The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About30-Public Works '. CITY. OF SAN BERNARDINO - -J. :late: 12-23-96 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION File No. 1. 7013 :. Sub' . Approval of Plans & Authorization l~t.to Advertise for Bids - Rehabili- tation of Pavenent on Tippecanoe Avenue, fron Route I-lO to Hospitality Lane, per Plan No. 9459 From: ROGER G. HARDGRAVE Dept: Public Works/Engineering Synopsis of Previous Council action: June, 1995 Allocation of $195,000, in SB 300 Fund 1995/96 approved. June, 1996 - Supplenental funns in the anount of $60,000 allocated in SB 300 Fund, 1996/97 Budget. June, 1996 Allocation of $195,000 in 1996/97 Storn Drain Con.. struction Fund Budget approved. i ,U..iN. .;r,'IilM, 1996 - Allocation of $150,500 in 1996/97 Traffic Systems Fee Construction Fur.d, for modifying traffic signals to provide protected/pernissive left turn novements, \6 J!\N 97 ;]; 4. approved. (Continued on Page 2 of Staff Report) 'lecommended motion: 1. That the plans for rehabilitation of pavenent and installation of a curbed median on Tippecanoe Avenue, from Route I-lO to Hospitality Lane, in accordance with Plan No. 9459, be approved; and the Director of Public Works/City Engineer be authorized to advertise for bids. or That the plans for rehabilitation of pavement and installation of a curbed nedian (between Route I.lO and Rosewood Dr.) on Tippecanoe Avenue, from Route I..lO to Hospitality Lane, in accordance ,,,ith Plan No. 9459, be approved; and the Director of Public Harks/City Engineer be authorized to advertise for ~ ~ . Fred Ililson ~ ~ Barbara Pachon Signature Jin Pennan 2 . cc: ::ontact person: Roqer. G. Hardq::-ave Phone: 5025 5upporting data attached: Staff Report Ward: 1 & 3 (SB 300, Storn Drain Const., Traffic =UNDING REQUIREMENTS: Amount:$6l0. 000 Sy<;t"f'M Const. & Street Lighting Funds) 126-360-5504-7057, l3l-372-5504~70l3, 248-368-5504-7013, Source: IAcct. No.) 250-370-5504-7076 & 257"601-5704 Avenue, Route I-lO to Hospitality Lane (Acct. DescriPtion) Pavenent Rehabilitation "Tippecanoe Finance: ::ouncil Notes: "5-0262 1-27-97 1/J-7/97 . Agenda Item No 3D C:ITY OF SAN BERNARDINO - REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION STAFF REPORT Page 1 of 2 Plans for rehabilitation of the paveMent, and inst~llation of street improveMents, on Tippecanoe Avenue, fron Route I-10 to Hospitality Lane. have been conp1eted. and the project is ready to be advertised for bids. The project consists, in general, of rehabilitating the pavenent, installing a curbed Median with landscaping and irrigation facilities, street lights and a storm drain system. Parking will be pro- hibited, in order to allow 3 traffic lanes to be provided in each direction. Below is an estimate of the total project cost: Construction Contract Engineering & Inspection (W.O. #7013) Water Meter Fees (l-inch) Sub-Total Contingencies (10%)t TOTAL ESTIMATED PROJECT COST $ 536,168 15,000 5,985 $ 557,153 52,847 $ 610,000 Funds have been allocated, as set forth below, to finance the costs that will be incurred for this project. Account No. 126-360-5504-7057 1996/97 Budget $ 75,000 Account no. 131-372-5504-7013 1995/96 Budget $ 195,000 1996/97 Budget 60,000 Account No. 248-368-5504-7013 1996/97 $ 195,000 Account No. 250-370-5504-7076 1996/97 $ 40,000 Account No. 257-601-5704 1996/97 $ 45,000 TOTAL AVAILABLE FUNDS - $ 610,000 We recomnend that the plans be approved and authorization granted to advertise for bids. Sone businesses have objected to curbed nedian, due to the resultant loss of particular at Rosewood Drive. An alternate installation of the left-turn access, in approach could be to 12-19-96 5.0264 " .CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO - REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION ' - -. STAFF REPORT Page 2 of 2 delete the curbed median from this project, except for between Route I-IO and Rosewood Drive. Below is an estimate of the total alternate project cost: Construction Contract Engineering & Inspection (W.O. #7013) Water Meter Fee (lo-inch) Sub-Total Contingencies (15%)t TOTAL ESTIMATED PROJECT COST $ 483,023 15,000 5,985 $ 504,008 75,992 $ 580,000 If it is desired to proceed with the alternate project, Forn Motion No. 2 should be adopted. SYNOPSIS OF PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTIOn, (Continued) June, 1996 - Allocation of $100,000 for installation of approved. in A.D. #994, 1996/97 Budget addi tional street lights, 11-18"96 - Approval of plans and authorization to advertise for bids continued to 1-27--97. 12-19-96 .5-0264 '.... ~ . clrrv OF SAN BERNARDINO - REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION File No. 1. 7013 From: ROGER G. HARDGRAVE S b' . Approval of Plans & Authorization u Ject. to Advertise for Bids - Rehabili- tation of Pavement on Tippecanoe Avenue, froM Route 1-10 to Hospitality Lane, per Plan No. 9459 Dept: Public Works Date: 10-24-96 Synopsis of Previous Council action: Allocation of $195,000, in SB 300 Fund 1995/96 approved. Supplemental funds in the amount of $60,000 allocated in SB 300 Fund, 1996/97 Budget. Allocation of $195,000 in 1996/97 Storm Drain Con-' struction Fund Budget approved. Allocation of $150,500 in 1996/97 Traffic SysteMS Fee Construction Fund, for Modifying traffic signals to provide protected/permissive left turn Movements, approved. June, 1996 .. Allocation of $100,000 in A.D. #994, 1996/97 Budget for installation of additional street lights, approved. June, 1995 - June, 1996 - June, 1996 - June, 1996 - Recommended motion: That the plans for rehabilitation of pavement and installation of street improvenents on Tippecanoe Avenue, from Route 1-10 to Hospitality Lane, in accordance with Plan Ho. 9459, be approved; and the Director of Public Works/City Engineer be authorized to advertise for bids. cc: Shauna Clark Barbara Pachon Jin Pennan OA~ Signature - Contact person: Roger G. Hardgrave Phone: 5025 Supporting data attached: Staff Report Ward: 1 & 3 (SB 300, Storn Drain Const., Traffic FUNDING REQUIREMENTS: Amount: $610 , 000 Svsten Const. & Street Lighting Funds) 126-360-5504-7057, 131-372-5504-7013, 248-368-5504-7013, Source: (Acct. No.) 250--370-5504--7076 & 257-601-5704 Acct. Descri tion eca:lOe Avenue, Route 1-10 to Hospitalitv Lane Finance' , Council Notes: r.l u -< .~ I" o r"\,1 '" II /;y-- ht,r / , #/tJ Previously Ol t,i //~7h/ . I 30 Agenda Item No._ 75-0262 o :;~ ... O!! Cl ~ * .... B ~ . .... .: CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO - REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION STAFF REPORT Plans for rehabilitation of the paveMent, and installation of street improveMents, on Tippecanoe Avenue, froM Route 1-10 to Hospitality Lane, have been cOMpleted, and the project is ready to be advertised for bids. The project consists, in general, of rehabilitating the paveMent, installing a curbed median with landscaping and irrigation facilities, street lights and a City monUMent sign. Parking will be prohibited, in order to allow 3 traffic lanes to be provided in each direction. A section of the curbed median north and south of Laurelwood Drive, will not be installed by this project so that left turn access can be retained for 3 major businesses. Below is an estimate of the total project cost: Construction Contract Engineering & Inspection (W.O. #7013) Water Meter Fees (l-inch) Sub-Total Contingencies (10%)! TOTAL ESTIMATED PROJECT COST $ 536,168 15,000 5,985 $ 557,153 52,847 $ 610,000 Funds have been allocated, as set forth below, to finance the costs that will be incurred for this project. Account No. 126-360-5504-7057 1996/97 Budget $ 75,000 Account No. 131-372-5504-7013 1995/96 Budget $ 195,000 1996/97 Budget 60,000 Account No. 248-368-5504-7013 1996/97 $ 195,000 Account No. 250-370-5504-7076 1996/97 $ 40,000 Account No. 257-601-5704 1996/97 $ 45,000 TOTAL AVAILABLE FUNDS - $ 610,000 We recoMmend that the plans be approved and authorization granted to advertise for bids. 10-24-96 75-0264 ,. ( ~ CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and Common Council '" FROM: Henry Empeiio, Jr., Deputy City Attorney DATE: January 22, 1997 RE: Council Meeting on January 27, 1997 Rehabilitation of Pavement on Tippecanoe Avenue This item was continued from the November 18, 1996 Council Meeting in part because the City Attorney advised that this project was not in compliance with State law requirements under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) [Public Resources Code Section 21000, et ~.]. Although the Development and Environmental Review Committee on November 14, 1996, voted to clear this project to the Council with a recommendation to adopt the proposed Negative Declaration, the proposed Negative Declaration was not placed before the Council at the November 18,1996 meeting. Prior to the January 27, 1997 Council Meeting, the Mayor and Council must be given copies of the Initial Study, the Comments and Response to Comments, and the proposed Negative Declaration. Any motion of the Council which approves the plans for Rehabilitation of Pavement on Tippecanoe Avenue must include language which adopts the Negative Declaration. ~E~. HENRYEMPENO, JR., Deputy City Attorney / /d-.7 i!7 by ~. -'? 1/. ~ . A d It a q v'..3 0 James F. Penman, City Attorney re gen a em Roger Hardgrave, Director of Public Works/City Engine~~ ~ City Clerk/CDC Secy City of San Bernardino Entered into Record 8t Council/CmyDevCms Mtg: cc: HE Jc[R<:hilh mc:m] #Z,Cf ~30 , , . ~Ii 0ffi. m~ \.AM. {JJJ.) ~:f ~ ) 11-1 !f11 !,I\.S I ~NS~INEERING, INC. /?[COVED'-CfT't' (' SPECIALIZING IN SiTci[-~~VELOPMENT '17 JAN 27 A17 :37 PAGE 1 OF 2 CIVIL ENGINEERS AND LAND SURVEYORS JANUARY 17, 1997 MA YOR TOM MINOR AND MEMBERS OF THE SAN BERNARDlNO COMMON COUNCIL CITY OF SAN BERNARDlNO 300 NORTH "D" STREET SAN BERNARDlNO, CA 92418 RE: PROPOSED RAISED MEDIAN ON TIPPECANOE AVENUE NORTH OF THE 1-1 0 FREEWAY Dear Mayor and Common Council: We are the professional civil engineering firm used by In-N-Out Burger and have been consulting with them regarding the City proposed raised median project in front ofth,eir store since September oflast year. Based on the results of our findings, it is our strong recommendation that you vote in favor of the second staff recommended alternative motion as outlined in the undated request for Council action submitted by Roger Hardgrave. We received a copy of this request from Roger on January 6 after our meeting with Roger, Phil Arvizo, Henry Empeno, Thrifty Oil, Shell and In-N-Out Burger. The second staff recommended alternative motion is to approve Plan No. 9459 for the rehabilitation of pavement (and the installation of a 50 foot long raised curbed median between Route 1-10 and Rosewood Drive) on Tippecanoe A venue from Route 1-10 to Hospitality Lane and to authorize for the advertisement of bids. Please fmd attached to this letter a copy of our proposed median and striping plan dated January 17, 1997 reflecting the design that would be acceptable to In-N-Ont Burger. The proposed 50 foot long raised tapered median is to allow for the installation of City signage and landscaping as discussed at our January 6 meeting. The recommended shortened median appears to be the only logical alternative based on the December 12, 1996 decision by the major projects task force of the San Bernardino Associated Governments (SANBAG) as reported by the Inland Empire Sun in their December 13 issue. SANBAG voted to earmark $4,000,000 for the preparation of new design plans for three interchanges, one of which is at Tippecanoe A venue and Route 1-10, Until these design plans, with a full enviromnental study and review, have been completed, it would be short sided and fiscally irresponsible to construct the initially proposed full length raised landscaped median on Tippecanoe A venue in which a good portion may need to be removed once the design plans have heen completed, Who knows, the ramp system at Tippecanoe A venue may end up being reconfIgured with a cloverleaf design or a ramp separation similar to what was done at Carnegie Drive and Waterman Avenue, Weare all interested in improving public heath and safety and providing the most efficient means of traffic movements. This is why we are in opposition to a raised landscaped median on Tippecanoe Avenue with no opening at Rosewood Drive. If the SANBAG commissioned interchange design plans maintain the current ramp alignment, then we would recommend that the raised landscaped median be continued northward but that an opening and a four-way signal be installed at both Rosewood Drive and at Laurelwood Drive similar to the December 26, 1996 plan attached to this letter. This solution maintains important access for various existing businesses (In-N-Ont Burger, Thrifty Oil, Shell, Best Buy, Sportsmart, Sam's Club, etc.) and future retail development of the surrounding land. It also provides an efficient operational solution for redirecting the current queue length of vehicles traveling eastbound on Rosewood Drive trying to turn southbound at Tippecanoe Avenue and vehicles traveling northbound on Tippecanoe Avenue trying to turn westbound at Rosewood Drive. #~ 402 w. ARROW HWY, SUITE 4 . SAN DIMAS, CA 91773 . PHONE 909_305.2395 . FAX 909 305.2397 /27/?7 !\/\.S I ~NS~INEERING, INC. CIVIL ENGINEERS AND LAND SURVEYORS SPECIALIZING IN SITE DEVELOPMENT JANUARY 17, 1997 PAGE20F2 The last issue I wanted to point out is that we disagree with the above mentioned staff report submitted by Roger Hardgrave with respect to the cost savings between the two alternatives. The original City glans called for 1310 feet oflandscaped median to be constructed at an approximate cost we estimate to be $8 ,000. Our recommended alternative calls for 50 feet of landscaped median to be constructed at an approximate cost we estimate to be $3,000. Using a consistent ten percent contingency factor, we estimate a total saving of approximately $85,000 versus the $30,000 saved as stated in the staff report. We appreciate your thoughtful attention to this matter and urge you to vote for the shortened median alternative. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact me either before or during the January 27, 1997 hearing on this subject. Sincerely, MSL ENGfliIfERJNy, INe. PlMl ){~.",.-u.1i1 Mark S. Lamoureux President, PE, PLS cc: Rachel Clark, City Clerk Phil Arvizo, Administrative Assistant to the Common Council Lorraine Velarde, Assistant to the Mayor Henry Empeno, Deputy City Attorney Roger Hardgrave, City Director of Public Works, City Engineer Fred Encinas, In-N-Out Burger Director of Real Estate Donald E. Bollinger, c/o Nichols, Stead, Boileau and Kostoff Attorneys at Law Cynthia Ludvigsen, Attorney at Law Steve Sasaki, PE, WPA Traffic Engineering, Inc. Pete Stratz, Shell Oil Products Company David Rose, Thrifty Oil Company 402 w_ ARROW HWY, SUITE 4. SAN DIMAS, CA 91773. PHONE 909.305.2395. FAX 909.305.2397 ,tl.Zll l~ lLO ,fl <;. z z l? l? tl u V> W '" iQ ~ ~ 8 0 N W ::; N ~ i !.2 !.2 V> V> !f W <= '" !!l i? ~ iO 8<E1 ~ . '" .~ g O00M13l:In\f1 3Nl:lCl g 'E N ~ '''I.l~,ll,'ll,110 ,ll I . ~ .ll ,D' ,lt " I I I I ,go> ,Z; ,0 "' '" ~ 0 u l I I f~ ~ 0 I~ m W ~ ,tL ,Z~ ,ll ,I o ,ll,B '" u all NW V> '" <i. '" " ~~ 'I :i' m V> "- I '" ~ '" N '" '" I '" g'E '" N '" ... g'E OOOM3sot:J 3t\I:ICl 'in Co ~ 'N N- ,I '" t::~ CD ~u !51 c.:>~c.:> C,) ~~;!; ~g; ":i~ ~oo .6 O~~ ~~~ ~"'~ "'~!.2 "-~V> ,0 ,fl-,l ~ S3IH9'^ ,lL-,6 S3IHV^ ~ ,vL-,Z~ S31~^ ,ft ,Zl ,lL,L ~ --- aI ii. ..r "- !i l!i . ~ ~ f 5 .V>", ><"~ ~~ ~-.~o; i~h~~ o .~~~g ct:II'lZ .~,., <:.:;l..J1:0_ ~1~s~! (5 I 8 'J: ~o ~I-<(o o~z 0:: wo....~ ~da~w ~zlf~~ 0....~8;2~ ~~+o::::> l'J)a:~~oo QQ<(~ . ~~b5~~ z15ou.o ~~I-~S! WZ~I-\l! ::!fficofrl~ QCDZlt>- ~~~~~ ~u.b5oz 0::0 1-<( 0.... co "") . ~.....Q~ o~~l:( <:t~ tilO:: W 115 W ~ W Nnoe ).SJ"' '(t.v - -:lll~ Ol-\ ", > ~ ~ '" .. '" nee ).SJ"' ~o Q~ \-\ d'(t...'t\~..tt.11~~ 0 '" "' "' '" I '" ~ ~g C,) :so; W ~a:::o:< ~I~~~~ Lo,.~CDlD!i otH-~o.. ,,'..,.~~ m :;: m ~~: ~ I s~ 0 ,9 L L 0 ,fL z - ;.. Z 0 ~ - ON 0 " z N!! N " '" 0 W " '" '" ~O~ ~ g OOOM13l:lnYl w '" '" '" w w '" ~ '" '" w ~ '" N ~I ~ w ~ ~ \ " ~ \ " w W N " I N Oi w 9 ::; Z N ~ " ::; t, 0 " ,LULQ ," " v; ~ I ,9 v; " Q ,6 '" " w I '" w z " [i; C- '" I " 0 ~ x '" " IX> w C- ~ '" eB~ " I '" IX> I " ~B ," 0; I I I wx "'w I ,5' ,<5 ,OS I I ~1 0 ~ 0 ~ '" w ~ fl OL l L L ~ : .. ,LL 0 ,Zl 6 '" ~ '" III . 0 <-> oc :r oc h '" C- I .. oc '" N N g '" I "'- N N "'!! g~ '" -g ~ OOOM3SOl:l 0 3NI:KJ;n ic ~ N N- 8~n:) M3N III ~ ~ ,0 5 ,9 0 0 " L L L L 0 ,liL-,n S31~1''t'^ IX> \'<~ Ii'" 1:'1:5 ,LI-,6 S31ijVA B~lnO NaN --- ..noe JS3'" '<I - l:l~ 0\.-1 ", JS3'" 0",,\'\09 \ d~~::~"l~~ 0\- Ii. '" c- !i i5 ~ v; w w eo '" " 0.. ,Vll"") _U ...... ~~~~ ~ciIO'lLl"! =>2 -en i!iiW3;'.l :!jwcr .! ~~~8 ",,,!foOl!'" 'if.::w:W>O_ g:i~~~~ ~ a:: o ~@5 a::~~ ~~O O~Z ZI-O <<w ~~6 zlf w a..w 000 ~~~ Q~~ It<~ ~ ~ < w !;( ~ '" w ~ i:i '" '" ill ~ '" o J, '" wO o z~ t3 SO; w 9:f5f5< Oc.:>ClU ~~~~~ ~~,,~ ~ Iii '" ~*-~ . I I\/\.S I ~~~INEERING, INC. tI',:{;i!lV9-Clrr CLE~t< SPECIALIZING IN SITE DEVELOPMENT 'fJ1 JNf 'l7 All :33 CIVIL ENGINEERS AND LAND SURVEYORS JANUARY 24, 1997 PAGE 1 OF2 MAYOR TOM MlNOR AND MEMBERS OF TIffi SAN BERNARDINO COMMON COUNCIL CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO 300 NORTH "D" STREET SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92418 RE: PROPOSED RAISED MEDIAN ON TIPPECANOE AVENUE NORTH OF TIffi 1-10 FREEWAY Dear Mayor and Common Council: We are the professional civil engineering firm used by In-N-Out Burger and have been consulting with them regarding the City proposed raised median project in front of their store since September oflast year. We obtained a copy of the City proposed 50 foot long raised median option (your Motion No.2 on Agenda Item No. 30 at your January 27,1997 public hearing) via fax late yesterday. We had to request this information from Roger Hardgrave -- it was not given to us earlier as per our original arrangement. A copy of this plan with their corresponding construction notes is attached to this letter for reference. This option does not solve any of our concerns at outlined in my January 17 letter to you for the following reasons: 1. The proposed striping is at the same alignment as the originally proposed raised median option. The striping only provides a protected width of 8 feet at Rosewood Drive. Vehicles will not have enough room to make left hand turns at Rosewood Drive or at any of the affected business driveways from Tippecanoe Avenue. A minimum painted pocket width of 11 feet is required with revised lane striping closely matching our proposed median and striping plan dated January 17, 1997, that I gave to you earlier. 2. Construction notes 1 and 2 for the installation of the full length raised median up to Laurelwood Drive, and probably beyond up to Hospitality Lane, still remain on this "shortened 50 foot long median" option as presented to you by Roger. 3. The proposed Type "H" pavement markers at 24 feet on center, Construction Note 1 0, for the center protected turning lane are an improper use of striping and markers. These markers were to be installed only in conjunction with the City's future raised median option which we are in strong opposition. Striped left turn pockets should be installed with a revised through lane layout per my referenced January 17 plan in order to provide the needed left turn movements. 4. The proposed 50 foot long raised median by the City does not include a taper transition for north-bound vehicles who want to turn left at Rosewood Drive. This will significantly reduce the storage capacity for these vehicles wanting to turn left by at least 40 feet or 2 cars. .J/- 31) 402 W. ARROW HWY, SUITE 4 . SAN DIMAS. CA 91773 . PHONE 909.305.2395 . FAX 909.3052397 ;P~/f7 I\/\S I ~NS~INEERING, INC. CIVIL ENGINEERS AND LAND SURVEYORS SPECIALIZING IN SITE DEVELOPMENT JA~ARY24, 1997 PAGE 2 OF 2 We appreciate your thoughtful attention to this matter and apologize for the lateness of this letter. Unfortunately, it was beyond our control. We urge you to vote for the shortened median alternative (modified Motion No.2) as proposed by our January 17, 1997 median and striping plan (see attached) and not the version presented by City staff. You of course have the option of not installing any raised median at all and just restripe the street per our attached January 17, 1997 median and striping plan. We are very frustrated at this apparent last ditch effort by Roger to install a shortened median that looks like we can maintain left turn movements but in actually prohibits them from occurring. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact me either before or during the January 27, 1997 hearing on this subject. Sincerely, MSL ENGINEERING, INe. pz~J~~y Mark S. Lamoureux President, PE, PLS cc: Rachel Clark, City Clerk Phil Arvizo, Administrative Assistant to the Common Council Lorraine Velarde, Assistant to the Mayor Henry Empeno, Deputy City Attorney Roger Hardgrave, City Director of Public Works, City Engineer Fred Encinas, In-N-Out Burger Director of Real Estate Donald E. Bollinger, c/o Nichols, Stead, Boileau and Kostoff Attorneys at Law Cynthia Ludvigsen, Attorney at Law Steve Sasaki, PE, WPA Traffic Engineering, Inc. Pete Stratz, Shell Oil Products Company David Rose, Thrifty Oil Company 402 w. ARROW HWY, SUITE 4. SAN DIMAS, CA 91773. PHONE 909.305 2395. FAX 909.305.2397 . ----- JAN-23-'0~ THU 14:22 ID: 11513 PO::!. TEL NO: 1909-384-5155 7 Ii ~I .- .Ii \\ '\ \S~ ~ " \ tl ~ \ \ ~I! I ~el! r;-\\. ---.,,,,, ~ J ~3~""'" . \r--'-'- -/. ~trJ.~1~ . .....u.~ t.. .1" , '=-t-~- -1-- 'I--___=:-::._ =t~".:!; --__ , .. I . - '-=l. -'" t"\I~~' \\'""' \ "j 1'''J/ \ I , :" l\ \ { / ai \\\ \ \\r \\ \~, \ \\ \ \\ ~ \~ \ \~ \ \\ \~, \ \\\ \ 8 9 NlITI'I I'IlOTlCT" "-AClI PlITM 1IW'F1C .1tIIM. ~ 1111"111' cuu , "'"Ell ~ ...- - i . .' :.Ai\ .~-.....,.. - Ola".. ~ IlllITTPo .", ".17110 __.....CT. .. TO IXfITM _ .... TJ ~I !; I! Ii I. .~ Ii 1l!J .1 _, - JAN-23-'0,l THU 14:22 !D': t 10 TEL NO: 1909-384-5155 11513 PQ5 II I 2: I . - i - I, I. I . I. ~ wrlG ....... ..--. .. . .uno -- ~~-- ~~~...,... I I: c Ill. LI. e; . ..,.- :@) ~. ~ -Ikg-- - .,", .. . -..J - .. -, ~....- . -, '. - - - ::I: -.... -- - I I ~ . eunlAo J D.T. CUIII . IU' - I' I' l I ,- . ,. ....n I! 'T.~' . i. I 'I I I' I II I, . . ;. .. II I' I . 't- . R = il . e e ~ TIPPECANOE ~:-- JAN-23-'~1 THU 14:23 lD: 10 II TEL NO:1909-384-5155 ~513 P06 12 - :> :> ./ J SCALE I - l I I. . -I I e ,I ,. .1 ~ MrLI"~ Iii <<.u-- ~ ..,... -. ..'... - ....... _ _ __....-.-~l rw - , I 10.00' tj II · II' .'1' · I III e I jl )1 . , _0" . ~ -I-~~ -: ~--~ ;-~ 1IP_ f _,. ....._ , _ .J>' .. _ ...... -- - ! I GUlf'" l1li J I . Iln'TllI - I' Ii I. I Ii Ii. ~ I I- i al t:. Iii Ii I' II i' .. I it . . a. I. .1 I, .I . . .- . 51 . il II I~ c ; e 10 TIPPECANOE ',- JAN-23-'01 THU 14:20 ID': TEL NO: 1909-384-5155 11513 P02 . (j}- 'AW ClIT AND/OR "IMOVE IXISTING A.Co PAVEMOT AHDIO" CC>>I(MTI. eON'TAUCT ".e.e. eUIt. ,.rlt CITY .TANDAltD NO. tOO. TV'. - A -. <V- CONaTRUCT A.,HAL T RUBlER HOT MIX I AAHM-GG I 01' AUtfAl. T CONCltITE PAVEMENT OVERLAY ,.r" TV,.,CAl. .rCTIOWPAVING Of TAIL. COlJ) MILL DISTING A.C. "AVDt!NT ,.0 TYPII:Al srCTIOlIIIJtAV/fIIG DlTAL <i>- NTAl.L "OADtlor 'IGN. ON 'INGLE "01.1 Hit efT'\' ITANGA"D NO. .04 AND "l. TAANlIT MlDARO. AD.lUlT .IWEIl MANHOU f"A.' ANO COVER' TO OADE. (i).- AD.IUIT "ATilt VAl.VE COVIIt. TO O"ADI. CONITRUCT P.c..c:.ClIlII AN) GUTTER PER CoITY fTAK"1IIO ND.IIOO, TYPE-.-. @-c:oNITRUCT p.c..c:. SIDEWALK lIP CITY ITNfWfD NO. tot, CAlI - A-. INSTALL TRAFFIC 1.00,. OfTECTORS PER CAL TRANS STANDARD. @-- INSTALL NIW PULL lOX NO. 3 lit PIIt eAL TRAN' 'TANDARD. INSTALL NIVf r "IGID CONlUIT AN) COfMeT TO DISTING PW. 8O)C.NMOVE PIITING CONIllJCTClM AKJ IH8TALL CONDUCTOM AI tHOWN ON THlPLM ~ ~ IITII.ITY M~ FRAMU AKJ COVERS TO GIWlI FlY cmua. <e> INSTAl.L ROADSIDE SIGNS ON T~ EXISTING OR NEW STRUT LIGHT POLE. @- CONSTRUCT CATCH IASIN NO. t PER CITY STANDARD NO. 404. @ eONSTIlUCT CATCH IA'IN NO.3 ,.EIt CITY IlANDARD NO. 4011. @-- COIIITltUCT LOCAL DlP"lsaION PE" CITY .TAHDARD NO. 407, TYPE L CONSTRUCT LOCAL DIP"IIIIOIII pr" CITY 'TANDARO NO. 407, TVP' t. @>-- INlTAI.L II. OIAMlTIR REINFORCED C~ITI PIPE llSOo.D L @) INSTAl.1. 3.- OIAMiTiR "IINrORClD COHCltITI 1'11'1 /1710-0 J. @- CONITRUCT COfICCTION CW 'IN TO CATCH IAIIN NR CITY ITNW~ NO. 41<<' @) CONSTRUCT ......01.1 NO. t P'" CITY "ANOARD NO. 41~. <i> @ @ (i) i) Qi) @ -- JAN-23-'01 THU 14:21 ID': TEL NO: 1909-384-5155 11513 P03 STRIPING AND PAVEMENT MARIC~RS : 0-- IHlTALL II" 10L,I) WH'TE LINE eROIIWALIe W'TH" 10' INSIDE W'DT"" (!) INlT ALL II" 10L'D YELLOW CtII"ftON AI IHOWN ON THI PLAH. (!}-- INlTALL ... .01lD WHITEl.". AI SHOWN ON THI 'UN. @ IHlTAI.L nR"'NG '.R CiAL TRANI ITANDAIlD PUN AtOA, DETAIL ,I. (!}- INSTALL 'TR"'NG PER CALTRANI .TANDAQ PUN .110.1, DlTA.L 3IC W'TH 1tA1I10 PAVEMENT MARICI'" TV'. " G .. AT 'I' 0.'- ANO T.,'I .. A .. AT 1.10' O.C. . @ IHITALL .TRIPING PER CALTRA" ITAND~I) 'UN AIOD, DIlAIL It. 0- IN.TALL ITI'''"INO ..fit CALT"AN' 'TANOARO ,LAN Aloa. OETA'I. 11. <!) IHlTALL 'T"''''NG PiR CAL TRAN' 'TANO~D f"l.AN AtOA, DETAIL .. @- 'NSTALL ITR"'NG PIR CAL TRANI 'lANOARD 'LAN .110', DETAIL It. @ INSTALl RAI8ED 'AVEMENT MARKER T'rPE .. H" I ONl-WAY YE\.I.OW RE'UCTIVII EVE".... 14' ON CENTIR CALTRAJIIITANDARD 'UN A20' , HI TV'ICiAI. HeTION I. @-- IHlTALl PAVIMENT MARKING ARROW TY'E ,V 'L/R' 'II' CiAL TRAHI ITAHOARD PLAN AI4A. @) 'NlTALt. 'AVEMENT MARKING ARROW T'rPE VI 'E" CAlTRANI ITAND~D PLAN AI4.. @- IN.TAI.L 'AVEMENT MARK'NG ARROW TYPE , PER CALTRAN' 'TANGAAO PLAN AI4A. @ IHaTAU 'AVDdNT MARK'NG .RA'LROAD CRO.IING SYMIOL" PIR CAL TRAN' IT AHOARD PUN AI4C. @- INlTALL 'AVEMENT MARKING RA'LROAI) CIIOSSI"G aAR PER CAL TRANI TRA'FlC MANUAL 'IGU"IS 1-44 AND '-45. @ INlTALL .TRIPING 'ER CALTRAN' STANDARD PLAN AtOe. DETAIL 171. ~ lNITAU. ... .OllD WHITE L1Ni AI SHOWN ON THE PUN. @ '''T~L PAVIMIHT MARKING. 'RaWA'" otI.Y" PER CALTRANl8TNG~~. @- ,...,.AU. Ir IOlID WHITE CHlVAOfI AI SHOWN ON T" PLAN. z z S 0 u t ~ lQ w V> ~ '" ~ Ie ~ 0 0 ~ N ~ ::J N ~ ~ '" V> '" V> !f ~ ~ '" i2 x 2 ~ @<lQ] ~1 0 ~ 0 0> ~ ~ .. u N::i V> 0 U .. '" l % 0> V> .. I .. ~ '" 0 " I '" 0; 0 ,tL ,ZL,L L L L L L 0 .(L " ~ .~ <l: .0 ~ N 3AA:lOb~ '" .:!! ~ OOOMl3l:ln'V'1 N ~ ,'trL ,l~ ,L L L ,L L 0 ,Z: L I ~ '" '" IB .Z, .0' .l' .' I I I I ,S. ,zs .0 '" '" " u l ,tt .ZL.~ L . L all o .Z~ ,6 ~r N b. "':!! ~ ~ ~ 000M3S0l:l N o iil~ iiiO "~,, ~~~ 812~ "'[1;:5 ~oo ~z 0"''' ~ ~O~ offi~ g:~~ ,0 .6 ,rL-,LL 531WA 8~n~ ,i L-,6 S31HVA ,tL-,ZL S31~^ ,n .Z~ ,ZL 1 ,.l --- lid Nnoe 153M. "/ - 0 ~ OL-I ., Ql! IS'''' _,,",0 o,"U'o\.-\ "".'\.....>1> ~ ~ .. "' .. !i ~ . Vi ~ ~ l= '" " a.. .VlP"'l .uz .~ !j- ':0 1:!<i~0>v> i~~il~~ '< L.oJ~C_ .." g rL~~~~e 5 I 8 'J: ~o ~1-<l:O o~z ffi .aB:m o..~a:<l::::i: Ooll.~...J ~~8~~ a::>+a:::I t5~:!~o oO<...Jo ~~t5<l:~ znolf:o <l:ii:I-<l:" i5~f6t5$ ~ffiibt>" omzWC\I W o...J>- ~~~~~ u..t5oz o I"-<l: 0.. co ..., 5~~~ tu a:1 W J: rn ~ ~ ~ i:i '" '" ill '" V> o I tr; ~:g o z~ o :sa; ~ ~f5f5~ ~I,a1a1" :j~~~ ~ I 0> '" :il 0> ~+-: ~.. ~.-. , ":E<t~$!r~ -- '. 1-23-1997 2,31 Ptl FROtl THRIFTY OIL CO. 310 861 9796 P.1 THRIFTY OIL CO. C:I":'\I~D-C'~'( "Lc"" ,'I._v...1 v t. I! v ,-",r VI JAM 23 P 3 :10 Via Facsimile January 23, 1997 Mayor Tom MinOT and Members of the San Bernardino Common Council City of San Bernardino 300 North "0" Street San Bernardino, CA 92418 RE: AGENDA ITEM NO. 30 JANUARY 27, 1997 COMMON COUNCn.. PUBLIC HEARING PROPOSED RAISED MEDIAN ON TIPPECANOE AVENUE Honorable MaYOT Minor and Common Council: In order to best utili~ the time of the Mayor and Council, we would respectfully request that the aforementioned agenda item be heard eaTlieT and out of order at your January 27, 1997 hearing. TheTe will be approximately ten (10) different individuals from several different companies present at the hearing to witness and potentially speak on this item. As such, we believe your time will be better served if this item is heard before its present location on the agenda. Ifl can be of any furtheT assistance, please do not hesitate to contact me at (310) 923-9876 ext. 362. Thank you for your time and consideration in this matter. Very truly yOUTS, David A. Rose ill #30 ;/27/97 10,000 Lakewood Boulevard, Downey, CA 90240-4082 · (310) 923-9876 ,--- 11/14/1936 13:34 . ~ :310-:35'3-'373'3 THRIFTY OIL CO PAGE 82 THRIFTV OIL CO. Van S. Tarver, Senior Vice-President Retail November 14,1996 Ms, Rachel G, Clark City Clerk City of San Bernardino 300 North "D" Street San Bernardino, California 9241 g Fax; (909) 384-;158 RE: NOVEMBER 18. J996 CITY COUNCIL MEETING CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM #10 Dear Ms. Clark: Please allow this letter to serve as Thrifty Oil #345 official request to remove the aforemcntioned item from the council consent calendar and allow public comment to be heard on said item, I have attached a letter detailing our concern with this project. We have not received proper notification of prior meetings, If I can be of any further assistance please contact myself or David ROse, Senior Vice President VST/ns W/IiW'~ #/q, /I//F/?~ 1 , ""=- ,i/ 80 / }z71!-r 1??oo Lakewood Bouleverd, Downey, Cali!omla 90240' (310) 923-9876. (714) 522'3244' Fax: (310) 869-9739 11/14/1995 13:34 . ~ 31rJ-;35'3-9739 THRIFTY OIL CO PAGE 03 THRIFTY OIL CO. Via Facsimile and (1. S Mail October 11, 1996 Michael W Gnlbbs Senior Civil Engineer City of San Bernardino City Halt 300 North "0" Street San Bernardino, CA 92418-000 I RE; PUBLIC WORKS PROJECT NO, 96-01 MEDIAN ISLAND CONSTRUCTION IN TIPPECANOE A VENUE THRIFIT OIL NO. 345 1945 TIPPECANOE A VENUE, SAN BERNARDINO, CALIFORNIA Dear Mr. Grubbs: Please allow this letter to serve as Thrifty Oil Co.'s unequivocal objection to the above-referenced Public Works median project in the City of San Bernardino, California. Thrifty Oil Co. operates an Arco service station and Sunshine Food Store at the above-referenced address. Our preliminary estimates indicate the proposed median project \vill quite literally cur our business and revenue in half; more specifically, Thrifty would sufter a loss of revenue between $75,000.00 and 5100,000.00 per month. Without a doubt this would necessitate Thriftv Oil to terminate and abandon ollr ooeration at this site in the City of San Bernardino. Thrifty is supportive of the City's efforts to provide aesthetic improvements along the City's thoroughfares. However, when said improvements jeopardize the economic well-being of the City's businesses, then there needs to be a serious re-examination ofthe proposed improvements. Thrifty would be more than happy to sit down with the City's statT to discuss various alternatives to the proposed improvements. Please reserve a time for us to speak at the October 17, 1996 Environmental Review Committee hearing. Furthermore, we reserve the right to provide additional testimony in both verbal and written form. 19 10,000 Lakewood Boulevard, Downey, California 90240. (310) 923-9876 . Fax: (310) 869-9739 11/14/1996 13:34 310-86'~-;373'3 THRIFT'I OIL CO PAGE 04 Ifwe can be Dfany further assistance, please feel free to contact myself or David Rose at (310) 923- 9876. Thank you for your time and consideration in this matter. Best regards, THrom ;4- ~ Senior Vice-President cc: Tom Minor, Mayor Betty Dean-Anderson, Councilmember Rita Arias, Council member Fred Curlin, Councilmember Jerry Devlin, Councilmember Norine Miller, Councilmember Edward Negrete, Council member David Oberhelman, Councilmember Shauna Clark, City Administrator Roger Hardgrave, Public WorkslEngineering Director Mike Hays, Planning and Building Services Director Gus Romo, Assistant Planner Vince Le Pore, III, Esq. David Rose '_aw Office of Cynthia"Ludvigsen '97 JAN Z1 All P.O. Box 409 398 W. Fourth Street, Suite #203 San Bernardino, CA 92402-0409 909-885-6820 FAX 909-885-6976 ;:~eWf:fl-CITY C HAND DELIVERED January 23, 1997 City of San Bernardino Edward Negrete, Councilman 300 N. "D" Street San Bernardino, CA 92418-0001 City of San Bernardino Rita Arias, Councilwoman 300 N. "D" Street San Bernardino, CA 92418-0001 City of San Bernardino F.J. Curlin, Councilman 300 N. "D" Street San Bernardino, CA 92418-0001 City of San Bernardino Jerry Devlin, Councilman 300 N. "D" Street San Bernardino, CA 92418-0001 City of San Bernardino David Oberhelman, Councilman 300 N. "D" Street San Bernardino, CA 92418-0001 City of San Bernardino Betty Anderson, Councilwoman 300 N. "D" Street San Bernardino, CA 92418-0001 City of San Bernardino Norine Miller, Councilwoman 300 N. "D" Street San Bernardino, CA 92418-0001 City of San Bernardino Tom Minor, Mayor 300 N. "D" Street San Bernardino, CA 92418-0001 Re: Public works Project 96-01 Ladies & Gentlemen: I represent In-n-Out Burger, drive-through restaurant located Rosewood Drive and Tippecanoe. which owns and operates on the northwest corner the of Since the above matter was last before you in November, 1996, my client has met with representatives of your offices and City staff to discuss the above project. .It :?i' -/P~7 . ~ Ladies & Gentlemen January 23, 1997 Page Two We understand that the Public Works Department, while it still recommends that you approve the above project as originally designed, has also submitted an alternative for your consideration. The alternative includes pavement improvements and a landscaped, raised median from the 1-10 offramps to Rosewood Drive, with striping and left turn lanes from Tippecanoe onto Rosewood. The abbreviated staff report which my client received only briefly mentioned the proposed alternative and did not include a proposed design nor a plat. MSL Engineering, my client civil engineer, has submitted to you, by letter dated January 17, 1997, a proposed design and plan for a shortened median and lane striping. My client supports that design alternative and believes that will satisfy the needs of the businesses at that intersection and the other businesses served by Rosewood Drive. San Bernardino Associated Governments (SANBAG) has commissioned new interchange design plans for the 1-10/Tippecoanoe interchange and we believe the undivided median supported by the Public Works Department is not warranted in light of the fact that the interchange may be significantly altered under the new design. Furthermore, as my client has emphatically said the undivided median has a severe impact on traffic circulation and patterns in this area and is based upon outdated and erroneous assumptions. My client has previously appeared before the City's Traffic Safety Committee, Environmental Review Committee and you regarding this project. 1n-n-Out Burger does respectfully request that its previous letters, and those from me, MSL and WPA Traffic Engineers be made part of the record of Public Works Project 96-01. As the previous correspondence submitted on behalf of my client says, 1n-n-Out believes that the original proposal is not warranted and that the proposed negative declaration for the original, undivided median does not satisfy the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act. My client supports the alternative (a short median from the interchange to Rosewood) in principle. My client would like the opportunity to review and comment upon the design, as the city staff has not proposed one. (The design proposed by my client's engineer implements the proposed alternative and my client supports the use of that design by the City.) ,- Ladies & Gentlemen January 23, 1997 Page Three Thank you for your courtesy and attention to this mater and for the staff resources City departments have devoted to it. My client and I, as well as our civil and traffic engineers, will be available at the January 27, 1997, meeting to answer questions or address other areas of concern. Very truly yours, LAW OFFICE OF CYNTHIA LUDVIGSEN ~ J~'IIlJ'fbn,~.wvt / C~~H~GSEN Q , CL/tr cc: Phil Arvizo Donald Bollinger Rachel Clark Henry Empeno Fred Encinas Roger Hardgrave Mark Lamoreaux David Rose Steve Sasaki Peter Stratz Lorraine Velarde Refer/lnout27.1tr ,,~~- "'"1f'~?~~~''''-''' ,,;,,"'~': ,', ,",--y.:~':_":::-C:::~-'~r<:" Law Office of II ~~thia Ludvigsen .. tIJV 14 '1:52 P.O. Box 409 398 W. Fourth Street, Suite #203 San Bernardino, CA 92402-0409 909-885-6820 FAX 909-885-6976 RECEIVEO.-cm CLERIC' Hand Delivered November 14, 1996 City of San Bernardino Attn: Rachel Clark, City Clerk 300 N. "D" Street San Bernardino, CA 92418-0001 Re: Public Works Project 96-01 Agenda Item No. 10, November 18, 1996 Dear Ms. Clark: I represent In-n-Out Burger, which has appeared before the City's Traffic Safety Advisory Committee and Environmental Review Committee regarding the above project. My client plans to appear at the November 18, 1996, Common Council meeting to address its concerns related to the above project. I have enclosed with this letter copies of my client's civil and traffic engineer reports related to the above projects, as well as copies of the various letters we have sent to the Committees and to staff related to this project, and, in particular, the median strip proposed as part of the project. I ask that the enclosed materials be distributed to the members of the Common Council and to the Mayor and that they be made part of the official record related to this matter. Thank you for your courtesy and cooperation. Very truly yours, CL/tr Encl. cc: Henry Empeno Refer/Burger. 2 LAW OFFICE OF CYNTHIA LUDVIGSEN .'a ~ftr-W\ C HIA LUDVIGSEN I~/~ #-/lJ) /;)0~ j/;go 1~7/17 ~ /{J:::. / - <~ " Wi 9ii9 C ~ p-~ , e-t.A " WPA Traffic Engineerin~~~~ TRAFFIC 80: TRANSPORTA N ENGINEERING ~ MJV'4 P2 :23 November 13, 1996 Mr. Fred Encinas In-N-Out Burger 13502 Hamburger Lane Baldwin Park, CA 91706-5885 SUBJECT: SUMMARY OF TRAFFIC ISSUES - TIPPECANOE/ROSEWOOD Dear Mr. Encinas: This letter report has been prepared as an addendum to our October 16, 1996 and October 30, 1996 correspondence regarding the proposed raised median project on Tippecanoe Avenue. This median project, planned by the City of San Bernardino, would eliminate left turn access to and from Rosewood Drive. Our analyses of this project and potential alternatives include review of vario'us documents, such as the "Staff Report' for the November 13, 1996 Traffic Safety Committee meeting, City responses to written and verbal comments on Project 96-01 (the raised median), the Tri-City traffic study!, and other information pertinent to this project. The following are a summary of pertinent traffic issues related to the proposed median project and justification for extended consideration of alternatives, Many of these issues have been identified in our past letters. These are important traffic factors that warrant a more thorough evaluation prior to continuing with the proposed median project. "TrafFIC Impact Study for Tri--City Corporate Centre Master PIDn"; Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc.; Revised October. 1991. .....~ A"\~ t:'" .t.., n....:.......,. ~..;..... . c: .:._ ~'"'" . f J:"~ r-.\ r'\.....,....,........ -2- A summary of some of the pertinent traffic issues is listed below. . The potential for the installation of a traffic signal at Tippecanoe I Rosewood should not be discounted without full detailed analyses. Our evaluation shows the signal to be a viable option with acceptable operations. (SEE PAST AND PRESENT ANALYSES.) o This arrangement has worked at other locations. (SEE EXAMPLES ATTACHED.) o The intersection meets Caltrans traffic signal warrants. (SEE ATTACHED SHEETS.) o The signalization is shown to mitigate the LOS F conditions described by Staff and referenced in the Tri-City traffic study. (SEE TABLE 1.) o The raised median does not mitigate the actual observed problem of the high southbound through volumes combined with the high eastbound right turn. o Schematic figures show how the signal can be coordinated with the adjacent ramp signal to mitigate some of the existing problems. (SEE FIGURES lA - !D.) . The traffic signal is a viable option which could create a "win-win" type situation for both the City of San Bernardino and the existing businesses. o Existing accesses are maintained for the existing businesses at the corners and also accommodates the existing retail uses at and near Tri-City (i.e. Best Buy, Sportsmart, etc.). WPA TraffIC Engineering, Inc. Job 11961220.add Summary of TraffIC Issues Tippecanoe I Rosewood- CiJyofSan Bernardino -T o By maintaining access at Tippecanoe / Rosewood, the future development options for the vacant parcels surrounding In-N-Out Burger are increased. MORE THAN ONE ACCESS MAY BE REQUIRED TO SUPPORT RETAIL DEVELOPMENT OF TInS AREA. o Mitigates some of the existing traffic problems. -+ The City proposed raised median has the potential to create added impacts at other locations. o Concentrates more traffic at the In-N-Out Burger Tippecanoe Avenue driveway, creating potential back-ups and impacts to Tippecanoe Avenue. o Potential added traffic and impacts to the residential neighborhood of Laurelwood Drive. o A significant amount of Tri-City related traffic appears to be impacted by the raised median. These customers would need to find alternative routes to what is presently their preferred drive. o Does not solve the existing problem of eastbound queues and southbound queues. -+ A long-range study is needed to examine the real future needs and options that are available if this interchange is to serve both the Nortoll redevelopment and development in the immediate area. WPA Traffu: Engineering, Inc. Job 1196)110.add Summary ofTraffu: Issues Tippecanoe / Rosewood- City of San Bernardino -3- -4- o The Tri-City traffic study examined only short-term conditions and is outdated. Existing conditions have changed significantly, the related projects being considered now are significantly different, and due to the short-term type of analyses, the proposed recommendations may not support the potential development planned and/or desired by the City. o The 1-10 interchange at Tippecanoe Avenue may need to be reconflgured to provide the desired access and to support the potential level of development. o The raised median is not a long-term solution. It even has interim / short-term impacts. OVERALL, THE TRAFFIC SIGNAL APPEARS TO BE THE BEITER "INTERIM" SOLUTION FROM A TRAFFIC PERSPECTIVE. 1) The redistribution of existing traffic is less severe, which results in less potential traffic impacts than the raised median proposal. 2) The traffic signal is a viable option, which can be designed to work satisfactorily. 3) Maintains more options when examining the future development options of the Norlon Air Base and the vacant parcels near Tippecanoe / Rosewood. * * * * * * * WPA TraffIC Engineering, Inc. Joh 11961220.add Summary of TraffIC Issues Tippecanoe / Rosewood - City of San Bernardino -5- We trust that these analyses will be of assistance to you and the City of San Bernardino. If you have any questions or comments, please do not hesitate to contact us. Respectfully submitted, IJPA TRAFFIC ENGINEERING, INC ~Jr Weston S. Pringle, P.E. Registered Professional Engineer State ofCalifomia Numbers C16828 & TR565 WSP:SSS:cc #961220.add WPA TraffIC Engineering, Inc. Job 11961220.add Summary of TraffIC Illues Tippecanoe / ROlewood - City of San Bernardino ---.-.1 EXAMPLES OF CLOSELY SPACED TRAFFIC SIGNALS AT FREEWAY RAMPS + I-IOIAPACHETRA1L - CABAZON Seminole Drive is located approximately 100 feet from the Westbound Ramps intersection with Apache Trail. Concept plan to signalize both intersections approved by Ca/trans. Construction plans being prepared. + S.R. 601 PIGEON PASS - MORENO VALLEY Westbound Ramps and Hemlock intersections approximately 200 feet apart along Pigeon Pass. Both intersections were signalized and operated until ramps were relocated. + S.R. 2 (GLENDALE FREEWA 1) 1 MOUNTAIN STREET - GLENDALE Concept plan for signalized intersection approximately 160 feet from Southbound Ramps intersection approved by Ca/lrans. + I-IOIlND1ANHlLL - CLAREMONT Commercial driveway approximately 250 feet from Eastbound Ramps on Indian Hill signalized in 1986. + S.R. 57 (ORANGE FREEWA 1) 1 CHAPMAN A VENUE - FULLERTON Intersection of Chapman and Placentia Avenues is approximately 200 feet from Northbound Ramps. The Placentia intersection has left turn phasing on all approaches and has been in operation for over 25 years. .~ /rramc Manual TRAFAC SIGNALS AND LIGHTING 9-9 I-11ft Figure 9-4 TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANTS '1///i-C.A,.{Ot. / !<o5~w"o D (Based on Estimated Average Dally Traffic - See Note) 1 v' RURAL ............................. Minimum Requirements URBAN ......................... EADT 1. Minimum Vehicular Satisfied V Not Satisfied Vehicles per day on Vehicles per day on major street (total of higher-volume minor both approaches) street approach (one . direction only) Number of lanes for moving traffic on each approach Major Street Minor Street Urban Rural Urban Rural 1...................................... 1 ...................................... 8,000 5,600 2,400 1,680 2 or more .oc..?:I.I~!!'.2..... 1 ......~..~::..~.~o?!?......... ~lRD 6,720 C2.40lD 1,680 2 or more ........................ 2 or more ......................... 9,600 6,720 3,200 2,240 1 ..................................... 2 or more ......................... 8,000 5,600 3,200 2,240 2. Interuption of Continuous Traffic Vehicles per day on Vehicles per day on Satisfied Not Satisfied major street (total of higher-volume minor both approaches) street approach (one direction only) Number of lanes for moving traffic on each approach Major Street Minor Street Urban Rural Urban Rural 1...................................... 1 ...................................... 12,000 8,400 1,200 850 2 or more ........................ 1 .........:............................ 14,400 10,080 1.200 850 2 or more ........................ 2 or more ......................... 14,400 10,080 1,600 1,120 1 ..................................... 2 or more ......................... 12,000 8,400 1,600 1,120 3. Combination Satisfied Not Satisfied 2 Warrants 2 Warrants No one warrant satisfied, but following warrants fulfilled 80% or more ......... 1 2 \ ) j ) NOTE: To be used only for NEW INTERSECTIONS or other location. where actual traffic volume. cannot be counted. ) *' ""!t-.ftfftL- VQwJ"'\€:- t.S>f'~"L-~ &q.!>!.O 0"/ ()"IW( c.,,,.lt ''''ro.>'U'1lf:-n~,..( (J...i.c...L,tlLC> f4>A ru.. Ctr'( Dr ~..{ ~"'"'2/.)I~O. -riff- y.t..*"ft,? A.c.L b<'4~~i:.P ~ tS>~1-14'ft..~ PilL. 7. t.."l-A.7f.....{ A"'ol,,~ y~ o;t- 641/,..1-1 .s ~ "/01' .4().)~" 1"" M"lr-tt... !t.eG/W..,-, #.5>/c'-"ftvE....'f. Trafftc Mlnual 600 f ~ 500 81400 ~II. II. a: c( 300 il ~ 200 :z: i 100 TRAFFIC SIGNALS AND UGHTlNG Figure 9-8 PEAK HOUR VOLUME WARRANT (Urban Areas) 111"'- CA.~f)e. I ~"Jt..JP~C> .t: '" "f l.L ~ -(I ",..! 8-13 1.1111 Pr\ . * * o 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 '. \ ) ) ) 2 OR MORE LANES (MAJOR) & 2 OR MORE LANES (MINOR) 2 OR MORE'LANES (MAJOR) & 1 LANE (MINOR) OR 1 lANE OR) & 2 OR MORE LANES (MINOR) 1 lANE (MAJOR) & 1 LANE (MINOR) MAJOR STREET. TOTAL OF BOTH APPROACHES. VPH * NOTE: 150 VPH APPLIES AS THE LOWER THRESHOLD VOWME FOR A MINOR STREET APPROACH WITH TWO OR MORE LANES AND 100 VPH APPLIES AS THE LOWER THRESHOLD VOWME FOR A MINOR STREET APPROACHING WITH ONE lANE, TABLE 1 EXISTING INTERSECTION MITIGATION TIPPECANOE I ROSEWOOD EXISTING CONDITIONS - LOS F City Staff indicated LOS F operations for existing conditions. Based upon our field observations, we assume a primary impact is the eastbound right turn back-up and the southbound through queuing. RAISED MEDIAN - NO SPECIFIC ANALYSES PERFORMED Although restricted left turns were identified in the Tri-City traffic study, that was for different conditions than what is being created by the proposed raised median project. In addition, one figure included in Appendix A of the Tri-City Land Use study shows Rosewood Drive as "TO BE VACATED IN THE FUTURE". (SEE A TT ACHED.) The actual traffic benefits of the raised median were not analyzed for the Tippecanoe I Rosewood intersection and it is difficult to determine the actual roadway conditions assumed. TRAFFIC SIGNAL ALTERNATIVE - LOS C The intersection improves to LOS C with the traffic signal for the Midday and PM peak hour conditions. This mitigates the City stated LOS F existing conditions. "\ ~ -0 Of J - ~ 't \... i 't' 'X 1 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~"'- '\ 4 ~ 'l -1 ~ ~. ~ ~ ~ -J\ 't \t ~ \r "( i )-..... "- '- ~ <J ~ , ~ ~! 1 ,~ I '" '" ", 11; h -, :, <.' ,~ " "' ,. ,~ ... '" '" t;;) " h .- ~ ~ .. <( ~ " t, ~ .. .- .'i i\ '" '" l~ ~. 30NVJ3ddll C\J ( 1- lC\J i 1 'j : ~ to I a C\J 1_ II! -------. " > 1 ~ r-.... i ~ C\J i- ~ , ~ / ~ I ! . . . .---....--.-,.-.--.-.-.-.- I 1 I ll) I '\J I I I I t:-i i -.----.--...-- I 'lJ I '.1) ~! ...- ii:!i ,'- <::II - ll) . ~ ---....- ! ~ " I' ~ LCJ . - il ll) <::II ~ , <::I-~' -:: ---.----- t::ll ~ o ::It.... - 1.1) lul- l::' U) U)' e g 01-- II! ------ Q:' ~ ~. IJ) <\, C\J l') C\J Cl 10 "t I"\J 10 .". C\J 10 ll) l') 10 10 " 10 "- 0) C\J tn 10 <0 <::I l') to 10 l') "- 10 <0 10 I I I 0) I I 10 I I c, I I "- "- C\J ". "I ". " ", ll) "- 10 ", ---- \ "- \ ", ~ ~ <::I ~ ~ (\J III C\J If] l') .". If, lO r, QJ C) "J " ...; Ii ~E~~ u!!i ~!I~ ..lu::! .~S! :(3' ! ."'n .ltJ..\r~ ~~:ri~ "eta... ;~tij ~~..~ ..., .... 'II ....... a ~ Q t--: ~" In:: t:),.. ~-" Q . - a: " t--: . In -J '. -.:" W' ~ t--: ---'.J ~ '? ~J - -. ~ ~ '? . C !2 n ~" = ~ ~ ~ z :;: ... z ;i , ~ . CO . . . HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY Version 2.4d 11-12-1996 Center For Microcomputers In Transportation ======================================================================= Streets: (E-W) ROSEWOOD DR. Analyst: HN Area Type: Other Comment: EXISTING CONDITIONS (N-S) TIPPECANOE AVE. File Name: RO&TIP.HC9 11-12-96 MIDDAY ======================================================================= Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L T R L T R L T R L T R ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- No. Lanes > 1 < > 1 < 1 3 < 1 3 < Volumes 23 3 287 39 4 27 280 570 21 10 516 38 Lane W (ft) 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 RTOR Vols 0 0 0 0 Lost Time 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Signal Operations Phase Combination 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 EB Left * NB Left * Thru * Thru * Right * Right * Peds Peds WB Left * SB Left * Thru * Thru * Right * Right * Peds * Peds NB Right EB Right SB Right WB Right Green 32.0P Green 23.0P 46.0P Yellow/AR 3.0 Yellow/AR 3.0 3.0 Cycle Length: 110 secs Phase combination order: 111 115 116 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Intersection Performance Summary Lane Group: Adj Sat vlc g/C Approach: Mvmts Cap Flow Ratio Ratio Delay LOS Delay LOS ----- ------- ----- ----- ----- ----- EB LTR 412 1417 0.798 0.291 34.6 0 34.6 0 WB LTR 261 897 0.280 0.291 23.0 C 23.0 C NB L 370 1770 0.797 0.209 39.3 0 23.1 C TR 2325 5559 0.294 0.418 16.2 C SB L 370 1770 0.030 0.209 26.3 0 16.2 C TR 2313 5531 0.277 0.418 16.0 C Intersection Delay = 22.8 sec/veh Intersection LOS = C Lost Time/Cycle, L = 9.0 sec Critical v/c(x) = 0.568 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY Version 2.4d 11-12-1996 Center For Microcomputers In Transportation ======================================================================= Streets: (E-W) ROSEWOOD DR. Analyst: HN Area Type: Other Comment: EXISTING CONDITIONS (N-S) TIPPECANOE AVE. File Name: RO&TIPP.HC9 11-12-96 PM PK ======================================================================= Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L T R L T R L T R L T R ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- No. Lanes > 1 < > 1 < 1 3 < 1 3 < Volumes 13 2 279 15 3 29 229 619 28 15 844 31 Lane W (ft) 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 RTOR Vols 0 0 0 0 Lost Time 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Signal Operations Phase Combination 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 EB Left * NB Left * Thru * Thru * Right * Right * Peds Peds WB Left * SB Left * Thru * Thru * Right * Right * Peds * Peds NB Right EB Right SB Right WB Right Green 32.0P Green 23.0p 46.0P Yellow/AR 3.0 Yellow/AR 3.0 3.0 Cycle Length: 110 secs Phase combination order: U #5 #6 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Intersection Performance Summary Lane Group: Adj Sat v/c g/C Approach: Mvmts Cap Flow Ratio Ratio Delay LOS Delay LOS ----- ------- ----- ----- ----- ----- EB LTR 415 1427 0.747 0.291 31.8 D 31.8 D WB LTR 347 1194 0.144 0.291 21.9 C 21.9 C NB L 370 1770 0.651 0.209 33.1 D 20.4 C TR 2322 5553 0.323 0.418 16.4 c SB L 370 1770 0.043 0.209 26.4 D 17.5 C TR 2324 5558 0.436 0.418 17.4 C Intersection Delay = 20.7 sec/veh Intersection LOS = C Lost Time/Cycle, L = 9.0 sec Critical v/c(x) = 0.583 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- I~ -$- No Scale IN-N-OUT 8URGER c:::::J c:::::Jc:::::JC=II::::Jc:::::Jc:::::J PROPOSED TRAFFIC SIGNAL LAURELWOOD DR. , '0 ' , , , , , '0 0: ' I ! D Oi i l I O:Oi l:':':':'l "," , ' , , , , , , , ' i. .t .. ' , , pi 0; :0 , , , Ii !Oi , '0 ' , 0, , 10 , , ioO: , ' '0 ' ' , j , PROPOSED TRAFFIC SIGNAL ROSEWOOD I TIPPECANOE SCHEMA TIC TRAFFIC PROGRESSION c:::::J IJJ > <l: / / I I I i 0' ,0 ~~~~I~~L ~OL~NR~GHT i U Il; ~ ,; !J, i.. 01 10 0 [ D iD ..JnL... ':::':::::::'" , /..:...I:J....... !!~~ / , \ ---+--f -i \---' \ L------ I i :0 Q-----\' \ : : / ~ , ' 1-10 W 8 : : ON RAMP EXIST. OJ i SIGNALlZEO .0, ': I', INTERSECTiON iO! ' , , ! '0' :: I I I I " . " wrmm~ ~~~m~~~I~~! m~. '0' 1 !O ' ' , ' , ' 0, , , ' IJJ o z <l: o IJJ lL lL ~ ROSEWOOD DR 1-10 W/8 OFF RAMP FIGtJRF 1/1 I -~- LAURELWOOD DR. No Scale , , , , , .0;0:0 , , , , I "0 i ' ~ Il, 0,' '0: , , , , 0' I : : , , '0' , , , , : ' PROPOSED TRAFFIC SIGNAL ROSEWOOD I TIPPECANOE SCHEMA TIC TRAFFIC PROGRESSION :0 IN-N-OUT BURGER D~ ~ c::::J c::::Jc::::Jc::::Jc::::Jc::::Jc::::J , , !o w iO 0' i ~ / On b~ w / , '0 I "0 I ; , I Z : ,:D ,; <3 WIDENING FOR RIGHT :, '0' 0" W TURN ONLY LANE ------------I " :: a.. :+'o!! oiiO:: '0 ::nI 'J____ I '41 ---'-- / --:::~Q~--_:- :-------------; [~ S ~, \ ~-f,--,..--. : 1------- I f '0 '--' C2 ______t '\ i i .:::::::=:--- ~, 1-10 W/B ' ON RAMP " , OJ --~lD EXIST. '0' i i SIGNALIZED ',I ' , INTERSECTION , 'Oi , '. " : : \ :0: " . " , " 1-10 W/B OFF RAMP 1841220 m m!ITlr ~~~m~~m~~, me FIGURE 1 B LAURELWOOD DR. -~- IN-N-OUT BURGER Dl l : : : : I. I , ii, di 'D "'0 d ;0 10; : , , I : 10 : i i , I: 0.' : U DUD i n I DUD, Oi i ~n~i. i, ia:'i ! i , I I . I J ': ': : l: !, 1 t : PROPOSED TRAFFIC SIGNAL ROSEWOOD I TIPPECANOE SCHEMA TIC TRAFFIC PROGRESSION No Scale c:::::J c:::::Jc:::::J ROSEWOOD DR c:::J iO l~~' oiqD ~~~ ~ I " 0 I "UJ : 'iD :' 0 I' Z : D.DD i i 4: WIDENING FOR RIGHT : rinD I n ~ TURN ONLY LANE ---------"'" U U, lJ; lL !" aq[j [Ii \~ , i QOlD- -- ::::;. \\: : /, .:::............. '<::..: c:::J ":<..'>~' I :,' c:::J --:::.-- t " , ' --- . ~" 6N' ORA~B \ \ / {/i/ 'D--~Dnr'Dn . ,. , I . " ," " ." i i iOiOiO " I" EXIST. ::: i : SIGNALIZED ' I',": INTERSECTION Di i ' ::0 ;0; '.\ 1-10 W/B OFF RAMP wriM[~ ~~GI~~~mG, lN~, FIGURE 1 r LAURELWOOD DR. -$- IN-N-OUT BURGER Dl l , , , , , , , , , , , , , , : : No Scale PROPOSED TRAFFIC SIGNAL ROSEWOOD I TIPPECANOE SCHEMA TIC TRAFFIC PROGRESSION ROSEWOOD DR i::::J : i U OdD UJ !!o 0:0:0 ~ / D, i 10:0: UJ r ~no ! ::0 ~ I DO I " <( WIDENING FOR RIGHT i D'oio" :0: frl TURN ONLY LANE ~ ': 'i a... D:O:O :: a... :~ :: O!! l- i aon. ",''''''::.. /, .:::~ml" .......... !! 0 0_ HOW /B ~::./( n - U i----+ .k,:)......, OFF RAMP "'~ _"O\....--' 6-Nl0RA~B ~\ \ :: .Dog! i , '0 :DnO EXIST. !! !O!O! 0 SIGNALIZED :0' ":: j i INTERSECTION " , ,. " 0;; :0: ",e1220 wr~ i~m ~~GIID:~R1~G, IN.C FIGURE 1 D Wi {iii9 = wi p ~ WnA T ffi E. . ' I . '-*- A rn ra IC nglneenng, nc. GINEERING 'St6 t<<lV 14 P 2 :23 November 13, 1996 Mr. Fred Encinas In-N-Out Burger 13502 Hamburger Lane Baldwin Park, CA 91706-5885 SUBJECT: RESPONSES TO CITY STAFF REPORT, "TIPPECANOE A VENUE FROM 1- 10 TO MISSION CREEK (AGENDA ITEM #5)", FOR THE NOVEMBER 13, 1996 MEETING Dear Mr. Encinas: The following are brief responses to the City Staff report. The numbers relate to the paragraph numbers and the Staff report is attached for reference. 1) It is presumed that these complaints / concemsrelate to the eastbound Rosewood Drive back- up and the southbound TippeCanoe Avenue queuing. The raised median will not mitigate these impacts. 2) The Tri-City traffic study is outdated and does not examine long-range potential impacts and needed mitigations. 3) This is an example of how conditions have changed significantly and the Tri-City traffic study cannot be utilized to satisfY environmental requirements. ?~4?1 SnIJth Pninh.. n~;"p. C::r,H", 10n . ,"'.....,r>... W;tI<: rA o")e::c:., .. 1""1,.n ~c..... f"o""" ~ ...... '/ '.... #' .r-,..~..... -2- 4) So noted. 5) Potential traffic impacts caused by the raised median proposal (both alternatives) were also detailed in our comments. The potential traffic impacts (i.e. at the In-N-Out Burger Tippecanoe Avenue driveway) have not been addressed by the City. 6) The business aspect of their contention is one concern, but notthe only one. A valid traffic concern is that the option of the signalization of Tippecanoe / Rosewood has not been thoroughly examined as a viable alternative. In addition, concerns regarding traffic impacts generated by the raised median have also been detailed. 7) The Tri-City traffic study is not an appropriate document to reference for current conditions. Our analyses and past experience show that the traffic signal can better mitigate potential traffic impacts than the raised median. The situation between the I -10 Ramps and Redlands Boulevard is a very different condition, including, but not limited to, the different volumes and traffic patterns on Redlands Boulevard. Although problems may have been experienced at other locations, the volumes, geometries, conditions, etc., at the study location need to be reviewed and analyzed. 7a) Given the amount of data and analyses presented, it does not appear reasonable that A & 7b) TRAFFIC SIGNAL OPTION is not even brought forward for the Committee to consider. 8) Collision Diallram - Although not discussed in the Staff report, the information indicates that there iLMd. a significant existing accident problem that requires mitigation. WPA TraffIC Engineering, Inc. Jab 11961220.add Response to City Stoff Report/or 1/113196 Meeting rlppecanoe 1 Rosewood - City 0/ San Bernardino 'If, -3- * * * * * * * We trust that these comments will be of assistance to you and the City of San Bernardino. Respectfully submitted, WPA TRAFFIC ENGINEERING, INC ~# Weston S. Prmgle, P.E. Registered Professional Engineer State of California Numbers C16828 & TR565 , WSP:SSS:cc #961220.add HPA Traffu: Engineering, Inc. Job 11961220.add Response to City Staff Report/or 11/13/96 Meeting Tippecanoe / Rosewood - City 0/ San Bernardino @ @ (i) {J;; (LI NQV-06-'01 WED 17:14 ID: TEL HJ: 1909--384-5155 11132 P02 ItaU bpon lipp.GaDo. &YO". tnrl %-~O to lIi.aioll O~eu (&;uGa ita . I) CD OVer the paat ..v.ral years, uny complaints/concems have "en raiae4 r89ardinCjJ tratfio oonqution aloft9 Tippeoanoe Av.nue, .pecially at its int.r.ection vith Ro.ewood Drive. A traffio impact .tu4y tor the Tri-City developaent oited probl... an4 made reoouenc1ations to alleviate th... Th. '.twSy reco_ended len-turn re.tdctione alon; Tippecanoe, and r.alignment of Ro.wood Drive. The opening of Tippecanoe tor through traffic, aoro.. the tormer NArB, along with r.cant CjJrowth within the Tri-City ar.. has re.ulted in a substantial inor.... ot tratfio volu.. (more than 27,000 vehicl.. per day), up trom 18,000 on 19115. Re4uoincJ conge.tion, delay and increasing capacity for thi. roadway bave b.en oonsider.d key factors to the .UCC... of the S.B. Inter- national Airport and Trade center. The Traffic Satety Co.aittee, at la.t June's ..et1ft9, r.~- ended the installation of a rai.84 .84ian on Tippecanoe Avenue froa the 1-10 westbound rlUlp. to Ki..ion Creek, which i. located just south ot Victoria Avenue. Thia action va. prollpted by a City initiated project for pav_ent rehabilit- ation, widening and traffic .ignal interconn.ction on Tippecano. Av.nue. During the de.ign phase of this projeot, four bu.in....s prot..ted the proposed len-turn r..trictiona, at their driveways or at Ro.ewood Drive, clauinq ..vere upactl to their budne... The.. bus in..... are In-N-OUt Burger, Harlow'. Kitchen Concepts, Shell Ga. Station, and Thrifty Gaa Station. Con.equ.ntly, the city propo.ed the t_porary r_oval of portione ot the ..dian, north and .outh of Laurelwood, in oreler ~o accommodate their conoern.. 'l'hr.e of the tour hu.in..... .till have concern. about the revis. vereion of the ..dian. 'l'heir contention i. that the rai.ed ..4ian woul4 hurt their bu.in.... G Statt doe. not .upport the in.tallation of a traftic .ignal at Ro.ewood for aany rea.on.. A44ift9 a eignal would not be cone1etent with the r.colllllenc1atione of the approved 'I'd-City tratfic study (raise4 median and the real1CjJJ\11ent of Ro.ewood). Also, the .iqnal would create acre prohl... than it .olve., due ~o i~. elo.. proxillity to the freeway reap.. In thi. ca.., ROsewood 18 only aoo t.et from the rlUlpe. This OlO.e epaoift9 creet.. qu.uinq, 4.1ays, weavift9 ancS un.afe aov...nt.. Beoause this .paoinq 40.e not me.t Caltran. etandards, no ..dian cute ., (1\ o (B @ NOV-0&-'B1 WED 17:15 ID: Ta I'll: 1909-384-5155 11132 P03 have a.n pera1tted ~tQen the fr..".y and bdllinU Ioulevat'l! (uclian out ".. nquuted by Baker'. ...taurant, but deni_ by 10"0 citi.. and C&ltraM). The city ba. bad UDauoau.tul experience "ith .t91\&1. o:pc'ation at .tailar location. (Del Ro.. at Rt:e 30, and previoua "/b ramp. at w.teraan), Wbu. J.nt.raection. .pacing 18 .Wlar. 'l'Wo option. tor the coaaitt.. to con.icier, tb._ are. a) Reooaend the cunent verdon of the aedian, a. aoelified by the City, "it:h teaporary openinq. Recomaen4 the oriqinal ver.ion ot the aedian, .. originally approved ~y the coaaitt.., with no openin9. b) -:il- NQV-06-'01 WED 17:15 ID: ra t{): 1909-384~~.__.. !!!..:~;U~~.1 . - --- IICM J....... ........ ~-"I .... -'111 . -~ ., 11'- -- - .I~ t ......~. --. II_Inn ~v.. ___,........ 1M.... .......,. . ...... A'."" ~ , (1_ _.1. ........., 1/' ,.......-~ ~~.......... ... . T ....... ....awN M""'" DIAGRAM @, COLLISION ,((-~~ 1 I <A 1'/ . 07~<:"-~~ '" Y/ ~ vu,. to,.. .. "" .,........ ....1 ....., .t:) 0 (:) lIII.". :.-..~ 18.... .. - . .... ~ ....J\ffice of " ~thia lucMgsen , RECEIVED-CITY CLERIC P.O. Box 409 398 W. Fourth Street, Suite #203 San Bernardino, CA 92402-0409 909-885-6820 FAX 909,885-6976 '!lIS tIJV 14 P2:23 November 13, 1996 Traffic Safety Committee City of San Bernardino 300 N. "D" Street San Bernardino, CA 92418-0001 Environmental Review Committee City of San Bernardino 300 N. "D" Street San Bernardino, CA 92418-0001 Re: Public Works Project 96-01 Ladies & Gentlemen: When the Environmental Review Committee referred this matter back to the Traffic Safety Committee on October 31, 1996, my client and I understood that the Traffic Safety Committee was specifically directed to look at and consider other options for the Tippecanoe/Rosewood intersection, including signalization. However, the staff report prepared for that meeting flatly rejects and refuses to consider any such options. The only options presented are an uninterrupted median now, or a median with a left turn pocket as a temporary measure, presumably meaning that at some point the uninterrupted median will be installed. While City staff has insisted that In-n-Out Burger's objections to this median are solely economic in nature, we disagree. My client has presented traffic data prepared by a registered traffic engineer demonstrating potential circulation and traffic impacts as a result of this proposed project. This data constitutes evidence supporting a fair argument that environmental impacts will result from this project and those impacts have been ignored in the initial study and the proposed negative declaration. ; I. Thus, as we have said before, a focused environmental impact report or mitigated negative declaration is required to consider and address those impacts. i , r ~,... Ladies & Gentlemen November 13, 1996 Page Three I wish also to point out that the City is relying upon the Tri-City Area plan, which is several years old and which has not been updated, reviewed or changed, despite significant changes in circumstances since its adoption. The "temporary" divided median, combined with proposals by developers to vacate Rosewood and eliminate access from that street by turning it into a parking lot for a large-scale commercial development, presents even greater potential for traffic and circulation impacts, none of which have been considered in the review of this project. (In addition, these combined measures will result in a taking of my client's property by eliminating virtually all access, as well as the drive-through lanes, of its business.) While City staff has insisted that there is no application on file for the commercial project described above, the law does not require that only projects for which there are applications on file be considered in the environmental review. process or in other analyses of this project. The fact is that several departments of the City are aware of this potential project, regardless of whether or not actual applications have been filed. It is a possible, potential future project and must be considered. Very truly yours, LAW OFFICE OF CYNTHIA LUDVIGSEN C CL/tr . Refer/lnout.ltr . b.w Office of Cynthia Ludvigsen -:))!!;',.r P.O. Box 409 398 W. Fourth Street. Suite #203 San Bernardino. CA 92402-0409 909-885-6820 FAX 909-885-6976 HAND DELIVERED November 6, 1996 City of San Bernardino Attn: Mike Finn 300 N. "D" Street San Bernardino, CA 92418-0001 Re: Public Works Project No. 96-01 Dear Mr. Finn: Please provide me with a set of copies of the audio tapes of the Environmental Review Committee meeting held on October 31, 1996. I would also like to reiterate my understanding that City Staff is sending this matter back to the Traffic Safety Committee meeting on November 13, 1996, with the understanding that the Traffic Safety Committee will consider other options for the above project, including signalization of the intersection. At the October 31 meeting you said that the public comment period for the initial study had concluded before my comments, and some of those of my client and other parties present at the ERC hearing. My client had understood, at the October 17, 1996, ERC hearing, that the public comment period remained open in light of the various notice problems which the business owners raised. In addition, the project which carne before the ERC was a different project than that which was considered by the Traffic Safety Committee and different than that described in the initial study. At some point in the process, the design for the proj ect changed from an undivided median to a median with a left turn pocket. Neither this alternative nor the proposed signalization alternative were considered in the initial study. Thus, the City must re-open the public comment period. _ Furthermore, I noted during the meeting and in reviewing the responses to comments, that several staff members, and particularly those from the public works department, dismissed the comments of my client and other business owners as addressing economic, not environmental impacts. While I disagree vigorously with that (" ( .........- " Mike Finn November 6, 1996 Page Two contention, I will point out that the public works department asserted, as its justification for proceeding with this project under an accelerated time schedule, economic justifications--that this project will encourage business development at the former air base. I do not believe the City can have it both ways--relying upon economic reas9ns for accelerating this project without full consideration of all impacts and ramifications and yet dismissing the concerns of existing businesses as "mere economic concerns". In addition, Transportation was proposed project is that on-ramp. I trust that City staff will address these concerns and the concerns of the various business owners, as well as all possible mitigation measures for this project. I note not on close to that the California Department of your notice list, even though this a freeway on-ramp and may well impact As I have previously said, my client has.presented evidence of a fair argument that adverse environmental impacts may result from this project. Thus, either a mitigated negative declaration or a focused environmental impact report is required. My client has suggested possible mitigation and has offered to meet with public works staff to discuss this mitigation, but that staff has refused to even consider anything other than its original project. Please contact me as soon as the tapes are ready for me to pick up. I also would like copies of the City's circulation plan and of everything in the City's file related to this project which was not in the file at the time I picked up my earlier set of copies on October 29, 1996. I look forward to hearing from you. Very truly yours, LAW OFFICE OF. CYNTHIA LUDVIGSEN , , CL/tr cc: Fred Encinas Don Bollinger Refer/Inoutltr.l I II II II II '. II I I II I I I , :1 ]1 il I I i I II II II II [I . Law Office of cynthia Ludvigsen P.O. Box 409 398 W. Fourth Street, Suite #203 San Bernardino, CA 92402-0409 909-885-6820 FAX 909-885-6976 City of San Bernardino Attn: Environmental Review Committee 300 N. "D" Street San Bernardino, CA 92418-0001 Re: Median Island Construction/Tippecanoe Avenue Public Works Project No. 96-01 Ladies & Gentlemen: I represent In-N-Out Burger Corporation, owner and operator of the In-N-Out restaurant located on the northwest corner of Tippecanoe and Rosewood. My client objects to the proposed median on Tippecanoe Avenue and to the proposed negative declaration for that project. The Initial Study which is before you and' upon which the proposed negative declaration is. based is flawed and fails to meet the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Public Resources Code ~~21000, et sea.. In particular, the Initial Study ignores potential traffic and transportation/circulation impacts of this proposed project and relies upon a traffic study from 1991, which does not take into account changes since that time. The potential traffic and transportation/circulation impacts are of a level of significance which require, at the very least, a focused environmeneal impact report on these issues. My client retained MSL Engineering, Inc. and WPA Traffic Engineering, Inc. to review this proposed project. Their reports are necessarily limited, due to the delays in providing notice to my client of this project and the various city committee reviews of the project. However, their reports do present substantial evidence that the impacts on transportation/circulation are significant enough to require further review under CEQA and mitigation. Those reports are enclosed, along with the substantiating materials, which include City traffic count figures and additional counts initiated by WPA. J__ .~ Environmental Review Committee October 30, 1996 Page Two The reports indicate that the project impacts existing circulation plans which can result in traffic queuing on Tippecanoe around the proposed median. The proposed project also impacts and may eliminate the drive through lane access at my client's business and, thus, increase access through the Rosewood driveway and alter circulation plans in and out of this intersection. As the report notes, it may also increase the already high traffic volumes at Rosewood and Harriman. The information presented in the enclosed materials clearly indicates a potentially significant impact on traffic and transportation/circulation, as well as the potential for increasing traffic accidents as a result of queuing and attempted U-turns. The City's Initial Study was based upon the 1991 Tri-City Corporate Center Master Plan traffic study and does not appear to take into account changes since 1991 and appears to focus on text of that study which analyzed the potential elimination of left turns at Rosewood. However, the Initial Study ignores the fact that the Tri-City Master Plan conclusions assumes left turns at Rosewood and that its final conclusions are based upon that assumption. MSL and WPA have included excerpts from that Plan which discussed the elimination of left turns and the diagrams and other excerpts which show that the Plan assumes the left turns at Rosewood and Tippecanoe remain in place. Thus, the Initial Study (and, as we understand, the City's Traffic Safety Committee) relied upon an incorrect interpretat ion of this Plan, the Ini t ial Study and, ultimately the Committee or other decisioris based upon it, are flawed. Furthermore, my client has confirmed that neither City staff nor the Traffic Safety Committee (nor the 1991 Tri-City Master Plan) ever considered signalization of the Tippecanoe/Rosewood intersection, nor did they consider other alternatives to this proposed median which would mitigate its significant impacts. The enclosed engineering data lS substantial evidence constituting a fair argument that significant impacts on the environment can result from this project. Under Public Resources Code ~~21080 (e), 21082.2 (c) and (d) and the CEQA Guidelines, 14 California Administrative Code ~~15063(b) (1), 15064(g) and 15384, such evidence of potential traffic and transportation/circulation impacts require that an EIR be prepared. Furthermore, Appendix G to CEQA, which lists impacts which are deemed significant states, at subsection (u) that a project which disrupts or divides the physical arrangement of an established community is deemed to have significant environmental impacts. ~.'~- I~ Environmental Review Committee October 3D, 1996 Page Three We also wish to point out that the Initial Study ignores possible future proj ects which could cumulatively impact this project and the surrounding environment. In particular, my client is aware that various City departments have reviewed a preliminary development scheme for the surrounding area which would expand the commercial centers at Harriman and Rosewood and which vacates Rosewood Avenue and turns it into a parking lot. This would eliminate my client's access to and from Rosewood (as well as that of other businesses at the intersection) and significantly impact the Rosewood/Tippecanoe intersection and surrounding properties. Thus, the only access to a public street will be the limited right- turn access to and from Tippecanoe Avenue. My client cannot ignore this potential future action on the part of the City, nor, do we believe, can the City. (This potential not only poses further potentially significant environmental impacts, but also would result in a partial taking of my client's property and right of access. ) The Initial Study does not include sufficient data to support its conclusions. The enclosed data presents substantial evidence to constitute a fair argument that environmental impacts of this project are significant. Thus, the City must prepare an EIR or return this matter to staff and the traffic Safety Committee for consideration of mitigation measures which will reduce the impacts to a level of insignificance. The consideration of mitigation measures must involve the surrounding residents and business owners who are most impacted by this project. Please include this letter and the enclosed materials of the record of the City's review and consideration proposed negative ~eclaration and of the project itself. as part of the In addition, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, please include me on the list of people who are to receive notices related to this project and to receive a copy of the City's Notice of Determination under CEQA. My client and I look forward to addressing your Committee at its meeting tomorrow. ...--~ " Environmental Review Committee October 30, 1996 Page Four Thank you for your time and attention. Very truly yours, LAW OFFICE OF CYNTHIA LUDVIGSEN Go CYN , CLltr cc: Fred Encinas (~n-N-Out Burger) Mary Coppola (In-N-Out Burger) Donald E. Bollinger Mark Lamoreaux Michael Finn (wi encl.) Roger Hardgrave (wi encl.) Mike Grubbs (wi encl.) Henry Empeno, Deputy City Attorney Steven S. Sasaki, P.E. . .. Refer/lnout.l ....."A..: W~ = ~p~ . ~ A WPA Traffic Engineering, Inc. TRAFFIC 8< TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING October 30, 1996 Mr. Fred Encinas Director of Real Estate In-N-Out Burger 13502 Hamburger Lane Baldwin Park, CA 91706-5885 Dear Mr. Encinas: This letter summarizes our review of the environmental traffic impacts related to the proposed raised median project on Tippecanoe Avenue. The review is based upon contact with City Staff, materials provided by City Staff related to this project, field reviews conducted by our staff, and standard reference materials. Our preliminary analyses included visits to the project site, conducting traffic counts, contact with City Staff, and review of the proposed raised median plans. We obtained a copy of the Tri-City traffic study!, utilized in the environmental assessment of the raised median project, late Friday (10/25/96). In addition, we met with City Staff on Tuesday (10/29/96) and received written responses to comments letters regarding this project. We also received Appendix A from City Staff at this Tuesday meeting. It should be noted that the time frame to prepare these comments was very limited; therefore, it should ~ be assumed that the comments in this letter are "all inclusive". Trame ImDad Studv (or Tri-Citv CorDorate Centre Master P1Dn; Barlon-Aschman Associales, Inc.; Revised October, 1991. 23421 South Point", Drive. Suite 190 . Laguna Hills. CA 92653.1714\ 460-0110. FAX' 1714\ dFinnl11 -2- BACKGROUND . Traffic counts were conducted at the Tippecanoe Avenue / Rosewood Drive intersection during the Midday and PM peak hours and the results are summarized on Figure 1. . Field visits to the study area were made by WPA Traffic Engineering, Inc., by our Firm Principal, Mr. Weston S. Pringle, and our Senior Engineer, Mr. Steven S. Sasaki. . The traffic studies utilized in the environmental assessment of traffic impacts of the raised median were obtained. SIGNIFICANT TRAFFIC COMMENTS / QUESTIONS . The Tri-City traffic study does not contain evaluation of the conditions created by the proposed raised median project. Are there any other documents that contain analyses of the specific traffic conditions that result from the proposed median project? For example, the Tri- City study assumed realignment of Harriman and signalization of Tippecanoe / Harriman. . Figure I shows 280 and 229 (Midday and PM peak hours, respectively) northbound left turns that will be redirected as a result of the raised median. This is a significant number of peak hour left turns. Where will they be redirected to and what are the impacts? . The Tri-City traffic study analyses were for significantly different traffic conditions. For example, during the PM peak hour at Tippecanoe / Rosewood: o The southbound through volume was 1,382 in the Tri-City study and is now 844. o The eastbound right turn volume was 182 and is now 279. HPA Traffu: Engineering, Ine. Job 11961220a Traffu: Review - Raised Median Project rlppeeanoe A venue - City of San Bernardino NOTES: . THE SIB BACK-UP ON TIPPECANOE EXTENDED PAST ROSEWOOD AND WAS SIGNIFICANTLY WORSE DURING PM PEAK. . THE E/B MOVEMENTS WERE DIFFICULT DURING THE MIDDAY AND WORSE FOR THE PM PEAK. DUE TO TRAFFIC ON TIPPECANOE. . PEDESTRIAN VOLUMES WERE RELATIVELY lOW BUT DID HAVE DIFFICULTY CROSSING TIPPECANOE. O(Mc(Mc@O='Jlf' ~O='J~@l[g~ o en '- '- <D ~ '" . , ~I 1>1.... ~ ROSEWOOD DR. I 25/13 -~- .. No Scale I ~ 4/9 -- I \ ~ 19/52 \ ! 25/21 LLi > <{ UJ 0 Z <{ 0 UJ 0.. 0.. F 'ot 'ot "'''' - '-- "'<D'- ~ '- _ 0 27/29 '" "'- )tl ~4/3 r 39/15 -24/10-m----------h-;;~~~-2 ') t ( ~ mmoo 267/279 , ~;;; ~ '-'-- OON "',... N'" 10/21.__1 LEGEND \..- 27/29 = MIDDAY/PM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES 10/21 ..J. = IN-N-OUT BURGER RELATED VOLUMES EXISTING MIDDAY AND PM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES fOOJOOO In . ~~m~~RlN~! m~. FIGURE 1 -3- o The northbound left turn volume was 128 and is now 229. o The WPA recent counts are verified by the recent City of San Bernardino 24-hour machine counts. . The Tri-City traffic study indicated (Page II, "Future Study Area Developments") that only 15 percent of the maximum buildout potential of cumulative projects was considered in the analyses and only through Year 2002. The raised median analyses should consider a long- range buildout condition, as it is assumed to be a pennanent fixture. FULL CUMULATIVE IMPACTS MUST BE ANALYZED. . The Tri-City traffic study assumes that "Planning Area 3" (the areas surrounding the In-N- Out Burger site) will have 29,250 square feet (SF) of retail development. o However, it has been indicated to us that the existing retail development in this "Planning Area 3" exceeds the 29,250 SF and there is potential for over 500,000 SF of retail type use on just a portion of "Planning Area 3". o This potential would generate significantly different traffic volumes, patterns, and potential impacts, than considered in the Tri-City traffic study. . There are traffic operational concerns specific to the raised median project that need to be addressed. o For example, the intensification of demand for the In-N-Out Burger driveway at Tippecanoe Avenue due to the median. This is expected to increase queuing at this location, resulting in potential impacts to Tippecanoe Avenue. WPA TraffIC Engineering, Inc. Job 11961220a TraffIC Review. Raised Median Project TippecanoeAvenue- City of San Bernardino -4- o How existing left turns from Rosewood Drive (both eastbound and westbound) will be redirected and their potential impacts to adjacent intersections. o How will southbound left turns at Tippecanoe / Rosewood access the properties on the east side of the street? What impacts will this create? *** Installation of a traffic signal at the Tippecanoe / Rosewood intersection appears to mitigate many of the outstanding environmental traffic issues and appears to provide a better traffic solution. o It serves to better accommodate the existing turning movements at this intersection and reduce the potential impacts of "redirected' traffic. o It serves to assign right-of-way at this intersection, which appears to be an existing need. o It can be coordinated with the Caltrans ramp signal to provide the best possible operations and may serve to "meter" traffic to the critical ramps and Redlands Boulevard locations. o Rather than all of the northbound left turn stacking being provided at Laurelwood, it can be divided between the Rosewood Drive and Laurelwood intersections. Therefore, adequate stacking can be provided via two locations, rather than just one. HPA TraffIC Engineering, /nc. Job 1196/220a TraffIC Review - Raised Median Project Tippecanoe A venue - CiJy of San Bernardino -5- INITIAL STUDY RESPONSE TO COMMENTS Responses to In-N-Out Burzer Letter Dl through D9 III The In-N-Out Burger comment raises concern regarding potential traffic impacts at this access due to the median project, which also results in potential impacts to Tippecanoe Avenue. Have these potential traffic impacts been evaluated? If so, the analyses and data should be presented. This is a . potential significant traffic impact. III The In-N-Out Burger comment raises a real traffic operational concern that should be analyzed, not just acknowledged. There are significant traffic impacts that could result if the turn pocket is inadequate to serve the projected traffic. Again, if this issue has been analyzed, the data should be provided. It can be noted that the Tri-City study did not address this condition. (i.e. In the Tri-City study, the realignment of Harriman was assumed to be in place and Tippecanoe / Laurelwood was assumed to be signalized. -. It was Level of Service F without signalization.) III Does City Staff have a projection of traffic volumes making the northbound left turn at this referenced location? The knowledge of the volume of traffic making this left turn would be critical to determining if the design is adequate or not adequate. The analysis procedure used by the City to determine that it does not agree should be documented. Again, the potential added traffic demand at the In-N-Out Burger Tippecanoe Avenue driveway should be addressed in detail. Our observations indicated existing vehicle queuing back to Tippecanoe Avenue and added ingress demand at this location could directly impact Tippecanoe Avenue. HPA Traffu: Engineering, Inc. Job 11961220a Traffu: Review - Raised Median Project Tippecanoe Avenue - City of San Bernardino -6- 11.1. It is indicated in the response that traffic on Tippecanoe Avenue "has increased dramatically in the past 10 years ..." and it also references analyses in the Tri-City traffic study. As shown earlier in this letter, however, southbound traffic volumes on Tippecanoe Avenue, south of Rosewood Drive, have actually decreased from the time of the Tri-City traffic study. It appears that the analyses of this intersection and the overall median project need to be updated based on current traffic conditions and projections. In addition, the effects on Level of Service by signalizing the Tippecanoe I Rosewood intersection should also be fully evaluated as an alternative mitigation. M. The identification of"... 349 feet desirable and 230 feet minimum" appears to be referenced from the Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. letter from Mr. Andre Groenhoff to Mr. Elliot Shaw, Integra Engineering Incorporated, dated February 19, 1992. This recommendation is actually for the "Harriman Place Realigned and Tippecanoe A venue" intersection, not Tippecanoe I Rosewood. It can be noted that ifleft turn storage is provided at both Tippecanoe I Rosewood and Tippecanoe I Laurelwood, the cumulative left turn storage will meet the recommendation. Regarding the third paragraph of the response where weaving from the 1-10 Westbound Off-Ramp to a potential left turn pocket at Rosewood Drive is identified as a "serious safety problem", it should be remembered that the 1-10 Westbound Off-Ramp at Tippecanoe Avenue is signalized; so as traffic exits the off-ramp (turning right), it is protected by the signal control and does -not need to conflict with traffic as it makes this movement. llQ Response noted. WPA TraffIC Engineering, Inc. Job 1196/220a TraffIC Review - Raised Median Project Tippecanoe A venue - City of San Bernardino -]- 121 Significant traffic issues and potential impacts are still outstanding with regard to the proposed raised median project. City Staffhas indicated that a traffic signal at Tippecanoe / Rosewood is not feasible, but data and analyses related to this determination should be more clearly outlined and documented. . . . . . . . We trust that this review will be of assistance to you and the City of San Bernardino. If you have any questions or comments, please do not hesitate to contact us. Respectfully submitted, UPA TRAFFIC ENGINEERING, INe $/'hl kJ ~ii Steven S. Sasaki, P.E. Registered Professional Engineer State ofCalifomia Numbers C52768 & TR1462 sss:cc #961220a WPA TraffIC Engineering, Inc. Job 11961220a TraffIC Review - Raised Median Project Tippecanoe A venue - City of San Bernardino CITY or SAB BERlARDIIIO M/S: TIPPEC.\llOB AVEllUB B/II: ROSBtlOOD DRIVE II~TBER: sum COOJlTS UJlLIMITED 25424 JACLYI AVEllUE I<<lREIIO VALLEY, CA 92557 909-247-6716 TOTAL VOLUME site Code : 00328528 start Date: 10/15/96 rile I.D. : SBTIROKD Page : 1 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- TIPPEC.\llOE AVEllUE ROSBtlOOD DRIVE Southbound lIestbound TIPPECAIIOE AVEIlUE ROSEWOOD DRIVE Northbound Eastbound Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Total Date 10/15/96 -------------.......-----.-..----------.........----......-.--.....----..___________...........___..._____.____._.____. Peak Hour Analysis By Entire Intersection for the Period: 11:30 to 13:30 on 10/15/96 Peak start 12:00 12:00 12:00 12:00 Voluae 12 627 39 26 2 29 273 571 26 20 1 295 Percent 2% 92% 6% 46% 4% 51% 31% 66% 3% 6% 0% 93% Pk total 678 57 870 316 Highest 12:00 12:45 12:45 12:45 VolUle 3 205 8 10 0 8 72 166 6 6 0 88 Hi total 216 18 244 94 PBF .78 .79 .89 .84 TIPPECANOE AVENUE CITY OF SAIl. BERNARDIIlO H/S: TIPPECANOE AVENUE EfW: ROSEWOOD DRIVE WEATHER: ~ COOIlTS UNLIMITED 25424 JACLYH AVEllUE MORENO VALLEY, CA 92557 909-247-6716 site Code : 00328528 start Date: 10/15/96 File 1.0. : SBTIROMD Page : 1 TOTAL VOLUME -~----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- TIPPECANOE AVENUE ROSEWOOD DRIVE Soutbbolllld Westbound TIPPECANOE A VENUE ROSEWOOD DRIVE Horthbound Eastbolllld Left Tbru Right Left Tbru Right Left Tbru Right Left Tbru Right Total Date 10/15/96 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------________ 11:30 9 154 12 12 1 1 67 103 2 3 1 77 442 11:45 3 179 4 5 0 6 70 133 1 4 1 65 471 12:00 3 205 8 3 1 5 86 134 4 7 1 65 522 3 7 0 7 Dr Total 15 677 32 24 2 21 281 497 19 16 3 282 1869 12:30 2 144 11 9 1 7 57 144 4 5 0 67 451 12:45 7 139 12 10 0 8 72 166 6 6 0 88 514 13:00 1 112 12 12 3 6 75 137 5 5 2 58 428 7 7 Dr Total 10 516 38 39 4 27 280 570 21 23 3 287 1818 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- *TOTAL* 25 1193 70 I 63 6 48 I 561 1067 40 I 39 6 569 I 3687 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Peak Bour Analysis By Individual Approach for the Period: 11:30 to 13:30 on 10/15/96 Peak start 11:30 12:30 12:30 12:00 Vol\lJe 15 677 32 39 4 27 280 570 21 20 1 295 Percent 2' 94t 4t 56' 6' 39t 32' 65' 2' 6' 0' m Pk total 724 70 871 316 Highest 12:00 13:00 12:45 12:45 Vol\lJe 3 205 8 12 3 6 72 166 6 6 0 88 Hi total 216 21 244 94 PHF .84 .83 .89 .84 ------------------------------------------.------------------------------------------------------ Peak Hour Analysis By Entire Intersection for the Period: 11:30 to 13:30 on 10/15/96 Peak start 12: 00 12:00 12:00 12:00 Vol\lJe 12 627 39 26 2 29 273 571 26 20 1 295 Percent 2\ 92' 6\ 46' 4t 5lt 3U 66' 3' 6\ 0' m Pk total 678 57 870 316 Highest 12:00 12:45 12:45 12:45 Volllle 3 205 8 10 0 8 72 166 6 6 0 88 Hi total 216 18 244 . 94 PHF .78 .79 .89 .84 % CITY OF SAI BERlARDIIlO H/S: TIPPECAIlOE AVENUE E/II: ROSEllOOD DRIVE II~THER: sum COOIITS llJtLINITED 25424 JACLYJ AVENUE IlOREIIO VALLEY, C! 92557 909-247-6716 TOTAL VOLllME site Code : 00328528 start Date: 10/15/96 File I.D. : SBTIROPM Page : 1 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- TIPPEC!llOE AVEIlUE ROSE1<<lOD DRIVE Southbound lIestbound TIPPEC!IlOE A VENDE ROSEllOOD DRIVE Northbound Eastbound Left ThIll Right Left ThIll Right Left ThIll Right Left ThIll Right Total Date 10/15/96 --------------------------------------------------------------_________________________________________________________ Peak Hour Analysis By Entire Intersection for the Period: 16:00 to 18:00 on 10/15/96 Peak start 17:00 17:00 17:00 17:00 VolUle 15 844 31 15 3 29 229 619 28 13 2 279 Percent 2\ 95\ 3\ 32\ 6\ 62\ 26\ 71\ 3\ 4\ 1\ 95\ Pk total 890 47 876 294 Highest 17:00 17:00 17:45 17:45 Volute 6 244 5 3 1 14 93 164 13 4 2 116 Hi total 255 18 270 122 PHF .87 .65 .81 .60 TIPPECANOE AVENUE ...... CITY or SAI BERBAIlDlHO H/S: TIPPECAllOB AVEHUB EfW: ROSEWOOD DRIVE W)lATHER:, SOIlIIY COlJII'fS UllLIMITED 25424 JACLYI AVEHUE MORENO VALLEY, CA 92557 909-247-6716 site Code : 00328528 start Date: 10/15/96 rile I.D. : SBTlROPM Page : 1 TOTAL VOLUHE ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- TIPPECAllOB A VEHUE ROSEWOOD DRIVE Southbound Ilestbound nPPECAIIOE A VEllUE ROSEWOOD DRIVE Northbound Eastbound Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Total Date 10/15/96 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 16:00 2 175 13 3 1 5 47 146 2 2 0 65 461 16:15 4 189 11 3 1 3 53 166 0 0 1 65 496 16:30 1 236 7 2 0 3 44 153 0 3 1 75 525 6' 6 7 4 39 9 Dr Total 13 825 34 15 3 15 183 614 11 7 2 240 1962 17:00 6 244 5 3 1 14 42 155 2 2 0 65 539 17:15 1 199 4 1 0 5 41 155 9 3 0 43 461 17:30 4 235 6 5 1 5 53 145 4 4 0 55 517 7: 16 6 Dr Total 15 844 31 15 3 29 229 619 28 13 2 279 2107 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- *TOTAL* 28 1669 65 I 30 6 44 I 412 1233 39 I 20 4 519 I 4069 ---------------------------------------.-------------------------------------.--------------------------- Peak Hour Analysis By Individual Approach for the Period: 16:00 to 18:00 on 10/15/96 Peak start 16:45 17:00 17:00 17:00 VOlUIe 17 903 18 15 3 29 229 619 28 13 2 279 Percent 2\ 96\ 2\ 32\ 6\ 62\ 26\ 7U 3\ n U 95\ Pk total 938 47 876 294 Highest 17:00 17:00 17:45 17:45 VolUle 6 244 5 3 1 14 93 164 13 4 2 116 Hi total 255 18 270 122 PBF .92 .65 .81 .60 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Peak Hour Analysis By Entire Intersection for the Period: 16:00 to 18:00 on 10/15/96 Peak start 17: 00 17:00 17:00 17:00 VolUle 15 844 31 15 3 29 229 619 28 13 2 279 Percent 2t 95\ 3\ 32t 6t 62\ 26\ m 3\ 4t H 95\ Pk total 890 47 876 294 Highest 17:00 17:00 17:45 17:45 VolUle 6 244 5 3 1 14 93 164 13 4 2 116 Hi total 255 18 270 122 PBF .87 .65 .81 .60 :2 < l"tl '" 1 - Il - ~ Cl J (} ~ t I ~ <J () e :s ~ G \.J) ~ ?TIPPE_041.JOL ( r-~ (:)0......1\1...0 Ob. } \-- s -z.. ~ :s ~~8 :s ~ \u S-,.t" -\/l -z~.:s - .J ~ e. .) i 1- ":::J C) ~ -=< - . ..J I on 8 on 0 on ~ ~ - .... 'It '" 0 - N N N N - ~ - - - - - - I I - - I I I . I I 0 on 8 on 0 '" ~ '" ~ ~ - ~ ~ - - - N N N N - - - - - - - - ... l ~ ~ I ... 1 ... f j u. 1\1 ..) I- I \ '\V:- ~ ""/1 TI P p(~ C'l4,1) 0 r ( ~- I ~ ~<. ~ ~ ~ .. 1\1 "'J ...s l'rt :l '" ~ ~ ~ III .... I\j tm 1- ":J a 1,. :? -:- t s \-- ~ ~ ~~8 o ~ \u -w'~<.:f ~-- \/"I -z .:s - ...", ~ :t-~ \t} IIiI I'l' .. C) .a ;:: !V .,. " ~ ..... .,J ~ e.. .J ~ e '11I- l\I ~ N a I" t'f) .... ... ,J ~ () to. ,J ~ ~ ~ Q '" 0 '" 8 '" 0 '" 8 - ... .". - ':'! .". .;,: .;,: .;,: .;.; '" '" .;.; ..c , , , , . , . , 0 '" 0 '" 8 '" 0 0 - ... .". '" - ':'! ..,. .". .;,: .;,: .;,: '" '" '" or. () () a j lo \J) l::) Q 0 0 c c (:) ~ 'J ~ t !:: , , \ ....1\I....lo....'" u ...J ~ ~ ~ ~ ^-l 1\1 J ." h) I" Volume Count ReDort Generated by HSC3000 Vers I on 2.01 Copyright 1990-1992 Hltron Systems Corporation Location .......... Location Code ..... ~()lln1:~ ............ Recorder Set ...... Recording Start ... Recording End ..... Sample Time ....... Operator Number ... Machine Number .... Channel ........... Divide By......... Summation ......... TIPPECANOE AV S/O ROSEWOOD DR 533 SB 10/22/96 09:22 10/22/96 10:00 10/28/96 11:15 15 Minutes 4 9 1 2 No Yes Two-Way.......... . Tuesday 10/22/96 Channel: 1 Direction: N 110012001300140015001~omolMo~200021002200~00~00010002000300040005000~007000800~001000Tot.ls ~-bP"" 847 962 1112 1045 1048 1144 1194 1025 924 634 446 299 225 179 100 62 64 81 91 328 564 1060 936 804 15174 206 241 287 288 269 286 301 249 247 163 118 87 64 47 18 27 7 22 10 39 92 192 295 206 211 229 271 254 262 267 291 290 228 176 1~ 81 53 45 20 7 14 34 5 46 112 258 230 203 195 227 280 255 244 298 311 247 215 159 95 66 51 51 35 15 18 10 27 86 124 289 188 190 ~5 265 274 248 273 293 291 ~9 234 136 110 65 57 36 27 13 25 15 49 157 236 321 223 205 AM Peak Hour . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 07:15 to 08:15 (1163 vehicles) ): Peak Hour Factor . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90.6% Peak Hour . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15:45 to 16:45 (1196 vehicles) PM Peak Hour Factor . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96.1% Wednesday 10/23/96 Channel: 1 Direction: N ~12001300140015001~0IroOl~1900~21002200~00~0001000200~00040005000~007000M009001000TotBls S"-hf"1 836 929 1143 1118 1043 1093 1103 1083 851 567 480 310 234 185 119 85 M 119 88 320 518 1056 836 740 14936 227 224 301 290 262 262 294 289 224 169 132 86 67 49 25 26 14 33 13 32 M 185 271 186 197 210 249 295 256 255 275 288 213 lro 117 79 48 48 32 19 25 45 20 44 M 283 194 174 204 235 314 276 232 286 267 258 ~5 124 100 64 ~ 38 31 20 20 18 19 89 141 249 197 167 208 2~ 279 257 293 290 267 248 179 104 131 81 59 50 31 20 21 ~ 36 155 217 339 174 213 AM Peak Hour . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 07:15 to 08:15 (1142 vehicles) AM Peak Hour Factor . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84.2% PM Peak Hour . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12:30 to 13:30 (1178 vehicles) PM Peak Hour Factor . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93.8% ) ~va...L-t..~ tn'1 0.1- >.6. VolUJlle ReDort. 'TIPPBCANOB AV SIO ROSEWOOD DR' Daae 2 Thursday 10/24/96 Channel: 1 Direction: N ~~1300~15001~01~~~~~~23002400010002000300~00~~00roO_0~01000Tot8l. S-{,r"" 793 838 1006 982 996 996 964 1094 824 572 445 317 245 179 117 66 67 105 103 300 495 985 853 725 14067 188 211 252 271 235 212 250 272 235 155 127 97 68 58 20 23 11 28 14 33 72 192 301 182 201 208 249 244 231 257 235 272 232 169 109 61 72 40 35 13 18 41 14 53 98 237 182 166 186 202 241 216 247 275 243 258 186 143 102 88 56 37 40 13 21 12 32 74 133 268 166 192 218 217 264 251 283 252 236 292 171 105 107 71 49 44 22 17 17 24 43 140 192 288 204 185 AM Peak Hour ........ ............ 07:15 to 08:15 (1094 vehicles) AM Peak Hour Factor ........... .. 90.9% PM Peak Hour ........ ......... ... 17:00 to 18:00 (1094 vehicles) PM Peak Hour Factor ............ . 93.7% Friday 10/25/96 Channel: 1 Direction: N 110012001300140015001~01rool~I~02~~~~~~02000300~000500~00roOO~0~01000Tot.l. 821 948 1124 1~5 1072 1072 1~4 931 877 667 465 323 242 212 140 84 66 74 43 113 211 ~ 415 566 12915 205 222 231 269 268 238 244 240 230 184 144 ~ 62 45 38 27 22 14 6 13 51 73 87 122 185 244 307 262 243 295 264 235 227 173 138 86 63 51 41 28 21 13 14 20 52 66 97 138 216 272 291 263 262 281 264 205 212 153 98 71 64 61 31 12 9 22 8 21 38 99 120 137 215 210 295 251 299 258 272 251 208 157 85 76 53 55 30 17 14 25 15 59 70 122 111 169 AM Peak Hour . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10:45 to 11:45 (953 vehicles) AM Peak Hour Factor . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87.6% PM Peak Hour . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12:15 to 13:15 ( 1162 vehicl~s) JpM Peak Hour Factor . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94.6% saturday 10/26/96 Channel: 1 Direction: N 110012001300140015001~01roOl~I~2000210022002300240001000200~00~000500~00700_0~01000Tot.ls 718 779 883 832 820 824 725 721 591 483 386 252 244 210 154 125 73 58 41 42 1~ 172 244 396 9877 166 210 210 212 211 233 199 166 163 128 110 74 76 50 47 27 18 18 13 7 18 37 38 74 159 169 223 200 205 213 185 196 154 120 106 66 61 65 32 30 17 10 8 6 18 38 ~ 78 186 200 232 221 217 203 166 197 143 98 88 59 52 45 37 33 23 12 9 9 31 33 59 86 207 200 218 199 187 175 175 162 131 137 82 53 55 50 38 35 15 18 11 20 37 64 87 158 AM Peak Hour . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10:45 to 11:45 (786 vehicfes) AM Peak Hour Factor . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93.6% PM Peak Hour . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12:15 to 13:15 (885 vehicles) PM Peak Hour Factor . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95.4% ) >O.'I'-vt...', e..r7'1 o~ S. t5 . ~ Volume ReDort. 'TIPPBCDfOB AV SIO ROSEWOOD DR' DaO'e 3 sunday 10/27/96 Channel: 1 Direction: N ~1200130014001500~1~~~2~~~~~~0200030004000500~000roO~0~1000Tot.ls ) 555 798 903 838 922 817 792 688 654 485 319 256 245 140 142 80 69 91 58 66 315 5ro 999 902 11704 97 183 2~ 200 231 194 216 162 158 131 94 59 76 47 26 17 23 24 13 6 31 86 176 278 138 168 229 2~ 229 228 227 187 169 118 82 72 58 35 36 25 11 30 17 15 50 91 277 2~ 132 186 231 198 233 220 180 159 168 109 80 62 51 32 39 22 19 11 10 16 83 160 253 202 188 261 237 234 229 175 169 180 159 127 63 63 60 26 41 16 16 26 18 29 151 233 293 216 AM Peak Hour . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 08:15 to 09:15 (1101 vehicles) AM Peak Hour Factor ............ . 93.9% PM Peak Hour . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13:45 to 14:45 (927 vehicles) PM Peak Hour Factor . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99.0% Monday 10/28/96 Channel: 1 Direction: N 11001200130014001500160017001800~2000210022002300~000100~~0004000500~00roo~0~01000Tot.ls 774 193. 967 200 193 182 196 196 AM Peak Hour . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10:00 to 11:00 AM Peak Hour Factor . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96.8% PM Peak Hour . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Unavailable JPM Peak Hour Factor . . . . . . . . . . . . . Unavailable (774 vehicles) " \ ) ~va.."L', C-t-r1 vI- S,6, Volume Count ReDort Generated by MSC3000 Version 2.01 Copyright 1990-1992 Mltron Systems Corporation , Location .......... TIPPECANOE AV S/O ROSEWOOD DR ')Location Code ..... 533 ?) County............ SB (ilb. Recorder Set ...... 10/22/96 09:22 Recording Start ... 10/22/96 10:00 Recording End ..... 10/28/96 11:15 Sample Time ....... 15 Minutes Operator Number ... 4 Machine Number .... 10 Channel........... 2 Divide By......... 2 Summation ......... No Two-Way........... Yes Tuesday 10/22/96 Channel: 2 Direction: s 110012001300140015001~01700~1~0200021002200noo~00010002000300~000500~oroOO~0~001000Tot.ls 667 ~ 932 806 n6 854 918 986 822 ~ 508 426 262 201 93 87 52 78 139 257 328 434 489 511 12~ 1~ 181 251 215 206 194 220 2~ 212 188 141 135 75 59 30 31 5 18 22 32 75 101 119 137 151 178 231 229 185 185 207 257 195 154 120 110 61 65 20 14 12 36 25 59 n 94 131 115 185 218 215 200 195 240 225 249 210 1~ 129 93 68 45 19 20 17 11 36 71 89 122 129 127 171 227 235 162 1~ n5 266 220 205 158 118 88 58 32 24 22 18 13 56 95 87 117 110 132 AM Peak Hour . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11:00 to 12:00 (804 vehicles) ): Peak Hour Factor . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88.5% Peak Hour . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16:45 to 17:45 (1032 vehicles) PM Peak Hour Factor . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97.0% Wednesday 10/23/96 Channel: 2 Direction: S 110012001300140015001~01ro0l~0~20002100220023002400010002000300~000500~00roo~0~0~~ 679 838 924 917 893 964 898 983 808 656 512 422 n3 178 94 81 44 68 144 211 329 435 485 552 12348 163 188 247 228 225 2~ 2~ 253 207 178 133 146 81 54 42 32 17 17 27 47 63 95 1~ 149 157 188 222 238 216 219 215 250 203 164 114 100 56 58 27 15 5 12 33 49 87 83 138 127 193 223 212 224 246 256 221 263 205 163 154 85 56 37 8 15 14 25 42 ~ 99 129 122 135 166 n9 243 227 206 229 253 217 193 151 111 91 40 29 17 19 8 14 42 55 ~ 128 121 141 AM Peak Hour . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11:00 to 12:00 (838 vehicles) AM Peak Hour Factor . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87.7% PM Peak Hour . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16:45 to 17:45 (1019 vehicles) PM Peak Hour Factor . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96.9% ) Sc...'(.?..L..f: c.r1'"( 0.1:. S e. ,~ Volume ReDort. 'TIPPECANOE AV 8/0 ROSEWOOD DR' Dao. 2 Thursday 10/24/96 Channel: 2 Direction: a ~120013001400~1~01ro0l~0~~2100~~002400010002000300~000500~00roO~0~01000Tot.l. ) 606 817 773 881 887 895 936 936 T79 578 561 403 283 172 94 52 58 62 144 215 342 449 516 596 12035 135 179 .192 225 237 236 236 235 217 157 147 117 97 75 36 22 16 11 21 49 58 93 126 138 142 181 201 225 213 229 217 248 169 146 150 99 73 36 22 7 12 7 32 51 84 111 115 162 156 211 214 215 222 213 240 235 210 161 161 95 61 32 ~ 10 22 25 42 62 110 118 147 135 173 246 166 216 215 217 243 218 183 114 103 92 52 29 13 13 8 19 49 53 90 127 128 161 AM Peak Hour . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11:00 to 12:00 (817 vehicles) AM Peak Hour Factor ............ . 83.0% PM Peak Hour . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16:30 to 17:30 (966 vehicles) PM Peak Hour Factor . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97.4% Friday 10/25/96 Channel: 2 Direction: a 110012001300140015001~01ro01800190020002100220023002400010002000300~000500~0700~0~01000Tot.l. 686 895 ~ 911 962 981 976 945 763 710 548 441 331 186 144 98 51 38 63 77 138 259. 341 419 11867 167 195 269 231 230 221 273 265 205 1~ 149 128 100 44 42 35 19 13 14 14 17 47 65 86 165 203 202 227 263 255 241 243 178 183 143 108 95 46 32 30 13 7 19 16 36 48 77 102 172 235 226 221 248 259 249 2~ 192 154 148 93 74 56 28 20 9 10 18 28 41 81 90 108 182 262 207 232 221 246 213 214 188 193 108 112 62 40 42 13 10 8 12 19 44 83 109 123 AM Peak Hour . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11:00 to 12:00 (895 vehicles) AM Peak Hour Factor . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85.4% "PM Peak Hour . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15:15 to 16:15 (1033 vehicles) ) PM Peak Hour Factor . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94.6% , aaturday 10/26/96 Channel: 2 Direction: a 110012001300140015001~01roOl~019002~21002200~2400010002000300~0005000~00700080009001000Total. 572 714 783 m 822 782 773 698 682 545 430 364 234 185 141 75 50 35 36 39 75 133 208 268 9421 131 161 171 197 207 201 212 188 163 155 138 107 61 45 44 23 16 8 10 4 10 30 39 62 147 190 200 191 190 178 195 171 lro 146 106 103 56 49 43 16 16 9 14 11 19 34 47 53 141 177 210 191 209 202 190 169 1~ 137 105 84 61 50 29 22 8 14 8 13 21 35 42 69 153 186 202 198 216 201 176 170 169 107 81 ro 56 41 25 14 10 4 4 11 25 34 ~ 84 AM Peak Hour . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11:00 to 12:00 (714 vehicies) AM Peak Hour Factor . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93.9% PM Peak Hour . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14:00 to 15:00 (822 vehicles) PM Peak Hour Factor . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95.1% ) SOv'~L., c...rr'1 o.l- S.6, Volume ReDort. 'TIPPBCANOB AV 8/0 R08BWOOD DR' Daae 3 sunday 10/27/96 Channel: 2 Direction: 8 -, 11l!l! ll2!! 1300 ~ 1500 1600 1700 1800 ~ 2000 .nl!l! ~ ~ 2400 0100 0200 ~ 0400 ~ 0600 .QZ!1l! 0800 0900 1000 Totals ) 434 596 507 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 o~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1537 87 136 168 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 99 144 174 0 0 0 0 ~aA : 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 134 155 141 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 114 161 24 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 AM Peak Hour . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11:00 to 12:00 (596 vehicles) AM Peak Hour Factor . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92.5% PM Peak Hour . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12:00 to 13:00 (507 vehicles) PM Peak Hour Factor . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72.8% Monday 10/28/96 Channel: 2 Direction: 8 11l!l!1200'300'40015001~0IroO'~~20oo2'0022oo~00~~0200030004000500~Oro008000900~Tot&ls o 0 o o 0 o o o AM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour JPM Peak Hour .PM Peak Hour . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Unavailable Unavailable Unavailable Unavailable ~ Factor ............. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Factor ............. ) / ~ovtu--E.: err'1 or s,~, ... r '--' _':J" -.~.L...-.,._-.' .-.' ....c-. ...---t 1.:.-.,,:...... W~ :I ~ WPA Traffic Engineering, Inc. TRAFFIC It: TRANSPORTATION ENGINllERlNG October 30, 1996 Mr. Fred Encinas Director of Real Estate In.N-Out Burger 13 502 Hamburger Lane Baldwin Park. CA 91706-5885 Dear Mr. Encinas: This letter summarizes our review of the environmental traffic impacts related to the proposed raised median project on Tippecanoe Avenue. The review is based upon contact with City StatT, materials provided by City StatT related to this project, field reviews conducted by our staff, and standard reference materials. Our preliminary analyses included visits to the project site, conducting traffic counts, conlact with City Staff, and review of the proposed raised median plans. We obtained a copy of the Trj.City traffic study', utilized in the environmental assessment of the raised median project, late Friday (10/25/96). In addition, we met with City StatT on Tuesday (10/29/96) and received written . responses to comments letters regarding this project. We also received Appendix A from City Staff at this Tuesday meeting. It should be noted that the time frame to prepare these comments was very limited; therefore, it should Jlll1 be assumed that the comments in this letter are "all inclusive". Trn(1ic Imnad !~,uJIJ (or Tr'.Citv CtJI:po'nl~ C,nt,e MnJtq Plnn; Bat'IOrl-Aschman Allot/alllt Inc.; Revised October, 1991. :13421 S,,"t~ Point.. Drlv.. . Suit.. 190. lll<lUM Hills CA 92653.17(4) 460.0110 · FAX, (714) 460.0113 -2- B,4CKCROUND . Trame counts were conducted at the Tippe.canoe A venue I Rosewood Drive intersection during the Midday and PM peak hOUI > and the results are summarized on Figure I. . Field visits to the study area were made by WPA Traffic Ellgineering, Inc., by our Firm Principal, Mr. Weston S. Pringle, and our Senior Engineer. Mr. Stel'en S. Sasaki . The. tratTic slIldies utiliz.ed in the envilonmc.ntal ass~"lllent of trafTIc impacts of the raised median were obtained SIGNiflCANT TRAFFlC COMAJliliTS I OU.E/iIJf1\'5 . The Tri-Cily tratTic study <does not contain e\'al\l~tion of the conditions created by the proposed raised median project Are there any other documents that contain analyses of the specific traffic conditions that result fi'om the proposed median project? For example, the Tri- Cily study assullled realignment of Harriman and signalization of Tippecanoe I Harriman . Figure 1 ShOWS 280 and 229 (Midday and P\1 peak hours, respectively) northbound left turns that will be redirected as a result of the raised median This is a significant number of peak hour left turns Where will they be redirected to and what are the impacts? . The 71'i-City tramc study analyses were for significantly different tratTic conditions For example, during the PM peak hOUl at Tippecanoe I Rosewood o The southbound through volume was 1,382 in the Tri-Cily study and is now 844 o The eastbound right turn volume was 182 and is now 279 1'tlifflc RlI'je>>' - Raised Median Projec1 rippl'UlfWt' A ~.(t1l1e - ClIy (If San RernorJino WPA 1',afjk En!:i",,,I"!:. 1r1c. . I, jJ"r' ~ 'Or' . ~ -3- o The northbound left turn volume was 12l! and is now 229 o The WPA recent counts are verified bv the recent City of San Bernardino 24-hour machine counts . The Tri-CiO' traffic study indicated (Page II, "Flltllre SlIIdy A reo Developme/lts") that only I 5 percent of the maximum build out potential of cumulative projects was considered in the analyses and only through Year 2002 Thc raised median analyses should consider a \ong- range buildout condilion, as it is assumed 10 bc a permanent fixture FllLL CUMULATIVE IMPACTS MUST BE ANALYZED . The Trl-City trame study assumes that "PI"n/li/lg A reel 3" (the areas surrounding the l/l-N- Ou/ Burger site) will have 29,250 square feet (SF) of reI ail development . o However, it has been indicated to uS that the existing retail development in this "Plannillg Area 3" exceeds the 29,250 SF and there is potential for over 500,000 SF of retail type use on just a portion of "Pla/llli/lg Area 3". o This potential would generate significantly different traffic volumes, patterns, and potential impacts, than considered in the Tri-ClfY traffic study . There are traffic operational concerns specific to the raised median projecl Ihal need to be addressed [') For example, the intensification of dcmand for the /l1-N-Out Burger driveway at Tippecanoe Avenue due to the median This is expected to increase queuing Mthis location, resuhing in potential impacts to Tippecanoe Avenue TraJflr R'"'....' - Rn/s,d M"fulII Projtct Tip!"c"aOf A "fallf' Cit}' oJ Saa lI"aardino WPA TraJfIc Eal:l""rlnll. Inc. 7fl" IJOf,71ifJa -4- o How exi~tin8 left turns from Rosewood Drive (both easthound and westbound) will be redirected and their potential impacts to adjacent intersections OHow....ill southbound left turns at Tippecanoe / Rosewood access the properties on the east side of the street? What impacts will tnis create" *** Installation ofa traffic signal at the Tippecan(\e / Rosewood inter,cction appears to mitigate many oftne out,tanding en,.in)1\llwntal \fallie i"ues and appear, to provide a beller traffic solution o It serves to better accommodate the existing turning movements at this intersection and reduce the potential impacts of "redirected' tratTlc o It serves to assign ri'gnt-of-way at this intersFction, which appears to be an existing need. o It can be coordinated with the (a/tlUlls ramp signal to provide the best possible operations and may serve to "meter" traffic to the critical ramps and Redlands Boulevard locations o Ratner than all of the northbound left turn stacking being provided at Laurelwood, it can be divided between the Rosewood Drive and Laurelwood intersections Therefore, adequate stacking can be provided via two locations. rather than just one Traffic Rrvic.. - RaisT.! Mt.!ian Pr<>)ecr TirriCall()( A \'enuf! - City olSon RnnarJinu WPA TrafFIC Enginerring, Inc. J o~ #9~ t nr,. -5- INITIAL STUD Y RE.\'PONSE TO COMMWIS. Responses to !/J-N-()ut Burger Utter DI throl1J;kI22 III The 1/J-N-Oul Burger comment raises concern regarding potential traffic impacts at this access due to the median project, which also results in potential impacts to Tippecanoe Avenue Have these potential traffic impacts been evaluated? lf so, the analy,es and data should be presented This is a potential significant traffic impact /2l The bl-N-Oul Burger comment raises a real traffic opel ational concern that should be analyzed, not just acknowledged. There are significant traffic impacts that could result if the turn pocket is inadequate to serve the projected traffic Again, if this issue has been analyzed, the data should be provided II can be noted that the Tn-Ci~l' study did not addrt;ss this condition. (i.e In the hi-Cily study, the realignment of Harriman was assumed to be in place and Tippecanoe I Laurelwood was assumed to be signalized - II was Level of Service f without signalization.) III Does City Staff have a plojection oftral1ic volumes making the northbound left turn at this referenced location? The knowledge of the volume of traflie making this left turn would be critical to determining if the design is adequate or not adequate The analYSIS procedure used by the City to determine that it does not agree should be documented Again, the potential added traffic demand at the III-lV-Oul Burger Tippecanoe Ave.nue driveway should be addressed in detail. Our observations indicated existing vehicle queuing back to Tippecanoe Avenue and added ingress demand at this location could directly impact Tippecanoe Avenue. WPA Traffic EngineerinJ:, Inc Tn}, ilQt;1""'(j,. 7'rnJflc RtVIn<' - Rni.!td Mtdian Prnject "J i"I'I'("(lflOl! Avenue Cillo (,(Sun n,'rnflrJinn -6- ll.J. It is indicated in the response that traffic on Tippecanoe Avenue "11m IlIcreased dramalically 111 the [XLII fO years ..... and it also references analyses in the Tri.City lraffic study As shown earlier in this letter, however, southbound traffic volumes on Tippecanoe Avenue, south of Rose wood Drive, have actually decreased from the time of the Tri-Clty traffic study. It appears that the analyses of this H,rersection and the overall median project need to be updated based on current traffiC condit ions ami projections In addition, the effects on Level of Service by signalizing the Tippecanoe! Rosewood intelsection should also be fully evaluated as an alternative mitigation III The identification of". . 349 feet d('wob/e alld 230feet lI/ill;III1/m" appears to be referenced from the Barton-Aschmall Associatel, IlIe 1~lter from Mr. Andre Groenhof(to Mr. Elliot Shaw, Integra Ellgineertng IlIcorporated, dated February 19, 1992. This recommendation is actually for the "Harr;lIIC1n PIClce Real;gned alld liplH:CWIOC A velllle" intersection, not Tippecanoe I Rosewood It can be noted that if left turn storage is provided at both Tippecanoe I Rosewood and Tippecanoe I Laurelwood, the cumulative lefl tllrn storage will meet the recommendation Regarding the third paraglaph of the response where weaving from the 1-10 Westbound OfT-Ramp to a potential left tum pocket at Rosewood Drive is identified as a ".\a;OIlS 5,~fe~1' problem", it should be remembered that the 1-10 Westbound Off. Ramp at Tippecanoe Avenue is signalized, so as traffic exits the off-ramp (turning right), it is IJlotected by the signal control and does not need to contlict with traffic as it makes this movement IM Response noted. WFA haJji" Engine"i,,!:, Inc. Joh H9(,122Ca Trafflc Rev/n<'. Raised Median Pr~jecr Til'f'(CQnn, 4 ,',nu, . Cit), of San Bernardino " , -7- III Significant traffic issues and potential impacts are still outstanding with regard to the proposed raised median project City Staff has indicated that 8 traffic signal at Tippecanoe / Rosewood is not feasible, but data and analyses related to this determination should be more clearly outlined and documented. . . . . . . . We trust that this re\'iew will be of assistance to you and the City of San Bernardino lfyou have any questions or LOll1ments. please do not hesitate to contact us. . Respectfully submitted, WPA TRAFFIC ENGINEERING, INC ~1l kJ ~.41 Steven S Sasaki, PE Registered Professional Engineer State of California Numbers C52768 & TR 1462 SSScc #% 12208 WPA TrajJIc '-nglllrallll:. 111<.. f,,'.tJf)f':,.,.,...... Traffic Review. Raiud ftfetlinn Project Tif1f't'('f"'OC 4w't1ut" - CiJ\' (I( (;'-/" R......"..,',..." CITY Of SAN BERNARDINO H/S: TIPPECANOE AVENUE E/W: ROSEWOOD DRIVE WEATHER: SUlllIY COUNTS UNLIMITP.O 25424 JACLYN AVENUE KOREHO VALLEY, CA 92557 909-247-6716 TOTAL VOLUME Site Code : 00328528 start Date: 10/15/96 pile r .D. : SlllIROMD Page : 1 --------_._-~-----------------_...-._----------~.._-------....---------...----------------------------------------------------------- TIPPECANOE AVENUE ROSEWOOD DRIVE SOuthbound Westbound TIPPECANOE AVENUE ROSEWOOD DRIVE Northbound Eastbound Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Total Date 10/15/96 --------.-.........-.----------------.-------....-----------...----------..--.------------.----------------------..---- Peak Bour Analysis By Entire Intersection lor the Period: 11:30 to 13:30 on 10/15/96 Peak start 12:00 12:00 12:00 12:00 VolUle 12 627 39 26 2 29 273 571 26 20 1 295 I Percent 2\ 921 6\ 46\ II 511 311 66\ II 6\ 0\ 93\ Pk total 678 57 870 316 Highest 12:00 12:45 12:45 12:45 Volule 3 205 8 10 0 8 72 166 6 6 81 total 216 18 244 94 PRP .78 .79 .89 .84 o 881 I TJ PPf CANOf AVENUE 2 . 39 . 627 . 12 20 571 29 - - - - -- - - - - -- - - - - . - - - - - -- 0 2 39 627 . 12 620 0 678 ---- -- 1,298 I 29 ROSEWOOD DRIVE 29 273 -l TOTAL VOLUME 2 314 2 39 57 2 ~ 20 l--- 26 20 ~ 630 26 96 1 _ ~ '] L Intersect10n Total 12 1,921 39 1 26 295 "5 J ,- ROSEWOOD DRIVE 1,818 r".- 870 0 26 273 571 26 0 627 295 ------ . - - - -- --.--- - - - - -- - - - - -- 948 273 571 26 0 TIPPECANOE AVENUE em or SIJI BERNARDINO "IS: TIPPECIJIOE AVENUE t/W: ROSEWOOD DRIVE Wf). TBRR: SUHlfj corrwTS UNLIMITED 25424 JACLYH AVENUE MORENO VALLEY, CA 92557 909-247-6716 TOTAL VOLUME Site Code : 00)28528 Start Date: 10/15/96 rile !.D. : SBTIROOl Page : 1 _.~__.~___.______..~.....-_.----------_....~-______M....__________.___._____.~_.._______._._~_________._____----------------.------.- TIPPECIJIOE AVtN~[1 \ROSEWOOD DRIVE TIPPECANOE AVENUE ROSEWOOD DRIVE Southbound Westbound Northbound Eastbound Left Thru Right, Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right \ Total Date 10/15/96 ---------------.--...----------.-----..-----------..---------.---...--------...---------------------...---------.-..--- 11 :)0 9 154 I~ I 12 1 1 67 103 2 I ) 1 77 442 11:45 ) 179 5 0 6 70 m ,:1 4 1 65 m 12:00 ) 205 8 I ) 1 5 86 1H 7 1 65 522 12:15 _.2.-. 11L_ 8 I I Q. .--- 127 2 0 31 Hr Total 15 6J7 32 24 2 21 281 197 19 , 16 3 282 1869 12:30 2 1\4 III ' , J," 1\4 4 5 0 67 \ 151 12:45 7 139 12 ; 10 0 8 12 166 6 6 0 88[ 514 1 13:00 1 112 12 \ 12 3 6 75 m ~ t 5 2 58! 428 ~ 0 121 --;r-~-{ 27 : 12) 7 1 ~i-hili Hr Total 10 516 ,70 21 23 3 287 1818 lTOTAL' 25 1193 70 I 63 48 I 561 1067 40 I 39 ----------_..._..._.--_.-~.---_._----------_.----_..------------------------------------.--------------- 6 569 I 3681 6 ______......._._.-.-------------~----------~-..r.--------------~-.----------------------.-.-------------- Peak Bour Analysis By Individual Approach for the Period: 11:30 to 13:30 on 10/15/96 Peak start 11:30 I 12:30 12:30 It:oo Volule IS 677 32! 39 4 27 280 570 21 20 Percent 2\ 911 It II S61 6\ 39\ 32\ 65\ 2\ 6\ Pk total 724 70 871 316 Highest 12:00 \ 13:00 12:45 12:45 VolUle 3 20, 8 I 12 3 6 n 166 6 6 Hi total 216 I 21 244 94 PHr .84 .83 .89 .84 1 0\ 295 93\ o 88 ________~_~&&&._.._.....___.._...____r________________--------------------------------..--------- Peak Hour Analysis By Entire Intersection for the Period: 11:30 to 13:30 on 10/15/96 Peak start 12:00 I 12:00 12:00 I 12:00 VOIUlB 12 627 39 26 2 29 273 571 26 20 I Percent 2\ 92\ 61 46\ 4\ 51\ 31\ 66\ 3\ 6\ 0\ Pk total 678 57 870 316 Highest 12:00 12:45 12:45 12:45 Volule 3 20, 8 I 10 0 8 n 166 6 6 0 Hi total 216 I 18 244 94 PaF .78 I .79 .89 .84 i 295 , 931\ , 88 I ! :ITY OF SAM BERNARDINO liS: TIPPECANOE AVEXUE ~/W: ROSEIKX)D DRIVE ~U THER: SUNNY COUNTS UNLINITED 2,424 JACLYN AVENUE IlOREHO VALLEY, CA 92557 909-247-6716 rolAL VOLUME Site Code : 00328528 Start Date: 10/1'/96 rile 1. O. : SBTIROPM paqe : 1 .---------------------------.--.-------------------------------------------------.-------------------.--------------------------.-.-- TIPPECAJOE AVENUE ROsrwooo DRIVE Southbound westbound TIPPECANOE AVENUE ROSEWOOD DRIVE Northbound Eastbound Left Thru Riqht Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Rlqht Total Date 10/15/96 --------......-----------..---------.....-----.-..-.--------..--------..--------------------..------.---------.-------- Peak Hour Analysis By Entire Intersection for the Period: 16:00 to 18:00 on 10/15/96 Peak start 17:00 17:00 11:00 17:00 Vo1uae 15 844 31 15 3 29 229 619 28 13 2 279 Percent 21 951 31 321 61 62\ 26\ 711 3\ 41 1\ 951 IPk total 890 47 876 291 'Highest 17:00 17:00 17:45 ]'/:45 Vo1uJe 6 244 5 3 14 93 164 13 4 2 116 Hi total 255 18 270 122 PHP .87 .65 .81 .60 ROSEWOOD DRIVE TIPPECANOE AVENUE 8 . 31. 844. 8 31 844 890 L-_ I l I "J j ,-- 557 15 13 619 29 . IS 661 1,55i TOTAL VOLUME Intersection Total 2,107 o 1,138 ROSEWOOD DRIVE 2,014 ,"- I --'~I 876 15 844 279 229 2 619 . o o 229 619 2 TIPPfCA OE AVENUE :m or S!.H BOOAI<DIHO M/S: TIPPECI]O[ AVEH[r e/w: ROSEWOOD DRIVE ~EA THER: SUHllY COUllTS UlILIMIfED 25424 JACLYH AVENUE HOREHO VALLEY, CA 92,,7 909-247-6716 site Code : 00328,28 start Date: 10/1,/96 rile I.D. : SBTlROPM Paqe : 1 ._w.._________~......~___________..___________..______---~------------.-.------.-.-----------------.--.--------------..---.-----....- TOm VOLUME ilPPEC!.HOE AVENCE ROSEIIOOD DRIVE lTlPPEC!.HOE AVENUE ROSEWOOD DRIVE Southbound Westbound \Northbound Eastbound Left 1hru kight Left Thru Right: Left Thru Right Left Thru Right I Total Date 10/15/96 -.---...---------------.....---.------.--.---------..-.-------.....--.---.....-------.....--.--......-------....---.--- 16:00 2 m 13 3 1 5 I 41 146 2 2 · jJ '" 16:15 I 189 11 3 1 3 ! 53 166 0 D 1 65 496 16:30 1 2J6 7 2 0 3 I 14 153 0 3 1 75 525 ll.;J.2. 6 m . 3}i- 1 , 149 .Jl.. ~ 7 .L-..J9 .. 9_ Hr Total ]) 82', IS 3 15 i 183 614 11 7 2 240 I 1962 17:00 6 W ; I 3 1 H: 42 :;; -JW o 6, I 539 17:15 1 199 1 0 , I 41 o 1\ 461 17:30 4 m 6 : 5 1 5 , S3 14, 4 4 o 5, 517 , l.l;.!l._ u .L 166 16 i ....i 1 5 I - 93 ~~:-- 28 13 ..2.. _ 1 ......5.9.0 HI Total 15 844 311 15 3 29 r m 2 279 I 2107 , ---.---.-------------------.----...----------------...-.-----------.------------------------------------ *TO'l'AL' 28 1669 65! 30 6 44 I m 1233 39 I 20 ~19 I 4069 ~~---------_.._..._---------------------_._~.....-------------..-.--------------...----------------.----- Peak Hour Analysis By Individual Approach for the Pallod: 16:00 to 18:00 on 10/15/96 Peak stut 16:4, : 17:00 I 17:00 17loo Volute 17 903 18 15 3 29 I 229 619 28 13 2 279 I Percent 2\ 96\ 2\ 32\ 6\ 62\ i 26\ 71\ 3\ 4\ 1\ 95\ Pk total 938 47 I 876 294 Highest 17:00 17:00 i 17:45 17:45 Volume 6 244 5 ) 1 14 I 93 164 13 4 2 116 Hi total 255 18 I 270 122 PHf.92 .65 .81 .60 -------------..--..........---.-----------------------.------------------------------------------ Peak Hour Analysis By lntlre Intersection for the Period: 16:00 to 18:00 on 10/15/96 Peak start 17:00 I 17:00 I 17:00 17:00 Volule 15 841 3\ 15 3 29 229 619 28 13 2 279 Percent 2\ 9'>\ 1\: 32\ 6\ 62\; 26\ 71\ )\ 4\ 1\ 9,\ Pk total 890 47 i 876 294 Highest 17:00 17:00 ' 17:4, 17:45 VolUle 6 244 5 3 1 14 93 164 13 4 2 116 Hi total 255 18 270 122 PHF .87 .65 .81 .60 2< .j I e. ~ -<:;)0........ ~....o t 1-. "::J C) 1,- ~ .... 1 s \-- ~ } '5 ~8 o ~ \\.\ -w'~i -,.~<Jl ~ "::.l G ()e,. " \ . I ~ 8 I T '" ~ ... '" - N N .. '<t 8 - - N N '" 0 .... - . , ... - ... ':'! C> I I I ;. 8 I ... - ~ '" 0 '" I I - '"" - - N N N '<t ~ '" ~- ..... N - ... - - - - - .... ! """> ~ ! . t ) 1\1 ....t'f) .... ,J I .J ~ Cl ~ (J I ~f<\ ~ \ ~ r..) l:, ---- /~ ;; '\ ~ /J ''<I __ ~ I . . T/PP;::'C'AI\JOr i' ( ~--- i--l ~ \ I I 2. ~--- " c( ~ ~ 1\I"l '" ~ N' ~\}B \- :J a j,. ~ - I s \-- ~ } ~~8 o ~ \u -r::~ /f:;!.~ . ,J 'l: ... e. ~ \s,....~- ..../\) I\\~ .J ~ <> ~ ":,! C) ~~;:~~~ V) 8 v lIIl1" "It l.ri ". .. ~. I I lot) '" V) ~ , , 0 ~~~~8~ . 0 <:> V) ~~"I:t'VVlv) ~ .... '" "'I ';:'l C) .j "{ - ~ - \n .... IIJ I" I" v ..... C) 0 0 C) 10 0 (:) .....1Il II .J ~ ~ ~l'c)'\l Volume Count ReDort Conerated by HSC3000 versIon 2.01 Copyrlvhl 1990-1992 Mltron Systems Corpar.llon Location .......... Location code ..... County............ Recorder Set ...... Recording Start ... Recording End ..... Sample Time ....... Operator Number ... Machine Number .... Channel ..... f , . . . . Divide By......... summation ......... Two-Way ........... TIPPECANOE AV S/O ROSEWOOD OR 533 SB 10/22/96 09:22 10/22/96 10:00 10/28/96 11: 15 15 Minutes 4 9 1 2 No Yes Tuesday 10/22/96 Channell 1 pireotionl N ~~~1~~~~~~~~_~H~_~gU~~~_m~ 5"-bP"I 8'07 962 1112 10,5 10,6 1", 119, 1025 924 6'14 ,46 299 225 179 100 62 6' 61 91 316 56' 1060 936 804 1517, 206 W 267 268 269 266 301 249 247 163 118 87 6' 47 18 27 7 22 10 39 92 191 295 206 211 229 271 254 262 267 291 290 228 176 123 81 53 45 20 7 14 34 5 46 112 156 230 203 195 227 280 255 244 298 311 247 215 159 95 66 51 51 35 IS 18 10 27 66 124 289 168 190 235 265 274 248 273 293 291 239 234 136 110 65 57 36 27 13 25 15 '9 1\7 136 321 223 205 . AM , (1163 vehicles) Peal< Hour ................... . 07:15 to 08:15 )~ Peal< Hour Factor ............ . 90.6' Peak Hour .................... . 15:45 to 16:45 (1196 vehicles) PM Peak Hour Factor ........ -,_.... 96.1% Wednesday 10/23/96 Channell 1 Direotionl N ~~~1'001500~~~~~~~~~~020003U0005000~00100~09001000~ ~.~t<1 836 919 "'3 1116 1043 1093 1103 1083 651 567 460 310 234 165 119 65 80 "9 66 320 518 1056 836 740 14936 227 114 301 290 262 262 294 289 224 169 112 66 67 49 25 26 14 33 13 31 80 165 111 166 197 210 249 295 256 255 275 268 21l 170 117 79 48 46 32 19 25 45 20 44 60 283 19' '74 204 235 314 276 232 266 261 258 235 124 100 64 6D 38 Jl 20 20 18 19 89 141 249 197 167 208 2~ 279 251 293 290 267 248 179 104 131 81 59 50 31 20 21 23 36 15~ ?11 J39 114 2'3 AM Peak Hour ...................... . 10" 07:15 to 08:15 (1142 vehicles) AM Peak Hour Factor .. ,"' '". '"...,,,.. 84.2\ PM Peak Hour .' IO...... '"............ 12:30 to 13:30 (l178 vehicles) PM Peak Hour Factor .. 10............ 93.8' ) ::,0 v/2.. '-!-; tn'1 ..;t-- >.0, yolUllle Report. 'TIPPECANOE AV 8/0 ROllE\lfOOD .PR~ ..-....- plI.qe ~? ThUrsday 10/24/96 Cbannel: 1 Direotion: N ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~W~~0700~~W~ 5-bPM 793 1U6 1006 982 996 996 96I. 1094 824 572 445 517 245 179 117 66 67 105 103 300 495 965 853 725 14067 188 211 252 271 235 212 250 272 235 155 127 97 68 58 20 25 11 26 II, 55 72 192 301 162 201 208 249 244 231 2H 255 272 ZlZ 169 109 61 n 40 35 15 16 41 II, 53 96 237 182 166 166 202 241 216 247 275 243 258 166 143 102 88 56 37 40 15 21 12 32 74 153 268 166 192 218 217 264 251 263 252 236 292 In 105 107 71 49 44 22 17 17 24 43 140 192 288 204 185 AM Peal< Hour ................... . 07:15 to 08:15 (1094 vehicles) AM Peal< Hour Factor ............ . 90.9% PM Peal< Hour ................... . 17:00 to 18:00 (1094 vehicles) PM Peal< Hour Factor ............ . 93.7% Friday 10/25/96 channel: 1 Direotion: N ~~a~~_~~~~~~M~~~a~a~~~~-~ 82\ 948 1124 1045 1072 1072 1044 931 877 667 465 325 242 212 140 !II. 66 74 43 113 211 360 415 566 12915 205 222 231 269 268 238 244 240 230 164 144 90 62 45 36 27 22 14 6 13 51 73 67 122 165 244 307 262 243 295 264 235 227 173 138 66 63 51 41 28 21 13 14 20 52 66 97 138 216 272 291 263 262 281 264 205 212 155 98 71 64 61 31 12 9 n 6 21 38 99 120 137 215 210 295 m 299 258 272 251 208 157 85 76 53 55 30 17 14 25 15 59 70 122 ", 169 AM Peak Hour ."................ . 10:45 to 11:45 (953 vehicles) 11M Peal< Hour Factor ..,.......... . 87.6% JPM Peal< Hour ... t................ 12:15 to 13: 15 (1162 vehicles) PM Peak Hour Factor ............. . 94.6% BlI.turday 10/26/96 cbanne1: 1 Direotionl N ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~W0200~}OO~~~0700~~~~ 718 n9 883 832 820 824 725 721 591 483 366 252 244 210 1S4 125 73 S8 41 42 104 172 244 396 98n 166 210 210 2\2 211 233 199 \66 163 128 110 14 76 50 47 27 16 16 13 7 18 37 36 74 159 169 223 200 205 213 185 196 154 120 106 U 61 65 32 30 17 10 8 6 18 38 60 78 166 200 232 22\ 217 205 \66 197 143 98 8ll 59 52 45 37 35 23 12 9 9 31 n 59 86 207 200 218 199 167 175 175 162 151 137 82 53 55 50 38 35 15 18 " 20 57 6I. 87 158 AM Peak Hour ................... . 10: 45 to 11:45 (786 vehicles) AM Peak Hour Factor ............ . 93.6% PM Peak Hour .................. "'" 12:15 to 13: 15 (885 vehicles) PM Peak Hour Factor ~ . . . . . . . . . . . . 95.4% ) ~,~ /,1_ (...r CX7'1 o~ ) t3. yolume ReDort. I '1'll'PEC1\NOJ: A'" 810 ROSEWOOD DR' po.q, 3 Sunday 10/27/96 Channell 1 Direotionl N ~~~~~a~_~_~-~H~-~~~_D~~OO~ 555 796 903 638 n2 617 792 68lI 654 485 ~19 256 245 140 142 60 69 91 56 66 315 570 999 902 11704 97 163 206 ~OO 231 194 216 162 156 131 94 59 76 H 26 17 23 24 13 6 31 66 176 276 138 168 ~29 206 229 228 227 '87 169 118 82 72 58 35 36 25 11 30 17 15 50 91 2n 206 132 186 231 198 m 220 '60 159 168 109 60 62 51 32 39 22 19 I' 10 16 81 160 253 202 168 261 2J7 2J4 229 m 169 180 159 127 63 63 60 26 41 16 16 26 18 29 151 233 293 216 AM Peak Hour . .. .. ~ .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 08:15 to 09:15 (1101 vehicles) AM Peak Hour Factor .......... t.' 93.9\ PM Peak Hour ....... "' t......,... 13:45 to 14:45 (927 vehicles) PM Peak Hour Factor ............ . 99.0\ Monday 10/29/96 Channell 1 Directionl N ~ lliQ noo !~9 1~Q9 )~ ill2 _ 1m ~Q22 lli2 ill2 lliQ illQ llQQ Wl2 030Q 2'122 QlQQ - 0700 ~ 2222 lQQQ I.ru1I 967 n4 193 200 193 182 196 196 AM Peak Hour . 10:00 to ;Ll: 00 (774 vehicles) . t. t................. AM Peak Hour Factor . t, It'.'........ 96.8% )PM Peak Hour t.......................... .. Unavailable PM Peak Hour Factor .................. .. Unavailable ) So,I'''-~ L', 1:-1"11 01- S.6, yolume count Reoort Gener.,ed by Mse3000 V.r.\on 2.01 copyrlghl 1990-1992 Mllron SY"'" CorpOr.'lon Location .......... TIPPECANOE AV S/O ROSEWOOD DR )LOcation Code ..... 533 1 I county ............ SB (i\b-" Recorder Set ...... 10/22/96 09:22 Recording Start ... 10/22/96 10:00 Recording End ..... 10/2B/96 11:15 Sample Time ....... 15 Minutes operator Number .., 4 Machine Number .... 10 Channel........... 2 Divide By......... 2 summation ......... No Two-way... ........ Yes TUesday 10/22/96 Channel: 2 Direotion: 8 W~~~I~~~_w_~_9y~_a~~~~_al~~ 1>67 604 932 606 776 6~4 918 986 622 1>60 ~08 426 262 201 93 87 52 78 139 2~T 32B 434 489 51 I 12090 160 161 m 215 206 194 220 260 212 166 141 135 75 59 30 31 5 \8 22 32 r; 101 119 137 151 H8 231 229 185 18\ 207 257 195 154 120 110 61 65 20 14 '2 36 25 \9 TI 94 131 115 165 218 215 200 195 240 22\ 249 210 160 129 93 68 45 19 20 17 " ~ 71 89 122 129 127 171 227 235 162 190 2J~ 266 220 205 158 118 f>8 ~8 J2 24 22 18 13 ~6 y~ 81 1 \7 110 132 AM , vehicles) Peak Hour .... "'" I.'...... '".. 11:00 to 12:00 (B04 )AM Peak Hour Factor .......,......... . B8.5\ PM Peak flour .................. It....... 16:45 to 17:45 (1032 vehicles) PM Peak Hour Factor . t.............. '".. 97.0% wednesday 10/23/96 Channel: 2 Direotion: S W~~~9aw~~_~_9H~-~~=~D_-~~ 679 836 924 917 893 964 896 983 806 6~6 512 422 2JJ 178 94 81 44 68 144 211 J29 4J~ 485 552 12J46 16J 166 247 228 225 260 209 253 207 178 In 146 81 54 4Z '2 17 \1 27 47 63 95 104 149 n7 188 222 238 216 2\9 21> 250 203 164 114 100 56 58 27 IS S 12 35 49 81 6J 138 127 193 223 212 224 246 256 221 26J 205 16J n4 85 \6 37 8 IS 14 25 42 60 99 129 122 US 166 2J9 24) 227 206 229 25J 217 19J 151 '" 91 40 29 17 19 6 14 42 \5 60 128 121 141 AM peak Hour . t..... t........t... 11:00 to 12: 00 (B3B vehicles) AM Peak Hour Factor ............ . 87.7t PM PeaK flour t.... t.............. 16:45 to 17:45 (1019 vehicles) PM Peak Hour factor t........... . 96.9% ) <... _.-1..).11'-<.--(0"" c/1"1 (,L S. 6 Volume Reoort. 'TIPPECANQE AV S/O ROSEWOOD DR' paCl8 .~ Thur.day 10/24/96 Channell 2 Direotionl S ~~~~~~~~w~~~~~~~~~~~~MOO~1000~ , ; 606 817 m 881 887 895 936 936 m 578 561 403 283 In 94 52 58 62 144 215 342 449 516 596 12035 115 179 192 225 237 236 236 235 217 157 147 117 97 75 36 22 16 II 21 49 58 93 126 118 142 181 201 225 213 229 217 248 169 146 150 99 13 56 22 7 12 7 32 51 84 III 115 162 156 211 214 215 222 213 240 235 210 161 161 95 6\ 32 23 10 22 25 42 62 110 118 147 135 In 246 166 216 215 217 243 218 183 114 105 92 52 29 13 13 6 19 49 53 90 127 128 161 AM Peal< Hour ...................... . 11;00 to 12;00 (817 vehicles) AM Peak Hour Factor .,.,........ . B3.0% PM Peak Hour .. t................... 16;30 to 17:30 (966 vehicles) PM Peak Hour Factor .........., t........ 97.4% Friday 10/25/96 Channell 2 DireotioDI S lli!Q lli2 lli2 1.:.Q2 lliQ 160Q 11Q2 1W. 1222 ~ ll22 ~ ~ illQ 0100 QlQ\l Q122 ~ Q1QQ 222Q 0700 ~ 22Q2 l2Q!! !Q~~li. 686 895 90. 911 962 981 976 945 763 710 54.6 441 351 186 14. 96 51 38 65 77 138 259 34' 419 11867 167 195 269 231 230 221 m 265 205 180 149 128 100 44 42 35 19 13 14 14 17 47 65 86 165 203 202 227 263 m 241 243 \78 183 143 108 95 46 32 30 13 1 19 16 36 46 77 102 172 m 226 221 248 259 249 223 192 154 148 93 74 56 28 20 9 10 \8 26 41 61 90 108 182 262 207 Z32 221 246 213 214 188 193 108 112 62 40 42 13 10 8 12 19 44 63 109 123 AM Peak Hour . 11:00 to p;oo (895 vehicles) ................................ .. AM Peak Hour Factor .................... .. 85.4% jPM Peak Hour ..0........................... .. 15;15 to 16:15 (1033 vehicles) PM Peak Hour Factor .." t.................. 94.6% saturday 10/26/96 Channell 2 Direotionl S lli!Qlli2lli21.:.Q2~~~~~~ll22~~illQ~02002300~OO~~~~22Q21000~ 5n 714 783 m 822 762 773 698 682 545 430 364 234 185 141 75 50 55 36 39 75 133 208 268 9421 131 161 171 197 207 201 212 188 165 155 138 107 61 4S 44 23 16 8 10 4 10 30 39 62 147 190 200 19' 190 178 \95 \71 170 146 106 103 56 49 43 \6 16 9 14 " 19 3. 47 53 141 177 210 191 209 202 190 169 180 137 105 84 61 50 29 22 8 14 8 13 2\ 35 42 69 153 186 202 \98 216 201 176 170 169 107 81 70 56 41 25 14 10 4 4 " 25 34 80 84 AM Peak Hour o.....o.o..o.o..o..o...... . 11:00 to 12:00 (714 vehicles) AM Peak Hour Factor o.o.o................ .. 93.9% PM Peak Hour .... t.....................o........... 14:00 to 15;00 (822 vehicles) PM Peak Hour Factor ...................... .. 95.1% SoJiUL c..I11 O,l- S.6 1'._: i'_. 1'........... : J.. r' ,- ..-iJ r I'. ;:..' -"'." i ILLi- ,.-,.~) ",",", - yolume ReDort. 'TIPPECANOE AV 8/0 ROSEWOOD DR' Rage 3 sunday 10/27/96 Channell 2 D1reotlorll 8 W~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ) 434 596 507 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 o~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1~17 87 \36 \68 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 99 \44 174 0 0 0 0 ~OA : 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 \34 \55 14\ 0 0 0 0 o 0 000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 \\4 \6\ 24 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 AM peak Hour . I II I..... I' I...... I 11:00 to 12:00 (596 vehicles) AM Peak Hour Factor . . . I I I I I . . . . . 92.5% PM Peak Hour ....... I"""'" I" 12:00 to 13:00 (507 vehicles) PM Peak Hour Faotor ........... .. n.8t Monday 10/28/96 Ohannel; 2 Direotionl S w~~~~\WQ~~~~~~~~W~W0400~~~W~~~ o 0 o 0 o o o AM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour ,PM Peak }lour PM Peak Hour . ." tl.... I I...... "" Faotor ............. .." I................ Factor ............. ) Unavailab~e Unavailable Unavailable unavailable ';>Ovtuk:-'. LI"T-1 o/- '>.~ o : 142 P01 OCT 16 '96 17:05 13.0;02 H.lII'nburger lAne 8.iildwin Pifko Cl.liforniil !lf70b.S31;) (714) ;;09.6100 ~'--" ~ IN-N-OUT '- BURGIR The Best ~nb!rpri~ Is A free Enterprise "God rlles!li Americol" OCTOBER 16,1996 PAGE I OF 2 ROGER HARDGRAVE, P.E. DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS AND CITY ENGfNEER CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO 300 NORTH "0" STREET SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92418-0001 RE: ~1EDlAN ISLAND CONSTRUCTION fN TIPPECANOE AVENUE FROM THE 1-10 FREEWAY TO HOSPITALITY LANE Dear Roger: In-N-Out Burger O"'l1S and operates a double drive-thru restaurant at the northwest comer of Tippecanoe A venue and Rosewood Drive. The address is 1944 South Tippecanoe Avenue. This restaurant was constructed in February of 1984 and has been an important fixture in the City business community for the last twelve years. Weare in strong opposition to the construction of a proposed raised median in Tippecanoe A venue in front of Rosewood Drive and our store. About half of our customers utilize Rosewood Drive to enter and leave our store. Most of our customers come from the freeway ramp system at Tippecanoe or they are citizens who live and work south of the freeway. Our driveway off Tippecanoe Avenue is not the desired access point for our site because there is a conflict between the vehicles who want to utilize the driveway for access to and from the site, and the vehicles who want to enter the drive-thru lane to place their order since the drive-thrulane entrance is within 15 feet of the driveway approach at the street. Construction of the proposed raised median through the Rosewood Drive intersection and our store's access driveway would force our customers coming from the south to make a U-turn at Laurelwood Drive. Currently this intersection is not signalized; the proposed single, left turn pocket at this intersection provides a storage for only three cars. We feel that this pocket is too short and would force toO many vehicles to make a U-turn thereb} reducing the operating capacity of this intersection. Providing a proposed raised median through the Rosewood Drive intersection and stopping it south of our existing driveway of I Tippecanoe Avenue as ~roposed by Michael Glubbs, Senior Civil Engineer for the City, in his October 91 letter to us, is also unacceptable. The existing problem as outlined above, with the vehicle conflicts of those who want to use Ihis driveway as those vehicles who want to enter the drive-thru lane will only worsen to such an extent that our operation will sufter, and the likelihood of accidents will increase signiticantly. It is very likely that vehicles will end up backing out onto Tippecanoe Avenue. In addition, there is no room for vehicles traveling northbound to transition and wait to turn left into our driveway without blocking the northbound through lanes. Also, the potential addition of the raised median up to Laurelwood Drive still remains \\ith the City as traftie increases in the future. Therefore this second oplion is only a temporary one at best. The Customer Is Everything To Us 142 PI02 OCT 16 '96 17:105 W~ would propose that nothing be done at this intersection at this time. We recognize and hope that the redevelopment of the former Norton Air Force Base v.-ill occur at some time in the future. However, until a specific project has been approved, with financing and tenants in place, of sufficient size and scope to warrant these improvements, we do not want them to be constructed now. Who knows, it may be 10 or 20 years from now until the proposed development is built and the traffic volume has increased enough to warrant some mitigation at this location. When the traffic volume has increased enough to warrant some mitigation in front of our store and Rosewood Drive, we would recommend that a new traffic signal be installed at this intersection which would allow full turning movements. We recognize the fact that this signal would be within 250 feet of the existing signalized west bound freeway on and off-ramp system. However, we feel that this new signalized intersection at Rosewood Drive could be tied into and coordinated efficiently v.-ith the CalTrans westbound freeway ramp signal. The signalized intersections of Tippecanoe Avenue with Redlands Drive and v.-ith the eastbound freeway on and off ramp system work efficiently now in a similar situation. These last two mentioned intersections are located approximately 300 feet apart at approximately 950 feet and 650 feet south of Rosewood Drive respectively. Even though it may not be an ideal setup, all four intersections could operate efficiently together so long as they were properly coordinated with CalTrans and each other. We have talked with the other current property owners at the intersection of Tippecanoe Avenue and Rosewood Drive and they were not aware of the City proposed raised median. They expressed their surprise and also echoed our strong opposition to the proposed raised median across Tippecanoe at Rosewood. The other property ov.-ners are as follows: Arco- Thrifty Oil for their gas station at the northeast corner; Shell Oil for their gas station at the southeast coner; and Rancon Realty in Temcula for their vacant property at the southwest corner. In summary, we are obviously in favor of providing a safe route for our customers and we feel that based on current traffic conditions one exists now. Once traffic levels have reached a threshold where mitigation is required, or at least the construction ofthe proposed developments which would create this increase in traffic are imminent, a new tratTle signal at the intersection of Rosewood Drive should be installed along with the proposed raised median both north mId south of this intersection. Thank you for this opportunity to address this issue which is so important to our restaurant. Please keep us infomled as to any upcoming meetings or change in plans so that we can continue to voice our opinion. Sincerely, LV-IV-OUT BURGER ~JC&",O Rkh Boyd 'Cr'~t c....- Vice President of Real Estate and Development cc: Donald E. Bollinger, Nichols, Stead, Boileau and Kostoff Mark S. Lamoureux, MSL Engineering Inc. Mary Coppola, In-N-Out Burger Real Estate Finmlce ~anger Fred Encinas, In-:'-l-OUl Bur!l:er Director of Real Estate Raymund Villanueva, In-N-Om Burger Manager of Development ~l~l~ WPA Tr~ific Engineering, a.1C. 'T'RAFFlC" TRANSPORTATION ENGlNKERING October J 6, J 996 Mr. Raymund Villanueva In-N-Out Burger 13502 Hamburger Lane Baldwin Park, CA 91706-5RR5 MSL ENCilNEERING OCT I 7 \9~ti Received -.-- Dear Mr Villanueva This letter contains a traffic engineering evaluarion of the proposed raised median project on Tippecanoe Avenue from the 1-10 Westbound Ramps to nOl1h of Rosewood Drive These analyses . . are based upon review of the proposed plans, counts pro"ided by City of San Bernardino Staff, additional counts initiated hy WPA Traffic Engineering, Inc. (WPAJ, a field visit to the study area, and standard reference materials. BACKGROUND We were provided copies of two lellers from the City of San Bernardino to In-N-Oul Burger dated August 27,1996 and October 9,1996 The earlier letter references plans to install a raised median on Tippecanoe Avenue from the 1-10 Westbound Ramps to Laurelwood Drive. The more recent (10/9/96) letter describes a new proposal to shonen the median installation to a point about SO feet south of the In-N-Oul Bllrger (Tippecanoe Avenue) driveway It is also noted that in the future, as traffic on Tippecanoe Avenue increases, it may be necessary to extend the median, which would preclude left turns at the InN-OIII Burger driveway. 23421 South Poinle Drive. Suite 190 . Lagun~ Hill" CA 92653. (714) 460.0110. FAX: (714) 460.0113 1>O'd L6l::Z <iO~~-606 -:JNI 'lNun:JNI'-lN:J 'sw dLO:f:O 9(;-82 1:>0 '" ANAl. YSES In order to address some of the peninent traffic issues related to the proposed raised median project and potential traffic impacts, various materials were reviewed, including the proposed plans, the In-N- Oul Burger site plan, the field conditions of Tippecanoe Avenue / the surrounding area, and new traffic counts (conducted 10/15/96) It should be noted that the time frame to prepare these comments was very limited; therefore, it should l1Q1 be assumed that the comments in this letter are "all inclusive"" Figure] summarizes traffic COunts taken on October 15, 1996 at the Tippecanoe Avenue / Rosewood Drive intersection and the In-N-OuI Burger accesses These peak hour volumes exhibit exjsting conditions for the Midday and PM peak hours. It can be noted that the full Mjdday and PM peak periods (1130 AM - 130 PM and 400 PM - 600 PM), respectively, were referenced and the appropriate peak hours utilized relative to potential impacts to the In-N-Oul Burger restaurant. The following is a list of comments and concerns related to the proposed raised median project . , , · A significant number of nonhbound len turns are occurring at Tippecanoe I Rosewood, which includes some In-N-Oul Burger traffic. There are potentially significant impacts that could result from the median proposal · The October 9, 1996 letter from the City indicates shortening the median project (possibly only temporarily) to a point about 50 feet south of the In-N-Oul Burger driveway This is not expected to be sufficient in length to adequately serve the inbound left turns (includes existing traffic plus rerouted traffic due to the median) to the In-N-Out Burger driveway. · Under the pIOposed plans, the focus of inbound In-N-Oul Burger traffic would bt; at the Tippecanoe Avenue access This could result in impacts to this driveway, which may involve vehicle queuing back to Tippecanoe Avenue. WPA TNjJlc Englnurlng, Inc. loA 1196/JJO PropoJtd RaiJtd M tdlDn Projtd /n.N-O,,' 8"rr'" - T/pp,un<H A..-"", (,0 - d If)~:Z .S()~: f-,()f) ":)NI ~)N"'I"'lNI9N:J -.SW dlO:\::O qE 8Z-"OJO , r-!OTES: · THE 5/8 BACK-UP ON TIPPECANOE EXTENDED PAST ROSEwOOD AND WAS SIGNlnCANTlY WORSE DURING PM PEAK. · THE E/8 MOvEMENTS WERE DIFFICULT DURING THE MIDDAY AND WORSE fOR THE PM PlAK. DUE TO TRAfTIC ON TIPPlCANOE. · PEDESTRIAN VOLUMI S WERE RELATIVllY lOW BUT DID HAVE DIFFICULTY CROSSING TIPPECANOE. or~Hs<!HQ1Qd]'ir' ~(1J][g1@rg[}3] o '" ....... '- '" ~ '" , / ~,&' ROSEWOOD . DR, n.----m--;~/~~-_:J 'J t ( 3/2 ------+- 2B7/279 , , \ ....... \11 , 10/21 I 24/10 LEGEND '- 27/29 = M'ODAY/PM PEAK HOUR VOLUl.lES 10/21 .J ~ IN-N-OUI 6VRGER RELATeD VOLUl.l!.S 4/9 __I 19/52 . . . . "'''' - '-- '" ",,- '-_0 '" "'- )tl EXISTING MIDDAY AND PM PEAK IjQUB_VOLUMES - m i~ml( ~NGm~mlNG, me 90'd /. G}-:? c:;Of: (jOb . 'IN I ~')N I ~j J IN I ~)N ::Jl<:;L-J dUO: ~o 9rl ~ HZ - ':} .'")0 FIGURE 1 25/13 I -~- I -"" No See.le '\ ~ 1 , Iii > <l: 25/21 ~ <l: ~ (L Q f:: '--- 27/29 ------ 4/3 r 39/15 Ol ".." N_N """ ....... '-'-- OON co.... N'" . There is mention of"U" turns at Laurelwood Drive to serve as an alternative to the ingress that is being eliminated o Will this location be signalized to allow lefl tum phasing protection for the "U" turns? o How ",ill the elimination of the eastbound leO turns (at Tippecanoe / Rosewood) be miti8Rted~ This movement is important to bl-N-Out Burger customers which are oriented to the north and an alceptable alternate route is not apparent. . City daily count informal;on shows R,870 "chides per day (VPD) on Harriman - Rosewood, east ofHospitaJity l.anc TIlis indicates a relatively high utilil.ation of Harriman - Rosewood on a daily basis, which makes access reduction at Tippecanoe Avenue less desirable This also indicates that thele may be significant impacts at other locations as traffic is rerouted . The opportunity for In-lV.Oul Burger traffic to make the northbound left at Tippecanoe / . Rosewood is very desirable from a traffic viewpoint: since these vehicles enter the "drive . through" queue intemal to the site, which serves to mitigate potential impacts to the In-N-Out Burger, Tippecanoe Avenue driveway, . It is indicated that three (1) traffic lanes in each direction on Tippecanoe Avenue are needed to accommodate the redevelopment of the fonner Norton Air Force Base, It appears that the raised median is a part of the overall redevelopment plan, The potential impacts of the redevelopment plan and/or reduced access opportunities (proposed median) should be thoroughly / clearly identified and mitigated WPA ruifJ!c enlfinuring. tnc_ Joh N~61120 Propoltd Ralltd Mtdl4n Projtd /n-N-Owl Bwr&u - TIp/HcfUto. A ..nNO fOOd If}~'..~ (_;()~ fIO() - :IN I ',)N I IH IN I ~JN::J -'SW d80: <:0 9(, 82 ,-.l::>O A I.TERNATlVE IMPROVEMENT An alternative improvement to the proposed raised median (across Rosewood Drive) would be the installation of a traffic signal at the Tippecanoe I Rosewood intersection Some of the pertinent considerations are listed below . This alternative would maintain full turn movements at this intersection, which would be important to the adjacent businesses (including bl-N-Ou/ Burger) In addition. some existing len turn movements (from Rosewood Drive) and pedestrian crossings would be improved with the signali7..8tion . This traffic signal could be coordinated with the 1-10 Westbound Ramp signal to minimize potential impacts related to traffic signal locations in close proximity . The traffic volumes are at a level which would satisfy Cal/rallS traffic signal warrants. The daily and peak hour signal wan ant sheets are attached to this letter . . , . This would serve to mitigate the potential impacts of the Nor/on Air Force Base redevelopment and maintain the access needs of the existing In-N-Ou/ Burger site. The signal at Tippecanoe I Rosewood would also serve to mitigate potential impacts at the In-N-Ouf Burger driveway at Tippecanoe Avenue SUMMARY There are potentially significant traffic impacts that are associated with the proposed installation of the raised median These were confirmed through ~ period traffic counts that were conducted and evaluation of the rerouting of existing traffic. It appears that the potential impacts of the median project and the Nor/on Air Force Base redevelopment can be mitigated through the installation of a traffic signal at the Tippecanoe I Rosewood intersection. WPA Tniff"' Enginarlng, Inc. JDb ~9611]O Propo..d Ral..d M .dUm Pro},~ In-N-Oul Bu"., - TIpp<<IUIHA....'" 80"d L(i?=~ - l..iOf-': --606 . :lNI ~)NI~n3NI'JNCJ lSW d80:S0 gr,..gZ 1'0 . . . . . . . We trust that this evaluation will be of assistance to you and the City of San Bernardino If you have any questions or require additional information, please do not hesitate to contact US Respectfully submitted, WPA TRAFFIC ENGINEERING, INC jd;;, / M' Steven S. Sasaki, PE Registered Professional Engineer State of California Numbers C52768 & TR 1462 SSS'CC #961220 , , WPA TraJToc l::nginuring, Inc. Job IIP61110 Propoud Ralltli MtdUln Pro}.c1 It.-N-Oul Bu"n - TlpfHctIIIN A ""nul flO - d /(j$'? (JO~-:: hOC) '~NI ~NIH~~NI9N3 'SW dBO:EO gh R~~~O #,'1 I- ~ Jt'<7 _.~. -~. j \ \-. ? ~ _ _l.O'11.. -y~ \/d~' V' ,/ .$. v .I / \ )\\'11' \ ' I 1 I ...- ....~'X.\. \i\:tIP .....--- \ . 8 uJ / ~ I 1(\ , lL \ loj - .-l- Ov' c (DoL \,,__1.0' - B LJ ~ G t. f..- . CD L <t . ~~ITt l. I.l ~ (l ~ / .....,t-: t - - ,.. .ll .~" ~. . 1 l ~ ~ , i ~~ , .~ -", MY J' / l~O'" , ~- I , ,/-1 01 . d / - t<-e> ~t- w'oo \/ D~. IGl(~?' SO~: hOC) ':-)NJ ~JNI'H33NI'JN3 ,SW d60:EO 96-8Z-"l~) .._I~' CITY 01 AUG 2. 9 '996 San Bernardino ,M.LIO ...a.,...'....,.. ROGER Q, tlARDORAve. 'l.c.E, DI.aCTO. Auqullt 27, 1996 rile No. 1. 1013 13.84 Mary Coppola Real ~et&te FinaneR In-N-out Bur....r '199 C~u& Drive - Irvin., CA 9271S Kanaqel' 9th p'loOr '. ' RE. Rehabilitat.1on of Pav~t - 'fl})peca.noe ).venu., Jluut.e 1-10 to Mi..lon ~eek Your letter of 8-16-96 inquired aa to the concept that ia being develop.d for the improvement of Tippecano. Avenue. . Bncloaed, for your r.terence, i. a print of the t~o (21 aheots of the plana b4!ing developed for thi. project. In Ilddition to rohllbil1tating the povelll8nt, a cur;bed median with landllcapinq will be in.talled. Th. concept for thil project doe. not include an opening at RO..wood Drive, duo to it. proximity to the treewllY ramp.. Ho"'ever, an openin9 will be provided at Laurel",ood Drive, ",hioh will allow northbound vehiclel to ~llkB a tJ-turn. Three (3) traffic lane. will be provided in u,ch direction, in order to acco~odate the projected traffic that will be generated by the redevelopment ot the fOr1ller Norton 1-ir rorce BAlle. On-.treet parlting will neceaaarily be prohibited, in (rder to accommodate the additional traffic lane.. We will be .ubll1ittin~ thi. projeot for envirOMental review iV the near; future. Notic.. in oonnection with the proe.uainq of thla project will be provided as r..quired by law. w. reqret that you ......r. unable to attend the infontal di.- cu..ion of traffic llIea.llurell ot the TrllHic safety CollUllitte'e _.ting. L.ttera were aent to Illl abuttinq bulin.....' and only one per.on attended. Thill par.on wae in a9reet:lent with the concept of inatll1l1nq a'median. MSL ENGINEEfi,lt\G lea NO,.'H O' It...t. Illt .'AMAIOt.a, C"'-If '."1* 0001 (I..la....'..........,..."II....'... SEP 26 ,gga Re ivcd , , ----- I I"d I t,?: G (_I en: - 606 ~NI ~NIH33NI~N3 'SW d50;~O 96-9Z-~~1 MAllY COPPOLA laprov.man~ of Tippecanoe Avenue Auquet :n, 1996 Plea.. advi.e if you hAve any questions or would like any additional lnfo~ation. We will koep you advised of the proqre.. of this project. V2i':;;:~ _ ROGJlI\ G. KAlU)GJlA VJ: Director of Public Worke/City Engineer Ene. ce. Donald E. Bollinger, NiChols, StoAd, Doileau:' KOltoff w/Attaeh " . MSL ENGINEERING Z l' d LG\.=/. (-,O~_' -606 . :)Nl ~JNI~t_.J::JNI':)N~-:J l~~L..J dOl ;~o 96-87. l.>( -<.J ..t,'r., ..~~.:.~-~t ,w ..~"'~ . l1li' ",-.1.'''- ."~ ~l;!:- ", .. f" ._. JI' .. . . .. ,. ' ~~; ~'::..q . . " ',1,,;'1;"- #. ":, :':fJ ,~.\ ' CITY 0' San Bernardino "...,c .......,..........,.. 1I0G,R II. MAIIOIIRAVE, II.C,E. '1""" In 11 ow ~. 13S-2 ~ x.M ~ hr;'k, CI. 91106 t.ttMIt1on1 MI:. n.s ~ llubj~t: ~ Leland ~l.Cn in '1'!~ ,.~ troD 1-10 ,~.-.y to ao.p1uli r.y !.ana - N:ll1.C Morta PrO~ 1Ig. t6-Ol MSL ENGINEERING OCT 1 1 '996 eceived ~C'9,1~ r\.~~. 1.101J 0llU" Me. 1nc1nM1 'DIia letteC 11111 coo!lnI cur tr~tt.al t1f rtJC of '. ot.(1I ot t2tc _t<<W .-rt; tg the MaMq.c of U- 11\ bl-<>.r. lU:'9M' ~ 1.acat.1 crI the iIoctJlIINt ~ of ~ ..".... and JClntlo", ..-... .. ccnti~ 009't of tne nxad _~1&l ia .-.cloa-'. In yrNr phOO'I call ~~. you inMaafA4 that. d... ~ dN1~ 1a~.-c ~--" to ywr (XIIIp&IlY. llrlo" r~ 1. a ~ ~l''''Irillt ~ . ,., ......... ,-1 to cue beck the ..u.n to elMC y<NC ~l\l'.'" .r!l:l allow Ml Il; -.. . n_ ~ t)lal: tM eatM\&1on at: the -u.na to 51"""- 14It't tum ........V' -'I be ~--ery in tM tututW .. tnftie en '%1~ ....... 11"":'''''' ' lee hOpI W. ,., plAn ia ~.Al>1. to 'JWI=~' l~ you haYll arrt cpetl.Clna ~ W. attAC. pl.... oont.ICt .. do (gagl ]M-!J179. Vert trulr~' JU~ II. \jR. 1- lltn\ClP Chll qUlMr ....1 PI 8Ie~ oc: M1.lle P1Jl1\. ,...od.~. .~ a,' ...," -0' l'tI'll. IAII e,..,IO'.O. OA.lI' .1411' ..., "'UI'4"I".I,,~,,"...'I"...'" ~- T . d IC)~~7. so~~ "-606 '~NI ~NI~33NI9N3 ,sw dOI:EO 9G-BZ-~~( '1\1""1' ...... oJ._."r..._-...I~........ .............,."...... . I rtlqlc M8nutH ,~\.t2 Figure 9-4 TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANTS -J!t','i-cAr{oL / fZ.o5&..W"o D (Based on Estimated Average Daily TraHle . See Note) t< UI<BAN . / RURAL Minimum Requirements ......... . ........ .... EADT 1 Minimum Vehicular - Satisfied V' Nol Satisfied VehIcles per day on Vehicles per day on - major street (total 01 hiQher-volume minor - - --~ - both approacheS) street approach (one Numher of lanes tor movII'II traffiC on each approach direction only) --.--.-- .-- ---.-------- ----- Malor Slreel Minor Slreet Urban Rural Urban Rural 1 ............. ..... ... 1 6,000 5,liOO ~ 1.660 2 or more .~. .~.I.l""'() ... 1....~,~P;~.. 4;~;;;':.:: e]Jjmr::> 6.720 24 1,660 2 or more ............... 2 or more .......... ............ 9.600 6.720 3,200 2,240 1. ................................. 2 or more ......................... 6.000 5.600 3.200 2.240 2 Interuption of Continuous T rafli<; Vehicles per day on Vehicles per day on Satisfied Not Satislied major street (total of higher.volume minor bolh approaches) street approach (one . direction only) Number of lanes tor movinQ traffic on each approach . --~~ Major Street Minor Street Urban Rural Urban Rural 1. ......................... 1.... ............... ... . .. 12.000 6.400 1,200 650 2 or more ................. ..... 1... . ............................. 14,400 10,060 1,200 650 2 or more ..' ............ ....... 2 or more .. ..... .............. 14,400 10,060 1,600 1,120 1 .............................. ..... 2 or more ... .............. 12,000 6,400 1,600 1.120 3 Combination Satisfied Not Salislied 2 Warrants 2 Warrants No one warrant satisfied. but following warrants fullil1ed 60% 0( more ........ 1 2 NOTE: To b. used only for NEW INTERSECTIONS or other locatlone where setuel trellle volum.. cannot w counted, ) ) , *' -(tL-f<ff1<- VoW/r1E:: E-,;,(,,,,,,,,,-rl-~ 6cl~L:J 0"/ 0"l/L..1 c.,v,./f '..//-oJ.u1k-r,:>-< flLc-LIJt-,;> /<w-f !td.. Ctr'( "'/-' !A4..ffvt.,.I-1~'.../o.. -r/lf:....y.....,vfl-? A~ UPL-L$:>U' A~ t'7~,~4'1't..? pvl.- /0 L.C'c-o'7"o~ A..I(!/~~ y'~ o~ d."v,11 S 4/1/4..-"/v 1 AOJIl"-tA-( -f;) A,,-/%,'l.- d.e<6-l'r, a~/C{,f/l/{.t-i.. V I. d /.f)~-:2 l';O~'~ (-)()() '::)NI '.'JNI?LjJNI~)NJ lSW dlt:r:O 96 B?- '1.-)( TraffiC Manual 600 ~ > 500 :z: \:ijo w <( 400 erO ....[ Ul n. a: <( 300 il 5 200 > :z: i 100 ) ) Gl - d TRAFfiC SlliNAL.ti AND L1liH IINU W-l~ tat.., " FIgure 9-8 PEAK HOUR VOLUME WARRANT (Urban Areas) 'Ii Ir'L V',,.J"f- I ,4~,,-,.J"':>O f rI 1'iL Sik -(I ",.../ 2 OR MORE LAHES (MAJOR) & 2 OR MORE LANES (MlHOR) 2 OR MORE LANES (MAJOR) & 1 LANE (MIHOR) OR 1 LANE MAJOR) & 2 OR MORE LANES (MINOR) PA . * * , 1 LAHE (MAJOR) & 1 LANE (MINOR) - o 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 MAJOR STREET. TOTAL OF BOlli APPROACHES - VPH * NOTE: 150 VPH APPLIES AS THE LOWER THRESHOLD VOLUME FOR A MINOR STREET APPROACH WITH TWO OR MORE LANES AND 100 VPH APPLIES AS THE LOWER THRESHOLD VOLUME FOR A MINOR STREET APPROACHING WITH ONE LANE. / E~--? SOE f)()t) -:1NI ,")NI~jL1NI,")N-:J -'~W dl!:f:O 96-8Z-~::>' . ~ t\ -, .. ~ <:L <l... 1= D D \<o>t_'^"'''''' D o o kJ 1>12..., o ~ t I-I'" \JI!. (),1- f-MP o b t:Jo .I.-IO we, ~ -fLAM P J 0 f'p"r.:,SE-o (;..Afh_ St",NAL- ~"St.W:>OD (-JIPr?LCA,..iQf... SL-r '-',~ A I, c-- jp.,Af f 'c e(.~ c.1' '-,';",,..{ o -"MSL-EN-GINEERI-N'G OC1 L 'I \Y~ti Received / I. d ~\ Lfif.~ Gl)}~ 6(lG '~NI r IA ~NJHl3NI9N3 ,sw dZI:~O gG RZ-3~O ~"'l..';f><)D I-I-:> ."Je, ocJ - flA.....P HI. d L(i~.r. (iO~" f)OG ~ o ""7. <t V ~ Il.. ~ \-=- b t::J o o 1] '\ o o DiZ ~ l' I _10 We, oH- -RAI"1P L0 . "")N I ~~)N I i-j-:J -=IN I ~lN -~ l'<ifJ d~ I : VO gfl 97 l)(; o ( \ D Ro~wooD .1.-1<> w~ 0..\ - R.M P fj T . d 16f'r~ (ICH:-60() DK:.. N t X-IO WI> off- - KA.JV\ P o o o ,-- Ie ~NI 9NI~33NI9N3 ,SW rlFI ;~O 96~gZ~JO Ro::.ii.-wooD ]:.-'.> vJf3, Or-!-!2-AMP OZ.cf IG~:~ - t.:iOF: -606 CJ LJ o o o \ t 00 o 00 o o o '0 t:j DD 00 OD DR.._ N l' I-to ~6 OR-- -12.P-.t-1P /[> -:JNI ~lNIHT1NI~)Nl I';W oWl :F-O '1r, n;:-l:J() r .... ':I _:l.. 0'" -,. ~o I' , II ill I "1 ' .J!...: I! ...._... . .1.. . -,. .... .......::2 -----~ w.. oClc: -. - 1~: ! a -- --- ------_. l \ ---..- " UJ > < " ~ 9 t; tl " ~ i!: o u " ~ '" " -TU I , '0 , UJ o 7: < o UJ a.. n.. j:: I], I' ..0. ~~ ------ ~:~~! .!. ~ ~C:::J! ! I ""'" r~ loffi '0: :0 " '!D IT . . . I I 11t I i , : ! '" o 8 o :l w '" o '" '\. rZ'd I h~':: Z SOf: -- 60r) '~NI ~NI~33NI8N3 'sw d~r:EO 96-BZ-~~O ",0.. -;:;~ o .... ,'" _0 ~ ..J < ~ z C 0 iii CJ) III UJ Il.i a: () 0 0 z 0 l.L 0( a: 0 a.. l.L w 0.. !.1 < 0- j:: IL a: "- IL I- 0 0( a: 0 f- 0 0 ~ 0 W ILl i= (J) III 0( 0 0 ~ a; ILl a.. :r 0 0 III a: CL MSL ENGINEERING OCT ('I I~~b Received ~ \. ..:: - ... j - _ l ii ..J-~~ if(....r;:j\ t;'IU;i-.J[l~jNi., ~~~;<.dt.l-4tl",'-\'iJ:. "1--4'_>[ TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY FOR TRI-CITY CORPORATE CENTRE MASTER PLAN . , , Prepared for RA,t..JCON RANCON FINANCIAL .,.....,. , \,I .. ~ J ~ Prepared by Bar:ton-Aschman Associates, Inc. 75.North Fair Oaks Avenue. Pa~adena, California 91109- 1090 TABLE 12 TRI-CITY CORPORATE CENTRE PHASE 3 LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS PM PEAK HOUR 1996 J'bue 3 1~5 MIlia_led Ceometry Intersection VIe Delay LOS vIe Delay LOS Waterrnlll ^ ve./lUC at: VilIlderbilt Way 0.85 49.4 E 0.72 20.1 C HO.p'W1IY Lane 0.90 39.8 D Roule lOW cSlbound. 0.74 ~.2 B Rediand\ Boulcv>>.rd 0.84 32.5 D Tippecanoc A venue at: Bri~r Dnve 0.59 U B HosPitality Lane 0.61 9.4 B Harriman Plar" 0.92 41.1 E 0.73 18.1 C Rou~ 10 Westbound 0.92 34.0. 0 . Route 10 wtbound 0.93 38.4 D Carnegie Drive It: Hospitality Lant'JRoute 10 0.80 41.3 E 0.68 25.0 D Vandcrbill Way 0.44 lS.3 C Brier Drive 0.14 9.3 B Hospitality Lane (EaIt) 0-21 6.6 B HospitalIty we af: . Hamman Place f}..7 18.3 .C NOTE: LOS DELAY vIe . .. Level of Service bued on Intersection delay. "" Avcnlce SlOpped delly per vehicle In second.. . Volume to Capacity n1tio as a dc&ree of Soltuntion. - See discussion on Pqe 17. ) ~~Tl1 47 IOu", B~-' d 1.6f:? C-::Jor: bO() . :IN I ~JN I ~j -)-:.]N I ~JN 1 -lSL-J dOZ: ~:() qfJ HZ. "l- :"-'0 \.. . ,,.. ,. 3 'u_4 ----t.--VO'......---- ~ I, . I i \'. : Z ;: i \ ~. t.i,.lL I .,....J, WI' ... y~~ ~...... ex::: j~.t\ ti! ffi~.?\ i ;: .,~, . :..--,~lf >>~.... j! '~I ...-- ".--+ -~~r-'-- . .. . I .)" ~."Ii~'~': :. .. .. . ... '. .' . 1. t:::I, ; ~.., .J ',. ......";. .r . - ." ...jl.......",_.;. . ,,;r;-;:-}A"~ ~. 1..1 !(I I " ;'Yl.,.~ ')r t~ .: , ' ~ .1' ~.... ~......i::7". . L"I-~:-' ---- ! I .,... -.."' I : , ., I...,'r......;.' (. . . .\. ': -.'.'0:11 . t L__~ .u:t ... r1..., ",I QZ ~_ .. -....---- .,. .... " , . --F- '-... ~ .', . ;; Z .. ..: 0 :ri - .q ~ 'Z C ~ (,) 0. 0 ""' '" ~ <:: LU ~ ~ t: ~ en E?'d I 6~.: Z -- Gn~ -- 60f~) '~NI ~NIH33NI~N3 'SW d~(:EO 95 8Z'~~O i.' .::...::. ....,.l 1- ...... ~ J1'.\",,"1-I t: h t}"'bi;\lt.i:~ jj~l """"".l~ t=~,,:"/ 14-4~"I-d TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY FOR TR'-CITY CORPORATE CENTRE MASTER PLAN . . Prepared for RANCON FINANCIAL ~ Prepared by Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. 75 North Fair Oaks Avenue Pasadena, California 91109.1090 ", Revised October 1991 ~~n.-. To SZ.d TABLE 1 TRI-CITY CORPORATE CENTRE DEVELOPMENT PLAN SUMMARV r::rtJ,. I!:':"Aru sk PHASE 1-1991 6 6 4 I 3 Re~ 2 RtJl.IUrant Pads 2 ResUlurut Pad, 8 Story Office J Story Office Tow 228.220 sqft. 13,00) sq. ft. 19,00:> sq. fl. 165,oo:l SQ It 65,1Xf) sq. ft. 49Q,nO sq.ft. PHASE 1-1993 lttlUlurant ;( 16,00) sq ft. ;( Story Office ;( 72,00) sq.ft 3 Story Office 2 75,000 "l.ft 2 Slory O(f\c<: 3 40,oo:l sq n. 2 S lory Office 3 50,000 ~.f\. 6 Story Offic<: 4 120,000 sq.f\. 3 Story Office 5 34,800 sq.ft. Total 391,800 5Q.I\. PHASE 3-1995 4 Story Office 2 7S,1Xf) sq. ft. 4 Story Office 4 72,000 $(l.I\. 8 Slory Office 2 172, IXf) sq, 1\. HOlel 7 . 106 roomJ . 330,000 sq.ft. . Total 106 rooms ~ PHASE 4--1997 T Slary Office 2 100,000 sq.f!. 3 Story Officc 3 75,000 sq.fI. . Story Office 4 72,000 Iq,ft, 6 Story Officc 5 120,000 sq.ft. Toul 367,000 5Q.h. - PHASE 5--i999 , Slory orllce 3 75,000 sqfl. 1$/20 Story Office . 300,000 sqt\. Health Club . . 30,000 sq,l\. . Tol&! . , '05,UW sq.ft. ~ PHASE 6-2002 15 SIOry Office 4 300,000 sq.ft. 8 Screen Cinema ;( 1,800 ~tJ 300,000 sq, ft. Total 1,800 IUlJ - 5 1.111. f()}.Z <-JOF -606 . :JNI ':-"JNI'M::LclNI8N3 'SW d(;T :~~n gf-) BZ>l:~() i>' ~ 1 ! / I i I i I I I I -.. CD LOCAilON 0" PLAN A~EAS J ~' nV 'IQU~( LJ 3 TRI-CITY CORPORATE CENTRE 8:,:1':)'-AS:H-.lAN ASSO::;IATES I';: QZ'd L6f::? -<';iO~-60b .:)NI 'JNI~t~~NI';.JN"1 ..c.;w ("_t{-~l :}:() <)(1 f~7. -l.>() TABLE 2 TRI.CITY CORPORATE CENTRE FUTURE STUDY AREA DEVELOPMENTS Yur ~OO1 ~velopm'nt Distribution Dtvclopmcnt P1a Il.ll1nr 1,199,250 Llebt Area lQ.n. Om~f RdaD Industrial ReiU tdI 1 ~1l.875 lq.fI. 1l0~ 10" Olli 10~ 2 292,500 $<I f\ lO~ O~ .,O~ 20'\ 3 292,500 sq.ft. 70~ IO~ O~ 20~ 4 73,125 sq.fl, 70~ S~ O!l. 25 '\ 5 29,250 sq fi. 10" 75 " O~ lS~ TRIP GENERATION PM PEAK HOUR YEAR 2002 COIXl~ted Ratts - PlannLnI Area In . Oul Total 1 315 715 1030 2 42 249 291 3 '217 484 701 4 64 162 226 S 129 145 274 Total . 767 1755 2522 Total with TOM :' 767 1604 2371 tn.D,\~,n 13 IftoIlIll LZ"d ((~)FZ GOf". 60b ":1NI ~NI~:L3~NI,:)N-:] iSW n(jl:~~n g() 9Z '":l.::>C) ',,, ~," ,e,: ' ':it,' _', " .. ,;:: '0 I r~ ~ _: i 5 if i g! r - ~ -A~ 1.-.By7.....-..... ' ~:/ , ~-e~~, '\ a:: i ! '~ ~<tt\ ~ --, -;'= udl -/ -14 -t~r~- u " \ ' 1: ,~ ;hi~' . , 0\' \ ,-' -"",," "'\ ,-) ..., .-t, "".' C:l LlF :\:::.., :\,; "^r; /" to ,? 11..~} i- _._-~ " II I \, I I':~::- II' d'll J.. ~ ;,;.~~... \\ \/. ~I \\' ,8 , r~l.lc ~D<l It;;" 0 , '-+\)''1~[-'--'\" "'f> -A __ . ~ tI """\ 2.' 'II;';;"';', ; :! .; ,~ ,. \,: " - -- - ~~~; Q :::::J; \~...';' I : \ ' J' ...; .(~:) ~*~ l~ :;.,..L, . , , " ., '{ '1- ..~:. " ~".i -~rv.:l,: , ~i"4"lr~ir; .~'X;' : \ ~ \ . f+- ! : i IE . "--l.~i ,> .~.. .J 1 \ ' ~'.':' --t-- "If'"'.' ----.~ ~ ~\\ ,.("., I , ".-~~; I.. ~""\, r;~,0. ,1' l ~~,~ .r' -...:. N ~'""- . . .. t') , T J I' .../"''( : \ I':y.. .. . I 1 -,.....:,., t c.,' I l't I, ~ ,- , . ',:li:'I','! ~ , ro'''; :>..... :.Il. , I'" Ilf, u~ '---;:;- I 5/ .(}~ '''r ' ~ 1......:'/1-.- t;-... - " --j- - ~=:.. --~~U".hP'" --I I'r~ ).. ilL .. :. ,'\.~~ J ~I ,.., '\., v-'\ : I // I\.\ I ,llJ In I~; ~ ..... .. 1 .... -, ""-~. I ~[ :\14 ....~ '- f";~ / I~"'~ Y /. J 'm..~ ".... I!r ~.. ~, ,~ r ..,. ...,- . I. h t -T;: -. -- . - - - - .. ..' J:'" !II :",....u """""'- ~, ." I." ! ..,..'.... i ...:.... ~- (.:Po .. f- ,'" -1 " '!,J,-r I .........1, ~.~ '.0- ,il ~~". r. p, ... I = S .. --+- , -::::I.' . . I 'f. ... , - ..... I -, 1''''' 0;.. 1'- l~'" '.., ! N.:; ". ~ II -.-'~ ",t.,,~: ,,1"1 'I".;.:"r~ [~,' ~'tw:;~:~~"ll 'Wi r -'..T ~:,.'.'IU~i:~;. I l-_L.t ~ ~ . '/J ~_)~ 1.'-~:'~::~"::"'''' ~ n1;'0:': ~-- t-.. ~': dJ j -'"l{. _ _ ~ - ~ t-......' ,-: ~... l",' .. " j -~J I -I.... ,,-.. .~" Z. w ,. _: \ ~,'\.~ BZ-d ,.i6\c.:Z-SO,: -606 '::JNI 9NI~,n:'lNI9N~lSW d91 :f:O 'Jf, Hi' ,C)C) 81 '~I~ ~ then evaluate(! to determine the mlfie impact of the proposed development MlUgatlon rr.C4;,Jres .....ere identified INhict! ate needed 10 m.untain =p14ble pc.a1 hO"l u~r;, Ope..uonl level of Service Concept The buis (or interseo;;tion analysis and level of S(rviu delenninllions is the OpctluonaJ A.nllym for si,nllized interseo;;tions conwned in the 198~ HJghway Capacfry Manual, Spttial Repon 209, by the Tranlp()rution Re.surch Board. This method involves th~ wCIl14tion of Ivetl2c vehicle SlOpped delay, whieh i$ then related to a level of serviu. Although not directly related to level of S(rvice values, the degree of ~tunllion expressal a.5 a volume to t4.p4Cily miD (vie) 11 ilso Provided. 'Level of service" is a term which deflnes any of an lnfirute num~ of c.omblnalJOnl of mEne operating COnditions that m~y occur on a eiven lane or roadway when II is SUbJOCled 10 various traffic volumes. Level of service is a qu.aJilAtive rncuure of the e(fccl of a num~r o( factors. which include speed, travel time, tramc interruptions, freeoom 10 m;lJ1euver. utery. dr1Vmg comfort, and convenience. There are six. (6) levels of Stl'liu. ^ through r. which relale to driving conditions from best to worsl, respectively. The characteristics of tnJflC operalJons for these levr.ls of 5trvice are summaril.ed in Table 4, In general, Level of ServIce A represenl~ free-flow condition~ with no congestion. level of Service F. on the OthCl hand. lepresents severe congestion with stop-and-go conditions. Many communities have adopled I~vel of Service D a.s a critenon for aecepuble levels of service when tuture condllJOm are being analy*. : . The City of SaJI &mardino h4S adopled a goal to ma.mwn Level of Setvlce C. However, puk hour conditions may reach Level of Serviu D on congested and major roadways. level of Service D may only be e~coeded to Level of Service E (capacity) on regionally IlgnifiC8J11 arterials where the ellhtin& peak hour level of 5trviCl; is already at E or F For the purpose of this srudy, LOS-D was our goal, and is acceptable illll study inlClSections The intenCl:tion C<lpacity prognm utilized in this study is SIGNAL-85, a computerized venion of the 1985 Highway Capacity Manual prOl;edul't. endorsed by the Federal Highway Administntion ThIs program wu SeIi;cted due 10 its Wptabthly to turning movcmenl controlled inteT5eCtions. The Tri-Cily Centre site is situated such that most enlty and cut ll1ovement! must turn on or off Watcrmch Avenue or Tippecanoe: Avenue As I re\Ull, mmt acceSS intersections require phase-ovtrlaps and multi-phase operations to handle the demands. SIGN....L-8~ Is uniquely luiled to evaluate such operations, and was one of the methods approvcc tor U$C by the City slAIr. Several of the interior Tri-Cily Centre intersections are nOI signal1red. To LeSt the gromelIic ad~uaey of th~ intersections, a signal Wi.! ..uumC>1and al'tlulung vie. deby, and Level of tt1.D\~.l1f 13 10.11'1 6?'-d J6\'7. ,>0>;'-606 '~)NI '.:)NI~j"13NI'::JNJ .sw d/l:f-O (_Jh 8? 'l:JO ) 0\:. <_I If}' .1 10. Tippeanoe Avenue is a main ~dwlY !>trvine Nonon AIr For~ aa~ to tl'1e non,'l. Tippeanoc ^ Venllt nu sign~iz.o:j tnf(k conuol {or all major lntersectJons 111 the IlvO} arc.a Jlls &lllJeip.u.c,d thaI lhc cUITent In\tr>lXllOn wIth Ro~wOO<l Dnve WId be clo\.cAJ IUid Haniman PIau will be ruJigned nonherly 10 connect wilh tI.1Sling Uure:.....OOd Drwe Nerlher of these intersections ue cunenLly slgnll1z.ed Hospi14Jiry Lanl'-Hospiulity we is a four-lane ro.adWlY (twO lane..! ill elch d'nctJon) e~\J;ndin& ta.l1-weS\ through the study uea U\<l provides dirtCllcceSS to Tn'City ?'Sub Hospitality we provides I nl.i~ median throughoul most of tlle Tn-City development Hospil!.1ity lAne is cum,oUy signaliud at iu inleDe.:bOn will> Waleman Avenue and Tippo:;&llOC Avenue. II is expecte<l that the interSoeCtion of HospitaJjty Lane and the ne"- fm.....!y inttrchange al Carnegie Drive will be s'lgrlAliwl when completed. Addltiond.lh. two drivewlYs ldJa~nt to the approved retAil unleT ue cunently lignaJod. Olmegit Drlvt-.{:arnegie Drive is a hor~shoc shaped (our.lane roadway UWO 1411C\ In each dlfe(;lJon) serving the Tn.City In... Fxi\ling volumn on Ca.rneg.c \),,'c lL'c rtlatively low. Signaliulllon is expcclc.:J at the inler~\lon of CarnegIe D,..\~ '" ,.~ HospitAlity Lan. at the new Routt 10 w,slbound fr~way nmps YDMtroilJ Way-Vanderbilt Way is a shon. (our. lane roadway (two Il11es Tn e<lch dire<;tion) provIding ac(~IS 10 the western portion of the TriCity development. The illterSe(;tion of YaIlderblll Wly IUld Walermln Avenue IS curTtnlly "inalll.od. Brirr Drlvt-Brier Drive is I four-lane roadway (two lanes 10 each dl(e(;!Jon) wnil 8 rnsed median serving the northern side of the TR,Clty development. Brier Drive .s signalized al its intersection with Tlppewloe Ave.nue. . Harrll/uJn I'lact-HtNiml11 PIau is , local roadway that col1l\e<;U with Rosewood Drive. east of the Tri.City development area. Hanimln Place provides the mOSI dir~1 access to Tippo:canoe Avenue and iu in\cr\:hlllge with Inltn~te 10. 11 is tll~wJ thai Harriman Plact will be realigned to WnnOCI with Laurelwood Drive. This wiU provide gluteI sepantion between the inlerSe(;tion of Harriman P~ee and Tipp<<anoe A venue I11d the Interstate 10 interchange which is closely spaced. It II il/Iticipalecl that thiS Will be<:ome . major a(A;.eU point 10.TippecI11oc A venue for the propol.eCl project TIll S Illtersection willaho require slcrfa:tiution. EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES fuisting wee'l:day a.fI.e.rnoon peAk. hour trafftc volumes were obwnw hom fIeld counts conducteG in May IlId June 1989 al the foUol'ine intersections. ..u._ an n '&kIlt. /_G~.: ("~ (_iO~ bOb ':JNl 'IN I ~JJ IN I ~JN~~lSW dll: EO (_HI H? --1.)0 / r. ~ , ,{,. If' - d The PM peal<. lIour capacity lJ\aly!>oes detailed in Table 6 idenofle\ \,1)&\ '.lire( :r\trloKtlons require mltlgalion to maintAin the adopted level of service sWld.1rd. Tl1ese .mltJla:wnl arc de>enbcd <II follow$: WaJtmLlln Avtnut llM llorpiuility lAM Southbound: Add. socond left Nm lane Nonhbound: Add one (I) exclusive riglll Nm Il/Ie TlpptC4/10' A. vtnUl aM Hammill' PliJCf Ta.ble 6 indicates thll the lnlerso::tion of Hamman Plice II Tippean~ II opentir'i al LOS F. njs int.crse.:tion is capahle of acwmmodJiling rhe demand volumes at LOS B jf re!<X<lled Mrther\y \0 Laure1wood Drive -.nd signaliud If this can lwl be ac;;omp~ist,e.d al :)::s phlUC. a tempofllf)' ~Iucion with turning rtlll1elionl may be required Dela)' and queuing ob:.crvcd al this location are occurring from the 1-10 westbound ramp signal The cor,dlOlOn obscrved is repre>enlalive of LOS F and warran13 mlugalion. For the pulJlOsc of this lI\aJ) IiI, the rcl0C4.tion il ilsumod to be implement.ed for fuNrt development phases. 1I0rpi.uJ1Jry Uznf aM CArn'ttt Drlve-f.IO Ramps Thr. volume projections al HospilAlily Lane and Carnegie Drive comblned w)L~ the ptopoKd Jll11e I.m.nr,ement\ II({J! require signiliu,lion. Thll signaliptiOll is ptJ\ of the inler>ecuonlnmp n:consttuction project. ' The n:commendod mitigalrd 1a.ne configurations {or the ExistJ.n1 Rodistnbutcd condition IS depietcrl in Fi&ure 6. The PM peAk hour tnffic volumes are &wle.d in Filum 7, 8 l1\d 9. . . .......... lIT 24 ....,'" "'" '-G~_:G -(.:iOf: f-)()() '::lNJ ~)NJlcLI]NI~N3 lSW dBI :f:O 96-gZ-ClC>o ,- "" ... ~8_ '-- 2 ~-- .J 1\. ...... 2 DRIER DRlYE "~ .~ -" ifi ~ 1- "0 ~~~ '< 1,~ ~ 0 z. '< u ~ 0.. ...8 t Cl. . . r L1 ~ --" l- ).~ ......" ,- 3' HOSPITALITY IA1\'E ~ '06 -" itr II... no ~~:;; " N1S LEOEND xx, . '969 VOLV~(S .... P ~ P[~' HOVP ~... Ll1 "'-- ).~ .-, ,- 2~ ROSEIlOOD 6-" iti I..... 'el~ .,~", "'~- . . . .~~ . ;t1" <), ~ ~\Y ".. 0 l, ."... Ff'/' .. LI~3 "'"' () V' )~ ...... ~ ,- '" V., .:1\ .."' .,.... \ ~~ ~~ 21. -" f i 3- ~ 32& -. l2 ~ EXISTING REDISTRIBUTED TRAFFIC VOLUMES [EiLton-Aschmen Associat~s. Inc. ~- f1C t.:R [ U {} ?'f'-d .....r>r.? C,()~. (lOh ':)Nf I)NI~1 ~ lNf'-)Nt l'>~{'--J ,I(,I.~ () 'H, q..7 -l:")() PHASE 1-1RI-CIlY CORPORATE CENTRE 1991 PM PEAK HOUR Phase 1 of the Tri-City CenlIe development will ronml of fewl, rcstJul'aI1l, and office u~\ totalling 490,000 square feel The PM pe.1k hour trips will loW 2()1) T.hlo 7 details Ihe Phase I Land Ust Program llfld lI1p genera.l1on The PM pa.k hOUI Capamy ana.lysis detaile<1 in Table 8 identiflCO thaI four (4) of th~ nudy inLcrSllCDons will require mitigation a:s follows: H'altrmall Avtnut aM HorpluJ/ily u.nt Northbound. Southbound' Westbound Add a ~'ond exclusive right turn lane. Add 1 third through lane. Add a ~nd left rum lll11e. Reltnpe for one (J) through lane. Restripe for one (1) exclusive righllUm lane. 1/0rplJ.a1iry fAil( alld CAmtgit DriY(I/-IO Ramps Eastbound: Westbound: Add a second lhrouih lan~. Add a second leO turn IltIe. ~ TippUaflOt AVlnut alld 1-10 Wtstboufld RflInps . . . Southbound: Add one (l) exclusive-free right turn lane Northbound: R~slripe middle lane (or shared lefl and through lane ~ Tippuanot AVtnul aM 1-10 EostbouM RD1IIps Southbound: Restripe mIddle lane for shUed left ltId through lane The rorommended mitigaled 10000e ronflgUllltions for Phase I. 1991 are depicted On FIgure 10. No new traffic siinaJ WlITaIllS bued on peak hour volumes are mel for Phase 1 condItions TnITic volumes fot Phu.e I lJe depict~ on Figures II, 12 and 13. ) ~\nM._.". 31 '''''.1 f::f:. d . G~' Z - sov: -- 60r") .~)NI '.:)NIH~l-lNr~-)Nf -l("-~It<J _f(,f :~--n (H"-> n? -1'(") . HIS LEGEND ():]I . PH4.S( 1 lOTAl V'Olv""CS P l,I PC" HOUR ) ~' ,P I~~.( \~~,~ ~ ~\).I \':. "'/;." r, . /(v4-' V ) s: "'-- "'-- )1~ w > -< W o Z < U - Q. Q. 1:: IO~ . -.. 1& -.. '- 2 .- 2 "~ iti 0-" -~~ '-.7 ... " r-D iti ;'~J) ,-17 ...., ~20 iti ~S~ ...~ . , , ~f L223 ). ;=~S6 ~t ."" ..'" ...'" "'''' "'''' +~ PHASE 1 TRAFFIC VOLUMES 1991 rnAl1Qn-Aschman Associates. }nc 110;..- . d / 5r:?- c,o~_: (j()(, ..f: "",,,, --'" ,n~ "I _~ '2_ lOl-~ '" .. "'~~ <1\.. _ jH. 'O.J 6.... .uo --. . JI~:::: jr J'6 -. '" r; "'- BRIER DRIVE HOSPITALITY LA:\E ROSF.\\OOD ~n~~' -::-)NI ~)Nl~1'I,lNI~-)N~1 --.c;w elf)l -~C) r/(, q,7 -l.){) . PHASE 2 . TRI.CITV CORPORATE CENTRE 1993 PM PEAK HOUR Phase 2 of !he Tri-Ciry Corpome CenlJ'e Development wIll conml of restaurant and o!flce u'<s tOtalling 40l, 800 ~u:ue f~l. A IOta! o( 964 PM peak hour tnps 1'''1 be added al a rClulc o( Phase 2. Table 9 detAils \he Phase 2 land Ilse pro&nm and trip aent~Lion, The PM ptdll hOllr capacity analyses de~led in Table 10 idenlifie$lIl1t 1\1;0 lnterS<<Dons require mitigation to maintain \he adopted level of service. Two addiuonaJ IOtecsoctions will require slcnaliulion The~ mitigations are as (ollows: War,rman A~'"UI oM R,d14Ms Boulnard Ea.llbound Westbound' Add a $UCnd left turn Add a se.:ond left rum 4 1TpptcClM' AvtllUt aM Harrl1nlln Pla,t ) EastbOund: ReslIipe to provIde one (1) shared le(l-lhrollgh lanc, tnd one (1) eXClUSIve ri&hllUm lane. }(orpl14JJry lAll' and Rarrim41l Pkut The ~mmended mitigated lane configurauonS for Phase 2, 1993 are depicted on Figure 14 Ph~ 2 PM pak hour r.raffic volumes are del.lllod on Fiiure..s 15, 16 and )7. ) -_.an 38 '.II't S~'<i L ()~:'? - GOf: - 60G '::JNI -:JNI~:::L33NI9N.J lC;W d(d:~-O c)h 87. ")::JO . PHASE 3 - TRI-CITY CORPORATE CENTRE 1996 PM PEAK HOUR Ph;a..<;e 3 o( the Tri.Clty Corporate Centre Development 1Wl1l coni/It of o{(iC{$ and a hOLeI louJling 319,000 S<juare feel of offlC{ space in addition to the hotel. A Total o( 654 PM pe.U. hour tnp1 WIll be added a5 a result of Phase 3. Table 11 details the Phase 3 land use progr~m and tr1p cenetlllJon. The PM peak hour c.tpacity analyses dewled itl Table 12 identifies that three intersections rcqulre mJligallon to maJnlAin the adopteO level of service. Thes.e mitietliom are as fOUO"T Wa./fl77l4n Avrnu, alId Varulrrbtls Wa] Nonhlx>und Convert the e.xclusive right lurn lane to a shaJed right cum-through l&1lc Transition nonh of Intersocoon Tipptcano, AVfnu, alld Harriman Pia" I Nonhbound Conven the exclullve nght-tum lane to , Ihated na:ht-through lane Widen a.s needed and eJllelld throu,h intenection Southbound' Add a se.;ond through lane. Caf'rlfgi, D,iv, alii! HosplJalliy Lanr:nO Ramp . . . Southbound: Add, second through lane. The recommended mitigated lane configurations (or Phase 3, 1995 are depicted on Filure 18. Phase 3 PM peU hour traffic volumes are detailed on FigurC5 19, 20 and 21. , , ) .....~ "" 45 .ft.t...., q}:. d (elf:? ciOF' ()()() . ')N I ':)N J ~_:L] _-IN I ~-)N 1 l~"-J dO?: ~~() 9fl H.~ l')() . ~TS LEGEND Xn . ~""A,S( ). TOJ."l V<"LVM($ P LA P[A"- HOU~ i_',P fl'<<-", "(~ c \) <, ~~JI V ) WJ :> <: w o Z <: u ~ Q. p. - b ~~'" '-2 --- '-4 ,n~ "Ie ";~ iti .8"'" :: ~ ~ ~ BRIER DRIVF: HOSPITALITY LAt\'E .. .. -~., '- '8 '" -- .JJl +-, ROSEWOOD "" I~.j "Iti ,- ']0. ",... " - .., . . . ~i '- 296 ~ - -5 )J "'" if ~~ PHASE 3 TRAFFIC VOLUMES 1995 ffiJUlon-AschmBn A~socifl~es.lnc. 1;~'c1 I ()~.? (;05" - bO(-) '" ~~~ '-' )J~ ;=~~ 2)1.j -.- lil' iTi ~"'~ -~ , . '. . , ~~ ,~ HI.J t i 3-' J,,,, J]J' ;l!:: ~ . :)NI ~]NI~j3:JNI~]N3 ,SW dO<':f:O 9G-B?:~Jo , H1S LEGEND ... . PHAse 6 TOUl vOwut S PU PtAK HOUR . ~' ~ P.tI' /~ "JI I.: )flll' ~ '-f:,r' (.P ... d! )~~ __z -~ r" ~ ;>- ..c ~ o z -< u - 0.. Q. j: .~::: if; 36" ~i~ ::l~.... __8 ....-... )~~ :-=~~ 2~ ~ ~ t i "0-' tllli" -..... ... ~~;;. ,-'9 J~~ ;:~a ';~ '"Itr m-. ~r~ , , , '" t! ~ ,-343 -- ..., J~ '-20- '"It ~... ... .- . ~~ ~~ : "t.J ~r ,-+ - 600"'" ..;t ~ PHASE 6 TRAFFIC VOLUMES rnALlon-Aschman Assocja~es. IP"d !6f:Z-C;OE-606 2002 IT}c, ~ BRIER DRIVE HOSPITALITY LANE ROSElI'OOD ~ -~Nl 9NIM33Nl9N3 '5W dlZ:f:O 96-RZ-~~O .. ~ ~L.!. fD)rn ~ rn owrnf{)' ln1 OCT 17 1996 ~ THRIFTV OIL CO. CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & BUILDING SERVICES Van S. Tarver, Senior Vice-President Retail Via Facsimile and l!. SMail October II, 1996 Michael W. Grubbs Senior Civil Engineer City of San Bernardino City Hall 300 North "0" Street San Bernardino, CA 92418-000 I RE: PUBLIC WORKS PROJECT NO. 96-01 MEDiAN ISLAND CONSTRUCTION IN TIPPECANOE A VENUE THRIFTY OIL NO. 345 1945 TIPPECANOE A VENUE, SAN BERNARDiNO, CALIFORNIA Dear Mr. Grubbs Please allow this letter to serve as Thrifty Oil Co.'s unequivocal objection to the above-referenced Public Works median project in the City of San Bernardino, California. Thrifty Oil Co. operates an Arco service station and Sunshine Food Store at the above-referenced address. Our preliminary estimates indicate the proposed median project will quite literally cut our business and revenue in half; more specifically, Thrifty would suffer a loss of revenue between $75,000.00 ami $100,000.00 per month. Without a doubt this would necessitate Thrifty Oil to terminate and abandon our operation at this site in the City of San Bernardino. Thrifty is supportive of the City's efforts to provide aesthetic improvements along the City's thoroughfares. However, when said improvements jeopardize the economic well-being of the City's businesses, then there needs to be a serious re-examination of the proposed improvements. Thrifty would be more than happy to sit down with the City's staff to discuss various alternatives to the proposed improvements Please reserve a time for us to speak at the October 17, 1996 Environmental Review Committee hearing. Furthermore, we reserve the right to provide additional testimony in both verbal and written form. ~e9 10000 Lakewood Boulevard, Downey. California 90240. (310) 923-9876. (714) 522-3244. Fax: (310) 869-9739 '. Ifwe can be of any further assistance, please feel free to contact myself or David Rose at (310) 923- 9876. Thank you for your time and consideration in this matter. Best regards, ~~JL:J/ ~~ Senior Vice-President cc: Tom Minor, Mayor Betty Dean-Anderson, Councilmember Rita Arias, Councilmember Fred Curlin, Councilmember Jerry Devlin, Councilmember Norine Miller, Councilmember Edward Negrete, Councilmember David Oberhelman, Councilmember Shlluna Clark, City Administrator Roger Hardgrave, Public Works/Engineering Director Mike Hays, Planning and Building Services Director Gus Romo, Assistant Planner Vince Le Pore, III, Esq. David Rose ,... J6 14: 52 '5'909 3836 SHELL L-\ EAST 1i1.\002'-002 Shell Oil Products Company . Los AnQ."" ea.. Rolail Dlstrlel 3200 E.lnklnd~,. BIYcl .....va O~Ca.~7lH October 10.1996 , -~ Roger .G. Hardgrave - . City of San Bernardino 300 North aD- Street San Bernardino. CA 92418 re: Median island construction on Tippecanoe from 1-10 freeway to laurelwood Avenue Project No. 95-01 Dear Mr. Hardgrave: This letter is to express our concern with the proposed median island construction project located along Tippecanoe AvenUe. Specifically, we are Concerned with the closltre of the intersection at Tippecanoe and Rosewood. Shell Oil Company has owned and operated a service station at the comer of Tippecanoe and Rosewood for approximately thirty plus years. We have enjoyed doing business at this intersection and we hope to continue our operation for many years to come. The proposed median island will block cross-over traffic at the intersection of Rosewood Avenue which will have a significant detrimental effect on our service station operation. Convenient access to and from a service station operation is essential to the success of our business. The proposed median is'and will prevent access to the station by all south bound traffic. reducing our potential customer access by approximately 50%. As an alternative to your proposed design, we strongly encourage the installation of a traffic signal at the intersection of Tippecanoe and Rosewood. This traffic light would provide the needed access to the local business. In addition, traffic flow could be easily synchronized with th? proposed Cal Trans signal at the freeway. In conclusion, we strongly oppose your current plan which will block the intersection of Tippecanoe and Rosewood. As an alternative, we encourage your consideration of a traffic signal which will preserve the businesses in the area. Your consideration is a appreciated. ,----- , . '\. I'ltk ----- NICHOLS. STEAD. BOILEAU & KOSTOFF ATTORNEYS AT LAW 00,........0 P. NICHOI.S 11901-197., C.......ALES A. STEAD 11901-1968' ROfllEAT S. HICO::SON '19,7-1992' A PRO'-ESSIONA... COAPQAATION TELE....ONE '90,)' 399.7000 "...X ....09. 398-' ClOD f"OOTH'...... INDEPENDENT llANo( S....1l.0ING 223 WEST "OOT,""!,..,,, IIOULE......"O. SECOND "LOOR CLAREMONT. CALIF"ORN1A '3171\ October 8. 1996 Roger G. Hardgrave Director of Public Works/City Engineer City of San Bernardino 300 North "D" Street San Bernardino. Califomia 92418-0001 CERTIFIED MAIL Re: In-N-Out Burger location at 1944 South Tippecanoe Avenue; Your File No. 13.84 Dear Mr. Hardgrave: You will recall having received a letter from me dated August 21, 1996, and meeting with me and a representative of In-N-Out Burgers, Rich Boyd, to discuss your proposed project which calls for an uninterrupted median at Tippecanoe and Rosewood Drive in San Bernardino and the elimination of on street parking in the area. It is my hope that you will recall that we not only objected to the project as proposed, but also about the absence of appropriate notice of the Traffic Safety Commission meeting which would have given us the opportunity to appear and oppose the project as proposed and to support the altemative concept which would extend the median only to Rosewood Drive, continuing to permit left turns at Rosewood. As advised at our meeting of September 4, 1996, In-N-Out did not receive your offices' letter of May 21, 1996, until approximately August 15, 1996, and your meeting was conducted on or about June 12, 1996. When we left our meeting of September 4, 1996, with you and Tony Lugo, we were given to understand that the matter was to have been considered by the Environmental Review Committee approximately three (3) weeks to one (1) month hence and that special efforts would be taken to assure that Rich Boyd of In-N-Out Burger and I would receive notice of the meeting. Having heard nothing from your offices, we are now advised by letter dated October 1, 1996, that the meeting was, in fact, conducted on September 19, 1996, without notice to either Rich Boyd or me and that the committee proposed that the project receive a negative declaration. We would like to take this occasion to again request that you personally take steps to see that the intemal communication procedures that are denying us the opportunity to appear ... I. NICHOLS. STEAO. BOILEAU e OSTOFF A PRor~SS'aNAI.. CORPORATION ATTORNEYS AT LAW Roger G. Hardgrave October 8, 1996 Page 2 and be heard at the appropriate meetings concerning this project are immediately corrected. In-N-Out Burger does wish to have input concerning alternative designs for this project including, but not limited to, the possibility of signalization at the intersection of Rosewood Drive and Tippecanoe. . Please consider this letter as In-N-Out Burgers' comment in response to Mr. Michael Grubbs' letter of October 1, 1996, and our request for the opportunity to appear and be heard at the October 17, 1996 meeting of the Environmental Review Committee. NICHOLS, TEAD, BOILEAU & KOSTOFF A Prof,ssio I Corporation By \ ~~ Donald E. Bollinger -, - I DEB:gf cc: Fred Encinas Rich Boyd Michael Grubbs Antonio A. Lugo ,----- C I T Y 0 F AUG 2 j 1995 San -Bernardino PUBLIC WORKS/ENGINEERING ROGER G DIRECTOR H A R D G R A V E R C E August 27, 1996 File No. 1. 7013 13.84 Mary Coppola Real Estate Finance Manager In-N-Out Burger 4199 Campus Drive - 9th Floor Irvine, CA 92715 RE: Rehabilitation of Pavement - Tippecanoe Avenue, Route 1-10 to Mission Creek Your letter of 8-16-96 inquired as to the concept that is being developed for the improvement of Tippecanoe Avenue. Enclosed, for your reference, is a print of the two (2) sheets of the plans being developed for this project. In addition to rehabilitating the pavement, a curbed median with landscaping will be installed. The concept for this project does not include an opening at Rosewood Drive, due to its proximity to the freeway ramps. However, an opening will be provided at Laurelwood Drive, which will allow northbound vehicles to make a V-turn. Three (3) traffic lanes will be provided in each direction, in order to accommodate the projected traffic that will be generated by the redevelopment of the former Norton Air Force Base. On-street parking will necessarily be prohibited, in order to accommodate the additional traffic lanes. (We will be submitting this project for environmental review the near future. Notices in connection with the processing this project will be provided as required by law. We regret that you were unable to attend the informal dis- cussion of traffic measures at the Traffic Safety Committee meeting. Letters were sent to all abutting businesses, and only one person attended. This person was in agreenent with the concept of installing a median. in "\ Of.) 300 NORTH 0 SlUlll SAN BERNARDINO CALIf i;;?418 0001 jItO"1384.5111.384.S112_FAX:38C_5155 MARY COPPOLA Improvement of Tippecanoe Avenue August 27, 1996 Please advise if you have additional inforMation. We progress of this project. any questions or will keep you would like advised of any the V:zjUg~ ROGER G. HARDGRAVE Director of Public Works/City Engineer Ene. cc: Donald E. Bollinger, Nichols, Stead, Boileau & Kostoff w/Attach - NICHOLS. STEAD. BOILEAU & KOSTOFF ... PAOf"ESSIO"'''',- CDA=OA...T,ON OO.......LO P. NICHOL!. ATTORNE' 5 AT _A\\ 11'10\ '9713' TI.LtPHON( 190.,., 39U-7000 '-OOTHlLL INDEPE....~(NT B....~... ;;>"'LD'NG CHARLES ~ STf"AU 11901 191;8' AUBERT S. HICKSON fA'" 19091 398-1000 :;!:23: WEST f"DDTHILL BG_,-[VA"'::;: St~OND F"LDDA CLAREMONT, C....Llf"O;:;ONlA 91711 "917-'<'<);':' August 21. 1996 Roger G. Hardgrave Director of Public Works/City Engineer City of San Bernardino 300 North "0" Street San Bernardino, California 92418-0001 AUG 2 ? 1W Re In-N-Out Burger location at 1944 South Tippecanoe Avenue; Your File No. 13.84 Dear Mr. Hardgrave: On behalf of In-N-Out Burger. I would like to reqU€st a meeting with you at our earliest possible mutual convenience to discuss the above-referenced project. In-N-Out advises that it learned after-the- fact of a City Traffic Safety Committee meeting concerning "rehabilitation of pavement-Tippecanoe Avenue, from 1-10 Freeway to Mission Creek" at which action was taken that may result in an uninterrupted median on Tippecanoe Avenue at Rosewood and a loss of parking to our In-N-Out location. We are very much concerned about the manner in which this project was "Noticed" and the manner in which it will affect our business at the above location. We are very much in hopes that the matter has not reached a point where our input to the design will not be given appropriate consideration. Once again, we would very much appreciate a meeting with you and we will anticipate a telephone call to arrange such a meeting in the near future. Very truly yours, NICH S, STEAD, BOIL;SU & KOSTOFF A Profe sional Corporation By \ rv-.u2- ~ Donald E. Bollinger '--- DEBgf cc: Fred Encinas Rich Boyd ~'r z. w > <t Vl.~ 1'.0" ... ~I J I _...d~" L.,=-::~~ IMOMCllMfWJ"l r o ~'lr.~~Jt~,~~~ -:~!"ll~: I .. ., . " ,.~.... ,>i5i'oU;;; ,l,y.........."'U.illll" r,,:i"'~"1 '.. .1 .. .,IGWf QIlW'll 1'1 ~~ """..., .. OIl ....."... i I .11 t~ T:oi:;rnmo~'\"Mji.ilicj'!iHtJ.JrxJ . ~.,"":""ii 'm I 1 L ; I 8 I ~~ i 'l . , "'l r;;j=' '{~;"-~ I"'" ..:( "I .J'I " . . j:\j I, . ,., I d.1l I i 11',1 , I 11,1 j , I) ~ , ,< 1 I ,." lJC Il(lljllltnlt 119'0" 1J'f It; ~ i -0.. 0"'''" ,.... "-,, ...... ....."." , 'i 1:C.:M.'I~"Olf.',j""")"Iwr.""'I.JlI1'O..i'.,.1 ';1;' {f:," ~:.- !{ 'J1i I"", 'I ~t: il l ." :. , , , w ~ N I ,....110 ..,.",WIYW'1 ""O~ Ull """0'" (lJ"'fllll'llIOli.lpno1l4#O!)IIlI.,OJl gc"'II'~W "., 0 ~h''''' '4'\'OIlJ"'~ u"'1"'1II~ 'IN I'UJ' 'YJ<< . " 'fU Z <t U '.. .. ._W 1.,~."" "'"011''''''' U""'^'1tIC ""II$'OJ' '3.... 01 '1' Q.. t t~;-,- I ']j~ II w I )^IWQ aOOMJCOIII ";1 ~'i l'ino.o' m \ ~"-- - I V'1 I ( Q.. - ~ 2 I ~ , 1 I' I I 'I ! (( ,l-j r ~ I, ::f'- - . . I ~ g '1 IJIII i I ~" ,"""..u,,'" ,,' TDiI It J.. ~,~~;1II,;,';;.1;:;-~ '=t~~ ~ / '/' _./ (( \ ..- )fro \ .- ~r ~ , ......- ., .... . . ~,.-r \ \ ... \ \ 1f&'f'(J"t'l!Q1O' . . ~'flfol')l1lj :;:;:::::=-==<---=-==fM"!"h, _~ LL~U II 1_'....' Ioiit:)lllll"" ...;..;~~~ :;"'j"I" t. 1;':' r " .r- ~ ' \1 \\ 1\' .., '''::1 \\ ", .0' ....1 $l11ll\lA: I \ '''I' H "\ ~ 'J l:- 1:.1 .._ I ..--:;:: ~ ~ ..~~~--- ,,"-!( '~.:==,~ .............~ : 'j:, -' .......... , ~ 'l.. _.. ,JO..... I fill ....~..n...-...-H lllljO'.' I ',' f r] Jo'''' .~... .... , IT',I,. .......... I ...... 'r,;ilrf';' ~~:;;.;:s:: I ~:lt ~.=~ ~l~- I " .)1/' ", "',..<J, ( -r-~~.l..j.;. 1 ,.. IH t. " ""',\1 1>....'.1...1' , - ' . . ... i. it :! "Q ;e ~I ~ ., ... I' ~ . f}~-: . d PHASE 6 TRI-CITY CORPORATE CENTRE 2002 AM/PM PEAK HOUR Pha.sc 6 of the Tn-Cily COfl)Or.lte Centre represents the buildout pha~ of the development. Phut 6 will add a 3oo.()C() square fool offl~ buildine and an j ,800 ~t cinema. A to~ of 958 PM peak hour trips will be added lU a ruull of this last phue. The Tri-City Corpon.le Centre will have achieved a lOW building &re.II of 3,047,3S2 square foet al completion of Phue 6, Table 17 detaill the PhaJe 6 developmenl plan and puk hour trip leneration, As indicated in the introductory chapters, a Phase 6 abbreviated AM peal hour analysis was reque~ted for fOllr (4) of \he most sensitive inttrsection5, These are; · WattrInan Avenue and Vandertilt Way . Wattrman ^ venue and HosPll,ality Llne · Hospitality Llne and Carnegie DrivelI-10 ramps · Carnegie Dnve ..nd Vandertilt Way The trip gener.illon for the AM pe<llc hour and capacity analyses are includod in Tables 17 Jnd 18, respecuvely. The PM ~ hour capacity analyses detsJlc.d in Tables 18A and B indicates that throe (3) in~r\oC(;tioM require mitigation to malntain the adopted level of service 5Wldards The mitigations arc a.s follows: . . W/1/imulll AVlllut AM R,dulfId, Bou/nard . Northbound: Add I third through lane wlbound: Add one (I) exclusive righi-rum lane 1Tpptcaflot A VillU, alii! Harri11uJn I'lDu Eastbound: Add a socond el<.c1uuve righHum lane Tlpplcanol A.VtllUt atull-lO Ealfbound Ramp, . . Northbound: Convert the exdusl~e right.turn 111le to I shared riehl-through lane No(C' Widening of Tippecanoe Avenue under the 1.10 bridge will be no;euary IS described in Phase. mitigation. fT'laD'T"laD. ...". 66 l~lttl "\./()~'? SO~~--60f-) . ')NI ~N[H~~NI~N3 lSW rlo~:~n qG8Z-~~O TABLE 1SA TRI-CITY CORPORATE CENTRE PHASE 6 LEVEL O~ SERVICE ANALYSIS PM PEAK HOUR 2002 PbUl! 6-2002 Mlllcaled C*ometl"} lntt 1"S<<110 n V/C Delay LOS V/C ~lay LOS Waterman A Vtnue Ill: Vandertil! Way 0.80 29.3 D Ho~pjuJity LAne 086 31.3 D Route 10 Westbound" 0.87 11.6 B Redlands Boulevard 099 48.4 E 0.77 26.4 D TIppe:;.anoe A v~ue at: Brier Drive 0.66 8.5 B Hospitality Lane 0.69 10.3 B Harriman Place 0.93 66..5 F 085 38.5 D Route 10 Weslbound 0.82 20.2 C Route 10 Easlbound 0.95 42.9 'E. 092 39.4 D c.mecie Drive at: Hospilalit)' LAne/Route 10 0.81 32.S0 D Vandertlil( Way 0.67 35.1 D Brier Dn ve 0.19 9.4 B Hospitality Lane (East) 0.21 S.3 1l Nonh.Soulh A~rial 0.31 9.5 B Hospilalily we at: Ham man Place Q.63 2S.9 D . ., NOTE: LOS - Level of Service bued on Intersection dc.lay. DELA Y - Average Slop~ delay per veruclc in IeCOnds. Vie - Volume to Capacity ratio u . deCree of IllIIation. . c See discuuion on Page 17. l1'\.-'Ul~I.A 68 10,,,,.. ()'tI"d If)}"? CiO}'-GOf> '~NI '::-JNI~J',:}--:JNrC)Nll':;W dl?:}"O q() HZ -.~)O " , lapeN I btltdO~~-.~~~A:a~ "'~"TY.:I '~iI::I /ll'tl'i I V.01; - ":99 t V I V l ~.LN30 e>NIQdOr-lS 'NY' S..."""";,." '"'0, O~~~38 ~S ~~: U I~~ !5 fl,l It ] j ff \ ~I I \ \ I I I I , \ I II II I . - \- ~\ \ 1\ I , \ \ I ~ ~ .J.Jf , I : i', , i I , ~' , ~I . :1' o. ~~ , , ' I, I I I 1 " .,' "".._.,~ ~~~".:-,..,.", !i"'li",i~"'--,,,:. ",' .'...' . . ~ 01/24/97 11:44 tt909 484 3836 SHELL LA EAST ~ 0011002 . 8 . SHELL OIL PRODUCTS COMPANY 3200 E.INLAND EMPIRE BLVD. STE.270 ONTARIO, CA 91764 (909) 484-J802 FAX (909) 484-383ti FAX Date: Number of pages including cover sheet: 1.... \-1.'1-'" To: ~........ ot'~\ '- '^""j 0"- t\'\~I.,U'.. ...t ~ G~ c.....~..:.\ FroDl: "'~\-L ~I'",\",- Phone: Fax phone: (30'\\ ') \1lf - ';) ~(,. I cc: (,\oq)"33'i-S"I~r - Phone: Fax phone: (909) (909) 484-3836 REMARKS: o Urgent o For your review 0 Reply ASAP o Please comment ~\e.~ L *""- .\.>.~.......... ..l,-", ""- ~..,," ~ ~...,...\ c.:.~ c...., ,-,-ENl\'(!d into lfecord It. / /;;L 7 /7 7 ;,j CiiUncllICmyDevCms Mtg. I by re AY~lld~ It~n, 30 ~k~CD~ City of San Bernardino /~ \.... -- / ~~7 01/24/97 11:48 tt909 484 3836 SHELL LA EAST 1aJ002/002 Shell Oil Products Company . Lco~!.I_Dlotrlcl 32QO I. In'" 1m", ~ .....:110 ClIIIIIIo. co. 111780 January 24. 1991 City of San Bemardlno 300 N. Mt)" Street San Bernardino, CA 92415 A TTN: Honorable Mayor and members of the City Council RE: Proposed Raillecl Median on Tippecanoe Avenue. North of 1-10 Dear Honorable Mayor and members of City Council: Thia lettar is to express our continued concern with the propoead median island construction project located at Tlppecanoe and extending north to Hospitality Lane. Specifically. we are concemed with the closure of the Intersection of Tippecenoe and Rosewood. As previously communicated to your offices. the proposed median island that extends to Hospitality lane would have a detrimental impact on our bu.ln_ as well as the other buslne...s in the area. Thl. project does not add...s. the.e business concerns or long term changes to the interchange which are currently under consideration by the San Bernardino Associated Govemments (SAN BAG). The altemative plan which provides a fifty (50) foot long raillecl curbed median between Route 1.10 and Rosewood Drive Ie collllidered to be the most logical approach at this time. It is my understanding that this proposed median will allow the intersection of Tippecanoe and Rosewood to remain open providing left tum access to the surrounding bUBineaaes. In conclusion, we believe the alternative plan (fifty foot median between 1-10 and Rosewood) is the most favorable and logical choice. We encourage your support of this alternative plan. Your consideration is appreciated. cz~~ P. M. Stratz Area Real Estate Representative Los Angeles East District l ~~~~~. ,,~Z,," :iN I >- Z;;!:g~fg ""'Of-4QO ?OCDCD~d .^~~pi::o (")C>C>o ~g~;ij '" ~> '1 "Z 0 0'" ;l) '" I 0 (1' ." CD ;l) ~ I)i r- '" III ~ -< '" )> ~ ::D Z ::D~~ mmo I~~ 000 mil~ ilmm ::DzO 2t5~ m)>)> Q-Iz z~O p~~ 8:e- 18il o z ..... C) o ::D ~ ~!~~~I~ u;::' zV)::tJ o:llo. c)' (1'1 ~?Uzr . ::Ol"'l~ "'()o~lI:~ ~;>~zg U1lDi~~ ~-<_c ......,~ ~_x " Ill" S; ;E -< '" '" III .$I> ~ Z .-< " !" <0 '" o (1' <0 I " ;l) III -< III o o " r- III -- - VARIES 9'-11' () c ;l) CD 8' 38 14' 12' 12'12' 12' 14' () c ;l) CD ,f(EE~i''<f(i'\J,1'' \_\0 1-10 01-1- ~ES\ eO\! NEW CURB ~Al "lI: ()o c;;; ;l) CD VARIES 11'-14' 1 VARIES 6'-11'--i LAURELWOOD q ~ "\ ROSEWOOD ~ l5. VARIES 13'-15' NEW CURB 0;" .0. "\ - '" DRIVE ~~ 0 CD'" 'q - "\ N '" I ~ 0 '" '" '" I :. " III <0 :>: () '" ('; '" ~N 0 III () :. -, r- 3' '" <0 II '" 0 q - '" 0 I I 50' 52' 45' ~Al I I 'lI: 41' 8~ 4' '" CD 81 ;l) CD I I 6' 12' 11' 013 ~Be ." " '" C ;l) x -< 0 ~ c " '" 0 z '" III ~ (f) '" c; " (f) ~ III c; c; Z r )> N Z r '" ~ N " N '" " z '" " z -< '" z -< ;l) '" (f) -< ;l) '" '" III 0 ;l) '" -< III 0 6 '" -< 0 6 Z -< 6 z Z '" "\ ~ l5. DRI'I.E '" "'0 '! . 0;", . " 6' 13' 011' 1 '11' 013' 3' 47' 5 ' 5' 42 40 0 CO..... z'"l'1 "tI ~V.I:::tl:::o bOt'z"'f'T'I :E2IO~ Z;jE g2 1"1 "'Of......QCI ~"''''~...,O ^ccV; . elel' '" (")1TI",2 ?'-::o:::o:::o ,., ~r; ~ ....z 0 0'" '" 0> I 0 '" .., '" '" g: ~ r ,., (/l j;! M (/) :r m :D~ "II~~O Om'TI:::j :DO"'-<""tI L 0) :D )>0(/)00 Z ~'TI""t1 ~~~~O ~~OZm I\)mzmO '-JoO)gJ~ m-i6;zm ~(/)O)>O '-J);!.,:D)> O'TIOoz ~;~~~ ort>Oo on1:J::$?~ C:D+;f;;:D t5~8t5~ ~n1~z" m2UEPrR :::l""tlm<E>:D z:DOo; "O-iCO f;z :rP 8 I 9 'iDl/:!"'~l='" ~z2~~~ ~O:E"''''~ ~g' ~!"ill "'lii~z 0 '!';"'elf;l~~ 19;.>:E2i!g "'<o~!5ill -~ c ::j: z~)( (,oI(J')f> c '" ::, '" 1'1 {;l .,.. ~ .~ <0 8 '" <0 I <0 8: <0 ~ '" ." !" ." r (/l \- ~(5T B () c 8' 38 '" () ; c 14' 12' 12' 12' 12' 14' '" "\ ~ \ \ " ""0':'''' t..--i..-- L-- ~ ~ ~(S --------- (/l , - - - ~'( :::I 11' Y '...9. f~(~~f _RMJ,. -......~ ""tI ""tI OUN 1'\ m ,;rw - ~ 0 f' - -- )> Ft! - \ f' Vl~'" I c;; '" 0 1'12' 12' 13' ~,.,~ 17 "''''61 VARIES 1 2' - 1 4' I ,.,'" 0,., t ~i:O VARIES 9'-11"- AR ES JlaiJI 51' g' otlg; '1' 46 ~PII r;~.., VARIES 11'-13' ( ~ iSa8 () \ 14'~ ~>~ c :!!Fz all zo", "'"" 11'11' 12' "':E I~ Q~ 3' '" ~~ 0' ~ 60' 0 141' 40' 20' 1~1Ft! .... "r "'" '" 4 ~ ~ DRIVE ROSEWOOD -~ I ~l::. " "'. . - 0;", 1~ / '" .q / "'. '" '" '\ ". ." ;E "'" 1Ft! g' 12' 0'11' 1" 12' 14' ". r 1 ,., I ~ I I I l I I I () c I '" I-< I I I I ~; ~O' 52' I 45' I I ~ I I I I I 4"- 41' 40' 12' gl I I . '" 'Z I I I h ~ I 12' 011'11, '11' 12' 14' b ./ IIj - '" "'. LAURELWqpo ~ "'. , ~ "! ~ DRIVE - 1 - '" '" o. "! '" . '! ~ ., .... r 1 '! '} r I 13' 011' 1" 11' 12' 14' I~I 47' 5 . 5"- 42 <11 0 I' o o '" o (') 0> o Vl () )> r;;N .... I <0 .... Vl () <0 o - II' 0> q N o ~e C! \:! ... ~ c '" ,., z '" (/l G'i Vl ~ G'i ~ N r ,., N 0 '" 0 z ~ ... ,., '" '" Vl ill ,., () ~ ... i5 z 0 z z z 0 8 0 t3 iQ w (f) w '" ~ ~ 0 0 W N W ::J N ~ ~ <.:> Vi <.:> Vi <.:> w z Iii '" i:? x ::> w "- e~ 0 N " 0 '" Ol " , ~ N~ 0 C) '" " Ol (f) , " - 0 , '" 0 0 0 n~ zv t---; g ,g I~I ,Lv ,vI,ZUII,11 1,110,n I !~ J i~ ". (J <c ;... N~ " N N - - 3NI::IQ" 00 " 00 aOOMl31::1n " ..., ..., N '\ N / r--: ,vi ,ZI I ~ ~. ~ I,ll 0 ,ZI I k ~ I I I ~ '", '" I I la ,ZI ,OV ~ ,IV -,v I I I I I I I ,gv I ,Zg ,09 [~ I I I I ;>" '" I '" ::> J u l I I I I I I ;>" I w -' ,vi ,Zl,lL ,II 0 ,Zl ,6 .. u .11:I1 ". (f) 7r u :;: \... a. .. '" N <.:> ./ " N / ..., 00 ". - " ...,~ I " 00 QOOM3SQ:l ~ '" 3AJI::IQ in 00 N N- / .I" JI:I~ " ,OZ ,Ov rtII , Iv p- o ,09 ~ ,0 ~~ '" ,r -'- ~1J ~I ,vi ,ZI ,1l,1l ~ <.:>~<.:> u z~~ o a. ~E ,n-,Il 531~"'^ -'''is ..L ....O(f) 8~n:J 8....0 9v , "-~~ ,6 ,Ig ~ Il; 531 ~I 1--,11-,6 531~^ 0- ",00 Wz ~ 0"" ~o..... I / ,vI-,ZI S31~^ oW<.:> a."'~ I ,n ,ZI ,ZI ,Il 0 O~<.:> '" - 4il a.....(f) JI:I ~ \ -- ~ - rf - *' ''''- W lL "-.... QND9 ~VWll-.l.lO 01 ,r, lL ^~f,\3311.l_ F - \ (f) I~ Ql'l(\oe _tS3~ (J .--- \'I~ll-l'lO 311.l 01 .-- ^~~3 ~ ) . ( ,VI ,ZI ,Zl ,ZI ,ZI ,vi '" ::> Br ,B\ u '" ::> d u Yl ~ a. N (f) Iii Ol '" '" II of) *! ..; a. ~ ~ ". i:i ~ '" ::> a.. .(1)..., .() ....... )(z . ::>-~~ ~~:t:0l", iaffi~~~ ~~!l:<6J, ",CIi!i .~g ~::.:::W~Q_ ct:$~S3:~ a..~~...UJ_ 5 I ~ 'J: Ou Z< mbo~ ~wO:ffi ~06~~ oZf~...J ~~8~~ g:~+o:::> CI)~::t~o oO.<(:.JO ZOb5<>- <z ltt: ~~~~~ o<f6C1)~ WZ+I- ~ffi<DU" omzWC\I ~~~~~ ou-b:ioZ 0:0 1-< lL <D ""') ~~o~ UU-W 000 o:t~ liiO: W J: 00 ~ >" (f) W e l.S3~ -\ -' ~ '" ... o of) il5 '" I '" '" wO o z" t; :50; W "'''''''< oLaJWu :5 .~~ . ...~ffiffi~ ou~~a.. I.&Jz;j~z "'wO _ .. I N~ ~~~~9 Q.lL.__~ I Ib8'-OL~~ I A~~ ~,"""'" l:l;kO \:Q$'(Q1V) .nO\; ~ aJ,.N:iI B:; OJ. S3Sla.Ja ~-- OIl! _5 . 0N<:lll'YNll . "'NIlO.I'1Y:l ~<JdOHS e:l3.l.N30 N/:l=S ~S ONI~ N\>" , " . i i . -\--- . \ I r dl \iI . ~ . \ \ , I W I III r , -'- .l! 1 ~ '" I ~~! II I~.. !! ~I j I J:d II , ~ ~ .- . 1")""'-" ,...,,, , -~ ~ ~ '" r . ~" l