c w m z 0 co c c a) cn Q o U ° ° c a�i a) 0 > c ¢ Z' c ca c > (n O c c co- � ta0 ° 0 O O -0 O. LL z o o N U - 3 0 E N a) N ' U '� C LL Q) N i V LL U — O_ W 70 C- E O NO � O c m i a) aa) C U0 0 0 a) U) Q Y Q Q H U +� .E I-- + (n Q U (n 4-- 6.B.g EXHIBIT B CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL SUBDIVISION 15-05 (TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 19692)AND DEVELOPMENT PERMIT TYPE-D 15-11 1. This is an approval to change the General Plan Land Use Designation and Zoning District of a site containing approximately 25.25 acres from Industrial Light (IL), Office Industrial Park (OIP) and Public-Commercial Recreation (PCR) to Industrial Light (IL); and, allow the development and establishment of an industrial warehouse building containing approximately 564,652 square feet, along with the required on-site and off-site improvements.. The project site is located at the Southwest Corner of Waterman Avenue and Dumas Street, within the Industrial Light (IL), Office Industrial Park (OIP) and Public Commercial Recreation(PCR)zones. o 1. The project site shall be developed and maintained in accordance with the plans stamped a July 5, 2016 (EXHIBIT "A"), approved by the City, which includes a site plan, on file in �? the Planning Division; the Conditions of Approval contained herein; and, the City's Ln Municipal Code regulations. 2. The project shall be subject to all of the mitigation measures contained in the Mitigation m Monitoring and Reporting Program, dated July 5, 2016 (EXHIBIT `B"), and incorporated herein by reference as Conditions of Approval. w o 2. Within two (2) years of the Development Permit approval, commencement of construction shall have occurred or the permit/approval shall become null and void. In N addition, if after commencement of construction, work is discontinued for a period of one year, then the permit/approval shall become null and void. However, approval of the N Development Permit does not authorize commencement of construction. All necessary permits must be obtained prior to commencement of specified construction activities E included in the Conditions of Approval. r r EXPIRATION DATE: July 5, 2018 a r c as 3. The review authority may grant a time extension, for good cause, not to exceed twelve (12) months. The applicant must file an application, the processing fees, and all required ;g submittal items, thirty (30) days prior to the expiration date. The review authority shall Q ensure that the project complies with all Development Code provisions in effect at the time of the requested extension. 4. In the event this approval is legally challenged, the City will promptly notify the applicant of any claim, action or proceeding and will cooperate fully in the defense of this matter. Once notified, the applicant agrees to defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City of San Bernardino (City), any departments, agencies, divisions, boards or commission of the City as well as predecessors, successors, assigns, agents, directors, 0 elected officials, officers, employees, representatives and attorneys of the City from any claim, action or proceeding against any of the foregoing persons or entities. 1 Packet Pg. 620 The applicant further agrees to reimburse the City for any costs and attorney's fees which the City may be required by a court to pay as a result of such action, but such participation shall not relieve applicant of his or her obligation under this condition. The costs, salaries, and expenses of the City Attorney and employees of his office shall be considered as "Attorney's fees" for the purpose of this condition. As part of the consideration for issuing this Conditional Use Permit, this condition shall remain in effect if the Conditional Use Permit is rescinded or revoked, whether or not at the request of applicant. Planning Division 5. Minor modification to the plans shall be subject to approval by the Director through the Minor Modification Permit process. Any modification which exceeds 10% of the o allowable measurable design/site considerations shall require the refilling of the original Ln application. Q. 6. The project shall comply with all applicable requirements of the Building and Safety LO Itt Division, Fire Department, Police. Department, Municipal Water Department, Public Services Department and the City Clerk's Office/Business Registration Division. m Y 7. This approval shall comply with the requirements of other outside agencies (i.e., San L Bernardino County Health Department, Division of Environmental Health Services, and w California Board of Equalization), as applicable. o 8. The facility operator and property owner shall be responsible for regular maintenance of N the project site. The site shall be maintained in a clean condition and free of litter and any other undesirable material(s). Vandalism, graffiti, trash and other debris shall be removed N and cleaned up within 24 hours of being reported. E 9. Signs are not approved as part of this permit. Prior to establishing any new signs or replacing existing signs, the applicant shall submit an application and receive approval Q for a Sign Permit from the Planning Division. Signs painted on the building are prohibited. Banners, flags, pennant, and similar signs are prohibited unless a Temporary Sign Permit is obtained. �o w 10. All exterior lighting shall be energy efficient with the option to lower or reduce usage a when the facility is closed. Any electric signage may be required to be turned off when the businesses are closed. 11. A bicycle rack shall be installed in a convenient location on the site. 12. If the colors of the buildings or other exterior finish materials are to be modified beyond the current proposal and improvement requirements, the revised color scheme and/or finish materials shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Division prior to commencement of work. 2 Packet Pg. 621 10 13. Submittal requirements for permit applications (site improvements, landscaping, etc.) to Building Plan Check and/or Land Development must include all Conditions of Approval issued with this approval,printed on the plan sheets. 14. All Conditions of Approval and Standard Requirements shall be implemented and/or completed prior to final inspection and/or issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy Building& Safety Division 15. Plans submitted shall conform to the 2013 California Building Codes. Please note this will include the California Green Building Code. 16. Project shall conform to Chapter 3 of California Building Code 2013. o 17. Project shall also conform to the requirements of Chapter 4 of the California Building Code, Special Details Requirements Based on use of Occupancy. �? a C* 18. Provide sprinkler requirements for the occupant load according to California Building Code 2013. m Y 19. Provide all disabled access requirements per Chapter 11 B and complete details on plans prior to plan review submittal. w 20. There shall be a formal plan submittal prior to all issuance of permits. 0 21. Refer to Chapter 7 of the California Building Code for Fire/Smoke Protection Requirements. Y 22. Please indicate all hydrants location on plans. E s 23. Prior to submittal please obtain the city hand-out for Commercial/Industrial plan review Q guidelines. a� 24. The Building Department submittal is separate from the Fire Department. �o Y Y Fire Department Q 25. The developer shall provide for adequate fire flow. Minimum fire flow requirements shall be based on square footage, construction features, and exposure information supplied by the developer and must be available prior to placing combustible materials on site. 26. Public fire hydrants are required along streets at intervals not to exceed 300 feet for the commercial and multi-residential areas and at intervals not to exceed 500 feet for residential areas. 0 3 Packet Pg. 622 6.B.g 27. Fire hydrant minimum flow rates of 1,500 gpm at a 20 psi minimum residual pressure are required for commercial and multi-residential areas. Minimum fire hydrant flow rates of 1,000 gpm at a 20 psi minimum residual are required for residential areas. 28. Fire hydrant type and specific location shall be jointly determined by the City of San Bernardino Fire Department in conjunction with the water purveyor. Fire hydrant materials and installation shall confirm to the standards and specifications of the water purveyor. 29. Public fire hydrants, fire services, and public water facilities necessary to meet Fire Department requirements are the developer's financial responsibility and shall be installed by the water purveyor or by the developer at the water purveyor's discretion. Contact the water purveyor indicated above for additional information. o LO 30. Provide two separate, dedicated routes of ingress/egress to the property entrance. The routes shall be paved, all weather. LO co It 31. Provide an access road to each building for fire apparatus. Access roadway shall have an all-weather driving surface of or less than 20 feet of unobstructed width. m 32. Extend roadway to within 150 feet of all portions of the exterior wall of al single story s buildings. w 0 33. Provide "NO PARKING" signs whenever parking of vehicles would possibly reduce the clearance of access roadways to less than the required width. Signs are to read "FIRE o LANE -NO PARKING-M.C. Sec 15.16". r 34. All access roads and streets are to be constructed and usable prior to combustible � construction. E ca 35. Private fire hydrants shall be installed to protect each building located more than 150 feet from the curb line. No fire hydrants should be within 40 feet of any exterior wall. The a hydrants shall be Wet Barrel type, with one 2 1/2 inch and 4 inch outlet, and approved by the Fire Department. Areas adjacent to fire hydrants shall be designated as a "NO PARKING" zone by painting an 8 inch wide, red stripe for 15 feet in each direction in front of the hydrant in such a manner that it will not be blocked by parking vehicles. a Lettering to be in white 6"by 1/2". 36. Address numerals shall be installed on the building at the front or other approved location in such a manner as to be visible from the frontage street. Commercial and multi-family address numerals shall be 6 inches tall, single-family address numerals shall be 4 inches tall. The color of the numerals shall contrast with the color of the background. 4 Packet Pg. 623 37. Fire extinguishers must be installed prior to the building being occupied. The minimum rating for any fire extinguisher is 2A lOB/C. Minimum distribution of fire extinguishers must be such that no interior part of the building is over 75 feet travel distance from a fire extinguisher. 38. All buildings, over 5,000 square feet, shall be equipped with an automatic fire sprinkler system designed to NFPA standards. This includes existing buildings vacant over 365 days. 39. Submit plans for the fire protection to the Fire Department prior to beginning construction of the system. Permit required. 40. Tenant improvements in all sprinklered buildings are to be approved by the Fire c LO Department prior to start of construction. Permit required. a 41. Fire Department connection to sprinkler system/standpipe system shall be required at Fire �? Department approved location. CO It 42. Fire Code Permit required, at 200 E. 3rd Street(909) 384-5388. m 43. Fire Sprinkler monitoring required. Plans must be approved by the Fire Department prior to the start of construction. Permit required. w 0 44. Knox Box is required. Contact(909) 384-5388 for information. 0 45. High-piled storage plans are required for storage over 12 feet and plastic over 6 feet. An approved sprinkler system capable of protecting the storage of plastic commodities is N required. A 06/3000 density is required as a minimum sprinkler protection throughout prior to occupancy. E s 46. All Fire Department standards shall be met for warehouses (FD Standard 100). a r Land Development Division .c 47. Drainage and Flood Control a. All necessary drainage and flood control measures shall be subject to a requirements of the Land Development Division, which may be based in part on the recommendations of the San Bernardino County Flood Control. The developer's Engineer shall furnish all necessary data relating to drainage to the flood control area. b. A permit will be required from the San Bernardino County Department of Transportation and Flood Control, if any work is required within the Flood Control District's right-of-way. 5 Packet Pg. 624 c. A local drainage study will be required for this project. Any drainage improvements, structures or storm drains needed to mitigate downstream impacts or protect the development shall be designed and constructed at the developer's expense, and right-of-way dedicated as necessary. d. The detention basin shall be designed in accordance with "Detention Basin Design Criteria for San Bernardino County." Retention basins are not acceptable. e. The development is located within Zone A of the Federal Insurance Rate Maps on panel 0607IC8683H and 0607IC8684H with year August 28, 2008. The developer shall be responsible for providing an elevation certificate prepared in accordance with FEMA regulations to prove that all parcels are not subject to flooding in a 100-year storm. These certificates shall be provided in a form that is suitable for submittal to FEMA in order to obtain a Letter of Map Revision o (LOMR). The purpose of this process is to assure that future owners of these lots will not be required to purchase flood insurance. a f. All drainage from the development shall be directed to an approved public drainage facility. If not feasible, proper drainage facilities and easements shall be 00 provided to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. g. If site drainage is to be outletted into the public street, the drainage shall be 00 conveyed through a parkway culvert constructed in accordance with City Standard No. 400. Conveyance of site drainage over the Driveway approaches w will not be permitted. 0 h. A Full Categorical Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) and a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) is required for this project. The applicant is directed to the County of San Bernardino Flood Control web page for the WQMP Technical Guidance Document and template. The Building Official, prior to N issuance of any permit, shall approve the WQMP and the SWPPP. i. A "Notice of Intent (NOI)" shall be filed with the State Water Quality Control Board for construction disturbing 1 acre or more of land (including the project area, construction yards, storage areas, etc.). a w j. The Land Development Section, prior to grading plan approval, shall approve an Erosion Control Plan. The plan shall be designed to control erosion due to water and wind, including blowing dust, during all phases of construction, including ;g r graded areas which are not proposed to be immediately built upon. Q 48. Grading and Landscaping a. The grading and on-site improvement plan shall be signed by a Registered Civil Engineer and a grading permit will be required. The grading plan shall be prepared in strict accordance with the City's "Grading Policies and Procedures" and the City's "Standard Drawings", unless otherwise approved by the Director of Community Development. 6 Packet Pg. 625 b. If more than 5 trees are to be removed from the site, a tree removal permit conforming to the requirements of Section 19.28.090 of the Development Code shall be obtained from the Department of Community Development - Planning Division prior to issuance of any grading or site development permits. c. The applicant must post a grading bond prior to issuance of a grading permit. The amount of the bond is to be determined by the Land Development Section. d. If the grading plan indicates export or import, the source of the import material or the site for the deposition of the export shall be noted on the grading plan. Permit numbers shall be noted if the source or destination is in the City of San Bernardino. e. If more than 50 cubic yards of earth is to be hauled on City Streets then a special hauling permit shall be obtained from the City Engineer. Additional conditions, 9 such as truck route approval, traffic controls, bonding, covering of loads, street cleaning, etc. may be required by the City Engineer. C. f. A liquefaction evaluation is required for the site. This evaluation must be LO submitted and approved prior to issuance of a grading permit. Any grading requirements recommended by the approved liquefaction evaluation shall be incorporated in the grading plan. m g. The refuse enclosure(s). must be constructed in accordance with City Standard Drawing No. 508. The minimum size of the refuse enclosure shall be 8 feet x 15 w feet. Where a refuse enclosure is proposed to be constructed adjacent to spaces for 2 parking passenger vehicles, a 3' wide by 6" high concrete planter shall be 2 provided to separate the enclosure from the adjacent parking. The placement of the enclosure and design of the planter shall preclude the enclosure doors from W opening into drive aisles or impacting against adjacent parked cars. N h. Retaining walls, block walls and all on-site fencing shall be designed and detailed on the on-site improvement Plan. This work shall be part of the on-site improvement permit issued by the Building Official. All masonry walls shall be constructed of decorative block with architectural features acceptable to the City Q Planner. i. The on-site improvement plan shall include details of on-site lighting, including light location, type of poles and fixtures, foundation design conduit location, material and size, and Q • Photometric plot shall be provided which show that the proposed on-site lighting design will provide: • 1 foot-candle of illumination uniformly distributed over the surface of the parking lot during hours of operation, and • 0.25 foot-candles security lighting during all other hours. j. The design of on-site improvements shall also comply with all requirements of The California Building Code, Title 24, relating to accessible parking and accessibility. 7 Packet Pg. 626 k. An accessible path of travel shall be provided from the public way to the building entrance. All pathways shall be concrete paved and shall provide a minimum clear width of 4 feet. Where parking overhangs the pathway, the minimum paved width shall be 6.5 feet. 1. Where an accessible path of travel crosses drive aisles, it shall be delineated by textured/colored concrete pavement. m. The project Landscape Plan shall be reviewed and approved by Land Development prior to issuance of a grading permit. Submit 5 copies to the Land Development Division for Checking. n. Prior to occupancy of any building, the developer shall post a bond to guarantee the maintenance and survival of project landscaping for a period of one year. N O o. All electrical transformers located outdoors on the site, shall be screened from LO view with a solid wall or landscaping and shall not be located in any setback/right-of-way area. If the transformer cannot be screened, it shall be c� located in an underground vault unless approved by the City Engineer pursuant to Section 19.30.110. 49. Utilities m a. Sewer main extensions required to serve the site shall be constructed at the Developer's expense. W b. This project is located in the sewer service area maintained by the City of San 0 Bernardino therefore, any necessary sewer main extension shall be designed and o constructed in accordance with the City's "Sewer Policy and Procedures" and City Standard Drawings. , N c. A street cut permit, from the City Engineer, will be required for utility cuts into existing streets. If the utilities are to be cut onto Waterman Avenue or Dumas E Street the cut street lane shall be striped and slurry sealed along the frontage for v each lane that has utility cuts. r Q d. All existing overhead utilities adjacent to or traversing the site on either side of the street shall be placed underground in accordance with Section 19.20.030 of E the Development Code. All electrical lines 33 KVA or more shall be exempt; 0 however, these high voltage power lines are required to be relocated outside the a ultimate designated curb separation and within the new right-of-way boundary. e. Existing Utilities which interfere with new construction shall be relocated at the Developer's expense as directed by the City Engineer. 50. Mapping a. A Parcel Map based upon field survey will be required. 8 Packet Pg. 627 51. Improvement Completion a. Street, sewer, drainage improvement, traffic signals, and Landscape and irrigation plans for the entire project shall be completed, subject to the approval of the Community Development Director,prior to the Map recordation. b. If the construction/installation of required improvements, including landscaping is not completed prior to Map recordation, an improvement security accompanied by an agreement executed by the developer and the City will be required. c. If the required improvements are not proposed to be completed prior to recordation of the Parcel Map, a deferred improvement agreement in accordance with Section 19.30160 of the Development Code will be required. If the agreement is approved, an improvement certificate shall be placed on the Parcel Map, stating that the required improvements will be completed upon 9 development. 52. Street Improvement and Dedications tn a. For the streets listed below, dedication of adequate street right-of-way (R.W.) to provide the distance from street centerline to property line and placement of the curb line (C.L.) in relation to the street centerline shall be as follows: 0° Street Name RiEht of Way(feet) Curb Line(feet) E w • Dumas Street 30 feet 20 feet 0 Waterman Ave 55 feet 32 feet o a� N b. Dumas Street- Construct 8" Curb and Gutter per City E Standard No. 200 adjacent to the site. Widen pavement adjacent to the site to match new curb and gutter. Construct approach and .2 departure transitions for traffic safety and drainage as approved a w by the City Engineer. CD E Construct sidewalk adjacent to the site in accordance with City Standard No. 202; Case "A" (6' wide adjacent to curb). a The pavement on Dumas Street shall be removed and replaced along the frontage of the project site for both sides of the street on Dumas Street. The street shall be rehabilitated and the structural street section shall be designed on the "R" value of the subgrade as determined by soils testing and the traffic Index. Install 6 Street Lights adjacent to the site in accordance with City Standard Nos. SL-1 and SL-2 along Dumas Street. Also, a separate light plan shall be submitted in accordance with the City of San Bernardino Street Lighting Design Policies. 9 Packet Pg. 628 C. Waterman Avenue- If the existing curb & gutter adjacent to the site are in poor condition, the curb & gutter shall be removed and reconstructed to City Standards. Curb & Gutter shall conform to Standard No. 200, Type `B"unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer. Construct sidewalk adjacent to the site in accordance with City Standard No. 202; Case "A" (6' wide adjacent to curb). The pavement on Waterman Avenue shall be rehabilitated adjoining the site shall be rehabilitated to centerline using a 2 %" max removal (to obtain a clean base surface) and replace in kind with an C-2 PB 64-10 cap. o Relocate one street light according to the City of San Bernardino street lighting plan. d. The existing 35 foot curb return at the intersection of Waterman Avenue and tn Dumas Street shall be re-constructed with a compliant handicap ramp, and a reconstructed spandrel. The full length of the cross gutter shall be removed and replaced. Dedicate sufficient right-of-way at the corner to accommodate the ramp. 0° e. If a radius type Driveway Approach is used in lieu of the standard drive approach, the throat of the driveway shall be paved in colored textured concrete. The drive w approach shall be accessible with handicap ramps and truncated domes. o f. The existing well located within the project site shall be relocated and be formally o vacated. a a✓ g. The existing 36" and 54" sewer shall be re-aligned to the satisfaction of the Public N Works Department, Water Department and Community Development prior to the approval of any on-site improvement plans. E h. A street cut permit, from the City Engineer, will be required for utility cuts into existing streets. If the street trenching crosses to the northbound lane on Q Waterman Ave, a grind and slurry coat shall be placed on the north bound lane along the frontage and each lane accordingly. E �o 53. Required Engineering Plans a a. A complete submittal for plan checking shall consist of: ■ street improvement plans (may include street lights or street lighting may be separate plan), ■ sewer plans (Private sewers may be shown on on-site improvement plan; public sewers must be on a separate plan with profile), ■ storm drain plans (Private storm drains may be shown on on-site improvement plans; public storm drains must be on a separate plan with profile), ■ traffic signal plans, 10 Packet Pg. 629 6.B.g ® • signing and striping plan (may be on sheets included in street improvement plan), • lighting (on-site lighting may be included in on-site improvement plan or may be on a separate stand-alone plan), • grading (may be incorporated with on-site improvement plan), • on-site landscaping and irrigation, • other plans as required. Piecemeal submittal of various types of plans for the same project will not be allowed. • All required supporting calculations, studies and reports must be included in the initial submittal (including but not limited to drainage studies, soils reports, structural calculations) o Ln b. All off-site improvement plans submitted for plan check shall be prepared on the CU City's standard 24" x 36" sheets. A signature block satisfactory to the City Engineer or his designee shall be provided. LO 00 c. After completion of plan checking, final mylar drawings, stamped and signed by the Registered Civil Engineer in charge, shall be submitted to the City Engineer m and/or Building Official for approval. w d. Copies of the City's design policies and procedures and standard drawings are w available at the Public Works Counter for the cost of reproduction. They are also -- available at no charge at the Public Works Web Site at http://www.sbcily.org. o M 0 54. Required Engineering Permits a. Grading permit. N b. On-site improvements construction permit (except buildings - see Development Services-Building Division), including landscaping. s U c. Off-site improvement construction permit. .2 55. Applicable En ing eering Fees E a. All plan check, permit, inspection, and impact fees are outlined on the Public Works Fee Schedule. A deposit in the amount of 100% of the estimated checking fee for each set of plans will be required at time of application for plan ¢ check. The amount of the fee is subject to adjustment if the construction cost estimate varies more than 10% from the estimate submitted with the application for plan checking. b. The current fee schedule is available at the Public Works Counter and at http://www.sbciiy.oriz. 11 Packet Pg. 630 6.B.g r 56. Traffic Requirements a. Traffic Study has been accepted. b. Left turn pocket is required on Waterman Ave. c. Right turn lane onto the project site at Waterman Ave. d. (*) The proposed left turn pocket and right turn lane on Waterman Ave. shall be constructed of P.C.C. (*) Amended by the Planning Commission on May 18, 2016. N O LO T- f0 LO CO d' m .Q X W_ • O O O N d N d E L U fC r a CD E U RS a-. Q • 12 Packet Pg. 631 6.B.g EXHIBIT "A" APPROVED PLANS N O r R Q. 00 d' m K W r 7 O N d N C U t U fC r Q w C d s U RS r r+ Q 13 i ze aUzd vi Y c, z 5i PRO a RA 1 I AV-- N VA d I fVV C14 CD CL • (D LO 00 x 3NNO., ......... C 3E —416— . ............ 39 U Ln ........... -ca --1 twal q '50 ................ ............ 4 BI 1w . ............... . ............. . ................ ............—1 .......... UITL I J Ll U L Ill LLL= lid Il Lli ———-------------------- 3sunoo 101 INVOVA A109 9NIISIX3 I D--L,-+ 0— 9Z'I'l K � zU 3� �•. °8° afi 44 � 3 g t s _... — . — . _ . - __ — 4 _ - _ _ _L } 4 . _ — l LO i � a . . .... ....... _ ._. co . ' a W tt — -.... - i . ......_� g °Q i Y — a YV a a A e a ry l --- 1- - L - L- - 22 �pyp.Y Ok O° O 8.St5 LL Y I e { 4 la x ig was MOM I�Gi�r l ® O I& _. M ' Amu +t - �. � 1 its RAW An �� BB N® R .epp 11 AM .I® .� •Ali I� �; I� MI �s ILl I lu _ I� MW do IN 7 go _�'1 ii�i5 SR`s „3 r� g III o I� I� j��.1� � ma s a a � _ x � T enupny uewia;eM AL . I I - I ' I a � a C U I ' 3 Z u 311 � s ..... ------- ---------------------- .................. ........... , i 1 IIN _ — _ t I , to t Ni — : � 0 —� .. __ I I I �_ r t t - � V) ..... � il 1 ` i i l 1__L�I 1 --------------- Packet Pg. 636 .. 133HS 31111 200956 60 as Q 6 B g SiOL Zi Ot31v0 F. U.IO °°�« f VO'ONIOHVN839 NVS 30 A110 BW A9 03NJ3tl W H n [I Ae —,— .,. oa d`dW 1301:]`dd 3nll`d1N31 B 03N0530 �' 3 tl05 0a,� IP Ytla std '3 3 3 4 + ` so6o a "8" Awl `a;m �gaffB� Ll w m Hd � 'sa � � � Wesasssaese � � e "sW g � g � � � � g ag � � I e X013 II 1 � I � III II II gai $ i g � b; 4• V Lij o I S f— s W Z 1 W 6, U C) W < Q w U Z x w¢ ry W n O Co y $ W 3 & e � fr W LL C) Z »u .. ,. s Z < $ g W s Z LL 1 Q <( 0W.�3oaa W } a ! LU i R _ 91 � 8 a s� tl� - 4 B i c C E � ` W , iN Packet Pg. 637 133HS 310N B fi560 a noz zl o1:3<va � VO'ONICRJVNZ138 NHS 30 AAA eN:Ae a3Na3N� w e UJOW<AajwiV�� A9 SN05N3a 3Y0 ON dVN -13MJVd 3AIiViN31 dNAeNMVa (IYI�A9 031YJI534 Of� I31V35 ✓ L b a 31 N g 8 H 8 9 s � f� i1vo 8 � 7 a �a a ;g0 9 ! a � k I ka k Li td hk� � $aaho uak8 $I $� eRo_ ks-� Rs- z ME tj �� �� � �e � � s�" � @m �e � � e � @fie � ��g " p= e m t€ 'M s m U I`s mm�O d �m�I]`u �`s=�m��s L e m �� b7' �y fi@gym kY k o "h N ^ N „ k asn .a Ea a 9 @K ak t§ m an. ma a". . §§°amp e e e az6 :„lg b „ C Yjo� ° A i 1a P b h; s aNg rR" ao 70 � m Y $ o � � a 3 : $ � ash Y J 8 I °° �8 C0 " s 8 0 g ,s q„�� �h° I 8 � �5 ?KR an ea ma m ssaa"a � o ng "gig = e 01 4!.q k� t t t $ a •; L mm_ � kis5�:c a _ a o ene „ �= a age a o ebb @r� =e ag°rge " ma ra� � @ liar � gaN ;ta=e J m s n a p s s s� p sam"x Q mm m flu", s "�i 'A� =k mm p s mm Q e mm.� i h a�, km 3 aL tb k „s G °E a5 '� "m a t Lza ao ¢ ov am m �a ;" k sp � L � i'��'��g.. � �a ��b - H " � <k 8`. � � �� "8 � � L•� � a � �o.��< = gs ze=oa k 8s _ a t $ as Eon �k^ q 1; e �' 1 g s _ �❑ @ __$ ai. Y a Via, o m a n m k kkt �ak a:pam d a t �' a a a @m" � k ` _ _ � `s• a m; � a b� ��5 �$„ �' o�o��� s k° �° S 7 H " `OLa Y WN ffi m � €m3 �N �^ aeNas a" as �< ffi � „ kt ss hg �8 ffismb ff. Eg6 $> a s ag =„ 90 �� h g <s i „€� mkpasog 3 ° mk4 Ea m°a § ° a s €n ° NO m SNOUI4NOO JN,ISIX3 ooes5seo ae swz zl at3lra e U�0 W°��<`� �' tlO'ONIO?JVN2l39 NVS 30l lIO B.AB 03HJ3HJ w H n * .� AB sH�5�3a 3ra off dVVY 1�02Hdd DAUV1N3l d�,B 11W:AB p3MJ630 ,3IVJ5 n n § $ Iwo ghat g @iRf & ngy$qy9� -- all 3RN3Atl NtlAN3:LtlY 44 �* e � L y � � � _< Eli A" �� �8�Svbi6 @. a r _ I _,- � I s pR: I ff full, tj n a w: �i mg`� � p L� I �jv o ija OG Ia 5. n _ _ y e m _ t I o , 44 R S O ay yRa n " ,s sflF(tl i r e Ii I i I MI t a�Q I 8 y 1 �m kio i t £. € ��d>i �a I o , a I 4A --- ---- P E I � ° e&{@ II I P ..� i �. ,11 +,tea-- �- { h( TTM Y sw x I I e� rs )0019 nab al e 4 Mi!° [k SNOIIIONOO O3SOdONd sloz a mMra VO'ONIObVN2138 NVS 30 ADO en.e oa.oaN� w dVN 1902]Vd 3AUV1Ngl nW�A9ANVU2 ° . 4. 11.. ­4 jj."aa `" •—.�-- —sa '..— — -C3RN8Atl NtlWi18,LtlM Na _ ,�. _ Tr Il_ a � f AA_ I�IIl4ilAl _ 4 ' I € V E� c I 1 X A s� Ij ' I s 11I _ k ia m \ I � 1 I v dd t� I 1 ,j J( I e I 8a s I •, ��. I � ss 1 I i I I.v �k $o° E;� � i�,, I I�Ii s• aj ` k _ _I : 1_,l — -- — --------------------- 1`r�5 1 6 Jill fif f J t Y o f )# Packet Pg. 640 AGENDA ITEM #6 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DIVISION CASE: General Plan Amendment 15-02, Development Code Amendment/ Zoning Map Amendment 15-04, Subdivision 15-05 and Development Permit Type-D 15-11 HEARING DATE: May 18,2016 WARD: 3 OWNER/APPLICANT: Newcastle Partners N 4740 Green River Road, Suite 118 ° U) Corona, CA 92880 a U) REQUEST& LOCATION: co A request to change the General Plan Land Use Designation and Zoning District of a site o containing approximately 25.25 acres from Industrial Light (IL), Office Industrial Park (OIP) and Public-Commercial Recreation (PCR) to Industrial Light (IL); and, allow the development and establishment of an industrial warehouse building containing approximately 564,652 square feet, along with the construction of the required on-site and off-site improvements. The project site is located on the southwest corner of Waterman Avenue and Dumas Street. a APN'S: 0141-431-01, 02, 03, 04, 08, 09, 10, 11, 12, 16, 20 and 21 d ZONES: Industrial Light (IL), Office Industrial Park (OIP) and Public Commercial E Recreation (PCR) w Q r STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Division of the Community Development Department recommends that the Q Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 2016-030 forwarding a recommendation that the Mayor and Common Council (please see Attachment A): 1. Adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration for General Plan Amendment 15-02, Development Code Amendment/Zoning Map Amendment 15-04, Subdivision 15-05 and Development Permit Type-D 15-11, in accordance with §15074 (Adoption of Mitigated Negative Declaration)of the California Environmental Quality Act; and 2. Approve General Plan Amendment 15-02, Development Code Amendment/Zoning Map Amendment 15-04, Subdivision 15-05 and Development Permit Type-D 15-11 based on the Findings of Fact and subject to the recommended Conditions of Approval. Packet Pg. 641 GPA 15-02, DCA/ZMA 15-04,SUB 15-05 and DP-D 15-11 Planning Commission Date:5.18.2016 Page 2 BACKGROUND November 12,2015 General Plan Amendment 15-02, Development Code Amendment/Zoning Map Amendment 15-04, Subdivision 15-05 and Development Permit Type-P 15-11 application was submitted. February 25,2016 Development and Environmental Review Committee reviewed the application and moved the Mitigated Negative Declaration, General Plan Amendment 15-02, Development Code Amendment/Zoning Map Amendment 15-04, Subdivision 15-05 and Development Permit Type-P 15-11 to the Planning Commission for consideration. May 04,2016 A legal advertisement was sent to the San Bernardino Sun Newspaper for publication on May 06, 2016. May 05, 2016 Notices were mailed to the property owners and residents within 500 feet of the exterior boundaries of the subject property, providing the nature of N the request, location of the property, the date, time, and place of the LO Planning Commission meeting of May 18, 2016 for the Mitigated Negative Declaration, General Plan Amendment 15-02, Development Code Amendment/Zoning Map Amendment 15-04, Subdivision 15-05 and co Development Permit Type-P 15-11. PROJECT DESCRIPTION a as Pursuant to the requirements of Chapter 19.50 (General Plan Amendments), Chapter 19.42 o: (Development Code Amendments), Chapter 19.75 (Zoning Map Amendments), §19.66.020 (Subdivision Map Applications), and §19.44.020 (Development Permit Applications) of the City nv. of San Bernardino Development Code, the applicant is requesting the approval of General Plan Amendment 15-02, Development Code Amendment/Zoning Map Amendment 15-04, Subdivision 15-05 and Development Permit Type-D 15-11 to change the General Plan Land Use Designation and Zoning District of a site containing approximately 25.25 acres from Industrial Light (IL), Office Industrial Park (OIP) and Public-Commercial Recreation (PCR) to Industrial Light (IL); and, allow the development and establishment of an industrial warehouse building Q containing approximately 564,652 square feet, along with the construction of the required on-site and off-site improvements. SETTING & SITE CHARACTERISTICS Q The project site is located on the southwest corner of Waterman Avenue and Dumas Street (please see Attachments C and D). The overall project site contains a total of approximately 25.25, and is accessible from both Waterman Avenue and Dumas Street. The overall project site is currently a mix of residential, industrial, recreational (golf course) and vacant properties. The existing golf course property is an excess parcel and the conversion to industrial property will not affect operations of the golf course facility. Table 1 below provides a summary of the surrounding land use characteristics of the subject site and surrounding properties. Packet Pg. 642 GPA 15-02, DCA/ZMA 15-04,SUB 15-05 and DP-D 15-11 Planning Commission Date:5.18.2016 Page 3 TABLE 1: SITE AND SURROUNDING LAND USES LOCATION LA", USE a s ZONE GENERAL PLAN 0AN o �' �F _ DESIG ON Site y Residential, Industrial, Industrial Light(IL), Office Industrial and Open Golf Course and Industrial Park(OIP) and Space Vacant Public Commercial Recreation PCR) North Residential and Industrial Light(IL)and Industrial Industrial Office Industrial Park OIP South Golf Course Public Commercial Open Space Recreation PCR East Office Office Industrial Park(OIP) Industrial West Golf Course and Industrial Light(IL)and Industrial and Open N Vacant Public Commercial Space LO Recreation PCR) ANALYSIS v Project Development The proposed industrial development has been designed to comply with development standards - 0. of the City of San Bernardino Development Code. Table 2 below provides a site design analysis that illustrates the consistency of the project with the City of San Bernardino Development Code and General Plan. :°. TABLE 2: DEVELOPMENT CODE AND GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY a PROPOSAL DEVELOPMENT GENERAL w CODE PLAN-. . Land Use Industrial Warehouse Permitted Use Permitted Use Buildingr Lot Size 25.25 acres 20,000 square feet N/A a 1,100,249 square feet Height 1 Story; 43 feet 2 Stories; 50 feet N/A E Setbacks N/A Q Dumas Street 150 feet 10 feet Waterman Avenue 107 feet 10 feet West 65 feet 10 feet South 135 feet 10 feet Lot Coverage 51.35% 75%max. N/A 564,652 square feet) Parking 452 stalls 452 stalls N/A Landscaping 36.36% 15% N/A 41,432 square feet 17,916 square feet Packet Pg. 643 GPA I5-02, DCA/ZMA 15-04,SUB 15-05 and DP-D 15-11 Planning Commission Date:5.18.2016 Page 4 Site Design/Access/Traffic The proposed industrial development will be accessed by four(4)new driveway approaches; two (2) each on both Waterman Avenue and Dumas Street. The internal site circulation has been designed to adequately accommodate on-site vehicular circulation and access to the parking areas. Designated "paths of travel"have also been provided to ensure pedestrian safety. The City's Traffic Engineering Division has reviewed and accepted the Focused Traffic Analysis prepared for the proposed development, and the appropriate traffic related mitigation measures/ Conditions of Approval have been included. Architecture The architectural design is highlighted by the prominent tower elements at the corners and midpoint of the proposed east and west elevations. Additionally, glazed windows have been c added along the eastern elevation(fronting Waterman Avenue) to complement the existing office LO buildings located near the subject site. a c� Landscaping Ln Landscaped planters will be installed on the frontages along Waterman Avenue and Dumas Street, pursuant to the requirements of the City of San Bernardino Development Code. 0 Q. General Plan Goals and Policies cc cc The City of San Bernardino General Plan includes goals and policies to guide future Cn development within the City, including the following: a. �r ✓ Enhance the aesthetic quality of land uses and structures in San Bernardino. ✓ Enhance the quality of life and economic vitality in San Bernardino by strategic infill of new development and revitalization of existing development. ✓ Control development and the use of land to minimize adverse impacts. a r With respect to the proposal by General Plan Amendment 15-02, Development Code E Amendment/Zoning Map Amendment 15-04, Subdivision 15-05 and Development Permit Type- D 15-11, the applicant will be revitalizing the subject property in a manner that will enhance the y physical and visual qualities of the subject property thereby enhancing the aesthetics of the Q surrounding neighborhood. Additionally, through this proposal the existing underutilized properties will be transformed into a development that meets the City's economic development goals, while satisfying the Development Code requirements and will be adequately regulated through the Conditions of Approval in order to minimize potential impacts. Packet Pg. 644 GPA 15-02, DCA/ZMA 15-04,SUB 15-05 and DP-D 15-11 6.B.h Planning Commission Dale:5.18.2016 Page 5 CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) In accordance with §15063 (Initial'Study) of the California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA), the applicant submitted and the Planning Division accepted an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (please see Attachment D) prepared in connection with General Plan Amendment 15-02, Development Code Amendment/Zoning Map Amendment 15-04, Subdivision 15-05 and Development Permit Type-P 15-11. Accordingly, pursuant to §15072 (Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration) of CEQA, a Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration was posted for the CEQA-mandated thirty (30) day public review and comment period. During the thirty(30)day public review period comments were received in response to the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (please see Attachment E). Responses to these comments were prepared (please see Attachment E). N 0 LO On February 25, 2016, the Development and Environmental Review Committee reviewed the CL application and Environmental Determination of the Planning Division, and moved the Mitigated Negative Declaration for General Plan Amendment 15-02, Development Code Amendment/Zoning Map Amendment 15-04, Subdivision 15-05 and Development Permit Type- D 15-11 to the Planning Commission for consideration. —� 0 CL a� c� U a c d E ca a :s m E t Q 22 Packet Pg. 645 4MMMM" GPA 15-02, DCAIZMA 15-04,SUB 15-05 and DP-D 15-1 Planning Commission Date:5.18.201 Page 6 RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 2016-030 forwarding a recommendation to the Mayor and Common Council for the adoption of the Mitigated Negative Declaration and approval of General Plan Amendment 15-02, Development Code Amendment/Zoning Map Amendment 15-04, Subdivision 15-05 and Development Permit Type- D 15-11, based on the Findings of Fact and subject to the recommended Conditions of Approval. Respectfully Submitted, 9 Travis Martin LO Associate Planner CL LO co Reviewed By: 0 CL APOWN a. Reviewed By' Mj Oliver Mujica ivi Plann4ingDivi n M ger E Approved for Distribution: E Mark Persico,AICP Community Development Director Attachments: A. Resolution No. 2016-030 B. Aerial Map C. Location/Zoning Map D. Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration E. Response to Comments on Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 0 Packet Pg. 646 ATTACHMENT A Resolution No. 2016-030 N O LO Q. 00 O Q. O Qf N U a c m s Q c as E s a Packet Pg. 6 47 6.B.h ATTACHMENT B Aerial Map N O Ln r tC Q LO co IT d' O CL 4) OC R V a v w a a Packet Pg. 648 i 6.B.h ATTACHMENT B -- AERIAL MAP CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DIVISION I PROJECT: GPA 15-02, DCA 15-04, SUB 15-05 & DP-D 15-11 LOCATION MAP HEARING DATE: 5/18/2016 NORTH Aw Nr41s s I I-All _ r { E ORANGE ?F OW. RD w y .,,+... a CL R a. Ain PROJECT SITE a• J } A }} yq fi YVI Ta M, yk. �5� `• t p fr Packet Pg. 649 ATTACHMENT C Location/Zoning Map N O LO T- G. LO CO d' d' O d N N U a c d E .r a a� E t r Q Packet Pg. 650 6.B.h ATTACHMENT C - LOCATION/ZONING MAP CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DIVISION PROJECT: GPA 15-02, DCA 15-04, SUB 15-05 & DP-D 15-11 LOCATION MAP HEARING DATE: 5/18/2016 NORTH I -Aen& I xiII�� --AL SRI- t? tce tncb��ire G o Lo CL <� c E ORANGE SHOW RD o0 z 00 .� Z" o Q. Cl) x , U E PROJECT SITE Q E E l F� atic�•crrr�ara�rct�P�rertfc�t� Packet Pg. 651 6.B.h ATTACHMENT D Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration N O to r t6 lA 00 d' O O. O O Cn U a d E c� w w a� E t r ¢ Packet Pg. 652 6.B.h FINAL MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION April 2016 PROJECT NAME: Waterman Industrial Center PROJECT NUMBERS: Development Permit Type D - 15-11 This Document is Considered Draft Until it is Adopted by the Appropriate City of San Bernardino Decision-Making Body. This Mitigated Negative Declaration is comprised of this form along with the Environmental Initial Study that includes the following: a. Initial Study Form 0 b. Environmental Analysis Form and attached extended studies for Air Quality (as amended „O March 24, 2016) and Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Biological Resources, Cultural M Resources (as amended February 16, 2016), Geotechnical Report, Noise, and Traffic and C Transportation (as amended April 22, 2016). LO w 1. California Environmental Quality Act Negative Declaration Findings: �! Find,that this Mitigated Negative Declaration reflects the decision-making body's °a independent judgment and analysis, and;that the decision-making body has reviewed and considered the information contained in this Mitigated Negative Declaration and the comments received during the public review period; and that revisions in the project plans or N proposals made by or agreed to by the project applicant would avoid the effects or mitigate a the effects to a point where clearly no significant effects would occur; and, on the basis of . the whole record before the decision-making body(including this Mitigated Negative Declaration)that there is no substantial evidence that the project as revised will have a significant effect on the environment. s t. 2. Required Project Design Elements and Mitigation Measures: Q The following project design elements and mitigation measures were either proposed in the project application or the result of compliance with specific environmental laws and t regulations and were essential in reaching the conclusions within the attached Environmental Initial Study. Both the project design elements and the mitigation measures Q must be assured to avoid potentially significant environmental effects. Refer to the attached Environmental Initial Study for the rationale for requiring the following mitigation measures: Packet Pg. 653 6.B.h Waterman Industrial Center 2 April 2016 Biological Resources B-1a Trees and other suitable nesting habitat within the limits of work shall be surveyed by a qualified biologist prior to initiating construction-related activities.A pre-construction survey would be conducted no more than 72 hours prior to the start of work. If no nests are observed, construction activities should be initiated within 72 hours. If more than 72 hours pass and construction has not been initiated, another survey would be required. B-1b If, during the breeding season, an active nest is discovered in a tree or shrub to be removed, the tree or shrub shall be protected using orange construction fence or the equivalent. The protective fencing shall be placed around the tree or shrub at the following distance depending on species:25 feet from the drip line of the tree or shrub for passerines and non-raptors; 300 feet from the drip line of the tree for raptors. No parking, storage of materials, or work would be allowed within this area until the end of the breeding season or until the young have fledged, as determined by a qualified o biologist. LO CL B-2 Tree Removal Permit. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, an arborist survey and report including a tree replacement program shall be prepared for review and approval by the City of San Bernardino Community Development Director. Subject to the 00 approval of the report,the City shall issue a tree removal permit. �- 0 CL Cultural Resources CR-1 Prior to beginning project construction, the Project applicant shall retain an archaeological monitor to monitor initial ground-disturbing activities in an effort to r(n identify any unknown archaeological resources.Any newly discovered cultural resource V o. deposits shall be subject to a cultural resources evaluation. v C Geology and Soils d E t G-1 All grading and construction of the Project site shall comply with the geotechnical recommendations contained in the Geotechnical Engineering Investigation prepared a by NorCal Engineering dated April 2015. All recommendations contained in the report _ shall be incorporated into all final and engineering and grading plans. E Greenhouse Gas Emissions c r GHG-1 The project applicant shall provide sidewalks within the project boundary and along Q the off-site roadway improvements. GHG-2 The project applicant shall require that any future tenants institute a ride sharing program and employee vanpool/shuttle that is open to all employees. GHG-3 The project applicant shall require that all building structures meet or exceed 2013 Title 24 Standards and Green Building Code Standards. GHG-4 The project applicant shall require that all lighting installed in the proposed structures uses on average a minimum of 5 percent less energy than conventional metal halide warehouse lighting. GHG-5 The project applicant shall require that all faucets, toilets and showers installed in the proposed structures utilize low-flow fixtures that would reduce indoor water Packet Pg.654 6.B.h Waterman Industrial Center 3 April 2016 demand by 20% per CalGreen Standards. GHG-6 The project applicant shall require that ENERGY STAR-compliant appliances are installed on site. GHG-7 The project applicant shall require all future tenants to institute recycling programs that reduces waste to landfills by a minimum of 50 percent (75 percent by 2020) and includes designated recycling bins at each proposed structure and requires all green waste to be processed at a recycling or composting facility. Noise Construction N-1 During all project site excavation and grading on site, construction contractors shall equip all construction equipment, fixed or mobile, with properly operating and N maintained mufflers, consistent with manufacturer standards. ° LO N-2 The contractor shall place all stationary construction equipment so that emitted noise a is directed away from the noise sensitive receptors nearest the project site. N-3 Equipment shall be shut off and not left to idle when not in use. N-4 The contractor shall locate equipment staging in areas that will create the greatest _ distance between construction-related noise/vibration sources and sensitive a receptors nearest the project site during all project construction. W N-5 The project applicant shall mandate that the construction contractor prohibit the use Cn of music or sound amplification on the project site during construction. a N-6 The construction contractor shall limit haul truck deliveries to the same hours specified for construction equipment. M E N-7 Limit the use of heavy equipment or vibratory rollers and soil compressors along the project boundaries to the greatest degree possible. It is acknowledged that some soil t6 compression may be necessary along the project boundaries. a c N-8 Jackhammers, pneumatic equipment and all other portable stationary noise sources E shall be shielded and noise shall be directed away from sensitive receptors. U l4 a+ N-9 For the duration of construction activities,the construction manager shall serve as the Q contact person should noise levels become disruptive to local residents. A sign should be posted at the project site with the contact phone number. Operational N-10 The project shall construct an 8-foot noise barrier along the northern project boundary in accordance with the Kunzman Noise Study. The wall shall be positioned at the top of slope or pad,whichever is greater such that it provides optimum sound attenuation. Packet Pg. 655 6B.h Waterman Industrial Center 4 April 2016 Transportation/Traffic TRAF-1 Install traffic signal at Waterman Avenue and Park Center Circle North. The traffic signals within the study area should include an interconnection of the traffic signals to function in a coordinated system. TRAF-2 As mitigation for the potential traffic impacts, the proposed project shall contribute through local and regional adopted traffic impact fee programs in addition to any fair share contributions shown within the traffic study which is not covered within these fee programs. ADOPTION STATEMENT: This Mitigated Negative Declaration was adopted and above California Environmental Quality Act findings made by the City of San Bernardino Council on: N O Lo Travis Martin co CL Planning Department Ln co Itt v 0 a. m �a w rn U a Z c a� E t w a r E a Packet Pg. 656 6.B.h WATERMAN INDUSTRIAL CENTER INITIAL STUDY April 2016 N O LO T" R a Prepared For: LO CO mt City of San Bernardino c 300 North °D"Street °- a� �. San Bernardino, CA 92418 �a Cn U a Prepared By: c m E Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. 401 B Street, Suite 600 San Diego, California 92101 a t. d E t 095956002 Copyright© 2016 Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. Q Packet Pg. 657 6.B.h TABLE OF CONTENTS I. Introduction ...................................................................................................................................1 II. Description of Proposed Project...................................................................................................3 III. Waterman Industrial Center Project Environmental Impact Analysis and Project Approval.....8 IV. Determination................................................................................................................................9 EnvironmentalEvaluation ........................................................................................................................ 10 1. Aesthetics.................................................................................................................................. 10 2. Agricultural and Forestry Resources........................................................................................ 13 3. Air Quality................................................................................................................................... 15 4. Biological Resources.................................................................................................................25 N 5. Cultural Resources....................................................................................................................30 ° LO 6. Geology and Soils......................................................................................................................32 7. Greenhouse Gas Emissions .....................................................................................................36 CL 8. Hazards and Hazardous Materials...........................................................................................41 LO 9. Hydrology and Water Quality....................................................................................................44 10. Land Use and Planning.............................................................................................................48 11. Mineral Resources....................................................................................................................50 12. Noise..........................................................................................................................................51 13. Population and Housing p g...........................................................................................................56 co 14. Public Services..........................................................................................................................58 a 15. Recreation .................................................................................................................................60 v 16. Transportation/Traffic...............................................................................................................61 a� 17. Utilities and Service Systems................................................................................................... 71 E t 18. Mandatory Findings of Significance......................................................................................... 75 VII. Preparers .................................................................................................................................... 77 q VIII. References.................................................................................................................................. 77 m E U tC Y Waterman Industrial Center Initial Study i Packet Pg.658 6.B.h LIST OF FIGURES Figure1: Regional Location Map................................................................................................................5 Figure2: Project Vicinity Map......................................................................................................................6 Figure3:Site Plan........................................................................................................................................7 LIST OF TABLES Table 1: Construction-Related Regional Pollutant Emissions' .............................................................. 18 .................. Table 2: Maximum Number of Acres Disturbed Per Day' ...................................................................... 19 Table 3: Local Construction Emissions at the Nearest Receptor ..........................................................20 c Table 4: Regional Operational Pollutant Emissions Without Mitigation................................................21 Table 5: Local Operational Emissions at the Nearest Receptor'...........................................................22 a Table 6:Vegetation Communities/Land Uses ........................................................................................26 Table 7: CNDDB Species Recorded within Vicinity of the Site...............................................................27 00 '.........................................................37 Table 8: Project Greenhouse Gas Emissions Without Mitigation -- '..............................................................38 Table 9: Project Greenhouse Gas Emissions With Mitigation C Table 10: Short-Term Noise Measurements...........................................................................................52 Table 11: Change in Existing Noise Levels as a Result of the Project...................................................53 Table12: Existing Conditions...................................................................................................................63 v� Table 13: Project Trip Generation............................................................................................................64 a Table14: Existing Plus Project.................................................................................................................65 Table 15: Existing Plus Ambient Growth..................................................................................................66 Table 16: Opening Year With Project............................................................................. .........67 v Table 17:Year 2035 Without and With Project......................................................................................68 r a d E APPENDICES A. Air Quality, Global Climate Change, and Health Risk Assessment Impact Analysis Q B. Biological Constraints Analysis C. Cultural Resource Study Findings Memo D. Geotechnical Engineering Investigation E. Noise Impact Analysis F. Traffic Impact Analysis and Traffic Impact Analysis Addendum Waterman Industrial Center Initial Study I ii Packet Pg.659 6.B.h I. Introduction Project History The proposed project site is located in the southcentral portion of the City of San Bernardino (City) as depicted in Figure 1, Regional Location. The project site encompasses 12 parcels on approximately 26 acres and is bound by East Dumas Avenue to the north and South Waterman Avenue to the east. Orange Show Road is located approximately 0.2 mile north of the project site; see Figure 2, Vicinity Map. Newcastle Partners (applicant) and the applicant's representative met with City staff on April 28, 2015 to review project specifics and obtain the City's initial input regarding site constraints and the entitlement process. In May 2015, a pre-application package with project site plans and associated information was submitted to the City. The applicant and applicant's representative attended a pre- application review meeting with the City's Development/Economic Review Committee on June 25, 2015. N O Current Application LO r The applicant proposes to develop a 564,652-square-foot (SF) industrial center building on the CL southwest corner of the intersection of East Dumas Street and South Waterman Avenue (see Project Description below). 00 It In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA) (California Public Resources Code [PRC] Section 21000 et seq.) and its Guidelines (California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 0 CL 15000 et seq.), this Initial Study (IS) has been prepared to evaluate the potential environmental effects associated with the construction and operation of the proposed Waterman Industrial Center project. t4 co As set forth in the State CEQA Guidelines Section 15070, an Initial Study leading to a Mitigated a Negative Declaration (IS/MND) can be prepared when the Initial Study has identified potentially significant environmental impacts, but revisions have been made to the project, prior to public review of the Initial Study, that would avoid or mitigate the impacts to a level considered less than significant; and there is no substantial evidence in light of the whole record before the public agency that the project, as revised, may have a significant effect on the environment. This document, r together with other technical analysis documents referenced herein, serve as the environmental a review of the proposed Waterman Industrial Center. m This version of the document reflects changes to the Final IS/MND as a result of public comments ;_ on the Draft IS/MND. Revisions to the Draft IS/MND text are indicated by bold text (bold) for text additions and strike out (strike aut) for deleted text. The comments and responses do not result in Q any new significant information and do not change the findings or conclusions presented in the Draft IS/MND. Pursuant to Section 15367 of the State CEQA Guidelines, the City is the Lead Agency charged with the responsibility of deciding whether to approve the proposed project. With respect to the requirements for an Initial Study, the applicable sections of the State CEQA Guidelines Section 15063 include: (A.1) All phases of project planning, implementation, and operation must be considered in the Initial Study of the project. (A.3) An initial study may rely upon expert opinion supported by facts, technical studies or other substantial evidence to document its findings. However, an Initial Study is neither intended nor required to include the level of detail included in an EIR. Waterman Industrial Center Initial Study l 1 Packet Pg. 660 6.B.h (B.2) The Lead Agency shall prepare a Negative Declaration if there is no substantial evidence that the project or any of its aspects may cause a significant effect on the environment. The purposes of an Initial Study are to: (C.1) Provide the Lead Agency with information to use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an EIR or a Negative Declaration. (C.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 a Negative Declaration. (C.4) Facilitate environmental assessment early in the design of a project; (C.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; N (C.6) Eliminate unnecessary EIRs; C LO An Initial Study shall contain in brief form: CL (D.1)A description of the project including the location of the project; (D.2)An identification of the environmental setting; CO (D.3) An identification of environmental effects by use of a checklist, matrix, or other method, provided that entries on a checklist or other form are briefly explained to 0 indicate that there is some evidence to support the entries. The brief explanation 0 may be either through a narrative or a reference to another information source such � as an attached map, photographs, or an earlier EIR or negative declaration. A reference to another document should include, where appropriate, a citation to the CO page or pages where the information is found. a (D.4)A discussion of the ways to mitigate the significant effects identified, if any; `* (D.5) An examination of whether the project would be consistent with existing zoning, E plans, and other applicable land use controls; ca (D.6) The name of the person or persons who prepared or participated in the Initial Q Study. m (E) If the project is to be carried out by a private person or private organization, the E Lead Agency may require such person or organization to submit data and information which will enable the Lead Agency to prepare the Initial Study. Any person may Q submit any information in any form to assist a Lead Agency in preparing an Initial Study. (G)As soon as a Lead Agency has determined that an Initial Study will be required for the project, the Lead Agency shall consult informally with all Responsible Agencies and all Trustee Agencies responsible for resources affected by the project to obtain the recommendations of those agencies as to whether an EIR or a Negative Declaration should be prepared. During or immediately after preparation of an Initial Study for a private project, the Lead Agency may consult with the applicant to determine if the applicant is willing to modify the project to reduce or avoid the significant effects identified in the Initial Study. Waterman Industrial Center Initial Study l 2 Packet Pg.661 6.B.h II. Description of Proposed Project The proposed Waterman Industrial Center (proposed project) is a 564,652-SF industrial building with office space, parking, a pump house, and landscaping on an approximately 26-acre property located on the southwest corner of the intersection of East Dumas Street and South Waterman Avenue in the City of San Bernardino. The industrial building would be one floor with a maximum height of 47 feet. The building would be a cross dock warehouse facility with 10,000 SF of dedicated office/mezzanine space. The site will also include a 427-SF pump house. The building would have 49 dock doors on its northern frontage and 49 on its southern frontage. Total on-site parking would be 452 stalls, with 286 dedicated to warehouse parking (including office) and 166 trailer parking spaces. Landscaping in the amount of 103,585 SF is anticipated for the site and the southwest corner of the site would be used as a storm water/water quality control basin. Roadway frontage improvements would be provided on South Waterman Avenue and East Dumas Street. There are two site access alternatives evaluated in this Initial Study for the proposed project. c LO Alternative A proposes site access would be provided from one signalized full movement driveway and right-in/right-out driveway on South Waterman Avenue and two full movement driveways on East a Dumas Street. Alternative B would eliminate the right-in/right-out driveway on South Waterman Avenue; all other access points to and from the proposed project would remain the same as LO Alternative A. Itr v Additionally, there are 8 Southern California Edison (SCE) power poles that contain 6 wires of high o voltage 66kv Edison transmission lines, a 3 wire 12kv system and a 3 wire 4kv system. Seven of the m poles are made of wood, while the most easterly pole near the intersection of Dumas Street and X Waterman Avenue is made of tubular steel. Due to the size of the electrical transmission lines, 4: M undergrounding these lines is not feasible. With implementation of the project, 5 of the 8 power in poles would be relocated outside the ultimate roadway improvements on the south side of Dumas a Street. ' w The industrial building is currently planned as a "spec building." Thus, the future tenant of the building is not currently known. Furthermore, without knowing the future tenant, an exact number of E future employees or hours of operation cannot be determined. Therefore, this Initial Study and associated technical reports use approximate potential on-site employees, hours of operation, and Q trip counts to and from the site based on the project's proposed square footage and use as an industrial center building. E As further described below, the proposed project requires a General Plan Amendment (GPA) and Zoning Map Amendment (ZMA). Construction of the proposed project is expected to commence in CU June 2016 and be completed in March 2017. The project would be operational in 2017. Q Existing Project Site The project site is currently comprised of the following 12 parcels: 014-143-101, 014-143-102, 014- 143-103, 014-143-104, 014-143-108, 014-143-109, 014-143-110, 014-143-111, 0104-143-112, 014-143-116, 014-143-120, and 014-143-121. Upon approval of the project, the 12 existing parcels would be consolidated into 1 parcel. Current uses on the 12 parcels include 5 vacant parcels, 4 parcels with single-family residential homes, 1 parcel with a church, and 1 parcel used as a golf course driving range. There is existing utility access (water, sewer, electricity, gas)to the project site. Various species of trees are located on the site, primarily on the periphery of the parcel used as a golf course driving range. It is estimated that most or all of these trees would be required to be removed with construction of the proposed project. The golf course supports no native vegetation and generally consists of mowed non-native grass. There are no native habitats on site. The Waterman Industrial Center Initial Study l 3 Packet Pg. 662 remainder of the lots are largely absent of vegetation, with some interspersed trees. The site is not located in a defined area by the City for potential habitat for sensitive wildlife or in a biological resource area.The site is not located in an area of archaeological or historical sensitivity as identified by the City. Project Site Vicinity Single-family residences, vacant lots, and light industrial uses are located north of the site. Professional office uses, a vacant lot, and light industrial uses are located east of the site. A public golf course is located south of the site. The public golf course's parking lot, as well as vacant lots and single-family residences are located west of the site. Numerous cross dock facility warehouses, similar to the proposed industrial building for the project site, are located within the City approximately 0.5 mile northeast of the site. General Plan/Zoning&Project Approvals N The City's General Plan land use designations for the site are Industrial and Open Space. The City's LO zoning designation for the site are approximately 7.5 acres of Industrial Light (IL), approximately 4 acres of Office Industrial Park (OIP), and approximately 14.4 acres of Public Commercial Recreation o- C9 (PCR). co The proposed project is not consistent with the land use designations in the General Plan or the ICT City's Zoning Map for the project site. Therefore, a General Plan Amendment (GPA) and Zoning Map t Amendment (ZMA) will be required for the project's approval and implementation and are considered a as a component of the proposed project. The GPA would re-designate the entire project site as Industrial and the ZMA would re-designate the entire site as Industrial Light (IL). Additional required project approvals include a Tentative Parcel Map and a Development Permit. U a d E v 2 w Q Y E U R a-+ a Waterman Industrial Center Initial Study 14 Packet,Pg. 663 (ZO-S L edE S8irti) podau ge3S ad-V IU8WLIOel}y :lu9uay3el4V t � m 0 c[ o. o-•.: F f0 NV a _ tA _ co - e Tr '` - 1 l f. J d zz �. O o -ID ci a C C t:c - a L O V D u T "g Q) gam. ro +-r W � (Z0-S edE s9vl7) podaN gqS Od ° V;UOW43814V :luawt]aellV LO �r CL a 4 Y- 3 Y ti i S i U G � V o W v° i=i E (! V {� 0 6 i N (ZO-S edE) sqVv) podeb jjels Od V IUGWi43ellV :IUGW40e:RV cfl E fe Sim H8 3nN3AV NV Vib 3 IVM ..................... ............. II ja ........... —7-- T 77 7 .. ......... 31K ............. ................. ............ -4 -4 < CD co 9 ft T-F T F 3C- - - - --- ro r) . ............ Ln -------- LLJ I H til iml I].[,I I H H I-1.1 li LI'l..I I I Ill I I t.1-1 m I-t I-i-t Ili lil I Id LI-111 H UIL ce. 6.B.h III. Waterman Industrial Center Project Environmental Impact Analysis and Project Approval The City of San Bernardino is the Lead Agency under CEQA and is responsible for reviewing and approving this Initial Study. As part of the proposed project's implementation, the City will also consider the following approvals: • General Plan Amendment(GPA); • Zoning Map Amendment(ZMA); • Tentative Parcel Map (TPM); and • Development Permit. Additional permits may be required upon review of construction documents. Other permits N required for the project may include, the issuance of encroachment permits for new driveways, 9 sidewalks, and utilities, walls, fences, security and parking area lighting; building permits; and cc permits for new utility connections. These additional permits are considered ministerial in CL nature, and thus issuance of these permits would not trigger the need to further comply with ., CEQA. Development of the project will not require the issuance of any discretionary permits from LO any other federal, State, or local agency. v 0 a m 0 cn U a v c a� E v r a E U t6 r .a+ Q Waterman Industrial Center Initial Study l 8 Packet Pg. 667 6.B.h Environmental Factors Potentially Affected The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. ❑ Aesthetics ❑ Agricultural and Forestry ❑ Air Quality Resources ❑ Biological Resources ❑ Cultural Resources ❑ Geology/Soils ❑ Greenhouse Gas Emissions ❑ Hazards and Hazardous ❑ Hydrology/Water Quality Materials ❑ Land Use/Planning ❑ Mineral Resources ❑ Noise ❑ Population/Housing ❑ Public Services ❑ Recreation ❑ Transportation/Traffic ❑ Utilities/Service Systems ❑ Mandatory Findings of N Significance ° IV. Determination CL On the basis of this evaluation: ❑ I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a 00 NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ® I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, a. there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made 0) by or agreed to by the project proponent.A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ❑ find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an Cnn ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. a ❑ I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has E been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached 0 sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects Q that remain to be addressed. c ❑ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, E because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or r mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or Q mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. ❑ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, (b) none of the conditions described in Guidelines Section 15162 for a Subsequent EIR or Section 15163 for a Supplemental EIR have occurred and (c) only minor technical changes or additions to the previous environmental documents are necessary. Signature Date Travis Martin,Assistant Planner For: City of San Bernardino Waterman Industrial Center Initial Study l 9 Packet Pg. 668 6.B.h Environmental Evaluation This section evaluates the potential environmental effects of the proposed project using the environmental checklist from the State CEQA Guidelines as amended. The definitions of the response column headings include: A. "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant after the implementation of feasible mitigation measures. B. "Less than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measure has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less Than Significant Impact." C. "Less Than Significant Impact" applies where the project creates no significant impacts, only Less than Significant Impacts. D. "No Impact" applies where the project does not create an impact in that category. N O 1. Aesthetics LO r. Less Than `L Potentially Significant Less than �? Significant with Mitigation Significant No LO Issues Impact Incorporated Impact Impact Would the project: m � a. Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic E] El ® ❑ o CL vista? °' b. Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to trees, rock ❑ El E] ® Cn outcroppings,and historic buildings within a U State-designated scenic highway? a c. Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its ❑ ❑ ® ❑ m surroundings? E s d. Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or ❑ ❑ ® ❑ Q nighttime views in the area? c (D Discussion E a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?Less Than Significant Impact. Q The proposed project would not have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista. The dominant scenic views from the project site and the surrounding area include the San Gabriel Mountains and the San Bernardino Mountains located approximately six miles to the north.There are existing and planned industrial uses to the north and east of the project site. The proposed project is at a similar elevation as the surrounding area and would be consistent with planned development for the area. Numerous cross dock facility warehouses, similar to the proposed industrial building for the project site, are located within the City approximately 0.5 mile northeast of the site. In addition, development of the site would convert residential homes, a church, a golf course driving range, and vacant land to light industrial development. However, this change would not substantially affect the aesthetic nature of the project area because much of the project area is vacant or developed land within no distinguishing visual resources. Waterman Industrial Center Initial Study l 10 Packet Pg.669 6.B.h Therefore, the change in views of the project site from the surrounding area would not cause a significant impact on a scenic vista. Impacts are less than significant. b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a State scenic highway?No Impact. The project site and the surrounding area is predominately developed or planned for development with no natural landforms or features remaining. The project site is located within an urban area with similar industrial uses as the proposed facility within the vicinity. In addition, there are no designated State or County designated scenic highways in the vicinity of the project site.'There are also no historically significant buildings on the site that could be affected by the proposed development as discussed under Cultural Resources. Thus, implementation of the proposed project would not block views of any scenic resources off site. For these reasons, no impact would occur in regards to adversely affecting scenic resources. N O c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings?Less than Significant Impact. CL The proposed project would be located in a predominately industrial and commercial area and would be consistent with the existing surrounding development. Implementation of the co proposed project would alter the visual character of the project site; however, would not negatively impact or substantially degrade the visual quality of the site or its surroundings. t� 0 Short-term construction related aesthetic impacts would occur during the presence of construction equipment on the project site. No valuable aesthetic resources would be destroyed as a result of construction related-activities. These impacts are temporary in nature and would cease upon construction completion. v a For these reasons, the proposed project would have a less than significant impact on the visual character of the site and its surroundings. c a� d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?Less Than Significant Impact. Q Existing outdoor lighting on the project site is associated with the developed parcels (single- c family residences and a church) and the golf course driving range on the project site. E Existing commercial and industrial uses in the vicinity of the project site also have outdoor lighting associated with buildings. The proposed project would include outdoor lighting on w the site in the parking and entrance areas of the project site which would result in an Q increase in the existing level of illumination in the area. The project's outdoor lighting would be compatible in brightness to the ambient lighting in the surrounding area and would utilize more stringent Backlight, Uplight, and Glare (BUG) rated fixtures whenever possible in order to minimize light pollution and trespass. Fixtures with a low BUG rating emit very little light where not needed, thus significantly reducing light pollution. California Department of Transportation.Official Designated Scenic Highways.Available at: http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LandArch/scenic—highways/index.htm.Accessed December 2,2015. Waterman Industrial Center Initial Study l 11 Packet Pg. 670 6.B.h Therefore, while the proposed project would increase outdoor lighting on the site and in the area,the increased outdoor lighting would be less than significant. Cumulative Impacts The potential aesthetic impacts related to views, aesthetics, and light and glare are site specific. As discussed above, project-related impacts would be less than significant. While the proposed project plus cumulative development would change the appearance of the site and surrounding area, all development projects would be expected to be conditioned to follow applicable local planning and design guidelines. Therefore, aesthetic impacts are not expected to be cumulatively considerable and no adverse impacts would occur. N O LO R Q LO 00 d' cl' O d w f0 V d C N E s c� Q a: E U R Q Waterman Industrial Center Initial Study l 12 Packet Pg. 671 6.B.h 2. Agricultural and Forestry Resources Less Than Significant Potentially with Less than Significant Mitigation Significant No Issues Impact Incorporated Impact Impact In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model(1997) prepared by the California Dept.of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest resources,including timberland, N are significant environmental effects, lead agencies c may refer to information compiled by the California LO Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding Q the state's inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment project;and forest carbon 00 measurement methodology provided in Forest .le Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board.Would the project: 0 0 CL a. Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland,or m Farmland of Statewide Importance(Farmland),as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the El El 0 Z California Resources Agency,to non-agricultural U IL use? v b. Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use,or El El El Z a Williamson Act contract? d E c. Conflict with existing zoning for,or cause rezoning -� of,forest land(as defined in Public Resources tQ Code section 12220(g)),timberland (as defined ❑ ® Q by Public Resources Code section 4526),or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as m defined by Government Code section 51104(g))? E t d. Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of ® .W forest land to non-forest use? Q e. Involve other changes in the existing environment which,due to their location or nature,could result ❑ El in conversion of Farmland,to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? Discussion a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? No Impact. Waterman Industrial Center Initial Study 1 13 Packet Pg. 672 6.B.h The project site and surrounding areas are not designated as Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance on the State of California Important Farmland Map, and therefore would not result in a conversion of documented agricultural lands to non-agricultural use. Therefore, no impact would occur as a result of the proposed project. b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract?No Impact. The project site is not currently zoned for agricultural use and is not under a Williamson Act contract.Therefore, no impact would occur as a result of the proposed project. c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(8)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code Section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(8))?No Impact. N The project site is not currently zoned for forest land, timberland, or timberland zoned for LO production. Therefore, improvements planned as part of the proposed project would not r conflict with existing zoning or cause rezoning of any such land. Therefore, no impact would c7 result. LO 00 d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?No Impact. The project site does not contain forest land. Therefore, no impact would occur in regard to 0 CL changing forest land to a non-forest use. e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?No Impact. a No designated agricultural or forest land is located within the project site. Thus, no impact would occur in this regard. s Cumulative Impacts The proposed project would have no impact on agricultural and forestry resources. Therefore, Q the proposed project would not contribute to a cumulatively considerable impact. m E r Q Waterman Industrial Center Initial Study l 14 Packet-Pg. 673 3. Air Quality Less Than Significant Potentially with Less than Significant Mitigation Significant No Issues Impact Incorporated Impact Impact Where available,the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations.Would the project: a. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the ❑ ❑ ® ❑ applicable air quality plan? b. Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality El El El I? 0 violation? `n c. Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase C CL of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable El ❑ ® F-1 LO federal or State ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed r! quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? 0 d. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial Q- pollutant concentrations? E] El ® El X ■ e. Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial El El El ® M number of people? N U a Discussion ' v An Air Quality Technical Report was prepared by Kunzman Associates, Inc. (January 2016) to evaluate air quality impacts associated with the proposed project. The report is provided in E t Appendix A;the results and conclusions of the report are summarized herein. a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? Less Than Q Significant Impact. E The project is consistent with the 2012 Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP). Therefore, the 0 project would not conflict with or obstruct the implementation of the applicable air quality plan. a The project site is located within the western portion of San Bernardino County which is part of the South Coast Air Basin (Air Basin) that includes the non-desert portions of San Bernardino, Los Angeles, and Riverside Counties and all of Orange County. The Air Basin is located on a coastal plain with connecting broad valleys and low hills to the east. Regionally, the Air Basin is bound by the Pacific Ocean to the southwest and high mountains to the east forming the inland perimeter. The project site is located toward the northeast portion of the Air Basin near the foot of the San Bernardino Mountains which define the eastern boundary of the Air Basin. The South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) and the California Air Resources Board (CARB) monitor air quality within the Air Basin. Waterman Industrial Center Initial Study 115 Packet Pg. 674 6.B.h The Air Basin has been designated by CARB as a nonattainment area for ozone (03), and suspended particulates (PM10 and PM2.5). Currently, the South Coast Air Basin is in attainment with the ambient air quality standards for carbon monoxide (CO), lead, sulfur dioxide (S02), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), and sulfates and is unclassified for visibility reducing particles and hydrogen sulfide. The CARB, which is a part of the California Environmental Protection Agency (Cal EPA), is responsible for the coordination and administration of both federal and State air pollution control programs within California. In this capacity, the CARB conducts research, sets the California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS), compiles emission inventories, develops suggested control measures, provides oversight of local programs, and prepares the State Implementation Plan (SIP). The California SIP includes air quality district Air Quality Management Plans (AQMPs). The SIP must integrate federal, State, and local components and regulations to identify specific measures to reduce pollution, using a combination of performance standards and market-based programs within the timeframe identified in the SIP. As part of its enforcement responsibilities, the United States Environmental Protection o Agency (U.S. EPA) requires each state with federal nonattainment areas to prepare and "' submit a SIP that demonstrates the means to attain the national standards. CL 0 AQMPs describe air pollution control strategies and measures to be implemented by a city, county, region, and/or air district. The primary purpose of an AQMP is to bring an area that 00 does not attain federal and State air quality standards into compliance with the requirements of the federal Clean Air Act and California Clean Air Act. In addition, air quality o plans are development to ensure that an area maintains a healthful level of air quality m based on the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAASQS) and the CAAQS.The AQMP is W prepared by SCAQMD and the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). In 2007, the CARB approved the South Coast Air Basin and the Coachella Valley 2007 Air (n Quality Management Plan for Attaining the Federal 8-hour Ozone and PM2.5 Standards. The plan projected attainment for the 8-hour ozone standard by 2024 and the PM2.5 standard in 2015. On December 7, 2012, the SCAQMD's governing board approved the m 2012 AQMP, which outlines its strategies for meeting the NAAQS for PM2.5 and ozone. The E AQMP was forwarded to the CARB for inclusion in the California SIP in January 2013. The 1- hour ozone attainment demonstration and vehicle miles traveled emissions offset a demonstration was submitted through CARB to the U.S. EPA. The 2012 AQMP demonstrates r attainment with the 24-hour PM2.5 standard by 2014. The SCAQMD's CEQA Handbook identifies two key indicators of consistency with the AQMP: R r 1) Whether the project will result in an increase in the frequency or severity of existing Q air quality violations or cause or contribute to new violations, or delay timely attainment of air quality standards or the interim emission reductions specified in the AQMP. 2) Whether the project will exceed the assumptions in the AQMP based on the year of project buildout and phase. The Project would be consistent with the AQMP two key indicators as follows: 1) Criterion 1- Increase in the Frequency or Severity of Violations Based on the air quality modeling analysis contained in the Air Quality Technical Report, short-term construction impacts will not result in significant impacts based Ir on the SCAQMD regional and local thresholds of significance. Additionally, long- Waterman Industrial Center Initial Study 116 Packet Pg.675 6.B.h term operations impacts will not result in significant impacts based on the SCAQMD local, regional, and toxic air contaminant thresholds of significance. Therefore, the proposed project is not anticipated to contribute to the exceedance of any air pollutant concentration standards and is found to be consistent with the AQMP for the first criterion. 2) Criterion 2 - Exceed Assumptions in the AOMP? Consistency with the AQMP assumptions is determined by performing an analysis of the proposed project with the assumptions in the AQMP. The emphasis of this criterion is to ensure that the analyses conducted for the proposed project are based on the same forecasts as the AQMP. The Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide (RCP&G) consists of three sections: Core Chapters, Ancillary Chapters, and Bridge Chapters. The Growth Management, Regional Mobility, Air Quality, Water Quality, and Hazardous Waste Management chapters constitute the Core Chapters of the document. These chapters currently respond directly to federal and State requirements placed on SCAG. Local governments are required to use these as 9 LO the basis of their plans for purposes of consistency with applicable regional plans — under CEQA. For this project, the City of San Bernardino General Plan defines the a assumptions that are represented in the AQMP. LO The City's General Plan land use designations for the project site are Industrial and Open Space. The City's zoning designation for the site includes: Industrial Light, Office Industrial Park, and Public Commercial Recreation. Therefore, the o CL proposed project is not currently consistent with the land use or zoning designations. However, buildout of the project site was anticipated in the City's General Plan and General Plan EIR, and thus, the Project is consistent with the assumptions of the AQMP. Approval of the proposed project includes a General U U Plan Amendment (GPA) and a Zoning Map Amendment (ZMA) to change the a. General Plan land use designation to Industrial and the zoning designation to Industrial Light. With approval of the GPA and ZMA, the proposed project would be c consistent with the land use and zoning designations and development standards E for the project site. m With approval of the GPA and ZMA, the proposed project would be consistent with Q the land use and zoning designations and development standards for the project site. Therefore, once the proposed project is approved, the project would not a) result in an inconsistency with the land use designation. Therefore, the proposed would not be anticipated to exceed the AQMP assumptions for the project site and would be consistent with the AQMP for the second criterion. C Based on the above, the proposed project would not conflict with implementation of the AQMP, impacts are considered to be less than significant. b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation?Less Than Significant Impact. Construction Phase Emissions from the construction phase of the proposed project were estimated based on information from the project developer for construction equipment requirements and schedule. It was assumed that construction of the proposed project would commence in June 2016 and be completed in March 2017. The project would be operational in 2017. Waterman Industrial Center Initial Study 117 Packet Pg.676 s.B.n Construction emissions were evaluated using the CalEEMod Model Version 2013.2.2, which is a statewide land use emissions computer model published by the SCAQMD for estimating air pollutant emissions. Table 1 provides a summary of the emission estimates for construction for the proposed project, assuming standard fugitive dust control measures would be implemented. As shown in Table 1, emissions of all criteria pollutants would be below the regional emissions thresholds. Therefore, a less than significant regional air quality impact would occur from construction of the proposed project. Table 1: Construction-Related Regional Pollutant Emissions' Pollutant Emissions(pounds/day) Activity VOC NOx I CO I so, I PM10 PM2.5 Demolition N 0 On-Site' 4.29 45.66 35.03 0.04 2.50 2.17 LO Off-Site 3 0.11 0.79 1.52 0.00 0.22 0.07 p. 0 Subtotal 4.39 46.45 36.55 0.04 2.72 2.24 LO Grading On-Site' 6.48 74.81 49.14 0.06 6.16 4.61 Off-Site 3 0.09 0.11 1.38 0.00 0.23 0.06 Q m Subtotal 6.57 74.93 50.52 0.06 6.39 4.67 Building Construction On-Site' 3.41 28.51 18.51 0.03 1.97 1.85 a Off-Site 3 3.53 18.82 49.85 0.10 6.62 1.98 Subtotal 6.93 47.33 68.36 0.13 8.58 3.82 Paving t U On-Site' 2.95 20.30 14.73 0.02 1.14 1.05 ;a .r Off-Site 3 0.06 0.07 0.93 0.00 0.17 0.05 Q Subtotal 3.00 20.37 15.66 0.02 1.31 1.09 E Architectural Coating ca On-Site' 58.96 2.19 1.87 0.00 0.17 0.17 r Q Off-Site 3 0.36 0.47 5.75 0.01 1.05 0.28 Subtotal 59.31 2.65 7.62 0.02 1.22 0.46 Total of Overlapping Phases' 69.25 70.34 91.64 0.17 11.11 5.37 SCAQMD Thresholds 75 1 100 1 550 150 1 150 55 Exceeds Thresholds No I No I No No I No No Source:Kunzman Associates,January 15,2016. 1 Source:CalEEMod Version 2013.2.2 'On-site emissions from equipment operated on-site that is not operated on public roads. 3 Off-site emissions from equipment operated on public roads. 4 Construction,architectural coating,and paving phases may overlap. Waterman Industrial Center Initial Study' 18 Packet Pg.677 6.B.h Construction-related air emissions may have the potential to exceed the State and federal air quality standards in the project vicinity even though these pollutant emissions may not be significant enough to create a regional impact to the Air Basin. The proposed project has been analyzed for the potential local air quality impacts created from construction-related fugitive dust and diesel emissions; and from toxic air contaminants. As shown in Table 2, the maximum number of acres disturbed in a day would be five acres during grading activities. Table 2: Maximum Number of Acres Disturbed Per Day' Total Activity Equipment Number Acres/8hr-day Acres Rubber Tired Dozers 2 0.5 1 Demolition Excavators 3 0.5 1.5 N Total Per Phase 2.5 0 LO Graders 1 0.5 0.5 r Rubber Tired Dozers 1 0.5 0.5 Q- C9 Site Grading Excavators 2 0.5 1 LO Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 0.5 1 Iq Scrapers 2 1 2 v Total Per Phase 5 0 CL Source:Kunzman Associates,January 15,2016. The local air quality emissions from construction were analyzed using the SCAQMD's Mass Cn Rate Localized Significant Threshold Look-up Tables and the methodology described in v Localized Significance Threshold (LST) Methodology, prepared by SCAQMD, revised July a 2008. The Look-up Tables were developed by the SCAQMD in order to readily determine if Iq the daily emissions of CO, NOx, PM10, and PM2.5 from a project could result in a significant impact to the local air quality. The nearest sensitive receptors to the project site are the E single-family detached residential dwelling units on the north side of Dumas Street (approximately 65 feet from the project's northern property line), the single-family detached residential dwelling unit to the west of the project site (approximately 170 feet from the C r western property line). The San Bernardino Public Golf Course is located adjacent to the southern and southwestern property line. _ The emission thresholds were calculated based on the Central San Bernardino Valley source ,Yf° receptor area (SRA 34), which covers an area from approximately west of Fontana to east of Q Highland, and a disturbance area of 5 acres per day at a distance of 25 meters (82 feet). Per SCAQMD LST Methodology, when the distance to the nearest sensitive receptors is less than 25 meters from the project boundary, the LST for 25 meters should be used. Table 3 identifies the on-site emissions for the different construction phases and shows that none of the analyzed criteria pollutants would exceed local emissions thresholds at the nearest sensitive receptors. Therefore, a less than significant local air quality impact would occur from construction of the proposed project. Waterman Industrial Center Initial Study 119 Packet Pg. 678 6.B.h Table 3: Local Construction Emissions at the Nearest Receptor On-Site Pollutant Emissions (pounds/day) Phase NOx CO PM10 PM2.5 Demolition 45.66 35.03 2.50 2.17 Grading 74.81 49.14 6.16 4.61 Building Construction 28.51 18.51 1.97 1.85 Paving 20.30 14.73 1.14 1.05 Architectural Coating 2.19 1.87 0.17 0.17 SCAQMD Threshold for 25 meters(82 feet) 270 1,746 14 8 Exceeds Threshold? no No no no Source:Kunzman Associates,January 15,2016. N The greatest potential for toxic air contaminant emissions would be diesel particulate ° LO emissions associated with heavy equipment operations during construction. According to SCAQMD methodology, health effects from carcinogenic air toxics are usually described in CL terms of "individual cancer risk". "Individual Cancer Risk" is the likelihood that a person exposed to concentrations of toxic air contaminants over a 70-year lifetime will contract co cancer, based on the use of standard risk-assessment methodology. Given the relatively v limited number of heavy duty construction equipment and the short-term construction V_ schedule, the proposed project would not result in a long-term (i.e., 70 years) substantial a CL source of toxic air contaminant emissions and corresponding individual cancer risk. m tr Therefore, no significant short-term toxic air contaminant impacts would occur during construction of the proposed project. V Operational Phase a v The ongoing operation of the proposed project would result in a long-term increase in air quality emissions. This increase would be due to emissions from the project-generated E vehicle trips and through operational emissions from ongoing uses. Operations-related air quality impacts were analyzed using CalEEMod. Mobile sources include emissions from ,.t6 vehicles; vehicle trips were based on the Waterman Industrial Center Traffic Impact Analysis Q (TIA) (Kunzman, 2015). Due to the proposed project's location and proposed unrefrigerated warehouse land uses, the average customer based trip length was increased to 40 miles, E while all other trip lengths were based on the urban default values. cam, w Area sources include emissions from consumer products, landscape equipment, and Q architectural coatings. Energy usage includes emissions from the generation of electricity and natural gas used on site. It should be noted that 2013 Title 24 commercial standards are 30 percent more efficient than 2008 Title 24 Standards (used as the baseline for emissions calculations in CaIEEMod). However, no reduction credit was taken. Table 4 identifies the proposed project's long-term operations. None of the criteria pollutants would exceed the regional emissions thresholds. Therefore, a less than significant regional air quality impact would occur from operation of the proposed project. Waterman Industrial Center Initial Study 120 Packet Pg.679 6.B.h Table 4: Regional Operational Pollutant Emissions Without Mitigation Pollutant Emissions(pounds/day) Activity vOc NOx c0 502 PM10 PM2.5 Area Sources2 24.84 0.00 0.12 0.00 0.00 0.00 Energy Usage 0.04 0.32 0.27 0.00 0.02 0.02 Mobile Sources4 4.75 29.31 63.84 1 0.17 9.91 2.95 Total Emissions 29.63 29.63 64.23 0.17 9.93 2.97 SCAQMD Thresholds 1 55 55 550 150 150 55 Exceeds Threshold? I No No No No No No Source:Kunzman Associates,January 15,2016. 1 Source:CaIEEMod Version 2013.2.2 2 Area sources consist of emissions from consumer products,architectural coatings,and landscaping N equipment. 9 3 Energy usage consists of emissions from generation of electricity and on-site natural gas usage. 4 Mobile sources consist of emissions from vehicles and road dust. Q C7 Project-related air emissions may have the potential to have local CO emission impacts LO from the project vehicular trips and from on-site operations. To determine if the proposed project could cause emission levels in excess of the CO standards, a sensitivity analysis is typically conducted to determine the potential for CO "hot spots" at 0 a number of intersections in the general project vicinity. Because of reduced speeds and Q- m vehicle queuing, "hot spots" typically occur at high traffic volume intersections with a Level of Service E or worse. The TIA showed that the project would generate 1,282 Passenger Car Equivalent (PCE) daily trips. The 1992 Federal Attainment Plan for Carbon Monoxide (1992 CO Plan) showed that an intersection which has a daily traffic a volume of approximately 100,000 vehicles per day would not violate the CO standard. Therefore, as the intersection with the highest traffic volume falls far short of 100,000 = vehicles, no CO "hot spot" modeling was performed and no significant long-term local air quality impact would occur with the ongoing use of the proposed project. c� Project-related air emissions from on-site sources such as architectural coatings, a landscaping equipment, and natural gas appliances have the potential to exceed the State and federal air quality standards. The nearest sensitive receptors are the W residential dwelling units to the north and west of the boundaries of the project site. The local air quality emissions from on-site operations were analyzed according to the SCAQMD's Localized Significance Threshold Methodology. Table 5 shows the on-site Q emissions from the CalEEMod model that includes natural gas usage, landscape maintenance equipment, and vehicles operating on site. The data provided in table shows that the ongoing operations would create a less than significant operations-related impact to local air quality due to on-site emissions and no mitigation would be required. Waterman Industrial Center Initial Study l 21 Packet Pg. 680 6.B.h Table 5: Local Operational Emissions at the Nearest Receptor' On-Site Pollutant Emissions(pounds/day) On-Site Emission Source NOx CO PM10 PM2.5 Area Sourcesz 0.00 0.12 0.00 0.00 Energy Usage 0.32 0.27 0.02 0.02 On-Site Vehicle Emissions' 2.93 6.38 0.99 0.29 Total Emissions 3.26 6.77 1.02 0.32 SCAQMD Threshold for 25 meters(80 feet)' 270 1,746 14 8 Exceeds Threshold? no no no no Source:Kunzman Associates,January 15,2016. 1 Source:Calculated from CalEEMod and SCAQMD's Mass Rate Look-up Tables for five acres in Central San Bernardino Valley. 2 Area sources consist of emissions from consumer products,architectural coatings,and landscaping c equipment. LO 3 Energy usage consists of emissions from generation of electricity and on-site natural gas usage. 4 On-site vehicular emissions based on 1/10 of the gross vehicular emissions and road dust. p, 5 The estimated distance from the proposed project to the nearest sensitive receptor(residences to the () north of the project site)is less than 25 meters or 82 feet. LD 00 Itt c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the : project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or State ambient air quality c standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone 0 precursors)?Less Than Significant Impact. Cumulative projects include local development as well as general growth within the project t° Cn area. As with most development, the greatest source of emissions is from mobile sources v which disperse over a large area. The project area is in nonattainment for ozone and PM10 °- particulate matter. Construction and operation of cumulative projects will further degrade the local air quality, as well as the air quality of the Air Basin. The greatest cumulative a) impact on the quality of regional air quality will be the incremental addition of pollutants = from increased traffic from residential, commercial, and industrial development and the use v of heavy equipment and trucks associated with the construction of these projects. Air a quality will be temporarily degraded during construction activities that occur separately or simultaneously. However, in accordance with the SCAQMD methodology, projects that do not exceed the SCAQMD criteria or can be mitigated to less than criteria levels are not E significant and do not add to the overall cumulative impact. Cumulative short-term construction-related emissions and long-term operational emissions from the project will not Q contribute considerably to any potential cumulative air quality impacts because the project's emissions will not exceed SCAQMD daily thresholds. d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Less Than Significant Impact. The CEQA Guidelines indicate that a potentially significant impact could occur if the proposed project would expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. As discussed in question 3 b) above, and shown in Tables 3 and 5, the project's emissions with not exceed SCAQMD Localized Significance Thresholds at the closest receptor locations during construction or operation and impacts are less than significant. Ongoing project operations would generate toxic air contaminant emissions from diesel truck emissions. According to SCAQMD methodology, health effects from carcinogenic air Waterman Industrial Center Initial Study 122 Packet Pg. 681 6.B.h toxics are usually described in terms of individual cancer risk. "Individual Cancer Risk" is the likelihood that a person exposed to concentrations of toxic air contaminants over a 70-year lifetime will contract cancer, based on the use of standard risk-assessment methodology. The diesel particulate matter (DPM) emission factors for the various vehicle types were derived from the CARB EMFAC2011 mobile source emission model. The 70-year average factors were derived for San Bernardino County for 2017, the project buildout year. Emissions factors were estimated to establish the emissions generated while the vehicles travel off site, along travel links from the entrance to the loading docks, and while idling at the loading dock during loading or unloading materials. Health risks from diesel particulate matter are twofold. First, diesel particulate matter is a carcinogen according to the State of California. Second, long-term chronic exposure to diesel particulate matter can cause health effects to the respiratory system. There are no schools in the project vicinity. The nearest sensitive receptors that may be impacted by the proposed project are the residential dwelling units to the north and west of the boundaries of the project site. The project-specific health risk assessment (HRA) o performed by Kunzman Associates, as part of the air quality analyses, examined the "' potential for cancer- and non-cancer-related health risks associated with project operations CL to nearby sensitive receptors (located near the site's northern boundary [approximately 65 a feet from the site] and to the west of the project (approximately 170 feet from the project's LO western boundary). Impacts to commercial receptors located just north of the site and at the I;tv San Bernardino Public Golf Course to the south of the project site (adjacent to the project's southern boundary) respectively, were also examined. The highest residential cancer risks o at any receptor location does not exceed a cancer risk increase of 3.39 per million people. m The highest risk to off-site workers does not exceed a cancer risk increase of 0.33 per million people. All off-site diesel emissions concentrations would be below the 10.0 in a million cancer risk threshold.Therefore, no significant long-term health impacts would occur to adjacent receptors from the operation of diesel trucks on the project site. a. With respect to non-carcinogenic hazards to residential and worker receptors, the criterion for significance is a Hazard Index increase of 1.0 or greater. Using the maximum DPM a� concentration, the resulting Hazard Index is 0.0029. Therefore, the ongoing operations of the proposed project would result in a less than significant impact due to the non-cancer r risk from diesel emissions created by the project. Q e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people?No Impact. Potential sources from the proposed project that may emit odors during construction activities include the application of materials such as asphalt pavement. The objectionable Q odors that may be produced during the construction process are short term and are expected cease upon the drying or hardening of the odor producing materials. Due to the short-term nature and limited amounts of odor producing materials being utilized, no significant impact related to odors would occur during construction of the proposed project. Potential odor sources from ongoing operations would include odor emissions from diesel truck emissions and trash storage areas. Due to the distance of the nearest receptors from the project site and through compliance with SCAQMD's Rule 402, no significant impact related to odors would occur during the ongoing operations of the proposed project. Waterman Industrial Center Initial Study l 23 Packet Pg. 682 6.B.h Cumulative Impacts A project that has a significant impact on air quality with regard to emissions of PM1o, PM2.5, NO,, and/or ROGs as determined above would have a significant cumulative effect. In the event direct impacts from a project are less than significant, a project may still have a cumulatively considerable impact on air quality if the emissions from the project, in combination with the emissions from other proposed, or reasonably foreseeable future projects are in excess of screening levels identified above, and the project's contribution accounts for more than an insignificant proportion of the cumulative total emissions. With regard to past and present projects, the background ambient air quality, as measured at the monitoring stations maintained and operated by the SCAQMD, measures the concentrations of pollutants from existing sources. Past and present project impacts are therefore included in the background ambient air quality data. As discussed above, the proposed project emissions would be below the significance thresholds during both construction and operations. The impact would therefore not be cumulatively considerable. N O LO r l4 Q LO co O O. d d' co t4 co U a a� E t r a r d E a Waterman Industrial Center Initial Study l 24 Packet Pg. 683 4. Biological Resources Less Than Significant Potentially with Less than Significant Mitigation Significant No Issues Impact Incorporated Impact Impact Would the project: a. Have a substantial adverse effect,either directly �� � ��®� •���� _W.����� or through habitat modifications,on any species identified as a candidate,sensitive,or special ❑ El El status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations,or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? N b. Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian ° habitat or other sensitive natural community r identified in local or regional plans, policies, ❑ ❑ ❑ ® o. regulations or by the California Department of 0 Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? ,n 00 c. Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act(including, but not limited to, marsh,vernal pool,coastal,etc.)through direct El El El ® m removal,filling, hydrological interruption,or other Adowilk means? d. Interfere substantially with the movement of any tin native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species Ud or with established native resident or migratory ❑ ® ❑ ❑ , wildlife corridors,or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? c e. Conflict with any local policies or ordinances E protecting biological resources,such as a tree ❑ ® ❑ ❑ preservation policy or ordinance? {. Q f. Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community ❑ ❑ ❑ ® _ Conservation Plan,or other approved local, E E regional,or State habitat conservation plan? as Discussion Q a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or the USFWS?No Impact. A Biological Constraints Analysis was prepared by Rocks Biological Consulting Inc. (RBC) in December 2015. The Biological Constraints Report evaluated the suitability of the proposed project site to support sensitive biological resources. The results of this study provide current information on biological resources present on the proposed project site. The results of the biological constraints analysis performed by RBC is summarized herein and included as Appendix B to this Addendum. Waterman Industrial Center Initial Study 125 Packet Pg. 684 6.B.h The project site supports the following vegetation types or land uses: • Developed - areas support no native vegetation and typically include human-made structures such as buildings or roads. Within the study area, developed areas occur primarily at the north end of the site and consist of single-family homes, a church, and roads. Included in the developed land use is a public golf course that supports no native vegetation and generally consists of mowed non-native grass. The golf course is located at the south end of the study site. • Disturbed - areas typically include land that has been previously disturbed by vegetation clearing, development, or agricultural activities. Areas mapped as disturbed include lands generally cleared of vegetation such that little or no natural habitat remains and lands disturbed such that, where vegetated, at least 50 percent of plant cover is non-native species. The disturbed lands on the site are dominated by puncture vine (Tribulus terrestris), London rocket (Sisumbrium irio), and Russian thistle (Salsola australis). Other plants that occur include castor bean (Ricinus N communis), ripgut brome (Bromus diandrus), short-pod mustard (Hirschfeldia ° incana), alkali mallow(Malvella leprosa), and filaree species (Erodium spp.). • Ornamental - areas typically consist of non-native landscape and/or garden C9 plantings that have been planted in association with development. San Bernardino L; co County supports many ornamental trees, shrubs, and herbs that decorate urban areas. Ornamental species occur on the site in association with adjacent residential -- development, notably rows of planted and irrigated pine trees (Pinus sp.) and a 0 patch of Chinese elm (Ulmus parvifolia). d Table 6 summarizes the vegetation types and land uses on the site. M to Table 6: Vegetation Communities/Land Uses U CL Vegetation/Land Use Acres in Project boundary Acres in study area Developed(ind.golf course) 22.42 26.71 Disturbed Land 2.81 8.95 t Ornamental 0.16 0.33 Total 25.39 35.99 Q c No threatened, endangered, or sensitive animal or plant species were observed on-site as during the general biological survey. CNDDB records were used to help determine if sensitive species occur within the vicinity of the project site. As identified in Table 7, based on the developed and disturbed condition of the site and lack of native habitats, the site L does not have potential to support sensitive species. Waterman Industrial Center Initial Study l 26 Packet Pg. 685 ;;mow 6.B.h Table 7: CNDDB Species Recorded within Vicinity of the Site Species Potential to Occur/Comments marsh sandwort(Aremaria paludicola) None.Species occurs in marsh habitats,which are not present on site. bristly sedge(Carex comoso) None.Species occurs in wetland and riparian habitats,which are not present in the parcel.Species is most often associated with lake margins and edges,which are not present on site. Busck's gallmoth (Carolella busckana) None.Species occurs in coastal scrub dunes that are not present on site. smooth tarplant(Centromodia pungens None.Species occurs in habitats such as chenopod scrub, ssp.loevis) meadows and seeps, playas,riparian woodlands,and valley and foothill grasslands. No suitable habitat types are present on site. salt marsh bird's beak(Chloropyron None.Species occurs on salt marshes and salt flats,which are c maritimum ssp.maritimum not present on site. Parry's spineflower(Chorizanthe parryi None.Species occurs on chaparral and coastal sage scrub R CL var.parryi) habitats,which are not present on site. western yellow-billed cuckoo(Coccyzus None.Species occurs in riparian habitats,which are not LO amencanus occidentalis) present on site. v Peruvian dodder(Cuscuta obtusiflora var. None.Species occurs in freshwater marshes and swamps that glandulosa) are not present on site. c CL San Bernardino kangaroo rat(Dipodomys None.Species occurs in alluvial fan sage scrub habitats,which merriomi porvus) are not present in the parcel.These habitat types are confined W to rivers and floodplains,which are not present on site. slender-horned spineflower(Dodecahema None.Species occurs in alluvial scrub habitats,which are not V leptoceras) present on site. a Los Angeles sunflower(Helianthus nuttallii None.Species occurs in freshwater or salt marsh habitats, Z ssp.parishii) which are not present on site. a� Gambel's water cress(Nasturtium None.Species is aquatic or semi-aquatic. It is found in lakesides E M gambelii) and marshes,which are not present on site. M m pocketed free-tailed bat(Nyctinomops None.Species is associated with cliffs and rocky outcrops, Q femorosaccus) which are not present on site. Delhi Sands flower-loving fly None.Species occurs in Delhi sand habitats,which are not (Rhaphiomidas terminates abdominalis) present on site. t Parish's gooseberry(gibes divoricatum None.Species occurs in wetland habitats and occasionally in var.parishii) coastal sage scrub habitats,which are not present on site. Q prairie wedge-grass(sphenopholis None.Species occurs in mesic prairies,thinly wooded bluffs, obtusata) open rocky woodlands,and pasture habitats,which are not present on site. least Bell's vireo(Vireo bellii pusillus) None.Species occurs in riparian and willow scrub habitats, which are not present on site. Source:Rocks Biological Consulting,December 2015. As described above, the proposed project would not have an effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate as sensitive, or as a special-status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) or United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). The project site is graded and does not contain suitable habitat for any protected species. Therefore,there would be no impact to sensitive species. Waterman Industrial Center Initial Study l 27 Packet Pg. 686 6.B.h b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game(DFG)or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?No Impact. The project site is relatively flat and has previously been disturbed by human activities. There are no native habitats on site. Additionally, no drainages, riparian habitat, or aquatic features were observed during the site visit. The project proposes to consolidate the 12 existing parcels into 1 parcel and demolish all internal structures in order to facilitate the development of the distribution center. No impacts to riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community would occur as a result of the proposed project. c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?No Impact. As discussed above in threshold 4.b, there were no potentially jurisdictional features, c including federally protected wetlands and other features that carry water identified on the project site. Therefore, no impacts would occur. CL d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use 00 of native wildlife nursery sites?Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. It Wildlife Corridors:The project site is not located within a known migratory wildlife corridor or 0 CL wildlife nursery site. Construction of the proposed project would not impact a wildlife corridor. Therefore,there would be no impact to migratory wildlife or corridors. Nesting Birds: Nesting birds and their nests are protected under the provisions of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) a codes. Suitable habitat for birds protected by the MBTA occurs on the project site. The intentional loss of any active bird nests during project construction would be considered a significant impact. Implementation of Mitigation Measures B-1a and B-1b would reduce m E potential impacts to nesting birds to a less than significant level. s U a+ Mitigation Measures 4 B-1a if Femoval of tTrees and shrubs us to be done during the nesting seasen 0) (Feb.0 a t„ September 5) all tFees and other suitable nesting habitat within the limits of work shall be surveyed by a qualified biologist prior to initiating y construction-related activities. A pre-construction survey would be conducted no Q more than 72 hours n days prior to the start of work. If no nests are observed, construction activities should be initiated within 72 hours 4:4 days. If more than 72 hours 1:4 days pass and construction has not been initiated, another survey would be required. B-1b If, during the breeding season, an active nest is discovered in a tree or shrub to be removed, the tree or shrub shall be protected using orange construction fence or the equivalent. The protective fencing shall be placed around the tree or shrub at the following distance depending on species: 25 feet from the drip line of the tree or shrub for passerines and non-raptors; 300 feet from the drip line of the tree for raptors. No parking, storage of materials, or work would be allowed within this area until the end of the breeding season or until the young have fledged, as determined by a qualified biologist. Waterman Industrial Center Initial Study l 28 Packet Pg.687 6.B.h e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as tree preservation policy/ordinance?Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. The City of San Bernardino Municipal Code Section 19.28.100 requires a tree removal permit from the City where more than 5 trees will be cut down, uprooted, destroyed, or removed within a 36-month period. Section 19.28.100 mandates the replacement of removed trees on a 1:1 basis. An arborist survey and report may be required to evaluate existing trees prior to the issuance of a tree removal permit. The preparation of the arborist's survey and report, and the replacement of trees as set forth in the permit would mitigate impacts to a less than significant level. Mitigation Measures B-2 Tree Removal Permit. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, an arborist survey and report including a tree replacement program shall be prepared for review and approval by the City of San Bernardino Community Development c Director. Subject to the approval of the report, the City shall issue a tree removal L, permit. a f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or State habitat conservation plan?No 00 Iq Impact. The project site is located in an urban environment and is not included in an adopted a Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or State habitat conservation plan. No impact relative to adopted habitat conservation or other approved local, regional or State plans would occur. Cumulative Impacts a The proposed project would not cause a significant impact to biological resources. Therefore, the proposed project would not contribute to a cumulatively considerable impact. E v 2 r Q c d E t c� Q Waterman Industrial Center Initial Study l 29 Packet Pg. 688 6.B.h 5. Cultural Resources Less Than Significant Potentially with Less than Significant Mitigation Significant No Issues Impact Incorporated Impact Impact Would the project: a. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in § ❑ ® ❑ ❑ 15064.5? b. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource ❑ ® ❑ ❑ pursuant to § 15064.5? o c. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique U0 paleontological resource or site or unique geologic El El El ® M feature? a (9 d. Disturb any human remains, including those ❑ ❑ ❑ Z LO interred outside of formal cemeteries? Discussion 0 Q. a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource? Less Than 0 Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. A Cultural Resource Study Findings Memo was prepared by ASM Affiliates in November V 2015 for the proposed project. The study included a records search at the South Central a Coastal Information Center (SCCIC), a search of the Sacred Lands Files of the California Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC), and a pedestrian survey of accessible portions of the Project area. The memo is included as Appendix C and the findings are E summarized below. ca r One previously unrecorded cultural resource, Waterman-1, a historic artifact scatter, was a documented on the project site; no evidence was found regarding the presence of or potential for any prehistoric resources. Waterman-1 consists of a scatter of highly E fragmented historic artifacts, likely dating to the earliest occupation of the parcel. Artifacts found include dozens of glass fragments ceramic and porcelain fragments; etc. Modern y refuse was mixed with the historic materials to the same depths, further evidencing the a significant disturbance that the parcel has undergone over the decades. The only item with a bracketable date range was the amethyst glass. Amethyst glass dates circa 1880-1920, which corresponds to the single structure depicted in the early maps and photos. It does not appear that this early structure is the same house that is currently on the site at 285 East Dumas Street; these structures appear in somewhat different locations. At least some of the deposit was likely related to the now removed earliest structure while some of the fragments in the scatter appear to be circa 1950s-1960s. As such, this is a mixed deposit likely from various episodes of refuse disposal into what may have long served as a sort of communal backyard area for the houses lining the edges of this parcel. Waterman Industrial Center Initial Study l 30 Packet Pg. 689 6.B.h No evidence of intact subsurface deposits was identified at Waterman-1. Because the site contains only highly fragmentary and disturbed remains, unassociated with intact archaeological deposits or features, Waterman-1 is recommended not eligible for listing in the California Register of Historic Resources. The project site is located within a highly disturbed urbanized area and does not contain significant historic or archaeological resources. However, there is a possibility of currently undetectable historic subsurface deposits being present within the project site due to the area's early residential development. Implementation of Mitigation Measure CR-1 would reduce potential impacts to a less than significant level. Mitigation Measure CR-1 Prior to beginning project construction, the Project applicant shall retain an archaeological monitor to monitor initial ground-disturbing activities in an effort to identify any unknown archaeological resources. Any newly discovered cultural resource deposits shall be subject to a cultural resources evaluation. o b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource?Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. °- As discussed above, implementation of Mitigation Measure CR-1 would reduce potential LO impacts to archaeological resources from the proposed project to a less than significant level. c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic M feature?No Impact. The project site is not located within an area defined by the City for paleontological sensitivity and there are no known paleontological resources located on the project site. The CO U City's General Plan contains goals and policies that specifically address sensitive A paleontological resources and their protection if they are encountered during any v development activity. In the event that unknown paleontological resources are unearthed during construction activities on the project site, standard City conditions requiring the E stoppage of work and identification of potential resources would apply. Therefore, the U proposed project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a paleontological resource. a c d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? No Impact. No known human remains are located within the area of the project site. In the event that Q unknown human remains are unearthed during construction activities on the project site, standard City conditions requiring the stoppage of work and identification of human remains would apply.Therefore,the proposed project would not disturb human remains. Cumulative Impacts The proposed project would result in no impacts to historical, known archaeological or paleontological resources, or known human remains. The chances of cumulative impacts occurring as a result of project implementation plus implementation of other projects in the region is not likely since all proposed projects would be subject to individual project level environmental review. Since there would be no project-related impacts and due to existing laws and regulations in place to protect cultural resources and prevent significant impact to paleontological resources, the potential incremental effects of the proposed project would not be cumulatively considerable. Waterman Industrial Center Initial Study 131 Packet'Pg.690 6.B.h 6. Geology and Soils Less Than Significant Potentially with Less than Significant Mitigation Significant No Issues Impact Incorporated Impact Impact Would the project: a. Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects,including the risk of loss, injury,or death involving: i. Rupture of a known earthquake fault,as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other ❑ El El c substantial evidence of a known fault?Refer to ul T Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. �- 0 ii. Strong seismic ground shaking? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ I* iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including El ❑ ® El V_ liquefaction? V_ 0 iv. Landslides? El El ❑ b. Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of El El ® ❑ � topsoil? CO c. Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is a unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on-or ❑ ® ❑ ❑ off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, (D liquefaction or collapse? E s d. Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), ❑ ❑ ® ❑ creating substantial risks to life or property? Q e. Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the E use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available ❑ ❑ ❑ for the disposal of waste water? Q Discussion a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: 1) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. Less Than Significant Impact. A Geotechnical Engineering Investigation was prepared for the project site in April 2015 by NorCal Engineering. The report is provided in Appendix D and is summarized in this Initial Study section. The Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act (Act) was passed in Waterman Industrial Center Initial Study l 32 Packet Pg.691 6.B.h AF 1972 to mitigate the hazard of surface faulting to structures for human occupancy. The Acts main purpose is to prevent the construction of buildings used for human occupancy on the surface trace of active faults. The Act requires the State Geologist to establish regulatory zones, known as "Alquist-Priolo (AP) Earthquake Fault Zones," around the surface traces of active faults and to issue appropriate maps. If an active fault is found, a structure for human occupancy cannot be placed over the trace of the fault and must be set back from the fault (typically 50 feet). According to the Geotechnical Engineering Investigation, the project site is not located within an AP Earthquake Fault Zone. According to the report, there are no known active or potentially active faults trending towards or through the site and the potential for damage due to direct fault rupture is considered very remote. The possibility of significant fault rupture on the project site is considered to be less than significant. 2) Strong seismic ground shaking?Less Than Significant Impact. The site is located in an area of high regional seismicity and the San Jacinto (San c Bernardino) fault is located less than 1.24 miles from the site. Ground shaking 9 LO originating from earthquakes along other active faults in the region is expected to induce lower horizontal accelerations due to smaller anticipated earthquakes and/or a C7 greater distances to other faults. The proposed project would be required to be in conformance with the 2013 California Building Code (CBC), City regulations, and other c applicable standards. Conformance with standard engineering practices and design le criteria would reduce the effects of seismic groundshaking to a less than significant •_ level. ° CL 3) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction?Less than Significant Impact. Liquefaction generally occurs as a "quicksand" type of ground failure caused by strong U) groundshaking. The primary factors influencing liquefaction potential include a groundwater, soil type, relative density of the sandy soils, confining pressure, and the intensity and duration of groundshaking. According to the Geotechnical Engineering Investigation, the project site is situated in an area of high generalized liquefaction E E susceptibility. Groundwater records from the Chino Basin Water Master (Fall 2006) found groundwater to be about 50 feet in depth. Review of groundwater maps of the Upper Santa Ana River Basin shows historical groundwater depths to be about 30 feet. Q The liquefaction evaluation conducted for the proposed project indicates a low liquefaction potential. Any associated seismic-induced settlement would be less than E one inch and should occur rather uniformly across the site. Differential settlements should be less than 0.5 inch over a 50-foot (horizontal) distance in the building area. r Conformance with standard engineering practices and design criteria would reduce the Q effects of seismic-related ground failure to less than significant levels. 4) Landslides?No Impact. Landslides are mass movements of the ground that include rock falls, relatively shallow slumping and sliding of soil, and deeper rotational or transitional movement of soil or rock. The project site is relatively flat and is not located within an area susceptible to landslides. Therefore, there would be no impact from landslides on the proposed project. Waterman Industrial Center Initial Study l 33 Packet-Pg. 692 6.B.h b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?Less Than Significant Impact. Trenching during the construction phase of the project would displace soils and temporarily increase the potential for soils to be subject to wind and water erosion. However, erosion and loss of topsoil can be controlled using standard construction practices. With adherence to the applicable practices and regulations, impacts would be considered less than significant. c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. As discussed above in threshold 6.a.3, the project site is in an area with low liquefaction potential. The project site is also not in an area subject to landslides. According to the Geotechnical Engineering Investigation, the site consists of fill and natural soil. Fill was c encountered in some areas to a depth of six feet. The report includes recommendations to LO ensure that soils are appropriate for development. Implementation of Mitigation Measure G- M 1 would reduce potential impacts to a less than significant level. Q- C9 Mitigation Measure 00 G-1 All grading and construction of the Project site shall comply with the V geotechnical recommendations contained in the Geotechnical Engineering oa Investigation prepared by NorCal Engineering dated April 2015. All recommendations contained in the report shall be incorporated into all final and engineering and grading plans. CO d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the California Building Code a (2013), creating substantial risks to life or property?Less Than Significant Impact. c The proposed project would be required to be in conformance with the 2013 California Building Code (CBC), City regulations, and other applicable standards. Conformance with standard engineering practices, design criteria and Mitigation Measure G-1 would reduce w impacts related to expansive soil potential to a less than significant level. Q w e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater?No Impact r r a The proposed project would not include the implementation of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems.Therefore, no impact would occur. Cumulative Impacts The potential cumulative impact related to earth and geology is typically site specific. The analysis herein determined that the proposed project would not result in any significant impacts related to landform modification, grading, or the destruction of a geologically significant landform or feature with implementation of mitigation. Moreover, existing State and local laws and regulations are in place to protect people and property from substantial adverse geological and soils effects, including fault rupture, strong seismic groundshaking, seismic-induced ground failure (including liquefaction), and landslides. Existing laws and regulations also protect people and property from adverse effects related to soil erosion, expansive soils, loss of topsoil, development on an unstable geologic unit or soil type that could result in on- or off-site Waterman Industrial Center Initial Study 134 Packet Pg. 693 6.B.h landslides, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse. These existing laws and - regulations, along with mitigation assigned to the proposed project, would render potentially adverse geological and soil effects of the proposed project to a level of less than significant. Moreover, these existing laws and regulations also ensure that past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects in the San Bernardino region do not result in substantial adverse geological and soils effects. As a result, the existing legal and regulatory framework would ensure that the incremental geological and soils effects of the proposed project would not result in greater adverse cumulative effects when considered together with the effects of other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects in the San Bernardino region. The impacts of the proposed project-related to geology and soils would be less than cumulatively considerable. N O LO r Q LO CO d' O O. JON Q' CO N CO U a r c (D E s v m a E U tC Y Q Waterman Industrial Center Initial Study 135 Packet Pg.694 7. Greenhouse Gas Emissions Less Than Significant Potentially with Less than Significant Mitigation Significant No Issues Impact Incorporated Impact Impact Would the project: a. Generate greenhouse gas emissions,either directly or indirectly,that may have a significant impact on ❑ ® ❑ ❑ the environment? b. Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the ❑ ® ❑ ❑ emissions of greenhouse gases? N O Discussion r a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant cCL impact on the environment?Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. LO 00 1) An Air Quality Technical Report which also addresses greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions �! was prepared by Kunzman Associates, Inc. (January 2016). The results and conclusions o of the report are summarized herein (Appendix A). m 2) The CaIEEMod Version 2013.2.2 was used to calculate GHG emissions from the proposed project. The City of San Bernardino does not currently have their own Climate Cn Action Plan; however, the City of San Bernardino is a participating member of the San a Bernardino Association of Governments (SANBAG) San Bernardino County Greenhouse , Gas Emissions Reduction Plan (GHG Plan). The GHG Plan was adopted on December 6, 2011 and became effective on January 6, 2012; the GHG Plan was made final on March 2014. The GHG Plan targets reducing GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020 by E cutting approximately 30 percent from business-as-usual (BAU) emissions levels, or m approximately 15 percent from year 2008 levels, which is the baseline year for the GHG a Plan. The plan is consistent with AB 32 and sets the City on a path to achieve more substantial long-term reductions in the post-2020 period. Achieving this level of emissions will ensure that the contribution to greenhouse gas emissions from activities E covered by the GHG Plan will not be cumulatively considerable. Per the GHG Plan, the City of San Bernardino has identified that if a project exceeds the SCAQMD screening a threshold of 3,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (MTCO2e) per year for all land use types, then a project's year 2020 emissions will be compared to the project's baseline (BAU) GHG emissions. 3) The project's year 2017 (opening year) emissions were calculated and compared to the SCAQMD 3,000 MTCO2e per year GHG Plan and SCAQMD screening threshold and the SCAQMD industrial threshold of 10,000 MTCO2e per year. GHG emissions without mitigation are shown in Table 8. Without mitigation, the proposed project would generate 3,918.41 MTCO2e per year which exceeds the 3,000 MTCO2e per year screening threshold; however, the project's unmitigated emissions do not exceed the SCAQMD's 10,000 MTCO2e per year threshold for industrial uses. Waterman Industrial Center Initial Study l 36 Packet Pg.695 6.B.h 4) As shown in Table 9, with mitigation, the project would generate 2,913.97 MTCO2e per year; less than the 3,000 metric tons of CO2e per year SCAQMD and GHG Plan screening threshold. Therefore, with incorporation of Mitigation Measures GHG-1 through 7, the operation of the proposed project would not create a significant cumulative impact to global climate change. Table 8: Project Greenhouse Gas Emissions Without Mitigation' Greenhouse Gas Emissions(Metric Tons/Year) Category Bio-0O2 NonBio-CO2 CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Area SourceS2 0.00 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.03 Energy Usage 0.00 598.00 598.00 0.03 0.01 600.48 Mobile Sources' 0.00 2,402.10 2,402.10 0.07 0.00 2,403.52 Wastes 107.74 0.00 107.74 6.37 0.00 241.46 _ Water 41.43 486.55 527.97 4.28 0.11 650.37 N 0 Construction' 0.00 22.49 22.49 0.00 0.00 22.56 LO Total Emissions 1 149.17 3,509.16 3,658.33 10.74 0.11 3,918.41 a SCAQMD and GHG Reduction Plan Screening Threshold 3,000.00 LO Exceeds Threshold? Yes SCAQMD Industrial Threshold 10,000 r 0 Exceeds Threshold? No m 1 Source:CaIEEMod Version 2013.2.2 W 2 Area sources consist of GHG emissions from consumer products,architectural coatings,and landscape � equipment. U) 3 Energy usage consist of GHG emissions from electricity and natural gas usage. d 4 Mobile sources consist of GHG emissions from vehicles. , 5 Solid waste includes the CO2 and CH4 emissions created from the solid waste placed in landfills. 6 Water includes GHG emissions from electricity used for transport of water and processing of wastewater. 7 Construction GHG emissions based on a 30 year amortization rate. m .0 v cv Q C d E Z U t4 a+ Y Q Waterman Industrial Center Initial Study 1 37 Packet Pg.696 6.B.h Table 9: Project Greenhouse Gas Emissions With Mitigation' Greenhouse Gas Emissions(Metric Tons/Year) Category Bio-0O2 NonBio-CO2 CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Area Sources2 0.00 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.03 Energy Usage 0.00 540.70 540.70 0.02 0.01 542.91 Mobile Sources° 0.00 1,719.97 1,719.97 0.05 0.00 1,721.01 Wastes 53.87 0.00 53.87 3.18 0.00 120.73 Water 33.14 375.73 408.87 3.42 1 0.08 506.73 Construction? 0.00 22.49 22.49 0.00 0.00 22.56 Total Emissions 87.01 2,658.91 2,745.92 6.68 0.09 2,913.97 SCAQMD and GHG Reduction Plan Screening Threshold 3,000.00 N Exceeds Threshold? No SCAQMD Industrial Threshold 10,000 Exceeds Threshold? No a 1 Source:CalEEMod Version 2013.2.2 LO 2 Area sources consist of GHG emissions from consumer products,architectural coatings,and landscape equipment. 00 3 Energy usage consist of GHG emissions from electricity and natural gas usage. �! 4 Mobile sources consist of GHG emissions from vehicles. 5 Solid waste includes the CO2 and CH4 emissions created from the solid waste placed in landfills. 0 CL 6 Water includes GHG emissions from electricity used for transport of water and processing of wastewater. 7 Construction GHG emissions based on a 30 year amortization rate. RS Mitigation Measures U a GHG-1 The project applicant shall provide sidewalks within the project boundary and along the off-site roadway improvements. _ a� GHG-2 The project applicant shall require that any future tenants institute a ride E sharing program and employee vanpool/shuttle that is open to all employees. r GHG-3 The project applicant shall require that all building structures meet or exceed Q 2013 Title 24 Standards and Green Building Code Standards. E GHG-4 The project applicant shall require that all lighting installed in the proposed 0 structures uses on average a minimum of 5 percent less energy than .2 conventional metal halide warehouse lighting. GHG-5 The project applicant shall require that all faucets, toilets and showers installed in the proposed structures utilize low-flow fixtures that would reduce indoor water demand by 20% per CalGreen Standards. 1 GHG-6 The project applicant shall require that ENERGY STAR-compliant appliances are installed on site. GHG-7 The project applicant shall require all future tenants to institute recycling programs that reduces waste to landfills by a minimum of 50 percent (75 percent by 2020) and includes designated recycling bins at each proposed structure and requires all green waste to be processed at a recycling or composting facility. 1 Waterman Industrial Center Initial Study'38 Packet Pg. 697 s.B.n b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. The proposed project would have the potential to conflict with any applicable plan, policy or regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases. As previously addressed, the City of San Bernardino is one of the 21 partnership cities that are participating in the San Bernardino Associated Governments (SANBAG) San Bernardino County Regional GHG Reduction Plan (GHG Plan). Therefore, the applicable plan for the proposed project is the SANBAG San Bernardino County GHG Plan. The GHG Plan was prepared to assist the City in conforming to the GHG emissions reductions as mandated under Assembly Bill (AB) 32. The GHG Plan employs the San Bernardino County screening threshold of 3,000 MTCO2e per year. If the project's emissions exceed that screening threshold, then the City of San Bernardino selected a goal to reduce its community GHG emissions to a level that is 15 percent below its c 2008 GHG emissions level by 2020. The City will meet and exceed this goal subject to reduction measures that are technologically feasible and cost-effective per AB 32 through a combination a of State (-86%) and local (-14%) efforts. The City actually exceeds the goal with only 0 State/county level actions (104% of goal), but has committed to several additional local LO co measures. v The City of San Bernardino's Sustainability Master Plan Task Force, appointed by the City c Council, is recommending various draft strategies for the Mayor and City Council to consider m f adopting. This framework of strategies is located within the Land Use and Transportation section of the Draft Sustainable Master Plan (SMP). If adopted, the Draft SMP will support the goals of SB 375 and the Sustainable Communities Strategy through a wide range of actions. v� The Draft SMP will include GHG reduction measures similar to but different from the measures a listed in the GHG Plan. The Draft SMP measures will generally be more specific to the City of Iq San Bernardino, but they will also support the goals of AB 32. The SMP follows the organization of the SANBAG San Bernardino County GHG Reduction Plan, with the SMP measures following E the SANBAG San Bernardino County GHG Reduction Plan measures. s SCAQMD's screening thresholds used Executive Order S-3-05 goal as the basis for deriving the Q screening level. The California Governor issued Executive Order S-3-05, GHG Emission, in June 2005, which established the following reduction targets: E • 2010: Reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 2000 levels .r .r • 2020: Reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels <t • 2050: Reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels. In 2006, the California State Legislature adopted AB 32, the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006. AB 32 requires CARB to adopt rules and regulations that would achieve GHG emissions equivalent to statewide levels in 1990 by 2020 through an enforceable statewide emission cap which will be phased in starting in 2012. Therefore, if the project's emissions meet the threshold for compliance (the 3,000 MTCO2e per year screening threshold) with Executive Order S-3-05, then the project's emissions would also comply with the goals of AB 32; which is also the goal of the GHG Plan and the SMP. At a level of 2,913.97 MTCO2e per year with mitigation, the project's GHG emissions level falls below the SCAQMD and GHG Plan screening threshold of 3,000 metric tons per year of CO2e for all land uses, and well below the SCAQMD's GHG emissions threshold of 10,000 metric tons per Waterman Industrial Center Initial Study 139 Packet Pg.698 6.B.h year of CO2e for industrial projects. Therefore, as the projects mitigated emissions do not exceed the GHG Plan's screening threshold of 3,000 metric tons per year, the project is consistent with the applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases. Furthermore, the project will comply with applicable Green Building Standards and City of San Bernardino's policies regarding sustainability (as dictated by the City's General Plan and the SMP); therefore, with incorporation of mitigation measures GHG-1 through GHG-7 as detailed above in 7 a), impacts are less than significant. Cumulative Impacts With mitigation, the project's emissions would be below the SCAQMD's threshold for GHG emissions of 3,000 metric tons per year of CO2e and an industrial project's threshold of 10,000 metric tons per year of CO2e. As discussed above, the project would not result in a cumulatively considerable impact due to GHGs. c LO r LO CO le et O Ar Q Qt 0' td to U a c a� E s a E a Waterman Industrial Center Initial Study 140 Packet Pg.699 6.B.h 8. Hazards and Hazardous Materials Less Than Significant Potentially with Less than Significant Mitigation Significant No Issues Impact Incorporated Impact Impact Would the project: a. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use,or ❑ ❑ ® ❑ disposal of hazardous materials? b. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset ❑ ❑ ® ❑ and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? o Un c. Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or V- acutely hazardous materials,substances,or waste f°CL within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed El El El ® C7 school? LO 00 d. Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and,as a ❑ ❑ ❑ result,would it create a significant hazard to the m f, public or the environment? W e. For a project located within an airport land use fir+ plan or,where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use ❑ ❑ ❑ ® d airport,would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? f. For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, y would the project result in a safety hazard for ❑ ❑ ❑ ® E people residing or working in the project area? c� g. Impair implementation of or physically interfere Q with an adopted emergency response plan or ❑ ❑ ® ❑ emergency evacuation plan? _ h. Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to ❑ ❑ ❑ ® Q urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? Discussion a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?Less Than Significant Impact. Prior uses on the site are not known to have involved hazardous materials. Once the project is constructed, hazardous materials would be limited to those associated with a warehouse/industrial facility. These include cleaners, paints, solvents; and fertilizers and pesticides for site landscaping. Because these materials are used in very limited quantities, they are not considered a hazard to the public. Adherence to federal, State, and local health Waterman Industrial Center Initial Study 141 Packet Pg. 700 6.B.h and safety requirements regarding these substances would reduce the potential impacts to less than significant. b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment?Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project is not anticipated to result in a release of hazardous materials into the environment. The proposed warehouse/industrial facility would be expected to use limited hazardous materials and substances which would be limited to cleaners, paints, solvents; and fertilizers and pesticides for site landscaping. All materials and substances would be subject to applicable health and safety requirements. A less than significant impact would occur. c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?No Impact. i in No schools are presently located within one-quarter mile of the project site. The closest school site is Loma Linda Academy which is located approximately 1.4 miles southeast of cL the project site. Any future school developed within the surrounding area will be subject to the oversight of the California Department of Toxic Substances Control, as required by State 00 law. 7t d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled a pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?No Impact. r The project site is not included on a hazardous sites list compiled pursuant to California Cn Government Code Section 65962.5.2 In addition, a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment a was prepared for the project site by Arcadis in April 2015. According to that report, there were no Recognized Environmental Conditions (REC) (as defined by ASTM Practice E 1527- 13) identified in association with the site. No significant adverse impacts relative to E hazardous materials sites would result with project implementation. r e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been a adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area?No Impact. °' E t San Bernardino International Airport is located approximately two miles northeast of the m project site. However, the proposed project would be consistent with the surrounding area Q and would not create a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area. Furthermore, the San Bernardino International Airport Authority has approved an avigation easement for the proposed project. Thus, no impact would occur. For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area?No Impact. Z California,State of,Department of Toxic Substances Control,DTSC's Hazardous Waste and Substances Site List-Site Cleanup(Cortese List).Available at:http://www.dtsc.ca.gov/SiteCleanup/Cortese_List.cfm.Accessed:August 21,2015. Waterman Industrial Center Initial Study l 42 Packet,Pg. 701 6.B.h The proposed project site is not located within the vicinity of a private airstrip and would not result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area. f) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project would have no impacts on emergency response plans or emergency evacuation plans. The City of San Bernardino has adopted an Emergency Management Plan to identify evacuation routes, emergency facilities, and City personnel and equipment available to effectively deal with emergency situations. No revisions to the adopted Emergency Management Plan would be required as a result of the proposed project. Primary access to all major roads would be maintained during construction of the proposed project. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. g) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are c intermixed with wildlands?No Impact. LO h) The proposed project would not expose people or structures to a risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands. The project site is in a developed urban area and co it is not adjacent to any wildland areas. Therefore, no impact would occur in regard to v wildland fires. No Impact. 0 CL Cumulative Impacts m The incremental effects of the proposed project related to hazards and hazardous materials, if 2 any, are anticipated to be minimal, and any effects would be site-specific. Therefore, the 0) proposed project would not result in incremental effects to hazards or hazardous materials that a could be compounded or increased when considered together with similar effects from other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable probable future projects. The proposed project would not result in cumulatively considerable impacts to or from hazards or hazardous materials. E t M r w Q r E V w Q Waterman Industrial Center Initial Study 143 Packet Pg. 702 6.B.h 9. Hydrology and Water Quality Less Than Significant Potentially with Less than Significant Mitigation Significant No Issues Impact Incorporated Impact Impact Would the project: a. Violate any water quality standards or waste ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ discharge requirements? b. Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g.,the production rate of pre-existing ❑ ❑ ❑ ® o nearby wells would drop to a level which would 'n not support existing land uses or planned uses for co which permits have been granted)? Q' t7 c. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of LO the site or area,including through the alteration 00 of the course of a stream or river, in a manner ❑ ❑ ❑ which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on-or off-site? Q d. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of W the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river,or substantially El E] ® El increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a N manner which would result in flooding on-or off- nv site? ' e. Create or contribute runoff water which would c exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm m El water drainage systems or provide substantial El El additional sources of polluted runoff? a f. Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ Q g. Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary ❑ ❑ E] ® E or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? h. Place within a 100-year flood hazard area Q structures which would impede or redirect flood ❑ ❑ ❑ flows? L Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss,injury or death involving flooding, including ❑ ❑ ® ❑ flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? j. Inundation by seiche,tsunami,or mudflow? ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 11 1 NEW Waterman Industrial Center Initial Study 144 Packet Pg. 703 s.B.n Discussion Project specific Preliminary Drainage Report and a Water Quality Management Plan Stormwater Management Plan were prepared by Kimley-Horn and Associates in September 2015, to evaluate hydrology and water quality impacts associated with the proposed project. The results and conclusions of the plan are summarized herein. a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements?Less Than Significant Impact. The project site is located in moderately sloped terrain that generally slopes from the northeast towards the south and southwest. Existing drainage flows are primarily shallow sheet flow, which discharges onto the golf course property to the west and southwest. Runoff within the public street sections remains in the curb and gutter along South Waterman Avenue and within the curb and gutter, asphalt concrete dike or shoulder of East N Dumas Street. The proposed onsite tributary area is approximately 25.25 acres. With C LO implementation of the proposed project, surface runoff would be directed to two onsite underground infiltration basins through a network of proposed catch basins and storm a drains. The proposed onsite underground infiltration basins have been sized to capture and �? retain the 100-year storm event. The project site will not discharge surface waters, but will Ln infiltrate 100% of the runoff produced within project and tributary to the onsite infiltration 'Cr basins. These basins would capture and treat all storm water generated on the site; therefore, impacts to water quality would be less than significant. a m To minimize water quality impacts during construction of the proposed project, construction W activities would be required to comply with a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) ca consistent with the General Permit for Stormwater Discharge Associated with Construction v Activity (Construction Activity General Permit). The SWPPP would incorporate BMPs such as n gravel bags, silt fence, and fiber rolls. Preparation and implementation of a SWPPP would reduce potential impacts to water quality during construction to less than significant. E b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local `4 groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to Q a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)?No Impact. E The project does not propose to use groundwater. Although the project would result in a additional impervious surfaces on-site, the project would construct two underground infiltration basins which would capture all storm water runoff from the site. Therefore, the proposed project would not significantly impact local groundwater recharge. No impacts would occur in this regard. c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on-or off-site?No Impact. The project site overland flows from the northeast/east to west/southwest. There are no existing drainage facilities on the project site. Existing runoff from the project site within South Waterman Avenue is conveyed via curb and gutter south towards the Santa Ana CW River. Runoff within East Dumas Street is conveyed to the west towards Twin Creek channel Waterman Industrial Center Initial Study 145 Packet Pg.704 6.B.h through a variety of roadside improvements such as curb and gutter, asphalt concrete dike and earthen shoulders. South Waterman Avenue has an existing 36-inch storm drain main conveying flows to the south towards the Santa Ana River. There are no additional drainage systems in the area or on site. The project does not propose to discharge offsite, but rather, construct two underground infiltration basins to capture all site drainage. In addition, the site does not include any streams or rivers which could be altered by the proposed project. Therefore, no impact would occur in this regard. d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site? Less Than Significant Impact. Refer to response V.9(c) above. The proposed project would not substantially alter existing drainage patterns of the site or project vicinity. The project site does not include any N streams or rivers, which could be altered by the proposed project. On-site surface run-off would be directed to the on-site underground infiltration basins. The proposed underground "' infiltration basins would also minimize the potential for flooding to occur on-or off-site. a Impacts would be less than significant in this regard. LO 00 e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? Less Than Significant Impact. 0 m The infiltration basins were designed in accordance to the procedures and methodologies outlined in the San Bernardino County Flood Control District Standard Plans and Detention Basin Design Criteria for San Bernardino County (1987). The proposed onsite underground v co infiltration basins have been sized to capture and retain the 100-year storm event. No a impacts to the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage system would occur as a result of the project. E The proposed project would be required to prepare a SWPPP under the NPDES General 0 Construction Permit to implement BMPs to minimize storm water runoff during construction. a Adherence with the recommendations of the Stormwater Management Plan prepared for the proposed, and preparation of a SWPPP would reduce possible impacts related to the storm water drainage system to less than significant. E f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?Less Than Significant Impact. Q Water quality impacts other than those described in Response V.9(a) above are not anticipated with implementation of the proposed project. Impacts resulting from the project would be less than significant. g) Place housing within a 100 year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map?No Impact. The proposed project does not propose housing. Therefore, no flood related impacts would occur in this regard. h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows?No Impact. Waterman Industrial Center Initial Study l 46 Packet Pg.705 6.B.h The project site is covered by Map Numbers O6O71C8683H and O6O71C8684H of the FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) for San Bernardino County, California and Incorporated Areas. A majority of the project site is located within Flood Zone A, while a smaller portion in the southeast corner is located in Flood Zone X. Flood Zone A has a 1% annual change of flood hazard and Flood Zone X has a 0.2% annual chance of flood hazard. The County of San Bernardino Flood Control indicates that a building within Flood Zone A shall have a finished floor elevation or exterior waterproofing elevation of two-feet higher than the highest adjacent finished grade. The highest adjacent finished grades is near the corner of South Waterman Avenue and East Dumas Street and is approximately 1014.7. The proposed building finished floor elevation is approximately 1015.0 on the east side and slopes towards the west at 0.5% slope to an approximate elevation of 1009.4. Exterior waterproofing will be implemented to an elevation of at least 1016.7 feet. Given the project has been designed in accordance with the County's requirements, the project would not subject structures to flood hazards. N 0 LO i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam?Less Than Significant Impact. Q. C9 According to the City of San Bernardino's General Plan Safety Element, the project site is LO located within the Seven Oaks Dam Inundation area3. The Seven Oaks Dam is located in unincorporated San Bernardino County approximately 11 miles to the northeast of the project site. Figure S-2 in the General Plan notes that the inundation shown represents Q events of an extremely remote nature. Flooded area shown are based on dam failure at full pool elevation of 2,580 NGVD4. The General Plan includes policies to prohibit development within the 100 year flood plan unless adequate mitigation is provided, such as, requiring a building within Flood Zone A to have a finished floor elevation or exterior waterproofing v Cn elevation of two-feet higher than the highest adjacent finished grade. The project site would a. be required to adhere to the County of San Bernardino Flood Control's requirements for �t Zone A, as discussed above. In addition, the project does not propose any habitable structures. Adherence to federal, State, and local flood control requirements regarding ;_ flooding would reduce the potential impacts to less than significant. v r j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?No Impact. a w c m The project site is located approximately 75 miles east of the Pacific Ocean and as E referenced above, is approximately 11 miles downstream from the Seven Oaks Dam. There is no risk of exposure to inundation by seiche or tsunami. The project site is relatively flat so Q the potential for a mudflow is unlikely. Thus, no impact would occur. Cumulative Impacts The potential impacts related to hydrology and storm water runoff are typically site specific. Furthermore, the analysis determined that the implementation of the proposed project would not result in significant impacts. As a result, no cumulative impacts are anticipated. 3 City of San Bernardino General Plan.Safety Element,Figure S-2 Page 10-15.November 2005. 4 City of San Bernardino General Plan.Safety Element,Figure S-2 Page 10-15.November 2005. Waterman Industrial Center Initial Study 147 Packet Pg.706 6.B.h IL a 10. Land Use and Planning Less Than Significant Potentially with Less than Significant Mitigation Significant No Issues Impact Incorporated Impact Impact Would the project: a. Physically divide an established community? ❑ ❑ ❑ b. Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project(including, but not limited to the ❑ ❑ general plan,specific plan, local coastal program, _ or zoning ordinance)adopted for the purpose of N 0 avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? LO c. Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation ® a El El El plan or natural community conservation plan? LO Discussion 00 v a) Physically divide an established community?No Impact. 0 CL An example of a project that has the potential to divide an established community includes the construction of a new freeway or highway through an established neighborhood. The proposed project would be located on a site in an urban area with similar surrounding land uses. The proposed project would generally blend in with the mix of surrounding uses and would not physically divide an established community. Therefore, no impacts would occur. a b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with W J urisdiction over the project (includin g, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, ;r local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?Less Than Significant Impact. r a The City's General Plan land use designations for the project site are Industrial and Open Space. The City's zoning designation for the site includes: Industrial Light, Office Industrial 0 E Park, and Public Commercial Recreation. The proposed project is not consistent with the land use or zoning designations. Approval of the proposed project, therefore, includes a 2 General Plan Amendment(GPA)and a Zoning Map Amendment(ZMA). Q Project implementation requires an amendment to the General Plan and to the Zoning Map to change the General Plan land use designation to Industrial and the zoning designation to Industrial Light. With approval of the GPA and ZMA, the proposed project would be consistent with the land use and zoning designations and development standards for the project site. These amendments would not impact a plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. The amendments are required to make the proposed project fully consistent with land use and zoning designations for the project site. Furthermore, the proposed amendments would be consistent with land use designations and zoning surrounding the project site. Therefore, the proposed project would have a less than significant impact on a plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. Waterman Industrial Center Initial Study 148 Packet Pg.707 6.B.h AF I c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan?No Impact. The project site is not located within an area designated as a habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict either form of plan. Cumulative Impacts The analysis of potential impacts indicated that no impacts would result from the proposed project's implementation. As a result, no cumulative impacts related to land use and planning would occur. N O r lC Q LO CO O Q Qt d' N U a c m E s �o a d E a Waterman Industrial Center Initial Study l 49 Packet Pg. 708 6.B.h 11. Mineral Resources Less Than Significant Potentially with Less than Significant Mitigation Significant No Issues Impact Incorporated Impact Impact Would the project: a. Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the ❑ ❑ ❑ region and the residents of the State? b. Result in the loss of availability of a locally- important mineral resource recovery site ❑ ❑ ❑ delineated on a local general plan,specific plan or other land use plan? o L6 Discussion a C7 a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the to region and the residents of the State?No Impact. CO v The project site is not mapped by the City as an area containing mineral resources. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in the loss of availability of a known 0 CL mineral resource. W b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan?No Impact. v a The project site is not located in an area that has been identified as a locally important mineral resource recovery site.Therefore,the proposed project would have no impact. E Cumulative Impacts r The analysis of potential impacts indicated that no impacts would result from the proposed a project. As a result, no cumulative impacts related to mineral resources would occur. m E Q Waterman Industrial Center Initial Study l 50 Packet Pg. 709 12. Noise Less Than Significant Potentially with Less than Significant Mitigation Significant No Issues Impact Incorporated Impact Impact Would the project: a. Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the El ® El El general plan or noise ordinance,or applicable standards of other agencies? b. Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise ❑ ❑ ® ❑ levels? N 0 c. A substantial permanent increase in ambient LO noise levels in the project vicinity above levels 13 ® ❑ El m existing without the project? Q- t9 d. A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above El ® 1:1 El 00 levels existing without the project? e. For a project located within an airport land use Ic plan or,where such a plan has not been adopted, a within two miles of a public airport or public use ❑ ® airport,would the project expose people residing El El � or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? U f. For a project within the vicinity of a private C' airstrip,would the project expose people residing E] El El ® 4 or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? E t v Discussion ;a a A Noise Impact Assessment Technical Report was prepared by Kunzman Associates (October 2015) for the proposed project. The technical report discusses the potential E operational and construction noise impacts associated with the proposed project. The results and findings are summarized herein and the report is included as Appendix E to this a Initial Study. Q a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated. d) Substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated. The City noise regulations and standards are provided in the Noise Element of the General Plan and the Municipal Code. For purposes of this analysis, the Noise Element was used to evaluate traffic and stationary noise impacts from the proposed project. Because there are sensitive receptors near the project site, this analysis applies to the City's residential noise standards.The City specifies that the exterior noise levels at residential locations should not exceed 65 dBA CNEL while interior levels shall not exceed 45 dBA CNEL. Waterman Industrial Center Initial Study l 51 Packet Pg. 710 6.B.h As part of the noise study prepared for the proposed project, an ambient noise level survey was conducted on September 23, 2015. Noise measurements were performed to determine the existing noise environment near noise-sensitive areas within the project area. Sound level measurement locations (MLs) were selected at three locations. Table 10 identifies the results for the noise measurements. Table 10: Short-Term Noise Measurements Daytime Site Location Time Started Leq Lmax Lmin L(2) L(8) L(25) L(50) L(90) 1 11:15 AM 44.0 51.5 41.1 49.3 47.0 43.9 43.0 41.9 2 11:37 AM 60.1 68.1 46.2 66.0 64.0 61.6 58.1 50.4 3 11:55 AM 55.3 65.3 47.3 61.6 57.4 55.6 54.1 50.9 Source:Kunzman,2015. N O Construction LO CL The City considers construction noise to be a short-term impact and would be considered significant if construction activities are undertaken outside the allowable times as described by the City's Municipal Code (Section 8.54.070). Existing single-family residences located 00 adjacent to the project site may be affected by short-term noise associated the transport of �. workers, the movement of construction materials to and from the project site, ground o clearing, excavation, grading, and building activities. C Construction noise levels will vary depending on the construction process, type of equipment, location of construction in relationship to sensitive receptors, and the schedule in and duration of the construction work. Site preparation is expected to produce the highest C1 sustained construction noise levels. A likely worst-case construction noise scenario a assuming the use of this equipment was calculated using the Federal Highway v Administration's Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM) assuming the use of a grader, a dozer, excavator and a dump truck all operating between 75 and 250 feet from the E nearest sensitive receptor. Assuming a use factor of 40 percent for each piece of 0 equipment, unmitigated noise levels would reach 78.2 dBA Leq and 81.5 dBALmax at the .3 nearest residential structures. a.: c As noted, the City has an exemption for construction-related noise. However, noise reduction measures are provided to reduce temporary noise levels. These reduction s measures yield up to a 10 dBA reduction in the noise such that noise levels during 2 construction would be reduced to 68.2 dBA Leq and 71.5 dBALmax. With implementation of a Mitigation Measures N-1 through 9, noise impacts during construction would be less than significant. On-site Operations Sensitive receptors that may be affected by project operational noise include single-family residences to the north and west of the project site. On-site project operational noise was modeled using the SoundPLAN model. Modeled noise sources include noise associated with parking areas, idling trucks, loading and unloading activities, trucks' diesel engines, exhaust systems, braking, and forklifts and potential rooftop HVAC. The noisiest hour for all of these activities occurring simultaneously was modeled. The potential worst-case CNELs (assuming continuous 24-hour operation, were also calculated. Waterman Industrial Center Initial Study l 52 Packet Pg.711 6.B.h Unmitigated peak hour noise levels at nearby land uses would range between 50.5 to 62.9 dBA Leq (peak hr.) and 57 to 70 CNEL. More specifically, project operational noise levels at nearby single-family residences would range from 62 to 70; from 57 to 68 at the golf course facilities; and 58 to 60 at the office buildings located east of the project site. The unmitigated operational noise levels at residences directly north of the project site will exceed the City's 65 dBA CNEL limit and therefore the project would require an eight-foot- high noise wall to reduce the noise level below the City's 65 dBA limit. With the noise wall (i.e. Mitigation Measure N-10), impacts would be mitigated to a less than significant level. The project would not impact the golf course or the office buildings. Noise Impacts to Off-Site Receptors Due to Project Generated Traffic Project-generated traffic noise was modeled using the FHWA Traffic Noise Prediction Model - FHWA-RD-77-108. Traffic noise levels were calculated 50 feet from the centerline of the analyzed roadway. The modeling does not take into account any existing barriers, structures, and/or topographical features that may further reduce noise levels. Therefore, N the levels are shown for comparative purposes only to show the difference with and without c LO the project. In addition, the noise contours for 55, 60, 65 and 70 dBA CNEL were calculated. The potential f° a off-site noise impacts caused by an increase of traffic from operation of the proposed �? project on the nearby roadways were calculated for the following scenarios: LO • Existing Conditions Without Project �! • Existing Conditions With Project a m Table 11 compares the without and with project scenario and shows the change in traffic rr noise levels as a result of the proposed project. An increase of 3 dB or more is typically - required to have an audible difference. As identified in the table, the project is anticipated have a nominal change in noise levels (approximately 0 to 0.3 dBA CNEL). The change in a noise level would not be audible and would be considered less than significant. v Table 11: Change in Existing Noise Levels as a Result of the Project CNEL at 50 Feet dBA �v r Existing Existing Change in Potential Q Without Plus Noise Significant Roadway Segment Project Project Level Impact Mill St to Central Ave 74.4 74.4 0.0 No Waterman Ave Central Ave to Orange Show Rd 74.4 74.4 0.0 No r Valley View Ave Mill St to Central Ave 61.2 61.2 0.0 No Q Central Ave to Orange Show Rd 63.9 64.2 0.3 No Mill St to Central Ave 77.5 77.6 0.0 No Tippecanoe Ave Central Ave to Orange Show Rd 76.4 76.5 0.0 No Mill Ave Waterman Ave to Valley View Ave 69.9 69.9 0.0 No Valley View Ave to Tippecanoe Ave 70.0 70.0 0.0 No East of Waterman Ave 65.2 65.3 0.1 No Central Ave Waterman Ave to Valley View Ave 67.6 67.8 0.2 No Valley View Ave to Tippecanoe Ave 67.8 67.9 0.1 No West of Tippecanoe Ave 70.7 70.7 0.0 No Orange Show Rd Waterman Ave to Valley View Ave 72.2 72.2 0.0 No Valley View Ave to Tippecanoe Ave 71.3 71.3 0.0 No Source:Kunzman,2015 Waterman Industrial Center Initial Study 153 Packet Pg. 712 s.ls.n AF A Mitigation Measures Construction N-1 During all project site excavation and grading on site, construction contractors shall equip all construction equipment, fixed or mobile, with properly operating and maintained mufflers, consistent with manufacturer standards. N-2 The contractor shall place all stationary construction equipment so that emitted noise is directed away from the noise sensitive receptors nearest the project site. N-3 Equipment shall be shut off and not left to idle when not in use. N-4 The contractor shall locate equipment staging in areas that will create the greatest distance between construction-related noise/vibration sources and N sensitive receptors nearest the project site during all project construction. 9 N-5 The project applicant shall mandate that the construction contractor prohibit the n use of music or sound amplification on the project site during construction. LO N-6 The construction contractor shall limit haul truck deliveries to the same hours CO specified for construction equipment. �- N-7 Limit the use of heavy equipment or vibratory rollers and soil compressors along the project boundaries to the greatest degree possible. It is acknowledged that some soil compression may be necessary along the project boundaries. CO N-8 Jackhammers, pneumatic equipment and all other portable stationary noise U sources shall be shielded and noise shall be directed away from sensitive a receptors. c N-9 For the duration of construction activities, the construction manager shall serve E as the contact person should noise levels become disruptive to local residents. A sign should be posted at the project site with the contact phone number. a Operational c N-10 The project shall construct an 8-foot noise barrier along the northern project boundary in accordance with the Kunzman Noise Study. The wall shall be positioned at the top of slope or pad, whichever is greater such that it provides Q optimum sound attenuation. b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?Less Than Significant Impact. Construction Vibration The City prohibits any uses that generate a discernible vibration impact beyond the property line. The nearest existing structure to the project site is located approximately 65 feet to the north. Due to the proximity of adjacent single-family residences, project construction activities may result in groundborne vibration that is annoying but would be limited to activities within 100 feet of sensitive receptors and would only occur during site grading and preparation activities. Waterman Industrial Center Initial Study 154 Packet Pg. 713 6.B.h Ground-borne vibration will be maintained at an acceptable level through, where feasible, the use of low-vibration construction procedures such as performing earthmoving and ground-impacting operations during non-overlapping phases. All construction equipment would be located over 100 feet from vibration-sensitive land uses. The project would not require pile driving. No significant construction vibration impacts would be expected. Operational Vibration The primary source of potential vibration issues associated with the project would be truck traffic. Traffic, including heavy trucks traveling on a highway, rarely generates vibration amplitudes high enough to cause structural or cosmetic damage. However, there have been cases in which heavy trucks traveling over potholes or other discontinuities in the pavement have caused vibration high enough to result in complaints from nearby residents (Caltrans, Transportation- and Construction-Induced Vibration Guidance Manual). While the project's traffic could expose or make worse such conditions, the vibration impact would occur when any truck passed over the discontinuity. These types of issues typically can be resolved by c smoothing the roadway surface. The project is not anticipated to result in a significant ui vibration impact. CL c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project?Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated. 00 v Noise levels associated with the proposed project would increase over existing noise levels. However, as discussed under V.12(a) above, all noise-related impacts can be mitigated to a o CL less than significant level. e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose N people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? Less Than a Significant Impact. ' v r San Bernardino International Airport is located approximately two miles northeast of the project site. No significant noise levels occur at the project site; no impact would occur. E t U f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people a residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?No Impact. The proposed project site is not located within the vicinity of a private airstrip and therefore, E would not expose persons to excessive airport-related noise levels. r R r Cumulative Impacts a As discussed above, all construction and operational noise impacts can be mitigated to a less than significant level. Construction noise impacts are by nature localized. The distance of separation among the proposed project and other cumulative projects would be such that the temporary noise and vibration effects of the proposed project would not be compounded or increased by similar noise or vibration effects from other cumulative projects. As discussed, operational noise caused by the proposed project can be mitigated. The noise analysis performed for operation of the proposed project incorporated cumulative noise levels from forecasted traffic volumes in the study area. Other than cumulative traffic volumes, there are no past, present, or reasonably foreseeable projects that would compound or increase the operational noise levels generated by the proposed project. Therefore, cumulative impacts + relative to temporary and permanent noise generation associated with the proposed project would be less than significant. Waterman Industrial Center Initial Study 155 Packet Pg. 714 13. Population and Housing Less Than Significant Potentially with Less than Significant Mitigation Significant No Issues Impact Incorporated Impact Impact Would the project: a. Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly(for example, by proposing new homes and businesses)or indirectly(for example, ❑ ❑ ❑ through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b. Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, i necessitating the construction of replacement ❑ ❑ ® ❑ ° housing elsewhere? r c. Displace substantial numbers of people, tL necessitating the construction of replacement ❑ ❑ ® ❑ housing elsewhere? LO �r v Discussion 0 a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing CL 4) new homes and businesses) or indirectly(for example, through extension of roads or other F it infrastructure)?No Impact, U) The project proposes the development of an industrial center and does not propose a residential development. Although development of the facility would create additional job opportunities, it would not substantially induce growth in the area. Roads and infrastructure are already in place to serve the project site, and no additional roadway extensions or infrastructure would be required. As the project does not propose new residences or s additional roads, there would be no substantial population growth induced by the proposed project. q b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?Less Than Significant Impact. and = 0 c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement a housing elsewhere?Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project would require the removal and displacement of five existing single- family residences on the project site. The removal of these residences does not represent a substantial displacement of people necessitating the construction of replacement housing. Although no impact would occur, the project applicant is prepared to purchase those residences at or above fair market value as a part of the project. Therefore, a less than significant impact would occur. As discussed above in threshold 13.b, the proposed project would require the removal of existing housing on the project site, and, thus the displacement of residents of these homes. However, this consists of a relatively small number of houses, and therefore impacts would not be substantial. Waterman Industrial Center Initial Study 156 Packet Pg.715 6.B.h Cumulative Impacts The proposed project would not result in direct or indirect permanent or temporary impacts related to population or housing. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in incremental effects to population and housing that could be compounded or increased when considered together with similar effects from other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable probable future projects. As a result, no cumulative impacts related to population and housing would occur. N O LO r f6 Q LO CO 'd' V- O O. d U a c m E L r Q d E L v O Q Waterman Industrial Center Initial Study]57 Packet Pg. 716 6.B.h 14. Public Services Less Than Significant Potentially with Less than Significant Mitigation Significant No Issues Impact Incorporated Impact Impact Would the project: a. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities,the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response c times or other performance objectives for any of LO the public services: c� i. Fire protection? El El ® E] CL ii. Police protection? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ iii. Schools? ❑ ❑ ❑ 7 iv. Parks? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ v. Other public facilities? ❑ El El ® Q a� Discussion w 1) Fire protection?Less Than Significant Impact. co U a Fire protection services would be provided to the project site by the City of San Bernardino Fire Department. The Fire Department has 161 Emergency Operations Personnel. The Fire Department staffs 12 fire engine companies, 2 aerial truck aD companies, 1 heavy rescue, 5 4-wheel drive brush engines, 1 hazardous material response rig, and 1 medic squad housed in 12 stations in the City. The closest fire ;g station to the project site is Station #231 located at 450 E. Vanderbilt Drive, a approximately 0.5 mile southeast of the project site. This station houses one type 1 fire engine and the Fire Department's hazardous materials unit. According to the Fire Department, the response times are determined by the type of activity reported5. The project site is located within the City limits and within the service area of the Fire G Department. Increased development on the project site as proposed by the project may incrementally increase the demand for fire protection services to the project site, consequently, the proposed project is subject to fire suppression development impact fees. However, development will not increase to a substantial level considering the site's location and surrounding area of similar uses. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. 5 Written correspondence from Lieutenant Rich Lawhead,Community Affairs/PIO/Community Policing,Narcotics Division Commander,City of San Bernardino Police Department provided on 10/12/15. Waterman Industrial Center Initial Study 158 Packet Pg. 717 6.B.h 2) Police protection?Less Than Significant Impact. Police protection services would be provided by the City of San Bernardino Police Department. The Police Department has 312 sworn officers and 150 non-sworn employees. The closest police station is located at 710 North D Street approximately 2.5 miles northwest of the project site. Although a new warehouse/manufacturing building would be constructed and will operate on the project site, the proposed project would be located in an urbanized area and would not result in a substantial increase in demand on police services. It is not anticipated to increase response times to the project site or vicinity. As required for a development of this type,the proposed project is subject to law enforcement development impact fees as determined by the City of San Bernardino. The project does not propose new or physically altered police protection facilities. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. N O 3) Schools?No Impact. LO r lSf The proposed project is a non-residential land use. Implementation of the proposed cL project would not directly result in an increased population in the City and would therefore not increase the need for the construction of additional school facilities. LO 00 Furthermore, the San Bernardino City Unified School District requires development v impact fees be paid by the project applicant based on the square footage of the proposed project. Upon payment of the required fees, no significant impact to school °_ services or facilities would occur. 4) Parks?Less than Significant Impact. co The proposed project is a warehouse/manufacturing building and does not include a (L residential component. The proposed project would not create a significant increased d demand or need for the construction of park facilities. However, construction of the proposed project would require the abandonment of the golf course driving range E currently located on the project site. Based on the proximity of other golf course driving ranges in the City and surrounding area, this would represent a less than significant `6 impact. a 5) Other public facilities?No Impact. m E M The proposed project would not result in an increase in population within the City; w therefore, no impacts to other public facilities would occur with project implementation. a Cumulative Impacts The proposed project would not result in a significant impact to any public services or facilities. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in incremental effects to public services or facilities that could be compounded or increased when considered together with similar effects from other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable probable future projects. The proposed project would not result in cumulatively considerable impacts to public services or facilities. 1 Waterman Industrial Center Initial Study l 59 Packet Pg. 718 6.B.h 15. Recreation Less Than Significant Potentially with Less than Significant Mitigation Significant No Issues Impact Incorporated Impact Impact a. Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial ❑ ❑ ❑ physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b. Does the project include recreational.facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an E] El El ® c adverse physical effect on the environment? LO Discussion a. C9 a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other LO recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur CO or be accelerated?No Impact. t= The project proposes a lot consolidation and development of an industrial center facility. m Implementation of the proposed project would not generate an increase in demand on existing public or private parks or other recreational facilities that would either result in or increase physical deterioration of the facility. Thus, no impact would result from the 0) proposed project. U (L b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? No Impact. s Implementation of the proposed project would not include recreational facilities, nor would it require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an Q adverse physical effect on the environment. Thus, no impact would result from the proposed = m project. E L) Cumulative Impacts Q The proposed project would not result in an increased use of recreational facilities or require construction or expansion of existing recreational facilities. Therefore, no cumulative impacts on recreational facilities would result from project implementation. Waterman Industrial Center Initial Study 160 Packet Pg.719 16. Transportation/Traffic Less Than Significant Potentially with Less than Significant Mitigation Significant No Issues Impact Incorporated Impact Impact Would the project: a. Conflict with an applicable plan,ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system,taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non-motorized travel and relevant ❑ ® ❑ ❑ components of the circulation system,including but not limited to intersections,streets, highways and N freeways,pedestrian and bicycle paths,and mass o transit? 'n b. Conflict with an applicable congestion management Q. program, including, but not limited to level of service t9 standards and travel demand measures,or other standards established by the county congestion ❑ ❑ ® ❑ 00 management agency for designated roads or highways? ' c. Result in a change in air traffic patterns,including 0 G. either an increase in traffic levels or a change in ❑ ❑ ❑ ® W location that results in substantial safety risks? d. Substantially increase hazards due to a design N feature(e.g.,sharp curves or dangerous intersections)or incompatible uses(e.g.,farm ❑ ❑ ❑ ® a equipment)? v e. Result in inadequate emergency access? ❑ ❑ ❑ ® c W f. Conflict with adopted policies,plans,or programs E regarding public transit,bicycle,or pedestrian ❑ ❑ El ® t U facilities,or otherwise decrease the performance or U safety of such facilities? Q .r c A Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) and Addendum were prepared by Kunzman Associates (September 2015) to assess the potential traffic impacts of the proposed project. The TIA Addendum evaluated the additional right-in/right-out driveway on South Waterman Avenue (Alternative A). With the exception of the additional right-in/right-out driveway on South Q Waterman Avenue, the two alternatives are the same; therefore, any analysis specific to the additional driveway is noted as Alternative A in this section. The findings of the TIA and Addendum are summarized in this Initial Study; the TIA and Addendum are provided as Appendix F. Discussion a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non-motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit? Less Than Significant With le Mitigation Incorporated. Waterman Industrial Center Initial Study l 61 Packet Pg. 720 6.B.h The traffic study methodology and traffic study area were defined by the City and Kunzman Associates. The traffic study area includes seven intersections as identified below. • E Street and Orange Show Road • Washington Avenue at Orange Show Road • Waterman Avenue at Orange Show Road • Waterman Avenue at Dumas Street • Waterman Avenue at Park Center Circle North • Waterman Avenue at Park Center Circle South • Waterman Avenue at Vanderbilt Way Morning and evening peak hour traffic conditions were analyzed for the following scenarios: N 0 • Existing Conditions (2015) 'O • Existing Plus Project a • Existing Plus Ambient Growth (2017) LO 00 • Opening Year(2017) Without and With Project • Horizon Year (2035)Without and With Project o CL a� Intersection operations were evaluated using the Intersection Delay Method based on the Highway Capacity Manual - Transportation Research Board Special Report 209. To calculate delay, the volume of traffic using the intersection is compared with the capacity of Cn the intersection. a Significance Criteria d The City of San Bernardino General Plan states that peak hour intersection operations of t LOS D or better are generally acceptable. Therefore, any intersection operating Level of 0 m Service E to F will be considered deficient. For freeway facilities, the definition of deficiency a is based on maintaining a level of service standard of LOS E or better, except where an existing LOS F condition is identified. A deficiency is, therefore, defined as any freeway segment operating or projected to operate at LOS F, unless the segment is currently E identified. Based on the City of San Bernardino Development Services Department, Traffic Impact Q Study Guidelines (2015), the impact is considered significant if the project-related increase in the V/C ratio equals or exceeds the thresholds shown below: Significant Impact Threshold for Intersections Level of Service Volume/Capacity Incremental Increase C 0.71-0.80 0.04 or more D 0.81-0.90 0.02 or more E/F 0.91-more 0.01 or more 0 Waterman Industrial Center Initial Study 162 Packet Pg. 721 s.B.n An intersection mitigation measure shall either fix the deficiency, or reduce the V/C ratio so that it is below the level that occurs without the project. A traffic impact is considered significant if the project both (1) contributes measurable traffic to and (2) substantially and adversely changes the level of service at any off-site location projected to experience deficient operations under foreseeable cumulative conditions, where feasible improvements consistent with the City of San Bernardino General Plan cannot be constructed. Existing Conditions Morning and evening traffic counts were conducted to determine existing intersection traffic conditions. In addition, truck classification counts were conducted at the study area intersections. The existing volumes and types of trucks (number of axles) were used in the conversion of trucks to Passenger Car Equivalents (PCEs). The following conversion rates were used: 2-axle trucks = 2.0 cars; 3-axle trucks = 2.5 cars; and 4+ axle trucks = 3.0 cars. Existing traffic conditions in the study area are identified in Table 12. As identified in the table, all traffic study area intersections are currently operating at acceptable levels of c service (LOS D or better) in both the AM and PM peak hours. LO cv Table 12: Existing Conditions LO Peak Hour 00 Traffic Morning Evening Intersection Jurisdiction Control2 Delay3 LOS" V/C^ Delay3 LOS4 V/C° Q a� E St(NS)at: Orange Show Rd (EW)-#1 City of SB TS 29.4 C 0.377 36.6 D 0.557 1° Washington Ave(NS)at: a Orange Show Rd (EW)-#2 City of SB TS 10.2 B 0.677 10.9 B 0.759 Waterman Ave(NS)at: E Orange Show Rd (EW)-#5 City of SB TS 28.1 C 0.443 31.9 C 0.694 -� v Dumas St(EW)-#6 City of SB CSS 15.6 C N/A 27.8 D N/A Q Park Center Circle N (EW)- #7 City of SB CSS 14.8 B N/A 14.1 B N/A y Park Center Circle S(EW)- t #8 City of SB TS 11.6 B 0.763 13.6 B 0.926 Z Vanderbilt Way(EW)-#9 City of SB TS 22.0 C 0.577 18.6 B 0.434 Q 1 When a right turn lane is designated,the lane can either be striped or unstriped.To function as a right turn lane there must be sufficient width for right turning vehicles to travel outside the through lanes.L=Left;T=Through;R= Right;>=Right Turn Overlap;d=De facto Right Turn. 2 TS=Traffic Signal;CSS=Cross Street Stop 3 Delay,level of service(LOS)and volume to capacity ratio(V/C)has been calculated using the following analysis software:Traffix,Version 7.9.0215(2008).Per the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual,overall average intersection delay and level of service are shown for intersections with traffic signal or all way stop control. For intersections with cross street stop control,the delay and level of service for the worst individual movement(or movements sharing a single lane)are shown. 4 LOS=Level of Service;V/C=Volume to Capacity Waterman Industrial Center Initial Study l 63 Packet Pg.722 6.B.h Project Trip Generation Daily and peak hour trips were estimated for the proposed project. Trip generation estimates are based on the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual (9th Edition)trip generation rates for High-Cube Warehouse, and the City of Fontana Truck Trip Generation Study (August 2003). Trip generation rates, PCE factors, and the resulting trip generation estimates are identified in Table 13. At build-out of the development, the proposed project is estimated to generate approximately 1,282 PCE vehicle trips on a daily basis, with 87 trips in the morning peak hour and 95 trips in the evening peak hour. Table 13: Project Trip Generation Type of Vehicle Passenger 2 Axle 3 Axle 4+Axle Total Descriptor Quantity UnitS2 Car Truck Truck Truck Trucks Total c Land Use:High-Cube Warehouse 564.652 TSF 79.57% 3.46% 4.64% 12.33% 1 20.43% 100% Traffic Generation Rates in trips per TSF Q- 0 Daily 1.337 0.058 0.078 0.207 0.343 1.68 •- LO Morning Peak Hour 0.088 0.004 0.005 0.014 0.023 0.11 00 Evening Peak Hour 0.096 0.004 0.006 0.015 0.025 0.12 Traffic Generation in Vehicles 0 0 Daily 755 33 44 117 194 949 Morning Peak Hour Inbound 36 2 2 6 10 46 f° Outbound 13 1 1 2 4 17 V Total 49 3 3 8 14 63 Evening Peak Hour Inbound 18 1 1 3 5 23 y Outbound 36 2 2 6 10 46 .c Total 1 1 154 13 13 19 1 15 169 y w Passenger Car Equivalents(PCEs)Factor' Q 1.00 2.00 2.50 3.00 1 m Traffic Generation in PCEs E t Daily 755 66 110 351 527 1,282 0 Morning Peak Hour Q Inbound 36 4 5 18 27 63 Outbound 13 2 3 6 11 24 Total 49 6 8 24 38 87 Evening Peak Hour Inbound 18 2 3 9 14 32 Outbound 36 4 5 18 27 63 Total 1 1 54 6 8 1 27 41 95 1 Source:Institute of Transportation Engineers,Trip Generation,9th Edition,2012,Land Use Category 150 and City of Fontana,Truck Trip Generation Study, August 2003. 2 TSF=Thousand Square Feet 3 Source:City of San Bernardino Development Services Department,Traffic Impact Study Guidelines,June 2015. Waterman Industrial Center Initial Study 164 Packet Pg.723 6.B.h Existing Plus Project This section addresses the impacts associated with adding project-related trips to Existing Conditions traffic volumes. The Existing Plus Project scenario is a hypothetical scenario, which assumes that the proposed project would be fully implemented at the present time, with no other changes to area traffic volumes or to the street network serving the site. This analysis assumes full development of the project and full absorption of project traffic on the circulation system at the present time. Project-related trips were added to existing traffic volumes to forecast Existing Plus Project conditions. A summary of the resulting intersection levels of service is provided in Table 14. Table 14 shows that all study intersections would continue to operate at a LOS D or better under this scenario, with the exception of the following intersection: • Waterman Avenue at Park Center Circle N -#7 Table 14: Existing Plus Project c W) Existing Existing Plus Project `- Peak Project Significant Q- Intersection Hour Delay LOS V/C Delay LOS V/C Impact Impact? E St(NS)at: Morning 29.4 C 0.377 29.4 C 0.385 +0.008 No 000 Orange Show Rd(EW)-#1 Evening 36.6 D 0.557 36.8 D 0.561 +0.004 No Washington Ave(NS)at: Morning 10.2 B 0.677 10.4 B 0.681 +0.004 No 0 0 Orange Show Rd(EW)-#2 Evening 10.9 B 0.759 11.1 B 0.761 +0.002 No Project West Access(NS)at: Morning 0.0 0.0 N/A 8.8 A N/A N/A No Dumas St(EW)-#3 Evening 0.0 0.0 N/A 8.9 A N/A N/A No Project East Access(NS)at: Morning 0.0 0.0 N/A 8.4 A N/A N/A No a Dumas St(EW)-#4 Evening 0.0 0.0 N/A 8.4 A N/A N/A No Waterman Ave(NS)at: Morning 28.1 C 0.443 28.2 C 0.444 +0.001 No Orange Show Rd (EW)-#5 Evening 31.9 C 0.694 32.6 C 0.702 +0.008 No d E Waterman Ave(NS)at: Morning 15.6 C N/A 15.0 C N/A N/A No Dumas St(EW)-#6 Evening 27.8 D N/A 22.8 C N/A N/A No Waterman Ave(NS)at: Morning 14.8 B N/A 46.3 E N/A N/A YES Q Park Center Circle N (EW)-#7 Evening 14.1 B N/A 83.9 F N/A N/A YES = m Waterman Ave(NS)at: Morning 11.6 B 0.763 11.6 B 0.926 +0.163 No E Park Center Circle S(EW)-#8 Evening 13.6 B 0.926 13.6 B 0.926 +0.000 No Waterman Ave(NS)at: Morning 22.0 C 0.577 22.0 C 0.577 +0.000 No Q Vanderbilt Way(EW)-#9 Evening 18.6 B 0.434 18.6 B 0.437 +0.003 No Alt A:Waterman Ave(NS) Project South Access(EW)- Morning 0.0 0.0 N/A 11.4 B N/A N/A No Evening 0.0 0.0 N/A 13.1 B N/A N/A No #10 LOS:Level of Service;V/C: Volume-to-Capacity Ratio Source:Kunzman Associates Waterman Industrial Center initial Study l 65 Packet Pg. 724 rrrlw .rrr ,g Existing Plus Ambient Growth (2017) The Existing Plus Ambient Growth (2017) delay and Level of Service for the study area roadway network without other development or the proposed project are shown in Table 15. As shown in the table, study area intersections are forecast to operate at an acceptable levels of service during the morning and evening peak hours. Under this scenario, a traffic signal is projected to be warranted at the following study area intersection: • Waterman Avenue at Park Center Circle N-#7 Table 15: Existing Plus Ambient Growth Peak Hour Traffic Morning Evening Intersection Control Delay LOS V/C Delay LOS V/C N E St(NS)at: ° Orange Show Rd (EW)-#1 TS 29.6 C 0.388 37.1 D 0.567 T" R Washington Ave(NS)at: a Orange Show Rd (EW)-#2 TS 10.3 B 0.682 11.2 B 0.762 LO Waterman Ave(NS)at: 00 Nt Orange Show Rd(EW)-#5 TS 28.3 C 0.452 32.7 C 0.706 Dumas St(EW)-#6 CSS 23.1 C N/A 29.4 D N/A C Park Center Circle N (EW)-#7 m Without Improvements CSS 14.0 B N/A 14.8 B N/A With Improvements TS 9.1 A 0.309 7.3 A 0.283 Park Center Circle S(EW)-#8 TS 11.7 B 0.926 13.8 B 0.978 N U Vanderbilt Way(EW)-#9 TS 22.2 C 1 0.587 1 19.0 1 B 0.450 a Source:Kunzman Associates,2015 Z Z C E t Q r Q r E V .Id Y Q Waterman Industrial Center Initial Study l 66 Packet Pg.725 6.B.h Opening Year(2017) Opening Year Without Project. To assess Opening Year (2017) traffic conditions, existing traffic is combined with ambient growth, and other development traffic. Opening Year 2017 traffic volumes have been interpolated from the Year 2035 traffic volumes based upon a proportion of the future growth increment from the San Bernardino Transportation Analysis Model (SBTAM) traffic model Year 2008 and Year 2035 average daily traffic volume forecasts. Study area intersections are forecast to operate at acceptable levels of service during the peak hours without and with improvements. Opening Year (2017) With Project. Project traffic was added to the Opening Year traffic conditions to evaluate the project's contribution to study area intersections. Table 16 identifies that the study area intersections are forecast to operate at acceptable levels of service during the peak hours, except for the following intersection: • Waterman Avenue at Park Center Circle N -#7 N Measures are available to mitigate the impact to this intersection to a less than significant C LO level. r c� CL Table 16: Opening Year With Project LO 00 Without Project With Project Peak Project Significant t 0 Intersection Hour Delay LOS V/C Delay LOS V/C Impact Impact75 m E St(NS)at: Morning 29.8 C 0.411 29.8 C 0.419 +0.008 No Orange Show Rd (EW)-#1 Evening 38.4 D 0.582 38.7 D 0.586 1 +0.004 No Cn Washington Ave(NS)at: Morning 10.3 B 0.700 10.5 B 0.704 +0.004 No a Orange Show Rd(EW)-#2 Evening 11.1 B 0.771 11.4 B 0.773 +0.002 No .r Project West Access(NS)at: Morning 0.0 0.0 N/A 8.8 A N/A N/A No Dumas St(EW)-#3 Evening 0.0 0.0 N/A 8.9 A N/A N/A No E s Project East Access(NS)at: Morning 0.0 0.0 N/A 8.4 A N/A N/A No y Dumas St(EW)-#4 Evening 0.0 0.0 N/A 8.4 A N/A N/A No Q Waterman Ave(NS)at: Morning 28.3 C 0.452 28.6 C 0.459 +0.007 No = m Orange Show Rd(EW)-#5 Evening 34.6 C 0.750 35.5 D 0.762 +0.012 No t Waterman Ave(NS)at: Morning 16.6 C N/A 15.8 C N/A N/A No Dumas St(EW)-#6 Evening 32.6 D N/A 26.1 D N/A N/A No Q Waterman Ave(NS)at: Morning 14.8 B N/A 57.7 F N/A N/A YES Park Center Circle N (EW)-#7 Evening 15.4 B N/A 99.9 F N/A N/A YES Waterman Ave(NS)at: Morning 11.6 B 0.837 11.6 B 0.876 +0.039 No Park Center Circle S(EW)-#8 Evening 14.0 B 0.936 14.0 B 0.943 +0.007 No Waterman Ave(NS)at: Morning 22.5 C 0.608 22.5 C 0.608 +0.000 No Vanderbilt Way(EW)-#9 Evening 19.2 B 0.470 19.2 B 0.473 +0.003 No Alt A:Waterman Ave(NS)at: Project South Access(EW)- 0.0 0.0 N/A 11.8 B N/A N/A No #10 Morning 0.0 1 0.0 N/A 13.8 B N/A N/A No Source:Kunzman,2015 Waterman Industrial Center Initial Study l 67 Packet Pg.726 I +fir: Of 6.B.h Year(2035) Year 2035 Without Project. To assess Year 2035 traffic conditions, the Year 2035 Without Project daily and peak hour directional roadway segment volume forecasts have been determined using the growth increment approach on the SBTAM traffic model Year 2008 and Year 2035 peak hour volumes. This difference defines the growth in traffic over the 27- year period. Study area intersections are forecast to operate at acceptable levels of service during the peak hours without and with improvements. Year 2035 With Project. Project traffic was added to the Year 2035 traffic conditions to evaluate the project's contribution to study area intersections. Table 17 identifies that the study area intersections are forecast to operate at acceptable levels of service during the peak hours, except for the following intersection: • Waterman Avenue at Park Center Circle N -#7 N Measures are available to mitigate the impact to this intersection to a less than significant level. 9 R Table 17:Year 2035 Without and With Project a LO 00 Without Project With Project Peak Project Significant Intersection Hour Delay LOS V/C Delay LOS V/C Impact Impact? Q. m E St(NS)at: Morning 32.1 C 0.459 32.4 C 0.466 +0.007 No Orange Show Rd (EW)-#1 Evening 40.8 D 0.606 41.3 D 0.609 +0.003 No R w Washington Ave(NS)at: Morning 7.3 A 0.851 8.3 A 0.952 +0.101 No Cn U Orange Show Rd (EW)-#2 Evening 10.6 B 0.962 10.7 B 0.964 +0.002 No G. Project West Access(NS)at: Morning 0.0 0.0 N/A 8.7 A N/A N/A No Dumas St(EW)-#3 Evening 0.0 0.0 N/A 8.8 A N/A N/A No Project East Access(NS)at: Morning 0.0 0.0 N/A 8.4 A N/A N/A No s Dumas St(EW)-#4 Evening 0.0 0.0 N/A 8.4 A N/A N/A No r Waterman Ave(NS)at: Morning 29.4 C 0.493 29.6 C 0.498 +0.005 No Q Orange Show Rd (EW)-#5 Evening 37.1 D 0.776 37.9 D 0.784 +0.008 No Waterman Ave(NS)at: Morning 17.2 C N/A 16.6 C N/A N/A No Dumas St(EW)-#6 Evening 23.0 C N/A 20.8 C N/A N/A No Waterman Ave(NS)at: Morning 14.8 B N/A 69.0 F N/A N/A YES R Park Center Circle N (EW)-#7 Evening 19.3 C N/A 99.9 F N/A N/A YES Q Waterman Ave(NS)at: Morning 7.7 A 0.837 8.4 A 0.926 +0.089 No Park Center Circle S(EW)-#8 Evening 11.3 B 0.966 11.3 B 0.972 +0.006 No Waterman Ave(NS)at: Morning 23.4 C 0.624 23.4 C 0.624 +0.000 No Vanderbilt Way(EW)-#9 Evening 19.8 B 0.539 19.8 B 1 0.542 +0.003 1 No Alt A:Waterman Ave(NS)at: Morning 0.0 0.0 N/A 12.4 C N/A N/A No Project South Access(EW)- Evening 0.0 0.0 N/A 15.2 C N/A N/A No #10 Source:Kunzman,2015. lu Waterman Industrial Center Initial Study 168 Packet Pg.727 Mitigation Measures TRAF-1 Install traffic signal at Waterman Avenue and Park Center Circle North. The traffic signals within the study area should include an interconnection of the traffic signals to function in a coordinated system. TRAF-2 As mitigation for the potential traffic impacts, the proposed project shall contribute through local and regional adopted traffic impact fee programs in addition to any fair share contributions shown within the traffic study which is not covered within these fee programs. b) Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion/management agency for designated roads or highways? Less Than Significant Impact. The purpose of the Congestion Management Program (CMP) is to develop a coordinated c LO approach to managing and decreasing traffic congestion by linking the various transportation, land use, and air quality planning programs throughout the County, a consistent with that of SANBAG. The CMP requires review of substantial individual projects, which might on their own impact the CMP transportation system. Specifically, the CMP UO Traffic Impact Analysis measures impacts of a project on the CMP Highway System. Compliance with the CMP requirements ensures a city's eligibility to compete for State gas tax funds for local transportation projects. a as The CMP requires that a Traffic Impact Analysis must include analysis of any CMP arterial monitoring intersection where the proposed project will add 50 or more trips during either the AM or PM weekday peak hour; and any freeway monitoring location where the project CO will not add 150 or more trips, in either direction, during either the AM or PM peak hour. The a. proposed project would not add 50 or more trips during either the AM or PM weekday peak hour to a designated CMP intersection; and would not add 150 or more trips to any freeway = mainline location, in either direction, during either the AM or PM peak hour. Therefore, the proposed project would not exceed a level of service standard established by the CMP for designated roads or highways. Q c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks?No Impact. The proposed project would not include any aviation components or structures where height would be an aviation concern. No associated traffic impacts would occur. Q d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?No Impact. The proposed project does not involve any changes that would create new potentially hazardous conditions or incompatible uses in the project vicinity. Therefore, no impacts are anticipated. e) Result in inadequate emergency access?No Impact. Under Alternative A, the proposed project would provide two access points from Waterman Avenue and two points of access from Dumas Street. Alternative B would provide two access points from Dumas Street and one access point from Waterman Avenue. Constructed roadways and driveways are required to meet access standards of the San Waterman Industrial Center Initial Study l 69 Packet Pg. 728 6.B.h Bernardino City Fire Department. Compliance with the Fire Department requirements would ensure impacts remain less than significant. f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities? No Impact. The proposed project has been designed to be consistent with local policies, plans, and programs supporting alternative transportation. The main alternative transportation modes available to the project would be bus transit and bicycle access. Transit service is provided by Omnitrans; Transit Route 5 operates on Waterman Avenue, and Transit Routes 2 and 15 operate on E Street. Sidewalks would be provided along the project frontages. The project would not conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding alternative modes of transportation. No impact would result. Cumulative Impacts o The TIA and Addendum address both the project-specific and the project's contribution to cumulative impacts. The project would have a significant impact to the intersection of Waterman Avenue at Park Center Circle North; this impact can be mitigated to a less than significant level. CO 0 CL m CO M CO U a r c E a w E R Q 1 Waterman Industrial Center Initial Study l 70 Packet Pg. 729 6.B.h 17. Utilities and Service Systems Less Than Significant Potentially with Less than Significant Mitigation Significant No Issues Impact Incorporated Impact Impact Would the project: a.Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the El F-1 ® F-1 applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? b.Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of ❑ ❑ ❑ existing facilities,the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? N c. Require or result in the construction of new storm o water drainage facilities or expansion of existing El El El ® 'n facilities,the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? Q' (9 d.Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the " project from existing entitlements and resources,or El El ® El 0 are new or expanded entitlements needed? e.Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the O CL project that it has adequate capacity to serve the ❑ ❑ ® ❑ project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? f. Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted U) capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste ❑ El El a disposal needs? ' g.Comply with federal,State,and local statutes and ❑ ❑ ® ❑ regulations related to solid waste? d E z Discussion r a a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board?Less Than Significant Impact. The San Bernardino Municipal Water Department (SBMWD) treats, and disposes of all of the City's sewage at the San Bernardino Water Reclamation Plant and the Rapid Infiltration Q and Extraction. The SBMWD is permitted to treat 40 million gallons per a day (MGD). The average daily flow is 22 MGD6. Sanitary sewer lines that serve the project site are maintained by the City of San Bernardino and are already in place to serve the proposed project. 6 Written correspondence from Michael Nevarez,Associate Engineer,San Bernardino Municipal Water Department provided on 10/07/15. Waterman Industrial Center Initial Study 171 Packet Pg. 730 6.B.h eSince the City's wastewater treatment facilities are operating below the permitted capacity of 40 MGD, it is anticipated that wastewater generated by the proposed project would not result in an exceedance of any wastewater treatment requirements of the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). Impacts would be considered less than significant. b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects?No Impact. Sewer and water lines are already in place to serve the project, and expansion of existing facilities or construction of new wastewater treatment facilities would not be needed for implementation of the proposed project. Therefore,there would be no impact. c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? No Impact. r Off-site street improvements for the proposed project would include curbs, gutters, and a sidewalks on the south side of Dumas Street and the relocation of one storm drain inlet to outside of a proposed driveway on Waterman Avenue. Potential environmental impacts from to the off-site improvements are analyzed as part of this Initial Study. According to the Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) prepared for this project, a few landscaped areas would " have vegetated swales which would connect to the nearest curb inlet within the adjacent o CL parking lot. Through a series of curb inlets and grated inlets, storm water would be collected on site and discharged into one of two underground infiltration basins. These two basins • would be the primary treatment method for the project site and are sized to contain the 100-year storm event. U A The project would not require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage v facilities or the expansion of existing facilities. No impacts would result. d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and E resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed?Less Than Significant Impact. .r The City of San Bernardino Municipal Water Department (SBMWD) provides domestic water Q r for the City and the unincorporated areas of San Bernardino. Buildout of the project site was anticipated in the City's General Plan and General Plan EIR and was planned for in the s 2010 San Bernardino Valley Regional Urban Water Management Plan8. The City's General L) Plan land use designations for the project site are Industrial and Open Space. However, Q there is currently a golf course driving range on the land designated as open space. The Project proposes to develop the driving range only; the golf course will remain. The project proposes the entire project site be an industrial land use designation under the General Plan. Since the project would not change the land use designation in the General Plan to a more water intensive use, it would not increase the demand for water supplies on the project site beyond what has been planned for. Therefore, impacts are considered less than significant in this regard. City of San Bernardino General Plan.Utility Element,Page 9-10.November 2005. 8 Kennedy/Jenks Consultants.2010 San Bernardino Valley Regional Urban Water Management Plan.2010 as amended September 2012. Waterman Industrial Center Initial Study 172 Packet Pg. 731 6.B.h On April 1, 2015, Governor Brown issued Executive Order B-29-15. Key provisions include ordering the State Water Resources Control Board to impose restrictions to achieve a 25 percent reduction in potable urban water usage through February 28, 2016; directing the California Department of Water Resources to lead a statewide initiative, in partnership with local agencies, to collectively replace 50 million square feet of lawns and ornamental turf with drought tolerant landscapes; and directing the California Energy Commission to implement a statewide appliance rebate program to provide monetary incentives for the replacement of inefficient household devices. Approval of the Project will not preclude the City from complying with this Executive Order. e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments?Less Than Significant Impact. Refer to response V.17(a) and (b) above. The wastewater infrastructure needed to serve the project site is already in place, and the City's wastewater facilities have adequate capacity N 0 to serve the project's demand. Impacts would be less than significant in this regard. LO M f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid Q- c� waste disposal needs?Less Than Significant Impact. LO 00 The City of San Bernardino Refuse and Recycling Division provides collection services to residential and commercial customers for refuse, recyclables, and green waste9. The City utilizes Materials Recovery Facilities (MRF) to manage collected waste and recyclables. The a Burrtec Waste Industries, Inc. East Valley Transfer and Recycling MRF has the expansion capability to accommodate up to 10,000 tons per day. It is not anticipated that the proposed project would affect existing facilities and cause the need to construct a new faci I ity10. v a The Mid-Valley Sanitary Landfill, which serves the Valley region of San Bernardino County, has remaining capacity and is anticipated to remain open until 203311. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. E s U g) Comply with federal, State, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? Less ;? Than Significant Impact. a c Refer to response V.17(f) above. The Mid-Valley Landfill is a facility that has been constructed to meet all required local, State, and federal rules and regulations. The proposed project would not compromise the City's compliance with federal, State and local ;o statues and regulations related to solid waste. Impacts would be less than significant in this Q regard. 9 City of San Bernardino website,"Public Works—Integrated Waste Management Division."Accessed 12/11/15. http://www.ci.san-bernardino.ca.us/cityhall/publicworks/integrated_waste_management_division/default.asp. io Written correspondence from Gracie Johnson,Integrated Waste Field Inspector,City of San Bernardino provided on 10/21/15. " CalRecycle website,"Facility/Site Summary Details: Mid-Valley Sanitary Landfill(36-AA-0055)."Accessed 12/11/15. http://www.ca Irecycle.ca.gov/SW Facilities/Directory/36-AA-0055/Detail/. Waterman Industrial Center Initial Study l 73 Packet Pg. 732 6.B.h • Cumulative Impacts The proposed project would have a less than significant impact with respect to utilities/service systems. The proposed project would require water and wastewater infrastructure, as well as solid waste disposal for building facility operation. Development of public utility infrastructure is part of an extensive planning process involving utility providers and jurisdictions with discretionary review authority. The coordination process associated with the preparation of development and infrastructure plans is intended to ensure that adequate resources are available to serve both individual projects and cumulative demand for resources and infrastructure as a result of cumulative growth and development in the area. Each individual project is subject to review for utility capacity to avoid unanticipated interruptions in service or inadequate supplies. Coordination with the utility companies would allow for the provision of utility service to the proposed project and other developments. The proposed project and other planned projects are subject to connection and service fees to assist in facility expansion and service improvements triggered by an increase in demand. Because of the utility planning and coordination activities described above, no significant cumulative utility impacts are anticipated. o to CL CO a CL m ca U a. v c d E U .r 4 w c m E ca Q Waterman Industrial Center Initial Study 174 Packet Pg.733 6.B.h 18. Mandatory Findings of Significance Less Than Potentially Significant Less than Significant with Mitigation Significant No Issues Impact Incorporated Impact Impact Would the project: 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 important examples of the major c periods of California history or prehistory? u� b. Does the project have impacts that are individually a limited,but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable"means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable El ® El ❑ `n when viewed in connection with the effects of past 1* projects,the effects of other current projects,and ' the effects of probable future projects)?p 0 CL c. Does the project have environmental effects m a) which will cause substantial adverse effects on ❑ ❑ ® ❑ human beings,either directly or indirectly? R Discussion a a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially 1' reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop m below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the s number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? Less Than Significant Q Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. r d As described throughout the analysis above, the proposed project would not result in any = significant impacts to the environment that cannot be mitigated to a less than significant U level through the application of uniformly applied development policies and/or standards. Q The proposed project would be required to implement a range of standard and uniformly applied development policies and standards, as well as implement mitigation measures identified in the analysis herein, which would reduce impacts to a less than significant level. b) Does the project have impacts which are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable (Cumulatively considerable means the projects incremental effects are considerable when compared to the past, present, and future effects of other projects)? Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. The proposed project would result in significant impacts in the following areas: biological resources, cultural resources, geology/soils, greenhouse gas emissions, noise and transportation/traffic. A Mitigation Program has been prepared for each of these 40 environmental issue areas in order to reduce impacts to less than significant levels. Waterman Industrial Center Initial Study l 75 Packet Pg. 734 i 6.B.h Standard conditions would also be imposed upon the project. Other new development projects within the City would also be subject to these requirements. All other impacts of the project were determined either to have no impact or to be less than significant, without the need for mitigation. Cumulatively, the proposed project would not result in any significant impacts that would substantially combine with impacts of other current or probable future impacts. Therefore, the proposed project, in conjunction with other future projects, would not result in any cumulatively considerable impacts. c) Does the project have environmental effects which will have substantial adverse effects on human beings, directly or indirectly?Less Than Significant Impact. As discussed in the respective sections, the proposed project would have no potentially significant impacts. Therefore, impacts related to adverse effects on human beings would be less than significant. N O LO T M 'Q. V Lo 00 Y L 0 CL NN� 1.1. V/ U d �t c N E t U l6 Q C d E U Q Waterman Industrial Center Initial Study l 76 Packet Pg.735 6.B.h. VII . Preparers City of San Bernardino(Lead Agency) 300 North D Street San Bernardino, CA 92418 Travis Martin,Assistant Planner Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. 401 B Street,Suite 600 San Diego, California 92101 (619)234-9411 Karina Fidler,AICP, Project Manager N 0 LO VIII. References c� Arcadis, Draft Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Report 173, 175, 225, 231, 243, 263, 275, LO &285 E. Dumas Street, April 9, 2015 O0 v ASM Affiliates, Cultural Resource Study Findings Memo for Waterman Industrial Center, December c 17, 2015. C ASM Affiliates, Cultural Resource Study Findings Memo for Waterman Industrial Center, February 16, r_ 2016. U° U California Department of Transportation. Official Designated Scenic Highways. Available at: a http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LandArch/scenic-highways/index.htm. Accessed December 2, 2015. �* c California, State of, Department of Toxic Substances Control, DTSC's Hazardous Waste and Substances Site List-Site Cleanup (Cortese List). Available at: v http://www.dtsc.ca.gov/SiteCleanup/Cortese_List.cfm.Accessed: August 21, 2015. `6 w Q CalRecycle website, "Facility/Site Summary Details: Mid-Valley Sanitary Landfill (36-AA-0055)." Accessed 12/11/15. http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/SWFacilities/Directory/36-AA-0055/Detail/. E City of San Bernardino. General Plan. November 2005. Q City of San Bernardino website, "Public Works - Integrated Waste Management Division." Accessed 12/11/15. www.ci.san- bernardino.ca.us/cityhall/publicworks/integrated_waste_management_division/default.asp. ENVIRON, CalEEMod Model,Version 2013.2.2. November. Kennedy/Jenks Consultants. 2010 San Bernardino Valley Regional Urban Water Management Plan. 2010 as amended 2012. Kimley-Horn and Associates, Preliminary Drainage Report for Waterman Industrial Center, September 2015 Kimley-Horn and Associates, Water Quality Management Plan for Waterman Industrial Center, October 2015. Waterman Industrial Center Initial Study 1 77 Packet Pg.736 s.B.n Kunzman Associates,Air Quality, Global Climate Change, and Health Risk Assessment Impact Analysis for Waterman Industrial Center, January 15, 2016. Kunzman Associates,Air Quality, Global Climate Change, and Health Risk Assessment Impact Analysis for Waterman Industrial Center(Revised), March 24, 2016. . Kunzman Associates, Noise Impact Analysis for Waterman Industrial Center, October 1, 2015. Kunzman Associates, Traffic Impact Analysis for Waterman Industrial Center, September 9, 2015. Kunzman Associates, Traffic Impact Analysis Addendum for Waterman Industrial Center, September 28, 2015. Kunzman Associates, Traffic Impact Analysis for Waterman Industrial Center(Revised),April 22, 2016. Newcastle Partners, Inc., Geotechnical Engineering Investigation for the Waterman Industrial Center, o April 30, 2015. Rocks Biological Consulting, Biological Constraints Analysis for Waterman Industrial Center, CL December 1, 2015. LO co v Written correspondence from Dan Harker,Acting Deputy Fire Chief, San Bernardino City Fire 7!' Department provided on 9/30/15. o CL Written correspondence from Gracie Johnson, Integrated Waste Field Inspector, City of San Bernardino provided on 10/21/15. M Written correspondence from Lieutenant Rich Lawhead, Community Affairs/PIO/Community Policing, 0 U Narcotics Division Commander, City of San Bernardino Police Department provided on 10/12/15. a. v Written correspondence from Michael Nevarez, Associate Engineer, San Bernardino Municipal Water Department provided on 10/07/15. E E v d c m E Q Waterman Industrial Center Initial Study l 78 Packet Pg.737 s.B.n • ATTACHMENT E Response to Comments on Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration N O LO t0 Q LA CO cl' d' O Q d ca t4 U a v U Q C N E t U y Q Packet Pg. 738 6.B.h Response to Comments This document includes a reproduction of, and responses to, comments received during the Draft IS/MND public review period. Comments are presented in their original format (attached), along with annotations that identify each comment letter. Responses to those individual comments are provided in this document alongside the text of each corresponding comment. Comment letters are categorized by: ■ Written Comments: •State Agencies • Regional Agencies • Local Agencies • Organizations o •General Public T M CL Where the same comment has been made more than once, a response may direct the reader to an 0 earlier numbered comment and response so as to avoid repetition. Where a response requires Ln revisions to the Draft IS/MND,the revisions are explained here and shown in Final IS/MND. t 0 CL w U a c E U c a� E U lB Q Waterman Industrial Center Initial Study Response to Comments I Packet Pg. 739 This page intentionally left blank o LO CL C7 LO 00 L Q LL v/ U a v c a� E 4 C a) E U tYf w+ Waterman Industrial Center Initial Study Response to Comments 2 Packet Pg.740 (ZO-5 I• ed0 : S8trti) :podatl jje;S Od- V 4u8ua43eUV 4u8uay3e14V $ 00 DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE CHARLTON H.BONHAM,Director co Inland Deserts Region o°f 3602 Inland Empire Blvd., Suite C-220 Ontario, CA 91764 v (909)484-0459 a www.wildlife.ca.gov February 26, 2015 Travis Martin, Assistant Planner City of San Bernardino Planning Department 300 North D Street— 3rd Floor San Bernardino, CA 92418 Subject: Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Waterman Industrial Center Project SCH No. 2016021002 Dear Mr. Martin: The Department of Fish and Wildlife (Department) appreciates the opportunity to comment on the Initial Study(IS) and Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for the Waterman Industrial Center Project (project) [SCH No. 20160210021. The Department is responding to the IS and MND as a Trustee Agency for fish and wildlife resources (California Fish and Game Code Sections 711.7 and 1802, and the California Environmental Quality Act [CEQA] Guidelines Section 15386), and as a Responsible Agency regarding any discretionary actions (CEQA Guidelines Section 15381), such as the issuance of a Lake or Streambed Alteration Agreement (California Fish and Game Code Sections 1600 et seq.) and/or a California Endangered Species Act (CESA) Permit for Incidental Take of Endangered, Threatened, and/or Candidate species (California Fish and Game Code Sections 2080 and 2080.1). The approximately 26-acre project site is located on the southwest corner of the intersection of East Dumas Street and South Waterman Avenue, north of Park Center Drive, and east of South Washington Avenue, within the City of San Bernardino, San Bernardino County, California. The Project proposes to develop a 564,652 square foot industrial building with office space, parking, a pump house, and landscaping. The site is anticipated to include 103,585 square feet of landscaping, with a stormwater detention basin in the southwest corner. Roadway frontage improvements are proposed for South Waterman Avenue and East Dumas Street. Five of the eight existing Southern California Edison (SCE) power poles on the site are proposed to be relocated to allow for the roadway _ improvements. Conserving Caffornin's Wifdffe Since 1870 (ZO-S 6 edE) : savv) podau 13els Od -V WOLU43ellV :1U8W143eUfir m Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Waterman Industrial Center Project SCH No. 2016021002 Page 2 of 3 Comments and Recommendations Following review of the IS and MND, the Department offers the comments and recommendations presented below to assist the City of San Bernardino (City; the CEQA lead agency) in adequately identifying and/or mitigating the project's significant, or potentially significant, impacts on biological resources: Burrowing Owl SA1-1 Due to the open, sparsely vegetated habitat on the project site and the presence of California ground squirrels, the Department is concerned that the project site may support burrowing owl, a California Species of Special Concern. The project has the potential to cause the loss of nesting and/or foraging habitat for burrowing owl. The Department recommends that the City follow the recommendations and guidelines provided in the Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation (Department of Fish and Game, March 2012); available for download from the Department's website: https://www,dfq.ca.gov/wildlife/nongame/survey monitor.html. The Department ,,A1-2 expects that the City will follow the Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation, which specifies that the steps for project impact evaluations include: a. A habitat assessment; b. Surveys; and Lc. An impact assessment As stated in the Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation, the three progressive steps are effective in evaluating whether a project will result in impacts to burrowing owls, and the information gained from the steps will inform any subsequent avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures. Habitat assessments are conducted to SA1-3 evaluate the likelihood that a site supports burrowing owl. Burrowing owl surveys provide information needed to determine the potential effects of proposed projects and activities on burrowing owls, and to avoid take in accordance with FGC sections 86, 3503, and 3503.5. Impact assessments evaluate the extent to which burrowing owls and their habitat may be impacted, directly or indirectly, on and within a reasonable distance of a proposed CEQA project activity or non-CEQA project. Please note that CEQA Guidelines §15126.4, subdivision (a)(1)(8) states formulation of feasible mitigation measures should not be deferred until some future date. The Court SA1-4 of Appeal in San Joaquin Raptor Rescue Center v. County of Merced(2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 645 struck down mitigation measures which required formulating management plans developed in consultation with State and Federal wildlife agencies after Project approval. Courts have also repeatedly not supported conclusions that impacts are mitigable when essential studies, and therefore impact assessments, are (ZO-9 6 edE) : 98vv) podam jjejs Od V 1U8W43e41V :4U9Wq3e11V Cq Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Waterman Industrial Center Project Ch SCH No. 2016021002 Page 3 of 3 incomplete (Sundstrom v. County of Mendocino (1988) 202 Cal. App. 3d. 296; Gentry SA1-4 v. City of Murrieta (1995) 36 Cal. App. 4th 1359; Endangered Habitat League, Inc. v. Cont. County of Orange (2005) 131 Cal. App. 4th 777). Nesting Birds Mitigation Measure B-1 a states that surveys for nesting birds will be conducted within 14 days prior to removal of trees or shrubs, if trees or shrubs are scheduled for removal between February 1 and September 15. Because some bird species may SA1-5 construct a nest and begin to lay eggs in fewer than 14 days, the Department recommends that nesting bird surveys take place no more than 72 hours prior to the initiation of project activities. Please note that surveys should be conducted over the entire site, not just in vegetated areas, as some species nest directly on the ground. Additionally, as some species (e.g., owls) may commence nesting as early as February 1 and others may not fledge until later than September 15, the Department recommends that the site be checked for nesting activity regardless of the time of year. Further Coordination The Department appreciates the opportunity to comment on the IS and MND for the Waterman Industrial Center Project (SCH No. 2016021002), and requests that the City address the Department's comments and concerns prior to the MND's adoption. If you should have any questions pertaining to these comments, please contact Gabriele Quillman at (909) 980-3818 or gabriele.quiliman@wildlife.ca.gov. Sincerely, *e cNair ionTIManager cc: State Clearinghouse, Sacramento • 6.B.h STATE OF CALIFORNIA EDMUND G. BROWN JR., Governor PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION -, '.0 WEST 4TH STREET,SUITE 500 _ _OS ANGELES,CA 90013 45 (213)576-7083 March 1, 2016 Travis Martin City of San Bernardino 300 North D Street, 3`d Floor San Bernardino, CA 92418 Dear Travis: Re: SCH 2016021002 San Bernardino (SBC) Waterman Industrial Center Project - DMND N O The California Public Utilities Commission (Commission) has jurisdiction over the safety of highway- U; rail crossings (crossings) in California. The California Public Utilities Code requires Commission a approval for the construction or alteration of crossings and grants the Commission exclusive power on the design, alteration, and closure of crossings in California. The Commission Rail Crossings and LO Engineering Branch (RCEB) has received the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the proposed 00 Waterman Industrial Center Project. The City of San Bernardino (City) is the lead agency. The project area is located southwest of the intersection of Dumas Street and Waterman Avenue. C The Waterman Avenue crossing (CPUC 002U-3.00 and DOT 027220Y) is located approximately 20 feet north of the intersection. Construction traffic is anticipated throughout the duration of the project. Traffic volume is anticipated to increase at the crossing during the project construction and in the U) future. nv. v RCEB recommends that the City add language to the project so that any development adjacent to or near the railroad/light rail right-of-way (ROW) is planned with the safety of the rail corridor in mind. Construction and future business activities may increase traffic volumes not only on streets and at SA intersections, but also at railroad crossings. Mitigation measures to consider include, but are not w limited to, improvements to existing railroad crossings due to increase in traffic volumes, and Q continuous vandal resistant fencing or other appropriate barriers to limit the access of trespassers onto the railroad ROW. E If you have any questions in this matter, please contact Sergio Licon at (213) 576-7085, Sergio.licon(b-cpuc.ca.gov. a Sincerely, Ken Chiang, P.E. Utilities Engineer Rail Crossings and Engineering Branch Safety and Enforcement Division C: State Clearinghouse Packet Pg. 744 STATE OF CALIFO fa,BROWN Im" DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT 8 ° PLANNING(NIS 725) 464 VdEST 4th STREET,61h FLOOR SAN BERNARDINO,CA 92401-1400 Serious Drought. PHONE (909)388-7017 Nc/paave water! FAX(909)383-5936 TTY 711 www.dot.ca.gov/dist8 March 2, 2016 File: 08-SBd-10-PM 25.2 Travis Martin City of San Bernardino N 300 North"D" Street, 3" `Floor LO T San Bernardino, CA 92418 :z Dear Mr. Martin: Ln 00 Waterman Industrial Center project—Traffic Impact Analysis 0 sz Thank you for providing the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) the opportunity to review and comment on the Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) for the City of San Bernardino Waterman Industrial Center project (Project). The project is located on the southwest corner of Cn the Waterman Avenue at Dumas Street intersection in the City of San Bernardino. The proposed a project is a 564,652 square foot high-cube warehouse distribution center on an approximately 25 acre land. E As the owner and operator of the State Highway System (SHS), it is our responsibility to 0 coordinate and consult with local jurisdictions when proposed development may impact our .2 facilities. As the responsible agency under the California Environmental Quality Act,it is also our responsibility to make recommendations to offset associated impacts with the proposed project. Although the project is under the jurisdiction of the City of San Bernardino, due to the project's U potential impact to the State facilities, including Interstate 10 (I-10) and Interstate 215 (I-215), it is also subject to the policies and regulations that govern the SHS. We offer the following Q comments: • Include 1-10 and 1-215 freeways/ramps on your exhibits. SA3 • Confirm proposed project will not have any significant impact, i.e.LOS on 1-10 and 1-215 SA3. freeways/ramps. • Indicate if truck volume is lower during regular AM/PM Peak Hours and use couilts to SA3 prepare exhibits. Trunk traffic does not follow regular commuter patterns. "Provide a safe,sustainable,integrated And efficient transportation system to enhance California's economy and livability' Packet Pg. 745 Mr. Martin March 2, 2016 Page 2 SA3-4 • Explain growth rate used to determine traffic volumes for 2017 and beyond. Clarify if the growth rate is consistent with the regional growth rate. SA3-5 • State if any assumptions/changes were made to update the SBTAM, including network, projects, SED,etc. SA3-6 • Use the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) 2010 methodology instead of the HCM 2000 for all traffic analyses. N O LO SA3-7 • Include the project fair—share of the improvement costs to mitigate the impacted intersections in the TIA. �- SA-8 • Provide preferential parking for vanpools and carpools, as well as secure and convenient co bicycle parking within the project area. 0 All comments should be addressed and the TIA should be resubmitted. These recommendations a are preliminary and summarize our review of materials provided for our evaluation. Please continue to keep us informed of the project and other future updates, which could potentially impact the SHS and interfacing transportation facilities. If you have any questions or need to a contact us, please do not hesitate to contact Adrineh Melkonian at (909) 806-3928 or myself at , (909) 383-4557. E Sincerely, Y Y a MARK ROBERTS - Office Chief Y Y Intergovernmental Review, Community and Regional Planning a "Provide a safe,sustainable,integrated and efficient transportation system to enhance California's economy and livability Packet Pg. 746 r 6.B.h O44lG�OF NLRItN�,yc STATE OF CALIFORNIA �r . GoNuNQR'S OFFICE o f PLANNING ND RESEARCH STATE CLEARINGHOUSE AND PLANNING UNIT SJ°'FOf uaff° � EDMUND G.BROWNJR. KEN ALEX GovFxNox DmLcroR March 2 2016 e MAR 8 2016 Travis Martin City of San Bernardino 300 North D Street,3rd Floor San Bernardino,CA 42418 Subject: Waterman Industrial Center(Development Permit Type_D 15-11) SCH#: 2016021002 ° LO Dear Travis Martin: `U fl. C9 The State Clearinghouse submitted the above named Mitigated Negative Declaration to selected state ,f; agencies for review. On the enclosed Document Details Report please note that the Clearinghouse has 00 listed the state agencies that reviewed your document. The review period closed on March 1,2016,and the �? comments from the responding agency(ies)is(are)enclosed. If this comment package is not in order.. t: please notify the State Clearinghouse immediately. Please refer to the project's ten-digit State Clearinghouse number in future correspondence so that we may respond promptly. Please note that Section?1 l 04(c)of the California Public Resources Code states that: SA4 "A responsible or other public agency shall only make substantive comments regarding those n- activities involved in a project which are within an area of expertise of the agency or which are �r required to be carried out or approved by the agency. Those comments shall be supported by specific documentation." E E U These comments are forwarded for use in preparing your final environmental document. Should you need 2 more information or clarification of the enclosed comments,we recommend that you contact the commenting agency directly. c W This letter acknowledges that you have complied with the State Clearinghouse review requirements for draft environmental documents,pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act. Please contact the ca State Clearinghouse at(916)445-0613 if you have any questions regarding the environmental review t process. Sincerely, Scott Morgan Director,State Clearinghouse Enclosures cc: Resources Agency 140010th Street P.Q.Box 3044 Sacramento,California 95812-3044 (916)445-0613 FAX(916)323-3018 ui"v.opr.ca.gov Packet Pg. 747 Document Details Report State Clearinghouse Data Base SCH# 2016021002 Project Title Waterman Industrial Center(Development Permit Type D 15-11) Lead Agency San Bernardino,City of Type MND Mitigated Negative Declaration Description The proposed Waterman Industrial Center(proposed project)is a 564,652-SF industrial buildingw tih office space,parking,a pump house,and landscaping on an approx.26 acre property located in the southwest comer of the intersection of East Dumas Street and South Waterman Avenue in the City of San Bernardino. The industrial building would be one floor with a maximum height of 47 feet. The building would be a cross dock warehouse facility with 10,000 SF of dedicated office/mazzaninespace. The site will also include a 427-SF pump house. The building would pave 49 dock doors on its northern frontage and 49 on its southern frontage. Total on-site parking would be 452 stalls,with 286 dedicated to warehouse parking(including office)and 166 trailer parking spaces. landscaping in the amount of 103,585 SF is anticipated for the site and the southwest corner of the site would be used as a storm water/water quality control basin. Roadway frontage improvements would be provided on South Waterman Ave. o and East Dumas Street. c� CL Lead Agency Contact 0 Name Travis Martin �n Agency City of San Bernardino 00 It Phone 909-384-5313 Fax email 0 0 Address 300 North D Street,3rd Floor Q- as City San Bernardino State CA Zip 92418 w Project Location U) County San Bernardino v a City San Bernardino ' v Region Lat/Long 34°4'40"N 1117°16'50"W Cross Streets East Dumas Avenue and South Waterman Avenue E s Parcel No. Township 1S Range 4W Section Base Meridian Q c Proximity to: E Highways 1-10,215 v Airports SB Int'l Airport Railways BNSF 4 Waterways Santa Ana River,Twin Creek channel Schools Loma Linda Academy Land Use Industrial and Open Space/Industrial Light(IL), Office Industrial Park(OIP), Public Commercial Recreation(PCR) Project Issues Aesthetic/Visual;Agricultural Land;Air Quality;Archaeologic-Historic; Biological Resources; Geologic/Seismic;Minerals; Noise; Population/Housing Balance;Public Services;Recreation/Parks; Sewer Capacity; Solid Waste;Toxic/Hazardous;Traffic/Circulation;Vegetation;Water Quality;Water Supply;Wetland/Riparian; Landuse;Cumulative Effects;Other Issues Reviewing Resources Agency; Department of Fish and Wildlife, Region 6; Office of Historic Preservation; Agencies Department of Parks and Recreation; Department of Water Resources; Caltrans, Division of Aeronautics;California Highway Patrol; Caltrans, District 8;Air Resources Board;State Water Resources Control Board, Division of Water Quality;Regional Water Quality Control Board,Region 8; Department of Toxic Substances Control; Native American Heritage Commission; Public Utilities Commission Packet Pg. 748 Note: Blanks in data fields result from insufficient information provided by lead aoencv. Document Details Report State Clearinghouse Data Base Date Received 02/01/2016 Start of Review- 02/01/2016 End of Review 03/01/2016 N O LO r O_ LO 00 d' O Q 0) L� R ' U a rr c l= U RS • w a w a Packet Pg. 749 Nnte.:Rlanks in data fields result from insufficient information Drovided by lead aaencv. • 6.B.h STATE OF CALIFORNIA EDMUND G.BROWN JR.. Govemor PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION 320 WEST 4TH STREET,SUITE 500 LOS ANGELES,CA 90013 ypi (213)570.7083 c ' ,�N March 1, 2016 Govemaer'OfRcenfPIRIM10081 esearCh °0 Travis Martin MAR 012016 City of San Bernardino 300 North D Street, 3d Floor STATE CLEARINGHOUSE San Bernardino, CA 92418 Dear Travis: Re: SCH 2016021002 San Bernardino (SBC)Waterman Industrial Center Project-DMND N 0 The California Public Utilities Commission (Commission) has jurisdiction over the safety of highway- rail crossings(crossings) in California. The California Public Utilities Code requires Commission a approval for the construction or alteration of crossings and grants the Commission exclusive power c? on the design, alteration, and closure of crossings in California. The Commission Rail Crossings and co Engineering Branch (RCEB) has received the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the proposed 1* Waterman Industrial Center Project. The City of San Bernardino (City) is the lead agency. 0 The project area is located southwest of the intersection of Dumas Street and Waterman Avenue. The Waterman Avenue crossing (CPUC 002U-3.00 and DOT 027220Y) is located approximately 20 X feet north of the intersection. Construction traffic is anticipated throughout the duration of the project. Traffic volume is anticipated to increase at the crossing during the project construction and in the future. n RCEB recommends that the City add language to the project so that any development adjacent to or near the railroad/light rail right-of-way(ROW) is planned with the safety of the rail corridor in mind. E Construction and future business activities may increase traffic volumes not only on streets and at intersections, but also at railroad crossings. Mitigation measures to consider include, but are not limited to, improvements to existing railroad crossings due to increase in traffic volumes, and Q continuous vandal resistant fencing or other appropriate barriers to limit the access of trespassers onto the railroad ROW. E U If you have any questions in this matter, please contact Sergio Licon at(213) 576-7085, Sergio.licon@cpuc.ca.gov. Q Sincerely, C- ? - Ken Chiang, P.E. Utilities Engineer Rail Crossings and Engineering Branch Safety and Enforcement Division C: - State Clearinghouse Packet Pg. 750 6.B.h * State of California-Natural Resources Agency EDMUND G.BROWN,Jr.. Governor f• , t .DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE CHARLTON H.BONHAM,Director Inland Deserts Region 3502 Inland Empire Blvd., Suite C-220 " 1 Ontario, CA 91 764 (909)484-0459 www.wildlife.ca.gov ` February 26, 2015 Governor's Office of Planning&Research Travis Marlin, Assistant Planner FEB 2 6 2016 City of San Bernardino Planning Department STATE CLEARINGHOUSE 300 North D Street— 3rd Floor San Bernardino, CA 92418 0 Ln Subject: Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration a Waterman Industrial Center Project �? SCH No. 2016021002 v Dear Mr. Martin: 0. The Department of Fish and Wildlife (Department) appreciates the opportunity to N_ comment on the Initial Study(IS) and Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for the Waterman Industrial Center Project (project) [SCH No. 2016021002]. The Department a is responding to the IS and MND as a Trustee Agency for fish and wildlife resources (California Fish and Game Code Sections 711.7 and 1802, and the California Environmental Quality Act [CEQA] Guidelines Section 15386), and as a Responsible E Agency regarding any discretionary actions (CEQA Guidelines Section 15381), such as the issuance of a Lake or Streambed Alteration Agreement (California Fish and Game r Code Sections 1600 of seq.) and/or a California Endangered Species Act (CESA) a Permit for Incidental Take of Endangered, Threatened, and/or Candidate species (California Fish and Game Code Sections 2080 and 2080.1). _ B The approximately 26-acre project site is located on the southwest corner of the a intersection of East Dumas Street and South Waterman Avenue, north of Park Center Drive, and east of South Washington Avenue, within the City of San Bernardino, San Bernardino County, California. The Project proposes to develop a 564,652 square foot industrial building with office space, parking, a pump house, and landscaping. The site is anticipated to include 103,585 square feet of landscaping, with a stormwater detention basin in the southwest corner. Roadway frontage improvements are proposed for South Waterman Avenue and East Dumas Street. Five of the eight existing Southern California Edison (SCE) power poles on the site are proposed to be relocated to allow for the roadway improvements. Coiaerphig Cafi oridds Wild fife Sii.ce 1870 Packet Pg.751 • 6.B.h Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Waterman Industrial Center Project SCH No. 2016021002 Page 2of3 Comments and Recommendations Following review of the IS and MND, the Department offers the comments and recommendations presented below to assist the City of San Bernardino (City; the CEQA lead agency) in adequately identifying and/or mitigating the project's significant, or potentially significant, impacts on biological resources: Burrowing Owl Due to the open, sparsely vegetated habitat on the project site and the presence of California ground squirrels, the Department is concerned that the project site may LO support burrowing owl, a California Species of Special Concern. The project has the a potential to cause the loss of nesting and/or foraging habitat for burrowing owl. LO co The Department recommends that the City follow the recommendations and guidelines ' provided in the Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation (Department of Fish and Game, March 2012); available for download from the Department's webslte: CL d httt)s://www.dfg.ca.gov/wildlifelnongame/survey monitor.html. The Department expects that the City will follow the Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation, which specifies that the steps for project impact evaluations include: n a. A habitat assessment; b. Surveys; and C, An impact assessment U f4 .r As stated in the Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation, the three progressive steps a are effective in evaluating whether a project will result in impacts to burrowing owls, and the information gained from the steps will inform any subsequent avoidance, E minimization, and mitigation measures. Habitat assessments are conducted to evaluate the likelihood that a site supports burrowing owl. Burrowing owl surveys provide information needed to determine the potential effects of proposed projects and a activities on burrowing owls, and to avoid take in accordance with FGC sections 86, 3503, and 3503.5. Impact assessments evaluate the extent to which burrowing owls and their habitat may be impacted, directly or indirectly, on and within a reasonable distance of a proposed CEQA project activity or non-CEQA project. Please note that CEQA Guidelines §15126.4, subdivision (a)(1)(8) states formulation of feasible mitigation measures should not be deferred until some future date. The Court of Appeal in San Joaquin Raptor Rescue Center v. County of Merced(2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 645 struck down mitigation measures which required formulating management plans developed In consultation with State and Federal wildlife agencies after Project approval. Courts have also repeatedly not supported conclusions that impacts are mitigable when essential studies, and therefore impact assessments, are Packet Pg. 752 6.B.h Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Waterman Industrial Center Project SCH No. 2016021002 Page 3 of 3 incomplete (Sundstrom v. County of Mendocino(1988)202 Cal, App. 3d.296; Gentry v. City of Murrieta (1995) 36 Cal. App. 4th 1359;.Endangered Habitat League, Inc. v. County of Orange (2005) 131 Cal. App. 4th 777). Nesting Birds Mitigation Measure B-1 a states that surveys for nesting birds will be conducted within 14 days prior to removal of trees or shrubs, if trees or shrubs are scheduled for removal between February 1 and September 15. Because some bird species may construct a nest and begin to lay eggs in fewer than 14 days, the Department recommends that nesting bird surveys take place no more than 72 hours prior to the o initiation of project activities. Please note that surveys should be conducted over the entire site, not just in vegetated areas, as some species nest directly on the ground. Q Additionally, as some species(e.g., owls) may commence nesting as early as February 1 and others may not fledge until later than September 15, the Department Ln recommends that the site be checked for nesting activity regardless of the time of year. Further,Coordination ° a m W The Department appreciates the opportunity to comment on'the IS and MND for the Waterman Industrial Center Project (SCH No. 2016021002), and requests that the U) City address the Department's comments and concerns prior to the MND'.s adoption. If you should have any questions pertaining to-these comments, please a contact Gabriele Quillman at (909) 980-3818 or gabriele.quiIlman @wildlife.ca.gov. d E Sincerely, a c d E s li acNair Wana ger - a cc: State Clearinghouse, Sacramento Packet Pg. 753 825 East Third Street, San Bernardino,CA 92415-0835 Phone:909.387.8109 Fax:909.387.7876 SAN BERNARDINO Department of Public Works Gerry Ne Dire COUNTY TNTY Environmental& Construction • Flood Control �.! Operations + Solid Waste Management Surveyor a Transportation February 29, 2016 City of San Bernardino Travis Martin, Assistant Planner Planning Department 300 N. D Street- 3rd Floor San Bernardino, CA. 92418 File: 10(ENV)-4.01 0 LO Martin tr(a)sbcity.org a t9 RE: CEQA - NOTICE OF AVAILABILITY OF A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE ul WATERMAN INDUSTRIAL CENTER PROJECT FOR THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO Dear Mr. Martin: 0 Q. Thank you for giving the San Bernardino County Department of Public Works the opportunity to comment on the above-referenced project. We received this request on February 4, 2016 and Cn pursuant to our review, the following comments are provided: a Water Resources Division (Mary Lou Mermilliod, PWE III, 909-387-8213): 1. We have reviewed the MND and it appears the proposed project lies within the City of San -1 Bernardino, not the County of San Bernardino as stated on page 46, Discussion, item h). The E County of San Bernardino has no jurisdiction for development within the City. _ 2. Item h) on page 46 of the Initial Study states that "The County of San Bernardino Flood Control a indicates that a building within Flood Zone A shall have finished floor elevation or exterior waterproofing elevation of two-feet higher than the highest adjacent finished grade". The San E 2 Bernardino County Flood Control District (District) does not regulate development within floodplains; this is regulated by the County's Land Use Services Department. Additionally, FEMA's elevation requirement, as well as the County's, is above highest adjacent grade (HAG), which is the highest natural grade (prior to any grading) directly adjacent to a structure's footprint. - 3. We recommend that the City enforces FEMA's, and its most current, regulations for construction -3 within floodplains. - Flood Control Planning Division (David Lovell, PWE III, 909-387-7964): 1. The Project is located within the City of San Bernardino approximately 400 feet east of the District's Twin Creek Channel-COE and is subject to the District's Comprehensive Storm Drain 4 Plan No. 7, dated December 1982. Sufficient data and exhibits, showing storm water flowlines and the proposed underground filtration basins to meet onsite containment, are needed to address potential impacts to the local drainage system. - RoBERT A. .. Vice'i Packet Pg. 754 T. Martin—City of San Bernardino CEQA-NOA MND Waterman Industrial Center Project February 29,2016 Page 2 of 2 Environmental Management Division ,Brandy Wood, Ecological Resource Specialist, 909-387- 7971 : 1. Page 2 of the MND indicates a nesting bird survey would be conducted if more than 14 days LA1-5 pass and construction has not been initiated. The construction of a nest and egg-laying can be as quick as 3 days. Fourteen days is too long to wait to ensure no impacts to nesting birds. It is recommended a nesting bird survey be conducted within 3 days of the start of work and if more than 3 days pass and construction has not been initiated, another survey would be required. 2. The MND has no minimization or mitigation measures for the potential of burrowing owl to be on LA1-6 site. Burrowing owl is a State of California species of special concern and the site contains suitable habitat for burrowing owl. N O If you have any questions, please contact the individuals who provided the specific comment, as listed above. a c� LO 00 Sincerely, 0 NIDHAM ARAM ALRAYES, MSCE, PE, QSD/P Public Works Engineer III N Environmental Management L) a NAA:PE:sr c m E s co Q c m E U t4 a.+ Q • Packet`Pg.755 From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Flagged Hi,Travis, I just received the Notice of Intent for the Waterman Industrial Center proposed to be located at W. Dumas N and S. Waterman Avenue. c LO As owners of the Inland Regional Center buildings (across the street from the project), I have only two CL concerns: 00 �r 1.When the SCE towers are relocated, the overhead wires cannot be moved any closer to our building OR1-1 �- 2. Large volumes of truck traffic at the site will undoubtedly cause severe congestion on S. Waterman. OR1-2 a. a� Thank you for hearing our concerns. r CFZI� vast /?s3'c s a President/CEO California Housing Foundation 1200 California Street, Suite 104 E s Redlands, CA, 92374 0 (909) 793-9800 a svonraics@CHFcares.com E .c ca r w Q i PacketPg. 756 6.B.h February 24,2016 Attn: Travis Martin,Assistant Planner City of San Bernardino Community Development Department 300 North"D"Street 19. San Bernardino,CA 92418-0001 RE: AB 52 Consultation; Waterman Industrial Center Project(Development Permit Type- D 15-11) The Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians has received your notification pursuant under Assembly Bill 52. c The Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians appreciates your observance of Tribal Cultural Resources and their preservation in your project. The information provided to us on said project(s)has been 0 assessed through our Cultural Resource Department.At this time the Soboba Band does not have OR2-1 " any specific concerns regarding known cultural resources in the specified areas that the project co encompasses,but does request that the appropriate consultation continue to take place between 7t- concerned tribes,project proponents,and local agencies. o CL Also,working in and around traditional use areas intensifies the possibility of encountering a cultural resources during any future construction/excavation phases that may take place.For this reason the Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians requests that approved Native American Monitor(s) OR2-2 be present during any future ground disturbing proceedings,including surveys and archaeological U o. testing,associated with this project. The Soboba Band wishes to defer to the San Manuel Band of Mission Indians,who are in closer proximity to the project. Please feel free to contact me with any additional questions or concerns. E t Sincerely, c - E E R Joseph Ontiveros Cultural Resource Director ¢ Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians P.O.Box 487 San Jacinto,CA 92581 Phone(951)654-5544 ext.4137 Cell(951)663-5279 j ontiverosnsoboba-nsn.gov Confidentiality: The entirety of the contents of this letter shall remain confidential between Soboba and the City of San Bernardino.No part of the contents of this letter may be shared, copied,or utilized in any way with any other individual, entity,municipality,or tribe,whatsoever, without the expressed written permission of the Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians. Packet Pg. 757 • T 510.836.4200 410 12th Street,Suite 250 www.lozeaudrury.com F 510.836.4205 Oakland.Ca 94607 doug@alozeaudrury.com BY EMAIL and OVERNIGHT MAIL March 1, 2016 N Travis Martin, Assistant Planner ° City of San Bernardino 9093845313 300 North D Street, 3rd Floor LO co San Bernardino, CA 92418 martin_tr @sbcity.org 0 Re: Mitigated Negative Declaration for Waterman Industrial Center (Development Permit Type D — 15-11) — SCH No. 2016021002 w Dear Mr. Martin: a This letter is submitted on behalf of Laborers International Union of North America, Local Union 783, and its hundreds of members living in San Bernardino County (collectively, "LIUNA" or "Commenters") concerning the City of San Bernardino's (the "City") Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration ("IS/MND") prepared for the w Waterman Industrial Center, Development Permit Type D — 15-11 SCH No. a p Yp ) ( .� 2016021002) (the "Project"). The Project is a 564,652 square foot industrial building that includes office space, parking, a pump house, and landscaping. The Project is located at the intersection of .2 East Dumas Street and South Waterman Avenue in the City of San Bernardino. These comments have been prepared with the assistance of Matt Hagemann, P.G., C.Hg., QSD, QSP, an expert hydrogeologist; and Jessie Jaeger, air quality specialist from SWAPE. Their comments and curriculum vitae are attached as Exhibit A See C hereto ("Hagemann") and are incorporated by reference in their entirety. The City should respond to Mr. Hagemann's comments separately. Commenters request that the City withdraw the IS/MND and instead prepare an environmental impact report ("EIR") for the Project, as there is substantial evidence that OR3- the Project will have significant unmitigated impacts on the environment as discussed Packet;Pg.758 Comments of LIUNA on Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative Declaration Waterman Industrial Center Page 2of8 OR3-1 below. There is a fair argument that the Project may have significant unmitigated Cont. impacts, including: OR3-2 F 1. Significant and unmitigated air quality impacts associated with the operation of the Project. OR3-3 C 2. Significant and unmitigated human health risks from diesel particulate matter emissions associated with Project construction. OR3-4Fmitigation An EIR is required to analyze these and other impacts and to adopt feasible measures to reduce the impacts to the extent feasible. PROJECT DESCRIPTION o LO The Project is a proposed 564,652-square-foot (SF) industrial center building on a the southwest corner of the intersection of East Dumas Street and South Waterman �? Avenue in the City of San Bernardino. It also includes office space, parking, a pump LO OR3-5 house, and landscaping on an approximately 26-acre property. The future tenant of the v building is not currently known, so associated operational details are not known. L Additionally, there are 8 Southern California Edison (SCE) power poles that contain 6 wires of high voltage 66kv Edison transmission lines, a 3 wire 12kv system and a 3 wire +� 4kv system. The City concluded that the Project, with proposed mitigation measures identified in the IS/MND, will not have a significant effect on the environment and that an EIR is therefore not required. a STANDING >_ Members of LIUNA, Local Union No. 783 live, work, and recreate in the immediate vicinity of the Project site. These members will suffer the impacts of a poorly a executed or inadequately mitigated Project, just as would the members of any nearby OR3-6 homeowners association, community group or environmental group. Hundreds of LIUNA Local Union No. 783 members live and work in areas that will be affected by air pollution generated by the project. Therefore, LIUNA Local Union No. 883 and its a members have a direct interest in ensuring that the Project is adequately analyzed and that its environmental and public health impacts are mitigated to the fullest extent feasible. Pursuant to CEQA, LIUNA Local Union No. 783 submits these comments in OR3-7 response to the City's proposed IS/MND. Under the circumstances presented here, CEQA clearly requires the preparation of an EIR and accordingly, the City should decline to adopt the proposed IS/MND. LEGAL STANDARD '`R3-8 As the California Supreme Court recently held, "[ijf no EIR has been prepared for Packet Pg. 759 6.B.h Comments of LIUNA on Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative Declaration Waterman Industrial Center Page 3 of 8 a nonexempt project, but substantial evidence in the record supports a fair argument that the project may result in significant adverse impacts, the proper remedy is to order preparation of an EIR." (Communities for a Better Environment v. South Coast Air Quality Management Dist. (2010) 48 Cal.4th 310, 319-320 ["CBE v. SCAQMD"], citing, OR3 No Oil, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles (1974) 13 Cal.3d 68, 75, 88; Brentwood Assn. for No Cont Drilling, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles (1982) 134 Cal.App.3d 491, 504-505.) "The `foremost principle' in interpreting CEQA is that the Legislature intended the act to be read so as to afford the fullest possible protection to the environment within the reasonable scope of the statutory language." (Communities for a Better Environment v. Calif. Resources Agency (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 98, 109 ["CBE v. CRA"].) The EIR is the very heart of CEQA. (Bakersfield Citizens for Local Control v. City o of Bakersfield (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 1184, 1214; Pocket Protectors v. City of r Sacramento (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 903, 927.) The EIR is an "environmental `alarm a bell' whose purpose is to alert the public and its responsible officials to environmental �? changes before they have reached the ecological points of no return." (Bakersfield OR3 LO Citizens, supra, 124 Cal.App.4th at 1220.) The EIR also functions as a document of �r accountability," intended to "demonstrate to an apprehensive citizenry that the agency has, in fact, analyzed and considered the ecological implications of its action." (Laurel C Heights Improvements Assn. v. Regents of University of California (1988) 47 Cal.3d 376, 392.) The EIR process "protects not only the environment but also informed self- M government." (Pocket Protectors, supra, 124 Cal.App.4th at 927.) Cn U An EIR is required if"there is substantial evidence, in light of the whole record before the lead agency, that the project may have a significant effect on the environment." (Pub. Resources Code, § 21080(d); see also Pocket Protectors, supra, E 124 Cal.App.4th at 927.) In very limited circumstances, an agency may avoid preparing an EIR by issuing a negative declaration, a written statement briefly indicating that a a project will have no significant impact thus requiring no EIR (14 Cal. Code Regs., § 15371 ["CEQA Guidelines"]), only if there is not even a "fair argument" that the project OR3. E will have a significant environmental effect. (Pub. Resources Code, §§ 21100, 21064.) Since "[t]he adoption of a negative declaration . . . has a terminal effect on the environmental review process," by allowing the agency "to dispense with the duty [to Q prepare an EIR]," negative declarations are allowed only in cases where "the proposed project will not affect the environment at all." (Citizens of Lake Murray v. San Diego (1989) 129 Cal.App.3d 436, 440.) Where an initial study shows that the project may have a significant effect on the environment, a mitigated negative declaration may be appropriate. However, a mitigated negative declaration is proper only if the project revisions would avoid or mitigate the potentially significant effects identified in the initial study "to a point where OR3. clearly no significant effect on the environment would occur, and...there is no substantial evidence in light of the whole record before the public agency that the project, as revised, may have a significant effect on the environment." (Public Packet Pg. 760 6.B.h Comments of LIUNA on Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative Declaration Waterman Industrial Center 0 Page 4 of 8 Resources Code §§ 21064.5 and 21080(c)(2); Mejia v. City of Los Angeles (2005) 130 Cal.App.4th 322, 331.) In that context, "may" means a reasonable possibility of a OR3-11 significant effect on the environment. (Pub. Resources Code, §§ 21082.2(a), 21100, Cont. 21151(a); Pocket Protectors, supra, 124 Cal.AppAth at 927; League for Protection of Oakland's etc. Historic Resources v. City of Oakland(1997) 52 Cal.App.4th 896, 904- 905.) Under the "fair argument" standard, an EIR is required if any substantial evidence in the record indicates that a project may have an adverse environmental effect—even if contrary evidence exists to support the agency's decision. (CEQA Guidelines, § 15064(f)(1); Pocket Protectors, supra, 124 Cal.AppAth at 931; Stanislaus Audubon OR3-12 Society v. County of Stanislaus (1995) 33 Cal.AppAth 144, 150-15; Quail Botanical o Gardens Found., Inc. v. City of Encinitas (1994) 29 Cal.AppAth 1597, 1602.) The "fair argument" standard creates a "low threshold" favoring environmental review through an a EIR rather than through issuance of negative declarations or notices of exemption from �? CEQA. (Pocket Protectors, supra, 124 Cal.App.4th at 928.) 00 v The "fair argument" standard is virtually the opposite of the typical deferential L standard accorded to agencies. As a leading CEQA treatise explains: This 'fair argument' standard is very different from the standard normally followed by public agencies in making administrative determinations. Ordinarily, public agencies weigh the evidence in the record before them and reach a decision a OR3-13 based on a preponderance of the evidence. [Citations]. The fair argument standard, by contrast, prevents the lead agency from weighing competing evidence to determine who has a better argument concerning the likelihood or E extent of a potential environmental impact. The lead agency's decision is thus largely legal rather than factual; it does not resolve conflicts in the evidence but a determines only whether substantial evidence exists in the record to support the prescribed fair argument. CD v (Kostka & Zishcke, Practice Under CEQA, §6.29, pp. 273-274.) The Courts have explained that "it is a question of law, not fact, whether a fair argument exists, and the a OR3-14 courts owe no deference to the lead agency's determination. Review is de novo, with a preference for resolving doubts in favor of environmental review." (Pocket Protectors, supra, 124 Cal.AppAth at 928 [emphasis in original].) As a matter of law, "substantial evidence includes . . . expert opinion." (Pub. Resources Code, § 21080(e)(1); CEQA Guidelines, § 15064(f)(5).) CEQA Guidelines demand that where experts have presented conflicting evidence on the extent of the OR3-15 environmental effects of a project, the agency must consider the environmental effects to be significant and prepare an EIR. (CEQA Guidelines § 15064(f)(5); Pub. Res. Code § 21080(e)(1); Pocket Protectors, supra,124 Cal.AppAth at 935.) "Significant environmental effect" is defined very broadly as "a substantial or potentially substantial Packet Pg. 761 6.B.h Comments of LIUNA on Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative Declaration Waterman Industrial Center Page 5 of 8 adverse change in the environment." (Pub. Resources Code, § 21068; see also CEQA Guidelines, § 15382.) An effect on the environment need not be "momentous" to meet the CEQA test for significance; it is enough that the impacts are "not trivial." (No Oil, Inc., supra, 13 Cal.3d at 83.) In Pocket Protectors, the court explained how expert opinion is considered. The Court limited agencies and courts to weighing the OR3 admissibility of the evidence. (Pocket Protectors, supra, 124 Cal.AppAth at 935.) In Coni the context of reviewing a negative declaration, "neither the lead agency nor a court may `weigh' conflicting substantial evidence to determine whether an EIR must be prepared in the first instance." (Id.) Where a disagreement arises regarding the validity of a negative declaration, the courts require an EIR. As the Court explained, "[i]t is the function of an EIR, not a negative declaration, to resolve conflicting claims, based on substantial evidence, as to the environmental effects of a project." (Id.) o LO T DISCUSSION a A. AN EIR IS REQUIRED BECAUSE THE PROJECT WILL MAY HAVE Do SIGNIFICANT UNMITIGATED ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS. L An EIR is required whenever substantial evidence in the entire record before the OR3 0 agency supports a fair argument that a project may have a significant effect on the environment. (CBE v. SCAQMD, supra, 48 Cal.4t" at 319-20; Public Resources Code § o 21080(d); see also, Pocket Protectors, supra, 124 Cal.AppAt" at 927.) As set forth below, there is a fair argument supported by substantial evidence that the Project may nv. result in significant environmental impacts from the operation of the Project. Therefore, . the City is required to prepare an EIR to evaluate the Project's impacts and analyze mitigation measures needed to reduce such impacts to a less than significant level. E U f6 1. Substantial Evidence Supports a Fair Argument that the Project Will Q Result in Significant Unmitigated Impacts to Air Quality By Failing to Input Correct Parameters into the IS/MND's Emissions Calculations. U The IS/MND used the California Emissions Estimator Model Version r CalEEMod.2013.2.2 ("CaIEEMod") to calculate emissions from the Project. However, a Mr. Hagemann observes that several of the assumptions used and values input into OR3 CaIEEMod were inconsistent with both information disclosed in the IS/MND as well as recommended procedures and values set forth by the South Coast Air Quality Management District ("SCAQMD") for a high-cube warehouse (the type of Project at issue). Had the Project's emissions been calculated using the correct parameters, the Project would have a potentially significant impact on air quality. As such, the Project's air quality impacts have not been properly analyzed and mitigated. Accordingly, the following points constitute substantial evidence that support a fair argument that the IS/MND failed to properly calculate the Project's emissions and that the Project will thus have significant unmitigated impacts. Packet Pg. 762 6.B.h Comments of LIUNA on Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative Declaration Waterman Industrial Center Page 6 of 8 a. The IS/MND Improperly Assumes That the Project Will Not Involve Refrigeration. The IS/MND significantly underestimated the Project's operational emissions by assuming that all warehouses at the Project will be unrefrigerated. The CalEEMod calculations were premised entirely on the notion that the proposed industrial building was modeled as an unrefrigerated warehouse. (IS/MND, Appendix A, pp. 52, 182.) OR3-18 However, the IS/MND is clear that the future tenant of the industrial building is not currently known. SCAQMD requires the use of a conservative air quality impact analysis to afford the fullest possible protection of the environment. In this case, a o conservative analysis would dictate modeling the proposed warehouse as either entirely r or partially refrigerated. Mr. Hagemann's letter explains that refrigerated warehouses a release more air pollutants and greenhouse gas ("GHG") emissions when compared to �? unrefrigerated warehouses. Thus, by failing to include refrigerated warehouses a potential land use in the CalEEMod calculations, the Project's operational emissions v may be substantially underestimated, and would thus likely result in a significant impact on regional air quality. This constitutes substantial evidence that an EIR should be prepared to evaluate the impacts of the Project's operational emissions and to mitigate • those impacts. b. The IS/MND Incorrectly Relies on the Fontana Truck Trip Study to a for the Truck Trip Rate and for the Fleet Mix. _ The IS/MND also significantly underestimated the Project's operational mobile- t source emissions by relying on an improper truck trip rate and fleet mix percentage. Specifically, the IS/MND's Traffic Impact Assessment (Appendix F, p. 3) and its Air Q OR3-19 Quality/GHG Assessment (Appendix A, p. 60) improperly rely on the August 2003 City of Fontana Truck Trip Generation Study("Fontana Study") to determine the number of vehicle and truck trips the Project will generate during operation. As Mr. Hagemann's letter details, SCAQMD has found numerous problems with the Fontana Study and has r thus recommended specific figures to use for the truck trip rate for a high-cube Q warehouse distribution center. Mr. Hagemann used SCAQMD's recommended rate to calculate the Project's number of truck trips and found the number of truck trips associated with the Project OR3-20 increased by approximately 87% from the number contained in the IS/MND's model, which is based on the Fontana Study's truck trip rate. Thus, the IS/MND's improper reliance on the Fontana Study likely misrepresented the actual air quality impacts of the Project. 3-21 Similarly, the IS/MND relied on the Fontana Study's total truck fleet mix of 20%, which sets forth the operational mix of cars, 2-axle trucks, 3-axle trucks, and 4-axle Packet Pg.763 Comments of LIUNA on Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative Declaration Waterman Industrial Center Page 7of8 trucks to input into CaIEEMod. As Mr. Hagemann notes, this approach "is not consistent with recommendations set forth by SCAQMD, and does not accurately represent the percentage of trucks that access a high-cube warehouse on a daily basis." (Hagemann, p. 6.) To avoid underestimating the number of trucks visiting OR3 warehouse facilities, SCAQMD recommends a truck fleet mix of 40%. This number is Cont. double that used by the IS/MND, and is a conservative value especially given that the future tenant of the warehouse is unknown. Based on this recommendation, Mr. Hagemann's letter sets forth a fleet mix percentage that the City should have input into CaIEEMod that more accurately represents the number of trips that would likely occur during Project operation. As such, the IS/MND uses an inaccurate rate for the fleet mix percentage that does not adequately asses and mitigates the Project's air quality and GHG impacts. As EIR should be prepared that adequately assesses and mitigates o these impacts. Q c. The IS/MND Incorrectly Input Fleet Mix Percentage into �? CalEEMod. o Mr. Hagemann's letter explains how the IS/MND input the aforementioned artificially low fleet mix percentage in the CaIEEMod model incorrectly. Instead of C inputting the fleet mix values into the model as fleet mix percentages, the values were used to adjust the trip type percentages for the Project. This approach is plainly OR3 inconsistent with Appendix A of the CaIEEMod User's Guide instructions on how to calculate the trip type. The IS/MND incorrectly assumed that commercial-work ("C-W") a trip are made exclusively by trucks and commercial-nonwork ("C-NW") trips are made exclusively by passenger cars. In fact, both C-W and C-NW trips include trips made by a mix of vehicle types. Mr. Hagemann notes that "[a]s a result, the Project's operational E mobile-source emissions are both greatly underestimated and extremely inaccurate." (Hagemann, p. 6.) An EIR should be prepared that inputs the proper data into the a CaIEEMod model and accurately analyzes the Project's mobile-source emissions and provides mitigation measures for those impacts. 2. Substantial Evidence Supports a Fair Argument that the Project Will Result in Significant Unmitigated Impacts to Human Health from Q Diesel Particulate Emissions Associated with Project Construction. The IS/MND conclusion that the health risk posed to nearby sensitive receptors OR3 from exposure to diesel particulate matter ("DPM") emissions released during Project construction would be less than significant fails to quantify this risk and compare it to applicable thresholds. The IS/MND fails to include a health risk assessment ("HRA"). The IS/MND concludes that health risk from construction activities would be less than significant because construction would occur over a period of time shorter than 70 years. However, this conclusion directly contrasts with guidance published by the Office OR3-'e of Environmental Heal Hazard Assessment ("OEHHA"), which recommends that all Packet Pg. 764 Comments of LIUNA on Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative Declaration Waterman Industrial Center Page 8 of 8 OR3-24 short-term projects lasting at least two months be evaluated for cancer risks to nearby Cont. sensitive receptors. The IS/MND is devoid of this analysis. Mr. Hagemann prepared a simple screening-level health risk assessment which demonstrates that construction related DPM emissions from the Project may result in a potentially significant health risk impact. (Hagemann, pp. 8-9.) Using annual estimates from the Project's CaIEEMod model, Mr. Hagemann used the EPA's recommended AERSCREEN air dispersion model to generate the maximum reasonable estimates of single hour downwind DPM concentrations from the Project Site. Mr. Hagemann then OR-25 calculated the excess cancer risk for each sensitive receptor location using applicable HRA methodologies prescribed by OEHHA. (ld., pp. 9-10.) He found that "[t]he infantile exposure for the sensitive receptors exceeds the SCAQMD threshold of 10 in one o million." (td., p. 10.) Further, it is likely that this impact would be even greater since the LO estimates from the Project's CaIEEMod model were artificially low, as demonstrated a above. Thus, Mr. Hagemann states that "a refined health risk assessment must be prepared to examine air quality impacts generated by Project construction using site- LO specific meteorology and specific equipment usage schedules." (td., p. 10) It Mr. Hagemann's analysis clearly provides substantial evidence supporting a fair Q argument that construction emissions from the Project may have significant impacts on -)R3-26 human health and the environment. Accordingly, the City must prepare an EIR to analyze these impacts and evaluate potential mitigation measures to address the Cn impacts. a CONCLUSION c OR3-27 For the foregoing reasons, the iS/MND for the Project should be withdrawn, an s EIR should be prepared and the draft EIR should be circulated for public review and r comment in accordance with CEQA. Thank you for considering our comments. a r c as ;_ Sincerely, Douglas Chermak Lozeau Drury LLP Packet Pg. 765 6.B.h N O Ln r !Q Q. In Co It ' See OR4 d t EXH I BIT A 0 a m D: ca Co U O. d' c a> E t v co .r a a Packet Pg. 766 s.B.n OR4 Technical Consultation,Data Analysis and S Litigation Support for the Environment 26562 91h Street,Suite 201 Santa Monica,California 90405 Matt Hagemann Tel: (949)887-9013 Email: mhagemann@swape.com February 29, 2016 Douglas Chermak Lozeau I Drury LLP 410 12th Street, Suite 250 N Oakland, CA 94607 ° Subject: Comments on the Waterman Industrial Center Project a C? Dear Mr. Chermak: o We have reviewed the February 1, 2016 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND)for the o Waterman Industrial Center Project("Project"). The Project includes construction of a 564,652-square tY foot(SF) speculative warehouse building on a 26-acre property located on the southwest corner of the intersection of East Dumas Street and South Waterman Avenue in the City of San Bernardino. The U) building would be a cross dock warehouse facility with 10,000 SF of dedicated office/mezzanine space. nv The site will also include a 427-SF pump house.The building would have 49 dock doors on its northern frontage and 49 on its southern frontage.Total on-site parking would be 452 stalls, with 286 dedicated w to warehouse parking(including office)and 166 trailer parking spaces. Landscaping in the amount of E 103,585 SF is anticipated for the site and the southwest corner of the site would be used as a storm ig .r water/water quality control basin. Roadway frontage improvements would be provided on South Q Waterman Avenue and East Dumas Street. at E Our review concludes that the IS/MND fails to adequately evaluate the Project's Hazards and Hazardous y Waste,Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas impacts. Specifically,we find the following issues with the OR4 analyses conducted in the IS/MND: • The IS/MND models the Project's construction and operational criteria air pollutant and greenhouse gas emissions using incorrect input parameters. As a result,the Project's pollutant emissions are OR4 greatly underestimated. • Furthermore,the IS/MND concludes that the health risk posed to nearby sensitive receptors exposed to diesel exhaust emitted during Project construction will be less-than-significant,yet fails to provide substantial evidence to support this claim. When a health risk assessment is actually ORz prepared to quantify the impacts from Project construction,we find that the health risk posed to these nearby sensitive receptors will be potentially significant. 1 Packet Pg. 767 t4-3 A Draft Environmental Impact Report(DEIR) should be prepared to address these issues, and should Cont. identify and incorporate additional mitigation measures where necessary. Air Quality Unsubstantiated Input Parameters Used to Estimate Project Emissions The IS/MND relies on emissions calculated from the California Emissions Estimator Model Version CalEEMod.2013.2.2 ("CaIEEMod").1 CaIEEMod provides recommended default values based on site specific information,such as land use type, meteorological data,total lot acreage, project type and typical equipment associated with project type. If more specific project information is known,the user can change the default values and input project-specific values, but CEQA requires that such changes be justified by substantial evidence?Once all the values are inputted into the model,the Project's construction and operational emissions are calculated, and "output files" are generated.These output N OR4 4 files,which are part of the Project's Air Quality Technical Report(Appendix A), disclose to the reader LO what parameters were utilized in calculating the Project's air pollutant emissions,and make known R which default values were changed as well as provide justification for the values selected.3 tCL LO According to the IS/MND,the Project is subject to significance criteria,guidance, and regulations set � forth by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) (IS/MND, p. 26). When reviewing V_ the Project's CaIEEMod output files, however, we found that several of the assumptions used and values Q inputted into the model were not consistent with recommended procedures and values set forth by the 0� Z4-5 SCAQMD for high-cube warehouses, and were not consistent with information disclosed in the IS/MND. When the Project's emissions are modeled using correct input parameters,we find that the Project will U have a potentially significant impact on regional air quality. As a result, a DEIR should be prepared to a include an updated air pollution model that uses correct input values, consistent with the IS/MND and d c recommendations set forth by the SCAQMD. E Assumes Unrefrigerated Land Use w Because the IS/MND's assumes that all warehouses will be unrefrigerated,the Project's operational emissions may be grossly underestimated. According to the CaIEEMod output files provided in Appendix m A of the IS/MND, the proposed industrial building was modeled as an "Unrefrigerated Warehouse-No _ OR4-6 Rail" (see excerpt below) (Appendix A, p. 52, pp. 182). Land Uses: Size - Metric -LW Acreage Floor Surface Area - Population Unrefrigerated Warehouse-No Rail 564.55 1000sgft r 12.96 564,652.00 1 0 ______________________________+________._.__._______.__._.__.j_________._____________________F______________l__.__.___._.._____{_.._..________. Other Asphalt Surfaces 5.84 Acre 5.$4 254,394�D 0 _______________P_____.._..____;------------------_-----------;-------------------------------h______________l______. Other No As halt Surfaces ; 103.59 ; 1000sgft 2.38 103.585.00 0 ..................._____ ------------------------------ Parkin Lot 45200 Space 407 180,900.00 0 1 CaIEEMod website,available at: http://www.caleemod.com/ 2 CaIEEMod User Guide, pp.2,9,available at:http://www.caleemod.com/ 3 CaIEEMod User Guide,pp.7, 13,available at:http://www.caleemod.com/(A key feature of the CaIEEMod e program is the"remarks"feature,where the user explains why a default setting was replaced by a "user defined„ value. These remarks are included in the report.) 2 Packet Pg.768 Assuming that the proposed building will be composed of unrefrigerated warehouses, exclusively, however, is inconsistent with information disclosed in the IS/MND, and may result in an OR4-E underestimation of the Project's operational emissions.According to the IS/MND,future tenants of the Cont. proposed warehouses are currently unknown.The IS/MND states, "The industrial building is currently planned as a 'spec building.'Thus,the future tenant of the building is not currently known" (IS/MND, p. 3).Therefore, by assuming that the proposed Project buildings will be composed solely of unrefrigerated warehouses is unsubstantiated, as the Project's future tenants remain unknown. As discussed by SCAQMD, "CEQA requires the use of'conservative analysis'to afford 'fullest possible protection of the environment.""As a result,the most conservative analysis should be conducted.With this in mind,the proposed building should be modeled as "Refrigerated Warehouse-No Rail," or at the OR4-1 very least, a portion of the building should be modeled as "Refrigerated Warehouse-No Rail," with the remaining portion of the building modeled as "Unrefrigerated Warehouse-No Rail," so as to take into c consideration the possibility that future tenants may require both cold storage and non-cold storage. 'r' cn CL Refrigerated warehouses release more air pollutants and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions when ? compared to unrefrigerated warehouses for several reasons. First,warehouses equipped with cold Ln storage (refrigerators and freezers,for example) are known to consume more energy when compared to warehouses without cold storage.' Second, warehouses equipped with cold storage typically require t O R4-8 Q refrigerated trucks, which are known to idle for much longer, even up to an hour,when compared to aL unrefrigerated hauling trucks.' Lastly, according to a July 2014 Warehouse Truck Trip Study Data Results w and Usage presentation prepared by the SCAQMD, it was found that hauling trucks that require refrigeration result in greater truck trip rates when compared to non-refrigerated hauling trucks.' v a By not including refrigerated warehouses as a potential land use in the air quality model,the Project's operational emissions may be grossly underestimated,as the future tenants are currently unknown. E Unless the Project Applicant can demonstrate that the future tenants of these proposed buildings will bE OR4-9 limited to unrefrigerated warehouse uses, exclusively, it should be assumed that a mix of cold and non- Q cold storage will be provided on-site. A DEIR should be prepared to account for the possibility of refrigerated warehouse needs by future tenants. E s Incorrect Usage of Fontana Truck Trip Study for Fleet Mix and Truck Trip Rate Because the IS/MND relies upon an artificially low truck trip rate and truck fleet mix percentage,the OR4-1 Q Project's operational mobile-source emissions are greatly underestimated. The IS/MND's Traffic Impact '"Warehouse Truck Trip Study Data Results and Usage" Presentation.SCAQMD Inland Empire Logistics Council, June 2014,available at:http•//www agmd gov/does/default-source/cega/handbook/high-cube-warehouse-trip- rate-study-for-air-quality-analysis/final-ielc 6-19-2014.pdf?sfvrsn=2 'Managing Energy Costs in Warehouses, Business Energy Advisor, available at: http://bizenergyadvisor.com/warehouses 6"Estimation of Fuel Use by Idling Commercial Trucks," p.8, available at: http://www.transportation.anl.gov/pdfs/TA/373.pd "'Warehouse Truck Trip Study Data Results and Usage" Presentation.SCAQMD Mobile Source Committee,July 2014,available at:http•//www agmd gov/dots/default-source/cega/handbook/high-cube-warehouse-trip-rate- ' study-for-air-quality-analysis/finaltrucktripstudymsc072514 pdf?sfvrsn=2 p.7,9 3 Packet Pg. 769 6.B.h Assessment(Appendix F) and Air Quality/GHG Assessment(Appendix A) rely on the August 2003 City of OR4-10 Fontana Truck Trip Generation Study("Fontana Study"),8 and the 2012 Institute of Transportation Cont. Engineers 91h Edition Trip Generation Manual("Trip Generation Manual")to determine the number of vehicle and truck trips the Project will generate during operation (Appendix A, p. 60;Appendix F, p. 3). While the Trip Generation Manual is a widely accepted resource,the Fontana Study is not, and according to SCAQMD Staff, has limited applicability. As is disclosed in the IS/MND and associated appendices,the proposed industrial building will consist of high-cube distribution warehouses (IS/MND, p. 64; Appendix F, p. 3). According to SCAQMD staff,the OR4-11 "Fontana Study, by itself, is not characteristic of high cube warehouses."' Furthermore, SCAQMD staff finds the following additional issues with the Fontana Study:10 N • The overall trip rate is based on only four warehouses total,which includes two warehouses with LO OR4-12 zeros. In other words,the results of the Fontana Study were based on only two data points.As is CL disclosed in the Fontana Study,the daily trip rate was only based on data from a Target warehouse and a TAB warehouse.11 LO 00 • The Fontana Study does not report any 24-hour daily truck trip rates.According to the Fontana OR4-13 Study, "Trip generation statistics for daily truck trips were not calculated because vehicle o classifications counts could not be obtained from the driveway 24-hour counts."iZ C r• The trip rates using the Fontana study are calculated based on a 20 percent truck fleet mix, which is 4-14 L M inconsistent with SCAQMD's recommendation that agencies use a truck fleet mix of 40%. U Cn G. OR4-15[Due to these reasons,SCAQMD recommends that Project Applicants either"use ITE default values until Governing Board action" (Option 1) or refer to the flow chart below (Option 2). 13 d E s v ns r Q c a> E s ca r 8"Truck Trip Generation Study."City of Fontana,County of San Bernardino,State of California,August 2003, Q available at: http://www.fontana.org/DocumentCenter/Home/View/622 9"Warehouse Truck Trip Study Data Results and Usage" Presentation.SCAQMD Mobile Source Committee,July 2014,available at:http•//www agmd gov/docs/default-source/cega/handbook/high-cube-warehouse-trip-rate- study-for-air-quality-analysis/finaltrucktripstudymsc072514.pdf?sfvrsn=2, p. 10 10"Warehouse Truck Trip Study Data Results and Usage" Presentation.SCAQMD Mobile Source Committee,July 2014,available at:http•//www agmd gov/docs/default-source/cega/handbook/high-cube-warehouse-trip-rate- study-for-air-quality-analysis/finaltrucktripstudymsc072514.pdf?sfvrsn=2, p. 10 11"Truck Trip Generation Study."City of Fontana,County of San Bernardino,State of California,August 2003, available at: http://www.fontana.org/DocumentCenter/­­Home/"View/­­­622, p.35 11"Truck Trip Generation Study."City of Fontana,County of San Bernardino,State of California,August 2003, available at: http://www.fontana.org/DocumentCenter/Home/­View/622, p.6 13"Warehouse Truck Trip Study Data Results and Usage" Presentation.SCAQMD Mobile Source Committee,July 2014,available at:http•//www agmd gov/docs/default-source/cega/handbook/high-cube-warehouse-trip-rate- study-for-air-quality-analysis/finaltrucktripstudymsc072514.pdf?sfvrsn=2, p. 11 4 Packet;Pg. 770 i 6.B.h . O , y z,d' VVIll tile vvaienuuse be Yes } Develop� site-specific developed with e-commerce OR4- Conn Will the 1.32 warehouse be • te with Cold Storage OR ecific Rate i r . • '. lil i j r •�U1�i iii °teT N • • • • ` • - i' X66 ate OR Develop Site Specific ITE 9th Edit on Develop Site Specific Rate CL LO CID Following Option 1, a truck trip rate of 0.6414 should be used for high-cube warehouse/distribution It center land uses (ITE Code 152), rather than the 0.34 truck trip rate used in the IS/MND (p. 64). OR4 `o Following Option 2,a truck trip rate of 0.66 or 0.64 should be used (assuming that the warehouse could m be developed with cold-storage). Therefore, regardless of the option implemented, a minimum daily 1X truck trip rate of 0.64 should be used, according to the SCAQMD. M U a. As previously discussed,the proposed building is anticipated to be a high-cube warehouse distribution center.When the recommended truck trip rate of 0.64 is used in place of the 0.34 truck trip rate used in c the IS/MND,we find that the number of truck trips increase by approximately 87%,with an increase of E approximately 168 trips per day, and an increase of approximately 61,000 truck trips per year(see table below). 'I OR4 IS/MND Model SWAPE Model E Size Truck Trip #of Daily Truck Trip #of Daily Building (square feet) Rate' Truck Trips Rate' Truck Trips < High-Cube Warehouse 564,652 0.34 194 0.64 361 Total Daily Truck Trips - 194 - 361 Total Annual Truck Trips - 70,692 - 131,903 1 Truck Trip Rate Per 1,000 Square Feet Increase in Daily Truck Trips 168 z Increase in Trips=SWAPE Model - IS/MND Model Increase in Annual Truck Trips' 61,211 3 Annual Trips= Daily Trips x 365 Days Percent Increase2 87% The IS/MND and associated appendices also rely on a total truck fleet mix of approximately 20%,which OR4 Study.is taken from the Fontana Stud Appendix A of the IS/MND states, "The vehicle mix followed the . 14 0.64 truck trips per 1,000 square feet. 5 Packet Pg. 771 6.B.h recommendations of the Fontana Truck Trip Generation Study with a mix of 79.57 percent cars, 3.46 percent 2-axle trucks,4.64 percent 3-axle trucks and 12.33 percent 4-axle trucks" (p. 60).This fleet mix used in the IS/MND and associated appendices, however, is not consistent with recommendations set forth by SCAQMD, and does not accurately represent the percentage of trucks that access a high-cube OR4-18 warehouse on a daily basis. Rather,SCAQMD recommends that lead agencies assume a truck fleet mix Cont. of 40%.According to Appendix E: Technical Source Documentation of the CaIEEMod User's Guide, "in order to avoid underestimating the number of trucks visiting warehouse facilities," SCAQMD staff "recommends that lead agencies conservatively assume that an average of 40%of total trips are truck trips [(0.48*10+0.2*4)/(10+4)=0.4)]."15 If Project-specific data is not available, such as detailed trip rates based on a known tenant schedule,this average of 40% provides a reasonably conservative value based on currently available data. As is stated in the IS/MND, since the future tenant is unknown, "an exact number of future employees or hours of operation cannot be determined,"which means that the N tenant schedule is not known;therefore, a 40%truck fleet mix should be assumed (IS/MND, p. 3). 9 LO Specifically,the following fleet mix percentage should have been used within the CaIEEMod model. LO CaIEEMod Parameter IS/MND Model input SWAPE Model Input 00 Passenger Cars(LDA) 79.57% 59.14% Operational Mobile Fleet 2 Axle Trucks(LHDT1) 3.46% 6.92% 0 Mix 3 Axle Trucks(MHD) 4.64% 9.28% W 4-19 4+Axle Trucks(HHDT) 12.33% 24.66% co The "Operational Mobile Fleet Mix" percentages for trucks (LHDT1, MHD, and HHDT) in the table above a were adjusted to reflect a truck trip percentage of approximately 40%,which is consistent with recommended procedures set forth by SCAQMD staff.This fleet mix more accurately represents the number of trips that are likely to occur during Project operation. As such, an updated air quality analysis s should be prepared in a DEIR that adequately assesses the Project's air quality and greenhouse gas impacts. Q c a� Incorrectly Applied Percent Fleet Mix to Trip Type Percentage E Not only did the IS/MND rely upon an artificially low truck fleet mix percentage to estimate the Project's mobile-source emissions, but it also inputted this fleet mix percentage into the CaIEEMod model a incorrectly. As a result,the Project's operational mobile-source emissions are both greatly underestimated and extremely inaccurate. As is discussed in the section above, Appendix A of the IS/MND states that"the vehicle mix followed the recommendations of the Fontana Truck Trip Generation Study with a mix of 79.57 percent cars, 3.46 percent 2-axle trucks,4.64 percent 3-axle trucks and 12.33 percent 4-axle trucks" (p. 60). According to OR4-20 the SCAQMD, "in order to convert the axle based fleet mix to the vehicle classes utilized by EMFAC" (which is what CaIEEMod relies upon to estimate mobile-source emissions), 2-axle trucks can be t 11 "Appendix E Technical Source Documentation."CalEEMod User's Guide,July 2013, available at: httP://www agmd gov/docs/default-source/cega/handbook/high-cube-warehouse-trip-rate-study-for-air-guality- analysis/high-cube-resource-caleemod-appendix-e.pdf?sfvrsn=2,pp. 15 6 Packet Pg.772 6.B.h represented by the LHDT1 vehicle class, 3-axle trucks can be represented by the MHDT vehicle class,4- axle trucks can be represented by the HHDT vehicle class, and all others can be represented by the LDA vehicle class.16 Therefore, assuming that the fleet mix percentage provided in the Fontana Study is correct,the following percentages should have been inputted for each vehicle class,with all others vehicle classes set to zero (see table below). OR4-2 Truck Type Truck Type o Fleet Mix Number of Axles EMFAC Vehicle Class (/) 4-axle HHDT 12.33 3-axle MHDT 4.64 2-axle LHDT1 3.46 Passenger Cars LDA 79.57 N O LO Review of the IS/MND's CaIEEMod output files, however, indicate that these values were not inputted CL into the model as the fleet mix percentages. Rather,these values were used to adjust the trip type percentages for the Project. According to the CaIEEMod output files, a truck trip percentage of 20.43% LO was applied to commercial-work(C-W)trip types to represent the number of truck trips that would OR44 cqo occur, and a car trip percentage of 79.57%was applied to commercial-nonwork(C-NW)trips to t represent the number of passenger car trips that would occur during Project operation (Appendix A, pp. m 183). W c� w The application of these percentages to the trip types within CaIEEMod, however, is entirely incorrect. Cn U According to Appendix A of the CaIEEMod User's Guide, "the trip type breakdown describes the purpose a of the trip generated at each land use," and "multiplying the total trips for a land use by trip type breakdown percentage yields trips for a given trip type."17 This trip type, however, does not specifically E apply to vehicle classes, as is assumed by the IS/MND. Commercial-work(C-W)trips are not made by trucks,exclusively, and commercial-nonwork (C-NW)trips are not made by passenger cars,exclusively. OR4-, a Rather, "the commercial-work trip represents a trip made by someone who is employed by the commercial land use sector,"which can include trips made by employees in light-duty trucks and passenger cars as well as trips made by vendors in light-duty and heavy-duty trucks."Similarly, "the commercial-nonwork trip represents a trip associated with the commercial land use other than by r customers or workers," such as "trips made by delivery vehicles of goods associated with the land a use."19 Therefore, applying a trip percentage of 20.43%to C-W trips to represent the number of truck trips that will occur during Project operation is incorrect, as C-W trips include trips made by a mix of 11"Appendix E Technical Source Documentation."CaIEEMod User's Guide,July 2013,available at: http•//www agmd gov/docs/default-source/cega/handbook/high-cube-warehouse-trip-rate-study-for-air-quality- analysis/high-cube-resource-caleemod-appendix-e.pdf?sfvrsn=2, pp. 15 11"CaIEEMod User's Guide,Appendix A:Calculation Details for CaIEEMod."SCAQMD, available at: http•//www agmd gov/docs/default-source/caleemod/caleemod-appendixa.pdf?sfvrsn=2, p. 20 11"CaIEEMod User's Guide,Appendix A:Calculation Details for CaIEEMod."SCAQMD, available at: AdWA& http•//www agmd gov/docs/default-source/caleemod/caleemod-appendixa.pdf?sfvrsn=2, p.20 19"CaIEEMod User's Guide,Appendix A:Calculation Details for CaIEEMod."SCAQMD,available at: http•//www agmd gov/docs/default-source/caleemod/caleemod-appendixa.pdf?sfvrsn=2, p.20 7 Packet Pg.773 ' 6.B.h vehicle types, including passenger cars.Similarly, applying a trip percentage of 79.57%to C-NW trips to OR4-23 represent the number of passenger car trips that will occur during Project operation is incorrect, as C- Cont. NW trips include trips made by a mix of vehicle types, including trucks. Due to these reasons,we require that an updated air quality analysis be prepared in a DEIR in order to adequately assess the Project's air quality and greenhouse gas impacts. Diesel Particulate Matter Health Risk Emissions Inadequately Evaluated The IS/MND concludes that the health risk posed to nearby sensitive receptors from exposure to diesel particulate matter("DPM") emissions released during Project construction would be less than significant,yet fails to quantify the risk and compare it to applicable thresholds (IS/MND, p. 20).The IS/MND attempts to justify the omission of an actual health risk assessment("HRA"), stating, "Given the relatively limited number of heavy duty construction equipment and the short-term construction schedule,the proposed project would not result in a long-term (i.e., 70 years)substantial source of toxic o LO air contaminant emissions and corresponding individual cancer risk.Therefore, no significant short-term co toxic air contaminant impacts would occur during construction of the proposed project" (IS/MND, p. 20). Q- t9 This justification, however, is incorrect. LO 00 Itt OR4-24 The IS/MND assumes that because construction would occur over a period of time shorter than 70 years, health risk from construction activities would be less than significant.This determination, c CL however, is in contrast to the most recent guidance published by the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment(OEHHA),the organization responsible for providing recommendations for health M risk assessments in California. In February of 2015, OEHHA released its most recent Risk Assessment y Guidelines: Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments,which was formally adopted in a March of 2015.20 This guidance document describes the types of projects that warrant the preparation d of a health risk assessment. Construction of the Project will produce emissions of DPM, a human m carcinogen,through the exhaust stacks of construction equipment over a construction period of 10 E months,from June 2016 to March 2017 (IS/MND, p. 17). The OEHHA document recommends that all .r short-term projects lasting at least two months be evaluated for cancer risks to nearby sensitive a receptors.21 This recommendation reflects the most recent health risk assessment policy, and as such, an assessment of health risks to nearby sensitive receptors from construction should be included in a t revised CEQA evaluation for the Project. Q Furthermore,simply because there is a "relatively limited number of heavy duty construction equipment" (IS/MND, p. 20) does not mean that the emissions from the construction equipment would OR4-25 not pose a significant risk to nearby receptors. In an effort to demonstrate this,we prepared a simple screening-level health risk assessment.The results of our assessment, as described below, demonstrate that construction-related DPM emissions may result in a potentially significant health risk impact. 21"Risk Assessment Guidelines Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments."OEHHA, February 2015,available at:http://oehha.ca.gov/air/hot spots/hotspots2015.html 21"Risk Assessment Guidelines Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments."OEHHA, February 2015,available at:http•//oehha.ca.gov/air/hot spots/2015/2015GuidanceManual.pdf, p.8-18 8 Packet Pg. 774 6.B.h As of 2011,the EPA recommends AERSCREEN as the leading air dispersion model, due to improvements in simulating local meteorological conditions based on simple input parameters.22 The model replaced SCREEN3,which is included in OEHHA 23 and CAPCOA24 guidance as the appropriate air dispersion model for Level 2 health risk screening assessments("HRSAs"). A Level 2 HRSA utilizes a limited amount of site- OR4-2 specific information to generate maximum reasonable downwind concentrations of air contaminants to which nearby sensitive receptors may be exposed. If an unacceptable air quality hazard is determined to be possible using AERSCREEN, a more refined modeling approach is required prior to approval of the Project. We prepared a preliminary health risk screening assessment of the Project's construction emissions using the annual estimates from the Project's CalEEMod model, which can be found within Appendix D of the IS/MND's Air Quality, Global Climate Change, and Health Risk Assessment Impact Analysis.The CalEEMod annual emissions indicate that construction activities will generate approximately 450.2 c pounds of DPM over a 303 day construction period.The AERSCREEN model relies on a continuous "' average emissions rate to simulate maximum downwind concentrations from point, area, and volume C. emission sources.To account for the variability in construction equipment usage over the seven phases LO of Project construction, we calculated an average DPM emission rate by the following equation. 00 v grams 450.2 lbs 453.6 grams 1 day 1 hour 91s OR4-2 '0 Emission Rate ( ) = x x x � 0.0078 0 second 303 days lb 24 hours 3,600 seconds C Construction activity was simulated as a 25.6 acre rectangular area source in AERSCREEN, with dimensions of 377 meters by 275 meters.A release height of three meters was selected to represent the U) U height of exhaust stacks on construction equipment, and an initial vertical dimension of one and a half o- meters was used to simulate instantaneous plume dispersion upon release.An urban meteorological d setting was selected with model-default inputs for wind speed and direction distribution. The AERSCREEN model generated maximum reasonable estimates of single hour downwind DPM w concentrations from the Project site. EPA guidance suggests that in screening procedures,the Q annualized average concentration of an air pollutant may be estimated by multiplying the single-hour concentration by 10%.25 The maximum single-hour downwind concentration in the AERSCREEN output t was approximately 2.742 µg/m3 DPM 25 meters downwind, a distance that is most representative of the Y sensitive receptor location at 20 meters (65 feet).The annualized average concentration for the Q sensitive receptor was estimated to be 0.2742 µg/m3. We calculated the excess cancer risk for each sensitive receptor location,for adults, children, and/or infant receptors using applicable HRA methodologies prescribed by OEHHA. OEHHA recommends the OR4-2 22"AERSCREEN Released as the EPA Recommended Screening Model," USEPA,April 11,2011,available at: http•//www epa gov/ttn/scram/guidance/clarification/20110411 AERSCREEN Release Memo.pdf 21"Risk Assessment Guidelines Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments."OEHHA, February 2015,available at:http•//oehha.ca.gov/air/hot spots/2015/2015GuidanceManual.pdf 24"Health Risk Assessments for Proposed Land Use Projects,"CAPCOA,July 2009,available at: http://www.capcoa.org/wp-content/`uploads/"2012/03/CAPCOA HRA LU Guidelines 8-6-09.pdf 25 http•//www epa gov/ttn/scram/guidance/guide/EPA-454R-92-019 OCR.pdf 9 Packet Pg.775 6.B.h use of Age Sensitivity Factors ("ASFs")to account for the heightened susceptibility of young children to the carcinogenic toxicity of air pollution.26 According to the revised guidance, quantified cancer risk should be multiplied by a factor of ten during the first two years of life (infant), and by a factor of three for the subsequent fourteen years of life (child aged two until sixteen). Furthermore, in accordance with guidance set forth by the SCAQMD and OEHHA,we used 95th percentile breathing rates for infants and 80th percentile breathing rates for children and adults."We used a cancer potency factor of 1.1 (mg/kg- OR4-28 day)-'and an averaging time of 25,550 days.The results of our calculations are shown below. Cont. Parameter Description Units Adult Child Infant Cain Concentration µg/m3 0.2742 0.2742 0.2742 DBR Daily breathing rate L/kg-day 230 640 1090 EF Exposure Frequency days/year 350 350 350 ED Exposure Duration years 0.8 0.8 0.8 0 AT Averaging Time days 25550 25550 25550 "' Inhaled Dose (mg/kg-day) 9.1E-07 1.7E-06 1.7E-06 CL CPF Cancer Potency 1/(mg/kg-day) 1.1 1.1 1.1 LO Factor 1r ASF Age Sensitivity Factor - 1 3 10 Cancer Risk 7.60E-07 6.35E-06 3.60E-05 0 0 a m The excess cancer risk to adults, children, and infants during Project construction for the sensitive receptors 25 meters away are 0.76, 6.35, and 36 in one million, respectively. Consistent with OEHHA a guidance, exposure was assumed to begin in the infantile stage of life to provide the most conservative �t estimates of air quality hazards.The infantile exposure for the sensitive receptors exceeds the SCAQMD m threshold of 10 in one million. As a result, a refined health risk assessment must be prepared to E t examine air quality impacts generated by Project construction using site-specific meteorology and OR4-29 specific equipment usage schedules. It should be noted that the Project's health risk impact may be Q greater than what is estimated in our independent screening-level assessment,as the DPM emission value relied upon to conduct this analysis was taken from the IS/MND's CalEEMod model.As was E discussed in the previous sections,the IS/MND's CalEEMod model relies upon incorrect input parameters that artificially reduce the Project's construction and operational emissions. Therefore,the Q health risk posed to nearby sensitive receptors as a result of the Project may be greater. Even though our assessment may still underestimate the Project's health risk impact, our analysis still demonstrates that the Project poses a significant health risk as a result of DPM emissions. Therefore, a DEIR must be prepared to adequately evaluate the Project's health risk impact, and should include additional mitigation measures to reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level. ze"Risk Assessment Guidelines Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments."OEHHA, February 2015,available at:http•//oehha.ca.gov/air/hot spots/2015/2015GuidanceManual.pdf Z'"Supplemental Guidelines for Preparing Risk Assessments for the Air Toxics'Hot Spots' Information and Assessment Act,"SCAQMD,June 5,2015,available at:http://www.agmd.gov/docs/default-source/planning/risk- assessment/ab2588-risk-assessment-guidelines.pdf?sfvrsn=6, p. 19 10 Packet;Pg.776 .�rrrrrrr 6.B.h Sincerely, Matt Hagemann, P.G.,C.Hg. Jessie Jaeger o T- R a t9 LO Co Ict v t 0 a o: U 0. c m s .r a a 11 Packet Pg. 777 ■� Technical Consultation,Data Analysis and ■� �E] Lftlqation Support for the Environment 1640 51h St..,Suite 204 Santa Santa Monica,California 90401 Tel: (949)887-9013 Email:mhagemann@swape.com Matthew F.Hagemann,P.G.,C.Hg.,QSD,QSP Geologic and Hydrogeologic Characterization Industrial Stormwater Compliance Investigation and Remediation Strategies Litigation Support and Testifying Expert c CEQA Review r M CL C9 Education: ,n 00 M.S.Degree,Geology,California State University Los Angeles,Los Angeles,CA,1984. B.A.Degree,Geology,Humboldt State University,Arcata,CA,1982. 0 CL 0 Professional Certifications: California Professional Geologist California Certified Hydrogeologist v a. Qualified SWPPP Developer and Practitioner c Professional Experience: E Matt has 25 years of experience in environmental policy, assessment and remediation. He spent nine M years with the U.S. EPA in the RCRA and Superfund programs and served as EPA's Senior Science Q Policy Advisor in the Western Regional Office where he identified emerging threats to groundwater from perchlorate and MTBE. While with EPA,Matt also served as a Senior Hydrogeologist in the oversight of the assessment of seven major military facilities undergoing base closure. He led numerous enforcement _ actions under provisions of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) while also working < with permit holders to improve hydrogeologic characterization and water quality monitoring. Matt has worked closely with U.S. EPA legal counsel and the technical staff of several states in the application and enforcement of RCRA, Safe Drinking Water Act and Clean Water Act regulations. Matt has trained the technical staff in the States of California, Hawaii, Nevada, Arizona and the Territory of Guam in the conduct of investigations,groundwater fundamentals,and sampling techniques. Positions Matt has held include: Founding Partner,Soil/Water/Air Protection Enterprise(SWAPE)(2003—present); • Geology Instructor,Golden West College,2010—2104; • Senior Environmental Analyst,Komex H2O Science,Inc.(2000--2003); Packet Pg. 778 6.B.h • Executive Director,Orange Coast Watch(2001-2004); • Senior Science Policy Advisor and Hydrogeologist,U.S.Environmental Protection Agency(1989- 1998); • Hydrogeologist,National Park Service,Water Resources Division(1998-2000); • Adjunct Faculty Member,San Francisco State University,Department of Geosciences(1993- 1998); • Instructor,College of Marin,Department of Science(1990-1995); • Geologist,U.S.Forest Service(1986-1998);and • Geologist,Dames&Moore(1984-1986). Senior Regulatory and Litigation Support Analyst: With SWAPE,Matt's responsibilities have included: • Lead analyst and testifying expert in the review of over 100 environmental impact reports since 2003 under CEQA that identify significant issues with regard to hazardous waste,water o LO resources, water quality,air quality,Valley Fever,greenhouse gas emissions,and geologic hazards. Make recommendations for additional mitigation measures to lead agencies at the a local and county level to include additional characterization of health risks and implementation of protective measures to reduce worker exposure to hazards from toxins co v and Valley Fever. 7' • Stormwater analysis,sampling and best management practice evaluation at industrial facilities. t • Manager of a project to provide technical assistance to a community adjacent to a former Q. a) Naval shipyard under a grant from the U.S.EPA. Ix • Technical assistance and litigation support for vapor intrusion concerns. • Lead analyst and testifying expert in the review of environmental issues in license applications for large solar power plants before the California Energy Commission. • Manager of a project to evaluate numerous formerly used military sites in the western U.S. d • Manager of a comprehensive evaluation of potential sources of perchlorate contamination in Southern California drinking water wells. E • Manager and designated expert for litigation support under provisions of Proposition 65 in the review of releases of gasoline to sources drinking water at major refineries and hundreds of gas a stations throughout California. • Expert witness on two cases involving MTBE litigation. • Expert witness and litigation support on the impact of air toxins and hazards at a school. E • Expert witness in litigation at a former plywood plant. Q With Komex H2O Science Inc.,Matt's duties included the following: • Senior author of a report on the extent of perchlorate contamination that was used in testimony by the former U.S.EPA Administrator and General Counsel. • Senior researcher in the development of a comprehensive,electronically interactive chronology of MTBE use,research,and regulation. • Senior researcher in the development of a comprehensive,electronically interactive chronology of perchlorate use,research,and regulation. • Senior researcher in a study that estimates nationwide costs for MTBE remediation and drinking water treatment,results of which were published in newspapers nationwide and in testimony against provisions of an energy bill that would limit liability for oil companies. • Research to support litigation to restore drinking water supplies that have been contaminated by MTBE in California and New York. 2 Packet Pg. 779 6.B.h • . Expert witness testimony in a case of oil production-related contamination in Mississippi. • Lead author for a multi-volume remedial investigation report for an operating school in Los Angeles that met strict regulatory requirements and rigorous deadlines. i O N CL 0 00 v t 0 rz m D: U a c a� E »r Q Q E Q 3 - Packet Pg. 780 6.B.h • Development of strategic approaches for cleanup of contaminated sites in consultation with clients and regulators. Executive Director: As Executive Director with Orange Coast Watch, Matt led efforts to restore water quality at Orange County beaches from multiple sources of contamination including urban runoff and the discharge of wastewater. In reporting to a Board of Directors that included representatives from leading Orange County universities and businesses,Matt prepared issue papers in the areas of treatment and disinfection of wastewater and control of the discharge of grease to sewer systems. Matt actively participated in the development of countywide water quality permits for the control of urban runoff and permits for the discharge of wastewater.Matt worked with other nonprofits to protect and restore water quality, including Surfrider, Natural Resources Defense Council and Orange County CoastKeeper as well as with business N institutions including the Orange County Business Council. 9 LO c� CL Hydrogeology: �? As a Senior Hydrogeologist with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Matt led investigations to LO characterize and cleanup closing military bases, including Mare Island Naval Shipyard, Hunters Point 7t- Naval Shipyard, Treasure Island Naval Station, Alameda Naval Station, Moffett Field, Mather Army a CL Airfield,and Sacramento Army Depot. Specific activities were as follows: • Led efforts to model groundwater flow and contaminant transport,ensured adequacy of �a monitoring networks,and assessed cleanup alternatives for contaminated sediment,soil,and groundwater. nv. • Initiated a regional program for evaluation of groundwater sampling practices and laboratory analysis at military bases. c • Identified emerging issues,wrote technical guidance,and assisted in policy and regulation E development through work on four national U.S.EPA workgroups,including the Superfund u Groundwater Technical Forum and the Federal Facilities Forum. d At the request of the State of Hawaii, Matt developed a methodology to determine the vulnerability of groundwater to contamination on the islands of Maui and Oahu. He used analytical models and a GIS to show zones of vulnerability, and the results were adopted and published by the State of Hawaii and Q County of Maui. As a hydrogeologist with the EPA Groundwater Protection Section, Matt worked with provisions of the Safe Drinking Water Act and NEPA to prevent drinking water contamination. Specific activities included the following: • Received an EPA Bronze Medal for his contribution to the development of national guidance for the protection of drinking water. • Managed the Sole Source Aquifer Program and protected the drinking water of two communities through designation under the Safe Drinking Water Act.He prepared geologic reports, conducted public hearings,and responded to public comments from residents who were very concerned about the impact of designation. 4 Packet Pg. 781 6.B.h • Reviewed a number of Environmental Impact Statements for planned major developments, including large hazardous and solid waste disposal facilities,mine reclamation,and water transfer. Matt served as a hydrogeologist with the RCRA Hazardous Waste program. Duties were as follows: • Supervised the hydrogeologic investigation of hazardous waste sites to determine compliance with Subtitle C requirements. • Reviewed and wrote"part B"permits for the disposal of hazardous waste. • Conducted RCRA Corrective Action investigations of waste sites and led inspections that formed the basis for significant enforcement actions that were developed in close coordination with U.S. EPA legal counsel. • Wrote contract specifications and supervised contractor's investigations of waste sites. With the National Park Service, Matt directed service-wide investigations of contaminant sources to 0 to prevent degradation of water quality,including the following tasks: c� • Applied pertinent laws and regulations including CERCLA,RCRA,NEPA,NRDA,and the 0 Clean Water Act to control military,mining,and landfill contaminants. " LO • Conducted watershed-scale investigations of contaminants at parks,including Yellowstone and v Olympic National Park. • Identified high-levels of perchlorate in soil adjacent to a national park in New Mexico 0 and advised park superintendent on appropriate response actions under CERCLA. m Served as a Park Service representative on the Interagency Perchlorate Steering Committee,a national workgroup. • Developed a program to conduct environmental compliance audits of all National Parks while U serving on a national workgroup. a • Co-authored two papers on the potential for water contamination from the operation of personal watercraft and snowmobiles,these papers serving as the basis for the development of nation- wide policy on the use of these vehicles in National Parks. s • Contributed to the Federal Multi-Agency Source Water Agreement under the Clean Water w V Action Plan. Q c m Policy: E Served senior management as the Senior Science Policy Advisor with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,Region 9.Activities included the following: Q • Advised the Regional Administrator and senior management on emerging issues such as the potential for the gasoline additive MTBE and ammonium perchlorate to contaminate drinking water supplies. • Shaped EPA's national response to these threats by serving on workgroups and by contributing to guidance,including the Office of Research and Development publication,Oxygenates in Water:Critical Information and Research Needs. • Improved the technical training of EPA's scientific and engineering staff. • Earned an EPA Bronze Medal for representing the region's 300 scientists and engineers in negotiations with the Administrator and senior management to better integrate scientific principles into the policy-making process. • Established national protocol for the peer review of scientific documents. 5 Packet Pg. 782 , rte 6.B.h Geology With the U.S.Forest Service,Matt led investigations to determine hillslope stability of areas proposed for timber harvest in the central Oregon Coast Range.Specific activities were as follows: • Mapped geology in the field,and used aerial photographic interpretation and mathematical models to determine slope stability. • Coordinated his research with community members who were concerned with natural resource protection. • Characterized the geology of an aquifer that serves as the sole source of drinking water for the city of Medford,Oregon. As a consultant with Dames and Moore, Matt led geologic investigations of two contaminated sites(later listed on the Superfund NPL) in the Portland, Oregon, area and a large hazardous waste site in eastern Oregon. Duties included the following: N 0 • Supervised year-long effort for soil and groundwater sampling. • Conducted aquifer tests. a • Investigated active faults beneath sites proposed for hazardous waste disposal. O LO co Teaching: le From 1990 to 1998,Matt taught at least one course per semester at the community college and university 0 levels: m • At San Francisco State University,held an adjunct faculty position and taught courses in environmental geology,oceanography(lab and lecture),h dro eolo gY�and groundwater S° Cn contamination. U • Served as a committee member for graduate and undergraduate students. n • Taught courses in environmental geology and oceanography at the College of Marin. c a� E Matt taught physical geology (lecture and lab and introductory geology at Golden West College in Huntington Beach,California from 2010 to 2014. d Invited Testimony,Reports,Papers and Presentations: °D E Hagemann,M.F.,2008. Disclosure of Hazardous Waste Issues under CEQA. Presentation to the Public 0 Environmental Law Conference,Eugene,Oregon. Q Hagemann,M.F.,2008. Disclosure of Hazardous Waste Issues under CEQA. Invited presentation to U.S. EPA Region 9,San Francisco,California. Hagemann,M.F.,2005. Use of Electronic Databases in Environmental Regulation,Policy Making and Public Participation. Brownfields 2005,Denver,Coloradao. Hagemann,M.F.,2004. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River and Impacts to Drinking Water in Nevada and the Southwestern U.S. Presentation to a meeting of the American Groundwater Trust, Las Vegas,NV(served on conference organizing committee). Hagemann,M.F.,2004. Invited testimony to a California Senate committee hearing on air toxins at schools in Southern California,Los Angeles. b Packet Pg. 783 6.B.h Brown,A.,Farrow,J.,Gray,A.and Hagemann,M.,2004. An Estimate of Costs to Address MTBE Releases from Underground Storage Tanks and the Resulting Impact to Drinking Water Wells. Presentation to the Ground Water and Environmental Law Conference,National Groundwater Association. Hagemann,M.F.,2004. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River and Impacts to Drinking Water in Arizona and the Southwestern U.S. Presentation to a meeting of the American Groundwater Trust, Phoenix,AZ(served on conference organizing committee). Hagemann,M.F.,2003. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River and Impacts to Drinking Water in the Southwestern U.S. Invited presentation to a special committee meeting of the National Academy of Sciences,Irvine,CA. N Hagemann,M.F.,2003. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River. Invited presentation to a tribal EPA meeting,Pechanga,CA. ca a C9 Hagemann,M.F.,2003. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River. Invited presentation to a meeting of tribal repesentatives,Parker,AZ. 00 v Hagemann,M.F.,2003. Impact of Perchlorate on the Colorado River and Associated Drinking Water o Supplies. Invited presentation to the Inter-Tribal Meeting,Torres Martinez Tribe. Hagemann,M.F.,2003. The Emergence of Perchlorate as a Widespread Drinking Water Contaminant. Invited presentation to the U.S.EPA Region 9. U a Hagemann,M.F.,2003. A Deductive Approach to the Assessment of Perchlorate Contamination. Invited presentation to the California Assembly Natural Resources Committee. Hagemann,M.F.,2003. Perchlorate:A Cold War Legacy in Drinking Water. Presentation to a meeting of w the National Groundwater Association. 4 Hagemann,M.F.,2002. From Tank to Tap:A Chronology of MTBE in Groundwater. Presentation to a meeting of the National Groundwater Association. t. Hagemann,M.F.,2002. A Chronology of MTBE in Groundwater and an Estimate of Costs to Address Q Impacts to Groundwater. Presentation to the annual meeting of the Society of Environmental Journalists. Hagemann,M.F.,2002. An Estimate of the Cost to Address MTBE Contamination in Groundwater (and Who Will Pay). Presentation to a meeting of the National Groundwater Association. Hagemann,M.F.,2002. An Estimate of Costs to Address MTBE Releases from Underground Storage Tanks and the Resulting Impact to Drinking Water Wells. Presentation to a meeting of the U.S.EPA and State Underground Storage Tank Program managers. Hagemann, M.F., 2001. From Tank to Tap: A Chronology of MTBE in Groundwater. Unpublished report. 7 Packet Pg. 784 6.B.h Hagemann, M.F., 2001. Estimated Cleanup Cost for MTBE in Groundwater Used as Drinking Water. Unpublished report. Hagemann,M.F.,2001. Estimated Costs to Address MTBE Releases from Leaking Underground Storage Tanks. Unpublished report. Hagemann, M.F., and VanMouwerik, M., 1999. Potential W a t e r Quality Concerns Related to Snowmobile Usage.Water Resources Division,National Park Service,Technical Report. VanMouwerik, M. and Hagemann, M.F. 1999, Water Quality Concerns Related to Personal Watercraft Usage.Water Resources Division,National Park Service,Technical Report. c LO Hagemann, M.F., 1999, Is Dilution the Solution to Pollution in National Parks? The George Wright a C7 Society Biannual Meeting,Asheville,North Carolina. LO co It v Hagemann, M.F., 1997, The Potential for MTBE to Contaminate Groundwater. U.S. EPA Superfund Groundwater Technical Forum Annual Meeting,Las Vegas,Nevada. Q m Hagemann, M.F., and Gill, M., 1996, Impediments to Intrinsic Remediation, Moffett Field Naval Air c Station,Conference on Intrinsic Remediation of Chlorinated Hydrocarbons,Salt Lake City. U CL Hagemann,M.F.,Fukunaga,G.L., 1996,The Vulnerability of Groundwater to Anthropogenic Contaminants on the Island of Maui,Hawaii.Hawaii Water Works Association Annual Meeting,Maui, E October 1996. c� Q Hagemann,M.F.,Fukanaga,G.L., 1996,Ranking Groundwater Vulnerability in Central Oahu, Hawaii. Proceedings, Geographic Information Systems in Environmental Resources Management, Air E and Waste Management Association Publication VIP-61. Q Hagemann, M.F., 1994. Groundwater Characterization and Cleanup at Closing Military Bases in California.Proceedings,California Groundwater Resources Association Meeting. Hagemann, M.F. and Sabol, M.A., 1993. Role of the U.S. EPA in the High Plains States Groundwater Recharge Demonstration Program. Proceedings, Sixth Biennial Symposium on the Artificial Recharge of Groundwater. Hagemann, M.F., 1993. U.S. EPA Policy on the Technical Impracticability of the Cleanup of DNAPL- contaminated Groundwater.California Groundwater Resources Association Meeting. 8 Packet Pg. 785 6.B.h Hagemann, M.F., 1992. Dense Nonaqueous Phase Liquid Contamination of Groundwater: An Ounce of Prevention...Proceedings,Association of Engineering Geologists Annual Meeting,v.35. Other Experience: Selected as subject matter expert for the California Professional Geologist licensing examination, 2009- 2011. N O LO Q LO co CF d' i O CL d t4 U C1. c w E t U t4 r+ Q C N E L U Q 9 Packet Pg. 786 s.B.n JESSIE MARIE JAEGER w SOIL WATER AIR PROTECTION ENTERPRI Technical Consultation,Data Analysis and 2656 29th Street,Suite 2 SWA P E Litigation Support for the Environment Santa Monica,California 904 Mobile: (530) 867-62 Office: (310)452-55 Fax: (310)452-55 Email:jessie @swape.cc EDUCATION UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA,LOS ANGELES B.S. CONSERVATION BIOLOGY&ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES JUNE20: PROJECT EXPERIENCE SOIL WATER AIR PROTECTION ENTERPRISE SANTA MONICA,C AIR QUALITY SPECIALIST SENIOR ANALYST:CEQA ANALYSIS&MODELING N O • Calculated roadway,stationary source,and cumulative impacts for risk and hazard analyses at proposed land use projects. U; • Quantified criteria air pollutant and greenhouse .gas emissions released during construction and operational activities M CL proposed land use projects using CaIEEMod and EMFAC2011 emission factors. 0 • Utilized AERSCREEN,a screening dispersion model,to determine the ambient air concentrations at sensitive receptor locations rn w • Organized presentations containing figures and tables comparing results of particulate matter analyses to CEQA thresholds. • Prepared reports that discuss results of the health risk analyses conducted for several land use redevelopment projects. 0 SENIOR ANALYST:GREENHOUSE GAS MODELING AND DETERMINATION OF SIGNIFICANCE Q- m Quantified greenhouse gas(GHG)emissions of a"business as usual"scenario for proposed land use projects using CaIEEMod. Determined compliance of proposed projects with AB 32 GHG reduction targets,with measures described in CARB's Scoping PI C for each land use sector,and with GHG significance thresholds recommended by various Air Quality Management Districts in a California. v • Produced tables and figures that compare the results of the GHG analyses to applicable CEQA thresholds and reduction targets. PROJECT MANAGER: OFF-GASSING OF FORMALDEHYDE FROM FLOORING PRODUCTS m • Determined the appropriate standard test methods to effectively measure formaldehyde emissions from flooring products. Q • Compiled and analyzed laboratory testing data.Produced tables,charts,and graphs to exhibit emission levels. • Compared finalized testing data to Proposition 65 No Significant Risk Level(NSRL)and to CARB's Phase 2 Standard. 0 E • Prepared a final analytical report and organized supporting data for use as Expert testimony in environmental litigation. • Participated in meetings with clients to discuss project strategy and identify solutions to achieve short and long term goals. Q PROJECT ANALYST:EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT OF CONTAMINANTS EMITTED BY INCINERATOR • Reviewed and organized sampling data,and determined the maximum levels of arsenic,dioxin,and lead in soil samples. • Determined cumulative and hourly particulate deposition of incinerator and modeled particle dispersion locations using GIS ar. AERMOD. • Conducted risk assessment using guidance set forth by the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment(OEHHA). • Utilized LeadSpread8 to evaluate exposure,and the potential adverse health effects from exposure,to lead in the environment. • Compared final results of assessment to the Environmental Protection Agency's(EPA) Regional Screening Levels(RSLs). ACCOMPLISHMENTS Recipient,Bruins Advantage Scholarship,University of California,Los Angeles SEPT 2010-JUNE 20: Academic Honoree,Dean's List,University of California,Los Angeles SEPT 2013-JUNE 20: • Academic Wellness Director,UCLA Undergraduate Students Associated Council SEPT 2013-JUNE 20: • Student Groups Support Committee Member,UCLA Undergraduate Students Associated Council SEPT 2012-JUNE 2013 Packet Pg.787 6 B.h Nedra A. Myricks 170 E. Dumas Street San Bernardino CA 92408 (909) 884-3967 namvricks@aol.com February 29,2016 N O LO Travis Martin,Assistant Planner a City of San Bernardino Planning Department o 300 North D Street, 3rd Floor San Bernardino CA 92418 0 RE: Proposed Waterman Industrial Center—Waterman Ave. and Dumas Street X ca Dear Mr. Martin: Cn Cn a I am not in support of the project referenced above. I do not believe this is a viable project for , this area at this time, and see it as frivolous and unnecessary,primarily based on the number of C GP1-1 o vacant warehouse spaces currently available in typically the same area as Newcastle Partners E wants to build this new facility; and the number of residents who will have to be displaced to accommodate it's completion. I am well aware of the air cargo business expected to"boom"at San Bernardino International Airport some time in the future; and the displacement that will cause for some long time residents in this area,but that is not happening NOW! There are newly built, empty warehouse G P 1-2 Q spaces all along Central Ave., Orange Show Road,Tippecanoe Ave. and Arrowhead Ave. at Central. Wouldn't it be prudent to find occupants for these warehouse spaces first before building new ones? Especially a new"spec building"with no known tenant confirmed for occupation. Dumas Street is currently wide enough to accommodate one lane of traffic in each direction and is easily congested,as evidenced during the weekend of February 13-14 when Waterman Ave. was closed in both directions at Dumas and Orange Show Road; the same weekend as the High GP1-3 Times Cannabis Festival was held at the National Orange Show. The traffic on Dumas that weekend was horrific! I witnessed several"near misses". The street would definitely have to be widened to accommodate large trucks; and the"Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration and Initial Packet Pg. 788 Travis Martin, City of San Bernardino February 29, 2016 Page 2 of 2 GP1 3 Study"regarding this project stated that the completion of this project would"require the removal and displacement of five existing single family residences on the project site". c Cont LO r Having indicated my opposition to this project, but fully aware that construction will probably a G P 1 4 proceed as planned, I have two questions for your department: cO LO CO 1) Which five (5) homes on Dumas are being addressed for"removal and displacement"? GP1 5 2) Would property owners be better off selling their properties on the open market as °Q opposed to waiting for Imminent Domain to displace them? �o Thank you in advance for responding to my inquiries. Cn U a You truly, .►J E v m r edra A. Myricks r c cc: Senator Barbara Boxer E Assemblywoman Cheryl R. Brown Supervisor Josie Gonzalez Q Councilman John Valdivia Packet Pg.789 From: Wacy Armstrong [mailto:wacyesq(a gmail.com] Sent: Monday, February 29, 2016 4:29 PM To: Travis Martin Cc: 'Wacy Armstrong'; sbqolfclub@)Qmail.com Subject: APN # 0141-431-16 Mr. Martin, Attached hereto please find a copy of my client's Notice of Intent to Preserve Interest as recorded on October 8, 2015 as to APN # 0141-431-16 which is a parcel included within the Waterman Industrial Center. The well is located roughly on the northwest center of the parcel. ci The floating/meandering easement to the well, the equipment, water pipes, etc. blankets the entire parcel. It occurs to me that the above real property interests of my client should be addressed prior to the city adopting a Negative Declaration. N 0 Once you have had the opportunity to review the above please contact me to discuss this matter in greater LO detail. f° a Thank you. LO co ` acyAnnstrong, Jr Attorney at Law o Real Estate Broker Q' m ®,(rmstrong Law �Bui(d ng � 824 E. Highland Avenue co San Bernardino, CA 92404 a Office (909) 886-0707 Fax (909) 881-2759 c Email: wacyesq @gmail.com E U f6 r a+ Confidential Communicati a for the sole use of the intended recipient. The attorney client privilege, work product doctrine and privacy rights of the sender, recipients and third parties are specifically asserted as to this communication and all attachments, in addition to all other protections afforded by law. If the reader of this message is not the U intended recipient, please be advised that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is prohibited. a • i Packet Pg.790 6.B.h Recorded In Official Records, C—ounty of Ban Bernardino 10/08/2015 1:00 PM RECORDING REQUESTED BY BOB DUTTON Lg, ASSESSOR - RECORDER - CLERK SAN AND WHEN RECORDED MAIL DOCUMENT TO: P Counter J.G. Golf Enterprises, Inc. Dock 2015—0440794 Titles: 1 Pages: w Fees 21.06 STREET ADDRESS 1494 South Waterman Avenue Taxe 0.00 0.00 CITY.OETEe San Bernardino, CA 92404 PAID $21.06 SPACE ABOVE FOR RECORDER'S USE ONLY N O to r R CL t NOTICE OF INTENT TO PRESERVE INTEREST DO Title of Document ... o CL M U 7 r ' Ir ':r E U Rf .a+ a r E a v� i 45.3 THIS COVER SHEET ADDED TO PROVIDE ADEQUATE SPACE FOR RECORDING INFORMATION ($3.00 Additional Recording Fee Applies) Packet Pg. 791 Recording Requested By: When recorded please mail to: J.G.Golfing Enterprises,Inc. 1494 South Waterman Avenue San Bernardino,CA 92404 NOTICE OF INTENT TO PRESERVE INTEREST This Notice is intended to preserve an Interest in Real Property from extinguishment pursuant to c Title5(commencing with Section 880.020)of Part 2 of the Civil Code(Marketable Record Title). �r`, CL Claimant: J.G. Golfing Enterprises,Inc. C7 1494 South Waterman Avenue ,n San Bernardino,CA 92404 00 Interest: The interest of J.G.Golfing Enterprises,Inc.as set forth in the terms,conditions and provisions - of that certain exclusive and perpetual right to develop water and Artisan Wells Agreement,dated - m May 13, 1901,by and between Elizabeth A Paine,party of the first part;and the Riverside Water Company, a Corporation, recorded May 22, 1901 in the San Bernardino County Recorders Office, in Book 305,Page 197,of deeds. Cn U Reference if hereby made to the record of said document for further and other particulars, a Reference is also made to amendments to said agreement recorded in the San Bernardino County Recorders Office on June 13, 1902,in Book 316,Page 56,of Deeds;and assignment of contract E recorded in the San Bernardino County Recorders Office on June 13, 1902,in Book 316,Page v 38,of Deeds. 1° Q Claimant's interests also includes a floating easement for access over the real property described m below. E t Real Property: THAT PORTION OF LOT 25,BLOCK 54 OF MISCELLANEOUS SURVEY OF THE RANCHO SAN BERNARDINO,IN M THE COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO,STATE OF CALIFORNIA,AS PER PLAT RECORDED IN BOOK 7 OF MAPS, Q PAGE(S)2,RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY,DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:BEGINNING AT A POINT 30 RODS SOUTH OF THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID LOT 25;THENCE RUNNING SOUTH 24 RODS ALONG THE EAST LINE OF SAID LOT;THENCE RUNNING WEST 80 RODSTOTHE WEST LINE OF SAID LOT;THENCE RUNNING NORTH 24 RODS;THENCE EAST ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF WHAT IS KNOW AS THE BUT'T'ON PROPERTY TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. EXCEPTING THEREFROM THAT PORTION CONVEYED TO THE COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO BY DEED RECORDED APRIL 5,1960,IN BOOK 5102,PAGE 203,OFFICIAL RECORDS, APN:0141-431-16 1 assert under Penalty of Perjury that this Notice is not recorded for the purpose of slandering Title to Real Property and I am informed and believe that the information c ntained in this notice is true. If this Notice is made of behalf of a Claimant,I assert under Penalty of Perjuryta I am authorized to act on behalf of the Claimant. G.Golfing Ente rises, Inc Dated: October 6,2015 By:Tom Self,President Packet Pg.792 (ZO-5L edE) : 58tit,) }aodaN:le3S Od-V IUawyoellV :IUOWg3ePV r> �o a a) a) m 70 70 tiw a) cn a) r, as a a) c o ° `noE 3 *' CL � N a) a) c E (6 O = N 1 0 00 a) >,❑ H -0 U i U o � m 0 � � � -0 NcI rI > .I > c p X U > ° 3 3 0 0 U N cn Q W a) L C 0 a) O C O U O U `- C L co O E m m ° +, c co bA� p m — 0 — Of a ° ° O Q ° 20 _0 -p O z (6 m -- 0 U �j O _a cn C U O 0 p 0 j C `c O O cB L7 C C N 7 c Q) C ca 0 D ° O Q -0 O U U O p C O (n p N O O a) L U U) 3 O C a) C Fn Q) a) -0 -- ° C ° Q- co 7 O LSD L LO U) 3 a) Qa) -0 C) a) 00 0 -r- m may- m U O C `-- ~ � N O � 3 0 M C m c 0 -0 boo O - co c6 O_ U > •— ❑ 0 C 't a) cn m U) ° 3 Z �' (n Q cc ++ a) +� S o '> U Q O C Q oC O oC O a) t' a) i a) `, 70 (D -0 +' b.0+' Y)o T c a) W a) c O Q O n3 O c6 U (n CL 0- m 0 U) a) o U- O n.o 0 ca c p a) ° E .> .� o +� o CO O 3 o m m E 0 (n c +� ❑ c O - c o Y) U T c to O c�n -0 - a) ) � 0 o � tf C c 0 ° -a � t o � o co � c CL ° aUi Q (n +�-+ p Q�° 3 0 (n C c O N +�-+ O (6 Q O 0 (a ❑ �O L (n CO � a) C +� N C Q a) O Q) a) } Q) p Q) N a) +� m E cc (n Q Up0 0 � a) C Yao O N ri00 O Q p +� p O (n '� 4 C c 0 .0 m T 4 c� 0 3 E ho 2 > o o a) ai � 0—+, (n cn °0 0 -0 •c +� o ca U y ° f O c O N N 3 C E N ,> w C N (n •c O c - ° MCL cc3N U30 N 'o 'o c 3 Q ° cn c o o .o o a m c ii m +� a) tw ca 0 c c 0 m uo > aTi a) ca .� aci U) m_ a) o ° � E ,° � �o 0 Ec �, a) chi �ZO'S6 edJ � 58trb} today}}e;S �d -�}uauay�e}��y :�uauay�e�;y o� ti a .� m cn N o � N � N ta0 >, o c a� c a� ca N �r �c co � c a> � � � � � � o p N � � � — R � � o o � � � u, n � w- }, +� o 0 � � � � � o 0 0 o O � � � .� o Q � � a� � -o 0 o cn N � ° � }' � o cn N ° a� N ° •� c L � � +� � . a � U •� � N a o � a� � �' . co � � � Om �' c •� _ � � o � o � � � � � N C O � � +, � t p t � � p C � � � T O t, — � Q N N O S +� ca _� � O � Z � C O b.0 ti p ti O N C "� O U0"O -a + � � � Q O � ,� U � � '� o U C � � � � C � -C fn � � � O � .� �, c � o }' � N � � f6 cU6 O � � > �� ..a O 4- (n (a c-I m -O � p O w- O 7 0 �n N � N i Q —_ � � � � Y � � � � � c O (0 (p 3 � � O � "O � O N +' O (0 O a� i � � °� c 3 g �I n � c o `� � � � �z � � � � � � c � tw � � o v ° � � co � c c � o c o ° � ° � � cnN �� o 0 3 vii � c°n o �U o � � o � � � •� ° � � ao.� fn }' N � C fn `� `� C fn O T C O N �+ (n i C (n � cn `� N (n (n C O �� U +J (0 O O N O O O � v= � N i O � +-� -p O N N ,� >, O 4 � (6 c6 � � , � � +� � � � cn �, `� ±' � � ' +' � a�i v � t' }' 3 °' °' c � c� U c }, o cn � cn c� o � ° ° a� a� � � '� � � � � mc� � m � m� �' � � � n o � � � � � � � o � � � o v � � � v � � � > c � a� O � � � ci o > � 3 � c�a � Ca0— }' o � +-' O C O � (6 � O � (6 � O � � 'C �. N O O � � C O }' N �Q � � (n O O � N O � .N-I �'a O � c6 � > � co � � 'aA^ >, � � � � N � � O � � O � � U Q— T Q p U � � O O +� i c0 O O � C � N O O 40 O `F- � � � � � � � � a� � ta0 � � � coo � � � � � � � � N a •° •J � ° c a�i � uoi ° 'n '3 � � � � a aim ac+`non.•Eoo � � � a� a"io � � }' o � � o � cY6 O � '� � O N � � � O U .� O � ,�� � � � m +� O o � C O O C � � -O M � O O '6 p (n O � O •� > � N O C> � Q. � � � c-I � � N O !_' >' � � N � coo � � v cB O ° � � ¢ a�i o Q c � � � a� <a cn rl � � � � c � � � � � O � � � � Q (6 � C C6 '� C�6 � .0 � �U c-I �� � � (6 � L � C � N � Q- U (0 Ln � � � U N � N O c-I � O � O N � � W L.C) O � O M � � O � �_ N �� � i"' to M X U � ,O � u) 'a � v v � v � � N O O � � � � � cB � '+� N .O � � O +� ocfl ° °-� Q o � � inOO 3 •� � � � Nm � � � � � � � i o c }, o Q•a� � � � �oo � .� � Q o n o � N cn � `� o � . � o m c o ,� � � � � � � � � � ,° ° O � >, c°n � c�6 `� � N � � O C � O � Q a '+� b.0� � i T Vi O ,�� O O L +J U o � � > � � o ° �� � ° o a'� uo0 o cNn � � �� ai *=' _ � � � �� ° o �n o ai �� U � u, ° � � c a cn Q � � -a ca c a� ._ U Q o z � �3 cn � � -o +� a v c� v> � cn ° +J c a� � � � � � o � '� U z c¢n � (ZO-5 6 edq : 58trt7) podam j4els Od- V IU8W43e}ly :IU9WL4oelIV LO CD ti tm a aD a) T C a) O U -O >>O cn ' N a a) a) O Ln �d o O c� a) � c n3 a) c 3 c U `n > +, +� m a. a) + c a) op O Q) a)O O m U C 0 > �o LL O Q Q 0 +, E C � ' O -0 E C 0 m C O >, N a) V 3 U) - �O N Y ° c0 (6 O a) O Q N E ' ca O o L r ;_- U U a) .O N O Q w O a + O p p a) '� _O Q a) ° c •ca a 'a c o Q a � � cE a ° x C +, CZ Q) a) o m c T a =1 0 ° m co N O ca Co } a a ate) C U O a c ' a 4) a) � L U N C >, a O U- N (6 OU- C a� cn a) o o c6 tap m ° N a) a) a N N O cn ° C � LL N a) -4 .a ' C Li — — a (B (6 O M70 -0 — a) 0 a) a o _ ao = � C c — Q O.O'— c a) ° c w O O T N O N a) O 4) v- O T O CO ° .� (6 —' N (6 +' + Q C .cn c6 E o ° 3 °) O Y o c ° o o 0 a) cn -a c ai a) ai a�i o ao T s N U cn no 3 p. o E li U 0 0O - a- O Q.•� m � �� N N upi N > c c O co c Cl m T m a cn a) o > n3 c ' (n a) p ca O c i � (n ° O co p � co °U F- N C O 0 ° co Ix U U a Q U - co Q a r i 3 0 0 cn O cL H co cn to a s U C O C Y cn Q) T � co (n c0 O a) N U of -o +_ ate . ° 0 V) -0 c c o ° cn m Co +� a c6 c c to M x � +, O 0 c cn _0 a) _0 ¢ Y ° c ° N 0O co N co +' � p noo co � E +, o > ° CO 3 +1 a o 0 0 - ( .E m tw c +1 cn > aj -° O p ° c6 cu C _ C U "O n3 +' N "C UA a) O O O O C cn C. LO C to U U (6 N U C E O cI X O co O .` cB O C N O N a) T' LEA O CO co +Ml CL a) v- Y c CO 16 0 O x p CU O cn a O 'i C6 a) O 7 In a C E to E > O> a N -O (n O OU a) O c6 +� '� cn C N �O O •p cn J (6 E cc a) C O a) O > c v o �a -0 0 ° a) a U Q) a c 0 M o N co O c C co T m E ca _0 Co O E p O a) W•- a) Cl V i _ V y �; =3 4-1 p O U M O o +� — — +� c o N O U cc E a� 0 o- N oz U c U U) U) U) (Zo-5 6 edE) : 58titi) podaN}}e;S Od- V}uauayaelIV :;u8w43e};y ca a m > ca C a) 70 a) 0 C � O Q U n m O }a O + a m° > o < ao Q ) o 0 c m m o m o a Co o d � M F-- O o n M m o o u) ° ? o co (D ::3 T.x > a) E LO O o p U co a) 7 CO fB N T Q) L C 0p a O o (n cn o o a) -0 +' E -0 a w E o a E + :E a) wa 0 3 a ca c o + m a) b a) p + _ .— U > c o m a) "O = Q° °- � O Q o O w¢ m a a CL-0 M E 2 ,m U C O Q N 0 (n a) _CN E W Q O O C •0 O p B O O p O' O N N Yp O Q o C (0 a) U U i ` 0 0 0 "O 7 (n U N O O C N 4— c (n a) (n Co Co O O a) T U Yap 70 a, O — Q) a) "O n a) } +' CO p H i 'O _ C -0 -p co U '- CO O U � C } C m a) co (a O O a) U p O a) O > O C U c (n p to Yap hp O (6 (n p T Q Z ) 3 m U O L C O O •O U Q (0 O L m � > + C +, O CL -O j > + a) (6 C O a) +-� U N Q aa)) c E c o (n U Ms (n o U C a a) z a) cn co T a E H o_ ° o O a Q) cn(n c o a > aoi c a) O o a) o c) c o CO Qa�ipo 'mac o o (n + Yap o c C ca O o (n > 4- a) c a) ° o .� a c c c •- F- c a O >n � � c O N 0 o c co E _E o a) U) � a Q - � > o � o N ° CL v � + � M a 0 0 0 Yu�o o O i M u) o y O > ) O +J Yap n - O O (n 3: O U a) (6 O } ) O C O C a) > O O E a U p a) O a) p () m .Q 00 T O_ + N O N E C a) a) O N U + O a) N Yap UOA.� 7 — 'a O C p C (6 Q) a) (n v_ N CO Co O (�6 U cc � � Co Q) : E U O 0 cn (6 C O C = 0 a a) wp O N O (6 E C co Yap ~ ) E ~ Q O O O a a) CO m N U U L j ON a�� U) (n C i C E E E to U N .., O U Z U) U) U) U) (ZO-S 6 edE) : 58trti) podem jjels Od- b lu9w43e44V 4uawy3e;;y s, n ti a d � � Y 0 (6 O R o c�a 'a d E c N ° ° o E i T U) U ,i � co _0 a � 07 U � o N v ai c U CO i O co .E- cn .O > co =3 c N U) -0 ([3 c L c i N Q c N p c U) c U � E O O °O O o N U c U o p 0 c 7 co c F- 0 a) C= O L10 O C Q 0 OQ cn D (6s '5; a U HC� � U U) a) -a V) 0 U) c ti0 ca N O N N O c 3 O c "- Q + c c > O O+ U O �O N Q O w w c U o M Q c ) bpN U N � co Q U c n c> O > C ° O oU co cU a Q � ' - CO = = 00 -0 Qcc U) U) c Q U N co ca +� O C1 L U) SZ � +-j �.'' O O (�6 CO� L >, O O 0 0_ N "O U) O U 0 0 73 C a O O O O i Q) = U CO U (6 UO p N N U) O U (6 O 0 •0 c U M ~ N c O U CO c6 0 C v D- C.) N O O +' ° cn -0 p U N Co O c > +� 0 [U C +., c L > N O C6 (V O (V 0 U) U O N w � 3 0 0 0 i s p c O c6 0 p O N O ° *' O ° UL U) CD- Z - ~ O °U o m p �A CO En E 6 O O C U co. > � O = O -0 Co(6 CU ll i0 co � V O O p p 0 0 = 2 (U C= c YaA i ) } +' +, O U U) O O U U (6 U z Q O O Mn O U 1E O a E o c -0 co p +N O a) c (ll U U L (n (J ° m c E a) cn > � O E ai N >O V +-O ) -0 °D � ° ai o ° '- — °O o o ¢ W O o U � U a a ►— ° c co a M i c o cc - � .� -0 t— cn Q) +' o c � c E E 00 c0 U Z U U) _ (ZO-S� edg : S8ti17) podaa 4e;S Od- V}u9w4Oe;}y :IU8Wg3eUV CD ti o' a m T a) c Q) cn c Ca « a) -0 -O 00 V 70 +1 c a) ca -o -L- > - � - � ° ° � ca M n3 > .3 Up Co e Q- -0 C = U a) .- +' E U m 0 (n N O co c O Q-� O U E Q c O p X U o "O U O O L = ° Q co 0- CL a) a) a 3 En m e Q) a Q Q L Q) > O a) Q) L U U c0 Q) N O p a) a) O p� +�, O N Q O 0 0 > D — v c Ya0 +U O cn c i O O 0 m c � � U � O � E Q _ U N p O = - O O U Q m . U c6 U) a) Q Q i — E Q Q O 3 N c6 ) O CL O � -0 a � ° O O (o S Q Q m C U a) N o 0 U i O a) N — ON 'O -P in D cc m Q)O Q a) N O OO Q (6 ° c 3 (B Q O O O C (6 Q Q Q-0 +1 ._ c c (0 0 in C: mE � Q) i cn E = -0 c°n +z E > a) c U CT a- c >,-a U 3 m w -0 U U m Q U L) c a) (n 7o a) 6 (n a) cn c O a) = O c W. ca cn a a) p cc = c c co +� W o Cl CZ u � ) o � 0' 'M N > � Q ° w m ~ c a c i N C c 4q.c Q o -O C co +� m p } O a) U 4- ,O cn -O Q N m +, O W a U c6 a) O i CO m O O (Q Q Q p Q N (n +� LL +� (n o Q a) +NJ ca + O '� O W N 0 O to U U Q m co (n O � Q) µ= - O W >, U i V J +T+ Q D O N (0 C o +�- (n ° (B bA+ O +�, J C O c0 O p U a) N T Q N } (0 U O Q ° U ) C > +� a > J Q) o C 0 U o v L) � Q ° E U- c T ai U O O LO m L W " p co °N 3 U Q 1 e a) m ° m i n > 3 m m o s 3 o p � ca u a c � 0a) m o � O> ) = 0 c c ai c o ! E a) Q o _0 o t' M ° 0 bL m a) un d c +� c �, M � a) a'�� � � � � c 3 ° ccacmo � acioWm a 0 m Q) ca O a) o + Q cn co (6 U 'i ° + m c a) . m o a) C) "a O (O a ° ° U ° a � o o T) o o o � o Q E n U 0 o o N. o m tp o Co ap O 00 U w U � �' U M N (•) FL M U O C O ++ y a c w (d N m c-I N M U Z J (n J (Zo-5 6 edq sgvv) podaa}}ejS Od -V}uauayoeIIV :}u8wg3e;}b s CD ti IL w d O O T a) cn U O > C YLU Y10 a + N O. Y Cn O C i Co L C i C a) o U V o F ca c p�- +' CL o o +J a) m u°i o X ) p '� E co (a w a O co -5 E U a) � m o' ° c N .c E U O 0 m U 7 " U c o o 4- F o rI Q N O > a) N c Q Q> "o T c V L,� r- > C co Co a) O a O fZ 4 - s " O 5 o - O o a) T, Q U U) 0 0 .S o cQ U) +, � UQ to O Q 1 � N - Q) o co c o m o 0 3 CK -0 E L'� C a) Q) — O C�6 Q Q 1 0 a) 'O taA'O Q o a) 6 � O Q) c c N N Co — a) p o O bA O cn O T a) s-- O cn a) > o U i (n C >i � U U - o OQ > � X � Q C o N '� O Q 7 O a) O O O U a) -o Q= Cn U (O -C ?� > (6 Q) _ ui a co }? o cn n C,4 a 0 4 Q E Q— O '� +� cnU) c � o0 o3c ° tea) U ca a� (n cn ° a , ° p Q N a) co +- _ c W __ H O o U O _0 ° L1a i o N U .� a) OU .� Q a) `' > N z L > a) .0 3 0 cn a) o ' ta'o� � c � a) ° � w ao o � ° � � ° : a O cn c � co a) C C U z N (ten C:N o 0 U N O ° O N + O O -0 70 O to o N C) Q) -0 N a) j C ta0 C 0 N >i O O a) con a a) +� t D X +� o } (6 a) sz a) CL w O o � c o c a) U) '� U) o a) a 10 cn (a a ++ o (6 Co (o O Co > a) E 0 � a) a) 0 o c U 3 O O c � � D ir aQ0 o .s aa)) .T 5- a oO E ° coo O U CL Q) ocn0 cn cn cn -0 -0 4 ui O a) m c W 70 cn +� O O c cn C ° T+� - (D �O .0 c ° ° o a'i Q) o > _ L O U T N U m Q -0 O Cn 7 U p (o (n N 70 1 Coo o D .>.. tZ + cn .O .O O m taA L w +—� N t6 (n o � � i L � n O > _ (6 _ T m N �_ U tut O a) O U i _0 O a) (n O~ m "O a 7 :3 s 3 } C a) -0 ~ O N 07 C (n O CS tz _ (n " O YaA N tvD .� •cn M to N o O co 7 v- N O U) +' cc 0 �- v *' o o �0� ~ ° o . � 0 O o o c (n ca � ° o � ° c�°m F a) t' .� • cts CZ 0 E k Oo � U 0 o o O o . 0 T m o m ° � m cn L) ca °c z n - m o C> m > .� .� i a) cn — C O p W > ° a) Ow c o v O co 3 c o c () N co ° ._ cn v+,-• 7 L 6 p (6 +' O G a) O - s= o D o cn U ) Q C i C N P N O i (n a) 7 m O N C o a) Q�j . c E co O U +� a) � cn S= a) 2? N C: =5 N N O C O L O S O O O O O (moo a) O O a) O O O m E U U -1 v= + CL ' O a U (o LL C U + ._ H 4- O + LL 2i U U Lu W c-I N c � Q N }, O C i (0 _ cO O N (O C .0 LO p na r 1 U Z g O U O (Z0-SL edJ 981717) }aodaa}}e;S Od-V luaWyaellV :}uauagael4V o 0 w m � CL as O -0 -0 o .6 c a) w ° 0 co c) c a) 0 c c i co L '� (6 c 00 D C a' O 0 U J 0 0 (6 U CD- C >C a C) (6 C U o f � > +- i n C 0 + C (a o Q (n ( a) Co a C -0 a) N U O Cl a > � co (n o 2 i 6 C6 Q -0 c a C C cn 1j o H O O m O Q) �O i co M o p U p E U a) co } Q U) O 0 > o +� a) N a) cn i N O (6 c6 to U N p o a N a) (6 a) r I > Z U C c v- 3 C C } a) a) O p N o o c 3 3 *� m U c a) � a a a 0 o f ° a ° � o a ° o N a) +, a 0 0 ° ° o N ° 3 O N U U cB O ch a� o o Q a) O ca o a C C = c6 . a) r a a� p C C o o O C �0 0 (�6 o c a O cam m }' ° (n N a a°) a to 0 3 O :D co Cl) u C a) - cn (a a) (0 +� L a'- N a) � O C 0 L 0 (0 (0 co � i, � � Q a-0 U H O 0 O :s o -C 0 p C ,a) m C co L) N) '� Q) I- -p 0 O V > o Q 0 a O +' C O N C a) 70 0U U a0 a) '�. a) a) + U) Om a = +' i c _ Z3 0 0 co 3 c O C C6 a) T - 6 - :3 c 0 p �O c a ) a) 'O a cB o a o c 0 E Z a c m o � o cao U) Zn ° o 0 °� o 0 In c a°i a o c o a) . ca Uj — •— o a) a o t o U o o o U 0 L a) to }, N c 70 U a 70 0 0 0 3 *'co C is O In i -U a a) ca C C C Q cn L cB o a) cB o a) a) Y c o ca m 'n ° U a) c cn c c U ca c z- m ,U to ca c E N +J U +J c 70 c c c +� o api api Q o0 0 o > a) o '� c cn a c o m E c m p c } ca U) op Q c o cc, � Z c qp 3 c p c > c_a U a > c cn +- > O -O o o h O ° o cca c a) ° c ' a) c U tvo p o a) -0 c o p o o ca Zn ° 'p C c o o a) o m E o C ca - a a) a) a) ca o Q to U) cc O CO > o >co i a a o U N U c� c U a> E � v 0 o o O 0 0 o acne 3 oa o o c o a) cn +, N U c Q o o ? > a cn ° U o J -0 i c a) O 0 c p •C C O c c 0 D_ U N .F F O aOX c a) U +� Q +, � LL + ca (6cn � 0 O J O J +j _ N N Q N rl N N C14 a) U Z O (� O O (ZO-S 6 edE S8titi) podam}}e3S Od-b;uauayaePV :;u8uau3e4lV 0 o cc � a d Cn a) ? -O C Cn .) ct-- c 70 T + (n � � a) -0 +5 C6 + C � a) - � -0 T Y U) O CC) U U Ca O a) - . a) -0 C 'C O -0 +� N — CVO 'a H CO a) i Q) -p O Cn M M i +� 7 N M CU O } C w cl O J X Q) +� M .0 Cn - O O p O X d � C a) + O C� Q_a N FaC), 2 N U U N O a) a) U) Q � Q U }% aC 7) Q N fU O E i Z3 i O 0 O O Q O O Q 6 ? 0 O M n U O Q O C O c n Q U +J B O O +J O U N • O O C C L Cn U w p O Q CO �T p . c bn c w c o _ a�0 w c c N o + n c at3 ¢ � O cn — 0 Q N o u p u� +� iz 3 U) CL o c > o c + p O O cn M o C p i o N 'N .� O U cn p O C c *- (6 cn cn +� } O Q C .I (6 E O O C + i a) to +� N -0 O � +� a > OY c o 0 o a) O 0 3 p � +� +) o co . LJ) co a) +J a) O J U N a) U U U O +, O '� (a � p �" - Cn _ +' S? U i t)A U O p O Q) Yip N i i +� (6 4O' C m CS— O a O Cn � O -° C En N 6 O Q CL (n � � .N � .� 0 O c Q .� lZ po N can U 7 Yn � +,,, U 'i (p6 O O" Q. U M C6 T, O (a iZ C T 1 Z N c i O U U a) Q O C p •p > cn -p p O (n N O N T U N a) O + C _ - _ (0 C Cn U_A ` E � CO M sz O � sZ� p i-T' cOn U U � +_�' � t3 co a (6 N Q � +7 � � U Cn C2 t o� �� � U C � CO a) U c6 Q i 0.O C (6 t3 � a) � C Cn �' i a) � � � o:3 0 Q C N + N i Cn Cn O C6 O +' O - OL SZ bA p \ C z E L O Q O O a) Q) � i? O !L + C7 (6 U N 0 'J O a) � N N Q) m C O O Cn O C +� U a) ¢ r� C (6 t;' � (6 Q) O C) o O co ,, ¢ a m �, N c o c ca N E o > in o + ° ca 3 o '5 o z p p c� o U ca s= a) 0 0 0 Q Q b0 U 0 o p U a.�W CL w a) a 'c ca a) c°n o'Q o m '� d a s? O c+a o Q o E E a a) CL � .� o ' ° U—\i � cNacn � ' a cats � oU '� c� � � � +� E � o � � � sZ 3 a +� � u) to '0 < Q w a) cn ._ � .,. 4- U co 0 O E O C2 Et� a- c a- C > C L Ca" O O N CL (a a) 0 L C2 V O m O C2 cu C ` T .� -0 m E a) 0 O ' u a) m O V a) t)D+- L (0 N UA �+ t)A' CAB .0 C C O C C (n U +� Cn " i.., 3 C c -C a s O p p 03 m a) +, U N CO (0 4 Q C (n C2 C9 C 'p to a) C a) N ,. a) F U N N CL Cn 0) C) a) Z3 O U M L Cn E co cu (n E a) CL L T En m = ca 0 U cu E rl c E � N E :3 � U Z O O (Z0-S L edE gsvv) podeM.}}e3S Od-t,Iuauayoetly :;uewg3elIv N = O co CO 6 tG p- d 'a }' T to i 4 -0 O "O a) t a) a) � +-+ � C +� � � p a) - c c6 0 _T O U � tu1 N V O > U C c6 c6 cn S O i O a) a•'' a) i-- a-, C +-� c6 C a) n3 (n > a••' +' cC O Q c6 (6 -0 O -0 c6 O O (B (n U O } c6 L) E a > cn 4- O O c a V Q Q g Q a) i Q c6 tA. C c6 O +' O U C N O N N cN n O ce ) fn O > c (n . O E +, o � C 7 m N n U co C U o C cn U 0 O � a - o T— N a)O O �> , C o N p > C-)O —co U—) CO _ > . °F 0 ¢d (6 Q.� 6 , U T, E — o Q)U } C co c 6 6 0 C O a) , a >O Q ° Q > O N ) o C O E U)N C CL cn (o < 0 cn ¢ a c C O E O � + 4— � +, � Cam } ° u) ¢ U s p ° c6 0 ° o - N U S p c E � a> ox o O C c6 cn c6 0 +� cn cn tzo � .� +� o � o c6 c6 O o O � +, U � ° � E v ° a c c6 +, Co ° U Q c a> C � N � o c a a0i •o ° ° o o cn '� m cn tin.� c Q Un 0 i cn "- +J o i a) g . Q o "- +� `� cn a� - C } C O ° Q) N O c!� O = (6 U > O T a) O 3 O (B ° o o N ° CO O >, � O (C6 U U O O U •O a) a) O '� C Q) O U U Q) ,C cc U M — (6 C Co•O � � v— a) C C U U — yO — N N N = O -C U 1" O -C +' — cn O O C in 7 O cn (6 O a) d a) Q O t Q +' a) Q N �° O Q) ( + a bn cc a> ccnn O c�6 ° Cop ° ca .X •cn '� a� o cn ° ° o U Q +� O c6 Q +, �_ 'o Q,+, Q O .� c6 O E co w O (n 0 c m o ° ° o u w ° +� o a) c6 ¢ ° > cn ° v U ;._, ° x Q 0- a� a) o U) .� u°i a) C N Y � a C cn ca °a +� ° o O cn o a� o � +, +� c p ±� cn cn = a� o a� a� -a _0 c6 c O C -0 +� ° o 70 CO — o ° E o o ¢ O U aN 3 (6 a) O O > O > O (6 N O t p O V +' O _0 T Q) (6 c6 O C U Q U cn ° ° p ° o _Q "- U m O c6 U vim- C _U ca ° > N a) 0 0 U N -0 CO - Q +, U � C a) Q cn m � o <6 O T o Q a a> o c6 C c6 a� o a� O - Q ai a) � +� t 0 a) Q o n3 o 0 c M- Q c6 a� E cn Q O . cn O c6 Q cn x o +J C c6 +� Co F— ++ U C +� > Q +� Q +� O O cn in ¢ Q Q O O - a) I� to — N E = o U) -0 co � o U _r_ O ±:+ cn a) Co L N C C c6 O z3 . Fn � a) a) CO h )a0� � � C O O � _0 c6 U C O i (6 U_ C c6 O ++ (6 CL U C U U a� C N •o E to U o F: U) 0 U N c CD E m E E m ° U o Z (ZO-5L edE) : S8bt,} podaa ge}S Od- $IU9WLI3ellV :IU8Wt4oe;ly s M 0 w Oo � CL .r 0 Up - (n (n c a) C a) (� 0 L O , a) (a a) a a) a) w O O, O U _ a } Q O N 4 U) O L N C O O Q 0 0 O i O (n cn U L E L �' o '+� 0 N N O (n 0 V a0 +-- = < (�6Q - in +-� U U a) L O +� ± Q O >, 0 O U (n O_ n3 E � N Q M c .O 'N 0 (6 () N � 0O co D: E T u) O Q C > O t U = 0 - (n L a) c +, O (6 C U c6 q CO 0 a) c 0 c � n � � �' •" c6 : � E a) i (n c - O' (n � .o = Qd � = '� Eo 0 (n U a o QQ U c6 -0 oN 0 a) O� 5 � 0 'c aE -o = ) U Z3 c4 o c W o ,cn U L UU) c } Y c Q Nc °cv o o p Q i \ N o CL a) (n 6 a w 0 a) ¢ > (n Q N oo a)o a U 0 c6 = W fn Lo (n c6 a) o V C O N `- N i Q O (6 OU O U +� D Y dO U p W w� O O E (n U p � O co W•U U C (n `~ O �O O ta00 � � �0 0 � 0 3 ca U " (6 Q (6 2 c 7- 2 a) 0 (n > 0 u Q � '� 0L _ t dg uoid � Na a� 'o o c o a O W0 0 U .� U 0 a) 0 _ 4. U O C.) -a oC140— U) (D oU) U U O O a) c a) C a) '0 > (n cn CO � c m 1 N + 0 � F N c o O c � cc CC (6 +' O (1) O o 6 + N L Q) c C -0 Q U) U > a.0 o 'Qc o cm -0 c � o .� U) Co C 6 � � � 0 0 -0 0 ui c +� U a) � L (6 0 00 O fn c N c�6 c6 UO L +, c U 0 0 a) LO S-- — (n n3 — O +� .0 _0L (6 _0 (n c (n U a) cu (n (fl a) c 0 >1 a) (n E a) 07 N0 Loa) (n —. ca) C N U) M cn c 0 O'n o L)) o .� c6 0 c (n L O O 0 .- a) Co +a)) CO q- c O N O O CO m O 'O T 1p N � 0 YaA Q Q Q Q O cn N O O Z Q (n c W (n -�e -0 c6 t6 o O - + QU Q) 3U70 IT O O 0 to F- (6 � (n O c6 L O cn W 0 to (>6 � �' a) i > (6 (D � c > Q L (n � n 15 ,(%) � � U N +� OUP 2 +8 c-, '� Q) n3 c O O c >, 0 0 (n (O 0 0_ c w U o L L Q) -0 a) L =_ ++ -0 Q) W U C U O a) O L c U L O v_ O C O a) Cam +' > Q O_ � 0 c6 to U) U Q (6 a� Q (n c6 6 U L (n d U) n3 C � N N E LO E E ch M O O o 0 U Z (ZO-56 edE) SStrti) podaa}}e3S Od - tr Iuaua40e}}y :}uawyael}d 0 w IL m '0 v - c ( o � � U W W O U — C 0 }' � Q Co O C N CL � O _0 Q a E O E 3 O <„ U OC o tr- 0 Y O U m O cn O o U a ° a (n co a> a> o v .c m c N O E o O N O N c o o a O ` O 3 O E u°i U _0 CD Uo � N Q (np W N N O D 0 - N a�i N Q Z a � 0 -C a� Z c� U LEI � O cB U I- ci 0 4 + � 0 O O N O N � � = O Lo C 0 H +� O C +, J +J a +� '_ c� c ca Q 0 c1 I O N O O ca O N ' N N 0 e N t 0) l0 i Q U U n>, 0 -0 N ` J = 6 c Q o n O O E Z d W E 00 O Y o O c U to U ti 0 C O N N U a N O c °j m "('n c a o >a--+ ° � O o Q.z Cl.co O J U i Qµ- L � — z Q O ° C D c > 16 Oo M O ° a 5- ° U Q Q n � 0 o Lo M � CO 70 0 o W � U .° c 0 } -0 to m Co N O X O � c o � . N } c O c fi m � U - N Q (0 O_ U c Q U O o O N N N O M p m O 4 U°U . 3. CL:5 Z 0 � � CU N O O T � p O Q 0 m � n Q) -0 O N� � 3 m M +' O Q O W co c Ca _ ,-. a ° a ° Q - 00 m M ( 'a tb 00 U, . N ° c � E O O U p O O N Q-0 Q c + N U 0 _ Lo Q d � OE o c QN � oz � W 0� OO W c ° O a> O n � co oN -0 O Q C,3 p U) 0 Q� � ~ � � '� '� � am � o� �O Ca a� U o ° w M °< 0 0 0 m > 0 E co i n m O 0 U Q - U L o C i N � E m ti 00 <Y) M O :3 Cr O O U Z O (ZO-SL edJ 58vt,) padaa}je3 S Od-b;uGwt43elly :;u8wt43ellV L = o w m 6 IL Y d Q Q a) a) �n 0 CY > — IC s W +' a U) U bb O o a) c c a) rio0 0 +� 3 c c a) • W Q 0 " c � co a O OcU6 -0 co n s Q o U _0 co c Q O C co U) c o, E (L) - a) = a) cv m � a Q) -O M m co co W a a) (n W o Q o co T C c o a Q U N co U ,o 3 W co CD a) a) 0 U U L O .c H Q"O "O O M +� a) T c6 L o .-; o U i N -0 O d (6 -0 O > a) 0 O ' u) Q O a) � } O ~ } '' O N N = •o d O } W � Q T coo o O � QNE � O � - TD -0 � � moo uj -0 � Uc °oo un0N }N- Q o _ U o O 00 = U 0 0 N a ' a)_ (o U Q rUi c Z 0 - to 0) c M c o > +� c " ca N -C Of t, = . CO O Q O O U 0 O c0 > V) _ v. rl a) 4-- L > U J = cn U O Co c I (�6 O N C b0 W c6 Q 0 0 o 0. U) 0) - a) Q) It (0 c6 co d' o O -O a) UO u) N >' C 4. N C `� `M C .O L Q Y O .N U Q +� (06 C 'z o_ O a C O a) taOp - 0 � 0O U n3 ^ n3 O O O c a) 0 0 U Q � U � +'J-� •- (o O U m CV W Co C � (6 O Q o U `�- W Q co +� O ~ O o a) > co 0 0 ul O N U 7 U O O U Q N co O 4-O a O c a) rn (0 O > a) m -0 a) m c Q a) co >, O O co V) M N O O O co i U W d� to H cn v N ) c Co H .o N O cn � (a c c>o o �O N ( •- 'o 00 m U Q) o O 'Eb ri , o co a) (n N O p (6 O U O U N O T c 0 m } MO c O U N O N Q O . O i0 -0 V co M p O O)in )OLD O O co N Q 0 / co 4- Q o O o m c O O 00 +_ D a) U v o N ° E ui c-' ¢ m , o ao U co > ca E a� � a�i ,- U U co Q o + O -O M +, W O _ -0 -0 = i +, a) a 3 o a) U c - co .- a0i 0 O M 0 _ — O a) M ca o > +� Q i0 Q= a) cam) 70 O T U c o a�i U N c c c , U +>- c : c 25- Q O Q 0 � N -0 N _U N a) V) o c>o U � O •C .O U w C N +� Z3 V W U U E 00 N co m "° 0 00 3 L O cB E Q O c 0 U co N N O N L 6 O O T u > CF (o O N _ Co i o o QJ W ( O �O �' Q Y C L a) E O r-I E E c� O :3 D U Z O O ITO (ZO-5 L eft 88tib) podaa.4eis Od- ti luauayae4lV :IuauayaeIIV 0 ao Ch d m U) + O V ° -0 _o E w c a co +� w � n E 70 p " m C co Co a U 0 4- U o (n U U 3 cn o > + tw 0- to U c C4 oA u0._ co U -0 3 3 c. � N 0 70 O — j U a C N 70 U (o C o � W c0 to Q O C co � -P (n O.. C U U �a) CO O E O Q M) Z3 U i Q C Q a U 0 M C _ C O L U Q 07 (n 70 v- � E C O (�6 Oa T > O O O O T C .� T" C T 3 i= U OL U O U 70 W U U O U UU � U +� a U co c � H � (moo H � co � a) c (6 U 70 (n (n O cn N O "a 3: tw > U c aLO O N N i > O Y U p W c O Q> c � T o. O +O U � D O a b0 > 0 3 ' > co o 6 a f a Q U 70 co M U U�p C t .O N N O U O O z cn cn U N C N -1 O C U O t)0 U U t ; Q W7 � a+ t-P O C) v N Q� a +� � - U I "a ,O U U 7 O (0 E U CO s= U a) +J C Q.� U (� -0 Y U O U C by > O o0 O -0 tw Q C N C > 00 N U a W U U + 'q W U) " N co c 00 O 30 'o Q a U O� O c U CO �O •� C O M O U C + 2 a +� ca Cl- � co c Caste , .- +� U U o +� U Q c +� �° o U ° +, (a no uA° > (B '� U N O. O0 C ^�O coo bn a) a d U •� Q O (n Q ° Q O C +� C Q CZ c0 U �_ m O O U Q j U O O- E U co (n .� Q U > U U C O o U O � l) E + CL U) Q Ci ,� } Q O C M Lo O O Q a CL - noU � Cc-I J > L •O Oct — U N - O (6 O n N w Cl n U W +� c `o U co _j N a) N u) O n- c O ° U - X 3 U co U) +� N .V +, O� C a) p r- U C a) O_ ca CO ED -r- Co U (n O *' U ° � � CND m o rn � � E a) a) U, ° •� m � c) N in (n U O CO C)O O 'J C +� Q cam O E o r�I m � � C O O .� �j (n P' m OC c CO Q) >, U a0i Oc � c UN - � N r- cc: M � >a (nriMM Q) LO = � U � � s= (o } o ca ° a o c>a U ca O > cm + o w ° a = Q ao v U 00 U c ca n3 - (n tw o U -0 c ° U U E U N Q.i � co aXi (!7 C C ) CV c C 4- C O +� N v- (n = +J N O +' U N N (n c0 O i n3 U w i -p U "O U c� a) > U Q +s �O `� Q C U .E- Q .� OL M ° ca no c� -O `.� '�'; "a L n (n X c-i U = O_ i (�6 U 0.SQ C O_ ) N =~ (0 "O O bC0 C O U b0 C U 4- O 11A W)N , O (0 O (0 U L (�6 U 6 C 3 (n c0 O U cnuncI OU � z= UC3U (/) mU U +J a H + — H (n C i a) � Q c1 N EE M O :3 c p O U Z O (ZO-5 L edE 58titi} podam ile3S Od - b 3uawy*e:}d:}uawyae:RV s coo IL d D u o Q) (n c U 3 cc °° o +, 4, v m m c +J 1010 � a�i 0 -0 0 c a m 0 O c o m o + o 1 0 C1 C U c m ' 0 Co 0 ° O m Q c U i S c X 0 p Q) 000 M a c0 a C= o U) U V c O O 0 `- Cn 4— O C 0 aT+ N U U CL U E U c O 0 to 0 bA cn m aj +� 0 0 0 c 0 C.6 0 0 0 0 if Q � > c W cm 00 a) a .N O .o � (o c am-.+ L m c 0 0 i Q�� }' U +�-+ > 0 0 +, U c cn tw m co � o > � � a> c cn o � o � � c� _ c ° LO a a) m U a)co C: m > U 0 o n.-E a) - Y V) ' m °� ° . a 0 Q_ a ° U : 0 nAa� � � � X o � a'� .� a � � E u) Q � � aico � -- ° CO 0 > c U •— > a) +S 0_ N O O O a) m "O c Q +J — M -O 64 Q +' Q °U c a) U 0 0 -0 vi 00 > 0 O OLO .N N N in a�J Q m O 0 +� a) � N + O O c .� '� `� N °� Om0 O cab m cn CL 0 0 -0 0 0 c > ,� m Q '� � Co U N +� m v t V) n3 O N t co v CU 00 U UA O 0 0 m m O c (.0')•— U ,� a) Q 4�-- ?� 30 O 0 m U) > v cg Co 0) � vi N > .� 0 O ° N .� 0 m co) o U to 0 0 c 0` � c °' om � `°� � ° 00 � 0od ° ° 3 ono _ c ° °� n3ca0 i 0 0 o -0 N > N N o CL (n v aci F - o o co _° o Y N c�a 0 co ° o U 0 0 a� c +� LO cn c w G7 c - 0 (n 0 Q i c_ U = `n 0 0 C L > 0 c " ci -t 4-1 m > U — c '+� Q o c c m c cNa o 0 c6 0 0 3 0 c°n n E c 0 0 c o O O m c m o o �� o .� o � � n � ami � > o0 � � p > o N � v c n cU c :� - oU 0 > o c � 0 � ,n a) U) U c Q m m ,, � +, 4- U) o � m � m � m a) u� z F- +- 0 c U � n3 +� c � 0 � tao= 0 cy- - 0 v) .E -0 c +� v7 a ° ° Q) ai Q c Q ° a� uoi ° N ca O W _ ° � c c 0 o 0 0 0 > 0 > o .> ° 0 +� a> c Q c U °— o m m 0 m a U 3 0 o n E o 0 +, QU O cw Q un•� a > o 0 t o .> Q m 'c 0 °) N `n o m O ° O o 0 U c�0 3 U Q -0 _2 N H4M70 U Q OC3 N co) UN U OU C ` a) � E a .�I LO E E C+) C'0 O O 0 z O 0 (Zo-56 edJ : 5ot't,) podau je}g Od -b;uawyoe}ld :IU0W oellV _ co 0 o � a d co V p 3: O O (o LLJ a cn E Q .--+3: 0 p Q— 0 a) -O C) U ;� a) 0 cn � Q) cnL U_ � � -0 Q cr V) O � qp a } a) m a C co c6 + b 0 u) N a) p j O 41 a) O tt0 C +, U Q a) a) '_ U) a N O i 30 w L Q.; (6 L .� (o ° — p a) � Y C ~ a) N cn -O E p o U a) ' a) a -0 Q (n N (o c (6 m a) O C co Q C N 0 a c � C U 0 U L `N co 3 a) �' W Lip 3 OL U C ON 7 (a +J m U a - to Y o co E a co 0 L i (Z0-9 L edE 9817fi) podoN 4e;S Od- V IUOW43ePV :;ugwg3e4}y = o m Ch cli a d coo a) •a.X c cn W.U) 0 � F= din > '�, a U_ � CO Q) > = U 'c E O U U U in co ui +, 0 o H o U "- c +' a) U) U CO (� +� a V " O C N cI C) > O O +, O _� O N c Z " Q +� Co .� U °- + ° °) � v- U o a) w -" •s O E > °o o a Q c M Q 0 O a a) � a) O W.-c C cn - w co o C, o a) U_ a) CL O +' O Q Q) O N O a) � � 3 n3 a) U c6 cn O t +- O 0 (6 O : U > 'u) .x M (D - U 'O U Q) OQ .a ± > E N c o Q co 'tn 0 0 w 7 (o bA O +, O a — N c ` -=p (6 C a) Q M + ` co a) O a) c O O U ~ m +�a ) N 0 c -a > '- c - U a) o a N c O O Q U a) v7 cn E (n N > +_, (D O a) .O a) U O co O 0 .� N O O +� � O +� O U N O O O N n3 w O W(D co CO al � RS 3 O c +� ate o N � �, � > w o c a) o m ¢ c� o � � CL Lo -+S oca � + � � O Co c � U a) c O Q� � +, O a) w +� d co a a) - > a) .o o > > U v o w cB cn Q c Q c c co +, c c cn N w 0 E o to , (6 b0 cn co -C co O_ a) U O O Q (n c co O O U a) c c +� U O +� u) +, a�i ca ca'a o o a a) - 3 n o a 0 0 tw c uoi o o o 0 co +� � c' 0 0 c o a) o c o 0 cn = U co ° a) ca - ca E OL `� -a c a) M s - co o ' a) U > o 'o c M +� Q > � O � o 3 Q c Co o — '- � O c o v7 -0 o cn M c 0 3 o cn ca o 3Q � a) > pcnU � � � a) a) cn °3 coo +, � � a) c N � U5 "_ +� +, � a) U N o n3 NtuVictstz? E a cn -5E - w+ tw > o —> a) ouoiucni � o •o cn c co O +-, c co cn r vi T c = c cn + +� co co o• , .a) co N c Q- i. O >, c a) 7 a) cn O > Q) bA a) a) 2 73 dom � � Do � �dm Ica o � � sa, E � o � t000c>o0 0(nNa m +, m o >, } o Q) a t_v0 c � s cn Q � (D a) O o > +� O O a) > N �is > +' c o � U •to - aa)i n00 � - * Co � '� o a) � � � ) v � � � •� N w o n3 0 N .� 3 Q a) 0 3 o cts c cn c o . c > � U U) 41+1 Co 'o � + tea) o te� cn o a) o N o- > +J N a 0 a) -O� Q a N 'o a 0 N a S a o (n a) c cn o � o 0 o O E � ° N O � cYo ° o o � m a) ~ Z � a °) � ° c o`y0 a) 07 co a) wo po � ups � U a) O .� � Q d 3 a) IL zS- ° co +� 'N co F- O U Q O c I O c U c a) aD E 00 E E Ch o �„ U Z O (ZO-S 6 edE Sevv) ;aodaN j1ejS Od -ti;uaualaoe;;y :;U8wg3e;;y o co 6 a as N c3 .c O U v cn cn $- w o o II a U E U c LSD a) ; a t3 U c°1 v U ¢ U 1= `• 0 ++• 0 N (X6 c c ate--+ +�-+ m - R +� U � O ¢ °� o o a� a (n aci c �� o X o U o v7 U n a) v (fl m E a a taA U Q a N 3 +, o +� +� � ° Q) E ¢ cn U ca ca +� c != E E Q Q o ¢ca _0 0 c o -o : � OL N + ~ -0 - o 0 0 m °a 4= o o +� a; n=o F- > °}' c u ° c a"i O o� ° O `� 7 +� u a N a) c N (0 N C'4 11 C i > O " C) � CO -j N � (n Q N o E U c �.{ 0 2 tw t U +� OL N U c v co M +_� +� U c +J U c J c co E a) U ° E +' Co ° ° in E > U U °a m aEi �° m o ¢ O O X } a Q.� U) a E c E U c c M _C � a O '' c �- U a x � ui cn U E O a) a—)' E to� � L � a-- x U U o ,�o l- � ° � + � o .° U' (n a� U m a m + a U L m U U U cn } m rl � Q c c U U c M c ^cfl E z E n m a) a) 0 �o -' 0 11 cn ° � .- m ti m = co M 00 u) o 3 � m > >; a p +� E Q o E 00 x > '0 E c E cN ocn (0L) u) 0 u) o n3 a) � � `� `6 � +� a Q) U) ° o 00 o- a) a o U c a o c� co M N � co ¢ � a .E ri � a aci Ln 0 +' M 0 0 =. a 000 a a _0 � Q— c � � 0 w� c � a) E �t -0 o ¢ >, SE w - o U O D �o 0 - 0 � C cn c CID a) — -0 o s U ui (n c a U) a c a O p c ° ai cn 0 U U 4- 0 U c a a U 0 Ln a)M e ¢ � .� 0 � � M U 0 0 E m s n E � co nUn + a>i a U a (n c c c 0 n U cn U O m -0 U w 0 > ° c F- ca tan U U 5 - U + � (n 6 6 X00 � Xa) c � EE ip ° � ° aa � cac � co '0 0 c (n (n m — un c c ° CT U cn cn O o cn L 0 0 a U �_ t ° ° L +J Cl. to U a) o +' ° c U m O c m cn a ~ 0) U c a) 0 N N ateZ c cn `•� �' }, c c c (0 70 m a) -0 4- 0 tan + a� c n3 . c c � 0 o E � E o � o � a11iU = a ca ma E o 04-- >,s :- D c o °) a) Q c (Od '° U � c0 z E (6 i } 7 O .- U o f N 0 u CY > cca ¢ U E (n 3 c a c c c o o a)p ai � U U) U u o U o ¢ +r o n 70 Q ° as ua ua 0 -° cn m O .m a a> E +� >,H c - D a U > U � (n p cn j2 Eaa .° °3 v ° � o `a � " Q)0 cncv"' �a `1 U cu Z +� Co � ttmp L : c cn c a C7 a) 0 N cn Co a) } O F- tw (n m .� Yap c6 v cOra v Q~ vi N 00 M o +, U o c D + c o Y a) F- — a E m N 0 p i U a 0 -o > U c c tap > -o Z O m E 5 a i O O'"a U m O c `0 p b Li � � � ¢ Z3 , U c m (n ° Z ?� ¢ m U L c a.., 4- 'X L cn `�- O N >' X X c c 0 0 0 tw a) ° O a E ±+ +� (p (n cn n O a) a) c U vi c U Q 2 -0 a } cca U E c - a (n H cn 0 a a 0 U co v E m v c a O N c U a) U a U a a LL +� _ +� c � ° E � aEa¢ ¢ 4- U - a) O ° � � ° >,� � - U ° CL Q) I-- O .- cn �� o -a 3 � LL +� � U c � ALL c m E � rn o N E E O M tr U Z O (ZO-S L edE SSVV) podaN ge3S Od-V}uauayoe}}y :4u9wgoe4jV s co w a d a s Cl o `-- iv 'oL 0000 } G _ i '. \ z n i a) U d 0 W a) m U) � w Q) R a E E C o U E E E m o O O O o v ° � L a) N CN O (1) (n o O ±' r- "0 C N N 6 N c O (o (o a) 7 U Q CC (n o f O CZ co a) CO cn (n j c) O a o (D > a) + a N o C +J �' x ~ s C o O O Q U o o O O U) a) 4- o a) T ca CO U a) U) i (o N o Up H C ¢ U O a) > +, i C Q) :� _ a) •� U7 (6 U c-I O co i L m ° (6 E p C O Q N a) (n N p p U ?i i 00 a CL U a O N -o co co 0 Q o (n o p 1 0 2 3 LL u) c�6 E _ W a) +� Q) (o a) (n (o a O U 0 0 W x o a) i U C o U ((Z 3 O D U Z (o C a) U o C 4) 410 a ° Z U) Q E O , C .r - C:) 0 U 0 U (n E a p 2 +- +; C ° a) Y T N O OL 2 (1) O a) U a) 00 .a� 2 E (B x = U i i W p a) C p +- O W U) CY< N U 6 O � Q O a) p -r- C 3 co a) •- X O C T a) > a) _O a) to (n 70 (n i O (n O a) () * a) a) X O +' (n a) Cc 0 s Ui C UO C C ' (o W c o (6 co co � 2 -0 4- +1 U o o C O a) Q) (o 7 O > C co = N Z +-+ (n N to a) C .� (n O a) o a � E U C a CL O U co C U � Q) o E N 0 d m 0 ¢ � w a a) ~ Q N T "�0 � co C (6 U) '� ? b00+_T b�0 0 (n E to�' m a) ¢ C , -0 0 co � M a) .� Q o Uj a) (o c6 U •� c�6 > U o a) C_° c M o Q) CO cna) X � w00 a) (o ZC p +J cnco > (o a c6 � (n Q) E a) N U (6 a (n Q) U i Q) ], to to U (6 a) a) C ° 0 U C } (o X (n Q C a a) o ° (� c o -a ° a) i N o C U U °� = a) o X .X a (n t aa)i (o C n3 a) (6 O O U O O + - a) H CO + +� N (o (6 co U +� E a) U) O a) LL 'O Q o CO to T (n +1 a) +-' a CO C U co Q) a) 0 o - C , p Y C LL O p p O U n3 z v- +' n E E >,m s 't � +� U aa) E = � (n T o +, s o a .° .� O c D co O N o ° O E - c�6 0 �Z �° � a C p U) a) 7 U co ism = 0L F- 3x ooa� og4- =3 cao > � 'coU (in a) M i U .0 p � aa) x co � a T U o a a U) m + � co C z cn .� ca o 3 c� co co a) a) cn ° co m a) ca +� a' %o �' ° •`� - 3 cn a) s , � (o nA 0 0 Q 3 ° c(n a U) ~ � a) W } � N o U o co v a) ?' °o z oN o +� c°n a) > co w a c 0 o .� o co -0 T v c a) 0 c co co ac+ a) " a W p E (o � o (n a) a- a Z C O fn O N C ° > o x N -0. O o E a o ° U o co o 4-- co :2 E �' U ;E .p > a) a N o ° cn 2 p ° o ? c n Q� U) a W N E o 3 a) 0 o T � o20 = . a) 3 (o" E � oaio � ' m mE m (n0o aa) ° .� Y coo C O (n -5 ° a) tiiA a) U = a) W > a) a) - E � p U ¢ +:i 'Fn E ° - a.Y o > a) o o a�i O W x 3 'o o 2 U to o .�7 (Un o -0 c 0 -ro oT (sn cv oU > a ¢ 0 ° m aa)i Cn +J C ` 0 CL) E r-i N E E (Y) r� o O U z O O (ZO-S edE) : 9817V) podau 4e 4S Od-b;UOWLIOB44V :luauayoe;}y N co T CL a� V) m co m _ a o U C a) E i s NV a) o O — ca ¢ U ° U (n C rl C i p cB j d 0 0 m > L E D 4- o z o a) cn v '- a ° v c� a) N E �� U + N i (/) N a) c > N +' (0 (6 - C (6 O N .O � U 7 (6 Q'O O N +O, O ¢ + (6 > O b0 O (a 0 t U +, V O � (0 N Q N } + U (B L Q) to U Q) } *- O U a) Q C v- ° ° O uj +' a) (� ~ V 4= � C Q) o Q) Q o ¢ o N — C +0 (n> N 0 C- 0 ±' L1IJ N (6 Q E � E o o � o ° o x c°n v +, a `� N '� Q) C �-° N Q C a) C N p O o U i n3 d Co "0 ,�, O E 0 O •� Q) ° '� M me ° O ° 0 N ° a) ¢ C m ca ao o ' �, o C � N o 0 0 � a om � c � � ° 70- C: � 4-1Cj ) 3c�a a � •aoaaa)i CY) aa)i Q N � b''pN cow o o N � - � c ¢ _ c� a N M -° C a) O' w c-I E +� N n Q) m O o a) O rl U � � m 4 3 o m O — N m ° � _ � 0 a a) • � (n .N p N O o � � > � U o acon :o ° ° � N c�a � o o +� ¢ (n N E in O L a) 101O N p •� V Q) ¢ ° +--� (6 (o L (6 m C x U C O tL0 (n O s off° N + O N O O U N .� > C Q) +J +C- 0 N 0 U � (0 (6 .a� (6 (0 � 0 .� a) O � � U � + fl U '�--� Q i 7 LO ¢ N +"' +., Q U Q) N i--� +-+ U 3 +_+ +-� i E o E i a a) T i 1- C C 7 (6 L 7 (6 ci6 : C O C ' O +- c H U U ° s ° O n° N o 0 U no E C O a) U o � U w ° C N a +- ao _ o ac N o(D _0 o �+ � o Q N o O -0 ° o E w E ° � D U') E •°-C U) �' 0- a) EE � o o N +. -9-- EN tD 3U N� Q o O Q+ i O a)L CL N N N Q) 0 a) Q) = •� =$ a) a � � a) C o a a) + (a 6 Q U a U > H Q) U) � � 70 -0 -0 a) 0 D o c cn o n3 0 � +� N + a) CO can w N +� N a) +- a E a) E O w U -0 w C O O N E 0 +- +, � :3 +, cca 0) U O N UU Q) a a Y(0 a- co+, n..- a) a) E O a) " C M i° U- a UA -° a C X_ +J Q) o co C E a) ' N O a) a +, m to (0 0 _0 to 0 N to O a) (a O t-- fl..- 0 O Q N Q C - O tap N C6 L (6 (n .N U aO O 'D N L U ±' Q E (B +J CL W 0: N C _ _ O a) >,� U '0 N — _ N +�.+ U (0 (6 C Ul .a C N a) W Q) N N E � fl a Q O Q (B O C a) O F- U _ E (o E a) N a) � E c� E E c� O 0 U Z (ZO-S� edE S81,17) ;aodau jle3S Od- ti;uauayoe;;V :;u8w43e;;y M � T m 46 a as C4 0 cn Co ao m C > 0 0 m U `� o co (o - O m70 co > .0 O U -p C +Np +� CL in co >, '!� o <n uoi +� a) ca a) a) a) ._ co C ca (n -0 O -tea +, c ai 0 'W ° E u) w — -' — 0 >0 0 a) °� a) -0 E = o (ten a) 0 0 U 0 0 4 0 o 0 0 .— � U (n " D U) lap A 3 U) U 0 C O O ° O (UO 0 M +' m > — n3 p 't co 'O O co .0 3 00 a a) c n N a) O ° a) - > o o C 0 C C cI c 0cna) � a) 07 0 � coO � o � Q 0 m o CL 0 O a) n3 m E a) L (n -o +, a) 0 cn . O o a0i c aoi 04- cn +� -0 a) YL •� 0 +, O p u, a) 3 cn co C a) +� C o ai 4-- o co O .N + E 0 r I N m s aa)i U a) m o o iz O 0 o 3 � cC n c0�o i aU i — a �w ° � U 0 -0 a -, ��L (T)) ' - W X 0 O o ¢ 3 O o L Q a 0 = o U o a O n L O L o o U +,0 U) E -0 W a C (n o o a) o W as o o L (6 4- O Y0 > 0(3) LLI bD E _ 4- > 0 4- .- , U 4) Q) 4— o o Q o U C o u 0 ¢ 0a) O i Co C 0 0 U C Q a) a (6 U~ 0 C U N O a)p U + O � O -0 0O N 0 0 +- o n O L 0 -a L, CL U C to •- 4- (o L O O o F- O U a) (D O cn 5 v= (n ' Q'_ 0 a) o z O n3 O p cn � V) cn E i 0 i L O �' v in C U to O O + 0 0 O +' -O L W � 3 N W a) O O c c c 0 a) 3 00 Lu o 0 C W - 0 X 0 0 =_ a a CL � ooO � � T co (D L) co � W Co4-- cam ow 0 0 0 o i n o U) o w � w a) (n o FLU � L6 0 x 0) UQ � .L U U 0 0 a) cn coLQ +� Q +� ^O Z3 � O (o '� �ci ._ a) U) L 0 Z co 0 +, 3 n3 C U D_ O (n Q i co � _ +' 4- O t 670 2 n L � (moo N > U) +- (0 0 p a O O C a) a) O Q W aJ L O L +' a) C p L m C N U (n a E a) (n — 'i — a) QN 0 a) c�i p 0 C E (n Q) 'C3 v- p �_ T �_ 4 i Y -0 C N _ *- U > O C o C ` O� Q) _ O W W a) E co L U) (n to O O L O zt� cu Co N 0- En +�— co a) O a) L a) D m 'cn 0 L co L O- UJ 0 3 cn > a) O L Q � Cl O ± L C Q C ca cn (6 - U) 4- L L O O U L = +� E Zn N a) ca N - N T u.l vi O a L CC ci n p U O •(o n (0 n U0 o Q p o >, � o U o +' V O — O C C 4) U +- co 3 C 1 O U 0 5 0 3 .� a) (n (n O p CL 3 p O U 0 3 p L O L fn C ca Cp Co 3 0 O^ i 0 U Y 2 (n U i V Q V "O N > i (n 7 (6 C 6 C O (Q!� c i(n (f) > cn > � N U a)0 70 O (o O N L U D 0 ,5 (o L p U H () E U +L-+ U) W= (n 4- C ` (D a) C m E E c O 3 O U Z (ZO-S L edE sgvv) laodam uelS Od- V luaWyaelld :luaw43elly s w m � co n, d U c c 70 r- c N c a) tao a) Y O N v 0 0 0 co a) N — to U 00 TAI T � C. a U O O ca v O (n + +° O T Rio O E E + (n u) :E Co -O E i co N O NO ON cn Cc .� C N O O c - C: co O U U c M co ci U 0 c n co p- — + N a LL U c ° M O a 3 ib + i(6 N i to cn =(6 T i �(i 6 Lrn o 0 (6 > > Q o 3: xM � Na � ° N W � o 4- -C c p • p � O �M O rcn j U � 1 O of c O - N O n O co O O O U �i E -O -° i ° a = aUN))c +- - o�_N o c c (n a a O O c N > c 4 0 ' N M�a) •T (C o o , ac t O E O Fz 0 0) x E N a) M n O U) c o 0~0 U (o U 3 n i + N > N O +p O c� ( a) � O U w U LO a)N n ° a 4-- tot O O c Q c ° � o -a O U a o E m N N O W CMo 6 N O O N >, E a a) o U cr cn = a0i0 CT oO � � 000 .E cn � Y "° T L1A i a) (n w a) c +-' Cn 70 Y T N c c (n a) c (n c '- U a-, a) (n b0 O O O co) X i O a O (n co (U LLI U , � c C: a w p c Q o 4- o ` 07 m L z — t0 c > � o � U ° +� � ° 2 � � � 0 ° � � c = C:E -0 co a) ° cam O b0 c c W -O c 0 -0 O +� T 4= Co U 07 > 4- °U (o i O O cn c .— a) x O U ° a) a) N M Co x i 4) O c U (o y O O '+J coa mm -0co ° coa-0 - � o +� 4- E (n o03 � ca cUc � � U ° c � = cao a � U am ") �' � co .o � c a) co >, ° cn ° a c ap) (pn co O' (n E - o o 4- a) c u°i ° z Q o ° a) o � to Ea) ina) � o � < '—, + oo � � 000 � g � � > c U (U v > ( 0 a a U o - a U 4- O O U O co Q) L L o E a)co c o cn 2 a p ) O L(6 i" O Fn N a) (n a) 3 E c o - u) O a) c m a c cn co , c co o s C)L O a) E }' Q N � UpA O CU �_ c Cp4 a T N Q) (6 C L 40 J Q m cc ° U +� a)o c a � 0 � � �o Ol w "_OL � c � U o a w c a)) = cn c Q O 0 ri�0 p cB O - c 0 `� co c A o c 3 c � a U) ° '(n M a) aa) = c ° � � � � � cco CL O a) Y)o z o c •0 3 c .o U c o c _ c ~i a-r- > � o � �= O � J O o ^ ° a c D�.c (n U O U) o _0 'E c a) c 0 O > — O U 0 U � � m 0) W = Fn ca U -m E cc c E� u � � c a � � !� a E n0 z ooE_ o �CW on -0 ` 13 n ° O ° -0 � o oM � a) iEc F = 0 m (iUow0 a U L nc ' � co ++ N C • 0 E .0 LO ~ w N N N Q E E ° ' O L7 U z O O (ZO-96 ed9 ssvv) podaN}}e;S Od- ti IUGW43eUV :}ualuyoeUV oo m � � a — 0 r) min 0 J— c o ui N v N c N p C3 > 0 Cd O cn o O c U cr U C t+ L 4= T O m 0 +� O L N 0 70 M i) O c 0 M � ~ 3 4- (1)E � N o a 0 M () o0 4 Q) U O 6 U 2 � c 0 O C6 0 o O N o _ 0 -0 c .0 M (6 <n �O Co a- CO n O C6 = Q)a) O O �+cE T) Liz > = 0 l O Q � p a)� N -0 00 Ow�C3 OV 0 C� o U n �0 C > O N d�O C p U) a o p Y a 0 U N +' Lo a U-aco c c� i 0 0 c6 ° E to O i + 0 Q E OL c0 Q N ° '0 'a 0 O_ p a O N CO 0 } a) a) C7 -0 CL (n N 3 CL a) C+7 a) � O 70 Cn O Q V C)CY N >i a) Q Liz S?m . a) a�i � aa)) o� =30 x ° (0 ° ¢ ao ao) -0 ai a: CL O U) r-I LL Cn cn a) a M CL Cn M Cn w Cn >,.!-- 70 a) -O V) + T s a) U) 0 0 U 0 +j 0 0 U W co co a) a) 0 (B a) � N a) a) 0O +' p 6 a) > O� Yap O 3 d a) m 70 OZ3ca c>3o � a) N 0to.°� a) o m 1 Q 0 N p co O N U p +� a) Cn (a L Cn c 0 L fN6 +J p0 .2 -0 (n a) i + O O co Ca +N, Q 0 W Cn 0 Cn _0 0 0 O t)Q U N U +� D O E W N M Cn N c 0 N } to O O p O = a) +-� N N O O N '� ate--+ O_ Q ui a)WM Z +1 >, } ca . O O °U a) L a) 0 7 ZD — o av CL c> � c +' U' i 0 UA.- 07 + Q— a-' '- n5 CO (n '� — c .c m C�6 a co _ ° ' m ° o � a) � + E0 � ° ccna a _0 N E uc0cn -C -0 c cn 3 > c -0 C � . c � .� aa)) ca ca Q o m c — d .T c) co ai 0 c) , a) c <n .> 0 0 W Z a) c E o c +� n v a) ao c .o ° p o c o n 0 W -a o � co *' a c o o a cn E 0 � tw SZ > c a) 0 � } c .N a) i 0 ` i s >� c 3 +, 0 M i N C3 0 to S? (>3 CO N n3 >a) c +6, N_ 7 �� v io n E o a 0 � 0 o o Q c o 0 0 0 0 c a) c - o a) c tL a a) +, +, ca p c Q n ca c O uci O CO a) c U O Q) CY Q c E oz O O O O (ZO-5L edq S8t�t,) podeN jle;S Od- V IU8W43elly :;u8w43e4ly co co s r m � co a a� N v CL u 0 a� c 0 a Q) o N o O � U E a E N 0 U � O � a) a co C 0 o a 3 CL N 0 a� in W C N U 70 0 a•.' N a) 'O a) (n a) a) � C T O T^-0 a) a) *' a) O 0 4- 0 0 c +� s U O Y o o ai uoi a) ci '> a) o N O �0 3 ; o O'w 4- 3 0 E j 0 0 c o o o a) 0 o +� a) Q a) o Q w o -o \ CL -0 N E 0 Co O N N o a i U c o > cu o N 0 O s O o " E a N N t cn N E ui o N U C C a) = �-+ - (n U a) o o -o -o N •U +� > a) C N cn -0 w c� Owc0E - c- � � > � � �� ° `� 0N 00 o 0 0_ U > CO ca 0 m 3 o o -0 U o 0 a' ° c x -0 N o .m Q) o tin 0 a) 0 0 ca 0 i N N N — 7 O Cl) co "� .tv "� CO E 3 °-Y a O 3 U cl U vU--_ a) +O U_ -0 UA t]A 7 0--a O i U _ Q N E o Q Q o L Q C 7 N 3 -Q = a� +�-+ •C p U C N } Q — cy a) 4) U Q O ca m _o s0 a�'i c0 ~ N "O O w w � -O N a) W co N N N m U O C to+1 Q) C6 > a) (6 a) Q N s coo M ? -(6p }' - 0- p N U} Q U +J a ca 4) a) M m °� ti C 7 NN O C N N � N +� — O C + 0 Q O E c6 a) n ° o �aoi E c6 a> a) CB U W ri O U N i O U Q N N (D w E ca w� U N (n C Z5 cu cu 0 p N O O O a) ~ .� 7 N a� h U T O a) U Q 4- M C 0 C Z C a) U a) 0 "O c6 T c6 3 > > o U o � cn N -O C O UD.0 O a) C 70 t c6 (a o a o o b0 C -C cn + 0 0 +7 (B -o 4- O 0 N > > o 0 o p n c0i C co j p Q N T C E i ca 0- 0 +) a) +7 CO � U ± a) W w w - m U O Z + CO -0 O N �O W �O C 3 N � � 0 O'er .0 w w w 0 - nom Q O U � U O U O O 'p Qa) c (0 O UUU o' er' U hp Q) \ +� N +� O co (0 N 0 3 Y Q .� O b00 Q d M n 3 Q N +�-+ O M C -- C U W U U C L m � E .0 LO E E 4 O 0 U Z 0 (ZO-5 L edE S8trb) ;aodoM jlels Od - tr;UOW40e;IV :;U9W43e;;y co a m Y cV U R a U 0 Q) c 0 a ai N ca co 00 00 c� f C o 0 C � N 0 o U � � a U U � O 0 � N uoi E cn c c Q) c O 0 o Q � a) a) o a) O Q � n O a) D N N c �a— �+aN O O m O 0 O > O _0 n 0 0 O c c = Z r Q � Q Q o O Co Co O. U) o o \ a m U O 6 _ 70 o a) cn Q Q v0- O Z a) +� c`no E u' O CL c In O cn 3 CT (n 4- o w n c c m .o n3 E U z c ¢ x �_ > '- 'o o ° o n3 o O c =3 +, � Q \ • 4\ c c c o E a) o c a UA c �a co Q) o u) a)Y a a m 0 O � j � c in c rm N co -0 c N N O i Q o (n J - i w a) C7 N �m Q E cn n 3 c -0 +. c In a } O_ a) -0 W a) co U a) c M C2. C C cn a. a) cn a) m T } ui CO 0 o z Q •a a n 0 o 0 0 3 aci T ca 0 to omN � � a U) a) - O c � Q3 � � 3 v � coc � c o ?,p +' c N tzq vi 0 H Y O cn +� Q•ca ca c N a) cOn 0 0 •� o N O cj O UO—o.� to a) = by +, 0 ^ U 4) N 00 o o +� cn a) o -C co a) cn cn D a) a U) a) O T .� O � — c + o L Q. in U N a) C O co Q 0 m U ca O m c ° cn OU 4- c U .� Q 3 U) Q Q tti0 Q 0 .S E w E cn -o U +� 0 a Q - O m c CD N E m m ti E E 4 o 0 U Z O O (Zo-5 6 edE sevv) podaN 4e3S ad-V luauayoePV :;u8uay3e4lV of co � a d N a 0 U 0 a� c 0 a Vftwl ai n, o (a 00 Ln � c + c � U a) � a E O U � O c +� c a a) c E u) c °- 3° (n CL o m ° U) >, :1 a a) c cn co co N o o + Ucn o c 0 co n C ca a)o Co u =CC3 Y J p N U O O (n 75 6 Z iO OL 4o O Q) - E5 s cn 0 O O 4- o CN u N a) a) Taa)p w- ° i (6 Y d c o iE .N (n O Q) fl °a) c O @ m o p j — L a :E -p O n:3 W j D: ° ` m i N U t10 (n io r c�a a a E z o Cn 3 E U c o Q ° cn N O a n E N cu _ L U p � O co Y co 0 a p > moN is (n c ° C (n 70 r O C.'0 N a) Q) p (n +i C � Q (6 O �� � � E O C m - ° Q Q +, a) (n 0 U °v c (Q a) a� �O 3 m a) Ca _Q E a) ° (n w O "vN o N .2 a °o c n ° � ti°o ° `>° o ° ° a m a v p r o a -a -a i j m � v �c° 3 ti1A a" X � � � Q N � a) a) > Q ° O Q) a) C i - o c v a a) a) a) 7 (n +� rn ii - `U a o ++ Z O m O m N •LD a) +1 (n i Q m � C U > a) (6 a� �v F- m E C N i +� (n c iv a) (n m U 4O E w- U O Q i Q (U o E ca -° Q) -6 +_ bUA �_ a� (��6 a) ° +y i -a 0 o rn aci .4 0 3 a) p Y)0 Q) Zn _ .� O GA U E- Q) a O 3 L N 3 d) C O N O Q) i a) U 'rn' a> 3 C O U cm. h UO C a) C C i C Y i E = a m rn Q ° - i '(n is o = Ta i a) U - a) OU 7 Y10 U ❑ +� Q) o r� p O CO '� '(p C C +O U ° 3 N � (o a) L a) � co a a) m ;u a C i N a) E ma 00 E E 4 O 7 0 U Z O (Z0-56 edE) : sgvv) podaa}fie;S Od -V 4uaw4ae44y 4uauayoe44V oorn oo m a as m N rr O a 0 o 0 O a� 0- > D' Ckf O O - > co o 00 N -0� (h c6 CN (h O c O c 0 O N a) U E E o o U UO N c U 7 c p cr O 0 U) c O C C p O N O o OL O Q N ( 3 O. a) i L to N cn (t3 a) o i U x to 0 vo N Q) L) V N a' {— Q b0 +� a) .O C -O � v Cm p p O 7 "p "� O C C C N co V Q a) _ a Q 7 p a) U CO Q O (6 d O Q 0 0 C p taA a) � a) (6 � a) � co V o a) UO L� } O O Q= Q >? D o w 4 }' Q coo L L W Q (o Sz x > N O +' U a) N O x C 0 � O N p Co O 7 cn 0 U) O L W _ y, } O O L Q m Q (6 ,4; a) O -O Q �� '' p O -o Q p Q v 0 Q co C T N N .— C Q cn ° co a) — .- d � Q cn C7 x cn ° � ° � C o a) +� co a c a -0 U co co i C Q) +� O cn Y co a) (6 a) N + +J .V U a� 3 LL (o S? +' (n C6 E c (o O Q) C U W C C7 p 0 0- (6 Q O Y1A Q = bA 3 c c E _0 .c E= °a c co w N a � Z C W CL ca o Q � ) 3 3 m _ a o a U z o a) E O T O N L a) cn i Q ¢ U �' a' C +O o N � N U CO CO 0 CD- T to O L -O i 0 Z3+ "- C U �► O i N '� U m a� (n (� (n cn U Q C m (o .O U,p O_ (n Y a) co h Q LL +J .p. Y (Z0-S edE SSVV) podaa}4e}S Od -V WOWLIoeAV :IUGW40e3}y 0 N co Cb IL m co O Y t6 CL E U 0 a� c 0 Q Q) oi E E E E 0 E E E E U U U U c O O O O N U) ton voi E N O O = O O O O O O 0 O Q Q Q C 3 Q N p to tll O N tll O (n c O (6 ? Cl p � o Y -0 (n U bOA D to +5=+ O (6 E ° (6 f O O N ° 2 } O O O ° O CO co 0 i 0 -r- -O E (n N O O E O O +� c m N QU U o N X � tn +� c N s= ow c co c 'L (n m � �° caEo -a T O N t s T "t3 dj _N a C (�6 0O O p-D >> .�, E y= m tll (6 = U O cn (n O ° N a) v Q � c N C � O � � o ° — -°� p 4- a is O o m 3 n O p c M Ci Jl? E O C N E a o O O N m m M Q LL X W �a � LL (° C), +, Oto °15 cn co N � C- Q w o tiO�v 0 v O a) O 4- o •- ll� N m N (� ai a a m N C�6 40--O+ C O F ) U U m aa)v i m m w Q co O E Q s tj tll> E NQ N � ¢ +-�a +1 j� � o O i c c'+O U) c o 4 m =5 N a' O _ a) O n a) O CL C) 0 f) (n ( c-1 (n Q cn ° oas m_ (0 ,E E N o N + U (0 O U W (a Q o -0 to +U E E � O rn N U- L+tN ll O U _ U i N a- L C cn T N O o a -0 0 I a) (D M - O O N m Z B O L co U cu o H +r O n 20 _ (6 Q (6 O os Q O (> LL a ° ■ ■ ■ Q m C L N O N LO 0 O 7 cr- U Z O O O O (ZO-S edJ S8titr) podaa}}e}S Od-V 3uGw43e;4y :IU9W40e;;y N 00 6 a _ as <) 0 m a 0 U 0 0 c CL a� a o co `c O O O c c Q) E E E a U U U 0 0 o 0 (D con con uoi E cn o 0 0 o a a 0 3 0 a) a) w a) cn cn Cl) _0 o Y -o w a) (0 -a 0 d' o _0 0 0 0 -c c 0 _0 0 o � Cfl pt z � O 04 0 cn a� N 4-- O 4-- in Q a) a co o c 4) ca o c° o -0 tpn o o c° o U >L a) �� ( a) C co co o c 0 Q 4) m Q Z5 2 4= N Q o CO .c m _ o ¢ m co O + cca m � _ N 4) (a O Q ¢ o N r. CO U)o c N c Nc3 D�� N ' 0 Q � "a N U ¢ 0 a Y c+' i +- O cfl ¢ z C) C5 , 4- � V -0 +- .n U Q U > c o a L p ._ U c 0 0 ¢ a .o O � N = MC) � .S tn '� Cfl (n ¢ o f is Z � tiiD� -0 U) c o E is O + TCfl O 4) O c cao o c c6 z � _C Q) � o o Q.NO Q) C) CL N CN 3 Q U) 0 a) 0 O O cn +J o m __ o O 0 N CO Cr U m Y \ C 11p cc o •E b.0 >, U rn � o � .� U S T U ca U 'J �_ .� CU N Q 0 .� U c6:3 Ln -0 Z3 J ¢ O 3 j o co C U o' •Y� •° Q a U) a- X if CO ¢ o Q J 4—co O p O C m •� N E � U '� o Co Ox 0 c m 7 U) + ca � m O - ci 0 Q a � c� oo 'n �� Y 4- uo) 0 3 E N N E CL 3 a w U N O E a) ° ca O 4) o Q) 0 5 0 O V � o cn o Z O N c �,o cn p a p Y 0 L E '� .a O t _0 O E m ° Q Q o E i O O' 0 U UO t - U r` p 0 O i Q) 0-L !_- U L H fn o N m a C U) .c a LL 4- U o o cn ¢ co « no 1- +J c ` a) � Em 00 E U Z O O O (ZO-S L edE 58tit,) podatl}}e3S Od- ti IU8W140e}ly :IU9W43el}y N N Go 6 CL .r d cv Y M (� CL E U 0 c 0 a a� a � a m c O +� G � U E o E N U a O � .2 c a N In E N C O o O Q cl N N Q) N (n U i W � s X p U O p 2 0) U)"Q) U) -0 C U C m > V 6 6 C U O co(B O + 'C o Q i fQQn N 0 C Y �Q (O B C Y , Y � CO U) - > O L O w - C O o (b O �+ U .X O U -K C O v O � O 6 U � � Qt CO N O a) O (n O 3 4- Q p -0 U O N -0 C M, @-0 N � U c6 )) O m N C 4-1 W w U O O (6 U m p j +J cn O 0 2.= Q) O U 70 -CC C U U C �CC - (6 �; �"� a"", ,--� O U acv - - C Q� Q (n o m Q) ZD C CO - Q) O Q) � T C '�0 C X Q X U Q t6 o O OL CO o 4- N M Q o !n a) o Q� a) a o m -m o � m a) a) L w i +� Q Q a) T � 3 < LL O U � N� W-0 N C O E U N 4-- N Q Q) m N O � \ ?� 'v Q N O x 6 F- Q 6 a X (B "O > O (6 Q) Q) 2 N C U o 11 7, C L O C O Q O T U 7 > - E o 6 n Q) C 2 C i W O R N .� i Q) C m Q OX C C U (� + r I U C C U Q) X i s co Q) -� Q a) 0 C N F- Q M c J U Ca c O X o 7 a' 3 _ U H CJ Cfl m fn fn Q) O' .0 Q) C �c - (0 U U C Q) Q U C U CL Q O O N i N p O D U O UoA C N > O O (B U Q N 0 0 Q � U > U c� U) CO 3 4- o CO 4- U U U in in m a) � E rn E E 4 O = o U Z {zo-5 L edE sovt,) podou i}e3S Od- V IUOWyaeIIV :IUOWgDel}y M N a0 a d M V (� C7 � O O a C U O O o I� r c .� rl a (h Ch (n Oo Oo N Q N a 04 04 c O c O U 7 N _0 U E c E c E a U N U N O p a c O O a C O N O N a O CO Q Ch CL cr O - O U) cn to 70 cn a) O O to > (1) (3) c (1) (3) o to O (3) a) 0 N 0 _U U =3 U a) Q c 0 >ui Q n p N + Q c c v- O a) •T f- >, a) � X O (� U U c U _ O i U +J O Q Q Q O �O -0 a) �O E N + — > X ` X 0 >o co U) a) a X H O m a) o 2 a N o OLo U ca ° a) x Q) " —a o +� i Q U <,) O � W C, 4 C F � =5 o > 70 N O O � 7 "O ad n Q � a) o O O U (6 c - t6 o M Oa c_7FU co _ a) N LL O (n Q (U6 (6 c +-� to � 'X +' c U (B > c U U p > ate-+ Q E � 0 bD a) a) t a) N � Q * YEA 0 .N '� � � � � qa) Q (n 3 ° a +, o a) +� a) c a) > > s n3 � a) 0 a) 4 N n O U N to _ a) ti X � c I a) m Yap U o 4-- 0) CO U N �S = 0 i 3 'U i O a) � O L� a) " "° N �•Q C: V) O a � > X O 0 (D E O +,0 c � � E 0 m� � - O focn Cl- 0E � °Q O � �1 -0 M a) w -ate -0 -0 a J N a) c ° c °) cw e E u) O a� Q a' a � ° °m a, T a ' ° r.i O ti o O o a ° c 'X ai �' U c a o v ° ui U �' o v > ^°' E O o a) a U ° 3 Q o 'co a z a) aa)) o ¢ (%) v aNi .'� .� u°)i Yio o c m � E Q E E E N N o = 0-1 U Z O O (Zo-5 b edE) : 58titi) podaM}}e}g Od- V}u9w4De;}y :}uauayaePV Ict N co ch a as m M M Yj 0 0 d 0 0 � U O O o a� I� ti c 0 O O > �> p O N N � � N M c0 a O C� O "c c 0 c 0 C: N -0 E c E c E O E a U N U N � O O C6 � O O U) cn C: c 0 O N O N o Q N � . O 0 N O C/) � U w vi Q U co l C O U) Q O O � � �> o O a m � Q M � Q i � ° _ 1 CD E > U o a�V -0 y � n Y O O a) a •�ti Q m O .> c0 E a) c�0 V O O ti0 C6 n -a � Q a v co a) ate-+ (0 a--i Lo U C1 O U c O co T oO Cn a) U a) L L ~ N U) N a c0 i U F- 2 p Q Q tz O p U U U } Q) .� (n p N w U L — c O a) i ' x O E .N c O c0 +� U °+,' E o a� a o a�i '� 0-2 ui c o w s D a i N a) O O O O r p (n U (6 O CJ to +' c (0 O �t W N O C Q a) 00 � c � O Q) cn Q) +, cn O s U O c6 } a) O 00 cn i O >i o � c a) p - c Q) U N a m O a W� t + p O > U co 4- - n W a) a a N a Y a a c a c0 O O cn a-+ +-' L a) E } O a) O Q) p c0 CL + •Q O Q o c p O > N > a) 4 Q) 1 p U N E o - U zap Q 2 cn +� +� 3 x a) a) 2 a U a) E E z ? O c co ° E ,r, �' c a W 3 cn W C)- O o U •? cpn t-'° T OU N o .�� - co Q) U � a (n F N E c O E c +� o o z > UM aC6 .� Wa U 4) Qto i X .� N o N a) a a) Ct c Q + > Q) O O T cn c0 O a) 4 O O O Co a cca im T i� a) x a O (06 O O U Y C L cn c0 — >, 3: -0 a E N L +.+ O } c O v- N i cn -- O c U)i N .O O O O cLi m y L +J 7 O O Cn i 0O a CCD O 70 to cn N +' U c i Q (0 p OtiiO+� C io.� +' CQ Q) � a-+ Q) Q U U v- a) (6 Q c a) U) C6 i a) +' cn O cn w ,CD ai � � a) Co � uA > U O O a U � X � "O a H � z a) a) E to — " O CD '-� a> j .'-< O a) O O O +' i O a O � O O a> U U L E > O oo a) coos 3 m Q) c a O O � U a W a O a) a) a) O a) a) co p U a) _ a� a� Q) Q) - a) O Q) - U Y E N U _Q 0 Q n3 > a) ° i a 'o a) w U J o (n a o ca fn O Q m 3 as a) "a N (n U Q) O a � � 70 a c0 >, a) O O CO '� L U) +�, c0 U > c0 CL U _ o! ._ c0 Q a 3 coca U Q o +� > U a + +� +� c ` CD E m N N !F ` E E O 3 r err U z o O (ZO-S6 edg : Sggti) podam ile4S Od-ti;uauayoe44V :lu8uay3e44V r � N co � a d N +� O U a d (n cc O N O V) V (6 O O O U L M a) 70 O O � a N (On = C p O L o o a 0 o m o C CL a (h c E7 vim- LN r I p 0 00 0- C O � C 'c U) Q- ' O a) N 3 a Y p O O *' O O O U aj C E wo =3 w i O O i (n (n E E U (n N U) C O - Q O I— Q a) a) X +' > Ce a N N -0 U U O O a) U) M (n 4� C N Cn O U (n O N p O O S -Q O C a O E p a U 0 0 0 i U 0 T T U (6 U O V +' u5 a' .2- p 0 W d W _0 O- Y)O T +z . C � O �- 4-- 0 O 0 Z -C �' -0 =5 Q W W C _U O U U 0 0 a) 07 U aci U O (n C -O �'' i E a) i fn U O O U)z ca 6 v7 ° ° `n '• N U U to N ` U '� O a a) � a) +_+ i (�6 U) o } U 3 j O ca o m o a c°� O Q to O O O b 0 L Q o (n +' O a) E a� E W -o _ O a) (6 O (n "O C i U) +J (a LS) U O O O c c a m m o cv p } a) a) (n O ' Y (n O O C i +-+ O -0 O o o W U -a II (6 i +-� M (n (B QU b.0 b.0 a) +-' O o 5 ° m.�°- ° j2 _ N C }' 0 .� 3 'O E CL i } (n C O L1A Q ¢ a> c6 a) O C (n Q\ 0 T C O- U C O LLJ+ U C l7A Q N U O a x v x o 3 x O_ N M a) CO i _ O p (n C O C > � (B m a � n N � o � � N O .� a) � O (6 (6 C � � O C O U a) O 0 1 C '~ Q m Q ° s ° +U O Q -0 U N (0 O C 4) o C U O +� mn a a) X O O v •. —° a U m E +' O O a (0 (6 a) ,0- 0_ (n U U � co c7 c7 CV Q �J N 5 > Q^ O O Q •C a _ N p C C O Q C O (a (n Q) ti p o -`n Q -a > x m v U W OU Q) 'i p C U O O E N a) +�- a) U >+ C (6 a`� .=_° o a`� .=° o vi :o "° T U d O a) �` +, 4 +, a., L n O (n N m (n m c o 0 a) 0 C a) Q`0 >_ C L a) p + Q O +' O 4) (a Q U a E a ° n m ado) 0- Z - v p O O a) (a a) Co (n U � .0 (n b0 � O T � W C1 o W C� aci v Cl a) a) (n }' a) +�-+ +' z (n + 70 a) > m c C a _ a a — (n +� (n C cn (n a) c�a c�a p Q O p p O L Q a) a) U_ cUn a U N 1 m U(n ,O m a) C C (6 \'— C - C Y C d -0 (0 i -0 + +, p + a) O O cn U) O 0 U)U Q) O (� O 4+ C L a) N E n. E E 4 O p m U Z O (ZO-S6 adJ : SSVV) :podaH jjejS Od - V}u8uay3eIIV :}u8wg3ePV N co a (L r d LO M Yj c+� a o � � o � U ran o N � o � a O ) m O — a) � U o O -C U c N a U) O N c a a o 3 CL ai w a) o CD o m (n m O Y }; +' C Q Y Y a) -0 i V1 Y L -O -O Q C >, C (n C (n cc O (n = (nj (n O O N v O V .N ±' a) 0 -0 O p i Co Co C +' i- = C �' 'i O O i Q) C H i O �cC +' (6 3 U C a) N W V 0 L Q z +; @ � U y N C z a) � 0)) �o� o cMa � � � � � �� Q aa)i 0 c 0 � o o o C co CL 0 i i O w O p 0 + 2 p i (B c I + p i O o o M +j a) ,(n Co 0- � C — 0 O C vj H O N +� l6 U 4) O — a E E C O O N N O U C *� U v1 U O n (6 Q O m 4) C OU 4- Q (6 O C a) O d C i a) a) a f6 o (n ~ O N (0 N 2 N O "O +j a) N c0 a) U N p +' a m E m (n C o � c � aocn a a) O n O0 Q Q a 1a-0 O O a (D 0 a a � 0 o E 0 =3 z n o a) a O a O N O' n ' Q) UJ U) co - C,:) o :3 a) n Q a a 3 � 'o L- 0 a) +� a) a w i C C + L C Co ~ (0 N a)0 m CO V) C O 0 E O U Q •> m (6 (n O_ U N c tL p .S u. p +J C a) (n -0 C O Q O0 U (n -0 i C m �' � O >' >' C O ¢ Q Q 70 C 73 U 0 ° U .� E cc USA U c- O Q Y)0 Co o O > c6 =1 = o 0 = o N (>6 a) p CL ca 0 +.+ '� a) C C co C O O +�-� W C _0 C (6 "p E vi E .N--� },CU n U)Q a) C +, O N u) N Lo 0 u) in 1 cn O ~ to 0 0 N ti w 6 Yn v� -Q Q O 0 O a) (n N O o ((nn LE c (Yn in a) Q Q O U Q -C H O 4 2 (0 C3 Q N Q (a a) (n O c-1 a'C - (o 'C n LL C N a) C i N N E to E E 4 O = O U Z (ZO-S� edJ Sgvl7) podem jlelS Od- V Iu8wg3e;}y :;u9wg3e}fib N 00 6 a d o .� Np ¢ cn 0 a> u� 'cn O m c = N > > _ d o U ° co ca N 00 Q O c6 ca ¢ cn O E > o cn > 0 too CO > cU6 c0 U N OL 6 O +J o LO O ° O N o i O oN c N(h Q O O� 0 t ° _ a N O • O 0 Z0 =3 in W +�' c L W O Ch (n W i ,U) ca U ¢ N �o N � cn ` p W a M a) o O .N 'U) o ch a Q � >, a� � m � U +� cn o c+n N 0 O T O o C 4 E cn O a c o C ¢ N Q C:i O O W O O n o - U o cn CL 0= H o O fA N 'O N C° 0 N ;5 E (o n¢ 6 H U M a M o C O N m N .� N -0 bA c6 o CO U c�6 N O c6 — Q U cn co co a� c U ° � co O ° a Y o cn a> c O Cl +� LO N ' N w '� N c o En c�a C7 E N m z o z ° n° � ch o U ° N � o ¢ o — 0 U O N � � N � } O_.0 c to to E E c . a o-i 2 c N d c c a (n c ° (n E-0 (n tap N c - � C (n - Q a C 0 !E E -0 E ° m m - co W cn � N cB U N N +� U ° fn � ° +' +� o a ¢ O U N J 0) - > O o U c p ¢ c�6 o O c c6 c a m o N ca O O J O E c6 Y '° ° z Y E o c16 cn O Q v o o a o � o Q U `~ ¢ .0 (6 > to to N + O U) •� Y E E CD cca - ° o U -a (n 'v= 'O W Q N W 7 C N N o g m o c O O ¢ U 3 > •— W M o C 0 O a> a� o n c; J "O U O Cn o c c6 U w U �< ¢ O c O o to _ O _ C6 U) a mo o N o 0 3 0 0 0 0 (n } U U o L = t0 O N O U c w a ¢ L N+' -C _0 = y a D Q�� .o`�. oU O O a� N cn OQ W O + O p JR c O o N¢ X w E m o ¢ o U O O > (o c m ¢ w + N 2 Q c a W co i o 4-- o w U >W O Txp ca m (j 2 � 0 � � O U +� (°n 0 � 7 � Q Y100 U U a)a) w o_ p ° h o a U c (6 cp O N cn C N U ¢ o cd ° ca o cv c I O (n p + (6 O N C t c fn > w ° o f a`)i aci - ¢ s m O � N M t]0 (6 c N L O O— U) U H O cn U Q1 c� �c o d N U �O U i U Q o a> N t o� Q� Q O "O a � N Q (06 - N � � � '� i Q— cn +- C U o (n O c6 > + (0 + c _ '' o c O i o o o N i Q �_ O (n V i C Q Q L aa)) Q s aa) m e (6 o E cB c Q O a (n � (6 C O O o 0 = o O c to U O X o Q cn O O U cn o U Q _ m ¢ in . co cn _ U a> +� co o a� U ¢ U c ` E � C14 ~ E E o =$ r U z O O (Z0-5 L edE S8trj7) padaN gels Od - V}uOwg3eUV :IU9WLI3e;}V ao N m c0 CL r m M V ' = a m Q) O ° U � o `Y MM N N c CY) o c O cx� m co O ° U) c C O c E U E a O U ti O +J c N c O c E cn O c Q a O N CL 6 cn O O O O Q U) ca , O O "a C C *' O O '� cn C "- cn l fir O O LVJ.i L bA C O O U +� ° ` O ° (� C C c6 CO bA > c N c0 U U a) O ,U O O O c6 } o cu o a N o U U cu c o ° cn p 0 o Q c co ° a) in � Lo C 0 c 0 c6 C C +� CK O Q N c0 O cn N a) E � CO �n � c0 0 > U D O U . 4- U U) 0 .— +, O -0 t N •p O U O c0 ° C Ni a) O CO Co c 6 +� j w o CO c — cn ¢ c ._ v c tw w a) c <n C .� x c m � cB ±� X co c c •X a c ca � c O X _ a � Q) � c ca U 4- c c6 U E L v " E c � aci � z � ° > E c � � �U) U) -F o o v c�n � N W O Q O D `" N O Q N a) ~ O" a U C +J cn c0 c O co ( a) c +� uJ O cB 0 c O CO 0 U > D N a) 7 ca co W c C c (h 4) > U O N 0 v a c 3 C N c �� �_ N c N S c (6 ca Q o O a 3 c 3 n .F ° a) (n ° >a<) o ° ° o n N N E a c 0> -a —0 O a) 0 or }> � ,Q N c v 0 a) LU O T c 0 0 i C a) a) E , 0 M a) n°o c°a Co N o .0 aoi w 0 o c c q o � o c c c c a> n3 (n cn �_ W 'w c o T} c Co ° a�i CO o o c o o i o Q U o .� cn U m °— cl cl c o O p w cn •m ~ C ° E + a) U +, c6 cn co -O to cn U Q) c0 "O .� (0 a c a> vo ° c a� Uo 3Co � a.j .° - c c a> c , c' o C O O c 0 ° �ca� O ti v N U ui Q °c U v 0 ~ N V c N E c cn n O C U a om o U � o c a o U Q ) ° (n o � - W O Q M n � -0 co -0 � Q) a° c L m � 00 N E E 4 O O O cr / U Z (Zo-SL edE 58bt,) podou jjels Od - b;UOLUg3eIIV :;U9WLI3BUV a, N co a) CL LO d M V N R a O E E U co _o m v N C� a O 04 m 0: a O - cn 4- c ai o � E U E o_ U N O o (n G W (n N O C 0- O Q (1) a) N O O a' U) Co >, > 'O (1) (1) } (1) tap >O 70 tw (nn j O N a) p U *' O O +� � .> _ g yp-_ O C L = L U i > C (6 (6 U a) t Q w- tap a) c a) a) O' a) � a) cn m Q cn Q o C C ° p i o N a) .X a) c U •i C (6 'a... Q ?i Q) w O +fn-+ a) L -O i Z3 +--' Q Q U +-> O a) iZ O O a) is � cc N Lo Q cn N O C (6 .� O co -0 4) 7 U C -O U a) U a) i 2 _ Q o D_ `F'- i) 4) v- a) E U a C x a) C _ CL to O U tw co cm C O O o w � Q ,� 0 (n .- i C ta0 N '- a) Q a) a+ ca O O O O a) U tw 3 Q o v o ., , 1 - CO co > to 0 'Fn a) C U (6 O - ° ° c O - a) (0 Yw in qp p O U L O -p tL0 i C X m C w (6 a) _ sZ O a) ± X C6 .0 O O +J C = 4-0 U (1) "O tap to 70 ° ° U N U N C U) � O > c U N E U) O O 7 7 ° O"O ( Up-p co a) N 2 a a) + O O O fa > Co 0- a Q N "O � CL "O L X 4 ±-a i C6 -0 N O Q)a a i > C 3: 00 C C m CD Q 40 +� L CB (6 O C m LO� y a) C .� a) 4O 7 C2 Q Co C C2} Ca Q to i U a) a) (a O _ Q C N 70 CC � o o Q a +� N O C U pU x -O '- O 2 (6 ui cC6 7 as Z u °c_' a°i U CY) CC) CU a) p Q 4--� Or -, w -a O tap CCf - U O O C C O w O :3 c, a y a'o (D i 3 '¢ N 4(-6 a) a)—O Q(6 a) C 0 M W 4- n c E O Co a) O -0 T C ° d cei�aC-6-)+ n l O s 0 to(6 O O ° p p 1 C:� N U O U � � = Q 72 0 O (D -0 F= u) a O _ r _Q O O t O n O O O O w c - � = = LL- ¢ � O a w 5 N as a�i ° E co op cC6 '-' O O +�-� CU (6 C co C W Q U N Z U V E N L CO O *' + > �O O U) a) p O a) N O __ to cn >, a) LL- U) tw �_ a) °' " O to O O CS C C O O "C O U vNi ti ° N ° U i. +O-' .� i i' p (n (n i a.p X +� (6 C +-+ f2 2 O T U cOn O O cn a) t? w O o m v° a) N > cn .0 Cn O cn (6 Q) O W (6 O (6 N X > N CO (B O (n (r L 2 m m O (6 C tw C s? s sZ ( O 0 3 O a) O x � .N E cn to U SOIL O aUw � � n >— � � bo � a caU � U a) +� C Em O E E 4 O 3 cr U z O r�- (ZO-SL edE S8trti) liodeN Me3S Od-ti IuauayaellV :4u8wt43eUV o' co Im t M CL as �o zcon U) a) c° o c o C) ° v U C In N (6 CO a) a) ca R Q d L Q O fB Q) O � O U w 4 (B O n3 E C 41 L E OU C a) co N ap U cc C a) U C +� +�-+ (n C O V Oa) V7 (1) O fB aCU 0- O -C � v_ O ° bA E N cB N a c6 O O c6 bD"O o a) c6 ° O U a OU N a) s Q O a) +p- 0 o QL o +, J o C N V (n C 0 U (n to_ +L ca O > ° C N cn o -0 O C -0 > -5 O �_ O E O (n (0 -0 N U W O N i �O U ° U ¢n O n3 "O c6 Co c0 .N a O O 4+- (n c6 i C a) Q Q) C C c O �- U N X (n � U O C O ° M C UUi a) a) O — E E a _ (n co ai oC H -C CL N ((n a o o ° -0 0 Q cu :3 a a) cnw � ca � � 0 Na) wm � 70 a� C -pm - m o > . — ° - _ (D v .� o a > (n cn ° a°i aw E w EL cn ° o C 0 a cn p cn w m o 0 0 o +o-� D 0 p � a> ca '� U m (n o (ni o a) Nc0 C +� N ° N N cn a a 0 U C 0 a) +-I � � N a) C a (n (n +' O (n a, C N c6 0 + U ° Q n3 z +, m � 0 t o c E o C >, .� ° •� :3 z ° co a a) O cn M 'a 0 co a) = a) cn m O C O (n C N o co C +� > «� N Co ° N =3 �_ a C 0 cn � a) � 0 � cB � � ° C c� °c > + o v w C co w O ca co U W "p Q o } 4� > aa) — C �- = � C ca +� E uo u7 ' > > o 3 C (n o to U � c "—' '� 4-- ca a) a� to oa (n o ° a) o '� ai .o O Q m ° c ° +- � a >'E oo 0 -0 o C p ° m n 6 C 0 a) Az c U N a a +� ca . a +� ca — cn C + +c 0 — n3 � Y a) co E m ca E a� � c -a o m (D a- 0 z C7 z (D C 3 (Zo-S L edJ : g8yt,) podoN ge3S ad - b luauagoeUV :}uaw43ellV M co 6 CL m (n a) cn -0 T i O W C "O cn >, T cn (n a) U (n - a) 3: O O Y c6 o co Q) a) co C Q +1 O � o 3: co U O —>o N o - c Q O_ 0 (n — a i c c R c 3 � aci U O Q� a) �o 0 c o 0 co co T 0 0 � � � � � o '3 cn .o � •— °� � Q U - o .y O O N o o 1 N a) U ° L C Q) O c co c o c Q 3 co 0 3 co c U) O 0 a) a) �, o ° EjE a) - ca OpEt _ "c > > o ° a) > 'o a o 3 `n cn E z - U a) ° a c . +� ° a) Q O +� c 0 h o > U cn co Co O_ L1A O_ O C +� t-2 cn T co +- 0 O O co > O:Ll O U N Q) -0"6 L C C '0 3 j a� C } X ~ .� — c ca Q ca o o o co b ° 3 o o ai c o ¢ co > a) co E ° �_ 0 O_ � to a O � a) •� •� a c ° C co N O cU6 Q C O O a) O> *� > Q) O_ c CO a C C cn Q co O O a o Q � co — cn > bA E O ) TQ 7 Q) (cn N 0 O O O C/) a) L U O C (6 O n U a ° = a) ° - ) O_ U o nE = o U - c o 3 0 co to c }) o a a) 0 o o co 0 o Q w a -0 W p c c 'o E cn cn a) i a) � } Z U E p (OO ( O 0) O +J O Q c °Q 3 0 — a� 0 0 c — Q T o E a) o c� co 3 0 0 3 0 'o= c -. : ca s � o � 0 C a � � nn._ U ocn o — U N 0 0 a) to o vi o a o c M co m co U M Q m a) W � CL U ° a) ca o '(n � > O_ Q) o C, 'o ...r O +� C O_ O U = Q) C .� O ` O Q) (o L co i O i cn cn cn co co O_ co °) u) P � - � ._ ._ i- =o O_ CL +� o t1A U0 70 70 Y10 C a) cn C ° (n a) 4-- T— .co 0 0 � � � o p o co c 3 E � (nn 0 c o o cn - c a) z co - o : + co H u) c a) .2 +J c ao > +� ° o � E a) > -o a) U co a) c O a) .� t)o no cco a 0 '° Q c _ a) m a) -0 0 0 E c° 0 CO T o co Q 0 N 0 Q U o c ° E o a) p c� a) O U 0- ° M ° co OL cco CL ° T 0 c *' ° ° m cn cn U ° ( U . co c (n co c O_ a) +, m 0 o co c o co U c co a) ° CO c 0 a� c~ 0 0 ; -o o - � co O - o cn oF +, a) t .Nii m cz o U) 70- Y D +, c>o (n 3 +, c 0 � .- O U U o U 0 Q co S O U o c O c o a) � c > a) c c6 (o o to a) c O *� +� + +� O a) O -0 3 O a) 0- o ° c c a) asi ho no (n a) Q Q 30 o Q O E � cn (o Z 0 } O — C6 E cB c O O 0 cn a) •o a) ? Q-,— v M co co v o Y ~ a.s ° o N� c 0 _ o co v) co N E �= 0 = a) � +� co _ coo co a) U _0 U ° un 3 o co N - czo a) c T p ai 0 a) a) cn c > O c c 0 > cn E +� cn c U ° N co 0 + C O Q O W w Q) -0 Q O l) O (o CO c _0 a) a) Q> -0 ui c +� co -0 C � U c0 = to m +, c co U) + a) c6 cn V) — CD i o O N _ a) _ E a) c3 � coc (n4- c' Ea) om a) c - E 'x -.o� N Q O C CO O C LEA co i C 4- T Q N C E =3 a) a 3 O co U O U a O c c } a) a) o N '> co L O a) C m m CO Q o a caOUH cn n + 4= 2 ca c ` 0 0 E � E E o :3 a U z C3 U (Zo-56 edJ 58ti'b) }aodeN.1elS Od- ti IUOW43ellV :}U9W4De;ly N F,140o tm IL d a) a) C a) V V 0 c N a Q 3 O _ c a E O +� ° O 7 O m c o N a� � ooaot o o o 0 co a) o a) C7 tap p Q N U C O O a p i C O 0 ��O Q ai O 0 +, o Q E F a a L Q 0 0 .p C 3 U > V Y C Co a N >, O m O ( Q) N Q > — O U a ' U E c o o � -0 U v 'o a +-, a� m Q c +� a) cn o m i _U O C U i +L CL j i +O i, Q N E >i O N t "a (� U E u) Q C O N +' — a) C Q) O O a) �- N > .0 o O p Q CO O N0 a) u) U o o E T to— a: U) d H 00 +,o c 3 �- in C > a) � a) N o o o c tin a) o toi— o � a2 Q) c U N 3 a E , m N W .LJNZMAN ASSOCIATES, INC. nommii � a ., - OVER 40 YEARS of EXCELLENT SERVICE � April 8, 2016 Mr.Jackson Smith, Partner NEWCASTLE PARTNERS, INC. 4740 Green River Road,Suite 118 Corona, CA 92880 N Dear Mr.Smith: C INTRODUCTION a C9 The firm of Kunzman Associates, Inc. is pleased to provide a supplemental traffic analysis regarding the LO Waterman Industrial Center project in the City of San Bernardino. This traffic analysis supplements the Waterman Industrial Center Traffic Impact Analysis was prepared by Kunzman Associates, Inc. (March 22, t 2016)and responses to comments received from the California Department of Transportation—District 8 m in a letter dated March 2, 2016 (see Appendix A). RESPONSE TO COMMENT 1 U a Comment so noted. Figure 1 has been revised to include the 1-10 Freeway and 1-215 Freeway/ramps and is attached. c as E RESPONSE TO COMMENT 2 v .r As noted on Figure 17 of the traffic study,the proposed project does not contribute trips greater than the Q 1-10 Freeway and 1-215 Freeway threshold volume of 100 two-way peak hour trips. In addition,the project m does not contribute trips greater than the arterial link threshold volume of 50 two-way trips in the peak E hours on the 1-10 Freeway ramps and 1-215 Freeway ramps. In addition, the signed scoping agreement Y (see Appendix B of the traffic study) with the City of San Bernardino provided no nexus to study the 1-10 q Freeway ramps and 1-215 Freeway ramps. RESPONSE TO COMMENT 3 The Waterman Industrial Center Traffic Impact Analysis (Revised) dated March 22, 2016 uses a more "conservative" analysis for the proposed project land use based upon the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) trip generation rates. In addition, the truck trip distribution for the project site is included in Figure 13 and is different from the passenger car trip distribution. I 1111 TOWN&COUNTRY ROAD,SUITE 34 ORANGE,CALIFORNIA 92868 (714)973-8383 VV W W.TRRFFIC-ENGINEER.COM Packet Pg.833 6.B.h Mr.Jackson Smith, Partner NEWCASTLE PARTNERS, INC. April 8, 2016 it should be noted that no change in mitigation measures from the previous traffic study to the revised traffic study were recommended at the study area intersections with the revised SCAQMD trip generation rates. RESPONSE TO COMMENT 4 To account for ambient growth on roadways(see Section IV.A.1 of the traffic study), Opening Year(2017) traffic volumes have been interpolated from the Year 2035 traffic volumes based upon a proportion of the future growth increment from the San Bernardino Transportation Analysis Model (SBTAM) traffic model Year 2008 and Year 2035 average daily traffic volume forecasts. This SBTAM provided by the Southern California Associated Governments (SCAG) is the regional traffic model for this study area. c LO r RESPONSE TO COMMENT 5 a As stated in Section IV.A.4 of the traffic study, the project traffic volumes were manually added to the co Year 2035 SBTAM traffic model volumes. No adjustments were made to the SBTAM traffic data provided Iq by SCAG. `o CL d RESPONSE TO COMMENT 6 R ` The Levels of Service were calculated based upon the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM)2010 methodology for all traffic analyses (see attached Tables and Appendix B). It should be noted that no change in a mitigation measures from the traffic study were added with the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) 2010 d methodology. E RESPONSE TO COMMENT 7 .r The Circulation Recommendations are shown on Figure 40 of the traffic study. The proposed project will Q pay for the improvements shown on Figure 40. No additional off-site improvements are required and therefore no fair-share improvement costs are included in the traffic study. However, as noted in Section V of the traffic study: As mitigation for the potential traffic impacts, the < proposed project shall contribute through local and regional adopted traffic impact fee programs in addition to any fair share contributions shown within the traffic study which is not covered within these fee programs. RESPONSE TO COMMENT 8 Comment so noted. W W W.TRAFF I C-ENG tNEER.COM 2 Packet Pg. 834 s.B.n Mr.Jackson Smith, Partner NEWCASTLE PARTNERS, INC. April 8, 2016 It has been a pleasure to service your needs on the Waterman Industrial Center project. Should you have any questions or if we can be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to call at (714)973-8383. Sincerely, QQPp�ESSI0,1,, 9 KUNZMAN ASSOCIATES, INC. �2+p`. KUiji� �y� KUNZMAN ASSOCIATES, INC. No. TROO56 � O LO Carl Ballard, LEED GA * AFF�G `Q William Kunzman, P.E. Principal CCAt-1 � Principal CL Jn5629g 00 v 0 CL m o: �a U a m E v co a E a t %W W W W.TRAFF I C-ENG INEER.COM 3 Packet Pg. 835 6.B.h Table 1 Existing Intersection Delay and Level of Service Intersection Approach Lanes' Peak Hour Traffic Northbound Southbound I Eastbound Westbound Morning Evening Intersection Jurisdiction Control' L T R L T R L T R L T R Delay' LOS° V/C° Delay' L054 V/C° E Street(NS)at: orange Show Road(EW)-#1 City of SB TS 2 1.5 0.5 2 2 1> 2 2 1 2 2 1> 22.4 C 0.398 26.1 C 0.710 Washington Avenue(NS)at: Orange Show Road(EW)-#2 City of SB TS 0.5 0.5 d 0.5 0.5 d 1 2 d 1 2 d 19.1 B 0.307 17.1 B 0.386 Waterman Avenue(NS)at: Orange Show Road(EW)-#5 City of SB TS 1 2 d 1 2 d 1 2 d 1 2 d 20.6 C 0.525 26.1 C 0.717 Dumas Street(EW)-#6 City of SB CSS 1 2 0 0 2 d 0.5 0 0.5 0 0 0 19.8 C N/A 20.8 C N/A Park Center Circle N(EW)-#7 City of SB C55 0 2 d 1 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 d 20.8 C N/A 19.0 C N/A Park Center Circle S(EW)-#8 City of SB TS 1 2 1 1 2 d 0.5 0.5 d 0.5 0.5 d 3.6 A 0.412 8.9 A 0.487 Vanderbilt Way(EW)-#9 City of SB TS 1 2 1 1 2.5 0.5 0 1 0 1 1.510.51 1 16.4 1 B 10.632 21.0 C 0.786 N O U) ft3 CL C9 U� co �r 0 CL m U a. v c E U r a E U 'When a right turn lane is designated,the lane can either be striped or unstriped.To function as a right turn lane there must be sufficient width for right turning vehicles to travel outside the through lanes.L=Left;T=Through;R=Right;>=Right Turn Overlap;d=De Facto Right Turn. 2 TS=Traffic Signal;CSS=Cross Street Stop 3 Delay,Level of Service(LOS)and Volume to Capacity Ratio(V/C)has been calculated using the following analysis software:VISTRO,Version 4.00-00.Per the 2010 Highway Capacity Manual,overall - average intersection delay and level of service are shown for intersections with traffic signal or all way stop control.For intersections with cross street stop control,the delay and level of service for the worst individual movement(or movements sharing a single lane)are shown. °LOS=Level of Service;V/C=volume to Capacity. 4 aPacket�P 4836 6.B.h Table 5 Existing Plus Project Intersection Delay and Level of Service Intersection Approach Lanes' Peak Hour Traffic Northbound Southbound I Eastbound Westbound Morning Evening Intersection Jurisdiction Control' L T R L T R L T R L T R Delay' LOS' V/C° Delay' LOS' V/C° E Street(NS)at: Orange Show Road(EW)-#1 City of SB TS 2 1.5 0.5 2 2 1> 2 2 1 2 2 1> 22.6 C 0.408 26.2 C 0.714 Washington Avenue(NS)at: Orange Show Road(EW)-#2 City of SB TS 0.5 0.5 d 0.5 0.5 d 1 2 d 1 2 d 19.4 B 0.322 17.4 B 0.415 Project West Access(NS)at: Dumas Street(EW)-#3 City of SB CSS 0.5 0 0.5 0 0 0 1 0 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0 8.8 A N/A 8.8 A N/A Project East Access(NS)at: Dumas Street(EW)-#4 City of SB CSS 0.5 0 10.5 0 0 0 0 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0 8.4 A N/A 8.4 A N/A Waterman Avenue(NS)at: Orange Show Road(EW)-#5 City of 513 TS 1 2 d 1 2 d 1 2 d 1 2 d 21.1 C 0.548 27.1 C 0.733 N O Dumas Street(EW)-#6 City of SB CSS 1 2 0 0 2 d 1 0 1 0 0 0 20.9 C N/A 24.6 C N/A LO Park Center Circle N(EW)-#7 City of SB `- M Without Improvements C55 1 2 d 1 2 1 0.5 0.5 1 0.5 0.5 d 67.3 F N/A 99.95 F N/A CL With Improvements TS 1 2 d 1 2 1 0.5 0.5 1 0.5 0.5 d 6.4 A 0.392 5.8 A 0.408 0 Park Center Circle 5(EW)-#8 City of 513 TS 1 2 1 1 2 d 0.5 0.5 d 0.5 0.5 d 3.7 A 0.604 9.0 A 0.496 LO Vanderbilt Way(EW)-#9 1 City of SB I TS 1 1 2 1 1 1 2.5 0.5 0 1 1 0 1 1.51 0.51 1 16.6 1 B 10.631, 21.5 1 C 0.792 L O CL ya) I.L W U a v �.r c w E s U lC w a E z U f6 Q 'When a right turn lane is designated,the lane can either be striped or unstriped.To function as a right turn lane there must be sufficient width for right turning vehicles to travel outside the through lanes.L=Left;T=Through;R=Right;d=De Facto Right Turn;BOLD=Improvements. TS=Traffic Signal;CSS=Cross Street Stop 3 Delay,Level of Service(LOS)and Volume to Capacity Ratio(V/C)has been calculated using the following analysis software:VISTRO,Version 4.00-00.Per the 2010 Highway Capacity Manual,overall average intersection delay and level of service are shown for intersections with traff ic signal or all way stop control.For intersections with cross street stop control,the delay and level of service for the worst individual movement(or movements sharing a single lane)are shown. 'LOS=Level of Service;V/C=Volume to Capacity. s 99.9-F=Delay high,intersection unstable,Level of Service F. 5 Packet Pg. 837 6.B.h Table 7 Existing Plus Ambient Growth Intersection Delay and Level of Service Intersection Approach Lanes' Peak Hour Traffic Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Morning Evening Intersection Jurisdiction Cor lZ L T R L T R L T R L T R Delay' LOS° V/C° Delay. LOS' V/C° E Street(NS)at: Orange Show Road(EW)-#1 City of SB TS 2 1.5 0.5 2 2 1> 2 2 1 2 2 1> 22.6 C 1 0.409 26.4 C 0.723 Washington Avenue(NS)at: Orange Show Road(EW)-#2 City of SB TS 0.5 0.5 d 0.5 0.5 d 1 2 d 1 2 d 19.5 B 0.313 1 17.4 B 0.407 Waterman Avenue(NS)at: Orange Show Road(EW)-#5 City of SB TS 1 2 d 1 2 d 1 2 d 1 2 d 20.8 C 0.532 26.9 C 0.732 Dumas Street(EW)-#6 City of SB CSS 1 2 0 0 2 d 0.5 0 0.5 0 0 0 20.5 C N/A 24.5 C N/A Park Center Circle N(EW)-#7 City of SB Without Improvements CSS 0 2 d 1 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 d 21.2 C N/A 19.7 C N/A With Improvements TS 0 2 d 1 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 d 4.1 A 0.321 4.0 A 0.437 fV O Park Center Circle S(EW)-#8 City of SB TS 1 2 1 1 2 d 0.5 0.5 d 0.5 0.5 d 3.8 A 0.606 9.4 A 0.502 Vanderbilt Way(EW)-#9 City of SB TS 1 2 1 1 2.5 0.5 0 1 0 1.5 0.5 1 16.7 B 0.643 22.4 C 108251 M Q L0 00 rf' r-r i O Q w CU C/) v a v c d E U w Q C N E L U f9 a..r Q 'When a right turn lane is designated,the lane can either be striped or unstriped.To function as a right turn lane there must be sufficient width for right turning vehicles to travel outside the through lanes.L=Left;T=Through;R=Right;d=De Facto Right Turn;BOLD=Improvements. TS=Traffic Signal;CS5=Cross Street Stop 3 Delay,Level of Service(LOS)and Volume to Capacity Ratio(V/C)has been calculated using the following analysis software:VISTRO,Version 4.00-00.Per the 2010 Highway Capacity Manual,overall average intersection delay and level of service are shown for intersections with traffic signal or all way stop control.For intersections with cross street stop control,the delay and level of service for the worst individual movement(or movements sharing a single lane)are shown. °LOS=Level of Service;V/C=Volume to Capacity. s Traffic signal is projected to be warranted. 6 Packet Pg.838 Table 8 Opening Year(2017)Without Project Intersection Delay and Level of Service Intersection Approach Lanes' Peak Hour Traffic Northbound Southbound I Eastbound Westbound Morning Evening Intersection Jurisdiction Control' L T R L T R L T R L T R Delay' LOS° V/C° Delay' LOS° V/C° E Street(NS)at: Orange Show Road(EW)-#1 City of 5B TS 2 1.5 0.5 2 2 1> 2 2 1 2 2 1> 22.6 C 0.434 27.5 C 0.731 Washington Avenue(NS)at: Orange Show Road(EW)-#2 City of SB TS 0.5 0.5 d 0.5 0.5 d 1 2 d 1 2 d 20.0 B 0.331 17.7 B 0.415 Waterman Avenue(NS)at: Orange Show Road(EW)-#5 City of SB TS 1 2 d 1 2 d 1 2 d 1 2 d 21.3 C 0.554 29.5 C 0.768 Dumas Street(EW)-#6 City of SB CSS 1 2 0 0 2 d 0.5 0 0.5 0 0 0 21.4 C N/A 22.9 C N/A Park Center Circle N(EW)-#7 City of SB Without Improvements CSS 0 2 d 1 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 d 22.7 C N/A 20.6 C N/A _ With Improvements TS 0 2 d 1 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 d 4.1 A 0.343 4.0 A 0.459 N CD Park Center Circle S(EW)-#8 City of SB TS 1 2 1 1 2 d 0.5 0.5 d 0.5 0.5 d 3.8 A 0.626 9.4 A 0.522 t!9 T- Vanderbilt Way(EW)-#9 City of SB TS 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 2.5 0.5 0 1 0 1 1.510.51 1 1 17.9 1 B 1 0.667 1 22.4 C 0.834 M Q to 00 s_ O Q N w w tC U a c a� E U r Q C d E U f4 a., Q 'When a right turn lane is designated,the lane can either be striped or unstriped.To function as a right turn lane there must be sufficient width for right turning vehicles to travel outside the through lanes. L=Left;T=Through;R=Right;d=De Facto Right Turn;BOLD=Improvements. 'TS=Traffic Signal;CSS=Cross Street Stop 3 Delay,Level of service(LOS)and Volume to Capacity Ratio(V/C)has been calculated using the following analysis software:VISTRO,Version 4.00-00. Per the 2010 Highway Capacity Manual,overall average intersection delay and level of service are shown for intersections with traffic signal or all way stop control.For intersections with cross street stop control,the delay and level of service forthe worst individ ' movement(or movements sharing a single lane)are shown. °LOS=Level of Service;VIC=Volume to Capacity. 7 Packet Pg. 839 6.B.h Table 9 Opening Year(2017)With Project Intersection Delay and Level of Service Intersection Approach Lanes' Peak Hour Traffic Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Morning Evening Intersection Jurisdiction Control' L T R L T R L T R L T R Delay LOS' V/C° Delay3 LOS' V/C° E Street(NS)at: Orange Show Road(EW)-#1 City of SB TS 2 1.5 0.5 2 2 1> 2 2 1 2 2 1> 22.9 C 0.444 27.8 C 0.736 Washington Avenue(NS)at: Orange Show Road(EW)-#2 City of SB TS 0.5 0.5 d 0.5 0.5 1 d 1 2 1-d 1 2 d 20.3 C 0.345 18.1 B 0.449 Project West Access(NS)at: Dumas Street(EW)-#3 City of SB CSS 0.5 0 0.5 0 0 1 0 0 1 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0 8.8 A N/A 8.8 A N/A Project East Access(NS)at: Dumas Street(EW)-#4 City of SB CSS 0.5 0 0.5 0 0 0 0 10.5 0.5 0.510.51 0 8.4 A N/A 8.4 A N/A Waterman Avenue(NS)at: Orange Show Road(EW)-#5 City of SB TS 1 2 d 1 2 d 1 2 d 1 2 d 21.9 C 0.578 30.7 C 0.786 N O Dumas Street(EW)-#6 City of SB CSS 1 2 0 0 2 d 1 0 1 0 0 0 22.6 C N/A 23.8 C N/A 9 Park Center Circle N(EW)-#7 City of SB M Without Improvements CSS 1 2 d 1 2 1 0.5 0.5 1 0.5 0.5 d 87.0 F N/A 99.95 F N/A CL With Improvements TS 1 2 d 1 2 1 0.5 0.5 1 0.5 0.5 d 5.6 A 0.476 7.5 A 0.5810 , Park Center Circle S(EW)-#8 City of SB TS 1 2 1 1 2 d 0.5 0.5 d 0.5 0.5 d 3.8 A 0.642 9.6 A 0.533 LO Vanderbilt Way(EW)-#9 1 City of SB TS 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 2.5 0.51 0 1 0 1.5 0.5 1 1 18.1 1 B 1 0,6661 22.9 C 0.840 Nr r-+ O Q N tC U) U a. v .r c a� E 4 c d E t c� Y Q 'When a right turn lane is designated,the lane can either be striped or unstriped.To function as a right turn lane there must be sufficient width for right turning vehicles to travel outside the through lanes.L=Left;T=Through;R=Right;d=De Facto Right Turn;BOLD=Improvements. TS=Traffic Signal;CSS=Cross Street Stop a Delay,Level of Service(LOS)and Volume to Capacity Ratio(V/C)has been calculated using the following analysis software:VISTRO,Version 4.00-00.Per the 2010 Highway Capacity Manual,overall averag intersection delay and level of service are shown for intersections with traffic signal or all way stop control.For intersections with cross street stop control,the delay and level of service for the worst indit movement or movements sharing a single lane)are shown. °LOS=Level of Service;V/C=Volume to Capacity. 5 99.9-F=Delay high,intersection unstable,Level of Service F. 8 Packet Pg. 840 Table 11 Year 2035 Without Project Intersection Delay and Level of Service Intersection Approach Lanes' Peak Hour Traffic Northbound Southbound I Eastbound Westbound Morning Evening Intersection Jurisdiction Control' L T R L T R L T R L I T R Delay' LOS' V/C° Delay' LOS' V/C° E Street(NS)at: Orange Show Road(EW)-#1 City of SB TS 2 1.5 0.5 2 2 1> 2 2 1 2 2 1> 23.3 C 0.500 31.8 C 0.807 Washington Avenue(NS)at: Orange Show Road(EW)-#2 City of SB TS 0.5 0.5 d 0.5 0.5 d 1 2 d 1 2 d 19.5 B 0.346 17.4 B 0.547 Waterman Avenue(NS)at: Orange Show Road(EW)-#5 City of SB TS 1 2 d 1 2 d 1 2 d 1 2 d 22.1 C 0.614 36.2 D 0.824 Dumas Street(EW)-#6 City of SB CSS 1 2 0 0 2 d 0.5 0 0.5 0 0 0 23.1 C N/A 28.0 D N/A Park Center Circle N(EW)-#7 City of SB Without Improvements CSS 0 2 d 1 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 d 22.8 C N/A 24.7 C N/A With Improvements IS 0 2 d 1 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 d 3.8 A 0.336 4.3 A 0.512 N O Park Center Circle S(EW)-#8 City of SB TS 1 2 1 1 2 d 0.5 0.5 d 0.5 0.5 d 5.7 A 0.713 11.7 B 0.596 Vanderbilt Way(EW)-#9 City of SB TS 1 1 2 1 1 1 2.5 0.5 0 1 0 1.5 0.5 1 20.0 C 0.720 34.2 C 0.977 Q U9 LO CD I' L O Q Joll rn U d c a> E U Q C N E L V f6 Q 'when a right turn lane is designated,the lane can either be striped or unstriped.To function as a right turn lane there must be sufficient width for right turning vehicles to travel outside the through lanes.L=Left;T=Through;R=Right;d=De Facto Right Turn;BOLD=Improvements. 'TS=Traffic Signal;CSS=Cross Street Stop 3 Delay,Level of Service(LOS)and Volume to Capacity Ratio(V/C)has been calculated using the following analysis software:VISTRO,Version 4.00-00.Per the 2010 Highway Capacity Manual,overall averag intersection delay and level of service are shown for intersections with traffic signal or all way stop control.For intersections with cross street stop control,the delay and level of service for the worst indix movement(or movements sharing a single lane)are shown. I "LOS=Level of Service;V/C=Volume to Capacity. 9 Packet Pg. 841 6.B.h Table 12 Year 2035 With Project Intersection Delay and Level of Service Intersection Approach Lanes' Peak Hour Traffic Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Morning Evening Intersection Jurisdiction Control' L T R L T R L T R L T R Delay' LOS' V/C° Delay' LOS' V/C° E Street(NS)at: Orange Show Road(EW)-#1 City of SB TS 2 1.5 0.5 2 2 1> 2 2 1 2 2 1> 23.1 C 0.511 32.2 C 0.811 Washington Avenue(NS)at: Orange Show Road(EW)-#2 City of SB TS 0.5 0.5 d 0.5 0.5 d 1 2 d 1 2 d 19.9 B 0.359 17.1 B 0.643 Project West Access(NS)at: Dumas Street(EW)-#3 City of 5B CSS 0.5 0 0.5 0 0 0 0 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0 8.8 A N/A 8.9 A N/A Project East Access(NS)at: Dumas Street(EW)-#4 City of SB CSS 0.5 0 0.5 0 0 0 0 0.5 0.510.5 0.5 0 8.4 A N/A 8.4 A N/A Waterman Avenue(NS)at: _ Orange Show Road(EW)-#5 City of SB TS 1 2 d 1 2 d 1 2 d 1 2 d 22.9 C 0.643 38.0 D 0.832 N O Dumas Street(EW)-#6 City of SB CSS 1 2 0 0 2 d 1 0 1 0 0 0 24.3 C N/A 29.1 D N/A to Park Center Circle N(EW)-#7 City of SB M t4 Without Improvements CSS 1 2 d 1 2 1 0.5 0.5 1 0.5 0.5 d 99.95 F N/A 99.9 F N/A CL With Improvements TS 1 2 d 1 2 1 0.5 0.5 1 0.5 0.5 d 5.4 A 0.432 8.1 A 0.953 0 Park Center Circle S(EW)-#8 City of SB TS 1 2 1 1 2 d 0.5 0.5 d 0.5 0.5 d 5.8 A 0.715 11.8 B 0.605 L0 Vanderbilt Way(EW)-#9 1 City of SB I TS 1 2 1 1 2.5 0.51 0 1 1 1 0 1.51 0.5 1 1 20.1 C 0.720 34.3 C 0.981 s_ O O. N R V a �r c Q E v w. Q c E U Q 'When a right turn lane is designated,the lane can either be striped or unstriped.To function as a right turn lane there must be sufficient width for right turning vehicles to travel outside the through lanes.L=Left;T=Through;R=Right;d=De Facto Right Turn;BOLD=Improvements. 2 TS=Traffic Signal;CSS=Cross Street Stop a Delay,Level of Service(LOS)and Volume to Capacity Ratio(V/C)has been calculated using the following analysis software:VISTRO,Version 4.00-00.Per the 2010 Highway Capacity Manual,overall averag intersection delay and level of service are shown for intersections with traffic signal or all way stop control.For intersections with cross street stop control,the delay and level of service for the worst indiN movement(or movements sharing a single lane)are shown. °LOS=Level of Service;V/C=Volume to Capacity. 10 Packet P ' , 6.B.h ® Figure 1 Project Location Map o" ea m c v o >N Orange Show Road Dumas Stree N LO O Park Center a, C9 Circle LO Park Center Q Circle CL a) IX m v � � U > 0. E c v a> v co a Vanderbilt Way U ate.. 'Q Legend © =Intersection Reference Number - I ® KUNZMAN ASSOCIATES, INC. JN 5629g OVER 40 YEARS OF EXCELLENT SERVICE 11 Packet Pg. 843 6.B.h N O Lo N O. L7 Lo co d' d' i O O_ APPENDIX A c� COMMENT LETTER nV. tit c E v ro ..r d c d E U R a. Q Packet Pg. 844 6.B.h N O Lo Cu CL Lo Co d' d' i O Q APPENDIX B o U) INTERSECTION DELAY WORKSHEETS U) U a v c a� E U m .r d c m E U f6 .v Q Packet Pg. 845 N O r !Sf Q LO co d' d' O Q d cn Existing N U a c m E t U Rf Y Q .i+ C d t V Y Q Packet Pg. 846 6.B.h Generated with = Waterman Industrial Center Version 4.00-00 Scenario 1: 1:AME Intersection Level Of Service Report Intersection 1:E Street(NS)at Orange Show Road(EW) Control Type: Signalized Delay(sec/veh): 22.4 Analysis Method: HCM 2010 Level Of Service: C Analysis Period: 15 minutes Volume to Capacity(v/c): 0.398 Intersection Setup Name E Street E Street Orange Show Rd Orange Show Rd Approach Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Lane Configuration "1-11 1 -1 111 r '1'111 r - "11 i r Turning Movement Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Lane Width[ft] 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 No.of Lanes in Pocket 2 0 2 1 2 1 2 1 Pocket Length[ft] 300.00 189.00 134.00 217.00 147.00 165.00 103.00 O Speed[mph] 40.00 40.00 40.00 40.00 r Grade[%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 D Crosswalk Yes Yes Yes Yes U LO volumes 00 Name E Street E Street Orange Show Rd Orange Show Rd �! Base Volume Input[veh/h] 97-T88 41 51 124 57 221 801 337 76 385 27 O Base Volume Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 d Heavy Vehicles Percentage[%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Growth Rate 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 R In-Process Volume[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 V Site-Generated Trips[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (L Diverted Trips[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ct .a Pass-by Trips[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N Existing Site Adjustment Volume[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 s Other Volume[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 c0 Right-Turn on Red Volume[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 Q Total Hourly Volume[veh/h] 97 88 41 51 124 57 221 801 337 76 385 27 1 1 Peak Hour Factor 0.8860 0.8860 0.8860 0.8860 0.8860 0.8860 0.8860 0.8860 0.8860 0.8860 0.8860 0.8860 m Other Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 v Total 15-Minute Volume[veh/h] 27 25 12 14 35 16 62 226 95 21 109 8 U Total Analysis Volume[veh/h] 109 99 46 58 140 64 249 904 380 86 435 30 Q Presence of On-Street Parking No No No No No No No No On-Street Parking Maneuver Rate[/h] 0 0 Local Bus Stopping Rate[/h] 0 1, 0 0 0 0 Pedestrian Volume[ped/h] 0 0 0 0 Bicycle Volume[bicycles/hl 0 0 0 0 KUNZMAN ASSOCIATES,INC. 4/8/2016 Packet Pg. 847 6.B.h Generated with Waterman Industrial Center Version 4.00-00 Scenario 1: 1:AME Intersection Settings Located in CBD No Signal Coordination Group Cycle Length[s] 60 Coordination Type Time of Day Pattern Isolated Actuation Type Fully actuated Offset[s] 0.0 Offset Reference LeadGreen Permissive Mode SingleBand Lost time[s] 8.00 Phasing&Timing Control Type Protecte Permiss Permiss Protecte Permiss Permiss Protecte Permiss Permiss Protecte Permiss Permiss Signal group 5 1 2 1 6 3 8 7 4 U C 9 Auxiliary Signal Groups r Lead/Lag Lead Lead Lead Lead Q. Minimum Green[s] 5 5 5 5 _5T 5 0 5 5 U' Maximum Green[s] 30 30 30 30 30 1 30 0 30 30 Go Amber[s] 3.0 3.0 0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 0.0 3.0 3.0 C? 'q All red[s] 1.0 1.0 �.Q 1.0 1.0 1 0 1.0 0 1.0 1.0 Split[s] 9 19 0 9 19 13 1 23 9 19 OQ Vehicle Extension[s] 3.0 1 3.0 C;,0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 J)o 3.0 3.0 11' Walk[s] 5 5 0 5 0 5 Pedestrian Clearance[s] 7 10 10 0 10 0 0 10 0 11,Start-Up Lost Time[s] 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 10 2.0 2.0 V a 12,Clearance Lost Time[s] 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 10 2.0 2.0 ' d' Minimum Recall No No No No No No No No = Maximum Recall No No No No No No No No Pedestrian Recall No No No No No No No No t v Detector Location[ft] O.o O.0 �..1 Detector Length[ft] 0.0 10 I,Upstream Filtering Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 N Exclusive Pedestrian Phase V c4 Pedestrian Signal Group 0 Q Pedestrian Walk[s] 0 Pedestrian Clearance[s] 0 KuNZMAN AssociATes,INC. 4/8/2016 Packet Pg. 848 6.B.h Generated with = Waterman Industrial Center Version 4.00-00 Scenario 1: 1:AME Lane Group Calculations Lane Group L I C C L C R L I C R L C R L,Total Lost Time per Cycle[s] 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 11_p,Permitted Start-Up Lost Time[s] 12,Clearance Lost Time[s] 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 1 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 g_i,Effective Green Time[s] 4 19 19 3 1 18 18 6 18 18 4 15 15 g/C,Green/Cycle 0.07 0.32 0.32 0.05 0.30 0.30 0.10 0.30 0.30 0.06 0.26 0.26 (v/s)_i Volume/Saturation Flow Rate 0.03 0.04 0.04 0.02 0.04 0.04 0.07 0.25 0.24 0.02 0.12 0.02 s,saturation flow rate[veh/h] 3514 1900 1704 3514 3618 1615 3514 3618 1615 3514 3618 1615 c,Capacity[veh/h] 252 610 547 190 1096 489 372 1064 475 231 918 410 d1,Uniform Delay[s] 26.80 14.47 14.51 27.43 15.23 15.25 25.94 20.03 19.65 26.98 19.08 17.10 k,delay calibration 0.11 0.50 0.50 1 0.11 0.50 0.50 0.11 0.11 0.22 0.11 0.11 0.11 I,Upstream Filtering Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 N d2,Incremental Delay[s] 1.16 0.41 0.49 0.90 0.24 0.55 2.09 2.01 6.35 1.00 0.38 0.07 d3,Initial Queue Delay[s] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 M Rp,platoon ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Q- PF,progression factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 LO 00 Lane Group Results d• X,volume/capacity 0.43 0.12 0.13 0.31 0.13 0.13 0.67 0.85 0.80 0.37 0.47 0.07 d,Delay for Lane Group[s/veh] 27.97 14.88 15.00 28.32 15.47 15.80 28.03 22.04 26.00 27.97 19.46 17.18 Q Lane Group LOS C B B C B B C C C C B B Critical Lane Group Yes No No No No Yes No Yes No Yes No No 50th-Percentile Queue Length[veh] 0.73 0.69 0.66 0.39 0.64 0.63 1.67 5.38 5.03 0.57 2.30 0.29 50th-Percentile Queue Length[ft] 18.16 17.23 16.61 9.80 16.04 15.72 41.63 134.46 125.71 14.34 57.47 7.17 d 95th-Percentile Queue Length[veh] 1.31 1.24 1.20 0.71 1.15 1.13 3.00 9.18 8.71 1.03 4.14 0.52 ' 95th-Percentile Queue Length[ft] 32.68 31.01 29.90 17.63 28.87 28.30 74.93 T229.54 217.65 25.81 103.44 12.90 d E s v c0 a :_ 0 E a KuNZMAN ASSOCIATES,INC. 4/8/2016 Packet Pg. 849 6.B.h Generated with Waterman Industrial Center Version 4.00-00 Scenario 1: 1:AME Movement,Approach,&Intersection Results d_M,Delay for Movement[s/veh] 27.97 14.91 15.00 28.32 15.47 15.80 28.03 22.04 26.00 27.97 19.46 17.18 Movement LOS C B B C B B C C C C B B d_A,Approach Delay[s/veh] 20.53 18.40 24.00 20.66 Approach LOS C B C C d_I,Intersection Delay[s/veh] 22.39 Intersection LOS C Intersection V/C 0.398 Sequence Ring 1 1 2 3 4 - - - - - - Ring 2 5 6 7 8 N Ring 3 - - - - Ring 4 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - .- ca Go v 0 a m ® Cn U a v c d E s w a E a KIINZMAN ASSOCIATES,INC. 4/8/2016 Packet Pg. 850 Generated with Waterman Industrial Center Version 4.00-00 Scenario 1: 1:AME Intersection Level Of Service Report Intersection 2:Washington Ave(NS)at Orange Show Rd(EW) Control Type: Signalized Delay(sec/veh): 19.1 Analysis Method: HCM 2010 Level Of Service: B Analysis Period: 15 minutes Volume to Capacity(v/c): 0.307 Intersection Setup Name Washington Ave Washington Ave Orange Show Rd Orange Show Rd Approach Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Lane Configuration i t I r '11 i t -i i i r Turning Movement Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Lane Width[ft] 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.007 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 No.of Lanes in Pocket 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 Pocket Length[ft] 157.00 166.00 �i.0'J uo_;}0 NC Speed[mph] 30.00 30.00 40.00 40.00 6 T Grade[%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 C. Crosswalk Yes Yes Yes Yes C7 volumes 00 Name Washington Ave Washington Ave Orange Show Rd Orange Show Rd "Cr Base Volume Input[veh/h] 6 3 2 6 0 10 34 836 12 3 378 11 0 Base Volume Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 d Heavy Vehicles Percentage[%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Growth Rate 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 R In-Process Volume[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 N U Site-Generated Trips[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 IL I Diverted Trips[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Pass-by Trips[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Existing Site Adjustment Volume[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 t Other Volume[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Right-Turn on Red Volume[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 Q Total Hourly Volume[veh/h] 6 3 2 6 0 10 34 836 12 3 378 11 Peak Hour Factor 0.8882 0.8882 0.8882 0.8882 0.8882 0.8882 0.8882 0.8882 0.8882 0.8882 0.8882 0.8882 E Other Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 v Total 15-Minute Volume[veh/h] 2 1 1 2 0 3 10 235 3 1 106 3 45 Total Analysis Volume[veh/h] 7 3 2 7 0 11 38 941 14 3 426 12 Q Presence of On-Street Parking No No No No No No No No On-Street Parking Maneuver Rate[/h] - � Local Bus Stopping Rate[/h] 0 0 0 0 Pedestrian Volume[ped/h] 0 0 0 0 Bicycle Volume[bicycles/h] 0 0 0 0 KuNzm,w Associnres,INC. 4/8/2016 Packet`Pg. 851 6.B.h f r Waterman Industrial Center Generated with a Version 4.00-00 Scenario 1: 1:AME Intersection Settings Located in CBD No Signal Coordination Group Cycle Length[s] 60 Coordination Type Time of Day Pattern Isolated Actuation Type Fully actuated Offset[s] 0.0 Offset Reference LeadGreen Permissive Mode SingleBand Lost time[s] 6.00 Phasing&Timing Control Type Permiss Permiss Permiss Permiss Permiss Permiss Protecte Permiss Permiss M74 Permiss Signal group 2 6 3 8 c 9 Auxiliary Signal Groups T_Lead/Lag Lead M Minimum Green[s] �� 5 0 5 5 5 0 (� Maximum Green[s] r) 30 0 30 30 30 30 30 0 L0 Amber[s] ,0 3.0 J.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 G.0 All red[s] C..0 1.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 O.0 1.0 1.0 Split[s] 0 19 0 0 19 0 9 32 0 9 32 0 CL Vehicle Extension[s] v_0 3.0 0.0 C).0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 0.0 3.0 3.0 � Walk[s] 0 5 0 3 5 5 0 0 5 Pedestrian Clearance[s] 0 10 0 } 10 10 0 10 +' 11,Start-Up Lost Time[s] 2.0 0.0 ),0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 U a 12,Clearance Lost Time[s] 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 ' Minimum Recall No No No No No No C Maximum Recall No No No No No No a) Pedestrian Recall No No No No No No s V tD Detector Location[ft] 0 70 7. 0,0 0.' +"'+ Detector Length[ft] 0 .0 0.0 0.0 0,11, I,Upstream Filtering Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 = Exclusive Pedestrian Phase v cC Pedestrian Signal Group 0 Q Pedestrian Walk[s] 0 Pedestrian Clearance[s] 0 KLINz\AAN AssocaATES,INC. 4/8/2016 Packet Pg. 852 6.B.h Generated with 1f ` Waterman Industrial Center Version 4.00-00 Scenario 1: 1:AME Lane Group Calculations Lane Group C R C R L C R L C I R L,Total Lost Time per Cycle[s] 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 11p,Permitted Start-Up Lost Time[s] 2.00 2.00 o7 00 0.00 0.00 12,Clearance Lost Time[s] 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00 2.00 2.00 0.00 2.00 2.00 g_i,Effective Green Time[s] 29 29 29 29 23 19 19 23 17 17 g/C,Green/Cycle 0.48 0.48 0.48 0.48 0.39 0.32 0.32 0.39 0.28 0.28 (v/s)_i Volume/Saturation Flow Rate 0.02 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.03 0.26 0.01 0.00 0.12 0.01 s,saturation flow rate[veh/h] 650 1615 552 1615 1135 3618 1615 726 3618 1615 c,Capacity[veh/h] 411 768 382 768 532 1154 515 319 1 1027 458 d1,Uniform Delay[s] 10.69 8.29 20.20 8.33 11.66 18.85 14.07 12.90 17.49 15.55 k,delay calibration 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 I,Upstream Filtering Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 N d2,Incremental Delay[s] 0.11 0.01 0.09 0.03 0.06 1.46 0.02 0.01 0.27 0.02 1 d3, Initial Queue Delay[s] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1 0.00 0.00 r RID,platoon ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Q" C� PF,progression factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 LO 00 Lane Group Results �Y ' X,volume/capacity 0.02 0.00 0.02 0.01 0.07 0.82 0.03 0.01 0.41 0.03 .r d,Delay for Lane Group[s/veh] 10.80 8.29 20.28 8.37 11.71 20.32 14.09 12.91 17.76 15.57 Q Lane Group LOS B A C A B C B B B B IX Critical Lane Group : tC 50th-Percentile Queue Length[veh] 0.07 0.01 0.08 0.07 0.27 5.35 0.12 0.02 2.12 0.11 C/) 50th-Percentile Queue Length[ft] 1.78 0.33 2.12 1.80 6.85 133.64 2.91 0.54 53.01 2.68 U 95th-Percentile Queue Length[veh] 0.13 0.02 0.15 0.13 0.49 9.14 0.21 0.04 3.82 0.19 - d' 95th-Percentile Queue Length[ft] 3.21 0.59 3.82 3.24 12.32 228.44 5.24 0.97 95.43 4.82 N E U Rf Y Q C N V f4 Y Y Q KIINZMAN ASSOCIATES,INC_ 4/8/2016 Packet Pg. 853 Generated with '• Waterman Industrial Center Version 4.00-00 Scenario 1: 1:AME Movement,Approach,&Intersection Results d_M,Delay for Movement[s/veh] 10.80 10.80 8.29 20.28 20.28 8.37 11.71 20.32 14.09 12.91 17.76 15.57 Movement LOS B B A C C A B C B B B B d_A,Approach Delay[s/veh] 10.38 13.00 19.90 17.67 Approach LOS B B B B d_I,Intersection Delay[s/veh] 19.06 Intersection LOS B Intersection V/C 0.307 Sequence Ring 1 2 3 4 - - - - - - - - - - - - - Ring 2 6 7 8 - - - - - - - - - - - - - N Ring 3 - Ring 4 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - r- R C. LO Go i` O t4 U a v w CD E s �a r a Y _ E V a KUNZMAN Associ Ares,INC. 4/8/2016 Packet Pg. 854 nl�rwrl�a - 6.B.h Generated with •• Waterman Industrial Center Version 4.00-00 Scenario 1: 1:AME Intersection Level Of Service Report a Intersection 5:Waterman Ave(NS)at Orange Show Rd(EW) Control Type: Signalized Delay(sec/veh): 20.6 Analysis Method: HCM 2010 Level Of Service: C Analysis Period: 15 minutes Volume to Capacity(v/c): 0.525 Intersection Setup Name Waterman Ave Waterman Ave Orange Show Rd Orange Show Rd Approach Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Lane Configuration -111 r r -1 r 1 , r Turning Movement Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Lane Width[ft] 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 T 2.00 12.00 No.of Lanes in Pocket 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 Pocket Length[ft] 298.00 275.00 00 100.Oi'- 248.00 100('_. 258.00 ".)0.0 O0.00 C Speed[mph] 50.00 50.00 40.00 40.00 r Grade[%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Q Crosswalk Yes Yes Yes Yes C9 L0 volumes 00 It Name Waterman Ave Waterman Ave Orange Show Rd Orange Show Rd d Base Volume Input[veh/h] 63 593 54 48 512 80 160 381 270 75 256 67 O Base Volume Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 C Heavy Vehicles Percentage[%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 �= Growth Rate 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 In-Process Volume[veh/h] 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 U Site-Generated Trips[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 d Diverted Trips[veh/h] 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 d Pass-by Trips[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Existing Site Adjustment Volume[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 E Other Volume[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Right-Turn on Red Volume[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 Q Total Hourly Volume[veh/h] 63 593 54 48 512 80 160 381 270 75 1 256 67 Peak Hour Factor 0.8780 0.8780 0.8780 0.8780 0.8780 0.8780 0.8780 0.8780 0.8780 0.8780 0.8780 0.8780 d E Other Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 v Total 15-Minute Volume[veh/h] 18 169 15 14 146 23 46 108 77 21 73 19 Total Analysis Volume[veh/h] 72 675 62 55 583 91 182 434 308 85 292 76 Q Presence of On-Street Parking No No No No No No No No On-Street Parking Maneuver Rate[/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Local Bus Stopping Rate[/h] 1) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Pedestrian Volume[ped/h] 0 0 0 0 Bicycle Volume[bicycles/h] 0 0 0 0 KIINZMAN Assoemres,INC. 4/8/2016 Packet Pg. 855 6.B.h Generated with _, Waterman Industrial Center Version 4.00-00 Scenario 1: 1:AME Intersection Settings Located in CBD No Signal Coordination Group Cycle Length[s] 60 Coordination Type Time of Day Pattern Isolated Actuation Type Fully actuated Offset[s] 0.0 Offset Reference LeadGreen Permissive Mode SingleBand Lost time[s] 8.00 Phasing&Timing Control Type Protecte Permiss Permiss Protecte Permiss Permiss Protecte Permiss Permiss Protecte Permiss Fplrmlss Signal group 5 2 1 6 7 3 8 y 4 Auxiliary Signal Groups r Lead/Lag Lead Lead Lead - Lead Q Minimum Green[s] 5 5 J 5 5 0 5 5 0 5 5 C7 Maximum Green[s] 30 30 J 1 30 30 0 30 30 0 30 30 LO oD Amber[s] 3.0 3.0 0,0 3.0 3.0 ?.0 3.0 3.0 0.0 3.0 3.0 0.0 It Allred[s] 1.0 1.0 .0 1.0 1.0 J.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 Split[s] 9 19 3, 9 19 13 23 9 19 0 CL 0 Vehicle Extension[s] 3.0 1 3.0 0.0 3.0 3.0 "0 3.0 3.0 3.0 T 3.0 � !Y Walk[s] 5 0 5 0 5 u 5 Pedestrian Clearance[s] __77 10 0 10 0 0 1 10 0 10 v 11,Start-Up Lost Time[s] 2.0 2.0 X1.0 2.0 2.0 X1.0 2.0 T2.0 2.0 2.0 0 0 d 12,Clearance Lost Time[s] 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 (}.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 ' d' Minimum Recall No No No No No No No No = Maximum Recall No No No No NoT No No No Pedestrian Recall No No No No No No No No U RS Detector Location[ft] 0.0 0.0 �}•0 Detector Length[ft] 0.0 0 10 I,Upstream Filtering Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 d Exclusive Pedestrian Phase U f4 Pedestrian Signal Group 0 Q Pedestrian Walk[s] 0 Pedestrian Clearance[s] 0 KUNZMAN ASSOCIATES,INC. 4/8/2016 Packet Pg. 856 s.s.n Generated with I IN M Waterman Industrial Center Version 4.00-00 Scenario 1: 1:AME Lane Group Calculations Lane Group L C R L C R L C R L C R L,Total Lost Time per Cycle[s] 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 11p,Permitted Start-Up Lost Time[s] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.00 12,Clearance Lost Time[s] 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 g_i,Effective Green Time[s] -4-723 23 3 23 23 8 14 14 4 10 10 g/C,Green/Cycle 0.06 0.38 0.38 0.05 0.38 0.38 0.13 0.24 0.24 0.06 0.17 0.17 (v/s)_i Volume/Saturation Flow Rate 004 0.19 0.04 0.03 0.16 0.06 0.10 0.12 0.19 0.05 0.08 0.05 s,saturation flow rate[veh/h] 1810 1 3618 1615 1810 3618 1615 1810 3618 1615 1810 3618 1615 c,Capacity[veh/h] 108 1384 618 93 1355 605 230 852 380 117 625 279 d1,Uniform Delay[s] 2770T 14.09 11.92 27.91 14.03 12.47 25.48 19.97 21.71 27.62 22.38 21.59 k,delay calibration 0.11 0.50 0.50 0.11 1 0.50 1 0.50 0.15 0.11 0.12 0.11 0.11 0.11 I,Upstream Filtering Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 cV d2,Incremental Delay[s] 6.96 1.23 0.32 5.89 1.00 1 0.53 8.04 0.47 4.72 8.41 0.54 0.52 0 LO d3,Initial Queue Delay[s] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 r c4 Rp,platoon ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 a- PF,progression factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 LO 00 Lane Group Results TT �t X,volume/capacity 0.67 1 0.49 0.10 0.59 0.43 0.15 0.79 0.51 0.81 0.73 0.47 0.27 d,Delay for Lane Group[s/veh] 34.667 15.32 12.24 33.80 15.03 13.00 33.527 20.44 26.44 36.03 22.93 22.11 OQ Lane Group LOS C B B C B B C C C D C C Critical Lane Group w to 50th-Percentile Queue Length[veh] 1.10 2.93 0.47 0.84 2.49 0.73 2.79 2.38 4.09 1.37 1.71 0.88 50th-Percentile Queue Length[ft] 27.53 73.22 11.85 20.88 62.26 18.18 69.71 59.49 102.14 34.20 42.74 21.88 IL 95th-Percentile Queue Length[veh] 1.98 5.27 0.85 1.50 4.48 1.31 5.02 4.28 7.35 2.46 3.08 1.58 ' 95th-Percentile Queue Length[ft] 49.56 131.79 21.33 37.59 112.07 32.73 125.48 107.09 183.86 61.56 76.94 39.38 N E t U a+ rr a U fif y-+ a KUNZMAN AssocIATES,INC. 4/8/2016 Packet Pg. 857 6.B.h Generated with M 'M Waterman Industrial Center Version 4.00-00 Scenario 1: 1:AME Movement,Approach,&Intersection Results d_M,Delay for Movement[s/veh] 34.66 15.32 12.24 33.80 15.03 13.00 33.52 20.44 26.44 36.03 22.93 22.11 Movement LOS C B B C B B C C C D C C d_A,Approach Delay[s/veh] 16.81 16.19 25.02 25.25 Approach LOS B B C C d_I,Intersection Delay[s/veh] 20.57 Intersection LOS C Intersection V/C 0.525 Sequence Ring 1 1 2 3 4 - - - - - - - - - - - - Ring 2 5 6 7 8 - - - - - - - - - - - - N Ring 3 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - o Ring 4 - a ® LO xy.E co 41 O d • U) U IL c d t U a+ a E r w a ♦rr KIINZMAN AssocIATES,INC. 4/8/2016 Packet Pg. 858 6.B.h Generated with M 'e Waterman Industrial Center Version 4.00-00 Scenario 1: 1:AME Intersection Level Of Service Report Intersection 6:Waterman Ave(NS)at Dumas St(EW) Control Type: Two-way stop Delay(sec/veh): 19.8 Analysis Method: HCM 2010 Level Of Service: C Analysis Period: 15 minutes Volume to Capacity(v/c): 0.024 Intersection Setup Name Waterman Ave Waterman Ave Dumas St Approach Northbound Southbound Eastbound Lane Configuration -111 11 r Turning Movement Left Thru Thru Right Left Right Lane Width[ft] 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 No.of Lanes in Pocket 1 0 0 0 Pocket Length[ft] 111.00 100.00 c Speed[mph] 50.00 50.00 30.00 LO r Grade[%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 Q. Crosswalk No No No (� U') volumes 00 Name Waterman Ave Waterman Ave Dumas St d Base Volume Input[veh/h] 3 716 838 8 5 6 O Base Volume Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 0. Heavy Vehicles Percentage[%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Growth Rate 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 In-Process Volume[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 U Site-Generated Trips[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 LL Diverted Trips[veh/hJ 0 0 0 0 0 0 d Pass-by Trips[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 = d Existing Site Adjustment Volume[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 Other Volume[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total Hourly Volume(veh/h] 3 716 838 8 5 6 Q Peak Hour Factor 0.8593 0.8593 0.8593 0.8593 0.8593 0.8593 Other Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 N Total 15-Minute Volume[veh/h] 1 208 244 2 1 2 v Total Analysis Volume[veh/hJ 3 833 975 9 6 7 y Q Pedestrian Volume(ped/h] KUNZMAN/ASSOCIATES,INC. 4/8/2016 Packet Pg.859 6.B.h Generated with M Waterman Industrial Center Version 4.00-00 Scenario 1: 1:AME Intersection Settings Priority Scheme Free Free Stop Flared Lane No Storage Area[veh] Two-Stage Gap Acceptance Yes Number of Storage Spaces in Median 1 Movement,Approach,&Intersection Results V/C,Movement V/C Ratio 0.00 0.02 0.01 d_M,Delay for Movement[s/veh] 10.09 "" 19.77 12.17 Movement LOS B A A A C B 95th-Percentile Queue Length[veh] 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.12 0.12 95th-Percentile Queue Length IN 0.32 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.88 2.88 d_A,Approach Delay[s/veh] 0.04 0.00 15.68 c Approach LOS A A C L0 T d_I,Intersection Delay[s/veh] 0.13 Q Intersection LOS C In 00 d' d' O CL N • w. U a a� E s U fC Q 4i C d E L U t0 a+ Q KUNZMAN ASSOCIATES,INC. 4/8/2016 Packet Pg. 860 6.B.h Generated with =Z= Waterman Industrial Center Version 4.00-00 Scenario 1: 1:AME Intersection Level Of Service Report Intersection 7:Waterman Ave(NS)at Park Center Circle North(EW) Control Type: Two-way stop Delay(sec/veh): 20.8 Analysis Method: HCM 2010 Level Of Service: C Analysis Period: 15 minutes Volume to Capacity(v/c): 0.004 Intersection Setup Name Waterman Ave Waterman Ave Park Center Circle N Approach Northbound Southbound Westbound Lane Configuration l i r 1 I i t Turning Movement Thru Right Left Thru Left Right Lane Width[ft] 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 No.of Lanes in Pocket 0 1 0 0 Pocket Length[ft] 215.00 0 Speed[mph] 50.00 50.00 30.00 u7 T Grade[%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 fl Crosswalk No No No t9 In volumes 00 Name Waterman Ave Waterman Ave Park Center Circle N d Base Volume Input[veh/h] 711 27 77 749 1 6 O Base Volume Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 C gip► Heavy Vehicles Percentage[%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Growth Rate 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 N In-Process Volume[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 U Site-Generated Trips[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 �- Diverted Trips[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 V� Pass-by Trips[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 d Existing Site Adjustment Volume[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 t Other Volume[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total Hourly Volume[veh/h] 711 27 77 749 1 6 Q Peak Hour Factor 0.8587 0.8587 0.8587 0.8587 0.8587 0.8587 Other Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 d E Total 15-Minute Volume[veh/h] 207 8 22 218 0 2 = U Total Analysis Volume[veh/h] 828 31 90 872 1 7 Q Pedestrian Volume[ped/h] KUNZMAN ASSOCIATES,INC. 4/8/2016 Packet Pg. 861 6.B.h Generated with M 'M Waterman Industrial Center Version 4.00-00 Scenario 1: 1:AME Intersection Settings Priority Scheme Free Free Stop Flared Lane Storage Area[veh] Two-Stage Gap Acceptance Yes Number of Storage Spaces in Median 1 Movement,Approach,&Intersection Results V/C,Movement V/C Ratio 0.11 0.00 0.01 d_M,Delay for Movement[s/veh] 10.14 20.79 11.14 Movement LOS A A B A C B 95th-Percentile Queue Length[veh] 0.00 0.00 0.38 0.00 0.01 0.04 95th-Percentile Queue Length[ft] 0.00 0.00 9.59 0.00 0.33 0.90 d A,Approach Delay[s/veh] 0.00 0.95 12.35 C LO Approach LOS A A B T d_I,Intersection Delay[s/veh] 0.55 CL Intersection LOS C LO co It O Q d Q' to V a v c a� E v ca Q c E t Q KUNZMAN ASSOCIATES,INC. 4/8/2016 Packet Pg.862 6.B.h Generated with M 'M Waterman Industrial Center Version 4.00-00 Scenario 1: 1:AME Intersection Level Of Service Report Intersection 8:Waterman Ave(NS)at Park Center Circle South(EW) Control Type: Signalized Delay(sec/veh): 3.6 Analysis Method: HCM 2010 Level Of Service: A Analysis Period: 15 minutes Volume to Capacity(v/c): 0.412 Intersection Setup Name Waterman Ave Waterman Ave Park Center Circle South Park Center Circle South Approach Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Lane Configuration 11 r "111 r i r i r Turning Movement Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Lane Width[ft] 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 No.of Lanes in Pocket 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Pocket Length[ft] _ 100.Oi s.B.n Generated with Waterman Industrial Center Version 4.00-00 Scenario 1: 1:AME Intersection Settings Located in CBD No Signal Coordination Group Cycle Length[s] 65 Coordination Type Time of Day Pattern Isolated Actuation Type Fully actuated Offset[s] 0.0 Offset Reference LeadGreen Permissive Mode SingleBand Lost time[s] 6.00 Phasing&Timing Control Type Protecte Permiss Permiss Protecte Permiss Permiss Permiss Permiss Permiss Permiss Permiss Permiss Signal group 5 2 1 6 8 4 CV O Auxiliary Signal Groups u7 r Lead/Lag Lead Lead fl Minimum Green[s] 5 5 5 5 5 0 0 5 (� Maximum Green[s] 30 30 30 30 0 30 0 0 30 0 u0 op Amber[s] 3.0 1 3.0 1.0 3.0 3.0 10 0.0 3.0 B.0 0,0 3.0 0.0 'IT All red[s] 1.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 �u.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 Split[s] 9 24 9 24 0 32 32 rL ID Vehicle Extension[s] 3.0 3.0 0.0 3.0 3.0 0 0.0 3.0 3.0 0.0 Walk[s] u N ___57 0 0 1 5 5 0 R �- Pedestrian Clearance[s] 0 0 0 10 10 0 0 1 10 0 11,Start-Up Lost Time[s] 2.0 2.0 0 2.0 2.0 2.0 0,0 0.0 2.0 0.0 U a 12,Clearance Lost Time[s] 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 n r, 0..^ 2.0 0.0 Minimum Recall No No No No No No Maximum Recall No No No No No No d ' Pedestrian Recall No No No No No No v Detector Location[ft] G.0 0,0 Detector Length[ft] 0.0 0.0 I,Upstream Filtering Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 = d Exclusive Pedestrian Phase L V Pedestrian Signal Group 0 Pedestrian Walk[s] 0 Q Pedestrian Clearance[s] 0 KLINZMAN ASSOCIATES,INC. 4/8/2016 Packet Pg. 864 s.s.n Generated with Waterman Industrial Center Version 4.00-00 Scenario 1: 1:AME Lane Group Calculations Lane Group L I C R I L C R C R C R L,Total Lost Time per Cycle[s] 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 11p,Permitted Start-Up Lost Time[s] 0.00 0.00 2.00 2.00 12,Clearance Lost Time[s] 0.00 2.00 2.00 0.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 g_i,Effective Green Time[s] 55 49 49 55 50 50 2 2 2 2 g/C,Green/Cycle 0.84 0.75 0.75 0.84 0.77 0.77 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 (v/s)_i Volume/Saturation Flow Rate 0.01 0.22 0.11 0.03 0.22 0.00 0.09 0.01 0.15 0.00 s,saturation flow rate[veh/h] 738 3618 1615 777 3618 1615 140 1615 174 1615 c,Capacity(veh/h] 732 2715 1212 762 2781 1242 99 60 117 60 d1,Uniform Delay[s] 1.05 2.59 2.28 1.07 2.24 1.75 32.53 30.42 32.54 30.34 k,delay calibration 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.11 0.50 0.50 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 I,Upstream Filtering Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 cV d2,Incremental Delay[s] 0.02 0.27 0.26 0.02 0.27 0.01 0.60 1.60 0.95 0.99 9 d3,Initial Queue Delay[s] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 r tII Rp,platoon ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 C- PF,progression factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 aD Lane Group Results b d• X,volume/capacity 0.01 0.29 0.15 0.03 0.29 0.01 0.13 0.20 0.22 0.13 d,Delay for Lane Group[s/veh] 1.07 2.86 2.54 1.09 2.51 1.76 33.12 32.02 33.48 31.33 OQ Lane Group LOS A A A A A A C C C C Critical Lane Group Yes No No No Yes No No No Yes No w M 50th-Percentile Queue Length[veh] 0.00 0.46 0.23 0.00 0.30 0.01 0.21 0.20 0.43 0.13 N 50th-Percentile Queue Length[ft] 0.10 11.46 5.78 0.08 7.51 0.16 5.37 5.06 10.77 3.33 d 95th-Percentile Queue Length[veh] 0.01 0.83 0.42 0.01 0.54 0.01 0.39 0.36 0.78 0.24 95th-Percentile Queue Length[ft] 0.19 20.63 10.40 0.15 1 13.52 0.28 9.66 9.10 19.38 5.99 = N E L) d c m E .r Q KuNZMAN ASSOCIATES,INC. 4/8/2016 Packet Pg.865 6.B.h '' Generated with Waterman Industrial Center Version 4.00-00 Scenario 1: 1:AME Movement,Approach,&Intersection Results d_M,Delay for Movement[s/veh] 1.07 2.86 2.54 1.09 2.51 1.76 33.12 33.12 32.02 33.48 33.48 31.33 Movement LOS A A A A A A C C C C C C d_A,Approach Delay[s/veh] 2.79 2.46 32.59 32.98 Approach LOS A A C C d I,Intersection Delay[s/veh] 3.59 Intersection LOS A Intersection V/C 0.412 Sequence Ring 1 1 2 4 - - - - - - - Ring 2 5 6 8 - N Ring 3 - - - - Ring 4 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - LO c� tCL 0 Co 4t S 0 a m U) U CL c a� E v .r a Y E V r a KUNZMAN AssoCIATES,INC. 4/8/2016 Packet Pg. 866 6.B.h Generated with ' Waterman Industrial Center Version 4.00-00 Scenario 1: 1:AME Intersection Level Of Service Report Intersection 9:Waterman Ave(NS)at Vanderbilt Way(EW) Control Type: Signalized Delay(sec/veh): 16.4 Analysis Method: HCM 2010 Level Of Service: B Analysis Period: 15 minutes Volume to Capacity(v/c): 0.632 Intersection Setup Name Waterman Ave Waterman Ave Vanderbilt Way Vanderbilt Way Approach Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Lane Configuration 1 l j r .111 � + -11 r Turning Movement Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Lane Width[ft] 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 F12.00 No.of Lanes in Pocket 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Pocket Length[ft] 100.{10 '700.00 s�.0, f).00 100.00 100.00 100.00 -i00.v) cV 0 Speed[mph] 50.00 50.00 30.00 30.00 to T ■ Grade[%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 a Crosswalk No Yes Yes Yes U' volumes 00 rt Name Waterman Ave Waterman Ave Vanderbilt Way Vanderbilt Way d Base Volume Input[veh/h] 24 657 371 246 1 505 4 3 2 2 61 1 221 O Base Volume Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 O. N Heavy Vehicles Percentage[%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1 0.00 0.00 Growth Rate 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 N In-Process Volume[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 U Site-Generated Trips[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a. Diverted Trips[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 d .v Pass-by Trips[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Existing Site Adjustment Volume[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 s Other Volume[veh/h] 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 v Right-Turn on Red Volume[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 Q Total Hourly Volume[veh/h] 24 657 371 246 505 4 3 2 2 61 1 221 Peak Hour Factor 0.8826 0.8826 0.8826 0.8826 0.8826 0.8826 0.8826 0.8826 0.8826 0.8826 0.8826 0.8826 O E Other Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 v cc Total 15-Minute Volume[veh/h] 7 186 105 70 143 1 1 1 1 17 0 63 Total Analysis Volume[veh/h] 277 744 420 279 572 5 3 2 2 69 1 250 Q Presence of On-Street Parking No No No No No No No No On-Street Parking Maneuver Rate[/h] r) 0 0 0 0 0 Local Bus Stopping Rate[/h] 0 0 0 C; 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Pedestrian Volume[ped/h] 0 L 0 0 0 Bicycle Volume[bicycles/h] 0 0 0 0 KUNzmAN ASSOCIATES,INC. 4/8/2016 Packet Pg. 867 s.s.n Generated with Waterman Industrial Center Version 4.00-00 Scenario 1: 1:AME Intersection Settings Located in CBD No Signal Coordination Group Cycle Length[s] 60 Coordination Type Time of Day Pattern Isolated Actuation Type Fully actuated Offset[s] 0.0 Offset Reference LeadGreen Permissive Mode SingleBand Lost time[s] 6.00 Phasing&Timing Control Type Protecte Permiss Permiss Protecte Permiss Permiss Permiss Permiss Permiss Permiss Permiss Permiss Signal group 5 2 1 6 8 4 G Auxiliary Signal Groups 0 r Lead/Lag Le Lead - CL ad Minimum Green[s] 5 5 5 5 0 5 0 0 5 (� Maximum Green[s] 30 30 30 30 30 0 30 0 00 Amber[s] 3.0 3.0 J.0 3.0 3.0 0.0 3.0 0.0 3.0 0.0 Iq All red[s] 1.0 1 1.0 0 1.0 1.0 J.0 0.o 1.0 0,0 0.0 1.0 0.0 i Split[s] 9 19 0 20 30 0 0 21 0 21 Q Vehicle Extension[s] 3.0 1 3.0 u.0 3.0 3.0 0.0 3.0 O.G O.0 3.0 0.0 Walk[s] 0 5 0 0 5 T 5 0 5 0 4 Pedestrian Clearance[s] J 10 0 0 10 10 10 0 " 11,Start-Up Lost Time[s] 2.0 2.0 0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 0.0 V a 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 0.0 12,Clearance Lost Time[s] 2.0 ' C' Minimum Recall No No No No No No Maximum Recall NoT No No No No No N Pedestrian Recall No No No No No No v Detector Location[ft] Q Detector Length[ft] 0.0 0,0 I,Upstream Filtering Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 N Exclusive Pedestrian Phase V Pedestrian Signal Group 0 Pedestrian Walk[s] 0 Q Pedestrian Clearance[s] 0 KUNZMAN ASSOCIATES,INC. 4/8/2016 Packet Pg. 868 Generated with Waterman Industrial Center Version 4.00-00 Scenario 1: 1:AME Lane Group Calculations Lane Group L I C R L C C C L C R L,Total Lost Time per Cycle[s] 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 11_p,Permitted Start-Up Lost Time[s] 2.00 2.00 2.00 0"0 12,Clearance Lost Time[s] 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 g_i,Effective Green Time[s] 2 26 26 11 35 35 11 11 11 11 g/C,Green/Cycle 0.03 0.42 0.42 1 0.19 0.58 0.58 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 (v/s)_i Volume/Saturation Flow Rate 0.01 0.21 0.26 0.15 0.10 0.10 0.00 0.02 0.03 0.15 s,saturation flow rate[veh/h] 1810 3618 1615 1810 3618 1892 1623 1435 1521 1615 c,Capacity[veh/h] 59 1531 683 338 2090 1093 395 346 408 308 d1,Uniform Delay[s] 28.59 12.60 13.53 23.51 5.99 5.99 19.79 21.79 20.13 23.33 k,delay calibration 0.11 0.50 0.50 0.12 0.50 0.50 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 I,Upstream Filtering Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 cV d2,Incremental Delay[s] 5.54 1.11 4.10 5.61 0.19 0.36 0.02 0.11 0.10 5.18 9 d3,Initial Queue Delay[s] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 tC Rp,platoon ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Q• PF,progression factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 LO 00 Lane Group Results d' X,volume/capacity 0.46 0.49 0.61 0.82 0.18 0.18 0.02 0.09 0.10 0.81 d,Delay for Lane Group[s/veh] 34.13 13.71 17.63 29.11 6.18 6.36 19.81 21.90 20.23 28.51 OQ Lane Group LOS C B B C A A B C C C 4) iF* IX Critical Lane Group No No Yes Yes No No No No No Yes 50th-Percentile Queue Length[veh] 0.43 2.96 4.08 3.76 0.74 0.83 0.08 0.36 0.44 3.59 50th-Percentile Queue Length[ft] 10.73 73.90 101.91 93.91 18.45 20.63 1.92 9.08 10.92 89.75 U a 95th-Percentile Queue Length[veh] 0.77 5.32 7.34 6.76 1.33 1.49 0.14 0.65 0.79 6.46 ' 95th-Percentile Queue Length[ft] 1932. 133.01 183.44 169.05 33.20 37.13 3.45 16.34 19.66 161.55 E s v to r Q r G CD E L V r-+ Q KLINZMAN ASSOCIATES,INC. 4/8/2016 Packet Pg.869 s.B.n Generated with =Z= Waterman Industrial Center Version 4.00-00 Scenario 1: 1:AME NOW Movement,Approach,&Intersection Results d_M,Delay for Movement[s/veh] 34.13 1371 17.63 29.11 6.24 6.36 19.81 19.81 19.81 21.90 20.23 28.51 Movement LOS C B B C A A B B B C C C d_A,Approach Delay[s/veh] 15.56 13.70 19.81 26.86 Approach LOS B B B C d_I,Intersection Delay[s/veh] 16.42 Intersection LOS B Intersection WC 0.632 Sequence Ring 1 1 2 4 - - - - - - - Ring 2 5 6 8 - - - - - - - - - - N Ring 3 - - - - LO Ring 4 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ca U) 00 i` O Q • V) R V a c d E s iI Y Q .F► r Q KUNZMAN AssocIAI ES,INC. 4/8/2016 Packet Pg. 870 Generated with `• Waterman Industrial Center Version 4.00-00 Scenario 1: 1:PME Intersection Level Of Service Report Intersection 1:E Street(NS)at Orange Show Road(EW) Control Type: Signalized Delay(sec/veh): 26.1 Analysis Method: HCM 2010 Level Of Service: C Analysis Period: 15 minutes Volume to Capacity(v/c): 0.710 Intersection Setup Name E Street E Street Orange Show Rd Orange Show Rd Approach Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Lane Configuration -1 01 1 � -1-11 i t "1'111 r -1-111 r Turning Movement Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Lane Width[ft] 12.00 1 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 No.of Lanes in Pocket 2 0 2 1 2 1 2 1 Pocket Length[ft] 189.00 134.00 217.00 147.00 165.00 103.00 C Speed[mph] 40.00 40.00 40.00 40.00 LO T" Grade[%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Q Crosswalk Yes Yes Yes Yes 0 LO volumes 00 Name E Street E Street Orange Show Rd Orange Show Rd d Base Volume Input[veh/h] 4.577 288 128 145 157 258 120 893 299 143 776 42 O Base Volume Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 d Heavy Vehicles Percentage[%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 IX Growth Rate 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 t�0 In-Process Volume[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 U Site-Generated Trips[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 d Diverted Trips[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 d' w Pass-by Trips[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Q Existing Site Adjustment Volume[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 E Other Volume[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Right-Turn on Red Volume[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 Q Total Hourly Volume[veh/h] 457 288 128 145 157 258 120 893 299 143 776 42 Peak Hour Factor 0.9275 0.9275 0.9275 0.9275 0.9275 0.9275 0.9275 0.9275 0.9275 0.9275 0.9275 0.9275 O E Other Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Total 15-Minute Volume[veh/h] 123 78 35 39 42 70 32 241 81 1 39 209 11 Total Analysis Volume[veh/h] 493 311 138 156 169 278 129 963 322 1 154 837 45 Q Presence of On-Street Parking No No No No No No No No On-Street Parking Maneuver Rate[/h] I - Local Bus Stopping Rate[/h] 0 0 0 0 Pedestrian Volume[ped/h] 0 0 0 0 Bicycle Volume[bicycles/h] 0 0 0 0 KUNZMAN/ASSOCIATES,INC. 4/8/2016 Packet Pg. 871 6.B.h Generated with T Waterman Industrial Center Version 4.00-00 Scenario 1: 1:PME Intersection Settings Located in CBD No Signal Coordination Group Cycle Length[s] 65 Coordination Type Time of Day Pattern Isolated Actuation Type Fully actuated Offset[s] 0.0 Offset Reference LeadGreen Permissive Mode SingleBand Lost time[s] 8.00 Phasing&Timing Control Type Protecte Permiss Permiss Protecte Permiss Permiss Protecte Permiss Permiss Protecte Permiss Permiss Signal group 5 2 1 6 3 8 7 4 0 Auxiliary Signal Groups r Lead/Lag Lead Lead Lead Lead N CL Minimum Green[s] 57 5 ui 5 1 5 1 5 5 5 5 (7 Maximum Green[s] 30 30 0 30 30 30 30 0 30 30 0 10 00 Amber[s] 3.0 3.0 0.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 0.0 3.0 3.0 0.0 'IT Allred[s] 1.0 1.0 o.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 Split[s] 14 24 9 19 0 13 23 9 19 0 OQ Vehicle Extension[s] 3.0 3.0 01,0 3.0 3.0 1 10 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 0.0 N Walk[s] 5 u 5 0 5 5 0 ZI-.: 1 10 0 10 0 10 0 10 0 Pedestrian Clearance[s] fq 11,Start-Up Lost Time[s] 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 0.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 0,0 U a 12,Clearance Lost Time[s] 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 0 20T 2.0 2.0 2.0 0.0 ' Minimum Recall No No No No No No No No Maximum Recall No No No No No No No No tv Pedestrian Recall No No No No No No No No V M Detector Location[ft] u.0 0 A Q Detector Length[ft] 0 j.0 1,Upstream Filtering Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Q1 E Exclusive Pedestrian Phase z U Pedestrian Signal Group 0 +M, Pedestrian Walk[s] 0 Q Pedestrian Clearance[s] 0 KUNZMAN ASSOCIATES,INC. 4/8/2016 Packet Pg. 872 6.B.h Generated with '® Waterman Industrial Center Version 4.00-00 Scenario 1: 1:PME Lane Group Calculations Lane Group L I C C L C R L I C R L C R L,Total Lost Time per Cycle[s] 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 11p,Permitted Start-Up Lost Time[s] 12,Clearance Lost Time[s] 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 g_i,Effective Green Time[s] 10 21 21 5 15 15 5 19 19 5 19 1 19 g/C,Green/Cycle 0.15 1 0.32 0.32 0.07 0.24 0.24 0.07 0.29 0.29 0.07 0.29 0.29 (v/s)_i Volume/Saturation Flow Rate 0.14 0.12 0.12 0.04 0.05 0.17 0.04 0.27 0.20 0.04 0.23 0.03 s,saturation flow rate[veh/h] 3514 1900 1705 3514 3618 1615 3514 3618 1615 3514 3618 1615 c,Capacity[veh/h] 541 605 543 256 859 383 246 1050 469 255 1059 473 d1,Uniform Delay[s] 27.09 17.25 17.25 29.27 19.85 22.85 29.22 22.34 20.48 29.27 21.17 16.74 k,delay calibration 0.11 0.50 0.50 0.11 0.50 0.50 0.11 0.11 0.19 0.11 0.11 0.11 1,Upstream Filtering Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 N d2,Incremental Delay[s] 6.36 1.89 2.11 2.35 0.51 11.34 1.74 3.75 3.22 2.29 1.36 0.09 LO d3,Initial Queue Delay[s] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 `- Rp,platoon ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Q- C? PF,progression factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 LO 00 Lane Group Results X,volume/capacity 0.91 0.39 0.39 0.61 0.20 0.72 0.53 0.92 0.69 0.60 0.79 0.10 d,Delay for Lane Group[s/veh] 33.44 19.15 19.36 31.62 20.36 34.19 30.96 26.09 23.69 31.56 22.53 16.82 OQ Lane Group LOS C B B C C C C C C C C B Critical Lane Group Yes No No No No Yes No Yes No Yes No No t0 50th-Percentile Queue Length[veh] 3.90 2.75 2.50 1.18 0.99 4.72 0.96 6.75 4.22 1.16 5.33 0.45 50th-Percentile Queue Length[ft] 97.58 68.73 62.48 29.46 24.71 118.00 24.03 168.87 105.59 29.05 133.14 11.18 V a 95th-Percentile Queue Length[veh] 7.03 4.95 4.50 2.12 1.78 8.28 1.73 11.02 7.59 2.09 9.11 0.80 - 95th-Percentile Queue Length[ft] 175.64 123.71 112.46 53.04 44.48 207.08 43.25 F275,42 189.86 52.29 227.76 20.12 d E v ca a U R a KuNzmAN AssoclATES,INC. 4/8/2016 Packet Pg. 873 Generated with Waterman Industrial Center Version 4.00-00 Scenario 1: 1:PME Movement,Approach,&Intersection Results d_M,Delay for Movement[s/veh] 33.44 19.20 19.36 31.62 20.36 34.19 30.96 26.09 1 23.69 31.56 22.53 16.82 Movement LOS C B B C C C C C C C C B d_A,Approach Delay[s/veh] 26.68 29.65 25.99 23.63 Approach LOS C C C C d_I,Intersection Delay[s/veh] 26.09 Intersection LOS C Intersection V/C 0.710 Sequence Ring 1 1 2 3 4 - - - - - - - - - - - Ring 2 5 6 7 8 - - - - - - - - - - - - N Ring 3 - - - - Ring4 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - r- LO 0 V v -■ Q- d Cn U a c m E s v co r Q c m E s .r Q KUNZMAN ASSOCIATES,INC. 4/8/2016 Packet Pg. 874 6.B.h Generated with Waterman Industrial Center Version 4.00-00 Scenario 1: 1:PME Intersection Level Of Service Report Intersection 2:Washington Ave(NS)at Orange Show Rd(EW) Control Type: Signalized Delay(sec/veh): 17.1 Analysis Method: HCM 2010 Level Of Service: B Analysis Period: 15 minutes Volume to Capacity(v/c): 0.386 Intersection Setup Name Washington Ave Washington Ave Orange Show Rd Orange Show Rd Approach Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Lane Configuration I r r -1 -111 r'4 Turning Movement Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left I Thru I Right Lane Width[ft] 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 No.of Lanes in Pocket 0 } 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 Pocket Length[ft] 1O0,OO 100.00 1�: 1t�C)-00 100.00 100.0(; 157.00 166.00 100.00 NR Speed[mph] 30.00 30.00 40.00 40.00 u9 r Grade[%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 D. Crosswalk Yes Yes Yes Yes 0 Lo volumes 00 Name Washington Ave Washington Ave Orange Show Rd Orange Show Rd d Base Volume Input[veh/h] 2 2 1 4 0 11 29 1120 12 6 934 15 '[r O Base Volume Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 N Heavy Vehicles Percentage[%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Growth Rate 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 t�YO In-Process Volume[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 U Site-Generated Trips[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 d Diverted Trips[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 q Pass-by Trips[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Existing Site Adjustment Volume[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Other Volume[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 v Right-Turn on Red Volume[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 Q Total Hourly Volume[veh/h] 2 2 1 4 0 11 29 1120 12 6 934 15 Peak Hour Factor 0.9174 0.9174 0.9174 0.9174 0.9174 0.9174 0.9174 0.9174 0.9174 0.9174 0.9174 0.9174 0 Other Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 v CU Total 15-Minute Volume[veh/h] 1 1 0 1 0 3 8 305 3 2 255 4 Total Analysis Volume[veh/h] 2 2 1 4 0 12 32 1221 13 7 1018 16 Q Presence of On-Street Parking No No No No No No No No On-Street Parking Maneuver Rate[/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 Local Bus Stopping Rate[/h] J 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Pedestrian Volume[ped/h] 0 0 0 0 Bicycle Volume[bicycles/hl 0 0 0 0 KuNzmAN ASSOCIATES,INC. 4/8/2016 Packet Pg. 875 6.B.h Generated with Waterman Industrial Center °��� �" Version 4.00-00 Scenario 1: 1:PME Intersection Settings Located in CBD No Signal Coordination Group Cycle Length[s] 60 Coordination Type Time of Day Pattern Isolated Actuation Type Fully actuated Offset[s] 0.0 Offset Reference LeadGreen Permissive Mode SingleBand Lost time[s] 6.00 Phasing&Timing Control Type Permiss Permiss Permiss Permiss Permiss Permiss Protecte Permiss Permiss Protecte Permiss Permiss Signal group 2 6 3 8 7 4 C Auxiliary Signal Groups � Lead/Lag Lead Lead M Minimum Green[s] 5 0 5 5 5 0 5 5 C9 Maximum Green[s] 30 0 30 30 30 0 30 30 0 u-, 00 Amber[s] 0.0 3.0 10 0.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 0.0 3.0 3.0 0.0 All red[s] 10 1.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 10 1.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 Split[s] 0 19 o 0 19 0 9 32 9 32 O. Vehicle Extension[s] 0 3.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 0.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 0.0 � Walk[s] 0 5 0 0 5 0 5 M22 0 Pedestrian Clearance[s] 0 10 0 10 0 0 10 v 0 11,Start-Up Lost Time[s] v.0 2.0 0.0 2.0 G.ir 2.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 V a 12,Clearance Lost Time[s] 2.0 E.9 2.0 2.0 2.0 0 0.0 ' d' Minimum Recall No No No No Maximum Recall No No No No d Pedestrian Recall No No No No Detector Location[ft] 0.0 Detector Length[ft] 0,0 y,; I,Upstream Filtering Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 N E Exclusive Pedestrian Phase U r6 Pedestrian Signal Group 0 Q Pedestrian Walk[s] 0 Pedestrian Clearance[s] 0 KUNZMAN AssocrATES,INC. 4/8/2016 Packet Pg. 876 6.B.h Generated with OW Waterman Industrial Center Version 4.00-00 Scenario 1: 1: PME Lane Group Calculations Lane Group C R C R L C R L C R L,Total Lost Time per Cycle[s] 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 11_p,Permitted Start-Up Lost Time[s] 2.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 12,Clearance Lost Time[s] 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00 2.00 2.00 0.00 1 2.00 2.00 g_i,Effective Green Time[s] 23 23 23 23 29 24 24 29 23 23 g/C,Green/Cycle 0.39 0.39 0.39 0.39 0.48 0.40 0.40 0.48 0.38 0.38 (v/s)_i Volume/Saturation Flow Rate 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.04 0.34 1 0.01 0.01 0.28 0.01 s,saturation flow rate[veh/h] 775 1615 540 1615 744 3618 1615 589 3618 1615 c,Capacity[veh/h] 389 624 328 624 395 1457 650 318 1365 609 d1, Uniform Delay[s] 12.66 11.32 22.04 11.40 10.31 16.20 10.82 11.14 16.23 11.78 k,delay calibration 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 I,Upstream Filtering Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 cV d2,Incremental Delay[s] 0.05 0.00 0.07 0.06 0.09 1.36 0.01 0.03 0.83 0.02 d3,Initial Queue Delay[s] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 t4 Rp,platoon ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 M 0 PF,progression factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 LO 00 Lane Group Results Itt et X,volume/capacity 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.08 0.84 0.02 0.02 0.75 0.03 d,Delay for Lane Group[s/veh] 12.71 11.33 22.11 11.46 10.39 17.56 10.83 11.16 17.07 11.80 Q Lane Group LOS B B C B B B B B B B Critical Lane Group _ No tt: c0 50th-Percentile Queue Length[veh] 0.03 0.01 0.05 0.10 0.18 6.39 0.09 0.04 5.16 0.12 50th-Percentile Queue Length[ft] 0.87 0.20 1.29 2.46 4.60 159.71 2.23 1.00 128.91 2.92 a 95th-Percentile Queue Length[veh] 0.06 0.01 0.09 0.18 0.33 10.53 0.16 0.07 1 8.88 FO.21 ' d' 95th-Percentile Queue Length[ft] 1.56 0.37 2.33 4.43 8.28 263.34 4.01 1.80 222.02 5.26 0) E S U f0 r a r U t6 a+ Q KUNzm,\N ASSOQATES,INC. 4/8/2016 Packet Pg. 877 ,6B.h Generated with Waterman Industrial Center Version 4.00-00 Scenario 1: 1:PME Movement,Approach,&Intersection Results d_M,Delay for Movement[s/veh] 12.71 12.71 11.33 22.11 11.46 10.39 17.56 10.83 11.16 17.07 11.80 22.11 Movement LOS B B B C C B B F B B B B B d_A,Approach Delay[s/veh] 12.43 14.12 17.31 16.94 Approach LOS B B B B d_I,Intersection Delay[s/veh] 17.11 Intersection LOS B Intersection V/C 0.386 Sequence Ring 1 2 3 4 = _ = = = Ring 2 6 7 8 N Ring 3 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - uo,> Ring 4 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - CL 00 . et 0 CL U a c a� E s v ca a a KIWZMAN AssocIATES,INC. 4/8/2016 Packet Pg. 878 6.B.h Generated with =Z= Waterman Industrial Center Version 4.00-00 Scenario 1: 1:PME Intersection Level Of Service Report Intersection 5:Waterman Ave(NS)at Orange Show Rd(EW) Control Type: Signalized Delay(sec/veh): 26.1 Analysis Method: HCM 2010 Level Of Service: C Analysis Period: 15 minutes Volume to Capacity(v/c): 0.717 Intersection Setup Name Waterman Ave Waterman Ave Orange Show Rd Orange Show Rd Approach Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Lane Configuration '111 r ol i 1 r 1 i l r "111 r Turning Movement Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Lane Width[ft] 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 No.of Lanes in Pocket 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 Pocket Length[ft] 298.00 275.00 248.00 258.00 �:i c Speed[mph] 50.00 50.00 40.00 40.00 u1 Grade[%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Q Crosswalk Yes Yes Yes Yes C7 LO volumes 00 Name Waterman Ave Waterman Ave Orange Show Rd Orange Show Rd d Base Volume Input[veh/h] 188 549 110 99 692 91 126 746 209 156 679 85 t O Base Volume Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 d Heavy Vehicles Percentage[%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Growth Rate 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 cY0 Cn In-Process Volume[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 U Site-Generated Trips[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a Diverted Trips[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Pass-by Trips[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 tv Existing Site Adjustment Volume[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 E Other Volume[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Right-Turn on Red Volume[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 Q Total Hourly Volume[veh/h] 188 549 110 99 692 91 126 746 209 156 679 85 C Peak Hour Factor 0.9468 0.9468 0.9468 0.9468 0.9468 0.9468 0.9468 0.9468 0.9468 0.9468 1 0.9468 0.9468 N E Other Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 s U Total 15-Minute Volume[veh/h] 50 145 29 26 183 24 33 197 55 41 179 22 Total Analysis Volume[veh/h] 199 580 116 105 731 96 133 788 221 165 717 90 Q Presence of On-Street Parking No No No No No No No No On-Street Parking Maneuver Rate[/h] Local Bus Stopping Rate[/h] 0 0 0 0 Pedestrian Volume[ped/h] 0 0 0 0 Bicycle Volume[bicycles/h] 0 0 0 0 KUNZMAN AssocIATES,INC.. 4/8/2016 Packet Pg. 879 6.B.h Generated with a � � Waterman Industrial Center Version 4.00-00 Scenario 1: 1:PME Intersection Settings Located in CBD No Signal Coordination Group Cycle Length[s] 60 Coordination Type Time of Day Pattern Isolated Actuation Type Fully actuated Offset[s] 0.0 Offset Reference LeadGreen Permissive Mode SingleBand Lost time[s] 8.00 Phasing 8.Timing Control Type Protecte Permiss Permiss Protecte Permiss Permiss Protecte Permiss Permiss Protecte Permiss Permiss Signal group 5 2 1 6 3 8 7 4 Auxiliary Signal Groups r Lead/Lag Lead Lead - Lead Lead Q Minimum Green[s] 5 5 5 5 0 5 5 tl 5 5 6 Maximum Green[s] 30 30 30 30 0 30 30 0 30 30 LO 00 Amber[s] 3.0 3.0 0 3.0 3.0 :.0 3.0 3.0 0.0 3.0 3.0 J.0 Allred[s] 1.0 1.0 v.0 1.0 1.0 ).0 1.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 Split[s] 12 19 0 12 19 10 19 10 19 0 0 Vehicle Extension[s] 3.0 3.0 0.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 u.0 3.0 3.0 0.0 0 Walk[s] 5 0 5 0 5 0 5 0 - Pedestrian Clearance[s] 10 0 10 0 10 0 10 0 11,Start-Up Lost Time[s] 2.0 2.0 10 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 0.0 U a 12,Clearance Lost Time[s] 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 0.0 ' C Minimum Recall No No No No No No No No Maximum Recall No No No7 No No No No No E Pedestrian Recall No No No No No No No No N Detector Location[ft] 0.0 +� a Detector Length[ft] 0.0 " I,Upstream Filtering Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 d Exclusive Pedestrian Phase U Pedestrian Signal Group 0 V Pedestrian Walk[s] 0 Q Pedestrian Clearance[s] 0 KuNZUA,N AssocIATES,INC. 4/8/2016 Packet Pg. 880 6.B.h Generated with Waterman Industrial Center Version 4.00-00 Scenario 1: 1:PME Lane Group Calculations Lane Group L C R L C R L C R L C R L,Total Lost Time per Cycle[s] 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 11p,Permitted Start-Up Lost Time[s] 12,Clearance Lost Time[s] 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 g_i,Effective Green Time[s] 8 19 19 5 15 15 6 15 15 6 15 15 g/C,Green/Cycle 0.13 0.31 0.31 0.08 0.25 0.25 0.09 0.25 0.25 0.10 0.25 0.25 (v/s)_i Volume/Saturation Flow Rate 0.11 0.16 0.07 0.06 0.20 0.06 0.07 0.22 0.14 0.09 0.20 0.06 s,saturation flow rate[veh/h] 1810 3618 1615 1810 3618 1615 1810 3618 1615 1810 3618 1615 c,Capacity[veh/h] 242 1133 506 138 925 413 171 884 395 181 904 404 d1,Uniform Delay[s] 25.34 16.88 15.27 27.22 20.86 17.70 26.58 21.93 19.87 26.76 21.07 17.89 k,delay calibration 0.23 0.50 0.50 0.11 0.50 0.50 0.15 0.11 0.11 0.25 0.11 0.11 I,Upstream Filtering Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 cv d2,Incremental Delay[s] 13.86 1.66 1.06 8.45 6.85 1.32 9.94 3.39 1.25 29.30 1.62 0.28 0 LO d3,Initial Queue Delay[s] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Rp,platoon ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Q' PF,progression factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 u) 00 Lane Group Results X,volume/capacity 0.82 0.51 0.23 0.76 ji 0.79 1 0.23 0.78 0.89 0.56 0.91 0.79 0.22 d,Delay for Lane Group[s/veh] 39.20 18.54 16.33 35.67 27.71 19.01 36.52 25.32 21.12 56.06 22.69 18.17 Q Lane Group LOS D B B D C B D C C E C B 40 Critical Lane Group Yes No No No Yes No No Yes No Yes No No cC 50th-Percentile Queue Length[veh] 3.31 2.91 1.11 1.62 4.84 1.03 2.16 1 5.07 2.50 3.60 4.29 0.90 50th-Percentile Queue Length[ft] 82.83 72.77 27.69 40.46 120.92 25.82 54.05 126.85 62.61 89.89 107.34 22.57 U a 95th-Percentile Queue Length[veh] 5.96 5.24 1.99 2.91 1 8.44 1 1.86 3.89 8.77 4.51 6.47 7.69 1.63 95th-Percentile Queue Length[ft] 149.10 130.99 49.84 72.83 211.09 46.47 97.29 219.21 112.70 161.80 192.30 40.63 = d E t U t0 ar a E U Q KLINZMAN ASSOCIATES,INC. 4/8/2016 Packet Pg. 881 Generated with = Waterman Industrial Center Version 4.00-00 Scenario 1: 1:PME Movement,Approach,&Intersection Results d_M,Delay for Movement[s/veh] 39.20 18.54 16.33 35.67 27.71 19.01 36.52 25.32 21.12 56.06 22.69 18.17 Movement LOS D I B B D C B D C C E C B d_A,Approach Delay[s/veh] 22.84 27.71 25.81 27.93 Approach LOS C C C C d I,Intersection Delay[s/veh] 26.11 Intersection LOS C Intersection V/C 0.717 Sequence Ring 1 1 2 3 4 - - - - - - - - - - - Ring 2 5 6 7 8 - - - - - - - - - - - - N Ring 3 - - - - - - - Ring 4 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - LO CL LO cv III C9 k �I 00 O CL 3. N V/ U a v Y c a� E �v Y a U Y Y • KUNzm,%N AssoCIATES,INC. 4/8/2016 Packet Pg. 882 Generated with 'o Waterman Industrial Center Version 4.00-00 Scenario 1: 1:PME Intersection Level Of Service Report Intersection 6:Waterman Ave(NS)at Dumas St(EW) Control Type: Two-way stop Delay(sec/veh): 20.8 Analysis Method: HCM 2010 Level Of Service: C Analysis Period: 15 minutes Volume to Capacity(v/c): 0.021 Intersection Setup Name Waterman Ave Waterman Ave Dumas St Approach Northbound Southbound Eastbound Lane Configuration -I I I 1 1 h r 1 Turning Movement Left Thru Thru Right Left Right Lane Width[ft] 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 No.of Lanes in Pocket 1 0 0 0 Pocket Length[ft] 111.00 0 Speed[mph] 50.00 50.00 30.00 Ln r Grade[%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 Q Crosswalk No No No U' rn volumes 00 Name Waterman Ave Waterman Ave Dumas St ; Base Volume Input[veh/h] 2 869 1085 5 5 7 O Base Volume Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 M Heavy Vehicles Percentage[%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 kw - U) Growth Rate 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 In-Process Volume[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 U Site-Generated Trips[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 d Diverted Trips[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 It Pass-by Trips[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 d Existing Site Adjustment Volume[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 = Other Volume[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total Hourly Volume[veh/h] 2 869 1085 5 5 7 Q Peak Hour Factor 0.9233 0.9233 0.9233 0.9233 0.9233 0.9233 Other Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 E Total 15-Minute Volume[veh/h] 1 235 294 1 1 2 v Total Analysis Volume[veh/h] 2 941 1175 5 5 8 w Q Pedestrian Volume[ped/h] i KIINZMAN AssociATES,L.C. 4/8/2016 Packet Pg. 883 6.B.h Generated with W 'O Waterman Industrial Center Version 4.00-00 Scenario 1: 1:PME Intersection Settings Priority Scheme Free Free Stop Flared Lane No Storage Area[veh] Two-Stage Gap Acceptance Yes Number of Storage Spaces in Median 2 Movement,Approach,&Intersection Results V/C,Movement V/C Ratio 0.00 'E 0.02 0.02 d_M,Delay for Movement[s/veh] 11.03 20.84 13.30 Movement LOS B A A A C B 95th-Percentile Queue Length[veh] 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.12 0.12 95th-Percentile Queue Length IN 0.25 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.03 3.03 d_A,Approach Delay[s/veh] 0.02 0.00 16.20 0 Approach LOS A A C T d_I,Intersection Delay[s/veh] 0.11 a Intersection LOS C co d' O Q. d c4 N V d C N E U ca .r a r E U f6 Y Q KuNZUnu AssocIA ES,INC. 4/8/2016 Packet Pg. 884 6.B.h Generated with Waterman Industrial Center Version 4.00-00 Scenario 1: 1:PME Intersection Level Of Service Report Intersection 7:Waterman Ave(NS)at Park Center Circle North(EW) Control Type: Two-way stop Delay(sec/veh): 19.0 Analysis Method: HCM 2010 Level Of Service: C Analysis Period: 15 minutes Volume to Capacity(v/c): 0.034 Intersection Setup Name Waterman Ave Waterman Ave Park Center Circle N Approach Northbound Southbound Westbound Lane Configuration i i r -111 1 r Turning Movement Thru Right Left Thru Left Right Lane Width[ft] 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 No.of Lanes in Pocket 0 1 0 0 cV Pocket Length[ft] 215.00 Speed[mph] 50.00 50.00 30.00 u7 Grade[%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 Q. Crosswalk No No No C7 u7 volumes o Name Waterman Ave Waterman Ave Park Center Circle N d Base Volume Input[veh/h] 717 2 9 1151 8 63 0 O Base Volume Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 d Heavy Vehicles Percentage[%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Growth Rate 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 t'�C In-Process Volume[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 V Site-Generated Trips[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 d Diverted Trips[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 qq Pass-by Trips[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 Existing Site Adjustment Volume[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 Other Volume[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total Hourly Volume[veh/h] 717 2 9 1151 8 63 Q Peak Hour Factor 0.9342 0.9342 0.9342 0.9342 0.9342 0.9342 Other Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 d E Total 15-Minute Volume[veh/h] 192 1 2 308 2 17 v Total Analysis Volume[veh/h] 768 2 10 1232 9 67 r Pedestrian Volume[ped/h] - a KIINZMAN AssociATES,INC. 4/8/2016 Packet Pg. 885 6.B.h Generated with = `= Waterman Industrial Center Version 4.00-00 Scenario 1: 1:PME Intersection Settings Priority Scheme Free Free Stop Flared Lane Storage Area[veh] Two-Stage Gap Acceptance Yes Number of Storage Spaces in Median 1 Movement,Approach,&Intersection Results V/C,Movement V/C Ratio - ? 0.01 0.03 0.11 d_M,Delay for Movement[s/veh) 9.27 19.04 11.51 Movement LOS A A A A C B 95th-Percentile Queue Length[veh] 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.10 0.36 95th-Percentile Queue Length[ft] 0.00 0.00 0.89 0.00 2.62 9.04 d_A,Approach Delay[s/veh] 0.00 0.07 12.40 0 Approach LOS A A B T_ T_ d_I,Intersection Delay[s/veh] 0.50 Q Intersection LOS C LO co d' .r i O tZ d • U) M U a c E U fd .o-. w Q Y V V d+ Q KlWZh4AN Assoc RTES,INC. 4/8/2016 Packet Pg. 886 6.B.h Generated with ° m Waterman Industrial Center Version 4.00-00 Scenario 1: 1: PM Intersection Level Of Service Report Intersection 8:Waterman Ave(NS)at Park Center Circle South(EW) Control Type: Signalized Delay(sec/veh): 8.9 Analysis Method: HCM 2010 Level Of Service: A Analysis Period: 15 minutes Volume to Capacity(v/c): 0.487 Intersection Setup Name Waterman Ave Waterman Ave Park Center Circle South Park Center Circle South Approach Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Lane Configuration -111 r "1 i I r 41 r "i r Turning Movement Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Lane Width[ft] 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.0 12.00 No.of Lanes in Pocket 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 Pocket Length[ft] T !0.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100' ' 0 9 Speed[mph] 50.00 50.00 30.00 30.00 rri r ' Grade[%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Q Crosswalk No Yes Yes Yes U volumes 00 d' Name Waterman Ave Waterman Ave Park Center Circle South Park Center Circle South d Base Volume Input[veh/h] 9 693 17 6 1087 7 1 10 170 6 25 O Base Volume Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 €.0000 1.0000 d Heavy Vehicles Percentage[%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0111 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Ix v- Growth Rate 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.c I 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 M In-Process Volume[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 U Site-Generated Trips[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 tl Diverted Trips[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 S Pass-by Trips[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CD Existing Site Adjustment Volume[veh/h] 0 I 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 G 0 E t Other Volume[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 �+ Right-Turn on Red Volume[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 Q Total Hourly Volume[veh/h] 9 693 17 6 1087 7 1 0 10 170 0 25 Peak Hour Factor 0.9583 0.9583 0.9583 0.9583 0.9583 0.9583 0.9583 :.9583 0.9583 0.9583 ).9583 0.9583 O Other Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 0000 1.0000 1.0000 i,0000 1.0000 v Total 15-Minute Volume[veh/h] 2 181 4 2 284 2 0 3 44 7 Total Analysis Volume[veh/h] 9 723 18 6 1134 7 1 10 177 26 Q Presence of On-Street Parking No No No No No No No No On-Street Parking Maneuver Rate[/h] 0 0 0 0 6 Local Bus Stopping Rate[/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 i 0 Pedestrian Volume[ped/h] 0 0 0 0 Bicycle Volume[bicycles/h] 0 0 0 0 KUNZMAN ASSOCIATES,INC. 4/8/2016 Packet Pg. 887 6.B.h Generated with amv Waterman Industrial Center x Version 4.00-00 Scenario 1: 1:PME Intersection Settings Located in CBD No Signal Coordination Group Cycle Length[s] 60 Coordination Type Time of Day Pattern Isolated Actuation Type Fully actuated Offset[s] 0.0 Offset Reference LeadGreen Permissive Mode SingleBand Lost time[s] 6.00 Phasing&Timing Control Type Protecte Permiss Permiss Protecte Permiss Permiss Permiss Permiss Permiss Permiss Permiss Signal group 5 2 1 6 3 7 0 0 C4 Auxiliary Signal Groups r Lead/Lag Lead Lead Lead Lead D. Minimum Green[s] 5 5 5 5 u 5 0 0 5 U Maximum Green[s] 30 30 30 30 0 30 0 0 30 0 0 co Ambers] 30T 3.0 0.0 3.0 3.0 0.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 All red[s] 1.0 1 1.0 o.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 Split[s] 9 19 9 19 32 0 32 Q. Vehicle Extension[s] 3.0 3.0 D.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 0.0 4) Walk[s] U J u 5 5 0 0 5 0 z Pedestrian Clearance[s] 4 10 0 10 10 0 0 10 v 0 11,Start-Up Lost Time[s] 2.0 1 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 O.0 0.0 U a 12,Clearance Lost Time[s] 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 0.0 o 0 2.0 0 r 0.0 ' cf Minimum Recall No No No No No No Maximum Recall No No No No No No Pedestrian Recall N. T No No No No No V co Detector Location[ft] <i.0 70 0.{3 O.0 Detector Length[ft] Q.0 0.0 o,C, Q 1, Upstream Filtering Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 (D E Exclusive Pedestrian Phase U Pedestrian Signal Group 0 Pedestrian Walk[s] 0 Q Pedestrian Clearance[s] 0 • KuNZMAN ASSOCIATES,INC. 4/8/2016 Packet Pg. 888 6.B.h Generated with =z= Waterman Industrial Center Version 4.00-00 Scenario 1: 1:PME Lane Group Calculations Lane Group L I C R L C R L R L R L,Total Lost Time per Cycle[s] 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 11_p,Permitted Start-Up Lost Time[s] 0.00 0.00 2.00 2.00 12,Clearance Lost Time[s] 000 2.00 2.00 0.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 g_i,Effective Green Time[s] 41 36 36 41 36 36 11 11 11 11 g/C,Green/Cycle 0.68 0.60 0.60 0.68 0.60 0.60 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 (v/s)_i Volume/Saturation Flow Rate 0.02 0.20 0.01 0.01 0.31 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.12 0.02 s,saturation flow rate[veh/h] 591 3618 1615 807 3618 1615 1440 1615 1440 1615 c,Capacity[veh/h] 493 2193 979 660 T2179 973 335 300 335 300 d1,Uniform Delay[s] 4.03 5.82 4.71 3.33 6.91 4.77 21.73 20.04 24.76 20.24 k,delay calibration 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.11 0.50 0.50 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 I,Upstream Filtering Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Cv d2,Incremental Delay[s] 0.07 0.40 0.03 0.01 0.89 0.01 0.00 0.04 1.29 0.12 9 d3,Initial Queue Delay[s] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Rp,platoon ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 CL 0 PF,progression factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 tO 00 Lane Group Results d d' X,volume/capacity 0.02 0.33 0.02 0.01 0.52 0.01 0.00 0.03 0.53 0.09 d,Delay for Lane Group[s/veh] 4.10 6.22 4.74 3.34 7.80 4.78 21.73 20.08 26.05 20.36 Q Lane Group LOS A A A A A A C C C C Critical Lane Group Yes No No No Yes No No No Yes No y" tE 50th-Percentile Queue Length[veh] 0.02 1.38 0.06 0.01 2.63 0.02 0.01 0.11 2.39 0.29 � 50th-Percentile Queue Length[ft] 0.58 34.62 1.51 0.26 65.70 0.59 0.29 2.78 59.87 7.31 d 95th-Percentile Queue Length[veh] 0.04 2.49 0.11 0.02 4.73 0.04 0.02 0.20 4.31 0.53 95th-Percentile Queue Length[ft] 1.05 62.32 2.71 0.46 118.26 1.07 0.52 5.00 107.77 13.15 d E U fQ y Q C E 0 L U fLf Q KUNZMAN ASSOCIATES,INC. 4/8/2016 Packet Pg. 889 Generated with °• Waterman Industrial Center Version 4.00-00 Scenario 1: 1:PME Movement,Approach,&Intersection Results d_M,Delay for Movement[s/veh] 4.10 6.22 4.74 3.34 7.80 4.78 21.73 20.08 26.05 2036 Movement LOS A A A A A A C C C C d_A,Approach Delay[s/veh] 6.16 7.76 20.23 25.32 Approach LOS A A C C d_I,Intersection Delay[s/veh] 8.95 Intersection LOS A Intersection V/C 0.487 Sequence Ring 1 1 2 3 - - - - - - - - - - - Ring 2 5 6 7 - - - - - - - - - - - N Ring 3 - - - - Ring 4 - a 0 ao v 0 m 0 C U a. c a> E t v ca Q c m E t U N r Q KUNZMAN AssoCIATES,INC. 4/8/2016 Packet Pg. 890 6.B.h Generated with Waterman Industrial Center Version 4.00-00 Scenario 1: 1: PME Intersection Level Of Service Report Intersection 9:Waterman Ave(NS)at Vanderbilt Way(EW) Control Type: Signalized Delay(sec/veh): 21.0 Analysis Method: HCM 2010 Level Of Service: C Analysis Period: 15 minutes Volume to Capacity(v/c): 0.786 Intersection Setup Name Waterman Ave Waterman Ave Vanderbilt Way Vanderbilt Way Approach Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Lane Configuration -1 r. -I 11 � 1 "11 r '. Turning Movement Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Lane Width[ft] 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 No.of Lanes in Pocket 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Pocket Length[ft] 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100-00 100.00 100.00 100.00 tVC Speed[mph] 50.00 50.00 30.00 30.00 Lr> T" Grade[%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 M Crosswalk No Yes Yes Yes U LO volumes co Name Waterman Ave Waterman Ave Vanderbilt Way Vanderbilt Way �? Base Volume Input[veh/h] 40 510 147 175 1059 13 10 4 15 313 2 229 O Base Volume Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Heavy Vehicles Percentage[%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Growth Rate 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 c�4 In-Process Volume[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 fn U Site-Generated Trips[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 in.- Diverted Trips[veh/h] 0 1 0 0 0 = 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 d' .r Pass-by Trips[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 E d Existing Site Adjustment Volume[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Other Volume[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 M Right-Turn on Red Volume[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 Q Total Hourly Volume[veh/h] 40 1 510 147 175 1059 13 10 4 15 313 2 229 Peak Hour Factor 0.9266 0.9266 0.9266 0.9266 0.9266 0.9266 0.9266 0.9266 0.9266 0.9266 0.9266 0.9266 N Other Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 U Total 15-Minute Volume[veh/h] 11 138 40 47 286 4 3 1 4 84 1 62 Total Analysis Volume[veh/h] 43 550 159 189 1143 14 11 4 16 338 2 247 Q Presence of On-Street Parking No No No No No No No No On-Street Parking Maneuver Rate[/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 Local Bus Stopping Rate[/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Pedestrian Volume[ped/h] 0 0 0 Bicycle Volume[bicycles/h] 0 0 0 0 KUNzmAN ASSOCIATES,INC. 4/8/2016 Packet Pg. 891 6.B.h Generated with 2] Waterman Industrial Center Version 4.00-00 Scenario 1: 1:PME Intersection Settings Located in CBD No Signal Coordination Group Cycle Length[s] 60 Coordination Type Time of Day Pattern Isolated Actuation Type Fully actuated Offset[s] 0.0 Offset Reference LeaclGreen Permissive Mode SingleBand Lost time[s] 6.00 Phasing&Timing Control Type Protecte Permiss Permiss Protecte Permiss Permiss Permiss Permiss Permiss Permiss Permiss Permiss Signal group - 57 2 1 1 6 1 4 0 Auxiliary Signal Groups Lead/Lag Lead Lead Q. Minimum Green[s] 5 5 5 5 0 0 5 0 0 5 0 (� Maximum Green[s] 30 1 30 30 30 0 0 30 0 0 30 0 u7 00 Amber[s] 307 3.0 3.0 3.0 '10 u.0 3.0 0.0 10 3.0 0.0 Allred[s] 1.0 1.0 0 1.0 1.0 0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 Split[s] 9 19 0 17 27 0 24 0 0 24 0 0 Vehicle Extension[s] 3.0 3.0 0.0 3.0 3.0 0 3.0 0.0 O.G 3.0 0.0 Walk[s] 0 0 v 5 0 0 5 0 0 5 0 : Pedestrian Clearance[s] 0 10 0 0 10 0 10 0 10 0 y 11,Start-Up Lost Time[s] - 207 2.0 0.0 2.0 2.0 10 2.0 0.0 2.0 OA d 12,Clearance Lost Time[s] 2.0 2.0 0 2.0 2.0 10 2.0 n n 2.0 0.0 r Minimum Recall No No No No No No +� C Maximum Recall No No No No No No N Pedestrian Recall No No No No No No U l6 ' Detector Location[ft] Q Detector Length[ft] I,Upstream Filtering Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Exclusive Pedestrian Phase U R Pedestrian Signal Group 0 Pedestrian Walk[s] 0 Pedestrian Clearance[s] 0 KIINZMAN ASSOCIATES,INC. 4/8/2016 Packet Pg. 892 Generated with °• Waterman Industrial Center Version 4.00-00 Scenario 1: 1:PME Lane Group Calculations Lane Group L C R L C C C L C R L,Total Lost Time per Cycle[s] 4007 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 11p,Permitted Start-Up Lost Time[s] F 2.00 2.00 2.00 12,Clearance Lost Time[s] 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 g_i,Effective Green Time[s] 3 20 20 8 26 26 20 20 20 20 g/C,Green/Cycle 0.04 0.34 0.34 0.13 0.42 0.42 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 (v/s)_i Volume/Saturation Flow Rate 0.02 0.15 0.10 0.10 0.21 0.21 0.09 0.01 0.45 0.15 s,saturation flow rate[veh/h] 1810 3618 1615 1810 3618 1888 340 1414 710 1615 c,Capacity[veh/h] 81 1219 544 242 1540 804 193 134 354 533 d1,Uniform Delay[s] 28.11 15.59 14.66 25.22 12.56 12.56 15.91 29.85 23.05 15.95 k,delay calibration 0.11 0.50 0.50 0.11 0.507 0.50 0.11 0.11 0.50 0.11 I,Upstream Filtering Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 cV d2,Incremental Delay[s] 5.27 1.21 1.36 5.47 1.13 2.16 0.38 0.50 28.96 0.63 d3,Initial Queue Delay[s] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1 0.00 tC Rp,platoon ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Q- PF,progression factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 LO 00 Lane Group Results dam' X,volume/capacity 0.53 0.45 0.29 0.78 0.49 0.49 0.16 0.15 0.91 0.46 d,Delay for Lane Group[s/veh] 33.39 16.80 16.02 30.69 13.69 14.72 16.29 30.35 52.00 16.57 0 CL Lane Group LOS C B B C B B B C D B Critical Lane Group No Yes No Yes No No No No Yes No N% 50th-Percentile Queue Length[veh] 0.65 2.57 1.49 2.62 3.04 3.40 0.28 0.29 7.26 2.50 N 50th-Percentile Queue Length[ft] 16.37 64.20 37.27 65.55 75.91 84.99 7.04 7.34 181.58 62.62 U a 95th-Percentile Queue Length[veh] 1.18 4.62 2.68 4.72 5.47 6.12 0.51 0.53 11.68 4.51 ' 95th-Percentile Queue Length[ft] 29.46 115.56 67.08 117.99 136.63 152.97 12.67 13.21 292.08 112.72 T = E s U RS r+ a r E R a KLINZMAm Assocl RTES,INC. 4/8/2016 Packet Pg. 893 6.B.h Generated with Waterman Industrial Center Version 4.00-00 Scenario 1: 1:PME Movement,Approach,&Intersection Results d M,Delay for Movement[s/veh] 33.39 16.80 16.02 30.69 1 14.04 1 14.72 16.29 16.29 16.29 50.72 52.00 16.57 Movement LOS C B B C B B B B B D D B d A,Approach Delay[s/veh] 17.58 16.38 16.29 36.36 Approach LOS B B B D d I,Intersection Delay[s/veh] 21.03 Intersection LOS C Intersection V/C 0.786 Sequence Ring 1 1 2 1 4 - - - - - - - - - - - - - Ring 2 5 6 8 - - - - - - - - - - - - - N Ring 3 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - o Ring 4 - - - �I W ki ........i......w.. -...... ,r tea!: L y O CL d • t,/ U a v c Q E U a r E U a KuNZM, AN Assoc IATES,INC. 4/8/2016 Packet Pg. 894 N O LO tC a 0 Lin O d. d' O a O Q' Existing Plus Proigq `° Co U a c a� E s w a m E z R a Packet Pg. 895 4M 6.B.h Generated with Waterman Industrial Center Version 4.00-00 Scenario 1:1:AMEP Intersection Level Of Service Report Intersection 1:E Street(NS)at Orange Show Road(EW) Control Type: Signalized Delay(sec/veh): 22.6 Analysis Method: HCM 2010 Level Of Service: C Analysis Period: 15 minutes Volume to Capacity(v/c): 0.408 Intersection Setup Name E Street E Street Orange Show Rd Orange Show Rd Approach Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Lane Configuration 1"t -i-11 I r '1"111 r '1-111 r Turning Movement Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Lane Width[ft] 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 No.of Lanes in Pocket 2 0 2 1 2 1 2 1 Pocket Length[ft] 300.00 <<' 189.00 134.00 217.00 147.00 165.00 103.00 C Speed[mph] 40.00 40.00 40.00 40.00 e7 Grade[%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Q Crosswalk Yes Yes Yes Yes 0 volumes co d Name E Street E Street Orange Show Rd Orange Show Rd v Base Volume Input[veh/h] 97 88 41 51 124 57 221 832 337 76 396 27 O Base Volume Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 r Heavy Vehicles Percentage[%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Growth Rate 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 In-Process Volume[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 to U Site-Generated Trips[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 tL Diverted Trips[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 d Pass-by Trips[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C Existing Site Adjustment Volume[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 t Other Volume[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Right-Turn on Red Volume[veh/h] 0 0 0 - 0 Q Total Hourly Volume[veh/h] 97 88 41 51 124 57 221 832 337 76 396 27 Peak Hour Factor 0.8860 0.8860 0.8860 0.8860 0.8860 0.8860 0.8860 0.8860 0.8860 0.8860 0.8860 0.8860 d Other Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 t k V Total 15-Minute Volume[veh/h] 27 25 12 14 35 16 62 235 95 21 112 8 Total Analysis Volume[veh/h] 109 99 1 46 58 140 64 249 939 380 86 447 30 Q Presence of On-Street Parking No No No No No No No No On-Street Parking Maneuver Rate[/h] , Local Bus Stopping Rate[/h] 0 0 0 0 Pedestrian Volume[ped/h] 0 0 0 0 Bicycle Volume[bicycles/hl 0 0 0 0 KUNZMAN ASSOCIATES,INC. 4/8/2016 - Packet Pg.896 6.B.h Generated with r«€ Waterman Industrial Center w Version 4.00-00 Scenario 1: 1:AMEP Intersection Settings Located in CBD No Signal Coordination Group Cycle Length[s] 61 Coordination Type Time of Day Pattern Isolated Actuation Type Fully actuated Offset[s] 0.0 F___ __ Offset Reference LeadGreen Permissive Mode SingleBand Lost time[s] 8.00 Phasing&Timing Control Type Protecte Permiss Permiss Protecte Permiss Permiss Protecte Permiss Permiss Protecte Permiss Permiss Signal group 5 2 1 6 3 8 7 4 0 u7 Auxiliary Signal Groups r Lead/Lag Lead Lead Lead Lead M Minimum Green[s] 5 5 5 5 5 5 0 5 5 C9 Maximum Green[s] 30 30 3 30 30 0 30 30 30 30 to 'b Amber[s] 3.0 3.0 0 3.0 3.0 'A 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 0.0 dam' Allred[s] 1.0 1.0 3.0 1.0 1.0 3.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 L Split[s] 9 19 ;) 9 19 13 23 0 9 19 0 0 CL Vehicle Extension[s] 3.0 3.0 !i.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 J.G N2.O 3.0 0.0 Walk[s] v 5 ) 3 5 0 5 5 0 M to Pedestrian Clearance[s] 3 10 3 10 0 0 10 10 0 11,Start-Up Lost Time[s] 2.0 2.0 0 2.0 2.0 0.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 O.G U d 12,Clearance Lost Time[s] 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 0.0 ' It Minimum Recall No No No No No No No No N Maximum Recall No No F No No No No No No E Pedestrian Recall No No No No No No No No C) co Detector Location[ft] .0 Detector Length[ft] 0 it I,Upstream Filtering Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1✓ In Exclusive Pedestrian Phase U f6 Pedestrian Signal Group 0 Pedestrian Walk[s] 0 Q Pedestrian Clearance[s] 0 KUNZMAN ASSOCIATES,INC. 4/8/2016 Packet Pg. 897 6.B.h Generated with ME= Waterman Industrial Center Version 4.00-00 Scenario 1: 1:AMEP Lane Group Calculations Lane Group L C C L C R L I C R L C R L,Total Lost Time per Cycle[s] 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 11_p,Permitted Start-Up Lost Time[s] 12,Clearance Lost Time[s] 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 g_i,Effective Green Time[s] 4 20 20 3 19 19 6 18 18 4 16 16 g/C,Green/Cycle 0.07 0.32 0.32 0.05 0.30 0.30 0.10 0.30 0.30 0.06 0.26 0.26 (v/s)_i Volume/Saturation Flow Rate 0.03 0.04 0.04 0.02 0.04 0.04 0.07 0.26 0.24 0.02 0.12 0.02 s,saturation flow rate[veh/h] 3514 1900 1704 3514 3618 1615 3514 3618 1615 3514 3618 1615 c,Capacity[veh/h] 246 611 548 185 1100 491 366 1086 485 225 941 420 d1,Uniform Delay[s] 27.28 14.65 14.68 27.90 15.41 15.42 26.41 20.22 19.58 27.45 19.10 17.05 k,delay calibration 0.11 0.50 0.50 0.11 0.50 0.50 0.11 0.11 0.23 0.11 0.11 0.11 I,Upstream Filtering Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 cV d2,Incremental Delay[s] 1.25 0.41 0.49 0.96 0.24 0.55 2.23 2.21 5.80 1.06 0.37 0.07 9 d3,Initial Queue Delay[s] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 `- R Rp,platoon ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 "-' 0 PF,progression factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 tr> 00 Lane Group Results d d' X,volume/capacity 0.44 0.12 0.13 0.31 0.13 0.13 0.68 0.86 0.78 0.38 0.48 0.07 d,Delay for Lane Group[s/veh] 28.53 15.05 15.17 28.86 15.65 15.97 28.64 22.43 25.38 28.52 19.47 17.12 Q. Lane Group LOS C B B C B B C C C C B FN 4) IY Critical Lane Group Yes No No No No Yes No Yes No Yes No o `Ilr� 50th-Percentile Queue Length[veh] 0.74 0.70 0.68 0.40 0.65 0.64 1.70 5.73 5.01 1 0.59 2.39 0.29 N 50th-Percentile Queue Length IN 18.57 17.54 16.91 10.01 16.34 15.99 42.60 143.36 125.37 14.66 59.85 7.24 U a 95th-Percentile Queue Length[veh] 1.34 1.26 1.22 0.72 1.18 1.15 3.07 9.66 8.69 1.06 4.31 0.52 ' 95th-Percentile Queue Length[ft] 33.42 31.57 30.44 18.02 29.41 28.78 76.68 241.54 217.18 26.39 107.74 13.03 E t V tE r+ w Q r C V R r� .r Q KIINZMAN AssociATES,INC. 4/8/2016 Packet Pg.898 6.B.h Generated with Waterman Industrial Center Version 4.00-00 Scenario 1:1:AMEP Movement,Approach,&Intersection Results d_M,Delay for Movement[s/veh] 28.53 15.08 15.17 28.86 15.65 15.97 28.64 22.43 25.38 28.52 19.47 17.12 Movement LOS C B B C B B C C C C B B d_A,Approach Delay[s/veh] 20.87 18.65 24.13 20.73 Approach LOS C B C C d I,Intersection Delay[s/veh] 22.55 Intersection LOS C Intersection V/C 0.408 Sequence Ring 1 1 2 3 4 - - - - - - - - - - - - Ring 2 5 6 7 8 - - - - - - - - - - - N Ring 3 - - - - Ring 4 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 00 CL V a C m E t U Q C U E L V R Q KUNZMAN ASSOCIATES,INC. 4/8/2016 Packet Pg. 899 s.Bt Generated with 'r Waterman Industrial Center Version 4.00-00 Scenario 1: 1:AMEP Intersection Level Of Service Report Intersection 2:Washington Ave(NS)at Orange Show Rd(EW) Control Type: Signalized Delay(sec/veh): 19.4 Analysis Method: HCM 2010 Level Of Service: B Analysis Period: 15 minutes Volume to Capacity(v/c): 0.322 Intersection Setup Name Washington Ave Washington Ave Orange Show Rd Orange Show Rd Approach Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Lane Configuration I r y 1 r -111 r i 1 i r Turning Movement Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Lane Width[ft] 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 No.of Lanes in Pocket 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 Pocket Length[ft] 166.00 Vq Speed[mph] 30.00 30.00 40.00 40.00 u7 r Grade[%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Q. Crosswalk Yes Yes Yes Yes Ur LO volumes Name Washington Ave Washington Ave Orange Show Rd Orange Show Rd 7' Base Volume Input[veh/h] 10 4 2 6 2 10 34 855 24 3 385 11 r- O Base Volume Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 r Heavy Vehicles Percentage[%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 IX Growth Rate 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 M In-Process Volume[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 U Site-Generated Trips[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 d Diverted Trips[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 r Pass-by Trips[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 = d Existing Site Adjustment Volume[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 s Other Volume[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Right-Turn on Red Volume[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 Q Total Hourly Volume[veh/h] 10 4 2 6 2 10 34 855 24 3 385 11 Peak Hour Factor 0.8882 0.8882 0.8882 0.8882 0.8882 0.8882 0.8882 0.8882 0.8882 0.8882 0.8882 0.8882 d Other Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1 1.0000 1 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 v Total 15-Minute Volume[veh/h] 3 1 1 2 1 3 10 241 7 1 108 3 Y Total Analysis Volume[veh/h] 11 5 2 7 2 11 38 963 27 3 433 12 Q Presence of On-Street Parking No No No No No No No No On-Street Parking Maneuver Rate[/h] Local Bus Stopping Rate[/h] 0 0 0 0 Pedestrian Volume[ped/h] 0 0 0 0 Bicycle Volume[bicycles/h] 0 0 0 0 KuNZrnnu Associ AI ES,INC. 4/8/2016 Packet Pg. 900 6.B.h Generated with Waterman Industrial Center Version 4.00-00 Scenario 1: 1:AMEP Intersection Settings Located in CBD No Signal Coordination Group Cycle Length[s] 62 Coordination Type Time of Day Pattern Isolated Actuation Type Fully actuated Offset[s] 0.0 Offset Reference LeadGreen Permissive Mode SingleBand Lost time[s] 6.00 Phasing&Timing Control Type Permiss Permiss Permiss Permiss Permiss Permiss Protecte Permiss Permiss Protecte Permiss Permiss Signal group 2 6 3 8 4 0 Auxiliary Signal Groups r Lead/Lag Lead Lead CL Minimum Green[s] 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 (? Maximum Green[s] 0 30 J 30 30 30 v 30 30 0 LO Amber[s] ».0 3.0 X1.0 0,0 3.0 J.0 3.0 3.0 0.0 3.0 3.0 0.0 � All red[s] J.0 1.0 J10 0.0 1.0 J_0 1.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 Split[s] 0 19 0 19 0 9 32 0 9 32 0 Vehicle Extension[s] 0.^u 3.0 .0 0.0 3.0 1C 3.0 3.0 0.0 3.0 3.0 0.0 d IX Walk[s] 0 5 0 0 5 0 0 5 0 5 0 Pedestrian Clearance[s] 0 10 0 0 10 0 0 10 0 10 0 11,Start-Up Lost Time[s] 2.0 )A 0.0 2.0 0.0 2.0 2.0 0.0 2.0 2.0 0.0 d 12,Clearance Lost Time[s] 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 0,0 ' �t Minimum Recall No No No No No No Maximum Recall No No No No No No E Pedestrian Recall No No No No No No U f6 Detector Location[ft] ).0 0.0 Detector Length[ft] ".0 0.0 Q 4.. I,Upstream Filtering Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Exclusive Pedestrian Phase _ U Pedestrian Signal Group 0 4 Pedestrian Walk[s] 0 Q Pedestrian Clearance[s] 0 KIINZMAN AssociAres,INC. 4/8/2016 Packet Pg. 901 Generated with Waterman Industrial Center Version 4.00-00 Scenario 1: 1:AMEP Lane Group Calculations Lane Group C R C R L C R L I C I R L,Total Lost Time per Cycle[s] 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 11p,Permitted Start-Up Lost Time[s] 2.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 12,Clearance Lost Time[s] 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00 2.00 2.00 0.00 2.00 2.00 g_i,Effective Green Time[s] 30 30 30 30 24 20 20 24 18 18 g/C,Green/Cycle 0.48 0.48 0.48 0.48 0.39 0.32 0.32 0.39 0.29 0.29 (v/s)_i Volume/Saturation Flow Rate 0.02 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.03 0.27 0.02 0.00 0.12 0.01 s,saturation flow rate[veh/h] 669 1615 630 1615 1126 3618 1615 710 3618 1615 c,Capacity[veh/h] 417 771 403 771 524 1171 523 308 1045 467 d1,Uniform Delay[s] 10.95 8.51 11.01 8.55 11.96 19.37 14.45 13.33 17.85 15.83 k,delay calibration 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 1,Upstream Filtering Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 N d2,Incremental Delay[s] 0.17 0.01 0.10 0.03 0.06 1.51 0.04 0.01 0.26 0.02 9 d3,Initial Queue Delay[s] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Rp,platoon ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Q PF,progression factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 LO 00 Lane Group Results X,volume/capacity 0.04 0.00 0.02 0.01 0.07 0.82 0.05 0.01 0.41 0.03 1✓ d,Delay for Lane Group[s/veh] 11.12 8.51 11.11 8.59 12.01 20.87 14.49 13.34 18.11 15.85 Q Lane Group LOS B A B A B C B B B B Critical Lane Group Yes No No No No Yes No Yes No No cu 50th-Percentile Queue Length[veh] 0.12 0.01 0.07 0.07 0.29 5.71 0.23 0.02 2.23 0.11 50th-Percentile Queue Length[ft] 2.96 0.34 1.67 1.87 7.13 142.79 5.87 0.56 55.87 2.77 d 95th-Percentile Queue Length[veh] 0.21 0.02 0.12 0.13 0.51 9.63 0.42 0.04 4.02 0.20 95th-Percentile Queue Length[ft] 5.34 0.61 3.00 3.37 12.84 240.78 10.56 1.01 100.56 4.99 0) E U f6 Q da E V fS3 e-+ Q KUNzMAN AssoclATEs,INc. 4/8/2016 Packet Pg.902 Generated with =ME Waterman Industrial Center Version 4.00-00 Scenario 1:1:AMEP Movement,Approach,&Intersection Results d_M,Delay for Movement[s/veh] 11.12 11.12 8.51 11.11 11.11 F 8.59 12.01 20.87 14.49 13.34 18.11 15.85 Movement LOS B B A B B A B C B B B B d_A,Approach Delay[s/veh] 10.83 9.72 20.38 18.02 Approach LOS B A C B d I,Intersection Delay[s/veh] 19.42 Intersection LOS B Intersection V/C 0.322 Sequence Ring 1 2 3 4 - - - - - - - - - - - - - Ring 2 6 7 8 - - - - - - - - - - - - - N Ring 3 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - o Ring 4 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - R r Q USA tE bwk a NIA In Go O CL R U a c d E v c� r a Y :�3 E U iC a+ Q KuNZMAN ASSOCIATES,INC. 4/8/2016 Packet Pg. 903 6.B.h Generated with = Waterman Industrial Center Version 4.00-00 Scenario 1: 1:AMEP Intersection Level Of Service Report Intersection 3:Project West Driveway(NS)at Dumas St(EW) Control Type: Two-way stop Delay(sec/veh): 8.8 Analysis Method: HCM 2010 Level Of Service: A Analysis Period: 15 minutes Volume to Capacity(v/c): 0.004 Intersection Setup Name Project West Driveway Dumas St Dumas Street Approach Northbound Eastbound Westbound Lane Configuration "r I Turning Movement Left Right Thru Right Left Thru Lane Width[ft] 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 No.of Lanes in Pocket 0 0 0 0 Pocket Length[ft] -- C Speed[mph] 30.00 30.00 30.00 r Grade[%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 a Crosswalk No No No U to volumes 00 It Name Project West Driveway Dumas St Dumas Street Base Volume Input[veh/h] 4 1 11 14 8 12 O Base Volume Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 d Heavy Vehicles Percentage[%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Growth Rate 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 In-Process Volume[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 U Site-Generated Trips[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 �- Diverted Trips[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 V a+ Pass-by Trips[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 d Existing Site Adjustment Volume[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 t Other Volume[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 U M Total Hourly Volume[veh/h] 4 1 11 14 8 12 Q Peak Hour Factor 0.9200 0.9200 0.9200 0.9200 0.9200 0.9200 Other Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 d Total 15-Minute Volume[veh/h] 1 0 3 4 2 3 v Total Analysis Volume[veh/h] 4 1 12 15 9 13 Q Pedestrian Volume[ped/h] KUNZMAN ASSocIATES,INC. 4/8/2016 Packet.Pg.904 6.B.h Generated with Waterman Industrial Center Version 4.00-00 Scenario 1: 1:AMEP Intersection Settings Priority Scheme Stop Free Free Flared Lane No Storage Area[veh] Two-Stage Gap Acceptance No Number of Storage Spaces in Median Movement,Approach,&Intersection Results V/C,Movement V/C Ratio 0.00 0.00 0.01 d_M,Delay for Movement[s/veh] 8.78 8.40 7.26 Movement LOS A A A A A A 95th-Percentile Queue Length[veh] 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.04 95th-Percentile Queue Length[ft] 0.39 0.39 0.00 0.00 1.05 1.05 d_A,Approach Delay[s/veh] 8.70 0.00 2.97 NC Approach LOS A A A T d_I,Intersection Delay[s/veh] 2.02 Q. Intersection LOS A 0 oD R' mot' O CL Q' t0 w U D. c d E t v O Q c d E t Q l KUNZMAN ASSOCIATES,INC. 4/8/2016 Packet Pg.905 6.B.h Generated with Waterman Industrial Center Version 4.00-00 Scenario 1: 1:AMEP Intersection Level Of Service Report Intersection 4:Project East DriveWay(NS)at Dumas Street(EW) Control Type: Two-way stop Delay(sec/veh): 8.4 Analysis Method: HCM 2010 Level Of Service: A Analysis Period: 15 minutes Volume to Capacity(v/c): 0.003 Intersection Setup Name Project East DriveWay Dumas Street Dumas St Approach Northbound Eastbound Westbound Lane Configuration r 1 i Turning Movement Left Right Thru Right Left Thru Lane Width[ft] 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 No.of Lanes in Pocket 0 0 Pocket Length[ft] Speed[mph] 30.00 30.00 30.00 LO r Grade[%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 Q. Crosswalk No No No U' LO volumes 00 It Name Project East DriveWay Dumas Street Dumas St Base Volume Input[veh/h] 3 12 18 20 O Base Volume Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 d Heavy Vehicles Percentage[%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Growth Rate 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 R In-Process Volume[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 U Site-Generated Trips[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 G. Diverted Trips[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 d .r Pass-by Trips[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 O d Existing Site Adjustment Volume[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 s Other Volume[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 a.+ Total Hourly Volume[veh/h] 3 12 18 20 Q Peak Hour Factor 0.9200 0.9200 0.9200 0.9200 Other Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 d 5 5 Total 15-Minute Volume[veh/h] 1 3 = U Total Analysis Volume[veh/h] 3 13 20 22 w Q Pedestrian Volume[ped/h] C, KUNZMAN AssocIATES,INC. 4/8/2016 Packet Pg. 906 6.B.h Generated with Waterman Industrial Center Version 4.00-00 Scenario 1: 1:AMEP Intersection Settings Priority Scheme Stop Free Free Flared Lane Storage Area[veh] Two-Stage Gap Acceptance No Number of Storage Spaces in Median Movement,Approach,&Intersection Results V/C,Movement V/C Ratio 0.00 0.01 0i; d M,Delay for Movement[s/veh] 8.36 7.25 �>> Movement LOS A A A A 95th-Percentile Queue Length[veh] 0.01 0.00 0.08 0.08 95th-Percentile Queue Length[ft] 0.21 0.00 100 2.00 d_A,Approach Delay[s/veh] 8.36 0.00 3.45 C14 Approach LOS A A A LO r d_I,Intersection Delay[s/veh] 2.93 D. Intersection LOS A 0 LO 00 d' 1r O Q d R C0 U a v c W E a c as E t a fir• KUNZMAN AssociATES,INC. 4/8/2016 Packet Pg.907 6.B.h Generated with MEM Waterman Industrial Center Version 4.00-00 Scenario 1: 1:AMEP Intersection Level Of Service Report Intersection 5:Waterman Ave(NS)at Orange Show Rd(EW) Control Type: Signalized Delay(sec/veh): 21.1 Analysis Method: HCM 2010 Level Of Service: C Analysis Period: 15 minutes Volume to Capacity(v/c): 0.548 Intersection Setup Name Waterman Ave Waterman Ave Orange Show Rd Orange Show Rd Approach Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Lane Configuration -i 11 r '111 r -i 1 i r -111 r Turning Movement Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Lane Width[ft] 1200. 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 No.of Lanes in Pocket 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 Pocket Length[ft] 298.00 275.00 248.00 258.00 C Speed[mph] 50.00 50.00 40.00 40.00 Grade[%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 M Crosswalk Yes Yes Yes Yes U' LO volumes 00 4' Name Waterman Ave Waterman Ave Orange Show Rd Orange Show Rd Base Volume Input[veh/h] 70 596 57 48 522 80 160 381 289 85 256 67 Base Volume Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 d Heavy Vehicles Percentage[%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Growth Rate 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 M In-Process Volume[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 U Site-Generated Trips[veh/h] 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a Diverted Trips[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 It Pass-by Trips[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C d Existing Site Adjustment Volume[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 t Other Volume[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Right-Turn on Red Volume[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 Q Total Hourly Volume[veh/h] 70 596 57 48 522 80 160 381 289 85 256 67 Peak Hour Factor 0.8780 0.8780 0.8780 0.8780 0.8780 0.8780 0.8780 0.8780 0.8780 0.8780 0.8780 0.8780 E Other Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 v Total 15-Minute Volume[veh/h] 20 170 16 14 149 23 46 108 82 24 73 19 Total Analysis Volume[veh/h] 80 679 65 55 595 91 182 434 329 97 292 76 Q Presence of On-Street Parking No No No No No No No No On-Street Parking Maneuver Rate[/h] Local Bus Stopping Rate[/h] I 0 0 0 0 Pedestrian Volume[ped/h] 0 0 0 0 Bicycle Volume[bicycles/h] 0 0 0 0 KUNZMAN ASSOCIATES,INC. 418/2016 Packet Pg. 908 6.B.h Generated with Waterman Industrial Center Version 4.00-00 Scenario 1: 1:AMEP Intersection Settings Located in CBD No Signal Coordination Group Cycle Length[s] 60 Coordination Type Time of Day Pattern Isolated Actuation Type Fully actuated Offset[s] 0.0 Offset Reference LeadGreen Permissive Mode SingleBand Lost time[s] 8.00 Phasing&Timing Control Type Protecte Permiss Permiss Protecte Permiss Permiss Protecte Permiss Permiss Protecte Permiss Permiss Signal group 5 2 1 6 3 8 7 4 c Auxiliary Signal Groups r Lead/Lag Lead Lead Lead Lead Q. Minimum Green[s] 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 u 0 Maximum Green[s] 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 LO 00 Ambers] 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 ! Nt mot' Allred[s] 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Split[s] 9 19 9 19 13 23 9 19 Q Vehicle Extension[s] 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Q' Walk[s] 5 5 5 5 L *1110. Pedestrian Clearance[s] 10 10 10 10 11,Start-Up Lost Time[s] 2.0 2.0 _ 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 z 11 U a 12,Clearance Lost Time[s] 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 d. Minimum Recall No No No No No No No No Maximum Recall No No No No No No No No Pedestrian Recall No No No No No No No No -� c) Detector Location[ft] a Detector Length[ft] I,Upstream Filtering Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 E Exclusive Pedestrian Phase U Pedestrian Signal Group 0 r Pedestrian Walk[s] 0 Q Pedestrian Clearance[s] 0 KuNZNanN AssocIlTES,INC. 4/8/2016 Packet Pg. 909 6.B.h Generated with M '• Waterman Industrial Center Version 4.00-00 Scenario 1:1:AMEP Lane Group Calculations Lane Group L I C R L C R L I C R L C R L,Total Lost Time per Cycle[s] 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 1 4.00 4.00 4.00 1 4.00 4.00 11p,Permitted Start-Up Lost Time[s] 12,Clearance Lost Time[s] 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 g_i,Effective Green Time[s] 4 22 22 3 21 21 8 15 15 4 11 11 g/C,Green/Cycle 0.06 0.37 0.37 0.05 0.36 0.36 0.13 0.25 0.25 0.07 0.19 0.19 (v/s)_i Volume/Saturation Flow Rate 0.04 0.19 0.04 0.03 0.16 0.06 0.10 0.12 0.20 0.05 0.08 0.05 s,saturation flow rate[veh/h] 1810 3618 1615 1810 3618 1615 1810 3618 1615 1810 3618 1615 c,Capacity[veh/h] 113 1322 590 93 1281 572 230 893 399 128 688 307 d1,Uniform Delay[s] 27.65 14.91 12.62 27791 15.02 13.30 25.48 19.39 21.43 27.45 21.45 20.70 k,delay calibration 0.11 0.50 0.50 0.11 0.50 0.50 0.15 0.11 0.16 0.11 0.11 1 0.11 I,Upstream Filtering Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 N d2,Incremental Delay[s] 7.77 1.43 0.38 5.89 1.21 0.60 8.04 0.41 6.30 8.92 0.42 0.42 9 d3,Initial Queue Delay[s] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 `- Rp,platoon ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Q- PF,progression factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 00 Lane Group Results d' d X,volume/capacity 0.71 0.51 0.11 0.59 0.46 0.16 0.79 0.49 0.83 0.76 0.42 0.25 d,Delay for Lane Group[s/veh] 35.42 16.34 13.00 33.80 16.23 13.89 33.52 19.80 27.73 36.37 21.87 21.11 Q Lane Group LOS D B B C B B C B C D C C Critical Lane Group No Yes No Yes No No No No Yes Yes No No � 50th-Percentile Queue Length[veh] 1.24 3.10 0.52 0.84 2.70 0.77 2.79 2.33 4.51 1.56 1.66 0.85 50th-Percentile Queue Length[ft] 30.93 77.38 13.02 20.88 67.41 19.16 69.71 58.20 112.83 39.12 41.41 21.18 d 95th-Percentile Queue Length[veh] 2.23 5.57 0.94 1.50 4.85 1.38 5.02 4.19 8.00 2.82 2.98 1.53 ' d 95th-Percentile Queue Length[ft] 55.68 139.28 23.44 37.59 121.34 34.49 125.48 104.76 199.93 70.42 74.53 38.13 G d E t U tQ w a r E a KLINZMAN AssociATES,INC. 4/8/2016 Packet Pg. 910 6.B.h Generated with W '= Waterman Industrial Center Version 4.00-00 Scenario 1: 1:AMEP Movement,Approach,&Intersection Results d_M,Delay for Movement[s/veh] 35.42 1 16.34 1 13.00 33.80 16.23 13.89 33.52 19.80 27.73 36.37 21.87 21.11 Movement LOS D I B F B C B B C B C D C C d_A,Approach Delay[s/veh] 17.93 17.25 25.20 24.77 Approach LOS B B C C d-1,Intersection Delay[s/veh] 21.14 Intersection LOS C Intersection V/C 0.548 Sequence Ring 1 1 2 3 4 - - - - - - - - - - - - Ring 2 5 6 7 8 - - - - - - - - - - - - N Ring 3 - - - - - - Ring 4 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - r- CL Mh tp � '"?'^tat ti Iv,°• a4r �ts9,aY)�II�I�I€_li�"� MUM�i�� ��rl�' ' it ii mom i+s� t t CL t4 co V a v c E s ca .r y a w a KIINzmAN Assoei Ares,INC. 4/8/2016 Packet Pg. 911 Generated with =Z= Waterman Industrial Center Version 4.00-00 Scenario 1: 1:AMEP Intersection Level Of Service Report Intersection 6:Waterman Ave(NS)at Dumas St(EW) Control Type: Two-way stop Delay(sec/veh): 20.9 Analysis Method: HCM 2010 Level Of Service: C Analysis Period: 15 minutes Volume to Capacity(v/c): 0.026 Intersection Setup Name Waterman Ave Waterman Ave Dumas St Approach Northbound Southbound Eastbound Lane Configuration "1 i I i i r Ir Turning Movement Left Thru Thru Right Left Right Lane Width[ft] 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 No.of Lanes in Pocket 1 0 0 0 Pocket Length[ft] 111.00 0 p Speed[mph] 50.00 50.00 30.00 r Grade[%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 a Crosswalk No No No to volumes 00 Name Waterman Ave Waterman Ave Dumas St It Base Volume Input[veh/h] 14 730 862 22 5 10 Ic O Base Volume Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 d Heavy Vehicles Percentage[%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Growth Rate 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 t�0 In-Process Volume[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 V Site-Generated Trips[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 d Diverted Trips[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 et Pass-by Trips[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 d Existing Site Adjustment Volume(veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 t Other Volume[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total Hourly Volume[veh/h] 14 730 862 22 5 10 Q Peak Hour Factor 0.8593 0.8593 0.8593 0.8593 0.8593 0.8593 Other Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 O Total 15-Minute Volume(veh/h] 4 212 251 6 1 3 v Total Analysis Volume[veh/h] 16 850 1003 26 6 12 Q Pedestrian Volume[ped/h] KLINZMAN Associ RTES,L.C. 4/8/2016 Packet Pg.912 Generated with ME= Waterman Industrial Center Version 4.00-00 Scenario 1: 1:AMEP Intersection Settings Priority Scheme Free Free Stop Flared Lane No Storage Area[veh] Two-Stage Gap Acceptance Yes Number of Storage Spaces in Median 1 Movement,Approach,&Intersection Results V/C,MovementV/C Ratio 0.02 0.03 0.02 d_M,Delay for Movement[s/veh] 10.40 20.86 12.41 Movement LOS B A A A C B 95th-Percentile Queue Length[veh] 0.07 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.15 0.15 95th-Percentile Queue Length IN 1.80 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.82 3.82 d_A,Approach Delay[s/veh] 0.19 0.00 15.23 C Approach LOS A A C T d_I,Intersection Delay[s/veh] 0.23 Q. Intersection LOS C U LO 00 of 1` O >3. N d' R fn U a c a� E r Y a U l4 a+ r a KUNZMAN AssocIATES,INC. 4/8/2016 Packet Pg.913 6.B.h Generated with M °M Waterman Industrial Center Version 4.00-00 Scenario 1: 1:AMEP Intersection Level Of Service Report Intersection 7:Waterman Ave(NS)at Park Center Circle North(EW) Control Type: Two-way stop Delay(sec/veh): 67.3 Analysis Method: HCM 2010 Level Of Service: F Analysis Period: 15 minutes Volume to Capacity(v/c): 0.218 Intersection Setup Name Waterman Ave Waterman Ave Project Driveway Park Center Circle N Approach Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Lane Configuration I r ll r 11 1 r i t i t Turning Movement Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Lane Width[ft] 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 1 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 No.of Lanes in Pocket 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 Pocket Length[ft] +i 215.00 C Speed[mph] 50.00 50.00 30.00 30.00 U) r Grade[%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 M CL Crosswalk No No Yes No C7 volumes 000 q' Name Waterman Ave Waterman Ave Project Driveway Park Center Circle N Base Volume Input[veh/h] 18 722 27 77 753 24 14 6 1 6 1` O Base Volume Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 d Heavy Vehicles Percentage[%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 IX Growth Rate 100 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 In-Process Volume[veh/h] __07 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 U Site-Generated Trips[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a Diverted Trips[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 w Pass-by Trips[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Existing Site Adjustment Volume[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 t Other Volume[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total Hourly Volume[veh/h] 18 722 27 77 753 24 14 6 1 6 Q Peak Hour Factor 0.8587 0.8587 0.8587 0.8587 0.8587 0.8587 0.8587 0.8587 0.8587 0.8587 Other Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 E Total 15-Minute Volume[veh/h] 5 210 8 22 219 7 4 2 0 2 U Total Analysis Volume[veh/h] 21 841 31 90 877 28 16 7 1 7 Pedestrian Volume[ped/h] 0 Q KLINZMAN ASSOCIATES,INC. 4/8/2016 "Packet Pg.914 6.B.h Generated with Waterman Industrial Center Version 4.00-00 Scenario 1: 1:AMEP Intersection Settings Priority Scheme Free Free Stop Stop Flared Lane Storage Area[veh] Two-Stage Gap Acceptance No No Number of Storage Spaces in Median Movement,Approach,&Intersection Results V/C,Movement V/C Ratio 0.03 0.12 0.22 0.01 0.01 0.01 d M,Delay for Movement[s/veh] 9.87 10.20 67.34 11.38 53.28 11.20 Movement LOS FA A A B A A F B F B 95th-Percentile Queue Length[veh] 009 0.00 0.00 0.39 0.00 0.00 0.76 0.04 0.04 0.04 95th-Percentile Queue Length[ft] 2.13 0.00 0.00 9.71 0.00 0.00 18.94 0.93 1.00 0.90 d_A,Approach Delay[s/veh] 0.23 0.92 50.31 16.46 c Approach LOS A A F C r d_I,Intersection Delay[s/veh] 1.26 fl. Intersection LOS F 0 00 t O Q N fY c0 a.+ to U a v c E c m E Q KIINZMAN AssocIATES,L.C. 4/8/2016 Packet''Pg.91'5 s.s.n Generated with Waterman Industrial Center Version 4.00-00 Scenario 1: 1:AMEP Intersection Level Of Service Report Intersection 8:Waterman Ave(NS)at Park Center Circle South(EW) Control Type: Signalized Delay(sec/veh): 3.7 Analysis Method: HCM 2010 Level Of Service: A Analysis Period: 15 minutes Volume to Capacity(v/c): 0.604 Intersection Setup Name Waterman Ave Waterman Ave Park Center Circle South Park Center Circle South Approach Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Lane Configuration -i l l r -111 r i r *i r Turning Movement Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Lane Width[ft] 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 1 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 No.of Lanes in Pocket 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Pocket Length[ft] �i;a. 1�:�_0 C Speed[mph] 50.00 50.00 30.00 30.00 r Grade[%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 D. Crosswalk No Yes Yes Yes L7 volumes 00 Name Waterman Ave Waterman Ave Park Center Circle South Park Center Circle South Base Volume Input[veh/h] 5 733 161 21 737 T 7 8 4 11 23 0 7 O Base Volume Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 d AVOW", Heavy Vehicles Percentage[%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 IX Growth Rate 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 In-Process Volume[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 to U Site-Generated Trips[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 IZ Diverted Trips[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 d' w Pass-by Trips[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Existing Site Adjustment Volume[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 t Other Volume[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Right-Turn on Red Volume[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 Q Total Hourly Volume[veh/h] 5 733 161 21 737 7 8 4 11 23 0 7 Peak Hour Factor 0.8960 0.8960 0.8960 0.8960 0.8960 0.8960 0.8960 0.8960 0.8960 0.8960 0.8960 0.8960 O Other Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 v Total 15-Minute Volume[veh/h] 1 205 45 6 206 2 2 1 3 6 0 2 Y Total Analysis Volume[veh/h] 6 818 180 23 823 8 9 4 12 26 0 8 Q Presence of On-Street Parking No No No No No No No No On-Street Parking Maneuver Rate[/h] -+ Local Bus Stopping Rate[/h] 0 0 0 0 Pedestrian Volume[ped/h] 0 0 0 Bicycle Volume[bicycles/h] 0 0 0 0 KUNZMAN ASSOCIATES,INC. 4/8/2016 Packet Pg.916 6.B.h Generated with Waterman Industrial Center Version 4.00-00 P Scenario 1: 1:AMEP Intersection Settings Located in CBD No Signal Coordination Group Cycle Length[s] 60 Coordination Type Time of Day Pattern Isolated Actuation Type Fully actuated Offset[s] 0.0 Offset Reference LeadGreen Permissive Mode SingleBand Lost time[s] 6.00 Phasing&Timing Control Type Protecte Permiss Permiss Protecte Permiss Permiss Permiss Permiss Permiss Permiss Permiss Permiss Signal group 5 2 1 6 8 4 C Auxiliary Signal Groups r Lead/Lag Lead Lead Q Minimum Green[s] 5 5 5 5 0 5 0 0 5 C7 Maximum Green[s] 30 30 30 30 0 30 0 0 30 0 L0 00 Amber[s] 3.0 3.0 G.0 3.0 3.0 O.G 3.0 0,0 0.0 3.0 O.G All red[s] 1.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 J.0 1.0 O.G 0"o 1.0 }_G L Split[s] 9 47 0 9 47 0 19 19 CL Vehicle Extension[s] 3.0 3.0 0 3.0 3.0 0.0 3.0 3.0 1 J.G N Walk[s] 0 3 0 G 5 0 5 5 0 � Pedestrian Clearance[s] 0 38 0 10 10 10 0 N 11,Start-Up Lost Time[s] 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 0.0 0.{ 2.0 U r, a 12,Clearance Lost Time[s] 2.0 1 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 0 0 0 1' 2.0 ' d' Minimum Recall No No No No No No = Maximum Recall No No No F No No No Pedestrian Recall No No No No No No U fC Detector Location[ft] 0 0.0 0 0.0 Q Detector Length[ft] I,Upstream Filtering Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Exclusive Pedestrian Phase U Pedestrian Signal Group 0 Pedestrian Walk[s] 0 Q Pedestrian Clearance[s] 0 KLWZMAN ASSOCIATES,INC. 4/8/2016 Packet Pg. 917 6.B.h Generated with Waterman Industrial Center Version 4.00-00 Scenario 1: 1:AMEP Lane Group Calculations Lane Group L I C R L C R C R C R L,Total Lost Time per Cycle[s] 4.007 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 1 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 11_p,Permitted Start-Up Lost Time[s] 0.00 0.00 2.00 2.00 12,Clearance Lost Time[s] 0.00 2.00 2.00 0.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 g_i,Effective Green Time[s] 50 44 44 50 45 45 2 2 2 2 g/C,Green/Cycle 0.83 0.73 0.73 0.83 0.75 0.75 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 (v/s)_i Volume/Saturation Flow Rate 0.01 0.23 0.11 0.03 0.23 0.00 0.17 0.01 0.31 0.00 s,saturation flow rate[veh/h] 735 3618 1615 764 3618 1615 78 1615 83 1615 c,Capacity[veh/h] 729 2647 1182 749 2715 1212 104 65 123 65 d1,Uniform Delay[s] 1.13 2.80 2.44 1.17 2.43 1.88 30.07 27.92 30.07 27.85 k,delay calibration 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.11 0.50 0.50 0.18 0.11 0.50 1 0.11 I,Upstream Filtering Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 cV d2,Incremental Delay[s] 0.02 0.30 0.27 0.02 0.29 0.01 0.87 1.36 3.88 0.84 9 d3,Initial Queue Delay[s] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 `- cC Rp,platoon ratio 1.007 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Q- PF,progression factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Ln 00 Lane Group Results 1* X,volume/capacity 0.01 0.31 0.15 0.03 0.30 0.01 0.12 0.18 0.21 0.12 d,Delay for Lane Group[s/veh] 1.15 3.10 2.71 1.19 2.71 1.89 30.93 29.28 33.95 28.69 OQ Lane Group LOS A A A A A A C C C C d Critical Lane Group No Yes No Yes No No No No Yes No 50th-Percentile Queue Length[veh] 0.00 0.47 0.23 0.00 0.31 0.01 0.21 0.18 0.50 0.12 Cl) 50th-Percentile Queue Length IN 0.10 11.85 5.72 0.09 7.69 0.16 5.14 4.58 12.42 3.02 d 95th-Percentile Queue Length[veh] 0.01 0.85 0.41 0.01 0.55 0.01 0.37 0.33 0.89 0.22 ' 95th-Percentile Queue Length[ft] 0.19 21.32 10.29 0.15 13.83 0.28 9.25 8.24 22.36 5.43 d E t v ns Y Y a r Y Y Q KIINZMAN ASSOCIATES,INC. 4/8/2016 Packet Pg. 918 6.B.h Generated with M °= Waterman Industrial Center Version 4.00-00 Scenario 1: 1:AMEP Movement,Approach,&Intersection Results d M,Delay for Movement[s/veh] 1.15 3.10 2.71 1.19 2.71 1.89 30.93 30.93 29.28 33.95 33.95 28.69 Movement LOS A A A A A A C C C C C C d A,Approach Delay[s/veh] 3.02 2.67 30.14 32.72 Approach LOS A A C C d I,Intersection Delay[s/veh] 3.74 Intersection LOS A Intersection V/C 0.604 Sequence Ring 1 1 2 4 - - - - - - - - - - - - - Ring 2 5 6 8 - - - - - - - - - - - - - N Ring 3 - - - Ring 4 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - c� �4 yry 00 tE I .�II�Vp i Q CL V CL c d E t v �v Y Q c m E s w Q KUNZMAN ASSOCIATES,INC. 4/8/2016 Packet Pg. 919 6.B.h Generated with Waterman Industrial Center Version 4.00-00 Scenario 1: 1:AMEP Intersection Level Of Service Report Intersection 9:Waterman Ave(NS)at Vanderbilt Way(EW) Control Type: Signalized Delay(sec/veh): 16.6 Analysis Method: HCM 2010 Level Of Service: B Analysis Period: 15 minutes Volume to Capacity(v/c): 0.631 Intersection Setup Name Waterman Ave Waterman Ave Vanderbilt Way Vanderbilt Way Approach Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Lane Configuration "1 I I r 11 1 � + "1 i t Turning Movement Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Lane Width[ft] 12.007 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 No.of Lanes in Pocket 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 fV Pocket Length[ft] �� o Speed[mph] 50.00 50.00 30.00 30.00 Ul) T_ Grade[%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 C. Crosswalk No Yes Yes Yes 0 to volumes 00 �f Name Waterman Ave Waterman Ave Vanderbilt Way Vanderbilt Way Base Volume Input[veh/h] 24 686 371 246 516 4 3 2 2 61 1 221 Base Volume Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 d Heavy Vehicles Percentage[%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Growth Rate 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 M In-Process Volume[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 U Site-Generated Trips[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 �- Diverted Trips[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -.3' Pass-by Trips[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 = d Existing Site Adjustment Volume[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 s Other Volume[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 v Right-Turn on Red Volume[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 Q Total Hourly Volume[veh/h] 24 686 371 246 516 4 3 2 2 61 1 221 C Peak Hour Factor 0.8826 0.8826 0.8826 1 0.8826 0.8826 0.8826 0.8826 0.8826 0.8826 0.8826 0.8826 0.8826 E Other Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 t V Total 15-Minute Volume[veh/h] 7 194 105 70 146 1 1 1 1 17 0 63 Total Analysis Volume[veh/h] 27 777 420 279 585 5 3 2 2 69 1 1 250 Q Presence of On-Street Parking No No No No No No No No On-Street Parking Maneuver Rate[/h] Local Bus Stopping Rate[/h] 0 0 0 0 Pedestrian Volume[ped/h] 0 0 0 Bicycle Volume[bicycles/h] 0 0 0 0 KLINZMAN ASSOCIATES,INC. 4/8/2016 Packet Pg.920 6.B.h Generated with loom�Y��' Waterman Industrial Center Version 4.00-00 Scenario 1: 1 AMEP Intersection Settings Located in CBD No Signal Coordination Group Cycle Length[s] 61 Coordination Type Time of Day Pattern Isolated Actuation Type Fully actuated Offset[s] 0.0 Offset Reference LeadGreen Permissive Mode SingleBand Lost time[s] 6.00 Phasing&Timing Control Type Protecte Permiss Permiss Protecte Permiss Permiss Permiss Permiss Permiss Permiss Permiss Permiss Signal group 5 2 1 6 8 4 NO Auxiliary Signal Groups r Lead/Lag Lead Lead Q. Minimum Green[s] 5 5 5 5 5 0 5 (9 Maximum Green[s] 30 30 30 30 30 0 30 to eD Amber[s] 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 - 3.0 0.( 3.0 V Allred[s] 1.0 1.0 J.0 1.0 1.0 J.0 1.0 J.CF 1.0 0.0 Split[s] 9 19 0 20 30 0 0 21 0 0 21 0 OQ Vehicle Extension[s] 3.0 3.0 0,0 3.0 3.0 0,0 3.0 0,C, 0.0 3.0 Walk[s] 0 0 5 0 5 0 0 5 Pedestrian Clearance[s] 0 u 0 0 10 10 0 10 11,Start-Up Lost Time[s] 2.0 2.0 10 2.0 2.0 2.0 0 0, 2.0 _ U a 12,Clearance Lost Time[s] 2.0 2.0 l 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 ' d' Minimum Recall No No No No No No Maximum Recall No No No No No No Pedestrian Recall No No No No No No s U M Detector Location[ft] Q Detector Length[ft] w I,Upstream Filtering Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 d E Exclusive Pedestrian Phase V Pedestrian Signal Group 0 r Pedestrian Walk[s] 0 Q Pedestrian Clearance[s] 0 KIINZMAN ASSOCIATES,INC. 4/8/2016 Packet Pg. 921 6:B.h Generated with Waterman Industrial Center Version 4.00-00 Scenario 1: 1:AMEP Lane Group Calculations Lane Group L C R L C C C L C R L,Total Lost Time per Cycle[s] 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 11_p,Permitted Start-Up Lost Time[s] 2.00 2.00 2.00 12,Clearance Lost Time[s] 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 g_i,Effective Green Time[s] 2 26 26 11 1 36 36 12 12 12 12 g/C,Green/Cycle 0.03 0.43 0.43 0.19 0.58 0.58 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 (v/s)_i Volume/Saturation Flow Rate 0.01 0.21 0.26 0.15 0.11 0.11 0.00 0.02 0.03 0.15 s,saturation flow rate[veh/h] 1810 3618 1615 1810 3618 1892 1620 1435 1437 1615 c,Capacity[veh/h] 58 1547 1 691 337 2105 1101 391 316 389 306 d1,Uniform Delay[s] 29.07 12.76 13.54 23.93 5.99 5.99 20.15 23.19 20.65 23.75 k,delay calibration 0.11 0.50 0.50 0.13 0.50 0.50 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 I,Upstream Filtering Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 N d2,Incremental Delay[s] 5.61 1.17 3.96 6.01 0.19 0.37 0.02 0.13 0.12 5.29 9 d3,Initial Queue Delay[s] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 T" M Rp,platoon ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Q• PF,progression factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1 1.00 1.00 u7 00 Lane Group Results d X,volume/capacity 0.46 0.50 0.61 0.83 0.18 0.18 0.02 0.09 0.10 0.82 d,Delay for Lane Group[s/veh] 34.69 13.93 17.49 29.94 6.18 6.36 20.17 23.32 20.77 29.04 OQ Lane Group LOS C B B C A A C C C C d M Critical Lane Group No No Yes Yes No No No No No Yes W 50th-Percentile Queue Length[veh] 0.44 3.17 4.10 3.87 0.77 0.86 0.08 0.36 0.47 3.67 50th-Percentile Queue Length[ft] 10.94 79.18 102.61 96.75 19.17 21.41 1.96 9.12 11.65 91.68 d 95th-Percentile Queue Length[veh] 0.79 5.70 7.39 6.97 1.38 1.54 0.14 0.66 0.84 6.60 ' d' 95th-Percentile Queue Length[ft] 19.69 142.52 184.69 174.16 34.50 38.53 3.53 1 16.42 20.97 165.02 = N E U Rf Q G d E t V R Q KIINZMAN AssocIATES,INC. 4/8/2016 Packet Pg. 922 6.B.h Generated with Waterman Industrial Center Version 4.00-00 Scenario 1: 1:AMEP Movement,Approach,&Intersection Results d M,Delay for Movement[s/veh] 34.69 13.93 17.49 29.94 6.24 6.36 20.17 20.17 20.17 23.32 20.77 29.04 Movement LOS C B B C A A C C C C C C d A,Approach Delay[s/veh] 15.61 13.85 20.17 27.46 Approach LOS B B C C d I,Intersection Delay[s/veh] 16.56 Intersection LOS B Intersection V/C 0.631 Sequence Ring 1 1 2 4 - - - - - - - - - - - - - Ring 2 5 6 8 - - - - - - - - - - - - - N Ring 3 - - - - Ring 4 - IZ N U G. c CD E s ca a Y E V a Kunz:,a,\N,Assoc[AIES,INC. 4/8/2016 Packet Pg. 923 6.B.h Generated with M 's Waterman Industrial Center Version 4.00-00 Scenario 1: 1:AMEPi With Improvements Intersection Level Of Service Report Intersection 7:Waterman Ave(NS)at Park Center Circle North(EW) Control Type: Signalized Delay(sec/veh): 6.4 Analysis Method: HCM 2010 Level Of Service: A Analysis Period: 15 minutes Volume to Capacity(v/c): 0.392 Intersection Setup Name Waterman Ave Waterman Ave Project Driveway Park Center Circle N Approach Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Lane Configuration -111 r '111 r i t i t Turning Movement Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Lane Width[ft] 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 No.of Lanes in Pocket 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 Pocket Length[ft] 215.00 c Speed[mph] 50.00 50.00 30.00 30.00 r Grade[%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Q Crosswalk No No Yes No U' volumes 00 d' Name Waterman Ave Waterman Ave Project Driveway Park Center Circle N d Base Volume Input[veh/h] 18 722 27 77 753 24 14 6 1 6 O Base Volume Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 C Heavy Vehicles Percentage[%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Growth Rate 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 M In-Process Volume[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 to U Site-Generated Trips[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 G. Diverted Trips[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 V �+ Pass-by Trips[veh/h] 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 = d Existing Site Adjustment Volume[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 t Other Volume[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 v t0 Right-Turn on Red Volume[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 Q Total Hourly Volume[veh/h] 18 722 27 77 753 24 14 6 1 6 Peak Hour Factor 0.8587 0.8587 0.8587 0.8587 0.8587 0.8587 0.8587 0.8587 0.8587 0.8587 N Other Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 v Total 15-Minute Volume[veh/h] 5 210 8 22 219 7 4 2 0 - 2 Total Analysis Volume[veh/h] 21 841 31 90 877 28 16 7 1 7 Q Presence of On-Street Parking No No No No No No No No On-Street Parking Maneuver Rate[/h] Local Bus Stopping Rate[/h] 0 0 0 0 Pedestrian Volume(ped/h] 0 - Bicycle Volume[bicycles/h] 0 0 0 0 KUNZMAN ASSOCIATES,INC. 4/8/2016 Packet Pg.924 6.B.h Generated with �4 s] Waterman Industrial Center .a Version 4.00-00 Scenario 1: 1:AMEPi With ImprovementE Intersection Settings Located in CBD No Signal Coordination Group Cycle Length[s] 130 Coordination Type Time of Day Pattern Isolated Actuation Type Fully actuated Offset[s] 0.0 Offset Reference LeadGreen Permissive Mode SingleBand Lost time[s] 6.00 Phasing&Timing Control Type Protecte Permiss Permiss Protecte Permiss Permiss Permiss Permiss Permiss Permiss Signal group 5 2 1 6 3 7 i Auxiliary Signal Groups rn T Lead/Lag Lead Lead Lead - Lead Q Minimum Green[s] 5 5 5 5 5 0 5 0 (� Maximum Green[s] 30 1 30 30 30 30 0 30 0 0 Lf) 00 Amber[s] 30T 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 0.0 IT All red[s] 1.0 1 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 o,C, 0.0 1.0 0.0 Split[s] 96 32 0 83 19 15 0 15 Q Vehicle Extension[s] 3.0 3.0 v.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 0.0 3.0 QG Walk[s] u u G 5 0 0 0 Pedestrian Clearance[s] 0 10 0 0 0 11,Start-Up Lost Time[s] 2.0 2.0 0 2.0 2.0 2.0 0.0 2.0 d 12,Clearance Lost Time[s] 2.0 2.0 n 2.0 2.0 2.0 0.0 2.0 d' Minimum Recall No No No No No No = Maximum Recall No No No No No No d Pedestrian Recall No No No No No No v Detector Location[ft] 0.0 0,0 l.G 0.0 0.0 Detector Length[ft] ).0 0.0 0.0 Q I,Upstream Filtering Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.0( 1.00 E Exclusive Pedestrian Phase Pedestrian Signal Group 0 Pedestrian Walk[s] 0 Q Pedestrian Clearance[s] 0 0 KUNZMAN ASSOCIATES,INC. 4/8/2016 Packet Pg. 925 6.B.h Generated with M °= Waterman Industrial Center Version 4.00-00 Scenario 1: 1:AMEPi With Improvement: Lane Group Calculations Lane Group L C R L C R L R L R L,Total Lost Time per Cycle[s] 4.00 1 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 11p,Permitted Start-Up Lost Time[s] 2.00 2.00 12,Clearance Lost Time[s] 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 g_i,Effective Green Time[s] 1 9 9 2 10 10 1 1 1 1 g/C,Green/Cycle 0.03 0.37 0.37 0.10 0.44 0.44 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 (v/s)_i Volume/Saturation Flow Rate 0.01 0.23 0.02 0.05 0.24 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 s,saturation flow rate[veh/h] 1810 3618 1615 1810 3618 1615 1440 1615 1440 1615 c,Capacity[veh/h] 51 1345 600 174 1591 710 301 50 301 50 d1,Uniform Delay[s] 11.44 6.16 4.82 10.29 4.96 3.82 11.97 11.30 11.97 11.30 k,delay calibration 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 I,Upstream Filtering Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 N d2,Incremental Delay(s] 5.18 0.48 0.04 2.36 0.30 0.02 0.07 1.28 0.00 1.28 0 LO d3,Initial Queue Delay[s] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 r Rp,platoon ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Q- t'� PF,progression factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 '. LO oD Lane Group Results ICT X,volume/capacity 0.41 0.63 0.05 0.52 0.55 0.04 0.05 0.14 0.00 0.14 i d,Delay for Lane Group[s/veh] 16.61 6.64 4.85 12.65 5.26 3.85 12.05 12.57 11.97 12.57 Q Lane Group LOS B A A B A A B B B B Critical Lane Group No Yes No Yes No No Yes No No No 50th-Percentile Queue Length[veh] 0.13 0.30 0.02 0.32 0.07 0.00 0.07 0.04 0.00 0.04 50th-Percentile Queue Length[ft] 3.25 7.38 0.44 8.06 1.66 0.11 1.66 1.06 0.10 1.06 U a 95th-Percentile Queue Length(veh] 0.23T 0.53 0.03 0.58 0.12 0.01 0.12 0.08 0.01 0.08 ' 95th-Percentile Queue Length[ft] 5.85 13.28 0.80 14.51 2.98 0.20 3.00 1.91 0.18 1.91 N E t U fC B C d E U f4 Q KUNZMAN ASSOCIATES,INC. 4/8/2016 Packet Pg. 926 6.B.h Generated with Waterman Industrial Center Version 4.00-00 Scenario 1: 1:AMEPi With Improvement Movement,Approach,&Intersection Results d_M,Delay for Movement[s/veh] 16.61 6.64 4.85 12.65 5.26 3.85 12.05 12.57 11.97 12.57 Movement LOS B A A B A A B B B B d A,Approach Delay[s/veh] 6.81 5.89 12.21 12.50 Approach LOS A A B B d I,Intersection Delay[s/veh] 6.42 Intersection LOS A Intersection V/C 0.392 Sequence Ring 1 1 2 3 - - - - - - - - - - - - - Ring 2 5 6 7 - - - - - - - - - - - - - Ring 3 - - - Ring 4 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - u' CL LO 00 v 0 CL R U a c m E <t c a� E ca Q KUNZMAN ASSOCIATES,INC. 4/8/2016 Packet Pg. 927 6.B.h Generated with Waterman Industrial Center Version 4.00-00 Scenario 1: 1:PMEP Intersection Level Of Service Report Intersection 1:E Street(NS)at Orange Show Road(EW) Control Type: Signalized Delay(sec/veh): 26.2 Analysis Method: HCM 2010 Level Of Service: C Analysis Period: 15 minutes Volume to Capacity(v/c): 0.714 Intersection Setup Name E Street E Street Orange Show Rd Orange Show Rd Approach Northbound +�Sorutthbound Eastbound Westbound Lane Configuration -1,i 1 1* 1 1 l l r -1-111r -1-111r Turning Movement Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Lane Width[ft] 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 No.of Lanes in Pocket 2 0 2 1 2 1 2 1 Pocket Length[ft] 300.00 189.00 134.00 217.00 147.00 165.00 103.00 0 Speed[mph] 40.00 40.00 40.00 40.00 LO T" Grade[%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 M CL Crosswalk Yes Yes Yes Yes 0 volumes 000 Name E Street E Street Orange Show Rd Orange Show Rd d Base Volume Input[veh/h] 457 288 128 145 157 258 120 1 906 299 143 807 42 O Base Volume Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 N Heavy Vehicles Percentage[%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Growth Rate 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 N In-Process Volume[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 fn U Site-Generated Trips[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 Diverted Trips[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 �t Y Pass-by Trips[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 W Existing Site Adjustment Volume[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 t Other Volume[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Right-Turn on Red Volume[veh/h] 0 0 0 - 0 Q Total Hourly Volume[veh/h] 457 288 128 145 157 258 120 906 299 143 807 42 Peak Hour Factor 0.9275 0.9275 0.9275 0.9275 0.9275 0.9275 0.9275 0.9275 0.9275 0.9275 0.9275 0.9275 Other Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 = v Total 15-Minute Volume[veh/h] 123 78 35 39 42 70 32 244 81 39 218 11 Total Analysis Volume[veh/h] 493 311 138 156 169 278 129 977 322 154 870 45 Q Presence of On-Street Parking No No No No No No No No On-Street Parking Maneuver Rate[/h] Local Bus Stopping Rate[/h] 0 0 0 0 Pedestrian Volume[ped/h] 0 0 0 0 Bicycle Volume[bicycles/hl 0 0 0 0 KUNZMAN Assoc1ATE5,INC. 4/8/2016 Packet Pg. 928 6.B.h Generated with Waterman Industrial Center ® Version 4.00-00 Scenario 1: 1: PMEP Intersection Settings Located in CBD No Signal Coordination Group Cycle Length[s] 65 Coordination Type Time of Day Pattern Isolated Actuation Type Fully actuated Offset[s] 0.0 Offset Reference LeadGreen Permissive Mode SingleBand Lost time[s] 8.00 Phasing&Timing Control Type Protecte Permiss Permiss Protecte Permiss Permiss Protecte Permiss Permiss Protecte Permiss Permiss Signal group 5 2 1 6 3 8 7 4 0 Auxiliary Signal Groups T Lead/Lag Lead - Lead Lead Lead u CL Minimum Green[s] 5 5 u 5 5 0 5 5 5 5 C7 Maximum Green[s] 30 30 0 30 30 30 30 30 30 0 to a0 Amber[s] 3.0 3.0 0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 0.0 3.0 3.0 O.0 Allred[s] 1.0 1.0 r7g 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 0.G t Split[s] 14 19 14 19 11 23 0 9 21 0 Vehicle Extension[s] 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 0.0 3.0 3.0 Walk[s] u 5 a 5 7 5 0 u 5 C Pedestrian Clearance[s] 0 10 C 10 _ 0 10 C 0 10 0 11,Start-Up Lost Time[s] 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 0.0 2.0 2.0 OJJ 2.0 2.0 CL 12,Clearance Lost Time[s] 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 C 2.0 2.0 n"i 2.0 2.0 ' Minimum Recall No No No No No No No No = Maximum Recall No No No No No No No No Pedestrian Recall No No No No No No No No s U t0 Detector Location[ft] C.0 0.0 0.0 Detector Length[ft] 0.0 0,0 Q t: I,Upstream Filtering Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 y Exclusive Pedestrian Phase U Pedestrian Signal Group 0 Pedestrian Walk[s] 0 Q Pedestrian Clearance[s] 0 KuNZ,kinN AssocIATES,INC. 4/8/2016 FPacket Pg. 929 s.B:n 1 Generated with Waterman Industrial Center Version 4.00-00 Scenario 1: 1: PMEP Lane Group Calculations Lane Group L I C C L C R L C R L C I R L,Total Lost Time per Cycle[s] 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 11_p,Permitted Start-Up Lost Time[s] 12,Clearance Lost Time[s] 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 g_i,Effective Green Time[s] 10 20 20 5 15 15 5 19 19 5 19 19 g/C,Green/Cycle 0.15 0.32 0.32 0.07 0.23 0.23 0.07 0.29 0.29 0.07 0.30 0.30 (v/s)_i Volume/Saturation Flow Rate 0.14 0.12 0.12 0.04 0.05 0.17 0.04 0.27 0.20 0.04 0.24 0.03 s,saturation flow rate[veh/h] 3514 1900 1705 3514 3618 1615 3514 3618 1615 3514 3618 1615 c,Capacity[veh/h] 541 600 538 255 848 379 245 1061 474 254 1071 478 d1,Uniform Delay[s] 27.08 17.39 17.39 29.27 19.99 23.02 29.22 22.25 20.29 29.26 21.22 16.58 k,delay calibration 0.11 0.50 0.50 0.11 0.50 0.50 0.11 0.11 1 0.19 0.11 0.11 0.11 I,Upstream Filtering Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 N d2,Incremental Delay[s] 6.38 1.94 2.16 2.37 0.53 11.95 1.75 3.85 3.06 2.32 1.55 0.08 9 d3,Initial Queue Delay[s] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Rp,platoon ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 (CL PF,progression factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 tri Co Lane Group Results Nr X,volume/capacity 0.91 0.39 0.39 0.61 0.20 0.73 0.53 0.92 0.68 0.61 0.81 0.09 t d,Delay for Lane Group[s/veh] 33.46 19.33 19.55 31.64 20.52 34.97 30.97 26.10 23.35 31.58 22.77 16.66 Q Lane Group LOS C B B C C C C C C C C B • Critical Lane Group Yes No No No No Yes No Yes No Yes No No M 50th-Percentile Queue Length[veh] 3.90 2.76 2.51 1.18 0.99 4.78 0.96 6.87 4.19 1.16 5.59 0.44 50th-Percentile Queue Length[ft] 97.60 69.12 62.85 29.47 24.83 119.58 24.03 171.65 104.71 29.06 139.81 11.12 U a 95th-Percentile Queue Length[veh] 7.03 4.98 4.52 2.12 1.79 8.37 1.73 11.16 7.54 2.09 9.47 0.80 d' 95th-Percentile Queue Length[ft] 175.68 124.42 113.12 53.05 44.69 209.25 43.26 279.08 188.47 52.31 236.77 20.01 d E t V Rf Q C +v L U a+ Y Q KUNZMAN AssoclAT ES,INC. 418/2016 Packet Pg.930 6.B.h Generated with Waterman Industrial Center Version 4.00-00 Scenario 1: 1:PMEP Movement,Approach,&Intersection Results d_M,Delay for Movement[s/veh] 33.46 19.39 19.55 31.64 20.52 34.97 30.97 26.10 23.35 31.58 22.77 16.66 Movement LOS C B B C C C C F C C C C B d_A,Approach Delay[s/veh] 26.78 30.06 25.92 23.78 Approach LOS C C C C d_I,Intersection Delay[s/veh] 26.17 Intersection LOS C Intersection V/C 0.714 Sequence Ring 1 1 2 3 4 g- 7 Ring 2 5 6 8 Ring 3 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - o Ring 4 - - - - T M CL MEN!�!i lit !] t4'SIP ,ii i I iii ii€ ill ! liW. � a.."! i.• i�i xe1 }{ 00 LO II ) i '�1� !I '� �,!1 � �'Il��li �i •� G CL t0 U a c m E s U IC a E U fC r r Q KUNZMAN AssocinTES,INC.' 4/8/2016 Packet Pg. 931 6.B.h Generated with Waterman Industrial Center Version 4.00-00 Scenario 1: 1:PMEP ' ✓ Intersection Level Of Service Report Intersection 2:Washington Ave(NS)at Orange Show Rd(EW) Control Type: Signalized Delay(sec/veh): 17.4 Analysis Method: HCM 2010 Level Of Service: B Analysis Period: 15 minutes Volume to Capacity(v/c): 0.415 Intersection Setup Name Washington Ave Washington Ave Orange Show Rd Orange Show Rd Approach Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Lane Configuration I r i r '11 i t -111 r Turning Movement Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Lane Width[ft] 12.00 12.00 1 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 No.of Lanes in Pocket 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 Pocket Length[ft] 157.00 166.00 C Speed[mph] 30.00 30.00 40.00 40.00 u7 r Grade[%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 M CL Crosswalk Yes Yes Yes Yes C7 volumes 00 Iq Name Washington Ave Washington Ave Orange Show Rd Orange Show Rd Base Volume Input[veh/h] 14 4 1 4 1 11 29 1130 16 6 953 15 L O Base Volume Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 d Heavy Vehicles Percentage[%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 IX Growth Rate 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 In-Process Volume[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 U Site-Generated Trips[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 d Diverted Trips[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .r Pass-by Trips[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Existing Site Adjustment Volume[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 s Other Volume[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 v N Right-Turn on Red Volume[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 Q Total Hourly Volume[veh/h] 14 4 1 4 1 11 - 297 1130 16 6 953 15 Peak Hour Factor 0.9174 0.9174 0.9174 0.9174 0.9174 0.9174 0.9174 0.9174 0.9174 0.9174 0.9174 0.9174 Other Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 = U Total 15-Minute Volume[veh/h] 4 1 0 1 0 3 8 308 4 2 260 4 Y Total Analysis Volume[veh/h] 15 4 1 4 1 12 32 1232 17 7 1039 16 Q Presence of On-Street Parking No No No No No No No No On-Street Parking Maneuver Rate[/h] Local Bus Stopping Rate[/h] 0 0 0 0 Pedestrian Volume[ped/h] 0 0 0 0 Bicycle Volume[bicycles/h] 0 0 0 0 NOW KUNZMAN ASSOCIATES,INC 4/8/2016 Packet Pg. 932 6.B.h Generated with . Waterman Industrial Center Version 4.00-00 Scenario 1: 1:PMEP �r Intersection Settings Located in CBD No Signal Coordination Group Cycle Length[s] 61 Coordination Type Time of Day Pattern Isolated Actuation Type Fully actuated Offset[s] 0.0 Offset Reference LeadGreen Permissive Mode SingleBand Lost time[s] 6.00 Phasing&Timing Control Type Permiss Permiss Permiss Permiss Permiss Permiss Protecte Permiss Permiss Protecte Permiss Permiss Signal group 2 6 3 8 7 4 fV 0 Auxiliary Signal Groups u> r Lead/Lag Lead Lead cv IZ Minimum Green[s] 5 5 u 5 5 0 5 5 ,g Maximum Green[s] 0 30 0 30 0 30 30 C 30 1 30 1 LO 00 Amber[s] .0 3.0 9,0 0.0 3.0 0.0 3.0 3.0 0.0 3.0 1 3.0 Allred[s] 0 1.0 J.0 0 1.0 J.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 Split[s] 0 19 0 0 19 0 9 32 0 9 32 0 ' I Vehicle Extension[s] 3.0 0�.0 3.0 3.0 D.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 0.i D Walk[s] 5 1 0 0 5 0 0 5 0 5 0 tt= I sa Pedestrian Clearance[s] 10 0 0 10 0 0 10 0 10 0 11,Start-Up Lost Time[s] 2.0 0.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 0.0 2.0 2.0 0.0 U a 12,Clearance Lost Time[s] 2.0 U., 2.0 2.0 2.0 r C! 2.0 2.0 0.0 Minimum Recall No No No No No No = Maximum Recall No No No No No No Pedestrian Recall No No No No No No s U l4 Detector Location[ft] w.0 0 .0 0.tt 0.0 0.0 Detector Length[ft] 7.0 0.0 Q.0 0.0 0.{ 0.0 Q I,Upstream Filtering Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 E Exclusive Pedestrian Phase >_ U Pedestrian Signal Group 0 Pedestrian Walk[s] 0 Q Pedestrian Clearance[s] 0 KUNZMAN AssocIATES,INC. 4/8/2016 Packet Pg. 933 6.B.h Generated with amim Waterman Industrial Center Version 4.00-00 Scenario 1: 1: PMEP Lane Group Calculations Lane Group C R C R L C R L C R L,Total Lost Time per Cycle[s] 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 11p,Permitted Start-Up Lost Time[s] 2.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 12,Clearance Lost Time[s] 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00 2.00 2.00 0.00 2.00 2.00 g_i,Effective Green Time[s] 24 24 24 24 29 25 25 29 23 23 g/C,Green/Cycle 0.39 0.39 0.39 0.39 0.48 0.40 0.40 0.48 0.38 0.38 (v/s)_i Volume/Saturation Flow Rate 0.03 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.04 0.34 0.01 0.01 0.29 0.01 s,saturation flow rate[veh/h] 601 1615 592 1615 733 3618 1615 583 3618 1615 c,Capacity[veh/h] 339 627 336 627 386 1462 653 312 1371 612 d1,Uniform Delay[s] 13.29 11.45 13.21 11.52 10.59 16.46 10.97 11.39 16.55 11.91 k,delay calibration 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 I,Upstream Filtering Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 N d2,Incremental Delay[s] 0.32 0.00 0.08 0.06 0.09 1.40 0.02 0.03 0.88 0.02 LO d3,Initial Queue Delay[s] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 R Rp,platoon ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 F10 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Q' PF,progression factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 -- LO 00 Mt Lane Group Results d' X,volume/capacity 0.06 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.08 0.84 0.03 0.02 0.76 0.03 d,Delay for Lane Group[s/veh] 13.60 11.45 13.29 11.58 10.68 17.86 10.99 11.42 17.43 11.93 Q Lane Group LOS B B B B B B B B B B 0' Critical Lane Group == " `' " ' NO 50th-Percentile Queue Length[veh] 0.17 0.01 0.05 0.10 0.19 6.61 0.12 0.04 5.42 0.12 +' 50th-Percentile Queue Length[ft] 4.33 0.21 1.13 2.50 4.71 16524 2.98 1.03 135.39 1 2.98 U a 95th-Percentile Queue Length[veh] 0.31 0.01 0.08 0.18 0.34 10.83 0.21 0.07 9.23 0.21 ' d' 95th-Percentile Queue Length[ft] 7.79 0.37 2.03 4.51 8.49 270.64 5.37 1.85 230.80 5.37 E .0 v RS a.+ a U t6 w Q KuNzmAN As5OQATES,INC. 4/8/2016 Packet Pg. 934 Generated with =I= Waterman Industrial Center Version 4.00-00 Scenario 1: 1:PMEP Movement,Approach,&Intersection Results d M,Delay for Movement[s/veh] 13.60 13.60 11.45 13.29 13.29 11.58 10.68 17.86 10.99 11.42 17.43 F11.93 Movement LOS B B B B B B B B B B B B d A,Approach Delay[s/veh] 13.50 12.08 17.59 17.31 Approach LOS B B B B d-1,Intersection Delay[s/veh] 17.39 Intersection LOS B Intersection V/C 0.415 Sequence Ring 1 2 3 4 - - - - - - - - - - - - - Ring 2 6 7 8 - - - - - - - - - - - - - Ring 3 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - o Ring 4 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - r cv CL LO 00 loz t 0 CL m IX R U a v aD E U m a r c as E r KUNZMAN AssociATES,INC. 4/8/2016 Packet Pg. 935 6.B.h Generated with ME= Waterman Industrial Center Version 4.00-00 Scenario 1: 1:PMEP Intersection Level Of Service Report Intersection 3: Project West Driveway(NS)at Dumas St(EW) Control Type: Two-way stop Delay(sec/veh): 8.8 Analysis Method: HCM 2010 Level Of Service: A Analysis Period: 15 minutes Volume to Capacity(v/c): 0.015 Intersection Setup Name Project West Driveway Dumas St Dumas Street Approach Northbound Eastbound Westbound Lane Configuration T I Turning Movement Left Right Thru Right Left Thru Lane Width[ft] 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 No.of Lanes in Pocket 0 0 0 0 Pocket Length[ft] C Speed[mph] 30.00 30.00 30.00 U0 T Grade[%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 Q Crosswalk No No No U' volumes W) oD I Name Project West Driveway Dumas St Dumas Street Base Volume Input[veh/h] 14 4 10 4 4 16 O Base Volume Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 d Heavy Vehicles Percentage[%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Growth Rate 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 R In-Process Volume[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 U Site-Generated Trips[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 d Diverted Trips[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 d Pass-by Trips[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 O Existing Site Adjustment Volume[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 s Other Volume[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 r.+ Total Hourly Volume[veh/h] 14 4 10 4 4 16 Q Peak Hour Factor 0.9200 0.9200 0.9200 0.9200 0.9200 0.9200 Other Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 O E Total 15-Minute Volume[veh/h] 4 1 3 1 1 4 t v Total Analysis Volume[veh/h] 15 4 11 4 4 17 Pedestrian Volume[ped/h] Q KIINZIXtAN ASSOCIATES,INC. 4/8/2016 Packet Pg. 936 6.B.h Generated with W '® Waterman Industrial Center Version 4.00-00 Scenario 1: 1:PMEP Intersection Settings Priority Scheme Stop Free Free Flared Lane No Storage Area[veh] U Two-Stage Gap Acceptance No Number of Storage Spaces in Median Movement,Approach,&Intersection Results V/C,MovementV/C Ratio 0.02 0.00 0.00 d_M,Delay for Movement[s/veh] 8.76 8.43 7.23 _00 Movement LOS A A A A A A 95th-Percentile Queue Length[veh] 0.06 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.04 95th-Percentile Queue Length[ft] 1.46 1.46 0.00 0.00 0.99 1 0.99 d_A,Approach Delay[s/veh] 8.69 0.00 1.38 Approach LOS A A A u7 r d_I,Intersection Delay[s/veh] 3.53 Q. Intersection LOS A 0 LO 00 O S3. d t4 r N U d d t U fC w a a KuNZnanN Assoc(ATES,INC. 4/8/2016 Packet Pg.937 Generated with Waterman Industrial Center Version 4.00-00 Scenario 1: 1:PMEP Intersection Level Of Service Report Intersection 4: Project East DriveWay(NS)at Dumas Street(EW) Control Type: Two-way stop Delay(sec/veh): 8.4 Analysis Method: HCM 2010 Level Of Service: A Analysis Period: 15 minutes Volume to Capacity(v/c): 0.007 Intersection Setup Name Project East DriveWay Dumas Street Dumas St Approach Northbound Eastbound Westbound Lane Configuration r'► I i Turning Movement Left Right Thru Right Left Thru Lane Width[ft] 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 No.of Lanes in Pocket 0 0 J Pocket Length[ft] o Speed[mph] 30.00 30.00 30.00 to r Grade[%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 C. Crosswalk No No No C7 volumes L0 oD d' Name Project East DriveWay Dumas Street Dumas St d Base Volume Input[veh/h] 7 14 9 20 t: O Base Volume Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 C Heavy Vehicles Percentage[%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 I= Growth Rate 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 w In-Process Volume[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 U Site-Generated Trips[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 CL Diverted Trips[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 of Pass-by Trips[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 Existing Site Adjustment Volume[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 Other Volume[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 v Total Hourly Volume[veh/h] 7 14 9 20 Q Peak Hour Factor 0.9200 0.9200 0.9200 0.9200 C Other Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Total 15-Minute Volume[veh/h] 2 4 2 5 v Total Analysis Volume[veh/h] 8 15 10 22 Pedestrian Volume[ped/h] Q KUNZMAN ASSOCIATES,INC. 4/8/2016 Packet Pg. 938 sB.n Generated with Waterman Industrial Center Version 4.00-00 Scenario 1: 1:PMEP Intersection Settings Priority Scheme Stop Free Free Flared Lane Storage Area[veh] 0 Two-Stage Gap Acceptance No Number of Storage Spaces in Median 0 0 Movement,Approach,&Intersection Results V/C,Movement V/C Ratio 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 d_M,Delay for Movement[s/veh] 0.00 8.39 0.00 7.24 0.00 Movement LOS A A A A 95th-Percentile Queue Length[veh] _ . 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.06 0.06 95th-Percentile Queue Length[ft] 0.56 0.00 0.00 1.51 1 1.51 d_A,Approach Delay[s/veh] 8.39 0.00 2.26 0 LO Approach LOS A A A r d_I,Intersection Delay[s/veh] 2.54 Q Intersection LOS A U ttr 00 rt' Y L O NQ. Y U Y m E s U Y Y a E U Y Y Q KUNZMAN ASSOCIATES,INC. 4/8/2016 Packet Pg. 939 6.B.h Generated with 'e Waterman Industrial Center Version 4.00-00 Scenario 1: 1:PMEP Intersection Level Of Service Report Intersection 5:Waterman Ave(NS)at Orange Show Rd(EW) Control Type: Signalized Delay(sec/veh): 27.1 Analysis Method: HCM 2010 Level Of Service: C Analysis Period: 15 minutes Volume to Capacity(v/c): 0.733 Intersection Setup Name Waterman Ave Waterman Ave Orange Show Rd Orange Show Rd Approach Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Lane Configuration I i t '111 r '111 r -i f i r Turning Movement Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Lane Width[ft] 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 1 12.00 12.00 No.of Lanes in Pocket 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 Pocket Length[ft] 298.00 275.00 248.00 258.00 o 9 Speed[mph] 50.00 50.00 40.00 40.00 to r Grade[%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Q. Crosswalk Yes Yes Yes Yes U' volumes 00 Name Waterman Ave Waterman Ave Orange Show Rd Orange Show Rd Base Volume Input[veh/h] 207 559 120 99 696 91 126 746 219 160 679 85 O Base Volume Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 d Heavy Vehicles Percentage[%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 mo 0.00 0.00 Growth Rate 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 t0 In-Process Volume[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 U Site-Generated Trips[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 IL Diverted Trips[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y Pass-by Trips[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Existing Site Adjustment Volume[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 t Other Volume[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 U cv Right-Turn on Red Volume[veh/h] n 0 0 0 0 Q Total Hourly Volume[veh/h] 207 559 120 99 696 91 1 126 746 219 160 679 85 Peak Hour Factor 0.9468 0.9468 0.9468 1 0.9468 0.9468 0.9468 0.9468 1 0.9468 0.9468 0.9468 0.9468 0.9468 d Other Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 U Total 15-Minute Volume[veh/h] 55 148 32 26 184 24 33 197 58 42 179 22 4" Total Analysis Volume[veh/h] 219 590 127 105 735 96 133 788 231 169 717 90 Q Presence of On-Street Parking No No No No No No No No On-Street Parking Maneuver Rate[/h] Local Bus Stopping Rate[/h] 0 0 0 0 Pedestrian Volume[ped/h] 0 0 0 1 0 Bicycle Volume[bicycles/h] 0 0 0 0 KUNZMAN ASSOCIATES,INC. 4/8/2016 Packet Pg.940 6.B.h Generated with ; Waterman Industrial Center Version 4.00-00 Scenario 1: 1: PMEP Intersection Settings Located in CBD No Signal Coordination Group Cycle Length[s] 60 Coordination Type Time of Day Pattern Isolated Actuation Type Fully actuated Offset[s] 0.0 Offset Reference LeadGreen Permissive Mode SingleBand Lost time[s] 8.00 Phasing&Timing Control Type Protecte Permiss Permiss Protecte Permiss Permiss Protecte Permiss Permiss Protecte Permiss Permiss Signal group 5 2 1 6 3 8 7 4 C Auxiliary Signal Groups U' r Lead/Lag Lead Lead Lead Lead - Q Minimum Green[s] 5 5 5 5 0 5 5 0 5 5 0 (9 Maximum Green[s] 30 30 0 30 30 0 30 30 0 30 30 0 In oD Amber[s] 3.0 3.0 0.0 3.0 3.0 i).0 3.0 3.0 0.0 3.0 3.0 0.0 It Allred[s] 1.0 1.0 o.0 1.0 1.0 0 0 1.0 1 1.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 Split[s] 12 19 0 12 19 10 19 10 19 Q Vehicle Extension[s] 3.0 3.0 0,0 3.0 3.0 0.0 3.0 3.0 0.0 3.0 3.0 0.0 Walk[s] u 5 0 5 0 0 5 0 5 0 Pedestrian Clearance[s] 0 10 10 0 10 10 0 U) 11,Start-Up Lost Time[s] 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 20T 2.0 2.0 2.0 0.0 U a 12,Clearance Lost Time[s] 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 0.0 Minimum Recall No No No No No No No No = Maximum Recall No No No No No No No No Pedestrian Recall No No No No No No No No U Detector Location[ft] J.0 +� ..r Detector Length[ft] a I,Upstream Filtering Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 � Exclusive Pedestrian Phase U Pedestrian Signal Group 0 ru Pedestrian Walk[s] 0 Q Pedestrian Clearance[s] 0 KUNZMAN ASSOCIATES,INC. 4/8/2016 Packet Pg. 941 s.a.n Generated with Waterman Industrial Center Version 4.00-00 Scenario 1: 1:PMEP Lane Group Calculations Lane Group L I C R L C R L C R L C I R L,Total Lost Time per Cycle[s] 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 11p,Permitted Start-Up Lost Time[s] ) . 12,Clearance Lost Time[s] 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 g_i,Effective Green Time[s] 8 19 1 19 5 15 15 6 15 15 6 15 15 g/C,Green/Cycle 0.13 0.31 0.31 0.08 0.25 0.25 0.09 0.25 0.25 0.10 0.25 0.25 (v/s)_i Volume/Saturation Flow Rate 0.12 0.16 0.08 0.06 0.20 0.06 0.07 0.22 0.14 0.09 0.20 0.06 s,saturation flow rate[veh/h] 1810 3618 1615 1810 3618 1615 1810 3618 1615 1810 3618 1615 c,Capacity[veh/h] 242 1133 506 138 925 413 171 884 395 181 904 404 d1,Uniform Delay[s] 25.66 16.94 15.38 27.22 20.89 17.70 26.58 21.93 20.02 26.82 21.07 17.89 k,delay calibration 0.29 1 0.50 0.50 0.11 0.50 0.50 0.15 0.11 0.11 0.27 0.11 0.11 I,Upstream Filtering Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 cV d2,Incremental Delay[s] 25.65 1.71 1.19 8.45 7.02 1.32 9.94 3.38 1.45 34.07 1.62 0.28 0 tr) d3,Initial Queue Delay[s] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 f0 Rp,platoon ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Q- PF,progression factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Group Results �Y X,volume/capacity 0.91 0.52 0.25 0.76 0.80 0.23 0.78 0.89 0.59 0.93 0.79 0.22 d,Delay for Lane Group[s/veh] 51.30 18.65 16.57 35.67 27.91 19.02 36.52 25.31 21.47 60.89 22.69 18.17 OQ Lane Group LOS D B B D C B D C C E C B Critical Lane Group Yes No No No Yes No No Yes No Yes No No tt: cD 50th-Percentile Queue Length[veh] 4.38 2.97 1.22 1.62 4.89 1.03 2.16 5.07 2.65 3.89 4.29 0.90 N 50th-Percentile Queue Length[ft] 109.43 74.37 30.62 40.46 122.13 25.82 54.05 126.84 66.29 97.30 107.34 22.57 d 95th-Percentile Queue Length[veh] 7.81 5.35 2.20 2.91 8.51 1.86 3.89 8.77 4.77 7.01 7.69 1.63 95th-Percentile Queue Length[ft] 195.21 133.87 55.12 72.83 212.75 46.47 97.29 219.19 119.33 175.15 192.29 40.63 E M U l4 a. a E r a KUNZMAN ASSOCIATES,INC. 4/8/2016 Packet Pg. 942 `6. Generated with =Z= Waterman Industrial Center Version 4.00-00 Scenario 1: 1:PMEP Movement,Approach,&Intersection Results d_M,Delay for Movement[s/veh] 51.30 18.65 16.57 35.67 27.91 19.02 36.52 25.31 21.47 60.89 22.69 18.17 Movement LOS D B B D C B D C C E C B d_A,Approach Delay[s/veh] 26.01 27.87 25.84 28.88 Approach LOS C C C C d-1,Intersection Delay[s/veh] 27.10 Intersection LOS C Intersection V/C 0.733 Sequence Ring 1 1 2 3 4 - - - - - - - - - - - - Ring 2 5 6 7 8 - - - - - - - - - - - - N Ring 3 - - - - Ring 4 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - c� 6 Lo co •• , ,. ,.,; °� �� ';�,; Ili P I p �! I i'hli�' Q. NOW d 1 r w Ms U a d i= v co Y a w U rC Q KUNZMAN AssociATES,INC. 4/8/2016 Packet Pg. 943 6.B.h Generated with °M Waterman Industrial Center Version 4.00-00 Scenario 1:1:PMEP Intersection Level Of Service Report Intersection 6:Waterman Ave(NS)at Dumas St(EW) Control Type: Two-way stop Delay(sec/veh): 24.6 Analysis Method: HCM 2010 Level Of Service: C Analysis Period: 15 minutes Volume to Capacity(v/c): 0.026 Intersection Setup Name Waterman Ave Waterman Ave Dumas St Approach Northbound Southbound Eastbound Lane Configuration 1 I I I I r Turning Movement Left Thru Thru Right Left Right Lane Width[ft] 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 No.of Lanes in Pocket 1 0 0 0 Pocket Length[ft] 111.00 - c Speed[mph] 50.00 50.00 30.00 to T_ Grade[%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 M CL Crosswalk No No No 0 volumes 00 Name Waterman Ave Waterman Ave Dumas St S Base Volume Input[veh/h] 7 907 1096 12 5 18 Ic O Base Volume Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 d Heavy Vehicles Percentage[%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 IX Growth Rate 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 In-Process Volume[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 N U Site-Generated Trips[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 d Diverted Trips[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 .r Pass-by Trips[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 d Existing Site Adjustment Volume[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 Other Volume[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total Hourly Volume[veh/h] 7 907 1096 12 5 18 Q Peak Hour Factor 0.9233 0.9233 0.9233 0.9233 0.9233 0.9233 C Other Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 d E Total 15-Minute Volume[veh/h] 2 246 297 3 1 5 v Total Analysis Volume[veh/h] 8 982 1187 13 5 19 Pedestrian Volume[ped/h] Q I KLINZMAN ASSOCIATES,INC. 4/8/2016 Packet Pg.944 Generated with •• Waterman Industrial Center Version 4.00-00 Scenario 1: 1:PMEP Intersection Settings Priority Scheme Free Free Stop Flared Lane No Storage Area[veh] Two-Stage Gap Acceptance Yes Number of Storage Spaces in Median 1 Movement,Approach,&Intersection Results V/C,Movement V/C Ratio 0.01 0.03 0.04 d_M,Delay for Movement[s/veh] 11.20 24.60 13.68 Movement LOS B A A A C B 95th-Percentile Queue Length[veh] 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.22 0.22 95th-Percentile Queue Length[ft] 1.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.45 5.45 d_A,Approach Delay[s/veh] 0.09 0.00 15.96 0 Approach LOS A A C Ui T d_I,Intersection Delay[s/veh] 0.21 Q Intersection LOS C C7 u7 00 rt O 10 (n CL N t4 U d v c m s U RS d s= m E U f6 .a+ Y d 0 KUNZMAN ASSOCIATES,INC. 4/8/2016 Packet Pg. 945 Generated with Waterman Industrial Center Version 4.00-00 Scenario 1:1:PMEP s / Intersection Level Of Service Report Intersection 7:Waterman Ave(NS)at Park Center Circle North(EW) Control Type: Two-way stop Delay(sec/veh): 165.9 Analysis Method: HCM 2010 Level Of Service: F Analysis Period: 15 minutes Volume to Capacity(v/c): 0.731 Intersection Setup Name Waterman Ave Waterman Ave Project Driveway Park Center Circle N Approach Northbound Sro�uthbound Eastbound Westbound Lane Configuration -111 r 11 i r i t i t Turning Movement Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Lane Width[ft] 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 1 12.00 No.of Lanes in Pocket 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 Pocket Length[ft] 215.00 100.00 04 Speed[mph] 50.00 50.00 30.00 30.00 t1� T Grade[%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Q Crosswalk No No Yes No (� volumes to 00 d Name Waterman Ave Waterman Ave Project Driveway Park Center Circle N d Base Volume Input[veh/h] 8 T 722 2 9 1162 11 38 18 8 0 63 O Base Volume Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1,0000 1.0000 C Heavy Vehicles Percentage[%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Growth Rate 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 In-Process Volume[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 U Site-Generated Trips[veh/h] 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a Diverted Trips[veh/h] 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 t7 Pass-by Trips[veh/h] 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Existing Site Adjustment Volume[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 t Other Volume[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ca O Total Hourly Volume[veh/h] 8 722 2 9 1162 11 38 18 8 63 Q Peak Hour Factor 0.9342 0.9342 0.9342 0.9342 0.9342 0.9342 0.9342 0.9342 0.9342 0.9342 Other Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Total 15-Minute Volume[veh/h] 2 193 1 2 311 3 10 5 2 17 Z,, Total Analysis Volume[veh/h] 9 773 2 10 1244 12 41 19 9 67 Pedestrian Volume[ped/h] 0 Q KUNZMAN ASSOCIATES,INC. 4/8/2016 Packet Pg. 946 Generated with =z= Waterman Industrial Center Version 4.00-00 Scenario 1: 1:PMEP Intersection Settings Priority Scheme Free Free Stop Stop Flared Lane Storage Area[veh] Two-Stage Gap Acceptance No No Number of Storage Spaces in Median Movement,Approach,&Intersection Results V/C,Movement V/C Ratio 0.02 0.01 C 0.73 0.04 0.10 0.11 d_M,Delay for Movement[s/veh] 11.53 9.29 165.91 13.66 49.32 11.54 Movement LOS B A A A A A F B E B 95th-Percentile Queue Length[veh] 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.00 3.09 0.14 0.32 u` 0.36 95th-Percentile Queue Length[ft] 1.22 0.00 1 0.00 0.89 0.00 0.00 77.21 3.42 8.06 9.08 d_A,Approach Delay[s/veh] 0.13 0.07 117.70 16.01 c Approach LOS A A F C U� T d_I,Intersection Delay[s/veh] 3.88 Q Intersection LOS F 0 LO 00 d' O O. d to 'Y^ V/ U Y c d E t v crs Y Y d c a� E Y Y Q KUNZMAN AssociATES,INC. 4/8/2016 Packet Pg. 947 6.B.h Generated with =Z= Waterman Industrial Center Version 4.00-00 Scenario 1: 1:PMEP Intersection Level Of Service Report Intersection 8:Waterman Ave(NS)at Park Center Circle South(EW) Control Type: Signalized Delay(sec/veh): 9.0 Analysis Method: HCM 2010 Level Of Service: A Analysis Period: 15 minutes Volume to Capacity(v/c): 0.496 Intersection Setup Name Waterman Ave Waterman Ave Park Center Circle South Park Center Circle South Approach Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Lane Configuration "1 i l r -i i i r i t i t Turning Movement LeA7 Thru Right Left7 Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Lane Width[ft] 12.00 1 12.00 12.00 12.00 1 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 No.of Lanes in Pocket 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Pocket Length[ft] :G_ Ci tV 0 Speed[mph] 50.00 50.00 1 30.00 30.00 u7 T_ Grade[%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Q Crosswalk No Yes Yes Yes 0 volumes ui 00 d' Name Waterman Ave Waterman Ave Park Center Circle South Park Center Circle South d� Base Volume Input[veh/h] --9-T706 17 6 1116 7 1 10 170 25 O Base Volume Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 ; 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 C Heavy Vehicles Percentage[%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Growth Rate 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 In-Process Volume[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 U Site-Generated Trips[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 d Diverted Trips[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 et Pass-by Trips[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Existing Site Adjustment Volume[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 t Other Volume[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 v la Right-Turn on Red Volume[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 Q Total Hourly Volume[veh/h] 9 706 17 6 1116 7 1 10 170 25 Peak Hour Factor 0.9583 0.9583 0.9583 0.9583 0.9583 0.9583 0.9583 0.9583 0.9583 0.9583 d Other Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 _ t 1.0000 v Total 15-Minute Volume[veh/h] 2 184 4 2 291 2 0 3 44 7 Y Total Analysis Volume[veh/h] 9 737 18 6 1165 7 1 10 177 26 Q Presence of On-Street Parking No No No No No No No No On-Street Parking Maneuver Rate[/h] Local Bus Stopping Rate[/h] 0 0 0 0 Pedestrian Volume[ped/h] 0 0 0 Bicycle Volume[bicycles/h] 0 0 0 0 KUNZMAN AssocI RTES,INC. 4/8/2016 Packet Pg. 948 6.B.h Generated with Waterman Industrial Center Version 4.00-00 Scenario 1: 1: PMEP A Intersection Settings Located in CBD No Signal Coordination Group Cycle Length[s] 60 Coordination Type Time of Day Pattern Isolated Actuation Type Fully actuated Offset[s] 0.0 Offset Reference LeadGreen Permissive Mode SingleBand Lost time[s] 6.00 Phasing&Timing Control Type Protecte Permiss Permiss Protecte Permiss Permiss Permiss Permiss Permiss Permiss Signal group 5 2 1 6 3 7 fV0 Auxiliary Signal Groups Gn r Lead/Lag Lead Lead Lead - Lead tp Q. Minimum Green[s] 5 5 5 5 5 0 5 1 0 u t9 Maximum Green[s] 30 30 30 30 30 C 30 0 0 oD Amber[s] 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 't All red[s] 1.0 1.0 !i.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0,0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 Split[s] 9 19 9 19 0 32 0 0 32 0 0 OQ I Vehicle Extension[s] 3.0 3.0 0 3.0 3.0 .0 3.0 0.0 0,0 3.0 0.0 0.0 N Walk[s] �J 5 0 5 0 5 0 0 5 0 0 tl-- c4 Pedestrian Clearance[s] 0 '0 0 0 10 0 10 0 0 10 V) 11,Start-Up Lost Time[s] 2.0 2.0 1,0 2.0 2.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 2.0 U a 12,Clearance Lost Time[s] 2.0 2.0 © 2.0 2.0 2.0 -Q 2.0 Minimum Recall No No No No No No Maximum Recall No No No No No No Pedestrian Recall No No No No No No U Detector Location[ft] 0.0 u.0 0,0 0.0 _),o +u Detector Length[ft] 0.0 u.0 J.0 0.0 0.O Q I, Upstream Filtering Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Exclusive Pedestrian Phase U Pedestrian Signal Group 0 CU Pedestrian Walk[s] 0 Q Pedestrian Clearance[s] 0 0 KUNV,A, N Associ RTES,INC. 4/8/2016 Packet Pg. 949 6.B.h Generated with M '= Waterman Industrial Center Version 4.00-00 Scenario 1: 1:PMEP Lane Group Calculations Lane Group L C R L C R L R L R L,Total Lost Time per Cycle[s] 4.00 1 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 11_p,Permitted Start-Up Lost Time[s] 0.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 2.00 12,Clearance Lost Time[s] 0.00 2.00 2.00 0.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 g_i,Effective Green Time[s] 41 36 36 41 36 36 11 11 11 11 g/C,Green/Cycle 0.68 0.60 0.60 0.68 0.60 0.60 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 (v/s)_i Volume/Saturation Flow Rate =2 0.20 0.01 0.01 0.32 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.12 0.02 s,saturation flow rate[veh/h] 578 3618 1615 798 3618 1615 1440 1615 1440 1615 c,Capacity[veh/h] 483 2193 979 653 2179 973 335--7 300 335 300 d1,Uniform Delay[s] 4.11 5.85 4.71 3.35 7.00 4.77 21.73 20.04 24.76 20.24 k,delay calibration 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.11 0.50 0.50 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 I,Upstream Filtering Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 N d2,Incremental Delay[s] 0.07 0.41 0.03 0.01 0.94 0.01 0.00 0.04 1.29 0.12 e LO d3,Initial Queue Delay[s] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 T- M Rp,platoon ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 r- PF,progression factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 LO 00 Lane Group Results TT X,volume/capacity 0.02 0.34 0.02 0.01 0.53 0.01 0.00 0.03 0.53 0.09 d,Delay for Lane Group[s/veh] 4.18 6.26 4.74 3.35 7.94 4.78 21.73 20.08 26.05 20.36 0 Lane Group LOS A A A A A A C C C C Critical Lane Group Yes No No No Yes No No No Yes No 50th-Percentile Queue Length[veh] 0.02 1.42 0.06 0.01 2.74 0.02 0.01 0.11 2.39 0.29 V) 50th-Percentile Queue Length[ft] 0.59 35.48 1.51 0.26 68.47 0.59 0.29 2.78 59.87 7.31 d 95th-Percentile Queue Length[veh] 0.04 2.55 0.11 0.02 4.93 0.04 0.02 0.20 4.31 0.53 95th-Percentile Queue Length[ft] 1.06 63.86 2.71 0.46 123.24 1.07 0.52 5.00 107.77 13.15 N E t U f6 a E f.. KuNzMAN ASsocIATES,INC. 4/8/2016 Packet Pg.950 6.B.h Generated with 'i Waterman Industrial Center Version 4.00-00 Scenario 1: 1:PMEP Movement,Approach,&Intersection Results d M,Delay for Movement[s/veh] 4.18 6.26 4.74 3.35 7.94 4.78 21.73 20.08 26.05 20.36 Movement LOS A A A A A A C C C C d A,Approach Delay[s/veh] 6.20 7.90 20.23 25.32 Approach LOS A A C C d_I,Intersection Delay[s/veh] 9.00 Intersection LOS A Intersection V/C 0.496 Sequence Ring 1 1 2 3 - - - - - - - - - - - - - Ring 2 5 6 7 - - - - - - - - - - - - - Ring 3 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - o Ring 4 - - - r Q. MEMO 0 U a c m E s 4 c m E s ca Q KUNZMAN ASSOCIATES,INC. 4/8/2016 Packet Pg. 951 r 6. Generated with Waterman Industrial Center Version 4.00-00 Scenario 1: 1:PMEP Intersection Level Of Service Report Intersection 9:Waterman Ave(NS)at Vanderbilt Way(EW) Control Type: Signalized Delay(sec/veh): 21.5 Analysis Method: HCM 2010 Level Of Service: C Analysis Period: 15 minutes Volume to Capacity(v/c): 0.792 Intersection Setup Name Waterman Ave Waterman Ave Vanderbilt Way Vanderbilt Way Approach Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Lane Configuration i r - i l F + -Hr Turning Movement Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru I Right Lane Width[ft] 12.00 1 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 F12.00 No.of Lanes in Pocket 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Pocket Length[ft] O Speed[mph] 50.00 50.00 30.00 30.00 to Grade[%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Q Crosswalk No Yes Yes Yes 0 volumes 00 00 It Name Waterman Ave Waterman Ave Vanderbilt Way Vanderbilt Way d Base Volume Input[veh/h] 407 523 147 175 1088 13 10 4 15 313 2 229 O Base Volume Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 C Heavy Vehicles Percentage[%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 IX Growth Rate 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 M In-Process Volume[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 U) U Site-Generated Trips[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 Diverted Trips[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 Pass-by Trips[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Existing Site Adjustment Volume[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 E t Other Volume[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .r Right-Turn on Red Volume[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 Q Total Hourly Volume[veh/h] 40 523 147 175 1088 13 10 4 15 313 2 229 Peak Hour Factor 0.9266 0.9266 0.9266 0.9266 0.9266 0.9266 1 0.9266 0.9266 0.9266 0.9266 0.9266 0.9266 N E Other Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 v Total 15-Minute Volume[veh/h] 11 141 40 47 294 4 3 1 4 84 1 62 Total Analysis Volume[veh/h] 43 564 159 189 1174 14 11 4 16 338 2 247 Q Presence of On-Street Parking No No No No No No No No On-Street Parking Maneuver Rate[/h] Local Bus Stopping Rate[/h] 0 0 0 0 Pedestrian Volume[ped/h] 0 0 0 Bicycle Volume[bicycles/hl 0 0 0 0 KUNZMAN ASSOCIATES,INC. 41812016 Packet Pg.952 6.B.h Generated with = Waterman Industrial Center Version 4.00-00 Scenario 1: 1:PMEP Intersection Settings Located in CBD No Signal Coordination Group Cycle Length[s] 61 Coordination Type Time of Day Pattern Isolated Actuation Type Fully actuated Offset[s] 0.0 Offset Reference LeadGreen Permissive Mode SingleBand Lost time[s] 6.00 Phasing&Timing Control Type Protecte Permiss Permiss Protecte Permiss Permiss Permiss Permiss Permiss Permiss Permiss Permiss Signal group 5 2 1 6 8 4 c Auxiliary Signal Groups try r Lead/Lag Lead Lead - 0 Minimum Green[s] 5 5 1 5 5 5 5 C9 Maximum Green[s] 30 30 30 30 30 0 30 LO 0o Amber[s] 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 0.0 3.0 All red[s] 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 Split[S] 9 19 17 27 24 24 0 Vehicle Extension[s] 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 a) Walk[s] 5 5 5 Pedestrian Clearance[s] 0 10 10 10 0 11,Start-Up Lost Time[s] 2.0 2.0 0.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 0.0 U tL 12,Clearance Lost Time[s] 2.0 2.0 0.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 0.0 ' C' Minimum Recall No No No No No No Maximum Recall No No No No No No Q Pedestrian Recall No No No No No No V Detector Location[ft] = 0.0 r- Detector Length[ft] 0-0 I,Upstream Filtering Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 E Exclusive Pedestrian Phase Pedestrian Signal Group 0 Pedestrian Walk[s] 0 a Pedestrian Clearance[s] 0 KLINZMAN ASSOCIATES,INC. - 4/$/2016 Packet`Pg.953 6.B.h Generated with Waterman Industrial Center Version 4.00-00 Scenario 1: 1:PMEP Lane Group Calculations Lane Group L I C R L C C C L C R L,Total Lost Time per Cycle[s] 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 11p,Permitted Start-Up Lost Time[s] 2.00 2.00 2.00 12,Clearance Lost Time[s] 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 g_i,Effective Green Time[s] 3 21 21 8 26 26 20 20 20 20 g/C,Green/Cycle 0.04 0.34 0.34 0.13 0.43 0.43 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 (v/s)_i Volume/Saturation Flow Rate 0.02 0.16 0.10 0.10 0.22 0.22 0.09 0.01 0.45 0.15 s,saturation flow rate[veh/h] 1810 3618 1615 1810 3618 1889 338 1414 708 1615 c,Capacity[veh/h] 81 1250 558 241 1571 820 190 131 348 525 d1,Uniform Delay[s] 28.59 15.51 14.52 25.66 12.48 12.48 16.32 30.37 23.67 16.45 k,delay calibration 0.11 0.50 0.50 0.11 0.50 0.50 0.11 0.11 0.50 0.11 I,Upstream Filtering Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 cV d2,Incremental Delay[s] 5.37 1.18 1.28 5.55 1.13 2.15 0.40 0.49 32.50 0.66 9 d3,Initial Queue Delay[s] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 T R Rp,platoon ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 M PF,progression factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 LO 00 Lane Group Results 't le X,volume/capacity 0.53 0.45 0.28 0.78 0.50 0.50 0.16 0.14 0.92 0.47 d,Delay for Lane Group[s/veh] 33.97 16.69 15.80 31.20 13.61 14.63 16.72 30.86 56.17 17.11 Q Lane Group LOS C B B C B B B C E B Critical Lane Group No Yes No Yes No No No No Yes No 50th-Percentile Queue Length[veh] 0.67 2.65 1.49 2.68 3.14 3.51 0.29 0.28 7.66 2.59 Cn 50th-Percentile Queue Length[ft] 16.70 66.27 37.25 66.95 78.51 87.79 7.27 6.98 191.61 64.68 d 95th-Percentile Queue Length[veh] 1.20 4.77 2.68 4.82 5.65 6.32 0.52 0.50 12.20 4.66 ' 95th-Percentile Queue Length[ft] 30.06 119.29 67.04 120.51 141.32 158.03 13.08 12.57 305.11 116.43 E t U lC r r+ a E a I KIINZMhN ASSOQATES,INC. 4/8/2016 Packet Pg.954 6.B.h Generated with Waterman Industrial Center Version 4.00-00 Scenario 1: 1:PMEP Movement,Approach,&Intersection Results d M,Delay for Movement[s/veh] 33.97 16.69 15.80 31.20 13.95 14.63 16.72 16.72 16.72 54.77 56.17 IEB1 Movement LOS C B B C B B B B B D E d A,Approach Delay[s/veh] 17.48 16.32 16.72 38.93 Approach LOS B B B D d I,Intersection Delay[s/veh] 21.46 Intersection LOS C Intersection V/C 0.792 Sequence Ring 1 1 2 4 - - - - - - - - - - - - - Ring 2 5 6 8 - - - - - - - - - - - - - Ring 3 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - o Ring 4 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - to NB �..�it 1 i I i _� � lid ��i Itia i�l l���i{, ♦� .f 3i t � � �� 9 i 0 rL R C0 V a v c CD E U RS Y Y Q Y E U Y Y Q KUNZ.MAN AssocIATES,INC.. 4/8/2016 Packet Pg. 955 s.s.n Generated with Waterman Industrial Center Version 4.00-00 Scenario 1: 1:PMEPi With Improvement; Intersection Level Of Service Report Intersection 7:Waterman Ave(NS)at Park Center Circle North(EW) Control Type: Signalized Delay(sec/veh): 5.8 Analysis Method: HCM 2010 Level Of Service: A Analysis Period: 15 minutes Volume to Capacity(v/c): 0.434 Intersection Setup Name Waterman Ave Waterman Ave Project Driveway Park Center Circle N Approach Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Lane Configuration "1 i l r -111 r i t i t Turning Movement Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru I Right Left Thru Right Lane Width[ft] 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 1. :.Cr 12.00 No.of Lanes in Pocket 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 Pocket Length[ft] _ 215.00 Q Speed[mph] 50.00 50.00 30.00 30.00 r Grade[%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 1 0.00 Q. Crosswalk No No Yes No U' volumes ao d' Name Waterman Ave Waterman Ave Project Driveway Park Center Circle N Base Volume Input[veh/h] 8 722 2 9 1162 11 38 18 8 63 O Base Volume Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 __ 1.0000 1.0000 " 1.0000 C Heavy Vehicles Percentage[%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 IX Growth Rate 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 In-Process Volume[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N U Site-Generated Trips[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 d Diverted Trips[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 d r Pass-by Trips[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Existing Site Adjustment Volume[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Other Volume[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Right-Turn on Red Volume[veh/h] 0 _ 0 0 _ 0 Q Total Hourly Volume[veh/h] 8 722 2 9 1162 11 38 18 8 63 C Peak Hour Factor 0.9342 0.9342 0.9342 0.9342 0.9342 0.9342 0.9342 0.9342 0.9342 0.9342 d E Other Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 � v Total 15-Minute Volume[veh/h] 2 193 1 2 311 3 10 5 2 17 r Total Analysis Volume[veh/h] 9 773 2 10 1244 12 41 19 9 67 Q Presence of On-Street Parking No No No No No No No No On-Street Parking Maneuver Rate[/h] Local Bus Stopping Rate[/h] 0 0 0 0 Pedestrian Volume[ped/h] 0 Bicycle Volume[bicycles/h] 0 0 0 0 ra KLINZMAN ASSOCIATES,INC. 4/8/2016 Packet Pg. 956 6.B.h Generated with Waterman Industrial Center Version 4.00-00 Scenario 1: 1: PMEPi With Improvement Intersection Settings Located in CBD No Signal Coordination Group Cycle Length[s] 60 Coordination Type Time of Day Pattern Isolated Actuation Type Fully actuated Offset[s] 0.0 Offset Reference LeadGreen Permissive Mode SingleBand Lost time[s] 6.00 Phasing&Timing Control Type Protecte Permiss Permiss Protecte Permiss Permiss Permiss [_";F Permiss Permiss Permiss Signal group 5 2 1 6 3 7 c Auxiliary Signal Groups r Lead/Lag Lead Lead Lead Lead ca a Minimum Green[s] 5 5 5 5 0 5 5 0 Maximum Green[s] 30 30 30 30 0 30 0 30 Qo Ambers] 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 0.0 3.0 0.0 3.0 Allred[s] 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 1r Split[s] 26 36 9 19 15 15 a Vehicle Extension[s] 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 0.0 Walk[s] 5 0 Ca Pedestrian Clearance[s] 1i 10 ` D 11,Start-Up Lost Time[s] 2.0 2.0 10 2.0 2.0 0.0 2.0 J 0.0 V a 12,Clearance Lost Time[s] 2.07 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 Minimum Recall No No No No No No = Maximum Recall No No No No No No Pedestrian Recall No No No No No No U Detector Location[ft] Y Detector Length[ft] Q I,Upstream Filtering Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 y E Exclusive Pedestrian Phase .0 U Pedestrian Signal Group 0 Pedestrian Walk[s] 0 Q Pedestrian Clearance[s] 0 KUNZMAN ASSOCIATES,INC 4/8/2016 Packet Pg. 957 Generated with Waterman Industrial Center Version 4.00-00 Scenario 1: 1:PMEPi With Improvement Lane Group Calculations Lane Group L C R L C R L R L R L,Total Lost Time per Cycle[s] 4.00 1 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 11_p,Permitted Start-Up Lost Time[s] 2.00 2.00 0.00 12,Clearance Lost Time[s] 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 g_i,Effective Green Time[s] 1 44 44 1 44 44 4 4 4 4 g/C,Green/Cycle 0.01 0.73 0.73 0.01 0.73 0.73 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 (v/s)_i Volume/Saturation Flow Rate 0.00 0.21 0.00 0.01 0.34 0.01 0.03 0.01 0.01 0.04 s,saturation flow rate[veh/h] 1810 3618 1615 1810 3618 1615 1440 1615 1440 1615 c,Capacity[veh/h] 25 2617 1168 27 2621 1170 171 1 101 171 101 d1,Uniform Delay[s] 29.41 2.93 2.30 29.36 3.48 2.30 28.79 26.77 28.15 27.60 k,delay calibration 0.11 0.50 0.50 0.11 0.50 0.50 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 I,Upstream Filtering Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 N d2,Incremental Delay[s] 8.71 0.29 0.00 8.29 0.62 0.02 0.72 0.90 0.13 7.36 9 d3,Initial Queue Delay[s] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 T M Rp,platoon ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 CL C9 PF,progression factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 tt) 00 Lane Group Results X,volume/capacity 0.36 0.30 0.00 0.37 0.47 0.01 0.24 0.19 0.05 0.67 d,Delay for Lane Group[s/veh] 38.12 3.22 2.31 37.65 4.10 2.31 29.51 27.67 28.27 34.96 Q Lane Group LOS D A A D A A C C C C N Ix Critical Lane Group Yes No No No Yes No No No No Yes v"�- 50th-Percentile Queue Length[veh] 0.17 0.49 0.00 0.19 0.96 0.01 0.59 0.27 0.13 1.10 50th-Percentile Queue Length[ft] 4.37 12.34 0.06 4.73 23.92 0.36 14.81 6.77 3.15 27.48 U a 95th-Percentile Queue Length[veh] 0.31 0.89 0.00 0.34 1.72 0.03 1.07 0.49 0.23 1.98 �t 95th-Percentile Queue Length[ft] 1 7.86 22.22 0.11 8.52 43.05 0.65 26.65 12.19 5.66 49.47 N E 00 U IC a-+ a U f6 Y Q KUNzmAN ASSOC[ATES,INC. 4/8/2016 Packet Pg.958 Generated with '• Waterman Industrial Center Version 4.00-00 Scenario 1: 1:PMEPi With Improvement Movement,Approach,&Intersection Results d_M,Delay for Movement[s/veh] 38.12 3.22 2.31 37.65 4.10 2.31 29.51 27.67 28.27 34.96 Movement LOS D A A D A A C C C C d_A,Approach Delay[s/veh] 3.61 4.34 28.92 34.17 Approach LOS A A C C d I,Intersection Delay[s/veh] 5.79 Intersection LOS A Intersection V/C 0.434 Sequence Ring 1 1 2 3 - - - - - - - - - - - - - Ring 2 5 6 7 - - - - - - - - - - - - - Ring 3 - - - Ring 4 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - a b g= 00 V r 0 0. co d U a v c as E �o Q c d E �a Q i KUNZMAN ASSOCIATES,INC. 4/8/2016 Packet Pg. 959 N O tf! r RS CL U LO Co v 0 M W Existing Plus Ambient Growth U a v c m E m v co »r Q a.: c m E t v Q Packet Pg. 960 6:B.h Generated with ME= Waterman Industrial Center Version 4.00-00 Scenario 1: 1: AMEAG Intersection Level Of Service Report Intersection 1:E Street(NS)at Orange Show Road(EW) Control Type: Signalized Delay(sec/veh): 22.6 Analysis Method: HCM 2010 Level Of Service: C Analysis Period: 15 minutes Volume to Capacity(v/c): 0.409 Intersection Setup Name E Street E Street Orange Show Rd Orange Show Rd Approach Northbound �Soutthbound Eastbound Westbound Lane Configuration � l i F t 1 r 1 l l r -1-i i i r -1-1 i t Turning Movement Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Lane Width[ft] 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 No.of Lanes in Pocket 2 0 2 1 2 1 2 1 Pocket Length[ft] 300.00 189.00 134.00 217.00 147.00 165.00 103.00 NC 9 Speed[mph] 40.00 40.00 40.00 40.00 r Grade[%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Q. Crosswalk Yes Yes Yes Yes 0 volumes 00 d' Name E Street E Street Orange Show Rd Orange Show Rd d Base Volume Input[veh/h] 99 89 42 53 129 58 224 825 351 79 393 27 O Base Volume Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 C Heavy Vehicles Percentage[%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Growth Rate 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 c�0 In-Process Volume[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 to U Site-Generated Trips[veh/h] 0 I 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 d Diverted Trips[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 et I'D Pass-by Trips[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 D Existing Site Adjustment Volume[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 E Other Volume[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Right-Turn on Red Volume[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 Q Total Hourly Volume[veh/h] 99 89 42 53 129 58 224 825 351 79 393 27 Peak Hour Factor 0.8860 0.8860 0.8860 0.8860 0.8860 0.8860 0.8860 0.8860 0.8860 0.8860 0.8860 0.8860 d E Other Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 V Total 15-Minute Volume[veh/h] 28 25 12 15 36 16 63 233 99 22 111 8 r Total Analysis Volume[veh/h] 112 100 47 60 146 65 253 931 396 89 444 30 Q Presence of On-Street Parking No No No No No No No No On-Street Parking Maneuver Rate[/h] ' Local Bus Stopping Rate[/h] 0 0 0 0 Pedestrian Volume[ped/h] 0 0 0 0 Bicycle Volume[bicycles/hl 0 0 0 0 KIINZMAN AssociATES,INC. 4/8/2016 Packet Pg.961 6.B.h Generated with Waterman Industrial Center Version 4.00-00 Scenario 1: 1: AMEAG VOW Intersection Settings Located in CBD No Signal Coordination Group F_ Cycle Length[s] 60 Coordination Type Time of Day Pattern Isolated Actuation Type Fully actuated Offset[s] 0.0 Offset Reference LeadGreen Permissive Mode SingleBand Lost time[s] 8.00 Phasing&Timing Control Type Protecte Permiss Permiss Protecte Permiss Permiss Protecte Permiss Permiss Protecte Permiss Permiss Signal group 5 2 1 6 3 8 7 4 0 F_ Auxiliary Signal Groups to Lead/Lag Lead Lead Lead Lead a F_ Minimum Green[s] 5 5 0 5 5 0 5 5 0 5 5 (� Maximum Green[s] 30 30 0 30 30 0 30 30 0 30 30 u7 co Amber[s] 3.0 3.0 J,0 3.0 3.0 :).G 3.0 3.0 0.0 3.0 3.0 All red[s] 1.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 0 1.0 1.0 o,o 1.0 1.0 0.0 Split[s] 9 19 u 9 19 0 13 23 0 9 19 0 Q Vehicle Extension[s] 3.0 3.0 0.0 3.0 3.0 10 3.0 3.0 0.0 3.0 3.0 0.0 N IX Walk[s] 5 u 5 0 5 0 5 Pedestrian Clearance[s] 10 0 10 10 10 11,Start-Up Lost Time[s] 2.0 2.0 z0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 0.0 2.0 2.0 0.0 d 12,Clearance Lost Time[s] 2 07 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 10 2.0 2.0 0.0 ' Minimum Recall N. T No No No No No No No = Maximum Recall No No No No No No No No d Pedestrian Recall No No No No No No No No s cvo Detector Location[ft] FDetector Length[ft] F_ I,Upstream Filtering Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 = d E Exclusive Pedestrian Phase v Pedestrian Signal Group 0 y Pedestrian Walk[s] 0 Q Pedestrian Clearance[s] 0 KUNZMAN ASSOCIATES,INC. 4/$/2016 Packet Pg. 962 6.B.h Generated with =z= Waterman Industrial Center Version 4.00-00 Scenario 1: 1: AMEAG Lane Group Calculations Lane Group L I C C L C R L C R L C R L,Total Lost Time per Cycle[s] 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 11p,Permitted Start-Up Lost Time[s] 12,Clearance Lost Time[s] 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 g_i,Effective Green Time[s] 4 19 19 3 18 18 6 18 18 4 16 16 g/C,Green/Cycle 0.07 0.31 0.31 0.05 0.30 0.30 0.11 0.30 0.30 0.07 0.26 0.26 (v/s)_i Volume/Saturation Flow Rate 0.03 0.04 0.04 0.02 0.04 0.04 0.07 0.26 0.25 0.03 0.12 0.02 s,saturation flow rate[veh/h] 3514 1900 1703 3514 3618 1615 3514 3618 1615 3514 3618 1615 c,Capacity[veh/h] 255 596 534 194 1072 479 376 1082 483 234 936 418 d1,Uniform Delay[s] 26.79 14.78 14.82 27.38 15.55 15.55 25.90 19.95 19.62 26.95 18.89 16.88 k,delay calibration 0.11 0.50 0.50 0.11 0.50 0.50 0.11 0.11 0.25 0.11 0.11 0.11 1,Upstream Filtering Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 cV d2,Incremental Delay[s] 1.19 0.44 0.52 0.90 0.26 0.59 2.09 2.14 7.65 1.01 0.37 0.07 d3,Initial Queue Delay[s] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Rp,platoon ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 C- C7 PF,progression factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 00 Lane Group Results 4T �P X,volume/capacity 0.44 0.13 0.13 0.31 0.14 0.14 0.67 0.86 0.82 0.38 0.47 0.07 d,Delay for Lane Group[s/veh] 27.98 15.22 15.34 28.28 15.82 16.14 28.00 22.09 27.27 27.96 19.26 16.95 Q Lane Group LOS C B B C B B C C C C B B d Critical Lane Group Yes No No No Yes No No Yes No Yes No No 50th-Percentile Queue Length[veh] 0.75 0.71 0.69 0.40 0.68 0.65 1.69 5.55 5.40 0.59 2.33 0.28 50th-Percentile Queue Length[ft] 18.66 17.78 17.13 10.12 17.01 16.23 42.27 138.78 135.07 14.83 58.25 7.10 U a 95th-Percentile Queue Length[veh] 1.34 1.28 1.23 0.73 1.22 1.17 3.04 9.42 9.21 1.07 4.19 0.51 ' d' 95th-Percentile Queue Length[ft] 33.59 32.00 30.83 18.21 30.62 29.21 76.09 235.38 230.37 26.70 104.85 12.78 +- C N E t U to .r Q C d t U R Y Q KUNZMAN ASSOCIATES,INC 4/8/2016 Packet Pg. 963 6.B.h Generated with Waterman Industrial Center Version 4.00-00 Scenario 1: 1: AMEAG Movement,Approach,&Intersection Results d_M,Delay for Movement[s/veh] 2798. 15.25 1 15.34 28.28 15.82 16.14 28.00 22.09 27.27 27.96 19.26 16.95 Movement LOS C B B C B B C C C C B B d_A,Approach Delay[s/veh] 20.77 18.65 24.33 20.51 Approach LOS C B C C d_I,Intersection Delay[s/veh] 22.61 Intersection LOS C Intersection V/C 0.409 Sequence Ring 1 1 2 3 4 - - - - - - - - - - - Ring 2 5 6 7 8 - - - - - - - - - - - - N Ring 3 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - o Ring 4 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - CL y 6A O CL N IX Cn Cn U a c E U a s_ w r Q KIINZMAN ASSOCIATES,INC. 4/8/2016 Packet Pg. 964 6.Bv Generated with M 'a Waterman Industrial Center Version 4.00-00 Scenario 1: 1: AMEAG Intersection Level Of Service Report Intersection 2:Washington Ave(NS)at Orange Show Rd(EW) Control Type: Signalized Delay(sec/veh): 19.5 Analysis Method: HCM 2010 Level Of Service: B Analysis Period: 15 minutes Volume to Capacity(v/c): 0.313 Intersection Setup Name Washington Ave Washington Ave Orange Show Rd Orange Show Rd Approach Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Lane Configuration i r i r -111 r -111 r Turning Movement Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Lane Width[ft] 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 No.of Lanes in Pocket 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 Pocket Length[ft] 157.00 166.00 1 {)�i c Speed[mph] 30.00 30.00 40.00 40.00 r Grade[%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 a Crosswalk Yes Yes Yes Yes U LO volumes 00 4T Name Washington Ave Washington Ave Orange Show Rd Orange Show Rd Base Volume Input[veh/h] 6 3 2 6 0 10 34 850 23 7 380 11 O Base Volume Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 W Heavy Vehicles Percentage(%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Growth Rate 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 tY0 In-Process Volume[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 V Site-Generated Trips[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0. Diverted Trips[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Iq a. Pass-by Trips[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 d Existing Site Adjustment Volume[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 t Other Volume[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Right-Turn on Red Volume[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 Q Total Hourly Volume[veh/h] 6 3 2 6 0 10 34 850 23 7 380 11 Peak Hour Factor 0.8882 0.8882 0.8882 1 0.8882 0.8882 0.8882 0.8882 0.8882 0.8882 0.8882 0.8882 0.8882 E Other Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 V Total 15-Minute Volume[veh/h] 2 1 1 2 0 3 10 239 6 2 107 3 Total Analysis Volume[veh/h] 7 3 2 7 0 11 38 957 26 8 428 12 Q Presence of On-Street Parking No No No No No No No No On-Street Parking Maneuver Rate[/h] . L ocal Bus Stopping Rate[/h] 0 0 0 0 Pedestrian Volume[ped/h] 0 0 0 0 Bicycle Volume[bicycles/h] 0 0 0 0 KuNZMn,N AssocIATES,INC.. 4/8/2016 Packet Pg. 965 6.B.h Generated with Waterman Industrial Center R ® Version 4.00-00 Scenario 1: 1: AMEAG Intersection Settings F_ Located in CBD No Signal Coordination Group Cycle Length[s] 62 F_ Coordination Type Time of Day Pattern Isolated Actuation Type Fully actuated Offset[s] 0.0 Offset Reference LeadGreen Permissive Mode SingleBand CLost time[s] 6.00 Phasing&Timing Control Type Permiss Permiss Permiss Permiss Permiss Permiss Protecte Permiss Permiss Protecte Permiss Permiss FSignal group 2 6 3 8 7 4 C Auxiliary Signal Groups Lead/Lag - Lead Lead tB CL Minimum Green[s] u 5 0 5 0 5 5 0 5 5 C9 Maximum Green[s] 0 30 0 30 0 30 30 0 30 30 0 Amber[s] 7.0 3.0 9,0 0.0 3.0 0.% 3.0 3.0 0.0 3.0 3.0 0.0 � All red[s] 0.0 1.0 4.0 f7.0 1.0 QU 1.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 Split[s] 0 19 0 19 0 9 32 9 32 CL Vehicle Extension[s] J-0 3.0 0.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 0.0 Walk[s] 0 5 5 5 5 0 CU Pedestrian Clearance[s] 0 10 0 U 10 0 10 a 10 0 N 11,Start-Up Lost Time[s] 2.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 0,e 2.0 2.0 0.0 U D. 12,Clearance Lost Time[s] 2.0 n n C, 2.0 2.0 2.0 0.0 2.0 2.0 0,C ' d Minimum Recall No No No No No No = Maximum Recall No No No No No F No E Pedestrian Recall No No No No No No _ v ca Detector Location[ft] Q Detector Length[ft] I,Upstream Filtering Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 E Exclusive Pedestrian Phase C Pedestrian Signal Group 0 Pedestrian Walk[s] 0 Q Pedestrian Clearance[s] 0 %610� KUNZMAN ASSOCIATES,INC. 4/8/2016 Packet Pg. 966 Generated with ME= Waterman Industrial Center Version 4.00-00 Scenario 1: 1: AMEAG Lane Group Calculations Lane Group C R C R L I C R L C R L,Total Lost Time per Cycle[s] 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 11_p,Permitted Start-Up Lost Time[s] 2.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 12,Clearance Lost Time[s] 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00 2.00 2.00 0.00 2.00 2.00 g_i,Effective Green Time[s] 29 29 29 29 25 20 20 25 18 18 g/C,Green/Cycle 0.47 0.47 0.47 0.47 0.40 0.32 0.32 0.40 0.29 0.29 (v/s)_i Volume/Saturation Flow Rate 0.02 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.03 0.26 0.02 0.01 0.12 0.01 s,saturation flow rate[veh/h] 651 1615 555 1615 1128 3618 1615 732 3618 1615 c,Capacity[veh/h] 407 764 378 764 531 1164 520 319 1061 474 d1,Uniform Delay[s] 11.09 8.65 20.86 8.69 11.78 19.44 14.53 13.20 17.61 15.64 k,delay calibration 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 I,Upstream Filtering Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 N d2,Incremental Delay[s] 0.11 0.01 0.09 0.03 0.06 1.52 0.04 0.03 0.25 0.02 d3,Initial Queue Delay[s] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 !C Rp,platoon ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 C- 0 PF,progression factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 to 00 Lane Group Results 19T Mt X,volume/capacity 0.02 0.00 0.02 0.01 0.07 0.82 0.05 0.03 0.40 0.03 d,Delay for Lane Group Is/veh] 11.20 8.65 20.95 8.73 11.84 20.96 14.57 13.23 17.85 15.66 Q Lane Group LOS B A C A B C B B B B d Q' Critical Lane Group Yes No Na No No Yes No Yes No No tl�: 50th-Percentile Queue Length[veh] 0.07 0.01 0.09 0.08 0.28 5.69 0.23 0.06 2.19 0.11 50th-Percentile Queue Length[ft] 1.87 0.34 2.20 1.90 7.06 142.23 5.67 1.49 54.66 2.75 d 95th-Percentile Queue Length[veh] 0.13 0.02 0.16 0.14 0.51 9.60 0.41 0.11 3.94 0.20 It 95th-Percentile Queue Length[ft] 3.37 0.62 3.97 3.41 12.71 240.02 10.21 2.68 98.39 4.95 d E t U lC a E a KIWZMAN ASSOCIATES,INC. 4/8/2016 Packet Pg. 967 6.B.h Generated with °® Waterman Industrial Center Version 4.00-00 Scenario 1: 1: AMEAG Movement,Approach,&Intersection Results d_M,Delay for Movement[s/veh] 11.20 11.20 8.65 20.95 20.95 8.73 11.84 20.96 14.57 13.23 17.85 15.66 Movement LOS B B A C C A B C B B B B d_A,Approach Delay[s/veh] 10.78 13.48 20.46 17.71 Approach LOS B B C B d I,Intersection Delay[s/veh] 19.48 Intersection LOS B Intersection V/C 0.313 Sequence Ring 1 2 3 4 - - - - - - - - - - - - - Ring 2 6 7 8 - - - - - - - - - - - - - N Ring 3 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - o Ring 4 - _ � Q "s CCo Q fn U a c m E s y+ Q d E V V-+ Q KuNZMA,N AssocIATEE,INC. 4/8/2016 Packet Pg. 968 ] 6.B.h Generated with Waterman Industrial Center Version 4.00-00 Scenario 1: 1: AMEAG Nwi Intersection Level Of Service Report Intersection 5:Waterman Ave(NS)at Orange Show Rd(EW) Control Type: Signalized Delay(sec/veh): 20.8 Analysis Method: HCM 2010 Level Of Service: C Analysis Period: 15 minutes Volume to Capacity(v/c): 0.532 Intersection Setup Name Waterman Ave Waterman Ave Orange Show Rd Orange Show Rd Approach Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Lane Configuration -111 r i i 1 r -111 r "I l i r Turning Movement Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Lane Width[ft] 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 No.of Lanes in Pocket 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 Pocket Length[ft] 298.00 275.00 248.00 258.00 !ti 100.:, C Speed[mph] 50.00 50.00 40.00 40.00 LO r Grade[%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Q. Crosswalk Yes Yes Yes Yes C7 volumes 000 Name Waterman Ave Waterman Ave Orange Show Rd Orange Show Rd d Base Volume Input[veh/h] -637596 54 50 538 84 164 386 274 78 264 70 Base Volume Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 d Heavy Vehicles Percentage[%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Growth Rate 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 In-Process Volume[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 to U Site-Generated Trips[veh/h] 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (. Diverted Trips[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 Pass-by Trips[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Existing Site Adjustment Volume[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 t Other Volume[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 R Right-Turn on Red Volume[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 Q Total Hourly Volume[veh/h] 63 596 54 50 538 1 84 164 1 386 274 78 264 70 Peak Hour Factor 0.8780 0.8780 0.8780 10.8780 0.8780 0.8780 0.8780 0.8780 0.8780 0.8780 0.8780 0.8780 E Other Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 v Total 15-Minute Volume[veh/h] 18 170 15 14 153 24 47 110 78 1 22 75 20 Total Analysis Volume[veh/h] 72 679 62 57 613 96 187 440 312 89 301 80 Q Presence of On-Street Parking No No No No No No No No On-Street Parking Maneuver Rate[/h] Local Bus Stopping Rate[/h] 0 0 0 0 Pedestrian Volume[ped/h] 0 0 0 0 Bicycle Volume[bicycles/h] 0 0 0 0 KIINZMAN ASsoCIATES,L.C. 4/8/2016 Packet'Pg 969 6.B.h Generated with � � "��, Waterman Industrial Center Version 4.00-00 Scenario 1: 1: AMEAG Intersection Settings Located in CBD No Signal Coordination Group Cycle Length[s] 60 Coordination Type Time of Day Pattern Isolated Actuation Type Fully actuated Offset[s] 0.0 Offset Reference LeadGreen Permissive Mode SingleBand Lost time[s] 8.00 Phasing&Timing Control Type Protecte Permiss Permiss Protecte Permiss Permiss Protecte Permiss Permiss Protecte Permiss Permiss Signal group -57 2 1 6 3 8 7 4 0 Auxiliary Signal Groups to T.. Lead/Lag Lead Lead - Lead Lead N Q Minimum Green[s] 5 5 5 5 0 5 5 5 5 u (� Maximum Green[s] 30 30 F 30 30 1 0 30 30 30 30 0 LO Amber[s] 3.0 3.0 �J,0 3.0 3.0 0 3.0 3.0 0.0 3.0 3.0 0.0 'It Allred[s] 1.0 1.0 0 1.0 1.0 J,0 1.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 Split[s] 9 19 0 9 19 0 13 23 0 9 19 0 Vehicle Extension[s] 3.0 3.0 0.0 3.0 3.0 :?.0 3.0 3.0 ).0 3.0 3.0 N IX Walk[s] u 5 0 5 0 0 5 0 0 5 0 Pedestrian Clearance[s] 10 r) 10 0 0 10 0 0 10 0 Cl) 11,Start-Up Lost Time[s] 2.0 2.0 0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 0.0 2.0 2.0 0.0 U D. 12,Clearance Lost Time[s] 2.0 2.0 u.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 C 2.0 2.0 n r d' Minimum Recall No No No No No No No No = Maximum Recall No No No No No No No No d Pedestrian Recall No No No No No No No No v Detector Location[ft] 0.0 u.0 0.0 Detector Length[ft] 0 J.0 0,0 I,Upstream Filtering Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 E Exclusive Pedestrian Phase U Pedestrian Signal Group 0 Pedestrian Walk[s] 0 Q Pedestrian Clearance[s] 0 KUNZMr\N ASSOCIATES,INC. 4/8/2016 Packet Pg. 970 6.B.h Generated with Waterman Industrial Center Version 4.00-00 Scenario 1: 1: AMEAG Lane Group Calculations Lane Group L I C R L C I R L C R L C I R L,Total Lost Time per Cycle[s] 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.007 4.00 11p,Permitted Start-Up Lost Time[s] 12,Clearance Lost Time[s] 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 g_i,Effective Green Time[s] 4 23 23 3 22 22 8 14 14 1 4 10 10 g/C,Green/Cycle 0.06 0.38 0.38 0.05 0.37 0.37 0.13 0.24 0.24 1 0.07 0.17 0.17 (v/s)_i Volume/Saturation Flow Rate 0.04 0.19 0.04 0.03 0.17 0.06 0.10 0.12 0.19 0.05 0.08 0.05 s,saturation flow rate[veh/h] 1810 3618 1615 1810 3618 1615 1810 3618 1615 1810 3618 1615 c,Capacity[veh/h] 108 1367 610 95 1342 599 235 861 384 119 628 280 d1,Uniform Delay[s] 27.70 14.33 12.10 27.88 14.33 12.66 25.38 19.89 21.65 27.61 22.41 21.61 k,delay calibration 0.11 0.50 0.50 0.11 0.50 0.50 0.16 0.11 0.13 0.11 0.11 0.11 I,Upstream Filtering Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 N d2,Incremental Delay[sj 6.96 1.29 0.33 5.98 1.12 0.57 8.60 0.47 5.00 8.99 0.57 0.55 9 d3,Initial Queue Delay[s] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 `- Rp,platoon ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 CL PF,progression factor 1.00 1 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 00 Lane Group Results X,volume/capacity 0.67 0.50 0.10 0.60 0.46 0.16 0.79 0.51 0.81 0.75 0.48 0.29 d,Delay for Lane Group[s/veh] 34.66 15.62 12.44 33.86 15.46 13.23 33.98 20.36 26.65 36.59 22.97 22.16 OQ Lane Group LOS C B B C B B C C C D C C d Critical Lane Group No Yes No Yes No No No No Yes Yes No No 4= 50th-Percentile Queue Length[veh] 1.10 2.99 0.48 0.87 2.68 0.78 2.90 2.41 4.16 1.44 1.77 0.92 50th-Percentile Queue Length[ft] 27.53 74.75 12.00 21.64 66.92 19.44 72.41 60.17 104.08 36.12 44.15 23.08 U a 95th-Percentile Queue Length[veh] 1.98 5.38 0.86 1.56 4.82 1.40 5.21 4.33 7.49 2.60 3.18 1.66 ' d' 95th-Percentile Queue Length[ftj 49.56 134.55 21.60 38.95 1 120.46 35.00 130.34 108.31 187.34 65.02 79.48 41.54 d E M U co r Q c a� E t ca Q KUNZNAAN ASSOCIATES,INC. 4/8/2016 Packet Pg.971 Generated with `s Waterman Industrial Center Version 4.00-00 Scenario 1: 1: AMEAG Movement,Approach,&Intersection Results d_M,Delay for Movement[s/veh] 34.66 1 15.62 12.44 33.86 15.46 13.23 33.98 20.36 26.65 36.59 22.97 22.16 Movement LOS C B B C B B C C C D C C d_A,Approach Delay[s/veh] 17.06 16.55 25.16 25.42 Approach LOS B B C C d_I,Intersection Delay[s/veh] 20.79 Intersection LOS C Intersection V/C 1 0.532 Sequence Ring 1 1 2 3 4 - - - - - - - - - - - - Ring 2 5 6 7 8 - - - - - - - - - - - - N Ring 3 - - - - Ring 4 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - R a 4[� LO d' d CL U a v m E v co a w w a KUNZMAN Assoc]ATES,L.C. 4/8/2016 Packet Pg. 972 6.B.h Generated with MEM Waterman Industrial Center Version 4.00-00 Scenario 1: 1: AMEAG Intersection Level Of Service Report Intersection 6:Waterman Ave(NS)at Dumas St(EW) Control Type: Two-way stop Delay(sec/veh): 20.5 Analysis Method: HCM 2010 Level Of Service: C Analysis Period: 15 minutes Volume to Capacity(v/c): 0.025 Intersection Setup Name Waterman Ave Waterman Ave Dumas St Approach Northbound Southbound Eastbound Lane Configuration -I i I I i r 1 Turning Movement Left Thru Thru Right Left Right Lane Width[ft] 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 No.of Lanes in Pocket 1 0 0 0 Pocket Length[ft] 111.00 U - cV 0 Speed[mph] 50.00 50.00 30.00 Ln T.- Grade[%j 0.00 0.00 0.00 M CL Crosswalk No No No C9 volumes 000 Name Waterman Ave Waterman Ave Dumas St d Base Volume Input[veh/h] 3 726 874 8 5 6 O Base Volume Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 d Heavy Vehicles Percentage(%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 IX Growth Rate 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 t�0 In-Process Volume[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 U Site-Generated Trips[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 IL Diverted Trips[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 It Pass-by Trips[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 = d Existing Site Adjustment Volume[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 t Other Volume[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 r+ Total Hourly Volume[veh/h] 3 726 874 8 5 6 Q Peak Hour Factor 0.8593 0.8593 0.8593 0.8593 0.8593 0.8593 Other Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Total 15-Minute Volume[veh/h] 1 211 254 2 1 2 U Total Analysis Volume[veh/h] 3 845 1017 9 6 7 M Pedestrian Volume[ped/h] Q KUNZMAN Assoc[AT"ES,INC. 4/8/2016 Packet Pg. 973 6.B.h Generated with =Z= Waterman Industrial Center Version 4.00-00 Scenario 1: 1: AMEAG Intersection Settings Priority Scheme Free Free Stop Flared Lane No Storage Area[veh] Two-Stage Gap Acceptance Yes Number of Storage Spaces in Median 1 Movement,Approach,&Intersection Results V/C,Movement V/C Ratio 0.00 0.03 0.01 d_M,Delay for Movement[s/veh] 10.28 20.50 12.42 Movement LOS B A A A C B 95th-Percentile Queue Length[veh] 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.12 0.12 95th-Percentile Queue Length[ft] 0.33 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.01 3.01 d_A,Approach Delay[s/veh] 0.04 0.00 16.15 0 Approach LOS A A C r d_I,Intersection Delay[s/veh] 0.13 Q. Intersection LOS C d' O Q d t0 U CL c a� E E v m r a E a KUNZMAN ASSOQATES,INC. 4/8/2016 Packet Pg.974 6.B.h Generated with °i Waterman Industrial Center Version 4.00-00 Scenario 1: 1: AMEAG Intersection Level Of Service Report Intersection 7:Waterman Ave(NS)at Park Center Circle North(EW) Control Type: Two-way stop Delay(sec/veh): 21.2 Analysis Method: HCM 2010 Level Of Service: C Analysis Period: 15 minutes Volume to Capacity(v/c): 0.004 Intersection Setup Name Waterman Ave Waterman Ave Park Center Circle N Approach Northbound Southbound Westbound Lane Configuration 1 r"► -I I I i t Turning Movement Thru Right Left Thru Left Right Lane Width[ft] 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 No.of Lanes in Pocket 0 1 0 0 215.00 cV Pocket Length[ft] o Speed[mph] 50.00 50.00 30.00 tri T" Grade[%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 M CL Crosswalk No No No C9 volumes 00 IT Name Waterman Ave Waterman Ave Park Center Circle N �► Base Volume Input[veh/h] 721 27 78 779 1 9 O Base Volume Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 N Adr' Heavy Vehicles Percentage[%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Growth Rate 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 two In-Process Volume[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 U Site-Generated Trips[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 d Diverted Trips[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 Iq Pass-by Trips[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 Q Existing Site Adjustment Volume[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 t Other Volume[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total Hourly Volume[veh/h] 721 27 78 779 1 9 Q Peak Hour Factor 0.8587 0.8587 0.8587 0.8587 0.8587 0.8587 Other Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 a) E Total 15-Minute Volume[veh/h] 210 8 23 227 0 3 -_ v Total Analysis Volume[veh/h] 840 31 91 907 1 10 +��+ Pedestrian Volume[ped/h] Q KUNzmAN ASSOCIATES,INC. 4/8/2016 Packet Pg..975 s.B.n Generated with MOM Waterman Industrial Center ® Version 4.00-00 Scenario 1: 1: AMEAG Intersection Settings Priority Scheme Free Free Stop Flared Lane Storage Area[veh] Two-Stage Gap Acceptance Yes Number of Storage Spaces in Median 1 Movement,Approach,&Intersection Results V/C,Movement V/C Ratio 0.12 0.00 0.02 d_M,Delay for Movement[s/veh] 10.20 21.22 11.23 Movement LOS A A B A C B 95th-Percentile Queue Length[veh] 0.00 0.00 0.39 0.00 0.01 0.05 95th-Percentile Queue Length IN 0.00 0.00 9.82 0.00 0.34 1.30 d_A,Approach Delay[s/veh] 0.00 0.93 12.14 0 LO Approach LOS A A B d_I,Intersection Delay[s/veh] 0.56 Q Intersection LOS C U LO 00 d' d' O 10 V) Q d d' N U a v s= E U tCf a. a E U 0 fS3 Q KuNzmAN ASSOCIATES,INC. 4/8/2016 Packet Pg. 976 6.B.h Generated with 'O Waterman Industrial Center Version 4.00-00 Scenario 1: 1: AMEAG Intersection Level Of Service Report Intersection 8:Waterman Ave(NS)at Park Center Circle South(EW) Control Type: Signalized Delay(sec/veh): 3.8 Analysis Method: HCM 2010 Level Of Service: A Analysis Period: 15 minutes Volume to Capacity(v/c): 0.606 Intersection Setup Name Waterman Ave Waterman Ave Park Center Circle South Park Center Circle South Approach Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Lane Configuration 1 1 I r '111 r i t i t Turning Movement Left7 Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Lane Width[ft] 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 No.of Lanes in Pocket 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Pocket Length[ft] j, . Speed[mph] 50.00 50.00 30.00 30.00 u7 T_ Grade[%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 a Crosswalk No Yes Yes Yes 0 volumes 00 Name Waterman Ave Waterman Ave Park Center Circle South Park Center Circle South d Base Volume Input[veh/h] 5 715 163 23 748 7 8 4 11 23 0 7 O Base Volume Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 C Heavy Vehicles Percentage[%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Growth Rate 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 M In-Process Volume[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 U Site-Generated Trips[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (. Diverted Trips[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 It r.+ Pass-by Trips[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C d Existing Site Adjustment Volume[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 = 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 E Other Volume[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Right-Turn on Red Volume[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 Q Total Hourly Volume[veh/h] 5 715 163 23 748 7 8 4 11 23 0 7 Peak Hour Factor 0.8960 0.8960 0.8960 0.8960 0.8960 0.8960 0.8960 0.8960 0.8960 0.8960 0.8960 0.8960 0 Other Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 r v Total 15-Minute Volume[veh/h] 1 199 45 6 209 2 2 1 3 6 0 2 r Total Analysis Volume[veh/h] 6 798 182 26 835 8 9 4 12 26 0 8 Q Presence of On-Street Parking No No No No No No No No On-Street Parking Maneuver Rate[/h] Local Bus Stopping Rate[/h] 0 0 0 0 Pedestrian Volume[ped/h] 0 0 0 Bicycle Volume[bicycles/h] 0 0 0 0 KLINZMAN ASSOCIATES,INC. 4/8/2016 Packet Pg.977 6.B.h Generated with Waterman Industrial Center Version 4.00-00 Scenario 1: 1: AMEAG Intersection Settings Located in CBD No Signal Coordination Group Cycle Length[s] 60 Coordination Type Time of Day Pattern Isolated Actuation Type Fully actuated Offset[s] 0.0 Offset Reference LeadGreen Permissive Mode SingleBand Lost time[s] 6.00 Phasing&Timing Control Type Protecte Permiss Permiss Protecte Permiss Permiss Permiss Permiss Permiss Permiss Permiss Permiss Signal group 5 2 0 1 6 8 4 O Auxiliary Signal Groups r Lead/Lag Lead Lead Q. Minimum Green[s] 5 1 5 5 5 0 5 0 0 5 0 O' Maximum Green[s] 30T 30 0 30 30 0 9 30 0 30 0 rA Amber[s] 3.0 3.0 00 3.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 k.0 u.0 3.0 5.0 4t Allred[s] 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0 1.0 Split[s] 9 47 9 47 0 0 19 0 19 0 CL Vehicle Extension[s] 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 0 3.0 d Walk[s] U 0 5 0 0 5 0 J 5 Pedestrian Clearance[s] 10 0 10 0 0 10 0 U 10 co 11,Start-Up Lost Time[s] 2.0 2.0 0.0 2.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 2.0 U a 12,Clearance Lost Time[s] 2.0 2.0 `'0 2.0 2.0 :,,.0 0.0 2.0 2.0 Minimum Recall No No No No No No +- G Maximum Recall No No No No No No Pedestrian Recall No No No No No No v cv Detector Location[ft] 0.0 0.0 0.0 U.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 Detector Length[ft] 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 ;1.0 0 .0 ... I,Upstream Filtering Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 = d Exclusive Pedestrian Phase V Pedestrian Signal Group 0 r Pedestrian Walk[s] 0 Q Pedestrian Clearance[s] 0 KUNZIMAN ASSOCIATES,INC. 4/8/2016 Packet Pg. 978 6.B.h Generated with =z= Waterman Industrial Center Version 4.00-00 Scenario 1: 1: AMEAG Lane Group Calculations Lane Group L I C R L C R C R C R L,Total Lost Time per Cycle[s] 4007 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 11_p,Permitted Start-Up Lost Time[s] 0.00 0.00 2.00 2.00 0,00 12,Clearance Lost Time[s] 0.00 2.00 2.00 0.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 g_i,Effective Green Time[s] 50 44 44 50 45 45 2 2 2 2 g/C,Green/Cycle 0.83 0.73 0.73 0.83 0.75 0.75 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 (v/s)_i Volume/Saturation Flow Rate 0.01 0.22 0.11 0.03 0.23 0.00 0.17 0.01 0.31 0.00 s,saturation flow rate[veh/h] 728 3618 1615 779 3618 1615 78 1615 83 1615 c,Capacity[veh/h] 723 2637 1177 762 2715 1212 104 65 123 65 d1,Uniform Delay[s] 1.14 2.84 2.49 1.17 2.44 1.88 30.07 27.92 30.07 27.85 k,delay calibration 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.11 0.50 0.50 0.18 0.11 0.50 0.11 I,Upstream Filtering Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 N d2,Incremental Delay[s] 0.02 0.30 0.28 0.02 0.29 0.01 0.87 1.36 3.88 0.84 d3,Initial Queue Delay[s] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 M Rp,platoon ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 CL PF,progression factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 LO 00 Lane Group Results d X,volume/capacity 0.01 0.30 0.15 0.03 0.31 0.01 0.12 0.18 0.21 0.12 d,Delay for Lane Group[s/veh] 1.16 3.13 2.77 1.18 2.73 1.89 30.93 29.28 33.95 28.69 OQ Lane Group LOS A A A A A A C C C C Q' Critical Lane Group Yes No No No Yes No No No Yes No 50th-Percentile Queue Length[veh] 0.00 0.48 0.24 0.00 0.31 0.01 0.21 0.18 0.50 0.12 50th-Percentile Queue Length[ft] 0.10 12.07 6.04 0.10 7.84 0.16 5.14 4.58 12.42 3.02 d 95th-Percentile Queue Length[veh] 0.01 0.87 0.43 0.01 0.56 1 0.01 0.37 0.33 0.89 0.22 ' let 95th-Percentile Queue Length[ft] 0.19 21.73 10.86 0.17 14.11 0.28 9.25 8.24 22.36 5.43 = E _ V lC a E w a KLWZMAN AssocaATES,INC. 4/8/2016 Packet Pg.979 Generated with ME= Waterman Industrial Center Version 4.00-00 Scenario 1: 1: AMEAG Movement,Approach,&Intersection Results d M,Delay for Movement[s/veh] 1.16 3.13 2.77 1.18 2.73 1.89 30.93 30.93 29.28 33.95 33.95 28.69 Movement LOS A A A A A A C C C C C C d A,Approach Delay[s/veh] 3.05 2.68 30.14 32.72 Approach LOS A A C C d_I,Intersection Delay[s/veh] 3.76 Intersection LOS A Intersection V/C 0.606 Sequence Ring 1 1 2 4 - - - - - - - - - - - - Ring 2 5 6 8 - - - - - - - - - - - - - N Ring 3 - - - Ring 4 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - c� U'sZ 4 d r r tea,F CL in U a v w _ a� ;r co a a KuNZMAN AssocIATES,INC. 4/8/2016 Packet Pg. 980 nlmllllr■.. 6.B.h Generated with Waterman Industrial Center Version 4.00-00 Scenario 1: 1: AMEAG Intersection Level Of Service Report Intersection 9:Waterman Ave(NS)at Vanderbilt Way(EW) Control Type: Signalized Delay(sec/veh): 16.7 Analysis Method: HCM 2010 Level Of Service: B Analysis Period: 15 minutes Volume to Capacity(v/c): 0.643 Intersection Setup Name Waterman Ave Waterman Ave Vanderbilt Way Vanderbilt Way Approach Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Lane Configuration -i l i r» -111F + -Hr Turning Movement Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Lane Width[ft] 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 No.of Lanes in Pocket 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Pocket Length[ft] 100.00 tVC Speed[mph] 50.00 50.00 30.00 30.00 r Grade[%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Q Crosswalk No Yes Yes Yes C9 L0 volumes 00 Name Waterman Ave Waterman Ave Vanderbilt Way Vanderbilt Way Base Volume Input[veh/h] 25 661 374 253 533 4 4 3 3 64 1 225 O Base Volume Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 C 40W Heavy Vehicles Percentage[%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Growth Rate 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 M In-Process Volume[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 U Site-Generated Trips[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0. Diverted Trips[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 - 07 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -T Pass-by Trips[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Existing Site Adjustment Volume[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 E Other Volume[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 U w. Right-Turn on Red Volume[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 Q Total Hourly Volume[veh/h] 25 661 374 253 533 4 4 3 3 64 1 225 Peak Hour Factor 0.8826 0.8826 0.8826 0.8826 0.8826 0.8826 0.8826 0.8826 0.8826 0.8826 0.8826 0.8826 d Other Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Total 15-Minute Volume[veh/h] 7 187 106 72 151 1 1 1 1 18 0 64 Total Analysis Volume[veh/h] 28 749 424 287 604 5 5 3 3 73 1 255 Q Presence of On-Street Parking No No No No No No No No On-Street Parking Maneuver Rate[/h] Local Bus Stopping Rate(/h] 0 0 0 0 Pedestrian Volume[ped/h] 0 0 0 Bicycle Volume[bicycles/h] 0 0 0 0 KUNzmAN ASSOCIATES,INC. 4/8/2016 Packet Pg. 981 i 6.B.h r Generated with Waterman Industrial Center � �� ® Version 4.00-00 Scenario 1: 1: AMEAG Intersection Settings Located in CBD No Signal Coordination Group Cycle Length[s] 60 Coordination Type Time of Day Pattern Isolated Actuation Type Fully actuated Offset[s] 0.0 Offset Reference LeadGreen Permissive Mode SingleBand Lost time[s] 6.00 Phasing&Timing Control Type Protecte Permiss Permiss Protecte Permiss Permiss Permiss Permiss Permiss Permiss Permiss Permiss Signal group 5 2 1 6 8 4 c Auxiliary Signal Groups r Lead/Lag Lead I Lead I I Q Minimum Green[s] 5 1 5 5 1 5 5 0 5 u Maximum Green[s] 30 1 30 30 30 30 0 30 0 to Amber[s] 307 3.0 3.0 3.0 _ 0.0 3.0 ri;; 3.0 0.0 dam' All red[s] 1.0 1.0 :a.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 70 1.0 0.0 1.0 0,0 ,r Split[s] 9 19 0 21 31 0 0 20 0 20 0 Vehicle Extension[s] 3.0 710 0.0 3.0 3.0 1C 3.0 0.0 3.0 Walk[s] 0 6 0 5 0 5 0 L 5 Pedestrian Clearance[s] 0 i0 0 10 0 10 0 0 10 11,Start-Up Lost Time[s] 2.0 2.0 0,0 2.0 2.0 2.0 0.0 2.0 U a 12,Clearance Lost Time[s] 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 0. 2.0 ' d' Minimum Recall No No No No No No Maximum Recall No No No No No No Pedestrian Recall No No No No No No U f6 Detector Location[ft] 0 ��.0 0.0 J.O 0.L Detector Length[ft] 9.0 0.0 '.0 Q I,Upstream Filtering Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Exclusive Pedestrian Phase U Pedestrian Signal Group 0 Pedestrian Walk[s] 0 Q Pedestrian Clearance[s] 0 KL]NZMAN ASSOCIATES,INC. 4/8/2016 Packet Pg. 982 6.B.h Generated with =Z= Waterman Industrial Center Version 4.00-00 Scenario 1: 1: AMEAG Lane Group Calculations Lane Group L C R L C C C L C R L,Total Lost Time per Cycle[s] 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 11_p,Permitted Start-Up Lost Time[s] 2.00 2.00 2.00 12,Clearance Lost Time[s] 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 g_i,Effective Green Time[s] 2 25 25 11 35 35 12 12 12 12 g/C,Green/Cycle 0.03 0.42 0.42 0.19 0.58 0.58 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 (v/s)_i Volume/Saturation Flow Rate 0.02 0.21 0.26 0.16 0.11 0.11 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.16 s,saturation flow rate[veh/h] 1810 3618 1615 1810 3618 1892 1488 1432 1333 1615 c,Capacity[veh/h] 60 1504 671 347 2078 1087 374 286 375 312 d1,Uniform Delay[s] 28.56 12.95 13.93 23.34 6.13 6.13 19.73 23.98 20.36 23.27 k,delay calibration 0.11 0.50 0.50 0.11 0.50 0.50 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.13 I,Upstream Filtering Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 cV d2,Incremental Delay[s] 5.49 1.18 4.48 5.07 0.21 11 0.39 0.03 0.15 0.14 6.28 t: d3,Initial Queue Delay[s] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 `0 Rp,platoon ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Q• PF,progression factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 N oD Lane Group Results X,volume/capacity 0.47 0.50 0.63 0.83 0.19 0.19 0.03 0.10 0.12 0.82 d,Delay for Lane Group[s/veh] 34.05 14.14 18.41 28.41 6.33 6.52 19.76 24.13 20.50 29.56 0 CL Lane Group LOS C B B C A A B C C C ..dr Critical Lane Group No No Yes Yes No No No No No Yes : 50th-Percentile Queue Length[veh] 0.44 1 3.05 4.25 3.80 0.80 0.89 0.12 0.36 0.51 3.75 50th-Percentile Queue Length[ft] 11.08 76.24 106.17 95.02 19.93 22.28 3.01 9.11 12.76 93.84 d 95th-Percentile Queue Length[veh] 0.80 5.49 7.63 6.84 1.44 1.60 0.22 0.66 0.92 6.76 d 95th-Percentile Queue Length[ft] 1995. 137.23 190.66 171.04 35.88 40.11 5.43 16.39 22.96 168.92 d E t V c0 a Q KIINZMAN ASSOCIATES,INC. 4/8/2016 Packet Pg.983 6.B.h 'I Generated with Waterman Industrial Center Version 4.00-00 Scenario 1: 1: AMEAG Movement,Approach,&Intersection Results d_M,Delay for Movement[s/veh] 34.05 14.14 18.41 28.41 6.40 6.52 19.76 19.76 19.76 24.13 20.50 29.56 Movement LOS C B B C A A B B B C C C d_A,Approach Delay[s/veh] 16.11 13.45 19.76 27.84 Approach LOS B B B C d_I,Intersection Delay[s/veh] 16.73 Intersection LOS B Intersection V/C 0.643 Sequence Ring 1 1 2 4 - - - - - - - - - - - - - Ring 2 5 6 8 - - - - - - - - - - - - - N Ring 3 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - o Ring 4 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - j���a� ! ! Iljtl€ii;i MOWN& 1 !Grp r�� �,i�,l e,I i �I�; � i E �e4 �Ililll�i�]II";iGf]tilill� !�;' �ri �I ji' � CL U a c d E s r Q c m E t Q KUNZMAN ASSOCIATES,INC, 4/8/2016 Packet Pg. 984 6.B.h Generated with Waterman Industrial Center Version 4.00-00 Scenario 1: 1:AMEAGi With Improvements Intersection Level Of Service Report Intersection 7:Waterman Ave(NS)at Park Center Circle North(EW) Control Type: Signalized Delay(sec/veh): 4.1 Analysis Method: HCM 2010 Level Of Service: A Analysis Period: 15 minutes Volume to Capacity(v/c): 0.321 Intersection Setup Name Waterman Ave Waterman Ave Park Center Circle N Approach Northbound Southbound Westbound Lane Configuration I r i r Turning Movement Thru Right Left Thru Left Right Lane Width[ft] 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 No.of Lanes in Pocket 0 1 0 0 Pocket Length[ft] 215.00 N 0 Speed[mph] 50.00 50.00 30.00 LO r Grade[%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 Q. Crosswalk No No No U' LO volumes 'd Name Waterman Ave Waterman Ave Park Center Circle N Base Volume Input[veh/h] 721 27 78 779 1 9 O Base Volume Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 N Heavy Vehicles Percentage[%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 IX Growth Rate 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 R In-Process Volume[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 U Site-Generated Trips[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 d Diverted Trips[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 IT Pass-by Trips[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 N Existing Site Adjustment Volume[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 E Other Volume[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 Right-Turn on Red Volume[veh/h] 0 0 Q Total Hourly Volume[veh/h] 721 27 78 779 1 9 Peak Hour Factor 0.8587 0.8587 0.8587 0.8587 0.8587 0.8587 d E Other Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 u Total 15-Minute Volume[veh/h] 210 8 23 227 0 3 r Total Analysis Volume[veh/h] 840 31 91 907 1 10 Q Presence of On-Street Parking No No No No No No On-Street Parking Maneuver Rate[/h] Local Bus Stopping Rate[/h] 0 0 0 Pedestrian Volume[ped/h] Bicycle Volume[bicycles/h] 0 0 0 KUNZMAN ASSOCIATES,INC. 4/7/2016 Packet Pg.985 6.B.h Generated with = = Waterman Industrial Center Version 4.00-00 Scenario 1: 1:AMEAGi With Improvement: Intersection Settings Located in CBD No Signal Coordination Group Cycle Length[s] 60 Coordination Type Time of Day Pattern Isolated Actuation Type Fully actuated Offset[s] 0.0 Offset Reference LeadGreen Permissive Mode SingleBand Lost time[s] 6.00 Phasing&Timing Control Type Permissive Permissive Protected Permissive Permissive Permissive Signal group 2 1 6 7 0 Auxiliary Signal Groups LO r Lead/Lag - Lead Lead Q Minimum Green[s] 5 5 5 5 0 C9 Maximum Green[s] 30 30 30 30 0 u7 00 Amber[s] 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 0.0 All red[s] 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 Split[s] 15 30 45 15 0 OQ Vehicle Extension[s] 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 0.0 Walk[s] Pedestrian Clearance[s] 0 0 11,Start-Up Lost Time[s] 2.0 0.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 0.0 U tl 12,Clearance Lost Time[s] 2.0 0.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 0.0 ' Minimum Recall No No No No Maximum Recall No No No No N E Pedestrian Recall No No No No U t6 Detector Location[ft] Q Detector Length[ft] I,Upstream Filtering Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 E Exclusive Pedestrian Phase Pedestrian Signal Group 0 +C0 Pedestrian Walk[s] 0 Q Pedestrian Clearance[s] 0 KuNZ),nnN AssocinTES,INC. 4/7/2016 Packet Pg. 986 Generated with °• Waterman Industrial Center Version 4.00-00 Scenario 1: 1:AMEAGi With Improvement: Lane Group Calculations Lane Group C R L C L R L,Total Lost Time per Cycle[s] 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 11_p,Permitted Start-Up Lost Time[s] 12,Clearance Lost Time[s] 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 g_i,Effective Green Time[s] 43 43 4 51 1 1 g/C,Green/Cycle 0.72 0.72 0.07 0.85 0.02 0.02 (v/s)_i Volume/Saturation Flow Rate 0.23 0.02 0.05 0.25 0.00 0.01 s,saturation flow rate[veh/h] 3618 1615 1810 3618 1810 1615 c,Capacity[veh/h] 2589 1156 124 3078 29 26 d1,Uniform Delay[s] 3.17 2.48 27.47 0.89 29.14 29.31 k,delay calibration 0.50 0.50 0.11 0.50 0.11 0.11 I,Upstream Filtering Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 N d2,Incremental Delay[s] 0.33 0.04 7.98 0.24 0.48 9.12 9 d3,Initial Queue Delay[s] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 cts Rp,platoon ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 a PF,progression factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 00 Lane Group Results Itt X,volume/capacity 0.32 0.03 0.73 0.29 0.03 039 d,Delay for Lane Group[s/veh] 3.50 2.52 35.45 1.14 29.62 38.42 Q Lane Group LOS A A D A C D d ,. IX Critical Lane Group Yes No Yes No No Yes 50th-Percentile Queue Length[veh] 0.62 0.04 1.40 0.10 0.02 0.20 U) 50th-Percentile Queue Length[ft] 15.60 1.07 35.08 2.61 0.44 5.05 U IL 95th-Percentile Queue Length[veh] 1.12 0.08 2.53 0.19 0.03 0.36 ' qt 95th-Percentile Queue Length[ft] 28.07 1.93 63.15 4.70 0.78 9.09 = d E V cv r Q C d E t V R Q KIINZMAN AssociATES,INC. 4/7/2016 Packet Pg.987 6.B.h Generated with =z= Waterman Industrial Center Version 4.00-00 Scenario 1: 1:AMEAGi With Improvement: Movement,Approach,&Intersection Results d_M,Delay for Movement[s/veh] 3.50 2.52 35.45 1.14 29.62 38.42 Movement LOS A A D A C D d_A,Approach Delay[s/veh] 3.46 4.26 37.62 Approach LOS A A D d I,Intersection Delay[s/veh] 4.09 Intersection LOS A Intersection V/C 0.321 Sequence Ring 1 1 2 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Ring 2 - 6 7 - - - - - - - - - - - - - N Ring 3 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - o Ring 4 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - a LO 00 'C O CL as IX U c m s U l4 Q C d U R a� a.. Q KIINZMAN Ass0C1ATES,INC.. 4/7/2016 Packet Pg. 988 6.B.h Generated with WE= Waterman Industrial Center ® Version 4.00-00 Scenario 1: 1:PMEAG Intersection Level Of Service Report Intersection 1: E Street(NS)at Orange Show Road(EW) Control Type: Signalized Delay(sec/veh): 26.4 Analysis Method: HCM 2010 Level Of Service: C Analysis Period: 15 minutes Volume to Capacity(v/c): 0.723 Intersection Setup Name E Street E Street Orange Show Rd Orange Show Rd Approach Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Lane Configuration "1 11 � -1*i l I r "1-111 r 1"111 r Turning Movement Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Lane Width[ft] 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 No.of Lanes in Pocket 2 0 2 1 2 1 2 1 Pocket Length[ft] 300.00 189.00 134.00 217.00 ":: 147.00 165.00 103.00 c Speed[mph] 40.00 40.00 40.00 40.00 LO T Grade[%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 M CL Crosswalk Yes Yes Yes Yes C7 volumes 000 Name E Street E Street Orange Show Rd Orange Show Rd �1 Base Volume Input[veh/h] 459 7 292 129 148 159 263 124 913 303 148 808 44 O Base Volume Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 F1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 a- Heavy Vehicles Percentage[%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 IX Growth Rate 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 M In-Process Volume[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 U Site-Generated Trips[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 d Diverted Trips[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 et Pass-by Trips[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Existing Site Adjustment Volume[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 t Other Volume[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 R M Right-Turn on Red Volume[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 Q Total Hourly Volume[veh/h] 459 292 129 148 159 263 124 913 303 148 808 44 Peak Hour Factor 0.9275 0.9275 0.9275 0.9275 0.9275 0.9275 0.9275 0.9275 0.9275 0.9275 0.9275 0.9275 Other Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1 A000 1.0000 -_ U Total 15-Minute Volume[veh/h] 124 79 35 40 43 71 33 246 82 40 218 12 CU Total Analysis Volume[veh/h] 495 315 139 160 171 284 134 984 327 160 871 47 Q Presence of On-Street Parking No No No No No No No No On-Street Parking Maneuver Rate[/h] Local Bus Stopping Rate[/h] 0 0 _ 0 0 Pedestrian Volume[ped/h] 0 0 0 0 Bicycle Volume[bicycles/h] 0 0 0 0 KUNZMAN AssocIATES,INC 4/8/2016 Packet P9, 989 6.B.h Generated with Waterman Industrial Center Version 4.00-00 Scenario 1: 1: PMEAG Intersection Settings Located in CBD No Signal Coordination Group Cycle Length[s] 65 Coordination Type Time of Day Pattern Isolated Actuation Type Fully actuated Offset[s] 0.0 Offset Reference LeadGreen Permissive Mode SingleBand Lost time[s] 8.00 Phasing&Timing Control Type Protecte Permiss Permiss Protecte Permiss Permiss Protecte Permiss Permiss Protecte Permiss Permiss Signal group 5 2 1 6 3 8 7 4 N Auxiliary Signal Groups In Lead/Lag Lead Lead Lead Lead Q Minimum Green[s] 57 5 5 1 5 1 5 1 5 0 5 5 0 0 Maximum Green[s] 307 30 0 30 30 3 30 30 30 30 0 LO 00 Amber[s] 3.0 3.0 0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 30T 0.0 ItT All red[s] 1.0 1.0 0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 Split[s] 14 24 9 19 0 11 23 9 21 0 CL Vehicle Extension[s] 3.0 3.0 0.0 3.0 3.0 '.0 3.07 3.0 3.0 3.0 0.0 4) Walk[s] 5 u 5 0 5 5 0 Pedestrian Clearance[s] 10 ) } 10 0 10 0 10 0 11,Start-Up Lost Time[s] 2.0 2.0 0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 0.0 2.0 2.0 0.0 U a 12,Clearance Lost Time[s] 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 0,0 Minimum Recall No No No No No No No No Maximum Recall No No No No No No No No Pedestrian Recall N.-TN. No No No No No No U Detector Location[ft] 0.0 0.0 0.0 i.0 Detector Length[ft] 0.0 u.0 0.0 0.0 0 Q I,Upstream Filtering Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 F,.00 1.00 1.00 E Exclusive Pedestrian Phase -a U Pedestrian Signal Group 0 Pedestrian Walk[s] 0 Q Pedestrian Clearance[s] 0 KIINZMAN ASSOCIATES,INC. 4/8/2016 Packet Pg. 990 6.B.h Generated with '• Waterman Industrial Center Version 4.00-00 Scenario 1: 1:PMEAG Lane Group Calculations Lane Group L C C L C R L I C R L C R L,Total Lost Time per Cycle[s] 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 11_p,Permitted Start-Up Lost Time[s] 12,Clearance Lost Time[s] 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 g_i,Effective Green Time(s] 10 20 20 5 15 15 5 19 19 5 19 19 g/C,Green/Cycle 0.15 0.31 0.31 0.07 0.23 0.23 0.07 0.29 0.29 0.07 0.30 0.30 (v/s)_i Volume/Saturation Flow Rate 0.14 0.13 0.13 0.05 0.05 0.18 0.04 0.27 0.20 0.05 0.24 0.03 s,saturation flow rate[veh/h] 3514 1900 1705 3514 3618 1615 3514 3618 1615 3514 3618 1615 c,Capacity[veh/h] 541 598 536 256 845 377 247 1062 474 256 1071 478 d1,Uniform Delay[s] 27.09 17.48 17.48 29.28 20.05 23.18 29.22 22.29 20.34 29.28 21.22 16.59 k,delay calibration 0.11 0.50 0.50 0.11 0.50 0.50 0.11 0.11 0.20 0.11 0.11 0.11 1,Upstream Filtering Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 N d2,Incremental Delay[s] 6.61 1.99 2.22 2.49 0.54 13.01 1.85 4.10 3.33 2.49 1.55 0.09 9 d3,Initial Queue Delay[s] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 r Rp,platoon ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 C- PF,progression factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 W) W Lane Group Results a d' X,volume/capacity 0.92 0.40 0.40 0.62 0.20 0.75 0.54 0.93 0.69 0.62 0.81 0.10 t d,Delay for Lane Group[s/veh] 33.71 19.47 19.70 31.78 20.59 36.19 31.07 26.39 23.67 31.78 22.77 16.68 Q. Lane Group LOS C B B C C D C C C C C B 0) IX Critical Lane Group Yes No No No No Yes No Yes No Yes No No t 50th-Percentile Queue Length[veh] 3.94 2.81 2.56 1.21 1.01 4.99 1.00 6.96 4.29 1.21 5.60 0.46 50th-Percentile Queue Length[ft] 98.44 70.25 63.90 30.31 25.19 1 124.73 25.02 173.96 107.32 30.31 139.91 11.62 a 95th-Percentile Queue Length[veh] 7.09 5.06 4.60 2.18 1.81 8.65 1.80 11.28 7.69 2.18 9.48 0.84 ' 95th-Percentile Queue Length[ft] 177.19 126.46 115.02 54.56 45.34 1 216.32 45.03 282.11 192.27 54.56 236.91 20.91 = d E t v Rf .r r.. a E U a+ .w a KuNZU,w ASSOCIATES,INC. 4/8/2016 Packet Pg. 991 6.B.h Generated with Waterman Industrial Center Version 4.00-00 Scenario 1: 1:PMEAG Movement,Approach,&Intersection Results d_M,Delay for Movement[s/veh] 33.71 19.52 19.70 31.78 20.59 36.19 31.07 26.39 23.67 31.78 22.77 16.68 Movement LOS C B B C C D C C C C C B d_A,Approach Delay[s/veh] 26.95 30.70 26.21 23.84 Approach LOS C C C C d I,Intersection Delay[s/veh] 26.43 Intersection LOS C Intersection V/C 0.723 Sequence Ring 1 1 2 3 4 - - - - - - - - - - - Ring 2 5 6 7 8 - - - - - - - - - - - N Ring 3 - - - - Ring 4 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - M CL v 0 CL m Cn U a Y c d E .0 U m Y Y a w E Y Y Q KuNZ.MA,N AssociAl ES,INC. 4/8/2016 Packet Pg. 992 s.B.n Generated with Waterman Industrial Center Version 4.00-00 Scenario 1: 1: PMEAG Intersection Level Of Service Report Intersection 2:Washington Ave(NS)at Orange Show Rd(EW) Control Type: Signalized Delay(sec/veh): 17.4 Analysis Method: HCM 2010 Level Of Service: B Analysis Period: 15 minutes Volume to Capacity(v/c): 0.407 Intersection Setup Name Washington Ave Washington Ave Orange Show Rd Orange Show Rd Approach Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Lane Configuration I r I r -i l l r "111 r Turning Movement Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Lane Width[ft] 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 No.of Lanes in Pocket 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 Pocket Length[ft] 157.00 166.00 0 Speed[mph] 30.00 30.00 40.00 40.00 u7 r Grade[%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Q Crosswalk Yes Yes Yes Yes C7 volumes ccoo d' Name Washington Ave Washington Ave Orange Show Rd Orange Show Rd d Base Volume Input[veh/h] 8 8 4 4 0 15 29 1130 13 7 957 15 Base Volume Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 C Heavy Vehicles Percentage[%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Growth Rate 1.00 1.00 1.00 1 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 cYO In-Process Volume[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 U Site-Generated Trips[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4. Diverted Trips[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Pass-by Trips[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 d Existing Site Adjustment Volume[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 t Other Volume[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Right-Turn on Red Volume[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 Q Total Hourly Volume[veh/h] 8 8 4 4 0 15 29 1130 1 13 7 957 15 Peak Hour Factor 0.9174 .9174 0.9174 0.9174 0.9174 0.9174 0.9174 0.9174 0.9174 0.9174 0.9174 0.9174 E 0 Other Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 = U Total 15-Minute Volume[veh/h] 2 2 1 1 0 4 8 308 4 2 261 4 Total Analysis Volume[veh/h] 9 9 4 4 0 16 32 1232 14 8 1043 16 Q Presence of On-Street Parking No No No No No No No No On-Street Parking Maneuver Rate[/h] Local Bus Stopping Rate[/h] 0 0 0 0 Pedestrian Volume[ped/h] 0 0 0 0 Bicycle Volume[bicycles/h] 0 0 0 0 KUNZMAN ASSOCIATES,INC. 4/8/2016 Packet Pg.993 6.B.h Generated with r Waterman Industrial Center Version 4.00-00 Scenario 1: 1: PMEAG Intersection Settings Located in CBD No Signal Coordination Group Cycle Length[s] 61 Coordination Type Time of Day Pattern Isolated Actuation Type Fully actuated Offset[s] 0.0 Offset Reference LeaclGreen Permissive Mode SingleBand Lost time[s] 6.00 Phasing&Timing Control Type Permiss Permiss Permiss Permiss Permiss Permiss Protecte Permiss Permiss Protecte Permiss Permiss Signal group 2 6 3 8 7 4 fVG Auxiliary Signal Groups r Lead/Lag Lead Lead ca Q Minimum Green[s] 5 5 1 5 5 5 5 u 0 Maximum Green[s] 30 30 30 30 30 30 0 00 Amber[s] 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 0.0 3.0 3.0 0.0 It Allred[s] 0 1.0 o,o 1.0 _ 1.0 1.0 0,0 1.0 1.0 0.0 .r Split[s] 19 0 19 0 9 32 0 9 32 0 Vehicle Extension[s] 0 3.0 0 3.0 i;.0 3.0 3.0 0.0 3.0 3.0 O.G Walk[s] 0 5 3 5 0 u 5 0 5 0 Pedestrian Clearance[s] 0 10 0 10 0 0 10 0 10 0 11,Start-Up Lost Time[s] 2.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 2.0 2.0 0.0 2.0 2.0 0.0 U a 12,Clearance Lost Time[s] 2.0 `" 2.0 0 r 2.0 2.0 0 2.0 2.0 0.0 ' d' Minimum Recall No No No No No No Maximum Recall No No No No No No Pedestrian Recall No No No No No No = U Detector Location[ft] J.0 0.0 ").{ 0.0 M a Detector Length[ft] =).0 0.0 0.0 �. I, Upstream Filtering Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1 1.00 11.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Exclusive Pedestrian Phase C U Pedestrian Signal Group 0 Pedestrian Walk[s] 0 Q Pedestrian Clearance[s] 0 KLINZNAAN ASSOCIATES,INC. 4/8/2016 Packet Pg. 994 6.B.h Generated with Waterman Industrial Center Version 4.00-00 Scenario 1: 1:PMEAG Lane Group Calculations Lane Group C R C R L C R L C R L,Total Lost Time per Cycle[s] 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 11_p,Permitted Start-Up Lost Time[s] 2.00 2.00 _. 0.00 0.00 12,Clearance Lost Time[s] 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00 2.00 2.00 0.00 2.00 2.00 g_i,Effective Green Time[s] 24 24 24 24 29 1 25 25 29 23 23 g/C,Green/Cycle 0.39 0.39 0.39 0.39 0.48 0.40 0.40 0.48 0.38 0.38 (v/s)_i Volume/Saturation Flow Rate 0.02 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.04 0.34 0.01 0.01 0.29 0.01 s,saturation flow rate[veh/h] 755 1615 519 1615 730 3618 1615 586 36187 1615 c,Capacity[veh/h] 381 626 319 626 385 1461 652 314 1374 614 d1,Uniform Delay[s] 13.00 11.50 22.64 11.59 1 10.57 16.47 10.96 11.37 16.52 11.87 k,delay calibration 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 I,Upstream Filtering Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 N d2,Incremental Delay[s] 0.23 0.02 0.07 0.08 0.09 1.40 0.01 0.03 0.88 0.02 LO d3,Initial Queue Delay[s] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 `- Rp,platoon ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 a PF,progression factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 LO oD Lane Group Results �T X,volume/capacity 0.05 0.01 0.01 0.03 0.08 0.84 0.02 0.03 0.76 0.03 d,Delay for Lane Group[s/veh] 13.24 11.52 22.72 11.67 10.66 17.87 10.97 11.41 17.40 11.89 0 0 Lane Group LOS B B C B B B B B B B tY Critical Lane Group Yes No No No No Yes No Yes No No 50th-Percentile Queue Length[veh] 0.16 0.03 0.05 0.13 0.19 6.61 0.10 0.05 5.43 0.12 50th-Percentile Queue Length[ft] 4.03 0.83 1.33 3.36 4.70 165.35 2.45 1.17 135.80 2.97 d 95th-Percentile Queue Length[veh] 0.29 0.06 0.10 0.24 0.34 10.83 0.18 0.08 9.25 0.21 95th-Percentile Queue Length[ft] 7.25 1.50 2.40 6.04 8.46 270.79 4.41 2.11 231.36 1 5.35 = sv E t U l4 r Q C Iv E U Q KUNZMAN ASSOCIATES,INC. 4/8/2016 Packet Pg.995 6.B.h Generated with '= Waterman Industrial Center Version 4.00-00 Scenario 1: 1: PMEAG Movement,Approach,&Intersection Results d_M,Delay for Movement[s/veh] 13.24 13.24 11.52 22.72 22.72 11.67 10.66 1 17.87 10.97 11.41 17.40 11.89 Movement LOS B B B C C B B B B B B B d_A,Approach Delay[s/veh] 12.93 13.88 17.62 17.28 Approach LOS B B B B d I,Intersection Delay[s/veh] 17.39 Intersection LOS B Intersection V/C 0.407 Sequence Ring 1 2 1[T8 E- CV- - - - - - - - - - - - Ring 2 6 Ring 3 - - - - - - - - - - - - - o Ring 4 - - - - - - - - - - - - - u' c,s CL 00 Itt 7T CL crr Cn U CL v c m E M a E a KUNZMAN ASSOCIATES,INC. 4/8/2016 Packet Pg. 996 6.B.h Generated with Waterman Industrial Center Version 4.00-00 Scenario 1: 1:PMEAG Intersection Level Of Service Report Intersection 5:Waterman Ave(NS)at Orange Show Rd(EW) Control Type: Signalized Delay(sec/veh): 26.9 Analysis Method: HCM 2010 Level Of Service: C Analysis Period: 15 minutes Volume to Capacity(v/c): 0.732 Intersection Setup Name Waterman Ave Waterman Ave Orange Show Rd Orange Show Rd Approach Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Lane Configuration i l i r "111 r '111 r -111 r Turning Movement Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Lane Width[ft] 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 No.of Lanes in Pocket 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 Pocket Length[ft] 298.00 275.00 248.00 258.00 NC Speed[mph] 50.00 50.00 40.00 40.00 LO r Grade[%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Q. Crosswalk Yes Yes Yes Yes C9 volumes ago Name Waterman Ave Waterman Ave Orange Show Rd Orange Show Rd Base Volume Input[veh/h] 1947 574 114 102 708 92 128 754 211 161 694 88 t Base Volume Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 d Heavy Vehicles Percentage[%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Growth Rate 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 M In-Process Volume[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 to V Site-Generated Trips[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 07 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 tl Diverted Trips[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 It Pass-by Trips[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 d Existing Site Adjustment Volume[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 t Other Volume[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Right-Turn on Red Volume[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 Q Total Hourly Volume[veh/h] 194 574 114 102 708 92 128 754 211 161 694 88 Peak Hour Factor 0.9468 0.9468 0.9468 0.9468 0.9468 0.9468 0.9468 0.9468 0.9468 0.9468 0.9468 0.9468 d Other Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 v Total 15-Minute Volume[veh/h] 51 152 30 27 187 24 34 199 56 43 183 23 r Total Analysis Volume[veh/h] 205 606 120 108 748 97 135 796 223 170 733 93 Q Presence of On-Street Parking No No No No No No No No On-Street Parking Maneuver Rate[/h] Local Bus Stopping Rate[/hj 0 0 0 0 Pedestrian Volume[ped/h] 0 0 0 0 Bicycle Volume[bicycles/h] 0 0 0 0 KLIND, N AssociATES,INC. 4/8/2016 Packet Pg.997 6`B.h Generated with Waterman Industrial Center Version 4.00-00 Scenario 1: 1: PMEAG Intersection Settings Located in CBD No Signal Coordination Group Cycle Length[s] 60 Coordination Type Time of Day Pattern Isolated Actuation Type Fully actuated Offset[s] 0.0 Offset Reference LeadGreen Permissive Mode SingleBand Lost time[s] 8.00 Phasing&Timing Control Type Protecte Permiss Permiss Protecte Permiss Permiss Protecte Permiss Permiss Protecte Permiss Permiss Signal group 5 2 1 6 3 8 7 4 C N LO Auxiliary Signal Groups T Lead/Lag Lead Lead Lead Lead Q. Minimum Green[s] 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 U' Maximum Green[s] 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 00 Amber Is] 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 � i Allred[s] 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Split[s] 12 19 12 19 10 19 10 1 19 Q 1 ` Vehicle Extension[s] 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 4) Walk[s] 5 5 5 5 : Pedestrian Clearance[s] 10 10 10 10 0 CO) 11,Start-Up Lost Time[s] 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 J.v U CL 12,Clearance Lost Time[s] 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 ' Minimum Recall No No No No No No No No +� C Maximum Recall No No No No No No No No Pedestrian Recall No No No No No No No No v co Detector Location[ft] Q Detector Length[ft] I,Upstream Filtering Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 T 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 y E Exclusive Pedestrian Phase V Pedestrian Signal Group 0 Pedestrian Walk[s] 0 Q Pedestrian Clearance[s] 0 KuNZU>>N ASSOCIATES,INC. 4/8/2016 Packet Pg.998 Generated with Waterman Industrial Center Version 4.00-00 Scenario 1: 1:PMEAG Lane Group Calculations Lane Group L C R L I C R L C R L C R L,Total Lost Time per Cycle[s] 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 11p,Permitted Start-Up Lost Time[s] 12,Clearance Lost Time[s] 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 g_i,Effective Green Time[s] 8 19 19 5 15 15 6 15 15 6 15 1 15 g/C,Green/Cycle 0.13 0.31 0.31 0.08 0.25 0.25 0.10 0.25 0.25 0.10 0.25 0.25 (v/s)_i Volume/Saturation Flow Rate 0.11 0.17 0.07 0.06 0.21 0.06 0.07 0.22 0.14 0.09 0.20 0.06 s,saturation flow rate[veh/h] 1810 3618 1615 1810 3618 1615 1810 3618 1615 1810 3618 1615 c,Capacity[veh/h] 242 1121 501 141 921 411 173 887 396 181 903 403 d1,Uniform Delay[s] 25.43 17.18 15.45 27.15 21.04 17.75 26.53 21.94 19.85 26.84 21.21 17.94 k,delay calibration 0.25 0.50 0.50 0.11 0.50 0.50 0.16 0.11 0.11 0.27 0.11 0.11 I,Upstream Filtering Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 tV d2,Incremental Delay[s] 16.72 1.87 1.13 8.26 7.74 1.35 10.26 3.55 1.26 35.34 1.82 0.29 d3,Initial Queue Delay[s] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Rp,platoon ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 M PF,progression factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 00 Lane Group Results X,volume/capacity 0.85 0.54 0.24 0.76 0.81 0.24 0.78 0.90 0.56 0.94 0.81 0.23 d,Delay for Lane Group[s/veh] 42.15 19.05 16.58 35.40 28.77 19.10 36.79 25.49 21.11 62.18 23.02 18.23 Q Lane Group LOS D B B D C B D C C E C B d Critical Lane Group Yes No No No Yes No No Yes No Yes No No to 50th-Percentile Queue Length[veh] 3.59 3.10 1.16 1 1.66 5.07 1.05 2.21 5.15 2.53 1 3.97 4.43 0.94 50th-Percentile Queue Length[ft] 89.66 77.61 28.98 41.38 126.80 26.18 55.20 128.66 63.14 99.27 110.84 23.38 a 95th-Percentile Queue Length[veh] 6.46 5.59 2.09 2.98 8.77 1.89 3.97 8.87 4.55 7.15 7.89 1.68 - 95th-Percentile Queue Length[ft] 161.39 139.70 52.16 74.48 219.14 47.13 99.35 221.67 113.66 178.68 197.17 42.09 E t V ca a.. a Y V •4� a KUNZMAN AssociATES,INC. 4/8/2016 Packet Pg.999 6.B.h Generated with 'o Waterman Industrial Center Version 4.00-00 Scenario 1: 1: PMEAG Movement,Approach,&Intersection Results d_M,Delay for Movement[s/veh] 42.15 19.05 16.58 35.40 28.77 19.10 36.79 25.49 21.11 62.18 23.02 18.23 Movement LOS D B B D C B D C C E C B d_A,Approach Delay[s/veh] 23.82 28.54 25.97 29.26 Approach LOS C C C C d I,Intersection Delay[s/veh] 26.89 Intersection LOS C Intersection V/C 0.732 Sequence Ring 1 1 2 3 4 - - - - - - - - - - - - Ring 2 5 6 7 8 - - - - - - - - - - - - N Ring 3 - - - - Ring 4 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - r CL 5 ii' ��iI� ••• r' 11 __. LffV n� i nn � C CL ca U a v m E s a c E Q KIINZMAN AssocIATES,INC. 4/8/2016 Packet Pg. 1000 6.B.h Generated with Waterman Industrial Center Version 4.00-00 Scenario 1: 1:PMEAG Intersection Level Of Service Report Intersection 6:Waterman Ave(NS)at Dumas St(EW) Control Type: Two-way stop Delay(sec/veh): 24.5 Analysis Method: HCM 2010 Level Of Service: C Analysis Period: 15 minutes Volume to Capacity(v/c): 0.026 Intersection Setup Name Waterman Ave Waterman Ave Dumas St Approach Northbound Southbound Eastbound Lane Configuration i"' 1 i I r Turning Movement Left Thru Thru Right Left Right Lane Width[ft] 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 No.of Lanes in Pocket 1 _ 0 0 0 Pocket Length[ft] 111.00 Speed[mph] 50.00 50.00 30.00 u7 r Grade[%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 Q. Crosswalk No No No U' volumes ono Name Waterman Ave Waterman Ave Dumas St Base Volume Input[veh/h] 3 896 1114 7 5 7 O Base Volume Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 C Heavy Vehicles Percentage[%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Growth Rate 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 In-Process Volume[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 fn U Site-Generated Trips[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 (. Diverted Trips[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 lqt r Pass-by Trips[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 d Existing Site Adjustment Volume[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 t Other Volume[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total Hourly Volume[veh/h] 3 896 1114 7 5 7 Q Peak Hour Factor 0.9233 0.9233 0.9233 0.9233 0.9233 0.9233 Other Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 d Total 15-Minute Volume[veh/h] 1 243 302 2 1 2 = v Total Analysis Volume[veh/h] 3 970 1207 8 5 8 Pedestrian Volume[ped/h] Q KUNZKIAN AssociATES,INC. 4/812016 Packet Pg. 1001 Generated with Waterman Industrial Center Version 4.00-00 Scenario 1: 1:PMEAG Intersection Settings Priority Scheme Free Free Stop Flared Lane No Storage Area[veh] Two-Stage Gap Acceptance Yes Number of Storage Spaces in Median 1 Movement,Approach,&Intersection Results V/C,Movement V/C Ratio 0.01 0.03 0.02 d_M,Delay for Movement[s/veh] 11.23 24.52 13.62 Movement LOS B A A A C B 95th-Percentile Queue Length[veh] 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.14 0.14 95th-Percentile Queue Length[ft] 0.39 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.46 3.46 d_A,Approach Delay[s/veh] 0.03 0.00 17.82 NG� Approach LOS A A C t[> r d_I,Intersection Delay[s/veh] 0.12 C. Intersection LOS C U LO co d' O Q. d t0 U a v c a� E t U RS Q r+ C d E t U R w+ Y a KUNz\ N ASSOCIATES,INC. 4/8/2016 Packet Pg. 1002 6.B.h Generated with =z= Waterman Industrial Center Version 4.00-00 Scenario 1: 1:PMEAG Intersection Level Of Service Report Intersection 7:Waterman Ave(NS)at Park Center Circle North(EW) Control Type: Two-way stop Delay(sec/veh): 19.7 Analysis Method: HCM 2010 Level Of Service: C Analysis Period: 15 minutes Volume to Capacity(v/c): 0.039 Intersection Setup Name Waterman Ave Waterman Ave Park Center Circle N Approach Notrthbound Southbound Westbound Lane Configuration 11 r -111 1 r Turning Movement Thru Right Left Thru Left Right Lane Width[ft] 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 No.of Lanes in Pocket 0 1 0 0 Pocket Length[ft] 215.00 t= C Speed[mph] 50.00 50.00 30.00 to r Grade[%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 O. Crosswalk No No No C9 LO volumes 00 IT Name Waterman Ave Waterman Ave Park Center Circle N Base Volume Input[veh/h] 748 2 9 1182 9 66 t O Base Volume Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 d Heavy Vehicles Percentage[%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Growth Rate 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 M In-Process Volume[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 U Site-Generated Trips[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 tL Diverted Trips[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 IT r-+ Pass-by Trips[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 Existing Site Adjustment Volume[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 t Other Volume[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 c0v Total Hourly Volume[veh/h] 748 2 9 1182 9 66 Q Peak Hour Factor 0.9342 0.9342 0.9342 0.9342 0.9342 0.9342 i Other Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 E Total 15-Minute Volume[veh/h] 200 1 2 316 2 18 -� v Total Analysis Volume[veh/h] 801 2 10 1265 10 71 4_2 Pedestrian Volume[ped/h] Q KuNz,mA;J AssocIATES,INC. 4/8/2016 Packet Pg. 1003 6.B.h Generated with Mom Waterman Industrial Center Version 4.00-00 Scenario 1: 1:PMEAG Intersection Settings Priority Scheme Free Free Stop Flared Lane Storage Area[veh] . Two-Stage Gap Acceptance Yes Number of Storage Spaces in Median 1 Movement,Approach,&Intersection Results V/C,Movement V/C Ratio t 0.01 0.04 0.12 d_M,Delay for Movement[s/veh] 9.39 19.71 11.74 Movement LOS A A A A C B 95th-Percentile Queue Length[veh] 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.12 0.40 95th-Percentile Queue Length[ft] 0.00 0.00 0.91 0.00 3.05 9.91 d_A,Approach Delay[s/veh] 0.00 0.07 12.72 C Approach LOS A A B Ul) r d_I,Intersection Delay[s/veh] 0.52 Q. Intersection LOS C U to 00 rt' d' O Q 4t a. t0 U) U a v C d E �a w a E a KuNZMA LN Associ Al ES,INC. 4/8/2016 Packet Pg. 1004 6.B.h Generated with Waterman Industrial Center Version 4.00-00 Scenario 1: 1:PMEAG Intersection Level Of Service Report Intersection 8:Waterman Ave(NS)at Park Center Circle South(EW) Control Type: Signalized Delay(sec/veh): 9.4 Analysis Method: HCM 2010 Level Of Service: A Analysis Period: 15 minutes Volume to Capacity(v/c): 0.502 Intersection Setup Name Waterman Ave Waterman Ave Park Center Circle South Park Center Circle South Approach Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Lane Configuration '111 r "l i i r i t i t Turning Movement Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Lane Width[ft] 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 No.of Lanes in Pocket 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Pocket Length[ft] t)u.,',! C*4 Speed[mph] 50.00 50.00 30.00 30.00 LO r- Grade[%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 M CL Crosswalk No Yes Yes Yes U' volumes 000 d' Name Waterman Ave Waterman Ave Park Center Circle South Park Center Circle South Base Volume Input[veh/h] 10 718 21 9 1113 1 10 1 10 178 31 O Base Volume Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Heavy Vehicles Percentage[%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Growth Rate 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 R In-Process Volume[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 U) U Site-Generated Trips[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 Diverted Trips[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 et Pass-by Trips[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 d Existing Site Adjustment Volume[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 s M Other Volume[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 P: v r+ Right-Turn on Red Volume[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 Q Total Hourly Volume[veh/h] 10 718 21 9 1113 10 1 10 178 F31 Peak Hour Factor 0.9583 0.9583 0.9583 0.9583 0.9583 0.9583 0.9583 0.9583 0.9583 0.9583 O Other Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 U Total 15-Minute Volume[veh/h] 3 187 5 2 290 3 0 3 46 8 Total Analysis Volume[veh/h] __107 749 22 9 1161 10 1 10 186 32 Q Presence of On-Street Parking No No No No No No No No On-Street Parking Maneuver Rate[/h] Local Bus Stopping Rate[/h] 0 0 0 0 Pedestrian Volume[ped/h] 0 0 0 Bicycle Volume[bicycles/h] 0 0 0 0 KLINzmAN ASSOCIATES,INC. 4/8/2016 Packet Pg. 1005 6.B.h Generated with M Waterman Industrial Center Version 4.00-00 Scenario 1: 1:PMEAG Intersection Settings Located in CBD No Signal Coordination Group Cycle Length[s] 60 Coordination Type Time of Day Pattern Isolated Actuation Type Fully actuated Offset[s] 0.0 Offset Reference LeadGreen Permissive Mode SingleBand Lost time[s] 6.00 Phasing&Timing Control Type Protecte Permiss Permiss Protecte Permiss Permiss Permiss Permiss Permiss Permiss Signal group 5 2 1 6 3 7 CVO Auxiliary Signal Groups T_ Lead/Lag Lead Lead Lead Lead - CL Minimum Green[s] 5 5 5 5 5 5 0 0 t9 Maximum Green[s] 30 30 30 30 30 0 30 0 0 u) 00 Ambers] 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 0.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 Allred[s] 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 Split[s] 9 19 9 19 32 32 0 0 Vehicle Extension[s] 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 0.0 3.0 0.0 OA d �„ It Walk[s] 5 5 0 5 0 0 N NVAI Pedestrian Clearance[s] 10 10 ? 10 0 11,Start-Up Lost Time[s] 2.0 2.0 _ 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 0.0 d 12,Clearance Lost Time[s] 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 0.0 ' d' Minimum Recall No No No No No No ++ C Maximum Recall No No No No No No Pedestrian Recall No No No No No No = v Detector Location[ft] a 0.0 co Detector Length[ft] r I,Upstream Filtering Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 y Exclusive Pedestrian Phase Pedestrian Signal Group 0 +++, Pedestrian Walk[s] 0 Q Pedestrian Clearance[s] 0 KUNZMAN ASSOCIATES,INC. 4/8/2016 Packet Pg. 1006 6.B.h Generated with M 'i Waterman Industrial Center Version 4.00-00 Scenario 1: 1: PMEAG Lane Group Calculations Lane Group L C R L C R L R L R L,Total Lost Time per Cycle[s] 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 11_p,Permitted Start-Up Lost Time[s] 0.00 0.00 2.00 2.00 12,Clearance Lost Time[s] 0.00 2.00 2.00 0.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 g_i,Effective Green Time[s] 40 36 36 40 36 36 12 12 12 12 g/C,Green/Cycle 0.67 0.59 0.59 0.67 0.59 0.59 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 (v/s)_i Volume/Saturation Flow Rate 0.02 0.21 0.01 0.01 0.32 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.13 0.02 s,saturation flow rate[veh/h] 5837 3618 1615 797 3618 1615 1440 1615 1440 1615 c,Capacity[veh/h] 480 2151 960 643 2147 959 346 312 346 312 d1,Uniform Delay[s] 4.31 6.22 5.00 3.54 7.30 4.99 21.33 19.66 24.48 19.93 k,delay calibration 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.11 0.50 0.50 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 1,Upstream Filtering Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 tV d2,Incremental Delay[s] 0.08 0.45 0.04 0.01 0.98 0.02 0.00 0.04 1.29 0.14 A Initial Queue Delay[s] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 `- N Rp,platoon ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Q- PF,progression factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 LO 00 Lane Group Results 'T X,volume/capacity 0.02 0.35 0.02 0.01 0.54 0.01 0.00 0.03 0.54 0.10 d,Delay for Lane Group[s/veh] 4.39 6.67 5.04 3.54 8.29 5.01 21.34 19.70 25.78 20.07 Lane Group LOS __A7 A A A A A C B C C Critical Lane Group Yes No No Yes No No No Yes No 50th-Percentile Queue Length[veh] 0.03 1.54 0.08 ENo 02 2.86 0.04 0.01 0.11 2.50 0.36 Cl) 50th-Percentile Queue Length[ft] 0.69 38.56 1.96 0.42 71.50 0.89 0.29 2.74 62.62 8.91 d 95th-Percentile Queue Length[veh] 0.05 2.78 0.14 0.03 5.15 0.06 0.02 0.20 4.51 0.64 ' 95th-Percentile Queue Length[ft] 1.24 69.40 3.52 0.75 128.71 1.60 0.52 4.93 112.71 16.04 41 E s U <Q r+ Q Q7 E t V R Q KUNZMAN Associ RTES,INC. 4/8/2016 Packet Pg.'1007 6.B.h Generated with Waterman Industrial Center Version 4.00-00 Scenario 1: 1:PMEAG Movement,Approach,&Intersection Results d_M,Delay for Movement[s/veh] 4.39 6.67 5.04 3.54 8.29 5.01 21.34 19.70 25.78 20.07 Movement LOS A A A A A A C B C C d_A,Approach Delay[s/veh] 6.59 8.22 19.85 24.94 Approach LOS A A B C d I,Intersection Delay[s/veh] 9.36 Intersection LOS A Intersection V/C 0.502 Sequence Ring 1 1 2 3 - - - - - - - - - - - - - Ring 2 5 6 7 - - - - - - - - - - - - - N Ring 3 - - - Ring 4 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - low LO t9 co v 0 CL m IX �o U a v c a� E s Q c m E U R w Q KUNZMAN AssocIATES,INC. 4/8/2016 Packet Pg. 1008 6.B.h Generated with M °= Waterman Industrial Center Version 4.00-00 Scenario 1: 1:PMEAG Intersection Level Of Service Report Intersection 9:Waterman Ave(NS)at Vanderbilt Way(EW) Control Type: Signalized Delay(sec/veh): 22.4 Analysis Method: HCM 2010 Level Of Service: C Analysis Period: 15 minutes Volume to Capacity(v/c): 0.825 Intersection Setup Name Waterman Ave Waterman Ave Vanderbilt Way Vanderbilt Way Approach Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Lane Configuration -111r .111F + i 1 r Turning Movement Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Lane Width[ft] 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 No.of Lanes in Pocket 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Pocket Length[ft] �)'; �> ': �... �t�.Ci C? Speed[mph] 50.00 50.00 30.00 30.00 to r Grade[%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Q. Crosswalk No Yes Yes Yes U' LO volumes am d' Name Waterman Ave Waterman Ave Vanderbilt Way Vanderbilt Way Base Volume Input[veh/h] 447 526 160 186 1080 14 10 4 15 324 2 234 O Base Volume Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 d Heavy Vehicles Percentage[%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Growth Rate 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 M In-Process Volume[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 U Site-Generated Trips[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 G. Diverted Trips[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Pass-by Trips[veh/h] 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Existing Site Adjustment Volume[veh/h] 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 t Other Volume[veh/hj 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Right-Turn on Red Volume[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 Q Total Hourly Volume[veh/h] 44 526 160 186 1080 14 10 4 15 324 2 234 Peak Hour Factor 0.9266 0.9266 0.9266 0.9266 0.9266 0.9266 0.9266 0.9266 0.9266 0.9266 0.9266 0.9266 d Other Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 v Total 15-Minute Volume[veh/h] 12 142 43 50 291 4 3 1 4 87 1 63 r Total Analysis Volume[veh/h] 47 568 173 201 1166 15 11 4 1 16 350 2 253 Q Presence of On-Street Parking No No No No No No No No On-Street Parking Maneuver Rate[/h] - Local Bus Stopping Rate[/h] 0 0 0 0 Pedestrian Volume[ped/h] 0 0 0 Bicycle Volume[bicycles/h] 0 0 0 0 KLWZ\.IAN AssOQATES,INC. 4/8/2016 Packet Pg. 1009 6.B.h Generated with Waterman Industrial Center Version 4.00-00 Scenario 1: 1: PMEAG Intersection Settings Located in CBD No Signal Coordination Group Cycle Length[s] 60 Coordination Type Time of Day Pattern Isolated Actuation Type Fully actuated Offset[s] 0.0 Offset Reference LeadGreen Permissive Mode SingleBand Lost time[s] 6.00 Phasing&Timing Control Type Protecte Permiss Permiss Protecte Permiss Permiss Permiss Permiss Permiss Permiss Permiss Permiss Signal group 5 2 1 6 1 8 4 0 Auxiliary Signal Groups Lead/Lag Lead Lead Q. Minimum Green[s] 5 5 5 5 5 5 u U' Maximum Green[s] 30 30 30 30 0 0 30 30 0 LO ao Amber[s] 3.0 3.0 _ 3.0 3.0 0.0 3.0 0.0 3.0 `".Q All red[s] 1.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 '10 0.0 1.0 L Split[s] 9 19 0 17 27 0 24 0 0 24 0 OQ Vehicle Extension[s] 3.0 3.0 0.0 3.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 10 ,0 3.0 J.0 d Walk[s] 0 5 0 0 5 0 0 5 1, 0 5 0 Pedestrian Clearance[s] 0 10 0 0 10 J 0 10 0 0 10 0 11,Start-Up Lost Time[s] 2.0 2.0 `"1.0 2.0 2.0 0.0 0 2.0 ?,0 2.0 0.0 d 12,Clearance Lost Time[s] 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 0 2.0 2.0 ' Minimum Recall No No No No No No Maximum Recall No No No No No No a) Pedestrian Recall No No No No No No U Detector Location[ft] 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 v.0 0.0 0.0 +� Detector Length[ft] 0.0 0.0 0.0 .0 0 0.0 1,Upstream Filtering Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Exclusive Pedestrian Phase s U Pedestrian Signal Group 0 Pedestrian Walk[s] 0 Q Pedestrian Clearance[s] 0 KIINZMAN ASSOCIATES,INC. 4/8/2016 Packet Pg. 1010 6.B.h Generated with Waterman Industrial Center Version 4.00-00 Scenario 1: 1:PMEAG Lane Group Calculations Lane Group L C R L I C C C L C R L,Total Lost Time per Cycle[s] 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 11_p,Permitted Start-Up Lost Time[s] 2.00 2.00 2.00 12,Clearance Lost Time[s] 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 g_i,Effective Green Time[s] 3 20 20 8 25 25 20 20 20 20 g/C,Green/Cycle 0.05 0.33 0.33 0.14 0.42 0.42 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 (v/s)_i Volume/Saturation Flow Rate 0.03 0.16 0.11 0.11 0.21 0.21 0.09 0.01 0.47 0.16 s,saturation flow rate[veh/h] 1810 3618 1615 1810 3618 1888 336 1414 706 1615 c,Capacity[veh/h] 86 1190 531 255 1527 797 192 132 353 534 d1,Uniform Delay[s] 28.02 16.07 15.18 24.98 12.79 12.79 15.89 29.90 23.32 15.97 k,delay calibration 0.11 0.50 0.50 0.11 0.50 0.50 0.11 0.11 0.50 0.11 I,Upstream Filtering Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 cV d2,Incremental Delay[s] 5.34 1.37 1.63 5.40 1.21 2.31 0.39 0.44 36.50 0.65 9 d3,Initial Queue Delay[s] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 `- M Rp,platoon ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Q' PF,progression factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 LO 00 Lane Group Results X,volume/capacity 0.55 0.48 0.33 0.79 0.51 0.51 0.16 0.13 0.95 0.47 d,Delay for Lane Group[s/veh] 33.36 17.45 16.80 30.39 14.00 15.10 16.28 30.34 59.82 16.62 Q. Lane Group LOS C B B C I B B B C E B iY Critical Lane Group No Yes No Yes No No No No Yes No 50th-Percentile Queue Length[veh] 0.71 2.73 1.68 2.77 3.15 3.53 0.28 0.25 8.20 2.58 N 50th-Percentile Queue Length[ft] 17.81 68.15 41.93 69.27 78.77 88.28 7.04 6.37 204.96 64.39 V G. 95th-Percentile Queue Length[veh] 1.28 4.91 3.02 4.99 5.67 6.36 0.51 0.46 12.89 4.64 d' 95th-Percentile Queue Length[ft] 32.05 122.67 75.48 124.69 141.78 158.91 12.67 11.47 322.35 115.90 = ry E s V R a E B a KLINZMAN AssocI ATES,INC. 4/8/2016 Packet Pg. 1011 ANNNOW 6.B.h Generated with '• Waterman Industrial Center Version 4.00-00 Scenario 1: 1:PMEAG Movement,Approach,&Intersection Results d_M,Delay for Movement[s/veh] 33.36 17.45 16.80 30.39 14.37 15.10 16.28 16.28 16.28 58.35 59.82 16.62 Movement LOS C B B C B B B B B E E B d_A,Approach Delay[s/veh] 18.26 16.70 16.28 40.91 Approach LOS B B B D d I,Intersection Delay[s/veh] 22.35 Intersection LOS C Intersection V/C 0.825 Sequence Ring 1 1 2 4 - - - - - - - - - - - - - Ring 2 5 6 8 - - - - - - - - - - - - N Ring 3 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - o Ring 4 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - LO co CL 00 v S 1r 0 CL d co U a c Q E t U f{S i.' Q .V S_ V W Q KIINZMAN ASSOCIATES,INC. 4/8/2016 Packet Pg. 1012 Generated with °4 Waterman Industrial Center Version 4.00-00 Scenario 1: 1:PMEAGi With Improvement: Intersection Level Of Service Report Intersection 7:Waterman Ave(NS)at Park Center Circle North(EW) Control Type: Signalized Delay(sec/veh): 4.0 Analysis Method: HCM 2010 Level Of Service: A Analysis Period: 15 minutes Volume to Capacity(v/c): 0.437 Intersection Setup Name Waterman Ave Waterman Ave Park Center Circle N Approach Northbound Southbound Westbound Lane Configuration I i r -111 "1 r Turning Movement Thru Right Left Thru Left Right Lane Width[ft] 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 No.of Lanes in Pocket 0 1 0 0 Pocket Length[ft] , 215.00 C Speed[mph] 50.00 50.00 30.00 r Grade[%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 Q Crosswalk No No No C7 to volumes 00 I' Name Waterman Ave Waterman Ave Park Center Circle N d Base Volume Input[veh/h] 748 2 9 1182 9 66 C O Base Volume Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 0 Heavy Vehicles Percentage[%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Growth Rate 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 R In-Process Volume[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 U Site-Generated Trips(veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 d Diverted Trips[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 et Pass-by Trips[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 Existing Site Adjustment Volume[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 L Other Volume[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 Right-Turn on Red Volume[veh/h] 0 0 Q Total Hourly Volume[veh/hj 748 2 9 1182 9 66 Peak Hour Factor 0.9342 0.9342 0.9342 0.9342 0.9342 0.9342 a) E Other Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 U Total 15-Minute Volume[veh/h] 200 1 2 316 2 18 Total Analysis Volume[veh/h] 801 2 10 1265 10 71 Q Presence of On-Street Parking No No No No No No On-Street Parking Maneuver Rate[/h] Local Bus Stopping Rate[/h] 0 0 0 Pedestrian Volume[ped/h] Bicycle Volume[bicycles/h] 0 0 0 KuNZIMAN AssociATES,INC. 4/7/2016 Packet Pg. 1013 6.B.h Generated with Waterman Industrial Center Version 4.00-00 Scenario 1: 1:PMEAGi With ImprovementE Intersection Settings Located in CBD No Signal Coordination Group Cycle Length[s] 60 Coordination Type Time of Day Pattern Isolated Actuation Type Fully actuated Offset[s] 0.0 Offset Reference LeadGreen Permissive Mode SingleBand Lost time[s] 6.00 Phasing&Timing Control Type Permissive Permissive Protected Permissive Permissive Permissive Signal group 2 1 6 7 0 Auxiliary Signal Groups u7 r Lead/Lag Lead Lead D. Minimum Green[s] 5 5 5 5 0 U' Maximum Green[s] 30 30 30 30 0 to 00 Amber[s] 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 0.0 1* All red[s] 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 Split[s] 30 15 45 15 0 Q Vehicle Extension[s] 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 0.0 Walk[s] Pedestrian Clearance[s] fn 11,Start-Up Lost Time[s] 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 U 12,Clearance Lost Time[s] 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 ' d' Minimum Recall No No No No Maximum Recall No No No No E Pedestrian Recall No No No No U Detector Location[ft] 0.0 0.0 Detector Length[ft] 0.0 0.0 Q 1,Upstream Filtering Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 = as Exclusive Pedestrian Phase ru ru Pedestrian Signal Group 0 Pedestrian Walk[s] 0 Q Pedestrian Clearance[s] 0 KuNZMAN AssoclATES,INC. 4/7/2016 Packet Pg. 1014 ' Generated with M °m Waterman Industrial Center Version 4.00-00 Scenario 1: 1:PMEAGi With Improvement: Lane Group Calculations Lane Group C R L C L R L,Total Lost Time per Cycle[s] 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 11_p,Permitted Start-Up Lost Time[s] 12,Clearance Lost Time[s] 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 g_i,Effective Green Time[s] 43 43 1 48 4 4 g/C,Green/Cycle 0.72 0.72 0.01 0.80 0.06 0.06 (v/s)_i Volume/Saturation Flow Rate 0.22 0.00 0.01 0.35 0.01 0.04 s,saturation flow rate[veh/h] 3618 1615 1810 3618 1810 1615 c,Capacity[veh/h] 2611 1166 27 2906 115 103 d1,Uniform Delay[s] 2.99 2.33 29.36 1.79 26.51 27.58 k,delay calibration 0.50 0.50 0.11 0.50 0.11 0.11 I,Upstream Filtering Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 tV CD d2,Incremental Delay[s] 0.30 0.00 8.29 0.48 0.32 7.92 LO d3,Initial Queue Delay[s] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Rp,platoon ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 CL PF,progression factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 to 00 Lane Group Results d X,volume/capacity 0.31 0.00 0.37 0.44 0.09 0.69 d,Delay for Lane Group[s/veh] 3.29 2.33 37.65 2.27 26.83 35.50 Q Lane Group LOS A A D A C D d �. Ix Critical Lane Group No No No Yes No Yes : 50th-Percentile Queue Length[veh] 0.53 0.00 0.19 0.19 0.14 1.17 50th-Percentile Queue Length[ft] 13.31 0.06 4.73 4.81 3.46 29.35 U a 95th-Percentile Queue Length[veh] 0.96 0.00 0.34 0.35 0.25 2.11 ' 95th-Percentile Queue Length[ft] 23.95 0.11 8.52 8.66 6.23 52.83 d E t V cv a d s Y Q KUNZMAN ASSOCIATES,INC. 4/7/2016 Packet Pg. 1015 6.B.h Generated with Waterman Industrial Center Version 4.00-00 Scenario 1: 1:PMEAGi With Improvement Movement,Approach,&Intersection Results d_M,Delay for Movement[s/veh] 3.29 2.33 37.65 2.27 26.83 35.50 Movement LOS A A D A C D d_A,Approach Delay[s/veh] 3.29 2.55 34.43 Approach LOS A A C d I,Intersection Delay[s/veh] 4.02 Intersection LOS A Intersection V/C 0.437 Sequence Ring 1 1 2 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Ring 2 - 6 7 - - - - - - - - - - - - - N Ring 3 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - o Lh Ring 4 - - CL rta7,41 vim'" LO 6 00 5 _ O/.� CL a) w U 0. d C m E t U fC w+ a r a KUNZM N AssocIATES,INC., 4/7/2016 Packet Pg. 1016 s.a.n N O i Ln r IC CL LO 00 d' d' O Q O Q' ca Opening Year(2017)Without Project Co U a v c Q E t U O a E U R w a Packet Pg. 1017 6.6 Generated with Waterman Industrial Center Version 4.00-00 Scenario 1: 1:AMOYC Intersection Level Of Service Report Intersection 1:E Street(NS)at Orange Show Road(EW) Control Type: Signalized Delay(sec/veh): 22.6 Analysis Method: HCM 2010 Level Of Service: C Analysis Period: 15 minutes Volume to Capacity(v/c): 0.434 Intersection Setup Name E Street E Street Orange Show Rd Orange Show Rd Approach Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Lane Configuration -I 11 � 1-111 r 1"111 r -'11 i t Turning Movement Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Lane Width[ft] 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 No.of Lanes in Pocket 2 7 0 2 1 2 1 2 1 Pocket Length[ft] 300.00 189.00 134.00 217.00 147.00 165.00 103.00 C Speed[mph] 40.00 40.00 40.00 40.00 L0 T" Grade[%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 M CL Crosswalk Yes Yes Yes Yes U' U0 volumes ao ,If Name E Street E Street Orange Show Rd Orange Show Rd d Base Volume Input[veh/h] 109 92 42 54 134 58 224 878 369 79 421 28 O Base Volume Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 K Heavy Vehicles Percentage[%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Growth Rate 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 M In-Process Volume[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 U Site-Generated Trips[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 tL Diverted Trips[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 r-+ Pass-by Trips[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Existing Site Adjustment Volume[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 t Other Volume[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 Um Right-Turn on Red Volume[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 Q Total Hourly Volume[veh/h] 109 92 42 54 134 58 224 878 369 79 421 28 Peak Hour Factor 0.8860 1 0.8860 0.8860 0.8860 0.8860 1 0.8860 0.8860 0.8860 0.8860 0.8860 0.8860 0.8860 E Other Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 v Total 15-Minute Volume[veh/h] 31 26 12 15 38 16 63 248 104 22 119 8 Total Analysis Volume[veh/h] 123 104 47 61 151 65 253 991 416 89 475 32 Q Presence of On-Street Parking No No No No No No No No On-Street Parking Maneuver Rate[/h] Local Bus Stopping Rate[/h] F0 0 0 0 Pedestrian Volume[ped/h] 0 0 0 0 Bicycle Volume[bicycles/h] 0 0 0 0 KIINZMAN Assoca RTES,INC. 4/8/2016 Packet Pg. 1018 6.B.h Generated with M Waterman Industrial Center Version 4.00-00 Scenario 1: 1:AMOYC Intersection Settings Located in CBD No Signal Coordination Group Cycle Length[s] 60 Coordination Type Time of Day Pattern Isolated Actuation Type Fully actuated Offset[s] 0.0 Offset Reference LeadGreen Permissive Mode SingleBand Lost time[s] 8.00 Phasing 8,Timing Control Type Protecte Permiss Permiss Protecte Permiss Permiss Protecte Permiss Permiss Protecte Permiss Permiss Signal group 5 2 1 6 3 8 7 4 C 9 Auxiliary Signal Groups LO r Lead/Lag Lead Lead Lead Lead Q Minimum Green[s] 5 5 5 5 0 5 5 5 5 0 U Maximum Green[s] 30 30 0 30 30 0 30 30 30 30 0 Lf) 00 Amber[s] 3.0 3.0 0.0 3.0 3.0 0.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 0.0 Allred[s] 1.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 Split[s] 9 19 9 19 13 23 9 19 0 Q Vehicle Extension[s] 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 0.0 Walk[s] 5 5 5 5 0 Pedestrian Clearance[s] 10 10 10 10 0 11,Start-Up Lost Time[s] 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 0.0 d 12,Clearance Lost Time[s] 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 0.0 d Minimum Recall No No No No No No No No Maximum Recall No No No No No No No No d Pedestrian Recall No No No No No No No No U f6 Detector Location[ft] Detector Length[ft] - �. 1,Upstream Filtering Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 y E Exclusive Pedestrian Phase = U Pedestrian Signal Group 0 r Pedestrian Walk[s] 0 Q Pedestrian Clearance[s] 0 KUNZMAN ASSOCIATES,INC. 4/8/2016 Packet Pg. 1019 Generated with 's Waterman Industrial Center Version 4.00-00 Scenario 1: 1:AMOYC Lane Group Calculations Lane Group L I C C L C R L C R I L C R L,Total Lost Time per Cycle[s] 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 11_p,Permitted Start-Up Lost Time[s] - 0(:a 12,Clearance Lost Time[s] 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 g_i,Effective Green Time[s] 4 18 18 3 17 17 6 19 19 4 16 16 g/C,Green/Cycle 0.07 0.30 0.30 0.05 0.28 0.28 0.11 0.31 0.31 0.07 0.27 0.27 (v/s)_i Volume/Saturation Flow Rate 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.02 0.04 0.04 0.07 0.27 0.26 0.03 0.13 0.02 s,saturation flow rate[veh/h] 3514 1900 1707 3514 3618 1615 3514 3618 1615 3514 3618 1615 c,Capacity[veh/h] 259 574 516 191 1023 457 372 1128 504 231 983 439 d1,Uniform Delay[s] 26.74 15.28 15.31 27.36 16.14 16.12 25.91 19.61 19.18 26.94 18.37 16.28 k,delay calibration 0.11 0.50 0.50 0.11 0.50 0.50 0.11 0.11 0.27 0.11 0.11 0.11 I,Upstream Filtering Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 cV d2,Incremental Delay[s] 1.35 0.49 0.58 0.95 0.30 0.65 2.19 2.38 8.24 1.06 0.37 0.07 LO d3,Initial Queue Delay[s] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Rp,platoon ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Q' PF,progression factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 u7 00 Lane Group Results d' X,volume/capacity 0.48 0.14 0.14 0.32 0.15 0.14 0.68 0.88 0.83 0.39 0.48 0.07 d,Delay for Lane Group[s/veh] 28.10 15.76 15.89 28.31 16.45 16.77 28.10 22.00 27.42 28.00 18.74 16.35 Q. Lane Group LOS C B B C B B C C C C B B Critical Lane Group Yes No No No Yes No No Yes No Yes No No 50th-Percentile Queue Length[veh] 0.82 0.75 0.72 0.41 0.72 0.67 1.69 5.92 5.70 0.59 2.45 0.30 50th-Percentile Queue Length[ft] 20.54 18.75 18.05 10.29 18.10 16.70 42.34 147.92 142.61 14.84 61.36 7.39 U a 95th-Percentile Queue Length[veh] 1.48 1.35 1.30 0.74 1.30 1.20 3.05 9.91 9.62 1.07 4.42 0.53 95th-Percentile Queue Length[ft] 36.97 33.76 32.48 18.52 32.58 30.06 76.21 247.65 240.53 26.72J110 45 13.30 E t v R .r Q c a� E t c� w. Q KUNZMAN AssoanTES,INC. 4/8/2016 Packet Pg. 1020 Generated with =Z= Waterman Industrial Center Version 4.00-00 Scenario 1:1:AMOYC Movement,Approach,&Intersection Results d_M,Delay for Movement[s/veh] 28.10 1 15.80 15.89 28.31 16.45 16.77 28.10 22.00 27.42 28.00 18.74 16.35 Movement LOS C B B C B B C C C C B B d_A,Approach Delay[s/veh] 21.33 19.13 24.29 19.99 Approach LOS C B C B d_I,Intersection Delay[s/veh] 22.58 Intersection LOS C Intersection V/C 0.434 Sequence Ring 1 1 2 3 4 - - - - - - - - - - - Ring 2 5 6 7 8 - - - - - - - - - - - N Ring 3 - - - - - LO Ring 4 - - - - YI 00 0 w� NW tI/ U a c d E v ca a r a KUNZMAN ASSOCIATES,INC. 4/8/2016 Packet Pg. 1021 6.B.h Generated with Waterman Industrial Center Version 4.00-00 Scenario 1: 1:AMOYC Intersection Level Of Service Report Intersection 2:Washington Ave(NS)at Orange Show Rd(EW) Control Type: Signalized Delay(sec/veh): 20.0 Analysis Method: HCM 2010 Level Of Service: B Analysis Period: 15 minutes Volume to Capacity(v/c): 0.331 Intersection Setup Name Washington Ave Washington Ave Orange Show Rd Orange Show Rd Approach Northbound Southbound Eastbound +Wr�estbound Lane Configuration �"�r 1 r -11 i 1 1 r 1 1 1 r Turning Movement Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Lane Width[ft] 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 1 12.00 12.00 0 No.of Lanes in Pocket 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 Pocket Length[ft] 157.00 166.00 Speed[mph] 30.00 30.00 40.00 40.00 LO T Grade[%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 M CL Crosswalk Yes Yes Yes Yes C7 volumes GGo a' Name Washington Ave Washington Ave Orange Show Rd Orange Show Rd d Base Volume Input[veh/h] 6 3 2 6 0 10 34 906 23 7 410 11 O Base Volume Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 d Heavy Vehicles Percentage[%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 IX Growth Rate 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 In-Process Volume[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 U Site-Generated Trips[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (L Diverted Trips[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 It Pass-by Trips[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 61 Existing Site Adjustment Volume[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 t Other Volume[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Right-Turn on Red Volume[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 Q Total Hourly Volume[veh/h] 6 3 2 6 0 10 34 906 23 7 410 11 Peak Hour Factor 0.8882 0.8882 0.8882 0.8882 0.8882 0.8882 0.8882 0.8882 0.8882 0.8882 0.8882 0.8882 d Other Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 V Total 15-Minute Volume[veh/h] 2 1 1 2 0 3 10 255 6 2 115 3 Total Analysis Volume[veh/h] 7 3 2 7 0 11 38 1020 26 1 8 462 12 Q Presence of On-Street Parking No No No No No No No No On-Street Parking Maneuver Rate[/h] Local Bus Stopping Rate[/h] 0 0 0 0 Pedestrian Volume[ped/h] 0 0 0 0 Bicycle Volume[bicycles/h] 0 0 0 0 KuNZMAN AssociAIES,INC. 4/8/2016 Packet Pg. 1022 ���, ,�rrrirrr■rrr 6.B.h Generated with "6a3 Waterman Industrial Center Version 4.00-00 Scenario 1: 1:AMOYC Intersection Settings Located in CBD No Signal Coordination Group Cycle Length[s] 65 Coordination Type Time of Day Pattern Isolated Actuation Type Fully actuated Offset[s] 0.0 Offset Reference LeadGreen Permissive Mode SingleBand Lost time[s] 6.00 Phasing&Timing Control Type Permiss Permiss Permiss Permiss Permiss Permiss Protecte Permiss Permiss Protecte Permiss Permiss Signal group t} 2 6 3 8 7 4 o Auxiliary Signal Groups r Lead/Lag Lead Lead M Minimum Green[s] 0 5 5 5 5 5 5 (5 Maximum Green[s] 0 30 30 30 30 30 30 LO Amber[s] 0.0 3.0 0 0.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 J.J Allred[s] 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Split[s] 0 19 0 19 0 9 32 1 9 32 Q Vehicle Extension[s] 0-0 3.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 0.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 d 0' Walk[s] 07 5 1 0 5 1 0 5 j 5 Pedestrian Clearance[s] 0 10 v 0 10 0 10 0 0 10 11,Start-Up Lost Time[s] 0.0 2.0 _0 0 2.0 .0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 }.t; 12,Clearance Lost Time[s] 0.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 72.0 2.0 2.0 d. Minimum Recall No No No No No No = Maximum Recall No No No No No No N Pedestrian Recall No No No No No No U Detector Location[ft] 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 .0 J.0 0'.0 Detector Length[ft] 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 1 0 T Q r I, Upstream Filtering Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 y Exclusive Pedestrian Phase V Pedestrian Signal Group 0 Pedestrian Walk[s] 0 Q Pedestrian Clearance[s] 0 KuNZUnv AssocWTES,INC. 4/8/2016 Packet Pg. 1023 Generated with = Waterman Industrial Center Version 4.00-00 Scenario 1: 1:AMOYC Lane Group Calculations Lane Group C R C R L C R L C R L,Total Lost Time per Cycle[s] 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 11_p,Permitted Start-Up Lost Time[s] 2.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 12,Clearance Lost Time[s] 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00 2.00 2.00 0.00 2.00 2.00 g_i,Effective Green Time[s] 30 30 30 30 27 22 22 27 20 1 20 g/C,Green/Cycle 0.47 0.47 0.47 0.47 0.41 0.34 0.34 0.41 0.31 1 0.31 (v/s)_i Volume/Saturation Flow Rate 0.02 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.03 0.28 0.02 0.01 0.13 0.01 s,saturation flow rate[veh/h] 653 1615 558 1615 1094 3618 1615 692 3618 1615 c,Capacity[veh/h] 399 753 371 753 517 1219 544 302 1118 499 d1,Uniform Delay[s] 11.76 9.28 21.94 9.33 11.92 19.94 14.55 13.67 17.83 15.67 k,delay calibration 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 I,Upstream Filtering Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1 1.00 cV d2,Incremental Delay[s] 0.12 0.01 0.09 0.04 0.06 1.60 0.04 0.04 0.24 0.02 9 d3,Initial Queue Delay[s] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Rp,platoon ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Q• PF,progression factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 ►O 00 Lane Group Results el' X,volume/capacity 0.03 0.00 0.02 0.01 0.07 0.84 0.05 0.03 0.41 0.02 1v d,Delay for Lane Group[s/veh] 11.88 9.29 22.03 9.37 11.98 21.54 14.59 13.71 18.07 15.68 OQ Lane Group LOS B A C A B C B B B B Critical Lane Group Yes No No No No Yes No Yes No No 50th-Percentile Queue Length[veh] 0.08 0.01 0.09 0.08 0.29 6.42 0.23 0.06 2.46 0.11 50th-Percentile Queue Length[ft] 2.02 0.37 2.33 2.05 7.33 160.39 5.85 1.55 61.57 2.83 a 95th-Percentile Queue Length[veh] 0.15 0.03 0.17 0.15 0.53 10.57 0.42 0.11 4.43 0.20 95th-Percentile Queue Length[ft] 3.63 0.67 4.20 3.69 13.20 264.24 10.53 2.79 110.82 5.10 +- C d E t V to a E r a KLINZI.4A,!AssocIATES,INC. 4/8/2016 Packet Pg. 1024 Generated with M 's Waterman Industrial Center Version 4.00-00 Scenario 1: 1:AMOYC Movement,Approach,&Intersection Results d_M,Delay for Movement[s/veh] 11.88 11.88 9.29 22.03 22.03 9.37 11.98 21.54 14.59 13.71 18.07 F15..68 Movement LOS B B A C C A B C B B B B d_A,Approach Delay[s/veh] 11.45 14.29 21.04 17.94 Approach LOS B B C B d I,Intersection Delay[s/veh] 19.95 Intersection LOS B Intersection V/C 0.331 Sequence Ring 1 2 1 3 1 4 - - - - - - - - - - - - Ring 2 6 7 8 - - - - - - - - - - - - - N Ring 3 - - - Ring 4 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - U� k Q IX rn U a v c a� E s U Id w a E U <B a KUNZMAN ASSOCIATES,INC. 4/8/2016 Packet Pg. 1025 6.B.h Generated with =Z= Waterman Industrial Center Version 4.00-00 Scenario 1: 1:AMOYC Intersection Level Of Service Report Intersection 5:Waterman Ave(NS)at Orange Show Rd(EW) Control Type: Signalized Delay(sec/veh): 21.3 Analysis Method: HCM 2010 Level Of Service: C Analysis Period: 15 minutes Volume to Capacity(v/c): 0.554 Intersection Setup Name Waterman Ave Waterman Ave Orange Show Rd Orange Show Rd Approach Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Lane Configuration "1 i i r '111 r "111 r '111 r Turning Movement Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Lane Width[ft] 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 No.of Lanes in Pocket 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 Pocket Length[ft] 298.00 275.00 248.00 _ 258.00 C Speed[mph] 50.00 50.00 40.00 40.00 U� r Grade[%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 O Crosswalk Yes Yes Yes Yes U U) volumes 00 Name Waterman Ave Waterman Ave Orange Show Rd Orange Show Rd Base Volume Input[veh/h] 637 610 102 52 549 84 164 442 274 98 294 71 O Base Volume Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 d Heavy Vehicles Percentage[%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Growth Rate 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 In-Process Volume[veh/h] 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 U Site-Generated Trips[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 IL Diverted Trips[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 V Pass-by Trips[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 c d Existing Site Adjustment Volume[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 s Other Volume[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Right-Turn on Red Volume[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 Q Total Hourly Volume[veh/h] 63 610 102 52 549 84 164 442 274 98 294 71 Peak Hour Factor 0.8780 0.8780 0.8780 0.8780 0.8780 0.8780 0.8780 0.8780 0.8780 0.8780 0.8780 0.8780 d Other Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 V Total 15-Minute Volume[veh/h] 18 174 29 15 156 24 47 126 78 28 84 20 .'@. Total Analysis Volume[veh/h] 72 695 116 59 625 96 187 503 312 112 335 81 Q Presence of On-Street Parking No No No No No No No No On-Street Parking Maneuver Rate[/h] Local Bus Stopping Rate[/h] 0 0 0 0 Pedestrian Volume[ped/h] 0 0 0 0 Bicycle Volume[bicycles/h] 0 0 0 0 KIINZMAN AssocIATES,INC. 4/812016 Packet Pg. 1026 6.B.h Generated with rr Waterman Industrial Center Version 4.00-00 Scenario 1: 1:AMOYC Intersection Settings Located in CBD No Signal Coordination Group Cycle Length[s] 60 Coordination Type Time of Day Pattern Isolated Actuation Type Fully actuated Offset[s] 0.0 Offset Reference LeadGreen Permissive Mode SingleBand Lost time[s] 8.00 Phasing&Timing Control Type Protecte Permiss Permiss Protecte Permiss Permiss Protecte Permiss Permiss Protecte Permiss Permiss Signal group 5 2 1 6 3 8 7 1 4 0 Auxiliary Signal Groups W) r Lead/Lag Lead Lead Lead Lead Q Minimum Green[s] 5 5 U} 5 5 5 5 0 5 5 C9 Maximum Green[s] 30 30 0 30 30 30 30 0 30 30 u7 ao Amber[s] 30T 3.0 0.0 3.0 3.0 _ 307 3.0 0.0 3.0 3.0 All red[s] 1.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 ?.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 .r Split[s] 9 19 9 19 J 13 22 0 10 19 a Vehicle Extension[s] 10 3.0 0.0 3.0 3.0 !.0 3.07 3.0 1,0 3.0 3.0 0.0 Walk[s] 5 0 0 5 v 5 0 v 5 0 t Pedestrian Clearance[s] 10 0 ° 10 0 0 10 0 0 10 0 11,Start-Up Lost Time[s] 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 0.0 2.0 2.0 0. 2.0 2.0 r'0 V a 12,Clearance Lost Time[s] 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 n 2.0 2.0 <y.0 2.0 2.0 ' Minimum Recall N. T No No No No No No No Maximum Recall No No No No No No No No Pedestrian Recall No No No No No No No No v Detector Location[ft] 0.0 0,0 0.0 0.0 J.0 Detector Length[ft] 0.0 0.0 0.0 I,Upstream Filtering Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Exclusive Pedestrian Phase Pedestrian Signal Group 0 Pedestrian Walk[s] 0 Q Pedestrian Clearance[s] 0 KLINZNIAN AssociATES,INC. 4/8/2016 Packet Pg. 1027 6.B.h Generated with Waterman Industrial Center Version 4.00-00 Scenario 1: 1:AMOYC Lane Group Calculations Lane Group L I C R L C R L I C R L C R L,Total Lost Time per Cycle[s] 4007 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 11_p,Permitted Start-Up Lost Time[s] 12,Clearance Lost Time[s] 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 g_i,Effective Green Time[s] 4 22 22 3 21 21 8 14 14 5 11 11 g/C,Green/Cycle 0.06 0.36 0.36 j 0.05 0.36 0.36 0.13 0.24 0.24 0.08 0.19 0.19 (v/s)_i Volume/Saturation Flow Rate 0.04 0.19 0.07 0.03 0.177 0.06 0.10 0.14 0.19 0.06 0.09 0.05 s,saturation flow rate[veh/h] 1810 3618 1615 1810 3618 1615 1810 3618 1615 1810 3618 1615 c,Capacity[veh/h] 1087 1308 584 97 1286 574 235 860 384 147 684 305 d1,Uniform Delay[s] 27.70 1 15.18 13.21 27.85 15.11 13.29 25.38 20.29 21.65 27.06 21.80 20.83 k,delay calibration 0.11 0.50 0.50 0.11 0.50 0.50 0.16 0.11 0.15 0.11 0.11 0.11 I,Upstream Filtering Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 N d2,Incremental Delay[s] 6.96 1.55 0.76 6.07 1732 0.63 8.60 0.63 5.67 7.90 0.55 0.46 9 d3,Initial Queue Delay[s] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 co Rp,platoon ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 C- PF,progression factor 1.00 1 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1 1.00 1 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1 1.00 LO 00 Lane Group Results qT ItP X,volume/capacity 0.67 0.53 0.20 0.61 0.49 0.17 0.79 0.58 0.81 0.76 0.49 0.27 d,Delay for Lane Group[s/veh] 34.66 16.73 13.97 33.92 16.42 1 13.91 33.98 20.92 27.33 34.96 22.35 21.29 0 CL _ Lane Group LOS C B B C B I B C C C C C C Q' Critical Lane Group No Yes No Yes No No No No Yes Yes No No 50th-Percentile Queue Length[veh] 1.10 1 3.23 0.98 1 0.90 2.86 0.81 2.90 2.82 4.23 1.76 1.93 0.91 50th-Percentile Queue Length[ft] 27.53 80.63 24.48 22.40 71.46 20.23 72.41 70.41 105.84 43.90 48.36 22.72 V CL 95th-Percentile Queue Length[veh] 1.98 5.81 1.76 1.61 5.15 1.46 5.21 5.07 7.61 3.16 3.48 1.64 ' 95th-Percentile Queue Length[ft] 49.56 145.13 44.06 40.31 128.64 1 36.41 130.34 126.74 190.21 79.02 87.04 40.89 E � v co Y w Q Y E V F+ Q KUNZMAN Assoc[ATES,INC. 4/8/2016 Packet'Pg. 1028 Generated with =z= Waterman Industrial Center Version 4.00-00 Scenario 1: 1:AMOYC Movement,Approach,&Intersection Results d_M,Delay for Movement[s/veh] 34.66 16.73 13.97 33.92 16.42 13.91 33.98 20.92 27.33 34.96 22.35 21.29 Movement LOS C B B C B B C C C C C C d_A,Approach Delay[s/veh] 17.83 17.44 25.36 24.86 Approach LOS B B C C d I,Intersection Delay[s/veh] 21.26 Intersection LOS C Intersection V/C 0.554 Sequence Ring 1 1 2 3 4 - - - - - - - - - - - - Ring 2 5 6 7 8 - - - - - - - - - - - - N Ring 3 - - - - Ring 4 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - CL I' 00 4 Cn U IL v c as E s v Q c a� E t R Q KUNZMAN ASSOCIATES,INC. 4/8/2016 Packet Pg. 1029 6.B.h Generated with =Z= Waterman Industrial Center Version 4.00-00 Scenario 1: 1:AMOYC Intersection Level Of Service Report Intersection 6:Waterman Ave(NS)at Dumas St(EW) Control Type: Two-way stop Delay(sec/veh): 21.4 Analysis Method: HCM 2010 Level Of Service: C Analysis Period: 15 minutes Volume to Capacity(v/c): 0.027 Intersection Setup Name Waterman Ave Waterman Ave Dumas St Approach Northbound Southbound Eastbound Lane Configuration +1 i r Turning Movement Left Thru Thru Right Left Right Lane Width[ft] 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 No.of Lanes in Pocket 1 0 0 0 Pocket Length[ft] 111.00 - C Speed[mph] 50.00 50.00 30.00 u7 T_ Grade[%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 Q Crosswalk No No No 0 LO volumes 00 Name Waterman Ave Waterman Ave Dumas St Base Volume Input[veh/h] 3 788 905 8 5 6 0 O Base Volume Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 N Heavy Vehicles Percentage[%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Growth Rate 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 In-Process Volume[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 U Site-Generated Trips[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 d Diverted Trips[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 It Pass-by Trips[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 O Existing Site Adjustment Volume[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 t Other Volume[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 r Total Hourly Volume[veh/h] 3 788 905 8 5 6 Q Peak Hour Factor 0.8593 0.8593 0.8593 0.8593 0.8593 0.8593 Other Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 O Total 15-Minute Volume[veh/h] 1 229 263 2 1 2 v Total Analysis Volume[veh/h] 3 917 1053 9 6 7 Q Pedestrian Volume[ped/h] KIINZMAN AssociATES,INC. 4/8/2016 Packet Pg. 1030 Generated with =z= Waterman Industrial Center Version 4.00-00 Scenario 1: 1:AMOYC Intersection Settings Priority Scheme Free Free Stop Flared Lane No Storage Area[veh] n Two-Stage Gap Acceptance Yes Number of Storage Spaces in Median 1 Movement,Approach,&Intersection Results V/C,Movement V/C Ratio 0.00 0.03 0.01 d_M,Delay for Movement Is/veh] 10.45 21.40 12.65 Movement LOS B A A A C B 95th-Percentile Queue Length[veh] 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.13 0.13 95th-Percentile Queue Length[ft] 0.34 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.16 3.16 d_A,Approach Delay[s/veh] 0.03 0.00 16.69 Approach LOS A A C LO r d_I,Intersection Delay[s/veh] 0.12 Q Intersection LOS C 0 LO 00 O O. d Q' t0 U a v c a� E s v Y Y Q F+ E V M V Q KIINZMAN AssociATES,INC. 4/8/2016 Packet Pg. 1031 s.s.n Generated with =z= Waterman Industrial Center Version 4.00-00 Scenario 1: 1:AMOYC Intersection Level Of Service Report Intersection 7:Waterman Ave(NS)at Park Center Circle North(EW) Control Type: Two-way stop Delay(sec/veh): 22.7 Analysis Method: HCM 2010 Level Of Service: C Analysis Period: 15 minutes Volume to Capacity(v/c): 0.005 Intersection Setup Name Waterman Ave Waterman Ave Park Center Circle N Approach Northbound Southbound Westbound Lane Configuration I r -111 41 r Turning Movement Thru Right Left Thru Left Right Lane Width[ft] 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 No.of Lanes in Pocket 0 1 0 0 Pocket Length[ft] 215.00 N 0 Speed[mph] 50.00 50.00 30.00 r Grade[%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 Q. Crosswalk No No No U tr) volumes 00 Name Waterman Ave Waterman Ave Park Center Circle N Base Volume Input[veh/h] 783 27 78 810 1 9 O Base Volume Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 C Heavy Vehicles Percentage[%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Growth Rate 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 c�0 In-Process Volume[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 N U Site-Generated Trips[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 d Diverted Trips[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 d Pass-by Trips[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 = d Existing Site Adjustment Volume[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 t Other Volume[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total Hourly Volume[veh/h] 783 27 78 810 1 9 Q Peak Hour Factor 0.8587 0.8587 0.8587 0.8587 0.8587 0.8587 Other Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Total 15-Minute Volume[veh/h] 228 8 23 236 0 3 v Total Analysis Volume[veh/h] 912 31 91 943 1 10 Q Pedestrian Volume[ped/h] KuNnMAN AssocIATES,INC. 4/8/2016 Packet Pg. 1032 Generated with = Waterman Industrial Center Version 4.00-00 Scenario 1: 1:AMOYC Intersection Settings Priority Scheme Free Free Stop Flared Lane Storage Area[veh] Two-Stage Gap Acceptance Yes Number of Storage Spaces in Median 1 Movement,Approach,&Intersection Results V/C,Movement V/C Ratio _.-t 0.12 0.00 0.02 d_M,Delay for Movement[s/veh] C 10.58 22.67 11.58 Movement LOS A A B A C B 95th-Percentile Queue Length[veh] 0.00 0.00 0.42 0.00 0.01 0.05 95th-Percentile Queue Length[ft] 0.00 0.00 10.53 0.00 0.37 1 1.37 d_A,Approach Delay[s/veh] 0.00 0.93 12.59 NO Approach LOS A A B LO r d_I,Intersection Delay[s/veh] 0.55 Q Intersection LOS C u7 00 d' et O sZ d E � t4 N U a v c a� E s ca Q c a� E U R Y Y Q KUND,AAN AssociATFS,INU 4/8/2016 Packet Pg. 1033 6.B.h Generated with Waterman Industrial Center Version 4.00-00 Scenario 1: 1:AMOYC Intersection Level Of Service Report Intersection 8:Waterman Ave(NS)at Park Center Circle South(EW) Control Type: Signalized Delay(sec/veh): 3.8 Analysis Method: HCM 2010 Level Of Service: A Analysis Period: 15 minutes Volume to Capacity(v/c): 0.626 Intersection Setup Name Waterman Ave Waterman Ave Park Center Circle South Park Center Circle South Approach Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Lane Configuration '111 r "111 r i t i t Turning Movement Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Lane Width[ft] 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 No.of Lanes in Pocket 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Pocket Length[ft] C Speed[mph] 50.00 50.00 30.00 30.00 r Grade[%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Q Crosswalk No Yes Yes Yes C9 volumes 000 d' Name Waterman Ave Waterman Ave Park Center Circle South Park Center Circle South Base Volume Input[veh/h] 5 777 163 23 779 7 8 4 11 23 0 7 O Base Volume Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 d Heavy Vehicles Percentage[%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Growth Rate 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 R In-Process Volume[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 to U Site-Generated Trips[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a. Diverted Trips[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 V a+ Pass-by Trips[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 d Existing Site Adjustment Volume[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Other Volume[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Right-Turn on Red Volume[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 Q Total Hourly Volume[veh/h] 5 777 163 23 779 7 8 4 11 23 0 7 Peak Hour Factor 0.8960 0.8960 0.8960 0.8960 0.8960 0.8960 0.8960 0.8960 0.8960 0.8960 0.8960 0.8960 E Other Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 c> Total 15-Minute Volume[veh/h] 1 217 45 6 217 2 2 1 3 6 0 2 r Total Analysis Volume[veh/h] 6 867 182 26 869 8 9 4 12 26 0 8 Q Presence of On-Street Parking No No No No No No No No On-Street Parking Maneuver Rate[/h] Local Bus Stopping Rate[/h] 0 0 0 0 Pedestrian Volume[ped/h] 0 0 0 Bicycle Volume[bicycles/h] 0 0 0 0 KUNZMAN Assoc1ATM INC 4/8/2016 Packet Pg. 1034 6.B.h Generated with '• Waterman Industrial Center Version 4.00-00 Scenario 1: 1:AMOYC Intersection Settings Located in CBD No Signal Coordination Group Cycle Length[s] 60 Coordination Type Time of Day Pattern Isolated Actuation Type Fully actuated Offset[s] 0.0 Offset Reference LeadGreen Permissive Mode SingleBand Lost time[s] 6.00 Phasing&Timing Control Type Protecte Permiss Permiss Protecte Permiss Permiss Permiss Permiss Permiss Permiss Permiss Permiss Signal group 5 2 17 6 8 4 0 Auxiliary Signal Groups LO r Lead/Lag Lead I Lead Q Minimum Green[s] 5 5 1 5 5 1 5 0 0 5 C9 Maximum Green[s] 307 30 30 30 30 0 0 30 0 Amber[s] 3.0 1 3.0 u.. 3.0 3.0 =.0 3.0 1 0,0 0.0 3.0 0.0 All red[s] 1.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 :?.0 1.0 t1.o .0 1.0 .0 i Split[s] 9 52 0 9 52 d 19 19 oQ Vehicle Extension[s] 3.0 3.0 0.0 3.0 3.0 10 3.0 u?(; 3.0 6.0 N Walk[s] 0 0 5 0 5 0 5 0 Pedestrian Clearance[s] 0 0 10 0 0 10 0 0 10 0 Cn 11,Start-Up Lost Time[s] 2.0 2.0 L0 2.0 2.0 J.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 U a 12,Clearance Lost Time[s] 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 5 ".^ 2.0 fE,O 0 2.0 0.0 ' d' Minimum Recall No No No No No No = Maximum Recall N. T No No No No No E Pedestrian Recall No No No No No No t v co Detector Location[ft] 0.0 u.0 0.0 U.0 ,0 Detector Length[ft] 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 J.0 0.0 Q a.. I,Upstream Filtering Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 E Exclusive Pedestrian Phase CU U Pedestrian Signal Group 0 Pedestrian Walk[s] 0 Q Pedestrian Clearance[s] 0 10 KUNZMAN ASSOCIATES,INC. 4/8/2016 Packet Pg. 1035 6.B.h Generated with =z= Waterman Industrial Center Version 4.00-00 Scenario 1: 1:AMOYC Lane Group Calculations Lane Group L I C R L C R C R C R L,Total Lost Time per Cycle[s] 4.00 1 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 11p,Permitted Start-Up Lost Time[s] 0.00 e 0.00 J 2.00 2.00 12,Clearance Lost Time[s] 0.00 2.00 2.00 0.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 g_i,Effective Green Time[s] 50 44 44 50 45 45 2 2 2 2 g/C,Green/Cycle 0.83 0.73 0.73 0.83 0.75 0.75 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 (v/s)_i Volume/Saturation Flow Rate 0.01 0.24 0.11 0.04 0.24 0.00 0.17 0.01 0.32 0.00 s,saturation flow rate[veh/h] 708 3618 1615 739 3618 1615 77 1615 81 1615 c,Capacity[veh/h] 705 2635 1176 727 2713 1211 104 66 123 66 d1,Uniform Delay[s] 1.17 2.92 2.50 1.23 2.47 1.89 30.07 27.90 30.07 27.83 k,delay calibration 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.11 0.50 0.50 0.19 0.11 0.50 0.11 1,Upstream Filtering Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 cV d2,Incremental Delay[s] 0.02 0.33 0.28 0.02 0.31 0.01 0.92 1.33 3.88 0.82 9 d3,Initial Queue Delay[s] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 `- Rp,platoon ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 CL [� PF,progression factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 oD Lane Group Results d' X,volume/capacity 0.01 0.33 0.15 0.04 0.32 0.01 0.12 0.18 0.21 0.12 d,Delay for Lane Group[s/veh] 1.19 3.25 2.78 1.25 2.79 1.90 30.98 29.22 33.96 28.65 0 CL Lane Group LOS A A A A A A C C C C d M Critical Lane Group No Yes No Yes No No No No Yes No 50th-Percentile Queue Length[veh] 0.00 0.54 0.24 0.00 0.34 0.01 0.21 0.18 0.50 0.12 50th-Percentile Queue Length[ft] 0.11 13.59 6.07 0.10 8.38 0.16 5.17 4.57 12.42 3.01 U (L 95th-Percentile Queue Length[veh] 001 0.98 0.44 0.01 0.60 0.01 0.37 0.33 0.89 0.22 d' 95th-Percentile Queue Length[ft] 0.19 24.46 10.93 0.18 15.08 0.29 9.31 8.22 22.36 5.42 = d E _ V to a E a KUNZMAN AssocIATES,INC., 4/8/2016 Packet Pg. 1036 6 B. Generated with � e Waterman Industrial Center Version 4.00-00 Scenario 1: 1:AMOYC Movement,Approach,&Intersection Results d_M,Delay for Movement[s/veh] 1.19 3.25 2.78 1.25 2.79 1.90 30.98 30.98 29.22 33.96 33.96 28.65 Movement LOS A A A A A A C C C C C C d_A,Approach Delay[s/veh] 3.16 2.73 30.14 32.71 Approach LOS A A C C d_I,Intersection Delay[s/veh] 3.80 Intersection LOS A Intersection V/C 0.626 Sequence Ring 1 1 2 4 - - - - - - - Ring 2 5 6 8 - - - - - - - - - - N Ring 3 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - o Ring 4 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - vi _w CL 00 Q ® � d G' co N U a v c a� E s a r r a KUNZMAN AssocIATE5,INC. 4/8/2016 Packet Pg. 1037 6.B.h Generated with = Waterman Industrial Center Version 4.00-00 Scenario 1: 1:AMOYC Intersection Level Of Service Report Intersection 9:Waterman Ave(NS)at Vanderbilt Way(EW) Control Type: Signalized Delay(sec/veh): 17.9 Analysis Method: HCM 2010 Level Of Service: B Analysis Period: 15 minutes Volume to Capacity(v/c): 0.667 Intersection Setup Name Waterman Ave Waterman Ave Vanderbilt Way Vanderbilt Way Approach Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Lane Configuration +'I i t 1 i + r Turning Movement Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Lane Width[ft] 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 No.of Lanes in Pocket 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Pocket Length[ft] :? u:� Speed[mph] 50.00 50.00 30.00 30.00 r Grade[%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Q. Crosswalk No Yes Yes Yes U' LO volumes Name Waterman Ave Waterman Ave Vanderbilt Way Vanderbilt Way 511� Base Volume Input[veh/h] 25 7 695 374 256 561 4 4 3 3 64 1 253 t O Base Volume Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 d Heavy Vehicles Percentage[%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Growth Rate 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 M In-Process Volume[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 co U Site-Generated Trips[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0. Diverted Trips[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 IT Pass-by Trips[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O Existing Site Adjustment Volume[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 E Other Volume[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 M Right-Turn on Red Volume[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 Q Total Hourly Volume[veh/h] 25 695 374 256 561 4 4 3 3 64 1 253 Peak Hour Factor 0.8826 0.8826 0.8826 0.8826 0.8826 0.8826 0.8826 0.8826 0.8826 0.8826 0.8826 0.8826 O E Other Adjustment Factor Ton Ton 1.0000 Ton 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 u Total 15-Minute Volume[veh/h] 7 1 197 106 73 159 1 1 1 1 18 0 72 r Total Analysis Volume[veh/h] 28 787 424 290 636 5 5 3 3 73 1 1 287 Q Presence of On-Street Parking No No No No No No No No On-Street Parking Maneuver Rate[/h] Local Bus Stopping Rate[/h] 0 0 0 0 Pedestrian Volume[ped/h] 0 0 0 Bicycle Volume[bicycles/h] 0 0 0 0 10 KUNZMAN ASsociATES,INC. 4/8/2016 Packet Pg. 1038 6.B.h Generated with : Waterman Industrial Center Version 4.00-00 Scenario 1: 1:AMOYC Intersection Settings Located in CBD No Signal Coordination Group Cycle Length[s] 60 Coordination Type Time of Day Pattern Isolated Actuation Type Fully actuated Offset[s] 0.0 Offset Reference LeadGreen Permissive Mode SingleBand Lost time[s] 6.00 Phasing&Timing Control Type Protecte Permiss Permiss Protecte Permiss Permiss Permiss Permiss Permiss Permiss Permiss Permiss Signal group 5 2 1 6 8 4 fV0 Auxiliary Signal Groups °n r Lead/Lag Lead Lead fl Minimum Green[s] 5 5 5 5 5 5 u U' Maximum Green[s] 30 30 30 30 30 � u 30 0 00 Amber[s] 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 0.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 Q Allred[s] 10 1.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 y L Split[s] 9 19 i 20 30 0 0 21 0 21 0 OQ Vehicle Extension[s] 3.0 1 3.0 0.0 3.0 3.0 "0 L.0 3.0 0,0 3.0 0.0 d Walk[s] 0 3 0 5 0 0 5 0 5 0 N Pedestrian Clearance[s] 0 0 0 10 10 0 10 0 11,Start-Up Lost Time[s] 2.0 2.0 ),0 2.0 2.0 a 2.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 V n 12,Clearance Lost Time[s] 2.0 2.0 0 2.0 2.0 ;.0 2.0 n 2.0 d' Minimum Recall No No No No No No Maximum Recall No No No No No No E Pedestrian Recall No No No No No No U Detector Location[ft] 0.0 0 OL' 0.0 Detector Length[ft] 0 0.0 Q I,Upstream Filtering Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Exclusive Pedestrian Phase U Pedestrian Signal Group 0 Pedestrian Walk[s] 0 Q Pedestrian Clearance[s] 0 KUNZMAN AssociATES,INC. 4/8/2016 Packet Pg. 1039 6.B.h Generated with m Waterman Industrial Center Version 4.00-00 Scenario 1: 1:AMOYC Lane Group Calculations Lane Group L I C R L C C C L C R L,Total Lost Time per Cycle[s] 4007 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 11_p,Permitted Start-Up Lost Time[s] 2.00 2.00 2.00 12,Clearance Lost Time[s] 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 g_i,Effective Green Time[s] 2 24 24 12 33 33 13 13 13 13 g/C,Green/Cycle 0.03 0.40 0.40 0.19 0.56 0.56 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21 (v/s)_i Volume/Saturation Flow Rate 0.02 0.22 0.26 0.16 0.12 0.12 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.18 s,saturation flow rate[veh/h] 1810 3618 1615 1810 3618 1892 1509 1432 1345 1615 c,Capacity[veh/h] 60 1428 637 349 2006 1049 408 315 404 344 d1,Uniform Delay[s] 28.56 14.09 14.95 23.33 6.76 6.76 18.76 22.91 19.35 22.67 k,delay calibration 0.11 0.50 0.50 0.14 0.50 0.50 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.16 I,Upstream Filtering Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 N d2,Incremental Delay[s] 5.49 1.54 5.42 6.32 0.24 0.46 0.03 0.13 0.12 7.57 9 d3,Initial Queue Delay[s] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Rp,platoon ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 n• PF,progression factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 to oD Lane Group Results d d' X,volume/capacity 0.47 0.55 0.67 0.83 0.21 0.21 0.03 0.10 0.11 0.84 d,Delay for Lane Group[s/veh] 34.05 15.62 20.36 29.65 6.99 7.21 18.79 23.04 19.47 30.24 0 Lane Group LOS C B C C A A B C B C IX Critical Lane Group No No Yes Yes No No No No No Yes ca 50th-Percentile Queue Length[veh] 0.44 3.47 4.57 3.96 0.93 1.03 0.12 0.37 0.48 4.31 50th-Percentile Queue Length[ft] 11.08 86.63 114.30 99.00 23.17 25.84 2.92 9.14 12.05 107.66 a 95th-Percentile Queue Length[veh] 0.80 6.24 8.08 7.13 1.67 1.86 0.21 0.66 0.87 7.71 95th-Percentile Queue Length[ft] 19.95 155.93 201.97 178.20 41.71 46.51 5.25 16.45 21.69 192.75 d E t v r.+ a r d a KuNZmnN AssocInTES,INC. 4/8/2016 Packet Pg. 1040 ME 6.B.h Generated with =Z= Waterman Industrial Center Version 4.00-00 Scenario 1: 1:AMOYC Movement,Approach,&Intersection Results d_M,Delay for Movement[s/veh] 34.05 15.62 20.36 29.65 7.07 7.21 18.79 18.79 18.79 23.04 19.47 30.24 Movement LOS C B C C A A B B B C B C d_A,Approach Delay[s/veh] 17.66 14.10 18.79 28.33 Approach LOS B B B C d_I,Intersection Delay[s/veh] 17.88 Intersection LOS B Intersection V/C 0.667 Sequence Ring 1 1 2 4 - - - - - - - - - - - - - Ring 2 5 6 8 - - - - - - - - - - - - - N Ring 3 - - - - Ring 4 - CL LO 0 v 0 a m �a U a v _ a� E s a m E t Q KuNZ, ,\LN Assoanres,INC. 4/8/2016 Packet Pg. 1041 6.B.h Generated with Waterman Industrial Center Version 4.00-00 Scenario 1: 1:AMOYCi With Improvement: Intersection Level Of Service Report Intersection 7:Waterman Ave(NS)at Park Center Circle North(EW) Control Type: Signalized Delay(sec/veh): 4.1 Analysis Method: HCM 2010 Level Of Service: A Analysis Period: 15 minutes Volume to Capacity(v/c): 0.343 Intersection Setup Name Waterman Ave Waterman Ave Park Center Circle N Approach Northbound Southbound Westbound Lane Configuration f i r -111 1 r Turning Movement Thru Right Left Thru Left Right Lane Width[ft] 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 No.of Lanes in Pocket 0 1 0 0 Pocket Length[ft] 215.00 N O Speed[mph] 50.00 50.00 30.00 U; r Grade[%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 Q. Crosswalk No No No U' volumes 00 Name Waterman Ave Waterman Ave Park Center Circle N Base Volume Input[veh/h] 783 27 78 810 1 9 [r O Base Volume Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 C Heavy Vehicles Percentage[%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Growth Rate 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 c�0 In-Process Volume[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 U Site-Generated Trips[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 IL Diverted Trips[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 sf Pass-by Trips[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 C O Existing Site Adjustment Volume[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 = Other Volume[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 L) Right-Turn on Red Volume[veh/h] 0 0 Q Total Hourly Volume[veh/h] 783 27 78 810 1 9 G Peak Hour Factor 0.8587 0.8587 0.8587 0.8587 0.8587 0.8587 d E Other Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 v Total 15-Minute Volume[veh/h] 228 8 23 236 0 3 Total Analysis Volume[veh/h] 912 31 91 943 1 10 Q Presence of On-Street Parking No No No No No No On-Street Parking Maneuver Rate[/h] U, Local Bus Stopping Rate[/h] 0 0 0 Pedestrian Volume[ped/h] Bicycle Volume[bicycles/h] 0 0 0 KUNZ\+AN AssociATES,INC. 4/7/2016 Packet Pg. 1042 s.B.n Generated with Waterman Industrial Center Version 4.00-00 Scenario 1: 1:AMOYCi With Improvement: Intersection Settings Located in CBD No Signal Coordination Group Cycle Length[s) 60 Coordination Type Time of Day Pattern Isolated Actuation Type Fully actuated Offset[s] 0.0 Offset Reference LeadGreen Permissive Mode SingleBand Lost time[s] 6.00 Phasing&Timing Control Type Permissive Permissive Protected Permissive Permissive Permissive Signal group 2 1 6 7 c Auxiliary Signal Groups LID r Lead/Lag Lead Lead M CL Minimum Green[s] 5 5 5 5 C9 Maximum Green[s] 30 30 30 30 0 LO 00 Ambers] 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 0.0 All red[s] 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 Split[s] 15 30 45 15 0 0 CL Vehicle Extension[s] 3.0 0.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 0.0 Walk[s] 0 0 w M Pedestrian Clearance[s] 0 0 to 11,Start-Up Lost Time[s] 2.0 0.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 0.0 U d 12,Clearance Lost Time[s] 2.0 0.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 0.0 ' Minimum Recall No No No No = Maximum Recall No No No No E Pedestrian Recall No No No No U f6 Detector Location[ft] 0.0 Q Detector Length[ft] 0.0 i- I,Upstream Filtering Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 y E Exclusive Pedestrian Phase Pedestrian Signal Group 0 y Pedestrian Walk[s] 0 Q Pedestrian Clearance[s] 0 KUNZMAN ASSOCIATES,INC. 4/7/2016 Packet Pg. 1043 6.B.h Generated with Waterman Industrial Center Version 4.00-00 Scenario 1: 1:AMOYCi With Improvement: Lane Group Calculations Lane Group C R L C L R L,Total Lost Time per Cycle[s] 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 11_p,Permitted Start-Up Lost Time[s] ��`" 12,Clearance Lost Time[s] 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 g_i,Effective Green Time[s] 43 43 4 51 1 1 g/C,Green/Cycle 0.72 0.72 0.07 0.85 0.02 0.02 (v/s)_i Volume/Saturation Flow Rate 0.25 0.02 0.05 0.26 0.00 0.01 s,saturation flow rate[veh/h] 3618 1615 1810 3618 1810 1615 c,Capacity[veh/h] 2589 1156 124 3078 29 26 d1,Uniform Delay[s] 3.25 2.48 27.47 0.90 29.14 29.31 k,delay calibration 0.50 0.50 0.11 0.50 0.11 0.11 I,Upstream Filtering Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 N d2,Incremental Delay[s] 0.38 0.04 7.98 0.26 0.48 9.12 1 d3,Initial Queue Delay[s] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 `- R Rp,platoon ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Q' PF,progression factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 LO 00 Lane Group Results a' d X,volume/capacity 0.35 0.03 0.73 0.31 0.03 0.39 d,Delay for Lane Group[s/veh] 3.63 2.52 35.45 1.16 29.62 38.42 Q Lane Group LOS A A D A C D Critical Lane Group Yes No Yes No No Yes : 50th-Percentile Queue Length[veh] 0.70 0.04 1.40 0.11 0.02 0.20 U) 50th-Percentile Queue Length[ft] 17.44 1.07 35.08 2.76 0.44 5.05 U M 95th-Percentile Queue Length[veh] 1.26 0.08 2.53 0.20 0.03 0.36 ' 95th-Percentile Queue Length[ft] 31.39 1.93 63.15 4.96 0.78 9.09 = d E t V a E w a KUNzmAN ASSOCIATES,INC. 4/7/2016 -Packet Pg. 1044 6.B.h Generated with Waterman Industrial Center Version 4.00-00 Scenario 1: 1:AMOYCi With ImprovementE Movement,Approach,&Intersection Results d_M,Delay for Movement[s/veh] 3.63 2.52 35.45 1.16 29.62 38.42 Movement LOS A A D A C D d_A,Approach Delay[s/veh] 3.59 4.18 37.62 Approach LOS A A D d I,Intersection Delay[s/veh] 4.09 Intersection LOS A Intersection V/C 0.343 Sequence Ring 1 1 2 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Ring 2 - 6 7 - - - - - - - - - - - - - N Ring 3 - - - Ring 4 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - �; a to co �r 0 CL 0 �a co U a _ d E s v R r .r a U tC Q KLWZMAN ASSOCIATES,INC. 4/7/2016 Packet Pg. 1045 6.B.h Generated with Waterman Industrial Center Version 4.00-00 Scenario 1: 1:PMOYC Intersection Level Of Service Report Intersection 1:E Street(NS)at Orange Show Road(EW) Control Type: Signalized Delay(sec/veh): 27.5 Analysis Method: HCM 2010 Level Of Service: C Analysis Period: 15 minutes Volume to Capacity(v/c): 0.731 Intersection Setup Name E Street E Street Orange Show Rd Orange Show Rd Approach Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Lane Configuration "1-1 1 } -"11 I r '1"11 i t '1-i 11 r Turning Movement Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Lane Width[ft] 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.007 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 No.of Lanes in Pocket 2 0 2 1 2 1 2 1 Pocket Length[ft] 300.00 189.00 134.00 217.00 147.00 165.00 103.00 04 Speed[mph] 40.00 40.00 40.00 40.00 r Grade[%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 a Crosswalk Yes Yes Yes Yes U' �C1 volumes 00 rt' Name E Street E Street Orange Show Rd Orange Show Rd d Base Volume Input[veh/h] 478 297 129 149 164 263 124 939 321 148 871 46 t O Base Volume Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 d Heavy Vehicles Percentage[%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Growth Rate 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 In-Process Volume[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 U Site-Generated Trips[veh/h] 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 d Diverted Trips[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 q s. Pass-by Trips[veh/h] 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 d Existing Site Adjustment Volume[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 t Other Volume[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y Right-Turn on Red Volume[veh/h] C 0 0 0 0 Q Total Hourly Volume[veh/h] 478 297 129 149 164 1 263 124 939 321 148 871 46 Peak Hour Factor 0.9275 0.9275 0.9275 0.9275 0.9275 0.9275 0.9275 0.9275 0.9275 0.9275 0.9275 0.9275 d Other Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 v Total 15-Minute Volume[veh/h] 129 80 35 40 44 71 33 253 87 40 235 12 �+0, Total Analysis Volume[veh/h] 515 320 139 161 177 1 284 134 1012 346 160 939 50 Q Presence of On-Street Parking No No No No No No No No On-Street Parking Maneuver Rate[/h] Local Bus Stopping Rate[/h] 0 0 0 0 Pedestrian Volume(ped/h] 0 0 0 0 Bicycle Volume[bicycles/hl 0 0 0 0 KLINZMAN AssocIATES,INC. 4/8/2016 Packet Pg. 1046 6.B.h Generated with Waterman Industrial Center Version 4.00-00 Scenario 1: 1:PMOYC Intersection Settings Located in CBD No Signal Coordination Group Cycle Length[s] 70 Coordination Type Time of Day Pattern Isolated Actuation Type Fully actuated Offset[s] 0.0 Offset Reference LeadGreen Permissive Mode SingleBand Lost time[s] 8.00 Phasing&Timing Control Type Protecte Permiss Permiss Protecte Permiss Permiss Protecte Permiss Permiss Protecte Permiss Permiss Signal group 5 F 2 1 6 3 8 7 4 c Auxiliary Signal Groups T_ r Lead/Lag Lead I Lead Lead Lead ca a Minimum Green[s] 5 1 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 0 6 Maximum Green[s] 30 F 30 30 30 0 30 30 0 30 30 0 Io 00 Amber[s] 3.0 3.0 _ 3.0 3.0 m 3.0 3.0 0.0 3.0 3.0 0.0 'ITV All red[s] 1.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 J.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 Split[s] 16 1 23 3 12 19 0 10 26 0 9 25 Q Vehicle Extension[s] 3.0 3.0 0.0 3.0 3.0 0 3.0 3.0 0.0 3.0 3.0 0.0 Walk[s] 0 5 n 0 5 0 5 0 0 5 0 tt: Pedestrian Clearance[s] 0 1 10 1 0 10 0 10 10 0 N 11,Start-Up Lost Time[s] 207 2.0 0.0 2.0 2.0 0.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 0.0 U a 12,Clearance Lost Time[s] 2.0 2.0 0,0 2.0 2.0 _. 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 10 ' Minimum Recall No No No No No No No No Maximum Recall No No No No No No No No E Pedestrian Recall No No No No No No No No U RS Detector Location[ft] 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 Z Detector Length[ft] 0.0 0.0 �)_0 0 .r I, Upstream Filtering Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 E Exclusive Pedestrian Phase Pedestrian Signal Group 0 +ru Pedestrian Walk[s] 0 Q Pedestrian Clearance[s] 0 10 KUNZMAN ASSOCIATES,INC. 4/8/2016 Packet Pg. 1047 6.B.h Generated with Waterman Industrial Center Version 4.00-00 Scenario 1:1:PMOYC Lane Group Calculations Lane Group L C C L C R L I C R L C R L,Total Lost Time per Cycle[s] 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 1 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 11p,Permitted Start-Up Lost Time[s] , 12,Clearance Lost Time[s] 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 g_i,Effective Green Time[s] 12 23 23 5 16 16 5 21 21 5 22 22 g/C,Green/Cycle 0.17 0.32 0.32 0.07 0.22 0.22 0.07 0.31 0.31 0.07 0.31 0.31 (v/s)_i Volume/Saturation Flow Rate 0.15 0.13 0.13 0.05 0.05 0.18 0.04 0.28 0.21 0.05 0.26 0.03 s,saturation flow rate[veh/h] 3514 1900 1707 3514 3618 1615 3514 3618 1615 3514 3618 1615 c,Capacity[veh/h] 602 615 553 253 812 363 234 1106 1 494 247 1119 499 d1,Uniform Delay[s] 28.19 18.35 18.35 31.62 22.15 25.57 31.73 23.45 21.50 31.73 22.58 17.25 k,delay calibration 0.11 0.50 0.50 0.11 0.50 0.50 0.11 0.11 0.21 0.11 0.11 0.11 I,Upstream Filtering Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 N d2,Incremental Delay[s] 3.61 1.88 2.09 2.66 0.62 15.49 2.21 3.49 3.43 2.86 1.77 0.09 9 d3,Initial Queue Delay[s] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 cv Rp,platoon ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 M PF,progression factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 LO 00 Lane Group Results d' X,volume/capacity 0.86 0.39 0.39 0.64 0.22 0.78 0.57 0.92 0.70 0.65 0.84 0.10 d,Delay for Lane Group[s/veh] 31.80 20.23 20.44 34.28 22.77 41.06 33.94 26.94 24.92 34.59 24.35 17.34 Q Lane Group LOS C C C C C D C C C C C B d Critical Lane Group Yes No No No No Yes No Yes No Yes No No 50th-Percentile Queue Length[veh] 4.16 3.04 1 2.77 1.34 1.16 5.61 1.10 7.67 4.94 1.33 6.67 0.53 50th-Percentile Queue Length[ft] 103.99 76.09 69.18 33.38 29.11 1 140.35 27.61 191.64 123.47 33.37 166.67 13.30 d 95th-Percentile Queue Length[veh] 7.49 5.48 4.98 2.40 2.10 9.50 1.99 12.21 8.58 2.40 10.90 0.96 ' 95th-Percentile Queue Length[ft] 187.19 136.96 124.52 60.09 52.39 237.50 49.69 305.15 214.59 60.06 272.54 23.94 d E t U Q C d E L V R .a+ Q KuNZMAN AssocIATES,INC. 4/8/2016 Packet Pg. 1048 Generated with Waterman Industrial Center Version 4.00-00 Scenario 1: 1:PMOYC Movement,Approach,&Intersection Results d_M,Delay for Movement[s/veh] 31.80 20.28 20.44 34.28 22.77 41.06 33.94 26.94 24.92 34.59 24.35 17.34 Movement LOS C C C C C D C C C C C B d_A,Approach Delay[s/veh] 26.39 34.10 27.10 25.47 Approach LOS C C C C d I,Intersection Delay[s/veh] 27.52 Intersection LOS C Intersection V/C 0.731 Sequence Ring 1 1 2 3 4 - - - - - - - - - - - - Ring 2 5 6 7 8 - - - - - - - - - - - N Ring 3 - - - - Ring 4 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - C. N o <y C. Cn U a c a� E v ca r a r Y .4 Q KUNZAdAV Associ,\-ri-t�.INC. 4/8/2016 Packet Pg. 1049 6.B.h Generated with Waterman Industrial Center Version 4.00-00 Scenario 1: 1:PMOYC Intersection Level Of Service Report Intersection 2:Washington Ave(NS)at Orange Show Rd(EW) Control Type: Signalized Delay(sec/veh): 17.7 Analysis Method: HCM 2010 Level Of Service: B Analysis Period: 15 minutes Volume to Capacity(v/c): 0.415 Intersection Setup Name Washington Ave Washington Ave Orange Show Rd Orange Show Rd Approach Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Lane Configuration i E ' 1 r -i l i r '11 i t Turning Movement Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Lane Width[ft] 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 No.of Lanes in Pocket 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 Pocket Length[ft] 157.00 166.00 v t, cVG 9 Speed[mph] 30.00 30.00 40.00 40.00 r Grade[%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Q. Crosswalk Yes Yes Yes Yes U' U') volumes 00 R' Name Washington Ave Washington Ave Orange Show Rd Orange Show Rd Base Volume Input[veh/h] __87 8 4 4 0 15 29 1158 13 7 1023 15 O Base Volume Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 C Heavy Vehicles Percentage[%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Growth Rate 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 R In-Process Volume[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 U Site-Generated Trips[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 d Diverted Trips[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 IT Pass-by Trips[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Existing Site Adjustment Volume[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 t Other Volume[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 @ .r Right-Turn on Red Volume[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 Q Total Hourly Volume[veh/h] 8 8 4 4 0 15 29 1158 13 7 1023 15 C Peak Hour Factor 0.9174 1 0.9174 0.9174 0.9174 0.9174 0.9174 0.9174 0.9174 0.9174 0.9174 0.9174 0.9174 d E Other Adj 1 ustment Factor 1.0000 .0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 v Total 15-Minute Volume[veh/h] 2 2 1 1 0 4 8 316 4 2 279 4 Total Analysis Volume[veh/h] 9 9 4 4 0 16 32 1262 14 8 1115 16 Q Presence of On-Street Parking No No No No No No No No On-Street Parking Maneuver Rate[/h] Local Bus Stopping Rate[/h] 0 0 0 0 Pedestrian Volume[ped/h] 0 0 0 0 Bicycle Volume[bicycles/h] 0 0 0 0 KUNZMAN AssociATES,INC. 4/8/2016 Packet Pg.,1050 6.B.h Generated with = Waterman Industrial Center Version 4.00-00 Scenario 1: 1:PMOYC Intersection Settings Located in CBD No Signal Coordination Group Cycle Length[s] 62 Coordination Type Time of Day Pattern Isolated Actuation Type Fully actuated Offset[s] 0.0 Offset Reference LeadGreen Permissive Mode SingleBand Lost time[s] 6.00 Phasing&Timing Control Type Permiss Permiss Permiss Permiss Permiss Permiss Protecte Permiss Permiss Protecte Permiss Permiss Signal group 2 6 3 8 7 4 CV O Auxiliary Signal Groups to r Lead/Lag Lead - Lead - O. Minimum Green[s] 5 5 5 5 5 5 0 Maximum Green[s] 30 30 30 30 30 30 u7 00 Amber[s] 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 �J.v All red[s] 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0,01 Split[s] 19 19 9 32 9 32 0 CL Vehicle Extension[s] 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Walk[s] 5 5 5 5 Pedestrian Clearance[s] 10 10 10 10 0 0) 11,Start-Up Lost Time[s] 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 %+! d 12,Clearance Lost Time[s] 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 ' Minimum Recall No No No No No No Maximum Recall No No No No No No d E Pedestrian Recall No No No No No No V RS Detector Location[ft] Q Detector Length[ft] I,Upstream Filtering Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Exclusive Pedestrian Phase Pedestrian Signal Group 0 w Pedestrian Walk[s] 0 Q Pedestrian Clearance[s] 0 KLWZMAN AssociATH,INC.. 4/8/2016 Packet Pg. 1051 Generated with = Waterman Industrial Center Version 4.00-00 Scenario 1: 1:PMOYC Lane Group Calculations Lane Group C R C R L C R L C R L,Total Lost Time per Cycle[s] 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 11_p,Permitted Start-Up Lost Time[s] 2.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 12,Clearance Lost Time[s] 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00 2.00 2.00 0.00 2.00 2.00 g_i,Effective Green Time[s] 24 24 24 24 30 25 25 30 24 24 g/C,Green/Cycle 0.38 0.38 0.38 0.38 0.49 0.41 0.41 0.49 0.39 0.39 (v/s)_i Volume/Saturation Flow Rate 0.02 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.05 0.35 0.01 0.01 0.31 0.01 s,saturation flow rate[veh/h] 754 1615 519 1615 695 1 3618 1615 571 3618 1615 c,Capacity[veh/h] 376 620 315 620 367 1486 663 307 1399 625 d1,Uniform Delay[s] 13.33 11.83 23.07 11.92 10.98 16.57 10.89 11.57 16.89 11.80 k,delay calibration 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 1,Upstream Filtering Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1 1.00 1.00 1.00 N d2,Incremental Delay[s] 0.24 0.02 0.07 0.08 0.10 1.45 0.01 0.03 1.08 0.02 t1? d3,Initial Queue Delay[s] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 M Rp,platoon ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 CL (0 PF,progression factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 u7 CO Lane Group Results � It X,volume/capacity 0.05 0.01 0.01 0.03 0.09 0.85 0.02 0.03 0.80 0.03 d,Delay for Lane Group[s/veh] 13.57 11.85 23.15 11.99 11.09 18.02 10.90 11.61 17.97 11.82 0 Lane Group LOS B B C B B B B B B B Critical Lane Group Yes No No No No Yes No Yes No No 50th-Percentile Queue Length[veh] 0.17 0.03 0.05 0.14 0.19 6.91 0.10 0.05 6.04 1 0.12 50th-Percentile Queue Length[ft] 4.14 0.86 1.36 3.45 4.75 172.75 2.47 1.18 150.99 2.99 d 95th-Percentile Queue Length[veh] 0.30 0.06 0.10 0.25 0.34 11.22 0.18 0.08 10.07 0.22 ' d' 95th-Percentile Queue Length[ft] 7.45 1.54 2.45 6.22 8.55 280.53 4.44 2.12 251.75 5.39 +- _ CD E t U lB w a E t U M Q KuNZ:.nnN ASSOCIATES,INC. 4/8/2016 Packet Pg.1052 6.B.h Generated with M 'M Waterman Industrial Center Version 4.00-00 Scenario 1: 1:PMOYC Movement,Approach,&Intersection Results d_M,Delay for Movement[s/veh] 13.57 1 13.57 11.85 23.15 23.15 11.99 11.09 18.02 10.90 11.61 1 17.97 11.82 Movement LOS B7 B B C C B B B B B B I B d_A,Approach Delay[s/veh] 13.25 14.22 17.77 17.84 Approach LOS B B B B d I,Intersection Delay[s/veh] 17.74 Intersection LOS B Intersection V/C 0.415 Sequence Ring 1 2 3 4 - - - - - - - - - - - - Ring 2 6 7 8 - - - - - - - - - - - - N Ring 3 - - - Ring 4 - - - CL I .. C9 00 �r 0 Cn U a v r c d E s ca r Q r E V Q KUNZMAN AssocIATE5,INC. 4/8/2016 Packet Pg. 1053 6.B.h Generated with MIM Waterman Industrial Center Version 4.00-00 Scenario 1: 1:PMOYC Intersection Level Of Service Report Intersection 5:Waterman Ave(NS)at Orange Show Rd(EW) Control Type: Signalized Delay(sec/veh): 29.5 Analysis Method: HCM 2010 Level Of Service: C Analysis Period: 15 minutes Volume to Capacity(v/c): 0.768 Intersection Setup Name Waterman Ave Waterman Ave Orange Show Rd Orange Show Rd Approach Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Lane Configuration '111 r -i i l r "111 r -i 11 r Turning Movement Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Lane Width[ft] 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 No.of Lanes in Pocket 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 Pocket Length[ft] 275.00 _. 248.00 L. 258.00 ., 100.00 NG Speed[mph] 50.00 50.00 40.00 40.00 LO V_ Grade[%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 CL Crosswalk Yes Yes Yes Yes U' LO volumes 00 Name Waterman Ave Waterman Ave Orange Show Rd Orange Show Rd r? Base Volume Input(veh/h] 194 584 138 103 724 92 128 782 211 206 760 90 0 Base Volume Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 C Heavy Vehicles Percentage[%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 IX Growth Rate 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 M In-Process Volume[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 U Site-Generated Trips[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 d.- Diverted Trips[veh/h] 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 q Pass-by Trips[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Existing Site Adjustment Volume[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 E Other Volume[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 @ Right-Turn on Red Volume[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 Q Total Hourly Volume[veh/h] 194 584 138 103 724 92 128 782 211 206 760 90 Peak Hour Factor 0.9468 0.9468 0.9468 0.9468 0.9468 0.9468 0.9468 1 0.9468 0.9468 0.9468 0.9468 0.9468 0) E Other Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 U Total 15-Minute Volume[veh/h] 51 154 36 1 27 191 24 34 206 56 54 201 24 Total Analysis Volume[veh/h] 205 617 146 109 765 97 135 826 223 218 803 95 Q Presence of On-Street Parking No No No No No No No No On-Street Parking Maneuver Rate[/h] Local Bus Stopping Rate[/h] 0 0 0 0 Pedestrian Volume[ped/h] 0 0 0 0 Bicycle Volume[bicycles/h] 0 0 0 0 KuNZMAN ASSOCIATES,INC. 4/$/2016 Packet Pg. 1054 6.B.h Generated with MEM Waterman Industrial Center Version 4.00-00 Scenario 1: 1:PMOYC Intersection Settings Located in CBD No Signal Coordination Group Cycle Length[s] 65 Coordination Type Time of Day Pattern Isolated Actuation Type Fully actuated Offset[s] 0.0 Offset Reference LeadGreen Permissive Mode SingleBand Lost time[s] 8.00 Phasing&Timing Control Type Protecte Permiss Permiss Protecte Permiss Permiss Protecte Permiss Permiss Protecte Permiss Permiss Signal group 5 2 1 6 3 8 7 4 CV 0 Auxiliary Signal Groups Tn r Lead/Lag Lead Lead Lead Lead M Minimum Green[s] 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 C9 Maximum Green[s] 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 00 Amber[s] 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 J. Itt Allred[s] 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Split[s] 12 21 10 19 12 21 13 22 OQ Vehicle Extension[s] 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 d IX Walk[s] 5 5 5 5 Pedestrian Clearance[s] 10 10 10 10 11,Start-Up Lost Time[s] 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 U a 12,Clearance Lost Time[s] 2.0 2.0 - 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Minimum Recall No No No No No No No No *r C Maximum Recall No No No No No No No No Pedestrian Recall No No No No No No No No s V Detector Location[ft] d Q Detector Length[ft] I,Upstream Filtering Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 � Exclusive Pedestrian Phase = V Pedestrian Signal Group 0 ,+R, Pedestrian Walk[s] 0 Q Pedestrian Clearance[s] 0 KLINZMAN AssocIATES,INC. 4/8/2016 Packet Pg. 1055 6.B.h Generated with Waterman Industrial Center Version 4.00-00 Scenario 1: 1:PMOYC Lane Group Calculations Lane Group L C R L C R L C R L C R L,Total Lost Time per Cycle[s] 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 11p,Permitted Start-Up Lost Time[s] 12,Clearance Lost Time[s] 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 g_i,Effective Green Time[s] 8 18 18 5 15 15 6 17 17 9 19 19 g/C,Green/Cycle 0.12 0.28 0.28 0.08 0.24 0.24 0.10 0.26 0.26 0.14 0.30 0.30 (v/s)_i Volume/Saturation Flow Rate 0.11 0.17 0.09 0.06 0.21 0.06 0.07 0.23 0.14 0.12 0.22 0.06 s,saturation flow rate[veh/h] 1810 3618 1615 1810 3618 1615 1810 3618 1615 1810 3618 1615 c,Capacity[veh/h] 223 1023 457 141 860 384 173 921 411 251 1075 480 d1,Uniform Delay[s] 28.20 20.17 18.39 29.42 23.98 20.11 28.74 23.43 20.98 27.45 20.65 17.07 k,delay calibration 0.29 0.50 0.50 0.11 0.50 0.50 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.27 0.11 0.11 1,Upstream Filtering Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 cV d2,Incremental Delay[s] 29.67 2.63 1.84 8.56 13.31 1.58 7.34 3.43 1.12 19.63 1.06 0.20 T d3,Initial Queue Delay[s] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 R Rp,platoon ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 M PF,progression factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 LO 00 Lane Group Results X,volume/capacity 0.92 0.60 0.32 0.77 0.89 0.25 0.78 0.90 0.54 0.87 0.75 0.20 d,Delay for Lane Group[s/veh] 57.87 22.80 20.23 37.98 37.28 21.69 36.08 26.86 22.09 47.07 21.70 17.27 0 Lane Group LOS E C C D D C D C C D C B d Critical Lane Group Yes No No No Yes No No Yes No Yes No No 50th-Percentile Queue Length[veh] 4.62 3.78 1.70 1.83 6.43 1.20 2.25 5.85 2.75 4.40 4.98 0.97 N 50th-Percentile Queue Length[ft] 115.59 94.60 1 42.62 45.72 160.86 29.98 56.26 146.36 68.64 109.94 124.45 24.24 d 95th-Percentile Queue Length[veh] 8.15 6.81 3.07 3.29 10.59 2.16 4.05 9.82 4.94 7.84 8.64 1.75 - d' 95th-Percentile Queue Length[ft] 203.75 170.28 76.72 82.29 264.86 F53.96 101.27 245.56 123.55 195.92 215.93 43.63 = d E t v Q C E L V 1C Q KUNZI1AN AssociATES,INC. 4/8/2016 Packet Pg. 1056 Generated with =z= Waterman Industrial Center Version 4.00-00 Scenario 1: 1:PMOYC Movement,Approach,&Intersection Results d M,Delay for Movement[s/veh] 57.87 22.80 20.23 37.98 37.28 21.69 36.08 26.86 22.09 47.07 21.70 1727 Movement LOS E C C D D C D C C D C B d_A,Approach Delay[s/veh] 29.84 35.80 27.02 26.28 Approach LOS C D C C d I,Intersection Delay[s/veh] 29.48 Intersection LOS C Intersection V/C 0.768 Sequence Ring 1 1 2 3 4 - - - - - - - - - - - - Ring 2 5 6 7 8 - - - - - - - - - - - - N Ring 3 - - - - Ring 4 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 'n ra EL �sl Q d IX ® to U 0. w c d E t U Rf Q C d t V a.+ r Q KUNZMAN ASSOCIATES,INC. 4/8/2016 Packet Pg. 1057 6.B.h Generated with =z= Waterman Industrial Center Version 4.00-00 Scenario 1: 1:PMOYC Intersection Level Of Service Report Intersection 6:Waterman Ave(NS)at Dumas St(EW) Control Type: Two-way stop Delay(sec/veh): 22.9 Analysis Method: HCM 2010 Level Of Service: C Analysis Period: 15 minutes Volume to Capacity(v/c): 0.024 Intersection Setup Name Waterman Ave Waterman Ave Dumas St Approach Northbound Southbound Eastbound Lane Configuration �� I r Turning Movement Left Thru Thru Right Left Right Lane Width[ft] 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 No.of Lanes in Pocket 1 0 0 0 Pocket Length[ft] 111.00 N 0 Speed[mph] 50.00 50.00 30.00 L0 T_ Grade[%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 M rL Crosswalk No No No U' volumes to ao Name Waterman Ave Waterman Ave Dumas St r? Base Volume Input[veh/h] 3 930 1175 7 5 7 O Base Volume Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 N Heavy Vehicles Percentage[%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Growth Rate 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 In-Process Volume[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cl) U Site-Generated Trips[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 d Diverted Trips[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 'T a+ Pass-by Trips[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 = O Existing Site Adjustment Volume[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 = Other Volume[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total Hourly Volume[veh/h] 3 930 1175 7 5 7 Q Peak Hour Factor 0.9233 0.9233 0.9233 0.9233 0.9233 0.9233 C Other Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 E Total 15-Minute Volume[veh/h] 1 252 318 2 1 2 v Total Analysis Volume[veh/h] 3 1007 1273 8 5 8 Pedestrian Volume[ped/h] Q KuNzm,\v AssocIATES,INC.. 4/8/2016 Packet Pg. 1058 6.B.h Generated with M '= Waterman Industrial Center Version 4.00-00 Scenario 1: 1:PMOYC Intersection Settings Priority Scheme Free Free Stop Flared Lane No Storage Area[veh] Two-Stage Gap Acceptance Yes Number of Storage Spaces in Median 2 Movement,Approach,&Intersection Results V/C,Movement V/C Ratio 0.01 0.01 0.. 0.02 0.02 d_M,Delay for Movement Is/veh] 11.60 0.00 0 5% 22.88 14.00 Movement LOS B A A A C B 95th-Percentile Queue Length[veh] 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.13 0.13 95th-Percentile Queue Length[ft] 0.41 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.35 3.35 d_A,Approach Delay[s/veh] 0.03 0.00 17.42 0 Approach LOS A A C d_I,Intersection Delay[s/veh] 0.11 Q Intersection LOS C LO 00 d' d' a-+ O CL 61 IY cC fn U Q. c v E v r Q e a� E c,s Q KUNZMAN ASSOCIATES,INC. 4/8/2016 Packet Pg. 1059 6.B.h Generated with =z= Waterman Industrial Center Version 4.00-00 Scenario 1: 1:PMOYC Intersection Level Of Service Report Intersection 7:Waterman Ave(NS)at Park Center Circle North(EW) Control Type: Two-way stop Delay(sec/veh): 20.6 Analysis Method: HCM 2010 Level Of Service: C Analysis Period: 15 minutes Volume to Capacity(v/c): 0.041 Intersection Setup Name Waterman Ave Waterman Ave Park Center Circle N Approach Northbound Southbound Westbound + r Lane Configuration l l r 1 1 1 1 r Turning Movement Thru Right Left Thru Left Right Lane Width[ft] 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 No.of Lanes in Pocket 0 1 0 0 Pocket Length[ft] 215.00 N O Speed[mph] 50.00 50.00 30.00 L0 r Grade[%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 O. Crosswalk No No No U' volumes 0n moT Name Waterman Ave Waterman Ave Park Center Circle N S Base Volume Input[veh/h] 782 2 9 1243 9 66 r O Base Volume Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 d Heavy Vehicles Percentage[%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 IY Growth Rate 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 R In-Process Volume[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 U Site-Generated Trips[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 d Diverted Trips[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 Pass-by Trips[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 = d Existing Site Adjustment Volume[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 E Other Volume[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total Hourly Volume[veh/h] 782 2 9 1243 9 66 Q Peak Hour Factor 0.9342 0.9342 0.9342 0.9342 0.9342 0.9342 Other Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Total 15-Minute Volume[veh/h] 209 1 2 333 2 18 0 v Total Analysis Volume[veh/h] 837 2 10 1331 10 71 Y Pedestrian Volume[ped/h] Q KUNZMAN AssociATES,INC. 4/8/2016 Packet Pg. 1060 6.B.h Generated with Waterman Industrial Center Version 4.00-00 Scenario 1: 1:PMOYC Intersection Settings Priority Scheme Free Free Stop Flared Lane Storage Area[veh] Two-Stage Gap Acceptance Yes Number of Storage Spaces in Median 1 Movement,Approach,&Intersection Results V/C,Movement V/C Ratio 0.01 0.04 0.12 d M,Delay for Movement[s/veh] 9.53 20.57 11.95 Movement LOS A A A A C B 95th-Percentile Queue Length[veh] 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.13 0.41 95th-Percentile Queue Length[ft] 0.00 0.00 0.94 0.00 3.23 10.22 d_A,Approach Delay[s/veh] 0.00 0.07 13.01 0 Approach LOS A A B to d_I,Intersection Delay[s/veh] 0.51 Q Intersection LOS C 0 00 cl' O CL N Q: U a �r c E u c� r d c m E U iC .e+ Q KUNZMAN ASSOCIATES,INC. - 4/8/2016 Packet Pg. 1061 6.B.h Generated with =Z= Waterman Industrial Center Version 4.00-00 Scenario 1: 1:PMOYC Intersection Level Of Service Report Intersection 8:Waterman Ave(NS)at Park Center Circle South(EW) Control Type: Signalized Delay(sec/veh): 9.4 Analysis Method: HCM 2010 Level Of Service: A Analysis Period: 15 minutes Volume to Capacity(v/c): 0.522 Intersection Setup Name Waterman Ave Waterman Ave Park Center Circle South Park Center Circle South Approach Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Lane Configuration +'1 I r r oi r i t Turning Movement Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Lane Width[ft] 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 No.of Lanes in Pocket 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 tai CV Pocket Length[ft] o Speed[mph] 50.00 1 50.00 30.00 30.00 tci r Grade[%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Q. Crosswalk No Yes Yes Yes C7 V) volumes oD Name Waterman Ave Waterman Ave Park Center Circle South Park Center Circle South Base Volume Input[veh/h] 10 752 21 9 1174 10 1 10 178 31 O Base Volume Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 C Heavy Vehicles Percentage[%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Growth Rate 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 In-Process Volume[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 U Site-Generated Trips[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 d Diverted Trips[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Pass-by Trips[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 = Existing Site Adjustment Volume[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 s Other Volume[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 V cy Right-Turn on Red Volume[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 Q Total Hourly Volume[veh/h] 10 752 21 9 1174 10 1 10 178 31 Peak Hour Factor 0.9583 0.9583 0.9583 0.9583 0.9583 0.9583 0.9583 0.9583 0.9583 0.9583 d Other Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 V Total 15-Minute Volume[veh/h] 3 196 5 2 306 3 0 3 46 8 Total Analysis Volume[veh/h] 10 785 22 9 1225 10 1 10 186 32 Q Presence of On-Street Parking No No No No No No No No On-Street Parking Maneuver Rate[/h] Local Bus Stopping Rate[/h] 0 4 0 0 0 Pedestrian Volume[ped/h] 0 0 0 Bicycle Volume[bicycles/h] 0 0 0 0 KUNZMAN ASSOCIATM INC. 4/8/2016 Packet Pg. 1062 6.B.h Generated with M 'e• Waterman Industrial Center Version 4.00-00 Scenario 1: 1:PMOYC Intersection Settings Located in CBD No Signal Coordination Group Cycle Length[s] 60 Coordination Type Time of Day Pattern Isolated Actuation Type Fully actuated Offset[s] 0.0 Offset Reference LeadGreen Permissive Mode SingleBand Lost time[s] 6.00 Phasing&Timing Control Type Protecte Permiss Permiss Protecte Permiss Permiss Permiss Permiss Permiss Permiss Signal group 5 2 1 6 3 7 C LO Auxiliary Signal Groups Lead/Lag Lead Lead - Lead - Lead Q Minimum Green[s] 5 5 5 5 5 0 5 0 C7 Maximum Green[s] 30 30 30 30 30 0 30 0 0 u7 00 Amber[s] 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 0.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 d� Allred[s] 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 .r Split[s] 9 32 9 32 19 19 j Q Vehicle Extension[s] 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 0.0 3.0 0.0 Walk[s] 5 5 0 5 0 Pedestrian Clearance[s] 10 10 U 10 0 Y) 11,Start-Up Lost Time[s] 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 0.0 12,Clearance Lost Time[s] 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 0.0 ' Minimum Recall No No No No No No Maximum Recall No No No No No No N Pedestrian Recall No No No No No No V Detector Location[ft] 0,0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Detector Length[ft] J 0.0 0.0 0.0 Q I,Upstream Filtering Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Exclusive Pedestrian Phase v Pedestrian Signal Group 0 Pedestrian Walk[s] 0 Q Pedestrian Clearance[s] 0 KIINZMAN Assoc ucrEs,INC.. 4/8/2016 Packet Pg. 1063 6.B.h Generated with MMM Waterman Industrial Center Version 4.00-00 Scenario 1: 1:PMOYC Lane Group Calculations Lane Group L C R L C R L R L R L,Total Lost Time per Cycle[s] 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 11_p,Permitted Start-Up Lost Time[s] 0.00 1 0.00 2.00 2.00 12,Clearance Lost Time[s] 0.00 2.00 2.00 0.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 g_i,Effective Green Time[s] 41 36 36 41 36 36 11 11 11 11 g/C,Green/Cycle 0.68 0.60 0.60 0.68 0.60 0.60 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 (v/s)_i Volume/Saturation Flow Rate 0.02 0.22 0.01 0.01 0.34 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.13 0.02 s,saturation flow rate[veh/h] 555 3618 1615 774 3618 1615 1440 1615 1440 1615 c,Capacity[veh/h] 462 2164 966 629 2159 964 342 307 342 307 d1,Uniform Delay[s] 4.40 6.19 4.91 3.50 7.37 4.91 21.50 19.81 24.67 20.08 k,delay calibration 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.11 0.50 0.50 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 I,Upstream Filtering Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 N d2,Incremental Delay[s] 0.09 0.47 0.04 0.01 1.09 0.02 0.00 0.04 1.35 0.15 d3,Initial Queue Delay[s] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Rp,platoon ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 a PF,progression factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 LO 00 Lane Group Results X,volume/capacity 0.02 0.36 0.02 0.01 0.57 0.01 0.00 0.03 0.54 0.10 d,Delay for Lane Group[s/veh] 4.49 6.66 4.96 3.51 8.46 4.93 21.50 19.85 26.02 20.23 0 Lane Group LOS A A A A A A C B C C Critical Lane Group Yes No No No Yes No No No Yes No 50th-Percentile Queue Length[veh] 0.03 1.61 0.08 0.02 3.05 0.03 0.01 0.11 2.52 0.36 M 50th-Percentile Queue Length[ft] 0.68 40.19 1.92 0.40 76.30 0.87 0.29 2.76 63.02 8.96 d 95th-Percentile Queue Length[veh] 0.05 2.89 0.14 0.03 5.49 0.06 0.02 0.20 4.54 0.65 ' d' 95th-Percentile Queue Length[ft] 1.23 72.35 3.46 0.73 137.34 1.57 0.52 4.96 113.43 16.13 C CD E t V to Q C d E t U t4 a+ Q KuNZMAN AssociATES,Inc. 4/8/2016 Packet Pg. 1064 6.B.h Generated with =I= Waterman Industrial Center Version 4.00-00 Scenario 1: 1:PMOYC Movement,Approach,&Intersection Results d_M,Delay for Movement[s/veh] 4.49 6.66 4.96 3.51 8.46 4.93 21.50 19.85 26.02 20.23 Movement LOS A A A A A A C B C C d_A,Approach Delay[s/veh] 6.59 8.40 20.00 25.17 Approach LOS A A C C d I,Intersection Delay[s/veh] 9.40 Intersection LOS A Intersection V/C 0.522 Sequence Ring 1 1 2 3 - - - - - - - - - - - - Ring 2 5 6 7 - - - - - - - - - - - - - N Ring 3 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - o Ring 4 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - m y {j• 491k1{{I�i9 CL n co y iS h,,, O 72, .wua Q �a r rn v IL v r c d E a a KuNZMAN Assoc1ATE5,INC. 4/8/2016 Packet Pg. 1065 6.B.h Generated with Waterman Industrial Center Version 4.00-00 Scenario 1: 1:PMOYC Intersection Level Of Service Report Intersection 9:Waterman Ave(NS)at Vanderbilt Way(EW) Control Type: Signalized Delay(sec/veh): 22.4 Analysis Method: HCM 2010 Level Of Service: C Analysis Period: 15 minutes Volume to Capacity(v/c): 0.834 Intersection Setup Name Waterman Ave Waterman Ave Vanderbilt Way Vanderbilt Way Approach Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Lane Configuration of r tb r1 1�, 1 tb 1 Turning Movement Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Lane Width[ft] 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 No.of Lanes in Pocket 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Pocket Length[ft] , o 9 Speed[mph] 50.00 50.00 30.00 30.00 to r Grade[%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Q Crosswalk No Yes Yes Yes t:! volumes LO 00 Name Waterman Ave Waterman Ave Vanderbilt Way Vanderbilt Way �►' Base Volume Input[veh/h] 44 543 160 191 1136 14 10 4 15 324 2 251 t O Base Volume Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 N Heavy Vehicles Percentage[%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 IX Growth Rate 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 a .+ In-Process Volume[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 fn U Site-Generated Trips[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0- Diverted Trips[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 Pass-by Trips[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Existing Site Adjustment Volume[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 E Other Volume[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Right-Turn on Red Volume[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 Q Total Hourly Volume[veh/h] 44 543 160 191 1136 14 10 4 15 324 2 251 Peak Hour Factor 0.9266 0.9266 0.9266 0.9266 0.9266 0.9266 0.9266 0.9266 0.9266 0.9266 0.9266 0.9266 O E Other Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 U Total 15-Minute Volume[veh/h] 12 147 43 52 306 4 3 1 4 87 1 68 Total Analysis Volume[veh/h] 47 586 173 206 1226 15 11 4 16 350 2 271 Q Presence of On-Street Parking No No No No No No No No On-Street Parking Maneuver Rate[/h] 0 Local Bus Stopping Rate[/h] 0 0 0 0 0 Pedestrian Volume[ped/h] 0 0 0 Bicycle Volume[bicycles/h] 0 0 0 0 KUNZMAN A55oc[ATM INC. 4/812016 Packet Pg. 1066 6.B.h Generated with =z= Waterman Industrial Center Version 4.00-00 Scenario 1: 1:PMOYC Intersection Settings Located in CBD No Signal Coordination Group Cycle Length[s] 60 Coordination Type Time of Day Pattern Isolated Actuation Type Fully actuated Offset[s] 0.0 Offset Reference LeadGreen Permissive Mode SingleBand Lost time[s] 6.00 Phasing&Timing Control Type Protecte Permiss Permiss Protecte Permiss Permiss Permiss Permiss Permiss Permiss Permiss FPermss Signal group 5 2 1 6 8 4 C Auxiliary Signal Groups r Lead/Lag Lead Lead Q. Minimum Green[s] 5 5 5 5 5 5 (� Maximum Green[s] 30 30 30 30 30 30 Go Amber[s] 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 All red[s] 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Split[s] 9 19 17 27 24 24 G Vehicle Extension[s] 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 d' Walk[s] 5 5 5 Pedestrian Clearance[s] 10 10 10 11,Start-Up Lost Time[s] 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 d 12,Clearance Lost Time[s] 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 d' Minimum Recall No No No No No No Maximum Recall No No No No No No d Pedestrian Recall No No No No No No V Detector Location[ft] G. Detector Length[ft] a I,Upstream Filtering Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 E Exclusive Pedestrian Phase t v Pedestrian Signal Group 0 Pedestrian Walk[s] 0 Q Pedestrian Clearance[s] 0 10 KUNZNAAN AssociATES,INC. 4/8/2016 Packet Pg. 1067 Generated with =z= Waterman Industrial Center Version 4.00-00 Scenario 1: 1:PMOYC Lane Group Calculations Lane Group L I C R L C C C L C R L,Total Lost Time per Cycle[s] 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 11_p,Permitted Start-Up Lost Time[s] 2.00 2.00 2.00 is 12,Clearance Lost Time[s] 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 g_i,Effective Green Time[s] 3 20 20 9 25 25 20 20 20 20 g/C,Green/Cycle 0.05 0.33 0.33 0.14 0.42 0.42 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 (v/s)_i Volume/Saturation Flow Rate 0.03 0.16 0.11 0.11 0.23 0.23 0.09 0.01 0.47 0.17 s,saturation flow rate[veh/h] 1810 3618 1615 1810 3618 1888 335 1414 706 1615 c,Capacity[veh/h] 86 1179 526 260 1527 797 192 132 353 534 d1,Uniform Delay[s] 28.02 16.31 15.31 24.89 12.97 12.97 15.89 29.89 23.32 16.18 k,delay calibration 0.11 0.50 0.50 0.11 0.50 0.50 0.11 0.11 0.50 0.11 I,Upstream Filtering Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 cV d2,Incremental Delay[s] 5.34 1.50 1.67 5.38 1.34 2.56 0.39 0.44 36.57 0.75 9 d3,Initial Queue Delay(s] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 `- R Rp,platoon ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 C- PF,progression factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 LO 00 Lane Group Results X,volume/capacity 0.55 0.50 0.33 0.79 0.53 0.53 0.16 0.13 0.95 0.51 d,Delay for Lane Group[s/veh] 33.36 17.81 16.98 30.27 14.31 15.52 16.28 30.33 59.89 16.93 0 CL Lane Group LOS C B B C B B B C E B d Critical Lane Group No Yes No Yes No No No No Yes No 50th-Percentile Queue Length[veh] 0.71 2.86 1.69 2.83 3.37 3.78 0.28 0.25 8.21 2.80 50th-Percentile Queue Length[ft] 17.81 71.41 42.26 70.82 84.20 94.62 7.04 6.32 205.19 70.03 d 95th-Percentile Queue Length[veh] 1.28 5.14 3.04 5.10 6.06 6.81 0.51 0.45 12.91 5.04 - 95th-Percentile Queue Length[ft] 3205. 128.53 76.06 127.48 151.55 170.31 12.67 11.37 322.65T126.06 d E s v c� a E a KIINZMAN AssocIATES,INC. 4/8/2016 Packet-Pg. 1068 s.B.n Generated with M Waterman Industrial Center Version 4.00-00 Scenario 1: 1:PMOYC Movement,Approach,&Intersection Results d_M,Delay for Movement[s/veh] 33.36 1 17.81 16.98 30.27 14.72 15.52 16.28 16.28 16.28 58.44 59.89 16.93 Movement LOS --C7 B B C B B B B B E E B d_A,Approach Delay[s/veh] 18.54 16.94 16.28 40.39 Approach LOS B B B D d_I,Intersection Delay[s/veh] 22.40 Intersection LOS C Intersection V/C 0.834 Sequence Ring 1 1 2 4 - - - - - - - - - - - Ring 2 5 6 8 - - - - - - - - - - N Ring 3 - - - Ring 4 - - - CL ■ U LO �t v it 0 0. �a U a c m E s a r a KIINZMAN AssocIATE5,INC.. 4/8/2016 Packet Pg. 1069 6.B.h Generated with Waterman Industrial Center Version 4.00-00 Scenario 1: 1:PMOYCi With Improvement: Intersection Level Of Service Report Intersection 7:Waterman Ave(NS)at Park Center Circle North(EW) Control Type: Signalized Delay(sec/veh): 4.0 Analysis Method: HCM 2010 Level Of Service: A Analysis Period: 15 minutes Volume to Capacity(v/c): 0.459 Intersection Setup Name Waterman Ave Waterman Ave Park Center Circle N Approach Northbound Southbound Westbound Lane Configuration 1 1 -I 1 1 u r 1 r Turning Movement Thru Right Left Thru Left Right Lane Width[ft] 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 No.of Lanes in Pocket 0 1 0 0 Pocket Length[ft] 215.00 PVC Speed[mph] 50.00 50.00 30.00 to r Grade[%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 Q. Crosswalk No No No C9 volumes 00 �r Name Waterman Ave Waterman Ave Park Center Circle N Base Volume Input[veh/h] 782 2 9 1247 9 66 O Base Volume Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 C Heavy Vehicles Percentage[%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Growth Rate 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 R In-Process Volume[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 fn U Site-Generated Trips[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 i1 Diverted Trips[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 of Pass-by Trips[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 Existing Site Adjustment Volume[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 s Other Volume[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 Right-Turn on Red Volume[veh/h] 0 0 Q Total Hourly Volume[veh/h] 782 2 9 1247 9 66 Peak Hour Factor 0.9342 0.9342 0.9342 0.9342 0.9342 0.9342 0) E Other Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 v Total 15-Minute Volume[veh/h] 209 1 2 334 2 18 Total Analysis Volume[veh/h] 837 2 10 1335 10 71 Q Presence of On-Street Parking No No No No No No On-Street Parking Maneuver Rate[/h] Local Bus Stopping Rate[/h] 0 0 0 Pedestrian Volume[ped/h] Bicycle Volume[bicycles/h] 0 0 0 KIINZMAN AssoCIATES,INC. 4/7/2016 Packet Pg. 1070 s.B.n Generated with =z= Waterman Industrial Center Version 4.00-00 Scenario 1: 1:PMOYCi With Improvement: Intersection Settings Located in CBD No Signal Coordination Group Cycle Length[s] 60 Coordination Type Time of Day Pattern Isolated Actuation Type Fully actuated Offset[s] 0.0 Offset Reference LeadGreen Permissive Mode SingleBand Lost time[s] 6.00 Phasing&Timing Control Type Permissive Permissive Protected Permissive Permissive Permissive Signal group 2 1 6 7 0 Auxiliary Signal Groups u7 Lead/Lag Lead Lead Q. Minimum Green[s] 5 5 5 5 C9 Maximum Green[s] 30 30 30 30 LO co Amber[s] 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 1* All red[s] 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 ,r Split[s] 15 30 45 15 0 Q Vehicle Extension[s] 3.0 _ 3.0 3.0 3.0 0.0 Walk[s] 0 Pedestrian Clearance[s] C 0 11,Start-Up Lost Time[s] 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 0.0 d 12,Clearance Lost Time[s] 2.0 _. 2.0 2.0 2.0 0,0 ' �f Minimum Recall No No No No Maximum Recall No No No No E Pedestrian Recall No No No No v Detector Location[ft] Detector Length[ft] Q Y I,Upstream Filtering Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 y Exclusive Pedestrian Phase C v Pedestrian Signal Group 0 Pedestrian Walk[s] 0 Q Pedestrian Clearance[s] 0 KUNZMAN ASSOCIATES,INC. - 4/7/2016 Packet Pg.1071 6.B.h Generated with =z= Waterman Industrial Center Version 4.00-00 Scenario 1: 1:PMOYCi With Improvement Lane Group Calculations Lane Group C R L C L R L,Total Lost Time per Cycle[s] 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 11_p,Permitted Start-Up Lost Time[s] 12,Clearance Lost Time[s] 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 g_i,Effective Green Time[s] 43 43 1 48 4 4 g/C,Green/Cycle 0.72 0.72 0.01 0.80 0.06 0.06 (v/s)_i Volume/Saturation Flow Rate 0.23 0.00 0.01 0.37 0.01 0.04 s,saturation flow rate[veh/h] 3618 1615 1810 3618 1810 1615 c,Capacity[veh/h] 2611 1166 27 2906 115 103 d1,Uniform Delay[s] 3.03 2.33 29.36 1.85 26.51 27.58 k,delay calibration 0.50 0.50 0.11 0.50 0.11 0.11 1,Upstream Filtering Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 cV d2,Incremental Delay[s] 0.32 0.00 8.29 0.53 0.32 7.92 LO d3,Initial Queue Delay[s] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 N Rp,platoon ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Q- 0 PF,progression factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1 1.00 00 Lane Group Results d' IP X,volume/capacity 0.32 0.00 0.37 0.46 0.09 0.69 d,Delay for Lane Group[s/veh] 3.35 2.33 37.65 2.37 26.83 35.50 Q Lane Group LOS A A D A C D d E Q. Critical Lane Group No No No Yes No Yes 50th-Percentile Queue Length[veh] 0.56 0.00 0.19 0.21 0.14 1.17 U) 50th-Percentile Queue Length[ft] 14.11 0.06 4.73 5.30 3.46 29.35 U a 95th-Percentile Queue Length[veh] 1.02 0.00 0.34 0.38 0.25 2.11 ' ef' 95th-Percentile Queue Length[ft] 25.39 0.11 8.52 9.54 6.23 52.83 d E s Q r c a� E t U !C Y 4 KUNZMAN ASSOCIATES,INC. 4/7/2016 Packet Pg. 1072 6.B.h Generated with = Waterman Industrial Center Version 4.00-00 Scenario 1: 1:PMOYCi With Improvement_ Movement,Approach,&Intersection Results d_M,Delay for Movement[s/veh] 3.35 2.33 37.65 2.37 26.83 35.50 Movement LOS A A D A C D d_A,Approach Delay[s/veh] 3.35 2.63 34.43 Approach LOS A A C d I,Intersection Delay[s/veh] 4.04 Intersection LOS A Intersection V/C 0.459 Sequence Ring 1 1 2 - Ring 2 - 6 7 - - - - - - - - - - - - N Ring 3 - - - Ring 4 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ca 0 lot 0 CL m ® in 0 in U d c m E t �a y a Y V i� a KuNzmAN AssOQATES,INC. 4/7/2016 Packet Pg. 1073 6.B.h N O LO r ft3 Q LO Co d' L O CL NN 0. �►' opening Year(2017)With Project U 0. c d E t v 4 E V W Q Packet Pg. 1074 6.B.h Generated with =Z= Waterman Industrial Center Version 4.00-00 Scenario 1: 1:AMOYCP Intersection Level Of Service Report Intersection 1:E Street(NS)at Orange Show Road(EW) Control Type: Signalized Delay(sec/veh): 22.9 Analysis Method: HCM 2010 Level Of Service: C Analysis Period: 15 minutes Volume to Capacity(v/c): 0.444 Intersection Setup Name E Street E Street Orange Show Rd Orange Show Rd Approach Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Lane Configuration -1"1 1 � -i"1 I ,r 1"1 l i r -1-11 I r Turning Movement Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Lane Width[ft] 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 No.of Lanes in Pocket 2 0 2 1 2 1 2 1 Pocket Length[ft] 300.00 189.00 134.00 217.00 147.00 165.00 103.00 G Speed[mph] 40.00 40.00 40.00 40.00 tr) r Grade[%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 O. Crosswalk Yes Yes Yes Yes C9 Ln volumes co Name E Street E Street Orange Show Rd Orange Show Rd Base Volume Input[veh/h] 109 92 42 54 134 58 224 909 369 79 433 28 O Base Volume Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 c Heavy Vehicles Percentage[%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Growth Rate 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 N In-Process Volume[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 COP) V Site-Generated Trips[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 IL Diverted Trips[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I' Pass-by Trips[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Existing Site Adjustment Volume[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 t Other Volume[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 v +0.. Right-Turn on Red Volume[veh/h] 1 11 0 0 0 0 Q Total Hourly Volume[veh/h] 109 92 42 54 134 58 224 909 369 79 433 28 Peak Hour Factor 0.8860 0.8860 0.8860 0.8860 0.8860 0.8860 0.8860 0.8860 0.8860 0.8860 0.8860 0.8860 d E Other Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 L V Total 15-Minute Volume[veh/h] 31 26 12 15 38 16 63 256 104 22 122 8 r Total Analysis Volume[veh/h] 123 104 47 61 151 65 253 1026 416 89 489 32 Q Presence of On-Street Parking No No No No No No No No On-Street Parking Maneuver Rate[/h] ' Local Bus Stopping Rate[/h] 0 0 0 0 Pedestrian Volume[ped/h] 0 0 0 0 Bicycle Volume[bicycles/h) 0 0 0 0 KUNZAAAN ASSOCIATES,INC. 4/8/2016 Packet Pg. 1075 6.B.h Generated with = Waterman Industrial Center Version 4.00-00 Scenario 1: 1:AMOYCP Intersection Settings Located in CBD No Signal Coordination Group Cycle Length[s] 61 Coordination Type Time of Day Pattern Isolated Actuation Type Fully actuated Offset[s] 0.0 Offset Reference LeadGreen Permissive Mode SingleBand Lost time[s] 8.00 Phasing&Timing Control Type Protecte Permiss Permiss Protecte Permiss Permiss Protecte Permiss Permiss Protecte Permiss Permiss Signal group 5 2 1 6 3 8 7 4 G Auxiliary Signal Groups LO r Lead/Lag Lead Lead Lead Lead M CL Minimum Green[s] 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 U' Maximum Green[s] 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 u7 00 Ambers] 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 dam' Allred[s] 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Split[s] 9 19 9 19 13 23 9 19 O CL Vehicle Extension[s] 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 0 d Q' Walk[s] 5 5 5 5 Pedestrian Clearance[s] 10 10 10 10 N 11,Start-Up Lost Time[s] 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 U a 12,Clearance Lost Time[s] 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 ' Minimum Recall No No No No No No No No Maximum Recall No No No No No No No No Pedestrian Recall No No No No No No No No s u is Detector Location[ft] Q Detector Length[ft] I,Upstream Filtering Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 E Exclusive Pedestrian Phase v Pedestrian Signal Group 0 Pedestrian Walk[s] 0 Q Pedestrian Clearance[s] 0 KuNZMnN ASSOCIATES,INC. 4/8/2016 Packet Pg. 1076 s.B.n Generated with M `M Waterman Industrial Center Version 4.00-00 Scenario 1: 1:AMOYCP Lane Group Calculations Lane Group L C C L C R L C R L C R L,Total Lost Time per Cycle[s] 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 11p,Permitted Start-Up Lost Time[s] 12,Clearance Lost Time[s] 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 g_i,Effective Green Time[s] 4 19 19 3 17 17 6 19 19 4 17 17 g/C,Green/Cycle 0.07 0.30 0.30 0.05 0.28 0.28 0.10 0.32 0.32 0.06 0.28 0.28 (v/s)_i Volume/Saturation Flow Rate 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.02 0.04 0.04 0.07 0.28 0.26 0.03 0.14 0.02 s,saturation flow rate[veh/h] 3514 1900 1707 3514 3618 1615 3514 3618 1615 3514 3618 1615 c,Capacity[veh/h] 254 577 519 188 1031 460 368 1144 511 226 998 446 d1,Uniform Delay[s] 27.23 15.42 15.46 27.84 16.29 16.26 26.38 19.93 19.23 27.42 18.51 16.33 k,delay calibration 0.11 0.50 0.50 0.11 0.50 0.50 0.11 0.11 0.28 0.11 0.11 0.11 I,Upstream Filtering Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 N d2,Incremental Delay[s] 1.43 0.48 0.57 0.99 0.30 0.64 2.29 2.79 7.82 1.11 0.37 0.07 0 LO d3,Initial Queue Delay[s] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Rp,platoon ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Q' PF,progression factor 1.00 1 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 to 00 Lane Group Results d• X,volume/capacity 0.48 0.13 0.14 0.32 0.15 0.14 0.69 0.90 0.81 0.39 0.49 0.07 d,Delay for Lane Group[s/veh] 28.66 15.91 16.03 28.83 16.59 16.90 28.67 22.72 27.05 28.53 18.89 16.40 Oa Lane Group LOS C B B C B B C C C C B B Critical Lane Group Yes No No No Yes No No Yes No Yes No No 50th-Percentile Queue Length[veh] 0.84 0.76 0.73 0.42 1 0.74 0.68 1.73 6.34 5.73 0.61 2.57 0.30 50th-Percentile Queue Length[ft] 21.01 19.05 18.32 10.51 18.39 16.94 43.30 158.62 143.17 15.17 64.36 7.49 U a. 95th-Percentile Queue Length[veh] 1.51 1.37 1.32 0.76 1.32 1.22 3.12 10.48 9.65 1.09 4.63 0.54 95th-Percentile Queue Length[ft] 37.82 34.29 32.98 18.92 33.10 30.49 77.94 261.90 241.29 27.31 115.85 13.48 d E t v co .r 4 4.: c as E t U R Q KuNZUAN AssocIATES,INC. 4/8/2016 Packet Pg. 1077 6.B.h Generated with Waterman Industrial Center Version 4.00-00 Scenario 1: 1:AMOYCP Movement,Approach,&Intersection Results d_M,Delay for Movement[s/veh] 28.66 15.94 16.03 28.83 16.59 16.90 28.67 22.72 27.05 28.53 18.89 F 16.40 Movement LOS C B B C B B C C C C B B d_A,Approach Delay[s/veh] 21.67 19.36 24.67 20.16 Approach LOS C B C C d_I,Intersection Delay[s/veh] 22.91 Intersection LOS C Intersection V/C 0.444 Sequence Ring 1 1 2 3 4 - - - - - - - - - - - - Ring 2 5 6 7 8 - - - - - - - - - - - N Ring 3 - - - - Ring 4 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - LO LO � _iii. fay^' 'p i. IIiI�P'9 ,!°.,•�i:q., �'�I�I ENRON" aa �•' �q i� 1,xtf s+ d AA- U a v c d E r Q E t Q KuNz ,\N AssoeiAres,INC. 4/8/2016 Packet Pg. 1078 6.B.h Generated with 'o Waterman Industrial Center Version 4.00-00 Scenario 1: 1:AMOYCP Intersection Level Of Service Report Intersection 2:Washington Ave(NS)at Orange Show Rd(EW) Control Type: Signalized Delay(sec/veh): 20.3 Analysis Method: HCM 2010 Level Of Service: C Analysis Period: 15 minutes Volume to Capacity(v/c): 0.345 Intersection Setup Name Washington Ave Washington Ave Orange Show Rd Orange Show Rd Approach Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Lane Configuration "1 r ' 1 r 11 i t -111 r Turning Movement Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Lane Width[ft] 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 No.of Lanes in Pocket 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 Pocket Length[ft] 157.00 166.00 1"',(?�, Speed[mph] 30.00 30.00 40.00 40.00 r Grade[%j 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Q. Crosswalk Yes Yes Yes Yes U' volumes 000 a' Name Washington Ave Washington Ave Orange Show Rd Orange Show Rd d Base Volume Input[veh/h] __107 4 2 6 2 10 34 925 35 7 417 11 t O Base Volume Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 d Heavy Vehicles Percentage[%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Growth Rate 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 In-Process Volume[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 U Site-Generated Trips[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0. Diverted Trips[veh/h] 0 0 0 j 0 0 1 0 0-T 0 0 0 0 0 Pass-by Trips[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Existing Site Adjustment Volume[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 s Other Volume[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Right-Turn on Red Volume[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 Q Total Hourly Volume[veh/h] 10 4 2 6 2 10 34 925 35 7 417 11 Peak Hour Factor 0.8882 0.8882 0.8882 0.8882 0.8882 0.8882 0.8882 0.8882 0.8882 0.8882 0.8882 0.8882 O Other Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 v Total 15-Minute Volume[veh/h] 3 1 1 2 1 3 10 260 10 2 117 3 Total Analysis Volume[veh/h] 11 5 2 7 2 11 38 1041 39 8 469 12 Q Presence of On-Street Parking No No No No No No No No On-Street Parking Maneuver Rate[/h] Local Bus Stopping Rate[/h] 0 0 0 0 Pedestrian Volume[ped/h] 0 0 0 0 Bicycle Volume[bicycles/h] 0 0 0 0 KIINZMAN AssocIATES,INC. 4/8/2016 Packet Pg.1079 6.B.h Generated with Waterman Industrial Center Version 4.00-00 Scenario 1: 1:AMOYCP Intersection Settings Located in CBD No Signal Coordination Group Cycle Length[s] 67 Coordination Type Time of Day Pattern Isolated Actuation Type Fully actuated Offset[s] 0.0 Offset Reference LeadGreen Permissive Mode SingleBand Lost time[s] 6.00 Phasing&Timing Control Type Permiss Permiss Permiss Permiss Permiss Permiss Protecte Permiss Permiss Protecte Fermiss Permiss Signal group 2 6 3 8 7 4 0 Auxiliary Signal Groups Lead/Lag Lead Lead Q. Minimum Green[s] 5 5 5 5 , 5 5 Maximum Green[s] 0 30 0 u 30 0 30 30 30 30 0 00 Amber[s] 0.0 3.0 0,0 0.0 3.0 0.0 3.0 3.0 0 3.0 3.0 0 All red[s] 0.0 1.0 J 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Split[s] 0 19 0 19 0 9 32 9 32 Q Vehicle Extension[s] 0.0 3.0 0 0.0 3.0 0.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 IX Walk[s] 5 0 0 5 5 6 M Pedestrian Clearance[s] 0 10 0 0 10 J 10 10 11,Start-Up Lost Time[s] 0.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 d 12,Clearance Lost Time[s] 0.0 2.0 0,9 2.0 1 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 LG Minimum Recall No No No No No No Maximum Recall No No N o7 No No No Pedestrian Recall No No No No No No V R Detector Location[ft] 0.0 0, 0.0 0.0 0.0 O.J u-0 Detector Length[ft] 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 n"o 0 I,Upstream Filtering Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Q W Exclusive Pedestrian Phase U !4 Pedestrian Signal Group 0 Q Pedestrian Walk[s] 0 Pedestrian Clearance[s] 0 KUNZMAN AssociAl ES,INC. 4/8/2016 Packet Pg. 1080 6.B.h Generated with ME== Waterman Industrial Center Version 4.00-00 Scenario 1: 1:AMOYCP Lane Group Calculations Lane Group C R C R L I C R L C R L,Total Lost Time per Cycle[s] 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 11p,Permitted Start-Up Lost Time[s] 2.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 12,Clearance Lost Time[s] 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00 2.00 2.00 0.00 2.00 2.00 g_i,Effective Green Time[s] 31 31 31 31 28 23 23 28 21 21 g/C,Green/Cycle 0.47 0.47 0.47 0.47 0.41 0.34 0.34 0.41 0.31 0.31 (v/s)_i Volume/Saturation Flow Rate 0.02 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.04 0.29 0.02 0.01 0.13 0.01 s,saturation flow rate[veh/h] 671 1615 633 1615 1085 3618 1615 678 3618 1615 c,Capacity[veh/h] 405 756 392 756 509 1234 551 292 1134 506 d1,Uniform Delay[s] 12.04 9.51 12.09 9.57 12.22 20.46 14.93 14.13 18.17 15.94 k,delay calibration 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 I,Upstream Filtering Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 N d2,Incremental Delay[s] 0.18 0.01 0.11 0.04 0.06 1.66 0.05 0.04 0.24 0.02 9 d3,Initial Queue Delay[s] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 `- cC Rp,platoon ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Q- PF,progression factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 rO oD Lane Group Results Itt X,volume/capacity 0.04 0.00 0.02 0.01 0.07 0.84 0.07 0.03 0.41 0.02 d,Delay for Lane Group[s/veh] 12.22 9.52 12.20 9.60 12.28 22.12 14.99 14.17 18.42 15.95 OQ Lane Group LOS B A B A B C B B B B Q' Critical Lane Group Yes No No No No Yes No Yes No No 50th-Percentile Queue Length[veh] 0.13 0.02 0.08 0.09 0.30 6.82 0.37 0.06 2.58 0.12 50th-Percentile Queue Length[ft] 3.34 0.38 1.88 2.13 7.61 170.44 9.14 1.61 64.62 2.92 d 95th-Percentile Queue Length[veh] 0.24 0.03 0.14 0.15 0.55 11.10 0.66 0.12 4.65 0.21 ' 95th-Percentile Queue Length[ft] 6.02 0.69 3.38 3.83 13.70 277.49 16.45 2.89 116.32 5.26 = d E U t6 r w a E a KIINZMAN AssociATES,INC. 4/8/2016 'Packet Pg. 1081 6B.h Generated with Waterman Industrial Center Version 4.00-00 Scenario 1: 1:AMOYCP Movement,Approach,&Intersection Results d_M,Delay for Movement[s/veh] 12.22 12.22 9.52 12.20 12.20 9.60 12.28 22.12 14.99 14.17 18.42 15.95 Movement LOS B B A B B A B C B B B B d_A,Approach Delay[s/veh] 11.92 10.77 21.54 18.29 Approach LOS B B C B d_I,Intersection Delay[s/veh] 20.33 Intersection LOS C Intersection V/C 0.345 Sequence Ring 1 2 3 4 - - - - - - - - - - - - - Ring 2 6 7 8 - - - - - - - - - - - - - N Ring 3 - - - - - Ring 4 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0 o o CL m ® n U a w c d E s U t0 a r a KUNZMAN AssocIATES,INC. 4/8/2016 Packet Pg. 1082 s.B.n Generated with Waterman Industrial Center Version 4.00-00 Scenario 1: 1:AMOYCP Intersection Level Of Service Report Intersection 3:Project West Driveway(NS)at Dumas St(EW) Control Type: Two-way stop Delay(sec/veh): 8.8 Analysis Method: HCM 2010 Level Of Service: A Analysis Period: 15 minutes Volume to Capacity(v/c): 0.004 Intersection Setup Name Project West Driveway Dumas St Dumas Street Approach Northbound Eastbound Westbound Lane Configuration �'r► �"t �"� Turning Movement Left Right Thru Right Left Thru Lane Width[ft] 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 No.of Lanes in Pocket 0 0 0 0 0 Pocket Length[ft] - 100.0U NC Speed[mph] 30.00 30.00 30.00 r Grade[%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 G. Crosswalk No No No C9 volumes Name Project West Driveway Dumas St Dumas Street d Base Volume Input[veh/h] 4 1 11 14 8 12 O Base Volume Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 d Heavy Vehicles Percentage[%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Growth Rate 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 tYO In-Process Volume[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 N U Site-Generated Trips[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 Diverted Trips[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 st Z Pass-by Trips[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 d Existing Site Adjustment Volume[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 E Other Volume[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total Hourly Volume[veh/h] 4 1 11 14 8 12 Q Peak Hour Factor 0.9200 0.9200 0.9200 0.9200 0.9200 0.9200 Other Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 d Total 15-Minute Volume[veh/h] 1 0 3 4 2 3 L V Total Analysis Volume[veh/h] 4 1 12 15 9 13 y Pedestrian Volume[ped/h] Q KUNZMAN ASSOCIATES,INC. 4/8/2016 Packet Pg.1 083 Generated with Waterman Industrial Center Version 4.00-00 Scenario 1: 1:AMOYCP Intersection Settings Priority Scheme Stop Free Free Flared Lane No Storage Area[veh] Two-Stage Gap Acceptance No Number of Storage Spaces in Median Movement,Approach,&Intersection Results V/C,Movement V/C Ratio 0.00 0.00 0.01 DJ d_M,Delay for Movement[s/veh] 8.78 8.40 7.26 �» Movement LOS A A A A A A 95th-Percentile Queue Length[veh] 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.04 95th-Percentile Queue Length[ft] 0.39 0.39 0.00 0.00 1.05 1.05 d_A,Approach Delay[s/veh] 8.70 0.00 2.97 NC Approach LOS A A A to r d_I,Intersection Delay[s/veh] 2.02 Q. Intersection LOS A C7 to co et O CL d .411E Q' t0 Cl) U CL c d E s U �v Y Q W E U R a+ Q KLINzmAN ASSOCIATES,INC. 4/8/2016 Packet Pg. 1084 6.B.h Generated with Waterman Industrial Center Version 4.00-00 Scenario 1: 1:AMOYCP Intersection Level Of Service Report Intersection 4: Project East DriveWay(NS)at Dumas Street(EW) Control Type: Two-way stop Delay(sec/veh): 8.4 Analysis Method: HCM 2010 Level Of Service: A Analysis Period: 15 minutes Volume to Capacity(v/c): 0.003 Intersection Setup Name Project East DriveWay Dumas Street Dumas St Approach Northbound Eastbound Westbound Lane Configuration r i / Turning Movement Left Right Thru Right Left Thru Lane Width[ft] 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 No.of Lanes in Pocket 0 0 Pocket Length[ft] C 9 Speed[mph] 30.00 30.00 30.00 ui r Grade[%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 Q Crosswalk No No No U' volumes 00 00 rl' Name Project East DriveWay Dumas Street Dumas St Base Volume Input[veh/h] 3 12 18 20 0 O Base Volume Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 d Heavy Vehicles Percentage[%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 IX Growth Rate 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 In-Process Volume[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 rn U Site-Generated Trips[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0. Diverted Trips[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 It w Pass-by Trips[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 O Existing Site Adjustment Volume[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 t Other Volume[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 M Total Hourly Volume[veh/h] 3 12 18 20 Q Peak Hour Factor 0.9200 0.9200 0.9200 0.9200 Other Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 .. 1.0000 1.0000 d Total 15-Minute Volume[veh/h] 1 3 5 5 t U Total Analysis Volume[veh/h] 3 13 20 22 Pedestrian Volume[ped/h] - Q KUNZMAN AssociATES,INC. 4/8/2016 Packet Pg. 1085 Generated with ME= Waterman Industrial Center Version 4.00-00 Scenario 1: 1:AMOYCP Intersection Settings Priority Scheme Stop Free Free Flared Lane Storage Area[veh] Two-Stage Gap Acceptance No Number of Storage Spaces in Median Movement,Approach,&Intersection Results V/C,Movement V/C Ratio _ 0.00 a 0.01 0,0)0 d_M,Delay for Movement[s/veh] 8.36 7.25 11100 Movement LOS A A A A 95th-Percentile Queue Length[veh] 0.01 0.00 0.08 0.08 95th-Percentile Queue Length[ft] 0.21 0.00 2.00 2.00 d_A,Approach Delay[s/veh] 8.36 0.00 3.45 C Approach LOS A A A tc> r d_I,Intersection Delay[s/veh] 2.93 O. Intersection LOS A LO co d' d' O Q d AF A ff fY N U a v c a� E s a r d r a KUNZMAN ASSOCIATES,INC. 4/8/2016 6.B.h Generated with Waterman Industrial Center Version 4.00-00 Scenario 1: 1:AMOYCP Intersection Level Of Service Report Intersection 5:Waterman Ave(NS)at Orange Show Rd(EW) Control Type: Signalized Delay(sec/veh): 21.9 Analysis Method: HCM 2010 Level Of Service: C Analysis Period: 15 minutes Volume to Capacity(v/c): 0.578 Intersection Setup Name Waterman Ave Waterman Ave Orange Show Rd Orange Show Rd Approach Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Lane Configuration -i r1 i t r ' 1 1 1 t r -i i l r Turning Movement Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Lft7 Thru Right Left Thru Right Lane Width[ft] 12.00 1 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 No.of Lanes in Pocket 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 Pocket Length[ft] 298.00 275.00 248.00 258.00 �,t�t) CVO Speed[mph] 50.00 50.00 40.00 40.00 L6 r- Grade[%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 M CL Crosswalk Yes Yes Yes Yes C9 volumes u7 1* Name Waterman Ave Waterman Ave Orange Show Rd Orange Show Rd Base Volume Input[veh/h] 70 614 105 52 559 84 164 442 293 108 294 71 0 Base Volume Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 d Heavy Vehicles Percentage[%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Growth Rate 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 In-Process Volume[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 U Site-Generated Trips[veh/hj 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Il Diverted Trips[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 07 0 0 0 0 0 Pass-by Trips[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 E d Existing Site Adjustment Volume[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 E Other Volume[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 Right-Turn on Red Volume[veh/hj 0 0 0 0 Q Total Hourly Volume[veh/h] 70 614 105 52 559 84 164 442 293 108 294 71 Peak Hour Factor 0.8780 0.8780 0.8780 0.8780 0.8780 0.8780 0.8780 0.8780 0.8780 0.8780 0.8780 0.8780 Other Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 v Total 15-Minute Volume[veh/h] 20 175 30 15 159 24 47 126 83 31 84 20 r Total Analysis Volume[veh/h] 80 699 120 59 637 96 187 503 334 123 335 81 Q Presence of On-Street Parking No No No No No No No No On-Street Parking Maneuver Rate[/h] Local Bus Stopping Rate[/h] 0 0 0 0 Pedestrian Volume[ped/h] 0 0 0 0 Bicycle Volume[bicycles/h] 0 0 0 0 0 KLINZMAN ASSOCIATES,INC. 4/8/2016 Packet Pg. 1087 6.B.h Generated with wt mow Waterman Industrial Center Version 4.00-00 Scenario 1: 1:AMOYCP Intersection Settings Located in CBD No Signal Coordination Group Cycle Length[s] 60 Coordination Type Time of Day Pattern Isolated Actuation Type Fully actuated Offset[s] 0.0 Offset Reference LeaclGreen Permissive Mode SingleBand Lost time[s] 8.00 Phasing&Timing Control Type Protecte Permiss Permiss Protecte Permiss Permiss Protecte Permiss Permiss Protecte Permiss Permiss Signal group 5 2 1 6 3 8 7 4 G Auxiliary Signal Groups r Lead/Lag Lead Lead Lead Lead Q Minimum Green[s] 5 5 5 5 5 5 0 5 5 0 Maximum Green[s] 30 30 0, 30 30 30 30 0 30 30 0 to Ambers] 3.0 3.0 0.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 0 3.0 3.0 All red[s] 1.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 0 1.0 1.0 Split[s] 9 19 v 9 19 0 13 21 0 11 19 Q. 1 Vehicle Extension[s] 3.0 3.0 0,0 3.0 3.0 0.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 d F Walk[s] 0 5 0 5 0 v 5 5 M 1 Pedestrian Clearance[s] C3 10 �; ". 10 0 10 10 0 11,Start-Up Lost Time[s] 2.0 2.0 0 r` 2.0 2.0 0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 :0 0. I 12,Clearance Lost Time[s] 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 ' It Minimum Recall No No No No No No No No C Maximum Recall No No No No No No No TNo d E Pedestrian Recall No No N. T No No No No No V f0 Detector Location[ft] 0 6.0 0.0 U.U 0.0 C.0 w Detector Length[ft] 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 =?.0 0 Q +: I,Upstream Filtering Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Exclusive Pedestrian Phase C U Pedestrian Signal Group 0 Pedestrian Walk[s] 0 Q Pedestrian Clearance[s] 0 KUNZMAN ASSOQATES,INC. 4/8/2016 Packet Pg. 1088 6.B.h Generated with `+i Waterman Industrial Center Version 4.00-00 Scenario 1: 1:AMOYCP Lane Group Calculations Lane Group L C R L C R L C R L C R L,Total Lost Time per Cycle[s] 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 11p,Permitted Start-Up Lost Time[s] 12,Clearance Lost Time[s] 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 g_i,Effective Green Time[s] 4 21 21 1 3 20 1 20 8 15 15 5 12 12 g/C,Green/Cycle 0.06 0.34 0.34 0.05 0.33 0.33 0.13 0.25 0.25 0.09 0.21 0.21 (v/s)_i Volume/Saturation Flow Rate 0.04 0.19 0.07 0.03 0.18 0.06 0.10 0.14 0.21 0.07 0.09 0.05 s,saturation flow rate[veh/h] 1810 3618 1615 1810 3618 1615 1810 3618 1615 1810 3618 1615 c,Capacity[veh/h] 113 1241 554 97 1207 539 235 899 401 161 751 335 d1,Uniform Delay[s] 27.65 16.09 14.03 27.85 16.207 14.19 25.38 19.72 21.41 26.78 20.82 19.89 k,delay calibration 0.11 0.50 0.50 0.11 0.50 0.50 0.16 0.11 0.19 0.11 0.11 0.11 1,Upstream Filtering Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 CV d2,Incremental Delay[s] 7.77 1.85 0.90 6.07 1.65 0.72 8.60 0.55 7.68 7.32 0.42 0.37 9 d3,Initial Queue Delay[s] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 T tv Rp,platoon ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Q- PF,progression factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 tr) 00 Lane Group Results Iq X,volume/capacity 0.71 0.56 0.22 0.61 0.53 0.18 0.79 0.56 0.83 0.76 0.45 0.24 d,Delay for Lane Group[s/veh] 35.42 17.95 14.92 33.92 17.85 14.91 33.98 20.27 29.09 34.10 21.23 20.26 oQ Lane Group LOS D B B C B B C C C C C I C Critical Lane Group Nc Yes No Yes No No No No Yes Yes No No R 50th-Percentile Queue Length[veh] 1.24 3.42 1.07 0.90 3.10 0.85 2.90 2.76 4.73 1.89 1.87 0.88 50th-Percentile Queue Length[ft] 30.93 85.49 26.64 22.40 T77.57 21.35 72.41 68.89 118.25 47.37 46.71 21.93 d 95th-Percentile Queue Length[veh] 2.23 6.16 1.92 1.61 5.58 1.54 5.21 4.96 8.30 3.41 3.36 1.58 95th-Percentile Queue Length[ft] 55.68 153.89 47.95 40.31 139.62 38.44 130.34 124.00 207.42 85.26 84.07 39.48 CD E t V t4 r Q i.: s= d E v R Q KLINZMAN AssocinTES,INC. 4/8/2016 Packet Pg. 1089 r� 6.B.h Generated with Waterman Industrial Center Version 4.00-00 Scenario 1: 1:AMOYCP Movement,Approach,&Intersection Results d M,Delay for Movement[s/veh] 35.42 17.95 14.92 33.92 17.85 14.91 33.98 20.27 29.09 34.10 21.23 20.26 Movement LOS D B B C B B C C C C C C d A,Approach Delay[s/veh] 19.10 18.69 25.65 24.02 Approach LOS B B C C d I,Intersection Delay[s/veh] 21.88 Intersection LOS C Intersection V/C 0.578 Sequence Ring 1 1 2 3 4 - - - - - - - - - - - - Ring 2 5 6 7 8 - - - - - - - - - - - - Ring 3 - - - - - Ring 4 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ry Q Ln ��i[it�!�! li nl' !� i!Ilill�i�y•.'I ! � �'i I�I I�„J!� �i t ! �ii l�li!�I !I!;.���!�� �!!', t2 O S ® to o U a v C 0 E s U .s+ w a E U w d KuNz.mAN AssoCIATES,INC. 4/8/2016 Packet Pg. 1090 Generated with Waterman Industrial Center Version 4.00-00 Scenario 1: 1:AMOYCP Intersection Level Of Service Report Intersection 6:Waterman Ave(NS)at Dumas St(EW) Control Type: Two-way stop Delay(sec/veh): 22.6 Analysis Method: HCM 2010 Level Of Service: C Analysis Period: 15 minutes Volume to Capacity(v/c): 0.028 Intersection Setup Name Waterman Ave Waterman Ave Dumas St Approach Northbound Southbound Eastbound Lane Configuration ill 1 i r T Turning Movement Left Thru Thru Right Left Right Lane Width[ft] 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 No.of Lanes in Pocket 1 0 0 0 Pocket Length[ft] 111.00 _ C Speed[mph] 50.00 50.00 30.00 u7 r Grade[%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 Q. Crosswalk No No No Ur volumes 00 It' Name Waterman Ave Waterman Ave Dumas St Base Volume Input[veh/h] 14 802 930 22 5 10 1� O Base Volume Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 d Heavy Vehicles Percentage[%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Growth Rate 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 In-Process Volume[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 N U Site-Generated Trips[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 tl Diverted Trips[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 Pass-by Trips[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0) Existing Site Adjustment Volume[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 Other Volume[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total Hourly Volume[veh/h] 14 802 930 22 5 10 Q Peak Hour Factor 0.8593 0.8593 0.8593 1 0.8593 0.8593 0.8593 Other Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Total 15-Minute Volume[veh/h] 4 233 271 6 1 3 v Total Analysis Volume[veh/h] 16 933 1082 26 6 12 r Pedestrian Volume[ped/h] Q KLWZMAN AssocIATES,INC. 4/812016 Packet Pg. 1091 Generated with Waterman Industrial Center Version 4.00-00 Scenario 1: 1:AMOYCP Intersection Settings Priority Scheme Free Free Stop Flared Lane No Storage Area[veh] Two-Stage Gap Acceptance Yes Number of Storage Spaces in Median 1 Movement,Approach,&Intersection Results V/C,Movement V/C Ratio 0.03 0.03 0.02 d_M,Delay for Movement[s/veh] 10.79 22.63 12.93 Movement LOS B A A A C B 95th-Percentile Queue Length[veh] 0.08 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.17 0.17 95th-Percentile Queue Length[ft] 1.93 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.17 4.17 d_A,Approach Delay[s/veh] 0.18 0.00 16.16 c Approach LOS A A C u7 d_I,Intersection Delay[s/veh] 0.22 cC C. Intersection LOS C (� tC> 00 d' O C. d co '� to U a v c d E U a.. a w E U a.1 w a KUNZMAN AssoClA f ES,INC. 4/8/2016 Packet Pg. 1092 �r�rrr■ drw 6.B.h Generated with =z= Waterman Industrial Center Version 4.00-00 Scenario 1: 1:AMOYCP Intersection Level Of Service Report Intersection 7:Waterman Ave(NS)at Park Center Circle North(EW) Control Type: Two-way stop Delay(sec/veh): 87.0 Analysis Method: HCM 2010 Level Of Service: F IAnalysis Period: 15 minutes Volume to Capacity(v/c): 0.270 Intersection Setup Name Waterman Ave Waterman Ave Project Driveway Park Center Circle N Approach Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Lane Configuration -111 r "111 r i t 1 r Turning Movement Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Lane Width[ft] 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 1 12.00 No.of Lanes in Pocket 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 Pocket Length[ft] 215.00 100,00 C Speed[mph] 50.00 50.00 30.00 30.00 LO T_ Grade[%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 M CL Crosswalk No No Yes No U' volumes Co d' Name Waterman Ave Waterman Ave Project Driveway Park Center Circle N Base Volume Input[veh/h] 187 794 27 78 814 24 14 6 1 9 O Base Volume Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 d Heavy Vehicles Percentage[%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Growth Rate 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 c�4 In-Process Volume[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 V Site-Generated Trips[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 d Diverted Trips[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -t Pass-by Trips[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Existing Site Adjustment Volume[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 t Other Volume[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y Total Hourly Volume[veh/h] 18 794 27 78 814 24 14 6 1 9 Q Peak Hour Factor 0.8587 0.8587 0.8587 0.8587 0.8587 0.8587 0.8587 0.8587 0.8587 „ ,-' 0.8587 Other Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 E Total 15-Minute Volume[veh/h] 5 231 8 23 237 7 4 2 0 3 0 v Total Analysis Volume[veh/h] 21 925 1 31 91 948 28 16 7 1 10 Pedestrian Volume[ped/h] 0 Q KUNZMAN/ASSOCIATES,INC. 4/8/2016 Packet Pg. 1093 Generated with Waterman Industrial Center Version 4.00-00 Scenario 1: 1:AMOYCP Intersection Settings Priority Scheme Free Free Stop Stop Flared Lane Storage Area[veh] Two-Stage Gap Acceptance No No Number of Storage Spaces in Median u Movement,Approach,&Intersection Results V/C,Movement V/C Ratio 0.03 0.13 0.27 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.00 0.02 d_M,Delay for Movement[s/veh] 10.19 10.66 86.98 0,00 11.73 65.30 0.00 11.65 Movement LOS B A A B A A F B F B 95th-Percentile Queue Length[veh] 0.09 0.00 0.00 0.43 0.00 0.00 0.95 0.04 0.05 0.06 95th-Percentile Queue Length[ft] 2.27 0.00 0.00 10.67 1 0.00 0.00 23.64 0.98 1.25 1.38 d_A,Approach Delay[s/veh] 0.22 0.91 64.07 16.52 c Approach LOS A A F C LO r d_I,Intersection Delay[s/veh] 1.37 D Intersection LOS F C7 LO 00 d' d' O CL d L) a c a� E s U a >r E U ftS a+ Q KUNZMAN ASSOCIATES,INC. 4/8/2016 Packet Pg. 1094 6.B.h Generated with 's Waterman Industrial Center Version 4.00-00 Scenario 1: 1:AMOYCP Intersection Level Of Service Report Intersection 8:Waterman Ave(NS)at Park Center Circle South(EW) Control Type: Signalized Delay(sec/veh): 3.8 Analysis Method: HCM 2010 Level Of Service: A Analysis Period: 15 minutes Volume to Capacity(v/c): 0.636 Intersection Setup Name Waterman Ave Waterman Ave Park Center Circle South Park Center Circle South Approach Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Lane Configuration "111 r 111 r i t i r Turning Movement Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Lane Width[ft] 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 1 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 No.of Lanes in Pocket 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Pocket Length[ft] C 9 Speed[mph] 50.00 50.00 30.00 30.00 u) T_ Grade[%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 M rL Crosswalk No Yes Yes Yes U' ►A volumes 00 Name Waterman Ave Waterman Ave Park Center Circle South Park Center Circle South d, Base Volume Input[veh/h] 5 806 163 23 790 7 8 4 11 23 0 7 O Base Volume Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 d Heavy Vehicles Percentage[%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Growth Rate 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 In-Process Volume[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 U Site-Generated Trips[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 d Diverted Trips[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 V a.+ Pass-by Trips[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N Existing Site Adjustment Volume[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 s Other Volume[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Right-Turn on Red Volume[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 Q Total Hourly Volume[veh/h] 5 806 163 23 790 7 8 4 11 23 0 7 Peak Hour Factor 0.8960 0.8960 0.8960 10.8960 0.8960 0.8960 0.8960 0.8960 0.8960 0.8960 0.8960 1 0.8960 E Other Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 v Total 15-Minute Volume[veh/h] 1 225 45 6 220 2 2 1 3 6 0 2 Y Total Analysis Volume[veh/h] 6 1 900 182 26 882 8 9 4 12 26 0 8 Q Presence of On-Street Parking No No No No No No No No On-Street Parking Maneuver Rate[/h] Local Bus Stopping Rate[/h] 0 0 0 0 Pedestrian Volume[ped/h] 0 0 0 Bicycle Volume[bicycles/h] 0 0 0 0 KUNZMAN ASSOCIATES,INC. 4/8/2016 Packet Pg. 1095 6.B.h Generated with Waterman Industrial Center Version 4.00-00 Scenario 1: 1:AMOYCP Intersection Settings Located in CBD No Signal Coordination Group Cycle Length[s] 60 Coordination Type Time of Day Pattern Isolated Actuation Type Fully actuated Offset[s] 0.0 Offset Reference LeadGreen Permissive Mode SingleBand Lost time[s] 6.00 Phasing&Timing Control Type Protecte Permiss Permiss Protecte Permiss Permiss Permiss Permiss Permiss Permiss Permiss Permiss Signal group 5 2 1 6 _ 8 4 CVC LO Auxiliary Signal Groups Lead/Lag Lead Lead Q Minimum Green[s] 5 5 5 5 5 u 5 0 t9 Maximum Green[s] 30 30 30 30 30 0 0 30 0 LO oD Ambers] 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 0.0 0,0 3.0 0.0 �T All red[s] 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 QO 1.0 .r Split[s] 9 52 9 52 19 19 0 Q Vehicle Extension[s] 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 0.0 Walk[s] 5 5 5 0 Pedestrian Clearance[s] 10 0 10 0 0 10 0 11,Start-Up Lost Time[s] 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 U a 12,Clearance Lost Time[s] 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 :?.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 ' d' Minimum Recall No No No No No No = Maximum Recall No No No No No No E Pedestrian Recall No No No No No No v trs Detector Location[ft] +. Q Detector Length[ft] r 1,Upstream Filtering Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Exclusive Pedestrian Phase v Pedestrian Signal Group 0 r Pedestrian Walk[s] 0 Q Pedestrian Clearance[s] 0 KUNZMAN ASSOCIATES,INC. 4/8/2016 Packet Pg. 1096 6.B.h Generated with M Waterman Industrial Center Version 4.00-00 Scenario 1: 1:AMOYCP Lane Group Calculations Lane Group L C R L C R C R C R L,Total Lost Time per Cycle[s] 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 11_p,Permitted Start-Up Lost Time[s] 0.00 0.00 2.00 2.00 12,Clearance Lost Time[s] 0.00 2.00 2.00 0.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 g_i,Effective Green Time[s] 50 44 44 50 45 45 2 2 2 2 g/C,Green/Cycle 0.83 0.73 0.73 0.83 0.75 0.75 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 (v/s)_i Volume/Saturation Flow Rate 0.01 0.25 0.11 0.04 0.24 0.00 0.17 0.01 0.32 0.00 s,saturation flow rate[veh/h] 701 3618 1615 721 3618 1615 77 1615 81 1615 c,Capacity[veh/h] 699 2635 1176 711 2713 1211 104 66 1 123 66 d1,Uniform Delay[s] 1.18 2.95 2.50 1.26 2.49 1.89 30.07 27.90 30.07 27.83 k,delay calibration 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.11 0.50 0.50 0.19 0.11 0.50 0.11 1,Upstream Filtering Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 cV d2,Incremental Delay[s] 0.02 0.35 0.28 0.02 0.32 0.01 0.92 1.33 3.88 0.82 9 d3,Initial Queue Delay[s] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 M 0.00 N Rp,platoon ratio 1.00 1 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 CL PF,progression factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 LO 00 Lane Group Results X,volume/capacity 0.01 0.34 0.15 0.04 0.33 0.01 0.12 0.18 0.21 0.12 d,Delay for Lane Group[s/veh] 1.20 3.31 2.78 1.28 2.81 1.90 30.98 29.22 33.96 28.65 0 CL Lane Group LOS A A A A A A C C C C Critical Lane Group No Yes No =-, ,N o No No No Yes No 50th-Percentile Queue Length[veh] 0.00 0.57 0.24 0.00 0.34 0.01 0.21 0.18 0.50 0.12 50th-Percentile Queue Length[ft] 0.11 14.30 6.07 0.10 8.55 0.16 5.17 4.57 12.42 3.01 OU. 95th-Percentile Queue Length[veh] 0.01 1.03 0.44 0.01 0.62 0.01 0.37 0.33 0.89 0.22 95th-Percentile Queue Length[ft] 0.19 25.74 10.93 0.18 15.39 0.29 9.31 8.22 22.36 5.42 C d E t v Q c m E t Q KUNZIMAN AssocIATES,INC. 4/8/2016 Packet Pg. 1097 Generated with = = Waterman Industrial Center Version 4.00-00 Scenario 1: 1:AMOYCP Movement,Approach,&Intersection Results d_M,Delay for Movement[s/veh] 1.20 3.31 2.78 1.28 2.81 1.90 30.98 30.98 29.22 33.96 33.96 28.65 Movement LOS A A A A A A C C C C C C d A,Approach Delay[s/veh] 3.21 2.75 30.14 32.71 Approach LOS A A C C d I,Intersection Delay[s/veh] 3.82 Intersection LOS A Intersection V/C 0.636 Sequence Ring 1 1 2 4 - - - - - - - - - - - - - Ring 2 5 6 8 - - - - - - - - - - - - - N Ring 3 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - o Ring 4 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - tCL 00 LPL co U a v c a� E s U Rf r-' a Y 4+ a KLwzMA�AssocIATES,INC. 4/8/2016 Packet Pg. 1098 6.B.h Generated with Waterman Industrial Center Version 4.00-00 Scenario 1: 1:AMOYCP Intersection Level Of Service Report Intersection 9:Waterman Ave(NS)at Vanderbilt Way(EW) Control Type: Signalized Delay(sec/veh): 18.1 Analysis Method: HCM 2010 Level Of Service: B Analysis Period: 15 minutes Volume to Capacity(v/c): 0.666 Intersection Setup Name Waterman Ave Waterman Ave Vanderbilt Way Vanderbilt Way Approach Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Lane Configuration i i l r "111 � + -11 r Turning Movement Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Lane Width[ft] 12.007 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 No.of Lanes in Pocket 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Pocket Length[ft] r)0 i C Speed[mph] 50.00 50.00 30.00 30.00 LA r Grade[%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Q Crosswalk No Yes Yes Yes C9 volumes 00 ao I' Name Waterman Ave Waterman Ave Vanderbilt Way Vanderbilt Way d Base Volume Input[veh/h] 25 724 374 256 572 4 4 3 3 64 1 253 O Base Volume Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 d Heavy Vehicles Percentage[%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Growth Rate 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 M In-Process Volume[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0) V Site-Generated Trips[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Diverted Trips[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 r+ Pass-by Trips[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Existing Site Adjustment Volume[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 t Other Volume[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Right-Turn on Red Volume[veh/h] 0 0 0 1 0 Q Total Hourly Volume[veh/h] 25 724 374 256 572 4 4 3 3 64 1 253 Peak Hour Factor 0.8826 0.8826 0.8826 0.8826 0.8826 0.8826 0.8826 0.8826 0.8826 0.8826 0.8826 0.8826 E Other Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 t v Total 15-Minute Volume[veh/h] 7 205 106 73 162 1 1 1 1 18 0 72 "iM Total Analysis Volume[veh/h] 28 820 424 290 648 5 5 3 3 73 1 287 Q Presence of On-Street Parking No No No No No No No No On-Street Parking Maneuver Rate[/h] Local Bus Stopping Rate[/h] 0 0 0 0 Pedestrian Volume[ped/h] 0 0 0 Bicycle Volume[bicycles/h] 0 0 0 0 KUNZMAN ASSOCIATES,INC. 4/8/2016 Packet Pg. 1099 6.B.h Generated with }�=J�3 Waterman Industrial Center Version 4.00-00 Scenario 1: 1:AMOYCP Intersection Settings Located in CBD No Signal Coordination Group Cycle Length Is] 61 Coordination Type Time of Day Pattern Isolated Actuation Type Fully actuated Offset Is] 0.0 Offset Reference LeadGreen Permissive Mode SingleBand Lost time[s] 6.00 Phasing&Timing Control Type Protecte Permiss Permiss Protecte Permiss Permiss Permiss Permiss Permiss Permiss Permiss Permiss Signal group 5 2 1 6 8 4 c Auxiliary Signal Groups r Lead/Lag Lead Lead CL Minimum Green[s] 5 5 5 5 J 5 0 5 u (9 Maximum Green Is] 30 30 30 30 t 30 0 30 0 Amber[s] 3.0 3.0 0 3.0 3.0 4 0.0 3.0 0.0 3.0 0.0 1* All red Is] 1.0 1.0 0,0 1.0 1.0 (7.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 Split Is] 9 19 20 30 0 0 21 0 21 0 CL Vehicle Extension Is] 3.0 3.0 0,0 3.0 3.0 0 0.0 3.0 ).0 3.0 0.0 d Walk Is] 0 5 0 n 5 0 5 0 : Pedestrian Clearance[s] 0 u 0 _ 10 0 10 J o 10 0 � 11,Start-Up Lost Time[s] 2.0 2.0 0 0 2.0 2.0 : 0 0A 2.0 0,0 ?.0 2.0 0.0 U d 12,Clearance Lost Time Is] 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 0 2.0 2.0 ' d Minimum Recall No No No No No No Maximum Recall No No No No No No Pedestrian Recall No No No No No No U Detector Location[ft] Q 0.0 0.0 0 J.0 Detector Length[ft] 0.0 ;.0 0.0 0.0 Q I,Upstream Filtering Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 E Exclusive Pedestrian Phase U Pedestrian Signal Group 0 r Pedestrian Walk[s] 0 Q Pedestrian Clearance Is] 0 KUNzmAN AssociATES,INC.. 4/8/2016 Packet Pg. 1100 6.B.h Generated with Waterman Industrial Center Version 4.00-00 Scenario 1: 1:AMOYCP Lane Group Calculations Lane Group L C R L C C C L C R L,Total Lost Time per Cycle[s] 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 11p,Permitted Start-Up Lost Time[s] 2.00 2.00 2.00 12,Clearance Lost Time[s] 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 g_i,Effective Green Time[s] 2 24 24 12 34 34 13 13 13 13 g/C,Green/Cycle 0.03 0.40 0.40 0.19 0.56 0.56 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21 (v/s)_i Volume/Saturation Flow Rate 0.02 0.23 0.26 0.16 0.12 0.12 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.18 s,saturation flow rate[veh/h] 1810 3618 1615 1810 3618 1893 1504 1432 1342 1 1615 c,Capacity[veh/h] 60 1444 645 348 2021 1057 405 313 401 342 d1,Uniform Delay[s] 29.04 14.27 14.96 23.75 6.76 6.76 19.11 23.31 19.71 23.09 k,delay calibration 0.11 0.50 0.50 1 0.14 0.50 0.50 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.16 I,Upstream Filtering Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 N d2,Incremental Delay[s] 5.56 1.62 5.18 6.75 0.24 0.46 0.03 0.13 0.12 8.06 e LO d3,Initial Queue Delay[s] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 M R Rp,platoon ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Q' U' PF,progression factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 7 u co Lane Group Results X,volume/capacity 0.47 0.57 0.66 0.83 0.21 0.21 0.03 0.10 0.11 0.84 d,Delay for Lane Group[s/veh] 34.60 15.89 20.15 30.50 7.00 7.22 19.14 23.45 19.83 31.15 Q Lane Group LOS C B C C A A B C B C Critical Lane Group No No Yes Yes No No No No No Yes k7 50th-Percentile Queue Length[veh] 0.45 3.71 4.59 4.08 0.96 1.07 0.12 0.37 0.49 4.43 50th-Percentile Queue Length[ft] 11.30 92.63 114.84 102.00 23.98 26.70 2.98 9.34 12.31 110.78 d 95th-Percentile Queue Length[veh] 0.81 6.67 8.11 7.34 1.73 1.92 0.21 0.67 0.89 7.88 d• 95th-Percentile Queue Length[ft] 2033. 166.74 202.72 183.60 43.16 48.07 5.36 16.81 22.15 197.08 = d E t V Q C d t v R Q KUNzmAN AssociATE%INC. 4/8/2016 Packet Pg. 1101 6.B.h Generated with M Waterman Industrial Center Version 4.00-00 Scenario 1: 1:AMOYCP Movement,Approach,&Intersection Results d_M,Delay for Movement[s/veh] 34.60 1 15.89 20.15 30.50 7.07 7.22 19.14 19.14 19.14 23.45 19.83 31.15 Movement LOS C B C C A A B B B C B C d_A,Approach Delay[s/veh] 17.72 14.28 19.14 29.13 Approach LOS B B B C d I,Intersection Delay[s/veh] 18.06 Intersection LOS B Intersection V/C 0.666 Sequence Ring 1 1 2 4 - - - - - - - - - - - - - Ring 2 5 6 8 - - - - - - - - - - - - - Ring 3 - - - Ring 4 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - LOr� I 0 0 U a .r c as E s v ca a r E a KuNZMAN AssociAres,INC. 4/8/2016 Packet Pg. 1102 Generated with M = Waterman Industrial Center 6.B.h Version 4.00-00 Scenario 1: 1:AMOYCPi With ImprovementE Intersection Level Of Service Report Intersection 7:Waterman Ave(NS)at Park Center Circle North(EW) Control Type: Signalized Delay(sec/veh): 5.6 Analysis Method: HCM 2010 Level Of Service: A Analysis Period: 15 minutes Volume to Capacity(v/c): 0.476 Intersection Setup Name Waterman Ave Waterman Ave Project Driveway Park Center Circle N Approach Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Lane Configuration #111 r "111 r i r i r Turning Movement Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Lane Width[ft] 12.007 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 No.of Lanes in Pocket 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 Pocket Length[ft] 215.00 00.00 C4 Speed[mph] 50.00 50.00 30.00 30.00 U) T Grade[%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 M CL Crosswalk No No Yes No C9 volumes Ln 00� Name Waterman Ave Waterman Ave Project Driveway Park Center Circle N et Base Volume Input[veh/h] 18 794 27 78 814 24 14 0 6 1 0 9 0 O Base Volume Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Heavy Vehicles Percentage[%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Growth Rate 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 R In-Process Volume[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 W Site-Generated Trips[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 d Diverted Trips[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 r Pass-by Trips[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Existing Site Adjustment Volume[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Z Other Volume[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 v la Right-Turn on Red Volume[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 Q Total Hourly Volume[veh/h] 18 794 27 78 814 24 14 0 6 1 0 9 Peak Hour Factor 0.8587 0.8587 0.8587 0.8587 0.8587 0.8587 0.8587 0.8587 0.8587 0.8587 0.8587 0.8587 41 E Other Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 v Total 15-Minute Volume[veh/h] 5 231 8 23 237 7 4 0 2 0 0 3 M Total Analysis Volume[veh/h] 21 925 31 91 948 28 16 0 7 1 0 10 Q Presence of On-Street Parking No No No No No No No No On-Street Parking Maneuver Rate[/h] ==1 0 0 Local Bus Stopping Rate[/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 Pedestrian Volume[ped/h] 1 0 Bicycle Volume[bicycles/h] 0 0 0 0 KUNZMAN ASSOCIATES,INC. 4/7/2016 Packet Pg. 1103 Generated with =z= Waterman Industrial Center Version 4.00-00 Scenario 1: 1:AMOYCPi With Improvements Intersection Settings Located in CBD No Signal Coordination Group Cycle Length[s] 60 Coordination Type Time of Day Pattern Isolated Actuation Type Fully actuated Offset[s] 0.0 Offset Reference LeadGreen Permissive Mode SingleBand Lost time Is] 6.00 Phasing&Timing Control Type Protecte Permiss Permiss Protecte Permiss Permiss Permiss Permiss Permiss Permiss Permiss Permiss Signal group 5 2 1 6 8 4 C Auxiliary Signal Groups LO r Lead/Lag Lead Lead - Q. Minimum Green[s] 5 5 5 5 5 5 0 (9 Maximum Green Is] 30 30 30 30 30 30 LO Amber[s] 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 00 3.0 u.0 All red[s] 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Split[s] 9 15 26 32 19 19 0 0 0 Vehicle Extension[s] 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 v.0 Walk[s] 5 � Pedestrian Clearance Is] 10 0 11,Start-Up Lost Time[s] 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 a 12,Clearance Lost Time[s] 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 ' d. Minimum Recall No No No No No No = Maximum Recall No No No No No No d Pedestrian Recall No No No No No No -� v Detector Location[ft] Detector Length[ft] O.0 Q I,Upstream Filtering Factor 100 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 y E Exclusive Pedestrian Phase Pedestrian Signal Group 0 r Pedestrian Walk(s] 0 Q Pedestrian Clearance[s] 0 KUNZMAN AssociATES,INC_ 4/7/2016 Packet Pg. 1104 6.B.h Generated with Waterman Industrial Center Version 4.00-00 Scenario 1: 1:AMOYCPi With Improvement: Lane Group Calculations Lane Group L C R L C R C R C R L,Total Lost Time per Cycle[s] 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 11_p,Permitted Start-Up Lost Time[s] 2.00 2.00 12,Clearance Lost Time[s] 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 g_i,Effective Green Time[s] 2 42 42 4 45 45 2 2 2 2 g/C,Green/Cycle 0.03 0.71 0.71 0.07 0.75 0.75 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 (v/s)_i Volume/Saturation Flow Rate 0.01 0.26 0.02 0.05 0.26 0.02 0.12 0.00 0.01 0.01 s,saturation flow rate[veh/h] 1810 3618 1615 1810 3618 1615 131 1615 114 1615 c,Capacity[veh/h] 48 2544 1136 124 2695 1203 123 46 123 46 d1,Uniform Delay[s] 28.83 3.56 2.70 27.48 2.65 1.99 30.06 28.50 29.97 28.55 k,delay calibration 0.11 0.50 0.50 0.11 0.50 0.50 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 1,Upstream Filtering Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 N d2,Incremental Delay[s] 6.007 0.40 0.04 8.07 0.36 0.04 0.47 1.48 0.03 2.28 9 d3,Initial Queue Delay[s] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 CL Rp,platoon ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1 1.00 1.00 D PF,progression factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 to 00 Lane Group Results X,volume/capacity 0.43 0.36 0.03 0.73 0.35 0.02 0.13 0.15 0.01 0.22 d,Delay for Lane Group[s/veh] 34.82 3.96 2.75 35.55 3.01 2.03 30.53 29.98 29.99 30.83 0 Lane Group LOS C A A D A A C C C C Critical Lane Group No Yes No Yes No No Yes No No No 50th-Percentile Queue Length[veh] 0.35 0.84 0.05 1.41 0.41 0.02 0.24 0.11 0.01 0.16 � 50th-Percentile Queue Length[ft] 8.64 21.11 1.24 35.15 10.33 0.61 5.98 2.82 0.37 4.09 V a 95th-Percentile Queue Length[veh] 0.62 1.52 0.09 2.53 0.74 0.04 0.43 0.20 0.03 0.29 ' d' 95th-Percentile Queue Length[ft] 15.55 38.01 2.24 63.27 18.59 1.09 10.76 5.08 1 0.66 7.37 d E t V Rf r Q r C d Z V Q KIINZMAN AssociATES,INC. 47/2016 Packet Pg. 1105 6.B.h Generated with Waterman Industrial Center Version 4.00-00 Scenario 1: 1:AMOYCPi With Improvements_ Movement,Approach,&Intersection Results d_M,Delay for Movement[s/veh] 34.82 3.96 2.75 35.55 3.01 2.03 30.53 30.53 29.98 29.99 29.99 30.83 Movement LOS C A A D A A C C C C C C d A,Approach Delay[s/veh] 4.59 5.76 30.36 30.75 Approach LOS A A C C d I,Intersection Delay[s/veh] 5.62 Intersection LOS A Intersection V/C 0.476 Sequence Ring 1 1 2 4 - - - - - - - - - - - - - Ring 2 5 6 8 - - - - - - - - - - - - - Ring 3 - - - Ring 4 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - m CL co v 0 a U CL c aD E s �a w a E U w r a KUNZMAN AssociATM IW— 4/7/2016 Packet Pg. 1106 6.B.h Generated with '• Waterman Industrial Center Version 4.00-00 Scenario 1: 1:PMOYCP Intersection Level Of Service Report Intersection 1:E Street(NS)at Orange Show Road(EW) Control Type: Signalized Delay(sec/veh): 27.8 Analysis Method: HCM 2010 Level Of Service: C Analysis Period: 15 minutes Volume to Capacity(v/c): 0.736 Intersection Setup Name E Street E Street Orange Show Rd Orange Show Rd Approach Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Lane Configuration 1- 1 F I-i 11 r -1-111r - iii r Turning Movement Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Lane Width[ft] 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 No.of Lanes in Pocket 2 0 2 1 2 1 2 1 Pocket Length[ft] 300.00 189.00 134.00 217.00 147.00 165.00 103.00 0 Speed[mph] 40.00 40.00 40.00 40.00 LO T Grade[%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Q. Crosswalk Yes Yes Yes Yes U' volumes to 00 d' Name E Street E Street Orange Show Rd Orange Show Rd 71 Base Volume Input[veh/h] 478 297 129 149 164 263 124 953 321 148 907 46 t O Base Volume Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 N Heavy Vehicles Percentage[%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 X Growth Rate 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 F1.00 w In-Process Volume[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 to U Site-Generated Trips[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a. Diverted Trips[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 q Pass-by Trips[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Existing Site Adjustment Volume[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 E Other Volume[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Right-Turn on Red Volume[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 Total Hourly Volume[veh/h] 4787 297 129 149 1 164 263 124 953 321 148 907 46 Peak Hour Factor 0.9275 0.9275 0.9275 0.9275 1 0.9275 0.9275 0.9275 0.9275 0.9275 0.9275 0.9275 0.9275 O E Other Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 � v Total 15-Minute Volume[veh/h] 129 80 35 40 44 71 33 257 87 40 244 12 Total Analysis Volume[veh/h] 515 320 139 1 161 177 284 134 1027 346 160 978 50 Q Presence of On-Street Parking No T No No No No No No No On-Street Parking Maneuver Rate[/h] 0 Local Bus Stopping Rate[/h] 0 0 0 0 0 Pedestrian Volume[ped/h] 0 0 0 0 Bicycle Volume[bicycles/h] 0 0 0 0 KLINID,AAU AssociATES,I.C. 4/8/2016 Packet Pg. 1107 6.B.h Generated with Up ,1 Waterman Industrial Center u. Version 4.00-00 Scenario 1: 1: PMOYCP Intersection Settings Located in CBD No Signal Coordination Group Cycle Length[s] 70 Coordination Type Time of Day Pattern Isolated Actuation Type Fully actuated Offset[s] 0.0 Offset Reference LeaclGreen Permissive Mode SingleBand Lost time[s] 8.00 Phasing&Timing Control Type Protecte Permiss Permiss Protecte Permiss Permiss Protecte Permiss Permiss Protecte Permiss Permiss Signal group 5 2 1 6 3 8 7 4 C Auxiliary Signal Groups is r Lead/Lag Lead Lead Lead Lead Q. Minimum Green[s] 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 (� Maximum Green[s] 30 30 30 30 9 30 30 30 30 r Amber[s] 3.0 3.0 0:0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 .., V All red[s] 1.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Split[s] 16 23 12 19 10 26 0 9 25 o Q Vehicle Extension[s] 3.0 3.0 0.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 0 3.0 3.0 d Walk[s] 5 5 5 5 0 ■ Pedestrian Clearance[s] 10 10 10 0 10 11,Start-Up Lost Time[s] 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 U 12,Clearance Lost Time[s] 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Minimum Recall No No No No No No No No � Maximum Recall No No No No No No No No Pedestrian Recall No No No No No No No No V Detector Location[ft] 0.0 0.0 U.0 0 w Detector Length[ft] 0.0 0.0 0.0 ").0 Q r 1, Upstream Filtering Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 E Exclusive Pedestrian Phase .0 U Pedestrian Signal Group 0 Pedestrian Walk[s] 0 Q Pedestrian Clearance[s] 0 KuNzmAU ASSOCIATES INC. 4/8/2016 Packet Pg. 1108 6.B.h Generated with Waterman Industrial Center Version 4.00-00 Scenario 1: 1: PMOYCP Lane Group Calculations Lane Group L I C C L C R L C R L C I R L,Total Lost Time per Cycle[s] -4..007 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 11p,Permitted Start-Up Lost Time[s] 12,Clearance Lost Time[s] 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 g_i,Effective Green Time[s] 12 22 22 5 16 16 5 22 22 5 22 22 g/C,Green/Cycle 0.17 0.32 0.32 0.07 0.22 0.22 0.07 0.31 0.31 0.07 0.31 0.31 (v/s)_i Volume/Saturation Flow Rate 0.15 0.13 0.13 0.05 0.05 0.18 0.04 0.28 0.21 0.05 0.27 0.03 s,saturation flow rate[veh/h] 3514 1900 1707 3514 3618 1615 3514 3618 1615 3514 3618 1615 c,Capacity[veh/h] 602 612 550 253 805 359 234 1113 497 247 1126 503 d1,Uniform Delay[s] 28.19 18.46 18.46 31.62 22.27 25.70 31.73 23.45 21.37 31.73 22.77 17.15 k,delay calibration 0.11 0.50 0.50 0.11 0.50 0.50 0.11 0.11 0.21 0.11 0.11 1 0.11 1,Upstream Filtering Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 cV d2,Incremental Delay[s] 3.61 1.91 2.12 2.66 0.63 16.15 2.21 3.76 3.33 1 2.86 2.20 0.09 d3,Initial Queue Delay[s] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 R Rp,platoon ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Q- PF,progression factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 u7 00 Lane Group Results X,volume/capacity 0.86 1 0.40 0.40 0.64 0.22 0.79 0.57 0.92 0.70 0.65 0.87 0.10 d,Delay for Lane Group[s/veh] 31.807 20.37 20.58 34.28 22.90 41.85 33.94 27.21 24.70 34.59 24.97 17.23 0 Lane Group LOS C C C C I C D C C C C C B d Q' Critical Lane Group Yes No No No No Yes No Yes No Yes No No 50th-Percentile Queue Length[veh] 4.16 3.06 2.78 1 1.34 1.17 5.68 1.10 7.83 4.91 1.33 1 7.07 0.53 N 50th-Percentile Queue Length[ft] 103.99 76.47 69.53 33.38 29.23 142.01 27.61 195.72 122.75 33.37 176.75 13.24 a 95th-Percentile Queue Length[veh] 7.49 5.51 5.01 2.40 2.10 9.59 1.99 12.42 8.54 2.40 11.43 0.95 d' 95th-Percentile Queue Length[ft] 187.19 137.65 125.16 60.09 52.61 239.73 49.69 310.44 213.60 60.06 285.77 23.84 C d E t V co w Q w C d E 10 .0 V ca r Q KUNZMAN AssOCIATES,INC. 4/8/2016 Packet.Pg. 1109 Generated with =z= Waterman Industrial Center Version 4.00-00 Scenario 1: 1:PMOYCP Movement,Approach,&Intersection Results d M,Delay for Movement[s/veh] 31.80 20.42 1 20.58 34.28 22.90 41.85 33.94 27.21 24.70 34.59 24.97 17.23 Movement LOS C C C C C D C C C C C B d_A,Approach Delay[s/veh] 26.46 34.50 27.23 25.94 Approach LOS C C C C d I,Intersection Delay[s/veh] 27.75 Intersection LOS C Intersection V/C 0.736 Sequence Ring 1 1 2 3 4 - - - - - - - - - - - - Ring 2 5 6 7 8 - - - - - - - - - - - - Ring 3 - - - - Ring 4 - - - - L �� fA Q U a c aD E s 2 a c d E Q KIINZMAN Assoc[AFES,INC. 4/8/2016 Packet Pg. 1110 6.B.h Generated with Waterman Industrial Center Version 4.00-00 Scenario 1: 1:PMOYCP Intersection Level Of Service Report Intersection 2:Washington Ave(NS)at Orange Show Rd(EW) Control Type: Signalized Delay(sec/veh): 18.1 Analysis Method: HCM 2010 Level Of Service: B Analysis Period: 15 minutes Volume to Capacity(v/c): 0.449 Intersection Setup Name Washington Ave Washington Ave Orange Show Rd Orange Show Rd Approach Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Lane Configuration i r i r "111 r -i 1 i r Turning Movement Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Lane Width[ft] 12.00 12.00 1 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 No.of Lanes in Pocket 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 Pocket Length[ft] 157.00 166.00 O 9 Speed[mph] 30.00 30.00 40.00 40.00 ic> r Grade[%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 fl Crosswalk Yes Yes Yes Yes C9 volumes 00 00 ItT Name Washington Ave Washington Ave Orange Show Rd Orange Show Rd d Base Volume Input[veh/h] 20 10 1 4 4 1 15 29 1167 17 7 1047 15 O Base Volume Adjustment Factor 1 A000 Tom 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1 A000 1.0000 1 A000 1.0000 1.0000 C Heavy Vehicles Percentage[%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 W Growth Rate 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 NAW In-Process Volume[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 U Site-Generated Trips[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0- Diverted Trips[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Pass-by Trips[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Existing Site Adjustment Volume[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 t Other Volume[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Right-Turn on Red Volume[veh/h] 0 _ 0 _ 0 u 0 Q Total Hourly Volume[veh/h] 20 10 4 4 1 15 29 1167 17 7 1047 15 Peak Hour Factor 0.9174 0.9174 0.9174 0.9174 0.9174 0.9174 0.9174 0.9174 0.9174 0.9174 0.9174 0.9174 O E Other Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Total 15-Minute Volume[veh/h] 57 3 1 1 0 4 8 318 5 2 285 4 Total Analysis Volume[veh/h] 22 11 4 4 1 16 32 1272 19 8 1141 16 Q Presence of On-Street Parking No No No No No No No No On-Street Parking Maneuver Rate[/h] 1, 11 - Local Bus Stopping Rate[/h] 2 0 0 0 0 Pedestrian Volume[ped/h] 0 0 1 0 0 Bicycle Volume[bicycles/h] 0 0 0 0 KUNZMAN ASSOCIATES,INC 4/8/2016 Packet Pg. 1111 6.B.h Generated with Waterman Industrial Center Version 4.00-00 Scenario 1: 1:PMOYCP Intersection Settings Located in CBD No Signal Coordination Group Cycle Length[s] 63 Coordination Type Time of Day Pattern Isolated Actuation Type Fully actuated Offset[s] 0.0 Offset Reference LeadGreen Permissive Mode SingleBand Lost time[s] 6.00 Phasing&Timing Control Type Permiss Permiss Permiss Permiss Permiss Permiss Protecte Permiss Permiss Protecte Permiss Permiss Signal group 2 6 3 8 7 4 c Auxiliary Signal Groups Lead/Lag Lead - Lead - rL Minimum Green[s] G 5 0 5 0 5 5 0 5 5 0 0 Maximum Green[s] 0 30 0 30 0 30 30 0 30 30 0 LO Amber[s] 0.0 3.0 LO 0.0 3.0 0 3.0 3.0 0.0 3.0 3.0 0.0 It All red[s] 0.0 1.0 ).0 0.0 1.0 0 1.0 1.0 �.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 y L Split[s] 0 19 19 9 32 0 9 32 0 CL Vehicle Extension[s] 0.0 3.0 0.0 0 3.0 3.0 3.0 T 0.0 3.0 3.0 0.0 Walk[s] 0 5 j 5 0 5 0 J 5 0 tt: Pedestrian Clearance[s] 0 10 ,) 10 0 10 0 Q 10 0 11,Start-Up Lost Time[s] 0.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 0.0 V a 12,Clearance Lost Time[s] 0.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 0.0 ' Minimum Recall No No No No No No Maximum Recall No No No No No No Pedestrian Recall No No No No No No U f6 Detector Location[ft] 0.0 0.0 0.0 U.0 Q Detector Length[ft] 0.0 0.0 0.0 1,Upstream Filtering Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 E Exclusive Pedestrian Phase U Pedestrian Signal Group 0 Pedestrian Walk[s] 0 Q Pedestrian Clearance[s] 0 0 KUNZMAN As50c1ATES,INC. 4/8/2016 Packet Pg. 1112 6.B.h Generated with Waterman Industrial Center Version 4.00-00 Scenario 1: 1: PMOYCP Lane Group Calculations Lane Group C R C R L C R L C R L,Total Lost Time per Cycle[s] 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 11_p,Permitted Start-Up Lost Time[s] 2.00 2.00 _ 0 00 0.00 12,Clearance Lost Time[s] 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00 2.00 2.00 0.00 2.00 2.00 g_i,Effective Green Time[s] 24 24 24 24 31 26 26 31 24 24 g/C,Green/Cycle 0.39 0.39 0.39 0.39 0.49 0.41 0.41 0.49 0.39 0.39 (v/s)_i Volume/Saturation Flow Rate 0.05 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.05 0.35 0.01 0.01 0.32 0.01 s,saturation flow rate[veh/h] 637 1615 568 1615 683 3618 1615 566 3618 1615 c,Capacity[veh/h] 341 623 322 623 357 1489 665 301 1403 626 d1,Uniform Delay[s] 13.85 11.93 13.79 12.02 11.36 16.86 11.06 11.85 17.28 11.95 k,delay calibration 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 I,Upstream Filtering Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 N d2,Incremental Delay[s] 0.56 0.02 0.09 0.08 0.11 1.50 0.02 0.04 1.19 0.02 9 d3,Initial Queue Delay[s] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 cv Rp,platoon ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Q' PF,progression factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 00 Lane Group Results X,volume/capacity 0.10 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.09 0.85 0.03 0.03 0.81 0.03 d,Delay for Lane Group[s/veh] 14.42 11.95 13.88 12.10 11.47 18.35 11.08 11.89 18.47 11.97 Q. Lane Group LOS B B B B B B B B B B d Q' Critical Lane Group Yes No No No No Yes No Yes No No 50th-Percentile Queue Length[veh] 0.32 0.03 0.05 0.14 0.19 7.14 0.14 0.05 6.38 0.12 50th-Percentile Queue Length[ft] 7.94 0.87 1.18 3.51 4.87 178.58 3.43 1.21 159.60 3.05 d 95th-Percentile Queue Length[veh] 0.57 0.06 0.09 0.25 0.35 11.53 0.25 0.09 10.53 0.22 ' 95th-Percentile Queue Length[ft] 14.29 1.56 2.13 6.31 8.77 288.16 6.17 1 2.18 263.20 5.50 = d E t V l4 Q C d E L v tC w Q KUNZMAN ASSOCIATES,L.C. 4/8/2016 Packet Pg. 1113 6.B.h Generated with Waterman Industrial Center Version 4.00-00 Scenario 1:1: PMOYCP Movement,Approach,&Intersection Results d M,Delay for Movement[s/veh] 14.42 14.42 11.95 13.88 13.88 1 12.10 11.47 18.35 11.08 11.89 18.47 11.97 Movement LOS B B B B B B B B B B B B d A,Approach Delay[s/veh] 14.15 12.52 18.08 18.34 Approach LOS B B B B d I,Intersection Delay[s/veh] 18.10 Intersection LOS B Intersection V/C 0.449 Sequence Ring 1 2 3 4 - - - - - - - - - - - - - Ring 2 6 Ring 3 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - o Ring 4 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - h o co U a c E t Q c a� E t Q KIINZMAN AssocIATE5,INC. 4/8/2016 Packet Pg. 1114 6.B.h Generated with 'w Waterman Industrial Center Version 4.00-00 Scenario 1: 1:PMOYCP Intersection Level Of Service Report Intersection 3:Project West Driveway(NS)at Dumas St(EW) Control Type: Two-way stop Delay(sec/veh): 8.8 Analysis Method: HCM 2010 Level Of Service: A Analysis Period: 15 minutes Volume to Capacity(v/c): 0.015 Intersection Setup Name Project West Driveway Dumas St Dumas Street Approach Northbound Eastbound Westbound Lane Configuration "r► "t I Turning Movement Left Right Thru Right Left Thru Lane Width[ft] 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 No.of Lanes in Pocket 0 0 0 0 Pocket Length[ft] N O Speed[mph] 30.00 30.00 30.00 r Grade[%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 a Crosswalk No No No C9 LO volumes d' Name Project West Driveway Dumas St Dumas Street Base Volume Input[veh/h] 14 4 10 4 4 20 O Base Volume Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 d Heavy Vehicles Percentage[%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Growth Rate 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 N In-Process Volume[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 U Site-Generated Trips[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 a Diverted Trips[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 d Pass-by Trips[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 d Existing Site Adjustment Volume[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 s Other Volume[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total Hourly Volume[veh/h] 14 4 10 4 4 20 Q Peak Hour Factor 0.9200 0.9200 0.9200 0.9200 0.9200 0.9200 Other Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 O Total 15-Minute Volume[veh/h] 4 1 3 1 1 5 0 v Total Analysis Volume[veh/h] 15 4 11 4 4 22 M Pedestrian Volume[ped/h] Q KUNZMAN ASSOCIATES,INC. 4/8/2016 Packet Pg.I I IS Generated with MEM Waterman Industrial Center Version 4.00-00 Scenario 1: 1:PMOYCP Intersection Settings Priority Scheme Stop Free Free Flared Lane No Storage Area[veh] Two-Stage Gap Acceptance No Number of Storage Spaces in Median Movement,Approach,&Intersection Results V/C,Movement V/C Ratio 0.02 0.00 0.00 a d M,Delay for Movement[s/veh] 8.78 8.43 7.23 0.0(11 Movement LOS A A A A A A 95th-Percentile Queue Length[veh] 0.06 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.05 95th-Percentile Queue Length[ft] 1.47 1.47 0.00 0.00 1.23 1.23 d_A,Approach Delay[s/veh] 8.71 0.00 1.11 C Approach LOS A A A u7 r d_I,Intersection Delay[s/veh] 3.24 Q. Intersection LOS A U' to 00 d' O !Z O O Cn U a v r c a� E s cv Q CCCD G V }I i+ Q KUNZMAN AssocIATES,INC. 4/8/2016 Packet Pg. 1116 6.B.h Generated with 'm Waterman Industrial Center Version 4.00-00 Scenario 1: 1:PMOYCP Intersection Level Of Service Report Intersection 4:Project East DriveWay(NS)at Dumas Street(EW) Control Type: Two-way stop Delay(sec/veh): 8.4 Analysis Method: HCM 2010 Level Of Service: A Analysis Period: 15 minutes Volume to Capacity(v/c): 0.007 Intersection Setup Name Project East DriveWay Dumas Street Dumas St Approach Northbound Eastbound Westbound Lane Configuration r Turning Movement Left Right Thru Right Left Thru Lane Width[ft] 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 No.of Lanes in Pocket 0 0 0 Pocket Length[ft] 100.00 _ N 0 Speed[mph] 30.00 30.00 30.00 LO r Grade[%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 Q. Crosswalk No No No C7 LO volumes 00 d' Name Project East DriveWay Dumas Street Dumas St ? Base Volume Input[veh/h] u 7 14 9 24 L O Base Volume Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 i 0000 1.0000 1.0000 C Heavy Vehicles Percentage[%] U0 0.00 0.00 0,00 0.00 0.00 Growth Rate 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.000. In-Process Volume[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 to U Site-Generated Trips[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 d Diverted Trips[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 It Pass-by Trips[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 = O Existing Site Adjustment Volume[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 s Other Volume[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 Total Hourly Volume[veh/h] 0 7 14 9 24 Q Peak Hour Factor 0.9200 0.9200 0.9200 0.9200 0.9200 Other Adjustment Factor " 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 O Total 15-Minute Volume[veh/h] 2 4 2 7 V Total Analysis Volume[veh/h] 8 15 10 26 +0, Pedestrian Volume[ped/h] Q KUNZMAN ASSOCIATES,INC. 4/8/2016 PacketPg. 1117 Generated with Waterman Industrial Center Version 4.00-00 Scenario 1: 1:PMOYCP Intersection Settings Priority Scheme Stop Free Free Flared Lane Storage Area[veh] Two-Stage Gap Acceptance No Number of Storage Spaces in Median Movement,Approach,&Intersection Results V/C,Movement V/C Ratio _ 0.01 0.01 0 DC" d_M,Delay for Movement(s/veh] 8.39 7.24 a 0, Movement LOS A A A A 95th-Percentile Queue Length(veh] 0.02 0.00 0.07 0.07 95th-Percentile Queue Length[ft] 0.56 0.00 1.71 1.71 d_A,Approach Delay[s/veh] 8.39 0.00 2.01 C Approach LOS A A A to T" d_I,Intersection Delay[s/veh] 2.36 C Intersection LOS A LO 00 1* cl' O >Z d G' c0 U a v Z a� E t v �v a _ E a KUNzxAAN AssociATes,INC. 4/8/2016 Packet Pg..1118 6.B.h Generated with =Z= Waterman Industrial Center Version 4.00-00 Scenario 1: 1:PMOYCP Intersection Level Of Service Report Intersection 5:Waterman Ave(NS)at Orange Show Rd(EW) Control Type: Signalized Delay(sec/veh): 30.7 Analysis Method: HCM 2010 Level Of Service: C Analysis Period: 15 minutes Volume to Capacity(v/c): 0.786 Intersection Setup Name Waterman Ave Waterman Ave Orange Show Rd Orange Show Rd Approach Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Lane Configuration -111 r l i l r '111 r "111 r Turning Movement Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Lane Width[ft] 12.00 1 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 No.of Lanes in Pocket 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 Pocket Length[ft] 298.00 275.00 248.00 258.00 X0.00 C Speed[mph] 50.00 50.00 40.00 40.00 to r Grade[%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 M CL Crosswalk Yes Yes Yes Yes C9 volumes 00 Name Waterman Ave Waterman Ave Orange Show Rd Orange Show Rd Base Volume Input[veh/h] 2137 594 148 103 728 92 128 782 221 213 765 90 O Base Volume Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Heavy Vehicles Percentage(%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Growth Rate 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1�4 In-Process Volume(veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N V Site-Generated Trips[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 Diverted Trips[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 IV w Pass-by Trips[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 E_ Existing Site Adjustment Volume[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 07 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 t Other Volume[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 07 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 M Right-Turn on Red Volume[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 Q Total Hourly Volume[veh/h] 213 594 148 103 728 92 128 782 221 213 765 90 Peak Hour Factor 0.9468 0.9468 0.9468 0.9468 0.9468 0.9468 0.9468 0.9468 0.9468 0.9468 0.9468 0.9468 E Other Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 v Total 15-Minute Volume[veh/h] 56 157 39 27 192 24 34 206 58 56 202 24 Total Analysis Volume[veh/h] 225 627 156 109 769 97 135 826 233 225 808 95 Q Presence of On-Street Parking No No No No No No No No On-Street Parking Maneuver Rate[/h] - Local Bus Stopping Rate[/h] 0 0 0 0 Pedestrian Volume[ped/h] 0 0 0 0 Bicycle Volume[bicycles/h] 0 0 0 0 KUNZMAN A5socIATE5,INC. 4/8/2016 Packet Pg. 1119 6.B.h Generated with r Mik Waterman Industrial Center Version 4.00-00 Scenario 1: 1: PMOYCP Intersection Settings Located in CBD No Signal Coordination Group Cycle Length[s] 65 Coordination Type Time of Day Pattern Isolated Actuation Type Fully actuated Offset[s] 0.0 Offset Reference LeadGreen Permissive Mode SingleBand Lost time[s] 8.00 Phasing&Timing Control Type Protecte Permiss Permiss Protecte Permiss Permiss Protecte Permiss Permiss MLead Permiss Signal group 5 2 1 6 3 8 0 Auxiliary Signal Groups T" T Lead/Lag Lead Lead Lead CL Minimum Green[s] 5 5 5 5 0 5 5 0 u (9 Maximum Green[s] 30 30 30 30 30 30 0 30 30 0 00 Amber[s] 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 0.0 3.0 3.0 0.0 dam' Allred[s] 1.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 J.0 1.0 1.0 Split[s] 13 22 10 19 13 20 13 20 0 Q Vehicle Extension[s] 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 u.0 3.0 3.0 0.0 'U Walk[s] 5 5 0 5 0 5 Pedestrian Clearance[s] 0 10 0 =J 10 0 10 0 10 11,Start-Up Lost Time[s] 2.0 2.0 0 ! 2.0 2.0 0.0 2.0 2.0 0.0 2.0 2.0 0.0 U a 12,Clearance Lost Time[s] 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 0.0 2.0 2.0 3 0 2.0 2.0 0.0 ' Minimum Recall No No No No No No No No Maximum Recall No No No No No No No No d Pedestrian Recall No No No No No No No No U M Detector Location[ft] J O,U u.0 U.0 0.0 y Q Detector Length[ft] 0 0 0.0 0.0 I,Upstream Filtering Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 N Exclusive Pedestrian Phase U Pedestrian Signal Group 0 Pedestrian Walk[s] 0 Q Pedestrian Clearance[s] 0 KUNZMAN ASSOCIATES,INC. 4/8/2016 Packet Pg. 1120 Generated with Waterman Industrial Center Version 4.00-00 Scenario 1: 1:PMOYCP Lane Group Calculations Lane Group L I C R L I C R L I C R L C I R L,Total Lost Time per Cycle[s] 4..007 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 11p,Permitted Start-Up Lost Time[s] 12,Clearance Lost Time[s] 2.00 1 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 g_i,Effective Green Time[s] 9 19 19 5 15 15 6 16 16 9 19 19 g/C,Green/Cycle 0.14 0.29 0.29 0.08 0.23 0.23 0.10 0.25 0.25 0.14 0.29 0.29 (v/s)_i Volume/Saturation Flow Rate 0.12 0.17 0.10 0.06 0.21 0.06 0.07 0.23 0.14 0.12 0.22 0.06 s,saturation flow rate[veh/h] 1810 3618 1615 1810 3618 1615 1810 3618 1615 1810 3618 1615 c,Capacity[veh/h] 251 1061 474 141 841 376 173 884 395 251 1039 464 d1,Uniform Delay[s] 27.56 19.64 17.97 29.43 24.32 20.38 28.73 24.06 21.70 27.56 21.28 17.56 k,delay calibration 0.29 0.50 0.50 0.11 0.50 0.50 0.11 0.11 0.13 0.29 0.11 0.11 I,Upstream Filtering Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 N d2,Incremental Delay[s] 24.13 2.42 1.85 8.74 16.07 1.66 7.36 5.32 1.63 24.13 1.30 0.22 d3,Initial Queue Delay[s] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Rp,platoon ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Q PF,progression factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 00 Lane Group Results "tr X,volume/capacity 0.90 0.59 0.33 0.77 0.91 0.26 0.78 0.93 0.59 0.90 0.78 0.20 d,Delay for Lane Group[s/veh] 51.69 22.06 19.83 38.17 40.40 22.04 36.09 29.38 23.33 51.69 22.57 17.78 0 CL Lane Group LOS D C B D D C D C C D C B Critical Lane Group Yes No No No Yes No No Yes No Yes No No t�0 50th-Percentile Queue Length[veh] 4.70 3.76 1.79 1.83 6.80 1.21 2.25 6.16 2.98 4.82 5.14 0.99 N 50th-Percentile Queue Length[ft] 117.59 94.06 44.87 45.85 170.04 30.34 56.26 154.07 74.55 120.52 128.47 24.72 d 95th-Percentile Queue Length[veh] 8.26 6.77 3.23 3.30 11.08 2.18 4.05 10.23 5.37 8.42 1 8.86 1.78 d 95th-Percentile Queue Length[ft] 206.52 169.32 80.77 82.53 276.96 54.62 101.27 255.85 134.19 210.54 221.42 44.49 = d E s Q c m E U R .Fw Q KuNZMAN AssocIATES,INC., 4/8/2016 Packet Pg.1121 6.B.h Generated with M Waterman Industrial Center Version 4.00-00 Scenario 1:1:PMOYCP Movement,Approach,&Intersection Results d_M,Delay for Movement[s/veh] 51.69 22.06 19.83 38.17 40.40 22.04 36.09 29.38 23.33 51.69 22.57 17.78 Movement LOS D C B D D C D C C D C B d_A,Approach Delay[s/veh] 28.33 38.32 28.96 27.98 Approach LOS C D C C d I,Intersection Delay[s/veh] 30.67 Intersection LOS C Intersection V/C 0.786 Sequence Ring 1 1 2 3 4 - - - - - - - - - - - - Ring 2 5 6 7 8 - - - - - - - - - - - - N Ring 3 - - - - Ring 4 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - �a j1h t9 u7 O AF A C. d to N U a v c as E v m Q c aD E t �a w Q KUNZIUAN AssocIATES,INC. 4/8/2016 Packet Pg. 1122 Generated with GM Waterman Industrial Center Version 4.00-00 Scenario 1: 1:PMOYCP Intersection Level Of Service Report Intersection 6:Waterman Ave(NS)at Dumas St(EW) Control Type: Two-way stop Delay(sec/veh): 23.8 Analysis Method: HCM 2010 Level Of Service: C Analysis Period: 15 minutes Volume to Capacity(v/c): 0.025 Intersection Setup Name Waterman Ave Waterman Ave Dumas St Approach Northbound Southbound Eastbound Lane Configuration -I i I I i r Turning Movement Left Thru Thru Right Left Right Lane Width[ft] 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 No.of Lanes in Pocket 1 0 0 0 Pocket Length[ft] 111.00 C Speed[mph] 50.00 50.00 30.00 6 r Grade[%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 Q Crosswalk No No No C9 tw7 volumes 00 Name Waterman Ave Waterman Ave Dumas St Base Volume Input[veh/h] 8 968 1189 14 5 18 O Base Volume Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 C Heavy Vehicles Percentage[%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Growth Rate 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 c�4 In-Process Volume[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 U Site-Generated Trips[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 �- Diverted Trips[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 '1 Pass-by Trips[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 C d Existing Site Adjustment Volume[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 t Other Volume[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 U M Total Hourly Volume[veh/h] 8 968 1189 14 5 18 Q Peak Hour Factor 0.9233 0.9233 0.9233 0.9233 0.9233 0.9233 Other Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 E Total 15-Minute Volume[veh/h] 2 262 322 4 1 5 v Total Analysis Volume[veh/h] 9 1048 1288 15 5 19 +�M Q Pedestrian Volume[ped/h] KUNZMAN ASSOCIATES,INC. 4/8/2016 Packet'Pg. 1123 Generated with Waterman Industrial Center Version 4.00-00 Scenario 1: 1: PMOYCP Intersection Settings Priority Scheme Free Free Stop Flared Lane No Storage Area[veh] Two-Stage Gap Acceptance Yes Number of Storage Spaces in Median 2 Movement,Approach,&Intersection Results V/C,Movement V/C Ratio 0.02 0.02 0.05 d_M,Delay for Movement[s/veh] 11.80 23.75 14.36 Movement LOS B A A A C B 95th-Percentile Queue Length[veh] 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.23 0.23 95th-Percentile Queue Length[ft] 1.27 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.63 5.63 d_A,Approach Delay[s/veh] 0.10 0.00 16.31 c Approach LOS A A C u7 d_I,Intersection Delay[s/veh] 0.21 Q Intersection LOS C LO 00 IT et O CL t0 U CL v c m E t ca a r E U IC a KuNZMAN AswcmTm tNc 4/8/2016 6.B.h Generated with Waterman Industrial Center Version 4.00-00 Scenario 1: 1:PMOYCP Intersection Level Of Service Report Intersection 7:Waterman Ave(NS)at Park Center Circle North(EW) Control Type: Two-way stop Delay(sec/veh): 264.8 Analysis Method: HCM 2010 Level Of Service: F Analysis Period: 15 minutes Volume to Capacity(v/c): 0.000 Intersection Setup Name Waterman Ave Waterman Ave Project Driveway Park Center Circle N Approach Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Lane Configuration -111 r '1 i l r i t I r Turning Movement Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Lane Width[ft] 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 No.of Lanes in Pocket 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 v N Pocket Length[ft] 215.00 p Speed[mph] 50.00 50.00 30.00 30.00 tr) r Grade[%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Q Crosswalk No No Yes No U' volumes co Name Waterman Ave Waterman Ave Project Driveway Park Center Circle N d Base Volume Input[veh/h] -8-T787 2 9 1258 11 38 0 18 9 0 66 O Base Volume Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 N Heavy Vehicles Percentage[%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 IX Growth Rate 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 t`M In-Process Volume[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N U Site-Generated Trips[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 G. Diverted Trips[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 le w Pass-by Trips[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C d Existing Site Adjustment Volume[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 s Other Volume[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 a.+ Total Hourly Volume[veh/h] 8 787 2 9 1258 11 38 0 18 9 0 66 Q Peak Hour Factor 0.9342 0.9342 0.9342 0.9342 0.9342 0.9342 0.9342 0.9342 0.9342 0.9342 0.9342 0.9342 Other Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Total 15-Minute Volume[veh/h] 2 211 1 2 337 3 10 0 5 2 0 18 v Total Analysis Volume[veh/h] 9 842 2 10 1347 12 41 0 19 10 0 71 r Pedestrian Volume[ped/h] 0 Q KUNZMAtJ AssocIATES,INC. 4/8/2016 Packet Pg. 1125 6.B.h Generated with `• Waterman Industrial Center Version 4.00-00 Scenario 1: 1:PMOYCP Intersection Settings Priority Scheme Free Free Stop Stop Flared Lane Storage Area[veh] Two-Stage Gap Acceptance No No Number of Storage Spaces in Median Movement,Approach,&Intersection Results V/C,Movement V/C Ratio 0.02 0.01 0.94 0.00 0.05 0.14 0.00 0.12 d_M,Delay for Movement[s/veh] 12.15 9.55 262.11 264.79 14.40 62.04 99.29 11.98 Movement LOS B A A A A A F F B F F B 95th-Percentile Queue Length[veh] 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.00 3.77 3.77 0.15 0.45 0.45 0.41 95th-Percentile Queue Length[ft] 1.34 0.00 0.00 0.95 0.00 0.00 94.13 94.13 3.71 11.27 11.27 10.26 d_A,Approach Delay[s/veh] 0.13 0.07 183.67 18.16 C Approach LOS A A F C u7 r d_I,Intersection Delay[s/veh] 5.37 Q. Intersection LOS F U LO 00 et 1v O O. O Q' U a v d E t Q c a� E Q KuNZMAN AssocIATES,INC. 4/8/2016 Packet Pg. 1126 6.B.h Generated with ar Waterman Industrial Center 1 Version 4.00-00 Scenario 1: 1: PMOYCP Intersection Level Of Service Report Intersection 8:Waterman Ave(NS)at Park Center Circle South(EW) Control Type: Signalized Delay(sec/veh): 9.6 Analysis Method: HCM 2010 Level Of Service: A Analysis Period: 15 minutes Volume to Capacity(v/c): 0.533 Intersection Setup Name Waterman Ave Waterman Ave Park Center Circle South Park Center Circle South Approach Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Lane Configuration +")l 1 r '1 { 1 r oi® of r Turning Movement Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Lane Width[ft] 12.00 12.00 1 12.00 12.00 1 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 No.of Lanes in Pocket 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Pocket Length[ft] i.00 100.00 100.00 1 i.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.(;,; 0.00 C Speed[mph] 50.00 50.00 30.00 30.00 to Grade[%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 a Crosswalk No Yes Yes Yes 0 L0 volumes 00 cl' Name Waterman Ave Waterman Ave Park Center Circle South Park Center Circle South d Base Volume Input[veh/h] 10 765 21 9 1207 10 1 J 10 178 31 L O Base Volume Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 000c 1 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 C Heavy Vehicles Percentage[%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 ?.OG 0.00 0.00 1 0.00 Growth Rate 1.00 1 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 In-Process Volume[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 U Site-Generated Trips[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (L Diverted Trips[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Pass-by Trips[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 J 0 0 0 0 Existing Site Adjustment Volume[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Other Volume[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 v Right-Turn on Red Volume[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 Q Total Hourly Volume[veh/h] 10 765 21 9 1207 10 1 0 10 178 0 31 Peak Hour Factor 0.9583 0.9583 0.9583 0.9583 0.9583 0.9583 0.9583 0.95E:' 0.9583 0.9583 9583 0.9583 N Other Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.000 1.0000 1.0000 ''0000 1.0000 v Total 15-Minute Volume[veh/h] 3 200 5 2 315 3 0 3 46 0 8 r Total Analysis Volume[veh/h] 10 798 22 9 1260 10 1 10 186 0 32 Q Presence of On-Street Parking No No No No No No No No On-Street Parking Maneuver Rate[/h] J 0 D ,} p 0 Local Bus Stopping Rate[/h] O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Pedestrian Volume[ped/h] 0 0 0 Bicycle Volume[bicycles/h] 0 0 0 0 KLINZ\AAN ASSOCIATES,INC. 4/8/2016 Packet Pg. 1127 10 6.B.h Generated with �� Waterman Industrial Center • Version 4.00-00 Scenario 1: 1: PMOYCP Intersection Settings Located in CBD No Signal Coordination Group Cycle Length[s] 60 Coordination Type Time of Day Pattern Isolated Actuation Type Fully actuated Offset[s] 0.0 Offset Reference LeadGreen Permissive Mode SingleBand Lost time[s] 6.00 Phasing&Timing Control Type Protecte Permiss Permiss Protecte Permiss Permiss Permiss Permiss Permiss Permi,; Permiss Signal group 5 2 1 6 T 3 7 C Auxiliary Signal Groups r Lead/Lag Lead Lead Lead - Lead tts Q Minimum Green[s] 5 5 5 5 5 0 5 _ f9 Maximum Green[s] 30 30 0 30 30 30 30 0 0 Ambers] 307 3.0 0,0 3.0 3.0 3.0 T 3.0 0.0 0.0 All red[s] 1.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 C`:.0 u.0 1.0 J.0 0.0 Split[s] 9 19 9 19 0 32 J 32 Vehicle Extension[s] 3.0 3.0 0.0 3.0 3.0 0 3.0 G-.0 0.0 3.0 0.0 0,0 Walk[s] 0 5 0 5 5 0 0 fir Pedestrian Clearance[s] 0 10 10 ., 10 0 0 11,Start-Up Lost Time[s] 2.0 2.0 0 2.0 2.0 2.0 10 2.0 0.0 0.0 U IL 12,Clearance Lost Time[s] 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 0 2.0 t 7.0 Minimum Recall No No No No No No Maximum Recall No No No No No No Pedestrian Recall No No No No No No U fC Detector Location[ft] #01'..0 0.0 0.0 0 Detector Length[ft] .0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1,Upstream Filtering Factor 00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 N E Exclusive Pedestrian Phase -� Pedestrian Signal Group 0 Q Pedestrian Walk[s] 0 Pedestrian Clearance[s] 0 0 KUNZM,\N ASSOCIATES,INC. 4/8/2016 Packet Pg. 1128 6.B.h Generated with M '= Waterman Industrial Center Version 4.00-00 Scenario 1: 1:PMOYCP Lane Group Calculations Lane Group L I C R L C R L R L R L,Total Lost Time per Cycle[s] 4.00 F 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 11_p,Permitted Start-Up Lost Time[s] 0.00 0.00 2.00 2.00 0.00 12,Clearance Lost Time[s] 0.00T 2.00 2.00 0.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 g_i,Effective Green Time[s] - 407 36 36 40 36 36 12 12 12 12 g/C,Green/Cycle 0.67 1 0.59 0.59 0.67 0.59 0.59 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 (v/s)_i Volume/Saturation Flow Rate 0.02 TO.22 0.01 0.01 0.35 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.13 0.02 s,saturation flow rate[veh/h] 542 3618 1615 767 3618 1615 1440 1615 1440 1615 c,Capacity[veh/h] 450 2151 960 1 620 2147 959 346 312 346 312 d1,Uniform Delay[s] 4.62 6.33 5.00 3.59 7.61 4.99 21.33 19.66 24.48 19.93 k,delay calibration 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.11 0.50 0.50 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 I,Upstream Filtering Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 N d2,Incremental Delay[s] 0.09 0.49 0.04 0.01 1.18 0.02 0.00 0.04 1.29 0.14 9 d3,Initial Queue Delay[s] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 V- Rp,platoon ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 CL to PF,progression factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 LO oD Lane Group Results c!' X,volume/capacity 0.02 0.37 0.02 0.01 0.59 0.01 0.00 0.03 0.54 0.10 d,Delay for Lane Group[s/veh] 4.71 6.82 5.04 3.60 8.79 5.01 21.34 19.70 25.78 20.07 Oa Lane Group LOS A 7 A A A A A C B C C Ix Critical Lane Group Yes No No No Yes No No No Yes No � 50th-Percentile Queue Length[veh] 0.03 1.67 0.08 0.02 3.26 0.04 0.01 0.11 2.50 0.36 50th-Percentile Queue Length[ft] 0.71 41.86 1.96 0.42 81.40 0.89 0.29 2.74 62.62 8.91 V n. 95th-Percentile Queue Length[veh] 0.05 3.01 0.14 0.03 5.86 0.06 0.02 0.20 4.51 0.64 95th-Percentile Queue Length[ft] 1 1.27 1 75.35 3.52 0.75 146.52 1.60 0.52 4.93 112.71 16.04 C d E s U l4 Q C N E t U a. Q KUNZMAN AssociATEs,tNc- 4/8/2016 Packet Pg. 1129 B.B.h Generated with Waterman Industrial Center Version 4.00-00 Scenario 1:1: PMOYCP Movement,Approach,&Intersection Results d_M,Delay for Movement[s/veh] 4.71 6.82 5.04 3.60 8.79 5.01 21.34 19.70 25.78 20.07 Movement LOS A A A A A A C B C C d_A,Approach Delay[s/veh] 6.75 8.73 19.85 24.94 Approach LOS A A B C d_I,Intersection Delay[s/veh] 9.59 Intersection LOS A Intersection V/C 0.533 Sequence Ring 1 1 2 3 - - - - - - - - - - - - - Ring 2 5 6 7 - - - - - - - - - - - - - N Ring 3 - - - - Ring 4 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - u; CL mod t9 LO �r v 0 CL w �o U c Q E s v w a. .r Q E U f6 Q KIINZMAN Assoc]ATES,INC. 4/8/2016 Packet Pg. 1130 6.B.h Generated with Waterman Industrial Center Version 4.00-00 Scenario 1: 1:PMOYCP Intersection Level Of Service Report Intersection 9:Waterman Ave(NS)at Vanderbilt Way(EW) Control Type: Signalized Delay(sec/veh): 22.9 Analysis Method: HCM 2010 Level Of Service: C Analysis Period: 15 minutes Volume to Capacity(v/c): 0.840 Intersection Setup Name Waterman Ave Waterman Ave Vanderbilt Way Vanderbilt Way Approach Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Lane Configuration 1 I l r "11 "1 i r Turning Movement Left Thru Right Left I Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Lane Width[ft] 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 No.of Lanes in Pocket 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 Pocket Length[ft] 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 N 0 Speed[mph] 50.00 50.00 30.00 30.00 LO r Grade[%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Crosswalk No Yes Yes Yes C9 LO volumes 00 Name Waterman Ave Waterman Ave Vanderbilt Way Vanderbilt Way Base Volume Input[veh/h] 44 556 160 191 1169 14 10 4 15 324 2 251 O Base Volume Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 N Heavy Vehicles Percentage[%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Growth Rate 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 M In-Process Volume[veh/h] - 07 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 fn U Site-Generated Trips[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I Diverted Trips[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 'T ++ Pass-by Trips[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Existing Site Adjustment Volume[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Other Volume[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 U Right-Turn on Red Volume[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 l Total Hourly Volume[veh/h] 44 556 160 191 1169 14 10 4 15 324 2 1 251 Peak Hour Factor 0.9266 0.9266 0.9266 0.9266 0.9266 0.9266 0.9266 0.9266 0.9266 0.9266 0.9266 FO.9266 E Other Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 U Total 15-Minute Volume[veh/h] 12 150 43 52 315 4 37 1 4 87 1 68 Total Analysis Volume[veh/h] 47 600 173 206 1262 15 11 4 16 350 2 271 Q Presence of On-Street Parking No No No No No No No No On-Street Parking Maneuver Rate[/h] J 0 0 0 0 Local Bus Stopping Rate[/h] ri 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Pedestrian Volume[ped/h] 0 0 0 Bicycle Volume[bicycles/h] 0 0 0 0 lo KUNZMAN ASSOCIATES,INC. 4/8/2016 Packet Pg. 1131 it 6.B.h Generated with ' w€ Waterman Industrial Center Version 4.00-00 Scenario 1: 1:PMOYCP Intersection Settings Located in CBD No Signal Coordination Group Cycle Length[s] 61 Coordination Type Time of Day Pattern Isolated Actuation Type Fully actuated Offset[s] 0.0 Offset Reference LeadGreen Permissive Mode SingleBand Lost time[s] 6.00 Phasing&Timing Control Type Protecte Permiss Permiss Protecte Permiss Permiss Permiss Permiss Permiss Permiss Permiss Permiss Signal group 5 2 1 6 8 4 CV9 LO Auxiliary Signal Groups r Lead/Lag Lead Lead CL Minimum Green[s] 5 5 5 5 5 0 5 C9 Maximum Green[s] 30 30 0 30 30 0 30 0 30 0 LO 00 Amber[s] 3.0 1 3.0 0.0 3.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 (i.o All red[s] 1.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 0 0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 J.0 i Split[s] 9 19 0 17 27 0 24 0 24 0 Q Vehicle Extension[s] 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 1 0.v 0.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 0.0 Walk[s] 0 5 0 5 7 0 5 0 Pedestrian Clearance[s] 0 10 10 0 0 10 f� 0 10 0 11,Start-Up Lost Time[s] 2.0 2.0 0 2.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 ?.0 0.0 2.0 1.0 C) a 12,Clearance Lost Time[s] 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 10 01, 2.0 0 2.0 0 ' Minimum Recall No No No No No No Maximum Recall No No No No No No N Pedestrian Recall No7 No No No No No -C U RS Detector Location[ft] J.v 0,0 u.0 0,U O.0 0.0 0.0 L a- Detector Length[ft] 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1,Upstream Filtering Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 N E Exclusive Pedestrian Phase ru Pedestrian Signal Group 0 Pedestrian Walk[s] 0 Q Pedestrian Clearance[s] 0 KuNZMAN AssociATES,INC. 4/8/2016 Packet Pg. 1132 Generated with M °M Waterman Industrial Center Version 4.00-00 Scenario 1:1: PMOYCP Lane Group Calculations Lane Group L I C R L C C C L C R L,Total Lost Time per Cycle[s] 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 11_p,Permitted Start-Up Lost Time[s] 2.00 2.00 2.00 _ 12,Clearance Lost Time[s] 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 g_i,Effective Green Time[s] 3 20 20 9 26 26 20 20 20 20 g/C,Green/Cycle 0.05 0.33 0.33 0.14 0.43 0.43 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 (v/s)_i Volume/Saturation Flow Rate 0.03 0.17 0.11 0.11 0.23 0.23 0.09 0.01 0.48 0.17 s,saturation flow rate[veh/h] 1810 3618 1615 1810 3618 1889 333 1414 704 1615 c,Capacity[veh/hl 85 1210 540 259 1558 814 188 129 347 526 d1,Uniform Delay[s] 28.50 16.23 15.17 25.32 12.90 12.90 16.31 30.41 23.95 16.70 k,delay calibration 0.11 0.50 0.50 0.11 0.50 0.50 0.11 0.11 0.50 0.11 1,Upstream Filtering Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 CV d2,Incremental Delay[s] 5.45 1.45 1.56 5.46 1.34 2.55 0.41 0.42 41.33 0.78 9 LO d3,Initial Queue Delay[s] 0.00 0.00 0.00 1 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 M Rp,platoon ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Q- PF,progression factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 00 Lane Group Results d' X,volume/capacity 0.55 0.50 0.32 0.79 0.54 0.54 0.16 0.12 0.97 0.51 d,Delay for Lane Group[s/veh] 33.95 17.69 16.73 30.79 14.24 15.45 16.71 30.83 65.28 17.48 0 CL Lane Group LOS C B B C B B B C E B Critical Lane Group No Yes No Yes No No No No Yes No 50th-Percentile Queue Length[veh] 0.73 2.94 1.69 2.89 3.50 3.92 0.29 0.24 8.72 2.89 N 50th-Percentile Queue Length[ft] 18.17 73.57 42.20 72.36 87.38 98.07 7.27 5.88 217.95 72.35 d 95th-Percentile Queue Length[veh] 1.31 5.30 3.04 5.21 6.29 7.06 0.52 0.42 13.56 5.21 - d' 95th-Percentile Queue Length[ft] 32.71 132.42 75.96 130.25 157.28 176.53 13.08 10.59 339.00 130.23 = d E Q c m E R Q KIWZMAN ASSOCIATES,Inc_ 4/8/2016 Packet Pg. 1133 6.B.h Generated with M '= Waterman Industrial Center Version 4.00-00 Scenario 1: 1:PMOYCP Movement,Approach,&Intersection Results d_M,Delay for Movement[s/veh] 33.95 17.69 16.73 30.79 14.65 15.45 16.71 16.71 16.71 63.73 65.28 17.48 Movement LOS C B B C B B B B B E E B d_A,Approach Delay[s/veh] 18.42 16.90 16.71 43.62 Approach LOS B B B D d_I,Intersection Delay[s/veh] 22.95 Intersection LOS C Intersection V/C 0.840 Sequence Ring 1 1 2 4 - - - - - - - - - - - - - Ring 2 5 6 8 - - - - - - - - - - - - - N Ring 3 - - - - Ring 4 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Lh t9 �� .. . N1 00 q �W 1 0 CL co U a v c a� E cv a E J.d Q E KUNZMAN AssocIATES,INC. 4/8/2016 Packet Pg. 1134 6.B.h Generated with MEM Waterman Industrial Center Version 4.00-00 Scenario 1: 1:PMOYCPi With Improvement: Intersection Level Of Service Report Intersection 7:Waterman Ave(NS)at Park Center Circle North(EW) Control Type: Signalized Delay(sec/veh): 7.5 Analysis Method: HCM 2010 Level Of Service: A Analysis Period: 15 minutes Volume to Capacity(v/c): 2.581 Intersection Setup Name Waterman Ave Waterman Ave Project Driveway Park Center Circle N Approach Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Lane Configuration "111 r -i 11 r I r I r Turning Movement Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Lane Width[ft] 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 No.of Lanes in Pocket 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 Pocket Length[ft] ? _. 215.00 Sur,E,; ,()_(ki C Speed[mph] 50.00 50.00 30.00 30.00 r Grade[%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 D. Crosswalk No No Yes No C9 volumes CCo Name Waterman Ave Waterman Ave Project Driveway Park Center Circle N Base Volume Input[veh/h] - 87 787 2 9 1 1258 11 38 0 18 9 0 66 O Base Volume Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 d Heavy Vehicles Percentage[%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0' Growth Rate 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1 1.00 1.00 1.00 M In-Process Volume[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 U Site-Generated Trips[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (L Diverted Trips[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 "t Pass-by Trips[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 c d Existing Site Adjustment Volume[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 s Other Volume[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 r- Right-Turn on Red Volume[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 Q Total Hourly Volume[veh/h] 8 787 2 9 1258 11 38 0 18 9 0 66 C Peak Hour Factor 0.9342 0.9342 0.9342 0.9342 0.9342 1 0.9342 0.9342 0.9342 0.9342 0.9342 0.9342 0.9342 d E Other Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 v Total 15-Minute Volume[veh/h] 2 1 211 1 2 337 3 10 0 5 2 0 18 Total Analysis Volume[veh/h] 9 842 2 10 1347 12 41 0 19 10 0 71 Q Presence of On-Street Parking No No No No No No No No On-Street Parking Maneuver Rate[/h] Local Bus Stopping Rate[/h] 0 0 0 0 Pedestrian Volume[ped/h] 0 Bicycle Volume[bicycles/h] 0 0 0 0 KLINZMAN AssociATES,INC. 4/7/2016 Packet Pg. 1135 6.B.h Generated with f _ wad Waterman Industrial Center Version 4.00-00 Scenario 1: 1:PMOYCPi With Improvement Intersection Settings Located in CBD No Signal Coordination Group Cycle Length[s] 60 Coordination Type Time of Day Pattern Isolated Actuation Type Fully actuated Offset[s] 0.0 Offset Reference LeadGreen Permissive Mode SingleBand Lost time[s] 6.00 Phasing&Timing Control Type Protecte Permiss Permiss Protecte Permiss Permiss Permiss Permiss Permiss Permiss Permiss Permiss Signal group 5 2 1 6 8 4 0 Auxiliary Signal Groups r Lead/Lag Lead Lead rL Minimum Green[s] __57 5 5 5 5 0 0 5 c Maximum Green[s] 30 30 30 30 30 0 30 0 to 00 Amber[s] 10 1 3.0 3.0 3.0 A ).0 3.0 0.0 3.0 0.0 'T All red[s] 1.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 ).0 0 1.0 0,0 1.0 Split[s] 26 36 9 19 0 15 0 15 Q Vehicle Extension[s] 3.0 T 3.0 0.0 3.0 3.0 0 3.0 0,0 3.0 Walk[s] 5 0 5 0 5 Pedestrian Clearance[s] O 0 "0 10 0 c 10 to 11,Start-Up Lost Time[s] 2.0 2.0 O.0 2.0 2.0 O 2.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 U n. 12,Clearance Lost Time[s] 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 0.0 2.0 0 n 2.0 ' d• Minimum Recall No No No No No No = Maximum Recall No No No I No No No E Pedestrian Recall No No No No No No -C U Rf Detector Location[ft] 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 d Detector Length[ft] 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %.0 I,Upstream Filtering Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 = d E Exclusive Pedestrian Phase L) Pedestrian Signal Group 0 Y Pedestrian Walk[s] 0 Q Pedestrian Clearance[s] 0 KLwzMAN AssocIATES,INC. 4/7/2016 Packet Pg. 1136 6.B.h Generated with =Z= Waterman Industrial Center Version 4.00-00 Scenario 1: 1:PMOYCPi With Improvement Lane Group Calculations Lane Group L I C R L C R C R C R L,Total Lost Time per Cycle[s] 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 11_p,Permitted Start-Up Lost Time[s] 2.00 2.00 12,Clearance Lost Time[s] 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 g_i,Effective Green Time[s] 1 40 40 1 40 40 7 7 7 7 g/C,Green/Cycle 0.01 0.66 0.66 0.01 0.66 0.66 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12 (v/s)_i Volume/Saturation Flow Rate 0.00 0.23 0.00 0.01 0.37 0.01 1.95 0.01 0.59 0.04 s,saturation flow rate[veh/h] 1810 3618 1615 1810 3618 1615 21 1615 17 1615 c,Capacity[veh/h] 25 2393 1068 27 2398 1070 122 200 122 200 d1,Uniform Delay[s] 29.41 4.49 3.45 29.36 5.45 3.45 30.08 23.35 30.07 24.14 k,delay calibration 0.11 0.50 0.50 0.11 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.11 0.50 0.11 I,Upstream Filtering Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 N d2,Incremental Delay[s] 8.71 0.41 0.00 8.29 0.96 0.02 7.25 0.20 1.32 1.06 9 d3,Initial Queue Delay[s] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Rp,platoon ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Q• PF,progression factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 LO 00 Lane Group Results Itt mot' X,volume/capacity 0.36 0.35 0.00 0.37 0.56 0.01 0.34 0.09 0.08 0.35 d,Delay for Lane Group[s/veh] 38.12 4.90 3.45 37.65 6.41 3.47 37.33 23.56 31.39 25.20 0 CL Lane Group LOS D A A D A A D C C C m IX Critical Lane Group Yes No No No Yes No Yes No No No 50th-Percentile Queue Length[veh] 0.17 1.14 0.00 0.19 2.27 0.03 0.83 0.24 0.18 0.93 50th-Percentile Queue Length[ft] 4.37 28.56 0.12 4.73 56.67 0.69 20.70 5.93 4.59 23.28 d 95th-Percentile Queue Length[veh] 0.31 2.06 0.01 0.34 4.08 0.05 1.49 0.43 0.33 1.68 ' et 95th-Percentile Queue Length[ft] 7.86 51.41 0.21 8.52 102.00 1.24 37.26 10.67 8.26 41.90 = d E s ca a E U t6 Q KLINZ1olAN AssocIATES,INC. 4/7/2016 Packet Pg. 1137 6.B.h Generated with Waterman Industrial Center Version 4.00-00 Scenario 1: 1:PMOYCPi With Improvements Movement,Approach,&Intersection Results d_M,Delay for Movement[s/veh] 38.12 1 4.90 1 3.45 37.65 6.41 3.47 37.33 37.33 23.56 3139 31.39 1 25.20 Movement LOS D I A A D A A D D C C C C d_A,Approach Delay[s/veh] 5.25 6.61 32.97 25.96 Approach LOS A A C C d I,Intersection Delay[s/veh] 7.45 Intersection LOS A Intersection V/C 2.581 Sequence Ring 1 1 2 4 - - - - - - - - - - - - - Ring 2 5 6 8 - - - - - - - - - - - - N Ring 3 - - - Ring 4 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - M rL xg ri co L �.4b O CL i U a v c d E t v a >r a KLINzm N AssocIATES,INC. 4/7/2016 Packet Pg. 1138 6.B.h N O LO r cC a C7 �n co It v 0 CL 0 Year 2035 Without Project co cn U a v C (D E s w a c m E t v a 6.B.h Generated with Waterman Industrial Center Version 4.00-00 Scenario 1: 1:AMFY Intersection Level Of Service Report Intersection 1:E Street(NS)at Orange Show Road(EW) Control Type: Signalized Delay(sec/veh): 23.3 Analysis Method: HCM 2010 Level Of Service: C Analysis Period: 15 minutes Volume to Capacity(v/c): 0.500 Intersection Setup Name E Street E Street Orange Show Rd Orange Show Rd Approach Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Lane Configuration "1-11 1 -1-11 1 r '1'111 r 1-111 r Turning Movement Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Lane Width[ft] 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 No.of Lanes in Pocket 2 0 2 1 2 1 2 1 Pocket Length[ft] 300.00 189.00 134.00 217.00 147.00 165.00 103.00 CVC Speed[mph] 40.00 40.00 40.00 40.00 T Grade[%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Q Crosswalk Yes Yes Yes Yes C9 L0 volumes 00 d' Name E Street E Street Orange Show Rd Orange Show Rd 'd' Base Volume Input[veh/h] 110 92 54 78 186 74 238 1098 457 107 466 30 O Base Volume Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Ton 1.0000 1.0000 � Heavy Vehicles Percentage[%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Growth Rate 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 M In-Process Volume[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 V Site-Generated Trips[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 d Diverted Trips[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 IT Pass-by Trips[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 d Existing Site Adjustment Volume[veh/h] o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 t Other Volume[veh/h] 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Right-Turn on Red Volume[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 Q Total Hourly Volume[veh/h] 110 92 54 78 186 74 238 1098 457 107 466 30 Peak Hour Factor 0.9500 0.9500 0.9500 0.9500 0.9500 0.9500 0.9500 0.9500 0.9500 0.9500 0.9500 0.9500 d Other Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 v Total 15-Minute Volume[veh/h] 29 24 14 21 49 19 63 289 120 28 123 8 y Total Analysis Volume[veh/h] 116 97 57 82 196 78 251 1156 481 113 491 32 Q Presence of On-Street Parking No No No No No No No No On-Street Parking Maneuver Rate[/h] Local Bus Stopping Rate[/h] 0 0 0 0 Pedestrian Volume[ped/h] 0 0 0 0 Bicycle Volume[bicycles/h] 0 0 0 0 KUNZMAN ASSOCIATES,INC. 4/8/2016 Packet Pg. 1140 6.B.h Generated with [������� �"a Waterman Industrial Center Version 4.00-00 Scenario 1: 1:AMFY Intersection Settings Located in CBD No Signal Coordination Group Cycle Length[s] 65 Coordination Type Time of Day Pattern Isolated Actuation Type Fully actuated Offset[s] 0.0 Offset Reference LeadGreen Permissive Mode SingleBand Lost time[s] 8.00 Phasing&Timing Control Type Protecte Permiss Permiss Protecte Permiss Permiss Protecte Permiss Permiss Protecte Permiss Permiss Signal group 5 2 1 6 3 8 7 4 CV9 Auxiliary Signal Groups u7 r Lead/Lag Lead - Lead Lead Lead Q Minimum Green[s] 5 5 0 5 5 5 5 5 5 C7 Maximum Green[s] 30 30 0 30 30 30 30 30 30 0 Ambers] 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 0 14r Allred[s] 1.0 1.0 1 1.0 1.0 C.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0 Split[s] 9 19 9 19 18 28 0 9 19 0 0 Vehicle Extension[s] 3.0 3.0 0.0 3.0 3.0 0.0 3.0 3.0 0 3.0 3.0 0 d f1' Walk[s] 5 5 0 5 Pedestrian Clearance[s] t; 10 10 10 0 0 10 u 11,Start-Up Lost Time[s] 2.0 1 2.0 0.0 2.0 2.0 0.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 U a 12,Clearance Lost Time[s] 207 2.0 0 f, 2.0 2.0 .0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 ' d' Minimum Recall No No No No No No No No = Maximum Recall No No No No No No No No Pedestrian Recall No No No No No No No No -� V «s Detector Location[ft] 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 U.0 0.0 0.0 0 Detector Length[ft] 0.0 0.0 -`l 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 Q .r+ 1,Upstream Filtering Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Exclusive Pedestrian Phase Pedestrian Signal Group 0 Pedestrian Walk[s] 0 Q Pedestrian Clearance[s] 0 KUNZMAN AssoclATES,INC. 4/8/2016 Packet Pg. 1141 6.B.h Generated with Waterman Industrial Center Version 4.00-00 Scenario 1: 1:AMFY Lane Group Calculations Lane Group L I C C L C R L I C R L C I R L,Total Lost Time per Cycle[s] 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 11_p,Permitted Start-Up Lost Time[s] 12,Clearance Lost Time(s] 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 g_i,Effective Green Time[s] 4 17 17 4 17 17 7 23 23 4 21 21 g/C,Green/Cycle 0.07 0.27 0.27 0.06 0.26 0.26 0.11 0.36 0.36 0.07 0.32 0.32 (v/s)_i Volume/Saturation Flow Rate 0.03 0.04 0.04 0.02 0.05 0.05 0.07 0.32 0.30 0.03 0.14 0.02 s,saturation flow rate[veh/h] 3514 1900 1674 3514 3618 1615 3514 3618 1615 3514 3618 1615 c,Capacity[veh/h] 240 511 450 213 944 421 372 1292 577 238 1155 516 d1,Uniform Delay[s] 29.23 18.17 18.23 29.44 18.81 18.70 28.04 1977. 19.16 29.24 17.47 15.40 k,delay calibration 0.11 0.50 0.50 0.11 0.50 0.50 0.11 0.11 0.29 0.11 0.11 0.11 I,Upstream Filtering Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 N d2,Incremental Delay[s] 1.50 0.65 0.79 1.14 0.50 0.97 2.13 2.43 8.17 1.46 0.25 0.05 9 d3,Initial Queue Delay[s] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 `- M Rp,platoon ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 C- PF,progression factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 ' LO w Lane Group Results d d' X,volume/capacity 0.48 0.16 0.17 0.39 0.21 0.19 0.67 0.89 0.83 0.47 0.43 0.06 d,Delay for Lane Group[s/veh] 30.73 18.82 19.02 30.58 19.31 19.66 30.17 22.20 27.33 30.70 17.71 15.45 Q Lane Group LOS C B B C B B C C C C B B d i� Critical Lane Group Yes No No No Yes No No Yes No Yes No Na zt: 50th-Percentile Queue Length[veh] 0.86 0.91 0.87 0.61 1.11 0.94 1.84 7.45 6.96 0.84 2.58 0.30 50th-Percentile Queue Length[ft] 21.51 22.79 21.79 15.17 27.63 23.40 46.12 186.17 174.08 20.94 64.49 7.48 V a 95th-Percentile Queue Length[veh] 1.55 1.64 1.57 1.09 1.99 1.68 3.32 11.92 11.29 1.51 4.64 0.54 ' 95th-Percentile Queue Length[ft] 38.72 41.02 39.22 27.31 49.74 42.11 83.01 298.06 282.27 37.69 116.07 1 13.46 N E v .r Q c a> E U f$ Q KuNZMAN ASSOCIATES,INC. 4/8/2016 Packet Pg. 1142 6.B.h Generated with Waterman Industrial Center elk Version 4.00-00 Scenario 1: 1:AMFY Movement,Approach,&Intersection Results d_M,Delay for Movement[s/veh] 30.73 18.86 19.02 30.58 19.31 19.66 30.17 22.20 27.33 30.70 17.71 15.45 Movement LOS C B B C B B C C C C B B d_A,Approach Delay[s/veh] 23.99 21.98 24.57 19.91 Approach LOS C C C B d_I,Intersection Delay[s/veh] 23.28 Intersection LOS C Intersection V/C 0.500 Sequence Ring 1 1 2 3 4 - - - - - - - - - - - - Ring 2 5 6 7 8 - - - - - - - - - - - - N Ring 3 - - - - Ring 4 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - CL u; �a LO lot 0 rL �y 00 6y � �r4 U a c m E s v a d a KUNZMAN AssociATES,INC. 4/8/2016 Packet Pg. 1143 6.B.h Generated with M '= Waterman Industrial Center IleVersion 4.00-00 Scenario 1: 1:AMFY Intersection Level Of Service Report Intersection 2:Washington Ave(NS)at Orange Show Rd(EW) Control Type: Signalized Delay(sec/veh): 19.5 Analysis Method: HCM 2010 Level Of Service: B Analysis Period: 15 minutes Volume to Capacity(v/c): 0.346 Intersection Setup Name Washington Ave Washington Ave Orange Show Rd Orange Show Rd Approach Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Lane Configuration I r i t 111 r i I i r Turning Movement Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Lane Width[ft] 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 No.of Lanes in Pocket 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 Pocket Length[ft] 157.00 166.00 o Speed[mph] 30.00 30.00 40.00 40.00 LO T_ Grade[%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Q Crosswalk Yes Yes Yes Yes C7 LO volumes 00 d' Name Washington Ave Washington Ave Orange Show Rd Orange Show Rd Base Volume Input[veh/h] 10 5 4 8 0 1 11 38 967 70 20 408 12 O Base Volume Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 N Heavy Vehicles Percentage[%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 w Growth Rate 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 r In-Process Volume[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 U Site-Generated Trips[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ly Diverted Trips[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 d Pass-by Trips[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N Existing Site Adjustment Volume[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Other Volume[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 Right-Turn on Red Volume[veh/h] 0 0 0 ? 0 Q Total Hourly Volume[veh/h] 10 5 4 8 0 11 38 967 70 20 408 12 Peak Hour Factor 0.9500 0.9500 0.9500 0.9500 0.9500 0.9500 0.9500 0.9500 0.9500 0.9500 0.9500 0.9500 N Other Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 v Total 15-Minute Volume[veh/h] 3 1 1 2 0 3 10 254 18 5 107 3 Total Analysis Volume[veh/h] 11 5 4 8 0 12 40 1018 74 21 429 13 Q Presence of On-Street Parking No No No No No No No No On-Street Parking Maneuver Rate[/h] 0 Local Bus Stopping Rate[/h] 0 0 0 0 0 Pedestrian Volume[ped/h] 0 0 0 0 Bicycle Volume[bicycles/h] 0 0 0 0 KuNZMAN AssociATES,INC. 4/8/2016 Packet Pg. 1144 6.B.h Generated with Waterman Industrial Center Version 4.00-00 Scenario 1: 1:AMFY Intersection Settings Located in CBD No Signal Coordination Group Cycle Length[s] 65 Coordination Type Time of Day Pattern Isolated Actuation Type Fully actuated Offset[s] 0.0 Offset Reference LeadGreen Permissive Mode SingleBand Lost time[s] 6.00 Phasing&Timing Control Type Permiss Permiss Permiss Permiss Permiss Permiss Protecte Permiss Permiss Protecte Permiss Permiss Signal group 2 6 3 8 7 4 0 Auxiliary Signal Groups to T Lead/Lag Lead Lead Minimum Green[s] J 5 v 5 5 5 5 5 v 0 Maximum Green[s] 0 30 0 0 30 30 30 0 30 30 0 u7 Amber[s] 0.0 3.0 0 0.0 3.0 w.0 3.0 3.0 0.0 3.0 3.0 0.0 All red[s] 0.0 1.0 0 1.0 TO 1.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 Split[s] 0 19 19 0 10 32 9 31 CL Vehicle Extension[s] 0.0 3.0 0.0 3.0 G.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Walk[s] 0 1 5 0 j 5 0 v 5 v 5 Pedestrian Clearance[s] 0 10 0 0 10 0 10 0 10 N 11,Start-Up Lost Time[s] Q,0 2.0 0.0 t,0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 U a 12,Clearance Lost Time[s] 0.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 ' Minimum Recall No No No No No No Maximum Recall No No No No No No P No No No No No No Pedestrian Recall v Detector Location[ft] J.0 u.0 0.0 0.0 O.ii v Detector Length[ft] 0 0,0 0.0 0. I,Upstream Filtering Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 E Exclusive Pedestrian Phase s v Pedestrian Signal Group 0 +� Pedestrian Walk[s] 0 Q Pedestrian Clearance[s] 0 KuNZrnnv Associ RTES,INC. 4/8/2016 Packet Pg. 1145 6.B.h Generated with Waterman Industrial Center Version 4.00-00 Scenario 1: 1:AMFY Lane Group Calculations Lane Group C R C R L I C R L C R L,Total Lost Time per Cycle[s] 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 11_p,Permitted Start-Up Lost Time[s] 2.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 12,Clearance Lost Time[s] 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00 2.00 2.00 0.00 2.00 2.00 g_i,Effective Green Time[s] 30 30 30 30 28 22 22 28 21 1 21 g/C,Green/Cycle 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.42 0.34 0.34 0.42 0.32 0.32 (v/s)_i Volume/Saturation Flow Rate 0.02 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.04 0.28 0.05 0.03 0.12 0.01 s,saturation flow rate[veh/h] 641 1615 539 1615 1116 3618 1615 730 3618 1615 c,Capacity[veh/h] 383 731 354 731 548 1219 544 327 1163 519 d1,Uniform Delay[s] 12.23 9.78 22.56 9.83 11.33 19.93 15.01 13.28 17.01 15.11 k,delay calibration 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 I,Upstream Filtering Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 eV d2,Incremental Delay[s] 0.20 0.01 0.12 0.04 0.06 1.58 0.11 0.08 0.20 1 0.02 u d3,Initial Queue Delay[s] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Rp,platoon ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 CL PF,progression factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 L0 Go Lane Group Results d' X,volume/capacity 0.04 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.07 0.84 0.14 0.06 0.37 0.03 s+ d,Delay for Lane Group[s/veh] 12.44 9.80 22.67 9.87 11.39 21.51 15.12 13.36 17.20 15.13 Q Lane Group LOS B A C A B C B B B B d Critical Lane Group Yes No No No Na Yes No Yes No No tl�: 50th-Percentile Queue Length[veh] 0.13 0.03 0.11 0.09 0.30 6.40 0.69 0.16 2.20 0.12 50th-Percentile Queue Length[ft] 3.36 0.77 2.72 2.32 7.46 159.91 17.20 3.95 55.11 2.99 U 0. 95th-Percentile Queue Length[veh] 0.24 0.06 0.20 0.17 0.54 10.54 1.24 0.28 3.97 0.22 ' 95th-Percentile Queue Length[ft] 6.06 1.39 4.90 4.18 13.42 263.60 30.96 7.11 99.19 5.39 C d E t V ttS w d a: c m E U tC .w Q KUNZMAN ASSOCIATES,INC. 4/8/2016 Packet Pg. 1146 6.B.h Generated with M 'M Waterman Industrial Center Version 4.00-00 Scenario 1: 1:AMFY Movement,Approach,&Intersection Results d_M,Delay for Movement[s/veh] 12.44 12.44 1 9.80 22.67 22.67 9.87 11.39 21.51 15.12 13.36 17.20 15.13 Movement LOS B B F A C C A B C B B B B d_A,Approach Delay[s/veh] 11.91 14.99 20.74 16.97 Approach LOS B B C B d_I,Intersection Delay[s/veh] 19.49 Intersection LOS B Intersection V/C 0.346 Sequence Ring 1 2 3 4 - - - - - - - - - - - - - Ring 2 6 7 8 - - - - - - - - - - - - - N Ring 3 - - - Ring 4 - - - a C7 LO 0 rr t 0 CL m U a v c d E r a a KLIND,AAN ASSOCIATES,INC. 4/8/2016 Packet Pg. 1147 6.B.h Generated with MEM Waterman Industrial Center Version 4.00-00 Scenario 1: 1:AMFY Intersection Level Of Service Report Intersection 5:Waterman Ave(NS)at Orange Show Rd(EW) Control Type: Signalized Delay(sec/veh): 22.1 Analysis Method: HCM 2010 Level Of Service: C Analysis Period: 15 minutes Volume to Capacity(v/c): 0.614 Intersection Setup Name Waterman Ave Waterman Ave Orange Show Rd Orange Show Rd Approach Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Lane Configuration -111 r "111 r "111 r -i 1 i r Turning Movement Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Lane Width[ft] 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 No.of Lanes in Pocket 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 Pocket Length[ft] 298.00 275.00 248.00 258.00 1,61)Ov G Speed[mph] 50.00 50.00 40.00 40.00 6 r Grade[%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Q. Crosswalk Yes Yes Yes Yes C9 is volumes Co Name Waterman Ave Waterman Ave Orange Show Rd Orange Show Rd Base Volume Input[veh/h] 70 7 637 54 71 787 111 196 435 319 94 290 87 O Base Volume Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Heavy Vehicles Percentage[%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Growth Rate 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 M In-Process Volume[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 to V Site-Generated Trips[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 G. Diverted Trips[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 V w Pass-by Trips[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Existing Site Adjustment Volume[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 E Other Volume[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Right-Turn on Red Volume[veh/h] J 0 0 0 0 Q Total Hourly Volume[veh/h] 70 637 54 71 787 111 196 435 319 94 290 1 87 Peak Hour Factor 0.9500 0.9500 0.9500 0.9500 0.9500 1 0.9500 0.9500 0.9500 0.9500 0.9500 0.9500 0.9500 41 E Other Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 v Total 15-Minute Volume[veh/h] 18 168 14 19 207 29 52 114 84 25 76 23 Total Analysis Volume[veh/h] 74 671 57 75 828 117 206 458 336 99 305 92 Q Presence of On-Street Parking No No No No No No No No On-Street Parking Maneuver Rate[/h] '' Local Bus Stopping Rate[/h] 0 0 0 1 0 Pedestrian Volume[ped/h] 0 0 0 0 Bicycle Volume[bicycles/h] 0 0 0 0 KUNZMAN AssociATES,INC. 4/8/2016 Packet Pg. 1148 s.s.n Generated with =z= Waterman Industrial Center Version 4.00-00 Scenario 1: 1:AMFY Intersection Settings Located in CBD No Signal Coordination Group - Cycle Length[s] 60 Coordination Type Time of Day Pattern Isolated Actuation Type Fully actuated Offset[s] 0.0 Offset Reference LeadGreen Permissive Mode SingleBand Lost time[s] 8.00 Phasing&Timing Control Type Protecte Permiss Permiss Protecte Permiss Permiss Protecte Permiss Permiss Protecte Permiss Permiss Signal group 5 2 1 6 3 8 7 4 Auxiliary Signal Groups to T Lead/Lag Lead Lead Lead Lead Q Minimum Green[s] 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 0 6 Maximum Green[s] 30 30 30 1 00 30 30 30 30 30 0 Ambers] 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 0.0 IRt All red[s] 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 Split[s] 9 19 9 19 13 23 9 19 Q Vehicle Extension[s] 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 0.0 Walk[s] 5 5 5 5 0 n Pedestrian Clearance[s] 10 0 10 10 0 10 0 Cn 11,Start-Up Lost Time[s] 2.0 2.0 0.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 0.0 2.0 2.0 0.0 d 12,Clearance Lost Time[s] 2.0 2.0 0.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 0.0 2.0 2.0 0.0 ' d Minimum Recall No No No No No No No No = Maximum Recall No No No No No No No No Pedestrian Recall No No No No No No No No v c� Detector Location[ft] Detector Length[ft] .- 1,Upstream Filtering Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 E Exclusive Pedestrian Phase = U Pedestrian Signal Group 0 Pedestrian Walk[s] 0 Q Pedestrian Clearance[s] 0 KLINZMAN ASSOCIATES,INC. 4/8/2016 Packet Pg. 1149 6.B.h Generated with '• Waterman Industrial Center Version 4.00-00 Scenario 1: 1:AMFY Lane Group Calculations Lane Group L C R L C R L C R L C R L,Total Lost Time per Cycle[s] 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 11_p,Permitted Start-Up Lost Time[s] ! F 12,Clearance Lost Time[s] 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 g_i,Effective Green Time[s] 4 21 21 4 21 21 8 15 15 4 11 11 g/C,Green/Cycle 0.06 0.35 0.35 0.06 0.35 0.35 0.14 0.25 0.25 0.07 0.18 0.18 (v/s)_i Volume/Saturation Flow Rate 0.04 0.19 0.04 0.04 0.23 0.07 0.11 0.13 0.21 0.05 0.08 0.06 s,saturation flow rate[veh/h] 1810 3618 1615 1810 3618 1615 1810 3618 1615 1810 3618 1615 c,Capacity[veh/h] 111 1260 563 112 1262 563 257 909 406 133 659 294 d1,Uniform Delay[s] 27.69 15.72 13.27 27.68 16.58 13.79 25.03 19.36 21.35 27.39 22.02 21.38 k,delay calibration 0.11 0.50 0.50 0.11 0.50 0.50 0.21 0.11 0.18 1 0.11 0.11 0.11 I,Upstream Filtering Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 cV CD d2,Incremental Delay[s] 6.66 1.61 0.36 6.75 2.68 0.84 10.33 0.43 6.89 8.08 0.51 0.60 d3,Initial Queue Delay[s] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Rp,platoon ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1 1.00 1.00 sZ C? PF,progression factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 LO 00 Lane Group Results �Y X,volume/capacity 0.67 0.53 0.10 0.67 0.66 0.21 0.80 0.50 0.83 0.75 0.46 0.31 i d,Delay for Lane Group[s/veh] 34.35 17.33 13.63 34.43 19.26 14.62 35.36 19.79 28.24 35.47 22.53 21.98 Lane Group LOS C B B C B B D B C D C C Ix Critical Lane Group Yes No No No Yes No No No Yes Yes No No t1l: ca 50th-Percentile Queue Length[veh] 1.12 3.19 0.47 1.14 4.26 1.02 3.30 2.46 4.67 1.57 1.77 1.06 Cn 50th-Percentile Queue Length[ft] 28.11 1 79.80 11.84 28.52 106.44 25.52 82.47 61.51 116.73 39.30 44.17 26.42 d 95th-Percentile Queue Length[veh] 202T5.75 0.85 2.05 7.64 1.84 5.94 4.43 8.21 2.83 3.18 1.90 95th-Percentile Queue Length[ft] 50.60 143.64 21.31 51.34 191.05 45.94 148.44 110.72 205.32 70.74 79.50 47.55 N E t v Rf a E a KuNZMAN ASSOCIATES,INC. 4/8/2016 Packet Pg. 1150 Generated with =Z= Waterman Industrial Center Version 4.00-00 Scenario 1: 1:AMFY Movement,Approach,&Intersection Results d_M,Delay for Movement[s/veh] 34.35 17.33 13.63 34.43 19.26 14.62 35.36 19.79 28.24 35.47 22.53 21.98 Movement LOS C B B C B B D B C D C C d_A,Approach Delay[s/veh] 18.64 19.84 25.84 25.01 Approach LOS B B C C d I,Intersection Delay[s/veh] 22.13 Intersection LOS C Intersection V/C 0.614 Sequence Ring 1 1 2 3 4 - - - - - - - - - - - Ring 2 5 6 7 8 - - - - - - - - - - - - N Ring 3 - - - - Ring 4 - - - - CL MINE Ili AV'�'J' P 111''K A W O 1 rL IM a) co U a v c d E v ca Q c a� c� Q KUNZMAN ASSOCIATES,INC. 4/8/2016 Packet Pg. 1151 6.B.h Generated with M Waterman Industrial Center Version 4.00-00 Scenario 1: 1:AMFY Intersection Level Of Service Report Intersection 6:Waterman Ave(NS)at Dumas St(EW) Control Type: Two-way stop Delay(sec/veh): 23.1 Analysis Method: HCM 2010 Level Of Service: C Analysis Period: 15 minutes Volume to Capacity(v/c): 0.034 Intersection Setup Name Waterman Ave Waterman Ave Dumas St Approach Northbound Southbound Eastbound Lane Configuration .111 11 r "r Turning Movement Left Thru Thru Right Left Right Lane Width[ft] 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 No.of Lanes in Pocket 1 0 0 0 Pocket Length[ft] 111.00 - - CD Speed[mph] 50.00 50.00 30.00 LO T_ Grade[%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 M CL Crosswalk No No No C7 volumes coo Name Waterman Ave Waterman Ave Dumas St �? Base Volume Input[veh/h] 4 763 1099 9 7 11 O Base Volume Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 d Heavy Vehicles Percentage[%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Growth Rate 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 tYO In-Process Volume[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cl) U Site-Generated Trips[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 IZ Diverted Trips[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 er Pass-by Trips[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 d Existing Site Adjustment Volume[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 t Other Volume[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total Hourly Volume[veh/h] 4 763 1099 9 7 11 Q Peak Hour Factor 0.9500 0.9500 0.9500 0.9500 0.9500 0.9500 Other Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 d Total 15-Minute Volume[veh/h] 1 201 289 2 2 3 v Total Analysis Volume[veh/h] 4 803 1157 9 7 12 Y Q Pedestrian Volume[ped/h] KIINZNiAN Asso IATES,INC. 4/8/2016 Packet Pg.<1152 6.B.h Generated with =z= Waterman Industrial Center Version 4.00-00 Scenario 1: 1:AMFY Intersection Settings Priority Scheme Free Free Stop Flared Lane No Storage Area[veh] Two-Stage Gap Acceptance Yes Number of Storage Spaces in Median 1 Movement,Approach,&Intersection Results V/C,Movement V/C Ratio 0.01 0.03 0.03 d_M,Delay for Movement[s/veh] 10.98 23.10 13.48 Movement LOS B A A A C B 95th-Percentile Queue Length[veh] 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.19 0.19 95th-Percentile Queue Length[ft] 0.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.74 4.74 d_A,Approach Delay[s/veh] 0.05 0.00 17.02 c Approach LOS A A C to r d_I,Intersection Delay[s/veh] 0.18 fl. Intersection LOS C U 00 Itt ct O CL O 0' tC r U a c aD E t U lC a+ Q C E t V r Q KUNZMAN ASSOCIATES,INC. 4/8/2016 Packet Pg. 1153 6.B.h Generated with Waterman Industrial Center Version 4.00-00 Scenario 1: 1:AMFY Intersection Level Of Service Report Intersection 7:Waterman Ave(NS)at Park Center Circle North(EW) Control Type: Two-way stop Delay(sec/veh): 22.8 Analysis Method: HCM 2010 Level Of Service: C Analysis Period: 15 minutes Volume to Capacity(v/c): 0.005 Intersection Setup Name Waterman Ave Waterman Ave Park Center Circle N Approach Northbound Southbound Westbound Lane Configuration f i r 1 1 i t Turning Movement Thru Right Left Thru Left Right Lane Width[ft] 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 No.of Lanes in Pocket 0 1 0 0 Pocket Length[ft] 215.00 N O Speed[mph] 50.00 50.00 30.00 t0 r Grade[%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 Q Crosswalk No No No 0 volumes ccoo b' Name Waterman Ave Waterman Ave Park Center Circle N Base Volume Input[veh/h] 841 30 83 1019 1 9 1` O Base Volume Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 d Heavy Vehicles Percentage[%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 w Growth Rate 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 N In-Process Volume[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 N U Site-Generated Trips[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 O. Diverted Trips[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 It Pass-by Trips[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 O d Existing Site Adjustment Volume[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 E Other Volume[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total Hourly Volume[veh/h] 841 30 83 1019 1 9 Q Peak Hour Factor 0.9500 0.9500 0.9500 0.9500 0.9500 0.9500 Other Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 O E Total 15-Minute Volume[veh/h] 221 8 22 268 0 2 v Total Analysis Volume[veh/h] 885 32 87 1073 1 9 Q Pedestrian Volume[ped/h] KUNZMAN AssociATES,INC. 4/8/2016 Packet Pg. 1154 6.B.h Generated with = Waterman Industrial Center Version 4.00-00 Scenario 1: 1:AMFY N-ft. Intersection Settings Priority Scheme Free Free Stop Flared Lane Storage Area[veh] Two-Stage Gap Acceptance Yes Number of Storage Spaces in Median 1 Movement,Approach,&Intersection Results V/C,Movement V/C Ratio 0.01 0,00 0.12 0.00 0.02 d_M,Delay for Movement Is/veh] 0.00 0 C10 10.41 22.76 11.44 Movement LOS A A B A C B 95th-Percentile Queue Length[veh] 0.00 0.00 0.39 0.00 0.01 0.05 95th-Percentile Queue Length[ft] 0.00 0.00 9.76 0.00 0.37 1.21 d_A,Approach Delay[s/veh] 0.00 0.78 12.57 c Approach LOS A A B Lr) r d_I,Intersection Delay[s/veh] 0.49 Q Intersection LOS C 0 LO 00 d' d' 1r O SZ d M v CL I c a� E v Y E U N Y KIINZMAN AssocIATES,INC. 4/8/2016 Packet Pg. 1155 6.B.h Generated with Mom Waterman Industrial Center Version 4.00-00 Scenario 1: 1:AMFY Intersection Level Of Service Report Intersection 8:Waterman Ave(NS)at Park Center Circle South(EW) Control Type: Signalized Delay(sec/veh): 5.7 Analysis Method: HCM 2010 Level Of Service: A Analysis Period: 15 minutes Volume to Capacity(v/c): 0.713 Intersection Setup Name Waterman Ave Waterman Ave Park Center Circle South Park Center Circle South Approach Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Lane Configuration -11 1 r "1 1 1 r i r i t Turning Movement Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Lane Width[ft] 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 No.of Lanes in Pocket 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Pocket Length[ft] , 9 Speed[mph] 50.00 50.00 30.00 30.00 LO r Grade[%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Q. Crosswalk No Yes Yes Yes C7 L0 volumes 00 Name Waterman Ave Waterman Ave Park Center Circle South Park Center Circle South Base Volume Input[veh/h] 6 826 187 37 959 14 12 6 12 28 0 12 t O Base Volume Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 r Heavy Vehicles Percentage[%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 W ttZ Growth Rate 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 M m In-Process Volume[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 U Site-Generated Trips[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 IL Diverted Trips[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 r Pass-by Trips[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Existing Site Adjustment Volume[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 E Other Volume[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Right-Turn on Red Volume[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 Q Total Hourly Volume[veh/h] 6 826 187 37 959 14 12 6 12 28 0 12 Peak Hour Factor 0.9500 0.9500 0.9500 0.9500 0.9500 0.9500 0.9500 0.9500 0.9500 0.9500 0.9500 0.9500 O E Other Adjustment Factor 1.0000 70000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 v Total 15-Minute Volume[veh/h] 2 217 49 10 252 4 3 2 3 7 0 3 Total Analysis Volume[veh/h) 6 869 197 39 1009 15 13 6 13 29 0 13 Q Presence of On-Street Parking No No No No No No No No On-Street Parking Maneuver Rate[/h] `! - Local Bus Stopping Rate[/h] 0 0 0 0 Pedestrian Volume(ped/h] 1 0 0 0 Bicycle Volume[bicycles/hl 0 0 0 0 KUNZMAN AssocIATES,INC. 4/8/2016 Packet Pg. 1156 s.B.n Generated with M Waterman Industrial Center Version 4.00-00 Scenario 1: 1:AMFY Intersection Settings Located in CBD No Signal Coordination Group - Cycle Length[s] 62 Coordination Type Time of Day Pattern Isolated Actuation Type Fully actuated Offset[s] 0.0 Offset Reference LeadGreen Permissive Mode SingleBand Lost time[s] 6.00 Phasing&Timing Control Type Protecte Permiss Permiss Protecte Permiss Permiss Permiss Permiss Permiss Permiss Permiss Permiss Signal group 5 2 1 6 8 4 - c Auxiliary Signal Groups "n r Lead/Lag Lead Lead Q Minimum Green[s] 10 10 10 10 10 0 10 C7 Maximum Green[s] 30 30 30 30 30 0 0 30 0 u> co Ambers] 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 0.0 All red[s] 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 Split[s] 9 44 10 45 21 21 0 Vehicle Extension[s] 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 L 3.0 3.0 0.0 0 R' Walk[s] 5 5 5 0 Pedestrian Clearance[s] 0 10 10 10 0 U) 11,Start-Up Lost Time(s] 2.0 2.0 0.0 2.0 2.0 _ 2.0 2.0 0.0 U a 12,Clearance Lost Time[s] 2.0 2.0 0,0, 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 0.0 ' Minimum Recall No No No No No No Maximum Recall No No No No No No Pedestrian Recall No No No No No No v to Detector Location[ft] Detector Length[ft] - + 1,Upstream Filtering Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 y E Exclusive Pedestrian Phase v Pedestrian Signal Group 0 Pedestrian Walk[s] 0 Q Pedestrian Clearance[s] 0 KIINZMAN AssocIATES,INC. 4/8/2016 Packet Pg. 1157 6.B.h Generated with Waterman Industrial Center !� Version 4.00-00 Scenario 1: 1:AMFY Lane Group Calculations Lane Group L C R L C R C R C R L,Total Lost Time per Cycle[s] 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 11_p,Permitted Start-Up Lost Time[s] 0.00 0.00 2.00 2.00 12,Clearance Lost Time[s] 0.00 2.00 2.00 0.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 g_i,Effective Green Time[s] 49 40 40 49 44 44 5 5 5 5 g/C,Green/Cycle 0.79 0.64 0.64 0.79 0.71 0.71 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 (v/s)_i Volume/Saturation Flow Rate 0.01 0.24 0.12 0.05 0.28 0.01 0.05 0.01 0.36 0.01 s,saturation flow rate[veh/h] 647 3618 1615 815 3618 1615 380 1615 80 1615 c,Capacity[veh/h] 609 2316 1034 732 2545 1136 130 138 123 138 d1,Uniform Delay[s] 1.95 5.29 4.58 2.00 3.79 2.76 26.40 26.21 31.04 26.21 k,delay calibration 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.11 0.50 0.50 0.11 0.11 0.50 0.11 I,Upstream Filtering Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 N d2,Incremental Delay[s] 0.03 0.47 0.41 0.03 0.46 0.02 0.51 0.29 4.49 0.29 to d3,Initial Queue Delay[s] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Rp,platoon ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 CL 0 PF,progression factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 O 00 Lane Group Results d' X,volume/capacity 0.01 0.38 0.19 0.05 0.40 0.01 0.15 0.09 0.24 0.09 d,Delay for Lane Group[s/veh] 1.98 5.76 4.99 2.03 4.25 2.78 26.91 26.50 35.53 26.50 Q Lane Group LOS A A A A A A C C D C lY Critical Lane Group Yes No No No Yes No No No Yes No 50th-Percentile Queue Length[veh] 0.00 1.51 0.65 0.01 1.06 0.03 0.27 0.18 0.58 0.18 50th-Percentile Queue Length[ft] 0.12 37.72 16.27 0.15 26.58 0.65 6.65 4.51 14.40 4.51 U 0. 95th-Percentile Queue Length[veh] 0.01 2.72 1.17 0.01 1.91 0.05 0.48 032 1.04 1 0.32 ' d' 95th-Percentile Queue Length[ft] 0.22 67.90 29.28 0.27 47.85 1.18 11.98 8.12 25.92 8.12 d E t U lC r+ Q a+ C E .0 V R a.. Q KUNZLAAN AssocIATES,INC. 4/8/2016 Packet Pg. 1158 6.B.h Generated with Waterman Industrial Center Version 4.00-00 Scenario 1: 1:AMFY Movement,Approach,&Intersection Results d_M,Delay for Movement[s/veh] 1.98 5.76 4.99 2.03 4.25 2.78 26.91 26.91 26.50 35.53 35.53 26.50 Movement LOS A A A A A A C C C D D C d_A,Approach Delay[s/veh] 5.60 4.15 26.75 32.74 Approach LOS A A C C d I,Intersection Delay[s/veh] 5.72 Intersection LOS A Intersection V/C 0.713 Sequence Ring 1 1 2 4 - - - - - - - - - - - - Ring 2 5 6 8 - - - - - - - - - - - - N Ring 3 - - - - LO Ring 4 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - m LO co 0: V/ U a �r c ai E v m Q aD E t 2 Q KUNZMAN Associ Ares,INC. 4/8/2016 Packet Pg. 1159 6.B.h Generated with Waterman Industrial Center Version 4.00-00 Scenario 1: 1:AMFY Intersection Level Of Service Report Intersection 9:Waterman Ave(NS)at Vanderbilt Way(EW) Control Type: Signalized Delay(sec/veh): 20.0 Analysis Method: HCM 2010 Level Of Service: C Analysis Period: 15 minutes Volume to Capacity(v/c): 0.720 Intersection Setup Name Waterman Ave Waterman Ave Vanderbilt Way Vanderbilt Way Approach Northbound Southbound Eastbound W.� tbesltbound Lane Configuration -i l I r "111 i r1 1 r Turning Movement Left7 Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Lane Width[ft] 12.007 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 No.of Lanes in Pocket 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Pocket Length[ft] c Speed[mph] 50.00 50.00 30.00 30.00 LO r Grade(%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Q. Crosswalk No Yes Yes Yes C7 volumes 00 00 It Name Waterman Ave Waterman Ave Vanderbilt Way Vanderbilt Way Base Volume Input[veh/h] 27 720 404 343 735 5 5 3 3 82 1 285 O Base Volume Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 d Heavy Vehicles Percentage[%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Growth Rate 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 R In-Process Volume[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 U Site-Generated Trips[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 IL Diverted Trips[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 'T Pass-by Trips[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Existing Site Adjustment Volume[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 s Other Volume[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 v cv Right-Turn on Red Volume[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 Q Total Hourly Volume[veh/h] 27 720 404 343 735 5 5 3 3 82 1 285 Peak Hour Factor 0.9500 0.9500 0.9500 0.9500 0.9500 0.9500 0.9500 0.9500 0.9500 0.9500 0.9500 0.9500 d Other Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 L U Total 15-Minute Volume[veh/h] 7 189 106 90 193 1 1 1 1 22 0 1 75 M Total Analysis Volume[veh/h] 28 758 425 361 774 5 5 3 3 86 1 300 Q Presence of On-Street Parking No No No No No No No No 1 11 On-Street Parking Maneuver Rate[/h] Local Bus Stopping Rate[/h] 0 0 0 0 Pedestrian Volume[ped/h] 0 0 0 Bicycle Volume[bicycles/h] 0 0 0 0 KUNZMAN AssociAres,INC. 4/8/2016 Packet Pg. 1160 6.B.h Generated with �a",1- ] Waterman Industrial Center Version 4.00-00 Scenario 1: 1:AMFY Intersection Settings Located in CBD No Signal Coordination Group Cycle Length[s] 60 Coordination Type Time of Day Pattern Isolated Actuation Type Fully actuated Offset[s] 0.0 Offset Reference LeadGreen Permissive Mode SingleBand Lost time[s] 6.00 Phasing&Timing Control Type Protecte Permiss Permiss Protecte Permiss Permiss Permiss Permiss Permiss FPermiss Permiss Permiss Signal group 5 2 1 6 8 4 c LO Auxiliary Signal Groups r Lead/Lag Lead Lead - Q Minimum Green[s] 5 5 5 5 j 5 5 0 a Maximum Green[s] 30 30 30 30 30 0 30 0 00 Amber[s] 3.0 3.0 0.0 3.0 3.0 _ 3.0 0.0 3.0 0.0 All red[s] 1.0 1.0 "0 1.0 1.0 0 1.0 5 1.0 0.0 V Split[s] 9 19 22 32 0 0 19 Q 0 19 0 Q Vehicle Extension[s] 3.0 3.0 0.0 3.0 3.0 X1.0 J.0 3.0 -3.0 0,0 3.0 0A 1 Walk[s] 5 0 1 5 5 0 0 5 0 � Pedestrian Clearance[s] 0 0 0 0 10 0 10 o 0 10 0 11,Start-Up Lost Time[s] 2.0 2.0 X1.0 2.0 2.0 .0 0.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 U a 12,Clearance Lost Time[s] 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 0 0.0 2.0 `) ' Minimum Recall No No No No No No = Maximum Recall No No No No No No Pedestrian Recall No No No No No No U f6 Detector Location[ft] 0.0 0.0 OA Q Detector Length[ft] 0.0 0.0 0.0 I, Upstream Filtering Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 E Exclusive Pedestrian Phase Pedestrian Signal Group 0 M Pedestrian Walk[s] 0 Q Pedestrian Clearance[s] 0 KUNZMAN AssociATes,INC. 4/8/2016 Packet Pg. 1161 Generated with M •M Waterman Industrial Center Version 4.00-00 Scenario 1: 1:AMFY Lane Group Calculations Lane Group L I C R L C C C L C R L,Total Lost Time per Cycle[s] 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 11p,Permitted Start-Up Lost Time[s] 2.00 2.00 2.00 12,Clearance Lost Time[s] 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 g_i,Effective Green Time[s] 2 21 1 21 14 33 33 13 13 13 13 g/C,Green/Cycle 0.03 0.35 0.35 0.23 0.55 0.55 0.22 0.22 0.22 0.22 (v/s)_i Volume/Saturation Flow Rate 0.02 0.21 0.26 0.20 0.14 0.14 0.01 0.02 0.04 0.19 s,saturation flow rate[veh/h] 1810 3618 1615 1810 3618 1894 1445 1432 1305 1615 c,Capacity[veh/h] 60 1264 564 421 1986 1040 402 307 403 352 d1,Uniform Delay[s] 28.56 16.10 17.27 22.12 7.12 7.12 18.52 23.27 19.29 22.58 k,delay calibration 0.11 0.50 0.50 0.19 0.50 0.50 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.23 I,Upstream Filtering Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 N d2,Incremental Delay[s] 5.49 2.11 8.99 8.44 0.31 0.60 0.03 0.16 0.14 11.54 d3,Initial Queue Delay[s] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Rp,platoon ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Q- L PF,progression factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 LO Go Lane Group Results a d' X,volume/capacity 0.47 0.60 0.75 0.86 0.26 0.26 0.03 0.11 0.13 0.85 d,Delay for Lane Group[s/veh] 34.05T 18.21 26.26 30.56 7.44 7.72 18.55 23.43 19.43 34.12 Q. Lane Group LOS C B C C A A B C B C Critical Lane Group No No Yes Yes No No No No No Yes It 50th-Percentile Queue Length[veh] 0.44 3.74 5.47 5.06 1.19 1.33 0.12 0.43 0.58 4.88 CO) 50th-Percentile Queue Length[ft] 11.08 93.62 136.74 126.45 29.75 33.21 2.89 10.64 14.40 121.99 V a 95th-Percentile Queue Length[veh] 0.80 6.74 9.31 8.75 2.14 2.39 0.21 0.77 1.04 8.50 ' 95th-Percentile Queue Length[ft] 19.95 168.51 232.63 218.66 53.54 59.78 5.21 19.16 25.93 212.56 d E t V ee .w+ Q C d L v R Q KUNZMAN AssoclATES,INC. 4/8/2016 Packet Pg. 1162 6.B.h Generated with s Waterman Industrial Center Version 4.00-00 Scenario 1: 1:AMFY Movement,Approach,&Intersection Results d_M,Delay for Movement[s/veh] 34.05 18.21 26.26 30.56 7.53 7.72 18.55 18.55 18.55 23.43 19.43 34.12 Movement LOS C B C C A A B B B C B C d_A,Approach Delay[s/veh] 21.40 14.83 18.55 31.18 Approach LOS C B B C d I,Intersection Delay[s/veh] 20.04 Intersection LOS C Intersection V/C 0.720 Sequence Ring 1 1 2 4 - - - - - - - - - - - - Ring 2 5 6 8 - - - - - - - - - - - - - N Ring 3 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - o Ring 4 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - .- i�SP, '.ay ;I�� � 1 BP 0 P. 1 4 n IY t6 U) a v d t v c� d r c E s c� Y d KUNZMAN AssociAIes,INC. 4/8/2016 Packet Pg. 1163 6.B.h Generated with ME=i Waterman Industrial Center Version 4.00-00 Scenario 1: 1:AMFYi With Improvement Intersection Level Of Service Report Intersection 7:Waterman Ave(NS)at Park Center Circle North(EW) Control Type: Signalized Delay(sec/veh): 3.8 Analysis Method: HCM 2010 Level Of Service: A Analysis Period: 15 minutes Volume to Capacity(v/c): 0.336 Intersection Setup Name Waterman Ave Waterman Ave Park Center Circle N Approach Northbound Southbound Westbound Lane Configuration 1 1 r -1 1 r Turning Movement Thru Right Left Thru Left Right Lane Width[ft] 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 No.of Lanes in Pocket 0 1 0 0 Pocket Length[ft] 215.00 N 0 Speed[mph] 50.00 50.00 30.00 u7 r Grade[%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 a Crosswalk No No No C9 volumes coo Name Waterman Ave Waterman Ave Park Center Circle N d Base Volume Input[veh/h] 841 30 83 1019 1 9 O Base Volume Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 N Heavy Vehicles Percentage[%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 I= Growth Rate 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 R In-Process Volume[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0) U Site-Generated Trips[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 d Diverted Trips[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 IT Pass-by Trips[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 d Existing Site Adjustment Volume[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 E Other Volume[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 Right-Turn on Red Volume[veh/h] 0 0 Q Total Hourly Volume[veh/h] 841 30 83 1019 1 9 Peak Hour Factor 0.9500 0.9500 0.9500 0.9500 0.9500 0.9500 d Other Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Total 15-Minute Volume[veh/h] 221 8 22 268 0 2 r Total Analysis Volume[veh/h] 885 32 87 1073 1 9 Q Presence of On-Street Parking No No No No No No On-Street Parking Maneuver Rate[/h] Local Bus Stopping Rate[/h] 0 0 0 Pedestrian Volume[ped/h] Bicycle Volume[bicycles/h] 0 0 0 KUND, N AssocIATES,INC.. 4/7/2016 Packet Pg.1164 6.B.h Generated with Mom Waterman Industrial Center Version 4.00-00 Scenario 1: 1:AMFYi With Improvements Intersection Settings Located in CBD No Signal Coordination Group Cycle Length[s] 60 Coordination Type Time of Day Pattern Isolated Actuation Type Fully actuated Offset[s] 0.0 Offset Reference LeadGreen Permissive Mode SingleBand Lost time[s] 6.00 Phasing&Timing Control Type Permissive Permissive Protected Permissive Permissive Permissive Signal group 2 1 6 7 c 9 Auxiliary Signal Groups to T Lead/Lag - Lead Lead - Q Minimum Green[s] 5 0 5 5 5 0 U Maximum Green[s] 30 0 30 30 30 0 u7 00 Ambers] 3.0 0.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 0.0 All red[s] 1.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 1r Split[s] 15 0 30 45 15 0 0 CL Vehicle Extension[s] 3.0 0.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 0.0 Walk[s] n to Pedestrian Clearance[s] 0 11,Start-Up Lost Time[s] 2.0 _ 2.0 2.0 2.0 0.0 U a 12,Clearance Lost Time[s] 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 0,0 ' d' Minimum Recall No No No No Maximum Recall No No No No E Pedestrian Recall No No No No v Detector Location[ft] 0 0 0 L Q Detector Length[ft] Q J0 0.0 1,Upstream Filtering Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 E Exclusive Pedestrian Phase z L) Pedestrian Signal Group 0 r Pedestrian Walk[s] 0 Q Pedestrian Clearance[s] 0 KUNZMrW AssociATES,INC. 4/7/2016 Packet Pg. 1165 6.B.h Generated with =Z= Waterman Industrial Center ® Version 4.00-00 Scenario 1: 1:AMFYi With Improvements Lane Group Calculations Lane Group C R L C L R L,Total Lost Time per Cycle[s] 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 11_p,Permitted Start-Up Lost Time[s] 12,Clearance Lost Time[s] 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 g_i,Effective Green Time[s] 43 43 4 51 1 1 g/C,Green/Cycle 0.72 0.72 0.06 0.85 0.01 0.01 (v/s)_i Volume/Saturation Flow Rate 0.24 0.02 0.05 0.30 0.00 0.01 s,saturation flow rate[veh/h] 3618 1615 1810 3618 1810 1615 c,Capacity[veh/h] 2604 1162 119 3083 27 24 d1,Uniform Delay[s] 3.13 2.41 27.57 0.93 29.21 29.36 k,delay calibration 0.50 0.50 0.11 0.50 0.11 0.11 I,Upstream Filtering Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 N d2,Incremental Delay[s] 0.36 0.04 8.23 0.31 0.56 9.38 9 d3,Initial Queue Delay[s] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 `- ca Rp,platoon ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Q U' PF,progression factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 u) 00 Lane Group Results d d' X,volume/capacity 0.34 0.03 0.73 0.35 0.04 0.37 t d,Delay for Lane Group[s/veh] 3.48 2.45 35.80 1.25 29.77 38.74 Q Lane Group LOS A A D A C D W Ix Critical Lane Group No No No Yes No Yes R 50th-Percentile Queue Length[veh] 0.63 0.04 1.35 0.13 0.02 0.19 N 50th-Percentile Queue Length[ft] 15.73 1.05 33.81 3.33 0.44 4.64 U 95th-Percentile Queue Length[veh] 1.13 0.08 2.43 0.24 0.03 0.33 ' d• 95th-Percentile Queue Length[ft] 28.32 1.89 60.85 6.00 0.80 8.35 N E s U t0 Q r U f6 Y Q KUNZMAN ASSOCIATES,INC. 4/7/2016 Packet Pg. 1166 i 6.B.h Generated with Waterman Industrial Center Version 4.00-00 Scenario 1: 1:AMFYi With Improvements Movement,Approach,&Intersection Results d_M,Delay for Movement[s/veh] 3.48 2.45 35.80 1.25 29.77 38.74 Movement LOS A A D A C D d_A,Approach Delay[s/veh] 3.45 3.84 37.84 Approach LOS A A D d I,Intersection Delay[s/veh] 3.83 Intersection LOS A Intersection V/C 0.336 Sequence Ring 1 1 2 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Ring 2 - 6 7 - - - - - - - - - - - - N Ring 3 - - - Ring 4 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - _ a 41 o o U IL v c d E t v w a d E a KUNZMAN Assoc 1AIEs,INC. 4/7/2016 Packet Pg. 1167 6.B.h Generated with M 'M Waterman Industrial Center Version 4.00-00 Scenario 1: 1:PMFY Intersection Level Of Service Report Intersection 1:E Street(NS)at Orange Show Road(EW) Control Type: Signalized Delay(sec/veh): 31.8 Analysis Method: HCM 2010 Level Of Service: C Analysis Period: 15 minutes Volume to Capacity(v/c): 0.807 Intersection Setup Name E Street E Street Orange Show Rd Orange Show Rd Approach Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Lane Configuration -1-11 1 "1 i 1 1 r '1-111 r "1-111 r Turning Movement Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Lane Width Ift] 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 No.of Lanes in Pocket 2 0 2 1 2 1 2 1 Pocket Length[ft] 300.00 189.00 134.00 217.00 147.00 165.00 103.00 C Speed[mph] 40.00 40.00 40.00 40.00 u7 T_ Grade[%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Q. Crosswalk Yes Yes Yes Yes U' LO volumes im V' Name E Street E Street Orange Show Rd Orange Show Rd 7 Base Volume Input[veh/h] 533T318 152 181 194 316 128 1018 338 197 1061 54 r- O Base Volume Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 d Heavy Vehicles Percentage[%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Growth Rate 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 In-Process Volume[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 U Site-Generated Trips[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 �- Diverted Trips[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 V r Pass-by Trips[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 d Existing Site Adjustment Volume[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 s Other Volume[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Um Right-Turn on Red Volume[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 Q Total Hourly Volume[veh/h] 533 318 152 181 194 316 128 1018 338 197 1061 54 Peak Hour Factor 0.9500 0.9500 0.9500 0.9500 0.9500 0.9500 0.9500 0.9500 0.9500 0.9500 0.9500 0.9500 O Other Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 v Total 15-Minute Volume[veh/h] 140 84 40 48 51 83 34 268 89 52 279 1 14 y Total Analysis Volume[veh/h] 561 335 160 191 204 333 135 1072 356 207 1117 57 Q Presence of On-Street Parking No No No No No No No No On-Street Parking Maneuver Rate[/h] Local Bus Stopping Rate[/h] 0 0 0 0 Pedestrian Volume[ped/h] 0 0 0 0 Bicycle Volume[bicycles/h] 0 0 0 0 0 KuNZMAN ASsocIATES,INC. 4/8/2016 Packet Pg. 1168 6.B.h Generated with �� � Waterman Industrial Center �a�v �i r Version 4.00-00 Scenario 1: 1: PMFY Intersection Settings Located in CBD No Signal Coordination Group Cycle Length[s] 75 Coordination Type Time of Day Pattern Isolated Actuation Type Fully actuated Offset[s] 0.0 Offset Reference LeaclGreen Permissive Mode SingleBand Lost time[s] 8.00 Phasing&Timing Control Type Protecte Permiss Permiss Protecte Permiss Permiss Protecte Permiss Permiss Protecte Permiss Permiss Signal group 5 2 1 6 3 8 7 4 0 LO Auxiliary Signal Groups Lead/Lag Lead Lead Lead - Lead - fC sZ Minimum Green[s] 5 5 5 5 ? 5 5 0 5 5 0 U' Maximum Green[s] 30 30 a 30 30 30 30 0 30 30 0 LO Amber[s] 3.0 3.0 v.0 3.0 3.0 JA 3.0 3.0 0 3.0 3.0 0.0 Allred[s] 1.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 GA 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 i Split[s] 17 7 24 13 20 0 10 29 9 28 OQ Vehicle Extension[s] 3.0 T 3.0 i 0 3.0 3.0 C}.0 3.0 3.0 0.0 3.0 3.0 D' Walk[s] 5 0 5 0 0 5 0 v 5 0 Pedestrian Clearance[s] 0 10 u 10 0 0 10 0 0 10 0 11,Start-Up Lost Time[s] 2.0 2.0 0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 0.0 2.0 2.0 0.0 U a 12,Clearance Lost Time[s] 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 10 d Minimum Recall No No No No No No No No Maximum Recall NoT No No No No No NOT No Pedestrian Recall No No No No No No No No _ v ca Detector Location[ft] 0,0 0.0 0.0 0 a Detector Length[ft] 0.0 0.0 0 I,Upstream Filtering Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 d Exclusive Pedestrian Phase C v Pedestrian Signal Group 0 r Pedestrian Walk[s] 0 Q Pedestrian Clearance[s] 0 KUNZMAN AssociATES,INC. 4/8/2016 Packet Pg. 1169 s.B.n Generated with = °= Waterman Industrial Center Version 4.00-00 Scenario 1: 1:PMFY Lane Group Calculations Lane Group L C C L C I R L C R I L C R L,Total Lost Time per Cycle[s] 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 11p,Permitted Start-Up Lost Time[s] 12,Clearance Lost Time[s] 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 g_i,Effective Green Time[s] 13 23 23 6 16 16 5 25 25 5 25 25 g/C,Green/Cycle 0.17 0.31 0.31 0.08 0.22 0.22 0.06 0.33 0.33 0.07 0.33 0.33 (v/s)_i Volume/Saturation Flow Rate 0.16 0.14 0.14 0.05 0.06 0.21 0.04 0.30 0.22 0.06 0.31 0.04 s,saturation flow rate[veh/h] 3514 1900 1695 3514 3618 1615 3514 3618 1615 3514 3618 1615 c,Capacity[veh/h] 609 597 532 282 799 357 222 1178 526 235 1192 532 d1,Uniform Delay[s] 30.51 20.48 20.48 1 33.57 24.14 28.69 34.26 24.26 21.90 34.72 24.41 17.49 k,delay calibration 0.11 0.50 0.50 0.11 0.50 0.50 0.11 0.11 0.20 0.11 0.11 0.11 I,Upstream Filtering Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 cV d2,Incremental Delay[s] 6.29 2.33 2.62 2.82 0.77 33.38 2.70 3.11 2.78 10.20 4.24 0.09 ton d3,Initial Queue Delay[s] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 `- cv Rp,platoon ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 r 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Q- C9 PF,progression factor 1700 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 u) 00 Lane Group Results d d' X,volume/capacity 0.92 0.44 0.44 0.68 0.26 0.93 0.61 0.91 0.68 0.88 0.94 0.11 V i d,Delay for Lane Group[s/veh] 36.80 22.81 23.10 36.39 24.91 62.07 36.96 27.38 24.68 44.92 28.66 17.58 Q Lane Group LOS D C C D C E D C C D C B d Critical Lane Group Yes No No No No Yes No Yes No Yes No No = 50th-Percentile Queue Length[veh] 5.17 3.72 3.36 1.71 1.48 8.73 1.22 8.66 5.29 2.11 9.28 0.64 50th-Percentile Queue Length[ft] 129.22 92.89 83.98 42.75 37.05 218.22 30.49 216.40 132.26 52.63 231.93 16.00 U a 95th-Percentile Queue Length[veh] 8.90 6.69 6.05 3.08 2.67 13.57 2.20 13.48 9.06 3.79 14.27 1.15 d• 95th-Percentile Queue Length[ft] 222.43 167.20 151.17 76.94 66.70 339.36 54.89 337.02 226.56 94.73 356.81 28.80 N E s U Q C d E L U fC Q KUNZMAN Associ,n-rES,INC. 4/8/2016 Packet Pg. 1170 6.B.h Generated with M Waterman Industrial Center Version 4.00-00 Scenario 1: 1:PMFY Movement,Approach,&Intersection Results d_M,Delay for Movement[s/veh] 36.80 22.87 23.10 36.39 24.91 62.07 36.96 27.38 24.68 44.92 28.66 17.58 Movement LOS D C C D C E D C C D C B d_A,Approach Delay[s/veh] 30.31 44.92 27.59 30.64 Approach LOS C D C C d I,Intersection Delay[s/veh] 31.76 Intersection LOS C Intersection V/C 0.807 Sequence Ring 1 1 2 3 4 - - - - - - - - - - - - Ring 2 5 6 7 8 - - - - - - - - - - - - N Ring 3 - - - - Ring 4 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - CL � l „]� ,�i Y'tl""I �ii� iii.} 00 t OEM o CL 1f rt °�W rn U a v c m E U l� a d R a KUNZMAN AssocIATES,INC. 4/8/2016 Packet Pg. 1171 6.B.h Generated with Waterman Industrial Center Version 4.00-00 Scenario 1: 1:PMFY O Intersection Level Of Service Report Intersection 2:Washington Ave(NS)at Orange Show Rd(EW) Control Type: Signalized Delay(sec/veh): 17.4 Analysis Method: HCM 2010 Level Of Service: B Analysis Period: 15 minutes Volume to Capacity(v/c): 0.547 Intersection Setup Name Washington Ave Washington Ave Orange Show Rd Orange Show Rd Approach Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Lane Configuration I r i r '111 r -111 r Turning Movement Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Lane Width[ft] 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 T1 2.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 No.of Lanes in Pocket 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 Pocket Length[ft] v 157.00 166.00 Speed[mph] 30.00 30.00 40.00 40.00 u7 r Grade[%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Q. Crosswalk Yes Yes Yes Yes C9 LO volumes 00 d _ Name Washington Ave Washington Ave Orange Show Rd Orange Show Rd Base Volume Input[veh/h] 40 21 19 5 0 15 32 1236 26 14 1175 17 O Base Volume Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 d Aw Heavy Vehicles Percentage[%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Growth Rate 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 R In-Process Volume[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 U 1 U Site-Generated Trips[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (- Diverted Trips[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 V a.+ Pass-by Trips[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O Existing Site Adjustment Volume[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I 0 0 0 0 0 E Other Volume[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 Right-Turn on Red Volume[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 Q Total Hourly Volume[veh/h] 40 21 19 5 0 1 15 32 1236 26 14 1175 17 Peak Hour Factor 0.9500 0.9500 0.9500 0.9500 0.9500 0.9500 0.9500 0.9500 0.9500 0.9500 0.9500 0.9500 E Other Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 v Total 15-Minute Volume[veh/h] 11 6 5 1 0 4 8 325 7 4 309 4 2 Total Analysis Volume[veh/h] 42 22 20 5 0 16 34 1301 27 15 1237 18 Q Presence of On-Street Parking No No No No No No No No On-Street Parking Maneuver Rate[/h] Local Bus Stopping Rate[/h] 0 0 0 0 Pedestrian Volume[ped/h] 0 0 0 0 Bicycle Volume[bicycles/h] 0 0 0 0 0 KuNZn+,w AssocIATES,INC. 4/8/2016 Packet Pg.1172 s.B.n Generated with Waterman Industrial Center Version 4.00-00 Scenario 1: 1:PMFY Intersection Settings Located in CBD No Signal Coordination Group Cycle Length[s] 61 Coordination Type Time of Day Pattern Isolated Actuation Type Fully actuated Offset[s] 0.0 Offset Reference LeadGreen Permissive Mode SingleBand Lost time[s] 6.00 Phasing&Timing Control Type Permiss Permiss Permiss Permiss Permiss Permiss Protecte Permiss Permiss Protecte Permiss Permiss Signal group 2 6 3 8 7 4 0 Auxiliary Signal Groups u> T Lead/Lag Lead Lead R Q Minimum Green[s] 5 5 5 5 5 5 v (� Maximum Green[s] 0 30 0 30 30 30 0 30 30 0 L0 Amber[s] 0.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 J.0 3.0 3.0 J.0 14 All red[s] 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 ?.0 1.0 1.0 10 ' Split[s] 0 19 0 0 19 J 9 32 9 32 0 C Vehicle Extension[s] 0.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 d Walk[s] 0 5 0 5 5 5 0 R Pedestrian Clearance[s] 0 10 v 10 10 u 0 10 0 N 11,Start-Up Lost Time[s] 0 2.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 2.0 2.0 0.0 2.0 2.0 0.0 V a 12,Clearance Lost Time[s] 2.0 7.0 0.0 2.0 °: 2.0 2.0 00 2.0 2.0 L0 d Minimum Recall No No No No No No ++ C Maximum Recall No No No No No No Pedestrian Recall No No No No No No t V Detector Location[ft] 0.0 6.0 0.0 0.0 L.0 c.0 �.0 0.0 0.0 Detector Length[ft] 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 :.0 J.0 Q �.. 1,Upstream Filtering Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Exclusive Pedestrian Phase v Pedestrian Signal Group 0 Pedestrian Walk[s] 0 Q Pedestrian Clearance[s] 0 KUNzmAN ASSOCIATES,INC. 4/8/2016 Packet Pg. 1173 Generated with Waterman Industrial Center Version 4.00-00 Scenario 1: 1:PMFY Lane Group Calculations Lane Group C R C R L C R L I C R L,Total Lost Time per Cycle[s] 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 11_p,Permitted Start-Up Lost Time[s] 2.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 12,Clearance Lost Time[s] 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00 2.00 2.00 0.00 2.00 2.00 g_i,Effective Green Time[s] 22 22 22 22 31 26 26 31 25 1 25 g/C,Green/Cycle 0.36 0.36 0.36 0.36 0.51 1 0.42 0.42 0.51 0.41 0.41 (v/s)_i Volume/Saturation Flow Rate 0.13 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.05 0.36 0.02 0.03 0.34 0.01 s,saturation flow rate[veh/h] 497 1615 340 1615 645 3618 1615 574 3618 1615 c,Capacity[veh/h] 277 583 240 583 358 1528 682 324 1465 654 d1,Uniform Delay[s] 17.29 12.65 25.59 12.62 10.95 15.93 10.37 11.06 16.46 10.95 k,delay calibration 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 I,Upstream Filtering Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 N d2,Incremental Delay[s] 1.95 0.11 0.16 0.09 0.11 1.43 0.02 0.06 1.41 0.02 C? d3,Initial Queue Delay[s] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Rp,platoon ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 CL PF,progression factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 LO 00 Lane Group Results a et X,volume/capacity 0.23 0.03 0.02 0.03 0.09 0.85 0.04 0.05 1 0.84 0.03 1v d,Delay for Lane Group[s/veh] 19.24 12.76 25.75 12.70 11.06 17.36 10.40 11.12 1 17.87 10.97 OQ Lane Group LOS B B C B B B B B B B d Critical Lane Group Yes No No No No Yes No Yes No No 50th-Percentile Queue Length[veh] 0.68 0.18 0.07 0.14 0.19 6.86 0.18 0.08 6.64 0.13 50th-Percentile Queue Length[ft] 16.91 4.47 1.85 3.57 4.63 171.53 4.54 2.03 165.89 1 3.15 d 95th-Percentile Queue Length[veh] 1.22 0.32 0.13 0.26 0.33 11.16 0.33 0.15 10.86 1 0.23 95th-Percentile Queue Length[ft] 30.43 8.05 3.32 6.42 8.33 278.93 8.18 3.65 271.51 5.67 tv E s a E r a KLINZMAN AssocIATES,INC. 4/8/2016 Packet Pg. 1174 6.B.h Generated with =z= Waterman Industrial Center Version 4.00-00 Scenario 1: 1:PMFY Movement,Approach,&Intersection Results d_M,Delay for Movement[s/veh] 19.24 19.24 12.76 25.75 25.75 12.70 11.06 1 17.36 10.40 11.12 17.87 1 10.97 Movement LOS B B B C C B B B B B B B d_A,Approach Delay[s/veh] 17.69 15.81 17.06 17.69 Approach LOS B B B B d I,Intersection Delay[s/veh] 17.36 Intersection LOS B Intersection V/C 0.547 Sequence Ring 1 2 3 4 - - - - - - - - - - - - - Ring 2 6 7 8 - - - - - - - - - - - - N Ring 3 - - - Ring 4 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - c� CL �'W d 6 a ca U a c nD E s U RS Q w C d E t V Q KUNZMAN AssoCIATES,INC. 4/8/2016 Packet Pg. 1175 6.B.h Generated with m Waterman Industrial Center Version 4.00-00 Scenario 1: 1:PMFY 1 Intersection Level Of Service Report Intersection 5:Waterman Ave(NS)at Orange Show Rd(EW) Control Type: Signalized Delay(sec/veh): 36.2 Analysis Method: HCM 2010 Level Of Service: D Analysis Period: 15 minutes Volume to Capacity(v/c): 0.824 Intersection Setup Name Waterman Ave Waterman Ave Orange Show Rd Orange Show Rd Approach Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Lane Configuration "111 r -i i l r -i i t -i 11 r Turning Movement Left7 Thru Right Left I Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Lane Width[ft] 12.00 1 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 No.of Lanes in Pocket 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 Pocket Length[ft] 298.00 = 275.00 248.00 �; 258.00 C Speed[mph] 50.00 50.00 40.00 40.00 tri Grade[%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 O. Crosswalk Yes Yes Yes Yes C9 volumes Co CO d' Name Waterman Ave Waterman Ave Orange Show Rd Orange Show Rd Base Volume Input[veh/h] 261 794 126 115 857 128 170 799 239 164 811 106 O Base Volume Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 C Heavy Vehicles Percentage[%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Growth Rate 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 tea In-Process Volume[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 to U Site-Generated Trips[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 d Diverted Trips[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 eP w Pass-by Trips[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Existing Site Adjustment Volume[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 E Other Volume[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Right-Turn on Red Volume[veh/h] 0 0 J 0 J 0 Q Total Hourly Volume[veh/h] 261 794 126 115 857 128 170 799 239 164 811 106 Peak Hour Factor 0.9500 0.9500 0.9500 0.9500 0.9500 0.9500 0.9500 0.9500 0.9500 0.9500 0.9500 0.9500 Other Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 v Total 15-Minute Volume[veh/h] 69 1 209 33 30 226 34 45 210 63 43 213 28 Total Analysis Volume[veh/h] 275 836 133 1 121 902 135 179 841 1 252 173 854 112 Q Presence of On-Street Parking No No No No No No No No On-Street Parking Maneuver Rate[/h] Local Bus Stopping Rate[/h] 0 0 0 0 Pedestrian Volume[ped/h] 0 0 0 0 Bicycle Volume[bicycles/h] 0 0 0 0 KUNZMAN A5socIATES,INC. 4/8/2016 Packet Pg. 1176 6.B.h Generated with = Waterman Industrial Center Version 4.00-00 Scenario 1: 1:PMFY Intersection Settings Located in CBD No Signal Coordination Group Cycle Length[s] 75 Coordination Type Time of Day Pattern Isolated Actuation Type Fully actuated Offset[s] 0.0 Offset Reference LeadGreen Permissive Mode SingleBand Lost time[s] 8.00 Phasing&Timing Control Type Protecte Permiss Permiss Protecte Permiss Permiss Protecte Permiss Permiss Protecte Permiss Permiss Signal group 5 2 1 6 - 3 8 7 4 t14 0 Auxiliary Signal Groups u_ T Lead/Lag Lead Lead Lead Lead a. Minimum Green[s] 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 0 Maximum Green[s] 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 r,,p 00 Amber[s] 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 C 1* Allred[s] 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Split[s] 16 27 13 24 12 23 12 23 0 CL Vehicle Extension[s] 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Walk[s] 5 5 5 5 Pedestrian Clearance[s] 10 10 10 10 0 N 11,Start-Up Lost Time[s] 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 _ 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 a 12,Clearance Lost Time[s] 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 ' Minimum Recall No No No No No No No No C Maximum Recall No No No No NoT No No No Pedestrian Recall No No No No No No No No -_ V Detector Location[ft] Detector Length[ft] I,Upstream Filtering Factor 1,007 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 = Exclusive Pedestrian Phase v Pedestrian Signal Group 0 Y Pedestrian Walk[s] 0 Q Pedestrian Clearance[s] 0 KLINZMAN ASSOCIATES,L.C. 4/8/2016 Packet Pg. 1177 s.B.n Generated with M 'M Waterman Industrial Center Version 4.00-00 Scenario 1: 1: PMFY Lane Group Calculations Lane Group L C R L C R L C R L C R L,Total Lost Time per Cycle[s] 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 11_p,Permitted Start-Up Lost Time[s] .� 12,Clearance Lost Time[s] 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 g_i,Effective Green Time[s] 12 26 26 6 20 20 8 19 19 8 19 19 g/C,Green/Cycle 0.16 0.34 0.34 0.09 0.27 0.27 0.11 0.25 0.25 0.11 0.25 0.25 (v/s)_i Volume/Saturation Flow Rate 0.15 0.23 0.08 0.07 0.25 0.08 0.10 0.23 0.16 0.10 0.24 0.07 s,saturation flow rate[veh/h] 1810 3618 1615 1810 3618 1615 1810 3618 1615 1810 3618 1615 c,Capacity[veh/h] 2907 1241 554 155 971 434 193 910 406 193 910 406 d1,Uniform Delay[s] 31.21 1 21.06 17.65 33.62 26.74 21.90 33.22 27.39 24.91 33.10 27.52 22.59 k,delay calibration 035T 0.50 0.50 0.11 1 0.50 0.50 0.30 0.11 0.15 0.28 0.11 0.11 I,Upstream Filtering Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 cV d2,Incremental Delay[s] 33.50 2.94 1.02 8.27 16.06 1.87 34.34 4.62 2.20 27.89 5.48 0.36 d3,Initial Queue Delay[s] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 tv Rp,platoon ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 C' PF,progression factor 100 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 LO 00 Lane Group Results mot' X,volume/capacity 0.95 0.67 0.24 0.78 0.93 0.31 0.93 0.92 0.62 0.90 0.94 0.28 d,Delay for Lane Group[s/veh] 64.71 24.00 18.67 41.89 42.80 23.77 67.55 32.01 27.11 60.99 33.00 22.95 0 Lane Group LOS E C B D D C E C C E C C 0' Critical Lane Group Yes No No No Yes No Yes No No No Yes No 50th-Percentile Queue Length[veh] 7.14 5.90 1.59 2.34 9.06 1.91 4.88 7.29 3.90 4.42 7.54 1.51 N 50th-Percentile Queue Length[ft] 178.52 147.39 39.86 58.38 226.42 47.85 121.93 182.27 97.59 110.48 188.39 37.86 d 95th-Percentile Queue Length[veh] 11.52 9.88 2.87 4.20 13.99 3.45 8.50 11.72 7.03 7.87 12.04 2.73 d 95th-Percentile Queue Length[ft] 288.08 246.94 71.74 105.08 349.80 86.13 212.48 292.97 175.66 196.67 300.94 68.15 d E t v y a E U R r Q KLINZIvtAN ASSOCIATES,INC. 4/8/2016 Packet Pg. 1178 6.B.h Generated with Waterman Industrial Center Version 4.00-00 Scenario 1: 1:PMFY Movement,Approach,&Intersection Results d_M,Delay for Movement[s/veh] 64.71 24.00 18.67 41.89 42.80 2177 67.55 32.01 27.11 60.99 33.00 22.95 Movement LOS E C B D D C E C C E C C d_A,Approach Delay[s/veh] 32.43 40.49 36.04 36.27 Approach LOS C D D D d I,Intersection Delay[s/veh] 36.23 Intersection LOS D Intersection V/C 0.824 Sequence Ring 1 1 2 3 4 - - - - - - - - - - - - Ring 2 5 6 7 8 - - - - - - - - - - - - N Ring 3 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - o Ring 4 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - r CL LO _., CL ® m U a a� s v r .r Q m E t Q KUNzmAN AssoctATES,lNc 4/8/2016 Packet Pg. 1179 6.B.h Generated with 8 Waterman Industrial Center Version 4.00-00 Scenario 1: 1:PMFY Intersection Level Of Service Report Intersection 6:Waterman Ave(NS)at Dumas St(EW) Control Type: Two-way stop Delay(sec/veh): 28.0 Analysis Method: HCM 2010 Level Of Service: D Analysis Period: 15 minutes Volume to Capacity(v/c): 0.054 Intersection Setup Name Waterman Ave Waterman Ave Dumas St Approach Northbound Southbound Eastbound Lane Configuration I I I i I r Turning Movement Left Thru Thru Right Left Right Lane Width[ft] 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 No.of Lanes in Pocket 1 0 0 0 Pocket Length[ft] 111.00 C Speed[mph] 50.00 50.00 30.00 LO T" Grade[%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 M CL Crosswalk No No No U LO volumes 00 I' Name Waterman Ave Waterman Ave Dumas St d Base Volume Input[veh/h] 6 1191 1367 14 9 13 O Base Volume Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 d Heavy Vehicles Percentage[%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Growth Rate 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 In-Process Volume[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 U Site-Generated Trips[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 IL Iq Diverted Trips[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 a+ Pass-by Trips[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 d Existing Site Adjustment Volume[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 = Other Volume[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 t0v r Total Hourly Volume[veh/h] 6 1191 1367 14 9 13 Q Peak Hour Factor 0.9500 0.9500 0.9500 0.9500 0.9500 0.9500 C Other Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 O E Total 15-Minute Volume[veh/h] 2 313 360 4 2 3 v Total Analysis Volume[veh/h] 6 1254 1439 15 9 14 r Q Pedestrian Volume[ped/h] a KUNzm N AssocIATES,INC. 4/8/2016 Packet Pg. 1180 Generated with Waterman Industrial Center Version 4.00-00 Scenario 1: 1:PMFY Intersection Settings Priority Scheme Free Free Stop Flared Lane No Storage Area[veh] Two-Stage Gap Acceptance Yes Number of Storage Spaces in Median 2 Movement,Approach,&Intersection Results V/C,Movement V/C Ratio 0.01 0.05 0.04 d_M,Delay for Movement[s/veh] 12.73 28.01 16.02 Movement LOS B A A A D C 95th-Percentile Queue Length[veh] 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.30 0.30 95th-Percentile Queue Length[ft] 0.97 0.00 0.00 0.00 7.46 7.46 d_A,Approach Delay[s/veh] 0.06 0.00 20.72 NC Approach LOS A A C r1> r d_I,Intersection Delay[s/veh] 0.20 C. Intersection LOS D 0 LO 00 �P d' O O. r U) U a C m E v w Q t: c m E Q 1 KuNZ\A,w Assoc]AI es,INC. 4/8/2016 Packet Pg. 1181 rim Generated with Waterman Industrial Center Version 4.00-00 Scenario 1: 1:PMFY Intersection Level Of Service Report Intersection 7:Waterman Ave(NS)at Park Center Circle North(EW) Control Type: Two-way stop Delay(sec/veh): 24.7 Analysis Method: HCM 2010 Level Of Service: C Analysis Period: 15 minutes Volume to Capacity(v/c): 0.057 Intersection Setup Name Waterman Ave Waterman Ave Park Center Circle N Approach Northbound Southbound Westbound Lane Configuration i t -I I I i t Turning Movement Thru Right Left Thru Left Right Lane Width[ft] 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 No.of Lanes in Pocket 0 1 0 0 Pocket Length[ft] 215.00 CV 0 Speed[mph] 50.00 50.00 30.00 LO r Grade(%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 D Crosswalk No No No C7 tr! volumes 00 d Name Waterman Ave Waterman Ave Park Center Circle N d Base Volume Input[veh/h] 960 2 10 1441 10 70 0 Base Volume Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 a + Heavy Vehicles Percentage[%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 IX Growth Rate 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 M In-Process Volume[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 L) Site-Generated Trips[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0- Diverted Trips[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 It Pass-by Trips[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N Existing Site Adjustment Volume[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 t Other Volume[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total Hourly Volume[veh/h] 960 2 10 1441 10 70 Q Peak Hour Factor 0.9500 0.9500 0.9500 0.9500 0.9500 0.9500 Other Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 0 Total 15-Minute Volume[veh/h] 253 1 3 379 3 18 U U Total Analysis Volume[veh/h] 1011 2 11 1517 11 74 Z Q Pedestrian Volume[ped/h] KUNZMAN AssoctATEs,INc. 4/8/2016 Packet Pg. 1182 6.B.h Generated with =z= Waterman Industrial Center Version 4.00-00 Scenario 1: 1:PMFY quo Intersection Settings Priority Scheme Free Free Stop Flared Lane Storage Area[veh] Two-Stage Gap Acceptance Yes Number of Storage Spaces in Median 1 Movement,Approach,&Intersection Results V/C,Movement V/C Ratio 0.02 0.06 0.14 d_M,Delay for Movement[s/veh] 10.28 24.68 13.12 Movement LOS A A B A C B 95th-Percentile Queue Length[veh] 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.18 0.50 95th-Percentile Queue Length[ft] 0.00 0.00 1.21 0.00 4.48 12.41 d_A,Approach Delay[s/veh] 0.00 0.07 14.61 Approach LOS A A B r d_I,Intersection Delay[s/veh] 0.52 M Intersection LOS C U LA 00 mot' d' 1v O CL d Q.' t0 U a c d E m .r a d E Z U a+ .w Q KIWZMAN AssocIATES,INC. 4/8/2016 Packet Pg. 1183 s.6.n Generated with Comma Waterman Industrial Center Version 4.00-00 Scenario 1: 1: PMFY Intersection Level Of Service Report Intersection 8:Waterman Ave(NS)at Park Center Circle South(EW) Control Type: Signalized Delay(sec/veh): 11.7 Analysis Method: HCM 2010 Level Of Service: B Analysis Period: 15 minutes Volume to Capacity(v/c): 0.596 Intersection Setup Name Waterman Ave Waterman Ave Park Center Circle South Park Center Circle South Approach Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Lane Configuration -i i I r -i l I r "1 r oi r Turning Movement Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Lane Width[ft] 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 2.0(' 12.00 12.00 =2.6 12.00 No.of Lanes in Pocket 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Pocket Length[ft] 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 0 Speed[mph] 50.00 50.00 30.00 30.00 LO Grade[%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 a Crosswalk No Yes Yes Yes C7 LO volumes 00 Name Waterman Ave Waterman Ave Park Center Circle South Park Center Circle South d Base Volume Input[veh/h] 24 923 47 23 1328 26 1 11 204 46 O Base Volume Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 o0C', 1.0000 1.0000 9.000:; 1.0000 CL d Heavy Vehicles Percentage[%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 J.09 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 � Growth Rate 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 OC 1.00 1.00 1.Qt 1.00 c�0 In-Process Volume[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 U Site-Generated Trips[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 �- Diverted Trips[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 It Pass-by Trips[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Existing Site Adjustment Volume[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 E Other Volume[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 v Right-Turn on Red Volume[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total Hourly Volume[veh/h] 24 923 47 23 1328 26 1 0 11 204 0 46 Peak Hour Factor 0.9500 0.9500 0.9500 0.9500 0.9500 0.9500 0.9500 0.9500 0.9500 0.9500 19500 0.9500 N E Other Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 v Total 15-Minute Volume[veh/h] 6 243 12 6 349 7 0 0 3 54 0 12 Total Analysis Volume[veh/h] 25 972 49 24 1398 27 1 ( 12 215 0 48 Q Presence of On-Street Parking No No No No No No No No On-Street Parking Maneuver Rate[/h] o 0 0 0 G CJ 0 Local Bus Stopping Rate[/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Pedestrian Volume[ped/h] 0 0 0 0 Bicycle Volume[bicycles/h] 0 0 0 0 KUNZIMAN ASSOCIATES,INC_ 4/8/2016 Packet Pg. 1184 6.B.h Generated with Waterman Industrial Center Version 4.00-00 Scenario 1: 1: PMFY Intersection Settings Located in CBD No Signal Coordination Group Cycle Length[s] 65 Coordination Type Time of Day Pattern Isolated Actuation Type Fully actuated Offset[s] 0.0 Offset Reference LeadGreen Permissive Mode SingleBand Lost time[s] 6.00 Phasing&Timing Control Type Protecte Permiss Permiss Protecte Permiss Permiss Permiss Permiss Permiss Permiss Signal group 5 2 1 6 3 7 Auxiliary Signal Groups P Lead/Lag Lead I Lead Lead Lead Q Minimum Green[s] 5 5 1 5 1 5 5 5 U u 0 Maximum Green[s] 30 30 J 30 30 30 u 0 30 0 0 ao Amber[s] 3.0 3.0 0.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 0.G' 0.0 't All red[s] 1.0 1.0 s.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0,0 1.0 a 0.0 r Split[s] 9 1 19 0 9 19 37 37 0 0 Q Vehicle Extension[s] 30T 3.0 ;.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 0.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 0 Walk[s] 5 5, 5 5 0 0 5 0 0 R Pedestrian Clearance[s] "� 10 0 10 0 0 10 0 0 U) 11,Start-Up Lost Time[s] 2.0 2.0 0.0 2.0 2.0 0.0 2.0 u.0 0,0 2.0 0.G 0,0 U a 12,Clearance Lost Time[s] 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 0.0 ' Minimum Recall No No No No No No Maximum Recall No No No No No No Pedestrian Recall No No No No No No U f6 Detector Location[ft] 0.0 Detector Length[ft] 0.0 0 "'0 0.0 Q .r I,Upstream Filtering Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 � Exclusive Pedestrian Phase Pedestrian Signal Group 0 M Pedestrian Walk[s] 0 Q Pedestrian Clearance[s] 0 KIINZ\AAN Asson gyres,INC. 4/8/2016 Packet Pg. 1185 Generated with MEM Waterman Industrial Center Version 4.00-00 Scenario 1: 1:PMFY Lane Group Calculations Lane Group L C R L C R L R L R L,Total Lost Time per Cycle[s] 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 11_p,Permitted Start-Up Lost Time[s] 0.00 11 1 11 0.00 2.00 2.00 _L0('i 12,Clearance Lost Time[s] 0.00 2.00 2.00 0.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 g_i,Effective Green Time[s] 43 37 37 43 37 37 14 14 14 14 g/C,Green/Cycle 0.66 0.57 0.57 0.66 0.57 0.57 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21 (v/s)_i Volume/Saturation Flow Rate 0.05 0.27 0.03 0.03 0.39 0.02 0.00 0.01 0.15 0.03 s,saturation flow rate[veh/h] 518 3618 1615 695 3618 1615 1440 1615 1440 1615 c,Capacity[veh/h] 407 2081 929 538 2077 927 369 344 369 344 d1,Uniform Delay[s] 6.15 8.03 6.05 4.51 9.61 6.00 21.90 20.30 25.73 20.77 k,delay calibration 0507 0.50 0.50 0.11 0.50 0.50 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 1,Upstream Filtering Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 tV d2,Incremental Delay[s] 0.29 0.76 0.11 0.03 1.76 0.06 0.00 0.04 1.46 0.18 L0 d3,Initial Queue Delay[s] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 `- R Rp,platoon ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Q- PF,progression factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 00 Lane Group Results IT X,volume/capacity 0.06 0.47 0.05 0.04 0.67 0.03 0.00 0.03 0.58 0.14 d,Delay for Lane Group[s/veh] 6.44 8.78 6.16 4.55 11.37 6.05 21.90 20.34 27.18 20.95 Q Lane Group LOS A A A A B A C C C C Q' Critical Lane Group Yes No No No Yes No No No Yes No 50th-Percentile Queue Length[veh] 0.09 2.81 0.22 0.06 4.96 0.12 0.01 0.14 3.16 0.58 50th-Percentile Queue Length[ft] 2.27 70.13 5.61 1.52 124.03 3.06 0.31 3.52 79.03 14.44 d 95th-Percentile Queue Length[veh] 0.16 5.05 0.40 0.11 8.61 0.22 0.02 0.25 5.69 1.04 ' et 95th-Percentile Queue Length[ft] 4.08 126.24 10.10 2.73 215.35 5.50 0.55 6.33 142.26 25.98 E t v ca w Q E M L) Y •4+ Q KLINZMAN ASSOQATES,INC. 4/8/2016 Packet Pg. 1186 6.B.h Generated with '• Waterman Industrial Center ® Version 4.00-00 Scenario 1: 1: PMFY Movement,Approach,&Intersection Results d_M,Delay for Movement[s/veh] 6.44 8.78 6.16 4.55 11.37 1 6.05 21.90 000 20.34 27.18 20.95 Movement LOS A A A A B A C C C C d_A,Approach Delay[s/veh] 8.60 11.16 20.46 26.05 Approach LOS A B C C d_I,Intersection Delay[s/veh] 11.65 Intersection LOS B Intersection V/C 0.596 Sequence Ring 1 1 2 3 - - - - - - - - - - - - - Ring 2 5 6 N LO .- m CL �I k u> 00 v 0 a _ m 5,s ® tCnn U d v c s v c� Q c a� E t c>3 Q KUNZMAN ASSOCIATES,INC. 4/8/2016 Packet Pg. 1187 6.B.h Generated with Waterman Industrial Center Version 4.00-00 Scenario 1: 1:PMFY Intersection Level Of Service Report Intersection 9:Waterman Ave(NS)at Vanderbilt Way(EW) Control Type: Signalized Delay(sec/veh): 34.2 Analysis Method: HCM 2010 Level Of Service: C Analysis Period: 15 minutes Volume to Capacity(v/c): 1.077 Intersection Setup Name Waterman Ave Waterman Ave Vanderbilt Way Vanderbilt Way Approach Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Lane Configuration '111 r i o 1 1 1 r 1 r 1 r Turning Movement Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Lane Width[ft] 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 No.of Lanes in Pocket 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Pocket Length[ft] u: .�,.; :; C Speed[mph] 50.00 50.00 30.00 30.00 LO r Grade[%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Q. Crosswalk No Yes Yes Yes C9 L0 volumes 00 Name Waterman Ave Waterman Ave Vanderbilt Way Vanderbilt Way d, Base Volume Input[veh/h] 52 685 242 253 1266 15 10 5 15 409 3 295 O Base Volume Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 C Heavy Vehicles Percentage[%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Q' Growth Rate 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 M In-Process Volume[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 U Site-Generated Trips[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a Diverted Trips[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 =0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 q r Pass-by Trips[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 Existing Site Adjustment Volume[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 t Other Volume[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Right-Turn on Red Volume[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 Total Hourly Volume[veh/h] 52 685 242 253 1266 15 10 5 15 409 3 295 Peak Hour Factor 0.9500 0.9500 0.9500 0.9500 0.9500 0.9500 0.9500 0.9500 0.9500 0.9500 0.9500 0.9500 O E Other Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 v Total 15-Minute Volume[veh/h] 14 180 64 67 333 4 3 1 4 108 1 78 M Total Analysis Volume[veh/h] 55 721 255 266 1333 16 11 5 16 431 3 311 Q Presence of On-Street Parking No No No No No No No No On-Street Parking Maneuver Rate[/h] Local Bus Stopping Rate[/h] 0 0 0 0 Pedestrian Volume[ped/h] 0 0 0 Bicycle Volume[bicycles/h] 0 0 0 0 KUNZMAN Assoc]ATES,INC, 4/8/2016 Packet Pg. 1188 6.B.h Generated with f� '> Waterman Industrial Center Version 4.00-00 Scenario 1: 1: PMFY Intersection Settings Located in CBD No Signal Coordination Group Cycle Length[s] 60 Coordination Type Time of Day Pattern Isolated Actuation Type Fully actuated Offset[s] 0.0 Offset Reference LeadGreen Permissive Mode SingleBand Lost time[s] 6.00 Phasing&Timing Control Type Protecte Permiss Permiss Protecte Permiss Permiss Permiss Permiss Permiss Permiss Permiss Permiss Signal group 5 2 1 6 8 4 Auxiliary Signal Groups T Lead/Lag Lead Lead - Q Minimum Green[s] 5T 5 5 1 5 1 0 5 5 u (9 Maximum Green[s] 30 1 30 0 30 30 11) 30 0 0 30 0 LO 00 Amber[s] 3.0 3.0 0.0 3.0 3.0 0 3.0 0.0 OA 3.0 0.0 �T Allred[s] 1.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 0 1.0 0:0 0.0 1.0 0.0 Split[s] 9 19 15 25 0 0 26 J 0 26 0 Vehicle Extension[s] 3.0 3.0 0.0 3.0 T3.0 0.0 0 3.0 0.0 u.0 3.0 0.0 Walk[s] 0 0 J 5 0 0 5 0 0 5 0 R Pedestrian Clearance[s] 0 10 0 10 0 10 0 0 10 0 11,Start-Up Lost Time[s] 2.0 2.0 0.0 2.0 2.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 V a -77 12,Clearance Lost Time[s] 2.0 2.0 )_0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 g ' Minimum Recall No No No No No No Maximum Recall NoT No No No No No Pedestrian Recall No No No No No No U Detector Location[ft] 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 Detector Length[ft] 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 - _0 J.0 0.0 I,Upstream Filtering Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 a) N Exclusive Pedestrian Phase U Pedestrian Signal Group 0 Pedestrian Walk[s] 0 Q Pedestrian Clearance[s] 0 KLINZMAN AssocIAT'ES,INC. 4/8/2016 Packet Pg. 1189 6.B.h Generated with M '= Waterman Industrial Center Version 4.00-00 Scenario 1: 1: PMFY Lane Group Calculations Lane Group L C R L C C C L C R L,Total Lost Time per Cycle[s] 4.00 1 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 11_p,Permitted Start-Up Lost Time Is] 2.00 2.00 2.00 12,Clearance Lost Time Is] 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 g_i,Effective Green Time Is] -37 16 16 11 23 23 22 22 22 22 g/C,Green/Cycle 0.05 0.26 0.26 0.18 0.38 0.38 0.37 0.37 0.37 0.37 (v/s)_i Volume/Saturation Flow Rate 0.03 0.20 0.16 0.15 0.24 0.25 0.10 0.01 0.62 0.19 s,saturation flow rate[veh/h] 1810 3618 1615 1810 3618 1888 311 1413 676 1615 c,Capacity[veh/h] 94 940 420 318 1388 724 194 128 366 589 d1,Uniform Delay[s] 27.87 20.58 19.57 23.95 15.14 15.14 15.10 29.96 22.82 15.03 k,delay calibration 011 0.50 0.50 0.25 0.50 0.50 0.11 0.11 0.50 0.11 1,Upstream Filtering Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 N d2,Incremental Delay[s] 5.58 5.96 6.41 12.29 2.26 4.28 0.40 0.34 94.98 0.74 LO d3,Initial Queue Delay[s] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 R Rp,platoon ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 C- 0 PF,progression factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 LO 00 Lane Group Results It X,volume/capacity 0.58 0.77 0.61 0.84 0.64 0.64 0.17 0.10 1.15 0.53 d,Delay for Lane Group[s/veh] 33.45 26.54 25.98 36.24 17.40 19.42 15.50 30.30 117.80 15.77 Q AV, Lane Group LOS C C C D7 B B B C F B � 6' Critical Lane Group No Yes No Yes No No No No Yes No "4,0 50th-Percentile Queue Length[veh] 0.83 4.64 3.34 4.20 4.25 4.84 0.27 0.19 14.70 3.09 50th-Percentile Queue Length[ft] 20.74 115.88 83.53 104.93 106.24 121.09 6.81 4.76 367.43 77.17 a 95th-Percentile Queue Length[veh] 1.49 8.17 6.01 7.55 7.63 8.45 0.49 0.34 22.85 5.56 d' 95th-Percentile Queue Length[ft] 37.33 204.15 150.35 188.87 190.76 211.32 12.26 8.57 571.15 138.91 d E M Q RS Q w C d E t v Y Q KUNZMAN AssocIATES,INC.. 4/8/2016 Packet Pg.1190 6.B.h Generated with =z= Waterman Industrial Center Version 4.00-00 Scenario 1: 1: PMFY Movement,Approach,&Intersection Results d_M,Delay for Movement[s/veh] 33.45 26.54 25.98 36.24 18.08 19.42 15.50 15.50 15.50 115.16 117.80 15.77 Movement LOS C C C D B B B B B F F B d_A,Approach Delay[s/veh] 26.77 21.08 15.50 73.69 Approach LOS C C B E d I,Intersection Delay[s/veh] 34.19 Intersection LOS C Intersection V/C 1.077 Sequence Ring 1 1 2 4 - - - - - - - - - - - - - Ring 2 5 6 8 - - - - - - - - - - - - N Ring 3 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - o Ring 4 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - r CL 00 00 1r 0 a. a� R U a v c m E t U r .F+ a 4; d E a KUNZMAN AssociATES,INC. 4/8/2016 Packet Pg. 1191 Generated with Waterman Industrial Center Version 4 00-00 Scenario 1: 1:PMFYi With Improvements Intersection Level Of Service Report Intersection 7:Waterman Ave(NS)at Park Center Circle North(EW) Control Type: Signalized Delay(sec/veh): 4.3 Analysis Method: HCM 2010 Level Of Service: A Analysis Period: 15 minutes Volume to Capacity(v/c): 0.512 Intersection Setup Name Waterman Ave Waterman Ave Park Center Circle N Approach Northbound Southbound Westbound Lane Configuration f i r .111 *1 r Turning Movement Thru Right Left Thru Left Right Lane Width[ft] 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 No.of Lanes in Pocket 0 1 0 0 Pocket Length[ft] 215.00 N 0 Speed[mph] 50.00 50.00 30.00 U� T Grade[%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 Q. Crosswalk No No No U' volumes 000 Name Waterman Ave Waterman Ave Park Center Circle N S Base Volume Input[veh/h] 960 2 10 1441 10 70 '_ O Base Volume Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 d Heavy Vehicles Percentage[%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Growth Rate 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 In-Process Volume[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 to U Site-Generated Trips[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 G. Diverted Trips[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 Pass-by Trips[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 d Existing Site Adjustment Volume[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 E Other Volume[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 r Right-Turn on Red Volume[veh/h] 0 0 Q Total Hourly Volume[veh/h] 960 2 10 1441 10 70 Peak Hour Factor 0.9500 0.9500 0.9500 0.9500 0.9500 0.9500 d Other Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 = U Total 15-Minute Volume[veh/h] 253 1 3 379 3 18 Total Analysis Volume[veh/h] 1011 2 11 1517 11 74 Q Presence of On-Street Parking No No No No No No On-Street Parking Maneuver Rate[/h] Local Bus Stopping Rate[/h] 0 0 0 Pedestrian Volume[ped/h] .. Bicycle Volume[bicycles/h] 0 0 0 KIINZMAN AssociATES,INC. 4/7/2016 Packet Pg. 1192 6.B.h Generated with Waterman Industrial Center Version 4.00-00 Scenario 1: 1:PMFYi With Improvement: Intersection Settings Located in CBD No Signal Coordination Group Cycle Length[s] 65 Coordination Type Time of Day Pattern Isolated Actuation Type Fully actuated Offset[s] 0.0 Offset Reference LeadGreen Permissive Mode SingleBand Lost time[s] 6.00 Phasing&Timing Control Type Permissive Permissive Protected Permissive Permissive Permissive Signal group 2 1 6 7 fVC Auxiliary Signal Groups r Lead/Lag Lead Lead D. Minimum Green[s] 5 5 5 5 C9 Maximum Green[s] 30 30 30 30 oD Amber[s] 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 U, Iq All red[s] 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1v Split[s] 15 35 50 15 v 0 Vehicle Extension[s] 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 J.,J Walk[s] N Pedestrian Clearance[s] U to 11,Start-Up Lost Time[s] 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 o 0 U 0. 12,Clearance Lost Time[s] 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 ' Minimum Recall No No No No Maximum Recall No No No No Q Pedestrian Recall No No No No -� U f� Detector Location(ft] �"v Detector Length(ft] - 1,Upstream Filtering Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 d E Exclusive Pedestrian Phase Pedestrian Signal Group 0 y Pedestrian Walk[s] 0 Q Pedestrian Clearance[s] 0 KUNZMAN ASSOCIATES,INC. 4/7/2016 Packet Pg. 1193 Generated with M Waterman Industrial Center Version 4.00-00 Scenario 1: 1:PMFYi With Improvements Lane Group Calculations Lane Group C R L C L R L,Total Lost Time per Cycle[s] 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 11_p,Permitted Start-Up Lost Time[s] 12,Clearance Lost Time[s] 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 g_i,Effective Green Time[s] 48 48 1 53 4 4 g/C,Green/Cycle 0.74 0.74 0.01 0.82 0.06 0.06 (v/s)_i Volume/Saturation Flow Rate 0.28 0.00 0.01 0.42 0.01 0.05 s,saturation flow rate[veh/h] 3618 1615 1810 3618 1810 1615 c,Capacity[veh/h] 2669 1191 29 2948 113 101 d1,Uniform Delay[s] 3.11 2.24 31.75 1.92 28.82 30.02 k,delay calibration 0.50 0.50 0.11 0.50 0.11 0.11 I,Upstream Filtering Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 cV d2,Incremental Delay[s] 0.41 0.00 8.31 0.65 0.37 9.92 d3,Initial Queue Delay[s] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 ctf Rp,platoon ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 M 0 PF,progression factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 LO 00 Lane Group Results X,volume/capacity 0.38 0.00 0.39 0.51 0.10 0.74 d,Delay for Lane Group[s/veh] 3.52 2.25 40.06 2.57 29.19 39.93 CL Lane Group LOS A A D A C D a' Critical Lane Group No No No Yes No Yes 50th-Percentile Queue Length[veh] 0.80 0.00 0.22 0.26 0.17 1.37 U) 50th-Percentile Queue Length[ft] 19.90 0.07 5.52 6.61 4.19 34.23 V CL 95th-Percentile Queue Length[veh] 1.43 0.00 0.40 0.48 0.30 2.46 ' 95th-Percentile Queue Length[ft] 35.83 0.12 9.94 11.89 7.54 61.62 d E t V cv a E a KUNZMAN ASSOCIATES,INC. 4/7/2016 Packet Pg. 1194 6.B.h Generated with =z= Waterman Industrial Center Version 4.00-00 Scenario 1: 1:PMFYi With Improvement: Movement,Approach,&Intersection Results d_M,Delay for Movement[s/veh] 3.52 2.25 40.06 2.57 29.19 39.93 Movement LOS A A D A C D d_A,Approach Delay[s/veh] 3.52 2.84 38.54 Approach LOS A A D d_I,Intersection Delay[s/veh] 4.26 Intersection LOS A Intersection V/C 0.512 Sequence Ring 1 1 2 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Ring 2 - 6 7 - - - - - - - - - - - - - N Ring 3 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - o Ring 4 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - .- CL b 9 00 0 CL y(D IY U IL _ d E 0 s a E Q Ku NZMAN AssocI RTES,INC. 4/7/2016 Packet Pg. 1195 6.B.h N O LO T- R Q LO co d' �P 0 CL 0) Year 2035 With Project V co a v a� E .c Y Q C a) E V Q Packet Pg. 1196 6.B.h Generated with ME= Waterman Industrial Center Version 4.00-00 Scenario 1: 1:AMFYP Intersection Level Of Service Report Intersection 1: E Street(NS)at Orange Show Road(EW) Control Type: Signalized Delay(sec/veh): 23.1 Analysis Method: HCM 2010 Level Of Service: C Analysis Period: 15 minutes Volume to Capacity(v/c): 0.511 Intersection Setup Name E Street E Street Orange Show Rd Orange Show Rd Approach Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Lane Configuration 1-1 1 � '1"111 r 1'1 i l r "1-i i i r Turning Movement Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Lane Width[ft] 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 No.of Lanes in Pocket 2 0 2 1 2 1 2 1 Pocket Length[ft] 300.00 189.00 134.00 217.00 147.00 165.00 103.00 0 Speed[mph] 40.00 40.00 40.00 40.00 Grade[%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Q Crosswalk Yes Yes Yes Yes C9 LO volumes 00 Name E Street E Street Orange Show Rd Orange Show Rd d Base Volume Input[veh/h] 110 92 54 78 186 74 238 1129 457 107 477 30 O Base Volume Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 N Heavy Vehicles Percentage[%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 IY Growth Rate 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 In-Process Volume[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 to U Site-Generated Trips[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O. Diverted Trips[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 It Pass-by Trips[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Existing Site Adjustment Volume[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 E Other Volume[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 v CU Right-Turn on Red Volume[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 Total Hourly Volume[veh/h] 110 92 54 78 186 74 238 1129 457 107 477 30 Peak Hour Factor 0.9500 0.9500 0.9500 0.9500 0.9500 0.9500 0.9500 0.9500 0.9500 0.9500 0.9500 0.9500 O E Other Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 v Total 15-Minute Volume[veh/h] 29 24 14 21 49 19 63 297 120 28 126 8 y Total Analysis Volume[veh/h] 116 97 57 82 196 78 251 1188 481 113 502 32 Q Presence of On-Street Parking No No No No No No No No On-Street Parking Maneuver Rate[/h] 0 Local Bus Stopping Rate[/h] 0 0 0 0 0 Pedestrian Volume[ped/h] 0 0 0 0 Bicycle Volume[bicycles/h] 0 0 0 0 KIWZMAN AssocIATES,INC. 4/8/2016 Packet Pg. 1197 6.B.h Generated with Waterman Industrial Center ® Version 4.00-00 Scenario 1: 1:AMFYP Intersection Settings Located in CBD No Signal Coordination Group Cycle Length[s] 65 Coordination Type Time of Day Pattern Isolated Actuation Type Fully actuated Offset[s] 0.0 Offset Reference LeadGreen Permissive Mode SingleBand Lost time[s] 8.00 Phasing&Timing Control Type Protecte Permiss Permiss Protecte Permiss Permiss Protecte Permiss Permiss Protecte Permiss Permiss Signal group 5 2 1 6 3 8 7 4 0 LO Auxiliary Signal Groups r Lead/Lag Lead Lead Lead Lead M CL Minimum Green[s] 5 5 5 5 _ 5 5 5 5 u 6 Maximum Green[s] 30 30 30 30 J 30 30 30 30 0 � 00 Amber[s] 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 0.0 3.0 3.0 0.0 �T All red[s] 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 TO 1.0 1.0 0.0 Split[s] 9 19 9 19 0 15 28 0 9 22 0 Q Vehicle Extension[s] 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 10 3.0 3.0 0.0 3.0 3.0 0.0 N IX Walk[s] u 5 5 0 5 0 5 0 � Pedestrian Clearance[s] u 10 0 10 0 10 0 10 a) 11,Start-Up Lost Time[s] 2.0 1 2.0 0 2.0 2.0 G,0 2.0 2.0 0,0 2.0 2.0 U a 12,Clearance Lost Time[s] 2-07 2.0 0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 ' d Minimum Recall No No No No No No No No Maximum Recall No I No No No No No No No N Pedestrian Recall No No No No No No No No U Detector Location[ft] 0.0 0.0 1,0 10 0.(i Detector Length[ft] 0.0 !.0 T773 07 J.0 0.0 Q I,Upstream Filtering Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 E Exclusive Pedestrian Phase v Pedestrian Signal Group 0 ,cu Pedestrian Walk[s] 0 Q Pedestrian Clearance[s] 0 KLINZ\4AN ASSOCIATES,INC. 4/8/2016 Packet Pg. 1198 6.B.h Generated with Waterman Industrial Center Version 4.00-00 Scenario 1: 1:AMFYP Lane Group Calculations Lane Group L C C L C I R L C R L C R L,Total Lost Time per Cycle[s] 4007 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 11_p,Permitted Start-Up Lost Time[s] 12,Clearance Lost Time[s] 2.007 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 g_i,Effective Green Time[s] 4 17 17 4 17 Fo 17 7 24 24 4 21 21 g/C,Green/Cycle 0.07 0.26 0.26 0.06 0.25 .2 5 0.10 0.36 0.36 0.07 0.33 0.33 (v/s)_i Volume/Saturation Flow Rate 0.03 0.04 0.04 0.02 0.05 0.05 0.07 0.33 0.30 0.03 0.14 0.02 s,saturation flow rate[veh/h] 3514 1900 1674 3514 3618 1615 3514 3618 1615 3514 3618 1615 c,Capacity[veh/h] 239 500 440 211 923 412 364 1315 587 237 1184 529 d1,Uniform Delay[s] 29.237 18.44 18.49 29.44 19.09 18.97 28.15 19.62 18.76 29.24 17.09 15.01 k,delay calibration 011 0.50 0.50 0.11 0.50 0.50 0.11 0.11 0.29 0.11 0.11 0.11 I,Upstream Filtering Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 N d2,Incremental Delay[s] 1.53 0.68 0.83 1 1.17 0.53 1.02 2.33 2.60 7.32 1.49 0.24 0.05 9 d3,Initial Queue Delay[s] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Rp,platoon ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 C- PF,progression factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 n 00 Lane Group Results Iq X,volume/capacity 0.49 0.16 0.17 0.39 0.21 0.19 0.69 0.90 0.82 0.48 0.42 0.06 d,Delay for Lane Group[s/veh] 30.76 19.12 19.32 30.61 19.61 19.98 30.48 22.22 26.09 30.72 17.33 15.06 0 Lane Group LOS C B B C B B C C C C B B d ® Critical Lane Group Yes No No No Yes No No Yes Na Yes No No M 50th-Percentile Queue Length[veh] 0.86 1 0.92 0.88 0.61 1.12 0.95 1.86 7.68 6.77 0.84 2.60 0.29 50th-Percentile Queue Length[ft] 21.52 23.04 22.03 15.18 27.91 23.66 46.40 191.96 169.34 20.95 65.09 7.35 V CL 95th-Percentile Queue Length[veh] 1.55 1.66 1.59 1.09 2.01 1.70 3.34 12.22 11.04 1.51 4.69 0.53 ' 95th-Percentile Queue Length[ft] 38.73 41.46 39.65 27.32 50.24 42.59 83.52 305.57 276.05 37.70 117.17 13.24 = E .0 v RS Q G d E t v t9 Q KuNZlanu AssociATes,INC.. 4/8/2016 Packet Pg. 1199 6.B.h Generated with M 'M Waterman Industrial Center APmW Version 4.00-00 Scenario 1: 1:AMFYP Movement,Approach,&Intersection Results d_M,Delay for Movement[s/veh] 30.76 19.15 19.32 30.61 19.61 19.98 30.48 22.22 26.09 30.72 17.33 15.06 Movement LOS C B B C B B C C C C B B d_A,Approach Delay[s/veh] 24.18 22.22 24.27 19.56 Approach LOS C C C B d I,Intersection Delay[s/veh] 23.08 Intersection LOS C Intersection V/C 1 0.511 Sequence Ring 1 1 2 3 4 - - - - - - - - - - - Ring 2 5 6 7 8 - - - - - - - - - - - - N Ring 3 - - - - Ring 4 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - c� I O 6 N U a v c a� s v ca a r a KIINZMAN AssocI Ares,INC. 4/8/2016 Packet Pg. 1200 6.B.h Generated with MIM Waterman Industrial Center Version 4.00-00 Scenario 1: 1:AMFYP Intersection Level Of Service Report Intersection 2:Washington Ave(NS)at Orange Show Rd(EW) Control Type: Signalized Delay(sec/veh): 19.9 Analysis Method: HCM 2010 Level Of Service: B Analysis Period: 15 minutes Volume to Capacity(v/c): 0.359 Intersection Setup Name Washington Ave Washington Ave Orange Show Rd Orange Show Rd Approach Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Lane Configuration i t i 1 "11 i t "11 i t Turning Movement Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Lane Width[ft] 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 No.of Lanes in Pocket 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 Pocket Length[ft] i C,'6,0 C Speed[mph] 30.00 30.00 40.00 40.00 L0 r Grade[%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 C. Crosswalk Yes Yes Yes Yes U' LO volumes 00 1* Name Washington Ave Washington Ave Orange Show Rd Orange Show Rd y Base Volume Input[veh/h] 147 6 4 8 2 11 38 986 82 20 415 ff120 O Base Volume Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 N Heavy Vehicles Percentage[%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Growth Rate 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 M In-Process Volume[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 U U Site-Generated Trips[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 d Diverted Trips[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .:r Pass-by Trips[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Existing Site Adjustment Volume[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 s Other Volume[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 U M Right-Turn on Red Volume[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 Q Total Hourly Volume[veh/h] 14 6 4 8 2 11 38 986 82 20 415 12 Peak Hour Factor 0.9500 0.9500 0.9500 0.9500 0.9500 0.9500 0.9500 0.9500 0.9500 0.9500 0.9500 0.9500 d E Other Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 v Total 15-Minute Volume[veh/h] 4 2 1 2 1 3 10 259 22 5 109 3 +�0+ Total Analysis Volume[veh/h] 15 6 4 8 2 12 40 1038 86 21 437 13 Q Presence of On-Street Parking No No No No No No No No On-Street Parking Maneuver Rate[/h] Local Bus Stopping Rate[/h] 0 0 0 1 0 Pedestrian Volume[ped/h] 0 0 0 0 Bicycle Volume[bicycles/h] 0 0 0 0 KUNZMAN AssocIATES,INC. 4/8/2016 Packet Pg. 1201 6.B.h Generated with M Waterman Industrial Center Version 4.00-00 Scenario 1: 1:AMFYP Intersection Settings Located in CBD No Signal Coordination Group Cycle Length[s] 67 Coordination Type Time of Day Pattern Isolated Actuation Type Fully actuated Offset[s] 0.0 Offset Reference LeadGreen Permissive Mode SingleBand Lost time[s] 6.00 Phasing&Timing Control Type Permiss Permiss Permiss Permiss Permiss Permiss Protecte Permiss Permiss Protecte Permiss Permiss Signal group 2 6 3 8 7 4 0 LO Auxiliary Signal Groups r V_ Lead/Lag Lead Lead M CL Minimum Green[s] O 5 _ 5 5 5 5 5 t9 Maximum Green[s] 0 30 s 0 30 30 30 0 30 30 00 Amber[s] 0.0 3.0 O.O 0.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 0.0 3.0 3.0 "CT All red[s] 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 .0 1.0 1.0 '.O 1.0 1.0 L Split[s] 0 19 0 19 0 9 32 0 9 32 OQ Vehicle Extension[s] 0.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 0.0 3.0 10 �"o 10 3.0 _0 d IX Walk[s] 0 5 0 5 0 5 J 5 0 Pedestrian Clearance[s] 0 10 v O 10 10 0 1 10 0 11,Start-Up Lost Time[s] 0.0 2.0 0 0.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 0.0 d 12,Clearance Lost Time[s] O 0 2.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 'rj Minimum Recall No No No No No No Maximum Recall No No No No No No Pedestrian Recall No No No No No No v co Detector Location[ft] 0.0 0,0 0,0 0.0 O.G .O Detector Length[ft] 0.0 O.0 0.0 5.0 1,Upstream Filtering Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 F1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 E Exclusive Pedestrian Phase U Pedestrian Signal Group 0 +�, Pedestrian Walk[s] 0 Q Pedestrian Clearance[s] 0 KUNZMAN ASSOCIATES,INC. 4/8/2016 Packet Pg. 1202 6.B.h Generated with z Waterman Industrial Center Version 4.00-00 Scenario 1: 1:AMFYP Lane Group Calculations Lane Group C R C R L C R L I C I R L,Total Lost Time per Cycle[s] 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 11p,Permitted Start-Up Lost Time[s] 2.00 2.00 0.00 GAO 0.00 12,Clearance Lost Time[s] 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00 2.00 2.00 0.00 2.00 2.00 g_i,Effective Green Time[s] 31 31 31 31 29 23 23 29 22 22 g/C,Green/Cycle 0.46 0.46 0.46 0.46 0.43 0.34 0.34 0.43 0.33 0.33 (v/s)_i Volume/Saturation Flow Rate 0.03 0.00 0.02 0.01 0.04 0.29 0.05 0.03 0.12 0.01 s,saturation flow rate[veh/h] 647 1615 611 1615 1107 3618 1615 717 3618 1615 c,Capacity[veh/h] 386 734 374 734 538 1232 550 317 1177 526 d1,Uniform Delay[s] 12.51 10.00 12.54 10.05 11.64 20.48 15.42 13.76 17.37 15.40 k,delay calibration 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 1, Upstream Filtering Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 N d2,Incremental Delay[s] 0.27 0.01 0.13 0.04 0.06 F1.65 1 0.13 0.09 0.19 0.02 i° d3,Initial Queue Delay[s] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 M R Rp,platoon ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 CL C9 PF,progression factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 00 Lane Group Results 1' d• X,volume/capacity 0.05 0.01 0.03 0.02 0.07 0.84 0.16 0.07 0.37 0.02 .- L d,Delay for Lane Group[s/veh] 12.78 10.02 12.67 10.09 11.70 22.13 15.55 13.85 17.57 15.42 OQ Lane Group LOS B B B B B C B B B B d Critical Lane Group c N 50th-Percentile Queue Length[veh] 0.18 0.03 0.09 0.10 0.31 6.80 0.83 0.16 2.33 0.12 50th-Percentile Queue Length[ft] 4.57 0.80 2.17 2.40 7.75 169.93 20.83 4.11 58.15 3.09 d 95th-Percentile Queue Length[veh] 0.33 0.06 0.16 0.17 0.56 11.07 1.50 0.30 4.19 0.22 ' 95th-Percentile Queue Length[ft] 8.23 1.43 3.90 4.32 13.96 276.83 37.49 7.39 104.66 5.57 E t u co d c a� E U fS$ .v d KLINzmAN ASSOCIATES,INC. 4/8/2016 Packet Pg. 1203 6.B.h Generated with M ®= Waterman Industrial Center Version 4.00-00 Scenario 1: 1:AMFYP Movement,Approach,&Intersection Results d_M,Delay for Movement[s/veh] 12.78 12.78 10.02 12.67 12.67 10.09 11.70 22.13 15.55 13.85 17.57 15.42 Movement LOS B B B B B B B C B B B B d_A,Approach Delay[s/veh] 12.34 11.26 21.29 17.34 Approach LOS B B C B d I,Intersection Delay[s/veh] 19.92 Intersection LOS B Intersection V/C 0.359 Sequence Ring 1 2 3 4 - - - - - - - - - - - - - Ring 2 6 7 8 - - - - - - - - - - - - - N Ring 3 - Ring 4 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - T ,L LO V .. O CL r IX M fn U a C m E _ a E a KUNZMAN ASSOCIATES,INC. 4/8/2016 Packet Pg. 1204 Generated with M `= Waterman Industrial Center Version 4.00-00 Scenario 1: 1:AMFYP Intersection Level Of Service Report Intersection 3: Project West Driveway(NS)at Dumas St(EW) Control Type: Two-way stop Delay(sec/veh): 8.8 Analysis Method: HCM 2010 Level Of Service: A Analysis Period: 15 minutes Volume to Capacity(v/c): 0.004 Intersection Setup Name Project West Driveway Dumas St Dumas Street Approach Northbound Eastbound Westbound Lane Configuration "r► i Turning Movement Left Right Thru 1 Right Left Thru Lane Width[ft] 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 No.of Lanes in Pocket 0 0 0 0 Pocket Length[ft] Speed[mph] 30.00 30.00 30.00 tri r Grade[%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 C. Crosswalk No No No t7 volumes 000 RT Name Project West Driveway Dumas St Dumas Street d Base Volume Input[veh/h] 4 1 20 14 8 14 O Base Volume Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 CL Heavy Vehicles Percentage[%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 IX Growth Rate 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 c�0 In-Process Volume[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 U Site-Generated Trips[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 O. Diverted Trips[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 le a.+ Pass-by Trips[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 G d Existing Site Adjustment Volume[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 L Other Volume[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 Q Total Hourly Volume[veh/h] 4 1 20 14 8 14 a Peak Hour Factor 0.9500 0.9500 0.9500 0.9500 0.9500 0.9500 Other Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 d Total 15-Minute Volume[veh/h] 1 0 5 4 2 4 Total Analysis Volume[veh/h] 4 1 21 15 8 15 Q Pedestrian Volume[ped/h] KIINZh1AN Assoc1ATES,INC.. 4/8/2016 Packet Pg. 1205 Generated with ME== Waterman Industrial Center Version 4.00-00 Scenario 1: 1:AMFYP Intersection Settings Priority Scheme Stop Free Free Flared Lane No Storage Area[veh] Two-Stage Gap Acceptance No Number of Storage Spaces in Median Movement,Approach,&Intersection Results V/C,Movement V/C Ratio 0.00 0.00 _. 0.01 d_M,Delay for Movement[s/veh] 8.82 8.44 7.28 0 Movement LOS A A A A A A 95th-Percentile Queue Length[veh] 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.04 95th-Percentile Queue Length[ft] 0.39 0.39 0.00 0.00 1.10 1.10 d_A,Approach Delay[s/veh] 8.74 0.00 2.53 C Approach LOS A A A T d_I,Intersection Delay[s/veh] 1.59 a Intersection LOS A U to 00 Nt O O_ r" Cl) U CL v c CD E s v Q a.: c E s n3 Y Q KUNZMAN ASSOCIATES,INC. 4/8/2016 Packet Pg. 1206 6.B.h Generated with Mmm Waterman Industrial Center Version 4.00-00 Scenario 1: 1:AMFYP Intersection Level Of Service Report Intersection 4: Project East DriveWay(NS)at Dumas Street(EW) Control Type: Two-way stop Delay(sec/veh): 8.4 Analysis Method: HCM 2010 Level Of Service: A Analysis Period: 15 minutes Volume to Capacity(v/c): 0.003 Intersection Setup Name Project East DriveWay Dumas Street Dumas St Approach Northbound Eastbound Westbound Lane Configuration r I I Turning Movement Left Right Thru Right Left Thru Lane Width[ft] 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 No.of Lanes in Pocket 0 0 Pocket Length[ft] - - - c Speed[mph] 30.00 30.00 30.00 L0 T Grade[%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 a Crosswalk No No No 0 LO volumes 00 �r Name Project East DriveWay Dumas Street Dumas St d Base Volume Input[veh/h) 0 3 21 18 22 O Base Volume Adjustment Factor ''0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 C Heavy Vehicles Percentage[%] 100 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0� Growth Rate 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 In-Process Volume[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 U Site-Generated Trips[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 �- Diverted Trips[veh/h) 0 0 0 0 � Pass-by Trips[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 d Existing Site Adjustment Volume[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 t Other Volume[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 cvo Total Hourly Volume[veh/h] 0 3 21 18 22 Q Peak Hour Factor 9500 0.9500 0.9500 _ 0.9500 0.9500 Other Adjustment Factor _": 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Total 15-Minute Volume[veh/h] 1 6 5 6 U Total Analysis Volume[veh/h) 3 22 19 23 Q Pedestrian Volume[ped/h) KUNZMAN AssociATm INC. 4/8/2016 Packet Pg. 1207 Generated with GM Waterman Industrial Center Version 4.00-00 Scenario 1: 1:AMFYP Intersection Settings Priority Scheme Stop Free Free Flared Lane Storage Area[veh] Two-Stage Gap Acceptance No Number of Storage Spaces in Median Movement,Approach,&Intersection Results V/C,Movement V/C Ratio 0.00 0.01 u d M,Delay for Movement[s/veh) 8.40 7.27 G� Movement LOS A A A A 95th-Percentile Queue Length[veh] 0.01 0.00 0.08 0.08 95th-Percentile Queue Length[ft] 0.21 0.00 2.01 2.01 d_A,Approach Delay[s/veh] 8.40 0.00 3.29 NC Approach LOS A A A tc� r d_I,Intersection Delay[s/veh] 2.44 C. Intersection LOS A LO oD d' d' O tZ d IX tllZ to w V) U CL v c E m a a.: E w w a KIINZMAN Assoc[ATES,INC. 4/8/2016 Packet Pg. 1208 Generated with Waterman Industrial Center Version 4.00-00 Scenario 1: 1:AMFYP Intersection Level Of Service Report Intersection 5:Waterman Ave(NS)at Orange Show Rd(EW) Control Type: Signalized Delay(sec/veh): 22.9 Analysis Method: HCM 2010 Level Of Service: C Analysis Period: 15 minutes Volume to Capacity(v/c): 0.643 Intersection Setup Name Waterman Ave Waterman Ave Orange Show Rd Orange Show Rd Approach Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Lane Configuration I l l r -111r Turning Movement Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left7 Thru Right Left Thru I Right Lane Width[ft] 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 No.of Lanes in Pocket 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 Pocket Length[ft] 298.00 100.00 275.00 248.00 258.00 100.00 0 Speed[mph] 50.00 50.00 40.00 40.00 Lr) Grade[%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Q Crosswalk Yes Yes Yes Yes C9 volumes 00 Name Waterman Ave Waterman Ave Orange Show Rd Orange Show Rd Base Volume Input[veh/h] 77 640 1 57 71 797 111 196 435 338 104 290 87 O Base Volume Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 N Heavy Vehicles Percentage[%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Growth Rate 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 N In-Process Volume[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 U Site-Generated Trips(veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 Diverted Trips[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 cf r-+ Pass-by Trips[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O Existing Site Adjustment Volume[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 s Other Volume[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Right-Turn on Red Volume[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 Q Total Hourly Volume[veh/h] 77 640 57 71 797 111 196 435 338 104 290 87 Peak Hour Factor 0.9500 0.9500 0.9500 0.9500 0.9500 0.9500 0.9500 0.9500 0.9500 0.9500 0.9500 0.9500 O Other Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 =0 Total 15-Minute Volume[veh/h] 20 168 15 19 210 29 52 114 89 27 76 23 Total Analysis Volume[veh/h] 81 674 60 75 839 117 206 458 356 109 305 92 Q Presence of On-Street Parking No No No No No No No No On-Street Parking Maneuver Rate(/h] Local Bus Stopping Rate[/h] 0 0 0 1 0 Pedestrian Volume[ped/h] 0 0 0 0 Bicycle Volume[bicycles/h] 0 0 0 0 KLINZMAN AssoclAT ES,INC. 4/8/2016 Packet Pg. 1209 6.B.h Generated with Waterman Industrial Center Version 4.00-00 Scenario 1: 1:AMFYP Intersection Settings Located in CBD No Signal Coordination Group Cycle Length[s] 60 Coordination Type Time of Day Pattern Isolated Actuation Type Fully actuated Offset[s] 0.0 Offset Reference LeadGreen Permissive Mode SingleBand Lost time[s] 8.00 Phasing&Timing Control Type Protecte Permiss Permiss Protecte Permiss Permiss Protecte Permiss Permiss Protecte Permiss Permiss Signal group 5 2 1 1 6 3 1 8 1 7 1 4 NC LO Auxiliary Signal Groups T" r Lead/Lag Lead Lead Lead Lead M Minimum Green[s] 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 0 Maximum Green[s] 30 30 30 30 30 30 J 30 30 Lr) 00 Amber[s] 3.0 3.0 0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 0.0 3.0 3.0 All red[s] 1.0 1.0 J 1.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 0 1.0 1.0 Split[s] 9 19 9 19 0 13 22 10 19 OQ Vehicle Extension[s] 3.0 3.0 0.0 3.0 3.0 0.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 d Walk[s] u 5 5 0 0 5 5 r = Pedestrian Clearance[s] 0 10 10 J 10 10 0 0) 11,Start-Up Lost Time[s] 2.0 2.0 ::?.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 V CL 12,Clearance Lost Time[s] 2.0 1 2.0 J.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 ' Minimum Recall No No No No No No No No = Maximum Recall No No No No No No No No Pedestrian Recall No No No No No No No No V Detector Location[ft] 0.0 0.0 010 0.0 0 J 0.0 +M Detector Length[ft] 0.0 0.0 0.0 ?.0 Q I,Upstream Filtering Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Exclusive Pedestrian Phase Pedestrian Signal Group 0 Pedestrian Walk[s] 0 Q Pedestrian Clearance[s] 0 KUNZMAN AssocIATES,Inc. 4/8/2016 Packet Pg. 1210 6.B.h Generated with Waterman Industrial Center Version 4.00-00 Scenario 1: 1:AMFYP Lane Group Calculations Lane Group L I C R L C R L I C R L C R L,Total Lost Time per Cycle[s] 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 11_p,Permitted Start-Up Lost Time[s] 12,Clearance Lost Time[s] 2.00 1 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 g_i,Effective Green Time[s] 4 20 20 4 20 20 1 8 16 16 5 12 12 g/C,Green/Cycle 0.06 0.33 0.33 0.06 0.33 0.33 0.14 1 0.26 0.26 0.08 0.20 0.20 (v/s)_i Volume/Saturation Flow Rate 0.04 0.19 0.04 0.04 0.23 0.07 0.11 0.13 0.22 0.06 0.08 0.06 s,saturation flow rate[veh/h] 1810 3618 1615 1810 3618 1615 1810 3618 1615 1810 3618 1 1615 c,Capacity[veh/h] 116 1201 536 112 1193 533 257 941 420 146 718 321 d1,Uniform Delay[s] 27.64 16.53 13.97 27.68 17.63 14.60 25.03 18.89 21.16 27.12 21.15 20.54 k,delay calibration 0.11 0.50 0.50 0.11 0.50 0.50 0.21 0.11 0.21 0.11 0.11 0.11 I,Upstream Filtering Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 tV d2,Incremental Delay[s] 7.34 1.90 0.42 6.75 3.49 0.95 10.33 0.39 8.94 7.44 0.40 0.49 9 d3,Initial Queue Delay[s] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Rp,platoon ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Q- PF,progression factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 try O 00 Lane Group Results X,volume/capacity 0.70 0.56 0.11 0.67 0.70 0.22 0.80 0.49 0.85 0.75 0.42 0.29 d,Delay for Lane Group[s/veh] 34.98 18.43 14.39 34.43 21.12 15.55 35.36 19.28 30.10 34.56 21.55 21.02 Q Lane Group LOS C B B C C B D B C C C C 0 Critical Lane Group Yes No No No Yes No No No Yes Yes No No : 50th-Percentile Queue Length[veh] 1.24 1 3.36 0.52 1.14 4.61 1.07 3.30 2.41 5.16 1.70 1.71 1.02 50th-Percentile Queue Length[ft] 31.06 83.97 13.02 28.52 115.26 26.79 82.47 60.36 128.99 42.46 42.83 25.59 a 95th-Percentile Queue Length[veh] 2.24 6.05 0.94 2.05 8.13 1.93 5.94 4.35 8.88 3.06 3.08 1.84 ' d' 95th-Percentile Queue Length[ft] 55.92 151.15 23.43 51.34 203.29 48.23 148.44 F108.65 222.12 76.43 77.09 46.06 E t V cv r a E Y a KuNZMAN AssocIATFS,INC. 4/8/2016 Packet Pg. 1211 Generated with 'to Waterman Industrial Center Version 4.00-00 Scenario 1: 1:AMFYP Movement,Approach,&Intersection Results d_M,Delay for Movement[s/veh] 34.98 18.43 14.39 34.43 =15.55 35.36 19.28 30.10 34.56 21.55 21.02 Movement LOS C B B C C B D B C C C C d_A,Approach Delay[s/veh] 19.78 21.46 26.31 24.26 Approach LOS B C C C d I,Intersection Delay[s/veh] 22.94 Intersection LOS C Intersection V/C 0.643 Sequence Ring 1 1 2 3 4 - - - - - - - - - - - - Ring 2 5 6 7 8 - - - - - - - - - - - - N Ring 3 - - - - Ring 4 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - .II"' _ ...}•,I 'rit..1,!'1.9, 3 e Ili V'i fx ^: §'rt FI}{�`. lt�.m�'I KI V coa' a L " Q. ar t to U a as E s U R a+ Q C U E L U f0 Q KUNZMAN ASSOCIATES,INC. 4/8/2016 Packet Pg. 1212 ow„ Generated with Waterman Industrial Center Version 4.00-00 Scenario 1: 1:AMFYP Intersection Level Of Service Report Intersection 6:Waterman Ave(NS)at Dumas St(EW) Control Type: Two-way stop Delay(sec/veh): 24.3 Analysis Method: HCM 2010 Level Of Service: C Analysis Period: 15 minutes Volume to Capacity(v/c): 0.036 Intersection Setup Name Waterman Ave Waterman Ave Dumas St Approach Northbound Southbound Eastbound Lane Configuration +'I i i r Turning Movement Left Thru Thru Right Left Right Lane Width[ft] 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 No.of Lanes in Pocket 1 0 0 0 Pocket Length[ft] 111.00 Speed[mph] 50.00 50.00 30.00 U; r Grade[%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 C. Crosswalk No No No U' L0 volumes co I. Name Waterman Ave Waterman Ave Dumas St Base Volume Input[veh/h] 15 777 1123 23 7 15 [v O Base Volume Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 N Heavy Vehicles Percentage[%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Growth Rate 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 c�0 In-Process Volume[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 U Site-Generated Trips[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 G. Diverted Trips[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 1-T n+ Pass-by Trips[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 C d Existing Site Adjustment Volume[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 s Other Volume(veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total Hourly Volume[veh/h] 15 777 1123 23 7 15 Q Peak Hour Factor 0.9500 0.9500 0.9500 0.9500 0.9500 1 0.9500 Other Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 tv Total 15-Minute Volume[veh/h] 4 204 296 6 2 4 = Total Analysis Volume[veh/h] 16 818 1182 24 7 16 Q Pedestrian Volume[ped/h] - KLINZNAAN AssocIATES,INC. 4/8/2016 Packet Pg. 1213 Generated with Waterman Industrial Center Version 4.00-00 Scenario 1: 1:AMFYP Intersection Settings Priority Scheme Free Free Stop Flared Lane No Storage Area[veh] Two-Stage Gap Acceptance Yes Number of Storage Spaces in Median 1 Movement,Approach,&Intersection Results V/C,Movement V/C Ratio 0.03 0.01 0.04 0.04 d_M,Delay for Movement[s/veh] 11.32 0,0^ 24.33 13.76 Movement LOS B A A A C B 95th-Percentile Queue Length[veh] 0.08 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.23 0.23 95th-Percentile Queue Length[ft] 2.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.70 5.70 d_A,Approach Delay[s/veh] 0.22 0.00 16.98 tVC Lh Approach LOS A A C r d_I,Intersection Delay[s/veh] 028 C. Intersection LOS C u� 00 v tf O CL Ado- (v to 0 CL c d E s a E U ft3 Q KUNZMAN ASSOCIATES,INC. 4/8/2016 Packet Pg. 1214 Generated with M `>s Waterman Industrial Center Version 4.00-00 Scenario 1: 1:AMFYP VRIEW Intersection Level Of Service Report Intersection 7:Waterman Ave(NS)at Park Center Circle North(EW) Control Type: Two-way stop Delay(sec/veh): 105.3 Analysis Method: HCM 2010 Level Of Service: F Analysis Period: 15 minutes Volume to Capacity(v/c): 0.300 Intersection Setup Name Waterman Ave Waterman Ave Project Driveway Park Center Circle N Approach Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Lane Configuration ol 1 I r'► i 1 1 r ii r i t Turning Movement Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Lane Width[ft] 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 No.of Lanes in Pocket 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 Pocket Length[ft] 215.00 JJJ i�,+ f)5 c 9 Speed[mph] 50.00 50.00 30.00 30.00 LO r Grade[%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Q Crosswalk No No Yes No C9 volumes ccoo d' Name Waterman Ave Waterman Ave Project Driveway Park Center Circle N d Base Volume Input[veh/h] 18 852 30 83 1023 24 14 6 1 9 !_ O Base Volume Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 d Heavy Vehicles Percentage[%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Growth Rate 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 tC In-Process Volume[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CO) U Site-Generated Trips[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 IL Diverted Trips[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 d' r Pass-by Trips[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 d Existing Site Adjustment Volume[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 t Other Volume[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total Hourly Volume[veh/h] 18 852 30 83 1023 24 14 6 1 9 Q Peak Hour Factor 0.9500 0.9500 0.9500 0.9500 0.9500 0.9500 0.9500 0.9500 0.9500 0.9500 Other Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 E Total 15-Minute Volume[veh/h] 5 224 8 22 269 6 4 2 0 2 v Total Analysis Volume[veh/h] 19 897 32 87 1 1077 25 15 6 1 9 U Pedestrian Volume[ped/h] 0 Q 0 KUNZ\A,\N AssocIATES,INC.. 4/8/2016 Packet Pg. 1215 Generated with M Waterman Industrial Center Version 4.00-00 Scenario 1: 1:AMFYP Intersection Settings Priority Scheme Free Free Stop Stop Flared Lane Storage Area[veh] Two-Stage Gap Acceptance No No Number of Storage Spaces in Median Movement,Approach,&Intersection Results V/C,Movement V/C Ratio 0.03 0.12 0.30 0.01 0.02 0.02 d_M,Delay for Movement[s/veh] 10.79 10.47 105.30 12.40 67.47 11.50 Movement LOS B A A B A A F B F B 95th-Percentile Queue Length[veh] 0.09 0.00 0.00 0.40 0.00 0.00 1.04 0.04 0.05 0.05 95th-Percentile Queue Length[ft] 2.29 0.00 0.00 9.88 0.00 0.00 25.97 _ 0.92 1.29 1.22 d_A,Approach Delay[s/veh] 0.22 0.77 78.76 17.09 C Approach LOS A A F C u7 r d_I,Intersection Delay[s/veh] 1.36 O. Intersection LOS F oD I' O CL d Q' ttf U) V a c d E �o r a d E Y Q KUNZMAN ASSOCIATES,INC. 4/8/2016 Packet Pg. 1216 6.B.h Generated with =Z= Waterman Industrial Center Version 4.00-00 Scenario 1: 1:AMFYP Intersection Level Of Service Report Intersection 8:Waterman Ave(NS)at Park Center Circle South(EW) Control Type: Signalized Delay(sec/veh): 5.8 Analysis Method: HCM 2010 Level Of Service: A Analysis Period: 15 minutes Volume to Capacity(v/c): 0.715 Intersection Setup Name Waterman Ave Waterman Ave Park Center Circle South Park Center Circle South Approach Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Lane Configuration *111 r -i r r �i r Turning Movement L7ft7 Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Lane Width[ft] 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 No.of Lanes in Pocket 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Pocket Length[ft] o Speed[mph] 50.00 50.00 30.00 30.00 to r Grade[%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Q Crosswalk No Yes Yes Yes C9 L0 volumes 00 d' Name Waterman Ave Waterman Ave Park Center Circle South Park Center Circle South er Base Volume Input[veh/h] 6 855 187 37 970 14 12 6 12 28 0 12 O Base Volume Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 d Heavy Vehicles Percentage[%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Growth Rate 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 c�0 In-Process Volume[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 U Site-Generated Trips[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 d Diverted Trips[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 d' Pass-by Trips[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Q Existing Site Adjustment Volume[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 s Other Volume[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Right-Turn on Red Volume(veh/h] 0 0 0 0 Q Total Hourly Volume[veh/h] 6 855 187 37 970 14 12 6 12 28 0 12 Peak Hour Factor 0.9500 1 0.9500 0.9500 0.9500 0.9500 0.9500 0.9500 0.9500 0.9500 0.9500 0.9500 0.9500 E Other Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 = Total 15-Minute Volume[veh/h] 2 225 49 10 255 4 3 2 3 7 0 3 '@ Total Analysis Volume[veh/h] 6 900 197 39 1021 15 13 6 13 29 0 13 Q Presence of On-Street Parking No No No No No No No No On-Street Parking Maneuver Rate[/h] - Local Bus Stopping Rate[/h] 0 0 0 0 Pedestrian Volume[ped/h] 0 0 0 Bicycle Volume[bicycles/h] 0 0 0 0 KUNZMAN ASSOCIATES,INC. 4/8/2016 Packet Pg. 1217 Generated with a Waterman Industrial Center Version 4.00-00 Scenario 1: 1:AMFYP Intersection Settings Located in CBD No Signal Coordination Group Cycle Length[s] 60 Coordination Type Time of Day Pattern Isolated Actuation Type Fully actuated Offset[s] 0.0 Offset Reference LeadGreen Permissive Mode SingleBand Lost time[s] 6.00 Phasing&Timing Control Type Protecte Permiss Permiss Protecte Permiss Permiss Permiss Permiss Permiss Permiss Permiss Permiss Signal group 5 2 1 6 8 4 C Auxiliary Signal Groups T Lead/Lag Lead Lead D Minimum Green[s] 10 10 a 10 10 0 0 10 0 10 V' Maximum Green[s] 30 30 0 30 30 J 30 30 0 Do Amber[s] 3.0 3.0 0.0 3.0 3.0 0.0 3.0 3.0 �t Allred[s] 1.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 C Split[s] 9 1 41 0 1 13 45 0 21 21 0 Vehicle Extension[s] 3.0 3.0 3.0 0.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 10 3.0 Walk[s] 0 5 5 5 Pedestrian Clearance[s] 0 10 0 10 10 11,Start-Up Lost Time[s] 2.0 2.0 &1 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 � 12,Clearance Lost Time[s] 2.0 2.0 "1? 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Minimum Recall No T No No No No No = Maximum Recall No No No No No No Pedestrian Recall No I No No No No No -� v Detector Location[ft] 0.0 0,0 0-0 0 0.G 0.0 S.0 5.0 v ;; Detector Length[ft] 0.0 0.0 U.0 }.0 0.0 0 0 Q w I,Upstream Filtering Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Exclusive Pedestrian Phase -� v Pedestrian Signal Group 0 Y Pedestrian Walk[s] 0 Q Pedestrian Clearance[s] 0 KUNzmAN ASSOCIATES,INC. 4/8/2016 Packet Pg. 1218 6.B.h Generated with M `= Waterman Industrial Center Version 4.00-00 Scenario 1: 1:AMFYP ' Lane Group Calculations Lane Group L C R L C R C R C R L,Total Lost Time per Cycle[s] 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 11_p,Permitted Start-Up Lost Time[s] 0.00 0.00 2.00 00 2.00 0.00 12,Clearance Lost Time[s] 0.00 2.00 2.00 0.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 g_i,Effective Green Time[s] 47 38 38 47 2 42 5 5 5 5 g/C,Green/Cycle 0.78 0.63 0.63 0.78 FO'.70 0.70 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.09 (v/s)_i Volume/Saturation Flow Rate 0.01 0.25 0.12 0.05 0.28 0.01 0.05 0.01 0.36 0.01 s,saturation flow rate[veh/h] 643 3618 1615 803 3618 1615 387 1615 80 1615 c,Capacity[veh/h] 606 2286 1021 721 2518 1124 134 140 127 140 d1,Uniform Delay[s] 2.00 5.43 4.64 2.08 3.87 2.80 25.50 25.31 30.05 25.31 k,delay calibration 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.11 0.50 0.50 0.11 0.11 0.46 0.11 1,Upstream Filtering Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 N d2,Incremental Delay[s] 0.03 0.51 0.42 0.03 0.49 0.02 0.48 0.29 3.80 0.29 9 d3,Initial Queue Delay[s] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Rp,platoon ratio 1.00 1.00 1 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 IZ 0 PF,progression factor 1.00 1.00 1 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0 Lane Group Results 14 et X,volume/capacity 0.01 0.39 0.19 0.05 0.41 0.01 0.14 0.09 0.23 0.09 d,Delay for Lane Group[s/veh] 2.03 5.94 5.06 2.11 4.36 2.83 25.98 25.60 33.85 25.60 Q. Lane Group LOS A A A A A A C C C C low I Critical Lane Group Yes No No No Yes No No No Yes No 50th-Percentile Queue Length[veh] 0.00 1.55 0.64 0.01 1.06 0.03 0.26 0.17 0.54 0.17 0 50th-Percentile Queue Length[ft] 0.12 38.72 15.97 0.15 26.41 0.64 6.39 4.33 13.52 4.33 U a 95th-Percentile Queue Length[veh] 0.01 2.79 1.15 0.01 1.90 0.05 0.46 0.31 0.97 0.31 ' 95th-Percentile Queue Length[ft] 0.22 69.70 28.75 0.28 47.55 1.15 11.49 7.80 24.33 7.80 C E 0 t V to r.. Q C d t v t0 Q KLwzna,\N ASSOCIATES,INC.. 4/8/2016 Packet`Pg. 1219 6.B.h Generated with Waterman Industrial Center Version 4.00-00 Scenario 1: 1:AMFYP Movement,Approach,&Intersection Results d M,Delay for Movement[s/veh] 2.03 5.94 5.06 2.11 4.36 2.83 25.98 25.98 25.60 33.85 33.85 25.60 Movement LOS A A A A A A C C C C C C d_A,Approach Delay[s/veh] 5.76 4.25 25.82 31.30 Approach LOS A A C C d I,Intersection Delay[s/veh] 5.80 Intersection LOS A Intersection V/C 0.715 Sequence Ring 1 1 2 4 - - - - - - - - - - - - - Ring 2 5 6 8 - - - - - - - - - - - - - N Ring 3 - - - Ring 4 - - - CL 1 P'l 00 0 a 0 U a v, c as E v 0 a d E U a.+ Y a KuNzmAN Assoc1ATE5,INC. 4/8/2016 Packet Pg. 1220 6.B.h Generated with Waterman Industrial Center Version 4.00-00 Scenario 1: 1:AMFYP Intersection Level Of Service Report Intersection 9:Waterman Ave(NS)at Vanderbilt Way(EW) Control Type: Signalized Delay(sec/veh): 20.1 Analysis Method: HCM 2010 Level Of Service: C Analysis Period: 15 minutes Volume to Capacity(v/c): 0.720 Intersection Setup Name Waterman Ave Waterman Ave Vanderbilt Way Vanderbilt Way Approach Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Lane Configuration -111r -111F + -1 1 r Turning Movement Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Lane Width[ft] 1200. 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 No.of Lanes in Pocket 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Pocket Length[ft] _. .t....0 C Speed[mph] 50.00 50.00 30.00 30.00 LO T_ Grade[%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 a Crosswalk No Yes Yes Yes C9 volumes 00 aD V Name Waterman Ave Waterman Ave Vanderbilt Way Vanderbilt Way d Base Volume Input[veh/h] 27 749 404 343 746 5 5 3 3 82 1 285 O Base Volume Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 d Heavy Vehicles Percentage[%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Growth Rate 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 In-Process Volume[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 U Site-Generated Trips[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 d Diverted Trips[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 et Pass-by Trips[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 E O Existing Site Adjustment Volume[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 = Other Volume[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 r Right-Turn on Red Volume[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 Q Total Hourly Volume[veh/h] 27 749 404 343 746 5 5 3 3 82 1 285 C Peak Hour Factor 0.9500 0.9500 0.9500 0.9500 0.9500 0.9500 0.9500 0.9500 0.9500 0.9500 0.9500 0.9500 d Other Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 v Total 15-Minute Volume[veh/h] 77 197 106 90 196 1 1 1 1 22 0 75 Total Analysis Volume[veh/h] 28 788 425 361 785 5 5 3 3 86 1 300 Q Presence of On-Street Parking No No No No No No No No On-Street Parking Maneuver Rate[/h] Local Bus Stopping Rate[/h] 0 0 0 0 Pedestrian Volume[ped/h] 0 0 0 Bicycle Volume[bicycles/h] 0 0 0 0 KUNZMAN ASSOCIATES,INC. 4/8/2016 Packet Pg. 1221 s.B.n Generated with SMIM Waterman Industrial Center Version 4.00-00 Scenario 1: 1:AMFYP Intersection Settings Located in CBD No Signal Coordination Group Cycle Length[s] 60 Coordination Type Time of Day Pattern Isolated Actuation Type Fully actuated Offset[s] 0.0 Offset Reference LeadGreen Permissive Mode SingleBand Lost time[s] 6.00 Phasing&Timing Control Type Protecte Permiss Permiss Protecte Permiss Permiss Permiss Permiss Permiss Permiss Permiss Permiss Signal group 5 2 1 6 8 4 0 C LO Auxiliary Signal Groups r Lead/Lag Lead Lead Q. Minimum Green[s] 5 5 5 5 5 0 0 5 (9 1 Maximum Green[s] 30 30 30 30 ) 30 30 co Ambers] 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 3.0 1* Allred[s] 1.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 Split[s] 9 19 22 32 u 0 19 0 19 0 Vehicle Extension[s] 3.0 3.0 0.0 3.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 ^.0 3.0 v d Q.' Walk[s] 0 5 0 0 5 0 5 Pedestrian Clearance[s] v 10 0 10 o 0 10 o 11,Start-Up Lost Time[s] 2.0 2.0 0: 2.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 O.0 2.0 a 12,Clearance Lost Time[s] 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 Minimum Recall No No No No No No +- C Maximum Recall No No No No No No Pedestrian Recall No No No No No No v Detector Location[ft] 0.0 0.0 0.0 O.0 U,i) 0.0 ".0 a Detector Length[ft] 0.0 0.0 0,0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 I,Upstream Filtering Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Cc Exclusive Pedestrian Phase V Pedestrian Signal Group 0 r Pedestrian Walk[s] 0 Q Pedestrian Clearance[s] 0 KUNZ4tAN Assoctnres,INC. 4/8/2016 Packet Pg. 1222 6.B.h Generated with = Waterman Industrial Center Version 4.00-00 Scenario 1: 1:AMFYP Lane Group Calculations Lane Group L I C R L I C C C L C I R L,Total Lost Time per Cycle[s] 4.007 4.00 4.00 4.00 1 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 11_p,Permitted Start-Up Lost Time[s] 77 " 2.00 2.00 2.00 12,Clearance Lost Time[s] 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 g_i,Effective Green Time[s] 2 21 21 14 33 33 13 13 13 13 g/C,Green/Cycle 0.03 0.35 0.35 0.23 0.55 0.55 0.22 0.22 0.22 0.22 (v/s)_i Volume/Saturation Flow Rate 0.02 0.22 0.26 0.20 0.14 0.14 0.01 0.02 0.04 0.19 s,saturation flow rate[veh/h] 1810 3618 1615 1810 3618 1894 1445 1432 1305 1615 c,Capacity[veh/h] 60 1264 564 421 1986 1040 402 307 403 352 d1,Uniform Delay[s] 28.56 16.27 17.27 22.12 7.14 7.14 18.52 23.27 19.29 22.58 k,delay calibration 0.11 0.50 0.50 0.19 0.50 0.50 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.23 I,Upstream Filtering Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 cV d2,Incremental Delay[s] 5.49 2.32 8.99 8.44 0.32 0.61 0.03 0.16 0.14 11.54 to d3,Initial Queue Delay[s] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 `- co Rp,platoon ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Q- PF,progression factor 1 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 00 Lane Group Results rt' X,volume/capacity 0.47 0.62 0.75 0.86 0.26 0.26 0.03 0.11 0.13 0.85 Y d,Delay for Lane Group[s/veh] 34.05 18.60 26.26 30.56 7.46 7.75 18.55 23.43 19.43 34.12 Q Lane Group LOS C B C C A A B C B C Critical Lane Group No No Yes Yes No No No No No Yes 50th-Percentile Queue Length[veh] 0.44 3.95 5.47 5.06 1.21 1.35 0.12 0.43 0.58 4.88 V-) 50th-Percentile Queue Length[ft] 11.08 98.84 136.74 126.45 30.24 33.77 2.89 10.64 14.40 121.99 U CL 95th-Percentile Queue Length[veh] 0.80 7.12 9.31 8.75 2.18 2.43 0.21 0.77 1.04 8.50 ' d• 95th-Percentile Queue Length[ft] 19.95 177.91 232.63 218.66 54.44 60.78 5.21 19.16 25.93 212.56 N E t U RS a� Q C fU E U 0 e.+ Q KUNZMAN ASSOCIATES,INC. 4/8/2016 Packet Pg. 1223 6.B.h Generated with Waterman Industrial Center Version 4.00-00 Scenario 1: 1:AMFYP Movement,Approach,&Intersection Results d_M,Delay for Movement[s/veh] 34.05 18.60 26.26 30.56 7.56 7.75 18.55 18.55 18.55 23.43 19.43 34.12 Movement LOS C B C C A A B B B C B C d_A,Approach Delay[s/veh] 21.57 14.77 18.55 31.18 Approach LOS C B B C d_I,Intersection Delay[s/veh] 20.09 Intersection LOS C Intersection V/C 0.720 Sequence Ring 1 1 2 4 - - - - - - - - - - - - Ring 2 5 6 8 - - - - - - - - - - - - - N Ring 3 - - - Ring 4 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - c� a ®® 00 u7 v 0 CL m �a U 0. v _ E U fC a+ a E U fS ar Q KUNZMAN AssoclATES,INC. 4/8/2016 Packet Pg. 1224 "sa:n Generated with CM Waterman Industrial Center Version 4.00-00 Scenario 1: 1:AMFYPi With ImprovementE NNW Intersection Level Of Service Report Intersection 7:Waterman Ave(NS)at Park Center Circle North(EW) Control Type: Signalized Delay(sec/veh): 5.4 Analysis Method: HCM 2010 Level Of Service: A Analysis Period: 15 minutes Volume to Capacity(v/c): 0.432 Intersection Setup Name Waterman Ave Waterman Ave Project Driveway Park Center Circle N Approach Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Lane Configuration -111r -i ilr ir it Turning Movement Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Lane Width[ft] 12.00 F12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 No.of Lanes in Pocket 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 Pocket Length[ft] 215.00 u ,,.�,EaC o Speed[mph] 50.00 50.00 30.00 30.00 tr1 r Grade[%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 a Crosswalk No No Yes No 0 LO volumes am d' Name Waterman Ave Waterman Ave Project Driveway Park Center Circle N Base Volume Input[veh/h] 18 852 30 83 1023 24 14 0 6 1 0 9 O Base Volume Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 d Heavy Vehicles Percentage[%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Growth Rate 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 In-Process Volume[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 V Site-Generated Trips[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a Diverted Trips[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 IT Z Pass-by Trips[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Existing Site Adjustment Volume[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 E Other Volume[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Right-Turn on Red Volume[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 Q Total Hourly Volume[veh/h] 18 852 30 83 1023 24 14 0 6 1 0 9 Peak Hour Factor 0.9500 0.9500 0.9500 0.9500 0.9500 0.9500 0.9500 0.9500 0.9500 0.9500 0.9500 0.9500 d Other Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 v Total 15-Minute Volume[veh/h] 5 224 8 22 269 6 4 0 2 0 0 2 1 Total Analysis Volume[veh/h] 19 897 32 87 1077 25 15 0 6 1 0 9 Q Presence of On-Street Parking No No No No No No No No On-Street Parking Maneuver Rate[/h] Local Bus Stopping Rate[/h] 0 0 0 0 Pedestrian Volume[ped/h] 0 Bicycle Volume[bicycles/hl 0 0 0 0 KLINZ\AAN AssociATES,INC. 4/7/2016 Packet.Pg. 1225 6.B.h Generated with Waterman Industrial Center Version 4.00-00 Scenario 1: 1:AMFYPi With Improvement Intersection Settings Located in CBD No Signal Coordination Group Cycle Length[s] 60 Coordination Type Time of Day Pattern Isolated Actuation Type Fully actuated Offset[s] 0.0 Offset Reference LeaclGreen Permissive Mode SingleBand Lost time[s] 6.00 Phasing&Timing Control Type Protecte Permiss Permiss Protecte Permiss Permiss Permiss Permiss Permiss Permiss Permiss Permiss Signal group 5 2 1 6 1 8 4 C Auxiliary Signal Groups r Lead/Lag Lead Lead M CL Minimum Green[s] 5 5 5 5 5 5 (� Maximum Green[s] 30 30 G 30 30 0 C 30 0 30 0 W) Amber[s] 3.0 3.0 0.0 3.0 3.0 0 0.0 3.0 ).0 3.0 0.0 00 All red[s] 1.0 1.0 0,0 1.0 1.0 ) 0.0 1.0 0.0 fl 1.0 0.0 Split[s] 9 15 L 23 29 0 22 0 0 22 0 0 CL Vehicle Extension[s] 3.0 3.0 0.0 3.0 3.0 0.0 3.0 .0 0 3.0 a.0 Walk[s] 5 1 0 0 5 M 0 10 0 0 u 0 Pedestrian Clearance[s] 10 � 11,Start-Up Lost Time[s] 2.0 2.0 0 i; 2.0 2.0 0.0 2.0 0 2.0 10 V a 12,Clearance Lost Time[s] 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 0.0 2.0 2.0 Minimum Recall No No No No No No +- C Maximum Recall No No No No No No Pedestrian Recall No No No No No No = v Detector Location[ft] 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 010 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 .'. Q Detector Length[ft] 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 I,Upstream Filtering Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 � d E Exclusive Pedestrian Phase _ V Pedestrian Signal Group 0 Pedestrian Walk[s] 0 Q Pedestrian Clearance[s] 0 KUNZMAN AssociATES,INC. 4/7/2016 Packet Pg. 1226 rrrrw�- 6.B.h Generated with [. Waterman Industrial Center %a Version 4.00-00 Scenario 1: 1:AMFYPi With Improvement; NPLane Group Calculations Lane Group L I C R L C R C R C R L,Total Lost Time per Cycle[s] 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 11p,Permitted Start-Up Lost Time[s] 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 2.00 12,Clearance Lost Time[s] 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 g_i,Effective Green Time[s] 1 43 43 4 45 45 2 2 2 2 g/C,Green/Cycle 0.02 0.71 0.71 0.06 0.75 0.75 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 (v/s)_i Volume/Saturation Flow Rate 0.01 0.25 0.02 0.05 0.30 0.02 0.08 0.00 0.01 0.01 s,saturation flow rate[veh/h] 1810 3618 1615 1810 3618 1615 187 1615 168 1615 c,Capacity[veh/h] 45 2561 1143 119 2710 1210 125 43 124 43 d1,Uniform Delay[s] 28.91 3.41 2.62 27.57 2.70 1.93 30.05 28.60 29.91 28.65 k,delay calibration 0.11 0.50 0.50 0.11 0.50 0.50 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 I,Upstream Filtering Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 N d2,Incremental Delay[s] 6.23 0.38 0.05 8.24 0.44 0.03 0.43 1.44 0.03 2.35 0 d3,Initial Queue Delay[s] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 `-1 M Rp,platoon ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Q' U' PF,progression factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 N 00 Lane Group Results d X,volume/capacity 0.42 0.35 0.03 0.73 0.40 0.02 0.12 0.14 0.01 0.21 L d,Delay for Lane Group[s/veh] 35.14 3.79 2.66 35.82 3.14 1.96 30.47 30.04 29.94 31.00 OQ Lane Group LOS D A A D A A C C C C Critical Lane Group No a R r 50th-Percentile Queue Length[veh] 0.32 0.76 0.05 1.35 0.45 0.02 0.22 0.10 0.01 0.15 50th-Percentile Queue Length[ft] 7.94 19.06 1 1.22 33.82 11.13 0.50 5.59 2.45 0.37 3.73 V a 95th-Percentile Queue Length[veh] 0.57 1.37 1 0.09 2.43 0.80 0.04 0.40 0.18 0.03 0.27 ' 95th-Percentile Queue Length[ft] 14.29 34.31 2.19 60.87 20.03 0.89 10.05 4.41 0.66 6.72 +• _ N E t V R ,r a E a KUNZMAN AssociAT ES,INC. 4/7/2016 Packet Pg. 1227 �rrn■w 6.B.h Generated with M Waterman Industrial Center Version 4.00-00 Scenario 1: 1:AMFYPi With Improvement: Movement,Approach,&Intersection Results d_M,Delay for Movement[s/veh] 35.14 3.79 2.66 35.82 3.14 1.96 30.47 30.47 30.04 29.94 29.94 31.00 Movement LOS D A A D A A C C C C C C d_A,Approach Delay[s/veh] 4.38 5.50 30.35 30.89 Approach LOS A A C C d_I,Intersection Delay[s/veh] 5.37 Intersection LOS A Intersection V/C 0.432 Sequence Ring 1 1 2 4 - - - - - - - - - - - - Ring 2 5 6 8 - - - - - - - - - - - - - N Ring 3 - - - Ring 4 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Lo M LO oD st d' O C. d co U a v c (D E s w a E w a rL" Inc. 4/7/2016 Packet Pg. 1228 6.B.h Generated with M 'M Waterman Industrial Center Version 4.00-00 Scenario 1: 1:PMFYP Intersection Level Of Service Report Intersection 1:E Street(NS)at Orange Show Road(EW) Control Type: Signalized Delay(sec/veh): 32.2 Analysis Method: HCM 2010 Level Of Service: C Analysis Period: 15 minutes Volume to Capacity(v/c): 0.811 Intersection Setup Name E Street E Street Orange Show Rd Orange Show Rd Approach Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Lane Configuration -1-1 1 } "1-111 r -1-111 r -i-i 11 r Turning Movement Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Lane Width[ft] 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 No.of Lanes in Pocket 2 0 2 1 2 1 2 1 Pocket Length[ft] 300.00 189.00 134.00 217.00 =t 147.00 165.00 103.00 C Q Speed[mph] 40.00 40.00 40.00 40.00 u7 r Grade[%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Q. Crosswalk Yes Yes Yes Yes C9 W) volumes 00 Name E Street E Street Orange Show Rd Orange Show Rd Base Volume Input[veh/h] 533 318 152 181 194 316 128 1031 338 197 1092 54 O Base Volume Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 d Heavy Vehicles Percentage[%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 X Growth Rate 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 W In-Process Volume[veh/h] 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N C) Site-Generated Trips[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 =0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 Diverted Trips[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1* Pass-by Trips[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 d Existing Site Adjustment Volume[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 s Other Volume[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 R Right-Turn on Red Volume[veh/h] 0 0 0 - 0 Q Total Hourly Volume[veh/h] 533 318 152 181 194 316 128 1031 338 197 1092 54 Peak Hour Factor 0.9500 0.9500 0.9500 0.9500 0.9500 1 0.9500 0.9500 0.9500 0.9500 0.9500 0.9500 0.9500 Other Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 v Total 15-Minute Volume[veh/h] 140 84 40 48 51 83 34 271 89 52 287 14 Total Analysis Volume[veh/h] 561 335 160 191 204 333 135 1085 356 207 1149 57 Q Presence of On-Street Parking No No No No No No No No On-Street Parking Maneuver Rate[/h] Local Bus Stopping Rate[/h] 0 0 0 0 Pedestrian Volume[ped/h] 0 0 0 0 Bicycle Volume[bicycles/h] 0 0 0 0 KUNZMAN AssociAT'ES,INC. 4/7/2016 Packet Pg. 1229 6.B.h Generated with q *1� Waterman Industrial Center Version 4.00-00 Scenario 1: 1: PMFYP Intersection Settings Located in CBD No Signal Coordination Group Cycle Length[s] 75 Coordination Type Time of Day Pattern Isolated Actuation Type Fully actuated Offset[s] 0.0 Offset Reference LeadGreen Permissive Mode SingleBand Lost time[s] 8.00 Phasing&Timing Control Type Protecte Permiss Permiss Protecte Permiss Permiss Protecte Permiss Permiss Protecte Permiss Permiss Signal group 5 2 1 6 3 8 7 4 tNN Auxiliary Signal Groups T_ r Lead/Lag Lead Lead Lead Lead Q Minimum Green[s] 5 1 5 5 5 0 1 5 5 5 5 0 0 Maximum Green[s] 30 30 G 30 30 0 30 30 0 30 30 Amber[s] 3.0 3.0 0 3:0 3.0 0.0 3.0 3.0 0.0 3.0 3.0 Allred[s] 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 Split[s] 17 24 0 13 20 0 10 29 9 28 Q Vehicle Extension[s] 3.0 3.0 ),0 3.0 3.0 0 0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 0.0 Walk[s] 5 0 5 0 5 5 0 cu Pedestrian Clearance[s] 10 3 10 0 10 u 10 0 11,Start-Up Lost Time[s] 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 0.0 2.0 2.0 0.0 V a 12,Clearance Lost Time[s] 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 1 0.0 2.0 1 2.0 0.0 ' Minimum Recall No No No No No No No No Maximum Recall No No No No No No No No Pedestrian Recall N. T No No No No No No No U t6 Detector Location[ft] 0.0 cw Q Detector Length[ft] 0 I,Upstream Filtering Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Exclusive Pedestrian Phase s v Pedestrian Signal Group 0 +� Pedestrian Walk[s] 0 Q Pedestrian Clearance[s] 0 KuNZMAN AssociATes,INC. 4/7/2016 Packet Pg. 1230 Generated with =z= Waterman Industrial Center Version 4.00-00 Scenario 1: 1:PMFYP Lane Group Calculations Lane Group L C C L C R L C R L C R L,Total Lost Time per Cycle[s] 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 11_p,Permitted Start-Up Lost Time[s] 12,Clearance Lost Time[s] 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 g_i,Effective Green Time[s] 13 23 23 6 16 16 5 25 25 5 25 25 g/C,Green/Cycle 0.17 0.31 0.31 0.08 0.21 0.21 0.06 0.33 0.33 0.07 0.34 0.34 (v/s)_i Volume/Saturation Flow Rate 0.16 0.14 0.14 0.05 0.06 0.21 0.04 0.30 0.22 0.06 0.32 0.04 s,saturation flow rate[veh/h] 3514 1900 1695 3514 1 3618 1615 3514 3618 1615 3514 3618 1615 c,Capacity[veh/h] 609 588 524 282 782 349 221 1196 534 235 1210 540 d1,Uniform Delay[s] 30.50 20.75 20.75 1 33.57 24.43 29.04 34.26 24.02 21.57 34.72 24.35 17.23 k,delay calibration 0.11 0.50 0.50 0.11 0.50 0.50 0.11 0.11 0.20 0.11 0.11 0.11 I,Upstream Filtering Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 cV d2,Incremental Delay[s] 6.31 2.43 2.73 2.86 0.81 37.87 2.73 2.98 2.61 10.35 4.98 0.08 9 d3,Initial Queue Delay[s] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 r lC Rp,platoon ratio 1.00 1 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 CL PF,progression factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 tCf 00 Lane Group Results 14 d' X,volume/capacity 0.92 0.44 0.45 0.68 0.26 0.95 0.61 0.91 0.67 0.88 0.95 0.11 d,Delay for Lane Group[s/veh] 36.81 23.18 23.48 36.42 25.24 66.91 36.99 27.00 24.18 45.06 29.33 17.31 Q. Lane Group LOS D C C D C E D C C D C B 6' Critical Lane Group Yes No No No No Yes No Yes No Yes No No Allow 50th-Percentile Queue Length[veh] 5.17 3.76 3.40 1.71 1.50 9.13 1.22 8.70 5.22 2.11 9.68 0.63 N 50th-Percentile Queue Length[ft] 129.23 93.89 84.91 42.77 37.39 1 228.34 30.51 217.49 130.56 52.72 242.02 15.84 U a 95th-Percentile Queue Length[veh] 8.90 6.76 6.11 3.08 2.69 14.09 2.20 13.54 8.97 3.80 14.78 1.14 ' 95th-Percentile Queue Length[ft] 222.44 169.01 152.83 76.98 67.30 352.25 54.91 338.42 224.26 94.90 369.59 28.51 E U R r Q C E t V Q KUNZMAN AssociATES,INC. 4/7/2016 Packet Pg.1231 Generated with ME= Waterman Industrial Center Version 4.00-00 Scenario 1: 1:PMFYP Movement,Approach,&Intersection Results d_M,Delay for Movement[s/veh] 36.81 23.25 23.48 36.42 25.24 66.91 36.99 27.00 24.18 45.06 29.33 17.31 Movement LOS D C C D C E D C C D C B d_A,Approach Delay[s/veh] 30.49 47.24 27.22 31.15 Approach LOS C D C C d I,Intersection Delay[s/veh] 32.16 Intersection LOS C Intersection V/C 0.811 Sequence Ring 1 1 2 3 4 - - - - - - - - - - - - Ring 2 5 6 7 8 - - - - - - - - - - - N Ring 3 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - o Ring 4 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - a 00 v ry c. d U) U a c W E c� t. a E U R a KLINZKAAN AssocIATES,INC. 4/7/2016 Packet Pg. 1232 6.B.h Generated with Waterman Industrial Center Version 4.00-00 Scenario 1: 1:PMFYP Intersection Level Of Service Report Intersection 2:Washington Ave(NS)at Orange Show Rd(EW) Control Type: Signalized Delay(sec/veh): 17.1 Analysis Method: HCM 2010 Level Of Service: B Analysis Period: 15 minutes Volume to Capacity(v/c): 0.643 Intersection Setup Name Washington Ave Washington Ave Orange Show Rd Orange Show Rd Approach Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Lane Configuration i t i t '111 r -111 r Turning Movement Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Lane Width[ft] 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 No.of Lanes in Pocket 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 Pocket Length[ft] _ sI 157.00 166.00 a�)u cVo 9 Speed[mph] 30.00 30.00 40.00 40.00 r Grade[%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Q. Crosswalk Yes Yes Yes Yes 0 to volumes Name Washington Ave Washington Ave Orange Show Rd Orange Show Rd d Base Volume Input[veh/h] 52 7 23 19 5 1 15 32 1246 30 14 1194 17 ]` O Base Volume Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 0. Heavy Vehicles Percentage[%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Growth Rate 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 M In-Process Volume[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 U Site-Generated Trips[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I]. Diverted Trips[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 = 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 q Pass-by Trips[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 d Existing Site Adjustment Volume[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 E Other Volume[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 �+ Right-Turn on Red Volume[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 Q Total Hourly Volume[veh/h] 52 23 19 5 1 15 32 1246 30 14 1194 17 Peak Hour Factor 0.9500 0.9500 0.9500 0.9500 0.9500 0.9500 0.9500 0.9500 0.9500 0.9500 0.9500 0.9500 E Other Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 v Total 15-Minute Volume[veh/h] 14 6 5 1 0 4 8 328 8 4 314 4 Total Analysis Volume[veh/h] 55 24 20 5 1 16 34 1312 32 15 1257 18 Q Presence of On-Street Parking No No No No No No No No On-Street Parking Maneuver Rate[/h] Local Bus Stopping Rate[/h] 0 0 0 0 Pedestrian Volume(ped/h] 0 0 0 0 Bicycle Volume[bicycles/h] 0 0 0 0 10 KUNZMAN ASSOCIATES,INC. 4/7/2016 Packet Pg. 1233 6.B.h Generated with Waterman Industrial Center Version 4.00-00 Scenario 1: 1:PMFYP Intersection Settings Located in CBD No Signal Coordination Group Cycle Length[s] 60 Coordination Type Time of Day Pattern Isolated Actuation Type Fully actuated Offset[s] 0.0 Offset Reference LeadGreen Permissive Mode SingleBand Lost time[s] 6.00 Phasing&Timing Control Type Permiss Permiss Permiss Permiss Permiss Permiss Protecte Permiss Permiss Protecte Permiss Permiss Signal group 2 6 3 8 7 4 N Auxiliary Signal Groups u; r Lead/Lag Lead Lead cv IZ Minimum Green[s] 5 0 0 5 5 5 _ 5 5 U' Maximum Green[s] a 30 u 0 30 30 30 0 30 30 0 Io Amber[s] 0.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 0.0 3.0 3.0 0.0 All red[s] 1.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 o.0 1.0 1.0 Split[s] 19 J 19 9 32 9 32 Q Vehicle Extension[s] 3.0 0.0 OA 3.0 .0 3.0 3.0 10 3.0 3.0 0.0 Walk[s] 5 0 5 0 j 5 0 0 5 0 N Pedestrian Clearance[s] 0 10 7 10 0 0 10 0 0 10 0 11,Start-Up Lost Time[s] 0.0 2.0 .0 2.0 0.0 2.0 2.0 ;10 2.0 2.0 0.0 U a 12,Clearance Lost Time[s] O.n 2.0 =: ,1 _ 2.0 =,.0 2.0 2.0 0.0 2.0 2.0 0.0 Minimum Recall No No No No No No Maximum Recall No No No No No No d Pedestrian Recall No No No No No No v Detector Location[ft] 0.0 6,0 ?.0 n Detector Length[ft] 0,0 0.0 0.0 '_0 J.0 Q I,Upstream Filtering Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Exclusive Pedestrian Phase U Pedestrian Signal Group 0 r Pedestrian Walk[s] 0 Q Pedestrian Clearance[s] 0 KLINZMAN AssocIATES,INC. 4/7/2016 Packet Pg. 1234 Generated with Waterman Industrial Center Version 4.00-00 Scenario 1: 1: PMFYP Lane Group Calculations Lane Group C R C R L I C R L C R L,Total Lost Time per Cycle[s] 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 11_p,Permitted Start-Up Lost Time[s] 2.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 12,Clearance Lost Time[s] 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00 2.00 2.00 0.00 2.00 2.00 g_i,Effective Green Time[s] 21 21 21 21 31 26 26 31 25 25 g/C,Green/Cycle 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.51 0.43 0.43 0.51 0.41 0.41 (v/s)_i Volume/Saturation Flow Rate 0.21 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.05 0.36 0.02 0.03 0.35 0.01 s,saturation flow rate[veh/h] 373 1615 255 1615 638 3618 1615 570 3618 1615 c,Capacity[veh/h] 233 569 199 569 362 1548 691 329 1484 662 d1,Uniform Delay[s] 20.91 12.78 15.26 12.75 10.68 15.46 10.05 10.71 16.04 10.59 k,delay calibration 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 I,Upstream Filtering Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 cV d2,Incremental Delay[s] 3.92 0.12 0.28 0.09 0.11 1.37 0.03 0.06 1.43 0.02 d3,Initial Queue Delay[s] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 `- f9 Rp,platoon ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Q' PF,progression factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 LO co Lane Group Results d X,volume/capacity 0.34 0.04 0.03 0.03 0.09 0.85 0.05 0.05 0.85 0.03 1` d,Delay for Lane Group[s/veh] 24.82 12.90 15.54 12.84 10.79 16.83 10.08 10.77 17.47 10.60 Q. Lane Group LOS C B B B B B B B B B N Critical Lane Group Yes No No No No Yes No Yes No N 50th-Percentile Queue Length[veh] 1.28 0.18 0.06 0.14 0.18 6.69 0.21 0.08 6.56 0.12 50th-Percentile Queue Length[ft] 32.12 4.46 1.58 3.56 4.41 1 167.13 5.20 1.93 163.94 3.03 a 95th-Percentile Queue Length[veh] 2.31 0.32 0.11 0.26 0.32 10.93 0.37 0.14 10.76 0.22 ' d' 95th-Percentile Queue Length[ft] 57.81 8.04 2.84 6.41 7.94 273.14 9.36 3.48 268.93 5.46 d E V tQ r a E a KLINZMAN ASSOQATES,INC. 4/7/2016 Packet Pg. 1 235 6.B.h Generated with Mmm Waterman Industrial Center Version 4.00-00 Scenario 1: 1:PMFYP Movement,Approach,&Intersection Results d_M,Delay for Movement[s/veh] 24.82 24.82 12.90 15.54 15.54 12.84 10.79 16.83 10.08 10.77 17.47 10.60 Movement LOS C C B B B B B B B B B B d_A,Approach Delay[s/veh] 22.41 13.58 16.52 17.29 Approach LOS C B B B d-1,Intersection Delay[s/veh] 17.06 Intersection LOS B Intersection V/C 0.643 Sequence Ring 1 2 3 4 - - - - - - - - - - - - Ring 2 6 7 8 N Ring 3 - - - Ring 4 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ca CL w f & �+m, W co U c m E t v cv Q m E t v R a KuNZMAN AssoclATES,INC. 4/7/2016 Packet Pg. 1236 6.B.h Generated with Waterman Industrial Center Version 4.00-00 Scenario 1: 1:PMFYP Intersection Level Of Service Report Intersection 3:Project West Driveway(NS)at Dumas St(EW) Control Type: Two-way stop Delay(sec/veh): 8.9 Analysis Method: HCM 2010 Level Of Service: A Analysis Period: 15 minutes Volume to Capacity(v/c): 0.016 Intersection Setup Name Project West Driveway Dumas St Dumas Street Approach Northbound Eastbound Westbound Lane Configuration +'r► i Turning Movement Left Right Thru Right Left Thru Lane Width[ft] 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 No.of Lanes in Pocket 0 0 0 0 Pocket Length[ft] - - i.).."' G Speed[mph] 30.00 30.00 30.00 r Grade[%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 Q. Crosswalk No No No 0 volumes CCo a' Name Project West Driveway Dumas St Dumas Street 19t Base Volume Input[veh/h] 14 4 20 4 4 30 t O Base Volume Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 d Heavy Vehicles Percentage[%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Growth Rate 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 In-Process Volume[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cn V Site-Generated Trips[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 tl Diverted Trips[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 d Pass-by Trips[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 G d Existing Site Adjustment Volume[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 s Other Volume[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total Hourly Volume[veh/h] 14 4 20 4 4 30 Q Peak Hour Factor 0.9500 0.9500 0.9500 0.9500 0.9500 0.9500 Other Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 d E Total 15-Minute Volume[veh/h] 4 1 5 1 1 8 U Total Analysis Volume[veh/h] 15 4 21 4 4 32 Pedestrian Volume[ped/h] Q KuNZ.aAN AssocIATES,INC. 4/7/2016 Packet Pg. 1237 6.B.h Generated with Waterman Industrial Center Version 4.00-00 Scenario 1: 1:PMFYP Intersection Settings Priority Scheme Stop Free Free Flared Lane No Storage Area[veh] Two-Stage Gap Acceptance No Number of Storage Spaces in Median Movement,Approach,&Intersection Results V/C,Movement V/C Ratio 0.02 0.00 0.00 d_M,Delay for Movement[s/veh] 8.88 8.47 7.25 Movement LOS A A A A A A 95th-Percentile Queue Length[veh] 0.06 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.07 0.07 95th-Percentile Queue Length[ft] 1.50 1.50 0.00 0.00 1.72 1.72 d_A,Approach Delay[s/veh] 8.80 0.00 0.81 C Approach LOS A A A d_I,Intersection Delay[s/veh] 2.45 CL Intersection LOS A LO 00 O Q N W_ C/) U a v .r c d E Q c E U R .0 d KUNZMAN ASSOQAT ES,INC. 4/7/2016 Packet Pg.1238 6.B.h Generated with =z= Waterman Industrial Center Version 4.00-00 Scenario 1: 1:PMFYP Intersection Level Of Service Report Intersection 4:Project East DriveWay(NS)at Dumas Street(EW) Control Type: Two-way stop Delay(sec/veh): 8.4 Analysis Method: HCM 2010 Level Of Service: A Analysis Period: 15 minutes Volume to Capacity(v/c): 0.007 Intersection Setup Name Project East DriveWay Dumas Street Dumas St Approach Northbound Eastbound Westbound Lane Configuration r I i Turning Movement Left Right Thru Right Left Thru Lane Width[ft] 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 No.of Lanes in Pocket 0 0 Pocket Length[ft] c Speed[mph] 30.00 30.00 30.00 r Grade[%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 Q. Crosswalk No No No U' volumes 000 sf Name Project East DriveWay Dumas Street Dumas St Base Volume Input[veh/h] 7 24 9 34 O Base Volume Adjustment Factor _ 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 C Heavy Vehicles Percentage[%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Growth Rate 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 In-Process Volume[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 U Site-Generated Trips[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 d Diverted Trips[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 Y Pass-by Trips[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 O Existing Site Adjustment Volume[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 = Other Volume[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 Total Hourly Volume[veh/h] 7 24 9 34 Q Peak Hour Factor 0.9500 0.9500 0.9500 0.9500 Other Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 d E Total 15-Minute Volume[veh/h] 2 6 2 9 = v Total Analysis Volume[veh/h] 7 25 9 36 ++0+ Pedestrian Volume[ped/h] Q KUNZMAN ASSOCIATES,INC. 4/7/2016 Packet Pg. 1239 6.B.h Generated with Waterman Industrial Center Version 4.00-00 Scenario 1: 1: PMFYP Intersection Settings Priority Scheme Stop Free Free Flared Lane Storage Area[veh] Two-Stage Gap Acceptance No Number of Storage Spaces in Median Movement,Approach,&Intersection Results V/C,Movement V/C Ratio 0.01 0.01 0 00 d_M,Delay for Movement[s/veh] 8.43 7.26 0 011) Movement LOS A A A A 95th-Percentile Queue Length[veh] 0.02 0.00 0.09 0.09 95th-Percentile Queue Length[ft] 0.50 0.00 2.17 2.17 d_A,Approach Delay[s/veh] 8.43 0.00 1.45 C Approach LOS A A A Lf) r d_I,Intersection Delay[s/veh] 1.61 M CL Intersection LOS A LO 00 st O CL d to V a c E a m E t r a KuNZ�tnv ASSOCIATES,INC. 4/7/2016 Packet Pg. 1240 Generated with Waterman Industrial Center Version 4.00-00 Scenario 1: 1:PMFYP Intersection Level Of Service Report Intersection 5:Waterman Ave(NS)at Orange Show Rd(EW) Control Type: Signalized Delay(sec/veh): 38.0 Analysis Method: HCM 2010 Level Of Service: D Analysis Period: 15 minutes Volume to Capacity(v/c): 0.832 Intersection Setup Name Waterman Ave Waterman Ave Orange Show Rd Orange Show Rd Approach Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Lane Configuration 11 r ol 11 r -11 i r "Ill r Turning Movement Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Lane Width[ft] 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 No.of Lanes in Pocket 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 L Pocket Length[ft] 298.00 i 275.00 u I':! „_ 248.00 258.00 c , Speed[mph] 50.00 50.00 40.00 40.00 In Grade[%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 fl Crosswalk Yes Yes Yes Yes U' LO volumes 00 Name Waterman Ave Waterman Ave Orange Show Rd Orange Show Rd d Base Volume Input[veh/h] 280 804 136 115 861 128 170 799 249 168 811 106 L O Base Volume Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 N Heavy Vehicles Percentage[%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Growth Rate 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 In-Process Volume[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 v Site-Generated Trips[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 d Diverted Trips[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 �t Pass-by Trips[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Existing Site Adjustment Volume[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 E Other Volume[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -. Right-Turn on Red Volume[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 Q Total Hourly Volume[veh/h] 280 804 136 115 861 1 128 170 799 249 168 811 106 Peak Hour Factor 0.9500 0.9500 0.9500 0.9500 1 0.9500 0.9500 0.9500 0.9500 0.9500 0.9500 0.9500 0.9500 E Other Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 v CU Total 15-Minute Volume[veh/hI 74 212 36 30 227 34 45 210 66 44 213 28 Total Analysis Volume[veh/h] 295 846 143 121 906 135 179 841 262 177 854 112 Q Presence of On-Street Parking No No No No No No No No On-Street Parking Maneuver Rate[/h] Local Bus Stopping Rate[/h] 0 0 0 0 Pedestrian Volume[ped/h] 0 0 0 0 Bicycle Volume[bicycles/h] 0 0 0 0 KUNzmAN ASSOCIATES,INC 4/7/2016 Packet Pg. 1241 6.B.h Generated with " Waterman Industrial Center Version 4.00-00 Scenario 1: 1: PMFYP Intersection Settings Located in CBD No Signal Coordination Group Cycle Length[s] 80 Coordination Type Time of Day Pattern Isolated Actuation Type Fully actuated Offset[s] 0.0 Offset Reference LeadGreen Permissive Mode SingleBand Lost time[s] 8.00 Phasing&Timing Control Type Protecte Permiss Permiss Protecte Permiss Permiss Protecte Permiss Permiss Protecte Permiss Permiss Signal group 5 2 1 6 3 8 7 4 CV9 Auxiliary Signal Groups u) r Lead/Lag Lead Lead Ld Lead ea to Q Minimum Green[s] 5 5 5 5 u 5 5 0 5 5 0 C9 Maximum Green[s] 30 30 30 30 0 30 30 30 30 0 LO 00 Amber[s] 3.0 3.0 J.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 0.0 1* All red[s] 1.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 a 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 OT .r L Split[s] 18 30 0 13 25 0 13 24 13 24 OQ Vehicle Extension[s] 3.0 3.0 0.0 3.0 3.0 0.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 0,G d rY Walk[s] 0 5 0 0 5 0 0 5 0 0 5 0 Pedestrian Clearance[s] 0 10 G 10 0 0 10 0 10 0 U) 11,Start-Up Lost Time[s] 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 0.0 2.0 2.0 "° 2.0 2.0 0.0 U n. 12,Clearance Lost Time[s] 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 0.0 ' �t Minimum Recall N.7 No No No No No No No Maximum Recall No No No No No No No No N Pedestrian Recall No No No No No No No No ru V Detector Location[ft] 0.0 O.0 0.0 Detector Length[ft] 0.0 0.0 0.0 Q I, Upstream Filtering Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 y Exclusive Pedestrian Phase U Pedestrian Signal Group 0 Y Pedestrian Walk[s] 0 Q Pedestrian Clearance[s] 0 KUNz,mAN AsscCI RTES,INC. 4/7/2016 Packet Pg. 1242 6.B.h Generated with M °• Waterman Industrial Center Version 4.00-00 Scenario 1: 1: PMFYP Lane Group Calculations Lane Group L I C R L I C R L C R L C R L,Total Lost Time per Cycle[s] 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.007 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 11_p,Permitted Start-Up Lost Time[s] 12,Clearance Lost Time[s] 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 1 2.00 g_i,Effective Green Time[s] 14 28 28 7 21 21 9 20 20 9 20 20 g/C,Green/Cycle 0.18 0.35 0.35 0.08 0.26 0.26 0.11 0.25 0.25 0.11 0.25 0.25 (v/s)_i Volume/Saturation Flow Rate 0.16 0.23 0.09 0.07 0.25 0.08 0.10 0.23 0.16 0.10 0.24 0.07 s,saturation flow rate[veh/h] 1810 3618 1615 1810 3618 1615 1810 3618 1615 1810 3618 1615 c,Capacity[veh/h] 317 1281 572 154 956 427 204 898 401 204 898 401 d1,Uniform Delay[s] 32.54 21.78 18.31 35.89 28.90 23.64 34.97 29.46 26.99 34.93 29.60 24.30 k,delay calibration 0.36 0.50 0.50 0.11 0.50 0.50 0.28 0.11 0.18 0.27 0.11 0.11 I,Upstream Filtering Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 cV d2,Incremental Delay[s] 28.50 2.68 1.05 8.52 18.94 1.94 24.68 5.38 2.98 23.05 6.50 0.38 9 d3,Initial Queue Delay[s] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 R Rp,platoon ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PF,progression factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1 1.00 1.00 LO 00 Lane Group Results � X,volume/capacity 0.93 0.66 0.25 0.79 0.95 0.32 0.88 0.94 0.65 0.87 0.95 0.28 d,Delay for Lane Group[s/veh] 61.04 24.47 19.36 44.41 47.84 25.58 59.65 34.85 29.97 57.98 36.10 24.68 0 CL Lane Group LOS E C B D D C E C C E D C Q' Critical Lane Group Yes No No No Yes No Yes No No No Yes No 50th-Percentile Queue Length[veh] 7.63 6.32 1.83 2.51 10.12 2.08 4.65 7.99 4.51 4.52 8.27 1.65 50th-Percentile Queue Length[ft] 190.84 157.93 45.64 62.74 252.90 52.07 116.31 199.67 112.69 112.99 206.86 41.22 a 95th-Percentile Queue Length[veh] 12.16 10.44 3.29 4.52 15.33 3.75 8.19 12.62 7.99 8.01 12.99 2.97 ' 95th-Percentile Queue Length[ft] 304.12 260,98T82,15 112.94 1 383.30 93.73 204.74 315.54 199.74 200.15 324.79 74.20 d E s v r a E a KLINZMAN ASSOCIATES,INC. 4/7/2016 Packet Pg.1243 6.B.h Generated with =z= Waterman Industrial Center Version 4.00-00 Scenario 1: 1:PMFYP Movement,Approach,&Intersection Results d_M,Delay for Movement[s/veh] 61.04 24.47 19.36 44.41 47.84 25.58 59.65 34.85 29.97 57.98 36.10 24.68 Movement LOS E C B D D C E C C E D C d_A,Approach Delay[s/veh] 32.30 44.89 37.31 38.37 Approach LOS C D D D d_I,Intersection Delay[s/veh] 38.05 Intersection LOS D Intersection V/C 0.832 Sequence Ring 1 1 2 3 4 - - - - - - - - - - - - Ring 2 5 6 7 8 - - - - - - - - - - - - N Ring 3 - - - - Ring 4 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - .- Al 00 O CL a; G' t0 U n. c d E U a+ Q r.% C U U tE .r Q KuNZMAI�AssOQATES,INC. 417/2016 Packet Pg. 1244 Generated with M '= Waterman Industrial Center Version 4.00-00 Scenario 1: 1:PMFYP Intersection Level Of Service Report Intersection 6:Waterman Ave(NS)at Dumas St(EW) Control Type: Two-way stop Delay(sec/veh): 29.1 Analysis Method: HCM 2010 Level Of Service: D Analysis Period: 15 minutes Volume to Capacity(v/c): 0.056 Intersection Setup Name Waterman Ave Waterman Ave Dumas St Approach Northbound Southbound Eastbound Lane Configuration 11 i i r 1 Turning Movement Left Thru Thru Right Left Right Lane Width[ft] 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 No.of Lanes in Pocket 1 0 0 0 Pocket Length[ft] 111.00 Speed[mph] 50.00 50.00 30.00 LO T_ Grade[%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 O. Crosswalk No No No C7 volumes 00 It Name Waterman Ave Waterman Ave Dumas St Base Volume Input[veh/h] 11 1229 1378 21 9 24 O Base Volume Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 d Heavy Vehicles Percentage[%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Growth Rate 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Allow In-Process Volume[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 U Site-Generated Trips[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 �- Diverted Trips[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 d r Pass-by Trips[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 = d Existing Site Adjustment Volume[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 t Other Volume[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total Hourly Volume[veh/h] 11 1229 1378 21 9 24 Q Peak Hour Factor 0.9500 0.9500 0.9500 0.9500 0.9500 0.9500 Other Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 d Total 15-Minute Volume[veh/h] 3 323 363 6 2 6 0 v Total Analysis Volume[veh/h] 12 1294 1451 22 9 25 w Q Pedestrian Volume[ped/h] 0 KUNZA4AN AssocIATES,INC. 4/7/2016 Packet'Pg. 1245 6.B.h Generated with M Waterman Industrial Center Version 4.00-00 Scenario 1: 1:PMFYP Intersection Settings Priority Scheme Free Free Stop Flared Lane No Storage Area[veh] Two-Stage Gap Acceptance Yes Number of Storage Spaces in Median 2 Movement,Approach,&Intersection Results V/C,Movement V/C Ratio 0.03 0.01 0.06 0.07 d_M,Delay for Movement[s/veh] 12.97 0.00 29.15 16.50 Movement LOS B A A A D C 95th-Percentile Queue Length[veh] 0.08 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.42 0.42 95th-Percentile Queue Length[ft] 1.99 0.00 0.00 0.00 10.38 10.38 d_A,Approach Delay[s/veh] 0.12 0.00 19.85 0 Approach LOS A A C to T_ d_I,Intersection Delay[s/veh] 0.30 Q Intersection LOS D U U') 00 [F d' O Q N U d d' c m E co a E U f6 .r+ Q KuNzmAN AssocIATES,INC. 4/7/2016 Packet Pg. 1246 6.B.h Generated with Waterman Industrial Center Version 4.00-00 Scenario 1: 1:PMFYP Intersection Level Of Service Report Intersection 7:Waterman Ave(NS)at Park Center Circle North(EW) Control Type: Two-way stop Delay(sec/veh): 589.1 Analysis Method: HCM 2010 Level Of Service: F Analysis Period: 15 minutes Volume to Capacity(v/c): 0.000 Intersection Setup Name Waterman Ave Waterman Ave Project Driveway Park Center Circle N Approach Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Lane Configuration -,l i r r 1 1 1 r i r i t Turning Movement Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Lane Width[ft] 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 No.of Lanes in Pocket 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 Pocket Length[ft] 215.00 i - .. ., ?0 ' G Speed[mph] 50.00 50.00 30.00 30.00 Lr) r. Grade[%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Q. Crosswalk No No Yes No U' volumes 000 d' Name Waterman Ave Waterman Ave Project Driveway Park Center Circle N Base Volume Input[veh/h] 87 965 2 10 1 1452 11 38 0 18 10 0 70 O Base Volume Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 C Heavy Vehicles Percentage[%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 no 0.00 0.00 0.00 x Growth Rate 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 M In-Process Volume[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 to U Site-Generated Trips[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C. Diverted Trips[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Pass-by Trips[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Existing Site Adjustment Volume[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 s Other Volume[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total Hourly Volume[veh/h] 8 965 2 10 1452 11 38 0 18 10 0 70 Q Peak Hour Factor 0.9500 0.9500 0.9500 0.9500 0.9500 0.9500 0.9500 0.9500 0.9500 0.9500 0.9500 0.9500 C Other Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 d E Total 15-Minute Volume[veh/h] 27 254 1 3 382 3 10 0 5 3 0 18 = v Total Analysis Volume[veh/h] 8 1016 2 11 1528 12 40 0 19 11 0 74 Pedestrian Volume[ped/h] 0 Q KIImzm N AssocIATES,INC. 4/7/2016 Packet Pg. 1247 sB.n Generated with Waterman Industrial Center Version 4.00-00 Scenario 1: 1:PMFYP Intersection Settings Priority Scheme Free Free Stop Stop Flared Lane Storage Area[veh] Two-Stage Gap Acceptance No No Number of Storage Spaces in Median Movement,Approach,&Intersection Results V/C,Movement V/C Ratio 0.02 0.02 1.51 0.00 0.05 0.24 0.00 0.14 d_M,Delay for Movement(s/veh] 13.39 10.31 580.25 589.09 15.85 107.12 175.23 13.15 Movement LOS B A A B A A F F C F F B 95th-Percentile Queue Length[veh] 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.00 4.81 4.81 0.17 0.80 0.80 0.50 95th-Percentile Queue Length[ft] 1.40 0.00 0.00 1.22 0.00 0.00 120.20 120.20 4.28 20.06 20.06 12.46 d_A,Approach Delay(s/veh] 0.10 0.07 398.50 25.31 c Approach LOS A A F D r d_I,Intersection Delay[s/veh] 9.51 Q. Intersection LOS F 0 LO 00 d' O CL 0) tC r to V a c a� E ns a E M Y Q KUNTMAN AssoclA-f es,INC. 4/7/2016 Packet Pg. 1248 s.B.n Generated with Waterman Industrial Center Version 4.00-00 Scenario 1: 1:PMFYP Intersection Level Of Service Report Intersection 8:Waterman Ave(NS)at Park Center Circle South(EW) Control Type: Signalized Delay(sec/veh): 11.8 Analysis Method: HCM 2010 Level Of Service: B Analysis Period: 15 minutes Volume to Capacity(v/c): 0.605 Intersection Setup Name Waterman Ave Waterman Ave Park Center Circle South Park Center Circle South Approach Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Lane Configuration -i I I r -i l 1 r I r "1 r Turning Movement Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Lane Width[ft] 12.00 1 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 No.of Lanes in Pocket 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Pocket Length[ft] 100.00 NC Speed[mph] 50.00 50.00 30.00 30.00 U� Grade[%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 M CL Crosswalk No Yes Yes Yes L7 LC) volumes 00 Name Waterman Ave Waterman Ave Park Center Circle South Park Center Circle South r1 Base Volume Input[veh/h] 24 936 47 23 1357 26 1 11 204 46 0 O Base Volume Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 d Heavy Vehicles Percentage[%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 j 0.00 Growth Rate 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 In-Process Volume[veh/h] 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 U Site-Generated Trips[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a Diverted Trips[veh/h] 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 " Pass-by Trips[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 r- N Existing Site Adjustment Volume[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 E Other Volume[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 U .r Right-Turn on Red Volume[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 Q Total Hourly Volume[veh/h] 24 936 47 23 1357 26 1 11 204 46 Peak Hour Factor 0.9500 0.9500 0.9500 0.9500 0.9500 0.9500 0.9500 0.9500 0.9500 0.9500 d Other Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 v Total 15-Minute Volume[veh/h] 6 246 12 6 357 7 0 3 54 0 12 Total Analysis Volume[veh/h] 25 985 49 24 1428 27 1 12 215 0 48 Q Presence of On-Street Parking No No No No No No No No On-Street Parking Maneuver Rate[/h] Local Bus Stopping Rate[/h] 0 0 0 0 Pedestrian Volume[ped/h] 0 0 0 Bicycle Volume[bicycles/h] 0 0 0 0 KUNZMAN ASSOCIATES,INC. 4/7/2016 Packet Pg. 1249 6.B.h Generated with Waterman Industrial Center Version 4.00-00 Scenario 1: 1: PMFYP Intersection Settings Located in CBD No Signal Coordination Group Cycle Length[s] 65 Coordination Type Time of Day Pattern Isolated Actuation Type Fully actuated Offset[s] 0.0 Offset Reference LeaclGreen Permissive Mode SingleBand Lost time[s] 6.00 Phasing&Timing Control Type Protecte Permiss Permiss Protecte Permiss Permiss Permiss Permi4e Permiss Permiss Permiss Signal group 5 2 1 6 3 0 7 Auxiliary Signal Groups 'n Lead/Lag Lead I Lead - Lead - Lead fl. Minimum Green[s] 5 5 _ 5 5 0 5 0 5 U` Maximum Green[s] 307 30 0 30 30 30 0 30 0 00 Amber[s] 3.0 3.0 0.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 10 3.0 0.0 Allred[s] 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 10 0.0 1.0 10 Split[s] 9 19 9 19 37 0 0 37 0 0 Q Vehicle Extension[s] 3.0 3.0 0.0 3.0 3.0 a.0 3.0 0 0.0 3.0 0.0 Walk[s] 0 5 0 5 0 0 5 0 Pedestrian Clearance[s] 11 J 0 10 0 10 0 0 10 n 11,Start-Up Lost Time[s] 2.0 2.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 ).0 2.0 {1.0 0.0 2.0 CL 12,Clearance Lost Time[s] 2.0 2.0 ".0 2.0 2.0 0 2.0 `? 0.0 2.0 ' d' Minimum Recall No No No No No T No C Maximum Recall No No No No No No E Pedestrian Recall No No No No No No U f6 Detector Location[ft] J b.0 u. a Detector Length[ft] G J.O 0.0 0.0 1, Upstream Filtering Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Exclusive Pedestrian Phase Pedestrian Signal Group 0 Pedestrian Walk[s] 0 Q Pedestrian Clearance[s] 0 KuNZMAN AssocIATES,INC. 4/7/2016 Packet Pg. 1250 6.B.h Generated with M '= Waterman Industrial Center Version 4.00-00 Scenario 1: 1: PMFYP Lane Group Calculations Lane Group L C R L C R L R L R L,Total Lost Time per Cycle[s] 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 11_p,Permitted Start-Up Lost Time[s] 0.00 _. 0.00 2.00 _., H2.00 0 12,Clearance Lost Time[s] 0.00 2.00 2.00 0.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2 g_i,Effective Green Time[s] 43 37 37 43 37 37 14 14 14 14 g/C,Green/Cycle 0.66 0.57 0.57 0.66 0.57 0.57 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21 (v/s)_i Volume/Saturation Flow Rate 0.05 0.27 0.03 0.03 0.39 0.02 0.00 0.01 0.15 0.03 s,saturation flow rate[veh/h] 508 3618 1615 688 3618 1615 1440 1615 1440 1615 c,Capacity[veh/h] 400 2081 929 533 2077 927 369 344 369 344 d1,Uniform Delay[s] 6.33 8.07 6.05 4.54 9.74 6.00 21.90 20.30 25.73 20.77 k,delay calibration 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.11 0.50 0.50 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 I,Upstream Filtering Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 CV d2,Incremental Delay[s] 0.30 0.78 0.11 0.03 1.88 0.06 0.00 0.04 1.46 0.18 LO d3,Initial Queue Delay[s] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Rp,platoon ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 IZ C7 PF,progression factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 LO 00 Lane Group Results X,volume/capacity 0.06 0.47 0.05 0.05 0.69 0.03 0.00 0.03 0.58 0.14 d,Delay for Lane Group[s/veh] 6.63 8.84 6.16 4.58 11.62 6.05 21.90 20.34 27.18 20.95 0 CL Lane Group LOS A A A A B A C C C C 0 Critical Lane Group Yes No No No Yes No No No Yes No 50th-Percentile Queue Length[veh] 0.09 2.86 0.22 0.06 5.15 0.12 0.01 0.14 3.16 0.58 N 50th-Percentile Queue Length[ft] 2.28 71.46 5.61 1.52 128.83 3.06 0.31 3.52 79.03 14.44 d 95th-Percentile Queue Length[veh] 0.16 5.14 0.40 0.11 8.88 0.22 0.02 0.25 5.69 1.04 95th-Percentile Queue Length(ft] 4.11 128.62 10.10 2.73 221.91 5.50 0.55 6.33 142.26 25.98 E t V tC a Y E U N a. a KUNZMAN ASSOCIATES,INC. 4/7/2016 Packet Pg. 1251 Generated with Waterman Industrial Center Version 4.00-00 Scenario 1: 1:PMFYP Movement,Approach,&Intersection Results d_M,Delay for Movement[s/veh] 6.63 8.84 6.16 4.58 11.62 6.05 21.90 20.34 27.18 20.95 Movement LOS A A A A B A C C C C d_A,Approach Delay[s/veh] 8.67 11.40 20.46 26.05 Approach LOS A B C C d I,Intersection Delay[s/veh] 11.78 Intersection LOS B Intersection V/C 0.605 Sequence Ring 1 1 2 3 - - - - - - - - - - - - Ring 2 5 6 7 - - - - - - - - - - - - N Ring 3 - - - Ring 4 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - LO CL LO co v 0 CL Ar in U O. c d E t v co .r a U t4 a+ r+ Q KLINZMAN AssocIAres,INC. 4/7/2016 Packet Pg. 1252 6.B.h Generated with •O Waterman Industrial Center Version 4.00-00 Scenario 1: 1: PMFYP Intersection Level Of Service Report Intersection 9:Waterman Ave(NS)at Vanderbilt Way(EW) Control Type: Signalized Delay(sec/veh): 34.3 Analysis Method: HCM 2010 Level Of Service: C Analysis Period: 15 minutes Volume to Capacity(v/c): 1.081 Intersection Setup Name Waterman Ave Waterman Ave Vanderbilt Way Vanderbilt Way Approach Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Lane Configuration '111 r "11 i F + -Hr Turning Movement Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Lane Width[ft] 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 No.of Lanes in Pocket 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Pocket Length[ft] C Speed[mph] 50.00 50.00 30.00 30.00 LO T Grade[%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Q Crosswalk No Yes Yes Yes U volumes 000 Name Waterman Ave Waterman Ave Vanderbilt Way Vanderbilt Way Base Volume Input[veh/h] 52 698 242 253 1295 15 10 5 15 409 3 295 1` O Base Volume Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 C AOMN'k Heavy Vehicles Percentage[%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Ix Growth Rate 1.00 1 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 N IM1,81 In-Process Volume[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 U Site-Generated Trips[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O. Diverted Trips[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 le y Pass-by Trips[veh/h] 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 d Existing Site Adjustment Volume[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 E Other Volume[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Right-Turn on Red Volume[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 Q Total Hourly Volume[veh/h] 52 698 242 253 1295 15 10 5 15 409 3 295 Peak Hour Factor 0.9500 0.9500 0.9500 0.9500 0.9500 0.9500 0.9500 0.9500 0.9500 0.9500 0.9500 0.9500 d E Other Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 U Total 15-Minute Volume[veh/h] 14 184 64 67 341 4 3 1 4 108 1 78 Total Analysis Volume[veh/h] 55 735 255 266 1363 16 11 5 16 431 3 311 Q Presence of On-Street Parking No No No No No No No No On-Street Parking Maneuver Rate[/h] Local Bus Stopping Rate[/h] 0 0 0 0 Pedestrian Volume[ped/h] 0 0 0 Bicycle Volume[bicycles/h] 0 0 0 0 KUNzmAN ASSOCIATES,INC. 4/7/2016 Packet Pg. 1253 s.B.n Generated with ME= Waterman Industrial Center Version 4.00-00 Scenario 1: 1: PMFYP Intersection Settings Located in CBD No Signal Coordination Group Cycle Length[s] 60 Coordination Type Time of Day Pattern Isolated Actuation Type Fully actuated Offset[s] 0.0 Offset Reference LeadGreen Permissive Mode SingleBand Lost time[s] 6.00 Phasing&Timing Control Type Protecte Permiss Permiss Protecte Permiss Permiss Permiss Permiss Permiss Permiss Permiss Permiss Signal group -57 2 1 1 6 8 4 CVC7 Auxiliary Signal Groups T Lead/Lag Lead Lead I - Q Minimum Green[s] 5 5 5 5 0 0 5 5 0 (� Maximum Green[s] 30 30 30 30 0 0 30 0 30 0 � oD Amber[s] 3.0 3.0 9.0 3.0 3.0 ;7.0 0,0 3.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 0.0 TT All red[s] 1.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 }.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 i Split[s] 9 19 15 25 0 26 26 0 Q Vehicle Extension[s] 3.0 3.0 0 3.0 3.0 3.0 0.0 3.0 0.0 d IIX Walk[s] 5 U 5 0 5 R Pedestrian Clearance[s] ;g 10 0 10 10 V) 11,Start-Up Lost Time[s] 2.0 2.0 0. 2.0 2.0 ).0 2.0 2.0 V d 12,Clearance Lost Time[s] 2.0 2.0 0_Q 2.0 2.0 1, 2.0 2.0 ' Minimum Recall No No No No No No Maximum Recall No No No No No No N Pedestrian Recall No No No No No No U Detector Location[ft] O.0 0.0 .0 0.0 1 Detector Length[ft] 0.0 ,0 o,0 0 0.0 .r I,Upstream Filtering Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 E Exclusive Pedestrian Phase L) Pedestrian Signal Group 0 Pedestrian Walk[s] 0 Q Pedestrian Clearance[s] 0 10 KUNZMAN ASSOCIATES,INC. 4/7/2016 Packet Pg. 1254 6.B.h Generated with Waterman Industrial Center Version 4.00-00 Scenario 1: 1:PMFYP Lane Group Calculations Lane Group L I C R L C C C L C R L,Total Lost Time per Cycle[s] 4007 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 11_p,Permitted Start-Up Lost Time[s] 2.00 2.00 2.00 12,Clearance Lost Time[s] 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 g_i,Effective Green Time[s] 3 16 16 11 23 23 22 22 22 22 g/C,Green/Cycle 0.05 0.26 0.26 1 0.18 0.38 0.38 0.37 0.37 0.37 1 0.37 (v/s)_i Volume/Saturation Flow Rate 0.03 0.20 0.16 0.15 0.25 0.25 0.10 0.01 0.62 0.19 s,saturation flow rate[veh/h] 1810 3618 1615 1810 3618 1889 311 1413 676 1615 c,Capacity[veh/h] 94 940 420 318 1388 725 194 128 366 589 d1,Uniform Delay[s] 27.87 20.68 19.57 23.95 15.25 15.25 1 15.10 29.96 22.82 15.03 k,delay calibration 0.11 0.50 0.50 0.25 0.50 0.50 0.11 0.11 0.50 0.11 I,Upstream Filtering Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 cV d2,Incremental Delay[s] 5.58 6.44 6.41 12.29 2.40 4.54 0.40 0.34 94.98 0.74 9 d3,Initial Queue Delay[s] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 `- ta Rp,platoon ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Q• 0 PF,progression factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 LO 00 Lane Group Results et' X,volume/capacity 0.58 0.78 0.61 0.84 0.65 0.65 0.17 0.10 1.15 0.53 d,Delay for Lane Group[s/veh] 33.45 27.12 25.98 36.24 17.65 19.79 15.50 30.30 117.80 15.77 Q Lane Group LOS C C C D B B B C F B d lY Critical Lane Group No Yes No Yes No No No No Yes No 50th-Percentile Queue Length[veh] 0.83 4.79 3.34 4.20 4.39 5.01 0.27 0.19 14.70 3.09 N 50th-Percentile Queue Length[ft] 20.74 119.79 83.53 104.93 109.74 125.37 6.81 4.76 367.43 77.17 d 95th-Percentile Queue Length[veh] 1.49 8.38 6.01 7.55 7.83 8.69 0.49 0.34 22.85 5.56 d• 95th-Percentile Queue Length[ft] 37.33 209.54 150.35 188.87 195.64 217.18 12.26 8.57 571.15 138.91 E t V to Q C d E t v R r Q KuNZMAN AssocIATES,INC. 4/7/2016 Packet Pg. 1255 Generated with Waterman Industrial Center Version 4.00-00 Scenario 1: 1:PMFYP Movement,Approach,&Intersection Results d_M,Delay for Movement[s/veh] 33.45 27.12 25.98 36.24 18.37 19.79 15.50 15.50 15.50 115.16 117.80 15.77 Movement LOS C C C D B B B B B F F B d_A,Approach Delay[s/veh] 27.18 21.27 15.50 73.69 Approach LOS C C B E d I,Intersection Delay[s/veh] 34.26 Intersection LOS C Intersection V/C 1.081 Sequence Ring 1 1 2 4 - - - - - - - - - - - - Ring 2 5 6 8 - - - - - - - - - - - - - N Ring 3 - - - Ring 4 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - L � y kr�' .. T ill�i a t fi LO m Q U) U a c a� E t U t6 w a r E r a KUNZk4AN ASSOCIATES,INC. 4/7/2016 Packet Pg. 1256 6.B.h Generated with Waterman Industrial Center Version 4.00-00 Scenario 1:1:PMFYPi With Improvement Intersection Level Of Service Report Intersection 7:Waterman Ave(NS)at Park Center Circle North(EW) Control Type: Signalized Delay(sec/veh): 8.1 Analysis Method: HCM 2010 Level Of Service: A Analysis Period: 15 minutes Volume to Capacity(v/c): 2.653 Intersection Setup Name Waterman Ave Waterman Ave Project Driveway Park Center Circle N Approach Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Lane Configuration i t "111 r i r i r Turning Movement Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Lane Width[ft] 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 No.of Lanes in Pocket 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 Pocket Length[ft] 215.00 cV 0 Speed[mph] 50.00 50.00 30.00 30.00 LO T_ Grade[%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Q Crosswalk No No Yes No 0 LO volumes 00 Name Waterman Ave Waterman Ave Project Driveway Park Center Circle N d Base Volume Input[veh/h] 8 965 2 10 1452 11 38 0 18 10 0 70 L O Base Volume Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 C Heavy Vehicles Percentage[%] 000 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Growth Rate 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 t�0 In-Process Volume[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 V Site-Generated Trips[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 d Diverted Trips[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 It Pass-by Trips[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N Existing Site Adjustment Volume[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 E Other Volume[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 U .r Right-Turn on Red Volume[veh/h] 0 0 0 0 Q Total Hourly Volume(veh/h] 8 965 2 10 1452 11 1 38 0 18 10 0 70 Peak Hour Factor 0.9500 0.9500 0.9500 0.9500 0.9500 0.9500 0.9500 0.9500 0.9500 0.9500 0.9500 0.9500 O Other Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 v CU Total 15-Minute Volume[veh/h] 2 254 1 3 382 3 10 0 5 3 0 18 Total Analysis Volume[veh/h] 8 1016 2 11 1528 12 40 0 19 11 0 74 Q Presence of On-Street Parking No No No No No No No No On-Street Parking Maneuver Rate[/h] - Local Bus Stopping Rate[/h] 0 0 0 0 Pedestrian Volume[ped/h] 0 Bicycle Volume[bicycles/h] 0 0 0 0 KUNZMAN ASSOCIATES,INC. 4/7/2016 Packet Pg. 1257 6.B.h Generated with ER5, Waterman Industrial Center _ ,... Version 4.00-00 Scenario 1: 1:PMFYPi With Improvement=. Intersection Settings Located in CBD No Signal Coordination Group Cycle Length[s] 60 Coordination Type Time of Day Pattern Isolated Actuation Type Fully actuated Offset[s] 0.0 Offset Reference LeadGreen Permissive Mode SingleBand Lost time[s] 6.00 Phasing&Timing Control Type Protecte Permiss Permiss Protecte Permiss Permiss Permiss Permiss Permiss Permiss Permiss Permiss Signal group 5 2 1 6 8 4 C LO Auxiliary Signal Groups T Lead/Lag Lead Lead Q Minimum Green[s] 5 5 5 5 1 5 0 J 5 C7 Maximum Green[s] 30 30 " 30 30 0 0 30 30 LO 00 Amber[s] 3.0 3.0 0.0 3.0 3.0 0.0 10 3.0 3.0 � All red[s] 1.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 0 1.0 1.0 Split[s] 26 36 9 19 0 ;3 15 U 15 0 0 Vehicle Extension[s] 3.0 3.0 0.0 3.0 3.0 0 3.0 ?.0 3.0 0.0 Walk[s] 0 0 5 0 :t: N Pedestrian Clearance[s] 10 0 ;0 6 0 10 a 0 11,Start-Up Lost Time[s] 2.0 2.0 0.0 2.0 2.0 OA 55 0 2.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 a 12,Clearance Lost Time[s] 2.0 2.0 0 0 2.0 2.0 0.0 2.0 0 2.0 OA ' Minimum Recall No No No No No No Maximum Recall No No No No No No d Pedestrian Recall No No No No No No U CO Detector Location[ft] Q Detector Length[ft] (}.0 0.0 n,.0 o" a I,Upstream Filtering Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Exclusive Pedestrian Phase U Pedestrian Signal Group 0 Pedestrian Walk[s] 0 Q Pedestrian Clearance[s] 0 KUNZMAN ASSOCIATES,INC. 4/7/2016 Packet Pg. 1258 6B:h Generated with MEM Waterman Industrial Center Version 4.00-00 Scenario 1: 1:PMFYPi With ImprovementE Lane Group Calculations Lane Group L C R L I C R C R C R L,Total Lost Time per Cycle[s] 4.00 1 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 11_p,Permitted Start-Up Lost Time[s] 2.00 2.00 12,Clearance Lost Time[s] 2.007 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 g_i,Effective Green Time[s] 1 39 39 1 40 40 8 8 8 8 g/C,Green/Cycle 0.01 0.66 0.66 0.02 0.66 0.66 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 (v I s)_i Volume/Saturation Flow Rate 0.00 0.28 0.00 0.01 0.42 0.01 1.96 0.01 0.66 0.05 s,saturation flow rate[veh/h] 1810 3618 1615 1810 3618 1615 20 1615 17 1615 c,Capacity[veh/h] 23 2366 1056 29 2379 1062 122 211 122 211 d1,Uniform Delay[s] 29.47 5.01 3.61 29.30 6.11 3.55 30.08 23.01 30.07 23.83 k,delay calibration 0.11 0.50 0.50 0.11 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.11 0.50 0.11 I,Upstream Filtering Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 N d2,Incremental Delay[s] 9.18 0.57 0.00 7.93 1.35 0.02 6.99 0.18 1.46 0.99 LO d3,Initial Queue Delay[s] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 tC Rp,platoon ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Q- PF,progression factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 oD Lane Group Results d d X,volume/capacity 0.35 0.43 0.00 0.38 0.64 0.01 0.33 0.09 0.09 0.35 t d,Delay for Lane Group[s/veh] 38.65 5.58 3.61 37.23 7.46 3.57 37.07 23.19 31.53 24.83 0 CL Lane Group LOS D A A D A A D C C C Q' Critical Lane Group Yes No No No No Yes No No No 50th-Percentile Queue Length[veh] 0.16 1.58 0.00 0.20 2.96 0.03 0.80 0.23 0.20 0.96 0) 50th-Percentile Queue Length[ft] 3.99 39.38 0.12 5.10 74.10 0.72 20.11 5.86 5.06 24.01 V CL 95th-Percentile Queue Length[veh] 0.29 2.84 0.01 0.37 5.34 0.05 1.45 0.42 0.36 1.73 95th-Percentile Queue Length[ft] 7.18 70.88 0.22 9.18 133.38 1.29 36.20 10.55 9.10 43.22 Q E t v m w Q c m E t r Q KIINZM N Assoc[ATES,INC. 4/712016 Packet Pg. 1259 6.B.h Generated with M 's Waterman Industrial Center Version 4.00-00 Scenario 1: 1:PMFYPi With Improvement: Movement,Approach,&Intersection Results d_M,Delay for Movement[s/veh] 38.65 5.58 3.61 37.23 7.46 3.57 37.07 37.07 23.19 31.53 31.53 24.83 Movement LOS D A A D A A D D C C C C d_A,Approach Delay[s/veh] 5.83 7.64 32.60 25.69 Approach LOS A A C C d_I,Intersection Delay[s/veh] 8.06 Intersection LOS A Intersection V/C 2.653 Sequence Ring 1 1 2 4 - - - - - - - - - - - - - Ring 2 5 6 8 - - - - - - - - - - - - - N Ring 3 - - - Ring 4 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - L6 a t9 0 0 CL AF A U) U CL v c d E s ca a r a KuNZMAN ASSOCIATES,INC. 4/7/2016 Packet Pg. 1260 6.B.h KLINZMAN ASSOCIATES, INC.. au a OVER 40 YEARS of EXCELLENT SERVICE March 28, 2016 Mr.Jackson Smith NEWCASTLE PARTNERS, INC. 4740 Green River Road,Suite 118 Corona, CA 92880 Dear Mr. Smith: c INTRODUCTION c. t9 The firm of Kunzman Associates, Inc. is pleased to provide responses to comments regarding the LO Waterman Industrial Center project in the City of San Bernardino. Comments were received via email Memo dated March 23, 2015 (see Appendix A). 0 a- The Waterman Industrial Center Traffic Impact Analysis was prepared by Kunzman Associates, Inc. (September 9, 2015). The traffic impact analysis will be revised to incorporate text revisions as per the M comments. The Waterman Industrial Center Traffic Impact Analysis (Revised) was prepared by Kunzman Associates, Inc. (March 22, 2016). See Appendix B for key revised pages. a RESPONSE TO COMMENT 1(SA2-1) E Comment so noted. Based upon previous discussions with the City of San Bernardino staff, no improvements are currently planned or funded for the railroad crossing on Waterman Avenue (north of Dumas Street). Q a.. c m RESPONSE TO COMMENT 2(OR1-2) s U iC a+ While the project will add truck trips to Waterman Avenue, the Waterman Avenue study area Q intersections are projected to operate within acceptable Levels of Service during the peak hours for Year 2035 With Project traffic conditions (as shown in Table 12 of the traffic study). RESPONSE TO COMMENT 3(OR3-19) The Waterman Industrial Center Traffic Impact Analysis (Revised) was prepared by Kunzman Associates, Inc. (March 22, 2016). The trip generation was revised to reflect the South Coast Air Quality Management District guidelines for high-cube warehouse distribution center projects. The car - truck ratios were altered to reflect the higher truck splits. As shown in Table 3, the 61.9%car(1.04/1.68) and 38.1% truck (0.64/1.68) values are from ITE and approved alternative documented by SCAQMD. 0 1111 TOWN&COUNTRY ROAD,SUITE 34 ORANGE,CALIFORNIA 92868 (714)973-8383 W W W.TRAFF I C-ENG INEER.COM- Packet Pg. 1261 Mr.Jackson Smith NEWCASTLE PARTNERS, INC. March 28, 2016 Consequently, the truck mix was obtained from SCAQMD document specifying the use of (LHD2 = 0.0645, MHD=0.0645, HHD=0.2300)when using the ITE 0.64 truck trip rate. No change in mitigation measures from the previous traffic study to the revised traffic study were recommended at the study area intersections with the revised trip generation rates. RESPONSE TO COMMENT 4(OR3-20) See Response to Comment 3 (0113-19). RESPONSE TO COMMENT 5 (OR3-21) c U) See Response to Comment 3 (OR3-19). C RESPONSE TO COMMENT 6(GP1-3) 00 v The applicant will be adding an additional lane to Dumas Road with this project. This will create a two- V_ way left-turn median from approximately the west property boundary to Waterman Avenue. This lane m will allow for pass through traffic without blocking the travel lane with trucks desiring to turn left into 0� the project site. It has been a pleasure to service your needs on the Waterman Industrial Center project. Should you a have any questions or if we can be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to call at (714) 973-8383. .r c Sincerely, QvOESS/,4 q � KUNZMAN ASSOCIATES, INC. K(/,t,� ��'� KUNZMAN ASSOCIATES, INC. a co = „may No.TR0056 z �m a^^ E dr Perrie Ilercil P.E. 7k T G * William Kunzman P.E. gAFF� Q Senior Associate Cl?Q Principal 9 OF Ca�� ` Jn5629e W W W.'I-RAFF I C-ENG I NE ER.COM 2 Packet Pg. 1262 . 6.B.h N O T CL V Lo 00 0 CL APPENDIX A ca N COMMENT MEMO U a v Z c a� E s a E Q Packet Pg. 1263 6.B.h STATE OF CALIFORNIA EDMUND G. BROWN JR., Governor PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION )WEST 4TH STREET,SUITE 500 JS ANGELES,CA 90013 y;_ (213)576-7083 March 1, 2016 Travis Martin City of San Bernardino 300 North D Street, 3`d Floor San Bernardino, CA 92418 Dear Travis: Re: SCH 2016021002 San Bernardino (SBC) Waterman Industrial Center Project - DMND N O The California Public Utilities Commission (Commission) has jurisdiction over the safety of highway- Ln rail crossings (crossings) in California. The California Public Utilities Code requires Commission a approval for the construction or alteration of crossings and grants the Commission exclusive power 0 on the design, alteration, and closure of crossings in California. The Commission Rail Crossings and Engineering Branch (RCEB) has received the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the proposed 00 Waterman Industrial Center Project. The City of San Bernardino (City) is the lead agency. t 0 The project area is located southwest of the intersection of Dumas Street and Waterman Avenue. The Waterman Avenue crossing (CPUC 0020-3.00 and DOT 027220Y) is located approximately 20 feet north of the intersection. Construction traffic is anticipated throughout the duration of the project. Traffic volume is anticipated to increase at the crossing during the project construction and in the N U future. a. RCEB recommends that the City add language to the project so that any development adjacent to or near the railroad/light rail right-of-way (ROW) is planned with the safety of the rail corridor in mind. Construction and future business activities may increase traffic volumes not only on streets and at SA intersections, but also at railroad crossings. Mitigation measures to consider include, but are not limited to, improvements to existing railroad crossings due to increase in traffic volumes, and a continuous vandal resistant fencing or other appropriate barriers to limit the access of trespassers onto the railroad ROW. _ U If you have any questions in this matter, please contact Sergio Licon at (213) 576-7085, 0 Sergio.licon(q-)cpuc.ca.gov. Q Sincerely, Ken Chiang, P.E. Utilities Engineer Rail Crossings and Engineering Branch Safety and Enforcement Division C: State Clearinghouse Packet Pg. 1264 6.B.h From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Flagged Hi,Travis, I just received the Notice of Intent for the Waterman Industrial Center proposed to be located at W. Dumas and S. Waterman Avenue. o LO As owners of the Inland Regional Center buildings (across the street from the project), I have only two CL concerns: LO CO �r 1.When the SCE towers are relocated, the overhead wires cannot be moved any closer to our building OR1-1 2. Large volumes of truck traffic at the site will undoubtedly cause severe congestion on S. Waterman.] OR1-'e a a� Thank you for hearing our concerns. U vast ?sr�c:t pV. President/CEO �r California Housing Foundation 1200 California Street, Suite 104 E Redlands, CA, 92374 v (909) 793-9800 a svonroics@CHFcares.com E 0 U Q 1 '' Packet Pg. 1265 6.B.h • ' T 510.836.4200 410 12th Street,Suite 250 www.lozeaudrury.com F 510.836.4205 Oakland, Ca 94607 doug@lozeaudrury.com BY EMAIL and OVERNIGHT MAIL March 1, 2016 N Travis Martin, Assistant Planner ° City of San Bernardino 9093845313 300 North D Street, 3rd Floor San Bernardino, CA 92418 martin—tr @sbcity.org 0 Re: Mitigated Negative Declaration for Waterman Industrial Center (Development Permit Type D — 15-11) — SCH No. 2016021002 r Dear Mr. Martin: a This letter is submitted on behalf of Laborers International Union of North c America, Local Union 783, and its hundreds of members living in San Bernardino County (collectively, "LIUNA" or "Commenters") concerning the City of San Bernardino's 0 (the "City") Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration ("IS/MND") prepared for the .2 Waterman Industrial Center, Development Permit Type D — 15-11) (SCH No. 2016021002) (the "Project"). E The Project is a 564,652 square foot industrial building that includes office space, s parking, a pump house, and landscaping. The Project is located at the intersection of Q East Dumas Street and South Waterman Avenue in the City of San Bernardino. These comments have been prepared with the assistance of Matt Hagemann, P.G., C.Hg., QSD, QSP, an expert hydrogeologist; and Jessie Jaeger, air quality specialist from SWAPE. Their comments and curriculum vitae are attached as Exhibit A See C hereto ("Hagemann") and are incorporated by reference in their entirety. The City should respond to Mr. Hagemann's comments separately. Commenters request that the City withdraw the IS/MND and instead prepare an environmental impact report ("EIR") for the Project, as there is substantial evidence that OR3- the Project will have significant unmitigated impacts on the environment as discussed Packet Pg. 1266 6.B.h Comments of LIUNA on Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative Declaration Waterman Industrial Center Page 2of8 OR3-1 below. There is a fair argument that the Project may have significant unmitigated Cont. impacts, including: OR3-2 1. Significant and unmitigated air quality impacts associated with the operation of the Project. OR3-3 E 2. Significant and unmitigated human health risks from diesel particulate matter emissions associated with Project construction. OR3-4� An EIR is required to analyze these and other impacts and to adopt feasible mitigation measures to reduce the impacts to the extent feasible. PROJECT DESCRIPTION o The Project is a proposed 564,652-square-foot (SF) industrial center building on a the southwest corner of the intersection of East Dumas Street and South Waterman �? Avenue in the City of San Bernardino. It also includes office space, parking, a pump LO Iq OR3-5 house, and landscaping on an approximately 26-acre property. The future tenant of the building is not currently known, so associated operational details are not known. Additionally, there are 8 Southern California Edison (SCE) power poles that contain 6 a wires of high voltage 66kv Edison transmission lines, a 3 wire 12kv system and a 3 wire 4kv system. The City concluded that the Project, with proposed mitigation measures M identified in the IS/MND, will not have a significant effect on the environment and that an N EIR is therefore not required. a. a STANDING E Members of LIUNA, Local Union No. 783 live, work, and recreate in the immediate vicinity of the Project site. These members will suffer the impacts of a poorly a executed or inadequately mitigated Project, just as would the members of any nearby OR3-6 homeowners association, community group or environmental group. Hundreds of LIUNA Local Union No. 783 members live and work in areas that will be affected by air pollution generated by the project. Therefore, LIUNA Local Union No. 883 and its a members have a direct interest in ensuring that the Project is adequately analyzed and that its environmental and public health impacts are mitigated to the fullest extent feasible. Pursuant to CEQA, LIUNA Local Union No. 783 submits these comments in OR3-7 response to the City's proposed IS/MND. Under the circumstances presented here, CEQA clearly requires the preparation of an EIR and accordingly, the City should decline to adopt the proposed IS/MND. LEGAL STANDARD -)R3-8 As the California Supreme Court recently held, "[i]f no EIR has been prepared for Packet Pg.1267 6B.h Comments of LIUNA on Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative Declaration Waterman Industrial Center Page 3of8 a nonexempt project, but substantial evidence in the record supports a fair argument that the project may result in significant adverse impacts, the proper remedy is to order preparation of an EIR." (Communities for a Better Environment v. South Coast Air Quality Management Dist. (2010) 48 Cal.4th 310, 319-320 ["CBE v. SCAQMD"], citing, OR3 No Oil, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles (1974) 13 Cal.3d 68, 75, 88; Brentwood Assn. for No Cont Drilling, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles (1982) 134 Cal.App.3d 491, 504-505.) "The 'foremost principle' in interpreting CEQA is that the Legislature intended the act to be read so as to afford the fullest possible protection to the environment within the reasonable scope of the statutory language." (Communities for a Better Environment V. Calif. Resources Agency(2002) 103 Cal.AppAth 98, 109 ["CBE v. CRA"].) The EIR is the very heart of CEQA. (Bakersfield Citizens for Local Control v. City o LO of Bakersfield (2004) 124 Cal.AppAth 1184, 1214; Pocket Protectors v. City of Sacramento (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 903, 927.) The EIR is an "environmental `alarm a bell' whose purpose is to alert the public and its responsible officials to environmental �? changes before they have reached the ecological points of no return." (Bakersfield OR3 LO Citizens, supra, 124 Cal.AppAth at 1220.) The EIR also functions as a document of accountability," intended to "demonstrate to an apprehensive citizenry that the agency V has, in fact, analyzed and considered the ecological implications of its action." (Laurel C Heights Improvements Assn. v. Regents of University of California (1988) 47 Cal.3d 376, 392.) The EIR process "protects not only the environment but also informed self- M government." (Pocket Protectors, supra, 124 Cal.AppAth at 927.) U a An EIR is required if "there is substantial evidence, in light of the whole record v before the lead agency, that the project may have a significant effect on the environment." (Pub. Resources Code, § 21080(d); see also Pocket Protectors, supra, E 124 Cal.App.4th at 927.) In very limited circumstances, an agency may avoid preparing an EIR by issuing a negative declaration, a written statement briefly indicating that a a project will have no significant impact thus requiring no EIR (14 Cal. Code Regs., § :- 15371 ["CEQA Guidelines"]), only if there is not even a "fair argument" that the project OR3. E will have a significant environmental effect. (Pub. Resources Code, §§ 21100, 21064.) Since "[t]he adoption of a negative declaration . has a terminal effect on the environmental review process," by allowing the agency "to dispense with the duty [to a prepare an EIR]," negative declarations are allowed only in cases where "the proposed project will not affect the environment at all." (Citizens of Lake Murray v. San Diego (1989) 129 Cal.App.3d 436, 440.) Where an initial study shows that the project may have a significant effect on the environment, a mitigated negative declaration may be appropriate. However, a mitigated negative declaration is proper only if the project revisions would avoid or mitigate the potentially significant effects identified in the initial study "to a point where OR3. clearly no significant effect on the environment would occur, and...there is no substantial evidence in light of the whole record before the public agency that the project, as revised, may have a significant effect on the environment." (Public Packet Pg. 1268 ;�rr.■r 6.B.h Comments of LIUNA on Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative Declaration Waterman Industrial Center Page 4 of 8 Resources Code §§ 21064.5 and 21080(c)(2); Mejia v. City of Los Angeles (2005) 130 Cal.App.4th 322, 331.) In that context, "may" means a reasonable possibility of a OR3-11 significant effect on the environment. (Pub. Resources Code, §§ 21082.2(a), 21100, Cont. 21151(a); Pocket Protectors, supra, 124 Cal.App.4th at 927; League for Protection of Oakland's etc. Historic Resources v. City of Oakland(1997) 52 Cal.App.4th 896, 904- 905.) Under the "fair argument" standard, an EIR is required if any substantial evidence in the record indicates that a project may have an adverse environmental effect—even if contrary evidence exists to support the agency's decision. (CEQA Guidelines, § 15064(f)(1); Pocket Protectors, supra, 124 Cal.App.4th at 931; Stanislaus Audubon OR3-12 Society v. County of Stanislaus (1995) 33 Cal.AppAth 144, 150-15; Quail Botanical o Gardens Found., Inc. v. City of Encinitas (1994) 29 Cal.App.4th 1597, 1602.) The "fair argument" standard creates a "low threshold" favoring environmental review through an a EIR rather than through issuance of negative declarations or notices of exemption from �? CEQA. (Pocket Protectors, supra, 124 Cal.App.4th at 928.) Ln The "fair argument" standard is virtually the opposite of the typical deferential standard accorded to agencies. As a leading CEQA treatise explains: C This 'fair argument' standard is very different from the standard normally followed by public agencies in making administrative determinations. Ordinarily, public Cn agencies weigh the evidence in the record before them and reach a decision a OR3-13 based on a preponderance of the evidence. [Citations]. The fair argument standard, by contrast, prevents the lead agency from weighing competing evidence to determine who has a better argument concerning the likelihood or E extent of a potential environmental impact. The lead agency's decision is thus largely legal rather than factual; it does not resolve conflicts in the evidence but a determines only whether substantial evidence exists in the record to support the prescribed fair argument. (Kostka & Zishcke, Practice Under CEQA, §6.29, pp. 273-274.) The Courts have r explained that "it is a question of law, not fact, whether a fair argument exists, and the OR3-14 courts owe no deference to the lead agency's determination. Review is de novo, with a preference for resolving doubts in favor of environmental review." (Pocket Protectors, supra, 124 Cal.App.4th at 928 [emphasis in original].) As a matter of law, "substantial evidence includes . . . expert opinion." (Pub. Resources Code, § 21080(e)(1); CEQA Guidelines, § 15064(f)(5).) CEQA Guidelines demand that where experts have presented conflicting evidence on the extent of the OR3-15 environmental effects of a project, the agency must consider the environmental effects to be significant and prepare an EIR. (CEQA Guidelines § 15064(f)(5); Pub. Res. Code § 21080(e)(1); Pocket Protectors, supra,124 Cal.App.4th at 935.) "Significant 0 environmental effect" is defined very broadly as "a substantial or potentially substantial Packet Pg. 1269 6.B.h Comments of LIUNA on Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative Declaration Waterman Industrial Center Page 5 of 8 adverse change in the environment." (Pub. Resources Code, § 21068; see also CEQA Guidelines, § 15382.) An effect on the environment need not be "momentous" to meet the CEQA test for significance; it is enough that the impacts are "not trivial." (No Oil, Inc., supra, 13 Cal.3d at 83.) In Pocket Protectors, the court explained how expert opinion is considered. The Court limited agencies and courts to weighing the OR3 admissibility of the evidence. (Pocket Protectors, supra, 124 Cal.AppAth at 935.) In Coni the context of reviewing a negative declaration, "neither the lead agency nor a court may `weigh' conflicting substantial evidence to determine whether an EIR must be prepared in the first instance." (Id.) Where a disagreement arises regarding the validity of a negative declaration, the courts require an EIR. As the Court explained, "[i]t is the function of an EIR, not a negative declaration, to resolve conflicting claims, based on substantial evidence, as to the environmental effects of a project." (Id.) o Ln DISCUSSION a c� A. AN EIR IS REQUIRED BECAUSE THE PROJECT WILL MAY HAVE SIGNIFICANT UNMITIGATED ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS. An EIR is required whenever substantial evidence in the entire record before the OR3 agency supports a fair argument that a project may have a significant effect on the environment. (CBE v. SCAQMD, supra, 48 Cal.4t" at 319-20; Public Resources Code § 21080(d); see also, Pocket Protectors, supra, 124 Cal.App.4t" at 927.) As set forth below, there is a fair argument supported by substantial evidence that the Project may a result in significant environmental impacts from the operation of the Project. Therefore, the City is required to prepare an EIR to evaluate the Project's impacts and analyze mitigation measures needed to reduce such impacts to a less than significant level. s v ca 1. Substantial Evidence Supports a Fair Argument that the Project Will a Result in Significant Unmitigated Impacts to Air Quality By Failing to Input Correct Parameters into the IS/MND's Emissions Calculations. The IS/MND used the California Emissions Estimator Model Version CalEEMod.2013.2.2 ("CaIEEMod") to calculate emissions from the Project. However, a Mr. Hagemann observes that several of the assumptions used and values input into OR3 CaIEEMod were inconsistent with both information disclosed in the IS/MND as well as recommended procedures and values set forth by the South Coast Air Quality Management District ("SCAQMD") for a high-cube warehouse (the type of Project at issue). Had the Project's emissions been calculated using the correct parameters, the Project would have a potentially significant impact on air quality. As such, the Project's air quality impacts have not been properly analyzed and mitigated. Accordingly, the following points constitute substantial evidence that support a fair argument that the IS/MND failed to properly calculate the Project's emissions and that the Project will thus have significant unmitigated impacts. Packet Pg. 1270 6.B.h Comments of LIUNA on Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative Declaration Waterman Industrial Center Page 6of8 a. The IS/MND Improperly Assumes That the Project Will Not Involve Refrigeration. The IS/MND significantly underestimated the Project's operational emissions by assuming that all warehouses at the Project will be unrefrigerated. The CaIEEMod calculations were premised entirely on the notion that the proposed industrial building was modeled as an unrefrigerated warehouse. (IS/MND, Appendix A, pp. 52, 182.) OR3-18 However, the IS/MND is clear that the future tenant of the industrial building is not currently known. SCAQMD requires the use of a conservative air quality impact analysis to afford the fullest possible protection of the environment. In this case, a o conservative analysis would dictate modeling the proposed warehouse as either entirely or partially refrigerated. Mr. Hagemann's letter explains that refrigerated warehouses a release more air pollutants and greenhouse gas ("GHG") emissions when compared to 0 unrefrigerated warehouses. Thus, by failing to include refrigerated warehouses a LO potential land use in the CalEEMod calculations, the Project's operational emissions v may be substantially underestimated, and would thus likely result in a significant impact on regional air quality. This constitutes substantial evidence that an EIR should be d prepared to evaluate the impacts of the Project's operational emissions and to mitigate W those impacts. b. The IS/MND Incorrectly Relies on the Fontana Truck Trip Study to a for the Truck Trip Rate and for the Fleet Mix. c d The IS/MND also significantly underestimated the Project's operational mobile- E source emissions by relying on an improper truck trip rate and fleet mix percentage. Specifically, the IS/MND's Traffic Impact Assessment (Appendix F, p. 3) and its Air a OR3-19 Quality/GHG Assessment (Appendix A, p. 60) improperly rely on the August 2003 City of Fontana Truck Trip Generation Study ("Fontana Study") to determine the number of vehicle and truck trips the Project will generate during operation. As Mr. Hagemann's letter details, SCAQMD has found numerous problems with the Fontana Study and has w thus recommended specific figures to use for the truck trip rate for a high-cube a warehouse distribution center. Mr. Hagemann used SCAQMD's recommended rate to calculate the Project's I number of truck trips and found the number of truck trips associated with the Project OR3-20 increased by approximately 87% from the number contained in the IS/MND's model, which is based on the Fontana Study's truck trip rate. Thus, the IS/MND's improper reliance on the Fontana Study likely misrepresented the actual air quality impacts of the Project. -21 Similarly, the IS/MND relied on the Fontana Study's total truck fleet mix of 20%, which sets forth the operational mix of cars, 2-axle trucks, 3-axle trucks, and 4-axle Packet Pg. 1271 6.B.h Comments of LIUNA on Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative Declaration Waterman Industrial Center AF I Page 7of8 trucks to input into CaIEEMod. As Mr. Hagemann notes, this approach "is not consistent with recommendations set forth by SCAQMD, and does not accurately represent the percentage of trucks that access a high-cube warehouse on a daily basis. (Hagemann, p. 6.) To avoid underestimating the number of trucks visiting OR3-: warehouse facilities, SCAQMD recommends a truck fleet mix of 40%. This number is Cont. double that used by the IS/MND, and is a conservative value especially given that the future tenant of the warehouse is unknown. Based on this recommendation, Mr. Hagemann's letter sets forth a fleet mix percentage that the City should have input into CaIEEMod that more accurately represents the number of trips that would likely occur during Project operation. As such, the IS/MND uses an inaccurate rate for the fleet mix percentage that does not adequately asses and mitigates the Project's air quality and GHG impacts. As EIR should be prepared that adequately assesses and mitigates o Ln these impacts. M c. c. The IS/MND Incorrectly Input Fleet Mix Percentage into LO CalEEMod. �r Mr. Hagemann's letter explains how the IS/MND input the aforementioned V_ artificially low fleet mix percentage in the CaIEEMod model incorrectly. Instead of inputting the fleet mix values into the model as fleet mix percentages, the values were used to adjust the trip type percentages for the Project. This approach is plainly OR3 inconsistent with Appendix A of the CaIEEMod User's Guide instructions on how to calculate the trip type. The IS/MND incorrectly assumed that commercial-work ("C-W") a trip are made exclusively by trucks and commercial-nonwork ("C-NW") trips are made exclusively by passenger cars. In fact, both C-W and C-NW trips include trips made by a mix of vehicle types. Mr. Hagemann notes that "[a]s a result, the Project's operational s mobile-source emissions are both greatly underestimated and extremely inaccurate." (Hagemann, p. 6.) An EIR should be prepared that inputs the proper data into the a CalEEMod model and accurately analyzes the Project's mobile-source emissions and provides mitigation measures for those impacts. 2. Substantial Evidence Supports a Fair Argument that the Project Will 2 Result in Significant Unmitigated Impacts to Human Health from Q Diesel Particulate Emissions Associated with Project Construction. The IS/MND conclusion that the health risk posed to nearby sensitive receptors OR3-: from exposure to diesel particulate matter ("DPM") emissions released during Project construction would be less than significant fails to quantify this risk and compare it to applicable thresholds. The IS/MND fails to include a health risk assessment ("HRA"). The IS/MND concludes that health risk from construction activities would be less than significant because construction would occur over a period of time shorter than 70 years. However, this conclusion directly contrasts with guidance published by the Office OR3 of Environmental Heal Hazard Assessment ("OEHHA"), which recommends that all Packet Pg. 1272 Comments of LIUNA on Initial Study Mitigated Negative Declaration Waterman Industrial Center 0 Page 8 of 8 OR3-24 short-term projects lasting at least two months be evaluated for cancer risks to nearby Cont. sensitive receptors. The IS/MND is devoid of this analysis. Mr. Hagemann prepared a simple screening-level health risk assessment which demonstrates that construction related DPM emissions from the Project may result in a potentially significant health risk impact, (Hagemann, pp. 8-9.) Using annual estimates from the Project's CalEEMod model, Mr. Hagemann used the EPA's recommended AERSCREEN air dispersion model to generate the maximum reasonable estimates of single hour downwind DPM concentrations from the Project Site. Mr. Hagemann then OR-25 calculated the excess cancer risk for each sensitive receptor location using applicable HRA methodologies prescribed by OEHHA. (1d., pp, 9-10.) He found that "[t]he infantile exposure for the sensitive receptors exceeds the SCAQMD threshold of 10 in one 9 million." (Id., p, 10.) Further, it is likely that this impact would be even greater since the LO estimates from the Project's CalEEMod model were artificially low, as demonstrated CL above. Thus, Mr. Hagemann states that "a refined health risk assessment must be prepared to examine air quality impacts generated by Project construction using site- LO 00 L specific meteorology and specific equipment usage schedules." (1d., p. 10) Mr. Hagemann's analysis clearly provides substantial evidence supporting a fair 0 argument that construction emissions from the Project may have significant impacts on OR3-26 human health and the environment. Accordingly, the City must prepare an EIR to analyze these impacts and evaluate potential mitigation measures to address the impacts. CONCLUSION OR3-27 For the foregoing reasons, the IS/MND for the Project should be withdrawn, an E EIR should be prepared and the draft EIR should be circulated for public review and comment in accordance with CEQA. Thank you for considering our comments. E Sincerely, Douglas Chermak Lozeau Drury LLP 0 Packet Pg. 1273 .......... N AOPWRL AF A O tf) V- (a CL N co IT See OR4 EXH I BIT A 0 CL CIO d v a c d E z eo Q m E Q Packet Pg. 1274 6.B.h OR4 Technical Consultation,Data Analysis and SA P E Litigation Support for the Environment 26562 9th Street,Suite 201 Santa Monica,California 90405 Matt Hagemann Tel: (949)887-9013 Email: mhagemann @swape.com February 29, 2016 Douglas Chermak Lozeau I Drury LLP 410 12th Street, Suite 250 N Oakland, CA 94607 ° LO T Subject: Comments on the Waterman Industrial Center Project 1° a C7 Dear Mr. Chermak: co v We have reviewed the February 1, 2016 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND)for the 0 Waterman Industrial Center Project ("Project").The Project includes construction of a 564,652-square foot (SF) speculative warehouse building on a 26-acre property located on the southwest corner of the intersection of East Dumas Street and South Waterman Avenue in the City of San Bernardino. The Cn building would be a cross dock warehouse facility with 10,000 SF of dedicated office/mezzanine space. 0 The site will also include a 427-SF pump house.The building would have 49 dock doors on its northern frontage and 49 on its southern frontage.Total on-site parking would be 452 stalls, with 286 dedicated to warehouse parking(including office) and 166 trailer parking spaces. Landscaping in the amount of E s 103,585 SF is anticipated for the site and the southwest corner of the site would be used as a storm water/water quality control basin. Roadway frontage improvements would be provided on South a a.: Waterman Avenue and East Dumas Street. m E Our review concludes that the IS/MND fails to adequately evaluate the Project's Hazards and Hazardous r Waste,Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas impacts. Specifically, we find the following issues with the OR4 Q analyses conducted in the IS/MND: • The IS/MND models the Project's construction and operational criteria air pollutant and greenhouse gas emissions using incorrect input parameters.As a result,the Project's pollutant emissions are OR4 greatly underestimated. • Furthermore,the IS/MND concludes that the health risk posed to nearby sensitive receptors exposed to diesel exhaust emitted during Project construction will be less-than-significant,yet fails to provide substantial evidence to support this claim. When a health risk assessment is actually ORz prepared to quantify the impacts from Project construction,we find that the health risk posed to these nearby sensitive receptors will be potentially significant. 1 Packet Pg. 1275 JR4-3 A Draft Environmental Impact Report(DEIR) should be prepared to address these issues, and should Cont. identify and incorporate additional mitigation measures where necessary. Air Quality Unsubstantiated Input Parameters Used to Estimate Project Emissions The IS/MND relies on emissions calculated from the California Emissions Estimator Model Version CalEEMod.2013.2.2 ("CaIEEMod").'CaIEEMod provides recommended default values based on site specific information,such as land use type, meteorological data,total lot acreage, project type and typical equipment associated with project type. If more specific project information is known,the user can change the default values and input project-specific values, but CEQA requires that such changes be justified by substantial evidence.2 Once all the values are inputted into the model,the Project's construction and operational emissions are calculated, and "output files" are generated.These output N OR4-4 files,which are part of the Project's Air Quality Technical Report (Appendix A), disclose to the reader LO what parameters were utilized in calculating the Project's air pollutant emissions, and make known which default values were changed as well as provide justification for the values selected.' t� LO co According to the IS/MND,the Project is subject to significance criteria, guidance, and regulations set v forth by the South Coast Air Quality Management District(SCAQMD) (IS/MND, p. 26).When reviewing t the Project's CaIEEMod output files, however, we found that several of the assumptions used and values Q inputted into the model were not consistent with recommended procedures and values set forth by the 7R4-5 SCAQMD for high-cube warehouses, and were not consistent with information disclosed in the IS/MND. When the Project's emissions are modeled using correct input parameters,we find that the Project will U have a potentially significant impact on regional air quality.As a result, a DEIR should be prepared to a include an updated air pollution model that uses correct input values, consistent with the IS/MND and d' c recommendations set forth by the SCAQMD. E s U lssurnes Unrefrigeruted Land Use Because the IS/MND's assumes that all warehouses will be unrefrigerated,the Project's operational a emissions may be grossly underestimated.According to the CaIEEMod output files provided in Appendix A of the IS/MND,the proposed industrial building was modeled as an "Unrefrigerated Warehouse-No U OR4-6 Rail" (see excerpt below) (Appendix A, p. 52, pp. 182). a Land Uses Size Metric lot Acreage Surface Area opulat Rion Uunsf .rated Warehouse-No Rail SW 55 1000s ft r 12.96 , 564,852.00 1 0 �3 9 I Other Asphalt Surfaces 5 84 Aae 5.84 254,390.40 0 ______________._._________.._.;_______________________________f______________I_____.____________.(____.. ------- Other Non-Asphalt Surfaces 103.59 100tlsgft 238 103,585.00 - D Parking Lot 452.00 Space 4.07 180,800.00 0 1 CaIEEMod website,available at: http://www.caleemod.com/ 2 CaIEEMod User Guide, pp.2,9,available at:http://www.caleemod.com/ 'CaIEEMod User Guide,pp.7, 13,available at:http://www.caleemod.com/(A key feature of the CaIEEMod program is the"remarks"feature,where the user explains why a default setting was replaced by a "user defined" value. These remarks are included in the report.) 2 Packet Pg. 1276 6.B.h Assuming that the proposed building will be composed of unrefrigerated warehouses, exclusively, however, is inconsistent with information disclosed in the IS/MND, and may result in an OR4-E underestimation of the Project's operational emissions.According to the IS/MND,future tenants of the Cont. proposed warehouses are currently unknown.The IS/MND states, "The industrial building is currently planned as a 'spec building.'Thus,the future tenant of the building is not currently known" (IS/MND, p. 3).Therefore, by assuming that the proposed Project buildings will be composed solely of unrefrigerated warehouses is unsubstantiated, as the Project's future tenants remain unknown. As discussed by SCAQMD, "CEQA requires the use of'conservative analysis'to afford 'fullest possible protection of the environment."'4 As a result,the most conservative analysis should be conducted.With this in mind,the proposed building should be modeled as "Refrigerated Warehouse-No Rail," or at the OR4-1 very least, a portion of the building should be modeled as "Refrigerated Warehouse-No Rail,"with the remaining portion of the building modeled as"Unrefrigerated Warehouse-No Rail," so as to take into c consideration the possibility that future tenants may require both cold storage and non-cold storage. r c� CL Refrigerated warehouses release more air pollutants and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions when C7 compared to unrefrigerated warehouses for several reasons. First,warehouses equipped with cold LO Itt storage (refrigerators and freezers,for example) are known to consume more energy when compared to warehouses without cold storage.' Second,warehouses equipped with cold storage typically require t: O R4-8 Q refrigerated trucks, which are known to idle for much longer, even up to an hour,when compared to aL unrefrigerated hauling trucks.' Lastly, according to a July 2014 Warehouse Truck Trip Study Data Results and Usage presentation prepared by the SCAQMD, it was found that hauling trucks that require Cn refrigeration result in greater truck trip rates when compared to non-refrigerated hauling trucks.' U IL By not including refrigerated warehouses as a potential land use in the air quality model,the Project's operational emissions may be grossly underestimated,as the future tenants are currently unknown. m E Unless the Project Applicant can demonstrate that the future tenants of these proposed buildings will be OR4-9 limited to unrefrigerated warehouse uses, exclusively, it should be assumed that a mix of cold and non- a cold storage will be provided on-site. A DEIR should be prepared to account for the possibility of refrigerated warehouse needs by future tenants. t Incorrect Usage of Fontana Truck Trip Study for Fleet Mix and Truck Trip Rate w Because the IS/MND relies upon an artificially low truck trip rate and truck fleet mix percentage,the OR4-1 Q Project's operational mobile-source emissions are greatly underestimated. The IS/MND's Traffic Impact 4"Warehouse Truck Trip Study Data Results and Usage" Presentation.SCAQMD Inland Empire Logistics Council, June 2014,available at: http://www.agmd.gov/does/default-source/cega/handbook/high-cube-warehouse-trip- rate-study-for-air-quality-analysis/final-ielc 6-19-2014.pdf?sfvrsn=2 'Managing Energy Costs in Warehouses,Business Energy Advisor,available at: http://bizenergyadvisor.com/warehouses 6"Estimation of Fuel Use by Idling Commercial Trucks," p.8, available at: http://www.transportation.ani.gov/pdfs/TA/373.pdf '"Warehouse Truck Trip Study Data Results and Usage" Presentation.SCAQMD Mobile Source Committee,July 2014,available at:http•//www agmd.gov/does/default-source/cega/handbook/high-cube-warehouse-trip-rate- *446,. study-for-air-quality-analysis/finaltrucktripstudVmsc072514.pdf?sfvrsn=2, p.7,9 3 Packet Pg. 1277 ` 6.B.h Assessment(Appendix F) and Air Quality/GHG Assessment(Appendix A) rely on the August 2003 City of OR4-10 Fontana Truck Trip Generation Study("Fontana Study"),'and the 2012 Institute of Transportation Cont. Engineers 9th Edition Trip Generation Manual("Trip Generation Manual")to determine the number of vehicle and truck trips the Project will generate during operation (Appendix A, p. 60;Appendix F, p. 3). While the Trip Generation Manual is a widely accepted resource,the Fontana Study is not, and according to SCAQMD Staff, has limited applicability. As is disclosed in the IS/MND and associated appendices,the proposed industrial building will consist of high-cube distribution warehouses (IS/MND, p. 64;Appendix F, p. 3). According to SCAQMD staff,the OR4-11 "Fontana Study, by itself, is not characteristic of high cube warehouses."' Furthermore, SCAQMD staff finds the following additional issues with the Fontana Study:to N • The overall trip rate is based on only four warehouses total,which includes two warehouses with ° LO OR4-12 zeros. In other words,the results of the Fontana Study were based on only two data points.As is disclosed in the Fontana Study, the daily trip rate was only based on data from a Target warehouse and a TAB warehouse.11 LO • The Fontana Study does not report any 24-hour daily truck trip rates.According to the Fontana OR4-13 Study, "Trip generation statistics for daily truck trips were not calculated because vehicle o classifications counts could not be obtained from the driveway 24-hour counts."lZ Z4-14 0. • The trip rates using the Fontana study are calculated based on a 20 percent truck fleet mix,which is inconsistent with SCAQMD's recommendation that agencies use a truck fleet mix of 40%. U O. OR4-15 Due to these reasons, SCAQMD recommends that Project Applicants either"use ITE default values until Governing Board action" (Option 1)or refer to the flow chart below (Option 2). 13 = d E s i/ .V Q .V d E V R Y $"Truck Trip Generation Study."City of Fontana,County of San Bernardino,State of California,August 2003, Q available at: http://www.fontana.org/DocumentCenterlHome/"­`View/622 9"Warehouse Truck Trip Study Data Results and Usage" Presentation.SCAQMD Mobile Source Committee,July 2014,available at:http•//www agmd gov/docs/default-source/cega/handbook/high-cube-warehouse-trip-rate- study-for-air-quality-analysis/finaltrucktripstudymsc072514.pdf?sfvrsn=2,p. 10 10"Warehouse Truck Trip Study Data Results and Usage" Presentation.SCAQMD Mobile Source Committee,July 2014,available at:http•//www agmd gov/docs/default-source/cega/handbook/high-cube-warehouse-trip-rate- study-for-air-quality-analysis/finaltrucktripstudVmsc072514.pdf?sfvrsn=2,p. 10 11"Truck Trip Generation Study."City of Fontana,County of San Bernardino,State of California,August 2003, available at: http://www.fontana.orgIDocumentCe.nter/Home/View/­­­622, p.35 12"Truck Trip Generation Study."City of Fontana,County of San Bernardino,State of California,August 2003, available at: http://www.fontana.org/DocurnentCenterlHome/­`View/­­­622, p.6 13"Warehouse Truck Trip Study Data Results and Usage" Presentation.SCAQMD Mobile Source Committee,July 2014,available at:http•//www agmd gov/docs/default-source/cega/handbook/high-cube-warehouse-trip-rate- study-for-air-quality-analysis/finaltrucktripstudymsc072514.pdf?sfvrsn=2,p. 11 4 Packet Pg. 1278 6.B.h 10 do Yes ,- - . - : Yes Develop site-s ecific rate developed with e-commerce F— p _ OR4- 1.32 Cont. Will the Yes warehouse developed with � � • cold-storage AP Os 3 Possi bl Use Use SCAQMD Truck Trip t• ! • •• N for • • • Storage •' 0.66 G Truck Trip O, i u'� Develop Specific . - 0.64 `- • • • Develop Site SpeciFic Rate CL LO 00 Following Option 1,a truck trip rate of 0.6414 should be used for high-cube warehouse/distribution It center land uses (ITE Code 152), rather than the 0.34 truck trip rate used in the IS/MND (p. 64). OR4 0 Following Option 2,a truck trip rate of 0.66 or 0.64 should be used (assuming that the warehouse could m be developed with cold-storage). Therefore, regardless of the option implemented, a minimum daily truck trip rate of 0.64 should be used, according to the SCAQMD. 1° rn U a As previously discussed,the proposed building is anticipated to be a high-cube warehouse distribution center. When the recommended truck trip rate of 0.64 is used in place of the 0.34 truck trip rate used in the IS/MND,we find that the number of truck trips increase by approximately 87%,with an increase of t approximately 168 trips per day, and an increase of approximately 61,000 truck trips per year(see table below). Q OR4 IS/MND Model SWAPE Model s Size Truck Trip #of Daily Truck Trip #of Daily Building (square feet) Rate' Truck Trips Rate' Truck Trips Q High-Cube Warehouse 564,652 0.34 194 0.64 361 Total Daily Truck Trips - 194 - 361 Total Annual Truck Trips - 70,692 - 131,903 1 Truck Trip Rate Per 1,000 Square Feet Increase in Daily Truck Trips 168 2 Increase in Trips=SWAPE Model - IS/MND Model Increase in Annual Truck Trips' 61,211 3 Annual Trips= Daily Trips x 365 Days Percent Increase2 87% The IS/MND and associated appendices also rely on a total truck fleet mix of approximately 20%,which OR4 is taken from the Fontana Study.Appendix A of the IS/MND states, "The vehicle mix followed the 14 0.64 truck trips per 1,000 square feet. 5 Packet Pg. 1279 s.B.n recommendations of the Fontana Truck Trip Generation Study with a mix of 79.57 percent cars, 3.46 percent 2-axle trucks,4.64 percent 3-axle trucks and 12.33 percent 4-axle trucks" (p. 60).This fleet mix used in the IS/MND and associated appendices, however, is not consistent with recommendations set forth by SCAQMD, and does not accurately represent the percentage of trucks that access a high-cube 4-18 warehouse on a daily basis. Rather,SCAQMD recommends that lead agencies assume a truck fleet mix Cont. of 40%.According to Appendix E: Technical Source Documentation of the CalEEMod User's Guide, "in order to avoid underestimating the number of trucks visiting warehouse facilities," SCAQMD staff "recommends that lead agencies conservatively assume that an average of 40%of total trips are truck trips [(0.48*10+0.2*4)/(10+4)=0.4)]."15 If Project-specific data is not available, such as detailed trip rates based on a known tenant schedule,this average of 40% provides a reasonably conservative value based on currently available data. As is stated in the IS/MND, since the future tenant is unknown, "an exact number of future employees or hours of operation cannot be determined,"which means that the N tenant schedule is not known;therefore,a 40%truck fleet mix should be assumed (IS/MND, p. 3). c LO Specifically,the following fleet mix percentage should have been used within the CalEEMod model. LO CaIEEMod Parameter IS/MND Model Input SWAPE Model Input 00 v Passenger Cars(LDA) 79.57% 59.14% Operational Mobile Fleet 2 Axle Trucks(LHDT1) 3.46% 6.92% a ° Mix 3 Axle Trucks(MHD) 4.64/° 9.28% � 4-19 4+Axle Trucks(HHDT) 12.33% 24.66% ch The "Operational Mobile Fleet Mix" percentages for trucks (LHDT1, MHD, and HHDT) in the table above a were adjusted to reflect a truck trip percentage of approximately 40%,which is consistent with recommended procedures set forth by SCAQMD staff.This fleet mix more accurately represents the number of trips that are likely to occur during Project operation. As such, an updated air quality analysis should be prepared in a DEIR that adequately assesses the Project's air quality and greenhouse gas impacts. Q a=i Incorrectly Applied Percent Fleet Mix to Trip Type Percentage E Not only did the IS/MND rely upon an artificially low truck fleet mix percentage to estimate the Project's mobile-source emissions, but it also inputted this fleet mix percentage into the CaIEEMod model Q incorrectly. As a result,the Project's operational mobile-source emissions are both greatly underestimated and extremely inaccurate. 1 As is discussed in the section above,Appendix A of the IS/MND states that"the vehicle mix followed the recommendations of the Fontana Truck Trip Generation Study with a mix of 79.57 percent cars, 3.46 percent 2-axle trucks,4.64 percent 3-axle trucks and 12.33 percent 4-axle trucks" (p. 60). According to OR4-20 the SCAQMD, "in order to convert the axle based fleet mix to the vehicle classes utilized by EMFAC" (which is what CaIEEMod relies upon to estimate mobile-source emissions), 2-axle trucks can be is "Appendix E Technical Source Documentation."CaIEEMod User's Guide,July 2013, available at: http•//www agmd gov/docs/default-source/cega/handbook/high-cube-warehouse-trip-rate-study-for-air-quality- analysis/high-cube-resource-caleemod-appendix-e.pdf?sfvrsn=2, pp. 15 6 Packet-Pg. 1280 6.B.h represented by the LHDT1 vehicle class, 3-axle trucks can be represented by the MHDT vehicle class,4- axle trucks can be represented by the HHDT vehicle class, and all others can be represented by the LDA vehicle class.16 Therefore, assuming that the fleet mix percentage provided in the Fontana Study is correct,the following percentages should have been inputted for each vehicle class,with all others vehicle classes set to zero (see table below). OR4-2 Truck Type Truck Type o Fleet Mix Number of Axles EMFAC Vehicle Class (/) 4-axle HHDT 12.33 3-axle MHDT 4.64 2-axle LH DT1 3.46 Passenger Cars LDA 79.57 N O LO Review of the IS/MND's CaIEEMod output files, however, indicate that these values were not inputted R CL into the model as the fleet mix percentages. Rather,these values were used to adjust the trip type 0 percentages for the Project.According to the CaIEEMod output files, a truck trip percentage of 20.43% ,) was applied to commercial-work(C-W)trip types to represent the number of truck trips that would OR4-, occur, and a car trip percentage of 79.57%was applied to commercial-nonwork(C-NW)trips to represent the number of passenger car trips that would occur during Project operation (Appendix A, pp. C 183). The application of these percentages to the trip types within CaIEEMod, however, is entirely incorrect. N U According to Appendix A of the CaIEEMod User's Guide, "the trip type breakdown describes the purpose a of the trip generated at each land use," and "multiplying the total trips for a land use by trip type .r breakdown percentage yields trips for a given trip type.1117 This trip type, however, does not specifically E apply to vehicle classes, as is assumed by the IS/MND. Commercial-work(C-W)trips are not made by trucks, exclusively, and commercial-nonwork(C-NW)trips are not made by passenger cars,exclusively. OR4-, a Rather, "the commercial-work trip represents a trip made by someone who is employed by the r commercial land use sector,"which can include trips made by employees in light-duty trucks and passenger cars as well as trips made by vendors in light-duty and heavy-duty trucks.18 Similarly, "the commercial-nonwork trip represents a trip associated with the commercial land use other than by customers or workers,"such as "trips made by delivery vehicles of goods associated with the land Q use."19 Therefore, applying a trip percentage of 20.43%to C-W trips to represent the number of truck trips that will occur during Project operation is incorrect, as C-W trips include trips made by a mix of ""Appendix E Technical Source Documentation."CaIEEMod User's Guide,July 2013,available at: http•//www agmd gov/docs/default-source/cega/handbook/high-cube-warehouse-trip-rate-study-for-air-quality- analysis/high-cube-resource-caleemod-appendix-e.pdf?sfvrsn=2,pp. 15 11"CaIEEMod User's Guide,Appendix A:Calculation Details for CaIEEMod."SCAQMD, available at: http•//www agmd gov/docs/default-source/caleemod/caleemod-appendixa.pdf?sfvrsn=2, p.20 18"CaIEEMod User's Guide,Appendix A:Calculation Details for CaIEEMod."SCAQMD,available at: http://www agmd gov/docs/default-source/caleemod/caleemod-appendixa.pdf?sfvrsn=2 p.20 19"CaIEEMod User's Guide,Appendix A:Calculation Details for CaIEEMod."SCAQMD,available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/defa ult-sou rce/ca lee mod/caleemod-a ppendixa.pdf?sf vrsn=21 p. 20 7 Packet Pg. 1281 6.B.h vehicle types, including passenger cars.Similarly, applying a trip percentage of 79.57%to C-NW trips to OR4-23 represent the number of passenger car trips that will occur during Project operation is incorrect, as C- Cont. NW trips include trips made by a mix of vehicle types, including trucks. Due to these reasons, we require that an updated air quality analysis be prepared in a DEIR in order to adequately assess the Project's air quality and greenhouse gas impacts. Diesel Particulate Matter Health Risk Emissions Inadequately Evaluated The IS/MND concludes that the health risk posed to nearby sensitive receptors from exposure to diesel particulate matter("DPM") emissions released during Project construction would be less than significant,yet fails to quantify the risk and compare it to applicable thresholds (IS/MND, p. 20).The IS/MND attempts to justify the omission of an actual health risk assessment("HRA"),stating, "Given the relatively limited number of heavy duty construction equipment and the short-term construction schedule,the proposed project would not result in a long-term (i.e., 70 years)substantial source of toxic o air contaminant emissions and corresponding individual cancer risk.Therefore, no significant short-term toxic air contaminant impacts would occur during construction of the proposed project" (IS/MND, p. 20). cL This justification, however, is incorrect. LO w O R4-24 The IS/MND assumes that because construction would occur over a period of time shorter than 70 � years, health risk from construction activities would be less than significant.This determination, c CL however, is in contrast to the most recent guidance published by the Office of Environmental Health I Hazard Assessment(OEHHA),the organization responsible for providing recommendations for health cc risk assessments in California. In February of 2015, OEHHA released its most recent Risk Assessment Cn Guidelines:Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments,which was formally adopted in a. March of 2015.20 This guidance document describes the types of projects that warrant the preparation of a health risk assessment. Construction of the Project will produce emissions of DPM, a human w d carcinogen,through the exhaust stacks of construction equipment over a construction period of 10 s months,from June 2016 to March 2017 (IS/MND, p. 17). The OEHHA document recommends that all r short-term projects lasting at least two months be evaluated for cancer risks to nearby sensitive a receptors.21 This recommendation reflects the most recent health risk assessment policy, and as such, an assessment of health risks to nearby sensitive receptors from construction should be included in a t revised CEQA evaluation for the Project. r Q Furthermore,simply because there is a "relatively limited number of heavy duty construction equipment" (IS/MND, p. 20) does not mean that the emissions from the construction equipment would OR4-25 not pose a significant risk to nearby receptors. In an effort to demonstrate this,we prepared a simple screening-level health risk assessment.The results of our assessment,as described below, demonstrate that construction-related DPM emissions may result in a potentially significant health risk impact. 20"Risk Assessment Guidelines Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments."OEHHA, February 2015,available at:http://oehha.ca.gov/air/hot spots/hotspots2015.html 21"Risk Assessment Guidelines Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments."OEHHA, February 2015,available at:http://oehha.ca.gov/air/hot spots/2015/2015GuidanceManual.pdf, p.8-18 8 Packet Pg. 1282 6.B.h As of 2011,the EPA recommends AERSCREEN as the leading air dispersion model, due to improvements in simulating local meteorological conditions based on simple input parameters." The model replaced SCREEN3,which is included in OEHHA 13 and CAPCOA24 guidance as the appropriate air dispersion model for Level 2 health risk screening assessments("HRSAs"). A Level 2 HRSA utilizes a limited amount of site- OR4-2 specific information to generate maximum reasonable downwind concentrations of air contaminants to which nearby sensitive receptors may be exposed. If an unacceptable air quality hazard is determined to be possible using AERSCREEN, a more refined modeling approach is required prior to approval of the Project. We prepared a preliminary health risk screening assessment of the Project's construction emissions using the annual estimates from the Project's CalEEMod model,which can be found within Appendix D of the IS/MND's Air Quality, Global Climate Change, and Health Risk Assessment Impact Analysis.The CalEEMod annual emissions indicate that construction activities will generate approximately 450.2 c pounds of DPM over a 303 day construction period.The AERSCREEN model relies on a continuous `O average emissions rate to simulate maximum downwind concentrations from point, area, and volume tC emission sources.To account for the variability in construction equipment usage over the seven phases LO of Project construction,we calculated an average DPM emission rate by the following equation. 00 Iq grams 450.2 lbs 453.6 grams 1 day 1 hour 9�s OR4-2 Emission Rate ( ) = x x x 0.0078 0 second 303 days lb 24 hours 3,600 seconds Construction activity was simulated as a 25.6 acre rectangular area source in AERSCREEN, with M dimensions of 377 meters by 275 meters.A release height of three meters was selected to represent the U height of exhaust stacks on construction equipment, and an initial vertical dimension of one and a half n. meters was used to simulate instantaneous plume dispersion upon release.An urban meteorological d setting was selected with model-default inputs for wind speed and direction distribution. s The AERSCREEN model generated maximum reasonable estimates of single hour downwind DPM w concentrations from the Project site. EPA guidance suggests that in screening procedures,the Q annualized average concentration of an air pollutant may be estimated by multiplying the single-hour concentration by 10%.25 The maximum single-hour downwind concentration in the AERSCREEN output t was approximately 2.742 µg/m3 DPM 25 meters downwind, a distance that is most representative of the d.. sensitive receptor location at 20 meters (65 feet).The annualized average concentration for the Q sensitive receptor was estimated to be 0.2742 µg/m3. We calculated the excess cancer risk for each sensitive receptor location,for adults, children, and/or infant receptors using applicable HRA methodologies prescribed by OEHHA. OEHHA recommends the OR4-2 22"AERSCREEN Released as the EPA Recommended Screening Model," USEPA,April 11,2011,available at: http•//www epa gov/ttn/scram/guidance/clarification/20110411 AERSCREEN Release Memo.pdf 23"Risk Assessment Guidelines Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments."OEHHA, February 2015,available at:http://oehha.ca.gov/air/hot spots/2015/2015GuidanceManual.pdf 24"Health Risk Assessments for Proposed Land Use Projects,"CAPCOA,July 2009,available at: http://www.capcoa.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/­­­03/­CAPCOA HRA LU Guidelines 8-6-09.pdf zs http://www.epa.gov/ttn/scram/guidance/guide/EPA-454R-92-019 OCR.pdf 9 Packet Pg. 1283 6.B.h use of Age Sensitivity Factors ("ASFs")to account for the heightened susceptibility of young children to the carcinogenic toxicity of air pollution.26 According to the revised guidance, quantified cancer risk should be multiplied by a factor of ten during the first two years of life (infant), and by a factor of three for the subsequent fourteen years of life (child aged two until sixteen). Furthermore, in accordance with guidance set forth by the SCAQMD and OEHHA,we used 95th percentile breathing rates for infants and 80th percentile breathing rates for children and adults.27 We used a cancer potency factor of 1.1 (mg/kg- OR4-28 day)-1 and an averaging time of 25,550 days.The results of our calculations are shown below. Cont. Parameter Description Units Adult Child Infant Cair Concentration µg/m3 0.2742 0.2742 0.2742 DBR Daily breathing rate L/kg-day 230 640 1090 EF Exposure Frequency days/year 350 350 350 ED Exposure Duration years 0.8 0.8 0.8 o AT Averaging Time days 25550 25550 25550 r. Inhaled Dose (mg/kg-day) 9.1E-07 1.7E-06 1.7E-06 CL CPF Cancer Potency 1/(mg/kg-day) 1.1 1.1 1.1 Ln Factor V ASF Age Sensitivity Factor - 1 3 10 51 Cancer Risk 7.60E-07 6.35E-06 3.60E-05 0 0 a m The excess cancer risk to adults, children, and infants during Project construction for the sensitive Cn receptors 25 meters away are 0.76,6.35, and 36 in one million, respectively. Consistent with OEHHA a guidance, exposure was assumed to begin in the infantile stage of life to provide the most conservative estimates of air quality hazards.The infantile exposure for the sensitive receptors exceeds the SCAQMD d threshold of 10 in one million. As a result,a refined health risk assessment must be prepared to E examine air quality impacts generated by Project construction using site-specific meteorology and OR4-29 specific equipment usage schedules. It should be noted that the Project's health risk impact may be Q greater than what is estimated in our independent screening-level assessment, as the DPM emission m value relied upon to conduct this analysis was taken from the IS/MND's CalEEMod model.As was E discussed in the previous sections,the IS/MND's CaIEEMod model relies upon incorrect input M parameters that artificially reduce the Project's construction and operational emissions.Therefore,the Q health risk posed to nearby sensitive receptors as a result of the Project may be greater. Even though our assessment may still underestimate the Project's health risk impact, our analysis still demonstrates that the Project poses a significant health risk as a result of DPM emissions. Therefore, a DEIR must be prepared to adequately evaluate the Project's health risk impact, and should include additional mitigation measures to reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level. z6"Risk Assessment Guidelines Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments."OEHHA, February 2015,available at:http•//oehha.ca.gov/air/hot spots/2015/2015GuidanceManual.pdf 27'Supplemental Guidelines for Preparing Risk Assessments for the Air Toxics'Hot Spots' Information and Assessment Act,"SCAQMD,June 5,2015,available at:http•//www agmd.gov/docs/default-source/planning/risk- assessment/ab2588-risk-assessment-guidelines.pdf?sfvrsn=6, p. 19 10 Packet Pg. 1284 6.B.h Cw Sincerely, Matt Hagemann, P.G., C.Hg. Jessie Jaeger o LO T m CL C7 LO Co �r v 1r 0 Q. 0 LK ca U a v Z (D E 0 Y W Q C 4) I_ U R r r Q 11 Packet Pg. 1285 6.B.h V�+ Technical Consultation,Data Analysis and fr*A E`E Litigation Support for the Environment 1640 5th St..,Suite 204 Santa Santa Monica,California 90401 Tel: (949)887-9013 Email:mhagemann<<?'swape.com Matthew F.Hagemann,P.G.,C.Hg.,QSD,QSP Geologic and Hydrogeologic Characterization Industrial Stormwater Compliance Investigation and Remediation Strategies Litigation Support and Testifying Expert c to CEQA Review CL C7 Education: to 00 M.S.Degree,Geology, California State University Los Angeles,Los Angeles,CA,1984. B.A.Degree,Geology,Humboldt State University,Arcata,CA, 1982. 0 CL at Professional Certifications: California Professional Geologist f4 rn California Certified Hydrogeologist a Qualified SWPPP Developer and Practitioner d Professional Experience: E Matt has 25 years of experience in environmental policy, assessment and remediation. He spent nine M years with the U.S. EPA in the RCRA and Superfund programs and served as EPA's Senior Science Q Policy Advisor in the Western Regional Office where he identified emerging threats to groundwater from perchlorate and MTBE. While with EPA, Matt also served as a Senior Hydrogeologist in the oversight of t the assessment of seven major military facilities undergoing base closure. He led numerous enforcement actions under provisions of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) while also working Q with permit holders to improve hydrogeologic characterization and water quality monitoring. Matt has worked closely with U.S. EPA legal counsel and the technical staff of several states in the application and enforcement of RCRA, Safe Drinking Water Act and Clean Water Act regulations. Matt has trained the technical staff in the States of California, Hawaii, Nevada, Arizona and the Territory of Guam in the conduct of investigations,groundwater fundamentals, and sampling techniques. Positions Matt has held include: • Founding Partner,Soil/Water/Air Protection Enterprise(SWAPE) (2003—present); • Geology Instructor,Golden West College,2010—2104; • Senior Environmental Analyst,Komex H2O Science,Inc. (2000--2003); Packet Pg. 1286 6.B.h • Executive Director,Orange Coast Watch(2001—2004); • Senior Science Policy Advisor and Hydrogeologist,U.S.Environmental Protection Agency(1989- 1998); • Hydrogeologist,National Park Service,Water Resources Division(1998—2000); • Adjunct Faculty Member,San Francisco State University,Department of Geosciences(1993— 1998); • Instructor,College of Marin,Department of Science(1990—1995); • Geologist,U.S.Forest Service(1986—1998);and • Geologist,Dames&Moore(1984—1986). Senior Regulatory and Litigation SuI212ort Analyst: With SWAPE,Matt's responsibilities have included: • Lead analyst and testifying expert in the review of over 100 environmental impact reports since 2003 under CEQA that identify significant issues with regard to hazardous waste,water o LO resources, water quality,air quality,Valley Fever,greenhouse gas emissions,and geologic hazards. Make recommendations for additional mitigation measures to lead agencies at the a local and county level to include additional characterization of health risks and implementation of protective measures to reduce worker exposure to hazards from toxins LO and Valley Fever. • Stormwater analysis,sampling and best management practice evaluation at industrial facilities. t • Manager of a project to provide technical assistance to a community adjacent to a former CL Naval shipyard under a grant from the U.S.EPA. • Technical assistance and litigation support for vapor intrusion concerns. • Lead analyst and testifying expert in the review of environmental issues in license applications for large solar power plants before the California Energy Commission. a.. • Manager of a project to evaluate numerous formerly used military sites in the western U.S. • Manager of a comprehensive evaluation of potential sources of perchlorate contamination in Southern California drinking water wells. E • Manager and designated expert for litigation support under provisions of Proposition 65 in the v review of releases of gasoline to sources drinking water at major refineries and hundreds of gas Q stations throughout California. • Expert witness on two cases involving MTBE litigation. E • Expert witness and litigation support on the impact of air toxins and hazards at a school. • Expert witness in litigation at a former plywood plant. ,g Q With Komex H2O Science Inc.,Matt's duties included the following: • Senior author of a report on the extent of perchlorate contamination that was used in testimony by the former U.S.EPA Administrator and General Counsel. • Senior researcher in the development of a comprehensive,electronically interactive chronology of MTBE use,research,and regulation. • Senior researcher in the development of a comprehensive,electronically interactive chronology of perchlorate use,research,and regulation. • Senior researcher in a study that estimates nationwide costs for MTBE remediation and drinking water treatment,results of which were published in newspapers nationwide and in testimony against provisions of an energy bill that would limit liability for oil companies. • Research to support litigation to restore drinking water supplies that have been contaminated by MTBE in California and New York. 2 Packet Pg. 1287 • Expert witness testimony in a case of oil production-related contamination in Mississippi. • Lead author for a multi-volume remedial investigation report for an operating school in Los Angeles that met strict regulatory requirements and rigorous deadlines. N O LO r fC Q LO CO d' O CL d R Cn U a v d E t U l0 Y Y a w C E a 3 Packet Pg. 1288 • Development of strategic approaches for cleanup of contaminated sites in consultation with clients and regulators. Executive Director: As Executive Director with Orange Coast Watch, Matt led efforts to restore water quality at Orange County beaches from multiple sources of contamination including urban runoff and the discharge of wastewater. In reporting to a Board of Directors that included representatives from leading Orange County universities and businesses,Matt prepared issue papers in the areas of treatment and disinfection of wastewater and control of the discharge of grease to sewer systems. Matt actively participated in the development of countywide water quality permits for the control of urban runoff and permits for the discharge of wastewater.Matt worked with other nonprofits to protect and restore water quality, including Surfrider, Natural Resources Defense Council and Orange County CoastKeeper as well as with business N institutions including the Orange County Business Council. 9 LO CU CL Hvdrogeoloev: �? As a Senior Hydrogeologist with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Matt led investigations to LO v characterize and cleanup closing military bases, including Mare Island Naval Shipyard, Hunters Point 'd Naval Shipyard, Treasure Island Naval Station, Alameda Naval Station, Moffett Field, Mather Army o Airfield,and Sacramento Army Depot. Specific activities were as follows: • Led efforts to model groundwater flow and contaminant transport,ensured adequacy of monitoring networks,and assessed cleanup alternatives for contaminated sediment,soil,and groundwater. a • Initiated a regional program for evaluation of groundwater sampling practices and laboratory �t analysis at military bases. • Identified emerging issues,wrote technical guidance,and assisted in policy and regulation E development through work on four national U.S.EPA workgroups,including the Superfund Groundwater Technical Forum and the Federal Facilities Forum. a At the request of the State of Hawaii, Matt developed a methodology to determine the vulnerability of groundwater to contamination on the islands of Maui and Oahu. He used analytical models and a GIS to show zones of vulnerability, and the results were adopted and published by the State of Hawaii and Q County of Maui. As a hydrogeologist with the EPA Groundwater Protection Section, Matt worked with provisions of the Safe Drinking Water Act and NEPA to prevent drinking water contamination. Specific activities included the following: • Received an EPA Bronze Medal for his contribution to the development of national guidance for the protection of drinking water. • Managed the Sole Source Aquifer Program and protected the drinking water of two communities through designation under the Safe Drinking Water Act.He prepared geologic reports, conducted public hearings,and responded to public comments from residents who were very concerned about the impact of designation. 4 Packet Pg. 1289 6.B.h • Reviewed a number of Environmental Impact Statements for planned major developments, including large hazardous and solid waste disposal facilities,mine reclamation,and water transfer. Matt served as a hydrogeologist with the RCRA Hazardous Waste program. Duties were as follows: • Supervised the hydrogeologic investigation of hazardous waste sites to determine compliance with Subtitle C requirements. • Reviewed and wrote"part B"permits for the disposal of hazardous waste. • Conducted RCRA Corrective Action investigations of waste sites and led inspections that formed the basis for significant enforcement actions that were developed in close coordination with U.S. EPA legal counsel. • Wrote contract specifications and supervised contractor's investigations of waste sites. With the National Park Service, Matt directed service-wide investigations of contaminant sources to 0 LO prevent degradation of water quality,including the following tasks: M • Applied pertinent laws and regulations including CERCLA,RCRA,NEPA,NRDA,and the Clean Water Act to control military,mining,and landfill contaminants. LO • Conducted watershed-scale investigations of contaminants at parks,including Yellowstone and 1* Olympic National Park. 7 • Identified high-levels of perchlorate in soil adjacent to a national park in New Mexico 0 and advised park superintendent on appropriate response actions under CERCLA. a m • Served as a Park Service representative on the Interagency Perchlorate Steering Committee,a national workgroup. • Developed a program to conduct environmental compliance audits of all National Parks while v serving on a national workgroup. • Co-authored two papers on the potential for water contamination from the operation of personal d ,r watercraft and snowmobiles,these papers serving as the basis for the development of nation- _ wide policy on the use of these vehicles in National Parks. E • Contributed to the Federal Multi-Agency Source Water Agreement under the Clean Water Action Plan. Q a� Policy: E Served senior management as the Senior Science Policy Advisor with the U.S. Environmental Protection U c� .r Agency,Region 9.Activities included the following: Q • Advised the Regional Administrator and senior management on emerging issues such as the potential for the gasoline additive MTBE and ammonium perchlorate to contaminate drinking water supplies. • Shaped EPA's national response to these threats by serving on workgroups and by contributing to guidance,including the Office of Research and Development publication,Oxygenates in Water:Critical Information and Research Needs. • Improved the technical training of EPA's scientific and engineering staff. • Earned an EPA Bronze Medal for representing the region's 300 scientists and engineers in negotiations with the Administrator and senior management to better integrate scientific principles into the policy-making process. • Established national protocol for the peer review of scientific documents. 5 Packet Pg. 1290 Geology With the U.S.Forest Service,Matt led investigations to determine hillslope stability of areas proposed for timber harvest in the central Oregon Coast Range.Specific activities were as follows: • Mapped geology in the field,and used aerial photographic interpretation and mathematical models to determine slope stability. • Coordinated his research with community members who were concerned with natural resource protection. • Characterized the geology of an aquifer that serves as the sole source of drinking water for the city of Medford,Oregon. As a consultant with Dames and Moore, Matt led geologic investigations of two contaminated sites (later listed on the Superfund NPL) in the Portland, Oregon, area and a large hazardous waste site in eastern Oregon. Duties included the following: N 0 • Supervised year-long effort for soil and groundwater sampling. `n • Conducted aquifer tests. a • Investigated active faults beneath sites proposed for hazardous waste disposal. LO 00 �r Teaching; From 1990 to 1998,Matt taught at least one course per semester at the community college and university o CL levels: 4) • At San Francisco State University,held an adjunct faculty position and taught courses in environmental geology,oceanography(lab and lecture),h dro Bolo gY�and groundwater � contamination. a • Served as a committee member for graduate and undergraduate students. • Taught courses in environmental geology and oceanography at the College of Marin. m E Matt taught physical geology (lecture and lab and introductory geology at Golden West College in Huntington Beach,California from 2010 to 2014. Q c Invited Testimony,Rel2orts,Papers and Presentations: E Hagemann,M.F.,2008. Disclosure of Hazardous Waste Issues under CEQA. Presentation to the Public Environmental Law Conference,Eugene,Oregon. Q Hagemann,M.F.,2008. Disclosure of Hazardous Waste Issues under CEQA. Invited presentation to U.S. EPA Region 9,San Francisco,California. Hagemann,M.F.,2005. Use of Electronic Databases in Environmental Regulation,Policy Making and Public Participation. Brownfields 2005,Denver,Coloradao. Hagemann,M.F.,2004. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River and Impacts to Drinking Water in Nevada and the Southwestern U.S. Presentation to a meeting of the American Groundwater Trust, Las Vegas,NV(served on conference organizing committee). Hagemann,M.F.,2004. Invited testimony to a California Senate committee hearing on air toxins at schools in Southern California,Los Angeles. 6 Packet Pg. 1291 6.B.h Brown,A.,Farrow,J.,Gray,A.and Hagemann,M.,2004. An Estimate of Costs to Address MTBE Releases from Underground Storage Tanks and the Resulting Impact to Drinking Water Wells. Presentation to the Ground Water and Environmental Law Conference,National Groundwater Association. Hagemann,M.F.,2004. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River and Impacts to Drinking Water in Arizona and the Southwestern U.S. Presentation to a meeting of the American Groundwater Trust, Phoenix,AZ(served on conference organizing committee). Hagemann,M.F.,2003. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River and Impacts to Drinking Water in the Southwestern U.S. Invited presentation to a special committee meeting of the National Academy of Sciences,Irvine,CA. N Hagemann,M.F.,2003. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River. Invited presentation to a 9 LO tribal EPA meeting,Pechanga,CA. CL 0 Hagemann,M.F.,2003. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River. Invited presentation to a LO meeting of tribal repesentatives,Parker,AZ. CO Hagemann,M.F.,2003. Impact of Perchlorate on the Colorado River and Associated Drinking Water c Supplies. Invited presentation to the Inter-Tribal Meeting,Torres Martinez Tribe. D Hagemann,M.F.,2003. The Emergence of Perchlorate as a Widespread Drinking Water Contaminant. `4 CO Invited presentation to the U.S.EPA Region 9. U a Hagemann,M.F.,2003. A Deductive Approach to the Assessment of Perchlorate Contamination. Invited presentation to the California Assembly Natural Resources Committee. s Hagemann,M.F.,2003. Perchlorate:A Cold War Legacy in Drinking Water. Presentation to a meeting of M the National Groundwater Association. Q :r c Hagemann,M.F.,2002. From Tank to Tap:A Chronology of MTBE in Groundwater. Presentation to a meeting of the National Groundwater Association. ca w Hagemann,M.F.,2002. A Chronology of MTBE in Groundwater and an Estimate of Costs to Address Q Impacts to Groundwater. Presentation to the annual meeting of the Society of Environmental Journalists. Hagemann,M.F.,2002. An Estimate of the Cost to Address MTBE Contamination in Groundwater (and Who Will Pay). Presentation to a meeting of the National Groundwater Association. Hagemann,M.F.,2002. An Estimate of Costs to Address MTBE Releases from Underground Storage Tanks and the Resulting Impact to Drinking Water Wells. Presentation to a meeting of the U.S.EPA and State Underground Storage Tank Program managers. Hagemann, M.F., 2001. From Tank to Tap: A Chronology of MTBE in Groundwater. Unpublished report. 7 Packet Pg. 1292 6.B.h Hagemann, M.F., 2001. Estimated Cleanup Cost for MTBE in Groundwater Used as Drinking Water. Unpublished report. Hagemann,M.F.,2001. Estimated Costs to Address MTBE Releases from Leaking Underground Storage Tanks. Unpublished report. Hagemann, M.F., and VanMouwerik, M., 1999. Potential W a t e r Quality Concerns Related to Snowmobile Usage.Water Resources Division,National Park Service,Technical Report. VanMouwerik, M. and Hagemann, M.F. 1999, Water Quality Concerns Related to Personal Watercraft Usage.Water Resources Division,National Park Service,Technical Report. c LO Hagemann, M.F., 1999, Is Dilution the Solution to Pollution in National Parks? The George Wright a (7 Society Biannual Meeting,Asheville,North Carolina. LO co Hagemann, M.F., 1997, The Potential for MTBE to Contaminate Groundwater. U.S. EPA Superfund Groundwater Technical Forum Annual Meeting,Las Vegas,Nevada. a. m Hagemann, M.F., and Gill, M., 1996, Impediments to Intrinsic Remediation, Moffett Field Naval Air M Station,Conference on Intrinsic Remediation of Chlorinated Hydrocarbons,Salt Lake City. U a Hagemann,M.F.,Fukunaga,G.L., 1996,The Vulnerability of Groundwater to Anthropogenic Contaminants on the Island of Maui,Hawaii.Hawaii Water Works Association Annual Meeting,Maui, E October 1996. Q Hagemann,M.F.,Fukanaga,G.L.,1996,Ranking Groundwater Vulnerability in Central Oahu, Hawaii. Proceedings, Geographic Information Systems in Environmental Resources Management, Air E and Waste Management Association Publication VIP-61. w Q Hagemann, M.F., 1994. Groundwater Characterization and Cleanup at Closing Military Bases in California.Proceedings,California Groundwater Resources Association Meeting. Hagemann, M.F. and Sabol, M.A., 1993. Role of the U.S. EPA in the High Plains States Groundwater Recharge Demonstration Program. Proceedings, Sixth Biennial Symposium on the Artificial Recharge of Groundwater. Hagemann, M.F., 1993. U.S. EPA Policy on the Technical Impracticability of the Cleanup of DNAPL- contaminated Groundwater.California Groundwater Resources Association Meeting. 8 Packet Pg. 1293 6.B.h Hagemann, M.F., 1992. Dense Nonaqueous Phase Liquid Contamination of Groundwater: An Ounce of Prevention...Proceedings,Association of Engineering Geologists Annual Meeting,v.35. Other Experience: Selected as subject matter expert for the California Professional Geologist licensing examination, 2009- 2011. N O Ln r Q LO 00 d' O Q O R U a v E t v ca Q c m E t 0 ca r Q 9 Packet Pg. 1294 6.B.h JESSIE MARIE JAEGER SOIL WATER AIR PROTECTION ENTERPRI 2656 29th Street,Suite 2 Technical Consultation,Data Analysis and Santa Monica,California 904 SWAP E Litigation Support for the Environment Mobile: (530) 867-62 Office: (310)452-55 Fax: (310)452-55 Email:jessie @swale.cc EDUCATION UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA,LOSANGELES B.S. CONSERVATION BIOLOGY&ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES JUNE 20: PROJECT EXPERIENCE SOIL WATER AIR PROTECTION ENTERPRISE SANTA MONICA,C AIR QUALITY SPECIALIST SENIOR ANALYST:CEQA ANALYSIS&MODELING N O • Calculated roadway,stationary source,and cumulative impacts for risk and hazard analyses at proposed land use projects. 9 LO T_ • Quantified criteria air pollutant and greenhouse gas emissions released during construction and operational activities m CL proposed land use projects using CaIEEMod and EMFAC2011 emission factors. (9 • Utilized AERSCREEN,a screening dispersion model,to determine the ambient air concentrations at sensitive receptor locations Ln • Organized presentations containing figures and tables comparing results of particulate matter analyses to CEQA thresholds. ,tea • Prepared reports that discuss results of the health risk analyses conducted for several land use redevelopment projects. ._ 0 CL SENIOR ANALYST:GREENHOUSE GAS MODELING AND DETERMINATION OF SIGNIFICANCE Quantified greenhouse gas(GHG)emissions of a"business as usual"scenario for proposed land use projects using CalEEMod. Determined compliance of proposed projects with AB 32 GHG reduction targets,with measures described in CARB's Scoping PI cn for each land use sector,and with GHG significance thresholds recommended by various Air Quality Management Districts in a California. v • Produced tables and figures that compare the results of the GHG analyses to applicable CEQA thresholds and reduction targets. d PROJECT MANAGER: OFF-GASSING OF FORMALDEHYDE FROM FLOORING PRODUCTS co • Determined the appropriate standard test methods to effectively measure formaldehyde emissions from flooring products. 2 • Compiled and analyzed laboratory testing data.Produced tables,charts,and graphs to exhibit emission levels. • Compared finalized testing data to Proposition 65 No Significant Risk Level(NSRL)and to CARB's Phase 2 Standard. E • Prepared a final analytical report and organized supporting data for use as Expert testimony in environmental litigation. • Participated in meetings with clients to discuss project strategy and identify solutions to achieve short and long term goals. Q PROJECT ANALYST:EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT OF CONTAMINANTS EMITTED BY INCINERATOR • Reviewed and organized sampling data,and determined the maximum levels of arsenic,dioxin,and lead in soil samples. • Determined cumulative and hourly particulate deposition of incinerator and modeled particle dispersion locations using GIS ar. AERMOD. • Conducted risk assessment using guidance set forth by the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment(OEHHA). • Utilized LeadSpread8 to evaluate exposure,and the potential adverse health effects from exposure,to lead in the environment. • Compared final results of assessment to the Environmental Protection Agency's(EPA) Regional Screening Levels(RSLs). ACCOMPLISHMENTS Recipient,Bruins Advantage Scholarship,University of California,Los Angeles SEPT 2010-JUNE20: Academic Honoree,Dean's List,University of California,Los Angeles SEPT 2013-JUNE 20: • Academic Wellness Director,UCLA Undergraduate Students Associated Council SEPT 2013-JUNE 20: • Student Groups Support Committee Member,UCLA Undergraduate Students Associated Council SEPT 2012-JUNE 2013 Packet Pg. 1295 r� 6.B.h Nedra A. Myricks 170 E. Dumas Street San Bernardino CA 92408 (909) 884-3967 namyricks(&aol.com February 29, 2016 N O M) r Travis Martin,Assistant Planner a City of San Bernardino Planning Department o 300 North D Street,3rd Floor San Bernardino CA 92418 0 a. CD RE: Proposed Waterman Industrial Center—Waterman Ave. and Dumas Street Dear Mr. Martin: U a I am not in support of the project referenced above. I do not believe this is a viable project for this area at this time, and see it as frivolous and unnecessary,primarily based on the number of vacant warehouse spaces currently available in typically the same area as Newcastle Partners G P 1-1 wants to build this new facility; and the number of residents who will have to be displaced to w accommodate it's completion. Q w c I am well aware of the air cargo business expected to"boom" at San Bernardino International Airport some time in the future; and the displacement that will cause for some long time residents in this area, but that is not happening NOW! There are newly built, empty warehouse »° spaces all along Central Ave., Orange Show Road, Tippecanoe Ave. and Arrowhead Ave. at G P 1-2 Q Central. Wouldn't it be prudent to find occupants for these warehouse spaces first before building new ones? Especially a new"spec building"with no known tenant confirmed for occupation. Dumas Street is currently wide enough to accommodate one lane of traffic in each direction and is easily congested,as evidenced during the weekend of February 13-14 when Waterman Ave. was closed in both directions at Dumas and Orange Show Road;the same weekend as the High G P 1-3 Times Cannabis Festival was held at the National Orange Show. The traffic on Dumas that weekend was horrific! I witnessed several"near misses". The street would definitely have to be widened to accommodate large trucks; and the"Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration and Initial Packet Pg. 1296 6B.h Travis Martin, City of San Bernardino February 29, 2016 Page 2 of 2 GP1 3 Study"regarding this project stated that the completion of this project would`'require the removal and displacement of five existing single family residences on the project site". o Cont LO Having indicated my opposition to this project, but fully aware that construction will probably a G P 1 4 proceed as planned, I have two questions for your department: Ln CO 1) Which five (5)homes on Dumas are being addressed for"removal and displacement"? GP1 5 2) Would property owners be better off selling their properties on the open market as °Q opposed to waiting for Imminent Domain to displace them? Thank you in advance for responding to my inquiries. Cn U a You truly, w Y edra A. Myricks Q a.: cc: Senator Barbara Boxer E Assemblywoman Cheryl R. Brown Supervisor Josie Gonzalez Q Councilman John Valdivia Packet Pg. 1297 6.B.h N O i LO r fC LO Co th d' O Q APPENDIX B Co KEY REVISED TABLES AND FIGURES U a c a� E v R Q w c E s U y.. r Q Packet Pg. 1298 6.B.h Table 3 Proposed Project Trip Generation Comparison of Fontana versus SCAQMD Vehicle Mix' Peak Hour PCE Vehicle Morning Evening Land Use Quantity UnitS2 Factor' Percent° Inbound Outbound Total Inbound Outbound Total Daily Trio Generation Rates High Cube Warehouse TSF 0.08 0.03 0.11 0.04 0.08 0.12 1.68 Car Trip Generation 61.90% 0.06 0.02 0.08 0.02 0.06 0.08 1.04 Truck Trip Generation 38.10% 0.02 0.01 0.03 0.01 0.03 0.04 0.64 Trips Generated High Cube Warehouse Trucks 2 Axle 2.0 6.45% 6 2 8 3 6 9 122 High Cube Warehouse Trucks 3 Axle 2.5 8.65% 10 4 14 5 10 15 205 High Cube Warehouse Trucks 4+Axle 3.0 23.00% 31 12 43 16 31 47 655 High Cube Warehouse Truck Subtotal PCE 38.10% 47 18 65 24 47 71 982 N High Cube Warehouse Car Subtotal PCE 1.0 61.90% 34 11 45 11 34 45 587 9 LO Total 564.652 TSF 81 29 110 35 81 116 1,569 Previous Trip Generation 564.652 TSF 63 24 87 32 63 95 1,282 0. Difference 18 5 23 3 18 1 21 287 C9 00 1* O CL (a fY M ..r U) U a v c a� E s U l0 a+ Q r d E L V B .y Q 'Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers,Trip Generation,9th Edition,2012,Land Use Category 150. 'TSF=Thousand Square Feet;PCE=Passenger Car Equivalent. 3 Passenger Car Equivalent factors are per City of San Bernardino recommended values. Source:South Coast Air Quality Management District Letter,dated January 2,2015. 25 Packet Pg. 1299 6.B.h Table 12 Year 2035 With Project Intersection Delay and Level of Service Intersection Approach Lanes' Peak Hour Traffic Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Morning Evening Intersection Jurisdiction Control` L T R L T R L T R L T R Delay LOS V/C Delay LOS V/C E Street(NS)at: Orange Show Road(EW)-#1 City of SB TS 2 1.5 0.5 2 2 1> 2 2 1 2 2 1> 32.5 C 0.469 41.5 D 0.610 Washington Avenue(NS)at: Orange Show Road(EW)-#2 City of SB TS 0.5 0.5 d 0.5 0.5 d 1 2 d 1 2 d 8.3 A 0.952 10.7 B 0.965 Project West Access(NS)at: Dumas Street(EW)-#3 City of SB CSS 0.5 0 0.5 0 0 0 0 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0 8.7 A N/A 8.8 A N/A Project East Access(NS)at: Dumas Street(EW)-#4 City of SB CSS 0.5 0 19.5 0 0 0 1 0 1 0.510.5 0.5 0.5 0 8.4 A N/A 8.4 A N/A Waterman Avenue(NS)at: Orange Show Road(EW)-#5 City of SB TS 1 2 d 1 2 d 1 2 d 1 2 d 29.7 C 0.501 38.4 D 0.784 N Dumas Street(EW)-#6 City of SB CSS 1 2 0 0 2 d 1 0 1 0 0 0 16.6 C N/A 20.3 C N/A 9 Park Center Circle N(EW)-#7 City of SB T- Without Improvements CSS 1 2 d 1 2 1 0.5 0.5 1 0.5 0.5 d 77.1 F N/A 99.9' F N/A M - - a With Improvements TS 1 2 d 1 2 1 0.5 0.5 1 0.5 0.5 d 12.8 B 0.332 15.0 B 0.487 0 Park Center Circle S(EW)-#8 City of SB TS 1 2 1 1 2 d 0.5 0.5 d 0.5 0.5 d 8.4 A 0.926 11.3 B 0.974 160 Vanderbilt Way(EW)-#9 City of SB TS 1 2 1 1 2.5 0.5 0 1 0 1.5 0.5 1 23.4 C 0.624 19.8 B 0.543 00 O Q d l0 N V CL v w c m E s co Q c d E z as Q 'When a right turn lane is designated,the lane can either be striped or unstriped. To function as a right turn lane there must be sufficient width for right turning vehicles to travel outside the through lanes.L=Left;T=Through;R=Right;d=defacto Right Turn;TS=Improvements. 'TS=Traffic Signal;CSS=Cross Street Stop 3 Delay,level of service(LOS)and volume to capacity ratio(V/C)has been calculated using the following analysis software:Traffix,Version 7.9.0215(2008). Per the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual, overall average intersection delay and level of service are shown for intersections with traffic signal or all way stop control.For intersections with cross street stop control,the delay and level of service for the worst individual movement for movements sharing a single lane)are shown. °LOS=Level of Service;V/C=Volume to Capacity. 46 Pacl�6t`F? 73001, 9u� 6.B.h Figure 4 Existing Average Daily Traffic Volumes ,r v a W E v 12.1 3:4 0.7 19.7 Orange Show Road 25.5 25.3 25.0 22.5 0 P /053 110.3 23.6 CL 17.7 Dumas Street 0.3 u7 j-- --- It / 23.6 � Park Center L O -----C ircle Q 1.0 -- / 22.5 Park Center U 03 M Circle ' 2.6 c m 23.8 s U Q C N U fC 24.0 Q Vanderbilt Way 10.4 25.0 Legend 25.0-Vehicles Per Day(1,000's) ® KUNZMAN ASSCCIATES, INC. 1N 5629e OVER 40 YEARS OF EXCELLENT SERVICE 14 Packet Pg. 1301 6.B.h Figure 17 Project Trip Contribution Test Volumes v v Q v a n m E � L � 3 14 Orange Show Road 44 31 29 14 0 Lh r /14(�4 19 57 Q. 8 18 Dumas Street 24 u7 00 65 Park Center 0 Circle CL --- -/ 42 Park Center U a Circle Q 42 s � v Q 42 Q Vanderbilt .. Way 42 Legend MA 42=Evening Peak Hour Volume ® KIINZMAN Assoc[ATES, INC. 1N 5629e OVER 40 YEARS OF EXCELLENT SERVICE 31 Packet Pg. 1302 6.B.h N O Lo (C Q to 00 O O. APPENDIX C R SOUTH COAST AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT v DOCUMENTATION °- m E v r a E a Packet Pg. 1303 6.B.h %.)nSouth Coast Air Quality Management District 21865 Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, CA 91765-4178 .. (909) 396-2000 • www.agmd.gov SENT VIA E-MAIL AND USPS: February 12, 2015 ohernandez(a]fontana.org Mr. Orlando Hernandez, Senior Planner City of Fontana Community Development Department, Planning Division 8353 Sierra Avenue Fontana, CA 92335 N O LO Draft Environmental Impact Report(DEIR) for the West Valley Logistics Center Specific Plan (WVLCSP) Lo co The South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) appreciates the opportunity to comment on the above-mentioned document. The following comments are meant as guidance o for the Lead Agency and should be incorporated into the Final CEQA document. ° as ,+ In the project description, the Lead Agency proposes the construction of seven buildings for En warehouse distribution and office space uses totaling approximately 3.48 million square feet on a 291-acre site. The Lead Agency has projected 6,384 total daily vehicle trips including at least a 1,302 daily truck trips operating at the site. In the Air Quality Section, the Lead Agency d quantified the project's construction and operation air quality impacts and has compared those impacts with the SCAQMD's recommended regional and localized daily significance thresholds. s Based on its analyses, the Lead Agency has determined that construction air quality impacts will exceed the recommended regional daily significance threshold for NOx and operational daily air a quality impacts for VOC,NOx, CO and PM 10. E The SCAQMD staff has concerns regarding the air quality assumptions used in the operational portion of the CaIEEMod land use model and that the proposed project should include all a feasible mitigation measures in the Final CEQA document to further reduce the projected significant project construction and operational impacts. Details are included in the attachment. Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21092.5, SCAQMD staff requests that the Lead Agency provide the SCAQMD with written responses to all comments contained herein prior to the adoption of the Final EIR. Further, staff is available to work with the Lead Agency to address these issues and any other questions that may arise. Please contact Jack Cheng, Air Quality Specialist, at (909) 396-2448, if you have any questions regarding the enclosed comments. Packet Pg. 1304 6.B.h Sincerely, 1. . W" Jillian Wong, Ph.D. Program Supervisor Planning, Rule Development&Area Sources Attachment JW:JC SBC 141223-01 Control Number N O r lC Q O d' O Q fC U a v c m t v a Y V Y r a Packet Pg. 1305 6.B.h Siting of an Incompatible Land Use 1. The SCAQMD staff is concerned that the existing sensitive receptors will be exposed to significant regional and localized operational impacts, mostly from the daily truck activities that will likely operate using diesel fuel. Based on information in the DEIR (air quality analyses, the project truck distribution, or by aerial map inspection), the Lead Agency shows a minimum distance of 150 feet meters to the nearest sensitive receptor; a residence located east of the project site. 1 As a general reference guide for evaluating and reducing air pollution impacts associated with new projects that go through the land-use decision making process, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) has provided the CARB Air Quality and Land Use Handbook (CARB Land Use Handbook). Based on guidance from the CARB Land Use Handbook, CARB recommends a buffer of at least 1,000 feet between land uses that will have 100 or c more trucks per day. Z LO CL In accordance with the state CEQA Guidelines §15126.4 (a)(1)(1)), the Lead Agency should discuss the proposed siting of this land use and any potential impacts resulting from any LO proposed mitigation related to the CARB Land Use Handbook guidance in the Final EIR. Iq Air Quality Analysis °a a� Daily Truck Trip Rate I NOW CO 2. In the Air Quality Impact Analysis, the Lead Agency uses the Institute of Transportation a Engineers Trip Generation Manual, 9th Edition, 2012 (ITE Manual) 1.68 overall trip generation rate (for cars and trucks totaling approximately 6,384 daily vehicles) for the proposed Project, but does not use the 0.64 (38.1%) daily truck trip rate from this same E reference. Rather, the air quality analysis used a 0.343 daily truck trip rate (ITE 1.68 total 0 daily trip rate minus 1.337 passenger vehicle trip rate = 0.343 (20.43%) daily truck trip rate) a and truck vehicle fleet mixture percentages from the City of Fontana Truck Trip Generation Study (Fontana Study) to estimate project air quality operational impacts in the CaIEEMod modeling. By using the 0.343 Fontana Study daily truck trip rate, trucks are estimated at 1,302 daily truck trips in the DEIR instead of approximately 2,225 daily truck trips using the ITE 0.64 daily truck trip rate. Q Specifically, the Fontana Study fleet mixture percentages include: 3.46 percent of the total fleet for 2-axle Trucks; 4.64 percent for 3-axle trucks; and 12.33 percent for 4-axle and larger trucks with truck categories totaling 20.43 percent of the total vehicle fleet. Passenger Vehicles would therefore comprise 79.57 percent of total vehicles during operations. However, the 0.343 daily truck trip.rate resulted in fleet percentages for the CalEEMod truck subcategories that were not proportionally adjusted consistent with the percentage of trucks Table 4.2.2.2-1.Sensitive Land Uses in the Project Vicinity z CARB Air Quality and Land Use Handbook:http:/hv v.arb.ca.gov/ch/handbook.pdf.Guidance is for siting new sensitive land uses within 1,000 feet of a distribution center,Page 4. The buffer is a neutral mitigation measure provided to minimizes truck activity emission impacts to sensitive receptors.Besides truck activity of more than 1,000 trucks per day,this guidance applies to distribution centers that accommodate more than 40 transport refrigeration units per day or where TRU operations will exceed 300 hours per week truck activities and sensitive receptors,Page 4. 3 Packet Pg. 1306 6.B.h estimated using the ITE 0.64 daily truck trip rate. In order to avoid underestimating project operational and related air quality and health effect impacts, the Air Quality Analysis, HRA and FEIR should be revised using the following truck percentages: LHD2 = 0.0645, MHD = 0.0865, HHD =0.2300. Absent from a specific traffic study of known tenants, the Final EIR should be consistent using the associated ITE truck trip rate to estimate project daily truck trips so that project trips and associated emission and health effect impacts are not underestimated. Vehicle Fleet Mixture Percentages 3. In the Air Quality Analysis, the Lead Agency has included the input parameters for the California Emissions Estimator Model (CaIEEMod) land use model. Under fleet mixture percentages, the Lead Agency assigned 3.5 percent to Light-Duty Trucks I(LDT 1) instead of c Light Heavy Duty 1 (LHD 1) and 2.3 percent respectively to Medium Duty Vehicle and Light r Heavy Duty 1. Based on the CaIEEMod user guidance, these vehicles are likely heavier a vehicles and the 3.5 percent should be assigned to the Light Heavy Duty category and the two 2.3 percentages assigned to MDV and LHD1 should rather be assigned to the Light Heavy Duty 2 category (4.6 percent total). These changes in the fleet mixture parameters follow the CaIEEMod guidance and would also avoid underestimating the model's r operational air quality impacts. °� m o: Health Risk Assessment(HRA) 4. SCAQMD staff did not receive the electronic modeling files for this project during the public a comment period and were unable to verify the accuracy of the modeled impacts described in the DEIR. Specifically, SCAQMD staff was not able to verify the emission rates used in the d HRA, the appropriateness of the meteorological station, the flag pole receptor height used, E the location of sources modeled, and the selection of the points of maximum impact. Furthermore, Figures 4 and 5 are missing in the HRA. .2 5. The American Meteorological Society/Environmental Protection Agency Regulatory Model E Improvement Committee (AERMIC) was formed to introduce state-of-the-art modeling concepts into the EPA's air quality models. Through AERMIC, a modeling system, w AERMOD, was introduced that incorporated air dispersion based on planetary boundary a layer turbulence structure and scaling concepts, including treatment of both surface and elevated sources, and both simple and complex terrain. As of December 9, 2006, AERMOD is fully promulgated as a replacement to ISC3, in accordance with Appendix W (http://www.epa.gov/ttn/scram/dispersion prefrec.htm). AERMOD is a steady-state plume model that incorporates air dispersion based on planetary boundary layer turbulence structure and scaling concepts, including treatment of both surface and elevated sources, and both simple and complex terrain. AERMOD-ready meteorological data for various meteorological stations within the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB) are available for download free of charge at http://www.agmd.gov/lsome/library/air-quality-data-sttidies/meteorological-data/data-for- aermod. The Lead Agency used AERMOD (version 09292) to prepare the dispersion modeling for the Health Risk Assessment (HRA), which is outdated. The current version is AERMOD (version 14134). The improvements to AERMOD affect volume sources as well 4 Packet Pg. 1307 6.B.h as building downwash treatment. Therefore, SCAQMD staff recommends the Lead Agency revise the HRA with the current version of AERMOD. 6. The Lead Agency used the rural option in the dispersion modeling. SCAQMD modeling methodology requires the use of the urban option. Please provide an explanation of why the rural option is appropriate or revise the HRA using the urban option. Warehouse Land Use Model Input 7. The Lead Agency states that the Project will include both refrigerated and unrefrigerated warehouse space. On page 4.2.2-29 of the DEIR, the Lead Agency estimates that a "worst- case analysis, it was assumed that 5% of trucks serving the project site and up to 5% of the warehouse area within the site would be climate controlled." However, in Appendix A — CalEEMod Model Printouts, refrigerated warehouse space accounts for approximately 8% of c the entire warehouse space. The square footage used throughout the Draft EIR is inconsistent and the Lead Agency should update the total square footage analyzed in the Air a Quality Analysis in the Final EIR. �? LO 00 Construction v 8. Since the Project is considered a large operation (50 acre sites or more of disturbed surface ° a area; or daily earth-moving operations of 5000 cubic yards or more on three days in any year) in the South Coast Air Basin, the Lead Agency is required to comply with all SCAQMD Rule 403 — Large Operation requirements. This may include but not limited to Large an Operation Notification, appropriate signage, and employment of a dust control supervisor a that has successfully completed the Dust Control in the South Coast Air Basin training class. Therefore, the Final EIR should contain a description of how the Project will comply with Rule 403. E s v Mitigation Measures for Operational Air Ouality Impacts (Mobile Sources) a 9. Because the California Air Resources Board has classified the particulate portion of diesel exhaust emissions as carcinogenic and during project operations, the Lead Agency has determined that project operation emissions are significant for Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) and Oxides of Nitrogen (NOx), primarily from truck activity emissions, the Q SCAQMD staff therefore recommends the following changes and additional measures that should be incorporated in the Final EIR to reduce exposure to sensitive receptors and reduce potential significant project air quality impacts: Electric Vehicle(EV) Charging Stations • Trucks that can operate at least partially on electricity have the ability to substantially reduce the significant NOx impacts from this project. Further, trucks that run at least partially on electricity are projected to become available during the life of the project 0 as discussed in the 2012 Regional Transportation Plan. It is important to make this electrical infrastructure available when the project is built so that it is ready when this technology becomes commercially available. The cost of installing electrical 5 Packet Pg. 1308 6.B.h charging equipment onsite is significantly cheaper if completed when the project is built compared to retrofitting an existing building. Therefore, the SCAQMD staff recommends the Lead Agency require the proposed warehouse and other plan areas that allow truck parking to be constructed with the appropriate infrastructure to facilitate sufficient electric charging for trucks to plug-in. Similar to the City of Los Angeles requirements for all new projects, the SCAQMD staff recommends that the Lead Agency require at least 5% of all vehicle parking spaces (including for trucks) include EV charging stations.3 Further, electrical hookups should be provided at the onsite truck stop for truckers to plug in any onboard auxiliary equipment. At a minimum, electrical panels should appropriately sized to allow for future expanded use. CNG Fueling Station and Convenience Site _ N O • Because the proposed project will generate significant regional NOx operational LO impacts, the SCAQMD staff recommends that the project pro-actively take measures Q that could reduce emissions sooner rather than later. The SCAQMD staff therefore recommends that the Lead Agency ensure the availability of alternative fueling LO facility (e.g., natural gas) to serve the project site prior to operation of any logistics warehousing within the project area. 0 a Recommended Changes Mitigation AQ-13 v a • The Applicant shall specify a minimum of amount of electric vehicle charging stations that are accessible for trucks and vehicles. E Additional Mitigation Measures • Provide minimum buffer zone of 300 meters (approximately 1,000 feet) between truck traffic and sensitive receptors. • Limit the daily number of trucks allowed at each facility to levels analyzed in the Final EIR. If higher daily truck volumes are anticipated to visit the site, the Lead Q Agency should commit to re-evaluating the project through CEQA prior to allowing this higher activity level. • Design the site such that any check-in point for trucks is well inside the facility to ensure that there are no trucks queuing outside of the facility. • On-site equipment should be alternative fueled. • Provide food options, fueling, truck repair and or convenience stores on-site to minimize the need for trucks to traverse through residential neighborhoods. • Improve traffic flow by signal synchronization. s http://ladbs.org/LADBSWeb/LADBS Forms/Publications/LAGreenBuildingCodeOrdinance.adf,page 95. 6 Packet Pg. 1309 6.B.h • Have truck routes clearly marked with trailblazer signs, so that trucks will not enter residential areas. • Should the proposed Project generate significant regional emissions, the Lead Agency should require mitigation that requires accelerated phase-in for non-diesel powered trucks. For example, natural gas trucks, including Class 8 HHD trucks, are commercially available today. Natural gas trucks can provide a substantial reduction in health risks, and may be more financially feasible today due to reduced fuel costs compared to diesel. In the Final CEQA document, the Lead Agency should require a phase-in schedule for these cleaner operating trucks to reduce project impacts. SCAQMD staff is available to discuss the availability of current and upcoming truck technologies and incentive programs with the Lead Agency and project applicant. Mitigation Measures for Operational Air Quality Impacts (Other) c LO 10. In addition to the mobile source mitigation measures identified above the Lead Agency a should incorporate the following on-site area source mitigation measures below to reduce the project's regional air quality impacts from NOx emissions during operation. These LO mitigation measure should be incorporated pursuant to CEQA Guidelines §15126.4, §15369.5. 0 • Maximize use of solar energy including solar panels; installing the maximum possible W number of solar energy arrays on the building roofs and/or on the Project site to generate solar energy for the facility. U • Utilize only Energy Star heating, cooling, and lighting devices, and appliances. a • Install light colored"cool"roofs and cool pavements. • Limit the use of outdoor lighting to only that needed for safety and security purposes. �v • Require use of electric or alternatively fueled sweepers with HEPA filters. • Use of water-based or low VOC cleaning products. E t w a 7 Packet Pg. 1310 (ZO-S� edE) : S8tvv) podam jjejS Od - V luOwg3ePV :IuaWyaePd r- � M m � <D a] CL _ u a r 4-a '�3 M E ^� O CD N .� v U) LL E rz ■O S �r • . . . iv O � O r O 4-a •' U Q cn U c� C) O -_ 4 �- �, W U 4� to C) C: 4.0 .- � o o U o o to o L. M 0 O_ O �to O •— I— ca U • Ln 0 to O -— -�-� . . Q E -- w E E O c: p O o C c- E E U UU c: nX00 0 ,..a � � � r 3 •� o CA 4-0 V 0. -F-a CO � � Q tp m • bo a _ CC — \ V H , i r. - GJ 's- � U O •� > bu •� •• Tl O Q • • • CL O Y • • (Zo-5� edE g8l7v) }aodeN liels Od - V IUGWLI3elld :IU8W143e;}y � M m � <D � a a� Y 4—j �--� 0 a (� 0 O -E--+ .V 0 W 4-j L L � � vm L O .� � .— (3)cn (. 4-- -0 °-0 i U) +; — a) O Cv � •� U o A 4k ul O '— U) or -'w M O CU Cv > a� L) O Cv 'U O =3 ° o 0 (D a� C`7 O a� C� N CO CO D CO 00 co {ZO-S edE 58titi) ;aodeM j3ejS Od - V IUGWLIoellV :IUOW143ellV LO m � �O a7 CL m U f4 a W W W O O O 4-j �- (n }, O O U) U � to O O C6 O O F CD QL wo '— C6 r O L C (10 CL L U) co •� p cn O E 0 _ O O � O E O p }' U 0 0 0 � L O -0 E > U • � � C: - O > O O O W p G O o z L) L � L W 3 W N > El, ki N, ME > n Q r (Zo-9 edJ S8v) podem gels Od - ti WOMPE44V :Mwtl=�V v CO) m O r � O � O 0 a y-. `n .Y N ca aN+ Q� 0 m Co V) '� v 1 1 O Ul) L o _ o V L N 0-� O .. — — — — — — i i i O 0 �-i •N V N �„ •. - •a s ••_ -, i cT3 O U U _ o Z3 -- — — -- ..,� o O CU `'- CU ZE i O N O O U ,U C/o LZ �� i i � �••� W W O o °o o °0 0 o i 0 Ln M N o (-}j •bs puesnoyl/sdul) alem dial (Zfl S6 OdE 581 ') :Pod82 MInS Od- V 3uaw4*L%V :4uOLU408 V r M CN m � tD � a a • N m lD a m Lrn Q0 ® W O 0O O Ln t3 O VI • . O • m 00 00 m I---. a) 4� Q- , ` • � v m v � m . . Q1 d' � 0 cn • • m Un m O v a 0 0 • O 4-1 a o `L O L • N o -73 _ QJ ;�' CL O CL {Zo-s L LAC) 58tit,) }aodeN_4elS Od - t,lu8uay3e44V :IUOWLIOeIIV co M m � Co � a _Ise 4�- (o -a U C� 4-a co 4-j (1) a 4 O 4— 4— 4-j 4 U U 0 m 0 0 U) _0 CO Co — U i O � 4-j �� cn Q > W F-- �Jc: C6 C: -� •� }, vcn O � � � � � U U 4-1 +� O 4-a 4) � � 4) to - � > UJ U � co C� •i 4) CO p —0 e, r (ZO-5 edE 58VV) }aodeM.4e4S 0d - V 4UOWL B44V :IU8W43eWV as tm CL Ln lie M m � 0 o a � ai E 0 a Q u f° ■ ■ I N _0 v ■� o v 3 U coo ~ L t 0 N cr CL I Q E � v N u � O 0 O I O +' Z N V � I (1) CL, w 0 F .� w w � CL ti � E . �Uj u N U L I V W F- L N rl 00 (Z R N O r1 r-I O O O O (•:} -bs puesnoy}/sdiij) alell dial1:)nal r rrr (Zo-5L edE) : Soty) podom gels Od - V IU8W40ellV :IU8W4oellV C N Cl) m CD � a a) Y V L .x a O O � a) O -+-j cn U � W p � 00 -�-� •- C� �, O YL — U O 'A'Aw O CM cn -C: w (n 0 C: C: UJ -,..a a) M a) C: 4-a a i m i O � U 4-0 p Q p U S.O `er U C6 U CN O O m � O I Z I- U LL U U C/) LL fig: (Zo-56 edE gsvv) podoN JILTS Od - V luOwLl3e44V :IUGWgOeIIV N CD _0 a] Q) 0 o p m z °C: O o -1-a .— a� �- c� o > � p C� ° a� O ,, ca E — E Uo E oo w W CO a) `� — U ° i a) > E >1 (n 4-0 a� �� > C: C6 -� O U O '— 2 4-1 +� O 4 o ._ a) C:0 Co 0 -0 E .- C 4-0 N O U O O O O as .. • • a-•� O re ., U O (� • U I— On O ca O cv • U re •— t/1 -E-� 4-, U +-j W 4--J N Cf � �' v Q O1 . .-J cU ::3 • > 4-J • fi V cu 4 O CIO c6 pC ,-, • DC co CD0 V .— O �•�— O v > 0 _0 ; , O • O v (3)v � — 4-J — N � 3: N +-j o 0 C/� i > , _ � > 0 (Zo-56 edE 581717) laodeN jje;S Od - V lu8m43e}}y :IUOM Delld N CL (L p U) ._ • CL U � U) -C O c U) U UJ � -4-a o - - .� Q (D p p C6 CID cL O Z .- E cm E -� >, E c: — �oo � 0 � 0 0 0 Cl) Cn Cn p m U - � 0 E ti 74 S v F m ¥ u / \ e 0 \ � \ \ \ \ . 2 = E _ 2 Co 00 Co 0 n CD \ / Cn a \ 3 e Cn p LO S \ 0 f 6 a E \ J / \ o t / -j \ LO (C) CL n 14 2 § f _ ® a e Cu \ o � E � t ? m p CY) x G § 0 ® ® 20 % b \ a k \ 0 ui o \ x § ƒ £ / \ / \ Cu = / 0 x m j & k IL 0 b ■ ¥ o a x © = S » / 2 0 0 o y � a o $ f _ m \ \ E \ a n § ) $ 2 y \ \ / Cu E GI 0 \ 0 I L< = x > i 3 » f k \ \ W ) k \ } / � \ ` { \ 2 2kr- RN / 2 (n3 $ 0 .2 ° ® c 2 « } \ / \ & & oa & * ° 2 \ 3 @ § 2 \ E/ / § r § " 2 2 > u 2 E o a o 0 0 # o E } , o Q E m $ § ° 0 e I@ e e r E u z / < f 7 a 7 § o % GI � Q $ § § 2E § c > 2 ; $ e / = 2 2 ƒ / & e a e / q \ / < % h \ / 3ww < / h J ƒ \ 0 � \ « 8 E § § 0 I v 2 § E S � § � 7 Packet Pg. 13 4 \ 6Bh or I \ (D % \ § E \ k 0 o @ I e E ~ 2 = E _ § k < < � Co 2 \ \ \ § / . CL 6 # e _0 O \ % _ — 2 \ / E ƒ \ < < o 2§ -j � i k / a m M 0 Q \ k = % \ \ o ? off < CY) C:) x ® � 0 ® X04 L \ a x \ \ j i 0 7 x LIJ § ƒ ) i k © 7 E / 70- $ _ 0 / i } < \ 0 ® ® 0 3 = / S 7 E a / � E 0 L, \ _ § 2 E \ \ ® 3 \ k 6 f � d 0 § § ^i < 0 § ¢ f UJ g / 2 2 \ # / y\ O 7 / " ■ t o o _ E o c Q a c 2 ° ; S 2 » g � 2 m ; 2 2 � ƒ \ / ( to & 2§ &> / ■ } § @ § 2 Co f £ c . e e x 5 -0 E e 2 (1) (D o = ® = u > u m u 0 (L 2 0 5 # 0 LL % e 0 Q [ k e § ; o ; : I m e e r E o z 0 < { 7 ' 2 e s & I / 2 $ k k 2 / b f 2 2 2 ƒ ± ± = c ¥ a e / R < / < $ \ 0 / 0 j j < 0 0 J ƒ \ 0 � « « § . §0 / § L 3 \ \~\ ( k � § \ � 2 { Packet Pg. 135 . k a) % K / E a E \ \ E 9 0 = E = k CC) = a o \ CD \ / \ \ cc a e 7 O \ \ 2 Co Co CD � E ƒ CO \ \ o LO 0 \ �k �LO � � n _2» % _ ¢ LL 3 Sk/ \p < = Co - ®t ƒ „ / Co 0 = o � u u a _ % \ x u ; 2 6 2 0 7 \ 0 / 2 / E Co\ 0 x . \ @ Co a_ \ 0 2 C o g 2 / \ d \ / S k O E 0 o 0 § E w E E e / m Q I = LIJ -a a n \ § 2 ^ / \ k_ 7 _ � m u ® I W 0 \ \ \ \ - 0 * — § § ! / k w m * = e R */ ] \ § @ g Co m \ e � M # = 2 0 » 0 / e Q = ; 2 0 § g £ © E 0 _ 2 7 } \ a / \ w & o = & > ° 2 & S c LA m ± _ : - e ms i n x 0 7 = $ t e (U a) a) / f I W ( > Q o I m a oo0a ; § e I@ e e r 2 o z 2 < # 7 a 7 E 0 7 & = 3 2 $ k k 2 \ § c # 2 m # m f = S S ± & ± o a e 4 / R < / < $ h § / jww < / h 0 w \ Q « u E § w $ c ' 2 w v o § � \ � k }faktPg136 \ ) k in E e / 2 / 0 2 _ w e E a = E _ § . k $ \ ^ S a S \ / $ CL 6 I e cn f .. \ \ 2 2 6 E ƒ Cl) Jam \ o L t \ -k L � ( CL n2% 2 C E k = \ \ \ 3 t ?#� tp « C0 C0 n � o x # moo G § ® } � � � b . \ x \ o \ x LU § 2 2 k / / 2 § - E k k � / & / a R r . § / g b f o§ k d - 0 / a. k E \ J ± \ k ° L / 2 / k W k CL ^ E ) / . U) n s W \ \ \ \ $ - 0 4, § § ! f « # E Q I \ � LLJ / ® \ t U- of C cu 7 { in 2 ` § / \ / \ \ 0 0 CU 07 / ■ k E @ § . ; 15 a C: te e cc x k = r ! s e m = a = E 6 > Q , m ± * ; 0 0 LL ® § = o Q E k e q e ° § r I r e e@ E 0 u z 2 < f 7 5 7 E o7 & E (n / / k k 2 / § c # m m # m f S 2 ƒ ± E m = ¥ a e < / q < / < b \ Ujjj < / h 0 ƒ \ Q R < w /u § v 2 § � � \ Packet Pg. 1327 6.B.h N O to r l4 Q LO Co U v ro ++ H O o C o O' i o f� 0 o o J S4 O i4 V) L u G o +, o M U N u a O G LO CD v ro ro o N C JJ (\I N 3 N E / n O ro a M C) V S ,q I- o o O U b r m Q .1 >4 M M i, u ro U 4J G U) L4 O 11 G a) a) Ln O U) U I * o C y C # U # # # m O (n # * •O ao * * V * # * * E I c * * S4 M # # * G * * * H M w }-I * * o r >1 * * ++ # ro * # # a) a O u # # o c u # # Q # E * * * +, 0 1 ro * * U ro # U N # # # (a-1I > # # 'O m # # * C a) * * * 3 +) 41 C * * >+ C o H # H 4J # # * / ro -'I O # # :3 I # # W # ro * * * 3 )-I U -H * * 1 0 W * # * v S # # # v 4J w * * m n * * * s4 / * # # -,A C w U # # o # # ro 3 # * * > v O C # # •O RC ro * # O # •• 3 a) # * # U I I4 # # 14 W (L) a # A w > * # # 0 0 o U) # # O rC N # * > # w * o o # * > * U a c * * U # * ro # o * * a * w04U n U * ro * x o * ) # 4J ro * Crn ro a * * aJ * /D O o I N ro * ro * a) * b 4J * * ro * ro U N ro * N # * U ro 3 * P 4 (L) 10 # * * x a E+ a eo N * W * G LL sa N 3 * )I * E * w a) E -4 N # * r # ro E14400 a) # * O >N -i 4J 4J o * O * C # > C O Q) * # O (N 4J * N * •,i H < m (1) r•C Ll # 1) * O * zJ ONx * * .i Sa 'o * U # 4-) W E W O . z � a o Uaa o) as a •u a 3 s+� CO +J ro * * CLN-1 toa * # C * U � � r•CNQae * C * U r.� U LI r.� C r.� FC * U * C * H > U # 0w OEwE+ OFaLI # tA * UaHzua4 '0 UfLO # a * W * WmU * # # zz3a XQ+ H OH W * * z Oa H aaw # * Q Q * * H O E 0 E z W ]C a) a) H Un a) -'i cn' O x 0 O H W W aEDaarn O H U 0E 0 0F4 7 a U) *# O M a, 2: a a a w a a O O H a 3- N 4 U W GL m 0 H a D *# r•CFEO W mazaz �3 C3uCn 7U mUz * * ro # W W ro ro O > a O D a H * W # H O O D W 0 a O a a H * W # mFF,E �COwaww # �C * U) CnmiaGlU) U) z CO 44 * rC * O O * # * * O * * * * * * * O * * * * # * # * * * * * # * * * # * U U * # # # * * to * # * # * * * Un Packet Pg. 1328 6.B.h l0 N •--I H H I � O � N I H N w � •• C7 I M O F4 o r1 a 1 I I x x x * I x x I U N I G O 1 •.i 1) I U 7 I >a N t) I p ul � G I LO U I G I L a) x a I N LR') ro I 00 G � O I -.-I > ++ +J U O :3 £ I Q d u) I R' G a 1 U z G G H I (n ro o E O 1 u) a M a) G 1 a o a F a± F I ro (0 w l > a.+ r= a 3 u u) w -4 a a) 11 1 G m m a > a) W I O O rt; U Q J� AA o O O- 1 $4 U N E x I U W W C a')i a4-) o m 6 * I a) O E % k I N II II El x x O O * * D U Z > I a) E E U * x +) 4-) * x a - w > a14 7 x x .Y �G * x E x x a 1 < (1) a s o x x v) u) x x w a x x w o Q Q Q S-I x x () a) x x z v) * x x x x 1 w •r1 E- > tz W O x x G G x x O * x G N u -d * x O O x x Z•"-I * ?i x x x I O '>7 a U x x ri H x x U * -4 x x U I +) > ro z z * > x x x x = * G x z ro o 41 O o x * W w x W * rl C' O I '-I )-I ro H l--I +) x 3x x x v) EN * wx m m U G I a0E+ E+ V) x .G x a) a) x x a) Q,' W x Ul x rl rl I U 1 W W G x +) x y) y) x x H '3 G x a) x LO c E '-1 rozaa O * ro * ro (a U) x >i* -H -- O x U x ri H a I ro i) O a a U a x x w U o U U ro H w w r w x 3 * w a x G x a 1 H ❑ E ❑ Q u) v) r o E O a G x u) x z z G+ u C7 H ro x �x Ca u o (D W x - x r1 < ro * * OO 1=1 I O Oz u) El E x Ox a) m o (N x ro x a 5 x ) H H 0) W a0ORiw S1 x H x (1) ul r (N x a x a u x a) x U u) a) I H a ❑ $ a) x Ox DDo rno x * -O < a) * .C * as a R. zE W 4J x u O O) x 4J x m o 1) x m x W W I 7 O H ❑ 0 0 ro x O x N .1 O\ Ln x G x +) z ca x -r1 x >> -p H (q z z a) x U Hrno x CLx roz3 x Gx I a) HO W x 4) x - C O m m M x .V x f-I C x •.i x I I an H a a v) v) x a) x x 7 x a) x [u x O I W w U a) (1) (7 ❑ ❑ x x C7 W W < < rt; W Q x O x C7 G W W ❑ x x ❑ E E v) O Q H v) vl z w W x x Z a a E E E W W x x z (1) a a W x a x O W a I H a E 5 a H Q M,. x ❑ x H H H a' fs. FC a' W x ❑ * H I,J H H x x D x �" O W m 0: E D W x O x E Ga W Q Q Q fA m x O x E I f=4 Ga M x E-E x (Z a I ri Q < < r1 -I a a H x E x Z Lu w Ga W. W GW H x E x a. O E X H x W x W W W a) U a a) a) ry' Uz x ax F4 a0CZHH0 z x ax r.C +) OEz x u) Q Q I 'O a "a El H x W x E E aa .7H x x O O 1 00 0 0 U H r-4 x x U/) CO a [n ❑ U) a Cu x rtt; x Un < a U) Cu x x x x x 1 E 1 Z Z x * x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x W W x x x x x x W W x x x x x x Q x 5 x x x x x x I x x x x x x x a a x x x * x x Z x x x x x x O x O Packet Pg. 1329 0 0 r 0 W II o O a) O •-i O �r-I C • O LJ O II a sa 0 +J U m F-4 V) u ' N :J C,-� p 0 o G x C) D rC> o, o a) `- G tJ fS3 m a 0 CL �4 £ N O O w m 'a w m 00 a � S � ro o -H d �f U a' a) 14 x E U W m x 7 H >1 a a W x C U U •• O N Ga H E M C: Q rn H W ri V) 4 J 0 m-A O IY E a ai s+ N >w o � o o O o U O -a b) W w W w O m C G m a O G m -,1 a) U E A o () O O +J 7 M Q .01 •. 11 rl 4J 0 (a u 41 u a > am) u w d + a a o •a 7 0 ° x a y 41 ai o x a o ro ti c a z s ° C) w ra E 0 a) m m H G a) m a 0 vJ w a aJ a) a) o a a) z U E a U a -W a A O M U Il m a) C E s-i m N >,rl bl U W m w m w a O a) 4J A m•.1 a) U) G W FC E c0 E m > x C -4 x Q a) A m of a v A w -,1 w « A 0) C 0 Sa a) m a C of tT O 3 0 E +� +J a --1 G m a a 4J o m -,, o >4 n O m .14 4J G m C) 'a a) m a) -,A 14 x a) a U) >y a u aJ a) ri +J 7 'a m U m m a) r-1 U E o sa 73 U G - sa 0 u > w -H o w C a) A E A m m•• O C o) U m 0 O G+ E+ • a .14 .14 C 0 — w > W a UJ Ca 7 -�O CU a) O >+ H — m 0 7 F > >, a) Co O w C •a G T H m x r1 m a U O m < m s4 m E a w O 0 0-H G +) a) G — 0 a) N m w +) O m a) ��y+y U W •.1 -H 4J yJ .14 W (0 1-1 a 0. V) a m a a a) m z a) H a • W H 0 S4 iJ m 7 m O 'a 0 >, �- m FC >, 0 H 1J Q z a +-� C� ,5..'� 0 •• a > 0 m aJ E m a - U w aJ m H w < -i a rC o m t3' o W oc a) a -1 a a) U E E E a FC w to as 11 11 + � mo a U • aJ m a) iJ o >4 zza < wz m w > G FC. �- E+ W b) 0 >t 0) U U G m a H H a W z W IT U 0 1-1 a) m u m a) mm .4 • C Sd m C •H a) m w 0 OOOa Ha C , m aJ 0 4 E cmao csa -,1aUa) 0) a +J v m a, a > a0 u m G (a w -Am a) o w a Fc m o m a) a o o > G 0 m sa z4 m C 4J u -,1 9 0) W m W m m Q -1 W rl r•C ri O O O r-1 O O z -4 r1 a) m Ul Q -,q -H m a+ 0 a) +) m -a o 0 A +J a m x c a f- cN m U m , m u O o a u m x a) r1 c m 3 +J o m O a a KC O a E w Co E. ri O m G + +aA >, o s4 a m 11 01 JJ 4 W LJ 4 m z a J U m m m m 7 0 o G G of -H a) z c a) a) +J c a) tr m a a) Q II J.J a U m-'1 a) 7 U z W 'a < .. .. •• •• •• •• -H E -4 a G 7 -.i m-.-I 4J M m - U E m G 0 (D a) m � b a b +J a) a a a 3 m E � m z G .-I +J i m 0 a a 1 0 -11 m a) +J G G G G G iJ m u +J iJ o m w 0 u 0 G 1 m•'i a m z w a) -a -H m m m m O 7 G C 7 E 0 m - a 0)x U A 4 ,J a m000 m v,J ,) a) U a) m m a m c o n O W n W m a m v a) a) ) O 'i w O U) V) N O E a 7 G A a a) a +J a)) U) 7 m U) a a Z O -1 a G v) U H E 4J 'a -a •a a) 7 iJ a) .-1 a a) yJ z m + 4J W a 0 0 0 x a m mmo m 04 V) s m e a) E 0xxx E G D4 E E D +J D r1 N r) c �n �o 0 r•C N U 7 a) a H --I 0 m a w iJ x r1 E C ri L4 .-I Q rl E Q,' C •• 0 (1) (a a) (V a a m a a W U Sa •a m .0 a G b a -0 •a a) u E m a 00W O 41 o o , o A c 0 -.1 a W D - O E E E E E O Packet Pg. 1330 6.B.h AOWANL W 1 H >+ l0 N N z I �O N In if) U) a I N N ,� N W H N W H N W \N -1 N H U 1 \ •• 0 \ C7 \ •• U' x U) M O O 1-1 124 W 1 O H W O ri W O H P4 w 1 z U w QQ D' >>4 w O 1 D cn I * * u) o * * E P4 I O U H 0 U U U U z u) EE I o v) U vl -.1 H W •i •rl ••i O I O O O G1 w S W I O N '4 $, N u) im N a. W a v) v) 9 C O O C C G LO U I U U U r Lo ro IC a E a W I E E E S1 ❑ FC E O ll 11 L1 .. cl 41 4J LO ro O 1 ro * ro * ro 00 ca 94 ' O -,A a U -rl 4J LD 1❑ W I ONi 7 a G O G M S•1 x W M 11 C7 11 U] IJ aJ * O I JJ ;J +J G a7 U c a)9 C a) O JJ U) F v7 O 1) P4 O +J Gq O 1J w v) E W C7 W o v) 0 v) D v) G C FC a H E I C C U) v) I C C W I C C N O ❑ w W w ra 0 ❑ I (0 0 U) Q I (a O E 04 x E I E C7 H I E F4 H I E L) u N w 7.1 W z 1 >•1 v) (1) C U 1 (1) C H W 1 a C Q W I N C 4J O 124 aJ O z U I 1J O W U I J-) O b-.1 D u) I b .� H L4' I ro•.1 z P4 I ro•.1 .0 1J O P4 0 'C iJ W O I "$ 4J H D 1 �$ JJ / ro U) W D W I / ro w 0 1 i ro W O P1 E 3 3-I U) W E 1n 3 )-I Q U) I 3 11 W U) N 'C (1) LJ f4 < a W I O a) LJ a) 1J ❑ (1) 1J N v) H C W PQ W .. C v) .11 C -r1 G C C > U FC ' > U Cl > U Q > U O O ❑ C -� I Q C Q G H Q.C S .H-r1 O O * a. v) N O O W 0 0 O O U 4J +J £ U * w P4 I £ U U £ U w U m U U z W u) P4 z fx C4 2 U 7 G W x FC PZ >+ F I M W FC D W E FC 04 w x FC u w F!; 04 W O W N FC P4 PO O FC P4 W D FC a, PO a lJ AJ / Q a. U v.' I (D ❑ 04 U) Q 0.'. 0 O N m D r m D N D O m D +•� G G a) E 3 1 r Q) E * E (D E _ O O X G U) M X a * X G * X 7 U U ro E U7 1 ro E * ro E * ro a- a ") a a •� « a . G c i x ❑ w 1 i x i x x F3 E U E w °o x w I W w u E w u E w v 3 S W E -� 1 C U * * * V) * 1 a) y * * U z\p4 I W * * U * * U H * * U z O W W u-) z z FC z F -w O H �}yy' E I O H 0 H 0 W H e O W W M U co M U Co M U P4 Co M U h H •-I U1 Pii �'.. I to ,-1 r1 . ri —I < a) N Ln c F H C7\ N Ln c E N c E Un d' E 0, a - U) O z z W - f.Z ' o z z w z z W O I m z z W a 0 0 ❑ W E m l 0 0 Q 0 0 ❑ W I co 0 0 ❑ £ H H Ol R1 a E O H H Ol H H 0) I N H H by \ }-I V1 U) 0) £ FC FC I V) Ul a) •-1 U) U) a) z I co U) a) N b a P4 P4 D 04 U PG a, P4 Fl: z % 0.' FC I H 04 P4 W. O W W z 1 W W W W W W I N W w 4 > > l I > > > > a 1 W U) I I •• I I •• i I •• I I •• U) I v) O I l l a) 0 Q E F Q E E H I Q F F ❑ E F a) O O W W I O W L4 I O W H I I 0 W W O O a s 0 0 wU 1 N a) W W 04 ❑ W W W O I W W w z l W W w 4J •-I Fc Fc ❑ D H 1 H r-C Fc ❑ a. 1 9 9 Q < 1 < 9 Q a) 0 0 FC O C7 I a 0 CQ I 0 ❑ W -k * M I W * * £ U I a * * P4 1 P4 U) 1 -K Packet Pg. 1331 m I O O O o 0 0 a 0 0 0 0 (D 0 (D 0 0 0 C) 0 0 to a' . I . . O. O.N. C H O O O. r ID 0.0. 0 0 O M O m . N co torrrrrrrrCo \otolalakolaLotoa D• I 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O N E a) M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M r N U') c I •--� N W O I M o o 04 I (3, 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 �o I O . O. N m. O O O. O la O O O O o o m 1. O O O N \o �o �o to r r r r \o �o to\o %a to\o N If) to to Ln d• O O O O O O O O O O O o O O O 0 o O O o r r v a• a\ 1 M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M N N O O r l O Ln r 04 N k k 1 C' V' O r r r r I c a r r U M M u) rn l 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 •rl la 0 0 O O r-I o o H o 0 919 O N rl 0 0 0 O O I rr ce• C N co co roc o (orrcoco �oc) coCoLo (ooc) u) IOo Ln Q a) I O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O N N O O 4j m M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M m al a) 6) 0 M rnv tar U r M d' O r1 C C' 1 r r r r j N c c r r N I p M M y � LO C I T- O "o O O o o 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 r rr d• � U � I or000rl ,� 0000cri00000 �nc . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . N N N O O G N I Io N u7 N N u) N U) T c Q c v� v ro O O o o 0 C) o O O o o 0 0 o O o o O O o ''nn -k rn C �o H x m I M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M V + M -w O rl S-I * M .. r r r r N * r l c v' r r ++ c to E- °7 °7 3 a I 00 u / U U L) 1 r r G .... x H O ❑ rn l o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 m 0 o 0 K H N N O O -•-I H l0 0 0 N m O) O O O O m d' 0 0 m\o m m m m O) ,I,a 0 m M N O U C7 U) V1 N N N N Lf N to C' I M M M M M Q >+ M d' o ff C a a m I o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Q .• r r r r 3-I •• W W r M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M ® W n n N W W H 7 M El C 1 El O F -k -k O N E x a N N O O G G a a I Cl) a p ❑ ❑ c c ro o 0 u) O m O o o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 o o 0 0 0 O $ H m M H to O r 3 F p�o I 0 0 0 0 r1 H (3) rl rl 0 0 0 0 to M .--I r-I M O O O rl 14 (n E x U a E W C7 rr 0 r- r- N G W C7 I N I � �) N NIO U710 NION V) IO toMNNNNMM w 2 d' 4' r r 41 0 z H .'K,' C o o O O o o O o o 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 o Z F-4 F-4 M M ro -•i W r I M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M O O 3 Jj x M a O u) u) r r co c c 3 s4 Z a• C E W a W a 47 +J O I a E W (Ij N E W o 0 -'I C H W rl E M a) FC E o) rn > N H E I U E 2 W Ir N 2 W c M U E FC ,S W a H X M C H �.." o o q G a > m I O O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 a r.0 C) - rr ❑ r- r- O O < w o d O O O O o o o 00 o o to N O 00 o V' O U U a c C a r r x U U .7 I q O O O M M a •Z O W N C N N N Ul N to L� N N N to N N N N N N M a1 I O o C) 0 C) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C) Wq •• O O W< W •• * M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M ❑ ❑ I r r I v' C /❑ a ❑ M 1 H H �f, �+ fn 'J H r •�'• a N N O O N E C 1 CD cu a rN aa) ro a I x O M c 0 0 �-]•.I O x g r r r r s E c a r r .. rtf H rn o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o V [y) M M 2 i� k i-7 N I N N N N N N N M Y r r cl• V• i s w * a' O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O Q I M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M k N N o o # M m ol ol m r I ID H M m v M d' O O M M 2 rl C O m I 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 m M U la O O O O O O N rl O O O ri rl 0 0 0 0 0 0 to • r r Lo C E N I V' v a• d• C V' M M d• v' v' M N N N N N N N N N N O O .--I rl a m I O O O O O O O O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 cT C d' C O lf) M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M la r-I M m r-4 M I M d O O Z 2 W r rr rr 00 ❑ a' I V' d• r r H H bl MM za a 1 w w I N N N 0 0 0 I I •• M o) a) a) a) m N I N N Ln Ln N N N o to Ln Ln N N N to Io n N N N Ln O N N r N ❑ E E ❑ U) C c d d C C C' C d V V V V d T d C d V C M (D o 1-1 O W a a s I r r r r r r O O W o 0 0 0 0 C) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0(D C) 0 (D C) crcc rrr �l OF I rncrnco) Ira) m 0) -vM m -wo) wM -w MMM W W W U W N N .-I r-I o O m m m m r r w to Io u) C -w MM fC,' a• q I $.." I H rl .--I -4 rl r1 o 0 0 0 o o 0 o O o 0 o 0 o Packet Pg. 1332 6.B.h p C) I C) 0 0 0 0 0 0 C. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 p to . . I 0.000. 0.p n. O. 0.0. 00. 0.00. n -! 0. 0. C -i 0 N 0 0 0 0 0 0 C) (D Cl 01 Ol C) 0 0 0 m r r r r r o c I � -Ir1 .-+ ,-I rl00000000000000o I \ r \ (n N d' I u7 (f7 I \N U 1 \N C'J 1 M O 4 M O O .--I a I 0 H a 1 o rn o 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 m �D I o 0 0 0 0 0 p O O m 7 m m m to m O 0 0 p 0 1 G• (N I 0) 01 Ol a1 01 m O1 01 m m m m m m m r ko\o \o to to O M o p o p o 0 0 0 0 o p 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 M M I M M M M M M M M M C) M M M M M M m M M M M I r I 1 I 1 U U O UI D) I 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C. 0 0 0 (D 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 U) I lD -ri \o O O O O O O o 0 O O O O m N o 0 0 0 p I 1 . . . . . . : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C C N c) m m Ol (D 01 C) 0•m m m m m m r \o lD to to to to G Cl O a' I m o m 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o m O 0 0 0 0 0 0 O I M -rl M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M -.i C I u I U r U C I a I N J �1 u I + 1 C N rn � G I C tl7 0 o a, O O o 0 Cl 0 0 o 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 .-1 U 'o I 0 0 0 0 O O O N O 0 0 rn N m 0 0 0 0 0 M U � . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . f� c C N I rn rn rn rn rn o 0l m m m m r r r w Co 0 CD CD io 0 C 1 Q• o ro rn o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cl 0 0 0 Cl o ro M 1: N I M co M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M r I V N x C S4 .. N k r l a) k +� d Aw LO a a M a W i C U C U o O O Di I O p O p O O O o O O O o p o o p O O o o O O I O O O r m O O O �D 0 0 0 0 0 0 m 7 O M U L7 m CO N m m m m m m m m m m m 1r r cr co (o l0\O (n (n (n U t9 m m p o D: 0... C I 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 m � M J •• W W N M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M 1.1 •• W w +� W ol E F d• I ) W E E I C N O 1� F O -p E w U U) x H O I U U) x H !] o N 0 O m 0 1 0 0 0 0 o 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o (D p o o 0 0 N 0 O U) O o rz $ F O l0 1 O o p O o O O o o O Lo o o O o O O m O O o E ".{ F O I (� N Ul F x U la ul E x U 0. M N C W 0 1 N I mmmmmmmmmmrrrrto1otD (n (n (n (n N C W U I O 1 j O z H k a) O o 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O O o 0 O O O O O 1-) O z H X M ro -•i W rl 1 M 2 M M M M M M M (`-) M M M M M M M M M M M (a H 3 b x I S 10 N 4J 0 I N 0 I H o O C Dz > m I o 0 0 p O C) O O O O O O O o 0 0(D 0 0 0 o C) C Z > m I o m 0 0 < W io 00000 o 00 o o 0 o oLn o o o m p o o O O rf, W iD L) N Cu z D W N mmmmmmmmmmr 9910 10 z D W N o p r] x FC C I 000000000000000000000 o1 M 14 a W •• + rl M M M Cr) M M m m m M M M M M M M M M M (C) M < a W •• k (n Cl) / 0 a Ca d• I .. U) o H C I ) a x d i X 3 1 i k 3 I cm U £ W rn o 0 0 0 0 0 o p o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 •• ro F rn o V 1 O O m O o p O 0 m rl 0 m p o o U E W lD 1 O w z w z N * * a N I r r r m m m m m r r r r r l0 lD l0 lD (n (n in Un -k X a N I O O k W m O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cl 0 0 0 o o 0 0 0 0 0 k k W d' :--I M * x O 1 M M m M M M m M M fn cM M M M M M M M M M m -k 4 x Lo I M r 1 r i x x I * * 1 -k 41 U z z O .--1 a 0 Ol I O O O 0 0 0 0 0 O o Cl 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cl rl C O a I o rl M U lD O O O rl O O O U7 O O O O O (n O O O m 0 0 0 m U w p m oD rl I H rM i I N (n V' E N r r r r m m m r r r r r r %D to to lD In (n (n (n (n V' F N O o .--I •.1 0 0 0 0 o p O O o 0 o O o p o o O p 0 0 0 rl r-I a I ri M 5 O M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M (n o a' Co z z w r z z w r 0 0 I - 0 0 D 1 H H � a s a 1 a s a 1 1 1 I I I 1 (n lf1 (n (n (n (n (n (n (n N i0 (n (n in (n In lf1 (n (n (n (n (n V) .-. I (n v Cl &I E 7 7777 7 7 7 7 777 a a I 0 W a a' a I o O W a O o W O O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 Cl 0 £ O O W o m a 0 E 1 m e o) M c o) w M c m c m v m m c m c m a a o E I rn N W W W U w N N H H O O m o1 m m r r to\D (n (n -w d' M M N W W W U W N o � � 000000000000000 FC rC Ca 1 1 r O M # � x M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M x k -k Cl) Packet Pg. 1333 �rrrr 6.B.h rn I 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C. 0 C. l0 c 7 O'O N C' r-I O O O r 0 0 0 O O O 1 N 0 lO r r r r r r r r \D CO l0 0 0 0 0 dl I 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 rl r-1 M 1 •• r N u7 d' I r N W M •• U 1 M O O W(34 I a, 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 w I O O N Ca O O O O ID 0 0 0 0 0 0 CD C . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . N I kD kD lD l0 r r r r k0 l0 l0 l0 kD kD lD In U') C O O O O O O O O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 m I M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M r I + + c I U U] m I 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -� l0 O O O O rl O O H O O O O O u7 ri O O I G N tD lD lD lD l0 r r 10 l0 lD l0 CD lD In In to 0 Ln O 0 I O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O o 4J W M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M l� M I U r � � I �+ N -p I m O c 1 to o Cn o O O O o o O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o O U �D I or 000 ,x ,-1 o CD C) CD 0000 . U. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . m N N l0 l0 l0 lD l0 lD lD l0 lD In L l Ul in in In Q. ro c o O O O o 0 0 0 o O O o O o o O O ,,^^ rz # m 1 M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M V +-j * c I LO 3 C4 1 w C U O ❑ * � 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O o N W 01 O O O O CV C• 0 0 CO lD W m O U C7 a C7 N In N CD CD CD l0 CD l0 l0 to to N Cn C• C• M M � W a a1 I O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 4. J •• E W r M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M Y Da W r 1 O U) E U -fl H I ro x ❑ C G (Z U1 a I ro 0 O O O O CD O O O O O O O O o 0 0 0 0 Ny F < U lD I 0 0 0 0 r-I r-I C11 rl ri O O O O in 01 .-I N G W U I N I u1 iC1 iC1 N in in N N tf1 in to to N M N N N a J-) o z m x C' O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ro •.i r l M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M 3 41 E M 3 C7 c = N 1 H I d > G W U F x I 0 C. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ❑ C L1' .4 Dl I 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 S N O O O o 0 0 O O r 0 C' O M O r O Ln 0 1 1 0 0 ID C O O O O O O O O O O O i n N 0 0 0 V U U H I O O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 CI>O O ri O O a1 al Co CD r r4 04 z O x N C' in in u1 to in <n In In CD In in C' N N N CD rl r-I r-I r-I rl H e-I ri r-I o rl rl rl r-1 r-I o 0 0 0 o W 4 a' Cil I 0 0 C. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M F� L4 W * lD M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M �•i / ❑ 0. O M I N O H 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 rt E rn o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o V 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 �0 o O CD 0 0 0 0 C• �O O C' N U ,Fi W �0 I Cl O O r OD CO CO C• W CO 00 0 a1 0 0 0 0 W z 0 0 0 O O O O m m m m O O O O Cil OD OD r r -k -k 14 N 1 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 N N N N N ,y HH -l .--IH HHOOOO H Hr-1H000OO * -N W it v' 00000000000000000 Q k M r 1 C' � � 1 i< x + * U I z 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .-i -IV o rn I 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 in 0 0 0 N N O O O in W 11 -! C i M U \0 O O O O O o N H 0 0 0 -i .--I O O O o H I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O O O 0 10 Ol Ol Ol CD CD CD O O O W r r r CD in C' E N C' C' C' 0 0 C• M M C' C' C' M N N N N N -I .-IOOOOOO .-I .-I .-100000 �-I � .7 rn 1 00000000000000000 M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M O In r.� M 1 z z G r O O ❑ 1 H H b1 (n U1 N I a. a ai W W 1 I I in in In in Ln u7 in u7 in In in in Lo u7 u7 in in in in if7 V1 .-. I in if7 u7 in in in in � in in in N to N u7 u7 to C• c � � � ccaC• � c � 77 cC� C� 11 0H E ❑ ul � � cccc �r C� a• c C' � � ccC' c O W a a C4 1 . C. . . . . . . C. . . . . . . . . C. C. . . . C. . . . . C. . C. C. C. . . C. . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o O W 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 M C• m C' m C m C' m C' Cn C' m C' m C' Cif a. a O E 1 m C' al d' m C' al C' (l -W 0) C' (n C 0) C' a) O O Cfl m m co r r �D lD In In C' C' M M N W W W U W N N -i fi o 0 m m CA m r r lD w to in C' -4 O CD 0 0 0 0 0 0 CD CD o 0 0 0 o Q,' < ❑ 1 1 H H 0 0 0 0 CD O O O O O O M M M Cl) M M M M M M M M Packet Pg. 1334 0000 m I O O O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cl Cl 0 0 0 0 Co 0 M O m 0 la 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 cl` rl o cD o Q N 0 0 0 0 0 0 al o o a1 al al o o a1 m r r r r r 000o a' I .-� .-IH �I rl rl000000000000000 M M M M ID N O Lo Lo Lo H H H ct' I H •-� rl Lo r Lo N W H N W M O 04 o � w 1 � o ,--� o+ ' 0 0 CO O rn o o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 m 1 CC 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 m C m m m la m 0 0 0 0 0 Lo Ln In V• (N 1 a) al al m m m m a) m m m m m m m r to to to la la O o 0 o rn O o 0 Co 0 o C. 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cl 0 0 o C. 0 0 0 M M M M M I M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M d` r 1 # # # # U 1 U O O O O W m I O O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o v) 0 0 0 1a -.i la 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 rl O O O O O m N 0 0 0 0 0 -rf I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Lo Lo Ln C G N a a a d O a a m m m m m m r la to to to to to G O O O O O V' I O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O M M M M •.-I M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M ••-I i) c I + U r U G c I G sa s N +� I +) N p m G 1 G 6- 0 0 0 0 O ao 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O T O I o C H U �a I 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ln O O O rn C N m O 0 0 0 0 M U . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . R to 'r V' d' G N I m a1 of o• dl of O1 m m m m r r r to to to to to �o 10 G a 0 0 0 o ro M o o C. o o 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 Cl o 0 0 0 0 0 o ro M M M M E # N 1 M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M r N # r I N # 3 a 1 z d� i FC 1 i u d G U G U O o 0 o O Q # al 1 O O O O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O � * m m a) O .-I H l0 O O O r m m r l O O O O B O O O O O O O m 7 O -r l H � a , -p a t: M M M M U 0 a U] N mmmmmmmmmmmrrr to D DLn Ln to U U a m O 0 0 o 0 a w a a I o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 o o 0 a w a Q M M M M w W W F C I M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M W w El 4-1 O 1J E z O 11 E z W U V1 x H (] I U x H D 1° v) . G G a U] a I G G a M a (n 0 C. 0 0 ro 0 O W O (31 O O o O o 0 o o O o o O O o O o 0 o o o o ro 0 O W O M 0 0 0 N V! H O a I O O O O O O O O O O N O O O O O O m 0 0 0 H U] F O (, NMMM U1 G w U I N I mmmmmmmmmmrrrr �atola �nNlnto N G W U 1 a. O OOO JJ O z U1 >C at O o 00000 0000 0000000000 J) O z m >C M M.M M ro-H •-I 1 M M M M M M M M M M M M M M co M M M M M M ro.11 ro x r ro •- x w 3 S4 0 3 I-I U N 4J H 1 N JJ I .14 G W -"I G w > U F x I > N r1 x 0 0 0 0 O G a a m I O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 o o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 D G a �l O COm O o r.0 a �o 0 o 0 o 0000 o o 0 o 0 uo o o O m o o O O o U U H I U U H N N M N w z 5 x N m m m m m m m m m m r r r io 0 co co c) ut Cn c� � z D x N 0 0 0 0 w E m a 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 w 01 rn Q M M M M F4 W p7 •• * H M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M r.� P+ 0.l •• # tf7 o a o d 1 o a o v1 D H r v1 0 H r •:•% ,k � x 1 X a x N ro b a 1 ro a O % a E 0 0 0 0 / N F rn 1 O O O O O O O O o 0 0 Cl 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 •• ro E dl V or 0m U £ > W is I o o m o o o o o m ,-I O � 000m000 UE > w w z N N M -7 r m Co m m r r r r - w i-] z N yew O O O O # # W * al O'O O O O O O Cl O O O O Cl O O O O O o 0 0 * # W M M M M * # * O I M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M * * * Ln r I r � c # # # # * # U I * * z z 0 0 0 o r1 O rn I o 0 Co 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o O O to H r m M U 0 0 O H O O O O O m 0 0 0 m M U la I H H . . . . r . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . NNNN In V' H N r r rr m m m r r r r r r la to to to io in in N U') E N O O O o .--I H �l a' 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 H rl �l a1 M M M M O 00 0 00 0 C I FC d' H H 01 1 H H O � a as a a > I > > 1 I 1 1 lf7 N u7 Lo Io iW N Ln Lo �n Ln u1 N Lo Ln if7 N to Io Ln if7 if7 N �n Vl 7777 DH E W U] vcca' c a� cccccccccmv� cccc QE E Zr4 O W W a a I O W W a s 0 C. 0 0 £ £ O O W o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cl E E O O W vrncrn f a 4 O E 1 rncrncrnC, m m m � rn c rn c rnvnrn c rn c rn a s �-1 O E C M M N W W W U W N N H H O O o o m m r r to 0 in co c' C c')M N W W W U W 0000 r r r r 000000000000000 r� Ll 1 r r r r O Yi r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r O �+ " M M M M # * * M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M # # * Packet Pg. 1335 I I I \o N N ID N M \ \ I Ln Ln 0 0 0 0 0 0 (D 0 u) lf1 1-1 N W •-I N W \ •• C9 00000000 \ •• c9 MO < Mora I O .--I W O r-I 04 I ,-I I r-I I O O O O M m O 10 ri I # # cO 10 10 r r r l0 m # -k rl I # # 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 # # # # M M M M M M M M I U U rl I I/1 m I G 1 O O O O O M m O 1 o O C r r -r{)l 0 i l� c0 0 c0 0 c0 r l0 m . U 0 0 0 0 0 U a M M M M M M M M 7 Iti w m N v) 11 rn # � G 0 # L() O O # rl � U U N c+i e�•-i r vi io u'i z r-1 fC In ri H '-i ri r-1 rl O m V F-I m m m m m m -v N 3-1 U] r1 N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ri N W ++ rrrrrrrr +1 U -i LO ro rrrrrr.rr ro O Co 1 $ M M M M M M M M $ W r O M Io G r1 # a C• N N .-1 O O H JJ W L U U1 N q• Ol C m M m to lD U Q N N �j ❑ Q. 11 O M M (m M a' c' d• c LI W O •-i d aj E a r r r r r r r r 41 E 2 N tll W a d' Q' C d' a' a' Q' a' u) U II rl I C N w H r N W o U N a N �.. U In Cn r-I w N O Z > N O cn � r-1 I � [ WW G a 4J O W N E +J O 3 H U0� v 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1%1 H -4 C W O O O o 0 0 0 O o H q O 1-1 U W I U O I O o 0 0 0 0 o O O o O O O O O O O o O o o ❑ C a �, ❑ G a C N O O O O O O O O r 0 7 O M O r 0 to O M O O U O O O o000000000moorloommmoo r U 2 1H-1 U 2 F .-I +�•' .--1 r-I r-I ,-1 rl H H O -i ,--i -i .-1 .-1 O O O O O w ,$.. RC ❑ FC w M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M W W O < 114 X £ 1-1 I / ❑ 1Y, # O m O O N O M 0 0 /❑ 0.'i N O # U N 5 # H ++ I N E # 1 N1010 �Or r Unm Ul r # C .X a X 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O -'4 �j I ro r M M M M M M M M ro r C a - a- G 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C. 0 0 0 0 0 0 •• ro •• ro � V 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 O O m 0 0 0 0 C tD O C N U E > U E w W W r a- 0 0 0 0 0 0 C. 0 0\ o� o1(D 0 c) 0 0 o1 W O .-I ri r-i r1 ri rl r-I rl O O .--I N .--I r-I O O O O O # # W 00 O O N O M O O co r: Ln m r1 I 0 0 0 0'0 0 0 a 0 M M M M M M M M # # z. # # z I o 000000 o o 0 o 000000000 o r-IC O r1c O O O O O O O O N O O O N N O O O to m .-i Lo r1 m M U I ri rl m . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 o 0 0 o O)0) m Ol m Ol 0 0 Cl m r r r r N a' E Ln C E .--I r1 0 0 C. 0 0 0 r -1 rl O o 0 0 0 rl N a O r N M r N Ol M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M m r-i 1-1 ri N -1 I FC rmmmmm uoo rr; I O O ❑ o C. 0 C, o 0 0 O O ❑ .--1 HH b� rrrrrrrr HH CT r1 z a 0.0'. M M M M M M M M co to N ri I w w W W 'J m to '-I �D r r N Io •J .--I I I r-i N N to r-I M O I I io N to ul Lo Lo Lo IO N N N Ln N io N io N to N N L U (N r- Nto d' Io lOm w v' � � � <rcv� a• mcccv' a• a' ccccca• ❑ E E mmmmC> wrl ❑ E H I O W 04 (n fM M ro d' -w M C O W W . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cl 0 0 0 0 O r r r r r r r r £ O I m C m -w of Cw m V' m C m C m d' al C m v m C rn a G' cr T T d' C' R' G• a s a N N •-1 -1 O Ommmmr rw Duo io a• c MMN W W W W W W I r-lrl .-i oo00000000000 0 ❑ -------- -—�-�- FC r-C ❑ r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r O O I r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r # # x # # E M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M # # # # # # Packet Pg. 1336 6.B.h �O N a H H H H N W •• C7 M O v I O H a M E N 1n N 1n 1n u1 u1 1n 1n 1n u-) N Ln v1 N o H H H H H H C x I N N N N N In N N N N N 117 � � N ul H H H H H H H H H H H H W I a H H H H H H H al N m H H O In In N N d' CT) CY) C V' O 44 O E . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . m m m rrr N 01 O O O H H N 4 W rrrrrrrrmmrno. rnrnrnrn .--1 .-1 H ,� 1-4 H E - + 11 W I N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N H 1-1 H H 1-1 H Q U > a+ I to H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H F I x a) x 01 rn 01 rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn 01 rn H H H H H H E O H H H H H H z -1 I H i-1 U I p O p r r r m r m to O do N N C• LO LO O N H H H H H H W K f-1 '$ I N -1 m 0 to l0 l0 N m r �) 1n d' H N p .U) H N H N N M O N I H H H H H H U W O to 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 r z H U '3 to N N N M m m 01 H m m 0) R' Co m l0 H H H H H H H 0i # I Co . OC. 1. . . . . . . . U C w o. O. O. O.O. O. C Hclnlna� M a H H H H H H E E w < a) E U O 1) Q,' O 1 0 0 0 0 0 O O N H v H O O N N M U) x Co ro Q Q O O O O O O O N M N N N N N N M Co H H H H H H $ Q $ W I d•, [A H H H H H H H o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o v H H H H H H O Wa H O U Ol z H H H H H H m •'I H H 3 r I ♦.+ O 4) C7 M O o 2 z m 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o i W z N 0 Oa z O w I C O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Q H H C' H H H H a H 3-I O z O w g m +) 0k D H H H H H H Q U) O I Q: x a a w H H H H H H O E U O 4J F a) 11 O I N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N 1} (/) C=. W I U•'1 W O E R) N M M m M M M M M M M M M M M M M W m H (a 0 w C z Y1 I O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O a x o: 1r) 6 o U a o (� H H H H H H a 0 W S-1 U) w 44 •.-I z I C' M M H 1n m m m\0 M m m m H M r a H Q E+ a) C to 11) a 4J W H H H H H H •$ O W J� O R: ro a I C C d' ai ,x . ro -.i p 0D 0D 4J V' N r to O m r o , �$ J-) O O O U) O I H 1 H H N N N C W E O / ro x A ,Q I H H H H H H m J 14 C G l4 �' I U) H M a) 11 v' to 1n -rl H H H H H H W U) -'I G N U x > a) roro x O H U E - JJ 4-1 LI U I N N N N O O O O 10 H Ol CO* 1n a1 r C C4 W Q C Co ro ro a) ,5. H H H H M M m M m c d' 1n H M M N H H H H H H a d• O O 04 -O -O 04 H I N M H H M 'cl• H r- 44 N U H a N H H H H H H H H H H H O R. Z F-4 +1 J-) •J I .1.a H H H H H H ial Q H l< W PQ W '>L I a) a) dl a) a) m 0) m H H 0l o O r r m Q �C Z / Q x // U rnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnca MNU-) lorr H H H H H H 'J '.7 V) `J E R. 04 H 1 M m M M M M M M N n m H N N N (N +-1 E O N O O N 1 I I I I I I I H H H H H C H H H H H H U ll1 .X O 1) i) - I E xx N o 000 O O O O 1n 1n o) O In r HH U) R) Q 1 O O O O O o 0 0 0 0 H N H o N N KC w / x a a) a) I- O o o o O O O O O O O O O O O O E a •• ro 'O Q Q E I (� < a U > // A rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I I I I I I I I I W H H H H H H H a K -K K W -K �) U) i1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O H �0 1n H N 10 l0 N Q y k x H H "g: 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O N �o 01 H to r 11) r 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1fl O M 1n M m H 3 3 U I0, a` d> dl 41 Ol Ol Ol O H H H H H H O O + N a) O I I I I I I I 1 -P N z I O U ro ro $ r ro # 0 0 0 Cl 0 -W C V' O r N 1n H N N Co 0 0 4-1 O I M M M M 10 1n 1n N 0) to H H r H O M O // z 0 ro O o 0 0 0 0 0 o M N t0 �o \o r %D d' H H H H H H H W Co M U N x. N -0 E H H S-1 S4 z 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 H H H H H H H W LO C E a) a) D 3-I H H a Co to ro H H H H H H H 'J- m 'O W W •• •• •• H O I 1n 1n In r C r r r \0 O m M N 1n H H // w w ro s ro x HHHHHHH •• zz w •• •• o: rx o ro U I OOOONHHHR' mNOmrmm W O O p U U w W G ro 0 fn I I I I I I I I M r H M N o toH H H H H H H H E H H O1 z >1 1 H H H H U cn cn a) •• •• G W H H H H H H H z a s Z +� .0 o 0 1 > > w a� E E -0 m x I oOOOOOOOO � ,H-1rN-+ .M� LO �o H H N I4 (0 N H H H H H H H I I -r1 -H O O 1) 7 >+ I H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H U7 W W W W U) O p ow a ro ro ro a ro x O U H U H U C4 a (a m -H ro N Q 0000000000000000 W W w " W W W W I a' Q,' Q S4 O S4 O 3-1 1-1 O H H H H H ri H H H H H H H H H H O �3 S4 ::J l4 a to £ 1 O O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O o cnawacn u + k k •H 1i I r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r w >>+ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Packet Pg. 1337 6.B.h 01 1 M N al r 0 m w M w In r m M N 'V• M m m w m w r w w r-1 w M w m r m O M w w NV • I O N C r ,-1 r to m M M m H w d' M N Lo w N 1-1 r1 .-1 .-1 N N M V' r N M N -m d' H ri fi r m I O O O 0 0 0 0 0 O r-i N M M M M N w N 1n al M I O O O O o O O O o O O O O O o O O O r Ln Ln a I ,-i N W M o /� 1oN loloo ln o O L4 -k I -x o) M w ill d' O w w al w d' In H C V' O7 Ol N X71 N Lo o u'1 NL� u7 o * w I N Ln N C c ul r r N m o M 0 o 0 to to O Ol O N -v r H r r w m r O r •--1 M w M w N I O ,--1 H H 1-1 N N M N m O al ,--I N dt O r-i r- 0 0 0 O O o 0 0 0 o N N M M N N rn I al N al m al N dl N M o 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 r I o rn rn rn rn rn rn rn * * a a m m m m m m m m * * I N N N N N N N N I U H H ,� H N W * m I w r1 H m m c m N In ,--I m m w O O O N M -,i 0 * w m m N m o O N m m M m m m zv m r Ln Lo m m m Ol m m al al - O I r m O .--1 cT r H r m N N In ,--1 O N m M r-i G (1' N O o 1-1 .-1 ,-I ,-i N N M w M O M C M r O r ° (9 m I O o 0 0 0 0 0 o O O r1 N N N N O m aJ w M I O O o o 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 U U r _ N w.-1 r O m N N G LY. V' Ln al al m m w M N H H H .--I ,-I JJ O I Q N m O o 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 P' a) I M m N a• M w(n N m C' 10 r m M w N m w T w 1 m w M o C O N a) w al m M N M In r M M M M dt m m U O r O r w r m 0 .-I M r H m M M N N .--1 N -4 al rl (9 O H r-I G N I 0 0 0 H H H rl N N M u'7 m 0 r-i H O r w Q. ro m * C o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 r O o M y4 « I o O o 0 o 0 0 0 o o O o 0 0 o 0 0 0 N W r I M0000o00 +1 Y1 E c LO w o 0 0 0 0 0 O � N < I dam' O r-1 H H ,--I ri H GO O al I m 0 m m m H N N O to r m r ,--I Ln M w r- .1 a. 0.. w O m w r H O d' m w N al C w w M M M N +.a O O o o 0 0 0 0 JJ W U M I w w r m O N C' r N m m m m d' w M w m L * V7 N O O O O H H r-I H N N M d' Ln w w w in d' C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 * a. al I O o 0 o O o O o O O o o O O o o o O M r 41 p a E M 1 O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 � v) W N m W r G N C7 F M MMMMMM U - 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 c q > O O a I (n ro O 4 3 a Orn c rn r, -w w M w r to w r c,4 rmmN > o o E� E U O w I In 1-1 m m r-1 r r d' o w o r m M m M H m U w i t w M M ro 0 0 3-I M In W H U N w w r m O N N m M m C al M V C N m a . W G W rl z E I N 1 0 0 0 0 0 ,--1 rl H H N N M M C C C C M H m m m m Ln rl ri CP dI m JJ O O FC k d' 000 000000000000 0 0 0 1 w rl H •rl m Ol ro -ri a W z r I W , , ^C yl < a. •, H M Ooo 000000000000000 / ro > r•C r I ++ g t1 c = 3 0 0 N N I d ro o o M N 4 N N o I I tT m at � U 2 0.'i I = v) -1 -.ialal Q G O •• /-� m I unMNNO0r1ow �nOM OrmIoM O M O O H U W w ,-i r C• M V' r V' w M to O d' m w m N 10 O a U z E In Q Q I �) to w r m m H M w al M w m H N M N r1 r� N O O O 0 o 0 ,--I rl ri .--I N N N M M M M M d.+ FC, 0 0 W E C4' W •• W al I o O o o o O o O o O o O o 0 o O O o rnrnrnrnoofairn ro FC a W E U Q O w al 41 0l Ol Q1 " " al al Ol / ❑ R: z (Y. H M I O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 al M al M al al al M al Ol UI .7 W O U r Y I 1 I I I I I I U O x z d' I o 0 o 0 0 o 0 o ro l0 ro E O m O °U 1 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 A rn o i A U Z H * I O o O o 0 0 0 O Ems-, al at 3 •• ro W H W * dl M r N ri r �' m in e-I m M C m m H w c m Ol Ol Ol D1 Ol Ol at al 1 r m O U > C7 O z w 1 m M O m r m M ,-I N - m O al C � m m rl I I I I I I I I [A N rn r-I w FC O C to�o w r m O N v w w H N 'a' In ul In In }r I N * * a (Y. a * N 1 O O O O O O r-1 .--1 ri rl r1 N N N N N N N .y 0 0 o 0 o 0 0 0 A * * W W U * a• o o O O o o O o 0 0 0 0 o O 0 0 0 c Q 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Q o 0 m a' H M O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0; 0 0 0 W O In O r I m m m m m m m rn m a d' I I I I I I I I 0) (D * * FC I rn H * * a Mr rr r aorr I II * * U z 1 wrrrrLrloo �. 2 2 N 0 0 0 O O -1 ro a N oD M O al I m r w r N d' -' w w M r m al r 'n N C' o w Ln O w M N N C' m d' r1 r N 10 w C Ol O m 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 JJ H al r -1 rl r-I W • I C N In w r m al Co N C �n r m al o o .--1.0 ro Q Ol N -r1 N C E x N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ,-I .-1 rl H H r-I rl N N N N S al w ,--i H a E rn l O o o o O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 m Ol 6l 61 Ol <r N l0 1 O .7 1n N y4 * M I O O O O O O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ln c C• C C N m m .--i r, O.--1 a z z W * r N I 1 1 I I 1 I W E N r-I W H * v 1 I °4 (D o; ° a a a 1 rmrno NMC 04 LL W W 1 W - _— I —————————————————— ri -1 H -4 r--I r-1 r-I ,--I O I 1 V7 ro .� I N 1n Ifl to In u7 In 10 In u7 N N N N to N M ul i4 xoo N QE E 121 u) -zv 77 crc e• v' a aJ Ow a Qca 1 r-1 ri rl H .--I ,--I r-1 •-+ o N ,--1 rl ro O O W 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O o O O O O ,G Q O O U a O E 1 Ol cr at C m C Ol a al C al C al �' Ol C al C -,I w w W U w N N r1 -4 O O m m m m r r w w'In N w a• O i o p I I -1 H O O O O O O O o 0 0 0 0 0 C.0 0 0 0 0 0 m z o O G O •'1 * * �., I r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r ••i pG r r * * * M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M O O O O O O O O k+ T 0 0 W * * Packet Pg. 1338 6.B.h OD N m I I m d' N r T O l0 N N -4 H M 1O H M . .. . OD Ol O CN l0 M M m 10 N N O M r-4 In N O M l0 C M w l0 1O N m • I N C r O M m m `-I H O m H 1O O l0 M rl O ID m r 10 d' M N N N N M M M M d' cT cT M M N N H H H H 0 0 O O o 0 O O O O O O O O. .O O.O O O o O O. O O O. O O l0 N lO d' N r . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 O H H H d' I 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O \ r � 1t"1 u7 ul H N W M O Fl: I M O H W # o W I - H # ul r d• # m M V' m O) r m ul C N .4 N m H C W N ul O m N o) # M m N # lO I l0 10 m to m l0 ID C 1-1 1-1 N m r-I to 1-1 H N N Lo N o # ID M 1f) N 1O m N m H m r-1 Lo %D M�o m O M m ul M H o M 10 d•M N I N N (\j M M v C O 1f) o w) C M M N H H fi ri o O O O m 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 M I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 C O O O O O o O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O r I # # a # # a # # a I # # a # # I U U m to 01 1n 1 a # m I m m O -w C' d' 1-1 N 1O r r r1 o N N m -1 r 10 O (\j v) W N O o -rl O # ko N r 10 H W m 1O M N m r 1-1 H r r .H rl M to to m -,I O v� M N O I N o m -w m 1O M N N O N r r M m r H r- c' N O O 10 V' M C (4 N N N N M M V' o m m r �o N M N N -4 r1 H H G f4 O O O O U -v I O O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O U ,H M -.1 OO (D 4-) W d' I OO OOOOOOOO o 0000000000 41 W a a I u cV N 0 1 4� O C LO w ko 10 O 0.. m I .-1 M r-I ID (3) m lO r N r W N M OD -v M H r-1 M 1O O) O C. T- 1-4 N 1O U o I 01 N C T l0 C M M M m �o r m m a) 0 10 N N m M U O m o m W r1 N m V' O m m r1 CY) to N r m O H H N T m l') M 44 (0 C T M C N I N N N M a• C LO r m H C v' M (N o) 10 M N I 1 1-1 H C Q, 0 0 0 ro m # m 0 0 0 0 0 m # 0 0 0 0 E < -#k C I o o O o 0 0 0 0 0 o O O o 0 0 0 0 o O o 0 E4 i) F c I 4J E Ln 3 N I N m r lO O H m I 4' H H d' fi H N N -4 to r M M N c0 W r m C N r O H 0 O) m -ri R4 P4 D r H M to N m N O) N r M m r C r m m 1O cD V' to -r1 D4 C. .�.. N to 0 J-1 W U M • I O C m m O m o N�m O O w H M r1 m �o to to 0 to .4J W U L v� M M U > # m N N N N M -v V' �o r m V' a' m m w N N W M N N H U > O O O O O W N I o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .-1 N N N N N .-1 O o o O o C O •• Q 0 0 0 4 4) a \ E I 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 +11 Z) a C O) U E m £ m I O (1 U E O .4 V) w C C > O O P4 I G G > O (n O) V' O ro 0 $ D4 O mm O N m o N r r M N IO r N O 10 c 0c) f0 O 3 m H ko E E U O ID I O N M lO N (D r1 O r 10 m H C lO M M r N d' O W r3 E (•,� V' H r 3-1 U) m W H U m N m H m r m to H m m 1O M m lD d' H O) <t` m o S4 CO D) W a M M N 0) C W H z E I N I .--1 N N M m a' Lo r O C to N M H r r m C• M N N () C w .H z 0 0(D 4-) O .'�- < a) O O O O o 0 Cl 0 H H N M M M N .--1 0 0 0 0 0 41 O D FC 1 ro-11 a w z r1 I b ' a W O o o � b � H I 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 '$ b < o •� w 11 3 w d 3 s4 0) J H 1 d 41 d El U z a 1 v z a C N T C] G O •• 4 z m I H N - D n r-1 1O 0 w rl r1 N m m N m O M M N 4O 0 C O •• m \D N O O H U W w H o r u) rn W m H N H O r 1f) H r 1-1 m w M r m 0 0 m )O E-H m O 4 I r O M m C M 1O m O O M m N m M W r O N H d' U E m O N N N z "' N .-I N N N M v' 10 r o 10 to M 1f) M m m m W C M 000 W r.4 W •• r+4 v' I 000000 O o .-11-1 N MM M N H o 0000 W � � � W •• RC P+ fQ H U Ll O a' G4 PO E U Cl Q 0 0 0 z a H a I o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 1 M w a H s- N D U O x z c l N 6 U O A4 N � 0 0 OU I N rz 0 m O a A U 0 3 i % U 2 H I O M m 10 M 1f) W N N N Lo O O w H m ri O O Cl d' •• fO W H W V ,-1rH UE UA z m l O u') r O m m M ro o rr cj c> O V Crn co co U z > U Q 2 1O r O u)O m O r 1O r N N O O) r-1 l0 r m m N N N # * a W a # N 1 .-1 .--1 N N M M 10 l0 m M 0 0 0 * x W W 2 * m0 1 O O O o 0 0 0 0 0 H N M M M M N H O O O O * * W * Q 0 0 0 H a o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o FC H r 1 # # K4 I # # # # o # # a # # U z # # U z I z z z z O) 1 m m N M N m O r N m r �o N M O r m m 0 C) O 1-1 C O d' M O r-I d' O �.' N o) co W M U l0 m O) r M N m m m w M N N H l0 O) H N m M V' 6) m M U O 01 m H rl W • I N C r rl m M M o w m Lo m n Lo N 1 1 M M M O m H H W N r1 ri lO d' E �'. N H rl r1 N N M �I' N m M Lo M l0 1O H H rl r N d' M tO d' E 0 0 0 H H a E d' I 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N M M M M N r1 0 0 0 O 1- rl a H p .J- ooO ooOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOpo FC # H H CT # C 1 H OH # as a I z a a4 I I I I 1O 10 Lo m .-. I IO 1O 1fl 1O 10 4O 1O 1O 1O N 1fl 1O 1O 1O 1O 1f) IO 1f7 11l 1O IO (q � d• c 0 E E Qm v� a' c v' c crcv a � v' c � cv v� � v' v' � c � H E O W W 04 C4' 1 o W W 0 0 0 O O w 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O rncrn 04 a OE I (n Itva) �wm m m o) cwm mcrncornmrn fZ a M M N W W W U W N N H 1-1 0 0 m of m m r r )D � Lo to C' C M M N W W W 0 0 0 < C] I E 1 H H H r i -1 -1 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C) Q r r r O ?� r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r O r r r # # £ I r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r # # M M M # # # M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M # # # Packet Pg. 1339 i 6.B.h I I I I � N W \ • I N Ln I ri N W M O r.4 a # 1 # I # 1 I I I I I + # a I I I U Ib N C O M cO UO N # I N W # I rincolMloLor ❑ # mrNr .HOtor I O U I M F 1n r O O N N ' [ a z O O .-1 rl N N O O I O U 0 1 -.i U OoOOOOOo I 41 W 1 U U Lai 0 1 N I N O I p rn u) I O I U O 1 N '--1 O r-I r O .-I of r w E N M d ri w In w -v to 1 ro M v I V` N M C M M o7 CL 1 E (Y. ❑ I Ln f i 1-1 ri 1-1 ri H O I N W # 0 1 0 0 0 0 00 0 1-1 aJ O r r r r Ir r r r LO I ro U l r r r r r r r r pp $ 1n V] I M M M M M M M M �• C z >4 1 d' O H 1 a O M I J-1 w W M I M M a' IT C r N (3) Si O £ H a) o N M Io 1D E I u) ❑ E \ ❑ I V' 01 d' 0) M O l0 \O �y cn W a W W U1 0 00 !b dt of r-1 rl N N LyL £ G N U' W O I M M M M cf• ct� d• `F O v U O Ir lr r r r r r Ir W U I v v w c c• c c' v' � O 0.❑'. I C G a. UO >C I (n U O F O U I () H U Yi V) U H H a X 1 +J O a FC w 1 H 'C 4-1 / ro u I +•+ 3 U I N 1-1 I � N E I E o7 1 m Lon n Nco IDcod• m oMcoco ID �or ❑ C O •• 04 1 '� LL �o N d' r In O ri to to O O r 1n d' o1 O m N N 1n N of 0 0 H U W V ❑ of O O rl N N r-1 O o7 r d' N m r r O w In 1n N E U] (n ❑ I N r-I N N N N N N N .-1 rl ri .-1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (.L' z H w m I O O Cl O O O O O O Cl O O O O O O O o 0 0 0 W < W ❑ w I O C I o 0 0 0 0 0 o O O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 o O o 0 0 /� a Z a # O I U r V7 .7 W '.7 # U O W N o7 N m N '-1 ++ z , N E U O # z I M Cl O .-1 O O N N C O X � z co O r1 d' In O .--I m O o U I ro E O U U I In �o M to to of .--I V' z OO i ,-1O # 01 Ln O N rl W O l0 N N m C M N N r N m N C O •• N w H # U 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 V \O I O w r1 N A M Ln m M .-i N N a' ri C N 1n of N r-I r U E > C.7 ❑ I O -i M V' N �o w In V' N of kO M H m w r lO W 1O 1n W 'J N 1 N N N N N N N N N N ri ri ri •-1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 # # a a I ate.+ V' O O O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 i< # W W U Q Lo I # # > z 1 c O O O O O O O O O O O O o O o O O O O O O a' H r , 1 a _ MOOOCU-700 mmvrrncrin I # * U z 1 z z O r N M r 117 o1 r of I lO M O N M C r M M M lO W O V' M N N M r N CO r-1 -w O K ❑ 1 co ri .-i r1 N 1-1 .-i C \O N N �' 1n M N M kD lO M m O1 0 1n m N N C r rl 1n O M U 94i r co co m m m n O • I fi M In r of .-1 N N r i m 1n H O C .--I O m co r r l0 N H W O , O O o 0 0 0 0 r-i N N N N N N M M M M N N N .--1 rl ri x 0 0 0 0 0 N d' H o) I 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .-1 a E U 1 r r r r r r r r C I O O O O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 < # N I r z z w # c , O O ❑ * I H H 0) 1 W En N I of 11'7 N V7 O r-I M o1 0.' Z o' r In .-i to r r c j 1 > > I . .-i N N to .-1 M O T I 1 Pi W W 01 Q7 O H !b r-I I In 1n 1n 1n N In 1n 1n 1n N U11n 1n In N 1n In In In In In N O I MMMMC VIM -w ❑ u] �rc• cccccccccccc� cc �rcccc• ❑ E E O rrrrrrrr a: a I O W W U I c' a d• ccc O w o 0 o O o o O o O o 0 0 0 0 o O O o O o O zX O I OE I rnN -jc, c• rncrnc r- r- w Ln mmcN a s a X I-w cri U W N N �--1 r-I O O of of co co r r lO lO V7 1n d' C M C7 N W W w rl •-i 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Q,' Q,' ❑ I O I r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r # # I M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M # # # 1 # # # I Packet Pg. 1340 6.B.h 0 ry O E N O r-I r-I r-I rl r-I N � N tf7 n Ln � r1 N w r1 N W C7 1- C9 M O F� M O FC. O ri W o ,--1 a, 1 1 O 1 E+ E E E E E H EE H H H o I F C F C F C < F C F C F C F C F C F C # # w a 1 U U U U U U U U U U # # # # z CD D D D D D D D a D D # # U w 1 V U U U U U U U U U .0 U) a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ro r El I * G # I G O # * W 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 4J # O I 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -J J m JJ U pC, I 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 U $, G J w 4 1 J N U) a 1 V) G 1n G. G t1') O N I 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O r• U Ooolnu)000ln0 U I � G M' a rrrlo �O�O IOr �Or G Q ro W a 1 0 0 0 0 C.0 0 0 0 0 ro 'n > H M M M M M M M M M M (v V Si O x I JJ 0 N I JJ ro w ro 00 3 CJ > 1 0000000000 3 d / w 000lnlnO0olno / G a I G O W W r r r C) Co Co lO r \O C) O1 •.i N I 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O 41 JJ F� M M M M M M M M M M 1) U I U O W a M . . . 4, V) D # 1 1n N 1n 1n N N an NMN U) G a) m # a � cc � ccccv� v' C a) U , a £ k I O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o U W-1 a u! m I ON mm CC Ol a� a� v� v� U) G G a to kD \o to to�o �o r �o r C G ro 0 Q,' n4 1 0000000000 ro 0 R D U r r r r r r r r r r E (•) L4 V) z 0 E I. r r r r r r r r r r S4 U) AJ 41 Q. JJ O FC a W I M M M M M M M M M M GO O 3 4J H W I 3 a) N b• / ro D z a C of rn of airn rn cl C C / ro a) _ 3 s4 1 io io io w ID �o �o �o w �o 3 si a N JJ H `Z. a) AJ O) -ri G H I N N N N N N N N N N -rl C > a) of C' d' cis Ol Ol m Ol C d' > a) M U I O O 1-1 0 0 Ol Ol O H H U M M V' d' dw 0 G N 0 0 G+ 1 r r r r r r r r r r 0 0 V U O cccavccccc U •sN+ z I a z W QQ a a I `.'` ------ � W Cl /0 w FC 0 / 0 a # m (1) U) D I H H E+ H H H E E E+ E+ -.� +' a) [u FC FC FC FC FC FC FC FC FC v E 1 m v b W C .X G O I ?C a G 1 CP 'O a) •'I ro F. m O NOD M Io MNO 00N ro e O I a ro a) •i 4J a-.i U U I r .-1 1n to in O M V --I r a - ••i 1 CP U) In W G G / X W z z O M (N 1-1 M to d' N M W / X JJ 1 (0 U) V) N -.i O • ro x O O 1 %D 1n u) N V' d' d' d' M M •• 10 7 1 U) N a) 4J •» V V ,E > E U U M M M M M M M M m M U E U 1 V) a) E U C H * * a # * w 1 0000000000 * * a X 1 br-i w b m Q # # w # # 0 1 # # w w to V) ro a H u # * # I E 7. H C4 * * �-i COP O N O a) V) O -.i S4 3-1 x # # U CL U Cu # # O u) W CP ro 3 0 Cn # # 1 0 0 U U # * a) G1� x G # # U U) U) m m m in m U) Co Co H H m U) H -11 li V) -ri z I H H H H H H H H H H PY ll' H H z 0 N C O �4 (ti U) W M U I W W W W W W W W W W CD M U £ ro ro ro C O ro 1-1 .-i a JJ [.+ 3 H x U �. U-) E I as aaaaaa as Lo a• H w 0 ri .1 a 4 FC FC FC FC FC FC FC FC FC U o, U a, r1 r-1 a < E o o �O v r rn I > > � � > > > D 00 N M c m CD z z W I E-E H E+ H H E E E H H z z 44 O HO M 00 0 m m m m m m m m m m 00 O >1 v H H CP 1 W W W W W W W W W W m H H CP N ?� m m a) x x x x x x x x x x w m m ro ro w f4 41 H H H H H H H H H H >7 W W E > > I x x x x x x x x x x E > > G 1 1 1 E D 0 x x x x x x x F4' 11 m v) m z a E H H E E E E O vl a) m H E I r1 NM V' un ID r wrno E O H E CP 1 W 4-4 4-4 W w W O w C14 a o r w 04 ro 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 � 0 I V rya O N I H H ri r-I rl H w w W H I W W W w a) I ro ro ro ro ro ro FC FC 0 x FC RC 0 aJ +) JJ aJ a) +) O oa 1 O 1 0 0 0 0 0 O # # D # # * x # I E E E H E E # * * O I a * * * * # I C7 I FC Packet Pg. 1341 6.B.h i II N O N V- m Q. Ln w v O a m V a c d E t �a Q c d E * * * * cc v� « w 4 W * � * U U) W * a) to « RC * * U W * cn * * U * x U) * a W * U) 0z z N * x 0 0 0 * a) W. z z * x W H * U E * 3 * * W FC * O * * * * * W * * * * * * * * Packet Pg. 1342 6.B.i e�R nrA� Larry Heasley,Chair Lance Durr, Vice Chair Andrew Mace Amelia S.Loppez z CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO Jim Eble COMMUNITYDEVELOPMENTDEPARTMENT LADED tN ` Dustin Barnhardt 300 North "D"Street, San Bernardino, California 92418 Kent Paxton Casey Dailey Phone:(909)384-7272 • Fax:(909)384-5155 Steven Earp PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION MINUTES MAY 18, 2016 MINUTES OF APRIL 20, 2016 EXTENSION OF TIME 16-03 N O EXTENSION OF TIME 16-04 M a GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 16-02 AND DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT/ZONING MAP AMENDMENT 14-17 00 v CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 16-04 r GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 15-02, DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT/ZONING MAP AMENDMENT 15-04, SUBDIVISION 15-05 AND a DEVELOPMENT PERMIT TYPE-D 15-11 to w c DEVELOPMENT CODE STUDY SESSION E s v 4 c m E ca Q Page 1 of 7 05/18/2016 Packet Pg. 1343 6.B.i E Chair Heasley called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. Commissioner Earp led the flag salute. Commissioners Present: Heasley, Durr, Machen,Lopez, Eble, Paxton, and Earp. Commissioners Excused: None. Commissioners Absent: Barnhardt and Dailey. Staff Present: Mark Persico, Community Development Director; Steven Graham, Deputy City Attorney; Oliver Mujica, Planning Division Manager; Travis Martin, Associate Planner; Chantal Power, Assistant Planner, Elizabeth Mora-Rodriguez, Assistant Planner; Stephanie Sanchez, Planning Commission Secretary. ADMINISTRATION OF OATH: N Stephanie Sanchez, Planning Commission Secretary administered the oath. ,° r CONSENT AGENDA: a t� Mark Persico, Community Development Director, gave a brief presentation of the consent v agenda. a� 1. Minutes of April 20, 2016. Staff recommended approval of these minutes. U a 2. EXTENSION OF TIME 16-03 - A request to allow a one (1) year extension of time for Subdivision 05-01 for Tentative Tract Map 17367 involving the subdivision of a parcel containing approximately 64.9 acres into sixty-nine (69) separate parcels (66 single family residential lots, 2 open space lettered lots, and one remainder lot). w Address: North Side of Verdemont Drive, between Chestnut Avenue and Q Magnolia Avenue a Zone: Residential Low (RL) Environmental Determination: Exempt from CEQA — pursuant to §15162 (Previous Environmental Determination) of the California C Environmental Quality Act. Owner: Verdemont Heights,LLC Applicant: Transtech APN: 0261-011-02, 03 and 10; and, 0348-121-12 and 27 Ward: 5 Recommended Motion: Staff recommended that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 2016-020 adopting the Categorical Exemption for Extension of Time 16-03 of Subdivision 05-01 for Tentative Tract Map 17367 and approving Extension of Time 16-03 of Subdivision 05-01 for Tentative Tract Map 17367, subject to the recommended Conditions of Approval. Page 2 of 7 05/18/2016 Packet Pg. 1344 3. EXTENSION OF TIME 16-04 - A request to allow a one (1) year extension of time for Subdivision 13-03 for Tentative Tract Map 18895 involving the subdivision of a parcel containing approximately 3.0 acres into twelve (12) single family residential lots. Address: Northeast corner of Mill Street and Macy Street Zone: Residential Suburban(RS) Environmental Determination: Exempt from CEQA — pursuant to §15162 (Previous Environmental Determination) of the California Environmental Quality Act. Owner: Secure Income Group Applicant: Love Engineering APN: 0142-151-11, 12 and 17; and 0142-361-08 Ward: 3 N O LO Recommended Motion: Staff recommended that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 2016-028 adopting the Categorical Exemption for Extension of Time a 16-04 of Subdivision 13-03 for Tentative Tract Map 18895 and approving Extension �? of Time 16-04 of Subdivision 13-03 for Tentative Tract Map 18895, subject to the recommended Conditions of Approval. a� r 4. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 16-02 AND DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT/ZONING MAP AMENDMENT 14-17 - A request to allow the change of the General Plan Land Use Designation and the Zoning District from Ln Residential Suburban (RS) to Residential Medium High-20 (RMH-20) for three (3) parcels containing a total of approximately 3.57 acres in order to construct fifty-one E (5 1) attached residential units within the sphere of influence of the unincorporated area of the City of San Bernardino. a Address: 4630 N. "F" Street Zone: Residential Suburban(RS) _ Environmental Determination: Exempt from CEQA - pursuant to §15332 (In-Fill Development Project) of the California Q Environmental Quality Act. Applicant: Joseph E. Bonadiman&Associates,Inc. APN: 0265-191-17, 18 and 34 Ward: 4 Recommended Motion: Staff recommended that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 2016-022 forwarding a recommendation to the Mayor and Common Council not to adopt the Categorical Exemption for General Plan Amendment 16-02 and Development Code Amendment/Zoning Map Amendment 14-17 and denial of General Plan Amendment 16-02 and Development Code Amendment/Zoning Map Amendment 14-17,based on the Findings of Fact. Page 3 of 7 05/18/2016 Packet Pg. 1345 5. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 16-04 — A request to allow the development, establishment and operation of the Newman Center for student meetings and activities within a building containing approximately 5,851 square feet and the required on-site and off-site improvements on a vacant parcel containing approximately 3.05 acres. Address: 2574 Kendall Drive Zone: Residential Urban(RU) Environmental Determination: Exempt from CEQA — pursuant to §15332 (In-Fill Development Project) of the California Environmental Quality Act. Owner/Applicant:Diocese of San Bernardino APN: 0261-221-21 Ward: 5 N O Recommended Motion: Staff recommended that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 2016-029 adopting the Categorical Exemption for Conditional Use Permit 16-04 and approving Conditional Use Permit 16-04, based on the Findings of Fact and subject to the recommended Conditions of Approval. co N Commissioner Paxton made a motion to approve the consent agenda. Commissioner Durr seconded the motion. U D.. The motion carried by the following vote: Ayes: Heasley, Machen, Paxton, Lopez, Durr and LO Earp. Nays: None. Abstain: None. Excused: None. Absent: Barnhardt and Dailey. E s PUBLIC COMMENTS - ITEMS NOT ON AGENDA: a No comments. m E �a a Page 4 of 7 05/18/2016 6.B.i PUBLIC HEARINGS: 6. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 15-02, DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT/ZONING MAP AMENDMENT 15-04, SUBDIVISION 15-05 AND DEVELOPMENT PERMIT TYPE-D 15-11 - A request to allow the change of the General Plan Land Use Designation and the Zoning District of a site containing approximately 25.25 acres from Industrial Light (IL), Office Industrial Park (OIP) and Public-Commercial Recreation (PCR) to Industrial Light (IL); and, the development and establishment of an industrial warehouse building containing approximately 564,652 and the required on-site and off-site improvements. Address: Southwest Corner of Waterman Avenue and Dumas Street Zone: Industrial Light (IL), Office Industrial Park (OIP) and Public-Commercial Recreation(PCR) o Environmental Determination: Mitigated Negative Declaration-pursuant to §15074 LO (Adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration) of the California Environmental Quality Act. Owner/Applicant: Newcastle Partners v APN: 0141-431-01, 02, 03, 04, 08, 09, 10, 11, 12, 16, 20, and 21 Ward: 3 Recommended Motion: Staff recommended that the Planning Commission adopt a Resolution No. 2016-030 forwarding a recommendation to the Mayor and Common Council the adoption of the Mitigated Negative Declaration for General Plan = Amendment 15-02, Development Code Amendment (Zoning Map Amendment) 15- E 04, Subdivision 15-05 and Development Permit Type-D 15-11 and approval of General Plan Amendment 15-02, Development Code Amendment (Zoning Map a Amendment) 15-04, Subdivision 15-05 and Development Permit Type-D 15-11, ; based on the Findings of Fact and subject to the recommended Conditions of Approval. s w a Travis Martin, Associate Planner, gave a brief presentation of the project. The Commissioners had questions regarding the project. Jackson Smith, Newcastle Partners, gave a short presentation on the project and answered questions. A new condition was added to the project: Land Development: Traffic Requirements d. The proposed left turn pocket and right turn lane on Waterman Avenue shall be constructed of P.C.C. Page 5 of 7 05/18/2016 Packet Pg. 1347 Commissioner Eble made a motion to adopt Resolution No. 2016-030 forwarding a recommendation to the Mayor and Common Council the adoption of the Mitigated Negative Declaration for General Plan Amendment 15-02, Development Code Amendment (Zoning Map Amendment) 15-04, Subdivision 15-05 and Development Permit Type-D 15-11 and approval of General Plan Amendment 15-02, Development Code Amendment (Zoning Map Amendment) 15-04, Subdivision 15-05 and Development Permit Type-D 15-11, based on the Findings of Fact and subject to the recommended amended Conditions of Approval. Commissioner Durr seconded the motion. The motion carried by the following vote: Ayes: Heasley, Machen, Paxton, Lopez, Durr and Earp.Nays: None. Abstain: None. Excused: None. Absent: Barnhardt and Dailey. LO N O NON-PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS: a 7. STUDY SESSION—Comprehensive Development Code Update. LO �r Travis Martin,Associate Planner, gave a presentation on the Development Code Update. v N w The Commissioners had questions regarding the Development Code Update. c "Now U a PLANNING COMMISSION REPORTS/ANNOUNCEMENTS: c NONE E w DIRECTOR'S REPORT: Q 1. Major Projects List a 2. Third Thursday Food Fest 3. Art Night w a ADJOURNMENT: Commissioner Paxton made a motion which was unanimously carried, to adjourn the Planning Commission meeting at 6:54 p.m. The next regular meeting was scheduled for Wednesday, June 15, 2016 at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, First Floor, 300 North "D" Street, San Bernardino, California. 0 Page 6 of 7 05/18/2016 Packet Pg. 1348 s.B.� Minutes Adopted by Planning Commissioners: Date Approved: Minutes Prepared by: Stephanie Sanchez Executive Assistant N O LO T CL V 00 Q� ® c C U a un c a� E U Q a� E U t4 w_ Q Page 7 of 7 05/18/2016 Packet Pg. 1349 RESOLUTION NO.2016-030 - PC A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO, CALIFORNIA RECOMMENDING TO THE MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL THE ADOPTION OF A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND APPROVAL OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 15-02, DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT (ZONING MAP AMENDMENT) 15-04, SUBDIVISION (TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 19692) 15-05 AND DEVELOPMENT PERMIT TYPE-D 15-11 TO ALLOW THE DEVELOPMENT AND ESTABLISHMENT OF AN INDUSTRIAL WAREHOUSE BUILDING CONTAINING APPROXIMATELY 564,652 SQUARE FEET, ALONG WITH THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE REQUIRED ON-SITE AND OFF-SITE IMPROVEMENTS, ON A PARCEL CONTAINING APPROXIMATELY 25.25 ARCES LOCATED ON THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF WATERMAN AVENUE AND DUMAS STREET (APN'S: 0141431-01, 02, 03, 04, 08, 09, 10, 11, 12, 16, 20 AND 21) WITHIN o THE INDUSTRIAL LIGHT(IL)ZONE. LO WHEREAS, on November 12, 2015, pursuant to the requirements of Chapter 19.50 0 (General Plan Amendments), Chapter 19.42 (Development Code Amendments), Chapter 19.74 LO (Zoning Map Amendments), §19.44.020 (Development Permit Applications) and §19.66.020 (Subdivision Map Applications) of the City of San Bernardino Development Code, an application for General Plan Amendment 15-02, Development Code Amendment (Zoning Map 2 Amendment) 15-04, Subdivision 15-05 (Tentative Parcel Map 19692) and Development Permit o Type-D 15-11 was duly submitted by: U Property Owner: Newcastle Partners a 4740 Green River Road, Suite 118 M Corona, CA 92880 E Project Applicant: Newcastle Partners 4740 Green River Road, Suite 118 Q Corona, CA 92880 a� E Parcel Address: Southwest Corner of Waterman Avenue and Dumas Street APN'S: 0141-431-01, 02, 03, 04,08, 09, 10, 11, 12, 16, 20 and 21 Lot Area: 25.25 acres Q WHEREAS, General Plan Amendment 15-02 and Development Code Amendment (Zoning Map Amendment) 15-04 is a request to change the General Plan Land Use Designation and Zoning District of a site containing approximately 25.25 acres from Industrial Light (IL), Office Industrial Park (OIP) and Public-Commercial Recreation (PCR) to Industrial Light (IL); and WHEREAS, Subdivision 15-05 (Tentative Parcel Map 19692) is a request to consolidate twelve(12) individual parcels into one (1)parcel containing approximately 25.25 acres; and 1 Packet Pg. 1350 6.B.j WHEREAS, Development Permit Type-D 15-11 is a request to allow the development and establishment of an industrial warehouse building containing approximately 564,652 square feet,along with the construction of the required on-site and off-site improvements; and WHEREAS, the Planning Division of the Community Development Department has reviewed General Plan Amendment 15-02, Development Code Amendment (Zoning Map Amendment) 15-04, Subdivision 15-05 (Tentative Parcel Map 19692) and Development Permit Type-D 15-11 for consistency with the City of San Bernardino General Plan and compliance with the City of San Bernardino Development Code; and WHEREAS, pursuant to requirements of §15063 of the California Environmental Quality Act, the Planning Division of the Community Development Department accepted the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration submitted by the applicant for General Plan Amendment 15-02, Development Code Amendment (Zoning Map Amendment) 15-04, Subdivision 15-05 (Tentative Parcel Map 19692)and Development Permit Type-D 15-11; and N WHEREAS, on February 1,2016, pursuant to requirements of§15072 and §15073 of the California Environmental Quality Act, the Planning Division of the Community Development a Department published a Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration and c� commenced the required thirty (30) day public review period on the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for General Plan Amendment 15-02, Development Code Amendment (Zoning Map Amendment) 15-04, Subdivision 15-05 (Tentative Parcel Map 19692) and c Development Permit Type-D 15-11; and r 0 WHEREAS, on February 28, 2016, pursuant to the requirements of §19.50.020, §19.42.020, §19.66.150 and §19.44.030 of the City of San Bernardino Development Code, the Development and Environmental Review Committee reviewed the application and moved the a Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration and General Plan Amendment 15-02, Development M Code Amendment (Zoning Map Amendment) 15-04, Subdivision 15-05 (Tentative Parcel Map 19692) and Development Permit Type-D 15-11 to the Planning Commission for consideration; s and Y Y 4 WHEREAS, on May 05, 2016,pursuant to the requirements of§19.52.020 of the City of San Bernardino Development Code, the City gave public notice by advertising in the San E Bernardino Sun, a newspaper of general circulation within the City of San Bernardino, and by mailing notices to the property owners within 500 feet of the subject property of the holding of a Q public hearing at which the Mitigated Negative Declaration, General Plan Amendment 15-02, Development Code Amendment (Zoning Map Amendment) 15-04, Subdivision 15-05 (Tentative Parcel Map 19692) and Development Permit Type-D 15-11 would be considered; and WHEREAS,on May 18, 2016, pursuant to the requirements of§19.52.040 of the City of San Bernardino Development Code, the Planning Commission held the duly noticed public hearing at which interested persons had an opportunity to testify in support of, or opposition to the Mitigated Negative Declaration, General Plan Amendment 15-02, Development Code Amendment (Zoning Map Amendment) 15-04, Subdivision 15-05 (Tentative Parcel Map 19692) and Development Permit Type-D 15-11, and at which meeting the Planning commission considered the Mitigated Negative Declaration, General Plan Amendment 15-02, Development Code Amendment (Zoning Map Amendment) 15-04, Subdivision 15-05 (Tentative Parcel Map 19692) and Development Permit Type-D 15-11; and 2 Packet Pg. 1351 6.B.j 10 WHEREAS, pursuant to the requirements of Chapters 19.42, 19.44, 19.50 and 19.66 of the City of San Bernardino Development Code, the Planning Commission has the authority to take action on the Mitigated Negative Declaration, General Plan Amendment 15-02, Development Code Amendment(Zoning Map Amendment) 15-04, Subdivision 15-05 (Tentative Parcel Map 19692)and Development Permit Type-D 15-11. NOW THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of San Bernardino does hereby resolve, determine, find, and order as follows: SECTION 1. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: In accordance with §15063 (Initial Study) of the California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA), the applicant submitted and the Planning Division of the City of San Bernardino accepted an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared in connection with General Plan Amendment 15-02, Development Code Amendment (Zoning Map Amendment) 15-04, c Subdivision 15-05 (Tentative Parcel Map 19692) and Development Permit Type-D 15-11 for the LO development and establishment of an industrial warehouse building containing approximately a 564,652 square feet, along with the construction of the required on-site and off-site 0 improvements. Accordingly, pursuant to §15072 (Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative LO Declaration) and §15073 (Public Review of a Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration) of v CEQA, a Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration for General Plan = Amendment 15-02, Development Code Amendment (Zoning Map Amendment) 15-04, o w Subdivision 15-05 (Tentative Parcel Map 19692) and Development Permit Type-P 15-11 was o posted on February 01,2016 for the CEQA-mandated thirty (30) day public review and comment period. In accordance with §15074 of CEQA, on May 18, 2016, during a duly advertised public U hearing, the Planning Commission considered the Mitigated Negative Declaration including a a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the recommendation to the Mayor and M Common Council for the adoption of the Mitigated Negative Declaration and approval of the Mitigated Negative Declaration for General Plan Amendment 15-02, Development Code s Amendment (Zoning Map Amendment) 15-04, Subdivision 15-05 (Tentative Parcel Map 19692) and Development Permit Type-D 15-11. Q SECTION 2. FINDINGS FOR GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 15-42: E U Section 19.50.050 of the City of San Bernardino Development Code requires that General Plan Amendment applications meet certain findings prior to the approval by the Mayor and Common Council. Accordingly, the following findings are provided in support of the recommendation by the Planning Commission for the approval of General Plan Amendment 15-02: Finding No. 1: The proposed amendment is internally consistent with the General Plan. Finding of Fact: The proposed amendment will result in removing the existing Office Industrial Park (OIP) and Public-Commercial Recreation (PCR) land use designations/zoning districts from the project site, resulting in the entire site having the Industrial Light (IL) land use designation/zoning district. The Industrial Light (IL) zone is intended to retain enhance, and provide for the new development of lighter industrial uses along major vehicular, rail, and air transportation routes serving the City. The change in land 3 Packet Pg. 1352 6.B.j use/zoning would provide a single land use/zoning district over the entire 25.25 acre parcel and would allow the development of an industrial warehouse, which is consistent with the light industrial uses in the project vicinity, located to the north of the project site. The project is also consistent with the following General Plan policies: Policy 2.5.6, which requires that new development be designed to complement and not devalue the physical characteristics of the surrounding environment, including consideration of the site's natural topography and vegetation, surrounding exemplary architectural style with tower elements along with complimentary earth-toned colors. Policy 5.7.6, encourages architectural detailing, which includes richly articulated surfaces rather than plain or blank walls. The project site is flat and has been disturbed in the past, and therefore, N contains no natural vegetation. The site is surrounded to the north by light LO industrial businesses. The proposed project will result in the construction M CL of a 564,652 square foot industrial warehouse building with ancillary parking and landscaping. The concrete tilt-up building will be articulated LO on all sides through the use of varying parapet heights, corner tower elements and the use of color and varying materials to break up the mass of the building walls. The rooftop equipment will be screened, and o extensive landscaping will be provided along the project's Waterman 2 Avenue and Dumas Street frontages,consistent with these policies. �°�, Findin g No.2: The proposed amendment would not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety,convenience,or welfare of the City. a M Finding of Fact: The proposed amendment will not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience, or welfare of the City in that amendment from E Office Industrial Park (OIP) and Public-Commercial Recreation (PCR) to Industrial Light (IL) will facilitate the development of a warehouse facility a on a parcel that is partially developed. The project site has direct access from Waterman Avenue and Dumas Street, will be fully served by utility providers, will be construction in accordance with all applicable codes and regulations, and will not result in the need for the excessive provision of Y services. a Finding No.3 The proposed amendment would maintain the appropriate balance of land uses within the City. Finding of Fact: The proposed amendment from Office Industrial Park (OIP) and Public- Commercial Recreation (PCR) to Industrial Light (IL) would affect 25.25 acres of land that are partially developed. The proposed amendment maintains an appropriate balance of land uses by providing for the re-use of an existing industrial property. The proposed amendment will not change the balance of land uses in the City. 4 Packet Pg. 1353 s.B.� Finding No.4 The subject parcels are physically suitable (including but not limited to, access, provision of utilities, compatibility with adjoining land uses, and adjoining land uses, and absence of physical constraints) for the requested land use designation and the anticipated land use development Finding of Fact: The project site is currently consists of twelve (12) parcels that are proposed to be merged into one, 25.25 acre parcel. The parcel will be generally flat with direct access at four (4) locations along Waterman Avenue and Dumas Street. Utilities are available directly from Waterman Avenue. A 564,652 square foot industrial warehouse building is proposed on the site. The site is sufficient in size to meet parking, loading and landscaping requirements and there are no physical constraints on the site, such as steep slopes or watercourses. SECTION 3. FINDINGS FOR DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT (ZONING MAP AMENDMENT) 15-04: o Ln Sections 19.42.050 and 19.74.050 of the City of San Bernardino Development Code require that Q Development Code Amendment (Zoning Map Amendment) applications meet certain findings c� prior to the approval by the Mayor and Common Council. Accordingly, the following findings LO are provided in support of the recommendation by the Planning Commission for the approval of v Development Code Amendment(Zoning Map Amendment) 15-04: c 0 Finding No. 1: The proposed amendment is consistent with the General Plan. o Finding of Fact: The proposed amendment will result in removing the existing Office Industrial Park (OIP) and Public-Commercial Recreation (PCR) land use a designations/zoning districts from the project site, resulting in the entire M site having the Industrial Light (IL) land use designation/zoning district. a The new Industrial Light (IL) land use designation will provide for the s accommodation of the development, establishment and operation of an industrial warehouse building containing approximately 564,652 square Q feet, along with the construction of the required on-site and off-site improvements consistent with the City of San Bernardino Development Code. Finding No.2: The proposed amendment would not be detrimental to the public interest, Q health, safety, convenience, or welfare of the City. Finding of Fact: The proposed amendment will not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience, or welfare of the City in that amendment from Office Industrial Park (OIP) and Public-Commercial Recreation (PCR) to Industrial Light (IL) will facilitate the development, establishment and operation of an industrial warehouse building containing approximately 564,652 square feet, along with the construction of the required on-site and off-site improvements consistent with the City of San Bernardino Development Code. The project site has direct access from both Waterman Avenue and Dumas Street, will be fully served by utility providers, will be 5 Packet Pg. 1354 6.B.j construction in accordance with all applicable codes and regulations, and will not result in the need for the excessive provision of services. SECTION 4. FINDINGS FOR SUBDIVISION 15-05 (TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 19692): Section 19.66.150 of the City of San Bernardino Development Code requires that Subdivision applications meet certain findings prior to the approval by the Mayor and Common Council. Accordingly, the following findings are provided in support of the recommendation by the Planning Commission for the approval of Subdivision 15-05 (Tentative Parcel Map 19692): Finding No. 1: The proposed map is consistent with the General Plan. Finding of Fact: The proposed Tentative Parcel Map to accommodate the development of the industrial warehouse building containing approximately 564,652 square feet, along with the construction of the required on-site and off-site c improvements will provide additional economic development 0 opportunities with the City, the proposed project is permitted within the a proposed Industrial Light (IL) zone, subject to the approval of a General Plan Amendment, Development Code Amendment (Zoning Map In Amendment) and Development Permit Type-D with the appropriate Conditions of Approval and CEQA determination, and the proposed Industrial Light (IL) zone is consistent with the proposed Industrial Light o General land use designation set forth by the General Plan Land Use Map. ' 0 U) a) Finding No. 2: The design and improvements of the proposed subdivision is consistent U with the General Plan. a. M Finding of Fact: General Plan Land Use Goal 2.2 states: Promote development that integrates with surrounding land uses." The proposed Tentative Parcel s Map will be consistent with the pattern of development within the existing r surrounding neighborhood. Q General Plan Land Use policy 2.7.5 states: "Require that developments conform to the availability of public infrastructure to accommodate its demands and mitigate its impacts." The proposed Tentative Parcel Map Q will connect to existing water and sewer services, roads, storm drains, and private utilities. Finding No. 3 The site is physically suitable for the type of development. Finding of Fact: The proposed project is permitted within the proposed Industrial Light (IL) zone, subject to the approval of a General Plan Amendment, Development Code Amendment/Zoning Map Amendment and Development Permit Type-D with the appropriate Conditions of Approval and CEQA determination is permitted within the proposed Industrial Light (IL) zone.The subject site as an industrial development is sufficient in size to accommodate the proposal under General Plan Amendment 15-02, Development Code Amendment (Zoning Map Amendment) 15-04, 6 Packet Pg. 1355 6.B.j Subdivision 15-05 (Tentative Parcel Map 19692) and Development Permit Type-D 15-11 as required by the City of San Bernardino Development Code. Therefore,the subject site is physically suitable for the proposal. Finding No.4 The site is physically suitable for the proposed density of development. Finding of Fact: The development of the industrial warehouse building containing approximately 564,652 square feet, along with the construction of the required on-site and off-site improvements is permitted within the proposed Industrial Light (IL) zone, subject to the approval of a General Plan Amendment, Development Code Amendment (Zoning Map Amendment) and Development Permit Type-D with the appropriate Conditions of Approval and CEQA determination. The subject site as a commercial development is sufficient in size to accommodate the proposal under Development Permit Type-D 15-11 as required by the City of San Bernardino Development Code. Therefore, the subject site is physically o suitable for the proposal. Ln Finding No. 5: The design of the subdivision and the proposed improvements will not 0 cause substantial environmental damage or substantially or avoidably LO injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. Finding of Fact: The design of the subdivision will not have any significant negative c impacts to wildlife or their habitat. The project site is an existing partially o developed site and surrounded by urban development. No significant negative impacts on the environment are anticipated to result from re-use U of the existing site. a. Finding No.6: The design of the subdivision or type of improvements will not cause serious public health problems. s �o Finding of Fact: The design of the proposed subdivision meets all of the applicable Q Development Code requirements and will not result in any serious public health problems. The proposed parcel will have access to existing public streets. Existing utilities and public services are available to serve the project site and ensure the maintenance of public health and safety. Q Finding No. 7: The design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of, property within the proposed subdivision. Finding of Fact: The design of the subdivision will not conflict with any public or private easements. All documentation relating to easements and dedications will be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer prior to recordation of the Final Map. Existing easements will be reserved in place or relocated, as necessary. 7 Packet Pg. 1356 6.B.j SECTION 5. FINDINGS FOR DEVELOPMENT PERMIT TYPE-D 15-11: Section 19.42.050 of the City of San Bernardino Development Code requires that Development Permit applications meet certain findings prior to the approval by the Mayor and Common Council. Accordingly, the following findings are provided in support of the recommendation by the Planning Commission for the approval of Development Permit Type-D 15-11: Finding No. 1: The proposed development is permitted within the subject zoning district and complies with all applicable provisions of the Development Code, including prescribed site development standards and applicable design guidelines. Finding of Fact: The proposed development of a 564,652 square foot industrial warehouse building is a permitted use within the proposed Industrial Light (IL) zone, subject to the approval of a Development Permit Type-D with the appropriate Conditions of Approval and CEQA determination. The proposal under Development Permit Type-D 15-11 will be developed in 9 compliance with all of the applicable provisions of the City of San Bernardino Development Code, including development standards and applicable design guidelines. Additionally, the Land Use Element (Table in co LU-2) lists the intended uses for the Industrial Light (IL) zone, and permits a variety of activities that are conducted indoors, such as light manufacturing, assembly uses, warehouse and distribution, administrative o offices, and similar uses. Therefore, the proposal would not impair the integrity and character of the subject land use district. o: Finding No.2: The proposed use is consistent with the General Plan. a M Finding of Fact: General Plan and Use Policy 2.5.4 requires that all new structures achieve a high level of architectural design and provide careful attention to details. E General Plan Goal 4.1 encourages economic activity that capitalizes on the a transportation and locational strengths of San Bernardino. a� E The proposed development of a 564,652 square foot industrial warehouse building will provide additional economic development opportunities r within the City, consistent with the General Plan goal and policy cited Q above. Land Use Element (Table LU-2) also lists the intended uses for the Industrial Light zone, and permits a variety of uses including light manufacturing, assembly uses, warehouse and distribution, administrative offices, and other similar uses. The proposed project has been designed with contemporary unifying architectural design elements and will be compatible with other industrial warehouse and office buildings within the surrounding area. Additionally, the proposed project is permitted within the proposed Industrial Light (IL) zone, subject to the approval of a Development Permit Type-D with the appropriate Conditions of Approval and CEQA determination, and the proposed Industrial Light (IL) zone is consistent with the proposed Industrial land use designation set forth by the General Plan Land Use Map. 8 Packet Pg. 1357 6.B.j Finding No.3 The proposed development is harmonious and compatible with existing and future developments within the land use district and general area, as well as the land uses presently on the subject property. Finding of Fact: The proposed development of a 564,652 square foot industrial warehouse building will be harmonious and compatible with existing and future developments within the proposed Industrial Light (IL) zone and the surrounding area. The scale and density of the proposed development is similar to that of the existing industrial development in the area and it conforms to the development standards of the Industrial Light (IL) zone. Since the proposal is consistent with both the General Plan and Development Code, no land use conflict is expected to result from construction of the proposed project. Finding No.4 The proposed development is in compliance with the requirements of the o California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and §19.20.030 of the LO Development Code. a c� Finding of Fact: In accordance with §15063 of the California Environmental Quality Act to (CEQA), an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared in connection with General Plan Amendment 15-02, Development Code Amendment (Zoning Map Amendment) 15-04, Subdivision 15-05 o (Tentative Parcel Map 19692) and Development Permit Type-D 15-11 for the development, establishment and operation of an industrial warehouse N building containing approximately 564,652 square feet along with the construction of the required on-site and off-site improvements. In a accordance with §15097 of CEQA, a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting M Program has been prepared in order to ensure that the mitigation measures are implemented to prevent potential environmental impacts. s M Finding No. 5: There will be no potentially significant negative impacts upon Q environmental quality and natural resources that could not be properly mitigated and monitored. E s U Finding of Fact: In accordance with §15063 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared in Q connection with General Plan Amendment 15-02, Development Code Amendment (Zoning Map Amendment) 15-04, Subdivision 15-05 (Tentative Parcel Map 19692) and Development Permit Type-D 15-11 for the development, establishment and operation of an industrial warehouse building containing approximately 564,652 square feet along with the construction of the required on-site and off-site improvements. In accordance with §15097 of CEQA, a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program has been prepared in order to ensure that the mitigation measures are implemented to prevent potential environmental impact. Therefore, the proposed industrial warehouse building containing approximately 564,652 square feet along with the required on-site and off-site improvements will be completed in a manner so that it is consistent with the surrounding 9 Packet Pg. 1358 6.B.j neighborhood, and no significant negative impacts on the environment are anticipated. Finding No. 6: The subject site is physically suitable for the type and density/intensity of use being proposed. Finding of Fact: The proposed industrial warehouse building containing approximately 564,652 square feet along with the required on-site and off-site improvements is permitted within the proposed Industrial Light(IL) zone, subject to the approval of a General Plan Amendment, Development Code Amendment (Zoning Map Amendment) and Development Permit Type-D with the appropriate Conditions of Approval and CEQA determination. The subject site as a commercial development is sufficient in size to accommodate the proposal under Development Permit Type-D 15-11 as required by the City of San Bernardino Development Code. Therefore, the subject site is physically suitable for the proposal. o LO T Finding No. 7 There are adequate provisions for public access, water, sanitation, and a public utilities and services to ensure that the proposed use would not be c� detrimental to public health and safety. LO v Finding of Fact: There are adequate provisions for public access, public utilities, and public services for the proposed industrial warehouse building containing approximately 564,652 square feet along with the construction of the o required on-site and off-site improvements. The existing site is located adjacent to and already served by existing public streets and a full range of public utilities and services. All applicable Codes will apply to the a. proposed development. Therefore, subject to the Conditions of Approval, the proposed development under Development Permit Type-D 15-11 will not be detrimental to public services or public health and safety. £ U tV Finding No. 8 The location, size, design, and operating characteristics of the proposed Q use are compatible with the existing and future land uses within the general area in which the proposed use is to be located and will not create E significant noise, traffic or other conditions or situations that may be objectionable or detrimental to other permitted uses in the vicinity or Q adverse to the public interest, health, safety, convenience, or welfare of the City. Finding of Fact: The proposed development of the industrial warehouse building containing approximately 564,652 square feet along with the required on- site and off-site improvements conforms to all applicable development standards and land use regulations of the proposed Industrial Light (IL) zone. Therefore, the design of the project, in conjunction with the recommended Conditions of Approval, will ensure that the proposal will not create significant noise, traffic, or other conditions or situations that may be objectionable or detrimental to other permitted uses in the vicinity of the site, nor will it be adverse to the public interest, health, safety, convenience or welfare of the City. The location, size, design and 14 Packet Pg. 1359 s.B.� character of the proposed development will enhance the neighborhood to the benefit of the public interest and general welfare of the City. SECTION 6. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: The recommendation of approval to the Mayor and Common Council of General Plan Amendment 15-02, Development Code Amendment (Zoning Map Amendment) 15-04, Subdivision 15-05 (Tentative Parcel Map 19692) and Development Permit Type-D 15-11 shall be subject to the following Conditions of Approval: 1. This is an approval to change the General Plan Land Use Designation and Zoning District of a site containing approximately 25.25 acres from Industrial Light (IL), Office Industrial Park (OIP) and Public-Commercial Recreation (PCR) to Industrial Light (IL); and, allow the development and establishment of an industrial warehouse building containing approximately 564,652 square feet, along with the required on-site and off-site improvements.. The project site is located at the Southwest Corner of Waterman Avenue o and Dumas Street, within the Industrial Light (IL), Office Industrial Park (OIP) and U) Public Commercial Recreation(PCR) zones. Q Ln 2. The project site shall be developed and maintained in accordance with the plans stamped May 18, 2016 (EXHIBIT"A"), approved by the City, which includes a site plan, on file in the Planning Division; the Conditions of Approval contained herein; and, the City's g Municipal Code regulations. ' 0 N d 3. The project shall be subject to all of the mitigation measures contained in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, dated May 18, 2016 (EXHIBIT "B"), and a incorporated herein by reference as Conditions of Approval. M c m 4. Within two (2) years of the Development Permit approval, commencement of s construction shall have occurred or the permit/approval shall become null and void. In M addition, if after commencement of construction, work is discontinued for a period of one a year, then the permit/approval shall become null and void. However, approval of the Development Permit does not authorize commencement of construction. All necessary E permits must be obtained prior to commencement of specified construction activities included in the Conditions of Approval. a EXPIRATION DATE: May 18,2018 5. The review authority may grant a time extension, for good cause, not to exceed twelve (12) months. The applicant must file an application, the processing fees, and all required submittal items, thirty (30) days prior to the expiration date. The review authority shall ensure that the project complies with all Development Code provisions in effect at the time of the requested extension. 6. In the event this approval is legally challenged, the City will promptly notify the applicant of any claim, action or proceeding and will cooperate fully in the defense of this matter. Once notified, the applicant agrees to defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City of San Bernardino (City), any departments, agencies, divisions, boards or 11 Packet Pg. 1360 6.B.j commission of the City as well as predecessors, successors, assigns, agents, directors, elected officials, officers, employees, representatives and attorneys of the City from any claim, action or proceeding against any of the foregoing persons or entities. The applicant further agrees to reimburse the City for any costs and attorney's fees which the City may be required by a court to pay as a result of such action, but such participation shall not relieve applicant of his or her obligation under this condition. The costs, salaries, and expenses of the City Attorney and employees of his office shall be considered as "Attorney's fees" for the purpose of this condition. As part of the consideration for issuing this Conditional Use Permit, this condition shall remain in effect if the Conditional Use Permit is rescinded or revoked, whether or not at the request of applicant. Planning Division 7. Minor modification to the plans shall be subject to approval by the Director through the i Minor Modification Permit process. Any modification which exceeds 10% of the allowable measurable design/site considerations shall require the refilling of the original Q application. Ln co 8. The project shall comply with all applicable requirements of the Building and Safety Division, Fire Department, Police Department, Municipal Water Department, Public Services Department and the City Clerk's Office/Business Registration Division, o 9. This approval shall comply with the requirements of other outside agencies (i.e., San Bernardino County Health Department, Division of Environmental Health Services, and California Board of Equalization), as applicable. a 10. The facility operator and property owner shall be responsible for regular maintenance of the project site. The site shall be maintained in a clean condition and free of litter and any t other undesirable material(s). Vandalism, graffiti, trash and other debris shall be removed and cleaned up within 24 hours of being reported. Q c 11. Signs are not approved as part of this permit. Prior to establishing any new signs or replacing existing signs, the applicant shall submit an application and receive approval for a Sign Permit from the Planning Division. Signs painted on the building are w prohibited. Banners, flags, pennant, and similar signs are prohibited unless a Temporary Sign Permit is obtained. 12. All exterior lighting shall be energy efficient with the option to lower or reduce usage when the facility is closed. Any electric signage may be required to be turned off when the businesses are closed. 13. A bicycle rack shall be installed in a convenient location on the site. 14. If the colors of the buildings or other exterior finish materials are to be modified beyond the current proposal and improvement requirements, the revised color scheme and/or finish materials shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Division prior to commencement of work. 12 Packet Pg. 1361 6.B.j 15. Submittal requirements for permit applications (site improvements, landscaping, etc.) to Building Plan Check and/or Land Development must include all Conditions of Approval issued with this approval, printed on the plan sheets. 16. All Conditions of Approval and Standard Requirements shall be implemented and/or completed prior to final inspection and/or issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy Building& Safety Division 17. Plans submitted shall conform to the 2013 California Building Codes. Please note this will include the California Green Building Code. 18. Project shall conform to Chapter 3 of California Building Code 2013. 19. Project shall also conform to the requirements of Chapter 4 of the California Building Code, Special Details Requirements Based on use of Occupancy. o Ln 20. Provide sprinkler requirements for the occupant load according to California Building a Code 2013. 21. Provide all disabled access requirements per Chapter I 1 B and complete details on plans LO Go prior to plan review submittal. c 22. There shall be a formal plan submittal prior to all issuance of permits. 0 23. Refer to Chapter 7 of the California Building Code for Fire/Smoke Protection Requirements. 24. Please indicate all hydrants location on plans. a 25. Prior to submittal please obtain the city hand-out for Commercial/Industrial plan review r guidelines. 26. The Building Department submittal is separate from the Fire Department. a a� Fire Department s 27. The developer shall provide for adequate fire flow. Minimum fire flow requirements shall be based on square footage, construction features, and exposure information supplied by a the developer and must be available prior to placing combustible materials on site. 28. Public fire hydrants are required along streets at intervals not to exceed 300 feet for the commercial and multi-residential areas and at intervals not to exceed 500 feet for residential areas. 29. Fire hydrant minimum flow rates of 1,500 gpm at a 20 psi minimum residual pressure are required for commercial and multi-residential areas. Minimum fire hydrant flow rates of 1,000 gpm at a 20 psi minimum residual are required for residential areas. 30. Fire hydrant type and specific location shall be jointly determined by the City of San Bernardino Fire Department in conjunction with the water purveyor. Fire hydrant 13 Packet Pg. 1362 6.B.j materials and installation shall confirm to the standards and specifications of the water purveyor. 31. Public fire hydrants, fire services, and public water facilities necessary to meet Fire Department requirements are the developer's financial responsibility and shall be installed by the water purveyor or by the developer at the water purveyor's discretion. Contact the water purveyor indicated above for additional information. 32. Provide two separate, dedicated routes of ingress/egress to the property entrance. The routes shall be paved, all weather. 33. Provide an access road to each building for fire apparatus. Access roadway shall have an all-weather driving surface of or less than 20 feet of unobstructed width. 34. Extend roadway to within 150 feet of all portions of the exterior wall of al single story buildings. o LO 35. Provide "NO PARKING" signs whenever parking of vehicles would possibly reduce the clearance of access roadways to less than the required width. Signs are to read "FIRE LANE-NO PARKING -M.C. Sec 15.16". U) co 36. All access roads and streets are to be constructed and usable prior to combustible v construction. 37. Private fire hydrants shall be installed to protect each building located more than 150 feet from the curb line. No fire hydrants should be within 40 feet of an exterior wall. The W Y Y hydrants shall be Wet Barrel type, with one 2 1/2 inch and 4 inch outlet, and approved by a. the Fire Department. Areas adjacent to fire hydrants shall be designated as a "NO M PARKING" zone by painting an 8 inch wide, red stripe for 15 feet in each direction in front of the hydrant in such a manner that it will not be blocked by parking vehicles. E Lettering to be in white 6"by 1/2". a 38. Address numerals shall be installed on the building at the front or other approved location in such a manner as to be visible from the frontage street. Commercial and multi-family E address numerals shall be 6 inches tall, single-family address numerals shall be 4 inches tall. The color of the numerals shall contrast with the color of the background. r 39. Fire extinguishers must be installed prior to the building being occupied. The minimum rating for any fire extinguisher is 2A IOB/C. Minimum distribution of fire extinguishers must be such that no interior part of the building is over 75 feet travel distance from a fire extinguisher. 40. All buildings, over 5,000 square feet, shall be equipped with an automatic fire sprinkler system designed to NFPA standards. This includes existing buildings vacant over 365 days. 41. Submit plans for the fire protection to the Fire Department prior to beginning construction of the system. Permit required. 14 Packet Pg. 1363 6.B.j 42. Tenant improvements in all sprinklered buildings are to be approved by the Fire Department prior to start of construction. Permit required. 43. Fire Department connection to sprinkler system/standpipe system shall be required at Fire Department approved location. 44. Fire Code Permit required, at 200 E. 3rd Street(909)384-5388. 45. Fire Sprinkler monitoring required. Plans must be approved by the Fire Department prior to the start of construction. Permit required. 46. Knox Box is required. Contact(909) 384-5388 for information. 47. High-piled storage plans are required for storage over 12 feet and plastic over 6 feet. An approved sprinkler system capable of protecting the storage of plastic commodities is required. A 0613000 density is required as a minimum sprinkler protection throughout o prior to occupancy. Ln 48. All Fire Department standards shall be met for warehouses(FD Standard 100). Land Development Division CO v 49. Drainage and Flood Control a. All necessary drainage and flood control measures shall be subject to requirements of the Land Development Division, which may be based in part on o the recommendations of the San Bernardino County Flood Control. The developer's Engineer shall furnish all necessary data relating to drainage to the a flood control area. M b. A permit will be required from the San Bernardino County Department of Transportation and Flood Control, if any work is required within the Flood E Control District's right-of-way. r c. A local drainage study will be required for this project. Any drainage Q improvements, structures or storm drains needed to mitigate downstream impacts or protect the development shall be designed and constructed at the developer's = expense, and right-of-way dedicated as necessary. ca V r d. The detention basin shall be designed in accordance with "Detention Basin a Design Criteria for San Bernardino County." Retention basins are not acceptable. e. The development is located within Zone A of the Federal Insurance Rate Maps on panel 0607IC8683H and 06071C8684H with year August 28, 2008. The developer shall be responsible for providing an elevation certificate prepared in accordance with FEMA regulations to prove that all parcels are not subject to flooding in a 100-year storm. These certificates shall be provided in a form that is suitable for submittal to FEMA in order to obtain a Letter of Map Revision (LOMR). The purpose of this process is to assure that future owners of these lots will not be required to purchase flood insurance. 15 Packet Pg. 1364 6.B.j f. All drainage from the development shall be directed to an approved public drainage facility. If not feasible, proper drainage facilities and easements shall be provided to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. g. If site drainage is to be outletted into the public street, the drainage shall be conveyed through a parkway culvert constructed in accordance with City Standard No. 400. Conveyance of site drainage over the Driveway approaches will not be permitted. h. A Full Categorical Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) and a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) is required for this project. The applicant is directed to the County of San Bernardino Flood Control web page for the WQMP Technical Guidance Document and template. The Building Official, prior to issuance of any permit, shall approve the WQMP and the SWPPP. i. A "Notice of Intent (NOI)" shall be filed with the State Water Quality Control Board for construction disturbing 1 acre or more of land (including the project area, construction yards, storage areas, etc.). o LO j. The Land Development Section, prior to grading plan approval, shall approve an Erosion Control Plan. The plan shall be designed to control erosion due to water and wind, including blowing dust, during all phases of construction, including co graded areas which are not proposed to be immediately built upon. c 0 50. Grading and Landscaping 3 0 a. The grading and on-site improvement plan shall be signed by a Registered Civil Engineer and a grading permit will be required. The grading plan shall be prepared in strict accordance with the City's "Grading Policies and Procedures" and the City's "Standard Drawings", unless otherwise approved by the Director of M Community Development. b. If more than 5 trees are to be removed from the site, a tree removal permit conforming to the requirements of Section 19.28.090 of the Development Code Q shall be obtained from the Department of Community Development - Planning r Division prior to issuance of any grading or site development permits. c. The applicant must post a grading bond prior to issuance of a grading permit. The 0 amount of the bond is to be determined by the Land Development Section. a d. If the grading plan indicates export or import, the source of the import material or the site for the deposition of the export shall be noted on the grading plan. Permit numbers shall be noted if the source or destination is in the City of San Bernardino. e. If more than 50 cubic yards of earth is to be hauled on City Streets then a special hauling permit shall be obtained from the City Engineer. Additional conditions, such as truck route approval, traffic controls, bonding, covering of loads, street cleaning, etc. may be required by the City Engineer. 16 Packet Pg. 1365 6.B.j f. A liquefaction evaluation is required for the site. This evaluation must be submitted and approved prior to issuance of a grading permit. Any grading requirements recommended by the approved liquefaction evaluation shall be incorporated in the grading plan. g. The refuse enclosure(s) must be constructed in accordance with City Standard Drawing No. 508. The minimum size of the refuse enclosure shall be 8 feet x 15 feet. Where a refuse enclosure is proposed to be constructed adjacent to spaces for parking passenger vehicles, a 3' wide by 6" high concrete planter shall be provided to separate the enclosure from the adjacent parking. The placement of the enclosure and design of the planter shall preclude the enclosure doors from opening into drive aisles or impacting against adjacent parked cars. h. Retaining walls, block walls and all on-site fencing shall be designed and detailed on the on-site improvement Plan. This work shall be part of the on-site improvement permit issued by the Building Official. All masonry walls shall be constructed of decorative block with architectural features acceptable to the City � 0 Planner. LO T i. The on-site improvement plan shall include details of on-site lighting, including Q light location, type of poles and fixtures, foundation design conduit location, �? material and size,and v • Photometric plot shall be provided which show that the proposed on-site lighting design will provide: c • 1 foot-candle of illumination uniformly distributed over the surface of the o parking lot during hours of operation, and • 0.25 foot-candles security lighting during all other hours. a j. The design of on-site improvements shall also comply with all requirements of The California Building Code, Title 24, relating to accessible parking and accessibility. k. An accessible path of travel shall be provided from the public way to the building a entrance. All pathways shall be concrete paved and shall provide a minimum clear width of 4 feet. Where parking overhangs the pathway, the minimum paved width shall be 6.5 feet. 1. Where an accessible path of travel crosses drive aisles, it shall be delineated by Q textured/colored concrete pavement. m. The project Landscape Plan shall be reviewed and approved by Land Development prior to issuance of a grading permit. Submit 5 copies to the Land Development Division for Checking. n. Prior to occupancy of any building, the developer shall post a bond to guarantee the maintenance and survival of project landscaping for a period of one year. o. All electrical transformers located outdoors on the site, shall be screened from view with a solid wall or landscaping and shall not be located in any setback/right-of-way area. If the transformer cannot be screened, it shall be located in an underground vault unless approved by the City Engineer pursuant to Section 19.30.110. 17 Packet Pg. 1366 s.B.� 51. Utilities a. Sewer main extensions required to serve the site shall be constructed at the Developer's expense. b. This project is located in the sewer service area maintained by the City of San Bernardino therefore, any necessary sewer main extension shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the City's "Sewer Policy and Procedures" and City Standard Drawings. c. A street cut permit, from the City Engineer, will be required for utility cuts into existing streets. If the utilities are to be cut onto Waterman Avenue or Dumas Street the cut street lane shall be striped and slurry sealed along the frontage for each lane that has utility cuts. d. All existing overhead utilities adjacent to or traversing the site on either side of the street shall be placed underground in accordance with Section 19.20.030 of the Development Code. All electrical lines 33 KVA or more shall be exempt; N however, these high voltage power lines are required to be relocated outside the Ln ultimate designated curb separation and within the new right-of-way boundary. CL e. Existing Utilities which interfere with new construction shall be relocated at the Developer's expense as directed by the City Engineer. LO 52. Mapping a. A Parcel Map based upon field survey will be required. o r 53. Improvement Completion ° a. Street, sewer, drainage improvement, traffic signals, and Landscape and irrigation � U plans for the entire project shall be completed, subject to the approval of the a. Community Development Director, prior to the Map recordation. M c b. If the construction/installation of required improvements, including landscaping is not completed prior to Map recordation, an improvement security accompanied by an agreement executed by the developer and the City will be required. Z a c. If the required improvements are not proposed to be completed prior to 4 recordation of the Parcel Map, a deferred improvement agreement in accordance a) with Section 19.30160 of the Development Code will be required. If the agreement is approved, an improvement certificate shall be placed on the Parcel Map, stating that the required improvements will be completed upon a development. 54. Street Improvement and Dedications a. For the streets listed below, dedication of adequate street right-of-way (R.W.) to provide the distance from street centerline to property line and placement of the curb line (C.L.) in relation to the street centerline shall be as follows: Street Name Right of Way (feet) Curb Line(feet) Dumas Street 30 feet 20 feet Waterman Ave 55 feet 32 feet 18 Packet Pg. 1367 6.B.j b. Dumas Street - Construct 8" Curb and Gutter per City Standard No. 200 adjacent to the site. Widen pavement adjacent to the site to match new curb and gutter. Construct approach and departure transitions for traffic safety and drainage as approved by the City Engineer. Construct sidewalk adjacent to the site in accordance with City Standard No. 202; Case "A" (6' wide adjacent to curb). The pavement on Dumas Street shall be removed and replaced along the frontage of the project site for both sides of the street on Dumas Street. The street shall be rehabilitated and the structural street section shall be designed on the "R" value of the subgrade as determined by soils testing and the traffic Index. Install 6 Street Lights adjacent to the site in accordance with City Standard Nos. SL-1 and SL-2 along Dumas Street. Also, a separate light plan shall be submitted in accordance with the City of San Bernardino Street Lighting Design Policies. T LO c. Waterman Avenue- If the existing curb & gutter adjacent to the site are in poor condition, the curb & gutter shall be removed and reconstructed to City Standards. Curb & Gutter shall to conform to Standard No. 200, Type "B" unless otherwise CO approved by the City Engineer. C Construct sidewalk adjacent to the site in accordance with °- City Standard No. 202; Case "A" (6' wide adjacent to a curb). a� The pavement on Waterman Avenue shall be rehabilitated a adjoining the site shall be rehabilitated to centerline using a 2 '/z" max removal (to obtain a clean base surface) and = replace in kind with an C-2 PB 64-10 cap. E Relocate one street light according to the City of San Bernardino street lighting plan. Q d. The existing 35 foot curb return at the intersection of Waterman Avenue and Dumas Street shall be re-constructed with a compliant handicap ramp, and a E reconstructed spandrel. The full length of the cross gutter shall be removed and replaced. Dedicate sufficient right-of-way at the corner to accommodate the ramp. a e. If a radius type Driveway Approach is used in lieu of the standard drive approach, the throat of the driveway shall be paved in colored textured concrete. The drive approach shall be accessible with handicap ramps and truncated domes. f. The existing well located within the project site shall be relocated and be formally vacated. g. The existing 36" and 54" sewer shall be re-aligned to the satisfaction of the Public Works Department, Water Department and Community Development prior to the approval of any on-site improvement plans. h. A street cut permit, from the City Engineer, will be required for utility cuts into existing streets. If the street trenching crosses to the northbound lane on 19 Packet Pg. 1368 6.B.j Waterman Ave, a grind and slurry coat shall be placed on the north bound lane along the frontage and each lane accordingly. 55. Required Engineering Plans lans a. A complete submittal for plan checking shall consist of: ■ street improvement plans (may include street lights or street lighting may be separate plan), ■ sewer plans (Private sewers may be shown on on-site improvement plan; public sewers must be on a separate plan with profile), ■ storm drain plans(Private storm drains may be shown on on-site improvement plans; public storm drains must be on a separate plan with profile), ■ traffic signal plans, ■ signing and striping plan (may be on sheets included in street improvement N plan), Ln ■ lighting (on-site lighting may be included in on-site improvement plan or may be on a separate stand-alone plan), ■ grading(may be incorporated with on-site improvement plan), 00 on-site landscaping and irrigation, ■ other plans as required. Piecemeal submittal of various types of plans for the same project will not be allowed. o ■ All required supporting calculations, studies and reports must be included in W the initial submittal (including but not limited to drainage studies, soils a reports, structural calculations) M r b. All off-site improvement plans submitted for plan check shall be prepared on the City's standard 24" x 36" sheets. A signature block satisfactory to the City E Engineer or his designee shall be provided. c. After completion of plan checking, final mylar drawings, stamped and signed by a the Registered Civil Engineer in charge, shall be submitted to the City Engineer and/or Building Official for approval. U d. Copies of the City's design policies and procedures and standard drawings are available at the Public Works Counter for the cost of reproduction. They are also a Iavailable at no charge at the Public Works Web Site at http://www.sbcily.ora. 56. Required Engineering Permits ermits a. Grading permit. b. On-site improvements construction permit (except buildings - see Development Services-Building Division), including landscaping. c. Off-site improvement construction permit. 20 Packet Pg. 1369 6.B.j 57. Applicable Engineering� Fees a. All plan check, permit, inspection, and impact fees are outlined on the Public Works Fee Schedule. A deposit in the amount of 100% of the estimated checking fee for each set of plans will be required at time of application for plan check. The amount of the fee is subject to adjustment if the construction cost estimate varies more than 10% from the estimate submitted with the application for plan checking. b. The current fee schedule is available at the Public Works Counter and at hllp://www.sbcity.org. 58. Traffic Requirements a. Traffic Study has been accepted. b. Left turn pocket is required on Waterman Ave. c. Right turn lane onto the project site at Waterman Ave. c d. (*) The proposed left turn pocket and right turn lane on Waterman Ave. shall be T constructed of P.C.C. _- c� U) 00 Iq {*) Amended by the Planning Commission on May 18,2016. o 0 (D IL I U a M _ a� E U ca a d E s Q 21 Packet Pg. 1370 SECTION 7. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The Planning Commission hereby takes the following action: 1. Adoption of Planning Commission Resolution No. 2016-030 forwarding a recommendation that the Mayor and Common Council: a. Adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration for General Plan Amendment 15-02, Development Code Amendment (Zoning Map Amendment) 15-04, Subdivision 15-05 (Tentative Parcel Map 19692) and Development.Permit Type-D 15-11, in accordance with §15074 (Adoption of Mitigated Negative Declaration) of the California Environmental Quality Act;and b. Approve General Plan Amendment 15-02, Development Code Amendment (Zoning Map Amendment) 15-04, Subdivision 15-05 (Tentative Parcel Map 19692) and Development Permit Type-D 15-11 based on the Findings of Fact and subject to the 9 Ln recommended Conditions of Approval. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 18'h day of May 2016. 00 ,It 0 'Z 0 fn Larry ey, Chairman San Bernardino Planning Commission E U ATTEST: E Mark Persico, Planning Commission Secretary City of San Bernardino, California Packet Pg. 1371 CERTIFICATION: I, Stephanie Sanchez, Recording Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of San Bernardino, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution, No. 2016-030,was duly adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of San Bernardino, California, at a regular meeting thereof held on the 18''day of May 2016,by the following vote, to wit: AYES: Heasley, Machen, Lopez,Eble,Durr, Paxton and Earp NOES: None ABSENT: Barnhardt and Dailey ABSTAIN: None N a LO Step] a ie S chez, Reeor i Secretary a City o an ernardino, i rma LO 00 0 0 m U IL M .r c a E s U t0 Q C d E t U Q 2 Packet Pg. 1372 EXHIBIT "A" APPROVED PLANS N O Lo r CL N Co C O w 7 O 0 w U a Cl) 2 C d E t V cCf y.+ Q d t V R y w a 24 Packet Pg. 1373 --- ------- Z fill Se lift U 3nN3AV N VIN U 3 fVff CL co Ur • 0 CL E < Lr) Z' ps m to 9 EE x . cc E CD c.. r CL. e. NOW 101 INVOVA AIDO 8NUSIX3 — Packet Pg. 1374 •# k 8 4w �� f 4 I z f ca HAW _ V i t k m u O 9 : k 0 N 5 � � < U �a _ Q . _ r� v f I t o..� N its i Kim ,...so__ 4 got; g� r r r 1___•� Kw_. RML IN own 11t, ei` , # � " ( law � I in '— �FJ '10 am NMI g i }O 1_. 1 mgr-:. 41 Q7_J wow �i6E f p Alt It=° H � i I 4 r e l ' V am CT Ps lot MIT Ig ° PALM jy{ d FA low Sol ra 7 1 VMS IN in am tall eat i4f�� 1ff;� r a G H » Z anUany UewiajeAA {7 a) O tot v A a E y (n 0�0 � c N _ (3 h O LO CL z 00 s � s _ O ............................ _ O cn cmu E M = -. U t ( � T+— U cy 9 P � ♦yy C3 C: Ile 3 l u 3 A Packet Pg. 1377 6.B.j 133HS 31111 <o s o.u.c U.10�K<I[a W vo'ON1aH"M3e NVS do A11D �; g H j !m . .a a dVVY 130UVd 3AIlVIN31 sass t oeio ; pE�gR4 „ � 'e■$jj •a sp.�YY p,1 a i 000 z ) o Q� I d 1 1 O � ci gi¢¢ r �p� gg ¢{ Y� @ ¢ rgt tt E c 4 1pitl �8 11,111� KF�BYiYtt�Ei $ BQ(�QffEE ��: 45E@ CD II O Opp- co r g r' an ge ! I 9 g? v Fig � o � g7 a� W 9 CL ZZ W � M g t w Q Q e g ��; <I s i4 ¢ R a w n We�� a p = Z < a� LL cc Z 'Q W L W r Y � R 4 ! yy II e50 4" k I d 4 y P { R 7 3 �- tY➢ pp@¢ t. ��� ¢�r � � �i� � P69p � Eg9 ; � . }�� a� pp9�p� efie� g� ; ���� ��� `���� � a �o l � C $ 9g �Etg. esc : �ee � 1l ae . iitb ; !t � . t : lXtatQtctQCist .aag � G �� l �Y. 36F4 . cy Packet Pg. 1378 133H5 31ON 6.B.j ce U.IO q(«ICa UJ a VO'ON1QHVWb38 NVS d0"D H � ddW 1�10�Idd gAIl`d1N31 e e 4• e w s � tEY� tE r r C F r c r r a r 0, qq n D� 6 { � Lh 9• �• P.f C �` i g pp @ I e�i� r2g p`°4 °G r�"Y 1, DFiCi 6 $ r ;1 !pP @ y1; 1 � a�.Ca �e e� ➢r ss P ?Cs p ➢°� Ba p €Y;9° ! a■ Yi D co Rr gg Tt TI C TI[e C eg6 p n4 3 e nge Di da8y 4�a4C C 8 a A F 5 F a H y f 3 ` Y - Y u i a a b�SF C �a 4 e e Q ra ke e e T a ° r fr c r r r D r➢ a e r T �° D a D D a D D gg T Y D p f�a D D Y ° a �? • � a D a € 3a[.g t o a a e#N G A e 7 t $ D a e e� + aC �a Yna I [. iC g r pY ➢i�= 1 C ° ° �1q6 gg i i+ ��!� E 7° pE y�7� ➢ ➢� �� D� Y� Dg i 8$� C� � �pS � g � y�i ��-C� � rCi � pCY ��CaCi ���lC� �n�a � I?a �� ac i �•-�[ T a 2 r T! ➢ ! D ➢ e ![ D-°r C °a e De• 4a l #C ' aF g IfA d TQ r r r �ffeSTf 6c Ca c rYa. �?6e= alAr all p iB e.AO_, eY696C Dn a i i 3 9 1 c9 T p eeYaa p Cr p !Ca D (aac oY YYi prC' a c c+s p a FCc Cd n ' 19.[ F o [ p kaP :t C E cC IIi ggBb 4 e 4° B i4 'c C'a4° 9a4 'c pa; a4 E a4[ fa a9a Ya4 V p e 8 c e ? � �'• ;g �� �' - @1�1g a y e➢ C� pp d { a• t eY t ° ri}-�t C Yge� t ➢r� I �el �g{ f g6ei �YC. gG9p p @ dr - gg !3pg`g '! Tprp99$C� e 9 6g a £ aEeA° � �E3 ➢ �rq @B EI+° TIgel 9° �A �r r @27 ! .➢! Tp [ c td �� ITLCa3T @� C iKaeS�. F .a[ b , [E a spe �tFp�t :[E . 6 a al EeiC ;aEv [ pato pa �. Q '- aC p7 aip r T yI }!@R E INI ea�TC#� !C b P E �r- C Bng7 irI ! at� YC ° �cg�6 Anf fQ g Y ah Y° 37E ° D� Y` p' f ball � I C ➢i � °� � 6C � �S �. � C y��l Q � G ��Q�� C e p T r ! ;yp e T 5 y CS �pc4 y it qq y t DC 8 I 5iS°ClU c it A T„ a I p t tg ge C ! rDa< T�. C C icy a I`➢ IC F Ck+ T D a 'A r e � F-. G # aF ?: a.• Cs � d YYY Ie d e a t c r e sIe e:a((� 6a:•Fk1 gr r c t +• a eF a I;F F g '•AY e-K I F[ a 1�rp a at iY° T I a+ I• !G a at t eC I� �r r Ap1rX` air!9 T F• Ca§Y pIr T # C°I 2t ae T St O T ;IS B r [C °E eA T es e� TP a =eT a T cie4 $ Ie�!!!!YE ��C° ° y� a ;e a g: a r8 aae e66 ` ➢4. a §6§F iii° °Yp ° I 7 Fazz .e e Q I of : S IeT t j 5D as C a° z? T °[Yzv p}° T3 @ T I➢^YYCe #trI ;5s �6 e.a cr aY y E Y iC, � i si° rtqIt�r ° §ng +! pg ➢, . as DtC Y ' x: .3 x a!D f ap s r. ¢ aP ¢ x ! C ➢ ae f-+r'C z e a z i D Gz D Gz a4 G: DD a4 aGa Y c• D�� �T4 p�3g 6r�' r . ;�-➢ � �e T�� � TYe S � �� eB ➢p � IC er D➢ ��4� ��! D f lFD�fB Y Br�ee�Q Y Ina c°_i' I e T q p� 8 r 9Y ��4 g o ep �9q t��q�eo a t @r g1 _I � �" -e 9 tY . P3°aS1p §r9rF4 s _- e y e T i tr ep� a g, ➢ Y ` ° e s ei rre ° °• °°#e pYp c D pY� 6 `�a pYp e p IIe TCC �ne Y H T� IN 9 Y T 7 f SIY t t §9@ '1 EC: r T I 13 @� Y r3 2 �' bffl Packet Pg. 1379 6.B.j --_^•— SNOI11UN00 ONUSIX3 V�0 ��(�� VO'ONIOMdN830 NVS 30.1110 H .A ,a dVV4 IAQ2]dd 3AUVIN3l r ietx c��6! i�:d�„�z.�� ..;..arr:+.� -.c�.��-�:>.. .._DPc - .. ---•—_.' _ .. ..__ — ---- — --- t --• 3 anNanr uvxeairr� rllt -_ _ - o_e �ta,I�� i a — - x (• f-—a ----- xa lit it ," a Y� i N - E 1.��'. �_ xE Its nit�';�iJ�i�i ��g die f � t�� � �b �q ° ;I \• �g t t{ G �e 11 all qb I V N I eNi II PhT—.n..rr � a4iya: 11� 1 P� I ep i e4E q e a d � +e \ 0 00 -_— — r r i� \ x.•^t.oY 888}b N l k@ �_. ; \ O Ili i^ -- --FQ —— --r— Q. lit 4 aO.�,e•. x o�o1'le a� 177. ---- -- c 1 , 4' I' qF iry °3 'tai gyp 11 a 4 ' vE(F ell "^�aF" -��la�a�: •i- it�i � � � iYSa � I• 4 -• fyl :,a a 4� ; xa tF. neF .tI I.QE fi I!I lu t 4 4 �• YI a rt lol ,�, •i@ rata e e -� �EPS Packet Pg. 1380 6.B.j _ SNOIIION00 03SOdOMd V0.ON1QkiVNk138 NVS d0 A110 .o UJOH<<<Aaj WI� dvW 130�!`dd 3AI1V1N31 �• lie �. ur.rrL..o ti—�'.i—i s>z i�i:aur—�a� vl.: -.rs • w Iw.er. G` __-- __-_------- { —"r- -F C3f1N3AV NYKl13lY _ 21}II�I /I� F• r""=I�' ;;{GaT p dry a x y � G =r=r I' I I>I�� l i' �I):+ E '•t_i; ! a �pr I �i•y �1; I ` 4 r L 1 I I f{s tf� I 1 a / tiF 7,— + , Q II{ \ \ zi to I 00 0 tll N 5Gt . a `y illl; : pf e ; a E a _•saK-VIII E �emi!1'; •��= III �� ' — a.+ II it I, � 1 -- ' -- --------------------- - I (.• k -- � y v i Packet Pg. 1381 EXHIBIT "B" MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM N O Lo r a a Co v c 0 w. 0 0 a� U a M N E t U t0 .r+ Q r+ C d E V ftf w Q 25 Packet Pg. 1382 EXHIBIT "C" RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION N O Lo lC a In w rr c 0 0 m v a M C W t V R Q d t V R r.+ Y Q 26 Packet Pg. 1383 6.B.k NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING r Notice is hereby given that the Mayor and Common council of the City of San Bernardino will hold a public hearing on Tuesday,July 05, 2016, at 4:00 p.m. or thereafter in the Council Chambers, City Hall, 300 North"D" Street, San Bernardino,California 92418,on the following item: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 15-02, DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT (ZONING MAP AMENDMENT)15-04,SUBDIVISION 15-05(TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 19692).DEVELOPMENT PERMIT TYPE-D 15-11 AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION-A request to change the General Plan Land Use Designation and Zoning District of a site containing approximately 25.25 acres from Industrial Light (IL), Office Industrial Park(OIP)and Public-Commercial Recreation(PCR)to Industrial Light(IL);and,allow the development and establishment of an industrial warehouse building containing approximately 564,652 square feet, along with the construction of the required on-site and off-site improvements.The project site is located on the southwest corner of Waterman Avenue and Dumas Street within the Industrial Light (IL), Office Industrial Park (OIP) and Public Commercial Recreation(PCR)zones. N O Environmental Determination: Mitigated Negative Declaration pursuant to §15074 of the California Environmental Quality Act a Owner/Applicant: Newcastle Partners APN: 0141-431-01,02,03,04,08,09, 10, 11, 12, 16,20 and 21 Ward: 3 00 v The City of San Bernardino welcomes your participation in evaluating this item.The Mayor and Common Council will -a review the proposal and will consider the proposed environmental determination in making a decision.The public is Q welcome to speak at the public hearing or to submit written comments prior to the hearing.For more information,please contact the Community Development Department at City Hall,or by phone at(909)384-5057. N If you challenge the resultant action of the Mayor and Common Council 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. E s v ca w Submitted: June XX,2016 Q r Publish: June XX,2016(Display Ad) E Please send first proof for verification or changes by e-mail to Stephanie Sanchez: Sanchezz., stephanie(&sbcity.org. 0 Please reference"MCC Display Ad"on the billing and send to the City of San Bernardino,Planning Division,300 North Q "D"Street, San Bernardino,CA 92418 Packet Pg. 1384 ATTACHMENT 7 CEQA Documents (available online) 9 LO CL LO 00 • Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration E U http://sbeity.org/eivicax/fiieb-,tnii/blob(lioad.I�I)x'.Ibiobid2047(i 0 o • Response to Comments on Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration ti httl2:HsbeitIT.org/eivicax/filebaiik/blobdioal!�asx�?hlob�id=20�477 • Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) http://sbcit-y.orti/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?blobid=20475 E Packet Pg. 1385 p cn C 3 CD CD cm Mrs CD 0- D CD �CD ou to _0 — 30' � 3 '0 CD > 0 Cn CD 0 0 CD D 3 CD < CD 0 3 CD Z cs� o 0 0 — O 0 C Z C 0 rn r N) .... 1 • - • NMI 0 CL U CD tQ S33 Ci"� 0 N w (D M � -4 0 -� 0 0 � 0 Sv 1 U1 0 CD 0 � m Q) � N = C7 N Z7 U) =3 -s (l) cn "O 0- n ■ ■ cr 0 Q x O CD Q O Q O CV n Q (1):z O Q } - Q- -O 1U (p 0 CD 1 0 (n 0 O a ■ CD rt 0 r- 0 0 v C �. cn U) N � v � ,--. 0 ® rn sv v o 3 m � n CJI ® i' �c N CD � � < d :3 _ . O X CD (n d d 0 CD CD 0 ro, (D C d CD � � C-A CD m CD -n CD d QL CD X i cn d CU CU DO CD Cp C) 0 f1R O (n —t N d CL CD D CD o 3 : CD : n d _ CD m ° CD CD 0 �. ® 3 c�-1- CD i1} `G ('D �t � y r n n':i �•� F Rd d W a y a m ! , x � o E -h n • • (7 • ()) • - • y 0. < zT cr CD (D 0 0 z (D � _ N N X O ,-� U)O iU r+ �- O 0 (Q _0 (n -h C)CD 0. O C �(D (0 > cn 0 aO Q = 3 C ■ ■ (n 0 cs� s�u ((n 3 cn -a O 0 - CD 3 @ O — ® O- c v = < (n -0 o (D (a C- ;:q: (D �. (D n �- x (n O O 0 o COD N CD -I- -O I- (n I tD C > O ( CL m N -0 O O CD C ® (D (n �- .-.- (D O (D �. �- O Q. N CL v (D - , CD � (D - D C r-r (g (D O CL (D O 0 Q � to f2 p �- ® O � O �- VOi Q (D (D c' .._............_ i t c'D `\ '77 rn 0 ST 11\111\ Xl 1 a E z , rn \� rn F _ WATERMAN AVENUE LAN,` USE: LAM. USE- WDOS,MAL 0 nm rz rn no m m p � o y � r 5b Cf1= r m w ENE• a \ �w ',S a mot MN z a gym 40 �kF�q r i � x rsz k ice' J�`/� F ( a 3 :4 rMPL 'gi ........... its� 17 \ I ago 1 lostE A i S �sams' r � t o CD fmilL CD tD CD �x I t t. • 9 t p.. a i Amu i M i v� l r 0 0 cQ Cl) 0 c rMIL rMIL rMIL v EXISUNG GOLF VACANT LOT COURSE t r,rl 717 171717 � F� r IM r v " i � n r L_..L I -- 1—I cl) r I L r f n _ I-- ----. —4 .-4......_ _ a f1f1 .. Y r ' R i �A t . m D ,r I � a r . 3 � �-- i r r . (.: ...............y.._... .............. ............. _.. .F-�- 4 j r. i ri i rr r . —1--- —T _ ..__......._ . _..... __.._ _. . . _ ._..._ .. ..w ................. ..__ ._......... . _ .J �1 ��?.,.�'�::• y�r Ic � is t.;� *—�}1� �i j I ryry F. y � NMI, AAA *f> z Cl d 4" ERE y =E y HWF ■ rn r rn z za ldi rl O O ...�. N (-) N O rn D Q C C�2° C3 CD 0 3 �p � to z O Z I 0. m rn CD N s O CD 0 ® r- O (D CP CD CD � CD _ 3 0 O O° C'7 n ® tc o CD m m rt v -I CD < c� N ►� > sv CD a < — CD rn d CD CD rn � � n (D n° CD ■ . ■ LU Sv m m (D a 07 0 CD 00 CO Q N O V O �' N N -.1 00 17 O (n O � � 3 � m 3 (D a m Q 0 ZF LQ n (Q `� : Z3 (D m - (D 3 3 o U) m m v (D :3 v :3 3 : ° (D ro :3 m ® :3 °- :3 ( ' A w M. m CL ° � CD 0 o o. c- Q °- m C p (D - C7 at <. ((DD ((n ;-- v- � m (n M 0" °:3 X P-0 Cn O (u N 0 ° ;`� ,� (D Q ° =r m(D rn o m -o m 0 ro v � � =fi n Q m p ° c<u v �C � a � � _ rn ro 5 (C)m Q- (D m CD z � n 3 . . m n ° C m m a- CL m .� cQ (D z (n (U ° (Q m 0- o (� ro 3 '* 0 --ti < m' to n p (�D n m -c © z 0 3 -0 (D sZ v ° o _� v 3 CL (D° m r+ ° ro _ C-0 MO -o Q. _ T3 Q S9? N? - ' Q CD Z37 Q- :. Q a2 a) m tT 0 ED. < 3 4 :T _ (D .- v 3 Q Z)-7 Z3 'p to w CD r-f- U. 3 3 Z n m D �.- Q cn :3 < 3 C) 3 QQ r � n (J) r-4- o C CD Q Q p Q 0 N Q N ' ° .Q Q a -i 6 Q M =- W �- Q N -� > -s 3 (D Q co r� Q 3 v sg 74�MTV CAF SAN .�l BF..RNARMNn 4141-:311-O6 _.. n OF€.APB: PkRNAF03Nf Mr a p�k a ER OF SAN BEP.NARDIf� f ®ER�RDIPO .�e CITY OF SAN 50 a e M ."WIT,Al `� 9 .V 0 •fit• ,.. x .c Y K 5 fi GREAT PRESE3AN "• CHURCH /,. 0741-431-02 � a- KING, � - FAMILY a� �. ut4la3103 _ E'DMOND JR 1 - 0, iY147-a31-4a x r o O.J-B III IillYl'.iii " ! t I�11, e ENGWEERiNGINC RE•YTON.ALU3N iRENE€.IV CRUST 2-24 . li FELLOWSHIP ROCK CHRISTIAN it FFLf.OWSH#P INC fp; N" 014"31 449 3E cn '.. MEADOWWOOK '.. p w z r DAIRY 0141-431-20 s W Z CL a ° h Gigi Hanna From: Mark Persico Sent: Tuesday,July 05, 2016 9:21 AM To: Mark Scott; Gigi Hanna Cc: Oliver Mujica; Tanya Romo; Linda Sutherland;Valerie Montoya Subject: Item #6B Attachments: Waterman Ltr 7-4-16.pdf Hello Mark&Gigi, The Union has withdrawn its objections the Waterman warehouse project on tonight's agenda. Attached is their letter. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thanks, Mark H. Persico, AICP Director of Community Development City of San Bernardino 300 North "D" Street San Bernardino, CA 92418 (909) 384-5357 Persico ma @sbcity.org Save the Date for"Third Thursdays"— Food Fest Lunch Hour Next event July 21ST 2016 @ 11:O0a-2:00p—City Hall—Court Street Parking Lot l 2016 JUL -5 AH !0. 3 9 T 5 wwvv luzeaudrury corn . s . } 2 , F 5)0 8 3E,4205 Oakland Ca 94607 rcha,tVC eozeau spry corn BY OVERNIGHT MAIL July 1 2016 Mayor R.Carey Davis and City Council City of San Bernardino c/o Travis Martin.Assistant Planner 300 North D Street, 3rd Floor San Bernardino,CA 92418 inartin_tr @sbcity.org Ile: Not, ice of Dismissal of Anneals Challetudne Apnraval of Waterman Industrial Center Development Permit Tvpe D—15-11 (SCH No 2026021002) Dear Mayor Davis and Members of the Citv Council: On March 1,2016,Laborers International.Union of North America,Local Union 783 ("LIUNA") filed comments("Comments") on the mitigated negative declaration prepared for the Waterman Industrial Center,Development Permit Type D— I5-11 (SCH No. 2016021002)("Project"). The Project is being developed by IPT WATERMAN DC LP("Waterman"). The LIUNA is pleased to announce that they have reached an agreement with Waterman to resolve the issues raised in their appeals of the Project. Pursuant to our agreement,Waterman has agreed to implement additional measures to further benefit the environment. In particular,Waterman has agreed to design and construct the Project to achieve the equivalent of a LEED TM"Silver"rating under the current U.S. Green Building Council standards,and will be built in compliance with those standards.To achieve this,the design,construction,and operation of the proposed Project shall incorporate a series of green building strategies,which shall be selected and implemented in the sole discretion of the Applicant. In consideration of these actions,LIUNA is pleased to withdraw its Comments. LIUNA believes that the construction and operation of the Project will benefit the City and supports approval of the Project. Thank you for vour attention to this matter. nce Iv. Richard Drury Counsel for LABORERS I TERNATIONAL UNION OF NORTH AMERICA LOCAL UNION NO.783