Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutDEIR Ch 05_14_TRN 5. Environmental Analysis 5.14 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC This section of the EIR evaluates traffic and transportation impacts of the General Plan update and the Arrowhead Springs Specific Plan based upon an analysis for each project prepared by Transtech Engineers which can be found in Appendix F of Volume II (General Plan) and Appendix H of Volume III for the Specific Plan. Standards and Definitions Level of Service and V/C Ratio An important "standard" referred to throughout this document relates to the ability of a roadway and/or intersection to accommodate traffic. This level of service standard may be used to describe both existing and future traffic conditions. Level of service (LOS) is a qualitative ranking that characterizes traffic congestion on a scale of A to F with LOS A being a free-flow condition and LOS F representing extreme congestion. In addition to the LOS definition, a volume to capacity ratio or V/C ratio is used to provide a more quantified description of traffic conditions at intersections. The V/C ratio is the ratio of existing or projected traffic volumes to an intersection's design capacity. A V/C ratio of 0.90 for an intersection means that the traffic volumes at the intersection represent 90 percent of its design capacity. The V/C ratio can also be related to the above LOS definitions. For example, an intersection with a V/C ratio exceeding 0.95 is handling traffic volumes that approach design capacity. The V/C ratio of 0.95 corresponds to LOS E, which indicates an unacceptable level of service at that particular intersection. The thresholds corresponding to each level of service and V/C ratios for unsignalized and signalized intersections are shown in the following table: ~ Table 5.14-1 Level of Service and V/C Standards Two-Way or All-Way Stop Controlled Level of V/C Ratio Intersection Signalized Intersection Service (Volume to Capacity) Average Delay per Vehicle (sec) Average Delay per Vehicle (sec) A 0.0-0.60 0-10 ::::10 B 0.61-0.70 > 10-15 > 10-20 C 0.71-0.80 > 15-25 > 20-35 0 0.81-0.90 > 25-35 > 35-55 E 0.91-1.00 > 35-50 > 55-80 F > 1.00 > 50 > 80 or a Vie ratio equal or greater than 1.0 Source: City of San Bernardino General Plan Update: 2004, Circulation Impact & Mitigation Measures; Transtech Engineers LOS D is the minimum acceptable threshold at all key intersections in the City of San Bernardino. However, for roadways, the City's minimum threshold is LOS C. The traffic study guidelines require that traffic mitigation measures be identified to provide for operations at the minimum threshold levels. General Plan Update and Associated Specific Plans EIR City of San Bernardino . Page 5.14-1 5. Environmental Analysis Roadway Capacity Standards and Passenger Car Equivalents The following is a list of roadway capacity standards for various types of facilities, used in the roadway capacity analysis for the General Plan: . 4-lane Major Arterial: . 2-lane Major Arterial: . 4-lane Secondary Arterial: . 2-lane Secondary Arterial: . 4-lane Collector Street: . 2-lane Collector Street: 40,000 vehicles per day 15,000 vehicles per day 30,000 vehicles per day 12,000 vehicles per day 25,000 vehicles per day 10,000 vehicles per day Also, in determining passenger car equivalent (PCE) factors for various trucks, the following factors were used: . 2-axle Trucks: . 3-axle Trucks: . 4- or more axle Trucks: Equivalent to 2.0 passenger cars Equivalent to 2.5 passenger cars Equivalent to 3.0 passenger cars San Bernardino County Congestion Management Program (CMP) Proposition 111, passed in June 1990, provided additional transportation funding through a $.09 per gallon increase in the state gas tax. This equates to an estimated annual return of more than $6.25 per person for cities within San Bernardino County, and $7.1 million for the County. Included with the provision for additional transportation funding was a requirement to undertake a Congestion Management Program within each county with an urbanized area of more than 50,000 population, to be developed and adopted by a designated Congestion Management Agency (CMA). Within San Bernardino County, SANBAG was designated the CMA by the County Board of Supervisors and a majority of the cities representing a majority of the incorporated population. CMP Roadways and Intersections in the City are identified throughout this analysis with the "CMP" identifier. 5.14.1 Environmental Setting 5.14.1.1 San Bernardino General Plan Roadways The City of San Bernardino has a circulation system consisting of major and secondary arterial roadways, collector roadways, and local streets. Major Arterials accommodate six or eight travel lanes and may have raised medians. These facilities carry high traffic volumes and are the primary thoroughfares linking San Bernardino with adjacent cities and the regional highway system. Driveway access to these roadways is typically limited to provide efficient high volume traffic flow. Major Arterials include Waterman Avenue, Mount Vernon Avenue, Highland Avenue, and Baseline Street. Secondary Arterials are typically four-lane streets, providing two lanes in each direction. These highways carry traffic along the perimeters of major developments, provide support to the major arterials, and are also through streets enabling traffic to travel uninterrupted for longer distances through the City. Secondary Arterials Include Little Mountain Drive, 9th Street, Arrowhead Avenue (North of 5th Street), and Sierra Way. Page 5.14-2 . The Planning Center june 2005 5. Environmental Analysis Collector Streets are typically two-lane streets that connect the local streets with the secondary arterials allowing local traffic to access the regional transportation facilities. Collector Streets include California Street, 6th Street, Arrowhead Avenue (north of 30th Street) and Meridian Avenue. Local Streets are typically two-lane streets that are designed to serve neighborhoods within residential areas. There are several variations on local streets depending on location, length of the street, and type of land use. Freeways and Highways Freeways/Highways are controlled-access, separated roadways that provide for high volumes of vehicular traffic at high speeds. There are three freeways within the City of San Bernardino and one State highway: The San Bernardino Freeway (1-10) is the major east-west freeway providing access west to Los Angeles and east to the desert communities and beyond. Interstate 215 provides north-south freeway access to Riverside and San Diego counties to the south and the high desert communities to the north. Interstate 21 0 provides local east-west service between 1-215 and State Route 330 (SR-330). As of 2005, this freeway was under construction and was also known as State Route 30 (SR-30) and will become the future 1-210 when completed. State Route 18 (SR-18) provides a connection from 1-210 to the mountain resorts/communities of Lake Gregory. Rail ~ San Bernardino includes both major (main line) and minor (spurs) railroads that accommodate both freight and passenger rail services. Both Amtrak and Metrolink provide long-distance passenger train service from the Historic Depot in San Bernardino. Amtrak trains operate west to Los Angeles; southeast to Palm Springs on to Florida; and northeast to Needles on to Illinois. Commuter Rail service is provided by the Southern California Regional Rail Authority (SCRRA), which operates the Metrolink train service. The City of San Bernardino is served by the San Bernardino Line, which is Metrolink's busiest line, with a station located at the historic Santa Fe Depot. The San Bernardino Line connects rapidly growing San Bernardino County with the communities of the San Gabriel Valley and downtown Los Angeles. The San Bernardino Line is currently the only line with service seven days a week. On weekdays, there are 15 round trips per day on the San Bernardino Line with about half of them during commute hours, but with close to hourly service in the mid-day. Transit Bus Service Public transportation in the San Bernardino area is provided by Omnitrans, the regional Public Transit operator for San Bernardino County. Omnitrans operates 21 local-fixed routes, 14 of which serve the San Bernardino Planning Area. General service hours are between 6:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m., Monday through Saturday. The Southern California Rapid Transit District provides express bus service between San Bernardino- Riverside and Los Angeles (Line 496) under contract with Omnitrans and the Riverside Transit Agency. Service is provided Sunday through Saturday. General Plan Update and Associated Specific Plans EIR City of San Bernardino . Page 5.14-3 5. Environmental Analysis Intercity bus service is provided to downtown San Bernardino by Greyhound and Continental Trailways that recently merged. The Greyhound bus depot is at 6th and G Streets. Omnitrans periodically updates its service plan through the preparation of a Short Range Transit Plan (SRTP), which evaluates service for a five-year period. A SRTP for the years 2004-2009 has recently been adopted and includes some changes in routes within San Bernardino. A current route, schedule, and rate map can be obtained from Omnitrans. Demand/Response System Omnitrans provides San Bernardino residents that qualify for service under the Americans with Disabilities Act with a demand/response transportation system known as "Access." A resident may call and request a pick-up and delivery to a requested destination on a space-available basis with a reservation made 24 hours in advance. Existing Traffic Conditions This section summarizes the existing circulation conditions in the City of San Bernardino. Eighty intersections, 23 roadway segments and 12 freeway segments were included in the study area for analysis. The analysis is based on the existing amount of traffic volume on various street corridors and the capacity of the streets and intersections to carry traffic. The capacity measures the ability of the street system to meet and serve the demands from traffic. The capacity of a roadway is affected by a number of factors, e.g., the street width, the number of travel lanes, the number of crossing streets, the type of traffic control devices, the presence of on-street parking, the number of access driveways, the streets horizontal and vertical alignments, etc. For the study area intersections, the TRAFFIX computer software, Version 7.6 has been utilized to determine intersection levels of service. Levels of service are presented for the entire intersection, consistent with the Highway Capacity Manual's Operation Delay (HCM) methodology. While the level of service concepts and analysis methodology provide an indication of the performance of the entire intersection, the single letter grade A through F cannot describe specific operational deficiencies at intersections. Progression, queue formation, and left-turn storage are examples of the operational issues that affect the performance of an intersection, but do not factor into the strict calculation of level of service. However, the TRAFFIX software does provide an output that quantifies operational features at intersections, such as vehicle clearance, queue formation, and left-turn storage requirements. Existing LOS and V/C Ratios Existing traffic counts were conducted at various roadway segments and major intersections in 2003 to determine existing V/C and LOS at these facilities. The LOS of roadway segments is based on average daily traffic (ADT) volumes and their traffic handling capacities on a daily basis. The LOS of intersections is based on traffic volumes at the intersections during the AM and PM peak hours and the traffic handling capacity of the intersection's critical lane. Truck trips have been converted to passenger car equivalents (PCE) for consistency of analysis. The results are shown in Table 5.14-2 for intersections and Table 5.14.3 for local roadway segments. CMP intersections and local roadway segments are noted in bold typeface. Intersection peak hour volumes and LOS calculation sheets are shown in Appendix F of Volume II. Most 24-hour volumes were based on existing vehicle classification counts conducted for this study and converted into passenger equivalents (pce) using appropriate factors for various types of trucks. Some volumes were obtained from various sources in pce. Existing (1999) traffic volume, V/C ratio and LOS for various freeway segments is shown in Table 5.14-4. This information was obtained from the 2003 San Bernardino County CMP Update. Page 5.14-4 . The Planning Center june 2005 5. Environmental Analysis Table 5.14-2 Intersection Level of Service Summary Existing (2003) Conditions Delay Intersection Peak Hour LOS sec/veh V/C Ratio 30th Street @ Lynwood Drive AM B 11.3 - PM A 7.2 - Arden Avenue @ Highland Avenue AM D 39.1 0.687 PM C 34.2 0.633 Arden Avenue @ SR-30 EB Ramps AM B 16.5 0.339 PM B 14.2 0.345 Arden Avenue @ SR-30 WB Ramps AM A 0 - PM A 0 - Arrowhead Avenue @ Baseline Street AM B 14.7 0.724 PM D 38.3 1.043 Belmont Avenue @ Palm Avenue AM B 10.1 0.354 PM A 8.5 0.232 Boulder Avenue @ Highland Avenue AM C 33.8 0.245 PM C 34.6 0.490 Del Rosa Avenue @ Baseline Street AM C 21.4 0.395 PM C 24.7 0.396 Del Rosa Avenue @ Date Street AM B 20 0.380 PM C 23 0.527 Del Rosa Avenue @ Foothill Drive AM B 11.2 - PM B 11.5 - Del Rosa Avenue @ Lynwood Drive AM B 14.8 0.270 PM B 13.9 0.339 Del Rosa Avenue @ SR-30 EB Ramp AM C 24.4 0.579 PM C 29 0.810 Del Rosa Avenue @ SR-30 WB Ramp AM C 22.8 0.795 PM C 27.4 0.855 Del Rosa Avenue @ Third Street AM C 27.5 0.398 PM C 31.1 0.469 E Street @ 2nd Street AM C 24.3 0.505 PM C 34.2 0.576 E Street @ 30th Street AM B 14.8 0.476 PM B 12.6 0.562 E Street @ Baseline Street AM B 18 0.407 PM B 19.4 0.566 E Street @ Highland Avenue AM B 18.6 0.765 PM C 21.7 0.400 E Street @ Orange Show Road AM C 27.2 0.423 PM D 37.5 0.631 Harrison Street @ 40th Street AM B 12.1 - PM B 13.3 - Hospitality Lane @ Carnegie Drive AM C 27 0.536 PM D 41.1 0.906 Hunts Lane @ E Street AM F OVL - PM F OVL - I Street @ 2nd Street AM B 14.1 0.189 General Plan Update and Associated Specific Plans EIR City of San Bernardino . Page 5.14-5 ~ 5. Environmental Analysis Intersection Peak Hour Delay LOS sec/veh V/C Ratio PM B 13.6 0.221 K Street @ 3rd Street AM A 9.8 PM A 9.3 Kendall Drive @ 40th Street AM C 21.7 0.169 PM C 25.9 0.436 Kendall Drive @ Palm Avenue AM C 26.2 0.572 PM C 23.9 0.480 Kendall Drive @ University Parkway AM C 32.2 0.490 PM C 28.6 0.595 Lena Road @ Mill Street AM B 18.1 0.178 PM B 18 0.206 Leroy/SR-30 WB On-Ramp @ 30th Street AM B 17.2 0.598 PM B 17.4 0.401 Meridian Avenue @ Rialto Avenue AM E 36.3 PM F 75.1 Mt. Vernon Avenue @ Baseline AM C 20.1 0.458 PM C 23.3 0.532 Mt. Vernon Avenue @ 2nd Street AM B 19.8 0.454 PM C 30 0.643 Mt.. Vernon Avenue @ 5th Street AM C 22.5 0.405 PM C 22.5 0.489 Mt. Vernon Avenue @ Highland Avenue AM C 27.8 0.617 PM C 27.5 0.679 Mt. Vernon Avenue @ Mill Street AM C 30.4 0.520 PM C 31.7 0.677 Mt. Vernon Avenue @ Rialto Avenue AM B 14.5 0.292 PM B 14 0.384 Mountain View Avenue @ San Bernardino AM B 12.9 0.535 PM F 90.2 1.36 Northpark Boulevard @ Fairview Drive AM A 9 PM A 9.6 Northpark Boulevard @ Sierra Way AM B 10.4 PM C 16.1 Northpark Boulevard @ University Parkway AM C 21.4 0.284 PM D 39.6 0.689 Ohio Avenue @ Palm Avenue AM A 9.9 PM A 9.6 Palm Avenue @ Highland Avenue AM D 35.8 0.288 PM C 32.4 0.520 Pepper Avenue @ Mill Street AM C 33.1 0.465 PM C 30.4 0.450 Pepper Avenue @ Rialto Avenue AM B 14.6 0.366 PM B 16.4 0.496 Pepper Avenue @ Valley Boulevard AM C 31.2 0.7 46 PM C 31.7 0.755 Table 5.14-2 Intersection Level of Service Summary Existing (2003) Conditions Page 5.14-6 . The Planning Center june 2005 5. Environmental Analysis Table 5.14-2 Intersection Level of Service Summary Existing (2003) Conditions Delay Intersection Peak Hour LOS sec/veh V/C Ratio Rancho Avenue @ 5th Street/Foothill AM F 119.6 - PM F OVL - Sierra Way @ 30th Street AM B 15 0.255 PM B 15 0.361 Sierra Way @ 40th Street AM B 19 0.270 PM C 21.3 0.432 SR-30 EB Ramps @ Highland Avenue AM 0 35.8 0.288 PM B 18.5 0.464 SR-30 WB Off-Ramp @ 30th Street AM F 298.3 - PM F 946.1 - SR-30 WB Ramps @ Highland Avenue AM B 15.7 0.385 PM B 14.2 0.469 State Street @ Baseline Street AM B 15.4 0.480 PM A 5.5 0.335 State Street @ Highland Avenue AM A 8.7 0.499 PM A 9.3 0.594 Sterling Avenue @ Foothill Orive AM A 7.8 0.156 PM A 7.9 0.131 Sterling Avenue @ Highland Avenue AM C 29.6 0.328 PM A 7.9 0.131 Sterling Avenue @ Lynwood Orive AM B 12.5 0.463 PM B 12.6 0.437 Tippecanoe Avenue @ 3rd Street AM C 26.5 0.464 PM C 32.5 0.698 Tippecanoe Avenue @ Harry Shepard AM C 22.7 0.482 PM C 20.2 0.828 Tippecanoe Avenue @ Hospitality Lane AM B 12.2 - PM C 25.3 0.621 Tippecanoe Avenue @ Mill Street AM B 13.4 0.454 PM C 22.2 0.790 Tippecanoe Avenue @ Rialto Avenue AM 0 25.6 - PM F 102.6 - Tippecanoe Avenue @ San Bernardino AM C 33.1 0.421 PM 0 42.1 0.828 Valencia Avenue @ 30th Street AM B 14.7 0.233 PM B 14.8 0.257 Valencia Avenue @ 40th Street AM A 9.9 0.305 PM B 11.5 0.412 Victoria Avenue @ Highland Avenue AM 0 36.1 0.602 PM 0 39.9 0.683 Waterman Avenue @ 30th Street AM C 27.1 0.801 PM C 23.4 0.654 Waterman Avenue @ 34th Street AM 0 26.2 - PM 0 29.9 - Waterman Avenue @ 36th Street AM E 37.9 - PM C 23.8 - General Plan Update and Associated Specific Plans EIR City of San Bernardino . Page 5.14- 7 ~ 5. Environmental Analysis Delay Intersection Peak Hour LOS sec/veh V/C Ratio Waterman Avenue @ 40th Street AM C 26.1 0.637 PM C 24.8 0.506 Waterman Avenue @ Barton Road AM C 25.7 0.663 PM 0 40.3 0.944 Waterman Avenue @ 5th Street AM E 63 1.081 PM F 256.2 1.593 Waterman Avenue @ Highland Avenue AM 0 36.4 0.482 PM 0 39.2 0.650 Waterman Avenue @ Hospitality lane AM C 30.5 0.715 PM 0 46.8 0.984 Waterman Avenue @ Marshall Boulevard AM A 3.2 0.507 PM A 4.0 0.451 Waterman Avenue @ Mill Street AM C 29.8 0.354 PM 0 35.2 0.540 Waterman Avenue @ Orange Show Road AM C 38 0.425 PM 0 35.7 0.652 Waterman Avenue @ Parkdale Avenue AM B 10.4 0.592 PM B 11.1 0.501 Waterman Avenue @ SR-30 EB Ramp AM C 32.3 0.852 PM F 90.4 1.171 Waterman Avenue @ Vanderbilt Way AM B 19.6 0.358 PM C 23.3 0.584 Table 5.14-2 Intersection Level of Service Summary Existing (2003) Conditions As shown in Table 5.14-2, the following intersections are currently operating at an unacceptable LOS, Le., the LOS at these intersections is worse than LOS D (LOS E or F): . Hunts Lane @ E Street . Meridian Avenue @ Rialto Avenue . Mountain View Avenue @ San Bernardino Avenue . Rancho Avenue @ 5th Street/Foothill Boulevard . SR-30 WB Off-Ramp @ 30th Street . Tippecanoe Avenue @ Rialto Avenue . Waterman Avenue @ 36th Street . Waterman Avenue @ 5th Street (CMP intersection) . Waterman Avenue @ SR-30 EB Ramp (CMP intersection) Page 5.14-8 . The Planning Center june 2005 III .... c: CI) e 0) CI) CI) ).. ; "0 III 0 It: .~ c: 0 '-l C? CI) .Q ~ 0 ,... ....! ~ Lri "0 ~ oS! c: ~ III .Q III ~ ~ CI) ~ e -= ~ ~ ~ ~ ... ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ '"", ~ ;;::. C'\l ~ 0) ~ .5 .... III ~ 11\ C;) C l:D <( <( <( <( <( ro <( U <( l:D <( <( <( <( <( ...... C,,) cry N ~ f"- a 0 f"- f"- ~ U") U") U") f"- a U") S;;- CD I N I ~ I ~ I cry I CD I N ~ I f"- I ~ I CD I cry I I I ~ I ~ I ~ I 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 c::i 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CI.l !;:; >- >- ~ ffi ffi ..... 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -a -a 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ 'm I 'm I 'm I 'm I 'm I 'm I 'm c I c I 'm I 'm I 'm I I I 'm I 'm I 'm I ,.::: ::2: ::2: ::2: ::2: ::2: ::2: ::2: 0 0 ::2: ::2: ::2: ::2: ::2: ::2: '- u u to Q) Q) ~ en en "- '" Q CI.l ~ ~ "<T I "<T I "<T I "<T I "<T I "<T I "<T "<T I "<T I "<T I "<T I "<T I I I "<T I "<T I "<T I ...... CI.l e: ~ ..::: CD cry 0 0> cry ~ 0 cry 00 "<T 00 CD N 0> CD s; Q., cry f"- a f"- cry "<T ~ f"- U") cry N N U") f"- N ~ I I U") I 00 I ~ I ~ I 0> I ~ I ~ I 0 I 00 I I I f"- I ~ I 0 I :S tri f"- cD ct5 N ."f 0 ct5 cD M ct5 cD ct5 - 00 0 U") ~ s '!3: N ~ ~ ~ N ~ N ~ N ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ e Q CD 0 00 0 "<T 0> 0> N 00 cry 0 N U") CD N 0 "<T CD 0 cry CD cry "<T 0> 0> e: cry cry U") 0 cry ~ 0 N N N U") "<T I ~ 00 CD "<T N ~ 0 ~ cry 0> I I ~ ~ 0 N 0 CD ... cry f"- CD ~ ~ N N cry cry U") cry "<T f"- N cry "<T cry cry "<T U") N ~ ~ N "<T cry U") N Q I.Q CI.l ~ CD U") 0> 0 0> CD cry 00 N U") 0 00 I N N U") N 0> 0 0 0> CD ~ I I U") f"- N 00 0> 0 ~ "<T ~ ~ ~ N ~ N ~ ~ ~ N "<T ~ ~ ~ f"- N ..... oS:! N 00 U") cry 0 cry cry 0> 0 f"- 0> f"- cry CD U") 00 f"- ~ 00 C; cry f"- 0> ~ 00 0> 00 N ~ 00 ~ CD "<T 00 "<T 0> ~ f"- 0> cry N I N "<T cry "<T ~ cry 0> 0> 0> I I f"- ~ 0 CD CD CD ~ N ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ N ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ N ~ ~ ~ ~ "<T N C') oS:! "<T U") 00 N CD 0> cry 0> "<T f"- CD U") 0> U") f"- f"- N f"- 0> U") f"- N U") U") U") f"- 0> 0> 0> N N 0 cry N U") M f"- CD f"- "<T 00 0 0 0> CD ~ ~ cry CD ~ f"- f"- 0> 0> N 0 f"- ~ CD ~ cry "<T_ o ~ CD "<T_ cry CD U") ~ CD 00 I "<T_ cry U") 0 N 0> ~ 00 0 N cry U") N cry N CD f"- a C\I ~ 0 "<T "<T f"- f"- 0> f"- "<T U") 0 0 N N 0> 0> 00 f"- N 0 CD CD 00 00 0> 00 f"- CD 00 CD ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .!::: l:D l:D l:D l:D l:D l:D l:D l:D l:D l:D l:D l:D I l:D l:D l:D l:D l:D l:D l:D l:D l:D l:D l:D l:D l:D l:D l:D l:D l:D l:D C w $: w $: w $: w $: z: en w $: z: en z: en z: en w $: w $: z: en z: en w $: z: en N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N cry cry N N N N N N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .a! 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N N N N N N N N N N N N I N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N ~ N N N N f f N N N N f f N N N N N N f f N N N N N N f f c --- --- N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N ::z ::z N N N N N N --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- N N --- --- --- --- --- --- ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Q) :::J C cu Q) = ~ a; > Q) <( :::J C cu cu c Q) cu >- (/) == l!:! c.. = = 0 Q) :::J ~ ro D.. .... c.. en E c Q) c c > c "'CI $: E lii E cu :::J cu '6 <( Q) Q) ro Q) l'CI > c ~ ffi Q) > "'CI l'CI ~ a: :::J c.. l'CI "'CI a;: c:c Q) c ~ <( C Q c c:::: c > E ro ..!!! c:::: u.... U") Q) ~ C: N c cu <( c E U5 .~ .c U") > .~ 0 Q l'CI Q) c == ~ <( 0 0 c::: c c E l:D Q) u 0 Cl Q ~ --- ~ cc l'CI 0 ca ;;:::: Cl ::E .c ~ cu cc z z E c > Z .. cu ro $: '(3 :::J en 0 Q) 'c ill ~ Ln cu Q) i6 en ro -' 0 0 U:r > Ln to c.. > --- cu Q) :::l = Q ~ c.. :s: 0 0 0... 0 Z Cl ~ a: ~ c ...... ~ i= ~ --- ~ ca --- c a; 0 ~ cu en en ill l'CI > 0 en > 0 . . = 0 a; ~ z c:c 0 0 0 ~ iri . . a; Q) C :::J 0 --- ~ Q) :::J C ill --- c w ~ ~ c ~ cu 0 ~ . . W Q ~ ~ Q) Q) .::: a; U5 Q) U5 --- > Q) > E a; a; U5 > en <( C ~ C a; iri l!:! <( .~ l'CI Q) cu l!:! l!:! ro Q) -a l!:! :::- ~ en E c ~ C II> a; C U - (ij en en Q) g Q l!:! ro ""ffi en 'E U5 ro Q) ~ c:::: :c -a -a "'CI "'CI .c ..Cl (/) :::J en c c c = "'CI ..c: is ro ""ffi Ql Cl ro .- Q C ~ Li'5 ro 0 I c Q) cu N """ <( l:D l:D U C w ::.::: :..:: == == e$ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ !:: Q., ~ .:::; ;::: :-s. 'OS ~ V:l ~~ ~ ~ .:?1 ~ :::: ~ ~ ;::: 'OS f::; (j ~ ~ S ;::: ~ Q., ........ ~ '" ;::: (5 '" a a - "1 ~ ~ ;::: ~ CJ ...., . ~ 0\ ..... I ;::: ":!- ;::: ,...., ~ '" Q., '" '" ~ h Q., .~ '-l .Q ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ '"", ;;::. ~ ~ 11\ III .... c: CI) e 0) CI) CI) ).. ; "0 III o It: c: o C?CI) ~o ,.......! u;"O .! c: .Q III ~ ~ e -= ~ ... ~ ~ ~ C'\l 0) .5 .... III ~ C;) c<( ...... C,,)~ s;~ ~ IN o CI.l !:l. ~~ 0 ~"~ I "m I ::;:::2: ::2: to ~ "- '" Q CI.l ~~~ CI.l ~~M S;Q.,M .......:Soo S'!;: ~ I~ f"- I~ 00 <( LD ~ CD INMN o 0 0 I~~~ ~g~ I 0> CD LD_ cn~~ e Q e:~CDI I I ...f"-LD Q I.Q <(<(<( 000 "m "m "m ::2:::2:::2: CD 1M o <( 00 IN o <( ~ If"- o u M 100 o o <( I~ ~ 0 LD 0 I LD I N ."f I~ I~ ~ ~ o f"- a 00 I ~ 1M ct5 M N M LD ILD o o 0 0 0 0 I "m I "m I "m I "m I "m I ::2: ::2: ::2: ::2: ::2: I""-Mgs~~r::: I t-.,...-No:::::tN.,...- LD f"- 0 M I MCO.,..-cn LD 00 M LD CI.l 'ijON I I I ..... IMo:::::t~~L.O"- I I~~g~ oS:! ~!;;j: ~ I I I C') No>LDCDLDLD I~M~~CDf"- I .,...- ('Y) L.[) 0 ILDNLDO MLDMN I~ I~ ~ ~ I ~ I N N ~~~N~ ~M~_N~ C\I~M~~ cocn.,-.,-o:::::to:::::tID~~ONCO 1~~~6gs~r--COcn~~g L.Oo:::::to:::::tOOo:::::tL.O~~~~OO~ .~ co co co co czenzen lalalalalalalalalalalalal zenw:s:w:s:w:s:zenzen NNMM 0000 ,sOOOO ~~~~~I CNN::;t::;t ;:::';:::'NN c::: ~ ~ to Q ...... Q) :::J C Q) > <( "~ C o Cl :::J -' o --- en a; :::J C Q) > <( $: Q) :> c "c;j C :::J o ::2: ~~~~~~M8~~~~ I~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~ >- '" $: -'" ffi 0... 2:- .~ Q) > "c :::J o --- Z -a ffi > ~ :::J o al -'" ffi D.. ..c: t o Z -a ffi > Q) ID~ ~al U5= u..c: -+=15 .(3 0 ",u.... 0...0 0--- ___en z a; Qj ::J :::J C C Q) Q) > ><( <( a; E ~ Ci3 Q) 0... 0... Q) ~ U5 ~ o --- en Q) :::J C Q) > <( o ..c: u C '" a: c.. E l'CI c:::: ~ == CU l!:! u.... o "'7 o i:i:r -c:i > iii II> "'CI C l'CI '6 CU c:::: Q) o C '" U Q) D.. D.. i= o U:r a; :::J C Q) > <( o C '6 ffi E Q) al C '" en -'" ffi D.. ..c: t o Z o ~ >. '" $: -'" ffi 0... >- -a ~ ~ Q) Q) .:=: "S C 0 :::J al cu c l'CI -' ~ ]! 'Q.. II> Q ::J: o --- en a; = C CU > c:c CU Q C l'CI .. CU c.. c.. i= ~ == CU l!:! u.... o "'7 o --- Z a; = C CU ~ c l'CI E CU i6 :s: (/) Q) E :J o > ~ :J o ..c "'" C\J ..... o .!!1 (/) >- (ii C ru >- ."!: CJ ru a. ru CJ C o ""C Q) (/) ru ..c Q) ~ ~ ~ o o en o ...J ~ '=-- en o ...J ..Q1 ..c ru - a. Q) CJ CJ ru C :J C ru ~ o ..c (/) El C Q) E Ol Q) (/) >- ru 3; ""C ru o ~ Ol C '3 ..Q Q Q) ..c - ~ C o ~ o Ol Q) - ru CJ .!!1 ..c ~.eJ _ C C Q) J!1 E $g> - (/) ai 1a' E 3; 0l""C Q) ru (/) 0 >-~ ru ~ 3;Q -go een (iig CJ ..Q-g o ru Z (/) C o :;:::::; CJ Q) ~ Q) - C Q) C ru ...J .~ ru - '0.. (/) o I ...: Q) :I:: Q) ..c ~ o UJ en ~ oQ ...J Q) .!!1 > (/)..Q1 C ~ Q) .- E C: 0lQ) Q) (/) (/) Q) 1a'Li 3;1!! ""Co. ru Q) e 8 ""C ru C E ru :J ~ E o C :;:::::; CJ E Q) ru ~ Q) (/) _ ru Co en o ...J ..... o ..c - :J o en Q) :J C Q) ~ Q) o C ru CJ Q) a. a. i= - ru en o ...J ..... Q) 0 Li"E ru ru o..-g ~1!! ~en ~ ~ Q) Q..c ""C.Ql ~..c ~ ru C (/) ru Q) - (/) (/) :J 0....>- :2: ."!: 00 Q) Q) ..c ..c 1-1- . e$ i:.:r.:I ~ ~ Q., .'-> ~ '-> ~ ~ ~ ~ .:?1 '-> ~ :::: ~ ~ :;:: ~ :;:: ~ Q., ........ ~ ~ :;:: ~ ~ :;:: ~ is l:: ~ i::q :;:: c)3 ~ .Q (j - ~ :;:: d ~ ..... :;:: :;:: ~ Q., ~ h '" a a "1 ~ ~ ...., . a ,...., I ":!- ,...., '" ~ ~ Q., 5. Environmental Analysis Freeway Segment Peak Existing Conditions Freeway From To Hour Dir. Capacity Volume V/C LOS AM EB 11,000 7,753 0.705 C 1-10 Jct. 1-215 Waterman Avenue WB 11,000 10,482 0.953 E PM EB 11,000 10,482 0.953 E WB 11,000 7,753 0.705 C AM EB 8,800 6,347 0.721 C 1-10 Waterman Avenue Tippecanoe Avenue WB 8,800 8,600 0.977 E EB 8,800 8,600 0.977 E PM WB 8,800 6,347 0.721 C AM EB 8,800 6,305 0.716 C 1-10 Tippecanoe Avenue Mountain View WB 8,800 8,537 0.970 E EB 8,800 8,537 0.970 E PM WB 8,800 6,305 0.716 C AM EB 4,400 684 0.155 A SR-30 Highland Avenue Jct. 1-215 WB 4,400 842 0.191 A EB 4,400 842 0.191 A PM WB 4,400 684 0.155 A AM EB 4,400 1,421 0.323 A SR-30 Jct. 1-215 H Street WB 4,400 1,737 0.395 A PM EB 4,400 1,737 0.395 A WB 4,400 1,421 0.323 A AM EB 4,400 1 ,463 0.333 A SR-30 H Street SR-259 WB 4,400 1,800 0.409 A PM EB 4,400 1,800 0.409 A WB 4,400 1 ,463 0.333 A AM EB 6,600 3,000 0.455 A SR-30 SR-259 Waterman Avenue WB 6,600 3,667 0.556 A PM EB 6,600 3,667 0.556 A WB 6,600 3,000 0.455 A AM EB 6,600 3,000 0.455 A SR-30 Waterman Avenue Oel Rosa Orive WB 6,600 3,667 0.556 A PM EB 6,600 3,667 0.556 A WB 6,600 3,000 0.455 A AM NB 8,800 7,211 0.819 0 1-215 Jct. 1-10 Orange Show Road SB 8,800 7,211 0.819 0 NB 8,800 7,211 0.819 0 PM SB 8,800 7,211 0.819 0 AM NB 8,800 6,789 0.771 C 1-215 Orange Show Road Inland Center Orive SB 8,800 6,789 0.771 C NB 8,800 6,789 0.771 C PM SB 8,800 6,789 0.771 C AM NB 6,600 5,116 0.775 C 1-215 Jct. Route 66 Baseline Street SB 6,600 6,253 0.947 E PM NB 6,600 6,253 0.947 E SB 6,600 5,116 0.775 C AM NB 4,400 2,232 0.507 A 1-215 Jct. SR-30 University Parkway SB 4,400 3,347 0.761 C NB 4,400 3,347 0.761 C PM SB 4,400 2,232 0.507 A Table 5.14-4 Existing (1999) Freeway Segments Volume/Capacity and LOS Note: Existing volumes are taken from the San Bernardino County CMP, 2003 Update. General Plan Update and Associated Specific Plans EIR City of San Bernardino . Page 5.14-11 5. Environmental Analysis All freeway segments are currently operating at the CMP acceptable LOS of E or better. 5.14.1.2 Arrowhead Springs Specific Plan The existing Arrowhead Springs resort area is accessed from SR-18 (Rim of the World Highway) via Old Waterman Canyon Road and Arrowhead Springs Road. Entrance to the gated private property is restricted to employees and business guests. Old Waterman Canyon Road is a two-lane roadway with access currently restricted to local residents while on-going flood repairs are taking place. All roadways within the Arrowhead Springs property are two-lane. Existing Traffic Conditions within the Study Area The traffic study area for potential impacts due to the Arrowhead Springs project was determined to include 8 roadway sections and 14 intersections in San Bernardino south of the Arrowhead Springs property. The analysis of existing conditions is based on the existing amount of traffic volume on various street corridors and the capacity of the streets and intersections to carry traffic. Capacity measures the ability of the street system to meet and serve the demands from traffic. The capacity of a roadway is affected by a number of factors, e.g., the street width, the number of travel lanes, the number of crossing streets, the type of traffic control devices, the presence of on-street parking, the number of access driveways, the streets horizontal and vertical alignments, etc. Existing LOS and V/C Ratios Daily traffic (ADT) counts as well as peak hour traffic counts of turn movements were conducted during the months of March and April, 2003 to determine existing traffic volume conditions. The capacity and level of service (LOS) calculations were also conducted for peak hour traffic conditions at these mid-block locations. The TRAFFIX intersection capacity software version 7.6, based on Highway Capacity Manual's Operation Delay methodology was used in intersection LOS calculations. The results are shown in Table 5-14-5 for roadway segments and Table 5.14-6 for intersections. CMP roadway segments are shown in bold type face. No CMP intersections are located in the study area for Arrowhead Springs. Intersection peak hour volumes and LOS calculation sheets are shown in Appendix F of Volume II. Table 5.14-5 Existing 2003 Average Daily Traffic (ADT) Volumes and LOS on Roadways in the Vicinity of Arrowhead Springs Existing 2003 Conditions Capacity Volume, No. of Veh/Day Veh/Day V/C Roadways Facility Type Lanes (C) (V) Ratio LOS Highway 18 NjD Waterman Avenue Major Arterial 4 40,000 19,194 0.480 A Waterman Avenue SjO 40th Street Major Arterial 4 40,000 17,170 0.429 A Waterman Avenue NjO 30th Street Major Arterial 4 40,000 21,220 0.531 A 40th Street EjD Waterman Avenue Major Arterial 4 40,000 10,150 0.254 A Harrison Street SjD 40th Street Secondary Arterial 2 12,000 960 0.080 A Sterling Avenue SjD Foothill Drive Major Arterial 2 15,000 1,510 0.101 A Valencia Avenue SjD 40th Street Secondary Arterial 2 12,000 4,110 0.343 A Valencia Avenue NjD 30th Street Secondary Arterial 2 12,000 4,320 0.360 A Note: Existing ADT volumes were determined based on Caltrans publications, existing 24-hour traffic counts or peak hour traffic counts, assuming that PM peak hour volume represents approx. 10% of ADT volumes. Page 5.14-12 . The Planning Center july 2005 5. Environmental Analysis Existing Conditions Intersection Peak Hour LOS Delay V/C Waterman Avenue at 40th Street AM C 25.3 0.592 PM C 29.3 0.47 Waterman Avenue at Parkdale Drive AM B 10.5 0.573 PM B 11.3 0.485 Waterman Avenue at 36th Street (Unsignalized) AM D 33.6 - PM C 21.6 - Waterman Avenue at 34th Street (Unsignalized) AM D 26.0 - PM D 29.4 - Waterman Avenue at Marshall Boulevard AM A 3.2 0.486 PM A 4.0 0.433 Waterman Avenue at 30th Street AM C 25.5 0.7 47 PM C 22.9 0.609 Valencia Avenue at 40th Street AM B 9.9 0.300 PM B 11.3 0.332 Harrison Street at 40th Street (Unsignalized) AM B 12.1 - PM B 13.3 - Del Rosa Avenue at Foothill Boulevard (Unsignalized) AM B 11.2 - PM B 11.5 - Sterling Avenue at Foothill Boulevard AM A 7.8 0.156 PM A 7.9 0.131 Valencia Avenue at 30th Street AM B 14.7 0.231 PM B 14.9 0.255 Del Rosa Avenue at Lynwood Drive AM B 15.8 0.429 PM B 15.3 0.556 Sterling Avenue at Lynwood Drive AM B 12.5 0.462 PM B 12.6 0.437 30th Street at Lynwood Drive (Unsignalized) AM B 13.3 - PM B 14.2 - Table 5.14-6 Existing 2003 Intersection Level of Service Conditions Note: V/C ratios are not calculated for unsignalized intersections. As Tables 5.14-5 and 5.14-6 show, there are no signalized intersections that operate below the acceptable LOS D (Le., LOS E or F); however, three intersections currently operate at the threshold (LOS D). Similarly, all roadway segments operate above the acceptable LOS C. 5.14.2 Thresholds of Significance According to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, a project would normally have a significant effect on the environment if the project could: T-1 Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (Le., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections) . General Plan Update and Associated Specific Plans EIR City of San Bernardino . Page 5.14-13 5. Environmental Analysis T-2 Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways. T-3 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. T-4 Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment). T-5 Result in inadequate emergency access. T-6 Result in inadequate parking capacity. T-7 Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative trans- portation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks). The Initial Study, included as Appendix A, Volume II, substantiates that impacts associated with the following thresholds would be less than significant: T-7. Therefore, this topic will not be addressed in the following analysis. A project's traffic impact is determined based upon whether or not traffic volume associated with the project deteriorates the level of service at an intersection location to an unacceptable LOS E or F and for roadway segments below LOS C. According to the City of San Bernardino Traffic Impact Study Guidelines, traffic impacts at an intersection are to be considered "significant" when any of the following changes in the volume to capacity 01 /C) ratios occur between the "without project" and the "with project" conditions: LOS c o E and F V/C with Project Increases > 0.0400 > 0.0200 > 0.0100 The LOS and V/C ratios above are based on the delay methodology outlined in the Highway Capacity Manual. 5.14.3 Environmentallmpacts The following impact analysis addresses thresholds of significance for which the Initial Study disclosed potentially significant impacts. The applicable thresholds are identified in parentheses after the impact statement. 5.14.3.1 San Bernardino General Plan Through the General Plan update, the City has identified a number of roadway improvements, reclassi- fication, and addition/deletion of certain roadway segments in order to improve its circulation conditions to handle existing as well as future traffic volumes. There are approximately 64 changes throughout the City that are proposed as part of the Circulation Element for General Plan, which are listed in Volume II, Appendix F. For the future traffic conditions analysis, these improvements have been assumed to be in place in the circulation system. The proposed Circulation Plan for the General Plan update is shown on Figure 5.14-1. Page 5.14-14 . The Planning Center july 2005 5. Environmental Analysis Focused Travel Demand Model As part of this circulation system analysis, a focused travel demand model was developed to analyze the traffic impacts of projected development within the City, including Arrowhead Springs, at "build-out" of the proposed General Plan. The latest version of the RIVSAN CTP Model, which has a year 2000 base-year and year 2030 as the horizon year, was used. The City and its Sphere of Influence are comprised of approximately 564 traffic analysis zones (TAZs) in this model. Land use quantities (in acres) were estimated for the build-out conditions for each of the TAZs. These land use quantities were then converted to the number of single and multiple dwelling units, population, retail, and total employment. The CTP model highway network was also obtained from SCAG and refined by adding secondary and collector streets and zonal connectors (per the City's recommended network modification/improvement list) to represent a more detailed network consistent with the finer zone system. The model input data for the disaggregated T AZs were submitted to SCAG Inland Empire Office. From these data, SCAG generated trips for all study area zones. The EVTM model was run using these new build-out trips in the project area. Trip generation, distribution, and mode choice functions for the model were carried out and the four-period trip tables (AM, PM peak, mid-day and night-time) were provided to the General Plan team. The team performed traffic assignments for all four periods and combined them to generate total daily volumes. These daily trip volumes were assigned to the City of San Bernardino's future planned circulation network with the total trips shown below: Table 5.14-7 Total Daily Trips at General Plan Buildout Daily Trips at Build-out Proposed General Plan From San Bernardino TAZs to All SCAG TAZs 793,557 To San Bernardino TAZs from All SCAG TAZs 797,888 Total 1,591,445 Source: City of San Bernardino General Plan Update: 2004, Circulation Impact & Mitigation Measures; Transtech Engineers General Plan Update and Associated Specific Plans EIR City of San Bernardino . Page 5.14-15 5. Environmental Analysis This page intentionally left blank. Page 5.14-16 . The Planning Center july 2005 .~ ~ ~ <:: ~ ~ ~ ~ <:: ~ .~ ~ lI"\ ~ ;:: ~ ~ ;:: ~ .~ ~ ~ .,.". 'V .:';. ~ "';. .~ 'C -< ~ e- .... >- ~ -< ~ 8 oj ~ 0 c: (i) cd ~ 11 '(d 8::g ~ .t:I1~J5u>-< ~< e- cd -g ::::l o >:Q <l) ~ <l) cJl cd c: '"t:l ~ E '0 o <l) >:Q ... >. ;!: .~ .~ U <J) 5. Environmental Analysis This page left intentionally blank. Page 5.14-18. The Planning Center july 2005 5. Environmental Analysis GP IMPACT 5.14-1: TRIP GENERATION AT BUILD-OUT OF THE GENERAL PLAN WOULD IMPACT LEVELS OF SERVICE FOR THE EXISTING AREA ROADWAY SYSTEM. [THRESHOLD T-l ] Impact Analysis: The future build-out traffic conditions within the City were analyzed based on the traffic volume data obtained from EVTM runs. The traffic volume data were post-processed using the "B-Turns" program per SANBAG's requirement. The year 2030 was considered to determine the impacts of the proposed General Plan in comparison with existing conditions. Tables 5.14-8 and 5.14-9 show the results of intersection and roadway LOS analysis for 2030 under existing conditions and with proposed General Plan. This table shows the roadway segments LOS for 2030 under existing conditions and with the proposed General Plan. The projected volumes were divided by the assumed future capacities to identify the future volume/capacity ratios, LOS, potential future capacity deficiencies and expected congestion problems. Intersection peak hour volumes and LOS calculation sheets are shown in Volume II, Appendix F. CMP intersections are shown in bold typeface in Table 5.14-7. Table 5.14-10 shows the results of the freeway segments analysis with existing conditions and buildout of the General Plan update. Existing Conditions Gen. Plan Conditions 2003 2030 Peak Delay, V/C Delay, V/C G.P. Intersection Hour LOS sec/veh Ratio LOS sec/veh Ratio Impact 30th Street @ Lynwood Orive AM B 11.3 - A 9.7 0 PM A 7.2 - B 11.5 0 Arden Avenue @ Highland Avenue AM 0 39.1 0.687 C 34.9 0.707 PM C 34.2 0.633 0 46.1 0.892 Arden Avenue @ SR-30 EB Ramps AM B 16.5 0.339 B 15.7 0.417 PM B 14.2 0.345 B 18.2 0.583 Arden Avenue @ SR-30 WB Ramps AM 0.0 - - A 0.0 0.000 PM 0.0 - - A 0.0 0.000 Arrowhead Avenue @ Baseline Street AM B 14.7 0.724 B 12.6 0.430 PM 0 38.3 1.043 B 16.5 0.531 Belmont Avenue @ Palm Avenue AM B 10.1 0.354 A 8.1 0.178 PM A 8.5 0.232 A 7.9 0.147 Boulder Avenue @ Highland Avenue AM C 33.8 0.245 C 25.0 0.320 PM C 34.6 0.490 C 29.3 0.658 Del Rosa Avenue @ 3rd Street AM C 27.5 0.398 0 39.5 0.679 PM C 31.1 0.469 0 47.4 0.839 Del Rosa Avenue @ Base Line Street AM C 21.4 0.395 0 36.2 0.869 PM C 24.7 0.396 C 33.0 0.823 Oel Rosa Avenue @ Foothill Orive AM B 11.2 - B 14.8 - PM B 11.5 - C 17.5 - Oel Rosa Avenue @ Lynwood Orive AM B 14.8 0.270 B 16.6 0.558 PM B 13.9 0.339 B 12.7 0.612 Del Rosa Avenue @ SR-30 EB Ramps AM C 24.4 0.579 C 26.5 0.695 PM C 29.0 0.810 C 28.5 0.7 48 Del Rosa Avenue @ SR-30 WB Ramps AM C 22.8 0.795 B 18.9 0.7 40 PM C 27.4 0.855 E 57.0 1.088 Table 5.14-8 Intersection Level of Service Summary for Future Conditions (2030) General Plan Update and Associated Specific Plans EIR City of San Bernardino . Page 5.14-19 5. Environmental Analysis Existing Conditions Gen. Plan Conditions 2003 2030 Peak Delay, V/C Delay, V/C G.P. Intersection Hour LOS sec/veh Ratio LOS sec/veh Ratio Impact Del Rosa Avenue @ Dale Street AM B 20.0 0.380 B 11.7 0.342 PM C 23.0 0.527 B 12.1 0.465 E Street @ 2nd Street AM C 24.3 0.505 C 29.5 0.654 PM C 34.2 0.576 0 40.3 0.816 E Street @ 30th Street AM B 14.8 0.476 B 15.3 0.449 PM B 12.6 0.562 B 14.8 0.754 E Street @ Baseline Street AM B 18.0 0.407 C 23.1 0.593 PM B 19.4 0.566 C 24.9 0.686 E Street @ Highland Avenue AM B 18.6 0.765 B 16.6 0.428 PM C 21.7 0.400 B 16.5 0.475 E Street @ Orange Show Road AM C 27.2 0.423 C 33.4 0.660 PM 0 37.5 0.631 0 49.7 0.945 Harrison Street @ 40th Street AM B 12.1 - 0 26.6 - PM B 13.3 - F OF - Yes Hospitality Lane @ Carnegie Orive AM C 27.0 0.536 C 28.9 0.565 PM 0 41.1 0.906 C 30.7 0.649 Hunts Lane @ E Street AM F OVF - F 744.5 - Yes PM F OVF - F OVF - Yes Kendall Orive @ 40th Street AM C 26.2 0.572 B 12.8 0.285 PM C 23.9 0.480 B 18.2 0.542 Kendall Orive @ Palm Avenue AM C 32.2 0.490 B 17.0 0.071 PM C 28.6 0.595 B 17.7 0.072 Kendall Orive @ University Parkway AM C 32.2 0.490 C 30.5 0.513 PM C 28.6 0.595 C 30.6 0.501 Lena Road @ Mill Street AM B 18.1 0.178 C 22.2 0.377 PM B 18.0 0.206 C 22.6 0.502 Leroy StreetjSR-30 WB On-Ramp @ AM B 17.2 0.598 B 10.2 0.520 30th Street PM B 17.4 0.401 B 17.5 0.594 Meridian Avenue @ Rialto Avenue AM E 36.3 - C 16.5 - PM F 75.1 - F 65.6 - Yes Mountain View Avenue @ San Bernardino AM B 12.9 0.535 F 107.1 1.372 Yes Road PM F 90.2 1.360 F 308.8 2.440 Yes Mt. Vernon Avenue @ 2nd Street AM B 191.8 0.454 B 17.6 0.325 PM C 30.0 0.643 C 31.2 0.682 Mt. Vernon Avenue @ 5th Street AM C 22.5 0.405 C 25.4 0.486 PM C 22.5 0.489 C 24.7 0.611 Mt. Vernon Avenue @ Base Line Street AM C 20.1 0.458 C 22.0 0.527 PM C 23.3 0.532 C 22.8 0.531 Mt. Vernon Avenue @ Highland Avenue AM C 27.8 0.617 C 22.0 0.488 PM C 27.5 0.679 C 31.7 0.598 Mt. Vernon Avenue @ Mill Street AM C 30.4 0.520 C 34.7 0.673 PM C 31.7 0.677 0 35.1 0.799 Mt. Vernon Avenue @ Rialto Avenue AM B 14.5 0.292 B 16.6 0.355 PM B 14 0.384 B 17.0 0.502 Table 5.14-8 Intersection Level of Service Summary for Future Conditions (2030) Page 5.14-20 . The Planning Center july 2005 5. Environmental Analysis Existing Conditions Gen. Plan Conditions 2003 2030 Peak Delay, V/C Delay, V/C G.P. Intersection Hour LOS sec/veh Ratio LOS sec/veh Ratio Impact Waterman Avenue @ Mill Street AM C 28.8 0.354 0 38.6 0.533 PM 0 35.2 0.540 0 47.2 0.889 Northpark Boulevard @ University Parkway AM C 21.4 0.284 C 28.0 0.091 PM 0 39.6 0.689 C 26.0 0.142 Ohio Avenue @ Palm Avenue AM A 9.9 - A 9.3 0.000 PM A 9.6 - A 9.3 0.000 Palm Avenue @ Highland Avenue AM 0 35.8 0.288 0 39.7 0.725 PM C 32.4 0.520 0 42.0 0.665 Pepper Avenue @ Mill Street AM C 33.1 0.465 0 37.1 0.525 PM C 30.4 0.450 0 37.2 0.730 Pepper Avenue @ Rialto Avenue AM B 14.6 0.366 B 17.5 0.574 PM B 16.4 0.496 C 20.6 0.728 Rancho Avenue @ 5th Street/Foothill AM F 119.6 - F OF 0.000 Yes Boulevard PM F OVF - F OF 0.000 Yes SR-30 EB Ramps @ Highland Avenue AM 0 35.8 0.288 C 20.3 0.600 PM B 18.5 0.464 C 20.8 0.625 SR-30 WB ramps @ Highland Avenue AM B 15.7 0.385 B 13.5 0.317 PM B 14.2 0.469 B 14.5 0.562 SR-30 WB Off-Ramp @ 30th Street AM F 298.3 - F 465.7 - Yes PM F 946.1 - F OVF - Yes Sterling Avenue @ Foothill Orive AM A 7.8 0.156 A 8.1 0.245 PM A 7.9 0.131 B 10.2 0.419 Sterling Avenue @ Highland Avenue AM C 29.6 0.328 C 28.8 0.58 PM A 7.9 0.131 C 31.8 0.606 Sterling Avenue @ Lynwood Orive AM B 12.5 0.463 B 11.2 0.366 PM B 12.6 0.437 C 20.0 0.775 Sierra Way @ 30th Street AM B 15.0 0.255 B 13.9 0.530 PM B 15.0 0.361 B 17.6 0.764 Sierra Way @ 40th Street AM B 19.0 0.270 C 26.0 0.626 PM C 21.3 0.432 C 34.6 0.920 State Street @ Baseline Street AM B 15.4 0.480 B 19.3 0.516 PM A 5.5 0.335 B 19.2 0.560 State Street @ Highland Avenue AM A 8.7 0.499 B 15.2 0.539 PM A 9.3 0.594 B 16.3 0.510 Tippecanoe Avenue @ Harry Sheppard AM C 22.7 0.482 A 6.7 0.516 Boulevard PM C 20.2 0.828 B 11.6 0.683 Tippecanoe Avenue @ Rialto Avenue AM 0 25.6 - F 91.7 0.000 Yes PM F 102.6 - F 242.1 0.000 Yes Tippecanoe Avenue @ 3rd Street AM C 26.5 0.464 C 30.8 0.573 PM C 32.5 0.698 0 49.0 0.882 Tippecanoe Avenue @ Hospitality Lane AM B 12.2 0.258 B 17.9 0.432 PM C 25.3 0.621 C 24.5 0.505 Tippecanoe Avenue @ Mill Street AM B 13.4 0.454 C 24.0 0.629 PM C 22.2 .0790 B 19.5 0.747 Table 5.14-8 Intersection Level of Service Summary for Future Conditions (2030) General Plan Update and Associated Specific Plans EIR City of San Bernardino . Page 5.14-21 5. Environmental Analysis Existing Conditions Gen. Plan Conditions 2003 2030 Peak Delay, V/C Delay, V/C G.P. Intersection Hour LOS sec/veh Ratio LOS sec/veh Ratio Impact Tippecanoe Avenue @ San Bernardino Road AM C 33.1 0.421 0 37.6 0.698 PM 0 42.1 0.828 0 48.1 0.863 Valencia Avenue @ 30th Street AM B 14.7 0.233 A 1.0 0.137 PM B 14.8 0.257 B 12.7 0.304 Valencia Avenue @ 40th Street AM A 9.9 0.305 C 15.0 0.667 PM B 11.5 0.412 F 72.4 1.129 Yes Victoria Avenue @ Highland Avenue AM 0 36.1 0.602 C 26.0 0.382 PM 0 39.9 0.683 C 31.6 0.610 Waterman Avenue @ 5th Street AM E 63 1.081 0 36.6 0.797 PM F 256.2 1.593 0 40.2 0.811 Waterman Avenue @ 30th Street AM C 27.1 0.801 F 138.9 1.215 Yes PM C 23.4 0.654 F 96.5 1.180 Yes Waterman Avenue @ 34th Street AM 0 26.2 - 0 26.7 - PM 0 29.9 - F 110.6 - Yes Waterman Avenue @ 36th Street AM E 37.9 - F 54.8 - Yes PM C 23.8 - F 87.5 - Yes Waterman Avenue @ 40th Street AM C 26.1 0.637 C 28.5 0.820 PM C 24.8 0.506 0 42.9 0.982 Waterman Avenue @ Barton Road AM C 25.7 .0663 C 27.7 0.885 PM 0 40.3 0.944 C 31.7 0.972 Waterman Avenue @ Hospitality lane AM C 30.4 0.715 C 30.7 0.637 PM 0 46.8 0.984 C 33.4 0.762 Waterman Avenue @ Marshall Boulevard AM A 3.2 0.507 A 4.6 0.626 PM A 4.0 0.451 A 5.0 0.633 Waterman Avenue @ Parkdale Avenue AM B 10.4 0.592 A 3.7 0.553 PM B 11.1 0.501 A 5.3 0.651 Waterman Avenue @ Orange Show Road AM C 38.0 0.442 0 35.1 0.648 PM 0 35.7 0.652 0 40.1 0.832 Waterman Avenue @ SR-30 EB Ramps AM C 32.3 0.852 E 60.9 1.053 Yes PM F 90.4 1.171 F 127.9 1.288 Yes Waterman Avenue @ Vanderbilt Way AM B 19.6 0.358 B 10.3 0.391 PM C 23.3 0.584 B 13.7 0.641 Waterman Avenue @ Highland Avenue AM 0 36.4 0.482 0 37.3 0.628 PM 0 39.2 0.650 0 40.0 0.707 Table 5.14-8 Intersection Level of Service Summary for Future Conditions (2030) As shown on the preceding table, the following 12 intersections are expected to perform at an unacceptable level of service at build-out of the General Plan: . Harrison Street @ 40th Street . Hunts Lane @ E Street . Meridian Avenue @ Rialto Avenue . Mountain View @ San Bernardino Road . Rancho Avenue @ 5th Street/Foothill Boulevard Page 5.14-22 . The Planning Center july 2005 5. Environmental Analysis . SR-30 WB Off-ramp @ 30th Street . Tippecanoe Avenue @ Rialto Avenue . Valencia Avenue @ 40th Street . Waterman Avenue @ 30th Street . Waterman Avenue @ SR-30 EB Ramps . Waterman Avenue @ 34th Street . Waterman Avenue @ 36th Street Table 5.14-9 shows the future local roadway segment conditions at build-out of the proposed General Plan. Table 5.14-9 Future Roadway LOS with Proposed General Plan Volumes FUTURE CONDITIONS WITH PROPOSED GP CMP Build- Street Facility No. of Capacity out ADT Mitigation Roadway Segment (Y/N)? Type Lanes (C) (V) V/C LOS Required? East-West Streets 2ND Street EjO 1-215 NB On Ramp Y Major 6 60,000 19,608 0.323 A 3rd Street WjO Tippecanoe Y Major 4 40,000 25842 0.671 C 4th Street 1-215-Arrowhead N Major 4 40,000 24,633 0.616 B 5th Street Pepper-I-215 N Major 4 40,000 19,238 0.481 A 5th Street 1-215-Waterman N Major 4 40,000 24,007 0.600 A 5th Street Waterman-Victoria Y Major 4 40,000 17,878 0.447 A 5th Street Victoria-Palm Y Major 4 40,000 14,370 0.359 A 9th Street Medical Center-I-215 N Secondary 4 30,000 5,219 0.174 A 9th Street 1-215-Waterman N Secondary 4 30,000 8,367 0.279 A 9th Street Waterman-Tippecanoe N Secondary 4 30,000 5,927 0.198 A 9th Street Tippecanoe-Del Rosa N Secondary 2 12,000 5,712 0.476 A 40th Street Valencia-Waterman N Major 4 40,000 17,908 0.448 A 40th Street Waterman-Sierra Y Major 4 40,000 22,625 0.566 A 40th Street Sierra-Mountain View Y Major 4 40,000 31,279 0.782 C Baseline Street SR-30-Palm Y Major 4 40,000 25,185 0.630 B Baseline Street Palm-Valencia Y Major 4 40,000 34,286 0.857 0 Yes Baseline Street Valencia-I-215 Y Major 4 40,000 23,585 0.590 A Baseline Street 1-215-Riverside Y Major 4 40,000 18,194 0.455 A Highland Ave. Riverside-I-215 Y Major 4 40,000 8,447 0.211 A Highland Ave. 1-215-Victoria Y Major 4 40,000 26,775 0.669 B Highland Ave. Victoria-SR-30 Y Major 4 40,000 27,788 0.695 B Highland Ave. SR-30-E. City Limit N Major 4 40,000 23,666 0.592 A Hospitality Lane E Street-Hunts N Secondary 4 30,000 13,972 0.466 A Hospitality Lane Hunts-Waterman N Secondary 4 30,000 18,460 0.615 B Inland Center Dr. EjO 1-215 Ramps N Major 4 40,000 11,861 0.296 A Mill Street Tippecanoe-Waterman N Major 4 40,000 19,150 0.479 A Mill Street Waterman-Mt Vernon Y Major 4 40,000 30,155 0.754 C Mill Street Mt Vernon-Bordwell Y Major 4 40,000 31,126 0.778 C Redlands Blvd. 1-215-Waterman Y Secondary 4 30,000 18,011 0.600 A Rialto Ave. Riverside-Rancho N Major 4 40,000 16,287 0.407 A Rialto Ave. Rancho-I Street N Major 4 40,000 16,970 0.424 A Rialto Ave. 1St-Sierra N Major 4 40,000 8,628 0.216 A General Plan Update and Associated Specific Plans EIR City of San Bernardino . Page 5.14-23 5. Environmental Analysis FUTURE CONDITIONS WITH PROPOSED GP CMP Build- Street Facility No. of Capacity out ADT Mitigation Roadway Segment (Y/N)? Type Lanes (C) (V) V/C LOS Required? Rialto Ave. Sierra-Tippecanoe N Major 4 40,000 7,688 0.192 A San Bernardino road EjD Tippecanoe Y Major 4 40,000 16,7 42 0.419 A Table 5.14-9 Future Roadway LOS with Proposed General Plan Volumes North-South Streets Alabama Street SjD San Bernardino Y Major 4 40,000 19,463 0.419 A Boulder Ave. Atlantic-Pac ific N Major 4 40,000 14,853 0.371 A California Street SjD Lugonia Y Major 6 60,000 14,691 0.245 A Del Rosa Drive 3rd St-Paloma Y Secondary 4 30,000 14,877 0.496 A Del Rosa Drive Baseline-SR-30 Y Secondary 4 30,000 21,995 0.733 C Del Rosa Drive SR-30-Quail Canyon N Secondary 4 30,000 1,445 0.048 A E Street 1-10- Fairway Y Major 4 40,000 23,208 0.580 A E Street Fairway-9th Street Y Major 4 40,000 18,814 0.470 A E Street 9th St-Kendall Y Major 4 40,000 35,103 0.878 D Yes Kendall Drive SjD University Pkwy. Y Major 4 40,000 18,915 0.473 A Kendall Drive NjD Revere N Major 4 40,000 13,142 0.328 A Mountain View Ave. Sjo Lugonia Y Major 4 40,000 16,962 0.424 A Mount Vernon Ave. NjD 2nd Street Y Major 4 40,000 13,052 0.326 A Northpark Blvd. NjD University Pkwy N Major 6 60,000 3,273 0.055 A Palm Ave. Pacific-Highland Y Major 4 40,000 19,826 0.496 A Pepper Ave. 1-10-Foothill Y Major 4 40,000 44,034 1.101 F Yes Rancho Ave. 1-10-MiII Y Major 4 40,000 21,870 0.547 A Rancho Ave. MiII-Rialto Y Major 4 40,000 23,685 0.592 A Rancho Ave. Rialto-Foothill Y Major 4 40,000 20,783 0.520 A Sierra Way Waterman-40th Street N Major 4 40,000 37,828 0.946 E Yes Sierra Way 40th Street-5th Street N Major 2 15,000 2,112 0.141 A Sierra Way 5th Street-2nd Street N Major 4 40,000 5,505 0.138 A Sierra Way 2nd Street-Mill N Major 4 40,000 5,789 0.145 A Tippeecanoe SjD Hospitality Lane Y Major 6 60,000 32,065 0.534 A University Pkwy. WjD Northpark Blvd. N Major 6 60,000 7,834 0.131 A Victoria Ave. Lynwood-Baseline N Secondary 4 30,000 9,412 0.314 A Victoria Ave. Baseline-3rd Street Y Secondary 4 30,000 6,158 0.205 A Waterman Ave. 1-10-Highland Y Major 6 60,000 26,590 0.443 A Waterman Ave. Highland-Sierra YjN Major 4 40,000 24,062 0.602 A As shown on the preceding table, the following 4 roadway segments are expected to perform at an unacceptable level of service (LOS D or worse) at build-out of the General Plan according to standards established by the City: . Baseline Street between Palm Avenue and Valencia Avenue . E Street between 9th Street and Kendall Drive . Pepper Avenue between 1-10 and Foothill Boulevard . Sierra Way between Waterman Avenue and 40th Street Page 5.14-24 . The Planning Center july 2005 .~ '-l .Q ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ '"", ;;::. ~ ~ 11\ C'.) r:::: CUI OW Q-...l :0:: ~ ,t:n ~ .;: (..) ....,.. ~::;;~I ...!. 0 '" Q Q., <::::l CI':) <::::l C\I ~o 00 [~I ~~ C,.) r:::: "t:I ~ ~ ~ ~ C Q) C C'tJ...... co c co ~~~~~ ~Q:;~ ~ CI) o ....! "0 c: III ~ .... (.l III i (.) -- CI) e ~ Q- ,...~ I ~ III ,... .... iii 5i oS! e .QO) ~~ ).. ; CI) CI) at S' C'? Q ~ e .2 ~ C'.) C J!!-...l ~ :% &~ ::::.; :S 3: <::::l ~ Ql C\I~ ~ I owo I owu<(uow I uww I uww I 00 cry 00 0 00 0> o 0 r-- cry 0 Ig~~ o 0 0 cry U") 0> U") r-- 00 N lro~~~r::~~ o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0000000 1~~~g~g~1 ~~~OOCOOOCO Q) C ~ Q) C ~ 0 -aZ -a <( 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 Q) 00 Q) Q) Q) Q) Q) Q) Q) Q) C Q) C ffi ffi ffi Q) ffi ffi ffi ffi ~ ffi ~ c NNNONNNN""'-N""'- :g:g:gZ:g:g:g:g:g:g:g <(<(<( <(<(<(<(<(<(<( o r-- cry I~~o; o 0 0 o 0 0 o 0 0 CD CD CD CD CD CD ~ ~ Q) Q)~~ffi c o ~ ~ z""C""C""C -a-a-a <(<(<( o r-- cry 1~8;o;l o 0 0 o 0 0 I~~~I CD CD CD Q) Q) Q) c c c Q)~~~ c o ~ ~ Z-a-a -a -a <(<( 101 N I g I o o I g I 00 Q) Q) C C ~ 0 0 -a Z Z -a <( Q) C CO Q) Q) Q) Q) Q) ccccc """'00000 -aZZZZZ -a <( ~o~~w~~~o~~~~~~~o~~~o~~~~o~w~owo o 0 o 0 "<T N triM" o 0 0 o 0 0 INNN M"M"M" ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~~3o;~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ro~ oooNornNMM~NM~OOCO~OO~~MOO~~Mcoooornco~rnoo .,.....0.,...-.,...-0.,...-.,...-.,...-0.,...-.,...-.,...-.,...-.,...-.,...-.,...-0.,...-.,...-.,...-0.,...-.,...-.,...-66.,...-00066 ~MNoo~~~rn~CON~~NOO~OCO.,...-~OCO.,...-~M~O.,...-NOOCOM ~~~o;~~M~~~N~~~~~~N~~~N~~~~~~~~~~ ~rn~~oo~~~co~~~~~~COM~COCOM~COCOM~~CO~~ID~ C'.) CUWWUUWWUUwwu<(<(<(<(<(<(<(<(<(<(<(<(<(<(<(<(<(<(<(<( -...l '" r:::: ~ :t; r:::: Q C,.) t:n ~ ,~ ~ ~ .E:! ~ (..)~~~~N~~N~~~~~o;o;~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~6~~6~~~6~~~66666~~~666666~66666 M~~M~OO~~~~~~NN~N~~N~88~8~~88~~8 ~~~~~~~~g~~gOO"<T"<TOO~r--r--~~OOOO"<TOCDCDOOCDCDO ~~~~cooooococoOOOOCOCOroroID~~~~~~~~MMMMMMMM ~mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm ~W$W$W$W$W$W$W$W$W$W$W$W$W$W$W$W$ ~ ~ '= ". Q "'" ~:::t: <( - r:::: Ql ~ Ql C'.) ::...E: ~ e QlI..L.; Ql at ~ c ro E ~ Q) C caQ) $~ U") ~ ~ t5 -, ::... ~ Ql e! I..L.; o ~ , ::2: 0... ::2: <( Q) o c ro " u Q) Q) > 0..<( 0.. i= c ro E Q) " caQ) $~ o ~ , ::2: 0... ::2: <( ::2: 0... ::2: <( c "c;j ~5 o Q) ::2:5 U") ~ ~ t5 -, Q) o c ro u Q) 0.. " .9- ~ 1-<( -a c ro :c " e>Q) "- > I<( o ~ , o cry d:. en ::2: 0... ::2: <( Q) ~ U5 I U") ~ ~ t5 -, o cry d:. en ::2: 0... ::2: <( 0> U") N d:. en Q) ~ U5 I o cry d:. en ::2: 0... ::2: <( c ro E Q) " caQ) $~ 0> U") N d:. en o cry d:. en ::2: 0... ::2: <( ::2: 0... ro (/) o a: Q) - > Q) .C DO c ro E Q) " caQ) $~ o cry d:. en e$ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ !:: Q., ~ .:::; ;::: :-s. 'OS ~ V:l ~~ ~ f::; ~ ,,,; .~ V ~ :::: ~ ~ ;::: 'OS ~ ~ S ;::: ~ Q., ........ ~ '" ;::: (5 - ~ ;::: CJ ~ ..... ;::: ;::: ~ Q., '" h '" a a "1 ~ ~ ...., . '" "1 I ":!- ,...., '" '" ~ Q., .~ '-l .Q ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ '"", ;;::. ~ ~ 11\ C'.) r:::C Q-...l :0:: ~ .t:n .0::<:..) ~::;; ...!. '" Q Q.,~ C '0 ~ ~ C\I~ <:..) r:::"t:I ~~ ~ '- .!2' 5- =""'Ql ~Q:; CI) o ....! "0 c: III ~ .... (.l III i (.) -- CI) e ~ Q- ,...~ I ~ III ,... .... iii 5i oS! e .QO) ~~ ).. ; CI) CI) at S' C'? Q ~ e .2 ~ C'.) C J!!-...l ~ :% &~ ::::.; :S 3: C ~ Ql C\I~ ~ '" r::: ~ :t; r::: Q <:..) t:n ~ .~ ~ ~ .E:! ~ ..lc~ ~ Q ~::t: - r::: Ql ~ Ql C'.) ::...E: ~ e QlI..L.; Ql at lOW I M r-- I ro ~ I a a a a a a I a a I ~ ~ ~ ~ 0> 0> C C Q)~~ C o ~ z: -a -a <( ::2: <( ~ -a ro o 0> a: 0>;;;: ~ 0 ~ ..c: o en a ~ , t5 -, ::... ~ Ql e! I..L.; LD ~ Q) Q) Q) Q) Q) Q) cccccc """'000000 -a z: z: z: z: z: z: -a <( ::2: 0... ::2: <( 0> > is ~ -a 0> c - ~ffi Eu -a ro o 0> a: 0>;;;: ~ 0 ~ ..c: o en LD ~ IWDUIUUI r-- co 0> I~~;:!I a a a a a a a a a laNai .,...- M-.,..... ~ ~ ~ (/) (/) (/) 0> 0> 0> C C C ro ro ro N M N -a -a -a -a -a -a <(<(<( ::2: 0... ::2: <( ou..u..wc:(wwoc::ou..u..u..c::ou..u..o ;:~~r::~~~~~~~~~~~~ r--O-r-:cnL.Ocncnr--COL.Ot-Noo:::t:O-r-:t- 0.,...-.,...-000000.,...-.,...-.,...-0.,...-.,...-0 COCO~L.[)CONCO('Y)o:::::t~~N('Y)('Y)t-N L.Oo:::::t('Y)o:::::tcnCOt-o:::::tM.,...-COo:::::tOMNN NO> L.Ocnt-L.OCO.,...- NOCO.,...-.,...- cooo~ooo:::::tooOOCOo:::::t~:;:::OONo:::::tL.[)('Y) C'.) CDDDDUUUUUWWU<(UU<( -...l ~~~~~r::r::r::r::~~~~~IDID~ ::;;6~~~~~~~~~~~6~~~ .,...-.,...-.,...-.,...-cncncncnco('Y) ('Y)CONt-t-N .,...-.,...-.,...-.,...-oooooooo.,...-L.[)L.[).,...-('Y)o:::::to:::::tM NNN Nt-t-t-t-.,.....N N.,...-N('Y)('Y)(\J r--r--r--r--COCOCOCOLDcDCOtDNMMN ~mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm ~z:enz:enz:enz:enz:enz:enz:enz:en 0> .!: wID ~~ men co co 0> ."5 -0 ~a: LD ~ N r-- ~r::::1 a a a a ~~I co co 0> 0> C C Q)~~ C o ~ z: -a -a <( ::2: 0... :2: <C >- :!:::::: >. (/) ro a; ;;;: >-'" .c ~ :::J 0... 0> 0 C :+:::i .,...- 0 ~ -aZ: -a <( :2: 0.... 1-0 0- <C€ o ::J - 0 "'.c E-", ::J '" ~~ ~~ .coo -'" C') ~6 c. '" 0:5 ;; .~ - Q) a .~ ~ '" .s ~ ~ '-' - 0 "'c. E~ '" 0 ",c. E>' ::J.Cl 0-0 > c 1-'" ~~ Q)~ co; ":;., "'C g-E ::;~ E 5 >,.c .Cl -'" "'Cffi:..... ~ c..9 en ~ ~ 2~; ~ ~.~ ~ a~ c.~ E<(~'a3 1-0Q;l"'C Cl C"") C."::; <(000 Q.)N+-,a... ~ E€~ ccE::::::::lC",) O~~03 C""JQ;l":::':::c. O":::':::("Ij_ N("IjQ.)C,. E +-' c...c:::: a~~S;- ~:a...o CQ.)ooO ~ E~C't .rs~ON ~ ~ C'C.~ :~~~ Q,)"'C:.....- E c. a..c:::: -5~~~ ~~-g-E ~ :!:: "C >. aJ S ~~ oO..:::.:::("Ij C""JC""J("Ijo. OOQ.)("Ij N N 0.0 a M d:. en t5 -, LD ~ '" '" o z: Q) - ru ""C a. ::) c ..!!! 0.... ru ..... Q) C Q) Cl Q) ..c - ..... o e$ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ !:: Q., ~ .:::; ;::: :-s. 'OS ~ V:l ~~ ~ f::; ~ ,,,; .~ v ~ :::: ~ ~ ;::: 'OS ~ ~ S ;::: ~ Q., ........ ~ '" ;::: (5 - :J o :Q :J ..c Q) ..c - >- ..c ""C Q) - CJ :m ru Q) ..c :Q :J ~ (/) - C Q) E Ol Q) (/) >- ~ Q) Q) ..... ..... ..... o ..... Q) ..c E :J C ru ..Q1 ..c ru - Ol C ""C Q) CJ ~ a. Q) ..c - '" a a "1 E o ..... ..... c Q) Q) (/) Q) ..c c ru CJ ~ -~ ~ ~ CJ';> ~~ .~ 11 ;::: ":!- ;::: ,...., ~ '" Q., '" ~~ 5. Environmental Analysis GP IMPACT 5.14-2: GENERAL PLAN RELATED TRIP GENERATION IN COMBINATION WITH EXISTING AND PROPOSED CUMULATIVE DEVELOPMENT WOULD RESULT IN DESIGNATED INTERSECTIONS, ROAD AND/OR HIGHWAYS EXCEEDING COUNTY CONGESTION MANAGEMENT AGENCY SERVICE STANDARDS. [THRESHOLD T-2J Impact Analysis: The CMP intersections and roadway segments have been noted in GP Impact 5.14-1. Table 5.14-8 indicates that only one CMP intersection would not meet an acceptable LOS of E or better: Waterman Avenue @ SR-30 EB ramps. Table 5.14-9 indicates that one CMP roadway segment (Pepper Avenue between 1-10 and Foothill) would function at an unacceptable LOS F and several freeway segments would function at an unacceptable LOS F as indicated in Table 5.14-10. GP IMPACT 5.14-3: THE PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN WOULD NOT CHANGE AIR TRAFFIC PATTERNS THAT WOULD RESULT IN SUBSTANTIAL SAFETY RISKS. [THRESHOLD T-3J Impact Analysis: As discussed in Section 5.8, Land Use and Planning, the proposed General Plan will incorporate the Airport Master Plan and the Comprehensive Land Use Plan (CLUP) for the San Bernardino International Airport (SBIA). Please note that as of the writing of this report, the CLUP for SBIAA were in the process of being prepared and the Airport was operating under an Interim Airport Operating Plan. As a consequence, the precise noise contours and safety zones were not available. However, relative policies have been included in the General Plan. In addition, the Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan for the SBIA was not available for use in this Plan. Upon adoption of the Airport Master Plan and CLUP, the new noise and safety zones will be incorporated into the General Plan and the Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan analyzed for relative information. GP IMPACT 5.14-4: PROJECT CIRCULATION IMPROVEMENTS HAVE BEEN DESIGNED TO ADEQUATELY ADDRESS POTENTIALLY HAZARDOUS CONDITIONS (SHARP CURVES, ETC), POTENTIAL CONFLICTING USES, AND EMERGENCY ACCESS. [THRESHOLDS T-4 AND T-5J Impact Analysis: The proposed Circulation Element of the General Plan includes several changes in roadway classifications and alignments. These changes are intended to address issues of capacity, access, and safety and are detailed in Appendix F. With one exception (Harrison Parkway), the changes to the General Plan circulation system are only depicted at a policy level to show classification and general alignment. When the roadways are designed, they will comply with City and/or Caltrans standards for design, sight lines, access, speeds, and emergency access. GP IMPACT 5.15-5: ADEQUATE PARKING WOULD BE PROVIDED WITH IMPLEMENTATION OF THE GENERAL PLAN UPDATE. [THRESHOLD T-6J Impact Analysis: The proposed General Plan update does not fundamentally change the current land use patterns but does encourage improvement in quality of life which may include revitalization of some areas and the introduction of infill development. It also stresses pedestrian friendly development with use of mass transit which could reduce the need for abundant parking. The General Plan update includes goals and polices to achieve balance between parking and demand. New developments would be required to provide adequate parking to meet the parking demand generated. General Plan Policies and Programs Land Use Element Proposed General Plan policies related to the provision/accommodation of alternative transportation options: General Plan Update and Associated Specific Plans EIR City of San Bernardino . Page 5.14-27 5. Environmental Analysis Policy 2.2.5: Establish and maintain an ongoing liaison with Caltrans, the railroads, and other agencies to help minimize impacts and improve aesthetics of their facilities and operations; including possible noise walls, berms, limitation on hours and types of operations, landscaped setbacks and decorative walls along its periphery. Proposed General Plan policies related to general circulation issues: Policy 2.3.6: Circulation system improvements shall continue to be pursued that facilitate connectivity across freeway and rail corridors. Policy 2.3.7: Improvements shall be made to transportation corridors that promote physical connectivity and reflect consistently high aesthetic values. Policy 2.7.4: Reserve lands for the continuation and expansion of public streets and highways in accordance with the Master Plan of Highways. Proposed General Plan policies related to air traffic: Policy 2.9.1: Require that all new development be consistent with the adopted Comprehensive Land Use Plan for the San Bernardino International Airport and ensure that no structures or activities encroach upon or adversely affect the use of navigable airspace. Policy 2.9.2: Refer any adoption or amendment of this General Plan, specific plan, zoning ordinance, or building regulation within the planning boundary of the adopted Comprehensive Airport Master Plan for the SBIA to the airport authority as provided by the Airport Land Use Law. Policy 2.9.3: Limit the type of development, population density, maximum site coverage, and height of structures as specified in the applicable safety zones in the Comprehensive Land Use Plan for the SBIA and as shown on Figure LU-4. Policy 2.9.4: Limit the development of sensitive land uses (e.g., residential, hospitals, schools) within the 65 decibel (dB) Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) contour, as shown on Figure LU-4. Policy 2.9.5: Ensure that the height of structures do not impact navigable airspace, as defined in the Comprehensive Land Use Plan for the SBIA. Policy 2.9.6: As required by State Law for real estate transactions within the Airport Influence Area, as shown on Figure LU-4, require notification/disclosure statements to alert potential buyers and tenants of the presence of and potential impacts from the San Bernardino International Airport. Circulation Element Proposed General Plan policies related to design of roadways, safety, and the elimination/mitigation of impacts: Policy 6.3.3: Require that all City streets be constructed in accordance with the Circulation Plan (Figure C-2) and the standards established by the Development Services Director. Policy 6.3.4: Require appropriate right-of-way dedications of all new developments to facilitate construction of roadways shown on the Circulation Plan. Policy 6.3.5: Limit direct access from adjacent private properties to arterials to maintain an efficient and desirable quality of traffic flow. Page 5.14-28 . The Planning Center july 2005 5. Environmental Analysis Policy 6.3.6: Locate new development and their access points in such a way that traffic is not encouraged to utilize local residential streets and alleys. Policy 6.3. 7: Require that adequate access be provided to all developments in the City including secondary access to facilitate emergency access and egress Proposed General Plan policies related to mass transit and rail: Policy 6.6.1: Support the efforts of regional, state, and federal agencies to provide additional local and express bus service in the City. Policy 6.6.2: Create a partnership with Omnitrans to identify public transportation infrastructure needs that improve mobility. Policy 6.6.3: In cooperation with Omnitrans, require new development to provide transit facilities, such as bus shelters and turnouts, as necessary and warranted by the scale of the development. Policy 6.6.4: Ensure accessibility to public transportation for seniors and persons with disabilities. Policy 6.6.5: In cooperation with Omnitrans, explore methods to improve the use, speed, and efficiency for transit services. These methods might include dedicated or priority lanes/signals, reduced parking standards for selected core areas, and incorporating Intelligent Transportation System architecture. Policy 6.6.6: Support and encourage the provision of a range of paratransit opportunities to complement bus and rail service for specialized transit needs. Policy 6.6.7 Encourage measures that will reduce the number of vehicle-miles traveled during peak periods, including the following examples of these types of measures: . Incentives for car-pooling and vanpooling. . Preferential parking for car-pools and vanpools. . Conveniently located bus stops with shelters. . An adequate, safe, and interconnected system of pedestrian and bicycle paths Policy 6.6.8: Promote the use of car-pools and van pools by providing safe, convenient park-and-ride facilities. Policy 6.7.1: Accommodate railroad services that allow for the movement of people and goods while minimizing their impact on adjacent land uses. Policy 6. 7.2: Coordinate with SAN BAG , SCAG, the County and other regional, state or federal agencies and the railroads regarding plans for the provision of passenger, commuter, and high-speed rail service. Policy 6.7.3: Encourage the provision of a buffer between residential land uses and railway facilities and encourage the construction of sound walls or other mitigating noise barriers between railway facilities and adjacent land uses. Policy 6.7.4: Identify existing and future high volume at-grade railroad crossings and pursue available sources of funding (e.g., California Public Utilities Commission) to implement grade separations where appropriate. General Plan policies relating to parking: General Plan Update and Associated Specific Plans EIR City of San Bernardino . Page 5.14-29 5. Environmental Analysis Policy 6.9. 1: Ensure that developments provide an adequate supply of parking to meet the needs, on-site or within close proximity to the developments generating the demand for parking. Policy 6.9.2: Study the parking standards in the Development Code to determine if they accurately reflect demand and if adequate flexibility is available to accommodate certain situations, such as shared parking, senior housing, or transit oriented developments. Policy 6.9.3: Require that all new developments provide adequate parking to meet their parking demands on-site or in consolidated parking facilities within close proximity to their site, except for developments within the Central City Parking District. Policy 6.9.4: Continue to expand the supply of public parking in off-street parking facilities in downtown San Bernardino. Policy 6.9.5: Continue to provide an in-lieu parking fee option for developments in the downtown area to satisfy all or part of their parking requirement through the payment of an in-lieu fee which will be utilized to provide parking in consolidated public parking facilities. Policy 6.9.6: Require that new developments submit a parking demand analysis to the City Engineer for review and approval whenever a proposal is made to provide less than the full code requirement of parking for each individual land use on-site at the proposed development. Policy 6.9. 7: Consider all concepts relating to joint use, shared parking, and off-peak demand to maximize the utilization of existing and proposed parking in the Central Business District. Policy 6.9.8: Develop parking and traffic control plans for those neighborhoods adversely impacted by spillover parking and traffic. 5.14.3.2 Arrowhead Springs Specific Plan The traffic analysis for the Arrowhead Springs Specific Plan was calculated for two phases of development. Phase one was assumed to be completed by the year 2007, prior to construction of the secondary access shown on figures as (Arrowhead Springs) Village Parkway or improvements to Harrison Boulevard. Until construction of Village Parkway, traffic to/from Arrowhead Springs would use the existing external circulation network by accessing the development from SR-18. Within Arrowhead Springs, site-specific roadway and intersection improvements would be completed based on project-related impacts expected with Phase one traffic volumes. Therefore, roadway and intersection traffic analysis was conducted separately for Phase one development and the 2030 build-out development, which includes completion of Village Parkway. This analysis is very conservative in that development included in Phase I for the traffic analysis would in fact take longer than the year 2007. AHS IMPACT 5.15-1: PROJECT-RELATED TRIP GENERATION WOULD IMPACT LEVELS OF SERVICE FOR THE EXISTING AREA ROADWAY SYSTEM. [THRESHOLD T-1J Impact Analysis: At build-out, the Arrowhead Springs Specific Plan is expected to generate approximately 24,412 new vehicular trips per day on an average weekday, of which approximately 1,329 trips would be during the AM commuter peak hour (one hour between 7 a.m. and 9 a.m.) and 2,075 trips will be during the PM commuter peak hour (one hour between 4:00 p.m. and 6:00 p.m.). These estimates are based on the proposed land uses for the Arrowhead Springs development and trip generation rates for these land uses published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE, 2004) and other applicable trip generation data and information. Table 5.14-11 shows traffic generation estimates for the Arrowhead Springs development. Page 5.14-30 . The Planning Center july 2005 .~ '-l .Q ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ '"", ;;::. ~ ~ .... c: CI) e go - .... ~ :::s C1)O Q,:, en:::: o,:::S c:D3 .i:: .... Q.<.l ::: CI) .!l!. I "0 0 ~1lI~ ~CI)"" 1l)0I::::: CI) ~ ~ :Q 0 III ~ "0 t-;q:C: )..q: .Q- c: ~ o III :::01: ea. C1).... c: III CI) (,!J .s. .: 11\ Co) ~ ~ !-;; ~ Ql ~~::a:: ..\c~- ~ Ql Q.. ~ ~ ..... ~ !-;; ~ Ql ~~::a:: ..\c~- ~ Ql Q.. ~ '=:t: ~ ..... ~ !-;; ::o.,Ql ~~::a:: l:::l-- Ql~ t:n ~ ~ '=:t: "'- .l!!~ &!~ ~ ?f2. :0:: 'r;; Q ~ Q C,.) Co) ~ ~ !-;; ~- ,~ ~ C'.) '- ~ c cf2, cf2, cf2, cf2, cf2, cf2, cf2, cf2, ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~rn~~~~ ~ ~ ~M~ cf2, cf2, cf2, cf2, cf2, ~~~~~~~ID~~~~~~~~OO~~ - ~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~g '- ~ C cf2, cf2, cf2,~cf2, cf2, cf2, ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~~rn~~~~~~~OO cf2,,..-cf2, ~LO~ - ~ ~ M~~ cf2,,..-cf2,f'-.,.oo:::J"~ CONCO "'-r--... ;:::cf2, cf2, cf2,C"') ..... ~ LO ~ N ~ ,..- r--... r--... ~LOC"') LO ,..- LO LO r--... 6~6~6~~~6~~6~6~6rn6N '- ~ C cf2,Ncf2,ocf2,LOcf2,C"')cf2,rn~cf2, '2f2,LO'2f2, '2f2,N ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~ LO f'-.., LO o::::t LO 00 LO f'-.., LO N o::::t LO LO LO ...... ............ - ~ ~ ~~80ID~~~~rnoo~8~o~=~~ OO~OO~~~~~~~~LO~rn~rn' C"')~ ~o~o~o~o~o a:>a:>a:>a:>a:> ?f!- a a ~ Ql ~ '- '" -'" U :::J .= o<l '" ffi u E E MOU")OU") 0>0.,...-000:::J .,.....a:.,.....a:NO ~ Q C,.) ~ - ~ Ql ~ "t:I r:::: ~ -...j i< S~ ~~ -", l'CI $: c..o (I)""ffi_ "'CI Cl 0 CCC":I l'CI:::JC":I l:D - a:;:::Q) ooax ::I:.......:::I:w cd 5 ..ci ~ ......0,....<( ?f!- a a ~ ?f!- a a ~ ?f!- a a ~ ?f!- """ C') '" -'" U :::J .= o<l '" ffi u '" -'" U :::J .= o<l '" ffi u '" -'" U :::J .= o<l '" ffi u '" D.. ~ >- l:D , '" '" '" 0... f"- CD ~ u.... "<Ten M C!:l - - ~ ",,,, ~~u; ~g =.8 co 0 co 0 -g1i5NOO _:c16NO-ic" en ~ --en .~ N ~ Q) g- ~Q)E-g.,...--~..c .g!5E~i<~~ ~ ..c Q ~ a:; C') :s (..) ~ t.:) ~ g-.~ .8 cU 0 .ci 0 ..c c..- C')1-C":IC!:lUenI '" -'" U :::J ~ .= ~ ~ ID ffi z: u ~o~o~o~o a:>a:>a:>a:> ?f!- a a ~ ?f!- a a ~ ?f!- a a ~ '" -'" U :::J .= o<l '" ffi u '" -'" U :::J .= o<l '" ffi u 0> 0> 0 cnUo:::::t:::JN:::JO:::::) .,...-c:(NO.,.....OMO s C":I ::!.. 0> ~ = Q U s s ..... ..... ~ ~ II> II> 0> 0> E E Q Q ::J: ::J: Q).J::Q).J:: ca5ca~ C;;zC;;cn w w c'Ci ~ c'Ci ~ Lna:coa: - Ci c:l o:i- ~~~~~g~~~ cf2,LOcf2, cf2, cf2,rncf2, f'-..,LOC""JC""Jf'-..,C""JooLOoo COT"""o::::tCOT"""COo::::tC""Jo::::t o::::tNrnf'-..,rnC""Jo::::toof'-.., 6~6~::~~~~ cf2,f'-..,cf2, C') <n 00 00 ~ N ;:::cf2,f'-..,cf2,ocf2, ..... ~ o::::t ~ 00 ~ ~N~Og;~cf2,COcf2, T"""C""Jf'-..,ooooC""Jco~co """m"- oo::::r:oo~ a~a COoC""JCOLO I..C':!rnqo~ T"""T"""C""JT"""NO cf2,~cf2,8cf2,~cf2,~cf2, ~~-~~-~~-~~-~ cf2,~cf2,8cf2,~cf2,~cf2, ~~-~~-~~-~~-~ ~~-~~-~~-~~-~ LONooNT"""No::::tooT""" ~o~o~o~o~ a:>a:>a:>a:>a: ?f!- a a ~ ?f!- a a ~ '" -'" U :::J .= o<l '" ffi u '" -'" U :::J .= o<l '" ffi u E 0> 00 N:::JOO "<TOMa: c:;- Ln ~ Cl c 'ii; = Q ::J: ..c: t o z: .. en ~~- N"---O -"'C":I QO>C":I "'CIE- c 0 Q..c: ~ ~ Ln I- ... Q 'c 0> en ..c:i co ?f!- a a ~ '" -'" U :::J .= o<l '" ffi u Ql 'E ::J:w r..:I ?f!- a a ~ ?f!- a a ~ '" -'" U :::J .= o<l '" ffi u '" -'" U :::J .= o<l '" ffi u o o o ~~ N C!:l o o o g~ N C!:l s ..... t:.- O> ~ o cci - ~'" ~g eo (ijg .~ N Q)g ~~ Q 0> U Cl .'" ~5 e$ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ !:: Q., ~ .:::; ;::: :-s. 'OS ~ V:l ~~ ~ f::; ~ ,,,; .~ v ~ :::: ~ ~ ;::: 'OS ~ ~ S ;::: ~ Q., ........ ~ '" ;::: (5 ?f!- """ C') '" D.. ~ >- l:D , '" '" '" 0... - ~ ;::: CJ ~ ..... ;::: ;::: ~ Q., '" h '" a a "1 ~ ~ ...., . ,...., <Y) I ":!- ,...., '" '" ~ Q., .~ '-l .Q ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ '"", ;;::. ~ ~ 11\ .... c: CI) e go - .... ~ :::s C1)O Q,:, en:::: o,:::S c:D3 .i:: .... Q.<.l ::: CI) .!l!. I "0 0 ~1lI~ ~CI)"" 1l)0I::::: CI) ~ ~ :Q 0 III ~ "0 t-;q:C: )..q: .Q- c: ~ o III :::01: ea. C1).... c: III CI) (,!J .s. .: Co) ~ ~ !-;; ~ Ql ~~::a:: ..\c~- ~ Ql Q.. ~ ......Nf'-...cf2,r--...'2f2. cf2,rn 5~~~-q-~f'-..,~-q- Nr--...cf2, cf2, cf2,orn NC""Jf'-..,COLOo::::tf'-..,ON T"""NCOO>COT"""COT"""f'-... - .s~~~~~ ~No::::toT"""O - rno~~' N~~~_~ S r--... C"') cf2, r--... cf2, o::::t cf2, r--...;S;, ONLO~rn~,..-~COSfI.r). ~ ..... ~ !-;; ~ Ql ~~::a:: ..\c~- ~ Ql Q.. ~ '=:t: ~ ..... ~ !-;; ::o.,Ql ~~::a:: l:::l-- Ql~ t:n ~ ~ '=:t: cf2, cf2, cf2, 0 ~~~~~M~CO~ - .sOCOo::::tf'-..,T"""f'-.., CO ~f'-..~6;:6T"""6-r- ......~~cf2,rncf2,o::::tcf2,o 5 ::-~-~r:::~;:~~ ~~cf2,rncf2,o::::tcf2,o o::::tooof'-...OT"""OO T"""-N-LOf'-...LO LOG> ~~~~~-~~~~-~-~ ~N-<n<n, OO~~N "'- ~~ 0 &! ~ > ~ ?f2. :0:: 'r;; Q-- ~ Q C,.) Ql ~~ ~ !-;; ~- ,~ ~ C'.) ~ Q C,.) ~ - ~ Ql ~ "t:I r:::: ~ -...j ~o~o~o a:>a:>a:> cf2, cf2, cf2, o 0 0 o 0 0 ~ ~ ~ '" c. ~ '" z: '" '" '" -'" -'" -'" '-' '-' '-' ::J ::J ::J .= .= .= o(j o(j o(j '" ~ o '" ~ o o o CD au.... co::::) o::::t::::) oC/) NOMONC!) S N ~ S II> "" C 'E ~...::::.:::Q)...::::.:::~ oc;j Ec;j = -gsis~ QIDQ.WQ) U Cl c:c Cl c:: . ro ro. al5~5~ '" ~ o ~ ..... C":I e .. ~ ~c:: ~i 0... z!c U <(: 5J= ~~ EtLiti:i ~:S~Z -0<( .!::: b P Sl-F- ~ ~ 'C '" ..c:: '-' ~ '" Cl .2:"- 'E ro u.. ..92 C> e: U5 II o N '" '" ::J o ..c:: e: ;s: o I:::: o 'C e: o o II o C') N e$ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ !:: Q., ~ .:::; ;::: :-s. 'OS ~ V:l ~~ ~ f::; ~ ,,,; .~ v ~ :::: ~ ~ ;::: 'OS ~ ~ s ;::: ~ Q., ........ ~ '" ;::: (5 gj ~ ~ ~ B e: '" E t:: oj c. <( II o N N '" '-' ~ o II o r:::: ~- 5 ~- 5 .;....- e: ~ ::J ~ '" '" cc 2 -;;; ::J o II cry 00 C> e: 'on ::J o ::c ::; 'c '" en II C') <n N '" ~ ::J o o - a (!) II o C') .". a; o ::c t:: o '" '" cc'" II ~ 0::;) C')'C C')e: .. ~-~ '" - C> -5 ~.~ cot:: 'U3- Ol"X ",e:UJ -g "8: II 00 e;t5~- ::;) II ~ -go~ oj NO --' 00 ::c - ~ ;::: CJ ~ ..... ;::: ;::: ~ Q., '" h '" a a "1 ~ ~ ...., . "1 <Y) I ":!- ,...., '" '" ~ Q., 5. Environmental Analysis Figure 5.14-2 illustrates the distribution of traffic from the project and how traffic disperses at any given intersection after the construction of Village Parkway. Appendix H of Volume III contains specific information on the number trips dispersed along these roadways. Table 5.14-12 shows the results of roadway LOS analysis with and without Phase one development by 2007. Table 5.14-12 2007 Average Daily Traffic (ADT) Volumes and LOS on Roadways Within the Arrowhead Springs Study Area 2007 W/O Project 2007 With Project Conditions Conditions Capacity, Volume, Volume, Diff. in No. of Veh/Day Veh/Day V/C Veh/Day V/C V/C by Roadways Facility Type Lanes (C) (V) Ratio LOS (V) Ratio LOS Project Highway 18 NjD Waterman Major Arterial 4 40,000 20,730 0.518 A 27,474 0.687 B 0.169 Avenue Waterman Avenue SjO Major Arterial 4 40,000 18,544 0.464 A 23,789 0.595 A 0.131 40th Street Waterman Avenue NjO Major Arterial 4 40,000 22,918 0.573 A 28,163 0.704 B 0.131 30th Street 40th Street EjD Waterman Major Arterial 4 40,000 10,962 0.274 A 11,711 0.293 A 0.019 Avenue Harrison Street SjD Secondary 2 12,000 1,037 0.086 A 1,412 0.118 A 0.031 40th Street Arterial Sterling Avenue SjD Major Arterial 2 15,000 1,631 0.109 A 2,006 0.134 A 0.025 Foothill Drive Valencia Avenue SjD Secondary 2 12,000 4,439 0.370 A 4,439 0.370 A 0.000 40th Street Arterial Valencia Avenue NjD Secondary 2 12,000 4,666 0.389 A 4,666 0.389 A 0.000 30th Street Arterial Note: A 2% per year traffic growth factor was assumed through year 2025 due to normal traffic growth in the area. The 2% yearly growth rate assumption was made per discussion with City staff. Bold typeface indicates CMP roadway. General Plan Update and Associated Specific Plans EIR City of San Bernardino . Page 5.14-33 5. Environmental Analysis This page intentionally left blank. Page 5.14-34 . The Planning Center july 2005 5. Environmental Analysis Arrowhead Springs Trip Distribution ARROWHEAD SPRINGS DEVELOPMENT TRIP DISTRIBUTION PERCENTAGES WITH PROJECT+EXPRESSWAY AT BUILD-OUT 50/0 850/0 100/0 400/0 1 00/0 ~ NOT TO SCALE [IJ San Bernardino General Plan Update and Associated Specific Plans EIR The Planning Center · Figure 5.14-2 5. Environmental Analysis This page intentionally left blank. Page 5.14-36 . The Planning Center july 2005 5. Environmental Analysis Table 5.14-13 below shows the results of intersection LOS analysis with and without Phase one development by 2007. Table 5.14-13 Intersection Level of Service Summary (Future 2007 Conditions With and Without Project Phase I) Peak 2007 Conditions Without Project 2007 Conditions With Phase I Intersection Hour LOS Delay V/C LOS Delay V/C Waterman Avenue at 40th Street AM C 26.8 0.670 C 26.5 0.677 PM C 25.2 0.528 C 26.0 0.599 Waterman Avenue at Parkdale Drive AM B 11.2 0.641 B 11.0 0.693 PM B 11.7 0.543 B 11.2 0.604 Waterman Avenue at 36th Street AM E 45.1 - F 64.9 - (Unsignalized) PM D 26.9 - E 43.7 - Waterman Avenue at 34th Street AM F 81.1 - A 1.3 - (Unsignalized) PM F 55.9 - F 73.6 - Waterman Avenue at Marshall AM A 3.4 0.544 A 3.5 0.586 Boulevard PM A 4.2 0.486 A 4.1 0.547 Waterman Avenue at 30th Street AM C 29.0 0.843 C 30.7 0.885 PM C 24.2 0.693 C 24.8 0.725 Valencia Avenue at 40th Street AM - - - B 12.3 0.460 PM - - - C 19.0 0.653 Village Parkway at 40th Street AM NA - - C 21.5 0.335 PM NA - - C 20.2 0.493 Harrison Street at 40th Street AM B 12.8 - B 13.0 - (Unsignalized) PM B 14.4 - B 14.7 - Del Rosa Avenue at Foothill Boulevard AM B 11.9 - B 12.1 - (Unsignalized) PM B 12.3 - B 12.5 - Sterling Avenue at Foothill Boulevard AM A 7.9 0.176 A 7.9 0.179 PM A 8.0 0.149 A 8.1 0.154 Valencia Avenue at 30th Street AM - - - B 14.9 0.54 PM - - - B 15.0 0.280 Del Rosa Avenue at Lynwood Drive AM B 15.1 0.308 B 15.1 0.310 PM B 14.2 0.374 B- 14.1 0.377 Sterling Avenue at Lynwood Drive AM B 14.1 0.509 B 14.0 0.545 PM B 12.6 0.437 B 14.2 0.513 30th Street at Lynwood Drive AM B 12.4 - B 12.4 - (Unsignalized) PM A 7.5 - A 7.5 - The following intersections are expected to be impacted by Phase I Project related traffic: . Waterman Avenue and 36th Street . Waterman Avenue and 34th Street General Plan Update and Associated Specific Plans EIR City of San Bernardino . Page 5.14-37 5. Environmental Analysis Table 5.14-14 shows the results of roadway LOS analysis with and without Project build-out by 2030. 2030 W/O Project 2030 With Project Conditions Conditions Capacity, Volume, Volume, Diff. in No. of Veh/Day Veh/Day V/C Veh/Day V/C V/C by Roadways Facility Type Lanes (C) (V) Ratio LOS (V) Ratio LOS Project 40th Street EjD Waterman Major Arterial 4 40,000 17,908 0.448 A 19,129 0.478 A 0.031 Avenue Harrison Street SjD Secondary 2 12,000 0 0.000 A NA NA NA NA 40th Street Arterial Harrison Parkway (40th Street to 30th Street with Major Arterial 4 40,000 NA NA NA 18,309 0.458 A 0.458 improvements) Highway 18 NjD Waterman Major Arterial 4 40,000 24,062 0.602 A 25,283 0.632 B 0.031 Avenue Village Parkway Major Arterial 4 40,000 0 0.000 A 20,750 0.519 A 0.519 Sterling Avenue SjD Major Arterial 2 15,000 2,166 0.144 A 3,387 0.226 A 0.081 Foothill Drive Waterman Avenue NjO Major Arterial 4 40,000 24,062 0.602 A 24,062 0.602 A 0.000 30th Street Waterman Avenue SjO Major Arterial 4 40,000 24,062 0.602 A 24,062 0.602 A 0.000 40th Street Valencia Avenue NjD Secondary 2 12,000 5,039 0.420 A 6,259 0.522 A 0.102 30th Street Arterial Valencia Avenue SjD Secondary 2 12,000 4,794 0.399 A 6,015 0.501 A 0.102 40th Street Arterial Table 5.14-14 2030 Average Daily Traffic (ADT) Volumes and LOS on Roadways in the Arrowhead Springs Study Area Notes: The 2030 condition assumes that Harrison Street improvements have been constructed between 30th Street with 40th Street. The new roadway is projected to attract approximately 70% of existing traffic from Highway 18, 40th Street and Waterman Avenue. CMP roadway segments are shown in bold typeface. The project generated traffic is assumed to be distributed as follows: 15% to and from Highway 18 north of the site, 5% to and from 40th Street west of Waterman Avenue, 70% to and from SR-30 using the new roadway connecting 30th Street with 40th Street, and 10% to and from 40th Street east of the new roadway connecting the site with 40th Street. Without new roadway, project traffic will be distributed 75% to the west on 40th Street and 10% to the east on 40th Street (using Harrison Street, Del Rosa Avenue or Sterling Avenue). Page 5.14-38 . The Planning Center july 2005 5. Environmental Analysis Table 5.14-15 shows the results of intersection LOS analysis with and without Project build-out by 2030. Table 5.14-15 Intersection Level of Service Summary (Build-out 2030 Conditions With and Without Project) Peak 2030 Base Conditions 2030 Base + Project Conditions Intersection Hour LOS Delay V/C LOS Delay V/C 30th Street at Lynwood Orive AM A 9.7 - 0 25.8 - (Unsignalized) PM B 11.5 - F 185.3 - Village Parkway at 40th Street AM NA - - C 22.4 0.784 PM NA - - F 143.5 1.271 Oel Rosa Avenue at Foothill AM B 14.8 - C 15.7 - Boulevard (Unsignalized) PM C 17.5 - C 20.2 - Oel Rosa Avenue at Lynwood Orive AM B 16.6 0.558 B 16.5 0.564 PM B 12.7 0.612 B 12.6 0.623 Harrison Street (Harrison Parkway) at AM 0 26.6 - F Overflow - 40th Street (Unsignalized) PM F Overflow - F Overflow - Sterling Avenue at Foothill Boulevard AM A 8.1 0.245 A 8.2 0.253 PM B 10.2 0.419 B 10.4 0.436 Sterling Avenue at Lynwood Orive AM B 11.2 0.366 B 11.2 0.372 PM C 20.0 0.775 C 20.5 0.781 Waterman Avenue at 30th Street AM F 138.9 1.215 F 115.6 1.222 PM F 96.5 1.180 F 88.8 1.200 Waterman Avenue at 34th Street AM 0 26.7 - 0 27.5 - (Unsignalized) PM F 110.6 - F 125.2 - Waterman Avenue at 36th Street AM F 54.8 - F 58.4 - (Unsignalized) PM F 87.5 - F 99.1 - Waterman Avenue at 40th Street AM C 28.5 0.820 C 30.8 0.856 PM 0 42.9 0.982 0 51.5 1.033 Waterman Avenue at Marshall AM A 4.6 0.626 A 4.6 0.633 Boulevard PM A 5.0 0.633 A 5.0 0.644 Waterman Avenue at Parkdale Orive AM A 3.7 0.553 A 3.7 0.559 PM A 5.3 0.651 A 5.3 0.662 Valencia Avenue at 40th Street AM C 15.0 0.667 C 17.3 0.731 PM F 72.4 1.129 F 107.1 1.260 Valencia Avenue at 30th Street AM A 1.0 0.137 A 1.4 0.251 PM B 12.7 0.304 A 8.5 0.496 The following intersections are expected to be impacted by the Project related traffic at build-out: . Waterman Avenue and 40th Street . Waterman Avenue and 36th Street . Waterman Avenue and 34th Street . Waterman Avenue and 30th Street . Harrison Parkway and 40th Street . 30th Street and Lynwood Drive . Village Parkway and 40th Street . Valencia Avenue and 40th Street General Plan Update and Associated Specific Plans EIR City of San Bernardino . Page 5.14-39 5. Environmental Analysis AHS IMPACT 5.14-2: ARROWHEAD SPRINGS RELATED TRIP GENERATION IN COMBINATION WITH EXISTING AND PROPOSEDCUMULATIVE DEVELOPMENT WOULD NOT RESULT IN DESIGNATED ROAD AND/OR HIGHWAYS EXCEEDING COUNTY CONGESTION MANAGEMENT AGENCY SERVICE STANDARDS. [THRESHOLD T-2J Impact Analysis: As discussed in impact analysis 5.15-1 above, the CMP roadway segments would meet both the City and County CMP standards for Intersection Level of Service. There are no designated CMP intersections in the Arrowhead Springs Specific Plan study area. AHS IMPACT 5.14-3: THE PROPOSED PROJECT WOULD NOT CHANGE AIR TRAFFIC PATTERNS THAT WOULD RESULT IN SUBSTANTIAL SAFETY RISKS. [THRESHOLD T-3J Impact Analysis: The proposed Arrowhead Springs development does not include structures/features that would impact traffic patterns; and is not located within airport noise or safety zones, nor does it include airports or heliports. The project would not impact or be impacted by air traffic patterns. AHS IMPACT 5.14-4: PROJECT CIRCULATION IMPROVEMENTS HAVE BEEN DESIGNED TO ADEQUATELY ADDRESS POTENTIALLY HAZARDOUS CONDITIONS (SHARP CURVES, ETC), POTENTIAL CONFLICTING USES, AND EMERGENCY ACCESS. [THRESHOLD T-4, T-5J Impact Analysis: The circulation plan for the Arrowhead Springs project would be required to meet the roadway design standards of the City of San Bernardino which would address any potential hazardous conditions. Preliminary consultations with the City regarding the circulation plan and a subsequent alignment study established the need for a secondary emergency access, which became part of the project design (Village Parkway) reducing the potential for hazardous conditions. AHS IMPACT 5.14-5: ADEQUATE PARKING WOULD BE PROVIDED BY THE PROPOSED PROJECT. [THRESHOLD T-6J Impact Analysis: All new development planned for the Arrowhead Springs Specific Plan would be required to meet the parking standards contained in the Municipal Code (Chapter 19.24). These parking standards are reflected in the Development Standards of the specific plan, which will be adopted by ordinance ensuring that adequate parking would be provided for the development. 5.14.4 Existing Regulations and Standard Conditions Portions of Title 12, Streets, Sidewalks and Public Places, and Title 19, Land Use and Subdivision Regulations, Chapter 19.24, Off-Street Parking Standards, would apply to both the General Plan update and the Arrowhead Springs specific Plan. 5.14.5 Level of Significance before Mitigation 5.14.5.1 San Bernardino General Plan Upon implementation of General Plan policies, regulatory requirements, and standard conditions of approval, the following impacts would be less than significant: GP Impact 5.14-3 GP Impact 5.14-4 Page 5.14-40 . The Planning Center july 2005 5. Environmental Analysis GP Impact 5.14-5 Without mitigation, the following impacts would be significant: GP Impact 5.14-1 Twelve intersections were determined to function at an unacceptable LOS of E or worse and 4 roadway segments were determined to function at an unacceptable LOS of D or worse at build-out of the General Plan. Numerous freeway segments would also function at and unacceptable LOS F. GP Impact 5.14-2 One CMP intersection and one CMP roadway segment were determined to function at an unacceptable LOS of F as well as numerous freeway segments. 5.14.5.2 Arrowhead Springs Specific Plan Upon implementation of regulatory requirements, and standard conditions of approval, the following impacts would be less than significant: AHS Impact 5.14.2 AHS Impact 5.14.3 AHS Impact 5.14.4 AHS Impact 5.14.5 Without mitigation, the following impacts would be significant: AHS Impact 5.14.1 Two intersections were determined to be impacted by Phase I traffic and 7 intersections would be impacted by full build-out of the project or by the year 2030. No roadway segments would be impacted after Phase I or full build-out of the project. 5.14.6 Mitigation Measures 5.14.6.1 San Bernardino General Plan GP 5.14-1 Prior to adoption of the General Plan Update the City of San Bernardino shall add the following recommendations to the Circulation Element of the General Plan update: . Signalize the intersection of Meridian Avenue @ Rialto Avenue. With signalization and permitted phasing the intersection will operate at LOS A during both peak hours. . Signalize the intersection of Hunts Lane @ E Street. With signalization and protected phasing, and the addition of one NB left-turn lane the intersection will operate at LOS Band C during the AM and PM peak hours, respectively. . Add an additional westbound right-turn lane at the intersection of Waterman Avenue @ 30th Street. With one additional WB right-turn lane the intersection will operate at LOS D and C during the AM and PM peak hours, respectively. General Plan Update and Associated Specific Plans EIR City of San Bernardino . Page 5.14-41 5. Environmental Analysis . Add an additional northbound right-turn lane at the intersection of Waterman Avenue @ SR-30 EB Ramps. With one additional NB right-turn lane and one additional EB left-turn lane the intersection will operate at LOS D during both peak hours. . Signalize the intersection of SR-30 WB Off-ramp @ 30th Street. With signalization and protected phasing, the intersection will operate at LOS C during both peak hours. . Signalize the intersection of Harrison Street @ 40th Street. With signalization and permitted phasing the intersection will operate at LOS A and C during the AM and PM peak hours, respectively. . Signalize the intersection of Waterman Avenue @ 36th Street. With signalization and permitted phasing the intersection will operate at LOS A and B during the AM and PM peak hours, respectively. . Signalize the intersection of Waterman Avenue @ 34th Street. With signalization and permitted phasing the intersection will operate at LOS A during both peak hours. . Signalize the intersection of Valencia Avenue @ 40th Street. With signalization and permitted phasing the intersection will operate at LOS A during both peak periods. . Add an additional westbound right-turn lane at the intersection of Del Rosa Avenue @ SR-30 WB Ramps. With one additional WB right-turn lane the intersection will operate at LOS Band C during AM and PM peak hours, respectively. . Signalize the intersection of Tippecanoe Avenue @ Rialto Avenue. With signalization and permitted phasing the intersection will operate at LOS A and B during AM and PM peak hours, respectively. . Signalize and add one northbound exclusive left-turn lane and one exclusive northbound right-turn lane at the intersection of Rancho Avenue @ 5th Street/Foothill Road. With signalization and E/W protective phasing, N/S split phasing, one NB exclusive left-turn lane and one NB exclusive right-turn lane the intersection will operate at C and D during AM and PM peak hours, respectively. . Signalize and add one additional through lane in each direction at the intersection of Mount View Avenue @ San Bernardino Road. With signalization, protective phasing and one exclusive left, thru and right-turn lane in each direction, and EB right turn overlap phasing the intersection will operate at LOS C and D during AM and PM peak hours, respectively. GP 5.14-2 The City of San Bernardino shall cooperate with regional transportation agencies toward mitigating impacts to regional transportation facilities by measures such as securing fair share contributions from future projects impacting mainline freeway Page 5.14-42 . The Planning Center july 2005 5. Environmental Analysis segments. Mitigation of impacts to regional transportation facilities would require the following freeway improvements: . 1-10 EB from Jct. 1-21 to Waterman Avenue, add two lanes. . 1-10 WB from Jct. 1-21 to Waterman Avenue, add one lane. . 1-10 EB and WB from Waterman Avenue to Tippecanoe Avenue, add two lanes each direction. . 1-10 EB and WB from Tippecanoe to Mountain View, add two lanes each direction. . SR-30 EB from Highland Avenue to Jct. 1-215, add two lanes. . SR-30 WB from Highland Avenue to Jct. 1-215, add one lane. . SR-30 EB and WB from Jct. 1-215 to H Street, add one lane each direction. . SR-30 EB and WB from H Street to SR-259 add one lane each direction. . SR-30 EB from SR-259 to Waterman Avenue, add one lane. . 1-215 NB and SB from Jct. 1-10 to Orange Show Road, add one lane. . 1-215 NB from Jct. SR 66 to Baseline Street, add three lanes. . 1-215 SB from Jct. SR 66 to Baseline Street, add two lanes. . 1-215 NB and SB from Jct. SR 66 to University Parkway, add one lane. 5.14.6.2 Arrowhead Springs Specific Plan AHS 5.14-1A Prior to issuance of occupancy permits the project applicant shall be required to complete or bond for the costs of engineering and construction of the following project related traffic improvements or equivalent for Phase I (as detailed in the traffic study) impacts of 2007: . Waterman Avenue @ 36th Street. Install signalization with permitted phasing. . Waterman Avenue @ 34th Street. Install signalization with permitted phasing. AHS 5.14-1 B Prior to issuance of occupancy permits for Phase II (as detailed in the traffic study) and all phases thereafter the project applicant shall be required to complete or bond for the costs of engineering and construction of the following project related traffic improvements or equivalent for impacts due to full build-out of the project: General Plan Update and Associated Specific Plans EIR City of San Bernardino . Page 5.14-43 5. Environmental Analysis . Waterman Avenue @ 30th Street. Install protected phasing and one addi- tional WB right-turn lane, and one additional SB right-turn lane, both with overlap right-turn phasing. . Harrison Parkway (new) @ 40th Street. Install signalization, permitted phasing and two NB left-turn lanes, one NB right-turn lane, an exclusive EB right-turn lane and an exclusive WB left-turn lane . Waterman Avenue @ 36th Street. Install signalization and permitted phasing. . 30th Street @ Lynwood Drive. Reconfigure intersection to align with new Harrison Parkway and install signal. . Waterman Avenue @ 40th Street. Add an exclusive right-turn lane in each direction and westbound right-turn overlap phasing. . Waterman Avenue @ 34th Street. Install signal and permitted phasing. . Village Parkway @ 40th Street. Install signal with protected EW phasing and the intersection configuration of; two SB left-turn lanes, one SB right- turn lane, two EB thru-lanes, one EB left-turn lane, two WB thru-lanes and one WB right-turn lane. 5.14.7 Level of Significance After Mitigation 5.14.7.1 San Bernardino General Plan Although the mitigation measures listed above would mitigate GP Impact 5.14-1, the following impact would remain significant: . GP Impact 5.14-2 While potential impacts to the freeway mainline segments and ramps have been evaluated and mitigation measures suggested to reduce impacts, improvements to the freeway system are the responsibility of the existing regional transportation agencies and not the City of San Bernardino. Without the authority to implement the mitigation measures, the impact to freeway segments would remain significant and unavoidable requiring a statement of overriding considerations. 5.14.7.2 Arrowhead Springs Specific Plan The mitigation measures identified above would reduce potential impacts associated with transportation and traffic to a level that is less than significant. Therefore, no significant unavoidable adverse impacts relating to transportation and traffic have been identified. Table 5.14-16 shows the results of intersection LOS analysis before and after mitigation measures for the year 2007. Page 5.14-44 . The Planning Center july 2005 5. Environmental Analysis Table 5.14-16 Before and After Mitigation Level of Service Summary 2007 Conditions Peak Conditions Before Mitigation Conditions After Mitigation Intersection Hour LOS Delay V/C LOS Delay V/C Waterman Avenue at 36th Street AM F 64.9 - A 3.8 0.572 PM E 43.7 - B 3.4 0.501 Waterman Avenue at 34th Street AM A 1.3 - A 3.3 0.569 PM F 73.6 - A 3.3 0.517 Note: Only those intersections operating at unacceptable LOS D, E or F were Mitigated per CMP guidelines. Table 5.14-17 shows the results of intersection LOS analysis before and after above mitigation measures. Table 5.14-17 Before and After Mitigation Level of Service Summary 2030 Conditions Peak Conditions Before Mitigation Conditions After Mitigation Intersection Hour LOS Delay V/C LOS Delay V/C Waterman Avenue at 40th Street AM C 30.8 0.856 C 27.1 0.764 PM 0 51.5 1.033 C 32.1 0.881 Waterman Avenue at 36th Street AM F 58.4 - A 3.4 0.537 PM F 99.1 - B 11.4 0.782 Waterman Avenue at 34th Street AM 0 27.5 - A 2.8 0.544 PM F 125.2 - A 3.5 0.610 Waterman Avenue at 30th Street AM F 115.6 1.222 0 51.7 0.928 PM F 88.8 1.200 0 38.9 0.912 Village Parkway at 40th Street AM C 22.4 0.784 B 15.5 0.503 PM F 143.5 1.271 C 21.7 0.7 47 Harrison Parkway at 40th Street AM F Overflow - B 14.8 0.607 PM F Overflow - C 28.7 0.907 30th Street at Lynwood Orive AM 0 25.8 - A 8.9 - (Unsignalized) PM F 185.3 - C 19.0 - Note: Only those intersections operating at unacceptable LOS D, E or F were Mitigated per CMP guidelines. General Plan Update and Associated Specific Plans EIR City of San Bernardino . Page 5.14-45 5. Environmental Analysis This page intentionally left blank. Page 5.14-46 . The Planning Center july 2005